Posted on 12/16/2011 7:48:40 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Ask any conservative about Ron Paul and you will usually hear the following statement: "I love him on fiscal policy but his foreign policy is naive and dangerous." You can also throw in the obligatory "He hates Israel." If someone had asked me about Paul from 9/12/01 through October of 2011, I'd have said the exact same things.
Something about my certitude always felt a bit uncomfortable, though, because I admired the "good parts" of Ron Paul (and later, his son Rand). Having participated in the Tea Party movement since its inception, and then witnessing the phony propaganda concocted to invalidate it, my BS meter began to pin whenever I heard (or spoke) harsh rhetoric denouncing Ron Paul. Since the contradiction bugged me, I decided to take the advice of my twenty-year-old son and read Ron Paul's book, Revolution. This required me to consider ideas which were once unthinkable. I undertook the mission with the promise to think outside my conservative box.
After reading the book, I came away with a completely different understanding of Ron Paul and his philosophy. I'm hoping my Tea Party compatriots, fellow conservatives, and all Americans will step outside their own comfort zones to do the same. It is vital that our nation seriously consider the important constitutional concepts and defense of liberty that Ron Paul espouses.
Today, the Middle East is falling to Islamic rule like a series of dominos. The supposed "friendly Arab nations" want our troops out of their land and threaten to side with our enemies. Our soldiers are hamstrung by politically correct rules of engagement that make them sitting ducks. Our economy is collapsing under the weight of our debt (a good portion of which goes to fund our worldwide military adventures),
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Neither party takes this country in a conservative direction. It seems to merely be a matter of marginally slower or faster.
I for one would like to see this discussed on the merits pro and con.
“I don’t like Ron Paul on foreign policy either. But as far as I’m concerned, at this particular juncture in history, the US Federal Government poses a far bigger threat to the safety and security of this country than Iran.”
Worth repeating
Exactly! He ran for POTUS several years ago and got nowhere so he went back to being a RINO.
I think he would risk the country to two more years of Obama to feed his ego
Exactly right! Not one candidate other than Paul will make any effort to do that. Not one other candidate even seriously mentions the expansive role the Executive Branch has assumed. The Progressives have obviated Congress. We are ruled by power-hungry bureaucrats. Obama, Johnson, FDR, and Wilson have been the biggest offenders in leading us to this point, but plenty of Republicans have been just about as bad (Lincoln, TR, Nixon, the Bushes).
It astonishes me that the Tea Party supports Gingrich. The man is a megalomaniacal Progressive. How could anyone imagine Gingrich or Romney doing anything to roll back the damage Obama has done. If either of them is elected he will only tinker with Obamacare at the margins. The pace of the erosions of our liberties may slow, but it would march on nevertheless.
This country, as we know it, or think we know it, is about over. We need to ditch the income tax, the central bank, whack these bureaucracies, and enforce our borders. While we need to maintain a strong military, its role should be limited to defending our country and deterring any aggression against it. Part of that includes getting over the Israel fixation. We have been conned into thinking there’s a Biblical connection that compels us to dance to its tune.
I am increasingly concerned that only a true anti-federal government radical is able to do enough to save America, and then, only if he gets strong enough support in congress.
While Paul’s biggest criticism is foreign policy, the truth of the matter is not the issues America has to deal with in its foreign policy, but the horribly bloated and ridiculous means we use to carry out our foreign policy.
For two glaring examples:
The US has our forces deployed in about 100 countries in the world!, we need to be in as few as a dozen. The rest are obscenely expensive waste.
Our shipbuilders seem incapable of building warships with any kind of budget or timetable. And there are very good, bad reasons they cannot do so.
In other words, the federal government needs to be slashed by more than 50% in size and scope, radically reduced to again be in constitutional authority and not running out of control. And the Department of Defense is part of the problem.
So the problem with our foreign policy is in the front end, not execution, and we should not be skunked by efforts to confuse the two.
“He gives one or two really good ideas and then blows it on other topics.”
Yeah he blows it when he says he wants to:
Make securing our borders the top national security priority.
No amnesty.
Repeal ObamaCare
allow offshore drilling, abolish highway motor fuel taxes
Eliminate the capital gains, and death taxes
repeal the “Brady Bill” and the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban.”
Among other things but you’re right that’s some crazy liberal crap there.../s
Ron Paul’s hatred of Israel and his antisemitism?
Please elaborate.
Yeah, I understand your situation. I have a niece who has completely written me off because I lambasted teacher unions in her presence. She said she works an extra two hours a day just to grade papers and such and if she did not have the union to look out for her rights the schrool board would run rough shod over her and other teachers. I axed her if she thought she was a superior teacher and she said of course. Yet she complained about the kids coming into her class who could not read or write. I then asked her how it felt knowing that inferior teachers were paid the same salary as she. She said she didn’t care about them. My response to her answer was that she evidently did not care about the kids being taught by those inferior teachers and unions are a big part of why there are inferior teachers and why their students are educationally abused and neglected. Things went off the rails after that and now my sister hates me for being mean to her daughter.
And my granddaughter hates me because I want our borders protected. She called me a racist and zenophobic. I told her she was a guest in my house and would be more respectful to her grandfather. Needless to say, we are not on good terms. Oh, well.
As I said - he has several good ideas but all-in-all he’s one scary guy. I do not want him as president.
Now he is up to several good ideas from one or two.
In other words, we're either going to be isolationists because Paul implements it - something we could change after 4 or 8 years, or we're going to be isolationists because we're flat broke and our economy has collapsed to the point we will be impotent on the world stage.
Precisely. It's nail meet head. We've got two choices -- regroup an reorganize, or collapse -- and Ron Paul is the only one telling the truth on that one.
What none of the strategic thinkers around here have figured out yet is that there would actually be a great advantage for Conservatives to a Ron Paul presidency with Ron Paul as a libertarian: When Ron Paul goes after government departments and entitlement benefits with a chainsaw -- and the Democrats are screaming in pain -- hardcore Conservatives would actually look like compassionate Moderates for a change -- and Liberals would look like the communists they are. A Ron Paul presidency would be an entire paradigm shift for American politics that would define the lines again and forever obliterate the Republicrat mindset.
Was listening to Rush this morning and heard sound bites from the debate. Ron Paul is crazier than I thought.
...and if he goes third party we have Perot all over again and the re-election of Barry, which is completely unacceptable.
One day, they are teaparty activists, the next, OWS protesters.
I say this as someone who has ALREADY voted for Paul in the past, for President, last time when he ran as a Libertarian, so I am not a hater, its just a shame that he goes over the deep end.
I was at the first national Tea Party on April 15th 2009 in NYC. There were libertarian nitwits with Ron Paul and John Gault signs all over the place then, too. Libertarianism appeals to a small percentage who always refuse to think their simple solutions through to their logical conclusion. Because their numbers are small, they are constantly trying to glom on to whatever political movement will get them the most attention.
From its inception, the Tea Party was about smaller government, lower taxes, and family values. But it was also about restoring America's standing in the world. Ron Paul wants to do a 180 from that last cause, and he is purposely dishonest about his intentions. His supporters have no business polluting this conservative website with their stupidity.
Exactly. I only meant in the unlikely chance that he is the GOP nominee....
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.