Paul Supporters Go Back To Isolationism - Anti-War - Prove My Point
Posted by Andy on May 2nd, 2008
This post (Where Did The Revolution Go?) is starting to draw out what I think is the real motivation behind Ron Paul’s movement.
I’ve believed from day 1 that Ron Paul was propped up by the media simply because he is an anti-war Republican. Sure there are some people who support him for his libertarian domestic agenda, but I have long held that he’s the most anti-war candidate running this cycle, of ANY party.
If you browse through the comments of that post, you’ll see what I believe is the real motivation behind the Ron Paul campaign. They want to take the country back to the days of putting our head in the sand and fingers crossed homeland security. I’m not talking about Clinton years kind of ignoring the world. I’m talking about what lead up to Hitler’s rise to power and World War 2 where millions died.
It would be a wonderful thing if we didn’t have to project our force and be the police force of the world, but the problem is someone has to and no one else will. We no longer live in a world where our oceans protect us from those meaning us harm. We no longer live in a world where we can be economically independent. We live in a global economy and thus it is in our best interest to try to create stability through freedom.
It sucks, I wish we could just let the world go to hell in a bunch of thugs, dictators, terrorists, and despot’s handbags, but we can’t.
There currently is a party that is closely aligned to the America is bad, America is the bully, America is the problem - anti-war part of the Ron Paul campaign. I believe you can find the same rhetoric and talking points, heck even bills introduced verbatim, that the Ron Paul supporters are using. It is the Democratic Party.
Last night while finishing the fence up I had Jason Lewis on and he ripped into the Ron Paul campaign for aligning themselves with MoveOn.org. Yes the same MoveOn.org who didn’t want us to respond to 9-11 in Afghanistan. If anti-war, isolationist policies are what the Ron Paul campaign is going to turn the Republican party into, there’s going to be a big problem.
So when I get the threats that I better be nice to the Ron Paul campaign or else….. I say bring it on.
Sphere: Related Content
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:35 am
No threat AAA, but there are INDIVIDUALS who support Congressman Paul who do disagree with him on certain issues - most especially his foreign policy stances. Those people we do need to seek out and engage. They are small government advocates and principles first on every issue.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater is all I am saying.
LL
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:47 am
I have been threatened. Not physically, but as in the will take over the party and throw me out the way Carey and his henchmen have tried to run me out.
I am all for limited government conservatives. I hope every Republican is. (Of course we know BMetlzer isn’t, but he’s the minority.)
But the longer this Paul thing goes, the more this looks like an invasion from a foreign party than a growing of our own base. I’m unwilling to grant amnesty to Libertarian and Conservative Party members who cannot assimilate. The foreign policy is a disqualifier. The goal to put the GOP back into the stone aged mentality that we can isolate ourselves seems to be the driving force of the campaign.
My main point, again, is that this still is all about Dr. Ron Paul and HIS ideas, not conservatism or the Republican party. I think they are two competing forces.
Think of it this way. If Ron paul completes the operation and takes over control, we will have a complete opposite from Ronald Reagan in control of the message. Think about it. Reagan had a strong foreign policy of peace through strength. Paul wants peace through abandoning military spending. Exact opposite.
I worry so much because the Paul campaign, who is orchestrating this and not quitting when they are clearly beat, is not something I can agree with on the issue of security. Limited Government is good, but anarchy is not.
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:03 am
So let me get this straight - The Ron Paul folks are not allowed because their policy aligns with the democratic party?
So what about McCain-Kennedy Amnesty Bill? Tim “Sierra Club” Pawlenty? Norm “ANWR” Coleman?
So we can accept those who differ on immigration (as big a threat as terrorism”), we can accept those who differ on protecting our economy (Oil exploration etc..), life issue don’t matter, tax issues don’t matter, transportation issues don’t matter but this does?
While I disagree with Ron’s conclusion, I think the discussion of how much military entanglement with the UN is definitely a discussion that should take place in the Republican party (and did during Clinton’s years).
If you ask Jason who you quoted above, he would have concerns about if going to Iraq was a good idea but I still see him on fund raising letter for the GOP.
Just as I doubt most of the DFL folks who support Obama are embarrassed by the US, some just think Hilary is worse and that the choice they have.
I would bet quite a few Ron Paul supporters are concerned about Pork and Immigration and they feel Ron Paul is the only guy left to carry that message.
To say that the comments of a few people on a little blog speaks for an entire group of people is at least arrogance boarding on ignorance, just as most assume that you do not speak for CD6, I doubt that those few speak for anyone other than themselves.
And as for a campaign that is beat - Still waiting for the explanation on how a small minority of Ron Paul supporters was able to beat a well know, well publicized campaign of CD6 leadership.
Why were other CD able to easily stop this?
And what effect will all this, I hate Ron Supporters have on the real campaign that matter in CD6.
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:19 am
These people are repeating what Paul himself has said many times. The war is a very big issue for me, and this is far bigger than just Iraq. This is about bringing ALL the troops home. As far as that issue, I don’t feel the party can or should bend.
As for me not wanting John McCain’s liberal policies, I don’t, but that is the only option we have. I wish it wasn’t what we ended up with, but it is. A half delusional Libertarian stuck dreaming of the days before cyber terror and technology capable of striking from the other side of the world is just plain wrong. We cannot turn back the clock. As for the other candidates, I have previously challenged them as to why they haven’t gone after Coleman, Ramstad/Paulsen, and other squishy Republicans if the want to bring back this grand revolution of libertarian conservatism. But I haven’t seen or heard squat. This seems to be all about ROn Paul and his anti-war isolationist message.
CD6: My opinion: We had bad rules and way too many people running just to run. I’d hardly call my campaign “well publicized” if you can also say “on this little blog”.
It isn’t that I hate the Ron Paul supporters, I just don’t trust them. Some of them are very loyal Republicans who are fed up like me and other conservatives. But Ron Paul and his campaign is about much more than just putting the limited government back into the party.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Andy,
The problem you have is that your foreign policy position is historically unsustainable. No country (Empire, Nation) in the history of the world has been able to maintain its reach as you would have us do. What inevitably happens is financial collapse. So our projection of force will end at some point, we will withdraw when we can no longer print our way out it or find enough young men to go off to die to support it.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Andy said
I am all for limited government conservatives. I hope every Republican is.
This is just simply not the case. You do not want to limit government in anyway when it comes to foreign policy.
In the little town I live in we do not allow the Mayor to decide by himself how the budget is spent. Yet conservatives want to give the President the sole authority in going to war with the largest military the world has ever seen. These type of positions were brought to the Republican party by the Troskyites (Irivng Krystal for example). Policing the world is relatively new to the Republican party.
From strictly a politcal stand point the party is going to have to give up being the worlds policeman or face political death. Read http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/01/bush.poll/index.html
If you look at the electoral map it is highly unlikely that McCain can win. This will not be Ron Paul’s fault. It will be because of neocon policies that Andy is pushing.
Andy,
I assume you are young enough to be of service in the military. Have you thought about joining the cause in the desert? If not are you what Ventura calls a “chickenhawk”?
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
“Andy,
I assume you are young enough to be of service in the military. Have you thought about joining the cause in the desert? If not are you what Ventura calls a “chickenhawk”?”
And thus Liberty First outs himself as a Code Pink Democrat. Thanks for playing…..
Isolationism is simply not a responsible foreign policy. Sorry guys. It’s not been that way for over 100 years! It’s time to grow up and join the 21st Century.
LL
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Imperialism is unsustainable, do the math.
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I first want to apologize to Andy for the uncalled for comment about chickenhawk. I will try not to let my emotions overtake the debate.
That said,
LL
Do you think that nations trying to control the planet is something new. Should we start naming the empires that extended themselves and paid the price for it. Please explain to me how we can continue to print money, run up debt and grow government. Do you think this is sustainable? This question has been asked a number of times on this blog, no one has yet to answer it.
Paul talks about Vietnam, what we couldn’t do militarily has happened through market forces. They have been westernized, not by the rifle, but by the market place. The same thing is happening in China. Americans were taught to fear the Viet Cong just like you are taught to fear Arabs. Yet the threat was over blown. Do you think that Iran wants war with us? Do you think they want to have happen to them what has happened to Iraq?
We need to come home, protect our borders, pull out of foreign alliances and trade with everyone. I as a free American should be able to buy goods from any country I please. Please tell me why I can’t buy a Cuban cigar? Does that make any sense? It is time to stop trying to fix the world, it is beyond our capability. Freedom will not be forced on people by the gun. They need to grab it themselves.
Here is a link to a chart on Federal Government growth. Note GW compared to Clinton. Makes you wonder who was more conservative. Look at non defense spending growth.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Liberty - no I do not think that a nation trying to take over the planet is new - nor is it new for an ideology to try to take over the planet and that is what radical Islam IS trying to do. Radical Islam as practiced by the Mullah’s in Iran. I don’t “fear Arabs”. What I FIGHT tooth and nail is a radical ideology that wants to enslave ME by putting my in a head to toe black sack…an ideology that mandates that I can not leave my house or speak to a man that is not related to me, IN PERSON OR VIA EMAIL, without my father or husband being in the room to make sure that I am staying “chaste”. I am FIGHTING an ideology that wants my daughters and my sisters to be chattel - property of their fathers, brothers and husbands. I am fighting an ideology that says that homosexuals should be murdered, that those who do not follow “my” religion should be forced to convert or be killed. I FIGHT A TOTALITARIAN REGIME that says that people who are different need to be annihilated.
If you think I exaggerate….READ THE KORAN. I have.
LL
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 am
LL
So your solution is to control all countries that happen to be dominated by Islam? How do you propose to do that, and for how long? How are the radical Islamist going to make you chattel if we mind our own business and bring our troops home?
Again I ask you, how do you propose to sustain this military presence all over the world?
Our military presence in the mid east is their number one tool for recruiting. How does that make us safer?
Again I ask you, how do you propose to sustain this military presence all over the world?
Again I ask you, how do you propose to sustain this military presence all over the world?
Again I ask you, how do you propose to sustain this military presence all over the world?
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:34 am
Here is a link to the real cost of this war. I recently read an article that a Harris poll done in 1971 showed that 75% of Vets coming home were against the war. By the looks of this soldier you can see why. It sure is easy for us to sit back here and cheer on war.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/02/obit.miracle.marine/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:12 am
Liberty - you heard wrong. Check out the Vets for Freedom organization. There are vets who returned from the war - don’t get me wrong. But it is HARDLY 75%.
I’m curious if you saw your guy on CNN yesterday in his interview with Wolf Blitzer. If so do you have any comment on the fact that your “Republican” candidate for President is considering voting for the BIGGEST LEFTIST left in the race?
LL
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:33 am
At the 7th district convention a 65 year old long time Republican activist ran for National Delegate. I am paraphrasing what he said.
“I am sick of war.
“First I was told to believe in the War On Poverty. That is a failure.”
“Then I was told to believe in the War On Drugs. That is a failure.”
“Now I am told to believe in the War On Terror. This is a failure.”
“These wars are bankrupting the country I love and I am tired of that and for this reason I will be supporting Ron Paul”.
This fine gentleman that said this was working for the Republican Party before Andy was in school.
Good Republican can be against this insanity and for Ron Paul.
LL
Paul’s stance for limited government, constitutional wars only, sound money is left wing? What is right wing?
CNN interview you were referred to. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/020816.html
Here is the article that cited the Harris poll that 75% of returning Vets were against the war.
http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=215
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:58 am
So because you are “sick” of the war, it is ok to throw your limited government principles aside and vote for Big Government Obama?
You have fully cemented AAA’s point. Thanks for playing!
LL
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
LL
Ron Paul never said he would vote for Obama, he wouldn’t and you know it. Look at the graph I linked to in number 9 post. Your conservative President is as big as spenders as the liberals. In fact Bill Clinton budget grew less in his first term (1st 2 years had dem house and senate) than his 2nd term when both houses were Republican controlled. Then compare Clinton to Bush and you find that Clinton’s domestic budget grew much less than GWs. My question to you is what is left wing? What will be the difference between McCain and the dems?
The only principle I see you have is an irrational hatred of Paul, as well as an irrational fear of being dominated by male Islamofacists?
You still have not answered the question as how you think the US can continue to fund this empire? Please answer the question.
Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge
Maybe you should stop fearing the Islamic people so much and trust in the Lord to be your shield. I think it would have a huge effect on your thinking.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Take a look at this article and try to be objective. Is this going to make us safer? Is this helpful to the average Iraqi?
It is time to end this insanity. Remember this was a preemptive war. Iraq did not attack us.
How can this make sense to anyone?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/03/iraq.main/index.html
May 4th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
House seat held by Republicans for decades lost in LA. Another result of Neoconservative policies. Pretty hard to blame Paulers for this. We better change the direction of the party before there is nothing left to change. See link below for the bad news.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/04/congress.democrats/index.html
May 5th, 2008 at 9:18 am
I find it interesting where the activist (Larger donors) in the military send their money.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/05/army_militarydonors_050408w/
May 5th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Oh please. Read the whole story. It includes people who say they are employed by the military. That includes the bureaucrats. And the story also notes that it does not include small donors. So while those who have much money to toss around may like the most virulent anti-war candidates, it is not a complete look.
And thank you for further hammering home my point that the only reason Ron Paul is even around in this race is because he is the most anti-war candidate running this cycle. That has always been my problem with this.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Andy,
You have yet to address any of the real concerns listed in this discussion, it seems as though you are only interested in rhetoric and clichés. If this were a legal case being argued before a judge you and your position would be found lacking.
The point being, we on this side are not irrational in our thinking. In fact we have history on our side in this debate. I know you would argue that world has changed so much that history does not matter; I do not believe that to be the case, the nature of man is the same and so is the result of the way he (he or she) rules over the people.
Ecclesiastes 1: 9
9 What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done;
there is nothing new under the sun.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I thought of a brilliant way to decide this discussion.
Lets get each group to pick someone to represent there view on which direction the party should go.
Will call that person something catchy like “a candidate”
Then we can have this thing called, i don;t know, a caucus or primary where each “candidate” can present there views then people can vote.
We’ll add up the votes and then have these thing called “delegates”.
When one person gets a majority of these delegates then there side is shown to have more support.
And if one of these candidates get hardly any support at all then we can know that only a small minority support there views.
How’s that for a new idea - if only there were some way to do it?
May 5th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Sam,
Your point is what? No debate within the party. If you haven’t noticed the GOP is in hard times. I guess we better all be quiet and head down the path to destruction like good little commrades.
By the way, here is a recent article on how free we are. Just don’t sell raw milk, it is a crime. Maybe the Feds should add to the another War. ” The War on Milk” Oh I forgot according to Sam I need to be quiet.
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63225
May 5th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
No, Liberty - not no debate.
But that we had the debate for this election cycle and your side lost.
Now the time is to decide if you want to join with the organization and what a majority has said that want this year and move forward.
Then next year we get to start the whole debate thing again.
So you can whine and complain, but it is over for this election cycle.
A some point the group has to make a decision. That is why we hold the caucus/primary so we can make a decision and move on it.
Does everyone agree? No. But one side wins, one sides loses each time.
Then everyone decides that they either agree with the direction of the party and move with it or get out of the way.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Sam,
I understand what you are saying. Do I believe that Ron Paul can win enough delegates to get the nomination? Only by some miracle. This debate for me is not about McCain vs Paul, it is about right and wrong. It is about what does Sam, Andy, LL and whoever else is reading believe. As for me I will support Paul with as much energy as I can muster for I believe him to be on the right side of the issues.
I would hope that through these discussions peoples’ hearts and minds would be changed. I do not view politics as a sporting event. Government makes decisions that can mean life or death to people, so we should take it serious.
There have been a number of questions asked on this blog, with very few answers given.
Do we care that our party grows government as fast as the Dems?
Do we care that our party seems to care less about individual liberties than the Dems?
Do we care that our Governor and leading Presidential Candidate are sympathetic to Global Warming cause?
Do we care that our party has so little regard for the limits set on them by the Constitution?
Do we care that policing the world is contributing to the bankrupting of our nation?
Why would we ever stop asking these questions?
May 5th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
That’s your problem. He can’t and won’t so all this energy you are spending is pretty much political masturbation on your part. Probably feels real great to you to say all these things, but won’t help “consummate” them into policies. You see McCain won. past tense. Period. All you’re doing with this anti-war isolation BS is solidifying the antagonism to Paul and his vocal supporters at the grassroots level.
He has SOME good things, but he is by far not the silver bullet of politicians. He’s not the anti-Obama version of a political prophet on the right. He’s justa nother man who has managed to hit the vein for a small (and oh so very small) number of people. Proof of that is how Paul has yet, even as the lone anti-McCain “voice” left to garner any serious numbers. Even in my 6th, there was only 25% Paul people with a ton of Delegates seated. Hardly some major statement that “the good Dr. Paul” is not shooting a dead horse. If you go back to the statewide numbers from Caucus night, I believe it was 40% Romney, and Paul was wadded up back in the teens with Huckabee and McCain. HARDLY a statement of rockstar status and support.
All this energy you’re spending and causing others to waste (see comments above for example)….. won’t change why you dislike the current Republican party. That work is what you do in the off year. Once the candidates are selected (AND YES THEY ARE SELECTED) the debate is over. You suck it up, be big boys and girls and get behind the candidate (or at the least do no harm/ try to ‘defeat the Dems), OR sit back and try to tear the party down by dividing its base with the death of 1000 cuts.
The time for the Ron Paul movement to have this argument has long since passed. If you would all take a step back from Paul and work to gain traction with in the party, minus the terrible ROn Paul ideas that this party’s majority doesn’t agree with, and get majorities back or at least center right ones if not solid conservative ones, we could affect legislation on a positive way. But we don’t elect kings, queens, or prophets in this country. One man does not a revolution make. One man cannot “save this republic. And neither can a bunch of people causing a scene at one inoportune time. Real change take hard work. It takes far more than rhetorical questions and rule manipulation.
A few people getting to put down on paper in September that they (heart) Paul is not going to affect one single policy. None. Nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada! Got that?
This is all a waste of time. I was an ardent Fred Thompson supporter, but he lost. I moved on. It hurt, I’m not satisfied with what I have left, but that is the stupid way our party politics works.
(And before any of you jumps another shark) You won’t change that either by causing a scene at the XCEL.
Win majorities in the MN House, and Congress. Take away the rubber stamp (R)s there and in party positions. Change party leadership so that they actually advocate positions and oppose lame/liberal candidates. Drop the isolationism. Drop the all or nothing tactics. Build a consensus with those who share some of your policies. That is the way the party got to where it is.
If, as I suspect you will, run up against the wall and your views are not majority positions, and you are not embraced and thrown into leadership postitions, you have a choice. Go back to the parties who do share a bunch of your ideas more closely and see if you can build them into something, or figure out where you belong and if all your ideas are mandatory.
(oh and we’re not bankrupting our nation overseas, we’re doing it right here at home. We waste more money domestically, daily, than we could ever fire out of a howatzer, anyday.)
So what will it be, do you need a few more minutes alone with yourselves in the bathroom, or do you want to join the party and work together with those of us who have been trying? Grandstanding not welcome. Head in the sand, go ahead and kill me, I am free after all- foreign policy is for the dinosaurs and ACLu lovers. Hard work and dedication is required to bring back a limited Government strong America. It is tough, it will take a long time to right the wrongs.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
And another thing.
Debate is all fine. I welcome it. But where have you been all along?
Your political juebus is after all a member of Congress and could bring articles of impeachment forth if this war is illegal as claimed and the list of constitutional breaches is as long and agreegus as noted here and in the other Paul forums.
If even the anti-war led Congress is unwilling to do something, why should the MN Delegation to the RNC have to? Wouldn’t this be a matter better served in thecourts if they are so illegal?
May 5th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I take it we won’t be hearing any more criticism of Pawlenty or Coleman on this blog. After all, they won. Debate over.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Sam, Andy
The point is in that you win absolutely nothing with a McCain victory. Why would you work for that? This baffles me, this blind loyalty to a political party, and not to beliefs. This pragmatism is what has been the down fall of the party and the country.
We do plan on sticking around and hopefully changing the party. The time for change/debate is right now. McCain will not win, nor does he deserve to. So Sam you are wasting your energy on a candidate who won’t win. Even if he were to win, he does not change the direction of Government.
Talk about a waste of energy
May 5th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Ok, I’ll type slowly this time.
McCain is the candidate of the Republican Party. Ron Paul will not be.
Is he the best? - Doesn’t matter, more people thought he was.
So I have two choices - Support him, do nothing or go somewhere else.
For president the decision is over.
As for Pawlenty - Absolutly critize him. He is not the selected candidate for this election cycle.
Same for Norm. Until Norm is endorsed you can complain all you want.
But same thing, once the endorsement is made (assuming no primary challenge) then the decision is over.
So you can ask those questions, but they don’t matter anymore in MN.
We have chosen are candidates for President and Congress.
So you have a choice, support them or not.
The time to debate is not now because there is nothing to debate.
The purpose of debate is to convince others that your position is superior to theirs in order to gain their support. Support for a choice that has already happened.
More precisly to your statement
“you win absolutely nothing with a McCain victory”
We will have two choices - McCain or (Obama/Hilary)?
That’s it. So you can decide which you want.
So assume you are correct. We gain nothing with a McCain victory. We gain nothing with an Obama victory. So then question goes to which is the least loss.
Not a great choice, but that’s what we have.
As for wasting time, McCain may or may not win.
Ron Paul won’t even be running!!!
So the choice support McCain or get out the way. For president, that’s all you have.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Hypothetical,
It is the day after the election and John McCain has won. He now has the power he has been seeking. Will he be loyal to the Republican activist such as Andy or to his good friends Kennendy, Feingold and Lieberman?
Guess what else happens. Republican politicians realize that they can govern like liberals their whole career and Conservatives will still work to get them elected.
Quote for today: From Bob Dylan’s “When you gonna wake up”
“Adulterers in churches and pornography in the schools,
You got gangsters in power and lawbreakers making the rules”
Francis Schaefer quoted these lyrics in his book Christian Manifesto. I think these words still apply today.
So as I see it, I will not support “lawbreakers making the rules”
By the way if any of your are Christians I highly recommend Dylan’s Christian CDs Slow Train, Saved and Shot of Love. Even if you don’t believe now, maybe it will change your way of thinking.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:41 am
M:
So is there a Ron Paul endorsed candidate to take on Coleman? He is not technically endorsed, so this “energy” would/could be spent holding him accountable…. but I don’t see that. And you obviously don’t read me much. http://www.residualforces.com/2008/05/02/millionaires-deserve-subsidies-really-norm/ That was from Friday. I’m considered an enemy by his peeps and his henchmen at the State Party.
LF:
I take it that your goal is to derail a Republican President and turn the Oval office over to the Dems?
I’ll be doing everything I can to get 3 people elected to the MN House and US House so that there is sound conservatives there to hold who ever accountable. That’s where my time and energy should and will go. I’m not so sure if or how much I will “help” McCain. I’llstill be critical of his liberal policies here on RF, but I see no benefit in torpedoing his candidacy how ever possible just because Fred Thompson didn’t win. If I did so, it would be a huge mistake because I would get 100% of what I despise in policies.
But maybe that is ok with y’all. After all, you have a better chance at getting one of your big policies implemented with Democrats. That is the anti-war code pink isolationism.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Andy:
“it would be a huge mistake because I would get 100% of what I despise in policies”.
I feel the same way if McCain were elected.
As far as intervention vs non intervention, I know that most in the Party disagree with the Paul folks. We hope to change that.
By the way, why is someone who wishes for peace and resists war unless absolutely necessary called code pink isolationist? How about we just debate the issues on merit.
By the way Andy I do think it is fair to say to folks like you, why haven’t you?
Here is an article about Christians being turned into a War loving and State idolizing people.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance141.html
May 6th, 2008 at 10:40 am
By the way Andy I do think it is fair to say to folks like you, why haven’t you volunteered?
May 6th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I take that one Liberty - I think it is fair to say to folks like you -
Do you believe we should have firefighter - then why haven’t you volunteered to be one?
How about Police - Are you a police officer too?
How about Schools, should we teach our children - then why aren’t you a teacher?
Above, you said we need to come home and protect our boarder -
Why haven’t you joined the border patrol or coast guard?
May 6th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Sam,
I asked Andy the question.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Sam,
I believe the war to be unjustified, thus if young able men are beating the war drums to this unjustified war, why aren’t they going?
May 6th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Same question to you -
You believe we should be protecting our border?
Then why aren’t you going?
Do you believe we should be protecting our cities?
Then why aren’t you?
May 6th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Sam et al,
There is a huge difference between your analogies and pursuing a policy of aggression and you know it.
Fires, car accidents, robberies and murder are going to happen regardless of government policy for the most part.
Wars of aggression are a completely different story we control them the are avoidable. Not only are there the concerns for the soldier there MUST be a concern for our fellow human beings in these places we choose to destroy.
For you cheerleaders to sit back at home and cheer on this destruction on your fellow man without justification is absolutely astounding to me.
The fact that you lump all these different things into war discussion shows either you have lost the ability to reason or your conscience is so hardened that you just don’t see it.
Btw, many people including myself wouldn’t dream of putting our child’s education in the hands of someone else so we do choose to train them ourselves.
Deut: 6:6 These words, which I command you this day, shall be on your heart;
6:7 and you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
My wife handles the language arts. (-:
May 6th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Looks like Ron loses another round.
He is coming in 3rd in both states tonight.
In NC, looks like he might be able to beat “no one” by only 3% points or else he would be fourth.
Poverbs 12:11 He who works his land will have abundant food,
but he who chases fantasies lacks judgment.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
This not just about RP, my hope is to change peoples way of thinking through reasoning and debate. The ideas that have been rekindled by Ron Paul will long out live him and the affect will be a positive one on this party and this country.
Thanks for sharing the Proverb with me I appreciate it.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Sam,
Proverbs 12:11 KJV “He that tilleth his land shall be satisified with bread:
but he that followeth VAIN persons is void of understanding”
The Hebrew word for vain is Reyq = empty, vain
a) empty (of vessels)
b) empty, idle, worthless (ethically)
Sounds like following McCain not Paul. For all the criticisms of Paul it isn’t following the prevailing political winds as McCain does. Maybe you had better apply that verse differently.
Sam, I hope through these discussions we can encourage you to stop following empty men and gain understanding.
By the way, now that I see you refer to scripture I would encourage you to rethink your pro war positions. Check out link in post 33 about Christians love of war.