A Gray watching Bush walk out of the Capitol Building.
ALERT!
lmao.
Posted on 09/06/2007 9:55:24 PM PDT by freedomdefender
Avery Knapp is typical of the Paul Web supporter. A 28-year-old radiology resident, Knapp describes himself as a lifelong conservative who voted for President Bush in 2000 before growing disillusioned with the Iraq war and federal spending.
Bush "did nothing but increase the size of government. The Republican Party needs to move back to its core principles," Knapp said. Many Paul supporters share Knapp's disdain for what he called a "neo-conservative clique" and hope Paul can spark a Goldwater-style insurgency.
At 46, Kevin Leslie has never bothered with politics. After watching an interview with Paul during his 1988 campaign as candidate for the Libertarian Party, Leslie told himself, "If this guy ever runs for president again, I'll back him."
Paul did, and Leslie was good to his word, starting a prominent Paul blog in February and traveling to the recent straw poll in Ames, Iowa.
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.google.com ...
I am writing simple words and you are reading them like a gypsy reads tea leaves.
You Ron Paul haters are real moonbats.
I did not declare that I was better then any other American.
Maybe a little more knowlegable about war then some of the keyboard commandos here who find it funny to tear down a military veteran like Ron Paul.
A Gray watching Bush walk out of the Capitol Building.
ALERT!
lmao.
Suck it up bud, Ron Paul is in the spotlight.
Kerry tried using the Military to be elected also.
Thank you for your service Sir.
/God Bless & Good night
Looks more to me like the ghost of Robert Strange McNamara.
Ross Perot 1992, who’s candidacy was a fabrication by the Liberal Media in support of Clinton.
MEET
Ron Paul 2008, who’s candidacy is a fabrication by the Liberal Media in support of Clinton.
“For my money, no one who did NOT serve should either have the vote or be able to run for public office.”
‘I agree...Be nice if the CIC was required to have his combat ribbon.
It might slow down the rush to War.’
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
It’s an interesting idea, and might have benefits beyond greater prudence in going to war. Since the viability of the nation state is up for grabs, e.g.,
http://www.d-n-i.net/creveld/the_fate_of_the_state.htm
a theme further developed in:
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Decline-State-Martin-Creveld/dp/052165629X
it is a lively, i.e., more than merely academic, question how to determine eligibility for the franchise in whatever future polities develop out of the rubble of the ones we have grown up in, a question I was introduced to as a teenager by:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers
Whats left of him, and that white phone. /Salute
Great.
Only women should be allowed to vote on issues relating to women.
And men only allowed for men’s issues.
And transgendered lesbians should only be allowed to vote for transgendered lesbian issues.
We’ll get right down to DNA differentiation, and ensure we only vote for issues relating to ourselves.
Those links are worth a bookmark...and a thread of their own. Thanks.
Great.
Only women should be allowed to vote on issues relating to women.
And men only allowed for men’s issues.
And transgendered lesbians should only be allowed to vote for transgendered lesbian issues.
We’ll get right down to DNA differentiation, and ensure we only vote for issues relating to ourselves.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Those groups would make strange polities indeed, though how you got from the earlier comment on the interesting question of defining polity membership and access to the franchise to these bizarre thoughts is a bit murky.
Since we live in the territories of a nation-state that is in turmoil over the distinction between ‘resident’ and ‘citizen’, and which is bedeviled by an increasingly dysfunctional electoral system, a bit greater clarity in thinking might be helpful. What criterion do you think is optimal for determining who has access to the franchise, and why?
I’m assuming you’ve seen this?
“I’m not sure what it has morphed into in the 9 nine years I’ve posted here...Some kind of neocon arm of AEI?”
No, there is a war on though, we really shouold try to win the darnable thing.
Other than that, I like Ron Paul’s positions.
Passed out?
All tucked in wearing their footed PJs?
Grounded for not doing their homework last night because of the debate?
Or maybe at a Star Trek convention?
Or an anti-war rally?
