Other than the fact that ronpaul comes across like a twit, his domestic message is, in many ways, music to a Conservative’s ear.
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.” B. Goldwater.
However, ronpaul’s foreign policy is in direct opposition to Goldwater’s, and that’s where he loses…. Big time!!!!
While Goldwater said of Vietnam, “I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle.”
Ronniepaul is saying that we should just pull our troops out… and would, no doubt, issue that order the second his right had was removed from tbe Bible, and before he left the podium.
No, ronniepaul is NO Barry Goldwater!!!!!
Not even close!
|
|
I would Rather Not Have New York Be A Mud Puddle.
If You Go To War => Bring War. Driving Around Waiting To Be Shot At Is Not A Reasonable Mission Objective.
What Is Going On Now Is Policing. Police Do Not Make Good Soldiers And Soldiers Do Not Make Good Police.
We Are Destroying This Country's Wealth By Continuing The Occupation Of The World. We May Loose Both.
Ron Paul Is The Only Candidate That Makes Any Sense On The Big Issues; If One Cares To Listen And Attempt To Understand The Root Cause And Corrective Action Rational.
Superficial Scrutiny Is For the Mentally Minuscule. |
|
|
Second your comments. A couple of years ago, I found Goldwater's acceptance speech for the '64 nomination. Even now it is a very powerful speech. Something that all true conservatives should look up and read, even commit it to memory! |
|
|
|
Because we've been there, bombing ....???
Right! |
|
"However, ronpaul’s foreign policy is in direct opposition to Goldwater’s, and that’s where he loses…. Big time!!!!"
And of course, Hunter and Tancedo are also losing big time because the party establishment is working as hard as it can against them too? Why would that be?
"Because they know it is what the base wants. But it isn't what THEY want. They want to continue their big government and keep their influence."
Do you have a clue as to just how convoluted your comment is?
Can't have it both ways!!!
|
|
So far, it has been mentioned that Goldwater was in favor of unleashing our military, and that Ron paul is in favor of withdrawing our military. As a Ron Paul supporter, and someone that believes in Ron paul's foreign policy, I do believe that both Goldwater's and Paul's suggestions are far better then what we're doing now.
When it comes to war, there are two options. A country can decide that war is justified and do everything it can to overwhelm the enemy through all means possible, or it can choose war is not justified and decide no action should be taken. Either option is better then "policing." |
|
and the paulists are already getting rude and combative!
JackShiite writes: Friday, November, 09, 2007 6:44 PM,
"Anne, You talk alot of crap, so let me try to clean up your mess for you."
No wonder so many say that in addition to paul's ridiculous views on the war, they wouldn't vote for paul because of the people he's attracted.
|
|
"And of course, Hunter and Tancedo are also losing big time because the party establishment is working as hard as it can against them too? Why would that be?"
Small government philosophy does not appeal to moneyed interests. This results in a lack of resources to become known through advertising or publicity.
Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter all suffer from the fact that they are still overwhelmingly unknown. |
|
"
And, how about this.....
Goldwater said he knew the Vietnam War would be one of the major issues in the campaign, and called on President Lyndon Johnson to do what was necessary to win. He made his views on the war clear then and 25 years later when appearing on CNN's "Larry King Live.
"If I had inherited the mess that Johnson got into, I would have said to North Vietnam, by dropping leaflets out of B-52s, 'You quit the war in three days or the next time these babies come over there going to drop some big bombs on you.' And I'd make a swamp out of North Vietnam ... I'd rather kill a hell of a lot of North Vietnamese than one American and we've lost enough of them," Goldwater said.
Obviously, Goldwater LEARNED the "Chamberlain" lesson before WWII..
|
|
Jack,
You wrote the following:
So, in other words, if Ron Paul were called to war, he would fight it to win. Period. Not play games, not politics, not nation building. A country that attacked us would be left in ruins immediately and it will be THEIR burden to rebuild.
Ummm....that policy was tried....at the end of World War I. It created a pile of rubble where Germany used to be...then we made a bankrupt country pay for it. It's what created the atmosphere where fascism could rise in Europe. That's why we had the Marshall Plan for Germany after World War II, and why we rebuilt Japan (they are now great allies). We learned our lesson. Destroying countries and then leaving it for them to clean up is never a good solution.
