Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul, the Real Republican? (Announcing the Great Ron Paul Ping List)
Fox News ^ | February 20, 2007 | Radley Balko

Posted on 02/20/2007 8:59:49 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian

Ron Paul, the Real Republican?

Tuesday, February 20, 2007
By Radley Balko

When you read about a vote in Congress that goes something like 412-1, odds are pretty good that the sole "nay" came from Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. He so consistently votes against widely popular bills, in fact, that the Washington Post recently gave him the moniker "Congressman 'No.'"

Paul isn't a reflexive contrarian--he doesn't oppose just to oppose. Rather, he has a core set of principles that guide him. They happen to be the same principles envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution: limited government, federalism, free trade and commerce -- with a premium on peace.

When most members of Congress see a bill for the first time, they immediately judge the bill on its merits, or if you're more cynical, they determine what the political interests that support them will think of it, or how it might benefit their constituents.

For Paul, the vast majority of bills don't get that far. He first asks, "Does the Constitution authorize Congress to pass this law?" Most of the time, the answer to that question is "no." And so Paul votes accordingly.

This hasn't won him many friends in Congress, or, for that matter, his own party. It hasn't won him influential committee assignments or powerful chairmanships, either. Those are generally handed out to the party animals who vote as they're told. An incorruptible man of principle in a corrupt body almost utterly devoid of principle, Paul is often a caucus of one.

Paul recently announced his intentions to run for president in 2008. For the few of us who still care about limited government, individual rights, and a sensible foreign policy, Paul's candidacy is terrific news....Continue reading

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: electionpresident; elections; ronpaul; velvetrevolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 551-591 next last
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Ron Paul advocated a Vote for an Iraq WAR.

Ron Paul made it abundantly clear that he would have voted against the war if it had ever come to s specific vote.

This kind of evasive talk cannot dodge the reality that Ron Paul thinks that appeasing terrorists is the way to go.

201 posted on 02/20/2007 10:16:50 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

Give me the Arabic spelling of Al Dawa and I will tell you what it means.


202 posted on 02/20/2007 10:16:52 AM PST by James Ewell Brown Stuart (I support the President and the war on terror!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: pissant

That's Ron Paul on the left.
203 posted on 02/20/2007 10:17:21 AM PST by AmishDude (It doesn't matter whom you vote for. It matters who takes office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

He was killed by the Saddam regime in Baghdad.


204 posted on 02/20/2007 10:17:47 AM PST by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Al Dawa means "The Islamic Call"

Wow. You would think it would have more syllables, what with the adjective and all.

205 posted on 02/20/2007 10:18:48 AM PST by AmishDude (It doesn't matter whom you vote for. It matters who takes office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: jrooney
There was never a Vote on the Iraq WAR, because Congress abdicated its responsibility to Declare War.

So... One question -- Yes, or No:

Yes, or No?

206 posted on 02/20/2007 10:18:55 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: SteamshipTime

After he was living openly in there for many years. Forgot that one there half truth teller.


207 posted on 02/20/2007 10:19:11 AM PST by jrooney ( Hold your cards close.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

"Congressman 'No.'" voted "Yes" with the democrats to reprimand Bush for sending reinforcements that were requested by the commanding generals to Iraq.

"Congressman 'No.'" is "Candidate ... 'No.'"


208 posted on 02/20/2007 10:19:56 AM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

Try the cargo hold of an oil tanker (particularly bothersome, since much oil had NORM, making a nuke hard to detect). Or a truck driving across the Mexican border.

So becasue the methods of delivery you cited are still very real threats, what would this suggest about the effectiveness of efforts being made to date?


209 posted on 02/20/2007 10:20:06 AM PST by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude; OrthodoxPresbyterian

Again, if you give me the spelling (in Arabic) I can give you the meaning. Or link to it so I can see it.


210 posted on 02/20/2007 10:20:54 AM PST by James Ewell Brown Stuart (I support the President and the war on terror!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy
Yes, but that problem has been corrected, right?

No, actually. Thanks to guys like boy Assad and I'mIndeedaWhackjob, we can still be attacked by a bunch of funded and trained terrorists.

