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 ...
The Iraqi Prime Minister, Al Maliki, is a Member of the Al Dawa Party.
The Al Dawa Party was the progenitor of Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, which murdered 241 US Marines in Beirut; and Al Dawa has previously claimed responsibility or been convicted for Anti-American Terrorist acts of their own, such as the attacks on the US, French, and British Embassies. The Links for this have also been provided, in my Posting #1.
I psoted all this information at the very first Posting to the Thread. In addition to all this:
Parse it any way you want, but the fact remains that the Iraqi Government is willfully and knowingly harboring a Convicted Anti-American Terrorist -- as a member of their Ruling Government!
They are therefore in flagrant violation of stated United States foreign policy, and are utterly unworthy of Military and Financial support.
Ron Paul seeks to END Military and Financial support to this Government which is willfully and knowingly harboring a Convicted Anti-American Terrorist. Ron Paul is, thus, the only TRULY 100% Anti-Terrorist Republican Candidate.
The fact remains: You believe that the Federal Government should spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American Lives to support an Iraqi Government which knowingly and willfully harbors self-confessed, and even one Convicted, anti-American Islamic Terrorists in their own Ruling Coalition -- in flagrant violation of declared United States anti-terrorist foreign policy.
Those ARE the Facts. And they are NOT in dispute.
Correction -- counting both wings of the Al Dawa party, Al Dawa holds 25 seats in the Iraqi Parliament.
Check out Murray Sabrin?
Er... yeah. Name rings a bell.
I was the first out-of-state contributor to Murray's campaign for US Senate. I helped arrange his Americans for Fair Taxation endorsement. He personally thanked me for the paean to Abraham Sabrin I posted on Free Republic under my old screen name (Uriel1975).
Heck, if you wanna pick up the tab, I could probably call him up tomorrow and see if he and Florence would like to take you (and your spouse, if any) to dinner sometime. ;-)
Best, OP
That. Is a lie.
I have asked for information, names, you have not provided. You repeat the same mantra and rhetoric over and over. I have stated no position other than to ask for more information.
You,sir/madam are a liar and are no longer worth my time.
The Al Dawa Party was the progenitor of Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, which murdered 241 US Marines in Beirut; and Al Dawa has previously claimed responsibility or been convicted for Anti-American Terrorist acts of their own, such as the attacks on the US, French, and British Embassies. The Links for this have also been provided, in my Posting #1. I posted all this information at the very first Posting to the Thread. ~~ LINK, from #1, just as I said.
The fact thus remains: You believe that the Federal Government should spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American Lives to support an Iraqi Government which knowingly and willfully harbors self-confessed, and even one Convicted, anti-American Islamic Terrorists in their own Ruling Coalition -- in flagrant violation of declared United States anti-terrorist foreign policy.
Ron Paul seeks to END all Military and Financial support to this Iraqi Government which knowingly and willfully harbors self-confessed, and even one Convicted, anti-American Islamic Terrorists in their own Ruling Coalition.
Ron Paul is the ONLY 100% Anti-Terrorist Republican Candidate.
You are quite loose with your writing, aren't you? Yes, you placed the commendation "-The Catholic Encyclopedia" at the end of the final paragraph, but there is no valid way of knowing exactly what appears above is from that work. Quotations are properly shown in quotation marks (that's where these marks derive their name, btw). And references to quotations are placed so that the reader knows what quote is referenced to what source. You simply place paragraphs in normal and highlighted text. There are quotation marks around certain words, but that just appears to be another way of highlighting text, along with the bold. No one visiting your home page could reasonably ascertain that what I quoted was from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
"...I actually think Luther was a very good theologian..."
Oh? I see nothing on your page to indicate that. You say you "quote" the Catholic Encyclopedia yet make no indication that you disagree with their assessment. The logical inference is that you agree with their statement. Otherwise, why would you have quoted it?
No, I don't accept your explanation. You've been too obtuse throughout this entire thread. You have no validity with me at all.
You can call us anti-Paul FReepers if you wish, but I DID come to this thread with an open mind. I lurked for quite some time reading your posts and others. It was your invitation to another poster to visit the links you provided. I took you up on that and found a page with links to nothing but leftist blogs. It was then I made my first post to you, #148. You said it was an attack. Well, yes it was. But it came only after giving you the benefit of the doubt until you exposed yourself. That, YOU are responsible for, sir.
