Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paulís Shocking Message To The Tea Party (Doesn't like today's rally) [Tinfoil Alert]
Digital Meeting Center ^ | August 28, 2010

Posted on 08/28/2010 1:55:44 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Ron Paul has some surprising news for the Tea Party:

You’re being taken for a ride.

At least this is what many libertarians like Ron Paul believe when they see someone like Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin trying to lead the Tea Party at the “restoring honor” rally this weekend. In fact, Ron Paul believes, if you’re looking for real freedom, you should really go back to the core of the constitution and the bill of rights, which Beck and Palin do not fully endorse when you really look at their beliefs. Whether it be Palin’s support for starting more wars or Beck’s beliefs on paying the private Federal Reserve MORE interest on our money by means of a VAT tax.

Ron Paul believes in neither of the above.

Here was Ron Paul’s message to the Tea Party via The New York Times just the other day:

“As many frustrated Americans who have joined the Tea Party realize, we cannot stand against big government at home while supporting it abroad. We cannot talk about fiscal responsibility while spending trillions on occupying and bullying the rest of the world. We cannot talk about the budget deficit and spiraling domestic spending without looking at the costs of maintaining an American empire of more than 700 military bases in more than 120 foreign countries. We cannot pat ourselves on the back for cutting a few thousand dollars from a nature preserve or an inner-city swimming pool at home while turning a blind eye to a Pentagon budget that nearly equals those of the rest of the world combined.”

While the Tea Party will be out supporting Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin this weekend, you wonder how many of them will be in full support of more wars and paying more interest to a group of untouchable and unauditable private bankers otherwise known as the FED? This is precisely what Ron Paul is asking the American public to consider when looking at the Tea Party leaders and see if they really stand for what they believe in.

Ron Paul believes the Tea Party is not about “left” or “right” like a lot of political pundits make it out to be. It’s about the constitution, and limited government.


TOPICS: Texas; Issues; Parties; U.S. Congress
KEYWORDS: 08282010; beck; constitution; federalreserve; glennbeck; limitedgovernment; marchondc; nutjob; palin; paulestinians; paultards; pds; peacecreeps; rino; ronpaul; rontards; sarahpalin; talkradio; teaparty; teapartyexpress; youknowhesnuts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-140 last
To: 2ndDivisionVet

Ron Paul Supports the Ground Zero Mosque.


101 posted on 08/29/2010 3:48:15 PM PDT by Ladycalif ("If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom
Hey, just because Ron Paul has to work with Democrats and RINOs who vote to spend does not mean that Ron Paul is voting for spending.

I did not say he voted for spending. What I am saying is that he talks big but can get NOTHING accomplished. Anybody can say something but what good is it if they are so incompetent that they can get nothing that they talk about through? The ONLY thing cut and run has done in all the time he has been in Washington is make excuses for terrorists and accumulate as many earmarks as possible.
102 posted on 08/29/2010 3:50:06 PM PDT by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom
True Conservative Republicans have always supported Ron Paul.

True Conservative Republicans do NOT support anti-American terrorist appeasers.
103 posted on 08/29/2010 3:53:20 PM PDT by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Ladycalif
Ron Paul Supports the Ground Zero Mosque.

If the mooslime terrorists want it you can be assured cut and run is going to back it.
104 posted on 08/29/2010 4:05:21 PM PDT by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: John D
Who cares, really, about how he talks.

What matters is how he votes.

Yes, because you keep on electing RINOs who keep spending my money, Ron Paul has difficulty accomplishing less government.

Ron Paul does not vote for big government. Your people do.


105 posted on 08/29/2010 4:17:05 PM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom

There are idiot savants who can do wonderful things with numbers. I wouldn’t hire one to be my accountant though. Ron Paul kind of fits that bill. While he is exceptional on some things, his opinions on others leaves the savant part out.


106 posted on 08/29/2010 4:19:55 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Well, I’m not arguing that Ron Paul’s positions on all issues are the positions that most freepers like.