Don't breathe too deeply, you'll drown in sand, you know.

211 posted on 02/20/2007 10:21:49 AM PST by AmishDude (It doesn't matter whom you vote for. It matters who takes office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Now that Saddam Hussein is DEAD, do you believe that the Federal Government should spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American Lives to provide military and financial support to a Government dominated by convicted Islamic Terrorists who attacked our Embassies and murdered hundreds of United States Marines in cold blood?

You continue to regurgitate what sounds like liberal-DU word-herding to support a cut-and-run loser, and your arguments are full of holes.

Can't you do any better than that?

This thread is filling up with re-runs.

212 posted on 02/20/2007 10:22:39 AM PST by capt. norm (Liberalism = cowardice disguised as tolerance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: jrooney

Wrong again. He entered Iraq as a Yemeni, and after revealing himself, the Saddam regime assassinated him.


213 posted on 02/20/2007 10:22:52 AM PST by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude; Dynamo; James Ewell Brown Stuart; wideawake; jrooney
The Associated Press
February 11, 1984, Saturday
Trial Of Bomb Blast Defendants Opens
By ALY MAHMOUD (KUWAIT)

Twenty-one defendants accused of bombing the U.S. and French Embassies last December were formally arraigned today, as their trial began under extreme security.

To be tried in absentia are four defendants who are at large, the prosecutor general said.

Five people were killed and 86 injured in the rash of bombings on Dec. 12. Besides the U.S. and French embassies, four Kuwaiti targets were bombed.

The prosecution has demanded the death penalty for 19 of the defendants. The others are believed to have played a lesser role in the bombings in and around the capital of this oil-rich Arab nation . . . Of the other defendants, 17 are Iraqis; two, Lebanese, three, Kuwaitis and two are stateless. Most of them said they belonged to Al-Dawa (Islamic Call) Party, an Iraqi movement of Shiite Moslem fanatics who are pro-Iranian, said court sources who asked not to be identified. ~~ http://www.juancole.com/2006/07/congress-expects-islamic-dawa-to.html

214 posted on 02/20/2007 10:22:55 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
was the Al Dawa bureau chief in Damascus in the 1980s and was thus heavily responsible for Al Dawa operations in Beirut

No, he was responsible for recruiting anti-Saddam activists in Damascus on behalf of the Iraqi National Congress.

But nice try.

215 posted on 02/20/2007 10:22:57 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Ron Paul voted against the Iraq war resolution. You can't parse that one. Saddam would still be in power. Ron Paul is not even worthy to shine the boots of our brave soldiers. When they needed him, he turned his back on them.
216 posted on 02/20/2007 10:23:04 AM PST by jrooney ( Hold your cards close.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: SteamshipTime

Wrong again yourself. Get your facts straight. He lived in Iraq openly for several years before he was killed.


217 posted on 02/20/2007 10:24:22 AM PST by jrooney ( Hold your cards close.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: SteamshipTime

"The Bush administration paid the Iraqi National Congress $400K/month to tell them such poppycock."

Here just from hitting the "search" feature right here on FR and giving you the first two hits:

Two tonnes of enriched uranium (enough for several bombs) removed from Iraq in 2004:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1514112/posts

And you can follow the entire NYT story here. Basically, the NYT slammed the Bush admin for releasing Iraq secret nuclear documetns --- and thereby allegedly accidently helping Iran's with its nuclear program. Ironcially, in the NYT hit piece, it admits that Iraq was a year away from a workable device, a terribly inconsistent opinion with the "Saddam had no nuclear program" Dim talking point.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1731259/posts


218 posted on 02/20/2007 10:24:26 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Kol Hakavod Lezahal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
The Associated Press
February 11, 1984, Saturday
Trial Of Bomb Blast Defendants Opens
By ALY MAHMOUD (KUWAIT)

Twenty-one defendants accused of bombing the U.S. and French Embassies last December were formally arraigned today, as their trial began under extreme security.

To be tried in absentia are four defendants who are at large, the prosecutor general said.

Five people were killed and 86 injured in the rash of bombings on Dec. 12. Besides the U.S. and French embassies, four Kuwaiti targets were bombed.

