Foot soldiers for the Ron Paul revolution (LAT)

LA Times ^ | 12/1/07 | James Rainey

[radioman]

I wish you guys would speak up more often instead of letting your troother and anti-war liberal allies have all the fun.

Hey everybody needs to have some fun...we aren't greedy!

Also, I’m curious: what do you think of these people? Do you just view them as “useful idiots” that can help revive libertarianism through ron paul, or what?

I don't think of them. As long as they keep donating to a Candidate who is against their best interests I'll just sit back and smile.

None of us are reviving libertarianism. The pendulum is just swinging the other way now and we're seeing a return to the libertarianism of 1776. Stopping Ron Paul will not stop the movement.

[marsh_of_mists]

I wish you guys would speak up more often instead of letting your troother and anti-war liberal allies have all the fun.

Also, I’m curious: what do you think of these people? Do you just view them as “useful idiots” that can help revive libertarianism through ron paul..?

Yep.

[Tears of a Clown]

Interesting.

So what do you guys think Ron paul will do concerning the WOT and national defense? Do you think bounties are sufficient or would you rather he be more committed to ending iraq and afghanistan responsibly, instead of rushing to the exit?

[stevem]

Plus Dean had favorable MSM

I believe Dean was a media creation. I don't think Paul is. I believe the end result will be the same.

[End Times Crusader]

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Soros.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Al Qaeda.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Don Black.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for defeat.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for treason.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against Israel.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against America.

[radioman]

So what do you guys think Ron paul will do concerning the WOT and national defense?

I think he will win without sacrificing our troops as targets in a desert hell hole. We're six years into this war and all we have to show for it is high gas prices.

Do you think bounties are sufficient or would you rather he be more committed to ending iraq and afghanistan responsibly, instead of rushing to the exit?

Dude, we've been there for six years...you call that rushing to the exit?

[marsh_of_mists]

So what do you guys think Ron paul will do concerning the WOT and national defense?

By removing our military from places where they are not needed, he will actually strengthen our national defense. He believes in a strong national defense and feels that foriegn entanglements weaken it. He also believes in going after the terrorists who attacked, though strongly disagrees with the current methodology. And unlike our current president, he also believes in a strong border policy. This Townhall.com article has a wealth of information about his views and political actions in that regard. Also explicates on the "bounties" issue.

...would you rather he be more committed to ending iraq and afghanistan responsibly, instead of rushing to the exit

In other words, is just getting out responsible? Well, like radioman said, we've already been there six years, we long ago did what we went there originally to do, so it's not exactely "just getting out." Furthermore, it's not brought up nearly enough that it won't be until 2009 that a President Paul would even have a chance to pull the troops out of anywhere. By that time, we will know whether this surge of Bush's is working. If it is, the troops should be out within a year anyway and all President Paul would say is, "Good. Saves me the trouble." If it fails and the troops are still there over a year from now...how long must we stick with a misguided foriegn policy to save face?

To be honest, this was one of the sticking points with me for Paul for the longest time, and I often don't think he expresses his ideas how I'd like. Or rather, he says what he believes how he wants to say it, with little self filter. Meanwhile, I rather wish he make a little more effort to frame these things in a way more appealing to the conservative Republican base. Oh, well...

[marsh_of_mists]

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Soros.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Al Qaeda.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Don Black.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for defeat.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for treason.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against Israel.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against America.

Mmmmm...spam...

[CJ Wolf]

[dread78645]

You know. If Ron Paul did get the Republican nomination, I would probably have to vote for Hillary, just to keep RP from doing the cut and run in Iraq, and REALLY SCREWING THE USA GOOD.

Interesting ...

[Jim Robinson]

He won’t have to worry about it.

[USMCVet]

Lithium. Recommend a higher dose of lithium.

In the normal world, Ron Paul is seen for what he is; a dweeb with a "plan" that will change everything back to 1932 and runs his mouth against our fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When the therapy works, you'll see that he's just Dennis Kucinich with less support.

[xmission]

I am not supporting Ron Paul this cycle because I do not believe that he takes the threat of Islamic terrorism seriously enough. That being said, I find the above comment to be a sad reflection on the state of conservatism here.

I was voting for hillary here tongue in cheek. Thank God that won't be needed.

[xmission]

I hate to admit it but I agree. Anybody but Ron Paul.

It's a shame, if the other half of his brain worked, he might be a good choice.

He should lay off of the mushrooms.

[sauropod]

Thanks for getting back to me.

There have been a couple of postings here about it.
One was for a very classic article “What is a right?”. This is worth searching the FR archives for.

Fatal Blindness appears to be an e-book about America’s descent into totalitarianism. I never downloaded the whole thing and now regret not having done so.

[incindiary]

Stopping Ron Paul will not stop the movement.

Excellent comment. Contrary to what some here think, it isn't about Ron Paul. There is a definite movement to restore liberty, the constitution, limited government, and to put the power back where it is supposed to be. That's why it is extremely sad to me that FReepers are so against this, and instead are acting like Redcoats. Simply because of their obsession with Bush's war and because they haven't realized yet they have put their trust in the wrong person/people.

[End Times Crusader]

So for dragging this back up, but I missed this little jibe.
The difference between the Colonial Revolutionaries and Americans today is that the former had no representation in government while the latter do. If you and the rest of Paulites want change then you'll have to do it through our political system. If not, then you're nothing but criminals, if not terrorists, depending on how far you are foolish enough to take your little revolution.

[End Times Crusader]

So = Sorry

[Hunterite]

Ron Paul doesn’t have one of these: http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=11 (video)

“irrational exuberance”

[ksen]

We’ll have no country when the terrorists start nuking our cities which will happen if a surrendermonkey like Paul is elected president.

Believe it or not there is actually not a suitcase nuke carrying terrorist behind every bush or under every bed.

Stop being so damn afraid of a mob of people that are having trouble entering the 15th century.

There are people a lot closer to home that pose a more clear and present danger to our liberties and our freedoms.