Posted on 08/24/2011 7:21:44 AM PDT by chickadee
Neoliberals and Quasi-Cons:
When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul and his supporters are not conservatives.
This is important to understand when one realizes that Paul's views are, self-described, "non-interventionist."
The fact that he has been allowed to get away with pretending to conservatism on this score is merely reflective of journalists who, for whatever reason, are simply unfamiliar with American history. Ironically, it is precisely because the Paul campaign has not been thoroughly covered that no one pays attention to the historical paternity of what the candidate is saying.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
“Ron Paul is what might be called a “Neo-Liberal.” Or even a “Quasi-Conservative.”
Why not just stick with the usual label, I.e. “libertarian”?
Ron paul is more of a Classical Liberal. Fiscally Conservative, a little bit. Civil libertarian somewhat. But also radical leftist on Foreign policy. So I’d say he is a classical liberal libertarian.
I like this newly found definition of Conservative, as aggressive in policing the world. Here I thought that Conservatism walked softly and carried a big stick, just to find out that we swing the stick at will. No country can afford to be in a state of constant war, and have a thriving economy, solid currency, or liberty at home, unless they are willing to TAKE from those they protect. Guess what, we not only do not take from those we help or conquer, we then spend more building up competitors and enemies for the future. If not for the madness of fiat currency, and the world needing us for so long, we would have fallen long ago.
... I read it, and I agree with some of it, but "some of us" are not doctrinaire libertarian radicals...
“They simply aren’t conservatives.”
Nope, they’re “Americans”!
Semper Watching!
Neocon-compromise with liberals: cut taxes and increase spending.
Libertarian compromise with liberals: cut military spending but increase other spending.
Then we got the debt limit trigger which results in $1T (total) of military spending cuts, Boehner says it was 95% of what he wanted. Republicans voted for it.
Ron Paul’s approach to our Constitution is the exact same as the progressive commies. He thinks it exempts us from following the legitimate laws of the land and he doesn’t understand the meaning of legitimate laws.
The Constitution set the law of the land. It gave the US Congress an enumerated list of powers, then it remanded the rest of the power to the states and the people.
For instance, locally we pass laws against the selling of pot and hard core street drugs because we don’t want them to be made easily available to our children who don’t understand addicition.
Paul’s approach to that is nawwwwwwwwww, we can’t do that because it stomps on the right of the addicts who want more drugs. Or we can’t pass laws defining marriage as being between a man and woman, because it tromps on the rights of addictive sexual perverts who think everybody else MUST recognize their right to be perverts, totally discounting my and the majority’s right not to have to put up with that krap.
Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative. His thinking is totally convoluted.
Oops, I should have been more specific - “all of us” - meaning Mark’s listeners.
Neo-hippies
“OH NOES!!! You didn’t. Hope you have your flame-proof suit on.:)”
NOW you tell me, lol.
I have issues with some of Paul’s foregn policy positions, but the author’s a globalist RINO who would probably send U.S. troops to a tribal war in Uganda if he could. And then he seems to defend the Federal Reserve? Regarding that, perhaps the author should read the ten points of the communist manifesto.
The author seems to have a strange definition of the term “conservative”
Like goldwater b4 him...
Reagan Interview, July 1975, using “libertarian” to describe his political philosophy (GREAT)
reason.com ^ | July 1975 | Reason Interview
Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2008 7:17:19 AM by pending
REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
The view that the president can do anything he wants to militarily, like Obama has done in Libya, without any consideration of the Constitution, the Congress or our laws, is certainly not a "conservative" position. It reeks of big government statism. Yet the supposedly "conservative" Republicans have by and large done nothing to oppose it. Who supports the constitution on this issue? Why Rep. Sanders, the socialist. To Levin, this would mean that those who oppose this war are not really conservative, but are closer to socialists. Right.
Non interventionism was a founding principle of our Country and was always a part of conservatism. It's the "neoconservative" idea of nation building that has always been the province of liberals, including communists.
There can be legitimate arguments about when it is necessary for our Country to engage in hostilities, but for our president to argue, and our Republican "leaders" to acquiesce to the ridiculous fiction that thousands of bombings with the attendant destruction and death they have caused, is not engaging in hostilities is so beyond any reason that its use to support the "intervention" by both the neocons and their allies, yes their allies, the Democrats shows clearly who are really liberals.
...No problem, chick. I listen to Levin and Limbaugh sometimes, and I agree with them on some issues. I don’t pick fights over ideology with FReepers or FRinks, just to be an ass. And I have in the past, that’s BAD on me. I’d rather debate one issue at a time...
I cannot disagree with anything you have said here. Congress never stands up to the Prez when it comes to unapproved foreign aggression. I tend more toward isolationism, than not, but there are times when it is necessary to fight a war. Unfortunately, I don’t think any of the “wars” we have become involved in since 2001 meet the “necessary” requirement.
There is no doubt about it.. The federal reserve IS A PONZI SCHEME...
If Ron Paul got nothing else correct he is right about that..
ALL Presidential candidates EXCEPT Ron Paul have no problem with the federal reserve EXISTING.. and he also don’t like abortion..
Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day..
Where in the Constitution does it say we are to be global interventionist and where does it call for ‘nation building’? Someone please point out the clause to me because apparently I keep missing it.
It seems to me the author and those who he labels as ‘conservatives’ like him are closer to liberals ... they both wish to re-write the Constitution.
That’s fine, but be honorable about it.
Say up front. “We would like to re-write the Constitution so that our views are in line with it.”
That is the ONLY honorable way to go about it. Othwise, there is no intergrity in either the author’s supposed ‘conservative’ position and Liberals’ positions.
This whole matter is much larger than one man or one election. It is a huge rift in our citizenry and it will come to the fore whether or not Paul is part of the discussion. People are tired of the dishonesty and double dealing expressed w/r/t the Constitution.
Either follow the Constitution or tear it up and start over writing a new one. These are the only two honorable options.
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.