Posted on 11/30/2008 11:16:35 AM PST by rabscuttle385
Are you really that stupid?
Wars are sometimes necessary and Ron Paul’s conception of foreign policy is ludicrous and indistinguishable from that of your typical RAT.
Actually, the mainline GOP has a foreign policy indistinguishable from the Democrats....., neither believe in the constitution, but insist that Congress fund “military actions” in lieu of declaring war.
This idiocy gets us into interminable, feckless, reckless, “make it up as you go” military conflicts. Checked out G. Washington’s farewell address to congress lately?
He’s pretty conservative. 100% prolife voting record. Several other supposedly “conservative” candidates didn’t have that.
Yes, he opposed the Iraq war. No, he has never favored “secret deals” or been Clintonian. That is an base smear.
Dr. Paul’s conservatism is more like the Conservatism of the pre-WW2 era. He opposes things like the Fed and Social Security that many so-called Conservatives of today have no problem with. And yes he opposes most overseas military adventures.
Can you really say with a straight face that the war in Iraq 1) could not have been avoided and 2) has been good for America? I think it’s a stretch.
The entire GOP establishment has lost touch with first principles (the GOP had traditionally been the party of non-intervention, leaving out the Civil War, of course) and spent all our energy defending Bush’s war.
NEWS FLASH: When I voted for Bush he was explicitly promising “No Nation Building”. Remember that? Now he has his wife on TV (MTP, yesterday) explaining how important it is to build schools and eduate people in outlying provinces of Afghanistan. WHY? WHY WITH MY DOLLARS??
For THIS we voted Republican? Geeze - the Donk’s do a bang-up job of going all over the world with Bono giving away our money. Why do we need the GOP if that is the plan?
Cost of the Wars to date: nearly $1 Trillion dollars.
In abandoning their opposition to these unconstitutional programs they have turned the GOP into the “Democrat Lite”
party. Same taste, less filling.
Huckabee -now he REALLY is not a Conservative, he’s a pro-life liberal.
He’s pretty conservative. 100% prolife voting record. Several other supposedly “conservative” candidates didn’t have that.
Yes, he opposed the Iraq war. No, he has never favored “secret deals” or been Clintonian. That is an base smear.
Dr. Paul’s conservatism is more like the Conservatism of the pre-WW2 era. He opposes things like the Fed and Social Security that many so-called Conservatives of today have no problem with. And yes he opposes most overseas military adventures.
Can you really say with a straight face that the war in Iraq 1) could not have been avoided and 2) has been good for America? I think it’s a stretch.
The entire GOP establishment has lost touch with first principles (the GOP had traditionally been the party of non-intervention, leaving out the Civil War, of course) and spent all our energy defending Bush’s war.
NEWS FLASH: When I voted for Bush he was explicitly promising “No Nation Building”. Remember that? Now he has his wife on TV (MTP, yesterday) explaining how important it is to build schools and eduate people in outlying provinces of Afghanistan. WHY? WHY WITH MY DOLLARS??
For THIS we voted Republican? Geeze - the Donk’s do a bang-up job of going all over the world with Bono giving away our money. Why do we need the GOP if that is the plan?
Cost of the Wars to date: nearly $1 Trillion dollars.
In abandoning their opposition to these unconstitutional programs they have turned the GOP into the “Democrat Lite”
party. Same taste, less filling.
Huckabee -now he REALLY is not a Conservative, he’s a pro-life liberal.
He’s pretty conservative. 100% prolife voting record. Several other supposedly “conservative” candidates didn’t have that.
Yes, he opposed the Iraq war. No, he has never favored “secret deals” or been Clintonian. That is an base smear.
Dr. Paul’s conservatism is more like the Conservatism of the pre-WW2 era. He opposes things like the Fed and Social Security that many so-called Conservatives of today have no problem with. And yes he opposes most overseas military adventures.
Can you really say with a straight face that the war in Iraq 1) could not have been avoided and 2) has been good for America? I think it’s a stretch.
The entire GOP establishment has lost touch with first principles (the GOP had traditionally been the party of non-intervention, leaving out the Civil War, of course) and spent all our energy defending Bush’s war.
NEWS FLASH: When I voted for Bush he was explicitly promising “No Nation Building”. Remember that? Now he has his wife on TV (MTP, yesterday) explaining how important it is to build schools and eduate people in outlying provinces of Afghanistan. WHY? WHY WITH MY DOLLARS??
For THIS we voted Republican? Geeze - the Donk’s do a bang-up job of going all over the world with Bono giving away our money. Why do we need the GOP if that is the plan?
Cost of the Wars to date: nearly $1 Trillion dollars.
In abandoning their opposition to these unconstitutional programs they have turned the GOP into the “Democrat Lite”
party. Same taste, less filling.
Huckabee -now he REALLY is not a Conservative, he’s a pro-life liberal.
In that highly unlikely event, you would be getting a Libertarian not a conservative. You might want to review RP's positions vs. coservatism.
My political philosophy is that of the Constitution so I guess it would be called a Hamiltonian Nationalist. In this world a large state is unavoidable like it or not.
Pragmatism is extremely important but with far too many ideology dictates all.
Our Founders were men of incredible political genius rarely matched in the following centuries. Only a handful showed the leadership abilities of the Founders. Among those are Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Reagan. And they are eclipsed by Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Marshall, Franklin, and even lesser lights were significant Monroe, Wolcott, Rush, Wilson, Gouverneur Morris, Robert Morris, Mason, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Fisher Ames, Jay.
Now the need to ass kiss the mob makes it difficult for such principled leadership to rise to power.
I never claimed I served in the military but that does not stop me from seeing the obvious when it comes to the necessity to use military power. If I see you have a sword sticking in you I can just as accurately see that you need a doctor though not a doctor myself.
In 1965 I tried to join the Army and was rejected for physical reasons if you must know. Three of my brothers served in the Navy and Air Force one making it a career and they think as I do in this matter.
You are simply spreading falsehoods by claiming, as do the Leftists, that the active military opposed the war. They voted OVERWHELMINGLY for Bush after the war began and for McCain. You might be able to get away with such crap elsewhere but not here.
We didn’t just attack some random country for the fun of it no matter what the Bush haters claim. They lie.
That was his intention. You should familiarize yourself with the politics of the 1930s.
Don’t put your arguments in my mouth. Are you totally unaware of conditions immediately following the Revolutionary War? And the calls for a Constitutional Convention? Or the prevalent belief that the power arrangement had to be changed because the Confederation government had collapsed because it was defective. Even a slight familiarity with American history makes this clear.
The fact is that the States surrendered powers and the federal government GAINED powers by the ratification of the Constitution. Don’t blame me.
I made no claim that this meant “unlimited central government...” Or that there were no limits on the National government just that there was a change DELIBERATELY so in the balance of power between the states and the General government. This is indisputable.
Man you sound just like the Left. Everything is the US’s fault not megalomanic dictators or terrorist killers. Let me guess it is all the Jews fault.
Even if you were right...you’d rather have a Liberal than a Libertarian?
LLS
“The problem with Ron Paul was his foreign policy.”
Yeah, he wanted to pull out of Iraq. So the Repubs ran McLoswer and Obama won. Obama wants to pull out of Iraq.
Let’s hear some more about Paul’s crazy foreign policy please.
If not wanting to be nanny-stated or daddy-stated to death "sounds like the Left" to you, then you are completely turned upside down and backwards -- and couldn't find "the Left" or "the Right" with a guide and a magnifying glass.
"The Jews"? WTF? Yeah, someone whose name was once Goldfarb is going to "blame the Jews". LOL! Thanks for the laugh -- even though I am sure it was unintentional!
brought up since it is routinely used by those who are not really aware of what it said or why it was written as it was.
It is not a call to never intervene outside the country but a warning about what intervening in the war between France and England would do to this country. Washington (Hamilton actually) feared a civil war developing HERE should the government side with either. This is obvious to any who has actually studied the times and the document as opposed to those adopting the Fringe view which twists it to argue against involvement in foreign affairs or wars.
His concern is “The unity of government which constitutes you one people....a main pillar in the edifice of real independence,...” He then warns of tendencies which tend to disrupt the Union “...indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.”
His next point urges Nationalism over local interest. Then a discussion of the mutual needs of each section for the other followed by a description of the necessity for a strong central government and the role of the Constitution in cementing the Union.
He then warns of the disruption of factions, and parties and of their danger to a republic. Only after several pages does he even address foreign affairs and ties them to the foregoing discussion. His concern is that permanent attachment to any county has the danger of allowing excessive foreign influence by the attachment of factions to foreign powers. This would make disruption or separation of states much more likely.
The “remote” situation of the US allowed it to remain outside of the European conflicts and Washington did not want to forfeit this advantage. “It is our true policy to steer clear of PERMANENT alliances wit any portion of the foreign world;...”
Hamilton and Washington had put the US into a position of neutrality between France and England much to the disgust of the Republicans. That was the background to the Address and it addressed a specific time in history when the US was weak and when the Union would have been endangered by adoption of Jefferson's pro-French ideas. There were those who proclaimed the willingness to fight for France should it invade.
I had always been under the impression you are that it was some kind of universal declaration against intervention abroad. It is nothing of the sort as an honest rereading will show you.
It was obvious you never served by your "gung ho" attitude.
You are simply spreading falsehoods by claiming, as do the Leftists, that the active military opposed the war
I never stated that. You're full of crap and resort to outright lies to show everyone how "gung ho" you are.
Go away.
Not protecting our Nation is exactly what the Left wants, a Paulist policy. And it is primarily the Left which has been hyperventilating about Big Brother whenever Bush wanted to wiretap Terrorists and their supporters.
It would not shock me to discover that much of Paul’s financing is from Leftist sources happy to tie him around the neck of the GOP.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.