Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

We the People -- The Buck Stops Here! (A follow-up on Ron Paul)
Capitol Hill ^ | Aug 31, 07 | JB Williams

Posted on 08/31/2007 6:16:40 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican

The first truth we must find is a way to swallow this - we have exactly the government we elected!

Our Republican President has a public approval rating hovering around 30% and our Democrat congress has an approval rating down around 20%. Clearly, we don’t think much of our government, but we elected them and what does that say about us?

(snip)

In my last column titled “Ron Paul—A Liberal-tarian, not a Conservative," I demonstrated how easy it is to attack any politician on his alleged voting record, demonize an entire group on the basis of a few in that group who are willing to use unethical tactics to promote their allegedly ethical candidate, and cause a firestorm of political banter, both pro and con, without ever really getting to the heart of the subject at hand.

Welcome to American politics circa 2007

(Excerpt) Read more at capitolhillcoffeehouse.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: conservatism; libertarian; ronpaul; rpisaflake; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-346 next last
To: UCFRoadWarrior
Ron Paul speeches sound just like those of Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Jack Murtha, Jane Fonda, Cindy Sheehan and Hugo Chavez. Same words, different face and label.

And Ron Paul supporters think they are the standard bearers of conservatism?

You people are delusional!

21 posted on 08/31/2007 6:55:27 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ulm1

What a “conservative” thing to say! LOL


22 posted on 08/31/2007 6:56:06 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PlainOleAmerican
When Ron Paul speaks about the War in Iraq he sounds like me, and lots of my fellow veterans that I know. Allowing the Army and Marine Corps to be ground down in a voluntary, fool's errand of a war isn't something I find a lot of enthusiasm for.

I strongly supported the Cold War, a war worth fighting and in which I fought as a volunteer (1LT - 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam). In my adult lifetime, the only wars I've opposed were in Bosnia and Iraq, neither of which were any of our business and destined to fail. Peacekeeping and nation building aren't in our line and shouldn't be. US forces should be used to defend the US and shouldn't be wasted wandering around the world looking for ancient wars and ethnic hatreds to waste our troops lives on.

If a US President wants a Nobel Prize he can win it with a persuasive letter ending hostilities or do without it.

23 posted on 08/31/2007 7:01:40 AM PDT by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

>>I call him a libertarian.

That’s an accurate label in my view. Nonetheless, libertarians are part of the right, even though they may not be conservative. And so conservatives can make common cause with libertarians on many issues.

Most libertarians vote for conservatives because it is the “most libertarian” choice at the ballot box. I have no difficulty voting for a libertarian if he or she is the candidate most aligned with my beliefs.


24 posted on 08/31/2007 7:02:09 AM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: oblomov; UCFRoadWarrior
I find the disengenuousness in you Paulettes laughable. First you write :"I have only heard him claim to be a constitutionalist, not a conservative.".

So, Paul is to be taken as never claiming to be a conservative.

You then write: "Ah yes, the hoary old myth of dumb conservatives getting led astray by packaging and labels. Are you sure you are a conservative? The GOP as a whole does not represent my values, and the typical GOP officeholder is indistinguishable to me from most Democrats. OTOH, nearly all of the handful of politicians I do like are Republican."

Now, while RP doesn't consider himself a conservative, you question my conservative credentials since I question his. You also note that the GOP doesn't represent your values because they're indistinguishable from Democrats. The clear implication here is that you're the conservative; not me, not the GOP. Yet RP isn't but you support him wholeheartedly. It's either that or, RP isn't a conservative, neither are you and that's why you support him, and the GOP doesn't represent your values because they align with RP; not conservativism. Which is it?

UCFRoadWarrior writes: "As I look into Paul’s background, more and more his critics look like whiny liberals. Also, I think the real fear they have of Paul is not his stance on Iraq, but his opposition to Globalism, NAFTA, big government....all anathema to the Global-Socialist liberals that have taken over the GOP.

Its funny that Paul’s opponents label him a “liberal”. His critics have no understanding of what a conservative really is

Again, here's another RP supporter who considers RP as being a conservative, yet we non-supportes misguidedly label him 'liberal'. Two supporters now, who characterize him as 'conservative' yet you state he himself considers he's a constitutionalist. Which is it? Or is it neither, is he a 'libertarian', and is he/are you unwilling to properly acknowledge your beliefs, and find it necessary to mischaracterize others in order to maintain your sham?

25 posted on 08/31/2007 7:14:04 AM PDT by bcsco ("The American Indians found out what happens when you don't control immigration.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: caltrop
Peacekeeping and nation building aren't in our line and shouldn't be. US forces should be used to defend the US and shouldn't be wasted wandering around the world looking for ancient wars and ethnic hatreds to waste our troops lives on.

You are ignorant of history and doomed to repeat the mistakes of leaders like Neville Chamberlain.

Peacekeeping and nation building are what solved the perpetual wars on the European Continent that stemmed from anicent wars and ethnic hatred.

You may think defeating Germany and Japan were a waste of our troops lives, but I don't.

