Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)
Posted on 09/27/2009 7:14:55 PM PDT by yongin
You are making this up.
Bullsh*t. Obama is continuing the same interventionist Trotskyist crap that Bush started, only his rhetoric has changed. He hasn’t even addressed the PATRIOT Act, MCA, ect.
As far as campaign contributions from the arms industry, perhaps you should do some research first.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1855478,00.html
http://www.politicalbase.com/groups/northrop-grumman/13994/&electionYear=2008
NG gave more to Democrats, knowing they were far more likely to win due to the political climate.
One way to deal with Iran is to warn them that a nuclear launch against any country will result in our retaliation 10 fold. The only major flaw in my thinking is that Obama would have to make the threat and no intelligent person would believe it.
{I also discovered over time that most of the people who I know to be Paul supporters are also a little nuts.}
Ron Paul supporters are an electic bunch. Some are rabidly pro-partial birth abortion. Others are pro-life. Some are pro-guest worker for illegals. Others want secure borders. With such a diverse supporters, I wonder how long would a Ron Paul coalition last in power.
Paul would do 100% isolation. I’m just an advocate of getting rid of income taxes, trying to get the $16 trillion in offshore accounts back on American shores, drilling at home, paying our debt to China and telling them to bugger off, while keeping a presence in friendly countries like the UK, Australia, Poland, Israel, as well as keeping the hospital in Germany, severing all ties with the UN, and ending foreign aid to countries where the government takes it from the people.
Paul would bring every American soldier back and reduce our military to a very well armored guerrilla force. They’d probably fuel up P-51 Mustangs and use those in place of the F-15 to save money.
Israel has a history of "putting up". This is the most serious threat they have faced. The only conceivable reason they have not struck is because the coward in the White House is holding them back, secure in the knowledge that the worldwide love for him and the respect for his eloquence will resolve the issue.
I think he's been pretty clear in stating that he's a libertarian. And apparently that matches well with the Republicans in his district who keep voting for him.
His positions aren't all to my taste, but I'd rather be arguing with him about where we Conservatives/Republicans need to go than with Snowe or Collins or McCain. (I'd name a House RINO here, but none pop to mind).
That's about it.
Paul has gone so far to the right, that he came back out on the left.
What a blazing crack-pot!
Let me ask you this, do you blame the Carter administration’s abandonment of the Shah for problems the US has with Iran today?
BTTT
This article says the Taliban gets taxpayer $ through extortion of contractors:
On foreign policy issues Ron Paul is more like a liberal Democrat then anything else. He blames America for the 911 attacks, not the terrorists.
Just to be accurate he said that our foreign policy influenced current Islamic attitudes and actions against us and other nations, and for this he is said to "blame America." And, of course, this is only slightly less evil than actually being a terrorist. Imagine my surprise though, when I keep reading that people on this thread, and others, won't support Ron Paul because his foreign policy is so dangerous. Dangerous to whom? Not us, because if that were possible, and his foreign policies could actually lead to us being attacked, then that would mean that those attacks would have been (wait for it...) America's fault! And, that of course, is impossible.
This position that our foreign policy can never backfire, never be wrong, never influence negatively our relations with dangerous rogue powers, and never lead to any attack on our persons proves that America, as regards foreign policy, is infallible. Obama, as our President, can simply not err on this. Regardless of what he does, he simply cannot be at fault if he allows us to be attacked because that would be "blaming America." If he willfully instituted policies which ignored everything Iran did regarding nuclear technology, and they brought a bomb into New York City and set it off it would not be the fault of that policy. And anyone who, after the fact, actually argued that any such policies were dangerous or bad and needed to be changed because they led to such an attack would be guilty of the gross unforgivable sin of "blaming America" since that is exactly what Ron Paul argued and has been attacked for.
So, don't worry people. You are safe. Go ahead and vote for Ron Paul for his domestic views, because no matter what he does in terms of the Middle East nothing that happens will be America's fault, because any policy America has is the right policy, and that can never change.
What will good old Ron have to say when the Iranians give one of their nukes to a terrorist group and wipe out Washington and New York on the same day and at the same time.I’m sure they’re already thinking abou that day.
If I were him I would stay the hell out of Washington.
America is in the Middle East today for two major reasons. Both are historic and strategic interests of the US and her people. First. Since the 1940`s the US has had a business relationship with Saudi Arabia (House Of Saud) based on a commodity called petroleum, or crude oil. Second. Since 1948 the US has had a growing relationship with the ME’s only real democracy, Israel.
Any casual observer of ME history knows that our relationship with Israel is at odds with certain factions in the ME. At the same time, the rulers of Saudi Arabia haven't asked us to pull out of the ME. Neither has Jordan, Kuwait, the UAE, Egypt or our NATO ally, Turkey. Of course, Israel is America's best friend and ally in the region, if not the world. Besides, if the US pulled out of the ME, things would only get worse for the entire world.
Two men come to mind when I think of the US pulling out of the ME. One man has spent the last 15 years of his life opposing any US involvement in the ME. THat would be the Islamic terrorist leader, Osama Bin Laden. His reasoning is focused on one main issue. According to Bin laden, the Islamic religion through the writings in the Koran, demand that all infidels be removed from the land of Mohammad. The first step toward conversion to Islam and world domination.
The other man who comes to mind when I think of the US turning tail and pulling out of the ME, lock, stock and barrel, is the pacifist and isolationist, Ron Paul. Ron Paul has several strikes against him in this regard.
Paul doesn't believe the US should be involved in Iraq or Afghanistan and that we should pull our troops out of Germany, Japan and everywhere else around the world.
Back on Dec 23, 2007, Paul was on Meet the Press and was asked about the 572K troops we have stationed around the world. “And you’d bring them all home?”
Paul answered: “As quickly as possible. They will not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble. And we can defend this country without troops in Germany & troops in Japan. How do they help our national defense? Doesn’t make any sense to me. Troops in Korea since I’ve been in high school! It doesn’t make any sense.
Ron Paul wants America to close our doors and become isolationists again, as we were between WWI and WWII. As if the Islamic world will just leave the USA alone.
That is both a naive and dangerous position to take.
The last time I looked, the foreign policy of the federal government, is the foreign policy of America. According to the Constitution that is. Its all one in the same.
Yes, you've got it. Obama's foreign policy is America's foreign policy. If elected, Ron Paul's foreign policy would be America's foreign policy. And when Ron Paul said that America's foreign policy in the past had been a mistake and bred terrorism abroad he was accused of "blaming America." That means that our current foreign policy, and any potential future foreign policy, could not be bad or lead to any such thing. This means that neither Obama's nor Ron Paul's if he were elected could result in such things as more terrorism or more attacks on America. That is absolute infallible fact. Why do people on FreeRepublic keep saying that Obama's actions, or inactions, in Afghanistan and Iran are going to lead to more terrorism? Why are they warning the same thing about Paul if he were elected? Why are these otherwise good conservatives here on FreeRepublic "blaming America" for terrorism?
You say my logic is "tortured?" Not quite, as I am being quite consistent and clear. Your's is, however, when you accuse Paul of "blaming America" because he criticised our past foreign policy, and then say that you are not "blaming America" when you criticise our current foreign policy under Obama in exactly the same way.
The other man who comes to mind when I think of the US turning tail and pulling out of the ME, lock, stock and barrel, is the pacifist and isolationist, Ron Paul. Ron Paul has several strikes against him in this regard.
Ron Paul is not an isolationist as you say. He is a non-interventionist. Why do so few people on FreeRepublic know what an isolationist is?
What will good old Ron have to say when the Iranians give one of their nukes to a terrorist group and wipe out Washington and New York on the same day and at the same time.I’m sure they’re already thinking abou that day.
Are you suggesting that Ron Paul's foreign policy would lead to attacks? If so then you are "blaming America" for terrorist attacks.
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.