Thread: Favorite Republican Candidate?

Cheers everyone. It seems everyone here is very quaint with each other, so I probably look like an outsider. Some of you think you are looked down upon or something (I got this from some of Bluesman's posts). I don't hold that view about anyone. We are all human and equal.

But here are some inconsistencies I noticed when reading. I quoted two people. The first JAD_333 says Ron Paul is for appeasement, then says he never said that.

The second is from Bluesman explaining what you want in the President. I linked to Ron Paul and Fred Thompson 'ontheissues' page. Ron has a huge voting record and is conservative. He mirrors Ronald Reagan in many ways. He quotes policy that Reagan used in the 80s.

I'm not here to convince anyone to vote Ron Paul. I just want some facts out there.

Fred Thompson on the Issues
Ron Paul on the Issues

JAD_333

And you're soft pedaling his 9/11 views. His opinion that US policy was the lightening rod that brought on 9/11 shows a complete lack of understanding of international affairs. Whitewash it all you like, but this implies that 9/11 wouldn't have happened had the US shaped its foreign policy to better suit Bin Laden. People often fall into this trap. The fact is most attacks, big and small, throughout history come because someone or some country did not like another country's foreign policy. By his rekoning, a country should change its policy whenever necessary to avoid a threat to its security. That's appeasement and it never works.

JAD_333

Political gamesmanship. The Constitution does indeed give Congress the sole power to declare war, but it also gives the president the power as CinC to take whatever military actions are necessary to protect the nation's security. The Congress passed a resolution backing the Iraq invasion. BTW, I didn't say he was for appeasement. I said that blaming US policy for 9/11 implies the policy should have been such that the attacker would not have attacked. That's accommodation. Such a view can lead to appeasement.


Bluesman

He may not be as good a leader as Guiliani, but he's got his mind right about gun rights, and he doesn't think public funding of abortions is in the Constitution.
He's not as much of a choirboy as Romney, but he's at least honest enough not to pander for votes; he doesn't say he's something he's really not.
He doesn't have military experience like McCain, but he wouldn't have voted for limits on political speech if you put a gun to his head, and he'd never make disastrous deals with the opposition party that screw forever any hope of returning the Supreme Court to rationality.
He's as close as we're going to come to Reagan, and By Gawd, that's what we need right now.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Matt Salla

Cheers everyone. It seems everyone here is very quaint with each other, so I probably look like an outsider. Some of you think you are looked down upon or something (I got this from some of Bluesman's posts). I don't hold that view about anyone. We are all human and equal.

But here are some inconsistencies I noticed when reading. I quoted two people. The first JAD_333 says Ron Paul is for appeasement, then says he never said that.

JAD_333

And you're soft pedaling his 9/11 views. His opinion that US policy was the lightening rod that brought on 9/11 shows a complete lack of understanding of international affairs. Whitewash it all you like, but this implies that 9/11 wouldn't have happened had the US shaped its foreign policy to better suit Bin Laden. People often fall into this trap. The fact is most attacks, big and small, throughout history come because someone or some country did not like another country's foreign policy. By his rekoning, a country should change its policy whenever necessary to avoid a threat to its security. That's appeasement and it never works.

If it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Ron Paul, according to one of your pals who posts here, correlated the 9/11 attack with a defect in US policy vis a vis the Middle East. Now, to my way of thinking, he is implying indirectly that US policy is to blame for 9/11. In other words, the US brought the attack down upon itself. Then, to continue the logic, the solution is to alter US policy so as not invite further attacks. We have a word for that kind of accommodation; it's appeasement.

JAD_333Political gamesmanship. The Constitution does indeed give Congress the sole power to declare war, but it also gives the president the power as CinC to take whatever military actions are necessary to protect the nation's security. The Congress passed a resolution backing the Iraq invasion. BTW, I didn't say he was for appeasement. I said that blaming US policy for 9/11 implies the policy should have been such that the attacker would not have attacked. That's accommodation. Such a view can lead to appeasement.

In the foregoing quote I did not say he was explicitly for appeasement. You cannot make it so by interpreting it your own way. As I said in the second quote above, accommodating enemies by altering policy CAN LEAD TO APPEASEMENT. Ron Paul may have in mind a program that leads to changes which may or may not fit the definition of appeasement. That remains to be seen. But I stand on my opinion that it is nonsense to place the blame for9/11 on the US or, worse, say it deserved it because of its foreign policy.

If I misconstrued Paul's position, blame your people who posted it here.

I'll let Bluesman speak for himself.

And one more thing, you and your buddies who come here for the sole purpose of talking up Paul have shown disrespect toward the spirit of this board and its members. This is not the proper place to wage a presidential campaign. You've said your piece, now move on.

I have no idea who LibertyBelle is. She may work for the campaign. I'm just a regular person who wants freedom and peace. I want the government to leave me alone and destroy anybody that would destroy us.

I've said my piece and will just linger around now. I only had to say it because of the inconsistencies I was seeing.

JAD_333: Can we mean what we say the first time we say it? This avoids confusion and gives your position a bit more authority. Thanks for taking the time to clear that up.

Personally, I don't feel it is appeasement. The 9-11 commission report talks of blowback. Osama has said that our policies cause them to hate us. Osama is a liar, but if he is saying that, I'm sure he is saying it to his fanatical recruits. We must take away all ammunition he has to recruit people to hate America. Then Osama will have to blame our freedom, but they won't be so fanatical about that.

Last thing... I hear talk of being attacked at home. That could happen, but it will happen by terrorists already residing in America. We have 20 million illegal immigrants. How many of those are Al Qaeda that snuck through our border? And if they did already, how come no attacks for 6.5 years? Assuming they snuck in before 9/11 since security would have been more lax.

Take it easy everyone, and no disrespect at all to anyone.

Matt

Matt, firstly, welcome to the board.
Libertybelle and various others were banned from this board because they were using it as a proxy for affecting the ratings of Ron Paul stories on news forums such as digg. By spamming this and other boards with links to that forum and others with polls and ratings, they are seeking to falsely inflate the standing of Ron Paul on the internet. This is part of a concerted organised internet campaign originating from their home board, which lists sites such as this to spam and gives the articles and links to spam it with.

Political discussions are welcome here and we will be expanding the U.S. elections forum as the time approaches, we simply ask that you and other freestaters refrain from the spamming mentioned above which is against forum guidelines.

Welcome to the board and thank you for taking the time to tell us about yourself and answer posts directly.

Aww man, more chew toys taken away.

Thanks Pari - that one had a bad taste to it.

-dale

pari

their legacy remains; 9 votes for their man...in the lead with 24% of the total.
surely there are enough members here to level things out without stuffing the ballot box...they'll probably post a link to this page from here to Katmandu