Skip to comments.A Tea Party Conservative's Defense of Ron Paul...and His Supporters
Posted on 09/24/2011 11:42:06 AM PDT by Bokababe
click here to read article
Can you point to any nation in history whose moral problems were solved by government??
We're already not an Empire. An Empire would have nuked Mecca a decade ago.
Our Founders stated that 'we the people' are government. BUT some of US got overworked, others got fat and lazy and collectively we have outsourced our obligations to hired rulers. Our hired rulers are bought and sold for a price to maintain their position of authority. Now wonder what will be the 'price' we all will pay for our hired rulers to legislate the redefinition of what God Himself established 'marriage'?
There is a real cost to 'paying to play'. Any American that deceives themselves that we became a 'superpower' because of our goodness/greatness are in for a super fall.
He also supported Alan Keyes... In 1988 is left the GOP to run for President. He also left the GOP cause of Reagan...
That is correct. We no longer have the oceans to protect us anymore. It has been that way since 1941.
It’s not only Americans who have pined for a benevolent, just master in the form of a ruler...
My Roman historian pal tells me it’s been going on for much, much, much longer (see tagline).
It’s just human nature. There’s really is a certain futility in trying to make the most stubborn among us see that it’s actually just a different color of subjugation that their advocating for. They aren’t capable of living under any other system than that of subjugation by a ruler who they believe ‘thinks like them’, and they will give that entity whatever power they feel it needs to ‘do their bidding’ with no realization that much of that same power will eventually be turned on them.
When I realize that futilty, in order to avoid going insane I simply retreat into another past thought from my Roman friend:
“Just to stir things up seemed a great reward in itself.” —Sallust
” Its just human nature. Theres really is a certain futility in trying to make the most stubborn among us see that its actually just a different color of subjugation that their advocating for. They arent capable of living under any other system than that of subjugation by a ruler who they believe thinks like them,”
Brother, is THAT ever the truth!
Now a bunch of folks here want Christie to join in the fray
in order to knock off Romney and/or Perry. Then we will have
THE THREE STOOGES
Outstanding post sir!
Your statement has all of the reason and logic of your typical leftist arguement...merely with a different label. It’s really amazing you don’t see it.
It really boggles the mind.
There is no way a libertarian can win the presidential election!
What has Ron Paul done in Congress to advance the conservative cause besides talking about it??
I'm sure the libertarian Whigs were saying exactly the same thing 150+ years ago.
Do you think there are enough states to ratify a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to life??
The Constitution ALREADY SAYS that a person cannot be put to death without due process. All we need is for SCOTUS to acknowledge a truth that already exists.
As I've already said, this is EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENT that was used the last time personhood was decided on a state-by-state basis.
The 14th Amendment (which I am well aware is despised by libertarians for a multitude of reasons) clearly prohibits states from declaring persons to be non-persons.
The libertarian approach to personhood was tried once before and our Republic was nearly destroyed as a result.
So how's this setup working out? Has it saved any babies from being burned to death, shredded, or having their brains sucked out at the threshhold of life?
Roe was a Federal decision, not a State level sanction of murder.
Many states would shut down abortuaries today if they could, it is the Federal intervention which has opened them.
From what I've read he adds pork to bills and then votes "No". Other than his symbolic and meaningless "No" votes; nothing.
“[Paul] endorsed McKinney, Baldwin and Nader. All at once.”
You aren’t being so sneaky about Paul “endorsing McKinney” now because you’re so clearly caught not telling the whole truth. Hastily reversing yourself, now you say Paul ‘endorsed’ all three at once, instead of your prior insinuation that he individually endorsed the nauseating McKinney. Paul was actally endorsing not the candidates, hence Barr’s antagonism, but a liberty agenda. That is somehow an endorsement of specific third party platforms? Not hardly. Again, you’re just smearing the man and got caught redhanded doing it, so you’re just trying to see what you can get to stick. Your post reeks of desperation.
Incidentally, speaking to those platforms, while I think Barr, Nader and certainly McKinney have repeatedly evidenced their disinterest in our current “national defense” structure, I must have missed how Chuck Baldwin was going to “destroy our ability to defend ourselves.” That’s a new criticism I hadn’t heard. Is Baldwin’s platform somehow indicative of “destroying our ability to defend ourselves,” and I missed it? It’s right here: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Defense
“What has Ron Paul done in Congress to advance the conservative cause besides talking about it??”
LOL. At least he does that, talks the talk. That isn’t true of any other representative in the House or Senate. I don’t know that I approve of all his actions, but the man doesn’t say one thing and do another like so many RINOs. And he tells you where he stands on all the issues, unlike the silent candidates who inevitably turn left where they’ve remained silent.
