The Battle in TX-14
By Erick Posted in Congress — Comments (141) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Ron Paul is fighting for his political life down in Texas-14. Having failed to gain any traction in his Presidential bid except among a lose cadre of fringe anti-war allegedly libertarian voters, he has had to suspend his campaign two days after appearing at CPAC.
Ron Paul is racing back to his district to battle back against Chris Peden, the Mayor Pro Temp of Friendswood, Texas.
You know, having spent the past year bashing Jews, Republicans, the military, and the United States, it's great to see Ron Paul forced to flee the field.
I think Chris Peden might could use some money to keep up the fight against the anti-war movement's favorite Martian.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | And Some Of You Thought BUSH Was Bad?!?!?! — Comments (16) »
The Battle in TX-14 141 Comments (0 topical, 141 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Dear Mr. Peden,
How can you call taking money out of my pocket and giving it to NASA conservative? I call it theft. How about you walk up to me and try to take it out of my pocket yourself. Don't be a puss. Don't get the IRS to do your dirty work. Be a man. Come and try to reach into my pocket. Come and take the money I need to put food on my table. Come and take the money I need to save to send my children to college.
Like you I also believe "terrorists were responsible for the 9/11 attacks", I also believe it was because of our middle-east policies.
Global war on terror:
I would argue that a child molester is a terrorist. But I do not want the US military patrolling the streets of Texas.
1) Please define for me exactly what you have determined "global war on terror" to mean.
2) Define for me the obligations you will impose upon me and my family to fight your "global war on terror".
3) Define for me what would constitute VICTORY in your "global war on terror".
4) Define for me "Islamo-Fascist terrorists".
Fair Tax:
It seems to me your "fair tax" would be a tax on my right to sustain my life.
1) How would you propose to tax "black market transactions"?
2) Define for me "black market transaction".
3) What rate would you propose for the "fair tax"?
4) Would you "fair tax" necessary needs like land, shelter, clothing, food, fuel, medicine, and medical services?
Protecting America's farmers:
1) What method[s] would you impose to "supporting our farmers and expanding, not restricting, opportunities for future generations"?
2) Does the Constitution allow for federal regulation of farms, or should farming be left to the States or to the People?
Marriage:
1) If you "believe" marriage is between a man and woman and their God; why is marriage licensed, taxed, and regulated?
2) Why is the State the over-see'er of marriage and not the church?
3) Why would you allow Washington DC regulate abortion without a constitutional amendment?
Second Amendment:
1) How would you propose to support not only the 2nd Amendment, but the entire Constitution and the most important first ten Amendments?
Language:
1) What is your definition of the "American dream"?
Your web page[s] is pretty but you are vague in your solutions. I find it easier to understand Title 26 than I do understanding how you will work to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States". In fact, in all of your proposals and thoughts you never once mentioned ANY Constitutional authority. You did brush upon the 2nd Amendment, but that does not equal citing authority.
You mimic Ron Paul in your writings yet you oppose his representing the 14th District. Why don't you offer to work for him, with him, learn the process of Washington DC, and then seek to fill the office after his retirement?
Ron Paul puts us the People on top, not terrorists, not NASA, not Washington DC, not taxes, not State regulated marriage, not confiscated farm subsidies, us the People and our natural rights are on the top of Ron Paul's list of things to protect.
If you want my vote you've got to answer my questions and offer me something better than Ron Paul's service over not only the last two decades but over the last fifty-one (51) years.
Your vocation is dedicated to requiring fees while allowing and assisting the US in robbing the People of our wealth. Ron Paul's vocation was dedicated to bringing life into the world. Ron Paul brought us in and you taxed us.
You've got some work to do and some things to learn if you want my vote.
I do intend to publish this letter along with your answers. You are attempting to fill one pair of very honorable shoes.
Respectfully,
PatriotOne
Sic Semper Tyrannis
That's what they called the enemy, regardless of race.
Maybe you can tell my why your god said the communist murderous terrorism afterwards was a good thing.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
We could use a few more people like Dr. No in Congress.
we need representatives that can say no, we don't need lunatic, racist, communist sympathizers. He needs to go back to oblivion where all he does is write consipiracty theory newsletters.
This is why McCain won't win. Thinking Ron Paul is a "communist sympathizer" is hilarious. If you're afraid of conservatives, say so.
"Dr. Not Unless It Brings Wild Shrimp Subsidies to My District" I think we got plenty of those already.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I'm planning on contributing, but if we want to do a RedState drive I'll make sure I get the cents right :)
The people who latched on to Ron Paul didn't latch on because they love the idea of racist paleoconservativism.
It's because they think that the Federal Government is too big and too interventionist and does not respect the limitations upon it given by the Constitution.
Most of the Ronulans that I knew in my personal life were not closet racists and, after hemming and hawing over whether bringing up the old letters were a smear, disavowed them and said that he should have disavowed them too.
