[saganite]

Hmm. Makes a hell of a lot of sense. Maybe I’ll have another look at his candidacy. Not that I think he can win but his positions do resonate with a lot of what’s right here on FR.

[WorkerbeeCitizen]

bttt

[mysterio]

I like Paul’s essays.

[Martins kid]

I’m not ging to waste my time on this thread. Too much Ron Paul junk on Free Republic right now. It bears ignoring.

[PeterPrinciple]

I appreciate my freedom and think often of those who paid the price. Our foreign involvement may not be perfect but I truly believe if we hadn’t stood up in Korea and Vietnam, I would be eating communist rice this morning. And if we don’t stand up to the terrorism in the world I will be either dead or ululating in the public square.

[WhiteGuy]

Dr Paul Bump

[Martins kid]

Oh Pleeease....All these replys are sooooo scripted. Nothing original here. The Paul-bots are so boring and predictable. I’m not going to waste my time on this thread. Too much Ron Paul junk on Free Republic right now. It bears ignoring.

[rhombus]

The basic idea is that foreigners cannot manage their own affairs so we have to do it for them. This may require sending troops to far off lands that do not threaten us...

Well there's the rub for me. It's the definition of "threaten us". If the world were still armed with muskets and square riggers it would be easier to know who is a real threat and who is not. But even then, people like Thomas Jefferson who I don't think was a globalist deployed troops to far off lands that he was convinced "threatened us" and our trade.

[HoustonTech]

the ideological connection between support of the war and amnesty is often masked. If there is a single word explaining the reasons why we continue to fight unpopular wars and see legislation like the amnesty bill nearly become law, that word is “globalism.”

What a nutty statement. Leave it to Ron Paul to say something like this. Globalism has nothing to do with either the war on terror or amnesty, think what you may about either issue. Only someone with an idealogical bias like Ron Paul would draw that conclusion.

The purpose behind the war on terror is 9/11. If we had not been attacked by Islamic terrorists, we would not be in a war with them now. That's not globalism; it's self-defense.

The reason most voted for the amnesty bill was to get a political advantage with Hispanics. Again it had nothing to do with Globalism.

Ron Paul is looking for a bogeyman to justify his nutty campaign. In the end he's still a nut.

[Puddleglum]

I do not think there is another fiscal conservative on the field this election. Hunter is a social conservative, and he talks conservcative, but he voted for every budget buster Bush sent down the chute.

Rudy and Mc Vain - no chance. Brownback - he seems insincere; Huckabee - no thanks. Romney - he seems to slick.

I need to look at Fred Thompson’s Senate votes, but I have my doubts.

If any Pubbie would just stand up for federal restraint, budget-cutting, states-rights and the Bill of Rights (you know, that thing containing the second amendment), I might give him my ear. Some talk loud to hide their lousy records, though.

I might even vote for a guy who ran on the “do the least harm” platform. For this reason I am gravitating toward Paul, but am keeping an ear open for Fred Thompson and some of the lesser lights. I really need to dig into Huckabee and some of the others I know little about.

Man, we got no Reagan, but we have a lot of neocons who tell everybody to shut up if you threaten to stray from the planatation. That’s the difference between Reagan and the two Bushes in a nutshell, to me.

[Seeking the truth]

In one of his most lucid moments President Bush

Well, Congressman, that is still one more that you have ever had.

[Optimist]

The basic idea is that foreigners cannot manage their own affairs so we have to do it for them. This may require sending troops to far off lands that do not threaten us,

The false premise that is the base of RP's foreign policy. He asserts that the only reason we engage in foreign countries is to steal their assets or to unnecessarily save them from themselves.

By not defining what he considers a threat to us (or implying that only an imminent or active attack is a threat) he considers there to be no reason to engage anyone outside our borders. He makes no allowance for economic threats, the fact that modern warfare is not conducted the way the Falkland Islands War was, and international allies do exist and support each other. Ignoring what people say because they aren't within your territorial waters is ignorant and can potentially destroy this country.

The US cannot be run as a response to what every other country or crackpot dictator does directly to us. You cannot restrict all actions outside your borders to a declaration of war first -- not every situation rises to that level. OTOH although I do believe that Congress has failed to do so in the past, having failed to properly do so in several instances does not negate the need to become involved internationally.

< DonFlameProofSuit >

[anglian]

"The basic idea is that foreigners cannot manage their own affairs so we have to do it for them. This may require sending troops to far off lands that do not threaten us, and it may also require “welcoming with open arms” people who come here illegally. All along globalists claim a moral high ground."

********

I would like to examine the theme of “the American Empire.” This is the imaginary imperial ideology that has supposedly driven us to become a hyper-power.

