Ron Paul to Announce Candidacy on C-SPAN March 12, 7:30 a.m. EDT

[poncho]

It is hard to call the Vice President a neo-conservative since he was never a Democrat and never a Jew.

One doesn't haven't to be a former democrat or a Jew to be a neocon. A neocon doesn't even have to know who Leo Strauss, Niccolo Machiavelli, Leon Trotsky or Irving Kristol are either that's been proven time and again by the neocons on this board.

This is what makes one a neocon. <-- link

And Dick Cheney is 110% Neocon.

 

[church mouse guy]

I am not sure that I want to take the Christian Science Monitor's definition of anything but it is hard to see that they offer much of a definition.

It turns out that if you were a liberal Democrat and a Jew and you became a Republican, you got called a neoconservative by your ex-Democrat friends.

And then there is the charge that Reagan was too assertive in bringing down the Soviet Empire. It is hard to believe this stuff seriously. Do you think Carter would have ever brought down the Berlin Wall, Poncho? No, he would have built houses for the poor using the wall as part of the walls of the house for the poor.

And then all that stuff about Israel. You know what, Poncho, I stop worrying about the Jews decades ago when I realized that they survived Hitler who dedicated all of German might and scientific advancement and higher criticism theology to the destruction of the Jews and failed. God will protect Israel. Besides, the first pro-Israel President was President Harry S Truman, who recognized Israel as a nation in 1948 when no one else in the world would. Is Truman a neo-conservative?

And as for the polite applause for the do-nothing Clinton foreign policy, it led to Nine Eleven.

So your definition still comes back to a liberal Jewish Democrat who likes Israel and became a Reagan Republican.

But one thing is clear and that is that Ron Paul does not support the Reagan Republican foreign policy and that his best hope for a primary victory lies in a US military defeat.

Ron Paul does not support the Reagan platform on abortion from 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004.

As for the idea that a 1611 King James Only person could be against the death penalty and still be a good Christian I have to wonder how a Fundamentalist like that picked up an idea from Barry Lynn and the religious left. I re-ask my question of should not abortionists be executed for the mass murders of little unborn children, or are we going to apologize to Hitler, who afterall also legalized the murder of the Jews in Germany during the nazi regime. In other words, is an abortionist any better than Hitler, whom we would have executed if he had not committed suicide (also a sin).

The trouble with Ron Paul is that he does not seem to have a Christian perspective, still holds to the program of the Republican Liberty Caucus, rejects Reaganism, and wears ill-fitting clothes. There is no reason whatsoever for any Hoosier Republican to vote for Ron Paul because we have had our belly fully of do-nothing libertarians in this state. Indianapolis is overrun with drugs, male prostitution, and female prostitution. No doubt the Republican Liberty Caucus would merely legalize these crimes and say that they had solved the problem. I have known a lot of libertarians and I have found that they are merely people who don't use toothpaste and soap and water.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Conservatives are not against the war; the left is. It was the Democrats, who probably don't volunteer much for the military anyway, who started the anti-war effort back in the days of Cindy Sheehan and her spending the summer at Crawford and buying a home there. The real thrust against the war came from the liberals.

Conservatives are against empirical wars and are only in favor of just wars, fought in self-defense.

It is hard to call the Vice President a neo-conservative since he was never a Democrat and never a Jew.

You admitted in another thread that you did not know what a neo-con is and it would appear you have not done additional research to inform yourself.

Nor can you call Fred Thompson a neo-conservative by any stretch of the imagination. Haven't you ever seen "Law and Order"?

I do not watch television nor would I obtain my political worldview from a fictional program.

That is the reason that the ill-clothed Ron Paul, who is against the Reagan platform on abortion from 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 is not a Reagan Republican. He is the same way on defense--an 1930s isolationists that said that the Germans, Italians, and Japanese could have Europe, Asia, and Africa, and maybe Australia, and the USA would still be the same.

I am not a fashion critic but I have not known Congressman Paul to wear anything but professional to business casual clothing.

Then there is the fact that the ill-clothed Ron Paul is also against the Christian doctrine in favor of the death penalty. How does a Bible-believing Christian defend the abolition of the death penalty? Shouldn't abortionists be put to death for murder?