Most freepers want to spend a lot of money fighting in the middle east. Ron Paul doesn’t, and a lot of freepers find Ron Paul unacceptable because of it.

But freepers who think that Ron Paul is doing anything unconservative on fiscal, economic, limited government matters are wrong.

Some freepers can also say that traditionally, the Democrats, the Liberals, have been in favor of more war, more military intervention, and the Republicans, the Conservatives were in favor of thinking twice before getting involved in the internal affairs of another country.

But I know that today, the typical Republican, the typical freeper, does want big government in foreign policy. I know that it’s currently very hard for Ron Paul to get votes from freepers who like big government foreign policy.


107 posted on 08/29/2010 4:36:00 PM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom

There is no “big governemtn foreign policy”. The federal government is charged with protecting the citizens of this country, sometimes that entails killing deadenders in other parts of the world. All eminently constitutional.


108 posted on 08/29/2010 4:39:35 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom
you keep on electing RINOs who keep spending my money,

And Texas keeps electing an anti-American terrorist appeaser who keeps spending my money with all the earmarks he insists on.
109 posted on 08/29/2010 4:55:18 PM PDT by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Ron Paul "jumps the shark" WRT Tea Party.

110 posted on 08/29/2010 5:38:53 PM PDT by anymouse (God didn't write this sitcom we call life, he's just the critic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom
Traditional old school conservative Republicans did not insist on grovelling in the dirt before our nation's enemies and packing the fedbudget with pork to the nth degree. They did not SAY they were pro-life and pro-marriage while hiding behind the 10th Amendment to excuse themselves from accomplishing either and protect elitist SCOTUS decisions gutting our civilization. They did not crawl in bed to service our nation's enemies.

People in the Galveston area owe more to America than to elect this despicable and demented trash to Congress.

111 posted on 08/29/2010 6:11:37 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society: Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom

If paleoPaulie is your only hope, then kiss your money goodbye. Conservatism is about a lot more important things than your money.


112 posted on 08/29/2010 6:15:34 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society: Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

The fed gov could use different methods to protect the citizens of the country. Big government methods or small government methods.

I’m not arguing that most freepers don’t like big government foreign policy.


113 posted on 08/29/2010 6:19:40 PM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: John D

He does not vote to spend that money.

Talk all you want about earmarks, but he votes NO to spend the money.

Your RINO buddies vote to spend the money. Ron Paul votes NO.

If the RINOs just voted the way Ron Paul did, there would be no earmarks, because there wouldn’t be money to spend.


114 posted on 08/29/2010 6:25:53 PM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Groveling in the dirt? Choosing not to spend billions and billions of dollars on fighting wars in the Middle East is not the same thing as groveling in the dirt.

Ron Paul is pro-life.

Against Roe v Wade, which in case you weren’t paying attention is the one current barrier keeping states from banning abortion.

0% from NARAL.

Pro-Life.

It’s one thing to say that you don’t support Ron Paul because he doesn’t want to spend money on things you like, like big expensive wars in the middle east.

You have a point there, most freepers want to spend a lot of money on expensive wars in the middle east.

But Ron Paul is pro-life, and supports the sanctity of life act. Where are the RINOs you like on that?


115 posted on 08/29/2010 6:32:02 PM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Conservativism is mostly about smaller government.

Taking less of my money, yes, in part, but also a government limited in scope to those things explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

It seems like you think, and a good number of freepers think, that Conservative = what you like.

Banning transfats = ridiculous liberalism
Banning marijuana = good conservativism

Your version of conservativism really doesn’t sell too well except to those who agree with you on everything.


116 posted on 08/29/2010 6:39:30 PM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: narses
They have a disagreement about basic principles: classic libertarian vs. neocon. Some of what Beck does on Fox calls attention to the socialist and progressive ideology in the White House. But heresy leads to problems. The populist movement only appeals to a certain part of the electorate. What the conservatives have going for them is Obama's growing unpopularity and the failure of his policies, the hypocrisy of too many vacations, the Ground Zero controversy. With unemployment rising, the Dems are in real trouble for November.

