Ron Paul supporter kicked out of Tea Party rally

[hugo]

In the Reagan Library, Only Ron Paul Carries the Reagan Mantle

SIMI VALLEY, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--In 1976, Ron Paul was one of only four Republican Congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for President. In tonight’s debate at the Ronald Reagan Library, Congressman Paul once again showed that he is the candidate that stands for the conservative principles of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

 

“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.�

.Asked if Ronald Reagan would endorse him for President today, Ron Paul responded that he couldn't know that for certain. But Dr. Paul went on to say that he had been an early leader in supporting Ronald Reagan's election in 1976, and that Reagan had in fact endorsed him and campaigned for his election to Congress in the past.

 

Of Dr. Paul, Ronald Reagan once said: “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.�

 

No other presidential candidate can claim a conservative record that matches Dr. Paul’s:

 

Congressman Paul has never voted to raise taxes.

Congressman Paul has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

Congressman Paul has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

Congressman Paul has never voted to raise congressional pay.

Congressman Paul has never taken a government-paid junket.

Congressman Paul supported Ronald Reagan against Gerald Ford in 1976.

[timesjoke]

And that is the style of the radical, assign socialist ideas to someone who has never had them in order to justify moving all the way to the radical edge on the so called distant right. This is why he calls a good person like Sarah Palin a socialist, he has to make her and other great conservative minded people look like the enemy for his completely radical fringe selection to seem reasonable.

 

Ronald Regan was never considered a nobody who could not get elected. His actong background ensured he had a big enough name for a National ticket. 99% of all alternative choices for an office like President of the United States are virtually unheard of and do not have the financial backing to get their name out enough to give them even a hint of a chance against a better known (or better funded) canidate. Even as well known as Ron Paul is he gets almost no votes to support him on a National level.

 

 

Ron Paul is not a 'bad guy' but he is a radical. He desires to withdraw into ourselves and isolate America from all other Countries. Ron Paul will refuse to help even our longest held friends if they are attacked under his interesting intepretation of non-interference where he believes the founding fathers wanted America to be more like Switzerland in that they never take sides on anything. The only interaction Ron Paul wants with other Countries is free trade. "Trade, talk, but no troops" ~ Ron Paul

 

 

hugo is the product of the very successful attempts of the Liberals/socialists/progressives in their subversion attempts. They have planted key people into these radical groups to rally folks to their causes so this will take away support from true challenges against them. Consider examples like teacher Jason Levin who has promised to infiltrate the tea parties and to pretend to be a part of their movement in order to disrupt them from the inside out. He has been gathering names and even has stated he wanted to steal social security numbers and other personal information to use this info to hurt members of the tea parties. While Conservative minded people are getting distracted and splintering away from people who could actually stand up against the Socialists, those guy are not sitting still, they see their goals and are willing to do what they have to do in order to stop conservatives.

 

 

They are working together, we are not.

[hugo]

It is sad that someone who believes in the Constitution and follows the foreign policy of George washington is now a radical.

[timesjoke]

It is sad that someone who believes in the Constitution and follows the foreign policy of George washington is now a radical.

He is considered a radical because of his radical desire to turn to isolation.

 

 

I like most of his ideas about supporting the constitution, unfortunately there is nothing in our constitution about being an isolationist Nation as Ron Paul claims. Ron Paul is like any other radical, he is twisting the constitution to try and make it say what he "wants" it to say but in the end it is all about him and his desires, not what the founding fathers wanted.

 

 

Once Ron Paul stood on that stage and claimed America was at fault for 9/11 and we provoked the attacks I had no further use for that idiot. Ron Paul has quoted Usama Bin Laden several times saying he only attacked America because of what America has done in the past but guess what, UBL was a killer of children, why would Ron Paul trust the word of someone like that? What, a terrorist cannot tell a lie designed to gain political support from other people who hate America? Ron Paul thinks terrorists are good and honest people who he can trust their word?

 

 

Ron Paul is a great politician for where he is, he is the far radical right that helps to balance the far radical left, he helps to provide balance, but he does not represent the values or have the kind of good judgement I am looking for in a President if he thinks terrorists always tell the truth.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

I don't think Ron Paul is a radical. There's nothing wrong with wanting the state's government to have the power and the national government to have much smaller role.

[timesjoke]

I don't think Ron Paul is a radical. There's nothing wrong with wanting the state's government to have the power and the national government to have much smaller role.

He is not a radical because of things like that, I agree with that part too.