Perhaps, Ron Paul's people should hook him up with GQ so his clothing meets your approval?

While, I lean towards being a death penalty proponent, I am unsatisfied with our gov't's application of the penalty and I respect Christian brethren who are opposed to it. Further, if we were being consistent, all of the people who have assassinated unborn children or encouraged it, should be given the gas as well and since Rudy wants public funding for baby killing, he should've been whacked along time ago. Also, keep in mind, Saul wouldn't have become Paul if he was given the gas.

 

[church mouse guy]

Well, you respect the religious left--that is the liberal in you. And you call me a neo-con, that is by Poncho's definition from the Christian Science Monitor (do you respect Christian Science, too, as a Fundamentalist KJO?) is a liberal Democrat and a Jew who became a Reagan supporter and got called a neo-con by liberal Democrats. I have no respect for those who do not want to put murderers to death because I have a high view of Scripture, but you can go ahead and support your libertarian friend who does not have enough courage to admit that he is not a real Republican because he wants the goodies that the GOP buys him off with in Congress.

By the way, for the record, I am no longer leaning towards Rudy (as posted before) but towards Thompson so don't look to me to defend Rudy.

You want to abandon the Reagan platform on abortion, abandon the Reagan foreign policy, abolish the death penalty, legalize drugs and prostitution (male and female) and you expect Hoosier Republicans to go along with you, throwing out almost 30 years of work under Reagan's original leadership. And you call yourself a conservative? I call you a political Attila the Hun to Republicans.

 

[KenH]

An Archive of Ron Paul Articles

Here is a great source of articles by Congressman Ron Paul who will be the next president of these United States if God blesses this country so -

www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

 

[KenH]

Congressman Ron Paul's poll numbers doubled in the week before he even announced his is running -

http://ronpaul.rescue-us.org/2007/0...rs-double-from-last-week-leaving-him-6th.aspx

His candidacy will give the Country Club Republicans fits. :thumbs:

 

[poncho]

I am not sure that I want to take the Christian Science Monitor's definition of anything but it is hard to see that they offer much of a definition.

Seems to describe most neocons to a T.

It turns out that if you were a liberal Democrat and a Jew and you became a Republican, you got called a neoconservative by your ex-Democrat friends.

The first of them were liberal democrats but not all of them were Jews.

And then there is the charge that Reagan was too assertive in bringing down the Soviet Empire. It is hard to believe this stuff seriously. Do you think Carter would have ever brought down the Berlin Wall, Poncho?

HA! Trick question. The Soviet Union was rotting from within and almost ready to fall by the time Reagan got elected. The CIA's nuclear assesments were greatly exaggerated. Rumsfeld and Cheney have been using the same ploys using false evidence and scare tactics they used on us to take us into Iraq since Ford took office.

And then all that stuff about Israel. You know what, Poncho, I stop worrying about the Jews decades ago when I realized that they survived Hitler who dedicated all of German might and scientific advancement and higher criticism theology to the destruction of the Jews and failed. God will protect Israel. Besides, the first pro-Israel President was President Harry S Truman, who recognized Israel as a nation in 1948 when no one else in the world would. Is Truman a neo-conservative?

No he was a globalist though. I can lead you to the documents CMG but I can't make you read or understand them for what they are. Clean Break, Rebuilding America's Defenses. The Grand Chessboard.

And as for the polite applause for the do-nothing Clinton foreign policy, it led to Nine Eleven.

Which in turn helped the neocon cause by allowing "that sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being", or a "catatrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor".

So your definition still comes back to a liberal Jewish Democrat who likes Israel and became a Reagan Republican.

No it doesn't. You only say that because you know you'd feel ill to agree with me about it that's all.:smilewinkgrin:

But one thing is clear and that is that Ron Paul does not support the Reagan Republican foreign policy and that his best hope for a primary victory lies in a US military defeat.

Uh, that was more like Rumsfled, Cheney and Wolfowitz's foreign policy CMG. Ronald Reagan like Bush let them make up the bogus intell which he in turn sold to the rest of us like Bush although I doubt very much Reagan knew it was bogus at the time.

Why do you seem to think we're losing in Iraq CMG. If you go by what the documents (you keep ignoring and/or spinning) your neocon heros were writting in the past destabilization of the region is the victory.

Ron Paul does not support the Reagan platform on abortion from 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004.

KenH and JGrubbs have already answered this.

As for the idea that a 1611 King James Only person could be against the death penalty and still be a good Christian I have to wonder how a Fundamentalist like that picked up an idea from Barry Lynn and the religious left. I re-ask my question of should not abortionists be executed for the mass murders of little unborn children, or are we going to apologize to Hitler, who afterall also legalized the murder of the Jews in Germany during the nazi regime. In other words, is an abortionist any better than Hitler, whom we would have executed if he had not committed suicide (also a sin).

The trouble with Ron Paul is that he does not seem to have a Christian perspective, still holds to the program of the Republican Liberty Caucus, rejects Reaganism, and wears ill-fitting clothes. There is no reason whatsoever for any Hoosier Republican to vote for Ron Paul because we have had our belly fully of do-nothing libertarians in this state. Indianapolis is overrun with drugs, male prostitution, and female prostitution. No doubt the Republican Liberty Caucus would merely legalize these crimes and say that they had solved the problem. I have known a lot of libertarians and I have found that they are merely people who don't use toothpaste and soap and water.

And all this I can only interpret as desperation. No body wants to support your two timing liberal statist CMG. Sorry.

 

[Bartimaeus]

A US military defeat might help Ron Paul pick up liberal Republicans who are against the war; however, the Republican rank and file are opposed to Paul's abolition of the death penalty for murderers and the Republican rank and file support the Reagan heritage calling for a constitutional amendment to protect human life and end abortion (which Paul is against). Ron Paul has ill-fitting clothes that show in pictures of him and make that member of the Republican Liberty Caucus stand out like a sore thumb. One wonders what kind of ego drives him since in 1988 he got less than a half million votes and there has been no increase in his popularity, especially with his membership in the Republican Liberty Caucus. He in effect says that he is not really a Republican but that he wants to sleep with them anyway in a very unflattering proposal that deals only with his own lusts.

The republicrats you sleep with are the likes of your fair haired boy, Steve Goldsmith.....and others who hate religious liberty like the Sanhedrian. You have shown us both sides ......of your tongue, it is like the fire. No one takes your posts seriously sir.....you have blackened yourself.

Bartimaeus

 

[church mouse guy]

I knew Goldsmith was a Jew but I didn't know that he is Sanhedrian....

The republicrats you sleep with are the likes of your fair haired boy, Steve Goldsmith.....and others who hate religious liberty like the Sanhedrian. You have shown us both sides ......of your tongue, it is like the fire. No one takes your posts seriously sir.....you have blackened yourself.

Bartimaeus

Really, Goldsmith is a bright lawyer who put a lot of crooks in jail. The only time that I have mentioned him lately was to say that he endorsed Rudy. For the record, I was leaning towards Rudy for 2 days and now I am leaning towards Fred Thompson. Steve Goldsmith did have the Indiana GOP nomination for Governor of Indiana but there was a lot of backlash against the idea of a Jewish governor and he lost to Evan Bayh, now US Senator from Indiana. When did Goldsmith become Sanhedrian? Am I supposed to take that seriously? Your candidate is a flop.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

By the way, for the record, I am no longer leaning towards Rudy (as posted before) but towards Thompson so don't look to me to defend Rudy.

Wow! So, how long did you support Rudy, one whole month?

 

[Bartimaeus]

Really, Goldsmith is a bright lawyer who put a lot of crooks in jail. The only time that I have mentioned him lately was to say that he endorsed Rudy. For the record, I was leaning towards Rudy for 2 days and now I am leaning towards Fred Thompson. Steve Goldsmith did have the Indiana GOP nomination for Governor of Indiana but there was a lot of backlash against the idea of a Jewish governor and he lost to Evan Bayh, now US Senator from Indiana. When did Goldsmith become Sanhedrian? Am I supposed to take that seriously? Your candidate is a flop.

The Sanhedrian was the religious right of Christ's day who kept the people oppressed in bondage while they enjoyed positions of (supposed) authority. You are the Sandhedrian of today. Once again you missed the point. As far as naming a flop......"It's the pot calling the kettle black".

