Posted on 09/04/2014 1:08:21 PM PDT by Hugin
And while my predisposition is to less intervention, I do support intervention when our vital interests are threatened.
If I had been in President Obama’s shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS. I would have called Congress back into session—even during recess.
This is what President Obama should have done. He should have been prepared with a strategic vision, a plan for victory and extricating ourselves. He should have asked for authorization for military action and would have, no doubt, received it.
Once we have decided that we have an enemy that requires destruction, we must have a comprehensive strategy—a realistic policy applying military power and skillful diplomacy to protect our national interests.
The immediate challenge is to define the national interest to determine the form of intervention we might pursue. I was repeatedly asked if I supported airstrikes. I do—if it makes sense as part of a larger strategy.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
You keep changing your emphasis because I keep ripping the rug out from under you.
And really its just BULLSH-T to make your argument on the fact that Bush’s policy included a lot of mistakes, and you continue the childish illogical non-sequitur that being for a strong defense means we supported everything Bush did - and over looks that Obama’s pacifism undid all that had been accomplished.
You libertarians, the purity of your own irrelevance. Must be nice to just throw darts from the sideline knowing your theories will never have to face the harsh taskmaster of history and reality.
1.) It incentivizes more illegals to come with the hope that they too will be "normalized" at some point in the future.
2.) It does not punish anyone for breaking the law.
3.) It creates a new type of citizen who has full rights to live and work here but who either a.) doesn't pay taxes or b.) is taxed without representation.
4.) It doesn't require a way to permanently secure the border.
With all of that being said, I ask again, can you name another plan put forward by a national politician that is better than Paul's plan? Would you agree that his plan is better than Ryan's plan, Pence's plan and the Gang of Eight plan? It is the best detailed plan that has been put forward.
They are working with political realities and while we all wish politician could all be like Ted Cruz, they aren't. A lot of them are spineless tools of special interests and to get any plan passed you need their support.
I am not going to write Paul off because of an immigration plan that sucks but happens to be the best one that I have heard proposed by a national figure.
Abortion - check
Guns - check
Size and scope of government - check
Faith in the constitution- check
Understanding the relationship of free markets to prosperity - check
Those are the five biggies for me. He and Cruz are the only two I feel score perfect 10s on these issues.
The next several topics... Immigration, Defense, the Balkanization of America, etc...clearly push Cruz over the top and he will get my support but Paul is the next best thing.
Paul is being consistent. He says he is concerned about spending money we don't have. He says that to fix the problem we need to shrink government, cut social welfare, cut corporate welfare, cut foreign welfare and cut war spending.
Where have you seen him say that welfare spending isn't an issue?
You don't talk with that conviction and depth of understanding unless you believe it or you are a sociopath.
Now, will he highlight and emphasize abortion during a general campaign....I doubt it. It is not what makes him stand out. It will drive away some of his younger libertarian voters who have never voted before or who used to vote Democrat before they realized that government is the problem.
I have no doubt that he would govern strongly pro-life.
While other social issues like gay marriage are important they don't even fall into my top 10. I don't care what those people do. I realize that the whole thing is about getting their hands on my money and having me endorse their behavior. My money is being stolen from me everyday in much larger amounts than they could come close to. I will never endorse their behavior. In the grand scheme of things there are bigger fish to fry.
In a more libertarian world with no Social Security, no federal funding of Hollywood or other arts, the diminished power of academia, free unregulated markets that don't require vast HR departments to comply with every government diktat, free market health care systems that require consumers to pay their share for what they consume, etc...the homosexual's power would be drastically reduced anyhow. So, electing Paul may accomplish the things you want without specifically even trying to.
He said the Republican party would have to change. I don't necessarily disagree with him. I think the cascading changes that would come with....
1.) an increase in personal liberty and personal responsibility combined with
2.) a decrease in government power and influence as well as
3.) the economic prosperity and opprotunity that would result from...
the more traditional role of government that his brand of libertarianism would bring about would take care of many of the social issues we have today. It would solve them with the organic processes of human nature and natural law rather than the coercive power of government.
To me, having the party agree on the proper role of government and the proper relationship between the people and the government is more important than having everyone in the party on the same page regarding sodomy.
I don’t disagree with Paul per se. I will say that it seems to me he focuses on the military far more than he does the social programs. At least he does address the social programs.
I was referencing people here more, in that they seem to rabidly attack any idea we should use our military just like the rabid Left does.
