Posted on 10/14/2007 4:35:45 AM PDT by Calpernia
Today’s Robespierres may not want to see blood in the streets, but they’re just as good at getting around the fundamental laws of the land as Robespierre himself was. Anarchy reigns supreme in America today. All you need is a PAC and a flack and a product to sell. Just ask any of the amnesty-supporting limo-liberals and Rockefeller conservatives running the culture guillotines in DC for their payola.
Great...now tell us all how much it cost to get to vote in that straw poll...
“If there’s a technological implication to our law, then we should change the Constitution to reflect that, don’t you think? That’s what amendments are for.”
Oh, I agree. But how would that heal Ron Paul’s brain?
So you agree that we should stick to the Constitution. If so, then what’s wrong with Ron Paul as far as you’re concerned? Don’t you admit that the Constitution is being treated like old newsprint these days by most elected and appointed officials? Which leading GOP candidates are even discussing the Constitutional crisis? They don’t seem to mention it often, if at all. The best they can mutter is something about states rights when they don’t want to be pinned down on an issue.
“So you agree that we should stick to the Constitution.”
I said that the Constitution should be amended, when necessary, rather then ignored.
What’s wrong with Ron Paul is that he has a childishly ignorant view of America’s role in the world and the threat we face overseas. We cannot confront and defeat terrorism by surrendering, or by blaming ourselves in some self-loathing manner for our economic and military interaction with the Middle East, nor can we increase our national security by pretending that our only challenge or responsibility is within our own borders.
All of RP’s other positions...many of them very good...are no more valuable than a fart in the bathtub if we don’t survive as a nation. The man is unfit for the White House.
Our role is our choice. The threat we face is there because we are there. The Saudis run our Mideast policy, where most of the action is. Afghanistan will always be what it is. A coalition of global corporatists and global socialists dominates our foreign policy, and the world resents having our socialist views forced on them. While we look the other way, our wallets are being bled dry for these boondoggles. Consider $31b in Africa for AIDS. It's really not the nation's money to give. You know, Davy Crockett's line. Why are we patrolling violent streets in third world countries when we have our own problems on our southern border? There's just no real pay off for all this except somewhat better access to oil.
We cannot confront and defeat terrorism by surrendering, or by blaming ourselves in some self-loathing manner for our economic and military interaction with the Middle East, nor can we increase our national security by pretending that our only challenge or responsibility is within our own borders.
The whole 'blame' America attack on Ron Paul is beside the point. He isn't interested in casting blame. He's talking about natural forces. As I've said before, Americans are not ever going to use enough force to destroy the causes of terrorism. You know that as well as I do. You know the leadership is either too big-hearted, or too weak. What's the alternative? There has to be a way. What's more, the real threat to our freedom is the cultural takeover of America via illegal immigration and socialized education, and our loss of the rule of law. The Constitution is in tatters. The Bill of Rights is dead, at least on paper. These are the real dangers to our freedom. They're very close to home. We have an open border for a reason. That reason is tyranny, in no uncertain terms. I could tolerate what's going on overseas if I thought it did some good. But all the while our biggest issue is ignored. No way, no how can this go on.
\u201cSo you agree that we should stick to the Constitution.\u201d I said that the Constitution should be amended, when necessary, rather then ignored. What\u2019s wrong with Ron Paul is that he has a childishly ignorant view of America\u2019s role in the world and the threat we face overseas. We cannot confront and defeat terrorism by surrendering, or by blaming ourselves in some self-loathing manner for our economic and military interaction with the Middle East, nor can we increase our national security by pretending that our only challenge or responsibility is within our own borders. All of RP\u2019s other positions...many of them very good...are no more valuable than a fart in the bathtub if we don\u2019t survive as a nation. The man is unfit for the White House
Fine if you don't like him, but he's the only one talking about ending welfare for illegal aliens, abolishing the Federal Reserve, and eliminating the massive legal attacks on our Constitution that we've permitted over the past 15 years.
When you get your priorities right, when you truly understand how our country is actually being destroyed right now, and actually cannot survive present monetary and legal policy as it stands, Ron Paul does not look so bad. He starts looking great when you realize that he's not in the back pockets of the people currently in power behind the scenes. You know, the ones destroying our country from the inside out.
I have no idea. The source the article is linked to ran the Straw Poll. Why don’t you click through and ask?