The other thing Beck does is increase the Beck Derangement Syndrome over at MSNBC. But conservatives still need a leader who can explain the alternative to Obama without the negatives. Obama and Gibbs will keep trying to blame Bush for their economic failures.

117 posted on 08/29/2010 6:55:18 PM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom
I haven't seen a war fought as one should be since WW II. Given that the targets have been smaller ever since, it is perfectly reasonable for an adequate sized US military to go in, inflict maximum unacceptable pain, suffering and death on our nation's enemy and be back out in relatively short order. The Gulf War was closest but its objective was too limited and left us having top gop in again in 2003. Saddam Hussein and Chemical Ali, et al., should have been dead in 1991. Baghdad Paulie doesn't like to see dramatic and violent closure in international matters lest we get used to succeeding with American agendas.

PaleoPaulie prefers to stick America's head in the sand and just make believe that the baaaaaad men aren't there unless he can see them (assuming he thinks they are baaaad in the first place). He is a delusional loon on military and foreign policy. His brain (if any) is where the sun shineth not.

El Run Paulie is dishonest to a fault: cramming his extensive earmarks into every budget while bleating about fiscal conservatism, claiming to be pro-life while whining about how the constitution will not let him DO anything about it a mere 37 years and 50 million sliced,m diced and hamburgerized babies since Roe vs. Wade (courtesy of SCOTUS run amok but, hey whatever we do, don't thwart them with national legislation since the self-deluded "constitutional" experts of the Paulistinian movement may become even more unglued), likewise, Paulie would sit back idly as philosopher king while marriage is deconstructed by people who lack a certain common sense about what goes where. Why should we care UNLESS truthfreedom's portfolio can be augmented.

BTW, it is my experience that the mythical "fiscal conservatism" IS the last refuge of RINO's such as you admire: Murkowski, Collins, Snowe and the typical trash supported by Muffy and Skipper down at the polo club and by the RSCC of Cornyn and others. Profits uber alles while claiming to want gummint neutrality. RINO's are not prolifers and neither (regardless of his disinformation campaigns) is do nothing paleoPaulie. Nor are they or he pro-marriage to protect the institution against lavender make-believe. Nor do they believe in human freedom other than their personal freedom nor does he. It's the I gotta be ME!!!! movement.

AND this RINO was an attorney for 1100 people arrested in what was called Operation Rescue. I did something. So did they (actually they did a lot more and I smart-mouthed prosecutors and judges for them). Sometimes, they even had sit-ins in the courtrooms with their backs to the judges. 30 were convicted out of 1100 arrested. I also found the time to be a state chairman for Reagan.

I don't support Ron El Run Paulie because he is a consummate disgrace, a liar, a fraud, an advocate of a foreign policy of cowardice and a man who wants to wring his handkerchief posing as pro-life while being determined to do absolutely nothing about it. Oh, and I am first interested in a federal ban on abortion. SCOTUS started this holocaust and the central government is obligated to put an end to it. No exceptions for New York, Maryland, Hawaii, and California to become abortion Meccas for the nation.

Finally, if you libertoonians got half as exercised over wasteful domestic spending which consumes multiples of our inadequate military budget, you might have credibility. Instead, you ally with Code Pink and the Americong and those of exotic lifestyle and the babykillers, et al., and give aid and comfort to the radical left. PaleoPaulie seldom opens his yap about the evil of abortion lest he offend his antiwar left pals. He is a surrender monkey in all respects, not just as a mouth for the Blame America First, Last and Always crowd. Fortunately the clock is ticking and he will be gone soon enough. He won't be POTUS at his advanced age and in his mental condition. Nobody cares what he SAYS when he refuses to DO anything while making excuses. He should go home permanently and stop embarrassing himself.