In fact they may agree that Welfare needs to be addressed, but you don’t see them hawk that idea nearly as much as they trash others for disagreeing with the worst sorts of Democrats over the last 50 years concerning the use of our military.
The reason you don’t see people argue against welfare as much as war on FR is because nobody argues in favor of welfare on FR.
Would you like to me list again who rails against military action?
Do you realize that your arguments align you with the worst of the worst when it comes to U.S. domestic activists?
I would take one look at the people who agreed with me, and change my tune immediately, if I were you.
It doesn’t seem to bother you folks at all. In fact, some of you will even cast me as their ideological fellow travelers, when it is in fact the anti-war folks who are.
What I was saying is that there are lots of people (libertarians) who are against almost any government spending. This includes both social and military. There are also many on FR who are against social spending but not against military spending. There is pretty much nobody on FR who is against military spending and in favor of social spending.
That is why you don't see libertarians on FR arguing against social spending. There is nobody to argue the other side. They don't have any opponents on this forum. Go to Reddit and you will see lots of libertarians arguing against social spending. On that forum there are lots of people who hold the contrary view. The reason you only see libertarians arguing against military spending on FR is because they have opponents here.
Fair enough Nitzy. I think you make a decent enough argument why social spending isn’t addressed. I will tell you it sure doesn’t stop me from railing against it, even though there’s no opposition to that stance here. I do it all the time. Reinforcing sound policy is a reasoned thing to do in Conservative circles.
As for the anti-military engagement stance of the Libertarians, it places the Libertarian party in extreme fringe territory for me.
I’m sorry, but I’ve watch over half a century some of the worst ilk known to man trash the U.S. involvement in sound military actions overseas. When the Libertarians do it, it just causes me to see them for who they are. They are fellow travelers of those who hate this nation with a passion that is incapable of explained, excepting that they side with our enemies.
The folks who practiced this “right” back in the 60s and 70s, cost us untold lives by prolonging the Vietnam war. They aided the enemy at every opportunity, with public opinion, and influencing political players on the left forcing our president to call cease-fires that kept the NVC in the game.
We could have won that war years before it ended, if it weren’t for the folks operation on the NVC’s behalf inside the United States. They didn’t give a damn about peace, something they always (supposedly) championed.
The big satan in their eyes was the U.S. They complained about all the lives the U.S. was costing in Vietnam. Then the war was over and about 3 million souls were exterminated. The peace protesters never said a single word about that 3 million.
When these folks hit the streets during the war in Iraq, it was the same crew, still largely made up of Marxists who never saw an enemy of the U.S. they wouldn’t spoon with if given half a chance.
These are the folks the Libertarians become the fellow travelers with, when they dawn the anti-war stance.
Nah, I’ve seen this all before.
It was a tough LITTLE war when compared to the great wars of the past that we did win at much greater costs. I repeat, Iraq was won. Obama, you and your buddies lost it. (Yeah, you aligned yourself with Communists like the Code Pink, CPUSA, and Democrats.
Pussies like you allowed the MSM and the democrats to lose the Iraq war.
I absolutely despise people like you.
Calm down.
People, whether conservatives or liberals or libertarians, are always going to have a wide range of opinions on the hawk/dove issue.
To despise somebody in a knee-jerk fashion just because they happen to disagree with you about fighting some war or other is a rather oversimplified way of going through life.
If a hawk or dove supports their position conscientiously, that's a little less cut and dried than branding somebody a liberal or a conservative.
There are liberal hawks and conservative doves, and libertarians who believe in preemption, and those that don't, etc. so think for a minute before you start despising somebody on that basis alone.
Here is how I would handle it.
1. Reiterate points made in Bush's 2003 state of the union address;
2. Admit like in all wars mistakes were made but Iraq was won during Bush's administration as trumpeted by Biden and Obama in 2009 when they admitted Iraq was in great shape; and
3. The big mistake was made by Obama by pulling out US military might.
The result of of Obama’s HUGE mistake led to the following:
1. It allowed the unpopular Shia elected government to act even more irresponsible;
2. The US had no human intelligence;
3. The US lost all credibility in the region;
4. Finally, Obama’s apology tour, Arab Spring adventure in Egypt, support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Libya Adventure and the Syrian Red line back track only inspires our enemies, i.e. Iran.
So, what do I do? I go to FR for some solace and what to I see WilliamIII comments.
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.