26 posted on 08/31/2007 7:16:23 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (The Democratic Party will not exist in a few years....we are watching history unfold before us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: oblomov
And so conservatives can make common cause with libertarians on many issues.

Mostly economic. Libertarian social beliefs are way beyond my own. And, yest, I AM a conservative, both economically ans socially.

27 posted on 08/31/2007 7:17:11 AM PDT by bcsco ("The American Indians found out what happens when you don't control immigration.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: caltrop
You can’t find a single American anywhere that supports your description of what is happening in Iraq.

“Allowing the Army and Marine Corps to be ground down in a voluntary, fool’s errand of a war isn’t something I find a lot of enthusiasm for.”

The question is, how accurate is your description?

If it turns out that the missing WMD we KNOW once existed in Iraq are raw chemical, biological or nuclear materials now in the hands of terror network, used to make dirty bombs for U.S. cities, or that removing the Hussein regime happened to stop that event from becoming a reality, would you have enthusiasm for the mission then?

As a veteran, you should know a few key points.

1) Intelligence gathering is the imperfect task of learning that which the other side is working just as hard to hide. Not even France, Germany or Russia, all of whom blocked UN authorization for the mission, had any different intelligence than we did. They were just profiting by keeping Hussein in business, so they didn’t care.

2) There are only two forms of defense.

a) Hunker down, fortify the fort and wait for the attack.
b) Pursue the enemy before they can attack.

As a veteran, I’m shocked that you miss the obvious?

28 posted on 08/31/2007 7:19:51 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
Now, while RP doesn't consider himself a conservative, you question my conservative credentials since I question his.

I learned many years ago that libertarians believe they are the "true" constitutionalists and that they know what a "true" conservative is. They believe themselves to be "pure" and uncompromised.

Liberals are motivated by emotion.

Libertarians are motivated by arrogance.

29 posted on 08/31/2007 7:22:30 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (The Democratic Party will not exist in a few years....we are watching history unfold before us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PlainOleAmerican

I don’t agree with Paul that we should bail on Iraq. I do agree with a domestic policy of smaller government and more individual freedom.

The war is a very devisive issue. I supported it and continue to suppport it. I have also come to realize that we simply can’t afford any more of these wars whether we like them or not.

I would like the United States to meddle less in the affairs of others. It is very expensive and it can often backfire. I am very conflicted on all of the issues.

This war could cost close to a trillion by the time we are done. I think we are around half that already with no fiscal end in sight. If I would have known that going in I might have supported looking at different and more cost effective options of taking out Sadaam.

But part of me not only wants to finish the job in Iraq (we have a duty to give it our best effort), but to also take care of Iran while we have the chance. We have them surrounded. A naval blockade in the gulf could destroy their economy. We could bomb critical sites of infrastructure. I don’t want to invade, just cripple them (hopefully enough for regime change) and then get the hell out.

So I am a war monger that supports Ron Paul. I guess that means I need a therapist.

I don’t think Paul’s policies for Iraq are a good solution for where we are right now. But going forward after this war, I would prefer to see something like a Paul foriegn policy in the future. I would like to pull back and cut all foriegn aid. I would like to get out of every little pissing match. We have enough problems at home.


30 posted on 08/31/2007 7:22:52 AM PDT by Milton Friedman (Free The People!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

There’s the key, conservative in life, economically and socially, which drive the economic consequences of liberal social policies.

That’s conservative!


31 posted on 08/31/2007 7:23:16 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Somebody needs to explain the difference between “constitutionalist” and “isolationist” to libertarians...

Conservatives already know the difference.


32 posted on 08/31/2007 7:24:57 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PlainOleAmerican

The distinction between negative and positive rights is the reason that libertarians are in no way liberal (in the modern sense of the word). It explains the difference between classical and modern liberalism.

A negative rights political framework is one in which government powers are limited and enumerated. The US Constitution is a negative rights document. The rights described in the Bill of Rights are all stated in terms of limitations on government power: “Congress shall make no law...” So, under a negative rights framework, individuals are free by default. The limited powers of the government are applied to maintain social order. This is the classical liberal position, the libertarian position, and to a large extent, the conservative one.

A positive rights framework is one in which individuals have a “right” to social goods, such as a “right” to vote or a “right” to receive health care. The problem is that rights are per se absolute, so any roadblock to delivering these “rights” is a violation of (positive) human rights! Also, positive rights imply a positive duty on the part of everyone else to deliver on these rights. As a result, positive rights are inimical to the concept of limited government; in fact, they necessarily lead to a government involved in every nook and cranny of our lives. This is the modern liberal (social democratic) and socialist position.

Regardless of what you think of Paul or other libertarians, his views are consistent with negative rights at the federal level. And his concept of the federal government’s role could not be more different from that of modern liberals.


33 posted on 08/31/2007 7:26:57 AM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

>>Yet RP isn’t but you support him wholeheartedly

No, I do not support him wholeheartedly. My support is very much contingent and conditional. This said, your assumption that I agree with everything Paul stands for seems a bit silly, huh?


34 posted on 08/31/2007 7:29:23 AM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PlainOleAmerican
Somebody needs to explain the difference between “constitutionalist” and “isolationist” to libertarians...