I can even suggest a cheap and low casualty method of warfare against the Islamofascisti. Fill tanker planes with pig blood and remove Mecca, Medina, Tehran, and every city important to them from Islamoworld by dropping the pig blood on those sites. Iowa produces a lot of pork chops and pork roasts and bacon and sausage. The blood has to go somewhere. Why not Islamoworld???? Hit the new Iranian nuclear plant too. Take the Koran and use it against them.

118 posted on 08/30/2010 12:32:11 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society: Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Paul needs to get a clue...yesterday’s rally wasn’t about the TEA Party.


119 posted on 08/30/2010 12:42:41 AM PDT by dixiechick2000 (Remember November...I can see it from my house!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom
If I remember correctly, Ronaldus Maximus took the nation by storm in two consecutive elections. In 1984, he showed pity on Mondale by canceling a campaign trip to Minnesota on the Saturday and Sunday right before the election allowing Mondale to take Minnesota by 1/2%. All it took was four years of cowardly foreign policy by Jimmuh Hemmorhoid contrasted with four years of Reagan in power to produce the 1984 result. PaleoPaulie struggles to get 10% in GOP primaries and gets much of his vote from the malignant antiAmerican peace creep vote.

So, ummmm, tell me again how well dishonest, fraudulent, antiAmerican, antimilitary, do nothing on abortion, do nothing to defend marriage and stuff the fedbudget with Galveston pork plays nationally masquerading as "conservatism?"

The minigovernment crowd has a place in the conservative movement but it is hardly as senior partner. Slashing taxes and spending, eliminating bureaucrats, turning BATF into a convenience store, etc., are good but they do not constitute all or even most of conservatism. Accept social and military conservatism or pay higher taxes when most conservatives stay home on election day, bored silly by endless chewing on such compelling topics as the Federal Reserve. Those are your choices. We are not the soulless creatures that call themselves Brit Tories. We have an issue tapestry and not just plain jane muslin.

120 posted on 08/30/2010 12:48:00 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society: Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom

Just how gullible can one person be??? You actually believe paleoPaulie’s lies???


121 posted on 08/30/2010 12:49:34 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society: Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

1) When we’re in wars, we definitely should kick ass in them. That’s my personal opinion.

I know that RP doesn’t want to spend all our money killing muslims, and I know that many here do, so I won’t mention his foreign policy too much. I will say that part of his foreign policy contains the idea that people in the middle east get mad at us when we bomb them or invade them or kill their leaders or overthrow their goverments. I know that’s a very controversial idea here. I happen to understand the idea. And honestly, I have trouble understanding exactly the opposite idea. Apparently, people in other countries are supposed to like the fact that we’re coming into their countries, killing their countrymen, killing their leaders, and changing their government. Personally, as an American, I would not like it if some other country invaded the US, hung Obama, and changed our government. But, not only is it ok that we do that to other countries, it is absurd to think that people who live in those countries might be upset about it. That is conventional wisdom here on FR.

2) You either vote for the spending or you don’t. Ron Paul votes no to spending. Earmarks are a sideshow.

3) Ron Paul is 100% Pro-Life. 100% against Roe v Wade. 0% from NARAL. The Sanctity of Life Act. Where are your RINOs on The Sanctity of Life Act?

4) Ron Paul is in favor of Limited Constitutional Government. In favor of huge cuts in Government. A much much smaller Federal Government. Too small, I guess, for you. I want a much smaller, much more limited Federal Government. That’s what Ron Paul is about, and that’s what Ron Paul has always been about. It’s not “fiscal conservatism”, it’s vastly Limited Constitutional Government. Defense is only a tiny bit of it. If Ron Paul had his way, many Federal Agencies would be abolished, but not Defense. He would be defending the borders, like Bush and especially Obama failed to adequately do.


122 posted on 08/30/2010 1:16:27 AM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Ron Paul was one of very few Republican Reps to support Ronald Reagan over Gerald Ford in 1976.

