Posted on 01/09/2012 7:07:42 AM PST by SeekAndFind
That isn't what their party platform says, and Paul ran for president under their platform.
Alinsky is the only tactic they have. These people have been trained to, or willingly adopted leftist takeover tactics. It does a great disservice to any political discussion and calls into question the sincerity of their claims of conservatism.
That’s because he did the work of building a public forum for himself.
The dude is very sharp and ever so right on the Fed, domestic policy, etc.. He’s even got some good points to his warnings against ‘foreign entanglements’.
Just a little too wacky and too extreme on foreign issues, but far more right on domestic ones than anyone we’ve got running.
“The other area I find interesting is drug policy. I don’t think there’s any question that many of Paul’s young supporters, and maybe most of them, are concerned enough about our draconian marijuana laws that they will support someone like Ron Paul if he simply has the courage to say he’ll change them. Personally, I think it’s time for a serious discussion about treating marijuana exactly the way we treat cigarettes, and much like we treat alcohol. We could cut the jail populations in half (guessing here) and definitely improve prospects for efficient law enforcement when it comes to harder drugs.”
I definitely agree with you there. I do not know anything about more the harsh drugs, seeing as how I have never touched them lol, but I don’t understand how marijuana could not be considered the same as alcohol and be moderated as such on a state level.
A busted clock is right twice a day. But, it’s still busted.
If you’re referring to Bush he’s not running for president. And Dan Rather lost his job over those accusations.
Well, since you don’t like the alledged lies, how about the truth? R-U-N Paul, in the 2008 campaign debates, made statements that the U.S. was responsible for the reasons why the U.S. was attacked on 9/11/01. R-U-N Paul has affiliated his campaigns (2008 and 2012) with 9/11 truthers. R-U-N Paul has stated in this election cycle that Iran shouldn’t be interfered with in their quest to build nuclear weapons! Are these positions okay with you? Or, do these positions make R-U-N Paul batchit crazy as many many conservatives find him to be?
What a joke. Paultards are experts in Alinsky tactics. They are the ones that have labeled mainstream conservatives as RINO, statist, NWO, globalist, free traitor, etc.., ad nauseum.
Calling RP a kook is simply the truth.
He is an isolationist whose economic policies are unworkable or just idiotic. Tariffs, gold standard, return the Fed to Congress (just what we would have needed in 2008, Frank and Dodd running the Fed...sheesh).
His isolationism would shut down our military while we wait for attacks to come to us, sacrificing our few allies left in the world.
His libertarian hatred of any government power would leave us defenseless against all manner of real threats.
He wants to cut government spending...great, so does everyone else. However, they are in touch with reality enough that they know you will not end five federal departments and cut the budget by one third overnight.
His social positions are so far out as to make him a kook even with no other short comings. Conservatives do not support gay marriage, legalized hard drugs, abortion choice, legalized prostitution, or so many other pure libertarian views.
Government has always had a responsibility to maintain moral values that match those of the governed, maintaining a cohesive society. Now, it is always a struggle to make sure those laws do not go too far, but RP would have no legislated morality, and therefore, no societal identity.
He is not a Republican, nor a conservative and I'm glad his lunacy is finally being openly talked about, instead of it remaining locked in the attic.
No one, W joined the Air Guard to fly combat air craft and then tried to work his way into Vietnam.
As it was, W flew the most dangerous air craft that we had.
PS - The topic is Ron Paul flat out lied on TV about being drafted which he wasn’t. Anything else is pointing the finger away from him which is what his supporters do.
OK - so now you say he was “not” drafted yet evaded Viet Nam by going into the Air Force? Where is the problem with this argument?
The fact is that he did serve and Newt did not - that was the point. Maybe he was not technically drafted, but the more important fact is that he served. (But, I have not seen proof that he was not drafted.)
You are latching onto a relatively insignificant semantic and evolving that into something that is just not there.
There are plenty of big policy issues to challenge him or any other candidate on, but this just derails the discussion into the irrelevant and drowns out the important stuff.
The rules for doctors and dentists were not the same. My dentist was drafted into the Air Force in that era, he’s told me about it. He was stationed at Gitmo, which at that time he said was paradise. Incredible snorkling, fantastic sea food. (No Islamic terrorists.)
So, I doubt he’s lying.
oh and Ron Paul does not want Iran to have a nuke
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1742691/pg1
So in other words he was not drafted.
So in other words he was not drafted.
Nice try but in the conspiracy theorist foil-hat world the synonym of the word “Globalist” is New World Order.
You have not proven that he was not drafted by reciting how one available program targeting health care professionals was offered.
The correct sequence “appears to be” that he a. received a draft notice which gives one the option of reporting as an enlisted person in the Army or volunteering to join any of the services as an officer. He opted for b. the latter and he subsequently extended beyond his initial tour commitment. The fact that he chose to go back to his medical profession after serving this way is in no way dishonorable.
At the time, there was a supplemental effort to recruit qualified health professionals which are absolutely necessary in the military. He was a doctor at the time - why would he go into the infantry?
Unless you can prove that he never received a draft notice your argument is just a bunch of compounded rhetoric built on a flimsy premise. Just like the libs do...
I’m not a Paulista - but I’m getting tired of the wailing and gnashing of teeth and the lack of fact checking going on lately as conservatives and libertarians trash each other.
He “inferred” he was drafted, meaning, he signed up for the draft and was drafted. He could not have been drafted (as I mentioned before) but went on to attack Newt because he wasn’t drafted. Paul was 27, married with one child. No way he would have been drafted. He could have easily said he “volunteered” to become a flight surgeon but instead said he was drafted meaning too that he went UN-volutarily but had to be brought in by the draft law. He’s a disingenuous liar. Period.
There is nothing mainstream or conservative about globalism.
For example Rick Perry was a democrat who changed parties but not his ideology. RINO, republican in name only, is a perfect description of the politician.
NWO— that term was first heard by the American people when G H W Bush uttered it as he signed away American sovereignty at the United Nations Rio Accord. Is that globalist as well?
Free traitor is an apt description for the corporatist fascists ruining our economy by forcing off shoring and outsourcing in industrial and business sectors.
These names were used way before this election cycle. They are descriptors of the people who are ruining this country.
The lunacy is among the globalists who think that killing America off with interdependence, looting our economy to ‘raise all boats’ in their words, and destroying American culture with marxism and illegal immigration, can continue without very dire consequences for humanity.
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.