Watching this whole charade with Turkey over the past few days just made me sick of our foreign policy. If it’s the left, it’s one thing (Turkey), if the right it’s another. It all adds up to big globalist circus. Still, bin Laden’s VHS camera is ticking very well. Still, the Saudis are funding mosques in America like there’s no tomorrow. Still, our borders are wide open. It’s incredible. It’s also tragic to see our Republic destroyed by its mania for foreign things.
Just what I need after a 26-year military career...some arrogant Ron Paul pusher to tell me my priorities aren’t right. What a bunch of clowns...
“I have no idea. The source the article is linked to ran the Straw Poll. Why don’t you click through and ask?”
Oh, I did. The question was rhetorical.
The minimum cost to vote in this “poll” was $50 (student rate).
It's not about changing your core values. I assume you're a staunch, conservative patriot, and that you in your heart know that things are getting worse by the day. If you think things are fine, then the debate is over.
If not, then it's about trying to point out that you don't have a chance of getting what you hope for: a restoration of our Republic, from the Rockefeller wing of the GOP. That's the side that wants to keep things just as they are, ever and ever more centralized, planned, and government-controlled.
I'm in favor of restoring the Republic to its rightful order under the Constitution. I think you are, too. With a little consideration, it shouldn't be too hard to come to the same conclusion I have: the leading candidates for rino-in-chief are really no more conservative than Arnold Schwarzenegger. They wave the flag. They talk about "winning" the war. They talk about fighting terrorism. And they talk about lowering taxes. But they can't be serious, because they're not addressing the root causes of the problems. In other words, they're offering empty promises. And if you read their speeches and interviews over their careers, each of them has betrayed himself on more than one occasion as being willing moderate. In other words, as Giuliani said, his views are not that different from Hillary's.
The status quo is about 70% collectivist and accelerating. Are we going to reverse that, or are we going to see the country driven into the ground by people giving away what isn't theirs to begin with, by force?
I don't mind if you don't agree with my current favorite underdog. What I care about is whether or not you recognize that none of the top candidates are believable conservatives. I also hope you'll consider the 'law and order' moves to weaken the Bill of Rights apply not only to foreigners but American citizens like you and me. The border is open, immigration from potentially enemy countries has actually been increased, and yet our Bill of Rights is weaker than it ever has been before. How did these things happen? The loss of representation has sweeping implications. It means that you will not get your country back following any of their leadership. If that's OK with you, then I'll concede that I wasn't able to persuade you in any way.
I’d love to revive the Constitution. I’d also like for my country to survive the threat of global Islamic fundamentalism. And that’s not going to happen with Ron Paul in office. We can do all the domestic wonders that Ron Paul advocates, safe the Constitution and give the power back to the people as originally intended, but if we don’t defeat the Islamic threat all those victories will be little more than an academic exercise.
Ron Paul has a lot right. Unfortunately, he’s fatally flawed, and there is no saving him.
This is a false dilemma of the worst kind. The white house is celebrating Ramadan. Almost a half million Muslims have immigrated since 9/11. Head scarves are everywhere. Saudi-funded mosques are constantly in the news.
What we're doing is not working to the ends you hope. You simply must ask yourself why congress, the judiciary, and the executive are refusing to conduct their business in our interests. It's because they're beholden to someone else besides the American people. What they tell us they're doing is generally not true. Once in a while they're honest, but it's very rare. Ron Paul is honest, and this hurts him because he cannot give you exactly what you want. He can't promise to defeat our enemies. But the current promises aren't being realized, and the war has gone on for longer than WWII did. Why is that? Because there is no real goal of winning. It's a game of globalist economics, and the main beneficiaries are the bankers and the oil nations. We're the losers.
The choice is actually much more difficult to make for those of us who support America's interests abroad: we will actually lose the Republic permanently if we do not take it back from the globalists.
You may actually be required to decide if you want war or the Constitution. I think it is very safe to say, given my personal study of Ron Paul's words and comments, that Americans will be much more at liberty to defend themselves against terrorism with a Constitutionalist in the white house.
Unfortunately, he’s fatally flawed, and there is no saving him.
This is the globalist perspective of Ron Paul. It's not true. It won't stick. If he doesn't win the election, it'll be due to liberals refusing to support someone who'd take their safety net away. But he'd be giving us the safety net of economic prosperity and security if we'd give him a chance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.