Posted on 12/16/2009 10:34:41 AM PST by bigred08
As are most people who still believe the Constitution to be the Supreme Law of the Land.
You still have not delivered a cogent opinion which enables rebuttal. Look up rhetoric, discursive reasoning and logical presentations, from the Greeks through modern history, and you might learn something. Do they not teach critical thinking anymore?
Your inability to comprehend complex positions does not make those positions insane.
Paul believes Israel is undermining our international free trade ability, and sucking up too much tax money for what we get back. I'm not taking a position on these specifics - I'm only pointing out that Paul pounds on the enormous power of free trade (which America supposedly stands for) to defuse international war scenarios. It's a good point, and it's sick that more conservatives don't acknowledge it. And Paul isn't against military power - he just believes it will be needed far, far less if we maintain international dominancy through trade.
In fact, his position is so rational that RINOs can only bleat Leftist-styled personal insults at him in response, because they can't fault his logic. Especially on Free Republic, watching such endless kneejerk Paul-abuse is pathetic.
paul’s “foreign policy” is very similar to the America First folks:
The United States must build an impregnable defense for America.
No foreign power, nor group of powers, can successfully attack a prepared America.
American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the European war.
“Aid short of war” weakens national defense at home and threatens to involve America in war abroad.
They went out of business after 12-7-41(do I need to explain that date to you?).
So to make a short story of it: these people were not supporting fdr like you claimed, they were opposing him. Also, if we are attacked, it will not be like Pearl Harbor or even 9-11 it will be much worse and building fortress America isn't going to stop ICBMs or medium range missiles. paul’s ideas might have been ok for the 1800s maybe even up to 1918 but isolation is not a viable option for modern times
Ah, so sad that he's fallen for the tinsel false god of Free Trade. History is loaded with heavily trade inter-dependent nations that have ended up killing each other anyway. Trade as a means of achieving peace has long since been proven a failure. It even causes you to be more involved in war than less, since as your economy becomes more dependent upon foreign nations, so does the need to protect them with your military grow. This is what over-extended and collapsed the British Empire. Unnecessary trade, especially in anything military critical, is a weakness that attracts enemies. That's why it didn't take long for the Founders to realize that protectionism was the only effective way to build a nation and keep it intact in the long term.
Comparing palestinain terrorists to concentration camp victims makes him a kook.
Paul believes Israel is undermining our international free trade ability
Well, I believe in Israel's right to defend themselves.
Especially on Free Republic, watching such endless kneejerk Paul-abuse is pathetic.
Paul has no problem with Israel defending itself - he just doesn't want America to pay for it with tax dollars. And he's also against Israel being portrayed as never doing any wrong.
In addition, if Paul was president, this healthcare fiasco would be dead in the water - the Dems wouldn't even bother trying, because he'd never sign it. And that goes for climate change and immigration, too. And the Fed. And the IRS. And Sharia law, for that matter. Wow, sounds terrible, huh? Stopping all of that is completely insane, right? Good thing we got Obama instead - with who, Romney as backup? LOL - well, Romney will protect Israel for you, even while the Israelis vote their own lands away. Good job.
This sounds to me like leftist operatives trying to distract us from what we should be focusing on...removing as many Democrats as possible from office during the 2010 primary and election cycle. Ron Paul is not a major issue...
Congratualtions on the most screwed up, wrong-heaeded bastardization of the lessons of history I have ever read. This is a tour-de-force of evil - you have to actually understand the truth in order to lie so thoroughly.
The Founders supported protectionism and restricted free trade? LOL! Bald-faced lie. Britain was "protecting" it's trade with it's empire building? LOL - double-twist with a pike and a triple flip. Britians machinations blew up in it's face when it was confronted with America's free trade and resulting staggering growth and international power, genius.
But here's your ultimate farce: "Unnecessary trade, especially in anything military critical, is a weakness that attracts enemies. A more meaningless, incorrect, and outright absurd statement has possibly never been made. Who determines "unnecessary" trade? How can something be military "critical" yet "unnecessary"? And how would the manufacturing or acquisition of something "military critical" attract an enemy who otherwise would leave you alone, given you had such manufacturing and trade abilities?
What utter, moronic, stupid pap you've written, and all with the express goal of fundamentally confusing basic conservative issues. Begone, idiot collectivist troll.
And since you are of the hold-the-fort RINO faction I will also type slowly so that you can understand: Do you know of that thing on the geographical bottom of the United States? That line? It's called a border. And while you're saluting the flag and Remembering Pearl Harbor with our fighting in the Middle East, you're also supporting a political approach that allows a constant INVASION through that border. It also supports the utter destruction of the economy which - read carefully - PAYS for the military.
Paul does NOT deny the need for a strong military - that's the biggest and baldest lie made about him. What he says is that IF the economy AND the borders were protected FIRST, very little overseas military action would be necessary. That's also called saving the lives of our troops.
But we both know none of this has anything to do with the constant attacks against Paul, because above all, Paul wants to expose the Fed. And THAT is the real "reason behind the reasons" for the constant efforts against him here.
As a side note, I also think paul is an idiot because of his stance on drugs, is that one of the reasons you support him?
To not see the open border with Mexico as a terrorist security risk is absurd.
I also think paul is an idiot because of his stance on drugs, is that one of the reasons you support him?
I think anyone who supports the idea that the government owns your body is an idiot.
If dopers ONLY affected themselves, I wouldn't care what they did, but they affect others and that is the problem with it
And if you would read what I wrote, you would find that Paul doesn't limit himself to securing the border, but also strengthening the economy. And he's never said he was against having a strong military - he's just against deploying it when we have many other extremely powerful tools of international influence that we can use before we risk our troops lives.
As for your anti-drug argument, it's just like when Clinton asked people how much of a limitation of rights that would accept to ensure their safety. It's a false question - the limiting of rights, itself, is the most profoundly dangerous possible thing that could happen in law.
Virtual terrorism has been unleashed in this country by the government, and endless war against the people, because people's basic rights to ingest whatever they want into the body only they own is denied by that government. Do you think the massive and deadly drug cartels would even exist if drugs were legal? Did you ever read about the effect of Prohibition on crime? The arguments were the same for protecting children, and alcohol is far more deadly overall than all the illicit drugs put together. Do you agitate for the banning of alcohol?
Of course, if currently illegal drugs were legalized, the same legal concept would make it pretty hard to restrict prescription meds too - which would seriously hurt the stranglehold of pharmaceutical companies. Not that you would be trying to protect that control, right?
Bah - you have no legal argument. You would jail the population to "keep them safe." And if you claim you wouldn't, I would reply - where would you stop? Where's your line? Someone might commit a crime while high? Well the Democrats believe that someone might be violated by something said on talk radio or Free Republic, and so they want to shut it down, too. Go talk to them about limiting rights.
It's one thing to make laws about people's actual criminal actions, it's another to make victimless crimes out of things that might happen somewhere to someone - that's just raw tyranny, and I reject it.
Here is a hint to ru and the rest of you: When extremists want to kill you, the only choice you have is kill them first. All the talk in the world isn't going to stop them. How much has Israel talked to arabs,that has worked out so well hasn't it? What kept the soviets from invading Western Europe, international influence or the fact they knew there would be a war? If memory serves correctly, France and Britain had a lot of international influence before WW2, how did that work out? Remember these words:"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." - Winston Churchill As for drugs: I will say again, if dopers were the only ones affected, I could care less as a matter of fact if they would all OD the world would be a better place. But, since they affect others then they must be laws. I would love to know how many of you Claxton Brigade members are there because of the legal dope view
Try telling that to Alexander Hamilton, one of the biggest supporters of protectionism and whose policies of tariffs on imports were responsible for considerable industrial growth in the US. Stop licking the boots of the banker class and the Chicoms and wake up and actually read history. If you knew history you'd know the primary cause of the Civil War was not slavery, but the South's opposition to increased import tariffs. The Civil War was between a PROTECTIONIST Union and a FREE TRADE Confederacy. And even though the Confederacy had superior-skilled officers and soldiers, it was not enough in the face of the blockade that cut them off from the foreign supply which they were heavily dependent upon.
Britians machinations blew up in it's face when it was confronted with America's free trade and resulting staggering growth and international power, genius.
Britain started to go into decline as it became more and more dependent on imports from other nations and far-flung territories. It accelerated when it eliminated the protections on it's domestic agriculture, which was devasated as a result. Eventually, as a result of such free trade policies Britain's production of food dropped below it's consumption. This was taken advantage of by Germany and their U-boat campgain. This required the United States (which was still mostly PROTECTIONIST up to the start of WWI) to come to it's rescue. You might say it was our first foreign "bailout", mainly to make sure that we had a say in the war's aftermath to make sure the loans to other nations could be repaid. An end result of the debacle of creating the Federal Reserve.
A more meaningless, incorrect, and outright absurd statement has possibly never been made. Who determines "unnecessary" trade? How can something be military "critical" yet "unnecessary"? And how would the manufacturing or acquisition of something "military critical" attract an enemy who otherwise would leave you alone, given you had such manufacturing and trade abilities?
"Unnecessary" is anything that is capable of being manufactured, grown, raised, mined, or otherwise supported domestically. A good example of a militarily (and economically) critical need is oil. The need to import of which leaves us expending tremendous blood and treasure to protect. Our oil needs could be met through coal-to-oil and thermal conversion along with expanded drilling. The end of importing oil from Islamic nations would cut off a lot of terrorist funding as well.
Another example of a vulnerability is our reliance on critical electronics (both military and civilian) from Japan, S. Korea, Phillipines, Taiwan, etc....even CHINA. The supply of which, in a major war, could be cut off through interdiction or intimidation. Severe supply disruption/halt from those countries and most of our advanced military production will screech to a halt over a 30-120 day period. Do you know we are now wholly dependent upon CHINA for critical rare-earth magnets needed for the US military's satellites, nav/comm/control-systems, and PGMs? The list is endless of how much damage would be done.
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.