I am not talking about some U.S.-led “democracy crusade.” We cannot impose our values on other counties. Nor should we seek to. But the ideas of freedom, liberty and respect for human rights are not U.S. ideas, they are much more than that.
Posted on 10/13/2009 7:44:45 PM PDT by Palin Republic
This isn’t the best audio but more evidence of South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s complete dismissal of Ron Paul’s adherence to rigid constitutional government. Notice in the first video that instead of addressing the woman’s criticism head on, Graham simply asks her who she voted for in the presidential election. When she replied “Chuck Baldwin” Graham then attempts to marginalize her based on her support for the Constitution Party, slamming Paul in the process.
The following took place 10/12/09 at a town hall meeting in Greenville, SC:
(Excerpt) Read more at amconmag.com ...
I am not talking about some U.S.-led “democracy crusade.” We cannot impose our values on other counties. Nor should we seek to. But the ideas of freedom, liberty and respect for human rights are not U.S. ideas, they are much more than that.
I don’t support nation building, bringing democracy to the Islamic world or using the US military as a full-time international policeman. But American economic, military and political interests are worldwide and mostly critical to our freedom and security, along with the safety of our allies. Pulling the troops home and retreating is not an option. The US is a major force in world affairs and that will never change. The enemies of liberty are everywhere.
So how do we effectively demonstrate to all Americans, regardless of party, that the Bankster State *IS* the Welfare State?
They’ve spend decades and trillions building up the false separation of the two, so as to keep us at each others’ throats.
How do we smash it in a matter of months?
Maybe Ron Paul will write another bestseller!
>Oh, about zero. I know, I was married to an abuser.
Yikes. I guess we’ll have to consider attempts at internal GOP reform to be action behind enemy lines.
If we can save the GOP, it will be a pleasant surprise.
Meanwhile, others will be preparing alternative, external options....
“But American economic, military and political interests are worldwide and mostly critical to our freedom and security, along with the safety of our allies. Pulling the troops home and retreating is not an option. The US is a major force in world affairs and that will never change. The enemies of liberty are everywhere.”
Is it retreating when you stop defending people who should be defending themselves? I don’t recall Paul wanting to defund the Navy protecting what’s left of our carrying trade. Crush those that attack us, but serving as tripwires and keeping one bunch of fuzzy wuzzies from killing another bunch isn’t productive.
Everything changes (Rome was not eternal and the British Empire set) and the enemies of liberty are in our own government. I’m sure you know that.
I am probably the only one on this thread who worked for
Reagan in his campaign when he first ran for gov.
Your type also believe Reagan was a liberal Republican.
You can mine Sarah’s words all you want, she is a warrior
when it comes to taking the fight to the enemy.
also her son just returned from a year in Iraq.
Ron Paul is a Liberal Democrat when it comes to Foreign Policy.
There aren’t that many people that follow Ron Paul for his writing to be swaying any votes in local races.
I believe that destroying the dollar was their big mistake, and it is as we converse here, destroying their chances.
Those that are aware are moving quickly to commodities, which weakens the banks.
No you aren't! :o)
I met Reagan and saw him many times in person when he was gov. and President.
I like your style. = )
One aspect of libertarianism is to downsize the US military budget. Like Obama, Ronpaul wants to shrink our national defense budget and see the destruction of our nuclear weapons arsenal. Ronpaul's foreign policy agenda is no different then the foreign policy playbook of the Democrats.
Btw, comparing the USA to Rome and the British Empire serves no good purpose. I don't know how long America will survive, but your doomsday scenario isn't justified. Sounds like defeatism.
Palin Republic, who was claiming the Palin supporters are the natural heirs of the John Birch Society. A smear MSNBC would love to see take hold.
Graham is correct. The whackjob cults like Paulists and Birchers should be cut loose and sent on their looney way. Just as they were when Bill Buckley did the same to their predecessors and cleared the way for Ronald Reagan.
Anyway Ron Paul won’t be lonely. Cindy Sheehan will comfort him. And together they can stew about zionists and such fun subjects.
So you’re happy with Grahamnesty and company? FYI, Dr. Paul is hardly a “cult figure” but if he WERE, it might just do the (R) party some good. But of course, YOUR sort doesn’t care so much about the future of the nation as long as it’s YOUR guy that’s running the camps. That’s ALL the RINO wing of YOUR party cares about and it’s been that way for a VERY long time, like at least back to Nixon. The SOLE exception was, of course, Reagan, but Reagan worshipers don’t see themselves as cultists, only OTHER folks. So if that’s what you want, I’m sure that the CONSERVATIVES who inhabit the (R) party will leave and make room for your RINO infestation.
Oh, and the Birchers were far more correct than not. Just FYI. Go LOOK at what they had to say. But they were marginalized by the Left then, just as the OTHER Left (your sort) tries to marginalize Dr. Paul and other CONSERVATIVES.
Tell me, honestly, do you believe that the following words are those of a madman, as many Freepers have claimed?
"The time has come to alter drastically our foreign policy. The sole legitimate function of our armed services and our foreign policy is to insure a strong and independent United States. By attempting to chaperone the entire world, we find U.S. forces committed indefinitely in areas from Western Europe to the Philippines, and everywhere in between."
And are these words the words of a "kook"?
"We pay for bridges and harbors throughout the world and neglect our own. If we feel compulsion to spend and waste money, it would make more sense at least to waste it at home. We build highways around the world, raise gasoline taxes here, and routinely dodge potholes on our own highways."
How about these? Do they sound like the ravings of a "nutjob"?
"Why do we cut funding for day care centers and Head Start programs before cutting aid to the Communists, Socialists, and international bankers?
"A substantial number of businessmen demand the rigors of the free market for their competitors, and socialism/fascism for themselves.
"Economic interventionism, a philosophy in itself and not a compromise with anything, is the cause of all these contradictions in the economy. Rejection of government planning, controlled by the powerful special interests, at the expense of the general welfare is necessary, and even inevitable, for that system will fall under its own weight. The question that remains is whether or not it will be replaced with a precise philosophy of the free market, rejecting all special interests and fiat money, or with a philosophy of socialism. The choice when the time comes should not be difficult, but freedom lovers have no reason for complacency or optimism."
All of those words were spoken by one Dr. and Rep. Ron Paul in 1983 and 1984, and yet some of them, particularly the ones about economic interventionism, are remarkably prescient, given the events of the past two years.
I could quote more, but I'm only part of the way through "A Foreign Policy of Freedom."
Next time, try reading and listening instead of bleating the propaganda of the RINO establishment like a mindless sheep. The liberal/"progressive"/Marxist agenda has failed, and so has its counterpart on the right--the Big Government "compassionate conservatism" agenda. "We the People" are royally p*ssed, and lots of Beltway heads--Republican and Democrat--are gonna roll, politically speaking, in 2010, 2012, and beyond.
Poor Lindsey is so confused. How can you hijack a party that has already been hijacked and is being held for ransom?
“If you want your party back, you better accept that it will be a leftist mirror image of the Democrat Party. And if you call in the authorities, we’ll slit it’s throat!”
Okay John McCain, calm down...
Why should the U.S. taxpayer be forced to subsidize the defense of dozens of countries whose workers are directly competing with that same U.S. taxpayer?
Furthermore, if a vigorous interventionist foreign policy is justifiable simply because it produces "good" outcomes, i.e., making the "world...a better place to live [in]", as you claim, then would not vigorous interventionist domestic policy, including, for example, the financial services bailout or the Obama-Pelosi-Reid "porkulus," be also justifiable, if it makes the U.S. "a better place to live [in]"? Or do you just like dishing out Big Government to the whole world while refusing to eat your own dog food at home?
The sole legitimate role of U.S. foreign policy is to ensure a strong and independent United States, period. Anything else is just plain un-constitutional, and anything that involves making "the world...a better place to live [in]" just for the sake of doing so is globalist, anti-American political relativism that is beyond repugnant.
You'll need better material than recycled LGF, The Nation, and Wonkette trash to amuse Rep. Bachmann and I:
Gold just hit $1070/oz. Ron Paul was right.
AuditTheFed.com
MARK STEYN "The US picks up the defence tab for Europe, Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia, among others," I wrote. "If Bush wins a second term, the boys will be coming home from South Korea and Germany, and maybe Japan, too." Well, the second term is not quite here. But America has already quit Saudi Arabia, and plans for South Korea and Germany are well advanced. When scholars come to write the final chapter in the history of the European continent, the six-decade US security guarantee will be seen as, on the whole, a mistake. Not for America, but the Continentals. The so-called "free world" was, for most of its members, a free ride. Absolving wealthy nations of the need to maintain credible armies softens them: they decay, almost inevitably, into a semi-non-aligned status.
What happens when a country becomes just as militant and aggressive about the virtues of "soft power" as it once was about old-fashioned hard power? Germany has a shrinking economy, an ageing and shrivelling population, and potentially catastrophic welfare liabilities. Yet the average German worker now puts in over 20 per cent fewer hours per year than his American counterpart, and no politician who wishes to remain electorally viable would propose closing the gap.
Germany, like much of Europe, has a psychological investment in longer holidays, free healthcare, early retirement, unsustainable welfare programmes, decrepit military: the fact that these policies spell national suicide is less important than that they distinguish Europe from the less enlightened Americans.
If one was so inclined you could harvest from the speeches and writings of Malcolm X, Adolf Hitler, Louis Farrakhan, or Fidel Castro selective quotes that would sound, and even in reality be sensible. The individuals would still remain the malignancies to the body politic they were, just as Ron Paul remains who and what he is. A new version of the Larouchies. Lucky us.
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.
Lindsey Ping