Posted on 10/14/2007 1:29:17 PM PDT by reasonisfaith
Something about Ron Paul doesn’t smell right. Despite the fact that he appears to advocate core conservative values such as upholding the constitution and limiting government power, instinct tells me not to touch Ron Paul with a ten foot pole. Conservatives understand this. He’s just too kooky. I think it comes down to two possibilities: either Ron Paul is very foolish or he is very evil.
It’s true that on a certain level, tending to our own political and economic affairs here in the U.S. is where we should focus most of our resources. But the cauldrons of tyranny and terror are ever-present in far reaches of the world. When these wicked brews begin to boil over and spill their hateful contents onto our land, that’s the point where we must take action to extinguish the fire at its source. We did so in Japan and Germany sixty-odd years ago, and we are now doing it in Iraq.
Ron Paul’s behavior is consistent with two possibilities. The first possibility allows for the notion that Paul is an honest man with true libertarian beliefs who just doesn’t understand the reality of geopolitics, thus he is basically a kook hopelessly unfit for the oval office. The second possibility is less likely but nonetheless fun for the imagination: Ron Paul is part of a conspiracy, planned for decades, that covertly seeks something sinister—either a Hillary presidency (by means of dividing the conservative vote) or the downfall of the United States.
rt= libertarians have been unsuccessful because their ideas have failed to attract a following by enough voters. Conservatives moderates and liberals of both parties find your ideas on national defense and domestic policys to be extreme and frankly kind of loopy. I think the name which you go by here bares that out. All political movements must attract enough followers to be successful, Libertarians have failed so far to do so. Americans don’t want to turn the reigns of government over to extremists. I don’t see any reason to think things will change in that regard any time soon.
EEE<You got folks who never voted or participated in politics before lining up and registering as Republicans just because Paul is in the race.
rt= There attracted to Ron Paul’s libertarian ideas, not conservative ideas. It’s doubtful many will vote Republican in the general election.
EEE<So be nice to Paul. We need him and his voters to defeat Hillary
rt= I don’t expect his voters to support a Republican candidate. They are Libertarian by nature, and therefore likely to vote that way if at all.
You're like a hostage with two guns to his head, and all you're really worried about is your cholesteral level.
Libertarians and conservatives are natural allies. All I'm saying is that libertarians deserve a place in the GOP just as much as Christians and RINOs do.
If he were my uncle I would keep him locked in the attic.
I think the real kooks are the people on this board propagating the inane theories that Ron Paul is running in a presidential primary to somehow ensure a Hillary Clinton general election victory. (???)
First of all, you're getting your views of Ron Paul from limited, prejudiced sources. He is supported by G. Edward Griffin, a former documentary film maker for the John Birch society. The John Birch society views the issues Ron Paul addresses as very serious threats to the Republic.G. Edward Griffin made documentaries such as an interview Norman Dodd, who served on the Reece committee investigation into the Tax-Exempt Foundations and the damage they've done to our country. You can find numerous documents at www.jbs.org speaking out against the fiat dollar. G. Edward Griffin has campaigned tirelessly against collectivism and communism. Ron Paul's very foundational principles are rooted in combating notions of collectivist thought that have crept into both political parties in the United States. Ron Paul's earliest and strongest supporters are the most anti-communist folks you'll ever get to know.
The issue of how to combat Islamism is very debatable. Under the present administration's guiding wisdom, we have imported around half a million Muslims, at just under 100,000 per year. Our borders have been left open, and our culture is being forcefully shifted away from its core of the English language, even if just by a few million people who have come here illegally. There has been a purposeful decision among the leadership of our two parties not to end illegal immigration. They have decided to continue attempting to pass an amnesty bill. Ron Paul is probably as strong as Tancredo and Hunter on the issue of amnesty. He would fight the welfare state which is truly what attracts these people more ferociously than any other potential candidate running at the moment.
You're like a hostage with two guns to his head, and all you're really worried about is your cholesteral level.
Actually, it's the other way around. Many of our issues have root causes, such as a growing internationalism on the part of the American elite, which pressures our politicians to move toward projects like the www.spp.gov, NAFTA, CAFTA, the sea agreement LOST, and to avoid deporting illegal aliens. This comes from big money as well as liberal/socialist perspectives. The big money behind these ideas is now international. A Spanish company known as Ferrovial (which already owns a controlling share of Heathrow airport in London) will be holding portions of the super corridor being planned starting in Texas and moving up through any states that will agree to having it.
We are continually told that we need to fight terrorism abroad, and Ron Paul has identified the letters of marque approach as was used during the barbary pirates crisis back in the late 18th century as an approach to this problem. However, we must do more at home to combat the Islamism of our own country. We must do more to stop illegal immigration such that our own culture is not shifted continually toward Spanish-speaking from our cultural roots in English. These are real problems that Ron Paul has addressed in his writing and in his speeches, and in the debates. He has the roots of our present problems in his sights, and they are both 'cholesterol' and guns pointed at our heads.