I don’t know why you need to mention Reagan here, though.

Ron Paul is a social conservative, believing in traditional conservative values.

He is against big goverment though, and prefers not to use big government methods.

One on one against a Dem, he would get an enthusiastic turnout from limited government conservatives (roughly the tea party). He has the best record on this, by far, of any of his probable opponents on the R side, and is vastly superior to Obama on this.

He would also get a very strong turnout from social conservatives. He would say “I am 100% against Roe v Wade” and that would take care of that against a Democrat who always would appoint judges who would uphold Roe v Wade.
And he would sign the Sanctity of Life Act. Those would be big victories for Pro-Life. Bigger victories than Reagan or either Bush got.

He would not do well with some “military conservatives”, especially the most vocal ones here. But maybe the “military” “conservatives” might want to take a breather from the endless wars. (As an aside, were “military” “conservatives” in favor of the various military actions under Clinton? I’m not sure that “military” “conservatives” will be all that fired up to go out and vote for the Republican candidate no matter who it is, because Obama is bringing plenty of the wars that they like so much. Maybe if there was a war shortage, a Republican might be needed to come in there and bring an exciting new war, and new enemies for us to hate, but with Obama, there is no war shortage, so “military” “conservatives” won’t be starving for a war, and won’t be fired up anyway.

I don’t see military conservatives voting for Obama, even though he’s bringing the war, because most military conservatives (except the neocons, who are Trotskyites) are also at least somewhat interested in keeping the growth of government somewhat in check, at least some of the time.


123 posted on 08/30/2010 1:47:20 AM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom
If the RINOs just voted the way Ron Paul did, there would be no earmarks,

If cut and run honestly was against earmarks he would not put them in every bill possible, but then I do not think anybody would EVER accuse him of being honest.
124 posted on 08/30/2010 3:07:17 AM PDT by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: John D

Earmarks are irrelevant.

He’s against spending.

He votes NO on spending.


125 posted on 08/30/2010 3:17:15 AM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom
Earmarks are irrelevant. He’s against spending.

If he was honestly against spending he would actually be against earmarks, but he just says he is against earmarks, while shoving as many in every bill as possible.
126 posted on 08/30/2010 3:44:13 AM PDT by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: John D

Earmarks only specify where money goes.

Ron Paul does not want to spend that money.

Dems and RINOs are voting to spend that money.

Ron Paul is just making sure that his constituents aren’t getting more ripped off.


127 posted on 08/30/2010 3:49:03 AM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Howie66
How is that Howie? Please explain your genius assessment.

So you think your Palin is very sane by being open to the possibility of war with Russia? Do you think your Palin is sane when she says we are doing Gods work in Iraq? If so, point to Scripture where it says that.

Palin falls into the Hagee camp of America actually paving the way for the second coming of Christ, do you think that's sane? Do you think Palin represents all Christians?

128 posted on 08/30/2010 6:37:38 AM PDT by SQUID
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SQUID

I said: “Ron Paul cannot resist letting us all remember just what a headcase he is. The guy is as loony as the day is long.”

You said: “How is that Howie? Please explain your genius assessment.
So you think your Palin is very sane by being open to the possibility of war with Russia? Do you think your Palin is sane when she says we are doing Gods work in Iraq? If so, point to Scripture where it says that.

Palin falls into the Hagee camp of America actually paving the way for the second coming of Christ, do you think that’s sane? Do you think Palin represents all Christians?”

Which planet are you calling from, troll?

I rest my case.


129 posted on 08/30/2010 6:47:34 AM PDT by Howie66 (I can see November from my house.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Howie66
What a brilliant explanation. What a shining example of leadership and knowledge. What a beacon of hope you have shown to the world with your lucid answers to my questions. You are way to smart for me. I better go to somebody else more down to my troll level. Your personal attack is shear genius and an example of tolerance and leadership to a pupil like myself. Thank you for enlightening me with your brilliance. Please attack me personally again. I deserve it.
130 posted on 08/30/2010 7:14:34 AM PDT by SQUID
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: crz
But this man is as wacky as a wounded partridge when it comes to social issues.

