Posted on 12/27/2011 7:25:47 AM PST by VU4G10
>>>Sorry, Rep. Paul, but I can’t listen to you, no matter how prescient your words are. After all, you’re a nut!<<<
Reread his statement again, slowly - it is obvious sarcasm ...
So standing for a interpretation of the Constitution that is in favor of a strong National Security is being a statist?
Sorry but it is you who are a shill for Code Pink.
The next attack on American soil could be 300,000 dead one morning or even 3 million. I have not seen any great travesty against liberty created by the Patriot Act or any of the other things that Ron Paul and his Code Pink ilk cry about continually.
Just the fact that they also cry about those who opposed the Muslem Victory mosque at Ground Zero tells me enough about these Code Pink losers.
Yeah, I left off the “/s” tag to flush out the rabid anti-RP crowd. I don’t agree with him on many issues, but on this, he’s spot on. Where are the other big, bad “R”s on this blatant issue?
For some reason I'm reminded of a tort reform advocate who get s a very rude awakening at the end of his 'successful' PI civil suit....
I heard the same thing about the Patriot Act as well and yet that law has worked well to protect our liberty without any real loss of liberty for the American people at all.
I work in the private sector unlike Ron Paul and a majority of those who complain about laws such as this.
I didn’t see any sarcasm.
The problem is Paul is not a conservative, he is a libertarian. There really is a big difference.
Conservatives = low domestic/entitlement spending, high defense spending/hawkish foreign policy.
Liberals - high domestic/entitlement spending, low defense spending/dovish foreign policy
Libertarian = low domestic/entitlement spending, low defense spending/dovish foreign policy.
Conservatives/Republicans are generally going to like libertarian domestic economic policy and hate the libertarian defense policy and dovish foreign policy. Liberals/Democrats are generally going to like the libertarian defense spending and dovish foreign policy and hate the libertarian domestic economic policy.
While these are obviously generalities, they basically hold true. Paul is simply not a conservative. Paul attracts sort of the extremes on both sides - conservatives that want nearly no domestic spending and liberals who want nearly no defense spending and a dovish foreign policy.
There is probably somewhat more sympathy for Paul among conservatives simply because those of us on the right distrust government more than those on the left. Still, conservatives support certain things government does - and that includes a large and powerful military and an hawkish foreign policy that aggressively defends our interests and allies. This dynamic simply is not going to change when it comes to libertarians trying to win elections. Paul won't be the nominee, because the bulk of Republican/conservative primary voters will not vote for a libertarian. Paul can offset this some with crossover voters, but it will never be enough to actually win a GOP nomination.
Funny, I always thought that conservatives were different than republicans ....
See Post 53
You are deceived about what the legislation actually says and means.
Conservatives arent a monolith. There are plenty of conservatives who dont want a hawkish foreign policy with high defense spending. Modern conservatism came from classical liberalism, which was not in favor of multiple foreign entanglements, which we are in now.
And you cant cut the government size without cutting defense spending. Right now, 70% of the government spending is between defense, Medicare, Social Security, and the interest. We dont need presence in 100 countries.
What passes today for conservatism is not what conservatism was in the early part of the 20th century. In reality, Ron Paul is the “conservative,” while many conservatives today are something different.
What does a declaration of war have to do with the passing of a law that allows the President to take American citizens off American streets and toss them into jail with no right of habeas corpus?
You are being deceived by the misrepresentations of what the legislation actually says and means. In fact, doing what Ron Paul insists must be done would constitute a war crime, which is why Allen West and others rightly rejected Ron Paul’s claims.
What Ron Paul is demanding would constitute a war crime. That is why Allen West, a former Army field grade officer found it necessary to reject Ron Paul’s unreasonable claims.
Calling anyone a liar before you even know the truth yourself is just plain foolish. You might as well be a politician and a democrat at that.
Concerned Americans are alarmed with wording in the new DDA authorization bill, as voiced by several pundits independent of Ron Paul. The U.S. Constitution, provides Americans the right to voice grievances against our government. Were you asleep when the likes of Nancy Pelosi (At the time third in line for the Presidency), called Tea Partier's Terrorists? Whether you want to believe it or not, we are heading for a Police State complete with DHS/TSA jackbooted thugs - Obama's Civilian National Security Force under Napolitano, just as strong, just as well funded as our military.
Just look back at the DHS right-wing extremist document
The Declaration of Independence states:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
We are rapidly heading there; and understandably, Obama and Congress, Democrat and Republican alike, seems to want to proactively dissuade any thought along those lines through implementation of indefinite detention, and executive orders giving Obama the ability to execute American Citizens without trial - as he sees fit. Just who Obama decides is a terrorist is the language raises a lot of concerns.
You know, Ron, if you weren’t just damned cuhhrazee...even if you are right on this.
Of course they voted for the bill. Ron Paul is badly deluded about this legislatoin and clealry fails to understand it. What Ron Paul is demanding is an international war crime. You need to learn more about this matter and discover why what Ron Paul is demanding is so wrongful and criminal.
No
real
loss of
liberty ...
1st Amendment - political speech can be deemed support for terrorism, at the discretion of the President.
5th Amendment - can be suspended at the discretion of the President,
4th Amendment - violated whenever traveling by plane, and lately by train.
6th Amendment - can suspended at the discretion of the President
8th Amendment - the President may order the assassination of any individual he determines is a terrorist.
Gee, you are right! We didn't loose anything.
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.