But as far as what he’s done? Paul has voted conservatively, consistently, after talking the talk, and voted to shrink government when given the opportunity. That’s as much walking the walk as one can reasonably expect from the lone wolf for the Constitution in the entire legislative body.
Ron Paul has NEVER "blamed America". He has blamed American foreign policy mistakes -- policies which you don't set and neither do I. The CIA itself coined the term "blowback" for these unintended policy consequences -- consequences like arming Osama bin Laden's mujahedin against the Soviets in the 1980's only to have them boomerang and turn into the al Qaeda who attacked us on 9/11. That same conclusion in the 9/11 Report and it is nothing controversial -- the problem is that Ron Paul is the only candidate who talks about it. The rest of the candidates seem to keep following the "they hate us for our freedom" nonsense which is REALLY "blaming America" -- blaming our very existence for being the motivation for the attack -- attributing 9/11 to al Qaeda "just being jealous of us". How stupid is that, if you think about it?
My father was also a WWII vet (who as a 7yr old during WWI took a German bullet in the leg), husband is a decorated AF Vietnam Vet, brother-in-law is a retired Army Colonel and nephew is an Army Captain who served in Iraq. I am not "anti-military", quite the opposite, I am very pro military which is why I don't want to see one drop of our heroes blood wasted on unwinnable wars that have absolutely nothing to do with "protecting America", but have everything to do with protecting globalist business interests and some State Department hack's pipe-dream. And when you call them on it, they throw the "you are blaming America" shield up to hide behind. Well it's about time that Americans quit protecting these interests that are using us as human shields for their policy screw-ups!
I am sick of US foreign policy being outsourced to NATO, the UN, the Arab League and everywhere except where the decisions belong -- with Congress. I am sick of American politicians trying to "run the world", when they can't even manage the US & her interests properly. And, so is Ron Paul.
Even King Obama knew it was good for us to get rid of OBL, Cut and Run disagreed.
Again, you are just making that one up. Ron Paul was the first Congressman to specifically target the extraction bin Laden ten years ago as a priority less than a month after 9/11. He also supported rapid and succinct action against Afghanistan. Instead we let bin Laden go for ten years, got ourselves mired in Iraq, and ignored Afghanistan until the problems eventually bled into Pakistan.
So here we are today, with three thousand casualties from 9/11, ten thousand of our soldiers dead, and what have we won? Name me one thing that we have won from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya? How are we better off? Sorry, but I'm with George Patton on this one: "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Afghanistan & the Taliban could have been brought to their knees & punished with an air war that napalmed every poppy field in the country, without every setting one US boot on the ground. The poppy fields are their sole means of livelihood. The Afghans would probably have taken out bin Laden & the Taliban for us, for having brought such a calamity down on them.
But then again, the globalists wouldn't have made $Billions off of contractors, supplies and the rest of the war machine -- and that would have been "bad for their economy"./S
“Other than his symbolic and meaningless “No” votes; nothing.”
Yeah, other than those Congressional votes that pass budgets and legislation and make laws for the entire country, he doesn’t stand up for the Constitution and advance the conservative cause at all! Darn lazy of him, being a Congressman and all, only voting and not doing anything else, like running for President or speaking every chance he gets to spread the notion that Constitutionally limited government is actually a possible option. He doesn’t even influence the agenda, being so worthless, because I know that the Federal Reserve and TARP and all the other big business lootings of the taxpayer were first thing up on the agenda for all the other ‘conservatives’ running, probably after the debates and election were over and they had settled the issues of flag burning and whether it’s nice to call someone an “illegal alien.” /sarc
First y’all say he’s a retarded loon, then you say he’s got a grand plan to do everything he can to ruin our national defense, and now you say he does nothing at all but stick on earmarks and vote. I’m wondering if you can spot the inconsistency in those arguments. I know you’re RINOs, so inconsistency doesn’t really register with you, but I’m curious to see if you can overcome your natural tendencies.
Put down the bong; it really harms cognitive thinking, short term memory, the liver, lungs and there is a lot of evidence it lowers testoterone with long time usage.
“Put down the bong; it really harms cognitive thinking, short term memory, the liver, lungs and there is a lot of evidence it lowers testoterone with long time usage.”
You would certainly know all about low testosterone, and obviously, about the impact of bong usage. I don’t have any idea why you’d infer that I do, or that I have any interest in health advice from you.
I gave up drugs in 1970 after a very few years of using, plus I’m a she, plus I’ve hung around drug users and read enough to know the facts.
If you don’t smoke weed, you do a very good imitation of someone who does. Or drunk Koolaid, same difference.
Accusing me of being a RINO shows exactly what you’re made of.
Your statement only betrays yours lack of knowledge on the issue.