MORE WELFARE. MORE FICA. MORE MEDICARE! RAH! RAH! RAH!

Are you sure you're on the right website?

131 posted on 08/30/2010 12:02:38 PM PDT by altair (Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent - Salvor Hardin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: anchorclankor
Ron Paul is exactly correct. “The fact is that the average man’s love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty — and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies.” H.L.Mencken
Baltimore Evening Sun (12 February 1923)

This from the man who called Biblical Fundamentalists "gaping primates" who believe "degraded nonsense."

Mencken is a hero to "palaeos" because his magazine became anti-Semitic (under Maguire) and eventually national socialist (under Carto). "Mencken" is a code word just like "international bankers."

132 posted on 08/30/2010 1:42:15 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Hanistarot LaShem 'Eloqeynu; vehaniglot lanu ulevaneynu `ad-`olam la`asot 'et-kol-divrey HaTorah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom
Ron Paul does not want to spend that money.

If cut and run did not want to spend the money he would not put the earmarks in. Put down the koolaid and open your eyes. He is just dishonest when he says he is for fiscal responsibility. He wants to get as big a piece of the pie as much as anyone else.
133 posted on 08/30/2010 3:01:08 PM PDT by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: altair

Are you sure your in the right country?


134 posted on 08/30/2010 3:16:00 PM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom
Ron Paul's two-faced yak-yak on pro-life and on marriage is an insult to human intelligence in that he DOES absolutely nothing but yak to gull the suckers. Likewise he yaks to gull the suckers on "fiscal conservatism" as he stuffs federal budgets with Galveston pork while voting against the bills knowing that the other boys and girls in Congress will pass his pork to pass their own while he poses for holy pictures for voting no. This is dishonesty not sophisticated cleverness. Speaking of which, his "man the blunderbusses and wield the pea shooters in defense of your living room if you really must" foreign policy is a non-starter. He makes Benedict Arnold and Alger Hiss look like superpatriots by comparison. So do his gaga college leftist enthusiasts. So does his pal and fellow Truther Alex Jones. Small wonder that you modestly demur in choosing FR as a forum for supporting this treasonweasel.

Reagan actually DID things. Paul poses for holy pictures as though he would do the precise opposite of what he does and intends to do. He has a faux "constitutional" excuse for his every reflexive refusal to DO ANYTHING.

NO military conservative would ever vote for the paleotreasonboy if he were the only candidate available on the ballot. Comrade Obambam is to paleoPaulie's right because he is able to be bludgeoned into line to continue a war like Afghanistan. It has taken a while but the left is beginning to learn as El Run Pauilie never does that you can't play as a pacifist on the big stage in American politics.

The "neocons" are a group of FORMER Trotskyites, mostly in NYC and now octogenarians and nonogenarians if still alive, who turned sharply rightward when the Demonrat Party was seized by Stalinists under McGovern in 1972. That the paleobirdbrain set joins the Nation and the New Republic in conveniently misusing the term to apply to those of the New Right in the 1970s. It has been noticed that the term "neocon" is often misused by paleos when they would really like to explicitly bash Jewish people. Neocon becomes a convenient and safer term to attack and the paleos know (wink, wink) who they are talking about. Conveniently military conservatives favor Israel over her and our enemies. Oh, the humanity!!!!

PaleoPaulie would appoint judges who would sell the lighthouses to get away from socialism (besides, a lighthouse might spot enemy shipping). You can take to paleoPaulie's favorite bank the fact that he would appoint judges who would rfind every excuse in the playbook not to interfere with babykilling. And NO, it does not matter what the lying scum SAYS about the issue when he adamantly refuses to DO anything.

We need to mention Reagan to remind the paleoimbeciles of what actual conservatives look like. To the Paulistinians, "big government methods" means doing anything other than useless yak-yak.

