Ron Paul must go all out anti-war

[cheapseats]

Some good old fashioned "America First" isolationism is good, sounding like a weak pacifist is bad.

"Peace at any price" IS bad. Isolationism is utterly without a reality base in "modern" times.

AMERICA FIRST IN AMERICA.

Many Republicans don't like Islam one bit.

True, dat. Happily, a candidate doesn't have to "go there" to be PRO AMERICA IN AMERICA and AMERICANS FIRST IN AMERICA.

Thinking we can save everyone is arrogance. TRYING is fiscal insanity . . . as well as pissing at the moon trying to make it more yellow.

IF YOU BUILD IT, SOMEONE WILL NEED IT.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm looking for a candidate who AGGRESSIVELY bangs the anti-war drum, underscoring RIGHTEOUSNESS with the hellacious cost to Taxpayers of "American Exceptionalism" that manifests as being Big Swinging Dick NINE-ONE-ONE for the entire portion of the world that does not turn to Russia, China or Saudi Arabia in moments of I'M GONNA SIC MY BIG BROTHER ON YOU.

 

[jmdrake]

^This. Ron Paul is as antiwar as you can get. The question is will the campaign turn this from the liability that it is with (some) republicans to the asset it is with independents and disgruntled dems? We simply can't afford to wait for the general election to bring in people who are willing to embrace Ron Paul 100%. We have to identify and recruit all antiwar republicans and then go after fiscally sane democrats and independents. (Unfortunately many "progressives" are not fiscally sane). The pro-war republicans will simply need to be written off.

See: http://elections.firedoglake.com/20...eveal-opportunities-for-anti-war-republicans/
http://nwrepublican.blogspot.com/2011/08/poll-43-of-republicans-want-troops-home.html
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Rasmussen-Afghanistan-American-troops/2011/08/11/id/407002

Bullshit.

Oh really? He's already against the next war (Iran). What the hell else do you want?

 

[cheapseats]

I really don't believe he could do any more anti-war rhetoric without getting the 2008 treatment all over again.

Is he not ALREADY getting "the 2008 treatment all over again"?

Granted, he's doing better than LAST time, but is that not attributable to Supporters' dedication? Have not SEVERAL Mainstream outlets reported a Republican three-way race WITHOUT mentioning Ron Paul? Yes, the answer is YES. For I have heard them.

 

[cheapseats]

Oh really? He's already against the next war (Iran). What the hell else do you want?

More than sustainedly civil lip service, that's for sure. Are you suggesting that expressed opposition to MORE war, one with Iran, constitutes "as anti war as you can get"?

 

[cheapseats]

Nobody is against the war.

That is false. I am against the war, and I am NOT the only one. I have driven tens of thousands of miles these past four years and I can swear on the proverbial stack of Bibles, I am NOT the only one against the WARS. Plural.

WAG THE DOG.

 

[jmdrake]

More than sustainedly civil lip service, that's for sure. Are you suggesting that expressed opposition to MORE war, one with Iran, constitutes "as anti war as you can get"?

Are you suggesting that he must be uncivil in order to be "antiwar"? Do you honestly think that's what is going to move the ball forward? As for "lip service", voting against the Iraq war and drafting a bill to sunset the authorization for the use of military force is not "lip service". Effectiveness in being antiwar is not measured by how much of an ass you can make out of yourself.

 

[cheapseats]

Perception is the only thing that matters.

No, it isn't. THAT is Political Doublespeak.

Sustainedly killing living, breathing, walking, talking people in oil-laden lands year after bloody year MATTERS. I will argue that it matters a helluva lot more than terrorizing pregnant women into saving POTENTIAL lives.

 

[cheapseats]

Are you suggesting that...

Had you pegged as tit-for-tat kinda guy from the get-go.

As for "lip service", voting against the Iraq war and drafting a bill to sunset the authorization for the use of military force is not "lip service". Effectiveness in being antiwar is not measured by how much of an ass you can make out of yourself.

Effectiveness at ANTI WAR is measured by NOT being at war. His voice hasn't carried. Moreover, he KNOWS his voice won't carry when he casts many of his votes. You like WINDOW DRESSING better than LIP SERVICE?

 

[jmdrake]

Had you pegged as tit-for-tat kinda guy from the get-go.

I have you pegged as an empty keyboard.

Effectiveness at ANTI WAR is measured by NOT being at war. His voice hasn't carried. Moreover, he KNOWS his voice won't carry when he casts many of his votes. You like WINDOW DRESSING better than LIP SERVICE?

Great. By that measure you suck at being antiwar. Anyway, you've basically admitted at this point that you're just being a troll. You want the last word you can have it. If you actually say something worth anything I'll respond.

 

[cheapseats]

I have you pegged as an empty keyboard.

Right back atcha.

Great. By that measure you suck at being antiwar.

I am not running for the HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND, or for any office. You'll concede that makes a big difference?

Anyway, you've basically admitted at this point that you're just being a troll.

No, I haven't. That it seems so to YOU, I accept.

But to ME, you are an ineffectual debater. Like Ron Paul is ineffectually ANTI WAR.

You want the last word you can have it. If you actually say something worth anything I'll respond.

Spoken like a FENCE STRADDLER.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Dude, seriously, Ron was almost yelling during the debate about war propaganda, and how we need to bring our troops home.

I have no clue what you are arguing.

 

[jmdrake]

Dude, seriously, Ron was almost yelling during the debate about war propaganda, and how we need to bring our troops home.

I have no clue what you are arguing.

 

[couvi]

I have no clue what you are arguing.

That he needs to do it more often, and in a way which will gain more attention. Sorry, thought I made that clear.

 

[jmdrake]

That he needs to do it more often, and in a way which will gain more attention. Sorry, thought I made that clear.

You mean like this?



Seriously, anyone who doesn't know Ron Paul is antiwar by this point is brain dead.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Thread fail.

People know Ron Paul is anti-war. How anyone could think this is an issue is beyond me. As for saying, "war is always bad," well, Ron doesn't believe in that. If you wan't him to say it, it's not going to happen. He simply wants to avoid it at all costs, but Constitutional war has a purpose, and he has said that as well.

This is the reason I hate it when people quote Paul for something he didn't actually say. They think that they actually know that he would asy that, when in fact, it is a complete misrepresentation of what he has said, but they only want him to say it because it is more in line with their beliefs. If you don't like Ron's position on war, then tough.

 

[couvi]

You mean like this?

Yes, like that.

 

[jmdrake]

Yes, like that.

Well he's already doing that. So this thread is unnecessary.

 

[cindy25]

Thread fail.

People know Ron Paul is anti-war. How anyone could think this is an issue is beyond me. As for saying, "war is always bad," well, Ron doesn't believe in that. If you wan't him to say it, it's not going to happen. He simply wants to avoid it at all costs, but Constitutional war has a purpose, and he has said that as well.

This is the reason I hate it when people quote Paul for something he didn't actually say. They think that they actually know that he would asy that, when in fact, it is a complete misrepresentation of what he has said, but they only want him to say it because it is more in line with their beliefs. If you don't like Ron's position on war, then tough.

in 2008 McCain won NH primary as the anti-war candidate, and NH voters are far more knowledgeable than voters in other states.

 

[couvi]

Well he's already doing that. So this thread is unnecessary.

More. That was my point. Again, sorry I didn't make that as clear as I had thought.

But I think we should have a separate forum with only necessary threads. Mine wouldn't be there because those who decide on the qualifications would always make judgments exactly equal to yours.

 

[jmdrake]

More. That was my point. Again, sorry I didn't make that as clear as I had thought.

But I think we should have a separate forum with only necessary threads. Mine wouldn't be there because those who decide on the qualifications would always make judgments exactly equal to yours.

It's a free country and I don't own the forum so you can make all of the posts you like. By the same token I can give my opinion about your thread. And my opinion is that this is a glorified waste of time. But that's just my opinion. On the one hand there are fanatics/trolls who apparently don't think Ron Paul is "antiwar" enough because he hasn't done what they can't do (end the wars). I don't think you fall in that nutso category. But you seem to be under the mistaken assumption that if Ron Paul just says "I'm against these wars" more than he already does (which is more than any other national politician) he will somehow magically get more antiwar votes. The fact is that he won't. Many on the radical left are aware that he's more antiwar than they are, but they hate him because he's also against their progressive agenda. I found that out the hard way. You see I joined a local antiwar mailing list before I joined the Ron Paul movement and was later shocked to find the list owner attacking Ron Paul harder than any other candidate even though he knew Dr. Paul was solidly antiwar.

Now, there may be some people who simply are not clued in politically and don't know anything about Dr. Paul. But guess what? Ron Paul talking more about his stance against war will not reach those people. Why? Because if they were reachable through normal channels they would be reached already. If you want to be effective, rather than talking on a webforum about how Ron Paul should talk more about war, you should make yourself a committee of one to talk to people who are against war to make sure they are at least considering Dr. Paul. Take the clip I just posted and show it to them. Compile information about Obama's pro-war record (as opposed to his antiwar campaign record) and show that to them also. Of course then you have to convince many of these people who are economic socialists that Ron Paul's economics make the most sense as well. Good luck!