Posted on 06/27/2007 9:21:18 AM PDT by NHGOPer
The Honor of Ron Paul by Joe Sobran
"He may have become at last what he has always deserved to be: the most respected member of the U.S. Congress. He is also the only Republican candidate for president who is truly what all the others pretend to be, namely, a conservative. His career shows that a patriotic, pacific conservatism isn’t a paradox."
(Excerpt) Read more at buchanan.org ...
Of course he is. Especially when he pledges to abide by term limits . . . and then doesn't.
And also when he encourages 9/11 conspiracy theorists . . . and then backs off his earlier comments when sane people start paying attention.
Quite upstanding, indeed.
Being for traditional social values doesn’t mean that its proper to use Federal power to achieve whatever legislative aims you believe are proper to enact in law.
Take abortion for instance. The Constitution doesn’t say a damn thing about it directly. A principled conservative approach to deal with the issue is to leave it to the states, as the enumerated powers of the Federal government don’t cover that issue. Same for dope. Etc. Many so-called conservatives don’t get that point. They want to use the coercive power of the Federal government to get their way on a national basis. Myself, while I am neither pro-abortion nor pro-dope, could be quite content for states to have their own policies that vary from state to state. Flame on.
3SmearsmakeaSicko and I’ll add ignorant too.
“Congress and each successive administration pledge their political, financial, and military support for Israel. Yet while we call ourselves a strong ally of the Israeli people, we send billions in foreign aid every year to some Muslim states that many Israelis regard as enemies. From the Israeli point of view, many of the same Islamic nations we fund with our tax dollars want to destroy the Jewish state. Many average Israelis and American Jews see America as hypocritically hedging its bets.” -Ron Paul
Well said. One minor comment. In matters of foreign policy, it is insane to treat countries like Iran, which regularly call for our destruction, as innocent bystanders. In the real world the USA has enemies, and “not because of what we have done to them.” Non-initiation of force has its place, when dealing with other nations on the basis of reason.
The national leadership of other nations can be (and sometimes are) unreasonable.
>>> Ron Paul... condemned our foreign aid hand-outs and ongoing presence all over the world, not just with regard to Israel.
Yet it’s the Israel lobby that he and his supporters are most concerned about.
>>> What “vital US interests” do we have in Saudi Arabia?
I’ll give it a think, while you peddle your bicycle over here avoiding Islamists on the way.
Whether you want to admit it or not it’s oil and maintaining some kind of relationship with those against radical Muslims
You have immersed yourself in a cesspool of urban legend.
Here is a link that will help you:
Untrue.
The Constitution further grants me the right to “assistance of counsel” having been charged with a crime - the Patriot Act allows for holding of criminal prisoners without affording them chance to meet with attorneys.
This isn't true either: although, the Constitution does not guarantee - or as you bizarrely put it "grant" - a right to pretrial attorney consultations.
It guarantees the assistance of counsel at trial.
The Constitution grants the right to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of my grievances. The Patriot Act holds that protest groups can be named “terrorists” and these rights denied.
Another untruth: the Act provides for nothing of the kind.
Truths are not smears.
Can you blame me for not following your timeline? Do you think that conservatism was just cooked up at the Cato Institute in the '80s or something?
Liberatarianism is a rather modern invention that disagrees with the very old philosophy of conservatism in several areas. Notable differences include libertarianism's extremist policies on drug legalization, military issues, social policy and foreign affairs, among others (not to mention a strong utopian tendency). That is why I am a conservative and not a libertarian.
Hardly. I watched Ron Paul's disgraceful performance on Alex Jones' cesspool of a show.
I have also already read the rationalizations at your posted link above.
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, the only two trustworthy reps left.
Written by Michael Scheuer, the former head of CIA’s Bin Laden Unit contained in ‘Imperial Hubris’ p 242[softcover].
“The United States is hated across the Islamic world because of specific U.S. Government policies and actions,,,,and the six U.S. policies bin Laden repeatedly refers to as anti-Muslim.
-U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis’ thrall.
-Western and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
-U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
-U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants.
-U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
-U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments.
Anyone who thinks bin Laden is fighting to make our women wear Burkas or to end our Bill of Rights, has been brainwashed.
Giuliani is ignorant about abortion and war.
So let me guess, someone is against liberty if they oppose abortion "rights" and gay marriage, right?
Open borders is what we have now. Paul wants to close the borders, so I guess you're on the wrong side of that issue too.
Nope, closing the borders is one of the things I agree with Ron Paul about. BOTH he and I, however, differ with "orthodox" libertarianism about this issue, however. Libertarianism as a philosophical principle espouses "the free flow of labour", and that national borders ought not be a hindrance to any individual exercising their right to get the most benefit from their labour. Ron Paul's position on the borders is NOT libertarian.
LOL!
If you go back and check out some of my previous posts on the subject, you'll see that I've espoused the exact thing you're talking about - overturning Roe v. Wade and turning the issue back over to the states. THAT'S the way to both retain the Constitutional principle of federalism and see abortions decreased, since I can guarantee you at least half the states would either ban abortion or regulate it so stringently that it will de facto cease to exist.
“Anyone who thinks bin Laden is fighting to make our women wear Burkas or to end our Bill of Rights, has been brainwashed.”
Right, whatever. What’s gonna be the ultimate behavior if hypothetically the Muslim extremists managed to take over the US? Think about it.
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.