No one need fear the paleotreasonguy going one on one for POTUS against any Demonrat. The GOP would have to be laid up by LSD in the water system for that to happen. Go back and check the performance of useless Paulie in POTUS primaries.

The Tea Party is a lot more complex than you give it credit for and has broader vision than mere cheapskatism. The conservative movement is a mansion of many rooms (to borrow an old phraseology).

I will answer your question about Kosovo. I don't think that Serbia or Kosovo is worth a single American life. They need to be ignored. If they cause us trouble, they need to be annihilated but they have not reached that point. I am also reflexively opposed to modern Demonrats running wars. Comrade O inherited Afghanistan from a far better man. He has already cut and run from Iraq making him a paleo on that war.

What are the provisions of this "Sanctity of Life Act?" It does not matter what Paulie SAYS. It matters what he would actually do: NOTHING. If the bill would save lives in any meaningful way, Mr. 10th Amendment will claim it is beyond federal jurisdiction. He thinks that the big problem with Roe vs. Wade is that it offends his tender sensibilities as to the constitution almighty (as he interprets it) and not that there are 50 million slaughtered babies. Like the Middle East, Paulie the Libertoonian figures that it is none of our bidness or at the very most: Tsk! Tsk!

135 posted on 08/30/2010 5:06:54 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society: Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain: The Great OZ has spoken!!!


136 posted on 08/30/2010 5:10:33 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society: Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
However, I don't believe we need 700 bases in 120 different countries.

I keep seeing this thrown around. The numbers are only valid if you consider every embassy a "base". Unless people want to place embassy security in the hands of local contractors then shutting down a lot of those "bases" is not possible.

So what are the real numbers? If you throw in joint operations with other nations, academies, camps run by the National Guard, research facilities and the Pentagon we have approximately 156 location not 700. And it is 19 countries not 120. And that number includes the US, Puerto Rico and Guam.

Should we cut down on that number? Maybe. Although we have cut that down drastically from what those numbers were during the Cold War. Since 1988 we have closed over 350 bases.

But if you are going to argue for base closures please use the correct numbers.

We also have a lot of small bases scattered around that could easily be closed without jeopardizing our security, and in most cases the security of the host country.

No, not really. Most of those bases have been closed already. In fact, considering that we have states that lack any bases at all there is a strong argument to be made to many of them have been closed leaving our eggs in far too few baskets. Especially considering that we tend to cluster our bases. This leaves our military dangerously vulnerable to a crippling attack.

137 posted on 08/30/2010 7:55:21 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (there are huge chunks of time...at night...where I'm just asleep...for hours...it's ridiculous....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
THANK YOU for the education.

Hell, we had a LOT more real bases back in the olden days....

138 posted on 08/30/2010 8:54:30 PM PDT by Mariner (USS Tarawa, VQ3, USS Benjamin Stoddert, NAVCAMS WestPac, 7th Fleet, Navcommsta Puget Sound)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
You are quite welcome. My husband was career Army and several of the places he was stationed no longer exist.

Frankly the clustered bases and Mega-bases worry both of us. While they may be more economical I don't think the security risk is worth it.

When Fort Ord was shut down in 1994 we lost the only ocean based training location for the US Army. There are other ocean based facilities but they are overbooked to say the least. Oh and the land is now a Superfund site, all those nasty lead bullets and UXOs you know. They just recently took 100 million from the US Army budget for that cleanup. But hey, the Smith Blue Butterfly now has a nature preserve. You just can't put a price on a trade like that.

139 posted on 08/30/2010 9:30:27 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (there are huge chunks of time...at night...where I'm just asleep...for hours...it's ridiculous....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Fee
Liberals believe in freedom only where and when it suits them and then they want to pull out the cuffs on anyone who doesn't think like them. It's called hypocrisy.
140 posted on 09/04/2010 1:41:57 PM PDT by HollyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-140 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson