No, actually, the left has been demanding this policy for a very long time. In addition to RP’s talking points being identical to Democrats, read here www.CPUSA.org and here www.SPUSA.org for where this notion originated. It’s anything but “American.”
It’s nothing more than a naive isolationist stance.
“It is not an issue of ‘left’ vs ‘right’ but American ideals vs the Warfare/Welfare ideals held by the leadership of both major parties.”
Don’t confuse the issues. You’ll get almost all Republican voters to side with you against the nanny state. But what you call “warfare”, we call “national security,” which the founders made the highest priority of every elected office.
“Neither Party is against Big gov’t, they just want to be the ones to control it.”
Not true... Many RINO’s are for big government, but this only accounts for a minor wing of the RNC, just like the Libertarian wing. Most conservative are very much against the nanny state. But politicians have to find ways to get elected at a time when too many Americans are demanding more and more social programs. That’s a reality every elected official must contend with. Ron Paul has been in Washington for some 30 years and not manage to stop or reverse any of it. How’s he get to claim hi ground here?
“The Ron Paul candidacy is an appeal to a coalition against that government Leviathan.”
NO - RP’s campaign is based entirely on the anti-war movement. If you support strong national security, including the right to “prevent” attacks by way of “pre-empting” threats, then you are NOT for Ron Paul. It’s that simple!
Will you get Republican representatives, and the Republican leadership and presidential nominees to side with you against them when it comes time to propose, vote on, and sign legislation that enforces and expands it?
By your account, virtually all Republican voters except a relatively insignificant percentage of RINOs oppose big government. Republican representatives elected by those voters oppose it also, but they have to vote for it because their constituents (those same Republican voters who overwhlemingly oppose it) demand “more and more social programs”.
No, actually, the left has been demanding this policy for a very long time. In addition to RP’s talking points being identical to Democrats, read here www.CPUSA.org and here www.SPUSA.org for where this notion originated. It’s anything but “American.”
Again, just because the Left has been advocating it doesn't make it wrong.
The American Founders also advocated non-intervention in others nations affairs and warned other nations about interfering with ours in this hemisphere.
It’s nothing more than a naive isolationist stance.
Nothing 'naive' about it.
We see what is going on in Pakistan.
We cannot control the internal affairs of other nations and put ourselves on the wrong side when we try to.
[ “It is not an issue of ‘left’ vs ‘right’ but American ideals vs the Warfare/Welfare ideals held by the leadership of both major parties.” ]
Don’t confuse the issues. You’ll get almost all Republican voters to side with you against the nanny state. But what you call “warfare”, we call “national security,” which the founders made the highest priority of every elected office.
Not if the 'warfare' is an end in itself.
The goal is national security and our national security is not increased when we make more enemies then fewer.
Lincoln said that he 'destroyed his enemies by making them his friends'
[ “Neither Party is against Big gov’t, they just want to be the ones to control it.” ]
Not true... Many RINO’s are for big government, but this only accounts for a minor wing of the RNC, just like the Libertarian wing. Most conservative are very much against the nanny state. But politicians have to find ways to get elected at a time when too many Americans are demanding more and more social programs. That’s a reality every elected official must contend with. Ron Paul has been in Washington for some 30 years and not manage to stop or reverse any of it. How’s he get to claim hi ground here?
The Republican leadership is mostly RINO and you can tell that from who the top candidates are.
The Republicans gave the GOP leadership in 1994 and what did they do with it-same increases in the size of Government.
As for Ron Paul, he is just a Congressman and has very little individual power.
Moreover, he has been shunned by the GOP elite because he refuses to kow-tow to them and has been denied leadership positions even though he had seniority.
[ “The Ron Paul candidacy is an appeal to a coalition against that government Leviathan.” ]
NO - RP’s campaign is based entirely on the anti-war movement. If you support strong national security, including the right to “prevent” attacks by way of “pre-empting” threats, then you are NOT for Ron Paul. It’s that simple!
I support a strong national security, but that also means a wise foreign policy, that recognizes U.S.limitations.
The Ron Paul candidacy is against all facets of the Government Leviathan, and he has stated that he will move to end Social Security by allowing young people to begin to opt out of it.
He would pay for the transition with the money saved from U.S. involvement overseas that does nothing to help U.S. security.
Ending Social Security would be a devastating blow to the fascist New Deal policies we have lived under.
Now, I would hope that these discussions on Ron Paul would get beyond the name calling and guilt by association attacks and deal with what he is actually saying, that the U.S. cannot maintain this interventionist foreign policy, it is making us weaker, not stronger.