Posted on 12/16/2009 10:34:41 AM PST by bigred08
With who, Iran? He doesn't seem to be too fond of trade with Israel.
Since you posted this attack on Paul, Big Red, what is your opinion?
It was a little longer than a 5 count, but there arrived all the same ;-)
You might want to do a little history review before you speak.
So is Ron Paul FOR free trade, or AGAINST it? You sure you’re not talking about a free market? You can have an internal free market without free trade with other nations. If Ron Paul is close to the Founders in beliefs, then he should be a protectionist like they were.
What would you say if a guy, after viewing the Tea Parties and the polling on health care, predicted that killing the health care bill would make all Americans angry at Obama, Pelosi and Reid? That’s about the level of silliness Paul’s prediction involves.
Though its rare to find a pol who doesn't stretch the truth, there are times when you can see that a politician is a charlatan because of the lies he tells about a position, and you can safely surmise that the rest of his positions in that area are pure male bovine fecal matter.
Ron Paul's position on Iraq is what does that for me.
You see, Paul told anyone who would listen that the authorization to go into Iraq was unconstitutional because it wasn't a formal declaration of war, it allowed the President to decide when (or even if!) hostilities would commence, etc. Yet in 2001, the brave, brave Sir Ronald voted for a military authorization that was more open ended, wasn't a declaration of war and didn't even mention what country we would be fighting...and he admitted as much on the House floor before he voted for it.
Paul's foreign policy positions are garbage in, garbage out at best, and dishonest to boot.
You might want to learn to use cites, references, or some indication of specificity before you speak.
Free trade refers to the power of a free market to provide compelling reasons to pursue peace rather than war. Paul obviously feels it has to be adjusted to adequately deal with what he sees as impediments to this free trade process. I am not supporting any particular adjustment he feels is necessary - I'm just saying that he's pushing, overall, for trade as a war replacement power, versus socialism.
See my post #30.
See my Post #30.
In addition, your extensive use of insulting and degrading terms for Paul would be unnecessary if you could find enough specifics to hold against him. Instead, you resort to pandering and name-calling to sway emotional opinion where you can't fill in the gaps with discussion. It's tedious and sophmoric. Paul is not perfect, and does not believe "pure" capitalistic free trade can be implemented, so he tries to apply it as best he can within the constraints of omnibus-type bills that constantly force compromise. But he is stalwart in pushing the power of free trade to force the international environment away from war through bankrupting non-competitive, socialist countries.
That he cotinuously receives such venom for this fairly obvious application of economic realpolitics only serves to sabotage acceptance of fundamental conservative principles - something which would definitely be a goal of RINOs, btw.
You would be taking it wrong.
However like Jefferson, Lincoln and others I also do not believe the Constitution is a suicide pact...
That's a cheap shot. Just because Ron Paul doesn't believe in foreign aid to any countries including Israel, doesn't mean that he harbors some sort of dislike for them.
That is the same argument as, What you don't believe in welfare? Why you must be a racist!
I agree to a point, but that is the same reasoning that the left uses for health care, amnesty, welfare, etc.
Stopped clocks are right 2 times a day - if they’re analog. In these digital times, you might just be blank.
Rand and Paul both manipulate the question so their answer appears to be the only correct option. However, rather than altruism or a strong proactive national defense being insane, it’s insane to ignore the poverty, suffering, or enslavement of your neighbor or the aggression of another neighbor.
Ron Paul has earned an opponent in the Republican primary, John Gay.
I disagree wholeheartedly with his foreign policy stances, but find myself agreeing with him on taxes, spending, etc.
The guy is a kook. He criticizes Israel for defending themselves, criticizes America for trading with Israel, and then compares palistinain terrorists to concentration camp victims.
No it isn't. Not only does he criticize America for selling arms to Israel, he claims we're supposed to denounce their efforts to defend themselves against palistinian terrorists.
That is the same argument as, What you don't believe in welfare? Why you must be a racist!
This analogy makes no sense.
The founders were bright enough to write a solid foundation for our government and give it the flexibility it needed both through defining the powers and scope of the various branches as well the ability to be amended because they knew the world of 1789 would not be the world of 1889 nor 2009.
They also installed checks and balances and made the amendment process challenging enough that changes would hopefully not be simply at the whim of lawmakers nor open to timely fads.
They left in our foundation the ability for leaders to meet the challenges of their times. The fact this has been abused is no cause to throw the baby out with the bath water,especially when it comes to the realities of 21st century defense.
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.