You're happy you've "doubled" your ping list. Well, good for you. I'm sure they're mostly libertarians such as yourself. In other words, you've been preaching to the choir. And yes, there are many conservative FReepers who will not join you list nor Ron Paul's campaign. And THAT is what will keep him from being successful. I've already been informed that Ron Paul doesn't need me. Well, the message is out for all conservative FReepers to see, and I will be spreading it widely. Ron Paul doesn't need me, and he doesn't need any other conservatives. If you think that will get him the Republican nomination, let alone the Presidency, you are truly living in a parallel universe.
Hardly. Paul is not likely to gain the nomination, but his stand on Georgie's Iraq Adventure is not what will determine that. One of these days all of you so-called "conservatives" who support worship the lying socialist who currently occupies the White House will wake up and realize you've been had. At least those of you with any shred of honesty left in you will wake up. It's going to really suck for you when that happens, but you'll survive.
Paul is, indeed, the only real Republican running.
Read this;
http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/02/alzawraa_vs_alqaeda.php#comments
This shows exactly why we should stay and make/keep it safe so the political debate in Iraq can happen.
It won't happen if we pull out early.
IMO the good guys WILL win the debate, if we stay and help them out.
A 1400 year old mindset doesn't change in a few years.
"You believe that the Federal Government should spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American Lives to support an Iraqi Government which knowingly and willfully harbors self-confessed, and even one Convicted, anti-American Islamic Terrorists in their own Ruling Coalition"
Yes I do, because of the many Iraqis who think like the MP Iyad Jamal Al-Din.
(For any who haven't seen this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLnMk-bO8w)
Now do you believe that we should not spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American Lives to support an Iraqi Government which knowingly and willfully harbors many US friendly MPs like Iyad Jamal Al-Din and instead abandon them?
Ron Paul is not 100% anti-terrorist if that is what he would do.
You have went from saing the Iraqi government is dominated by convicted terrorists to admitting there is only one actual convicted terrorist and 25 Al Dawa Party seats - hardly a dominating amount and clearly overstated. We have more than that many crooks and US haters in our own governemnt!
Iraq is in a flux, changing every day. Sure the "self confessed terrorists" you harp about are here today but may be gone tomorrow.
I worship Christ crucified. I worship no man. I support anyone who takes the WoT to the enemy. I'm sufficiently learned to know that war is not easy. War provides suffering and death. But there are times when war is the only possible response to those who wish us dead. And what seems 'un-winnable' to us today may become success tomorrow if the proper effort is applied, and those efforts are supported by the country as a whole.
As to Mr. Paul. Had he made himself 'not present' during the vote on the non-binding resolution I'd have been far more comfortable with him. At least it would have respected his so-called principles you libertarians constantly remark on. However, to vote for a non-binding resolution, knowing that it is nothing but a no confidence vote on the efforts our military are engaged in, is in my mind despicable. If these people don't want the Iraq conflict to continue, then vote to cut off funding. You, and all the others who hate Mr. Bush, support a vote to cut off funding. Stand up for your beliefs. Don't try to couch your beliefs in a support for the troops while back stabbing them with ridiculous non-binding resolutions. I have more respect for the likes of Senator Feingold, who's opposition to the war has been consistent, than to those who claim sincerity on the WoT yet vote against funding (as Paul has) and support worthless yet meaningful non-binding resolutions. If this is being principled, then we are all in desperate straits.
Regarding the 'lying socialist who currently occupies the White House'; answer me this: Did you vote for him? If so, wasn't that vote a sign of support? If not, whom did you vote for?
Wideawake #45: "Which convicted terrorists from the Embassy bombings are currently serving in the Iraqi Parliament or Administration? Just list their names, their government position, and the charges they've been convicted of.
I get "No Replies." when I click on #45.
Maybe that means OP is just talking through his hat.
Why not list the Democrats+Paul that are currently serving in OUR government that voted for surrender to the terrorists and ask if they deserve our trillions in tax support?
Ron Paul has opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. He has taken Bush to task repeatedly for lying about his position on "nation building" and has continuously chastised him for deceiving people like you into believing that the invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation is permissible under our Constitution. Ron Paul has never "claimed sincerity" on any war on terror because he, like a lot of us (growing numbers every day), knows that you can't declare war on an idea or an inanimate object. He realizes that a war on terror is just as stupid, vain, and empty as a war on drugs or a war on poverty and that it is nothing more than political rabble-rousing. He has said all this repeatedly and if you bothered to look into any of this instead of taking the easy road and simply believing what the party machine tells you, you would have known this before you made such a silly statement.
Ron Paul had the guts to vote on a measure before the whole House and chose not to take the cowardly route of voting "present" or even worse, absenting himself from the floor. Those tactics are symptomatic of the degenerate evil that pervades our government. Paul looks at votes in the House as requiring a yes or no answer. He voted his conscience in accordance with his oath of office. You don't like how he voted, like so many of the other lemmings on this forum, but you cannot characterize his vote as unprincipled.
Regarding the 'lying socialist who currently occupies the White House'; answer me this: Did you vote for him? If so, wasn't that vote a sign of support? If not, whom did you vote for?
No, I did not vote for Bush. I mostly abstained in the last election, but of the votes I cast, most were for Libertarians. The GOP has become the home for socialists and fascists of all stripes. The idiots who preached the "big tent" have won and now get to live with the fruits of their victory: irrelevance. George Bush is the worst President to hold office in my recollection of political involvement (which goes all the way back to 1972, by the way). He has managed to destroy the remnants of the Reagan Revolution, he and the stinking neocons have put the GOP on the road to destruction, his tenure in office has been marked by lies and incompetence. I don't know if our republic can recover from the damage he has done to it in six short years.
Maybe Ron Paul's candidacy will wake Republicans up and set them on the road to recovery. This really is their last chance. If they don't wake up, we are in for a long, painful ride down the dead-end road to socialism, with the Bush-Clinton oligarchy holding the reigns.
I didn't say it was useless. I said it was easy.
BTW, you never answered me as to where you got whole articles from the 1980s. That's amazing. Can you point to where I can find them?
Gee, I thought Ron Paul was opposed to nonbinding resolutions in general, yet this time he votes for one.
I'm sure this comports with his principles somehow.
Of course, nobody can tell, but Ron Paul never fails to inform the unwashed what his principles are as they change day-to-day, so I'm sure we'll find out.
That's not guts, that's backstabbing. It's leaving the military hung out to dry. As I stated, If Paul has been against the WoT since the beginning (and I'd have to agree after reviewing his voting record since 2002) then he should have worked for a bill to remove all funding and outspokenly supported that; not a stupid, ill-considered, objectionable non-binding resolution.
You can believe what you want about how many are moving to your side. But another thread in FR http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1788496/posts tells a somewhat different story.
You and your ilk are no better than the Copperheads of the 1860’s. You’ll do anything to undermine the war effort. Thanks for your patriotism/S.
I have not engaged in such personal attacks against you.
The fact is, you are angry with me for (correctly!) pointing out that the Iraqi Government is riddled with terrorists, and so in response, you've decided to make it personal.
Well, I'm going to say two things to that:
I am happy to debate the issues. You insist on making it personal -- and UnChristian, at that.
Try it out. Pretty cool.
But that's impossible. You see, those articles are from the 1980s and I know that the WaPo charges for their archives (and I don't think they go back that far) so where exactly are these articles hosted? I noticed that you posted the text of those articles and not their source. Surely you know their source.
"So long as training camps operate, so long as nations harbor terrorists, freedom is at risk and America and our allies must not, and will not, allow it." -- President George W. Bush, State of the Union, January 29, 2002.
Parse it any way you want, but the fact remains that the Iraqi Government is willfully and knowingly harboring self-confessed, and even at least one already-Convicted, Anti-American Terrorists -- as members of their Ruling Government, no less!
They are therefore in flagrant violation of declared United States anti-terrorist foreign policy, and are utterly unworthy of Military and Financial support.
Ron Paul seeks to END Military and Financial support to this Government which is willfully and knowingly harboring a Convicted Anti-American Terrorist. Ron Paul is, thus, the only TRULY 100% Anti-Terrorist Republican Candidate.
Iraq is in a flux, changing every day. Sure the "self confessed terrorists" you harp about are here today but may be gone tomorrow.
Not until at least the next elections in 2009. Gadzooks, how many excuses are you going to make for these Terrorists?
Honestly, if the Iraqis had elected Osama bin Laden to the Iraqi Parliament, would you say "Oh well, no big deal, here today but may be gone tomorrow"?? I'm beginning to wonder. Good grief!!
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.