Yes, it sucks here and it can be horrific. But I want to point out that I never, ever hear any of our armed forces whining about it and most of them support this effort with enthusiasm.
The situation is improving markedly, by the way, much to the media and the Democrats' dismay. We expect things to be a bit bumpy during Ramadan, but overall, things are starting to fall into place.
To pull out now would be a disastrous mistake.
Don't ask me about the Democrats. I once took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies.
As for Ron Paul, good that he is making the party hacks irritated. 2cents.
Mitt. Great guy, smart. Could be a good post ideological chair warmer until events or ideas capture the American imagination. He certainly doesn't have any. And, it could be, a la Senator Craig, that Mormons lose their sheen and come down with all us corrupt sinners.
Rudy. He's smart and would be entertaining if nothing else. Executive wise the most experienced by far. Mitt did noting with Democrat Massachusetts. Rudy, and others, turned Baghdad on the Hudson around.
McCain. Too Nixionian. Liked by the media, there, that did him in for me, the kiss of death from the press.
Ron Paul. A.K.A, he's right about a lot, but in the same way that shopping cart people are often right. And anyways, your average American don't like them thar ideas and wot not like that. It be mak'n my head hert!
I'd vote for anybody but the Beast From The East, Hitlery.
FYI, that “Mission Accomplished” banner was set up by the captain for the soldiers coming home on the carrier.
Not that the media cares for the truth.
Note that we're not holding our breath...
Here is my problem with Ron Paul, and here is why his performance at the debate last night made him darn near unelectable to me.
He said that we began an ‘aggressive’ war, hinting that we fired the first shots and attacked without provocation.
Uh...what?
Did Ron Paul completely ignore the fact that Saddam violated the terms of the ceasefire as agreed to in 1991 (not to mention his humanitarian violations)?
Or that Saddam violated the UN Resolutions which, last I checked, were valid under international law? That’s another thing; Ron Paul said our war was illegal under international law. That struck me as odd, because I’ve heard his supporters say he doesn’t care about international law? Which is it?
And his answer on a possible bloodbath should we live early was stupid.
“The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They’ve been wrong on everything they’ve said.”
He just has to look at history (Vietnam). Then again, he didn’t think a bloodbath happened after we left Vietnam either.
He says we didn’t declare war.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:3:./temp/~mdbsuj6oqw::
Read the whole thing. It reads like a declaration of war, doesn’t it? Just because it’s worded differently? How is it not a declaration of war by any feasible stretch of the imagination?
Of course, there was the standard ‘neoconservatives hijacked our foreign policy’ bit...
Also, more bits of ignorance.
“For one thing, one thing I would remember very clearly is the president doesn’t have the authority to go to war. He goes to the Congress.”
Bush did. He got the authority to use military force (aka, to go to war) against Iraq FROM CONGRESS.
And quite frankly, here’s what got me ticked.
“We should be talking to Iran right now. We shouldn’t be looking for the opportunity to attack them. They are at the present time, according to the AEIA (sic/IAEA), cooperating, and by the end of the year they’re supposed to be willing to reveal all that they are doing. So instead of looking for this scenario where it is inevitable that we have to attack, I think we ought to be talking about how do you get along with some people that are deadly like the Soviets and the Chinese and the many others. We don’t have to resort to war every single time there’s a confrontation.”
...WHAT?
Has he ignored ALL of the evidence and proof regarding Iran’s involvment in destablizing Iraq?
We got along with the Soviets and the Chinese? WHAT? No we didn’t. Reagan certainly wasn’t friendly to the Soviets. The Chinese, right now, certainly aren’t being very friendly to us.
I like Ron Paul’s domestic ideas...but when it comes to American military history and his foreign policy ideas, he is - at best - utterly ignorant beyond all belief.
Proposing that only those individuals with military service warrant the vote, or the credentials to be CinC, is ludicrous.
Follow along (sllloooooowwwwwwwlllly) and it all come into focus for you.
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.