The prosecution has demanded the death penalty for 19 of the defendants. The others are believed to have played a lesser role in the bombings in and around the capital of this oil-rich Arab nation . . . Of the other defendants, 17 are Iraqis; two, Lebanese, three, Kuwaitis and two are stateless. Most of them said they belonged to Al-Dawa (Islamic Call) Party, an Iraqi movement of Shiite Moslem fanatics who are pro-Iranian, said court sources who asked not to be identified. ~~ http://www.juancole.com/2006/07/congress-expects-islamic-dawa-to.html

219 posted on 02/20/2007 10:24:34 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
While it's amusing how much you depend on the AP and other leftist sources for your information, you have yet to explain how convicted terrorists dominate the Iraqi government.

Are the Embassy bombers ruling Iraq from foreign jail cells?

220 posted on 02/20/2007 10:25:25 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

No, actually we can still be attacked by a bunch of funded and trained terrorists.

Wouldn't it make sense then to follow the advice of Dr. Paul and others who suggest that securing OUR country and OUR borders might be a good idea? Instead of what is being done at great expense now?


221 posted on 02/20/2007 10:26:01 AM PST by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

"For Paul, the vast majority of bills don't get that far. He first asks, "Does the Constitution authorize Congress to pass this law?" Most of the time, the answer to that question is "no." And so Paul votes accordingly."

Does the Constitution allow Congress, individually or collectively, to be Commander-in-Chief of the American Armed Forces? The answer to that question is "no." And so Paul voted for a bill that fails to meet his stated criterion for voting "yes."

Time to send him to political retirement. If he will violate his principals once, he will violate them whenever he finds it convenient to.


222 posted on 02/20/2007 10:26:27 AM PST by No Truce With Kings (The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteamshipTime
Well...Nidal did commit "suicide" with 17 bullet holes.

And then there's the other unintended consequence of the Iraq war. There was a major problem with intelligence failures with respect to another ME country. This country had an active nuclear program which we did not know about. But because of the invasion of Iraq, they surrendered that program and we were lucky that they did.

Name the country.

223 posted on 02/20/2007 10:26:30 AM PST by AmishDude (It doesn't matter whom you vote for. It matters who takes office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
While it's amusing how much you depend on the AP and other leftist sources for your information, you have yet to explain how convicted terrorists dominate the Iraqi government. Are the Embassy bombers ruling Iraq from foreign jail cells?

Nope. The Embassy Bombers were tried and convicted in absentia. I already posted all this, you know.

224 posted on 02/20/2007 10:27:01 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: jrooney
He voted agaisnt the Iraq war resolution!

You are correct. Here's a link to the house vote on 10/10/2002.

http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/issues/votes/?votenum=455&chamber=H&congress=1072&state=tx

Ron Paul voted 'NO'!

225 posted on 02/20/2007 10:27:02 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

You said the Iraqi Governemnt is "dominated by convicted Islamic Terrorists who attacked our Embassies and murdered hundreds of United States Marines in cold blood" in making a case for Ron Paul abandoning Iraq.

I think you overstated the case which might be why you decided to drop the word "convicted".

That is good since I've found only one convicted terroist in the Iraqi governemnt, Jamal Jafaar Mohammed.

One convicted terrorist will never convince me to abandon good Iraqis like MP Iyad Jamal Al-Din.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLnMk-bO8w

Ron Paul will never get my vote.


226 posted on 02/20/2007 10:27:12 AM PST by dynoman (Objectivity is the essence of intelligence. - Marylin vos Savant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

Where do you get articles from the 1980's? Algore hadn't invented the Internet by then.


227 posted on 02/20/2007 10:28:35 AM PST by AmishDude (It doesn't matter whom you vote for. It matters who takes office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: jrooney

Nope. He revealed himself in 2001, and in 2002 the Saddam regime killed him.


228 posted on 02/20/2007 10:28:40 AM PST by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: bcsco; OrthodoxPresbyterian

Yes, thank you. OrthodoxPresbyterian is too much of a damn liar to admit though. No wonder he favors a coward like Ron Paul.


229 posted on 02/20/2007 10:28:47 AM PST by jrooney ( Hold your cards close.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy

"So becasue the methods of delivery you cited are still very real threats, what would this suggest about the effectiveness of efforts being made to date?"

Well, since Saddam has no active nuclear program, being that he is dead and the methods of production (and the uranium produced thereby) are now in our hads, our efforts, so far have been very effective.

Now, on to Iran to finish the job.

Iran, being a state sponsor of terror, can't get much worse, if we allow it to fall into chaos.

Ergo, we can just blow means of production up and not worry about occupation.


230 posted on 02/20/2007 10:29:33 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Kol Hakavod Lezahal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: dynoman
Al Dawa AS A PARTY are condemned by their own claims of responsibility for Anti-American Terror:

Their own words condemn the Radical Terrorist Al Dawa Party, the Ruling Party of Iraq.

231 posted on 02/20/2007 10:30:13 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
The Embassy Bombers were tried and convicted in absentia. I already posted all this, you know.

read your own posts.

Your source says that 4 of 19 were convicted in absentia.

Are the other 15 ruling Iraq from their jail cells, or from beyond the grave?

232 posted on 02/20/2007 10:30:22 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
I spit on the ground Ron Paul walks on. The man voted to cut and run from Iraq (hell, he has opposed every military action in the WOT) and stabbed our troops in the back.

Spin all you want but only the people here who want to see our troops fail are going to support this traitor.

233 posted on 02/20/2007 10:30:44 AM PST by COEXERJ145 (Bush Derangement Syndrome Has Reached Pandemic Levels on Free Republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
you have yet to explain how convicted terrorists dominate the Iraqi government.

Apparently, you have never heard of Al-Hakim and his Badr Brigade....though technically this mass murdering "democrat" has never been convicted.

234 posted on 02/20/2007 10:31:47 AM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy
"Dr." Paul has a medical degree and unless he's talking about female genetalia, his credential is not relevant here.

Even then, he doesn't have quite the expertise Bill Clinton does.


"Secure our borders." Sounds so simple. Like it's a Ziploc baggie and we just have to run our fingers across it.
235 posted on 02/20/2007 10:31:58 AM PST by AmishDude (It doesn't matter whom you vote for. It matters who takes office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
Ron Paul voted 'NO'!

I should have added, he was the ONLY Republican from Texas to do so.

236 posted on 02/20/2007 10:32:08 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

Pure propaganda. All discredited, and also irrelevant to the immediate point: how we went from having a secular Sunni strongman who was the enemy of both the Wahabbists and the Iranians to a fundamentalist Shi'ite government allied with Iran.


237 posted on 02/20/2007 10:32:50 AM PST by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145

Keep in mind that Ron Paul could have voted "present" or not at all.

He didn't. He voted with Murtha.


238 posted on 02/20/2007 10:32:52 AM PST by AmishDude (It doesn't matter whom you vote for. It matters who takes office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: jrooney; Lead Moderator
Yes, thank you. OrthodoxPresbyterian is too much of a damn liar to admit though. No wonder he favors a coward like Ron Paul.

Alright, that is ENOUGH.

Please observe the Rules of the Forum.

239 posted on 02/20/2007 10:32:54 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
Yep. If he truly wanted to help the troops, he would help them get the job done,

It would be a good start if we could define what "the job" is, since no one seems to have a clue except "supporting them in whatever they are doing."

Someone VERY dear and precious to me is stationed in Baghdad right now, a sgt in the 82nd, cleaning out the rat's nest of Sadr City. I applaud him and the kids with him, and can tell you that most of us are not worthy to untie the shoe latches of these fine young men. The fact that I am full of admiration, pride and love for these guys does NOT translate into thinking we have a freaking clue as to what we are doing. As another aside, I have a friend of 25 years who was recalled into active service after retirement in Special Forces. He is as good a man as I could ever hope to know. He is headed for Iraq. My support for the troops AND FOR THEIR MISSION is not some abstraction from a leftoid. However, I defy anyone on these threads to give me a clear, QUANTIFIABLE mission for which we are sending people. Regime change? over --Dismantling the Iraqi military? complete -- Free elections? done that-- Cleaning out the rats nest of terror in Fallujah? done with class, honor and courage

EVERY SINGLE TASK that our guys have been given to do, they have done. The problem is that no one from Bush on down has any concrete goals that says "when we are here, the job is over." I pray to God that Petraeus will develop some, and that he will have a secretary of State who will say "here is the checkbook" rather than trying to force him to rebuild an entire 3 nation state on the cheap.

It is against THAT backdrop that Ron Paul is voting, and to turn his principled vote into some flag waving rant about "abandoning the troops" is just plain stupid.

240 posted on 02/20/2007 10:33:41 AM PST by DreamsofPolycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

Well, since Saddam has no active nuclear program, being that he is dead and the methods of production (and the uranium produced thereby) are now in our hads, our efforts, so far have been very effective.

That's very good news indeed.

Why is it then that we are continually told that another terror attack is not a matter of "if" but is a matter of "when?"


241 posted on 02/20/2007 10:33:58 AM PST by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
When the pantywaste have their way and US forces stop taking the fight to them , they will bring it back to us. Count on it.
242 posted on 02/20/2007 10:34:47 AM PST by Phlap (REDNECK@LIBARTS.EDU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Your source says that 4 of 19 were convicted in absentia. Are the other 15 ruling Iraq from their jail cells, or from beyond the grave?

Their sponsors in the Al Dawa Islamic Terrorist Party, a Party who have openly claimed responsibility for Anti-American Terror attacks, are Ruling Iraq from their seats in the Iraqi Parliament.

243 posted on 02/20/2007 10:35:04 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty -- Luke 17:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy
Why is it then that we are continually told that another terror attack is not a matter of "if" but is a matter of "when?"

I dunno. Been to Salt Lake City lately?

244 posted on 02/20/2007 10:35:17 AM PST by AmishDude (It doesn't matter whom you vote for. It matters who takes office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Quit posting facts that you know are untrue. If you want to do that, go to dummy land. I will apologize for saying that statement. I will say then quit intentionally telling lies. If you do that what are you?
245 posted on 02/20/2007 10:35:38 AM PST by jrooney ( Hold your cards close.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

Been to Salt Lake City lately?

No, why?


246 posted on 02/20/2007 10:36:33 AM PST by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

>>Now, on to Iran to finish the job.<<

Dream on, bro. The generals are not going to fight a two-front war while their rearguard is sitting in the middle of a bunch of Shi'ite militias with ties to Iran. Too bad we let THAT particular genie out of the bottle.


247 posted on 02/20/2007 10:37:08 AM PST by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
Apparently, you have never heard of Al-Hakim and his Badr Brigade....though technically this mass murdering "democrat" has never been convicted.

Of course I have.

Your allegations of mass murder are allegations.

He was the head of the Badr Brigade during the Iran-Iraq war.

I'm not sure why he should be convicted for fighting Hussein or why he should be convicted because the Badr Brigade is now in the business of eliminating Sunni insurgents - the same business that the US military is in.

248 posted on 02/20/2007 10:37:19 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: jrooney; OrthodoxPresbyterian
This is getting hilarious. He continues to post the same ultra-format paragraphs instead of responding to challenges. That's a leftist tactic. And the fact that most of the blogs linked to on the site he references are leftist blogs, including DailyKos and Democratic Underground, it makes me highly suspicious of who he is and just what his agenda is.

That's why I remarked that those wanting on his ping list should 'beware'. Is there a ZOT somewhere in the future?

249 posted on 02/20/2007 10:37:31 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: DreamsofPolycarp
It is against THAT backdrop that Ron Paul is voting, and to turn his principled vote into some flag waving rant about "abandoning the troops" is just plain stupid.

Can you explain to me what good his "principled vote" accomplished....'cause I already know about the harm.

What he did accomplished nothing except for showing him to be of the same mind-set as Murtha.

250 posted on 02/20/2007 10:37:53 AM PST by capt. norm (Liberalism = cowardice disguised as tolerance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 551-591 next 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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