“Well, there’s no real difference between Paulestinians and MoveOn.org when it comes to foreign policy”
lol, I’ll have to disagree here. Do you think Moveoners support getting out of the UN and nearly all other international organizations and treaties? I think not. Israel would be better off without us, IMO, withholding aid is not being ‘anti israel’ any more than scaling back welfare is ‘anti poverty’.
A lot of moveoners would probably support (or have supported) intervention in Sundan, bosnia, somalia, and/or don’t have clear thoughts on getting troups out of europe, south korea, and the so-called ‘entagling alliances’ forced upon us by the state department bureacrats and politicians from both parties.
Ron Paul’s foreign policy is rooted in reasons opposite those of libs, a non interventionist, small government, robert taft like approach.
The fact that a single Ron Paul supporter wants to go try to convert some moveoners doesn’t strike me as either newsworthy or revelationary. In fact, the more moveoners that are exposed to Ron Paul’s small gov foreign and domestic agenda, the better, IMO.
Who know, maybe Moveon will adopt some of Paul’s positions such as ‘abolishing the IRS’ and repealing current american socialism. I wouldn’t count on it... :)
If you’re interested in Ron Paul’s positions, not those of his supporters, check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
“Ron Paul’s foreign policy is rooted in reasons opposite those of libs, a non interventionist, small government, robert taft like approach.’
It would help if he took a good look at the way of the world today. This isolationist bent simply won’t work any more. If it really ever did.
Sorry my FRiend, a position that results in losing the war in Iraq for a "good reason" is just as BAD as a position that results in losing the war for a "bad reason" ---- IMHO