PDA

View Full Version : Fred was right! This is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party




Bryan
01-22-2008, 06:35 PM
Will we choose constitutionally limited government with a strong defense or will we go down the road of socialism with a loss of personal freedom and national sovereignty? That is in fact the choice we face that Fred pointed out at the recent South Carolina debate.

When you look at the records and platforms it becomes clear that now only Dr. Paul supports personal freedom in the American and Reagan Republican tradition: a strong national defense, no encroachments on the Second Amendment, no universal health care, a repeal of the freedom stealing income tax, get us out of the UN (who wants to try our soldiers in the ICC), no new federal bans on whatever. No big government!


The two biggest issues I hear from Fred Thompson supporters with Ron Paul are that: the gold standard is outdated; we need to fight terrorism. Please consider the following:

- As written, the Constitution only provides for gold and silver to be used as legal tender by the state, Dr. Paul points this out but also supports moving to a constitutional system of competing currencies and not a strict gold standard. The idea is to let the free markets decide what is best- one should not pass judgment on this issue until they've spent many hours studying the complex economic issues involved. This video is a good primer on some of our current problems:

Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553


On terrorism, Dr. Paul supports defending ourselves he just disagrees with the policy used to do that. Some things to consider:

- We are currently fighting fourth generational warfare with third generational military tactics, it's extremely cost-ineffective and kills a lot of innocent people that will help generate more terrorists (blowback). Dr. Paul fully supports attacking our enemies that are a clean and present danger to our security, one tool he proposes to use is the use of letters of marque and reprisal (as authorized in the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11) which effectively puts a bounty on the heads of specific people. This basically means using good intel and special ops to get the job done in a more precise tactical style rather than using masses of foot soldiers policing streets. Here is some legislation he proposed back in 2001 on this: "Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001"
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr101101.htm
"Once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man,"

- Dr. Paul recognizes that our military is over burdened, are under equipped and that our veterans are getting sub-standard treatment, he wants to change that. We'll never be strong if the best people see it as a mistake to sign up for service, we're moving into that area now.

- Dr. Paul may be the only one to point out that it's not in the best interest of our national security to borrow 2.5+ billion a day from the likes of the communist Chinese to fund our military operations. Our ever growing $9 trillion national debt is as much of a security problem as anything else.

- It is completely unimaginable that a Dr. Paul presidency would ignore the will of the people to fight if Congress declared an act of war. Congress must do their job!


Please learn more about Dr. Paul here:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org

Join us, the future of the Republican party and America depends upon it!

Nicketas
01-22-2008, 07:14 PM
....

jacmicwag
01-22-2008, 07:15 PM
I would add that on my short list, the choices were:

Ron Paul
Fred Thompson
Mitt Romney

If Ron were to drop, Fred was always my second choice and would be today if he was still in the race. We all have different views and hot issues, but I'm hoping that some of Fred's supporters will consider Ron in addition to the other candidates.

dvictr
01-22-2008, 07:18 PM
welcome. feel free to ask any questions

jkm1864
01-24-2008, 12:24 AM
With the Big spending war mongers on the right and the Big spending social Welfare supporters on the left America is screwed. I don't know where the money is going to come from maybe out of thin air?

Molly1
01-24-2008, 12:35 AM
With the Big spending war mongers on the right and the Big spending social Welfare supporters on the left America is screwed. I don't know where the money is going to come from maybe out of thin air?

You hit the nail on the head.

fmontez
01-24-2008, 01:09 AM
With the Big spending war mongers on the right and the Big spending social Welfare supporters on the left America is screwed. I don't know where the money is going to come from maybe out of thin air?

Close, how about this.

With big spending social & war mongering spenders on the left, and big spending social & war mongering spenders on the right America is screwed. Lets not kid ourselves, the only reasons the Dem Party is against this war is because it's not theirs. They are aching to get into office so they can take it over, extend it, and do it "right."

Paul Revered
01-24-2008, 08:33 PM
I posted the OP on MySpace.

shooter_tx
01-27-2008, 10:37 AM
Fred and Ron were the only two true federalists in the race.

"And then there was one." :(

Agora
01-31-2008, 09:44 AM
heart and soul & brain if you ask me ;)

alexpasch
01-31-2008, 10:30 AM
Fred and Ron were the only two true federalists in the race.

"And then there was one." :(

I could be wrong about this...but isn't federalist someone that wants strong central government?

steph3n
01-31-2008, 10:37 AM
I could be wrong about this...but isn't federalist someone that wants strong central government?

Yea always has been, even before Hamilton supposedly changed it, it was still for a strong central government.

The Anti-Federalist were the true state rights group all along. Thanks Patrick Henry!!

shooter_tx
02-02-2008, 08:41 PM
I could be wrong about this...but isn't federalist someone that wants strong central government?
Not in American political discourse. Just like there is a difference between "libertarian" and "Libertarian," so is there a difference/distinction between "federalist" and "Federalist."

Small 'l' libertarian is someone who believes/espouses the ideas and ideals of libertarianism. Big 'l' Libertarian is someone who supports the Libertarian party.

Small 'f' federalist is someone who believes/espouses the ideas and ideals of federalism. Big "f" Federalist is someone who supports (or supported, in this case) the Federalist "party" (for want of a better word).

Generally, the principle of "federalism" states that the Federal government is responsible for its "sphere" and the governments of the 'many states' are responsible for their respective "spheres".

Read Federalist No.51 for a good explanation of this. Here's an excerpt:

First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.
It is this "compound republic[anism]" which is a core tenet of federalism, and one supported by both Ron and Fred.

shooter_tx
02-02-2008, 08:48 PM
Yea always has been, even before Hamilton supposedly changed it, it was still for a strong central government.

The Anti-Federalist were the true state rights group all along. Thanks Patrick Henry!!
FWIW, the first Anti-Federalists were "confederalists" (?), in that they wanted to keep the Articles [of Confederation]. The later Anti-Federalists were actually true federalists. ;)


ETA: And the term "state's rights" doesn't really have any meaning within a confederation, as there would be no argument otherwise (i.e. no one would ever argue that Maine would/should rule Texas, or vice versa). It's only in a federation (such as the federated, Constitutional republic we live in) that the term has a whole lot of meaning.

Ron Paul for Liberty
02-02-2008, 09:00 PM
I would add that on my short list, the choices were:

Ron Paul
Fred Thompson
Mitt Romney



Thats my order as well, too bad Fred is out, he would have made a strong backup.

Matt Collins
02-03-2008, 12:25 AM
If anyone other than Ron Paul gets the nomination I see this as the end of the GOP. Madam Hillary might reunite them, but really the true conservatives who are smart enough to realize what's going on will see through the BS and remember this election and how every single conservative IS GETTING SCREWED!

RPinUptownChi
02-03-2008, 12:42 AM
--

paulforpres
02-03-2008, 02:59 AM
I consider myself a bit on the left but Dr. Paul has definitely struck a positive note with me! I would be enthralled for him to get the Presidency over Dems or So Called Reps. Here is a true republican with an eye on the future about getting back to the basics. Its what must be done. America will not last on its current path run by either of the other parties. Its a shame that America will not wake up and see who is the ideal candidate for getting us back on track instead of a wreck.
What amazes me is that the government expects you to be responsible for your debt however it totally disregards its responsibilty. I feel very sorry for younger generations that have to straighten out all of the previous presidents financial wasting that have spent with no regard for future generations. Of course those past and present presidents family are taken care of for life so no harm to them.

shooter_tx
02-03-2008, 08:37 AM
Fred should man up and support Ron Paul, I don't know who else he would prefer...
I truly wish he would. I don't think he could in good faith support anyone else.