There are people out there who are passionate about things like The Constitution and limiting government.
Calling them "fringe anti-war allegedly libertarian" is about as accurate as saying that the Republican Party supports the election of the man who wrote McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, fought against Bush's tax cuts, negotiated the Gang of 14 compromise on Judicial Nominations, fought against the use of Waterboarding, and believes in amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Medved explained this best:
"Not all Ron Paul supporters are neo-nazis, but all neo-nazis are Ron Paul supporters."
And the reason people have latched on to this idea of him being racist, anti-semetic, etc. is because such ideas were released under a newsletter under his name, although they were apparently not written by him, but by his former chief of staff, Lew Rockwell.
I don't know if he's personally racist or anti-semetic, but I know he's surrounded himself with people that are.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
But in our efforts to mock, ridicule, and point out that Ron Paul is a RINO, let's not assume that any and all of his beliefs are worth throwing away.
Many of his supporters supported him because no one else was saying the things he was saying.
In some cases, it was because of his views from the newsletters.
In others, it's because of his views on the Constitution.
The supporters who loved Paul because of Paul's views of the Constitution? Republicans need more like that in the party, not fewer.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Don't you get it? Even now?
The GOP does not want conservative principles! Doesn't give a bleep, doesn't care about them, period.
Yes, they want conservatives' money, and votes; yes, they want to buy off conservatives, quiet them, intimidate them, lecture them, into docilely supporting McCain, alternating with shiny baubles (gee, wanna be VP?) or threats (if Hilary wins, they'll clone Gloria Alred and appoint nine of her to the Supreme Court! Boo! Aren't you scared?)
...But the GOP does not want conservative IDEAS; hates them, has thrown them all overboard. It's standard-bearer has contempt for the First Amendment, he says he will appoint "strict constructionist" judges, except they would strike down all his favorite legislation, you really think he wants that to happen? But he'll sweet-talk you up and down... He claims to be prolife--um, except for embryonic humans, but why quibble? Remember, Ron Paul is anti-semitic! Yah, that's the ticket...
Rep. Paul had his flaws, and it's easy to mock them; but the fact is, he is the only one who actually cares about attacking Big Government and defending the Constitution. He's wrong on the war; McCain is wrong on the First Amendment; but we'll get over it soon enough.
George Bush did a great job making a wreck of the GOP; McCain is his successor, ready from day one to finish the job.
Now, if we can just sucker the conservatives for a few more months...
With this field, I considered voting for Paul. I don't think anyone's ever accused me of being a racist... at least not to my face.
For me, it's all about The Constitution. I think it's been pissed on for far too long.
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
from his presidential campaign to hold onto his house seat? I suspect he can -- and will. Which makes me wonder if he hasn't been jiving his supporters for the last month or so, even when the handwriting was scrawled all across the wall, to get national support for his Tx-14 seat.
Yes, you can one money raised for a run for one federal office to run for another. They all have the same (often ridiculous) campaign finance laws applied to them. If he hypothetically raised money to run for a state office, however, he could not use those funds.
If he's upended in a primary, does that release him from his pledge not to run for POTUS on a third party (ie, LP) ticket? I think that it probably does and with his name recognition I could imagine his picking up 7 or twelve percent of the vote in November - definitely enough to tilt things to Barak/Hillary.
-exits
I'm hoping Ron Paul retains his seat. And he can use his $ raised to fight for his house seat and I expect him to hold onto the nomination. I don't want to spend money to unseat another Republican when there are so many open seats to defend and a few we might take from the Dems.
John S. McCain III
Eric Cantor for VEEP
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I think Tom Delay did a lot more damage to the GOP brand than Ron Paul ever did.
John S. McCain III
Eric Cantor for VEEP
Ultra liberal Europe, especially Britian, is cheering the US election process for 2008. As far as they see the three candidates left (Hillary, Obama AND McCain) are all liberal so they can't lose in how this election turns out. A sad day for America, we need Ron Paul to run third party. he'd sweep independents for sure if he was actually not blocked out by the press.
Otherwise i'm staying home this year. Can't stand McCain and under no circumstances will vote for him.
Give me a break. He was all over the airwaves until he failed to garner more than a hand full of actual votes.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Of this love for McCain and hate for Ron Paul in Europe?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
The only thing the Zionists can't block is post-debate cell phone polls. I believe Mossad is still working on the technology for that.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I get it, no chance for 'discussions here' just toe the party line! This is why we'll lose in 2008.
Britian loves McCain, that's all i need to see.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/08/london/main3808747.shtml
Been here three days Work a comment about DarthPaul into your posting. I'd buy looser fitting undergarments if I were you. They will make you happier and are much nicer than tin foil.
Have a nice day, the exit it thataway.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
soli Deo gloria
Eric, We should embrace McCain and use our resources against Ron Paul. I have no doubt that Paul will vote our way 90% of the time. Lets commit ourselves to electing Republicans to Congress not fighting those who vote they should.
Unlike Ron Paul's Congressional seat, unfortunately, the White House is not "safely Republican".
And unlike any of the serious candidates for President, Ron Paul has basically argued for surrender to our enemies during war time.
Very different from disagreements about campaign finance laws.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
If Paul loses his seat in Congress then his only hope of staying in politics is a third party run for the White House. In my view that would take votes from McCain and hurt his chances of winning.
In 2000, the Green Party was the reason Gore lost.
RonPaul™ takes votes from the kook anti-war fringe of the Dem Party more than any Republican -- certainly not from McCain.
He has one bronze medal to his credit, and even if he does improve on his 430,750 votes he got in 1988, he finishes no better than DFL***
***First word is Dead, third word is Last -- you do the math
There are a ton of rabid anti-war "legalize it, maaaaaan" types in the LP now. These are Hillary/Obama votes. I don't see a 3rd party run by Ron as much of a threat.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
...voting for Peden in the Republican primary.
Ron Paul has been gathering wool in Washington for far too long, more out of ego than out of any concern for his constituents. He brags about how he is ignored, but what he doesn't know is he bragging about ME being ignored.
Time for the crackpot to retire.
It is absolutely absurd that something like this is being posted. Ron Paul is still in the race. Go check is site. He is also in the race for Congressman. Maybe you guys should do your research before posting things.
Blame them, not us.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
It's your side that hates the Muslims.
Sheesh.
Moe
PS: The ban on Ronulans still stands, in case that wasn't obvious.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
most of them are there -- neglecting their duties to this website. Second of all it is the weekend -- so the rest of them, or some subset of both, are drinking heavily and likewise neglecting the site.
does that answer your question?
What a waste of resources and time. Sure he may not support to war, but he has a great anti-spending, anti-big government, pro-life, strong on illegal immigration record. Additionally he is generally trusted as an honest, ethical politician. Money should be spent elsewhere, especially when you look at how much more the Democrats will have in the coming year.
When you're facing an epic calamity as we are right now you don't really have the luxury of running primary challengers against men who vote correctly 95% of the time. The outcome of the race in the Fourteenth District of Texas isn't terribly important; this money really needs to be sent to Sununu, Schaffer, Smith, or Coleman.
that too secure these rights,Governments are instituted among men,deriving their just powers form the consent of the Governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the RIGHT of the people to alter or to abolish it...
I see the side show Circus act has too cover his butt......now that is what we need to see more of....how about Arizona i.e straight-lie express, John McCain..we put it together correctly we could get at Jack Murtha....and many more.....here in Michigan, freezing our butts off do to America made Global Warming. We are starting to line up against the Socialist, Levin and the rest.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I'm trying to write a patch now to fix the rant generator.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
I can't imagine this seat would go to the Dems if Paul is the GOP candidate would it?
Why not spend money where it is more needed.
It's a suburban/rural district in Southeast Texas, and needless to say the Democrats haven't seriously contested it in years, even in 2006.
There is no democrat on the ballot for this race, it will be decided in the primary. Pauls last dem opponent was Sklar in 2006.
Erick,
I disagree strongly with Paul's foreign policy and I do not support him for President...but I strongly support him for Congress.
Paul is more Republican than Huckabee ever was and frankly he has more to offer than that political hack Romney.
You Romney hacks are becoming unhinged. I just heard Coulter rant for five minutes on how Romney would be a better VP than Coburn and that Romney is the future of conservatism.
I heard Ingraham rant on McCain hysterically then say McCain could pick Romney to appease her. I heard Beck practically cry when Willard dropped out. (Wait, Beck always cries).
I heard Rush say Jindal is the next Reagan despite his moderate- Liberal voting record in Congress (I am sure his CFG ranking was in the 50s)
Erick, I guess this is your turn at being as stupid as the rest of the "heroes" of the right.
McCain is not redefining conservatism. The conservative movement (Erick, Rush, Ann,etc) is redefining conservatism.
McCain is not Hitler. Romney is not a conservative, Jindal is not our Political savior, and Chris Peden is NOT better than Ron Paul.
If you hacks cause Paul to lose his seat then try and prop up flipper Romney for 2012...then you will deserve what you get.
I will not be able to stand five years of "Romney is Reagan" or "Romney is conservatism".
A candidates Conservatism is not defined by how much that candidate sucks up to you all.
My advice is that you all shut up about Mitt Romney, Chris Pedan, and Bobby Jindal and instead focus on Sanford, Pence, and Coburn.
Romans 12:3
"I heard Rush say Jindal is the next Reagan despite his moderate- Liberal voting record in Congress"
I'm not one that's much into citing voting rankings because usually they're not weighted for importance to a cause but when your ACU rankings for your 3 years in Congress are a 92 and 2 100s....I'm mean, come on dude! Moderate-Liberal?
