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.
Try this on for size. This “fool” is the only member of the House to win three times as a non-incumbant. This “fool” is the only member of that body who has beaten two incumbant members of the House. All along the way, he has remained true to his controversial small government/antiwar platform. Like or hate him, Paul is no fool. In fact, by any measure of electoral success, he is one of the most politically adept politicians in office today.
Try this on for size. This “fool” is the only member of the House to win three times as a non-incumbant. This “fool” is the only member of that body who has beaten two incumbant members of the House. All along the way, he has remained true to his controversial small government/antiwar platform. Like or hate him, Paul is no fool. In fact, by any measure of electoral success, he is one of the most politically adept politicians in office today.
Try this on for size. This “fool” is the only member of the House to win three times as a non-incumbant. This “fool” is the only member of that body who has beaten two incumbant members of the House. All along the way, he has remained true to his controversial small government/antiwar platform. Like or hate him, Paul is no fool. In fact, by any measure of electoral success, he is one of the most politically adept politicians in office today.
Try this on for size. This “fool” is the only member of the House to win three times as a non-incumbant. This “fool” is the only member of that body who has beaten two incumbant members of the House. All along the way, he has remained true to his controversial small government/antiwar platform. Like or hate him, Paul is no fool. In fact, by any measure of electoral success, he is one of the most politically adept politicians in office today.
Nation-building is a certainly a high risk enterprise, but when it works, it's the most moral possible outcome to war. The whole world benefits today - every day - because we took the trouble to build a new Germany and a new Japan. Having spent a lot of time in both countries, I can personally attest to this.
Some of our FReepers are engaged in today's effort in Iraq. Let's give them all the props we can.
He is not evil. I’m sure he means well (for what thats worth).
But he is definitely a fool and a clown.
Hearing him rant and rave in these debates with his high pitched voice is painful.
He reminds me of Screech from “Saved by the Bell”.
I do. They're wonderful people. However, they would be doing more for our national security if they were patrolling our southern border and our coastlines.
As a libertarian myself, I meet these Twinkies all the time. They tend to be the ex-hippie anarchists who claim that the gummint engineered 9/11, the Federal Reserve is a conspiracy by Zee Choose, and the Holocaust was "exaggerated". Oh, and the world would be a far better place if we made everything out of hemp.
For more on their belief system, strap on a barf bag and get over to http://lewrockwell.com/
It does? What is it?
And when ex-President GHWB was pushing Clinton for an "exit strategy" in the Kosovo conflict, would that have been the same ideology, or different?
Just wondering.
I assume you didn't learn this at the War College. /s
I'm concerned about this too, but to me it looks as though our alliance is with the King, maintained because we keep hoping that he will bring his princes into line. As with our continual kowtowing to Mexico, we keep hoping for a democratic, non-apocalyptic solution in the Middle East.
Change is available. Just be willing to support the candidates unsupported by the core party leadership.
Apoplexy, Parkinsons, or are you just a natural stutterer?
Posting FOUR times is rarely just an accident.
He’s a fool in the same way Stassen & LaRouche are/were fools, if he really thinks he has any kind of chance.
He’s a fool if he really believes what he has to say about the military.
Then again, if it is only other fools’ money he’s spending, then it may not matter too much; who knows? He may even be making a few bucks on the deal. He is, as you say, a sucessful politician.
I clicked four times and it didn't appear to post. Perhaps it is Parkisons or natural stuttering or my ancient computer. What is your excuse for the above comments? Simple bad manners or just plain paranoia?
Since I’m not paranoid, that leaves purposeful bad manners, in that I really don’t give a damn what you think of mine.
OTOH, that still leaves Ron Paul a fool.
Many years ago, when he tried to run, I was also foolish enough to support his bid. Like Buchanan, he just gets more ‘out there’ with time, as it is the only way either of them can satisfy their cravings for attention.
Everyone will be better off when he decides to fold his little side show, so people can focus on the main ring.
I have actually read every word of Jekyll Island, and I agree with a lot of it. But that was 100 years ago. We cannot simply drop everything to sit down and try and put the toothpaste back into the tube. It's been 100 years, you can't just unravel them and be back where we once were.
Unsupported allegation on both counts.
The first is unlikely but hardly impossible.
The second is extremely unlikely, and far less likely if Paul's policy of non-intervention (which is the traditional Republican policy) is followed.
Which is of course not an answer. The point remains that the US did not enter WWII until we were either attacked or war was declared on us.
The point is that entities external to us are the cause of problems taking place internally (both actualized and impending terrorist attacks). Therefore we must act in the external theater. This is precisely what happened in WWII.
What sort of doublespeak is this?
The "external entities" have reacted to decades of US intervention in their internal affairs, which can be traced back to the CIA's removal of Mozadek in Iran back in 53.
Paul's point was that our interventionalist foreign policy handed them what they consider to be the justification for their attacks on us.
It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that had this country been invaded and occupied by a foreign power, that a resistance movement such as the world has never seen would take place. Why would the Middle East be any different?
Frankly, it doesn't appear that you have a clue of what happened in WWII. First off, Pearl Harbor was not a "actualised and/or impending terrorist attack" it was an attack from an organised foreign army. Had Germany not declared war on us, and not interviened in the Pacific war with Japan, it is unlikely that the US would have gotten involved in the European theatre of operations. That was the premise for Newt Gingrich's book 1945
There are few parallels to WWII in the supposed "war on terror". There are however, plenty of parallels to a place called Vietnam.
Thank you, but one Dr. Phil is one too many.
C.S. Lewis called the line of reasoning that you're presently attempting "Bulverism", which of course is mere question begging.
The good news for you is that in seeking to be teacher you have achieved being taught.
Which of course doesn't address the fact that the statements were stupid and in fact, were an Excluded middle fallacy.
Poor logic does not a good teacher make.
Flexibility and adaptation take place on an abstract level, and are essential for the accurate interpretation of data. An accurate interpretation of my comments will include the understanding that they are based on the premise that getting out of Iraq is a bad idea.
Which was, as i pointed out, a 'ruse' to cut off argument on that basic point.
Sorry, you need present your case, as your apriori premise requires defense.
Logical fallacies do not good argumentation make.
Iraq was not the enemy after 9/11. Using the same reasoning, why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? Direct links between the Saudis and bin Ladin can be demonstrated.
As for the atrocities committed under Sadaam, Not our problem. The Iraqis needed to deal with it, one way or the other.
Scoundrel.
The more scoundrels in this world, the better I will like it.
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.