A Rockefeller Republican won't care about those issues.
Maybe I should just cut to the chase: Would he pull the troops out of Iraq?
The main obstacles to withdrawing our troops from overseas after the Cold War ended was terrorism and the expansion of China's economic power. Power projected conventionally (with large troop movements) is rarely the correct approach to fighting asymmetric wars. Economic power, is the real place to exert effort on preparing for war. A strong, vibrant economy gives us the freedom and initiative to develop technology for fighting future, or even concurrent asymmetric war.
In my view, we have almost missed the opportunity to alter our foreign policy significantly toward a peaceful stance. It is not too late to do that. We do not need to allow terrorism to interfere with our overall nation-to-nation relationships. Ron Paul acknowledges that violent terrorism is out there, but he talks about its origins in our Cold War stances (which are obsolete now, in my personal opinion). For example, Israel no longer faces enemies funded by Soviet communists. Israel is well-prepared to defend itself now that we have helped it get on its feet. We do not need to defend the Saudis. Especially, we do not need to defend them. They are the reason whey we were in Kuwait, as I have mentioned. Our foreign policy is more about the Saudis than any other country. It's time we change that. Which candidates are serious about it? Only Ron Paul. The others just talk, but they talk about your diversion, e.g. 'cholesterol' instead of the real economic guns being pointed at our heads.
EXCELLENT - LOL
EXCELLENT - LOL
I don’t want to get in a dispute regarding ideological classification with you, but Paul’s foreign policy positions (it’s not inaccurate to call them neo-isolationist), anti-war stance, flirting with the 911 troofer kooks, and pro-legalization of drugs are not consistent with Libertarian orthodoxy than the conservative core of the Republican party.
I’m not saying being a Libertarian is a bad thing, just that it’s different than being conservative.
Ron Paul is as fiscally-conservative as you can get. This emerges out of a deep mistrust of state power, and a political grounding in anti-collectivist thinking. Handing massive power to the state for a given purpose, deemed as good by those who make the decision, is in one way or another collectivist. Communism and Nazism are the ultimate in collectivist governments. To go the opposite direction is to shrink government budges, powers of domestic force, and so forth. Rule of law libertarians like Ron Paul are both socially and fiscally conservative. However, Ron Paul like many others here at Free Republic and in the Republican and Constitutional parties, has come to realize that federal power is out of control now. We may have dials and knobs we'd like to twist to eradicate this or that ill in society, but we now distrust the federal government with its bloated bureaucracies and corrupted influence too much to give it another inch. This seems 'libertarian' to some strong, social conservatives. To others, it's a breath of fresh air.
Even if Ron Paul does not win the nomination, his influence on this election will be good. I notice that President Bush had the courage to veto the SCHIP bill. That was a surprise. We've begun driving the party to the fiscal right, and we must keep going until the country is back in the hands of the people in the various states.
Right. Just surrender now and hope that we don't get another Pearl Harbor. No thanks. You just confirmed what I knew already. He doesn't get it. But thanks for trying to explain.
The real war is a culture war being fought here on our own shores, within our own borders: will America remain a sovereign, English-speaking, largely Christian nation, or will it become a massive cesspool of Islamic and other third-world immigration? The globalists (not Ron Paul) are contributing to our destruction. You do not need to forget about Iraq to remember that immigration and the loss of national sovereignty are our biggest threats now. Look for people discussing that among the other GOP candidates. Tancredo. Hunter. Only Ron Paul has been effective at reaching the youth, telling them to beware of what is being done with their future in the name of a war that has never been declared, and a globalist multiculturalism that is already destroying the Republic.
<< Ron Paul: Fool or Scoundrel? >>
Why do I have to choose?
rt= Their are definitely points of agreement, it’s the points of divergence that so trouble conservatives.Points like defeat in Iraq, legalizing drugs, withdrawal from NATO, his position against the Patriot Act. These are substantial
differences. Most conservatives strongly disagree with his stance on these issues. Taken together, they rule Ron Paul out of any possible likelihood of popular GOP support. His statement in one of the debates blaming American foreign policy for the 9-11 (blow back) deeply angered conservatives.
EEE<All I’m saying is that libertarians deserve a place in the GOP just as much as Christians and RINOs do.
rt= Sure,I’m all for libertarian support in the party. Let’s see how many libertarians vote GOP in the general election. I must admit to having my doubts as to the loyalty of the ideologically driven libertarian come election time. I hope I’m wrong about that.
Has our government effectively defined what ‘victory’ will be for you? Are you content that they are doing their best to pursue it? If not, would you consider other, genuinely defined policies instead? That’s what Ron Paul has: a genuine alternative to what is most definitely not working in the view of many Americans.
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.