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
After only two members scored a 100 in 2003 (Pence,Wamp) the ACU watered down their ratings.
In 2006 Jindal got a 55 from the Club for Growth and he got a 67 in 05.CFG is an accurate inicator of fiscal conservatism.
He voted against the RSC alternative budget...he is in the middle of our party.
Are you the same guy as "Reagan Man" over at Free Republic?
I'm guessing you are, but just so everybody else knows, this guy ALWAYS has SOME reason why just about EVERYBODY is a liberal.
When you point out that Reagan did something similar to what he's suggesting proves someone is a liberal, he denounces you as a liberal and accuses you of "trashing Reagan."
Anyhow, I'm sure you'll deny it, but I'm guessing it's you anyway, and I can tell even if it's not you are just like him.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
I am Gipper08 at FR. Reagan Man and I disagree on some things.
One small correction: Rush said Jindal COULD be the next Reagan, not that he IS the next Reagan.
that scored 100% in '05-'06 based on the 'watered down' ratings, there are fewer than 10 conservative Republican conservatives left in our party. Hmmm...interesting 'analysis'
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Dear Mr. Peden,
How can you call taking money out of my pocket and giving it to NASA conservative? I call it theft. How about you walk up to me and try to take it out of my pocket yourself. Don't be a puss. Don't get the IRS to do your dirty work. Be a man. Come and try to reach into my pocket. Come and take the money I need to put food on my table. Come and take the money I need to save to send my children to college.
Like you I also believe "terrorists were responsible for the 9/11 attacks", I also believe it was because of our middle-east policies.
Global war on terror:
I would argue that a child molester is a terrorist. But I do not want the US military patrolling the streets of Texas.
1) Please define for me exactly what you have determined "global war on terror" to mean.
2) Define for me the obligations you will impose upon me and my family to fight your "global war on terror".
3) Define for me what would constitute VICTORY in your "global war on terror".
4) Define for me "Islamo-Fascist terrorists".
Fair Tax:
It seems to me your "fair tax" would be a tax on my right to sustain my life.
1) How would you propose to tax "black market transactions"?
2) Define for me "black market transaction".
3) What rate would you propose for the "fair tax"?
4) Would you "fair tax" necessary needs like land, shelter, clothing, food, fuel, medicine, and medical services?
Protecting America's farmers:
1) What method[s] would you impose to "supporting our farmers and expanding, not restricting, opportunities for future generations"?
2) Does the Constitution allow for federal regulation of farms, or should farming be left to the States or to the People?
Marriage:
1) If you "believe" marriage is between a man and woman and their God; why is marriage licensed, taxed, and regulated?
2) Why is the State the over-see'er of marriage and not the church?
3) Why would you allow Washington DC regulate abortion without a constitutional amendment?
Second Amendment:
1) How would you propose to support not only the 2nd Amendment, but the entire Constitution and the most important first ten Amendments?
Language:
1) What is your definition of the "American dream"?
Your web page[s] is pretty but you are vague in your solutions. I find it easier to understand Title 26 than I do understanding how you will work to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States". In fact, in all of your proposals and thoughts you never once mentioned ANY Constitutional authority. You did brush upon the 2nd Amendment, but that does not equal citing authority.
You mimic Ron Paul in your writings yet you oppose his representing the 14th District. Why don't you offer to work for him, with him, learn the process of Washington DC, and then seek to fill the office after his retirement?
Ron Paul puts us the People on top, not terrorists, not NASA, not Washington DC, not taxes, not State regulated marriage, not confiscated farm subsidies, us the People and our natural rights are on the top of Ron Paul's list of things to protect.
If you want my vote you've got to answer my questions and offer me something better than Ron Paul's service over not only the last two decades but over the last fifty-one (51) years.
Your vocation is dedicated to requiring fees while allowing and assisting the US in robbing the People of our wealth. Ron Paul's vocation was dedicated to bringing life into the world. Ron Paul brought us in and you taxed us.
You've got some work to do and some things to learn if you want my vote.
I do intend to publish this letter along with your answers. You are attempting to fill one pair of very honorable shoes.
Respectfully,
PatriotOne
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Are these serious questions?
Because the answer to most of them is so plainly obvious as to be painful to answer.
I was hoping it was a joke, but since you seem so dumb that you posted the exact same post twice, I'm guessing they are serious.
But I'll wait for confirmation before I actually answer most of your stupid questions.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
RONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAUL!
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
In my neck of the woods anyway. Look at every Ron Paul for Emperor sign and it is in the front yard of the house without sod because the finance company bailed when they realized all the news stories about widening the highway were true! They are also the folks that see a conspiracy under every newspaper and they only read the "top-secret" blogs anyway. They have been so mad since they were potty trained and they realized it was easier to just let the democrat go in the pants (so to speak) that they simply cannot get a grip on the world today. They feel as though they have the 3 foot envelope, which surrounds their bodies, completely under their command while oblivious to 3 feet one inch and beyond.
Ron Paul needs to tend to his knitting. And the supporters need to stop burning down the opposition with Molotov cocktails. As a radio head said recently, "the biggest thing that hurt Ron Paul's chances were his supporters." I could not agree more. I thought he was a bit kooky. When I met his loyalistas I realized it was worse.
To my conservative brethren who were wooed and have come to their senses - I have no answers. McCain makes me sick and Obama and Hillary are Socialists. Outside of joining the Foreign Legion, I am unclear as to my next move, but Paul ain't it and Hackabubba never was.
...Lean not in your own understanding...
Ron Paul supporters are people who believe in freedom. Angry or not angry, we believe we should have the freedom to be either.
very soon...idiot!
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Yes, let's get rid of the most conservative member of the Republican Party that's in Congress. Brilliant plan.
The guy has never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget, the only one saying we need to get rid of the Department of Education and the IRS (without replacing it with another agency just as big, Huck fans). This is a guy who supported Reagan back before it was "cool" in the Republican party to do so. He's as pro-life and pro-2nd amendment as you can get.
And you want to get rid of him.
This is why the Republican party is splintering.
You don't have to vote Paul. If you really think he wrote all that racist stuff, and that bothers you, don't (Personally, I'm still waiting for anybody to show me an audio or video clip where he says anything like what was said in the newsletters).
But we need MORE conservatives in Congress, not fewer. We need more people with his consistent record against big government. McCain, Huckabee, and Romney sure as hell don't have it. Where did all the true conservatives go?
A. Conservatism is only worthwhile if it accomplishes results in the real world. Paul's version doesn't.
B. He's fundamentally unconservative in the issue that matters most: the fight against totalitarianism and America's position in the world.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
Wow. If there's one person who is stronger on individual liberty and against totalitarianism than Ron Paul, please point them out.
I can't believe you've actually researched him if that's what you believe.
Most Democrats are more anti-Totalitarian then Paul.
Oh sure, Paul might talk a good talk, but his isolationist views are nothing more then capitulation to every form of totalitarianism that has ever existed.
And if you don't recognize this, you are ignorant of history. As Paul is.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
Ok RandomGuy. Good luck with your strategy of taking over the world that is somehow not totalitarianism as long as you're the one doing it.
Thanks for doing nothing but propping up a straw man in response to my argument. That way everybody can tell what a moron you are.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
Yes, I am perfectly aware of what Ron Paul tries to claim it means.
It doesn't mean I give his bull$#!t definition a second thought.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
There are many resources at your disposal. Paul's definition of isolationism is accurate, while yours is clearly not.
American Heritage Dictionary, for example:
n. A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries.
You keep digging the hole deeper, though.
Yah, yah, yah, blah, blah, blah.
It's the same kind of people who try to say "There are no anarchists! Anarchy is no government! All of the people who say they are anarchists really just want some radically new form of government! They aren't anarchists at all!"
It's one of those things that might be true if it weren't so irrelevant. If you are going to go by some 1800's definition of the word, fine, but the bottom line is that there are people running around calling themselves anarchists and have for quite some time, that represent, usually, extreme leftist ideology in some mythical sense, and just want to break stuff in the meantime. It's a common usage of the word, people know what you are talking about, and language changes over time.
Similarly, Paul tries to claim he's not an isolationist because he says he doesn't believe in cutting our economy off from the world, something that's impossible even if he did want it. According to some silly definition of the word that escapes common usage, he might be right. By any common definition, it fits just fine.
You can call him a non-interventionist if it makes you feel better, but just know it's a distinction without meaning.
And actually, he fits even the classic version of an isolationist in practice anyway, because while he says he favors free trade, he votes against virtually every free trade agreement because he claims it's not free enough. So from a practical standpoint, he's even a classical isolationist.
So yah, you can sit there and think how smart you are if you so desire. But people who actually have brains are laughing at you.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
DOMESTIC! Fighting socialism within our own borders seems pretty darn conservative to me.
Seriously... if more people gave Paul a fair shake when it comes to the fiscal responsibility of the federal government, judicial and executive powers, we wouldn't be in these social security, income tax, and religious freedom messes that we're in today. Paul believes that if I can't avoid the income tax, then I'm a slave, or at least endentured servant of the federal government. If I have to pay taxes to live, how is it not some form of involuntary servitude? I'd personally prefer a consumption tax over a fee-based system that Paul advocates. But, I really could give a rats behind how many of my fellow Republicans friends and family who are accountants tell me disbanding the IRS is crazy. I think they're wrong, and I'll probably argue the point until the day I die.
If more politicians thought like Ron Paul, "The Fairness Doctrine" would NEVER be instituted. School Choice? Yep. 2nd Ammendment protection? You betcha. We'd be out of the UN. And yes, the US would probably take a decreasingly interventionist policy towards the world. I know one thing: If Ron Paul goes to war, he actually asks the congress to declare war. Me thinks formal declarations of war are far better than these wishy-washy "War Powers Resolutions," so I agree with him. Because political backing of the military is so vital to perceived, if not actual military success, I think the War Powers Act of 1973 is a pretty bad piece of legislation. I know Paul agrees with me there. If there was ever a built in escape clause for Dems to disavow their votes for military action, it was the Iraq War Resolution. They wouldn't be able to just wash their hands of their votes, if they were actually declaring war.
I didn't vote for Paul, but there's a lot of his message that I agree with. You don't agree with me? See what Mike Church has to say...
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Ron Paul's core philosophy... The one that can clearly be trusted when looking back at the last 30 years. That philosophy that defines liberty...
does not provide for racism.
Those who believe this, I can only assume just need a reason to dislike him and so they jump on this issue. He's the most consistent person I've ever heard of when it comes to individual liberty. He's the one who says we get our rights as individuals from our Creator and NOT because we belong to some group (ie. race) which is collectivism.
Sorry, but those who think he is a racist are blinded by their own emotions.
Get off my nice, clean website, apologist.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
the whole do it if it feels good and no government intervention is done....Conservatism is not about no government it is about good government...for the people by the people. The man is a complete and utter fool and is really just Pat Buchannan to the left....he is more suited for San Francisco than for Texas.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Ron Paul's "brand" as you so call it brought us Reagan. He supported Reagan as our candidate long before it was "cool" in the Republican party to do so. The thing is, Paul hasn't changed his thinking from then, while the party has.
The argument is whether the change is a good thing or not. There any many that feel that small government is a good thing, that "the government that governs best, governs least." The party has left these ideologies behind for a "big government is okay, as long as we're in charge of it" mentality.
Yah, because Reagan was an isolationist (Or, if you insist, non-interventionist) and believed in getting rid of the federal reserve. : rolls eyes :
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
* Immediately ending the requirement that disabled veterans give up their military retirement pay in order to receive VA disability benefits
* Cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market
* Reduce the tax burden and eliminate taxes that punish investment and savings, including job-killing corporate taxes
* Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley regulations that push companies to seek capital outside of US markets. Stop restricting community banks from fostering local economic growth
* Freeze Non-Defense, Non-Entitlement Spending at Current Levels
* Repeal the Death Tax
* Eliminate Taxes on Dividends and Savings: Pass HJ Res. 23 to encourage savings over consumption
* Eliminate Taxes on Social Security Benefits
* Repeal or Remove Costly and Unnecessary Federal Regulations
* "By removing federal regulations, encouraging competition, and presenting real choices, we can make our health care system the envy of the world once again"
I'm just sayin'...
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
That whole following the Constitution thing...
crazy stuff there.
He'd read the Bible, come across the passage "If you do not hate your mother and father and brothers and sisters, you are not worthy of me," and instantly come to the conclusion, "Ah! According to the Bible, we must hate our parents."
That's about the same way he reads the Constitution.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
Did Ron Paul intentionally set out to become the Republican Party's Ralph Nader, or is that just an artifact of his followers?
The funny thing is that I'd like to have drinks with Ron Paul, just him and me, sitting around a bottle of Wild Turkey and talking smack about the military industrial complex and the Death of Care and the all the joooooos in the world and the trilateral commission and everything else. We could go to a strip club and Ron and I could go to the Champagne Room and pretend that we were just there to help the ladies by stuffing fifties into their g-strings. Then we'd go back to my car and spread the Constitution out on the dashboard, start the motor and just careen over anything in our path until we found it. I have a 1968 Corvette that makes almost 500 horsepower and is truly frightening to drive when you push it: I'm sure he'd like it.
img src="
You, me, Mike Gravel, the '68, and a couple of bottles of heavy-duty hooch. I want diplomatic immunity before we go. Gravel can sit on the center console. I know all the best strip clubs in Florida, bub.
I think I'll spend my money to defeat Democrats.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I'm not a big fan of Ron Paul for President, but I'd prefer he kept his seat. Sure he has crazy ideas, but those crazy ideas are never going to go anywhere in the House. He's still a strong fiscal conservative and a good friend to taxpayers.
Ron Paul has demonstrated on a number of occasions in the past ten years why he not only doesn't have a place in this Party, he doesn't have a realistic place in American politics. He's a freak and a bigot.
This war has driven plenty of people just damn crazy...but remember Ben's grand McCain endorsement, lauding him for his vote against Medicare Part D because it was too costly?
Paul was even better, calling it "firmly in keeping with the failed New Deal and Great Society programs of the utopian left."
Leave him in Congress.
Ron Paul isn't someone I want associated with Republicans, Mike. That's just my opinion, but I wonder if you've read his newsletters?
