"Digging" Ron Paul for president - easiest way to help him?

[DadaOrwell]

As many of you may be aware, libertarian Republican Ron Paul, a gynecologist and congressman from Texas, is making a long shot run for president. Of course, the media and the Republican establishment are both scared spitless of his plans to strictly follow the U.S. Constitution and disband Federal bureaucracies. After all the attention he's been getting at the GOP debates, they are trying to ignore him or ban him from future debates.

For those who want to help make sure Dr. Paul's message gets out...

Here's the most effective and easy way I know:

- Visit http://digg.com

- Keyword search "Ron Paul"

- Then "digg" every story that has the word Ron Paul in the headline.

That's it!

This gets him additional attention; I've seen it work very well before. It's already working for Dr. Paul.

Usually there are around 25 Ron Paul stories on Digg every day. I Digg them about three times a day. What are your thoughts about this approach and about Ron Paul?

[M.C.]

While Ron's isolationist policy is certainly respectable, it is indeed well-documented that he is in many ways a traitor to the nation, despite the great anti-immigration and war pullout policies he has, most people on this here site do not care for the man. Personally I think he'd make a GREAT cabinet member, such as homeland security, or perhaps a good Vice President, I know for certain I wouldn't want him as a leader.

[Suzie]

I am glad they are putting him out he's not a Republican. Let him have a Libertarian debate somewhere, maybe Rosie can be his running mate. I agree with Michelle Malkin.
Ron Paul, the Republican Kucinich (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/05/15/ron-paul-the-republican-kucinich/)

OK, I will admit it: I am watching the Republican presidential debate on Fox News. Rudy Giuliani just won it when he responded to Congressman Ron Paul’s lengthy yammering about how “we” caused 9/11 by bombing Iraq.
Rudy said (and I paraphrase awaiting a transcript) that is the most absurd conspiracy theory I have heard about 9/11 and I have heard them all.
Michelle Malkin put it (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007544.htm):Giuliani: That’s an extraordinary attack. And I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations from the 9/11 attack. Biggest applause of the night.
I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us he didn’t mean it.
SOURCE (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/05/15/ron-paul-the-republican-kucinich/)

[DoctorDoom]

The GOP candidate will be irrelevant. With 12 million new voters after the RATs accelerate turning all the Mexicriminals into citizens/voters, the RAT party will have absolute control over the US. And the treasonous bastards will shred the Constitution.

Enjoy your liberty while you still have it. The RATs and their ass-kissing GOP toadies have sold us out.

[Lubbock]

As the old saying goes, DO, you've brought your ducks to a poor market.

[Dowple]

The GOP candidate will be irrelevant. With 12 million new voters after the RATs accelerate turning all the Mexicriminals into citizens/voters, the RAT party will have absolute control over the US. And the treasonous bastards will shred the Constitution.

Enjoy your liberty while you still have it. The RATs and their ass-kissing GOP toadies have sold us out.


Yep. Get ready for all those mexicans to start voting themselves the right to enjoy YOUR tax dollars.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Ron Paul is as loony as Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Rosie O'Donnell, Ward Churchill, Charlie Sheen, et al. He should be in a loony bin instead of running for president.

As I said on another thread, I hope that a REAL conservative runs against him and defeats him. The people of his district deserve to have a REAL conservative representing them instead of that lunatic RINO.

[Lazarus]

The GOP candidate will be irrelevant. With 12 million new voters after the RATs accelerate turning all the Mexicriminals into citizens/voters, the RAT party will have absolute control over the US. And the treasonous bastards will shred the Constitution.

Enjoy your liberty while you still have it. The RATs and their ass-kissing GOP toadies have sold us out.That's the truth of it all... That's the bottom line... It no longer matters if we put nothing but Conservative candidates in every GOP slot in the next election, THIS current crop of Pubs, along with their master in the Whitehouse, has given over the future of this nation to the Left... The Communist overthrow of America is complete as of today - All that's left is the fomalities...

[hellinon]

I strongly disagree. Republicans will have a good shot at this one because of the weakness of Democratic candidates. In fact, if Guiliani wins the primary(as much as i DESPISE HIM) i would bet money on his victory.

[MrSanity]

I had respect for Ron Paul until he went Sheehan at the debate.

Now, I am for certain that he would be a danger to our national security.

The good news is this: he doesn't have a chance to get the nomination, even in spite of what the GOP has become.

[MrSanity]

I strongly disagree. Republicans will have a good shot at this one because of the weakness of Democratic candidates. In fact, if Guiliani wins the primary(as much as i DESPISE HIM) i would bet money on his victory.Giuliani is a shoo-in, but unfortunately, he won't meet conservatives half-way.

[Lazarus]

I strongly disagree. Republicans will have a good shot at this one because of the weakness of Democratic candidates. In fact, if Guiliani wins the primary(as much as i DESPISE HIM) i would bet money on his victory.Hellion, this isnt a football game where we are pulling for our school to win... What difference does it make if a Democrat or a Republican wins the Whitehouse... There's not a gnat's ass of difference between them... You may as well be hoping for a Crip vs a Blood... They have become two identical gangs competing for turf control...

I dont expect to see another Conservative government in the country in my lifetime - It doesnt matter which of the Washington Gangs wins anymore... The Conservatives will be outnumbered from now own...

[hellinon]

Dont be so negative. Listen, Im not supporting Guiliani. You're right, he's not conservative. However, I prefer him over all the Democrats.
Would I prefer Brownback or Huckabee? Of course. The problem is THEY CANT WIN!
Thompson and perhaps Romney are the only conservatives that could win.

Which would you rather have? The "gang member" with strong foreign policy, criminal justice, and economy reforms with weak social values (Guiliani) or a gang member with weak everything (Clinton)
We need to compromise in this one.

Out of principle, I would never be able to put a check next to Guiliani in a primary. But logically, hes the best chance.

[Republican_Legion]

Rudy may look like a winner now but when it comes down to the campaigns the Democrats will expose him as a unfaithful man who cheated on his many wifes and will actually expose him as an anti-conservative so that some republicans on election day stay home.

I expect to see the pro-life democrats who voted for GWB in 04 to change to supporting Hillary if Giulianni is the GOP candidate.

[Naturalized-Texan]

When I look at the possible Democrat nominees, the only Republican candidates that I would completely rule out for my vote are Ron Paul (who is only running to make Republicans look bad so as to help his Democrat buddies win next year) and John McCain.

[Lazarus]

...We need to compromise in this one...Not this Conservative... I wont compremise any longer... If Giuliani is the answer, we're already lost...

[Rhino]

Compromise is what got us in the fix we're in now. We've compromised so much, that our party has become watered down to the point that it's almost indistinguishable from the dems. I'm not going to compromise like that again. I haven't abandoned the Republican Party. They've abandoned me.

[Rhino]

Ron Paul for president - easiest way to help him?Off a cliff?

[Republican_Legion]

Off a cliff?

1 one way ticket to an mental institution ?

[Lazarus]

Compromise is what got us in the fix we're in now. We've compromised so much, that our party has become watered down to the point that it's almost indistinguishable from the dems. I'm not going to compromise like that again. I haven't abandoned the Republican Party. They've abandoned me.You and me Bro...

Everytime we compromise, we move to the Left... No compromise has ever moved the situation to the right... We got a classic compromise today which has probably guaranteed a Leftist government for this country for generations to come, if not forever... Our Compromising Republicans just handed the Democrats 20+ million welfare babies - And those are just the numbers today... Their numbers, especially with this lovely compromise, are increasing even as we speak...

Guiliani represents a false sense of security - In effect a vote for a liberal Republican is a contribution to the slow cooking of America... Today its Giuliani and all the freedoms we will compromise away by putting him in charge... Tomorrow it will be someone to the Left of him...

Im not far from the point where I believe if we are faced with Giuliani vs Hilary, Im not sure it wouldnt be better to have America slapped awake by a hardcore Marxist, than to let it be lulled into Communist sleep by the Giulianis and McCains of the world...

Until today I had a sliver of faith that the Pubs in Congress on the whole would stand in the gap and hold off the Dems... I was wrong... As Rhino put it, the Republicans left us... We have been betrayed... We gave the Republicans both houses of Congress and the Whitehouse, and this is ultimately what they did with it all...

Im finished with Bush and the Pubs... Conservatives have NO representation in this government... We had all better get used to the fact that we are a distinct minority in this country... The Left are in control and will be for years to come...:flame:

[CountryGent]

I honestly believe that Fred Thompson will step up to the plate for America. And if he does not then we are truly screwed................:sad:

[Lazarus]

I guess we can hope that if Thompson wins the Whitehouse, the gutless, nutless, Republicans in Congress will follow along behind him like good little lapdogs like they have done for Bush and will mindlessly give Thompson what he demands... But will they repeal the damage they have already done, or is this just a temporary stay of the inevitable "compromise" with the Left that will make America the latest country to collapse to Communism...

When America falls, one wonders what the complexion of world politics will look like... The way trends are running, we might be better off learning French and moving to Europe... They at least appear to be slowly swinging back to the Right...

One day I can seriously see Americans immigrating to other countries in order to find employment and a better way of life...

[DesertFox]

http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/doggie.gif

Laz, you are one funny guy. :lol:

[DadaOrwell]

It's an orwellian nation we are becoming when a guy who follows the constitution can be labelled a traitor, but a president who actively fights the constitution is not...at least not by you guys.

Remember bush is the guy who signed campaign finance reform while admitting that it was not constitutional. He said he was ready to sign an extention to the assault weps ban if it got to his desk.

Evil guy, not conservative, not what he claims to be.

[DesertFox]

It's an orwellian nation we are becoming when a guy who says we deserved 9/11 can be labeled a follower of the Constitution, while a president who stood up and fought back can be labeled evil.

You need to rethink your reasons for labeling. I and most here have gone from strongly supporting Bush to not liking him at all, but that doesn't make him evil. Bush is a decent man whose idea of what we are and should be differs from mine and others'.

To say, because of that, that he "fights the constitution" is just wrong, and it's ridiculous to say he's evil.

[Nutrider99]

It's an orwellian nation we are becoming when a guy who follows the constitution can be labelled a traitor,
Paul is not a traitor. Treason requires the mental ability to comprehend the crime. Paul is at best an idiot and at worst a complete fool.

Remember bush is the guy who signed campaign finance reform while admitting that it was not constitutional.
McVain-Feingold was never reform. However, the House passed it, the Senate passed it, and a lot of under-educated Americans wanted it. Where were the conservatives who controlled the House and Senate? If the so-called right wing of the party allowed it, how is a center-right president going to veto it?

He said he was ready to sign an extention to the assault weps ban if it got to his desk.
Fortunately, it never got there.

Evil guy, not conservative, not what he claims to be.
Bush isn't evil. He's a devout Christian. Calling him evil only marginalizes your position. Bush never said he was a conservative. We all knew that going in. Why is it that you people can't get it through your heads that when a person calls themself a "compassionate conservative" that he is distancing himself from conservatism? Bush was conservative enough to protect America and centrist enough to get elected. Just a few more degrees right of center and we would have had Al Gore. How conservative would he have been?

[Nutrider99]

I and most here have gone from strongly supporting Bush to not liking him at all, but that doesn't make him evil. Bush is a decent man whose idea of what we are and should be differs from mine and others'.
I never disliked Bush because I knew what he was in the beginning. The problem is conservatives are crying for Reagan, but Reagan is dead. John Wayne is dead. We have a center right president and a Congress full of nutless appeasers. Who is the voice of conservatism in the House? There is none. Who is the voice of conservatism in the senate? There is none. Our top candidates, Giulliani, McVain and Romney couldn't make one conservative if you melted them all together. Bush has had ZERO support from conservatives. Zip. Nada.

Do you know who won the last election? CONSERVATIVES. The dems ran to the right of the Republicans and the people elected them. NOBODY wanted Pelosi and Reed! They couldn't win national office if they ran unopposed. That's why Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush. As left of Reagan as Bush is, he's still right of our so-called party leaders. The president is an administrator and a figurehead with a maximum term of eight years. He is NOT the legislative branch of government. WE OWNED the Legislative branch as well as the Executive branch, and the Legislative branch failed to legislate in our favor. There have been three elections since Bush took office. By rights there shouldn't be a liberal left in power anywhere. However, the libs are taking over. Why?

The answer lies with the nutless bastards that can't get a conservative piece of legislation to the president's desk.

[Naturalized-Texan]

It's an orwellian nation we are becoming when a guy who follows the constitution can be labelled a traitor, but a president who actively fights the constitution is not...at least not by you guys.
If Ron Paul really believed in the Constitution, he would have voted to support our troops who are fighting a war that he voted for. On September 14, 2001, Ron Paul voted for a declaration of war against terrorism. Now he has voted to surrender to the terrorists in the War on Terror, thus giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

If Ron Paul really believed in the Constitution, he would not have voted to remove from President Bush his Constitutional duties as Commander in Chief.

To claim that Ron Paul follows the Constitution is ludicrous, at best.

[DadaOrwell]

BTW the Mich. GOP has backed off on its threat to bar Dr. Paul from a debate. Apparently their phone lines got clogged with angry callers...I was one of them but their voice mail boxes were full by that time! :)

[Republican_Legion]

BTW the Mich. GOP has backed off on its threat to bar Dr. Paul from a debate. Apparently their phone lines got clogged with angry callers...I was one of them but their voice mail boxes were full by that time! :)

By Angry anarchists, not suprised.

[Naturalized-Texan]

By Angry anarchists, not suprised.
Yeah. They probably threatened to blow up the Michigan Republican Headquarters. :D

[Republican_Legion]

Yeah. They probably threatened to blow up the Michigan Republican Headquarters.

They could have said they would vote Democrat.

[Rhino]

They could have said they would vote Democrat.What's the difference?

[DadaOrwell]

>>It's an orwellian nation we are becoming when a guy who says we deserved 9/11>>

He never said that.

[Suzie]

Oh yes he did....

"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," he said.

[Timberwolf]

Suzie, put the shoe on the other foot.

Let's say WE are the world's supplier of oil and the muzzies have been over here meddling in OUR affairs for the past 30-40 years because the repuglicans and dimwits have a feud going that threatens the world's oil supply.

How would WE react to that? I can imagine we would respond quite harshly and very swiftly to disuade said foreigners from interfering in our affairs.

But, then again, I'm just citing the obvious...no one else seems able to deal with that particular reality. And, because I'm not afraid to do so, I'm now branded as siding with the "blame America first, America-hating liberals".

Since I'm in the company of Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Monroe, Madison etal, I'll rest easy knowing that I'm in good company with my stance on the issue.

Now ask yourself, "What gives us the right to impose our vision of right/wrong on other countries, possibly against their will?" Pretty arrogant train of thought, if ya ask me.

[Rhino]

Exactly how did we impose our vision against their will?

[Nutrider99]

Now ask yourself, "What gives us the right to impose our vision of right/wrong on other countries, possibly against their will?" Pretty arrogant train of thought, if ya ask me.
Humanity.

Their version of a utopia involves torture, rape, mutilation, slavery, subjugation, mass murder and terrorism. Democracy and freedom are good. Rape rooms, oppression and totalitarianism are bad. In the Islamic theocracies there are a handful of oppressors and millions of the oppressed. The oppressed who have been liberated are not crying out to be subjugated. The people who are decrying American aggression are the ones who have been displaced from power and who can only get it back through murder and intimidation.

Americans once risked everything for freedom and democracy and were aided by the French. Iraq now seeks the same thing and we are aiding them. We are doing so because it is in our national interest to remove the threat of terrorism. The way you do that is by showing people that they can have a better life, and by tracking down and killing the terrorist leaders.

If I were president, Al Sadr would be in Hell right now with the other terrorists. The fact is, we are living in a nuclear age. These animals CANNOT be allowed to get such weapons. They live only for death. They are a blight on humanity. They need to be tracked down and eliminated to the last man. Until that time, humanity will never be secure.

[Naturalized-Texan]

It appears some here have forgotten why it is essential to fight and win the War on Terror no matter where it leads us - Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, wherever. Here are a couple of reminders:

http://tex.connectingzone.com/AttackWTC.jpghttp://tex.connectingzone.com/Tower2Explodes.jpg

[Timberwolf]

Humanity.

Their version of a utopia involves torture, rape, mutilation, slavery, subjugation, mass murder and terrorism. Democracy and freedom are good. Rape rooms, oppression and totalitarianism are bad. In the Islamic theocracies there are a handful of oppressors and millions of the oppressed. The oppressed who have been liberated are not crying out to be subjugated. The people who are decrying American aggression are the ones who have been displaced from power and who can only get it back through murder and intimidation.

Americans once risked everything for freedom and democracy and were aided by the French. Iraq now seeks the same thing and we are aiding them. We are doing so because it is in our national interest to remove the threat of terrorism. The way you do that is by showing people that they can have a better life, and by tracking down and killing the terrorist leaders.

If I were president, Al Sadr would be in Hell right now with the other terrorists. The fact is, we are living in a nuclear age. These animals CANNOT be allowed to get such weapons. They live only for death. They are a blight on humanity. They need to be tracked down and eliminated to the last man. Until that time, humanity will never be secure.
All fine a good...but, WE will not 'secure' humanity...you and I both know that. Yes, we need to prevent these SoB's from getting nukes...absolutely. That, however, was never my point. My point is divorcing ourselves from ME oil as soon as possible so we don't have to police the "world's supply of crude" along with our own. Once we have a stable domestic supply, the rest of the world can take over the role we've been playing over there.

Rhino, I said "possibly" against their will. We ARE imposing our will upon that region.

Tex, your melodramatic appeal to the emotions is not necessary, but you already knew that. That you've been completely ignoring the most significant portions of what I say is beyond the pale. You are blinded by your narcissicism.

[Suzie]

There are a lot of if what's and maybes as to what each and every individual might want in any country. And anyone, here or there that doesn't measure up to the Arab standard is going to be a target just for not being what they want you to be. It doesn't matter what you do if that level of hate is at play, if we did nothing they still want us dead. But we learned, or at least we should have, what happens when good men do nothing while leaders of nations try to wipe out specific groups. No one has any way of knowing how that would have grown. Just as Chamberlain didn't when it came to Hitler. Should we gamble on it never making it to that point? He did, and the world is poorer for it.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Tex, your melodramatic appeal to the emotions is not necessary, but you already knew that. That you've been completely ignoring the most significant portions of what I say is beyond the pale. You are blinded by your narcissicism.
Oh, I've read and responded to everything you wrote, and you know it. You, and Ron Paul, are totally wrong in your opinions about the War on Terror and those opinions make no sense at all. Talk about beyond the pale: Ron Paul's and your opinions on the War on Terror are beyond the pale and must be rejected by every patriotic American.

As for being melodramatic, I love my family and I don't care a diddly squat that you don't like that fact. Ron Paul's vote to surrender to the terrorists is a vote to place the lives of every American in grave jeopardy - of course that includes, especially, placing the lives of my family in jeopardy. I realize that since you support Ron Paul's position, you don't care a whit about my family, but that's your problem, not mine.

[Timberwolf]

As I've repeatedly stated, you are blinded by your zeal to "be right". You are NOT reading what I post...you only think you are. You either need new glasses or a refresher in "English Comprehension 101".

I'm sure you are the only man in the country who loves his family...gimme a friggin' break...

[Naturalized-Texan]

As I've repeatedly stated, you are blinded by your zeal to "be right". You are NOT reading what I post...you only think you are. You either need new glasses or a refresher in "English Comprehension 101".
When everything you post on this subject is nonsense with no basis in fact, all I can do is to post the facts. Unfortunately, you don't like the facts, but that's your problem, not mine.

I'm sure you are the only man in the country who loves his family...gimme a friggin' break...
Everyone in America is threatened by terrorism - my family, your family, every family, every individual. Ron Paul is endangering the lives of every American by giving aid and comfort to the enemy by voting to surrender to the terrorists. That is a FACT that you seem to be unable to comprehend.

[Rhino]

Rhino, I said "possibly" against their will. We ARE imposing our will upon that region.I disagree. If that were true, we'd be trying to control and run the place ourselves rather than trying to let them do it themselves. And we gave them umpteen million chances to change things themselves first. That's hardly imposing our will.

[Timberwolf]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Timberwolf http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=555050#post555050)
As I've repeatedly stated, you are blinded by your zeal to "be right". You are NOT reading what I post...you only think you are. You either need new glasses or a refresher in "English Comprehension 101".

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
When everything you post on this subject is nonsense with no basis in fact, all I can do is to post the facts. Unfortunately, you don't like the facts, but that's your problem, not mine.
One more time...

What did the Founders say about unnecessarily entagling ourselves in the affairs of foreign countries? That it is a very bad idea.

What have *I* been saying about our involvement in the ME? That it's a very bad idea and one we should rectify AS SOON AS IT IS FEASIBLE TO DO SO.

WHY are we entagled in the affairs of the countries of the ME? Because we have caved in to the "demands" of the enviropsychos here at home and not developed our known reserves of crude, built ANY new refineries (for 25-30 years) and not implemented nuclear power to replace our aging coal, oil & NG fired power plants. This is WHY we find ourselves the "protectors of the crude". It is insane, a waste of resources and not necessary (IF we would do those things listed above).

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">I'm sure you are the only man in the country who loves his family...gimme a friggin' break... </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Everyone in America is threatened by terrorism - my family, your family, every family, every individual. Ron Paul is endangering the lives of every American by giving aid and comfort to the enemy by voting to surrender to the terrorists. That is a FACT that you seem to be unable to comprehend.
And as I've REAPEATEDLY stated, I DISAGREE with that particular stance of his...REMEMBER I stated at least TWICE in this thread (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=47704&page=2) that I disagreed with Paul's position of immediate withdrawl and this gem from this thread (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=47491)...post #27:
Ron Paul is an idealist...his positions are firmly rooted in following the Constitution to the letter (to his credit). If you don't think so, you have no clue about his politics, nor what the Constitution states. Sadly, he also is denying the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves (to his shame). A situtation caused by our leaders NOT following the warnings of our Founding Fathers.

WHY have we been in the Middle East for the past 20-30 years? Oil? Heck, we have enough here at home to keep up with domestic demand for 500-800 years (present known reserves). That can't be it.

To protect Israel? She seems more than capable of doing that herself (with or without our assistance...mind you, I am a supporter of Israel. Make NO mistake about that). So, that can't be it, either.

WHY are we there?

If we WOULD HAVE been minding our own business for the past 20-30 years, maybe this crap wouldn't be happening. Who knows? We've NOT tried 'minding our business' for some time....too worried about being the 'World's Police Force'...just gotta give credibility to the UN, don'tchaknow...kicking Saddam's butt outta Kuwait was one thing, but the resumption of those hostilities is putting our servicemen at risk and the only purpose for doing so was to enforce UN resolutions.

Does this mean I think we should immediately withdraw from Iraq? No, that would be lunacy and suicidal. But, when we CAN withdraw, we should. Immediately following that withdrawl, we should begin "minding the store" here at home. Immediate redeployment of our troops in Germany to the Mexican border would be a plus (IMHO). Redeployment of our troops in S. Korea to Iraq (allowing our reservists to come home) would be another.
Gosh, Tex...maybe you ought to be paying attention.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Timberwolf]

I disagree. If that were true, we'd be trying to control and run the place ourselves rather than trying to let them do it themselves.
Not necessarily...but, I see where you're comin' from.

And we gave them umpteen million chances to change things themselves first. That's hardly imposing our will.
Now then, playing devil's advocate, the entire world wants us to give up our sovereignty to the UN and "play nice" in the socialist sandbox...should we? I think that would be an extremely bad idea.

Seems to me, we were kinda pissed that France was overtly trying to gather support to oppose our intervention/resumption of hostilities in Iraq...basically to enforce the resolutions FRANCE helped institute. We've been given "umpteen chances to change things", yet we haven't done so (or have we?? The southern border situation makes me wonder...). Should we have our national policies dictated to us by the UN (or France or Mexico or Iran) because it is internationally expedient that we do so?

I don't think so...but, I'm getting dangerously close to thread hijack. This maybe something to discuss in another thread. :grin:

[Korey K]

While Ron's isolationist policy is certainly respectable, it is indeed well-documented that he is in many ways a traitor to the nation, despite the great anti-immigration and war pullout policies he has, most people on this here site do not care for the man. Personally I think he'd make a GREAT cabinet member, such as homeland security, or perhaps a good Vice President, I know for certain I wouldn't want him as a leader.

He's not an isolationist, he is a non-interventionist. He follows Jefferson's philosophy of "Peace, commerce, and friendship, entangling alliances with none."

How is he a traitor? He's the one who wants to stop giving aid money to all these other countries.

[Lubbock]

Okay, Wolfie. Now you've got you an advocate and sidekick.

Her name is Cincy Sheehan, posting under the screen name of Korey K.

[Korey K]

If Ron Paul really believed in the Constitution, he would have voted to support our troops who are fighting a war that he voted for. On September 14, 2001, Ron Paul voted for a declaration of war against terrorism. Now he has voted to surrender to the terrorists in the War on Terror, thus giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

If Ron Paul really believed in the Constitution, he would not have voted to remove from President Bush his Constitutional duties as Commander in Chief.

To claim that Ron Paul follows the Constitution is ludicrous, at best.

Only Congress has the authority to declare war. Furthermore, we're hardly going after Al Quada by attacking an enemy of theirs, Iraq.

[Korey K]

I disagree. If that were true, we'd be trying to control and run the place ourselves rather than trying to let them do it themselves. And we gave them umpteen million chances to change things themselves first. That's hardly imposing our will.

They hate us. There is no disputing that fact. However, they DO NOT LIKE us being over there. Osama bin Laden cited America's support of Israel (such as arms and financial aid) and the troops stationed in Saudia Arabia as the two biggest reasons to attack America. If the US pulled out, where would OBL's support go? Down the hellhole he's hiding in.

[Korey K]

Okay, Wolfie. Now you've got you an advocate and sidekick.

Her name is Cincy Sheehan, posting under the screen name of Korey K.

It'd be pretty cool if you could, you know, post something coherent and thoughtful instead of attacking me.

Your post lacked substance, don't you think?

[Rhino]

However, they DO NOT LIKE us being over there.Actually, most of them do. While they don't want us to stay indefinitely, they're quite glad we came.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Only Congress has the authority to declare war. Furthermore, we're hardly going after Al Quada by attacking an enemy of theirs, Iraq.
Congress DID vote for a declaration of war against terrorism on September 14, 2001. The vote for that declaration of war was unanimous in the Senate and there was only one dissenting vote in the House - a liberal loony from San Francisco.

The invasion of Iraq was every bit as essential to winning the War on Terror as the D-Day Normandy invasion was essential to winning World War II.

[Lubbock]

Your post lacked substance, don't you think?

The substance of my post was derision and ridicule.

That's all I can summon for you and your ilk.

[Suzie]

When exactly were you in Iraq Korey?

[Nutrider99]

Only Congress has the authority to declare war. Furthermore, we're hardly going after Al Quada by attacking an enemy of theirs, Iraq.
You are obviously the result of a failed public school education.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Use of Force Resolution. Speaking from ignorance makes you look stupid.

Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization in the world, nor is the war on terror limited to them. They had religious differences with the Hussein regime because Hussein was NOT going to yield control of his country to the false prophets of the religion of the damned. However, that did not stop him from training at least six of the 19 hijackers at the terrorist school at Salman Pak, nor did it stop him from hosting Mohammed Atta in his country for a week long visit with Abu Nidal.

War is not defined by the Constitution. Congress authorizes the use of force whether they call it a war or a bake sale.

We were already AT WAR with Iraq and had been for 12 years. We are NOT currently at war with Iraq. Iraq is a solid ally. We at are war with TERRORISTS who want to seize control of Iraq. Nobody with any intellect, given the proper information, would suggest allowing an ally to be taken over by terrorists. Therefore, by definition, anyone who would suggest that we pull out of Iraq and allow the enemy to take control of it is an idiot.

By the way, if we aren't going after al Qaeda, the how come Osama bin Laden has to hide in a cave like the cowardly bastard he is, saving his own grungy life while convinces Hell-bound fools to kill themselves?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Nutrider: :claps::claps::claps::claps::claps::claps:

[Timberwolf]

Okay, Wolfie. Now you've got you an advocate and sidekick.

Her name is Cincy Sheehan, posting under the screen name of Korey K.
And you problem with someone who wants to follow the Constitution is?????

You better get a clue, and friggin' quick, about HOW our country is supposed to conduct its foreign affairs...while yer at it, go back and re-read what my position actually is.

[Timberwolf]

Hmmmm...last time I checked, "use of force" wasn't an option..."declaration of war" was.

Call me a stickler for detail, but, there's a whole world of difference betwixt the two. One is Constitutional, the other is an abdication of authority to another branch of our government.

[Naturalized-Texan]

And you problem with someone who wants to follow the Constitution is?????
You're joking, of course. :hahaha:

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. There is no way that the Founding Fathers would have voted to surrender in a war in which Congress voted for a declaration of war. Your buddy, Ron Paul, failed to support our troops in a time of war and, even worse, voted for America to commit suicide.

[Timberwolf]

Again, the suggestion to enroll in Engrish Complehension 101.

Duh...wasn't referring to Paul...

[Naturalized-Texan]

Again, the suggestion to enroll in Engrish Complehension 101.

Duh...wasn't referring to Paul...
Everything in this thread is about Ron Paul. Please look at the Title of the thread.

[Timberwolf]

There ya go reading what you want to read...go back and read the few posts before mine. :rolleyes:

Tunnel vision ain't pretty, ya know. Take off your blinders.

[Naturalized-Texan]

There ya go reading what you want to read...go back and read the few posts before mine. :rolleyes:

Tunnel vision ain't pretty, ya know. Take off your blinders.
I went back those few posts and found that you were referring to a hate-America leftist who was praising Ron Paul. So, my comment was fully justified. Fortunately, after being pummeled by the patriots here, that hate-America leftist bailed out.

BTW, the hate-America leftists in the media and the DemonRAT Party love Ron Paul because he is supporting their cause. I'm sure that they are helping to finance his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination.

[EveningStar]

It's amazing that a thread about a guy who has absolutely no chance of winning, and is a complete asshole to boot, is getting so much attention. Oh, well. This might help his supporters realize what a total loser he is.

[Taylor]

I don't see much difference between Ron Paul and any of the Democrats. He's running for President in the wrong party. I think he should be running as a Democrat.

[noncom]

Which would you rather have? The "gang member" with strong foreign policy, criminal justice, and economy reforms with weak social values (Guiliani) or a gang member with weak everything (Clinton) We need to compromise in this one.
Do you believe that Hillary Clinton intends to compromise on ANYTHING, ever?

Trying to steal the moonbat anti-war vote from Hillary Clinton is insanity. And trying to move to the left on social issues to steal votes from Hillary Clinton is equally insane.

A moderate has no chance against a fanatic, but nominating our own lunatic won't help anything. What we need is a comitted, common-sense conservative. It's worked before, and it will work again.

[noncom]

I don't see much difference between Ron Paul and any of the Democrats. He's running for President in the wrong party. I think he should be running as a Democrat.
Ron Paul's advocates want the Republican Party to forget about this silly war nonsense and legalize drugs.

Wouldn't it be just as easy to switch to the Democrat side and try to talk them into giving up all that frivolous government spending?

Yet they won't do that. I wonder why?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Ron Paul's refusal to support our troops in a time of war is reprehensible, at best, and treasonous, at worst. No patriotic American should even consider voting for him.

[Timberwolf]

*sigh* :rolleyes:

[omegatrump]

LOL, It's hard to believe that supposed conservatives will attack a man for adhering to the Constitution and then turn around and support the man who is actively trying to dissolve our Nation.

Since Congress has passed the so called Declaration of War on Terror, what has been done besides the establishment of a pseudo democracy in Iraq in this so called War? Have we attacked and neutralized the Wahhhhaby sect in Saudi Arabia that actually sponsored the 911 event? Have we Neutralized the madman in Iran? Syria, because they absorbed Iraq's WMD's? etc. etc.

I think "sigh" is right.

[Taylor]

Ron Paul can't win. He may as well drop out.

[Rhino]

LOL, It's hard to believe that supposed conservatives will attack a man for adhering to the Constitution and then turn around and support the man who is actively trying to dissolve our Nation.It's hard to believe that someone who thinks we should cut and run in the war on terror, actually thinks that's a conservative viewpoint.

[Timberwolf]

That's the one (and I don't believe he has many others) downfall...he wants us out NOW. I've said it before and I'll say it again. He didn't want us to go there in the first place. But, as he stated in the speech before voting FOR the effort, he said, "doing nothing is unthinkable." He had definite reservations BECAUSE of his strict adherence to Constitutional principles.

He either is ignoring, or doesn't realize, the devastating effect(s) leaving Iraq before the job is completed will have on, not only that region, but the entire world. Thus, the reason why I couldn't support him. Had he stuck to his guns and voted against going to war with Iraq, I'd be one of his biggest supporters, because he's one of the last true Constitutionalists in Congress.

You guys can chew on my bones all ya want and I'll not change that particular opinion...his only mistake was voting against his principles in the beginning. Now, he wants a "do-over", a mulligan, if you will...sorry Ron, don't work that way.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Principles? He has no principles. He can't even be considered a Constitutionist because he ignores Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. In addition, he is subject to Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

[TeenageRepublican]

Libertarians are fun to hang out with, even though Conservatives are better. Ron Paul is not a Libertarian, he's a Liberaltarian.

[Timberwolf]

I forgot...Tex has never made a mistake in his entire life.

My apologies for citing my opinion. :rolleyes: