Posted on 09/13/2007 9:02:42 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
...Or instituting a liberal democracy in Iraq.
I have to take exception to your statement that he wants to "disengage the world". His views are often mislabeled as "isolationist". The correct term is "non-interventionist". He wants to engage the world by having diplomatic relations with, and trading with, as many countries as possible.
Congressman Paul's viewpoint is the result of a lot of study in this area, and I can't do it justice in a Free Republic post, so I recommend listening to his recent foreign policy speech at Johns Hopkins University. It's quite compelling, and he lays his case out in a way that is not allowed for in the debates or on talk shows.
I know you're not really a troll in the sense of a lib interloper, but it still is primarily a Ron Paul thread, after all.
Sorry, I mistook you for someone who might be willing to learn.
And I mistook you as well
Is not! (supported by evidence)
Is too! (supported by nothing)
Is not! (supported by evidence)
Is too! (supported by nothing)
You have really elevated the level of discourse in this thread. I can only wonder why you took the time to respond. You aren’t trying to argue anything, you are just trying to inject your opinion. Mission accomplished. Now if you don’t have anything to add to the discussion, I recommend you bug off.
Sometimes thats the way life is.
Piss off yerself.
;0)
Look, I gave you a link to Congressman Paul's speech. If you want to learn, give it a listen. If not, hey, do what you like.
BTW, That is Mr Paul's contribution in all of this. He has elevated the discourse.
I didnt bother to look.
Deal with it
Ron Paul is an idealistic yahoo.
Politics encompasses all the people.
Some times you need to smack folks up side the head
John Derbyshire wrote a pretty good article for NRO titled "That Old-Time Religion" that said the same thing you did.
Go on, admit it: you have felt the Ron Paul temptation, haven’t you? And it’s not just the thrill of imagining another president named Ron, is it? Ron Paul believes a lot of what you believe, and what I believe. You don’t imagine he’s going to be the 44th POTUS, but you kind of hope he does well none the less.And why not? Look at those policy positions! Abolish the IRS and Federal Reserve; balance the budget; go back to the gold standard; pull out of the U.N. and NATO; end the War on Drugs; overturn Roe v. Wade; repeal federal restrictions on gun ownership; fence the borders; deport illegals; stop lecturing foreign governments about human rights; let the Middle East go hang. What’s not to like?
We-e-ell. We all have nits to pick, though we wouldn’t all pick the same ones. The gold standard? Wasn’t it going off the gold standard that gave us full control over the wilder swings of the business cycle? Which was, like, a good idea? I am by no means as willing to surrender to the collective wisdom of modern economists as Bryan Caplan wants me to be, but — the gold standard? Come on. And stopping the War on Drugs? Where would that take us? — Philip Morris brands of crack cocaine available over the counter at Walgreens? You pick your own nits.
That’s not the point, though. Nits aside, the broad outlook there is conservative in a way we don’t often see from a presidential candidate. It is, in fact, conservatism of exceptional purity. Reading through those policy positions, an American conservative can hear the mystic chords of memory sounding in the distance, and hear the call of ancestral voices wafted on the breeze: Hayek, von Mises, Rothbart, Nock, Kirk, John Chamberlain... Unlike the product in that automobile commercial, this is your father’s conservatism — the Old-Time Religion. What is there among Ron Paul’s policy prescriptions that the young William F. Buckley would have disagreed with?
You mean that sometimes you feel that you have the right to force others to believe exactly like you do.
In fact, Congressman Paul did that at the very beginning. I believe it was about the time the AUMF was being debated. His fellow Congressmen acted as if the idea was ridiculous.
LoL That seems to be your realm
The mouth foamers spend their time on most threads saying that Ron Paul is a RINO, that he's not a real conservative, that he only appeals to moonbat, moveon.org lefties.
Now we find out that Ron Paul sucks because he's so pro-constitution, and socialism is great. On Free Republic. It's all a bit surreal.
So much for Paul being a coward who won't fight back.
OK, I understand your point now. No offense taken.
FYI, Since Ken was nice enough to prepare the picture at my request, I thought it appropriate to thank him. Don’t you like the picture of Ron Paul with a pancake on his head? Before you respond, remember I’m very sensitive to criticism.
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.