Posted on 10/14/2007 1:29:17 PM PDT by reasonisfaith
easy he is a scoundrel whose monolithic ego is allowing him to be used as a fool.
Can we start an email campaign directed at FNC to boot him off the debate?
If you think the Turks are ‘momentarily’ unhappy with us because of ‘recent’ proclamations by the Dems, think again. That’s a real stretch you were trying to make there.
That's a real load of your own words you put in my mouth there.
Your Democrat buddies are escalating problems with Turkey and you know it.
With your views, I really think you'd feel more at home on DU.
“How’s about just sticking with your option no. 1”
As I said, the second possibility is entertaining. You admit it is not entirely impossible.
There was a time not so long ago there was no difference. However with George and Company's hijacking of the Republican party, a conservative can advocate wasting money stacked to the sky domestically as long as he or she advocates bombing third world nations that don't represent a threat to our borders.
I'm just saying...Madagascar, I've been hearing things.....could have a nuclear weapon in say 70-80 years. Don't see how George hasn't noticed them. I mean they stick right out on the Risk board....
If he has to publicly defend legalizing drugs, ending federal subsidies of student loans, supporting gun rights, ending welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security, farm subsidies and a lot of other specific government spending, etc. he’s going to lose support of those who are on the right or left, but like some part of the libertarian agenda in favor of candidates who more accurately reflect their beliefs.
And yet interestingly enough there aren't calls for the hacks occupying the stage with him to do the same....perhaps 'conservatives' can ask their own candidates how they're going to accomplish the things they advocate before attacking an actual conservative. Oh sorry, most of those candidates have advocated anything yet. No, just sorry platitudes that can mean anything.
Still, I do wish there were some way to harness his fans' obvious spam skills
You're telling me!! His campaign was spammed with $5 million in the last three months alone. Perhaps Republicans need to wake up and realize it's not spam. The internet for the large part is occupied with libertarian thinking, let me alone with my business sorts that don't want the government to run their lives. Not many BOHICA please can I have another sir statists on the net yet to influence the polls out there.
The statist, multiculturalist, anti-gun, pro-Hillary, pro-communist DU? You’ve got to be kidding.
Paul ought to be a sent to a loony bin! Only a kook would voluntarily give up his government pension and all because he made a pledge to save the taxypeyrs money!? What an wacko! Fortunately, we have a sane conservative alternative. His name is Fred Thompson and he always is very practical. If a thug like Aristide needs to get back in power, for example, the ever level-headed thread will take the money and do what it takes to helps his “client.”
Well, yeah. There's a rather strong ronpaul contingent over there. You'd fit in more over there than you do here.
The story of the “nation’s monetary system” as controlled by the “robber barons” of the Federal reserve is even better than global warming for the purpose of demagoguery. It’s too abstract for average people to understand completely and it sounds really scary. What a powerful way to mobilize the masses.
I think the real conspiracy is that the conspirers are perpetuating a false story of a conspiracy.
Here’s a question for you: what if the supposed scam of the Federal Reserve “robber barons” had never been put in place? In what way would we have benefited? Could our nation possibly have been more advantageous to the poor and middle class than it has been to date? Is it not somewhat questionable to propose that the United States is the greatest example of freedom and prosperity that has ever existed, yet somehow it is run by a system of “robber barons” who have been keeping us down for the past century or so?
Italy never attacked America either, but when war broke out a lot of us ended up fighting and dying there.
“When did Iraq attack or declare war on us?”
9/11/2001 They gave money and training to the terrorists.
For someone who is claiming Paul to be either delusional or insidious, intentionally placing your little rant in the news/activism area of FR doesn’t speak too well of your honesty, either.
To be fair, our break with Turkey is not entirely the work of that little group of Rhode Island Reds and their "why in hell NOW?" dredging up of a century-old incident of genocide. If fixing up Iraq requires that we partition it, the Turks are dead set against us giving any autonomy to the Kurds. If Turkey proves intransigent on this point, we may just have to tell our cruise ship tourists to buy their rugs elsewhere.
We were doing fine before we ceded our monetary system to private banks. Inflation was relatively stable for the first 100 years of our history during the years we were on a gold or silver standard. Lincoln violated those rules during the Civil War, but we returned to sound money after its conclusion.
The inflation of the past 100 years speaks for itself. Every dollar you save during your youth will be more than halved in value by the time you retire, on average. That's outright theft. And it is by design.
The freedom and prosperity you talk about is somewhat hollow when we think about the loss of representation we've suffered because of the wresting of control over our economic system by the group of business leaders who led the charge (secretly by the way) for the Federal Reserve system.
This is a fairly complex story and it takes time to learn. I can't do it justice when compared to G. Edward Griffin video documentaries some of the other von Mises publications. The John Birch society also has some excellent material on these issues. Please seek those out for yourself and learn about the real history of these private institutions that control our money.
The last I read of them was that they appreciate what Ron Paul’s campaigns doing to the GOP, but he’s still anti-choice, so this has its limits.
Providing security is an appropriate and necessary job of government, admittedly one that must be balanced against the risk to personal security government provides. The balance may need to be adjusted in different circumstances. When, as Ron Paul put it, 3000 were killed in a day by "19 thugs," and I know there are many more such out there, I want to make like the British and suppress the Thuggees. Or do something to keep them a safe distance from my family. With the modern travel and communications we've invented it is hard to do either without some restrictions on innocent Americans. Once the Thuggees are gone we certainly should reduce security measures to the lowest level that provides adequate safety. As Paul's "thugs" were not members of that specific historical cult our aim should be directed to the current problem cult(s). If he wants to declare war using specifically the words "declare war" first than I'd say, fine. I said it was war when the 2nd plane hit and I wanted a declaration, with those words, at the time. Paul is correct that a formal declaration would enhance public support for the cause. My understanding is that our courts have ruled what Congress did was the equivalent of a declaration of war without using the specific words. Paul might dispute the ruling, but currently all three branches of government stand against him. Some may say - I don't know where Paul stands on this - that you can only have a war against a nation state. I'd disagree. If an identifiable widely dispersed organization wants to attack us and everything we stand for then I refuse to say we can't fight back just because they have the imagination to not act like a conventional nation state. If we can defeat them by acting with and through more conventional nations that they inhabit then fine, but if those nations are unwilling or unable to act in our defense then we must act by any means necessary including "war." Perhaps sadly, most of the world won't honor our hypothetical Letters of Marque so such quasi private methods won't work. War as self defense is constitutional by way of the UN Charter which, for better or worse, is a ratified treaty. It may take creative writing to describe the object of such a declaration of war, but if there is one thing Ron Paul should know after his years in Congress it is that Congressional staffers can write VERY creative bills. I'm confident someone could provide the needed prose.
“The fallacy is that you have attempted to force the reader into two, and only two options, when in fact, other possibilities exist. In short, you’re trying to dismiss Ron Paul without discussion or debate of particulars by limiting the other choices.”
I will forgive your use of the word “stupid,” noting that your response is apparently generated from a particularly rigid style of thinking and that such a style is prone to angry outbursts.
The good news for you is that in seeking to be teacher you have achieved being taught.
Flexibility and adaptation take place on an abstract level, and are essential for the accurate interpretation of data. An accurate interpretation of my comments will include the understanding that they are based on the premise that getting out of Iraq is a bad idea. Therefore the option of “neither foolish nor evil” is not available to us. Sure, you can say maybe Ron Paul is “both foolish and evil,” but that would be kind of silly and useless. It is purely semantic and neither refutes nor advances either side of the argument. Cut down on the clutter and you will save a lot of time.
I am the least anti-war person you'll ever meet. What I'm against is nation-building. The Turkish issue is illustrative of my point. We've stirred up the pot over there with the Kurds, and the PKK is not being kept in check. How can we keep them in check? What would you do, with our troops, to keep them in check?
I never said it was entirely their work. But they're not innocent, either, nor are their intentions.
And that comment was in response to a Code Pink, MoveOn-inpsired comment made to me. Something seen in far too much abundance by the Paulenoids around here.
I am sick and tired of seeing these losers impugn the work of our troops when they themselves are not good enough to lick the bottom of the lowest-ranking private's boots.
If I want to see crap like that, I can read it on DU or Daily KOS.
“Perhaps the people for Paul could start supporting Hillary as they have mastered the art of annoyance and subsequent backlash.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if a great many of them do.
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.