Posted on 05/18/2007 8:12:39 AM PDT by sdnet
So what does that make you, a serious one-worlder?
Some of us out here in the cheap seats actually think that interfering in the internal affairs of other countries without a vital national interest to the United States is a bad thing.
Whatever happened to "America first"?
Why do we always have to do the U.N.'s dirty work?
Make peace with the facts. Ron Paul Rudy Guiliani is a lunatic who has NO business running for President. There I fixed it for you.
The America we lost was defined by a Constitution written for a republic of farmers. But long before the Civil War, the nation had industrialized, and most of its basic concepts had changed, thanks to the work of Webster and Clay. We are the America that Hamilton created, not the one that Jefferson wanted to preserve.
If I understand what a Paul administration would look like, we could expect the following:
It's very seductive. But although the US has shipped its manufacturing capabilities abroad to the Third World and we now make our money in services and moving piles of electronic money around, I can't see us returning to a republic of farmers, which is what Paul seems to be aiming for. The changes anticipated by Hamilton and implemented by Webster, Clay and Lincoln are irreversible.
With the American people believing that only Big Government can protect them from Big Capitalism and that Big Government is the proper means by which the American people take care of each other, how does one convince the American people to go back to the good old days? You would need a worldwide financial crash and the involuntary imposition of a worldwide gold standard to get people to rethink the role of the modern state in their lives. We have lost the ancient American trait of self-reliance, as Hurricane Katrina proved.
Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. If America comes home and minds its own business, who steps into our shoes to run the planet? Someone is certainly going to try. The European Union? Russia? China? Iran? The United Nations (relocated to Geneva)? It's a question that has to be answered.
As one who has specialized in our history after the Revolution and before the Civil War, I'd love to see a return to those less complicated days of Monroe and Jackson, but it's not something that is going to happen on its own. And I fear the events that could force it to happen.
Stop drinking the Democrat Kool-Aid.
Saddam had WMD and he sent them into Syria just before OIF.
I saw Russert ask Cheney whether that was true, and Cheney said, No. Somebody's drinking cool-aid, and it ain't me. You folks who are so obsessed with Iraq, a nothing country on the other side of the globe, are asleep as the REAL threat - illegal immigration - debased our quality of life and our security at home. By diverting your attention to a place that's of no relevance to your life, Bush has given himself the freedom to open our borders in a way that could destroy your life and mine, and our childrens' over the next generation. Not to mention destroy the Republican Party. But we ousted Saddam, so it doesn't matter, right? Give me a break.
I don't know why Cheney said what he did. But I think I would believe Franks over Cheney.
BTW, I am NOT asleep about the illegal immigration threat. It's not as big a threat as Islamofascism is, but it needs to be dealt with too.
By diverting your attention to a place that's of no relevance to your life,
Oh really? Just look at a map. What country is in between Iraq and Afghanistan - two countries "that's of no relevance to your life" to use your words.
No. *YOU* give *ME* a break!!!
Just how stupid do they think we are, that we can't see through this?
Yes, really. Cheney said on Meet the Press that he had no evidence of what you're claiming. Argue with him, not me.
From your post, it looks like you are a R. Paul supporter. If you are, perhaps you could answer a question for me so I get this straight.
What is Mr. Paul advocating that the United States should do [after the fact] if OBL attacked us because of our foreign policy? What should our future actions be?
That is the important point. A president can’t always change what happened in the past before he was elected.
It makes no sense to me for Congressman Paul to have made that point unless he was getting at what he would do if he were President. Where was he headed with the comment that he did make, which I’ve heard a video clip of?
This is nowhere near the same as "talking to the terrorists".
Rep. Paul already did listen to what OBL said, but I doubt if he would ever want to "talk with" OBL.
SOME PEOPLE just don't listen, that's all.
But you go right on ahead, and keep on not listening, and go on rephrasing and reinterpreting what you may think you heard.
But why you think you need to do that is beyond me.
Good questions. Daja vu all over again. Paul is getting the Buchanan treatment for being for America first. In this world of favorite cows that thought cannot be just debated, it must be totally purged from political debates.
Bingo!
You a) know what Bin Laden is planning, and b) are making your own plan to defend against it.
Which is EXACTLY the result of the policy Paul is advocating. Know your enemy and use that knowledge against him.
You should e-mail Dr. Paul that question. I bet he answers it.
I was really hoping you would answer it.
I’ve read some of his speeches given in Congress and believe I know what direction he would head this country.
But for anyone who agrees with him, what do you think he would do as President in the future? It goes to the issue of can you support him in such a way that you persuade others to agree.
I don’t think I could convince many to agree, since the concept of Constitutional conservatism has actually not been espoused in quite some time - not during my voting lifetime, at least, and I’m 38.
It’s alien and strange to most, and they fear it because it requires some tough choices.
Not Duncan Hunter. ;)
I just want to be clear here and make sure I understand you.
Are you saying that we should allow foreign entities (such as Osama Bin Laden or the Iranians) to dictate to The United States of America what our foreign policy should be in order to lessen the likelihood they would attack us?
He already has.
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.