Posted on 12/16/2007 11:57:44 AM PST by traviskicks
Now do you mean like he was supposed to 'fade back into oblivion' by the end of the 2nd quarter after giving St. Rudy a history lesson? Or like he was supposed to 'fade back into oblivion' at the end of the 3rd quarter?
I don't see where any liberals are converting to conservative beliefs. All I see is some leftists willing to hold their nose and support Paul because of his foreign policy stances.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm not) but I remember quite a few 'liberals' (i.e. Democrats) switching sides for certain specific aspects of Reagan's platform. What? You don't think they bought into the whole thing do you?
But, that is the key part of Paul's Iraq policy. If the GOP doesn't adopt it, how can they ever count of Paul's supporters to vote for them?
They can't. And next November they will lose the Presidency and even more in Congress.
I think the bulk of Paul's support are the type of people who regularly read antiwar.com and voted for Buchanan in 2000 rather than Bush. The type of people who think "Zionists" and "NeoCons" control our government and think that the America First Committee was swell.
Not true. Again, a small portion but not the majority. Now there are some in my family that do believe we have overreached our foreign policy yet again and it's time to try another tact. But they believe none of what you state. And I think I wrote in Dr. Paul's name in 2000 like I did in 1996...
Because the nominee is going to have such a different view on Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, foreign policy, etc., do you really think it's wise to let him speak at the convention? It would only send mixed messages to the general electorate
If they hope to win, that can only be a good thing. Perhaps confuse some of the more easily led that the Republican party's agenda isn't as hawkish as it actually is.
Just proves the economy is great shape for people to waste money like this.
I'm wondering who you consider the "real" candidates.... The ones you like? Or the ones the media has been promoting as the "front-runners"?
How much of that was the illegal foreign money the Ronbots are bragging about having solicited from foreigners via the internet?
just read the tagline
He will add it to his re-election warchest to try and hang on to his Texas Congressional District.
That campaign only has $100K in the bank right now and by law he can transfer any money left over from the Presidential campaign to the Congressional campaign.
“But, the majority of Paul’s supporters are not interested in limited government or individualism. They only care for his anti-war, anti-Israel and anti-Bush stances.”
As a very active Ron Paul supporter I can honestly say that you are flat wrong on that statement. Bring up free market ideas and reducing government on any of his supporter’s websites or forums and the thread starts jumping with ideas. Ron Paul supporters are every bit as interested in reducing government intrusion as they are in changing foreign policy. Many people support him in spite of his foreign policy because he is the only person with the record on wanting to reduce government.
heheh... just Fred, eh? ;-)
Paul has inspired thousands of people with his message and you think he's going to fade into oblivion? You think the volunteers and grassroots that's supporting him now are just going to pack it in and return to their apathetic lives? These people are going to continue to be involved in politics and may even run for office themselves.
I don't see where any liberals are converting to conservative beliefs. All I see is some leftists willing to hold their nose and support Paul because of his foreign policy stances.
That's just ignorance on your part. Have it ever occurred to you that leftists are supporting Paul because maybe they're tired of being leftists and want some real change? You don't appreciate the fact that Paul is converting these people, just like Rush and FR has done for years. That's your opinion, but the facts say otherwise.
But, that is the key part of Paul's Iraq policy. If the GOP doesn't adopt it, how can they ever count of Paul's supporters to vote for them?
If they want to win back the WH, they'll try to talk to Paul and reach a compromise. Whether or not Paul stands his ground or the GOP stands theirs, I don't know. But I do know that there's going to have to be some sort of deal on the war. If the majority of Americans are against the war and want the troops to come home, then they're going to vote for those candidates who'll promise such, and there's really nothing you, I, or the members of FR can do about it, unfortunately.
Because the nominee is going to have such a different view on Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, foreign policy, etc., do you really think it's wise to let him speak at the convention? It would only send mixed messages to the general electorate.
