Posted on 08/01/2007 1:07:53 PM PDT by SJackson
I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul unless he was the only patriot running(for something)..
But he is a patriot and right on most things.. no RINO..
He is more libertarian than republican but no democrat..
RINOs are democrats.. democrat meaning for a democracy instead of a Republic..
America is NOT a democratic republic, it is a constitutional republic.. and NOT a DEMOCRACY.. RINOs are for a democracy.. far too many republicans are in fact democrats.. Thats why Washington D.C. is Mob Rule.. All democrats and not a few republicans(RINOs) are democrats.. RINO is an extremely accurate word..
Ron Paul has many many things in common with "true" republicans.. i.e. those for a constitutional republic and spit on democracy as mob rule and tribal governance..
Dream on with your neomarxist crapOla.
I worked for Reagan when he first ran for gov. so according to you, this is bad neocon stuff.
I will take Reagan anyday over a total idiot like Ron Paul
Was I in Iraq for Clinton’s draft dodging? What the heck are you talking about? Do you feel any obligation to make sense?
Yet you're the one that posts multiple times on Ron Paul threads.
Someone's underoos are in a bunch, obviously.
If Paul ain't going to win the nomination, then why worry about him then?
So you do wear them then, right?
Instead of incessantly bashing someone who supposedly "can't win", why don't you redirect what I loosely refer to as your intelligence to other things.
Dude, you are too weird.
Your view of Giuliani is a little Messianic, jude; no one man deserves all the credit for New York's post-Dinkins improvements (at the risk of drawing FReeper fire for giving Bill Clinton any credit for anything, is it not possible that Clinton's "triangulated" Conservative-inspired Welfare Reform -- over which his Old Progressive Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, quit the Administration -- had positive effects on New York City's welfare rolls for which Giuliani can take little credit?)
That being said, I will admit that Giuliani's "Quality of Life" focus on Law Enforcement -- repairing the "Broken Window" effect -- was the right focus at the right time, and helped to restore the City's pride and vigor.
However, even in that, you have to take the bad with the good -- Giuliani's "Police Uber Alles" callous disrespect for civil rights (exactly what crime was Amadou Diallo guilty of, again?), his authoritarian style of governance, his blatant Nepotism in City administrative appointments.... Mussolini was lauded for having "made the trains run on time", and perhaps Rudi did the same for NYC (or at least took the credit for it); but do we really want an American Mussolini?
He's on my s--t-list, however, after advocating pre-emptive nuclear strikes on Iran in the last Republican debate. Ironically, that debate was the one which cemented my respect for Ron Paul, even though I think his foreign policy is wrong. He is at least asking the right questions.
The notion of Pre-emptive Nuclear Attacks against Iran is madness -- absolute madness. Whatever the arguable merits of the Hiroshima bombing in terms of ending World War II, I don't believe that the subsequent Nagasaki bombing (which annihilated the very heart of Christianity in Japan) was morally justifiable.
America already has the dubious distinction of being the only Nation to have ever employed Nuclear Weapons in wartime. Even assuming that Hiroshima, at least, was justifiable -- do we also want the dubious distinction of being the first country ever to employ Nuclear Weapons in a First Strike?
Just War Morality has to come into play here, somewhere. (And if you want a Candidate who has studied the Christian Theory of Just War and believes in 2,000 years of Christian Theology on the subject -- Vote Ron Paul).
Both of which have isolationist-type priciples. Both are way too non-interventionist for me.
I FIRMLY believe that Offense in war is the best Defense. And international relations is really just war at a different level.
Care to specify which particular principles (the ones that Ron Paul actually supports) you object to?
I FIRMLY believe that Offense in war is the best Defense. And international relations is really just war at a different level.
No less an "isolationist and Libertarian shrill" </sarcasm> than Tom Clancy has described international relations as "F#&@!^g other nations" in his novels.
Occupation duty and 'nation building' doesn't even vaguely resemble "Offense". The lesson of Vietnam is that one can not fight a prolonged insurgency war on the insurgent's 'turf'. That's especially true now with the US Military as a shadow of the military of the Vietnam era, or the Reagan buildup in the 80's. We simply can't fight an insurgency war of attrition.
Those 'assets' are going to be needed elsewhere.
My post #227 doesn’t even mention Iraq. Please try to stay on subject.
You left out the Coast Guard...remember, some them were deployed to Vietnam during that time, as their particular expertise was needed.
To Point:
Last i saw, the military doesn't determine their own deployments...The civillian-controlled Executive branch, and ultimately the President makes that determination.
That's not "to point" at all. When you say "what's real convenient for them is that they can do that with the lives of Other People's kids," you insult their intelligence: they volunteer for the armed forces KNOWING what their service entails.
Your rhetoric is right out of Charley Rangel's mouth, except that these are not hapless draftees, and you are adopting the talking points of a rabid dog lying leftist hack.
Soooo... peace, to you, is really just "war at a different level"?
Is that right? Chaplain?
It would help if you address what was actually posted.
i’m sorry that for what ever reason, you’re confused.
Been there, done that, got the scars to prove it.
i don't see how you derive your conclusion (you insult their intelligence:) from the fact that they're volunteers.
The military is not the subject in my statement.
Your rhetoric is right out of Charley Rangel's mouth, except that these are not hapless draftees, and you are adopting the talking points of a rabid dog lying leftist hack.
Lots of time, MOST of the time, Charley is just doing partisan polital Rangeling </bad puns>
His support for RKBA issues will match up with any Conservative out there.
Again, how troops got to be troops was never the issue, much as you'd prefer to believe otherwise so as to knock down yet another obscure strawman.
Simple: the only way your argument makes sense is if they volunteered for the military somehow not realizing they would go to war. That's absurd.
Again, how troops got to be troops was never the issue...
That's precisely the issue. This talk about "sending other people's kids to war" is only remotely valid as a criticism when the force is conscripted. Otherwise, your point is gibberish.
No, the proposition you just made here is absurd. That is a total non sequitur. The decisions of the Administration and President that sends the troops is not at all relevant to troop status (draftee, enlisted).
That's precisely the issue. This talk about "sending other people's kids to war" is only remotely valid as a criticism when the force is conscripted. Otherwise, your point is gibberish.
Absolute nonsense.
The troops remain "other people's kids", whether they enlisted or not.
Comments such as yours devalues their lives and service.
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.