It was US/NATO bombing against the Serbs in 1999 for 70 straight days including Easter in order to build a NATO base in Kosovo, giving Kosovo to the Muslim Albanians, that made this an issue in the first place. And the most outspoken critic of the 1999 NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia was Ron Paul. Classic Ron Paul: "We are once again supporting Osama bin Laden and his friends in the KLA" He sued Clinton for it.
And what did the US get out of supporting the KLA (Albanian Muslim drug runners, sex slavers and murdering organ sellers)? Most notably, The Fort Dix Six and the Kosovo Albanian who gunned down & killed US soldiers in Germany, among others. Ron Paul saw the problem in 1999, before 9/11, before these Kosovo Albanian actions against the US happened.
I worked hard to get George Bush elected largely because I knew that Clinton's actions re Kosovo were evil and stupid. So what did GWB do? In 2008, he handed Kosovo to the Muslim Albanians by granting them "independence"! Since that time, both the GWB and Obama Administration has been twisting the arms of every country on the planet to recognize this supposed "independence" of the Albanian Kosovo gangster state whose only economy is from drugs, sex slaving and international (US) aid. GWB should have recognized Kosovo "dependence", not independence, because that's what they are -- a violent and crazy leach on Europe and the US.
The Serbs in Kosovo and Serbia don't need us to defend them. They need the US to get the hell out of the way and let them reclaim what is and will always be their land!
“I gave up drugs in 1970 after a very few years of using, plus Im a she, plus Ive hung around drug users and read enough to know the facts...If you dont smoke weed, you do a very good imitation of someone who does. Or drunk Koolaid, same difference...Accusing me of being a RINO shows exactly what youre made of. ;-)”
You’re still making the mistaken assumption that I care about your personal experiences with pot or your advice regarding my health. It’s obvious you’re really into projecting your flashbacks and drug experiences onto others you disagree with politically. And RINO, I was 100% right about you having zero experience with testosterone. But I was wrong about one thing: I didn’t even think that there might be on FR a sad old woman who so needs someone to talk to she’ll attack people personally just to provoke a response.
To avert what I think could be a civil war in this country if the economy collapses -- which I think that it well could -- and allow us to emerge with our our sovereignty and our ability to survive and liberty, intact. To preserve what this country was founded on for future generations.
If that sounds drastic, it is. And I think that the global elite believe that collapse is coming too, which is why they have offshored so much of their wealth, their manufacturing and their mode of governing (via the UN and NATO). Those political forces that remain, on both sides of the aisle, have moved toward the center which is what they believe to to be "the high ground" of survival in order to consolidate power. Yet if you want to save something from a flood, you need to shore up, not the center, but the outer edges -- unless "We the People" are the flood that they are really worried about -- and I think that we are.
For me personally, Ron Paul getting elected would be a sacrifice, not an advantage. Like many Americans, we are planning on retiring overseas to stretch our retirement dollars. And where we are going -- Cyprus -- is a place that survives only because UN troops have been standing between normalcy and the Muslim hordes for the last forty years. If Ron Paul pushes us to withdraw from the UN, the the UN troops will likely be gone, and we will have to leave --or die. But if that's the price of saving America, there are far worse ways to go.
My Serb ancestors said it well, "Bolje grob nego rob" ("Better a grave than a slave!") and Patrick Henry did a good job of it in our own US historical vocabulary, too.
You’re the one that brought up my personal experience.
A sad old woman?
You have no idea what you’re talking about. No more wasting my precious human life on an idiot like you.
One scoring method published in the American Journal of Political Science found Paul the most conservative of all 3,320 members of Congress from 1937 to 2002.
I'm sure you could find many instances when Ron Paul did not vote according to the conservative rule book. It depends how you define conservative. Paul's conservatism is basically constitutionalism. If the constitution does not allow it, he will not vote for it.
If some so-called conservatives think they can do it better than the Founding Fathers, so be it.
BlackElk, the next time time you decide to use your keyboard to produce an intellectual bowel movement for the entertainment of those Freepers incapable of dealing with the issues, leave me out of it. I'm neither aghast nor amused. I just think that it's pathetic for someone like you who actually may be smart enough to be logical, tries too hard to appeal to the least common denominator here just to be popular.
Unfortunately, yes. Just look at the phoney keywords that were added to tag it --a real "Nobel Prize Winner" mentality there.
But you know, there's also hope. Because I can remember a time in the not-too-distant past when I wouldn't have even bothered to post it, because not one of the cooler and more level heads would have spoken up. Now they do.
” ... Think about the media’s and two Parties choices for president in the last twenty years: GH Bush against Clinton: Clinton against Dole; GW Bush against Al Gore; GW Bush against Kerry; Obama against John McCain. And name me a single one of those choices who is a small government Conservative. Waiting.....