If Paul's allowed to speak at the convention, I think he'll tailor a traditional Republican message of limited government and free markets for the most part. He'll probably talk about the war and say our troops need to come home but I don't think it'll send mixed messages, because everyone already knows Paul opposes the war.
But like I stated. The GOP has a huge dilemma on it's hands, and it's better for them to reach out to Paul now instead of ignoring and denigrating him. Paul's not the smoky backroom type who's going to meet with party insiders and compromise the positions he's held for 30 years, so the ball's in the GOP's court.
“because he is the only person with the record on wanting to reduce government.”
What Dr. Paul wants to do to shrink government would not only wreck our economy...would wreck that over other nations as well...his foreign policy would put in a more dangerous situation than Clinton put us in...not to mention leaving some of our most valuable strategic allies vulnerable to attack as well.
The shortsightedness of his policies and the willingness of his followers to ignore those shortcomings is nothing less than amazing.
Not since China is our most dangerous problem.
You really think that’s true, E^3? I’ve got serious doubts that the “new blood” that Paul’s brought into the process won’t just disappear when he does...because they aren’t really conservatives or libertarians, they’re single-issue anti-war voters who couldn’t give a rip about the rest of his stands.
I know there’s a lot of folks like you and billbears and the rest of the FR Paul contingent—conservatives and libertarians who support the totality (or most of it) of what he preaches. But I can’t bring myself to believe that he’s done what he’s done without getting a lot of the hardcore anti-war left on his train—people who would NEVER support him otherwise.
Maybe I’m wrong. I’m not a pundit, I’m just a normal guy who can’t support Paul because of his foreign policy stand, but likes a lot of his other positions.
}:-)4
My view on this is far more sinister: some leftists are supporting Paul in a long-range, cynical strategy on behalf of the hildebeeste to encourage a 3rd-party candidacy on the right. It is her ONLY chance of winning the general (should she get the nomination, which was once a given). Lots of her money should thus be spent on Paul in order to bring that about. Ron Paul supporters should not let this go to their heads. I believe this will come out into the open within the next month.
Cutting the size and scope of government will never wreck an economy. However allowing a government to grow endlessly with no reduction in site can surely wreck an economy. I’m surprised to be having to make this argument to a FReeper.
As to foreign policy, I think us having 700 military bases around the world and being in over 130 countries might just might have something to do with the hatred many people have against the US. If another country had a military base in our country, do you honestly think segments of our population wouldn’t be fighting them with guns and whatever other means they could think of?
And who allowed China to become such a major threat?
Campaign cash? Illegal dual use technology transfers? Looking away as COSCO took over both ends of the Panama Canal?
Paul would pull us back from where we are in the world basically keep China and it’s client states at bay.
It would essentially give China a green light.
“Cutting the size and scope of government will never wreck an economy. However allowing a government to grow endlessly with no reduction in site can surely wreck an economy. I’m surprised to be having to make this argument to a FReeper.”
Wanting to dismantle the Federal Reserve and return us to the gold standard would result in a major devaluation of the dollar and send the economy into a tailspin.
Actions that would pull the economies of several other nations...allies...down with us.
THAT is something I never thought I’d have to explain to a FReeper.
“As to foreign policy, I think us having 700 military bases around the world and being in over 130 countries might just might have something to do with the hatred many people have against the US.”
You might want to provide a link to that bit of mythology.
As a member of the military and someone who peridoically moves to different posts for a new assignment...I WISH there was 700 bases in 130 countries to choose from.
Get your facts straight.
“If another country had a military base in our country, do you honestly think segments of our population wouldn’t be fighting them with guns and whatever other means they could think of?”
But when you catually talk to the adult population of the handful of countries we are actually in...they DON”T want us to leave. For several reasons. Chiefly economically and militarily.
If we were in the situation that some of our allies were in and we needed them to provide for our defense...no I would be thankful for them...not resentful like some petchulant child.
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.