Posted on 11/01/2007 11:36:05 AM PDT by SJackson
Ron Paul is a seductive mistress. His popularity on MySpace and YouTube is now legendary. It helped him raise more than $5 million in the third quarter of this year's fundraising cycle. Even some among the media elite — on both sides of the aisle — can't resist his charm. Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan gets downright giddy over Paul. And liberal Hardball host Chris Matthews (who cut his teeth under big government, East Coast Democrat Tip O'Neill) has declared of the libertarian from Texas: "He's my guy! I love Ron Paul!"
But do people understand what Paul really stands for? Like every siren song, his policies are fraught with danger. Let's take a look:
1. Foreign Policy and the Constitution. Paul is what you might call a Constitutional originalist. He divines his governing philosophy from the Constitution and America's Founders. But his understanding of their vision is profoundly flawed. Paul appears to believe the founders vested absolute authority for foreign-policy making in Congress, not the executive. "Policy is policy," Paul wrote in 2006, "and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive." But there's almost no evidence the founders saw it in such simplistic, absolute terms. Law professor Michael Ramsey, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, recently noted (pdf) this in very eloquent terms in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Reasonable people can agree that Congress has failed its oversight responsibilities with regard to Iraq and the Bush Doctrine. But Paul's thinking here is simply not supported by the weight of historical evidence.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.foreignpolicy.com ...
“Ron Paul is against NAFTA and has voted against it.”
Funny he claims to be against it, yet requests funding for a key part of it.
“Yet, that money is going to be spent and the taxpayers of his district have a right to get some of it.”
Ah, spin, spin, spin. You ron-bot sheeple sound more and more like hillary supporters.
“However, that may be a bit complicated for people who quote from movies such as ‘Billy Madison’.”
Complicated? HA! Coming from someone who supports a village idiot who’s “base” is made up of racists, UFO abductees, and conspiracy nuts, the simple function of using velcro to secure your shoes is probably challenging to the like of you.
“Ron Paul wanted to kill the terrorists and wanted a declaration of war to show the nations resolve in doing so.”
He didn’t want a declaration of war, he wanted to issue letters of marque.
“Now, what Ron Paul is saying is that our actions had unintended consquences, which they did.”
And what’s going to be the consequences of his actions when he orders the retreat?
“Ron Paul wantes our pilots armed to make sure that this doesn’t happen again, yet the government drags its feet on that issue.”
And what would happen if the pilots still get overpowered? You just handed the terrorists loaded weapons that they can use to fend off any attempt by the passengers to take back the plane.
“Ron Paul wants our borders to be controlled and the government fights against that”
ron paul has consistantly voted against the authorization to put troops on the border.
“He wants us out of entangling alliances that can drag us into a war that we have no business being in.”
Yeah like those pesky alliances such as NATO, ANZUS, the Manila Pact, etc because God forbid that we should have to keep our promise to help an ally one day.
Most people I know are completely, totally burned out with government corruption from the local level to the top. One not be a political junkie to understand the corruption is wide spread. The two beltway parties have really morphed into one party, with republicans masquerading as conservatives, pandering to anyone or any special interest group they think will vote their way. It's way beyond disgusting.
The Republicans 2008 campaign slogan might as well be, "We compromise our principles", or "We're the better of two evils".
Most people see this political tit tat, insiders mocking each other during these elections as a farce, a show... Whoever has the best rehearsed one liner wins!!!...It's orchestrated much like wrestling on TV...when all the wrestlers go have a beer after the match.
But instead of wrestlers, we've got the elite, wealthy and insiders doing the same thing...Playing the public like a fiddle...All this while working class America wonders if a true leader, one not connected to the D.C. insiders club, will ever be able put the country back on track.
Very unlikely in my opinion...Too many fat cats, too many insiders, too many lobbyist, too many special interest groups, all trying to buy a piece of power or influence.
This is what happens when government becomes all powerful, all encompassing, all controlling and intrusive...When everything from our lawn mowers to our lighting is regulated and controlled by government...Lets watch the fat cats and insiders jockey for position and influence, throwing cash like confetti in a parade at "their" candidate.
I find really disgusting how this has all evolved.
And I do agree...The last president I voted for, Bush, makes me fell like I was taken for a sucker, conned, robbed, hacked and hoodwinked...And I am not one to be conned easily, and I won't soon forget it.
Bush taught me a valuable lesson. I won't be politically conned again.
“outrage at GWB and his failed policies.”
Tell us which ones...
And if Paul is the only anti-GWB person in the race by March, he will get some support because he is anti-GWB, regardless of how bizarre some of his ideas may be.
GWB, Bill Clinton, and GHWB all get F in my book, with GHWB being the “better” of the trio.
Persecution of the Border Patrol
Open immigration
Unfair trade policies
LOST treaty
Under the control of the UN
Many too that I have forgotten
He didn’t want a declaration of war, he wanted to issue letters of marque.
I think the letters were in addition to declaring war, the 'letters' dealing with persons, not nations.
He wanted to congress to vote to declare war on Iraq.
Here is his view on declaration of war.
We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.
[ “Now, what Ron Paul is saying is that our actions had unintended consquences, which they did.” ]
And what’s going to be the consequences of his actions when he orders the retreat?
retreat from what?
Has the administration told us what would constitute victory?
[ “Ron Paul wantes our pilots armed to make sure that this doesn’t happen again, yet the government drags its feet on that issue.” ]
And what would happen if the pilots still get overpowered? You just handed the terrorists loaded weapons that they can use to fend off any attempt by the passengers to take back the plane.
