Here is some information on one our your "good guys."
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 ...
Alright, ask me about any specific Post, and I'll look up the Article's url.
Ron Paul isn't a real republican, he's a libertarian....there is a difference for those that care ;-)
One of the sleazy tricks of the Revisionist Zionists is to try to make specific statements about specific persons seem as though they are generalized bigotry.
Zionist, eh? Well, I know what he's all about. As if the pro-Obama ad on his blog didn't give it away.
"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."
"They are therefore in flagrant violation of declared United States anti-terrorist foreign policy, and are utterly unworthy of Military and Financial support."
Good grief! As long as we are in Iraq we ARE doing something about a terrorist harboring nation, aren't we??? Yet what you and Ron Paul are apparently advocating is to pull out and quit doing something about it!! It makes no sense at all.
Step back, take a breath, remove the blinders, and look at the reality; if we say Iraq is "utterly unworthy of Military and Financial support" because of "self confessed terrorists" in its government, and withdraw our support of the good guys there (you cannot deny there are good guys there) we will be doing nothing about a "nation harboring terrorists", right?
Is doing nothing about a "nation harboring terrorists" what you and Ron Paul are advocating?
Yes or no.
DO you and Ron Paul think there are good guys in Iraq?
Yes or no.
Do you and Ron Paul really believe we are supporting the bad guys in Iraq, that is the sole reason we are there?
Yes or no.
Do you and Ron Paul believe abandoning the good guys in Iraq is the right thing to do??
Yes or no.
"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!"
You and Ron Paul have absolutely no hope that this can change, no hope or belief that the good guys can win the public debate??
Yes or no.
No, you haven't debated the issues. When someone posts a comment asking for information to back up your contentions, all you do is re-post your contentions. You don't back them up. You also have (according to you) taken quotes from 'The Catholic Encyclopedia'; without disclaimer to their attack on Luther. I consider THAT a personal attack on your part. Perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not. I cannot read you mind so I don't know what is true. But the fact remains: Your home page gives no indication that you do not agree with those words. How 'Christian' is that (you opened this door)?
Don't bring Jesus into this discussion on Ron Paul. This is a political discussion; not a religious one. We both know (or should) that while our religious beliefs frame our political sense, they include the admonishment "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. It is my belief that support on the WoT falls well within this admonishment from Christ. I can be a true Christian yet support a war that defends our nation against assault and destruction. Do not EVER question my religious beliefs. You have not the authority nor knowledge to do so. Only God may do so. Or are you putting yourself in His place? You give the appearance of that from your stated 'beliefs' in what he would do politically.
My 'abuse' as you call it has been an attempt to get valid information on your political beliefs in place of repeated obfuscation on your part, and what I consider a valid response to your rantings about Calvinism on your home page; rantings that appear to attack Lutheranism. You claim they are not your statements, but the way they are constructed and delivered leave them quite open to interpretation. And my interpretation is as valid as any. It is you who have invited criticism on both levels through what you have written. If you don't want further criticism on your home page, then clean it up and make your personal views clear.
Now, it's time to end this discourse. It has been brought into the gutter, and I don't believe I am responsible for that because I have, all along, been reacting to you (even in my first post, #148). Let's end this now before it gets any worse. Any further discourse will show who the UnChristian one truly is.
Goodbye.
Goodbye.
No. We advocate cutting off Military and Financial support to this Terrorist-Harboring Government.
DO you and Ron Paul think there are good guys in Iraq? Yes or no.
Yes -- although I reserve that I don't have a lot of faith in ANY muslim politicians (we've been backstabbed by muslim "friends" before). Regardless, however, the majority government is guilt of harboring terrorists, in flagrant violation of declared United States anti-terrorist foreign policy.
Do you and Ron Paul really believe we are supporting the bad guys in Iraq, that is the sole reason we are there? Yes or no.
No, I don't believe that is the reason we are there. However, since the Iraqis have "democratically" elected Terrorists to majority power, our troops have been placed in the unfortunate position of defending a Government which is a Harbor of Terrorists. I do not believe that we should risk American Lives to support an Iraqi Government which is Harboring Terrorists.
Do you and Ron Paul believe abandoning the good guys in Iraq is the right thing to do?? Yes or no.
No. However, I do not believe that cutting off Military and Financial support to the Terrorist-harboring Majority Government in Iraq necessarily "abandons" the alleged "good guys". If a Foreign Power was giving Military and Financial support to the Democrats, and then removed that support, would that necessarily "hurt" the Republicans?
