Posted on 11/07/2007 5:54:10 AM PST by theothercheek
He’s the most conservative, I don’t think you can argue that, but if you disagree, please tell me who you think is more conservative than Paul?
I don’t question your conservatism philisophically, i do however question it when put into practice.
You state you are not a single issue voter. Is your argument that the WOT weighs so heavily in your decision that on the balance you wouldn’t vote for Paul? If that is the case how doesn’t that effectively make you single issue?
hillary is pro-war(at least in name) but an enemy of free people everywhere. Obviously you’d vote for Rudi over hillary because no matter his liberal positions on gun control and abortion on demand, he’s at least somewhat answerable to the republican party.
What if every Republican was for pulling out of Iraq and declaring victory. You wouldnt then vote for hillary i dont think.
Hunter seems to be a decent enough conservative, but he’s establishment, and establishment conservatism hasn’t done so well with sticking to small government or financial responsibility.
I’m with you man. The DUmmies want out of Iraq, so does Paul, that’s explanation enough for some of his left wing support.
You don’t think they suddenly support property rights and low taxes do you? If they’re willing to trade 4 or 8 years of rolling back socialism and increasing personal liberty, in exchange for getting out of Iraq and reducing the executive branch back to constitutional levels.(before a democrat gets a hold of them and ruins the country for us) then we should take the damn deal.
We have won in Iraq, Saddam, his buddies, his sons, are dead or imprisoned with a death sentence. No country on the planet wants to awaken this sleeping giant again. There’s no dishonor in declaring victory and welcoming our men home.
Low taxes, states right, individual freedoms, rolling back socialism, that all equates to liberty my friend.
Unless your argument is that another country is going to come here, defeat the finest military in the history of war, and take our liberty im afraid i dont follow you.
Have you considered that there are competing viewpoints to your world view?
I’ve been conservative, self identified, for just at 20 years(im 34 today), and i disagree with your view. I voted for GW both times. I believe in the second ammendment(and practice it), I’m dead set against Socialism, in any form, i am a Christian, i believe in freedom of religion, i believe that liberals are waging war on that right. I’m a card carrying, Texas Republican, and i disagree with you.
Have you not considered that some conservatives don’t see the WOT as its currently being prosecuted as the best way to get the job done?
Poll’s say 35% of republicans want out of the war, now polls are only as good as its questions and can easily be manipulated, but I assure I’m not the only one.
There’s never ONE TRUE WAY to get something done, and holding that view isn’t in line with what conservatism is about.(IMHO)
Those are all position that Dr. Paul and I agree on. He lost my support (I live in TX14) when he voted with the democRATs for their "non-binding resolution on Iraq."
Pre 9/11 antiwar mentality. His position on the defending the US has nothing to do with liberty.
I have a feeling deep down inside that the fear expressed on FR about Israel being wiped off the map is at the core of the charge about Paul’s foreign policy being insane and irresponsible.
I have always considered Israel to be well equipped and well trained militarily. What do you see as the reason behind this fear about Paul’s foreign policy?
I understand man. If nothing else, it’s exciting to me to hear real monetary policy, real approaches to privacy and personal freedoms being debated.
If Paul won and could get Roe v Wade repealed, and bring it back to the states that may cut abortions in half. It certainly not ideal, but it beats todays abortion on demand crap.
I honestly thin he’d veto the hell out of the democrat legislature, and that couldn’t hurt a bit.
and i think he would get some good stuff done monetarily.
I just dont trust giuliani, who is the medias heir-apparent for the nomination to accomplish a single thing i feel a conservative person can actually get behind, and i think that if you look at hillary vs giuliani, not only are they not very different on the issues, but i think guiliani would lose.
I am under the impression you are not in agreement with some of the other Paul folks around here that we should bring all our military home, including Europe and Asia operations.
Well, it’s radical. There’s no skirting it.
My pop is at the same place a lot of conservatives are on paul. They at least philosophically agree with small government, low taxes, and personal freedoms. But when the rubber meets the road its sometimes hard to reexamine your views and find out how sincere you are.