First, let's take a brief look at the origins of American economic, political and military power. Now, I am a patriotic American. I love my country and I am proud of its many accomplishments. But I’d like to suggest that America's status as a superpower has been largely thrust upon us.......

Anti-Americanism And Its Discontents - 25 August 2004, Address by U.S. Ambassador Charles J. Swindells US Embassy Wellington

The impetus for current anti-Americanism dates from the 1980s. Ronald Reagan came along with his unflappable optimism about the future of our nation and the self-destruction of communism. There were those who sympathized with communist ideology. There were those who wanted to impose their own values on their neighbors. And there were those who simply wanted a “Third Way” between America’s so-called savage economic freedoms and Communism’s tyranny. For them, Reagan was a real threat. His decision to deploy cruise missiles in Europe and his call for the Berlin Wall to be torn down were seen as needlessly confrontational. Even noted American intellectuals like Arthur Schlesinger argued that Reagan’s assessment of the Soviet Union’s economic and social weaknesses was wrong.

Of course, Reagan was proved right and the pundits wrong, though so far as I can tell, none of them has ever admitted it.

When communism collapsed. The Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain it represented were torn down, not by an invading army, but by the long-suffering peoples of Eastern Europe. Russians and Chinese soon became more capitalist than most Americans. Fact is, people all over the world now have far more diversity of choice in food, films, travel and lodging, news and entertainment sources, clothing, and other products than they have ever had in recorded history. The alternative to giving you the freedom to choose is having someone else, probably a government bureaucrat like me, choose for you.

Die-hard leftists suddenly faced a challenge. Many responded by creating and then criticizing a straw man America every bit as silly and inaccurate as that created by their ancestors. Criticism of this false image of America has become the cornerstone of current anti-Americanism. I would contend that this criticism is used mainly to attack those outside of the United States who favor liberty, whether economic, cultural or political.

I'd like to add a word here about the supposed predominance of American culture. Culture is based in large measure on shared values. The anti-American gang claims we Americans are forcing our values on the rest of the world through what they call "cultural imperialism." Well, I'm here to tell you that they have got it all wrong. We did not begin as a nation with some unique, homegrown set of values that we are now trying to spread worldwide. Just the opposite!

We began by embracing a universal set of values -- democracy, rule of law, economic liberty, freedom of expression -- that by their very nature appeal to most people on the planet. That is why we have attracted and continue to attract so many immigrants and have benefited from their cultural contributions. How do the anti-Americans deal with the fact that our diverse ethnic make-up makes us more fully representative of the human race than most other nations? Or that we still attract millions of immigrants from all over the world? I'll tell you how -- by completely ignoring it!

It is perhaps useful for the anti-Americans to remind themselves that the U.S. did not start the Great War or World War II, though we did help finish them. We didn’t even start the Vietnam War - we inherited it!

-- Failure of nations to address the security of their own region results in a vacuum that some other power will try to fill;

How should America respond to this?

-- Failure to spend enough on defense to meet security needs will result in increased dependence on someone else and reduced ability to implement an independent foreign policy;

How should America respond to this?

-- Failure to embrace economic liberty, to let people learn from their mistakes on the road to success, to encourage empowerment over dependency, these failures give an edge to competing countries that pursue social justice without trampling on justice for the individual;

How should America respond to this?

While we, too, have failed from time to time, we have done our best to offer our citizens, millions of immigrants, and freedom-loving people in other lands enough liberty to chart their own course in life. We have tried to offer enough hope and practical encouragement to help them weather the inevitable storms they may face. Most importantly, we have offered the freedom to fail and restart the journey as often as is necessary.

If America does not act to address these issues, we are accused of isolationism. If we encourage the international community to address these matters, we are accused of bullying. If we join in coalition with like-minded nations to address these shortcomings, we are accused of unilateralism. To quote the student I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, "It appears that according to international opinion, America should not take up arms unless it is explicitly told to do so."

A related, equally misleading theme is the false dichotomy between the United Nations and the United States - as though we were not a member and strong supporter of the UN. Most would agree that it is hard to find a good example of any undertaking by the United Nations that has made a practical difference in the world without the full support of the United States. Whether it is our funding of one-quarter of the UN's budget, the peacekeepers we provide, or our general support for the concept of collective security, we play a role in all that the UN does.

Who is hurt by anti-Americanism?

John Parker, of the New York Times:

"...the costs of anti-Americanism will be borne not by Americans, but by others…. Cubans, North Koreans, Zimbabweans, and countless others suffer and starve under their respective tyrannies because the democratic world's chattering classes, obsessed with denouncing the United States, can't be bothered with holding their criminal regimes to account.... Indeed, it is not the slightest exaggeration to say that anti-American sentiment has become the biggest single obstacle to human progress. It sustains repressive dictatorships everywhere. The global anti-American elite has massively failed to fulfill the most fundamental responsibility of the intellectual class: to provide dispassionate, truthful analysis that can guide society to make proper decisions."

Look at our involvement in the Balkans, where Europe’s political leaders asked the United States to intervene, even though it was not clear that our interests or security were threatened by the conflict, nor was there much evidence that Europe had done all it could to deal with the problem. In the end, we helped out, though in hindsight, our efforts in the Balkans may have diverted crucial military, intelligence and political capital from counterterrorism just when it might have had the greatest impact in slowing or stopping the rise of al-Qaeda.

The United States does not promise that we will intervene in every conflict or solve every problem.

But we can promise that when we are confronted by the tough choices this world brings, we will not ignore them. We will continue to make the best decisions we can, based on the best information available at the time.

We will continue to do whatever it takes to secure liberty for ourselves and for our future generations. And we will help others achieve those benefits whenever that is what they want and we can make a difference.

Address by U.S. Ambassador Charles J. Swindells August 2004

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0408/S00232.htm

[rhombus]

Ron Paul says some good things and I think what he says is a good DIRECTION to move towards. However Presidents are usually given only one term to accomplish what they want to accomplish (second terms are always a disaster). I've yet to see priorities from Paul (maybe I missed them). If you don't set priorities you usually end up with a mess. Can we imagine how people would shriek if some of the things Paul says he would do were actually instituted within a mere 4 year time period? People whine when unemployment goes over 5%, can you imagine huge federal layoffs as well as all the trickle down jobs driven by federal spending? And what about oil? Where would the prices go and where would people's 401K's go? Sure, build nuke plants, drill our own oil, burn coal- in 4 years? We'll be burning our furniture. Then of course there's foreign policy. We'll all stay home and life would be great because nobody will get mad at us and we'll only fight them when they come over the wall to take our stuff. Iran and Saudi can just have Iraq. China can also have Taiwan, South Korea and hell just throw in Japan for fun. The Russians well who cares about them and their oil, let them eat Europe.

I'd be willing to bet you'd see Ron Paul hanging from a rope in less than 4 years...not that any Congress would ever let him do the things he says he'd do. Like I said, Ron Paul lays out some nice directions but as the head of the executive branch and CINC? I don't think he's up to the task.

[cerberus]

More of Ron Paul’s John Birch Society nonsense.

[Eagle74]

As a Jacksonian Libertarian many of Ron Paul’s positions are the same as mine. However, as a US citizen I have stock in the economic well being of this country, and the world trading system that is dominated by this country, and is responsible for most of our wealth. If we don’t protect the global trading system, the Barbarians will destroy it by making it unsafe, and the US and mankind’s continued advancement will end. The Roman Empire ended when Barbarians made trading unsafe, through piracy, highway men, and sacking of cities. The same thing could happen to the West.
It isn’t a sure thing that mankind will continue to flower under western democracies. It certainly isn’t, if we allow the Barbarians free reign to do as they will. We must learn how to fight them, we can’t do this by taking defensive positions, while the Barbarians destroy air travel, shipping, and global trade. Look at the targets they select for the bombings, The World Trade Towers, Trains, Airplanes, and Markets. They know the West’s strength is trade. And so they attack our center of gravity. Trade and air travel are already being affected with security delays, thereby driving up the cost of doing business.
In conclusion, Ron Paul’s position is short sighted and endangers us and our way of life, while leaving no hope that things might improve if we can just figure out how to win.

[George W. Bush]

All along globalists claim a moral high ground, as if our government is responsible for ensuring the general welfare of all people. Yet the consequences are devastating to our own taxpayers, as well as many of those we claim to be helping.

Classic Ron Paul, a sample of why so many of us have loved him for ten years or more. He was a great hero here at FR in the pre-Bush era.

The "globalists claim a moral high ground" part has actually become "Republicans intent on legalizing their criminal dereliction of guarding our borders call their own voters racists and ignoramuses because they expect them to enforce the laws of the country on those who have invaded it".

[George W. Bush]

	Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday] • Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 •
	Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave

A classic RP weekly message ping.

[BlackbirdSST]

You’ve got my vote Dr. Paul. Blackbird.

[RightWhale]

The basic idea is that foreigners cannot manage their own affairs so we have to do it for them.

Nobody is going to buy that idea, but that foreigners are not managing well enough to support our system of commerce and therefore need to be managed so they can both host our corporations and not send terrorists to blow up stuff is possible.