Oh, yea, that is what I am worried about, pilots being overwhelmed and disarmed.
Most of these pilots are ex-military and can handle themselves pretty well.
Moreover if the terrorists knew that someone was armed on board they would seek 'softer' targets.
[ “Ron Paul wants our borders to be controlled and the government fights against that” ]
ron paul has consistantly voted against the authorization to put troops on the border.
We don't need troops on the border, unless you are going to shoot someone.
Here is his views on that,
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
[ “He wants us out of entangling alliances that can drag us into a war that we have no business being in.” ]
Yeah like those pesky alliances such as NATO, ANZUS, the Manila Pact, etc because God forbid that we should have to keep our promise to help an ally one day.
Those promises were made during the Cold War.
NATO should be gone, the Warsaw pact is!
Didn't you get the memo-the Cold War is over and we won!
We have no need for those alliances that were made in the Cold War.
If there is a need for our troops to be deployed for counter-terrorist action, then new alliances can be made based on that new need.
NATO was made to counter the Soviet threat, so why does it still exist if the Soviet Union doesn't?
Funny he claims to be against it, yet requests funding for a key part of it.
He is against it and all alliances that undermine U.S. sovereignity.
That is alot more then the other GOP candidates.
American Independence and Sovereignty So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned. The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs. NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme. And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever. Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House. We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.
[yet, that money is going to be spent and the taxpayers of his district have a right to get some of it.” ]
Ah, spin, spin, spin. You ron-bot sheeple sound more and more like hillary supporters.
No, the fact of being a Representive of a district of taxpayers.
[ “However, that may be a bit complicated for people who quote from movies such as ‘Billy Madison’.” ]
Complicated? HA! Coming from someone who supports a village idiot who’s “base” is made up of racists, UFO abductees, and conspiracy nuts, the simple function of using velcro to secure your shoes is probably challenging to the like of you.
No, Ron Paul's 'base'is made up of people who want to change the direction of America back to its Founding principles and away from the NWO of Hillary Clinton and the GOP elites.
So you think cut and run's policies are any stronger than his mentor clinton's? Ron Paul is a white flag waving coward who thinks terrorists will leave us alone if we only appease them more and more. The truth is terrorists are like the neighborhood bully. They will continue to terrorize until someone stands up to them. Cut and run and the other democrat's policy of running away rather than standing up to them only emboldens them.
Well, why wasn't this issue, of Clinton's weakness, mentioned by the leading GOP candidates (at least that I know of)
If the GOP candidates were going to say how tough they were going to be on terrorism, I find it strange that they didn't mention the fact that it was Clinton's weak foreign policy decisions that moved the terrorist to strike us.
Might it be because the elites stick together?
As for Ron Paul's 'white flag', as President he would defend U.S. interests first.
And he would give back to the Congress the power that they should have, of making war.
If the American people are going to go war, then let us commit to it and state what victory is.
Who gave the guy 15 minutes? Surely not me....
This 3rd candidate crap, come on, at first it was entertaining with big ears Perot, but after that the shtik got old fast.
Now we have that stupid guy from the comedy channel trying to make a name for himself...
“Now we have that stupid guy from the comedy channel trying to make a name for himself...”
The sad thing is he had better numbers than paul did at one time
“We have no need for those alliances that were made in the Cold War.
If there is a need for our troops to be deployed for counter-terrorist action, then new alliances can be made based on that new need.”
You are a fool.
Those same alliances that you say we should pull out of, are the SAME ONES that are helping us fight terrorism.
And last I checked NATO is helping in Afghanistan....But I guess that they should be disbanded because the old threat is no longer in existance.
Those alliances are obsolete and were made for a different enemy in a different time.
Isn't Poland one of our allies now?
We do not need to have our troops spread across the globe to fight Islamic terrorism.
I do not think Islamic terrorism is a threat to South Korea.
He doesn't? What does he mean then that it was OUR foreign policies that were responsible for 9/11?
He is explaining that polices have long range consequences.
Now, it is a fact that Clinton's foreign policy was a direct cause of the terrorists attacking us in the U.S.
Is that not true?
Now, we can also ask, are we any safer since 9/11? Even with cut and run and his democrat allies trying to help the terrorists as much as possible, I feel the United States is much safer than we were before 9/11. And if we keep beating them in Iraq and not here we will continue to be safer. If we surrender in Iraq like cut and run wants to do his terrorist buddies will be over here again in no time.
No one is advocating 'surrender' in Iraq, what many of us are asking what the definition of victory is.
The enemy has been reduced to IED's and suicide attacks, yet hundreds of billions of dollars are still being allocated for the war in Iraq.
A nation can win military victories and lose the war if it bankrupts itself in the process.
“Those alliances are obsolete and were made for a different enemy in a different time.
Isn’t Poland one of our allies now?”
Yeah and Poland is also member of NATO.
The NATO alliance is helping us in Afghanistan you dope so explain to me how it’s now “obsolete”.
“We do not need to have our troops spread across the globe to fight Islamic terrorism.”
Yeah, let’s pull all our troops out, bring them back here so we can fight the terrorists on our own soil.
“I do not think Islamic terrorism is a threat to South Korea.”
No, but North Korea IS and until there is a FORMAL PEACE TREATY ENDING THE WAR we should be there in some capacity.
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.