What kind of uncaring brute would be a non-smoker and not care about the chilrun and their healthcare.
Posted on 10/08/2007 10:16:52 AM PDT by Eric Blair 2084
Any response to this paper's Friday editorial on my foreign policy position must rest on two fundamental assertions: first, that the Founding Fathers were not isolationists; and second, that their political philosophy -- the wisdom of the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Revolution itself -- is not just a primitive cultural relic.
If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers -- and soon voters -- is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?
A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.
Rep. RON PAUL (BOB LAPREE) American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade. The hostility toward American citizens overseas in the wake of our current foreign policy has actually made it difficult if not dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Is this not an isolationist consequence from a policy of aggressive foreign interventionism?
It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.
I do not believe that ideas have an expiration date, or that their value can be gauged by their novelty. The test for new and old is that of wisdom and experience, or as the editors wrote "historical reality," which argues passionately now against the course of anti-Constitutional interventionism.
A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world.
I'm assuming that wasn't a criticism aimed at me, if it was, be more specific.
Personally I think Paul and his supporters should drop all this stupidity of Ron Paul as the all knowing of the Founders intent. If the last 30 years of the 18th century was characterized by anything, it was disagreement. Those people we revere (and we don't revere plenty who considered themselves patriots at the time) weren't a monolith.
We needed another Boston Tea Party a few years ago. Better late than never.
To the contrary, I was giving you credit for articulating a position that didn’t involve name calling or censorship.
We have collectively established that the founding fathers could not have been in favor of isolationism since:
A. They were the direct beneficiaries of foreign military interventionism during the Revolutionary War.
B. They engaged in foreign interventionism themselves shortly after our founding.
Thus,
C. Ron Paul is wrong.
And nobody had to be called assface to prove the point.
If they pass the kid’s insurance thing, we can get together, find a shipment of cigars from the Caribbean, and burn them.
It’s our duty to smoke the cigars...what about the poor chilruns who will go without healthcare insurance otherwise.
We can agree on that.
What kind of uncaring brute would be a non-smoker and not care about the chilrun and their healthcare.
It's because this is indicative of his entire mindset that I cannot support Ron Paul.
The beauty of his curmudgeonly approach to politics is that there is absolutely no danger of him ever having to apply the principles he stands for. He can posture and proclaim at his leisure, secure in the knowledge that he never has to deal with actually winning one of these battles.
It's one thing to stand firm for the Constitution when you don't have to follow up your stands with practical politics; it's quite another to actually try to follow through within a legal/legislative environment such as we now "enjoy".
And in that sense, he's even less effective than somebody like Tom Tancredo who gamely, if lamely and ineffectually, tries to build some modicum of concensus. Unlike Tancredo, Dr. Paul doesn't even seem interested in working with anybody else, even for show. But like Mr. Tancredo, one gets the sense that Dr. Paul's primary goal is to gain personal recognition by being a curmudgeon.
The ultimate question would be this: what would a president Ron Paul do, once he was checked for the nth time on one of his principled stands? We'll never really know, of course, but I think he'd either end up as a lame duck within a year of his inauguration; or he'd "grow" in office, in order to get anything done at all.
I thank you lormand, for those prayers for God’s protection and blessings for my son. I will share your sentiments with him at our next contact. Please know that he has a departure date (or rather his combat brigade does) of early November to come home for a year. We are starting to count down the days until he comes home.
So, this is what you do when you’re suffering from insomnia?
Anybody NOT have a photo of Fred with a kid chewing on his wife’s diaphram on his lap on a national TV interview?
Har har har! Yeah, keep rolling out the latest answer to grassroots crying out for freedom (Ron Paul).
Crash and burn time for Fred, sooner than later, “Macaca.”
Don’t take it personally against travis. He means well. So do I.
We just like a candidate who will leave us the hell alone as American citizens on the domestic front like Ron Paul.
Foreign policy is a different story.
FRegards and Thank God their are brave men like your son. He’s a better man than me. I’m just a clown.
Not to mention the French after the XYZ affair.
This is a man who knows very little history.
LoL!
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Congressman Paul, defining the attacks as an act of "air piracy", introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, which would have granted Letters of Marque and Reprisal, as authorized by Article One, Section Eight of the U.S. Constitution, against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state.[39] He has also reproposed this legislation recently under the new title of Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007.
So in other words, Paul wanted to do exactly what Jefferson did then. Decommissioned or civilian special op forces and Blackwater types could have went after Al-Qaida and saved us a s--tload of time, money, and Rat/MSM hysterics.
well, with the barabry pirates, correct me if im wrong, i thought the navy went over there and wupped some butt, but then went home, i dont believe they ‘nation built’ or stayed for any length of time, did they?
paul did vote to go into afghanistan (with some regret he has said because of both the lack of a formal declaration of war and the nation building afterwards)
No, Paul would have went after them just as anyone who attacks our national interests.
I didn’t make those.
It’s best not to take things personally here, I mean, all of us here at FR mean well, why else would we be so interested in political affairs and presidential elections. People here are passionate about life and how things run, which perhaps is why, upon occasion, things get muddy because people get so caught up in the righteousness of their beliefs (stemming from their well meaning) that they leave civility on the wayside.
Thomas Sowell once said:
“It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.”
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.