You and Ron Paul have absolutely no hope that this can change, no hope or belief that the good guys can win the public debate?? Yes or no.
"Yes" I have no Hope, or "No" I have no Hope? Your question's phrasing doesn't allow for me to answer "Yes, I have hope" (so I'll just say it). I do not believe that cutting off Military and Financial support to the Terrorist-harboring Majority Government in Iraq necessarily "abandons" the alleged "good guys". If a Foreign Power was giving Military and Financial support to the Democrats, and then removed that support, would that necessarily "hurt" the Republicans?
I'm having trouble following you. What degrees would you consider "difficult" to earn?
Shooting the messenger Logical Fallacy. Even if Ralph Nader quoted from "US News & World Report", that wouldn't make the facts of the article incorrect.
Math
Physics
(Theoretical) computer science
That's about it.
It's not entirely a logical fallacy as an individual with an agenda has motivation to lie, distort and take quotes out of context.
But I'm not dismissing the information, I'm painting a portrait of you.
Right now, my favorite is Duncan Hunter but I really like Ron Paul. I'm a lurker on digg.com which is usually nauseatingly liberal, but a lot of those guys absolutely LOVE Ron Paul!
What do you know about his theology?
I regards to the war, I am in favor of the occupation and strategic control of Iraq (I'm also for the invasion of Iran and Syria) but I am absolutely against the liberal and socialistic nation building and absolutely untrustworthy thug government pandering and propping that we are doing now. I am very glad to hear Ron's voice crying in the wilderness on this subject.
President Bush's biggest mistake was his acceptance and adoption of Powell's abhorrently evil, question begging, "Pottery Barn Principle" which stated: "You break it, you own it". It has absolutely no application in Iraq. In no way have we "broken" Iraq and in no way do we "own" Iraq. But now in order to "win", we have to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. The bottom line is, Saddam and his countrymen utterly violated the terms of their surrender and that gives us the moral authority to remove Saddam, occupy Iraq and strategically neutralize the threat they posed indefinitely.
Iraq is in a civil war right now, both sides are incredibly evil and we are obviously God's hand of grace preserving them from an unbelievable massacre. I believe that God withdraw us sooner or later and I am confounded about how to analyze which would be better for everyone. I hope that when we do withdraw, we continue to occupy (Iraq NOT Baghdad) and somehow protect the few innocent people who will desperately need refuge.
BTW: Gingrich (whose personal morals preclude him from consideration) has also spoken out against the corruption of the liberal and socialistic nation building and absolutely untrustworthy thug government pandering and propping.
Here is some information on one our your "good guys."
Oh -- so, it's a Personal Attack on your part, then.
Well, as that's a violation of the Forum Rules, I'll just ignore such posts from you.
Best, OP
Ron Paul himself is a non-denomination Protestant. He tends to surround himself with Calvinists, but I do not know his personal faith on that score -- I was a non-denominational Calvinist protestant for a time, but there's lots of non-denoms who aren't Calvinists. Still, I must admit that I like the fact that so many of Ron's past and present advisors ARE Calvinists. Gives me a warm, yummy feeling inside, and even more confidence in the man.
This is getting stupid.
26 MPs is a majority??
The situation is static never to change?
"No. We advocate cutting off Military and Financial support to this Terrorist-Harboring Government."
"No. However, I do not believe that cutting off Military and Financial support to the Terrorist-harboring Majority Government in Iraq necessarily "abandons" the alleged "good guys"
Explain in detail how cutting off Military and Financial support would not hurt good guys in Iraq.
"If a Foreign Power was giving Military and Financial support to the Democrats, and then removed that support, would that necessarily "hurt" the Republicans?"
"I do not believe that cutting off Military and Financial support to the Terrorist-harboring Majority Government in Iraq necessarily "abandons" the alleged "good guys". If a Foreign Power was giving Military and Financial support to the Democrats, and then removed that support, would that necessarily "hurt" the Republicans?"
This is a pathetic argument, the democrats and republicans here in the US cannot in any way, shape, or form compare to the good and bad guys in Iraq.
If you can't or won't see how simplistic (to the point of being retarded) that is, this conversation is over.
So far, a number of Duncan Hunter fans (JMC813, dirtboy, Theophilus) have demonstrated respectful disagreement with Ron in a way which really speaks well of your candidate's supporters. I don't know who "Amishdude" and "dynamo" and "wideawake" are supporting, but they sure have left a sour taste in my mouth.
Thanks for making Ron Paul your (second) choice!
I'll take that as a compliment. LOL. However, I still disagree with you about other degrees being easy to obtain.
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.