Libertarians set strict conditions for themselves that are easy to exploit by our enemies.

35 posted on 08/31/2007 7:29:26 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (The Democratic Party will not exist in a few years....we are watching history unfold before us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Milton Friedman

“I do agree with a domestic policy of smaller government and more individual freedom.”

Hard to find a single conservative that does not support this idea. The question is, how do you reduce the size of government without reducing the need for government solutions to self-induced ills caused by liberal social policies?

“I have also come to realize that we simply can’t afford any more of these wars whether we like them or not.”

You seem aware of the cost of winning. Now, can you guestimate the cost of losing this particular war?

“I am very conflicted on all of the issues.”

We see that! You have lots of company BTW...

“This war could cost close to a trillion by the time we are done.”

You are talking about libertarians favorite subject here, MONEY! Now put a number on the cost of losing this war, in terms of American bodybags on U.S. streets?

“So I am a war monger that supports Ron Paul. I guess that means I need a therapist.”

No... the shrinks in Hollyweird have done enough damage already! LOL

“I don’t think Paul’s policies for Iraq are a good solution for where we are right now.”

This is innocent American life hanging in the balance here. Tell me again why you support Ron Paul?


36 posted on 08/31/2007 7:33:03 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: caltrop
When Ron Paul speaks about the War in Iraq he sounds like me, and lots of my fellow veterans that I know. Allowing the Army and Marine Corps to be ground down in a voluntary, fool's errand of a war isn't something I find a lot of enthusiasm for....I strongly supported the Cold War, a war worth fighting and in which I fought as a volunteer (1LT - 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam). In my adult lifetime, the only wars I've opposed were in Bosnia and Iraq, neither of which were any of our business and destined to fail. Peacekeeping and nation building aren't in our line and shouldn't be. US forces should be used to defend the US and shouldn't be wasted wandering around the world looking for ancient wars and ethnic hatreds to waste our troops lives on.

You clearly aggreed with a number of wars Paul wouldn't engage in.

You're misstating his position, he isn't solely opposed to nationbuilding, he advocates a complete withdrawl of US troops from the region, and presumably all foreign basing.

Regarding the middle east, we withdraw from Iraq, Kuwait, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, clearly no significant sea or air presence. We aren't nationbuilding in those places, we're not looking for ancient hatreds, we're protecting our supply of oil. A concern Paul would let the markets and producers solve, there being no such thing as hatred/religion based terror. Once we're gone, the Iranians and wahabbis will be fine. They're rational, after all, and deterred by our nuclear arsenal, which is why a nuclear Iran isn't a threat.

Personally, I think the power vacumn will be filled, perhaps even by the Soviet bear and not to our advantage.

I'm curious, though it's not a reason to keep troops in Iraq, would you agree with Paul's analogy that there was no slaughter in Southeast Asia as some predicted after our withdrawl?

37 posted on 08/31/2007 7:33:57 AM PDT by SJackson (isolationism never was, never will be acceptable response to[expansionist] tyrannical governments)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Milton Friedman
I was fairly with you until the following: "But going forward after this war, I would prefer to see something like a Paul foriegn policy in the future. I would like to pull back and cut all foriegn aid. I would like to get out of every little pissing match. We have enough problems at home."

As the article we're discussing states, this is a different World than it was centuries ago. WE may want to be isolated, but will others allow it? If not, we must be prepared to deal with issues that arise, and if those issues involve war, then they're better served 'over there' than 'here'.

As for 'every little pissing match', insofar as that definition fits, I'd agree. But 9/11 cannot be considered a 'little pissing match'. Nor can the rightly named "War On Terror". These people want to destroy the West and our culture, and turn everyone left into Islamists. Unless we understand this completely, and take this war THEY began to them, that is exactly what will happen should we become the isolationists Paul envisions.

"I would like to pull back and cut all foriegn aid."

America has used foreign aid not just to prop up governments, but to maintain our interests abroad. If we are to curtail all such aid, we become just another country among many, and turn over control of events to whomever sees themselves the arbiters. And rest assured, they will be there. And they will not, necessarily, be friendly. What you're advocating is isolationism, pure and simple, my friend. And in today's World, that a recipe for disaster.

And if Ron Paul isn't astute enough to understand that, he has no business running for President.

38 posted on 08/31/2007 7:34:36 AM PDT by bcsco ("The American Indians found out what happens when you don't control immigration.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: PlainOleAmerican
The only winners in our War in Iraq are the Iranians and AQ.

The Iranians no longer have their most formidable regional adversary opposing them and are a giant step closer to their dream of the Shiite Crescent. AQ attracts volunteers on a daily basis solely because we're there.

Those are the obvious facts and I'm not the one who's missed them.

39 posted on 08/31/2007 7:35:21 AM PDT by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: PlainOleAmerican

Great article. He has defined the Ron Paul campaign clearly. Paul is not the only conservative in this race as his supporters claim.


40 posted on 08/31/2007 7:38:45 AM PDT by Vanbasten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-346 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson