Posted on 08/24/2011 7:21:44 AM PDT by chickadee
Odd. Neo-Liberals are the farthest thing from Ron Paul or a libertarian type movement. The definition has been around forever.
A Neoliberal[UK] is a NeoCon in the US.
"... But she [the United States of America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
Many Neo-Cons and their liberals friends, with their tin foil hats on, would rather the U.S. rush our troops into every global hot spot nilly-willy, and begin costly nation building projects.
>>>Where in the Constitution does it say we are to be global interventionist and where does it call for ‘nation building’?
good point. i wonder that a lot.
You are incorrect. How does Ron Paul violate the Constitution by letting the States decide matters of that State? Where does it state in the Constitution that the Federal Government should be involved in a citizen’s personal relationship? Has the Federal Government ever done a stellar job in creating, managing, or overseeing, anything? I haven’t seen it. Regarding the War on Drugs, the “Federal Government” has done a horrendous job, spending over $500 billion to $1 trillion, but does nothing but give rise to inner city gangs, increase the power of the Mexican Cartels, hasn’t stopped anyone for getting drugs that want them, but has created a black market which then forces kids to make crap from local pharmacies that kill them, or get them hooked on prescription medication like Oxycotin. Meanwhile, the Federal Government has superseded State Law, and has locked up people dying of cancer with mandatory sentences, but lets pedophiles and murderers walk free? Does this make sense to you? No, Sir. We are a Republic. Not a Theocracy. The Constitution must be applied equally to ALL American Citizens, regardless of race or sexual orientation. That is the promise of America. You cannot cherry-pick the Constitution to fit your own ideology.
Well, since you and Ron Paul believe that our Constitution exempts us from following the legitimate laws...I am not incorrect. The states get to pass the laws they deem appropriate and neither YOU or RON PAUL get to delegitimize THOSE LAWS!
We still have a law in my community that you can’t spit on the sidewalk. It was promulgated because the ladies didn’t want their skirts dragging in it and spreading germs.
According to Ron Paul that’s not a legitimate law because it tramples on the rights of the spitter! He’s a libertarian, not a conservative.
To me, Leftists are interventionists on a global level and so are neo-conservatives, aka, Rinos. They want the US to be the globe’s economic and social engineers and they want to use our military as the global enforcer of their ideology which is Marxist internationalism. They want a one world government in which they dictate to and rule over Nations. They look at our constitutional freedom and Republic as something to be undone and overcome by them as they “rule.” I despise these people.
Conservatives are for the US maintaining the strongest military in the world to protect ourselves and our allies. We are not globalist social engineers putting our military at the service of anti-constitutional, anti-American global elitist power brokers like the limo-socialist billionaires (i.e. George Soros, Ted Turner, etc.), Obama, McLame, Ms. Lindsey and Hillary Clinton. As we lead ourselves in freedom and the power that comes with the wealth created by freedom, we serve as an example to the world rather than the dictator to the world. We offer freedom not elitist economic and social engineering and force.
Mr. Paul is not a conservative. He is more akin to an ancharist where we would have no allies to protect and no military to protect them with; only our self interest in materialism with no values of our Republic left standing. He unwittingly serves the dreams of anarchists. Anarchists pave the way for breaking down a country so they can then come to the resuce with total control - Stalin and Mao style socialism/ communism. He’s gotten very confused in his old age and conservatives need to stay away from him and his wacky radicals.
Thank you.
Well said.
We have gotten so far afield from our original concept of LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT than even so-called conservatives seem totally confused on the matter.
Where has Paul or ANY OTHER strict Constitutionalist ever made such a claim as you laid out?
Can you point me to where Paul or ANY OTHER strict Constitutionalist who has made the claims you made on their behalf in your post w/r/t local laws?
Specific quotes with cites please.
I'll pass. The excerpt was enough. Also, I know who runs that magazine. No more wars half way across the world, w/ Mexico on the verge of maybe becoming a failed state, right next door. Illogical, expensive, failed policies.
PS - Policies that directly led to Obama, btw. If you remember, being a “peace candidate” was his main selling point, before “the crash”. Then he did the exact same sorts of policies, but that's another story.
Ron Paul is not a strict Constitutionalist, he’s a libertarian.
Here’s a good example for you, Mexico dropped it’s war on drugs...over 40,000 people are now DEAD from the cartels fighting for turf.
“You wanna get rid of drug crime in this country? Fine, let’s just get rid of all the drug laws.”
Ron Paul
Now what does ALL drug laws mean to you?
Just like he’s against marriage laws. You should be able to marry your goat, camel or your sister and put them on the welfare rolls.
As well as his legal prostitution stance...so you can sell your daughter on the streets, or your grandma, even.
Huh? Where has R.P. been trying to "get away with pretending to conservatism on this score?"
This seems like a figment of the author's possibly febrile imagination.
Aw, Rowdy’s just bein’ silly, fer the sake a bein’ silly.
None of those are things constitutionalists propose or advocate.
The drug cartels in Mexico are fighting over the USA business.
You cannot sell your daughter because she has INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS protected under the CONSTITUTION.
The CONSTITUTION does not mention marriage ... at all.
Marriage should be a religious issue. If you can find a religios priest, cleric, or pastor to marry you and your goat, that’s between the 3 of you. Doesn’t mean I or anyone else has to acknowledge the relationship in any way shape or form.
You either believe in the Constitution or you don’t.
It really is that simple.
The rift is becoming very, very clear.
The totalitarians on one side (including those on the left and right) and those who value INDIVIDUAL freedom on the other.
What is a “FRink”?
(signed) Wondering
The author is saying that in order to be considered a conservative, one has to be an interventionist.
I call BS.
In fact it is the author of this piece, who wants to cherry-pick the Constitution to suit his beliefs who is aligned with Leftists who do the very same CS thing with all there little pet projects.
I am calling him out as both a coward and a liar.
...Not derogatory...
ron paul’s foreign policy = surrender monkey.
Well, RON PAUL, doesn’t believe in it, that’s my point! He’s a libertarian, not a Constitutionalist.
Didn’t the House and Senate restrict funds for Lybia?
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.