Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Novak likes the idea of President Paul
Washington Times ^ | 7/31/07 | Eric Pfieffer

Posted on 07/31/2007 12:51:59 PM PDT by traviskicks

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-177 next last
To: ejonesie22
History will judge the foreign policy views of Ron Paul, and the RAT party very harshly.
41 posted on 07/31/2007 1:25:38 PM PDT by lormand (Eliminate Wahhabist, by any means possible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

And merely mentioning that the US has troops in 130 foreign countries draws cries of “America hater.”


42 posted on 07/31/2007 1:26:32 PM PDT by Brakeman (America can do nothing for the Muslim world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

I’ve defended Paul for his small government conservatism, and will continue to do so. But not “getting” the need for robust offense against the islamo-scum is a non starter for me. Each candidate has a few achilles heels and as you know, I ain’t a Fred supporter.


43 posted on 07/31/2007 1:28:05 PM PDT by pissant (Duncan Hunter: Warrior, Statesman, Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
So...what's the difference between him and Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney?

Ron Paul would defend American interests that are directly threatened. Kucinich and McKinney advocate a form of pacifism designed to buy them a few more years in office regardless of what happens to America's interests long-term.

Paul simply represents George Washington's view - choose your battles with great care.

44 posted on 07/31/2007 1:28:58 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ("Wise men don't need to debate; men who need to debate are not wise." -- Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

Please post specifcs on their foreign policies.

And, how is having US troops in 130 different countries “conservative?”


45 posted on 07/31/2007 1:29:30 PM PDT by Brakeman (America can do nothing for the Muslim world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

You don’t understand Novak very well. He is an ardent free trader, unlike Pat, and loves NAFTA.


46 posted on 07/31/2007 1:29:54 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pissant

How can someone be for “small government” and policing the world at the same time? That would be a trick fit for Houdini.


47 posted on 07/31/2007 1:31:42 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
Hey guys! Hear that? We Fred folks are dumbasses!

Maybe they are pointing out our Duncan friends too, since they are not supporting the only “true conservative” anti-socilaist candidate

Cool, we are like and team and stuff!...

Meanwhile, back on Earth...

48 posted on 07/31/2007 1:31:58 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (I am not really a Fred basher, I just play one on Free Republic. THOMPSON 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: BGHater
Relinquishing all U.S. participation in the United Nations and any subsidiary groups and agreements.

The Executive does not have the unilateral authority to do this.

Removing the U.N. headquarters out of New York City and revoking all of its governmental privileges.

Neither the President nor the Senate can do the first: The UN's headquarters in NYC is private land owned by the UN.

Only the Senate can do the latter.

Ending U.S. financial support for U.N. operational and “peacekeeping” missions.

The President has more discretion here, but he could not unilaterally zero these activities out.

I’m sure, in his budget, there would be no room for funding the UN.

His budget would be heavily, heavily, heavily amended or it would never pass the House.

49 posted on 07/31/2007 1:32:02 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

Your definition of conservative is probably not the same as mine. I view Paul’s stance on the war and foregin policy as arguably conservative in the classical sense— a hands-off sense— much the same as the conservative position on the business and the economy is “hands-off.”

I disagree with Paul to a certain extent on the war, (and I don’t think there is a perfect position to occupy here) mainly because I see that the great tide of history, and our interference, has dragged us into much of the conflict we find ourselves in, and it is somewhat naive to think that every president and every congress will have the ability to withstand the pressure to intervene in various enterprises throughout the years ahead.

But I DO understand where he is coming from and in fact believe there is some truth in it. Personally, I would prefer a United States that was much stricter about extending it’s affairs abroad. Do I think this is actually practical— No.

But, Paul is definitely the most classically conservative man in Congress, in my opinion.


50 posted on 07/31/2007 1:32:02 PM PDT by agooga (When boyhood's fire was in my blood, I read of ancient free men...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright

You call it policing the world. I call it vital national security, the MOST important job of the federal gov’t.


51 posted on 07/31/2007 1:33:18 PM PDT by pissant (Duncan Hunter: Warrior, Statesman, Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Well....that doesn’t answer the question.


52 posted on 07/31/2007 1:34:46 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
Because we modern conservatives live on a planet where they have invented rockets and planes and really cool big bombs and there are lost of crazy folks running around and we want to “conserve” our freaking way of life...

But I could be wrong...

Maybe the WTC just had a “defect”...

53 posted on 07/31/2007 1:35:32 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (I am not really a Fred basher, I just play one on Free Republic. THOMPSON 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: agooga
Personally, I would prefer a United States that was much stricter about extending it’s affairs abroad. Do I think this is actually practical— No.

Primarily for the same reason that shrinking government is impractical - too much of the economy is tied to the continued growth of foreign policy adventures.

54 posted on 07/31/2007 1:35:41 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ("Wise men don't need to debate; men who need to debate are not wise." -- Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: pissant

BTW, if the last six years have illustrated anything it has shown the impossibility of marrying “small government” to world policing.


55 posted on 07/31/2007 1:35:57 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

Excuse me, I left off the DAMN and the end...


56 posted on 07/31/2007 1:36:32 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (I am not really a Fred basher, I just play one on Free Republic. THOMPSON 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright

Well, if I reject your characterization of what we are doing, then I guess it wouldn’t. LOL


57 posted on 07/31/2007 1:36:32 PM PDT by pissant (Duncan Hunter: Warrior, Statesman, Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright

If the last 25 years have demonstrating ANYTHING, is that not killing off the terrorists and their enablers was a mistake of epic proportions.


58 posted on 07/31/2007 1:38:06 PM PDT by pissant (Duncan Hunter: Warrior, Statesman, Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
Paul and Kucinich are in exact agreement on Iraq, Iran, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, etc.

And completely out of agreement on the big picture - i.e. America's role in relation to and interaction with the other nations of the world. Kucinich and Bush both favor ceding U.S. interests at times for the greater good of the "world community," believe that the United Nations serves a useful purpose, and believe in the role of international "peacekeeping" forces to keep order (though they sometimes disagree on the locations. Paul does not.

59 posted on 07/31/2007 1:38:37 PM PDT by Texas Federalist (Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: pissant

And the people say AMEN!


60 posted on 07/31/2007 1:38:47 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (I am not really a Fred basher, I just play one on Free Republic. THOMPSON 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-177 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson