Reply With Quote
I think the thing that keeps most "conservatives" away from Ron is his foreign policy. They have been hearing the "war on terror" rhetoric forever and it has them obsessed with carrying on the war in iraq and starting one in Iran.
from John Derbyshire:
Stop whining. So what if the likely GOP nominee believes in restraints on free speech, higher taxation, bigger government, open borders, and 100-year U.S. armies of occupation everywhere from Albania to Zimbabwe? Romney believes in those things too — at least, he does when he's in a room full of people that want him to.
You already have a genuinely conservative candidate on offer. He's just not slick enough for you. What, he has positions you don't agree with? More than the other guys? Actually, I have heard very little complaining about Paul's positions. What I have mostly heard is (a) He's funny looking, (b) He can't win, and (c) He has a lot of icky supporters.
The answer to (a) is to put aside the New York Times "Style" section for five minutes and think. The answer to (b) is, that if conservatism is going to lose big in 2008 anyway (newsflash: it is), it should at least make a stand, to inspire future generations. The answer to (c) is, get in there and swell the ranks of non-icky Paul supporters — there are plenty of us — to drown out the nutsos.
While you guys are crying into your light-blended crème frappuccinos, I'll be making a campaign donation to help Ron & Carol celebrate their 51st wedding anniversary Friday.
I think the thing that keeps most "conservatives" away from Ron is his foreign policy. They have been hearing the "war on terror" rhetoric forever and it has them obsessed with carrying on the war in iraq and starting one in Iran.
yes... many have a bizarre emotional investment in the warfare state.
Last edited by pussyface; 01-30-2008 at 05:16 PM.
Derbyshire is one of the nutsos. Have you sampled the stuff NR lets him write?
Paul is toast and doesn't have a chance in .
...winning isnt everything.
if you had taken the time to read the brief post before responding, you would have seen that one of the points the author makes is that the republicans will not win the general election anyway so should consider principled conservative values over electablility.
no, i don't know his work.
...if someone is being described as a nutso by you though, that is almost enough to recommend him to me.
have you read your own posts, dude?
the level of warmongering you bring to discussions would frighten dr. strangelove himself. snap out of it.
Last edited by pussyface; 01-30-2008 at 07:21 PM.
Right issue, wrong reason.
When it comes to conservatism, Paul is right more than the rest of them.
However...
We are in a critical war for the stake of the future. It is too important for conservatives to consider Paul when he is so wrong on it. If we were not at war, and it was his choice as to start one or not, we can live with that. However, we are in a war now and need a president we can count on to finish a war, not retreat from it.
Quite frankly, I would trust Obama or Clinton to finish this war better than Paul, And that's a pretty sad thing to say.
Nah Cobra Ron would finish the war better than all of them. He'd get the out.
If you think you fight terrorism with the full might of your military spread out all over the middle east you are dead wrong. You got the wrong tool for the job. It's akin to taking a sawed off 12 gauge and a chainsaw and trying to get rid of a roach infestation in a Mobile Home. Not only are not going to kill all the roaches, but your going to that Mobile Home all up and the owner is going to expect you to fix it before you leave. You'd be better off leaving some traps and explaining to the owner how to keep their cupboards clean.
"100 more years" Mccain isnt it, so who do you think can finish this war and how will they achieve this?? And what does finishing the war even mean? A complete pull-out, or a continuing presence?
Last edited by braeden0613; 01-30-2008 at 11:29 PM. Reason: proofreading troubles
Well, sure. Yet all claim they are "conservatives". Conservative when it comes to current governance? No doubt.
Sure, you need someone to clean up the mess. And when does it end? Iran seems to be on the horizon. I think we should be rather wary of someone taking the Oval Office who seems bent on seeking war no matter what.However...
We are in a critical war for the stake of the future. It is too important for conservatives to consider Paul when he is so wrong on it. If we were not at war, and it was his choice as to start one or not, we can live with that. However, we are in a war now and need a president we can count on to finish a war, not retreat from it.
What cons utes a good finish to the war and how long will that take? Perhaps a century seems to be the estimate of the senior senator from Arizona. Screw that.Quite frankly, I would trust Obama or Clinton to finish this war better than Paul, And that's a pretty sad thing to say.
Indeed. Plus I'm critical of his immigration beliefs. They aren't all magically going to disappear if we get rid of the welfare state (although at least it's better than Romney's position).
First of all, if you understand what McCain meant, he is right. We are still in Korea, Germany and Japan, and we will likely be in Iraq for a very long time in the same way. Not in a war-like way, but as an established presence.
Actually, with the exception of Paul, I think even the democrats will end up doing the right thing there. After their first day in office they will have briefings they never had before. It will change their perspective. I just don't think Obama or Clintoon will make a serious effort to finish with honor, and Iraq would become another Viet-Nam if either were elected.
Will you idiots get off the Iran idea?
We are concerned, but not anywhere close to do such a thing.
You guys are ing fearmongerers!
Mayby only idiotic lemmings.
Any candidate who doesn't take a slash and burn at ude towards the spending and size of the federal government is not a conservative. Period. It will be our downfall, and every candidate but Paul is paying lipservice.
If any of you guys seriously want to help Ron Paul's cause.....
Sign up, http://voters.ronpaul2008.com
Yeah i understand what he meant and am completely opposed to it. Our continuing presence in the area will only make the problem worse.
I guess i agree with you that the Dems will probably end up staying in Iraq for years to come if they are elected. Or course, i see that as a huge mistake...
A fearmonger is better than a warmonger I suppose
Ron Paul seems like the type of guy that would let half the globe burn up to ashes before he even picked up a phone.
Other than that, I am glad he is still in the debates making these goons look like fools.
He didn't say that.
He said conservatism was going to lose big, not Republicans.
I think, with McCain, there is a better than 50% chance Republicans win the WH. The author's point is that Republican <> Conservative.
You know not much of what you speak.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He is not a Republican, much less
a Conservative.
I love what a lot of you say about how all the Republicans do
is warmonger and want to start wars. May I ask a simple question: Who the attacked who first. And Let's not
start at the WTC lets start at the beginning. Muslim extremist
are the one who have attacked us not one or twice but many
times. Twice in our country. Who in the wants to give
all the nuts "equal rights" and do away with our Guantanamo Bay
facility. Damn sure not the Conservatives. Who wants to stop
us from listening in on their conversations. Damn sure not
the Conservatives. But Mr. Ron Paul espouses some of these
beliefs as well as McCain. I don't know about a lot of you, but
I would like to continue my life as a free American, not having
to pray five times a day, by law. A lot of you keep harping
on the crap we are going to start a war with Iran and saying
we trumped up the fast boat with them. Get a blasted life.
Ron Paul makes some sense, sometimes, not often.
Paul can't be considered a "Republican" or a "conservative" because he's for reducing federal spending.
Plus he doesn't want to turn the federal government into some kind of theocracy.
spoken like a true fearmonger.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