Jim
http://bluedogjames.townhall.com
http://www.bluedogoregon.com |
|
Is anybody seeing this mentality?
"If they continue this fight, we will see to it that after the GOP loses next year (which they will if they don't embrace Ron Paul) that the party is completely and totally destroyed. They may hang on to power for one more year, but they will be facing a lynch mob.
"Then, Anne, you will see how large the Ron Paul revolution ACTUALLY is."
I think you're in the wrong country for that mentality...
|
|
|
...be voting for Ron Paul is the people who WANT me to vote for Ron Paul..... |
|
I've written critical pieces about Rep. Paul, but they focus exclusively on his foreign policy, which is anachronistic due to its apparent inability to recognize the lethality of radical Islam.
Domestically, his policies are quintessential conservative because they would return us to government by and for the people, a profoundly reduced budget, more personal responsibility, and more individual freedom.
However, on balance, most conservatives won't support him because of his agnosticism on the nefarious role of Islamic extremism. It would be intersting to know whether he's read Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower," or Mark Steyn's "America Alone," and if so, what his thoughts are on those illuminating works.
Regards,
Phil Mella
http://clearcommentary.townhall.com
|
|
If you disagree then you're a liar!
Wake up, jack, we're ALLOWED to disagree in this country that you claim to love.
Get a grip!!!
|
|
Pretty much a badge of honor coming from a paulist. :-)
You know that old saying... "You can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep..."
Or, in THIS case, by the company they attract!
"My way or you'll pay.." and "My way or you're ignorant..."
|
|
|
The United States has over 800 overseas military bases in 130 nations. The United States has engaged in over 200 wars and other military operations since World War II. This currently costs the American taxpayer over one trillion dollars per annum. This is an empire; it has nothing to do with national security, everything to do with global domination. Any patriotic American who believes in peace, prosperity, and the republican form of government should be appalled at the hijacking of our foreign policy by those who see this nation as the new Rome. |
|
"Domestically, his policies are quintessential conservative because they would return us to government by and for the people, a profoundly reduced budget, more personal responsibility, and more individual freedom.
"However, on balance, most conservatives won't support him because of his agnosticism on the nefarious role of Islamic extremism."
Exactly what I said in my first post... "his domestic message is, in many ways, music to a Conservative’s ear."
But the paulists are in such a frenzy, they'll never get it....
They're never going to get to first base, and they won't ever understand why!
|
|
I guess so....shucks.
Nice of him to prove my point for me though....don'tcha think?
|
|
with her typical tactic of calling up the first person to agree with her and pull them to her side."
Wait a minute....
If the first or second or third person who AGREED WITH ME.... why would I have to pull them to "my side?"
If they agree with me... THEY'RE ALREADY ON MY SIDE..
|
|
Are GOPers so deluded that they now want to shoot the true messenger of conservatism? Ron Paul could
be Goldwater's running mate if it were the 60's again. Paul tells the truth, but RINO's mock and reject him. What a pathetic bunch of Whig Party
wannabes. If the Republicans run another big spending
war monger they will loose more seats and the White
House.
Our $$$$$$$$$ is worth squat and the court jesters
who seek the presidentcy laugh and call Paul names.
He is the only hope we have of restoring the freedom
we once had. GET OFF THE TITANIC BOYS RON PAUL 08! |
|
Unfortunately, this gets to be boring... No challenge here...
See my 7:32PM above...
The other thing that worries me about the paulists... they think ronpaul is so smart.
|
|
"Ummm....that policy was tried....at the end of World War I. It created a pile of rubble where Germany used to be...then we made a bankrupt country pay for it."
The key point there is that Western Europe MADE Germany pay them back. Had Western Europe not made such demands, hyper-inflation would not have occured, and the economic atmoshpere that led to fascism would not have happened. |
|
|
Goldwater would have made a good President. Get the sense that he would have taken care of the VietNam problem in much less time than LBJ ever did. We can't elect another President who thinks we need to stay involved in wars. Either win 'em or BRING the troops home ASAP! What good is it doing THIS country to leave troops in Iraq? What is wrong with bringing that war to an end? Paul would have enough sense to get us out of Iraq! I like that about him; (a sense of frugality) that he isn't wasteful throwing money at wars without a plan to win! To me, that is an important trait to look for in a President. Both Rudy Giuliani & Hillary Clinton would be expensive Presidents. I don't think the country could afford four years worth of either one of them. |
|
Yea, except for the fact that Barry Goldwater was a Big-Tent Republican and believed in a strong national defense.
Please, explain to me how Ron Paul supports Republicans when he so openly trashes any Republican who doesn't agree with him?
That is not Goldwater Conservatism. |
|
"Great! All it took was 8 posts... and the paulists are already getting rude and combative!"
Please, can we stop the holier than thou BS. There's plenty of mocking, name-calling, and ridiculing from every camp.
Or we all miss Dean's old Paul blogs with the oh so polite and nice references to tinfoil hats. Or pretty much the constant name calling heaped on members of the liberal persuasion and vice versa.
I mean, jeez, people, stop acting shocked. It's the internet. We should all be used to being called crazy whackjobs by complete strangers sitting 3,000 miles away.
I own my tinfoil hat. Thank you very much. |
|
Paul attempts to bring them back to their senses or their former sense of conservatism.
Being the world policeman isn't a constitutional duty of U.S. citizens. |
|
"Please, explain to me how Ron Paul supports Republicans when he so openly trashes any Republican who doesn't agree with him?"
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=19006804&BRD =2737&PAG=461&dep
Actually, he comes off as a pretty class act who strongly disagreements with the leading candidates, but by no means comes across as 'trashing' them.
He even agrees with Hugh that people should judge Romney on the issues, not his faith. |
|
1.Let's look at your empire:
People in other countries hate us (being that this is a Paulite sticking point I'll go here first)
If we are an empire intent on world domination, why haven't we done it yet? These other countries with people who hate us would not exist if we were an empire. Rome controlled their world.
2.Isolationism doesn't work. As long as there is intercontinental travel, we can not sit in our country and mind our business. Secondly, we have a global economy. If we followed Paulite doctrine our economy would be in ruins because we would have bowed out of the world.
3.Nation building isn't working for us because we are doing it the wrong way. The jihadis want us to die. Read Robet Spencer. Nation building in the Mid-East will only work if we completely remove Shari'a from the books.
Thank you.
Bolton/Steele '08
|
|
we’re talking THIS war… which is a war with radical Islamics that happens to be being fought in Iraq.
al Qaeda has every intention of wiping the United States of America off the face of the earth… and have promised just that!
There is nothing wrong with bringing this war to an end, but exactly what makes anyone think that bringing our troops home is going to end this war?
A war ends only ONE of two ways.
1. One side defeats the other.
2. Both sides agree to a truce
(and historically, that has not proven to really end a war... Look at N. Korea for Pete's sake!)
Obviously, anyone who asks that question is totally and completely uninformed… or at the very least ill informed.
Just leaving is surrender! Surrender means that al Qaeda has won. And al Qaeda inning EMBOLDENS them to attack again, and puts them closer to their goal of wiping America off the face of the earth.
Hope that helps you understand.
|
|
Reagan believed in a very strong national defense.
Apparently ronpaul doesn't just want to bring our troops home from Iraq... he wants to close all our bases on foreign soil, and bring home ALL our troops from all over the world...
One of the scariest ideas I've ever heard!!!
|
|
"One of the scariest ideas I've ever heard!!!"
Just curious as to why.
The idea of our soldiers actually guarding our own borders (instead of someone else's) and our navies patrolling the waters of our own coastline and sounds pretty good to me.
Or at least far better than having our military spread out in foreign lands while we trust our own defense to an even bigger bureaucracy that does next to nothing to stop the sieve that are our borders.
|
|
|
It's not like we would give up the several thousand nuclear weapons we have. |
|
|
Would Ron Paul support programs like TVA and Social Security like Goldwater? Dr. No is called that for a reason. Goldwater had libertarian tendencies, but he wasn't ideologically libertarian. |
|
"1.Let's look at your empire:
People in other countries hate us (being that this is a Paulite sticking point I'll go here first)
If we are an empire intent on world domination, why haven't we done it yet? These other countries with people who hate us would not exist if we were an empire. Rome controlled their world."
Rome did not control their world. The Roman Empire was unable to conquer the Germanic tribes or the English barbarians. They also had to ally with the English at one point just to fight off an army from Eastern Asia. What the US is doing now more closely resembles the colonial empires of England and France. Rather then conquesr their neighbors, they picked and chose strategic areas of the world.
"2.Isolationism doesn't work. As long as there is intercontinental travel, we can not sit in our country and mind our business. Secondly, we have a global economy. If we followed Paulite doctrine our economy would be in ruins because we would have bowed out of the world."
Ron Paul believes in free trade. There is a difference between isolationism and noninterventionism. Just once, I'd love to see someone countering a non-internevtionist stance and debating that instead of setting up the straw-man called "isolationism" and arguing against that.
"3.Nation building isn't working for us because we are doing it the wrong way. The jihadis want us to die. Read Robet Spencer. Nation building in the Mid-East will only work if we completely remove Shari'a from the books."
If we didn't meddle in their affairs, they would be nothing more then a bunch of nomadic tribes incessantly skirmishing with one another. |
|
What Ron Paul doesn't get, is that if we don't start wars all over the world, people might start wars with us.
Or so the NeoCons believe. It's nice to know their days are numbered... |
|
"Would Ron Paul support programs like TVA and Social Security like Goldwater? Dr. No is called that for a reason. Goldwater had libertarian tendencies, but he wasn't ideologically libertarian."
His view on SS is that those that paid in were promised to get and get they shall. The BIGGEST difference with Paul's view is that people would have the choice of opting out.
I just searched for a few minutes, can't find his plans for TVA. I found one paper where he criticizes it for being a bloated beauracracy.
|
|
Republican National Committe
It is a serious assault on Free Speech when the RNC and other GOP Factions seek to bar the speech of an official candidate for President in the race for the Republican nomination. Ron Paul is under attack by FOX News and various analysts who actually believe he should be removed from debates and the party itself.
The Republican Party and the RNC are afraid that a real candidate would jeopardize their hijacking of conservative issues. It is clear that a real candidate like Ron Paul would reinstate adherence to the Constitutional intent of government– a far cry from the current direction the party is being led in.
BUT REGARDLESS of whether you love or hate Ron Paul or the Republican Party, one must stand up for and defend the right to Free Speech.
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/republican-nationa l-committe
|
|
"Ron Paul is under attack by FOX News and various analysts who actually believe he should be removed from debates and the party itself."
ronpaul has been on numerous FoxNews programs... in fact, probably MORE than any other Republican candidate so far.
So much for THAT failed theory!
|
|
Please check back in when you have something of substance to post.
|
|
“just lying” Prove it!
“simply lying” Prove it!
“untrue” Prove it!
“liar” Prove it!
“lying” Prove it!
“Paddy for example was using all the childish names right from the very beginning…”
Really? Where?
“You know, the names YOU like to use."
What? Paulists?
What is your problem with paulists?
”…openly and unabashedly attacking him…” Because we disagree with him?
I think they call that “paranoid!”
You've obviously done more whining and blubbering in one post than we've seen in many threads.
Grow UP! Get a life!
|
|
|
|
JackShiite writes: Friday, November, 09, 2007 11:12 PM
At a recent gunshow
I ran into a man that started calling us nutjobs and liberals, you know, the works.
I recently went to a gunshow and there was a RonniePaul booth there. I got into a debate about what a loser RonnieBoy is and none of the people in the booth could answer any of the things I told them about him.
He's a L-O-S-E-R!! |
|
"So, Anne, people like you are lying. You are lying to people that would otherwise agree with Ron Paul."
Prove it!!!! |
|
Anne writes: Friday, November, 09, 2007 11:35 PM
JackShiite: It's obvious that you don't
know "JackShiite!"
I'd have to second that comment. |
|
can't prove anything....
Oh jack.... where are you????
|
|
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com has linked to several of Ron Paul's old newsletters.
I don't think Jack Shiite wants many people to read them. |
|
I support Paul.
Do you own a gun?
I have noticed that most of those that are the most afraid of 'Islamofascists', and the most in favor of wasting my money in the ME, don't carry firearms. They have a sense of deep fear, which I can understand, since without a gun you are helpless. You should consider carrying a firearm. You will begin to see, that you can protect yourself pretty well if you put your mind to it.
Logically, over the last ten years, more people die each year from accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed than from terrorist attacks. Yet, we have not declared a 'War' on accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed. I'm sure that this cause of death can be brought down - we could regulate the types of pillows, sheets, and bedding that could be sold. I'm sure that with the amount of money we are throwing at the 'terrorists' (over 500 bill. per year) we could significantly reduce deaths due to this preventable cause. Of course, I would consider this the same type of waste of money as the 'Wars' on terror and drugs, but I'm sure someone has lost a relative to accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed, and would like the government to use my money to stomp it out.
I love socialism. Everytime I pay my taxes, I just smile and think - Charity is compulsary; someone needs this more than my sick grandma. |
|
|
Fmr. Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr. of Arizona supports Ron Paul and even hosted a fundraiser for him. I'm guessing the son of the former presidential hopeful would probably know who would be best to follow in his father's footsteps. |
|
"http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com has linked to several of Ron Paul's old newsletters.
I don't think Jack Shiite wants many people to read them."
Over the past 7 years, the media has attempted to portray Bush as a moron. The way they did was by going over 10s of thousands of hours of footage and picking out only the moments that Bush apparently did something in line with what they were trying to portray. There's a photo of him with a children's book upside down. There are collections of sentence fragments and mispronunciations. All of this is done by siting tiny fractions of an appearance or a speech and taking it horribly out of context. The press has done the same with Cheney to make him look evil, Reagan to make him look incompetent, and they did it with Goldwater to make hime look like the Antichrist.
A few years back, there was an ad that was run by those against guns that was along the lines of: "The NRA says '...guns are bad.'" It later came out that the NRA said "There are those that say guns are bad."
Your little green footballs link attempts to do the equivalent with Ron Paul. Somone gets a preconceived notion, then attempts to find evidence soley based on the preconceived notion. If one truly wanted to research his newsletters and opinions, one would be able to hunt down and read them in their ENTIRETY, and with neutral titles. :)
I am however, impressed that over the course of the last 25 years, Ron Paul has written on a regular basis. Yet, the anti-Paulist was only able to find a handful of paragraphs, that, when taken the wrong way, almost fit his or her preconceived notion. |
|
Lyndon LaRouche.
Jack Shiite you sound like a parody of yourself"
Blue Dog Jim said:
"Ummm....that policy was tried....at the end of World War I. It created a pile of rubble where Germany used to be...then we made a bankrupt country pay for it. It's what created the atmosphere where fascism could rise in Europe. That's why we had the Marshall Plan for Germany after World War II, and why we rebuilt Japan (they are now great allies). We learned our lesson. Destroying countries and then leaving it for them to clean up is never a good solution."
JackShiite responded:
"Umm... so? What is your point? It definitely taught Germany not to mess with us again, didn't it? We don't see them as an enemy still, do we?"
Yep Jack, they've hardly done anything since the end of World War 1...that is if you ignore that minor scrape called World War 2. Talk about an uninformed robot.
|
|
Ron Paul is not a Republican and has no business on the Republican ticket. He is a Libertarian. He ran on the Libertarian ticket. He soon discovered that as a Libertarian, he could only get the Libertarian kook fringe element to support him...the same people who are supporting him now.
Paulbearers have been bragging all over the news that Ron Paul collected over $4.2 million in just 24 hours. Isn't it amazing how much money a handful of zealots (and sneaky Democrats trying to mess with the Republican primaries) can come up with. Only 37,000 donors. Wow! B. Hussein Obama has maybe 10-15 times as many contributors. That doesn't look very hopefull for Paul winning the election does it.
Ron Paul is and always has been a joke here in Texas...with the exception of a few of P.T. Barnum's favorite people. The sad thing about Libertarians is that they have a hint of understanding of the Constitution, but they just can't grasp the entirety of what our founding fathers intended.
Much of what Paul advocates is right on...the elimination of such governmental boondoggles as the Department of Education and the Department of Energy. Great ideas...let's do it. On the otherhand their world view is so amazingly naive.
Ron Paul believes in the same foreign policy as the Democrat Party. Barry Goldwater would never have advocated the views that Paul espouses.
Paul and his followers are as looney tunes as the moonbats on the otherside, and they are everybit as irrational in their support.
|
|
Campained for John Kerry-Heinz Pete Mackin, does that mean that Ronald Wilson Reagan would have supported John Kerry-Heinz?
"nuff said." |
|
I pretty much agree with what Paul advocates domestically…
And, I also agree that his world view is so amazingly naive. "Barry Goldwater would NEVER have advocated the views that Paul espouses."
Not in a million years!
Of course, Goldwater wanted the Vietnam war to end… but NOT the way paul advocates ending the war in Iraq!
This is what Goldwater said on CNN's "Larry King Live."
"If I had inherited the mess that Johnson got into, I would have said to North Vietnam, by dropping leaflets out of B-52s, 'You quit the war in three days or the next time these babies come over there going to drop some big bombs on you.' And I'd make a swamp out of North Vietnam ... I'd rather kill a hell of a lot of North Vietnamese than one American and we've lost enough of them."
|
|
You forget, loser NEVER win! LOL
Remember that at the Republican Convention when SOMEONE ELSE gets the nomination!
Cheers! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Jack.............You are arguing in a different realm than some of these Neocon Israel Firsters. You assume that logical explanation of fundamental conservative policy will be enlightenment. What you say will NEVER change the minds of A.I.P.A.C. members regarding ANY candidate that intends to have a foreign policy that is in America's best intrest, instead of Israels!.....Unlike Gingrich,McCain,Guiliani,Edwards, and Romney, your candidate(Dr. Ron Paul)failed to make the pilgrimidge to the "7th Herzliya Conference" in January 2007.(Where one secures the funds needed to run for U.S. President). These "trolls" could care less who the POTUS is, as long as America continues to give $3.5 Billion a year to the ONLY middleastern country that has over 300 nuclear warheads and refuses U.N. inspecters to look at them! Guiliani is PERFECT for these guys, as they try to paint him as a conservative.(Mexican Illegals can serve as cannon fodder with U.S. troops in the war with Iran while Israel takes the position of Cheerleader)......But, in spite of the MSM/Blogosphere news blackout, the Federal Judge in Arlington has ruled that Condoleeza Rice,Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, and other assorted NEOCONS will have to testify in the Steve Rosen/Keith Weissman(AIPAC members)espionage trial in Jan 2007!.....Abrams is the son in law of Norman Podhoretz. "Charles Hill"(Guiliani Chief Foreign Policy Advisor)was the one that signed onto the neocon letter to GWB after 911 that stated, "Even if evidence does NOT link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and it's sponsors MUST include a determined effort to REMOVE Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq!"......Therefore, you Jack are wasting your time with "Israel Firsters". |
|
|
I don't think everybody would even fit in a 'big tent' anymore. Ron Paul's voters are from many different tents held together by our common belief in freedom, the Constitution, smaller government to the point of eliminating the IRS as one of the goals. There are many different reasons why voters & potential voters would be attracted to Ron Paul besides his foreign policy that will win him votes. We need to save our country from the economic ruin that would result from electing another big spender as President. That is the bottom line. (not rebuilding Iraq or continuing the war against Iraq people) Those in Iraq didn't fly planes into the WTC towers and they don't deserve us taking it out on them for what the terrorists did. |
|
that the man who stands up for the constitution (you know, that thing that politicians, police officers, soldiers, etc.. swear to uphold) would be called a crazy and a stupid man.
I guess those soldiers who swear to uphold the constitution are idiots as well?
Neocons show their true colors. I call them the domestic enemies! |
|