Factually, Israel could stomp its neighbors handily, but that wouldn’t do them any good if they got nuked. They could of course nuke in return, and far more effectively than any of its adversaries but its a tiny country, i get that part.
The disconnect comes in your world view.
I think that by subvening Israel we perpetuate the unrest in the region, just like the conservative view that welfare perpetuates policy. By continuing our alliance with Israel on a market basis, but not on a welfare basis, we would expect a market solution.(peaceful resolution)
We have removed the incentive for Israel to not find a peace solution(billions in aid). As a sovereign country, Israel is more than capable of defending its borders without us.
So while most conservatives believe in market principles for fiscal policies, they disconnect it from other policies. When you do that you get into binary decision making that we criticize government for today, either tax it or subvene it. With the belief that you can tax something without hurting it and subvening it doesnt perpetuate it.
and that’s cool man, it means you’re a single issue voter, i was too last election cycle, I didn’t think the job was done. I do now.
>Who got the zot?<
The last one I recal was OrthodoxPresbyterian.
I doubt Schleiermacher could make usable sense out of that assertion.
Nah i cant take that credit in your eyes man.
I don’t think we’ve done poorly in Iraq(I think we could have done better), I think, we’ve let the rest of the world sell us on, “You break it, you own it”, which is what the dems are telling their people to keep them in line.
I think the motto is “Mission Accomplished” Saddam’s toast, every country in the world witnessed the smackdown we command. The Iraqi people are either going to get their stuff together or they wont.
I think the longer we hold their hands the more likely we are to wear out our welcome. Could Iran take them over in the vaccum of our leaving? Possibly, although I doubt seriously they could hold it for any period of time. When comparing our forces versus theirs you almost have to laugh.
If the Shias and Sunnis are going to have a war then were only delaying it. No country is in any hurry to piss us off again. We’ve not only accomplished our goal of regime change, we’ve demonstrated the repercussions of tangling with us.
I do think we should bring all our troops home, i know that’s not a popular sentiment. Let me tell you why i feel that way.
Our troops in Europe were intially from the WW1 and WW2, the iron curtain, the berlin wall etc... it was the frontguard to USSR invasion.
I think we can agree that Putin is an evil dude, looking to regain the old soviets former glory, so russia isn’t exactly safe to trust.
but what we do instead is pay the heartland countries of the EU billions of dollars for our bases, and stimulate their economy by pumping US dollars in through our troops.
What they do is use that money to pass socialistic givaways for their people all the while thumbing their nose at us and emboldening the socialists here at home.
I say we pull the troops, and the foreign aid. Let their governments reform under the actual circumstances they should be living under and watch as they give up their pseudo communist crap and start engaging free market principles.
If russia uses it as an opportunity to attack europe, then congress declares war and we get it on. It beats listening to people harp on europes welfare state like its the model for the future, all the while knowing that mine and your tax money is propping it up.
On Korea:
South Korea has a fully functional military, armed and trained by us, theyre not pushovers, and unlike the north, they have food and industry.(I imagine you’ve seen the picture of N and South at night, N is black and South is lit up almost like the states.
Since i believe in the freemarket, and liberty, and i think it’s a powerful force for change, i think that the North would reform long before the South would suddenly decide that communism was all well and good.
Could there be war? Yes. China, who N. Korea is obviously married to could launch an attack, and if Chinese involvment was heavy enough where the South may actually lose, we can always engage, have congress declare war and get it on.
In my view, this beats paying North Korea money that they use to fund their military. We are literally buying guns and ammo for Lil Kim(jong Il)
Cut the aid, get off the peninsula, continue to trade with the south.
It’s a different policy, it may be radical(depends on your views i guess), but i think it is a good policy for the US. It may be a bit tough for countries living off our teat, but that’s what this is all about.
“I doubt Schleiermacher could make usable sense out of that assertion.”
I don’t think you give him enough credit. :)
WOW! Any discernible reason?
Not that I could see. Just a delicate moderator, I suppose.
I forgot: The thread was pulled shortly afterward.
**************
Really? Aren't you humble. I guess you'd like the job?
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.