I certainly don't want him associated with me. You read through that trash and decide whether you really want him associated with you.
I've read them, and I've also read a lot of other things Paul has written. They don't sound anything alike. Paul hasn't done enough to distance himself from the writings, but it's pretty clear he didn't write them himself.
But if he's so racist and such a bigot, why is it that nobody can find me any audio or video of the man saying something similar to what is in those newsletters? I mean, somebody who is so clearly racist must slip somewhere.
Hmm.
Meanwhile, I fully expect McCain's "gook" comments to surface early and often as we move toward November.
And he sent them to whoever he thought was his audience. Apparently he doesn't need anything other than that for his mouthpiece. Can you ask Ron Paul if he denies writing them?
If Ron Paul will deny supporting David Duke and he'll explain the rest of the comments in those newsletters, then I'll be happy to give him a second chance. But he'd better have a very good explanation for how they got printed.
He has denied many times writing those articles. The writings in question are very old and have been brought up before, and they've been dealt with then as well as again now.
His argument is that he never wrote and even never read the articles until much later. He says he has a moral responsibility for them, but that the messages are horrible and he doesn't stand by them. His argument is that while he owned the newsletter, he didn't often write for it, but that he had staff doing it instead.
I'm not sure about posting links on this site, but you can find Paul discussing it with Wolf Blitzer on YouTube. The video is called 'Ron Paul: "I'm Not a Racist"'
One or two comments in newsletters from time to time wouldn't be a problem, but the full picture of Ron Paul and his newsletters that emerges from, I'm sorry to say, The New Republic's reporting, is that he's been a resident of Rancho Cucamonga for a long, long time -- several decades, in fact.
If you read the link that I posted below, he actually had the cojones to call anti-counterfeiting measures in U.S. currency one of the means by which to scare the living daylights out of his rubes for $50 apice, asking them to believe that their money was tracking them, spinning it into a tale with the IRS and so on.
Ron Paul is probably the single worst example of a Republican politician that I've ever seen on the political stage, and I've seen and read about most of them. If he didn't write those newsletters himself, why does that matter? Is it better for him to have a Congressional office with all the perks so that he can continue to deny responsibility for the things he's said, or the things he supports?
"His argument" is ridiculous. He's running for President of the United States.
I don't care whether he's "denied" writing them -- his name is on them, and they form a comprehensive body of work that describes an almost completely cracked individual over the past 30 years. If you read the link below, he's actually accusing the U.S. Government of spying on its own people with anti-counterfeiting measures on its new dollar bills, and then asking people to send him money.
He's a complete, utter whack job and has been since the moment he entered the race.
such as Lew Rockwell writing the letters. He has been asked, and he has said "he has no idea" who wrote them. Unfortunately, he likely does, but won't throw them under the bus. That said, Reason Magazine doesn't let him off the hook, and neither do I. It's unfortunate he won't acknowledge all that went on during that period.
I still appreciate a lot that he has to say about The Constitution.
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
I suppose that the author who created the article on Ron Paul said he didn't think that Ron Paul was Homophobic and by implication racist and that he did it simply to mess with Ron Paul supporters doesn't mean a thing either. If you want a reason to bash Ron Paul, bash him for his standing on Iraq, or for his stance on Government.
Using attacks on his personal character to invalidate the concepts and ideals that drive people to support him serves no purpose but to further estrange people who generally vote Republican but who have a libertarian bent.
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
And I'll let people here sort out whether or not Ron Paul should stay in Congress and represent Republicans going forward but I'm going to tell you right now that I want absolutely NO part of the man, and I wish he'd get out of Congress right now. It's not enough for people to play into reactionary stereotypes of Republicans -- Ron Paul actually *lived them* in his newsletters. It's a big mistake to support him.
You decide whether someone with views like this is the guy you want in TX-14 as a Republican.
My answer is no.
Do you really think it's best to be plugging money and resources into an already safe Republican seat? With as many Republican Senate seats up for grabs in November, I just think the resources would be better spent ensuring the Democrats don't pick up five more seats in the Senate.
If you're someone who has tons of money to throw around to candidates, then by all means. But for someone like me who has a budget on how much he can donate to candidates this year, I think the money is better spent in other more important areas.
I just think there are bigger fish to fry out there. If you're like me and have limited resources for donating to candidates in this election year, I think you'd be better off targeting someone in the general election which can actually grab a seat from a Democrat.
This is rediculous. I don't expect any of the powers that be here to support Ron Paul, but you could at the very least not go out of your way to keep his supporters from closing ranks. The nominee to be today lost at least one and possibly all three states, which is just further evidence that he has a long way to go in getting Republicans to embrace his candidacy. Some conservatives have already said they'll sit this one out. Now it looks like you want some libertarians to take a seat too.
Three Senate seats currently held by Republicans (New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia) now favor Democrats, and another three (Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, and Oregon) could easily go their way. We have only one Democrat targeted this year and her seat is a toss-up. Meanwhile 25 House Republicans are not seeking reelection compared to only five Democrats. Ten of those open seats, all currently held by Republicans, are considered "Toss-ups" by Cook. We're also battling for state legislative races, which are especially important because in most states the winners of those races will get to draw the new CD maps.
Considering all of this, it amazes me that you really think that defeating somoeone who if renominated is certain to hold his seat is beyond me. When we lose close races in November and it appears as though we're once again headed for decades-long minority status, I hope you're happy to have focused your time, energy and money on shrinking the GOP and defeating Republicans rather than Democrats.
The primary is the one time we get to express our displeasure. Let Ron Paul go home and explain why he's been associating with freaks to try to get the Presidency. Let him defend himself in his House primary.
Ron Paul is a cancer in the party and must be destroyed.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
If you can spend the same dollar defeating Ron Paul as you can defeating Barack Obama, Mary Landrieu, or Al Franken, then by all means, go ahead. Most people, though, can only spend a dollar one way, so the question is, "Where should that dollar go?"
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Of course you will. If you're more interested in beating Republicans than Democrats, that's your business. I'm sure Howard Dean and Mary Landrieu are very appreciative.
Way too much dissatisfaction to be had in the "other" vote. Of course, mainly anti-McCain voters. Have to let them get their anger out first.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
I won't send money here I rather send it to general election Republican candidates but I do hope Paul goes down.
I see nothing different between him and Howard Dean on foreign policy
First off, Paul's not an anti-Semite, nor a racist. I've met the man personally several times, and he's one of the most genuine, nicest individuals I've ever met. The head of the Austin TX chapter of the NAACP publicly defended Paul. Paul was one of the few congressmen to support Israel in 1981 when they bombed Iraq's Osirak reactor.
As far as supporters go, I spent a week and a half in New Hampshire volunteering with other supporters, and I didn't meet a single conspiracy theorist along the way. I did meet a number of very educated and highly-informed individuals who support Paul for a myriad of reasons. And no, they weren't all hippie lefties or Birchers or kooks or crazies or truthers or whatever other denigrating name that's been thrown at us.
And yes, you WILL need our support come November and you won't get it if the Republican nominee is McCain.
And I'll offer a $20 bet (even odds) that McCain (presuming he's the nominee) will lose in the general election.
I work with/for several Air Force and Army officers that are huge Paul fans, and don't hide it. Definite Republicans, and not hippies by any stretch...
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
People love to talk about Reagan but maybe this isn't his party anymore????
Kicking RP out leads to a third party run which will take Hillary hating independents who will otherwise go to McCain. It will also take some of the people who voted Paul in the primaries.
Why is it so hard to explain to people that in a desperately difficult year for R's all guns need to remain pointed at the Democrats.
My Republican congressman cheated on his wife with a former staff member, then left his wife for that woman about four years ago. He had minor children at that time.
A real model of family values--but, hey, as a memeber of the Main Street Partnership, he doesn't campaign heavy on values. No, he campaigns heavy on the pork he can bring home.
For what it's worth, his ACU lifetime is 72.
While we're purging the party, let's not stop at Rep. Paul--there are a lot of other bad apples in the barrel.
Its been apparent for a long time... you are a
*mbag .. I guess it just took a case of PDS
(Paul Derangement Syndrome) to bring it out. Until
this point I have never attacked anyone personally
in over 3 years while you have done so repeatedly,
against Paul in particular. It is people of your
ilk who have dragged this party down and frankly
you have no clue what it means to be a conservative
nor what Reagan was all about. Unlike you, I was
not in diapers while Reagan was in office - I voted
for the man and saw it all.
I can only hope and pray that either a McCain win
or a Billary/Obama win flushes you and others like
you out of the Republican party once and for all.
Feel free to lock my account, I won't need it any
more. My posts will remain in the wayback machine
so I will still have the taint of once being associated
with you but at least I'll be clean from now on.
Rant Street! www.rant.st
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
The reality is that Paul's relatively paltry numbers in the vote total thus far suggest his constituency is not meaningful to the GOP candidate (i.e. McCain). Especially if you consider how many of Paul's people are fundamentally predisposed to vote minor party or note vote at all.
The GOP does not need Paul to win this election. Not even close.
That said, some of the invective directed against him is really over the top and frankly, absurd. Erick, please re-consider your statement:
"You know, having spent the past year bashing Jews, Republicans, the military, and the United States..."
Bashing "Jews"?! Huh? With regard to the military and the united states, what you're saying is that you have a policy disagreement with him over the Iraq war and the broader constellation of US military and financial arrangements oversees. He did some republican-bashing, but didn't run attack ads on other GOP candidates (to my knowledge) and didn't engage in any dirty political tricks.
Can't we keep this discussion serious, please?
n/t