 

 

Ron Paul wants to end all relationships with other Countries such as he wants to end our involvement with NATO. When asked about America's role in the world he respinded "talk, trade, but no troops" Ron Paul has said we should not even have gotten involved in ww1 or 2 or any other conflict that would require America troops to leave American soil. His many speaches has shown that he consistently holds America at fault for 9/11 because he believes the terrorists when they say they 'only' attack up because we meddle.

 

 

I have a question about that, when we meddled and helped Afganistan fight off the Russians, was that the kind of meddling we should have not done?

 

 

Terrorists kill babies as their most prefered target because it has the greatest shock factor against those they hate, why would Ron Paul trust their word?

 

 

 

 

If Ron Paul would appoligise for claiming America caused 9/11 and he would turn away from his isolationist agenda I might vote for him, but those two huge issues are things I and no true American could ever get behind as our President. We already have Obama running around blaming America for everything, we don't need Ron Paul doing more of the same.

[hugo]

From George Washington's Farewell Address; Much more in tune with Ron Paul than GW Bush:

 

 

 

31 Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices ?

 

32 In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim.

 

33 So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

 

34 As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the Public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

 

35 Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

 

36 The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

 

37 Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

 

38 Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

 

39 Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

 

40 It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

 

41 Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

 

42 Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing, with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

 

 

Of course our founding fathers were radicals, revolutionary ones at that.

 

Terrorism is the price of empire. If you do not wish to pay the price, you must give up the empire.

 

PAT BUCHANAN, Where the Right Went Wrong

[timesjoke]

I respect George Washington a great deal, his sacrifice combined with 55 other men who joined together to forge a new direction for America based on certain basic truths and concepts was beyond my ability to supply what I believe to be enough gratitude and praise for the greeatness that followed.

 

 

But George Washington was not the be all and end all and America is not nor has it ever been completely one man's vision or creation.

 

 

America would not now exist if not for Nations like France taking sides and helping us to prevail in our bid for independence. How can we take help when we need it but then turn around and not offer help to other people who need it in their turn? How can we beg for assistence and accept it in our hour of need then watch other Nations and people in need then turn away? Ron Paul has said we should "never" get involved in conflicts outside our own borders, but did not the conflicts still find us at Pearl Harbor in 1941 when we were only trading and not fighting as Ron Paul says he wants to do?

 

 

I am sorry but we do have friends in the world today, some have come to our aid in the past while we have come to the aid of others. There is a responsibility that comes with being part of the world and the ability to help fight evil. If your neighbor is being robbed you don't turn a blind eye just because it is not "your" house being robbed. Back in George Washington't day we did not have a global economy. Just the last couple days has seen huge changes in our own economy because of problems in Greece. Whenever fighting happens around oil producing Nations the price of oil leaps into the air.

 

 

Like it or not, the peace and relative calm America has helped to create around the world has make American prosperity possible and whenever that peace falters, America suffers as well. We are connected and only a fool can believe that we can now withdraw from the world, remove most of the reasons for peace in violatile areas, and America will not feel great pain as a result. In the short term friends like Israel will immediately be erased from the map, they will not go out easy though and their nuclear capabilities will be released making oil production all but end from the middle east for awile. Hell, even at home we will be seeing a massive flood of unneeded soldiers released from their military service and returning home without jobs once we empty out all our bases and such over seas. North Korea and South Korea will almost instantly be back at war and America has been the only reason Russia has not taken back the few countries it had lost and we can easily believe that once America has promised to put our hands in our pockets the recently flexing Russia will see no reason not to do what they want to do, then after that, who knows. China will be the interesting one to watch. China has been the largest buyer of arms for several years in a row. Thans to the Clinton years China's missle technology went from 10 years behind America to an almost exact copy of our technology during that 8 years. China seems all dressed up to go to a party, I just wonder where that party is going to be?

 

 

No, I do not believe withdrawing from the world will end up being a positive for America, I see great strife being caused and every reason to believe that even if we do not get involved in the strife, we will still be harmed greatly and what is more likely is another case like back in 1941 where we were still attacked because we were seen as too strong to ignore and the battle ends up in our lap anyway but with us flat on our feet and severely hurt, with the world in shambles and a much harder road to victory because our refusal to get involved earlier would have made the job easier and shorter in duration.

 

 

 

No, I do not want isolation, and I will not support any radical who does want America to turn isolationist.

 

I also will not support any radical who quotes the word of terrorists as if they would never tell a lie.

 

 

 

If a canidate with National recognition were to come along and espouse all of the ideas Ron Paul offers with the exception of blaming America for 9/11 and does not want to isolate America from the rest of the world, I would easily and gladly support that person for President of the United States, but those two core beliefs of Ron Paul to isolate and to believe terrorists lies makes Ron Paul a man I cannot support.