Bartimaeus

 

[Rufus_1611]

Really, Goldsmith is a bright lawyer who put a lot of crooks in jail. The only time that I have mentioned him lately was to say that he endorsed Rudy. For the record, I was leaning towards Rudy for 2 days and now I am leaning towards Fred Thompson. Steve Goldsmith did have the Indiana GOP nomination for Governor of Indiana but there was a lot of backlash against the idea of a Jewish governor and he lost to Evan Bayh, now US Senator from Indiana. When did Goldsmith become Sanhedrian? Am I supposed to take that seriously? Your candidate is a flop.

I'm a little foggy on the math on this. Will you please clarify your comments?

02-19-2007, 08:32 PM You created a New Thread titled "Rudy for President"
03-02-2007, 07:15 PM You declared in the same thread "Rudy is the best of the bunch at this time."

Time of support: Just under 11 days

Today 02:54 AM You state, for the record, that you were leaning towards Rudy for 2 days​

Were you not "leaning towards" Rudy in the "Rudy for President thread? Or was the "2 days" thing a typo?

 

[James_Newman]

Watch out, Fred Thompson, CMG may be leaning toward you now, but he will drop you like an overripe melon as soon as someone comes along promising to bomb Iran AND Mexico...

 

[church mouse guy]

OK, so I lived in Texas once.

I'm a little foggy on the math on this. Will you please clarify your comments?

02-19-2007, 08:32 PM You created a New Thread titled "Rudy for President"
03-02-2007, 07:15 PM You declared in the same thread "Rudy is the best of the bunch at this time."

Time of support: Just under 11 days

Today 02:54 AM You state, for the record, that you were leaning towards Rudy for 2 days
​

Were you not "leaning towards" Rudy in the "Rudy for President thread? Or was the "2 days" thing a typo?

OK, so I lived in Texas once and I tend to not worry about petty things. At any rate, I lost interest in Rudy once Fred Thompson said that he would get in the race if the 3 front-runners faltered. I also was a Chicagoan so I have a big city side also.

 

[church mouse guy]

No, I am pro-Latino.

Watch out, Fred Thompson, CMG may be leaning toward you now, but he will drop you like an overripe melon as soon as someone comes along promising to bomb Iran AND Mexico...

My Indianapolis neighborhood is heavily Mexican and I lived on the border with Mexico and have travelled a great deal in Northern Mexico. So I am only disgusted with the Mexican upper class who fail to initiate needed reforms because they can always deport their poor to the USA.

As for Iran, I am worried that they might drop the atomic bomb on Paris as soon as they get it and I would not want to see Paris nuked under any circumstances. I think this early in the campaign, with the election about a year and a half away, it is best just to lean until more information is made available. I think that Rudy is the most exciting personality but Thompson seems to be the closest thing to another Ronald Reagan.

 

[church mouse guy]

I thought that leaning was just that.

Wow! So, how long did you support Rudy, one whole month?

I guess that they have me down for exactly how long I was leaning towards Rudy. I never exactly supported him in that I sent him no money and did not sign anything on his behalf although I did ask for e-mails from his exploratory committee. Yeah, you are about right, Terry. I am leaning towards Fred Thompson for the time being because I think that his domestic social program is like Reagan's and his foreign policy is traditional GOP. I am firmly against Romney because Mormons believe that a male may become a god and rule a planet like Earth somewhere else in the universe. That is just too heretical for me. I consider McCain a Christian basher although it might be possible that he would switch parties and run as a Democrat--what do you think of that, Terry?

 

[Terry_Herrington]

I guess that they have me down for exactly how long I was leaning towards Rudy. I never exactly supported him in that I sent him no money and did not sign anything on his behalf although I did ask for e-mails from his exploratory committee. Yeah, you are about right, Terry. I am leaning towards Fred Thompson for the time being because I think that his domestic social program is like Reagan's and his foreign policy is traditional GOP. I am firmly against Romney because Mormons believe that a male may become a god and rule a planet like Earth somewhere else in the universe. That is just too heretical for me. I consider McCain a Christian basher although it might be possible that he would switch parties and run as a Democrat--what do you think of that, Terry?

Thank you!

CMG I congratulate you on this posting as well as the one preceding it. Although I don't agree with everything you say, I must say that you articulated your point without all the usual trappings. Good job!