[blwall1416]

Note to lurkers (El Scorcho's bosses): This is not the real El Scorcho. No, he's to busy working.

Carry on lurking.

[Sly Fox]

I knew Scorcho couldn't resists the Publicist's blasts.

For the record, Paul always came across as a little nutty when I used to interview him 15 years ago when I was a newsie. But its hard to judge a man based on a couple of odd interviews. He certainly is unafraid to speak his mind. And politically speaking, that is not a wise path.

[Schfourteenteen]

I wish he surprised everybody. Now every inch of LU wil have Ron Paul all over it. Itl be fun to have him here, just kick out his followers.

With that said I expect to see a Vote for Huckabee spraypainted on street somewhere, considering thats what the Paulites did when Huck got here

[NJLibertyboy]

I recommend everyone just stop trashing him and read go to your local library or bookstore and get his books. In alot of them, he includes statements he made on foreign policy years ago, predicting the sort of outcomes we see today. If he's such a looney, why do his predictions always come true? And why, if he is wrong, does the 9/11 commission report and many military leaders agree with him on the motives of the 9/11 hijackers? Why did Bush want those reasons out of the report. I smell fish.

The problem is most of the people who hate him have never even researched him. It seems like when Huckabee got here many students just jumped on the bandwagon, instead of doing research.

[thepostman]

Dont waste your vote on this idiot.

Says the guy who's AIM screen name is derived from the life of this guy...



If you think Ron Paul is an idiot, I have the feeling your understanding of politics is pretty shallow. If you disagree with his isolationist views, that's fine. If you disagree with giving government back to the states, that's fine. If you love the war in Iraq, that's fine. However, to say the guy is a nut job and an idiot just smacks of someone who regurgitates what's being fed to him via media channels.

Paul is a constitutional idealist. His chances of winning were always slim. Many of us who support him are completely aware of that. However, his presence in the race (and ability to raise funds) is important. It's important because it reminds the GOP that there are still a significant amount of people who believe in small government, liberty and the free market economy. If those three things are idiotic to you, you're entitled to that opinion, but I would suggest to you that in that case, Paul isn't the one who comes off as idiot. Conservative idealist? Sure. Idiot? Hardly.

Oh how i've missed you.....in a totally hetrosexual kind of a way

[ToTheLeft]

And your winner, by unanimous decision...

EL SCORCHO! -ding ding ding-

[4everfsu]

Paul was on a new cast basically saying there was never a war America should have been in, yes he is a nut case, he and Dennis K. should be out looking for UFOs

[El Scorcho]

Paul was on a new cast basically saying there was never a war America should have been in, yes he is a nut case, he and Dennis K. should be out looking for UFOs

He said there was not a war we should have been in since 1960. (I believe that was the year, anyway.) He did not say any war.

Fail.

[El Scorcho]

Ron Paul to speak at Friday's convocation

posted on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 by Mitzi Bible | in General News

U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, Republican candidate for president, will speak at Friday’s convocation service in the Vines Center. LU Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. made the announcement at Wednesday’s convocation.

Paul, a member of the House of Representatives for the 14th District of Texas, ran as a Libertarian for president in 1988. CNN currently ranks him 4th for the Republican Party in this election, with 16 pledged delegates.

Falwell said this is the fourth candidate to accept an invitation to speak at Liberty. (All presidential candidates have been invited).

“I don’t know of many colleges who’ve had four presidential candidates speak [from one election], so I think it’s an honor for Liberty,” he said.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee spoke in November, U.S. Sen. John McCain spoke at Liberty’s graduation in May 2006, and Alan Keyes, a former Assistant Secretary of State, spoke at convocation in September.

Falwell encouraged students to be respectful of any candidate who accepts the offer.

“This one’s a little more controversial than the others,” he told students when announcing Paul’s scheduled visit. “So in that same spirit of letting the world know we’re different, I hope that we’ll be respectful. He might say some things you all might not agree with. … I think we need to show the world how we’re different, when we have other speakers in that aren’t necessarily in line with everything that we believe.”

Paul, a former OB/GYN, supports the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, but opposes any federal marriage definition. He opposes abortion rights, but wants a decision at the state level. He also voted against use of military force in Iraq.

http://www.liberty.edu/libertyjournal/i ... 8&artid=83

[4everfsu]

El Scorcho, you are off by about 100 yrs. Here is your nut case speaking, and it is not even Fox Network. So who failed?

http://shotpolitics.com/ron-paul-on-the-civil-war.htm

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/22834-ron ... n-fox-news

[El Scorcho]

El Scorcho, you are off by about 100 yrs. Here is your nut case speaking, and it is not even Fox Network. So who failed?

http://shotpolitics.com/ron-paul-on-the-civil-war.htm

I can admit when I'm wrong. I was wrong.

Even so, my earlier point still stands. He's a constitutional idealist who is making an idealistic point. To have not fought in some of those wars is unimaginable. I have no problem agreeing with that. At the same time, when you look at our current economic situation (and I'm not talking about the sub-prime meltdown) the point of Paul's argument is quite clear. We have spent MUCH too much money supporting nations that are not the United States and it's just about bankrupted us.

[mrmacphisto]

He thinks the Civil War was about slavery. That's pretty sad.

[4everfsu]

El Scorcho, you are the man

[TDDance234]

I don't care too much for his positions but I am interested in hearing him speak. I'm interested in how he approaches speaking to a body like Liberty which is certainly different than his usual tour of colleges.

I really hope our student body is respectful. We don't have the best track record with people we disagree with.

[whmatthews]

I don't think Ron Paul is crazy, I like a lot of what he says.... but I think some of his followers are crazy. Wish I could be there to see him speak, would be interesting.

Somebody that's a Huckabee supporter should hand out propaganda at the entrances like the Ron Paul kids did when Huck spoke.

[adam42381]

Wish I could be there for Ron Paul...the one guy I'd actually vote for...

[PeterParker]

“This one’s a little more controversial than the others,” he told students when announcing Paul’s scheduled visit. “So in that same spirit of letting the world know we’re different, I hope that we’ll be respectful. He might say some things you all might not agree with. … I think we need to show the world how we’re different, when we have other speakers in that aren’t necessarily in line with everything that we believe.”

Paul, a former OB/GYN, supports the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, but opposes any federal marriage definition. He opposes abortion rights, but wants a decision at the state level. He also voted against use of military force in Iraq.

My $.02 before I cash out: The juxtaposition of these paragraphs is notable. The quote followed by a list of some of the things that are at the very heart of the social conservative ideal: supports marriage as between a man & a woman, opposes abortion rights in addition to his stated constitutional rule thing, limited government philosophy, massive tax and spending reduction...[these are things "we" don't believe in? I guess I am not part of "we" then.]


BTW, here is Paul's speech on the marriage thing before Congress: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage... Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state’s right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage....

...Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage. ...

...Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act:

“The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution...

...Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state’s right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage."

Also, judging by some of the vitriol (looney, crazy, et al) that is posted against Paul here, I think the value of my degree may have taken a hit today if that is what passes for sound reasoning these days in the minds of other aspiring/degree holders.


He simply doesn't support conservative fascism...but we should remember, in the end, conservative fascism is still fascism. Disagree with him on the Non-Interventionist, not isolationist, foreign policy, sure, but an objective observer would at least have to show some intellectual honesty and respect the fact that his platform and record is the most closely aligned with what the traditional definition of republican conservatism used to represent before the Chicken Hawks/Neocons co-opted the party's definition. It was true then, and it's evident today, but it bears repeating:

Thomas Jefferson: Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.


It is a humorous and a sad commentary on the millenial incarnation of the "republican" party that the individual with the most conservative track record, most conservative and limited government platform is villified/ostracized by the very people who claim that they are conservatives. But, I almost forgot, the majority of millenial "conservatives" are more comfortable with their elected political leaders running investigations into football and baseball games...Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

..Our most important priority always needs to be protecting the homeland but when you are dealing with some of the people in this world today, preserving home sometimes means going outside...

Something to ponder also is that Germany co-opted the religious leaders of its day to push its agenda and ran the end-around on protecting the Fatherland (aka Homeland) as motivation for advancing their nationalistic & foreign policies in which the ends justified the means. Check out what a name from the Christian Publishing world offers: http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Cross-Erw ... 0802435831

Peace.

[thepostman]

good post....but for some reason I think it is going to fall of deaf ears for the most part...they have been brainwashed by the media (most of the them anyways)...it has come abundantly clear through the uniformed post that make me think I am listening to Sean Hannity or Fox News...

[LUconn]

He simply doesn't support conservative fascism...but we should remember, in the end, conservative fascism is still fascism. Disagree with him on the Non-Interventionist, not isolationist, foreign policy, sure, but an objective observer would at least have to show some intellectual honesty and respect the fact that his platform and record is the most closely aligned with what the traditional definition of republican conservatism used to represent before the Chicken Hawks/Neocons co-opted the party's definition. It was true then, and it's evident today, but it bears repeating:

Thomas Jefferson: Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

..Our most important priority always needs to be protecting the homeland but when you are dealing with some of the people in this world today, preserving home sometimes means going outside...

Something to ponder also is that Germany co-opted the religious leaders of its day to push its agenda and ran the end-around on protecting the Fatherland (aka Homeland) as motivation for advancing their nationalistic & foreign policies in which the ends justified the means. Check out what a name from the Christian Publishing world offers: http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Cross-Erw ... 0802435831

Peace.

waka waka waka! You pull a Jefferson quote to insult the conservative party of today for their willingness to go to battle for our interests?? Is this the same Tommy Jefferson that sent war ships to the Mediterranean a few days after he was inaugurated because he refused to pay the "infidel fine" that the Muslims were pushing on our country?

"In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli 'and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify.'"

Does that sound familiar? Oh but this is an illegal war that our founding fathers would frown upon, right?

[ALUmnus]

Also, judging by some of the vitriol (looney, crazy, et al) that is posted against Paul here, I think the value of my degree may have taken a hit today if that is what passes for sound reasoning these days in the minds of other aspiring/degree holders.


He simply doesn't support conservative fascism...but we should remember, in the end, conservative fascism is still fascism. Disagree with him on the Non-Interventionist, not isolationist, foreign policy, sure, but an objective observer would at least have to show some intellectual honesty and respect the fact that his platform and record is the most closely aligned with what the traditional definition of republican conservatism used to represent before the Chicken Hawks/Neocons co-opted the party's definition. It was true then, and it's evident today, but it bears repeating:


Something to ponder also is that Germany co-opted the religious leaders of its day to push its agenda and ran the end-around on protecting the Fatherland (aka Homeland) as motivation for advancing their nationalistic & foreign policies in which the ends justified the means. Check out what a name from the Christian Publishing world offers: http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Cross-Erw ... 0802435831

Oh, gosh. "fascism and neocons", gee, who does pp sound like? Those are the two most beloved words thrown around in the political spectrum by people who don't know what they mean to scare other people who don't know what they mean. Come on.

And if you studied the history of the rise of Nazi power, they hated the church and all things religion, and eventually all but outlawed it. The religious leaders were the only ones speaking out against the Nazis and the only ones who attempted to resist them.

We'll try to think of a bigger, more impressive word for "crazy" or "looney", if that will help to give more value back to your degree. Dude, it's a message board.

[NJLibertyboy]

When we don't declare wars, the wars don't ever end. Look at all the undeclared wars we have had. How many actually came to reasonable conclusions. Not very many. Look at the Barbary Wars, we had to go back and fight them again after that.

I think the point that I would like to make, and the reason I like Ron Paul, is because I think he understand's foreign policy. better than anyone else.

He understands, and the CIA and 9/11 report back him on this, that "blowback" is important, and that in every conflict there is blowback.

If you look at the 1950s and our conflicts in Iran. We took out a democratically elected leader and put the Shah in charge to protect our personal Oil Interests. The British Oil companies, which had agreed to split profits 85-15, were lying and giving the Iran less than they deserved. Iran wanted to nationalize their oil. Why can't they, it's there country! Not according to our foreign policy, we have a right to tell other countries what to do. Wouldn't you be mad if someone from the outside overthrew the federal government here? I think so. Now do you understand why they are so angry? It's not just because we are "rich and prosperous".

In 1979 we gave Al-Quaida and Osama Bin Laden weapons and money to fight off the Soviets regime that was in charge in that country. We also did our best to get the Soviets involved milirarily because we wanted them to have a "Their version of the Vietnam War". We made promises that we would help them if the Soviets left. Once the war ended, we didn't care and handed over their future to Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan. The country fell into chaos as Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia worked out deals with warlords and chopped down 98% of their forests and civil war broke out. Do you understand why they may be angry at us? It's not because we are rich and prosperous.

Is Osama Bin Laden sick and need to be captured? Absolutely! But when people see America causing many of the problems the middle-east faces today, it's easier to recruit terrorists. And in 1996, if you read Bin Laden's Fatwa its titled: Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places. It's because our bases are on their land, not because we are rich and prosperous.

We need to understand that our foreign policy is causing many of the problems we see today. We need to correct this and realize that sovereign countries can do as they see fit, without us being militarily involved. We can talk about peace through negotiation, not through the barrel of a gun. Having troops everywhere doesn't make us safer, it spreads us thin and leaves us more vulnerable.

If you think Ron Paul's foreign policy won't work... ok then, disagree with me. But what we have now isn't working!

[thepostman]

But what we have now isn't working!

that is the key in all of tis in my opinion...I don't think Ron Paul has all the answers for forign policy...but I also think that things have gotten so bad that it would be nice to have a president with a different kind of approach that also upholds conservative values....is that Ron Paul?? maybe...but it would be nice if the people running this country would grow a pair and actually change things instead of fighting with eachother all the time.....

[jmdickens]

And if you studied the history of the rise of Nazi power, they hated the church and all things religion, and eventually all but outlawed it. The religious leaders were the only ones speaking out against the Nazis and the only ones who attempted to resist them.

Because the History of the Holocaust was my last class to take at Liberty and was taught by someone who got his Doctorate on the issue i think I can comment.....

All I will say is......YOU ARE WRONG!!!!! What the eff are you smoking....the church was INVOLVED with the Holocaust. The ONLY religious group to stand up against Nazism in all of Europe and the US were the MORMONS!!! (those bastards!!). I do not know where you got that info, b/c the church was very much involved, and Americans were behind Hitler and the NAzi's until the 1940's....

WOW!!! You need to get your facts straight!!! the church was behind Hitler.....sad but true

[jmdickens]

now back to what I wanted to post...

This is a good day for LU

When in our history has our school had the chance to hear 3 GOP candidates in such a short span?

LU is doing some great things....We should be thankful we are getting the opportunity to hear these people. Whether you disagree or not, you should still show respect. Although RP supporters did it first, I do not think LU students will be boycotting or holding signs for other candidates because they are better than that. We have higher standards, and our students will represent our school well.

Be thankful for this opportunity, and I will give one prediction that will happen at LU....Neal Boortz will come to LU in 2012 for his presidential candidacy..... that was just for fun!!

[thepostman]

i hope you're right and that the students are respectful....I am just not as confident as you are I guess