The only way that we are going to have any real choices is to force the Parties and media to open up the field. Otherwise we are going to be forced to choose between worse and worse. That’s the way the GOP likes it; that’s the way the Dems like it; so they can feed you any crap candidate that they want to. ...”
I blame mostly the GOP, not the DNC. Why do you ask? I’ll TELL you why....The “ bought and paid for whores “ in the RNC are KNOWINGLY selling out their country, and they are in it for themselves only !
First of all, using crude ad hominem only weakens your argument.
You say, so what if he has a conservative voting record...Uh, isn't that what it's about when we elect someone to congress--voting along the same ideological and political lines as the voters who put him there? For a congressman, voting IS action. That's the ONLY action that matters when we elect them.
As for the earmarks, they were appropriate and reasonable for the industries and problems of his district. The people of his district (and all of Texas) pay far more taxes than they get back from the federal government. There is nothing wrong with a congressman trying to see that the people of his district get at least a portion of their fair share of the money they paid in.
What else besides a voting record does a LEGISLATOR have to offer, besides the bills he introduces? And Dr. Paul routinely introduces a “Sanctity of Life” bill which is all a pro lifer could want, yet it fails to attract even ONE GOP co-sponsor. Why is THAT, I wonder? Dr. Paul’s bill defines the beginning of life as AT CONCEPTION and takes away federal judiciary authority to review it. It’s a great end run around Roe v Wade, yet y’all keep slamming him as pro choice. Your inconsistency would be funny if the consequences weren’t so dire!
That is an interesting video, Paul from the 90s being as consistent as he is today. An interesting historical perspctive as well on Yugoslavia, excpet the republicans at the time probably agreed with Paul.
He also likes to back stab people in the back like Reagan..
Some of Ron Paul’s policy statements are refreshingly honest. But, Ron Paul is mentally unstable, and as such his view of the world is completely devoid of reality and dangerous to our survival.
He needs to go away.
I've talked about this before, but what we call "a Conservative" today wouldn't have ever been recognized as "a Conservative" thirty years ago. It would have been called "a Rockefeller Republican". Internationalist, big business, big government, socially liberal Rockefeller Republicans were the enemies of Goldwater Conservatives because Goldwater Conservatives were closer to libertarians on policy and they were American nationalists, not internationalists or globalists.
A direct quote from David Rockefeller's own autobiography says it all about the philosophy of Rockefeller Republicans:
"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
These globalists are not out to run America for the best interests of Americans. They are out to rule the world, at our expense.
David Rockefeller, heir to the Standard Oil fortune, former Chairman of Chase Bank, Class A Director of the Federal Reserve, founded the Council on Foreign relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers and host of well-respected internationalist and globalist is organizations. He and a handful of other globalists have been US "king makers" for decades.
So who of the current crop of presidential candidates are their potential "kings"?
Well Mitt Romney is second generation Rockefeller Republican. His dad was one for sure and his dad, George Romney, also ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 1968 but lost to Nixon because the Rockefeller Republicans had not yet learned how to quickly brief their candidates in foreign policy presentation to the public. The Council on Foreign Relations eventually changed all of that.
Rick Perry is the other one that seems likely. I can't imagine why else the then Governor of Texas would be invited to address a group of the most important and wealthiest 100 people in the world back in 2007 at the Bilderberg Conference in Istanbul if he wasn't being groomed for something greater than just "governor".
But who in the heck knows? It's not like these guys wear badges -- sometimes with the ones who don't inherit it, you can only tell from their actions and sometimes by then it's too late.
Many Republicans did agree with Ron Paul on the issue -- Dan Burton and Tom Tancredo being two of the most memorable of the time. But John McCain led the "Bomb the Serbs" bandwagon on the Republican side and even wanted us to send ground troops into Yugoslavia. McCain's good buddy, ex Congressman Joe DioGuardi from NY was the chief lobbyist for the Kosovo Albanians and the KLA. All that Albanian Mafia money being stuffed into campaign coffers proved irresistible for many Congressmen on both sides of the aisle -- US policy be damned.
” I’ve talked about this before, but what we call “a Conservative” today wouldn’t have ever been recognized as “a Conservative” thirty years ago. ....”
HELL, even 20 years ago. I am so damned depressed and frustrated at these RINO media lackeys, I don’t even know what too !
“Youre the one that brought up my personal experience.”
Sure, being a pothead is your personal experience, but you brought it up, not me.
“A sad old woman? You have no idea what youre talking about. No more wasting my precious human life on an idiot like you.”
I’ve seen your M.O. Pretensions to a thin skin from one so eager to swipe the rapier are not particularly compelling.
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.