Posted on 03/10/2014 4:35:26 PM PDT by Mariner
On Saturday, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul won the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference by a landslide for the second consecutive year. Conservative firebrand Texas Sen. Ted Cruz came in second, but he actually gained the most ground of any candidate year-over-year.
On Sunday, Cruz began making a play to draw foreign policy distinctions between himself and Paul, both of whom are considered two of the GOP's top presidential prospects.
"I'm a big fan of Rand Paul. He and I are good friends," Cruz said on ABC's "This Week" Sunday. "I don't agree with him on foreign policy. I think U.S. leadership is critical in the world. And I agree with him that we should be very reluctant to deploy military force abroad. But I think there is a vital role, just as Ronald Reagan did. ... The United States has a responsibility to defend our values."
Cruz's comments came two days after Paul thrilled the CPAC audience by blasting President Barack Obama's drone policy. However, Paul didn't mention the preeminent ongoing geopolitical conflict — the crisis in Ukraine.
Paul's noninterventionist views on foreign policy have attracted a libertarian-leaning crowd. In the CPAC straw poll, 57 percent of respondents, when asked about the U.S.'s "role in the world," identified with this statement: "N early 70 years after the end of World War II, it's time for our European, Asian and other allies to provide for their own defense."
Only 37 percent, on the other hand, agreed with this statement: " As the world's only superpower, the U.S. needs to continue to bear the responsibility of protecting our allies in Europe, Asia and other parts of the world."
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
Every time.
Even if one of your or my family members gets sucked into it.
The doctor, all who provide material support...and the prospective mother.
Every time. "
You support that position too, right?
DADT was terrible, it was how the left homosexualized the military.
It meant come on in, but keep it low key for awhile until the adjustment is made.
That was the let’s victory over centuries of American conservatism, and you call it “perfectly good”?
Further, what does calling the spouse, “dependent” do to revert back to 233 years of conservative America’s federal definition of spouse?
As far as federal and state abortion laws, how do we change it if we don’t elect conservatives, and not libertarians?
With all due respect, the Buckley Rule is bullshit. We need to formulate a plan that gets a conservative into the white house ASAP.
That's the CONSERVATIVE Rule.
In 2012, there was no conservative nominated for office, and the best that GOP types had to offer was that we vote for a babykilling, gun-grabbing, homosexual agenda loving statist whom JimRob had previously said he would NOt ENDORSE. But Jimrob did,
So at that point, the FR position for getting a conservative into the white house was to unseat a sitting republican president.
Bullshit.
Romney lost because he wasn't conservative. We need never to backtrack from conservatism, even if our supposedly most stalwart defenders sacrifice their conservative principles in the face of republicanism. FR is NOT associated with ANY Political Party. Or don't you believe JimRob???
Not to be untoward, but have you served in the military?
There have always been homos in the military.
I served with some dedicated, patriotic and effective homos.
DADT was just fine with everyone that was there as near as I could tell.
Go ahead then...
While you’re at it, you can define for me what this “conservatism” you speak of so highly, and that I am so obviously lacking, entails; and where the constitutional authority for it lies.
Yeah, it’s a trick question.
"I served with some dedicated, patriotic and effective homos."
"DADT was just fine with everyone that was there as near as I could tell."
Now the cover is coming off and the pro-homosexuals in the military, libertarian is coming out.
I can assure you, although never having served in the military, that homosexuals in the military have always been a rotten influence, it increased under DADT, and is now even more destructive that before.
Why do I know this? Because of reading articles by people in the military, comments by people in the military, and articles by experts on the military. That and knowing the nature of homosexual behavior and their agenda.
Homosexuals - iow, mentally ill sex pervets - do NOT belong in the military. The claim that “there have always been homos in the military” is specious. When George Washington was a general, a homosexual was caught trying to perform sodomy on another soldier. He was thrown out of the military that day - “drummed out”.
And that is how it should be.
I would say that the political activist who is against conservatism and adopts the title and politics of “libertarian” is clearly revealing that he has issues with conservatism.
Scott Walker is pro amnesty
I’m a two time vet, when people say that “There have always been homos in the military.”, then they are selling something, since they used to be rooted out if discovered.
Sure enough, we get the sales pitch “I served with some dedicated, patriotic and effective homos.”
They were supposed to be invisible, but somehow this guy was aware of a number of them, and of course they were “dedicated” and “patriotic”.
“DADT was just fine with everyone that was there as near as I could tell.”, no it wasn’t, it was one of the left’s greatest victories in American history, and naturally it legalized homosexuality in the military.
I missed all the homosexual glory when I was in, I couldn’t say that I ever served with a single one.
Is that another way of saying you don't know what you are talking about? That, perhaps, you're expressing an opinion on something you have no direct knowledge of?
Every service member I have ever known has known there were homos serving with them. As long as it wasn't "in your face", none I have met cared.
Now I'm sure there are those that DID care about it. I just never met one.
But I'm certain the fag shows have turned that corner for everyone. I'm betting there's a lot who care about it now.
Wow, you are more open and than most of our libertarians.
Me—””Even as the GOP nominee he was campaigning against the pro-life platform and running pro-abortion ads, and reaffirming his stance on gay scout leaders and the gay military.””
You—But I don’t think that’s those are the sole criteria by which you would judge a conservative.
I was contending that it would not be the sole criteria by which you would judge a conservative. You.
While those are baseline issues, they are not the only issues by which the movement is defined.
Otherwise, which not vote for one of the Democrats that holds the same positions?
That poster, George Washington, and centuries of American military men and Presidents seem to know more about what makes for an effective military for America, in regards to homosexuality, than you do.
This is why you kept ignoring the posts about gay issues and gay marriage in the military, federal employment and immigration.
You are libertarian on these issues.
So you’ll say nothing at all then?
Like I said: tell me where I’m not conservative enough to suit you, and I’ll certainly tell you why.
So far I’ve only seen some broad accusations and demonizing those you perceive as disagreeing with you.
As a libertarian you of course accept these in a candidate.
“Even as the GOP nominee he was campaigning against the pro-life platform and running pro-abortion ads, and reaffirming his stance on gay scout leaders and the gay military.”
He would not have won the nomination if he had been open about being libertarian on these issues.
I also don't support the open, fag-shows in the military.
But I do and did support DADT.
And what the hell does govt have to do with the Boy Scouts? How did that get in the mix?
Japan's credit bubble burst when it caught up to the US in terms of per capita GDP. Given that China's number is 1/7 of the US, I'd say China has quite a while to go before that bubble bursts. Now, you could say that the ending of credit bubbles caused the Asian crisis of the 90's. However, the Asian economies kept growing rapidly after the crisis. Indonesia's pre-crisis GDP per capita was $1,083 in 1997, and $3,594 in 2012. Thailand's number was $2,481 in 1997, and $5,390 in 2012. South Korea's number was $11,583 in 1997, and $22,589 in 2012. Malaysia's number was $4,601 in 1997, and $10,345 in 2012. Compare that to the US number of $31,553 in 1997 and $51,704 in 2012. While US GDP per capita has grown, it has grown slower than any of the Asian countries that headlined the Asian Crisis, each of which has since almost (or more than) doubled its income number.
The country that really stands out in this time interval is China, which went from a number of $771 in 1997 to $6,071 in 2012. That's almost an eight-fold per capita output increase, and probably the reason that China went from a rounding error on the revenue statements of most foreign companies to one of their top 3 markets (#1 for KFC, #2 for Coach and Tiffany).
Japan's credit bubble burst when it caught up to the US in terms of per capita GDP. Given that China's number is 1/7 of the US, I'd say China has quite a while to go before that bubble bursts. Now, you could say that the ending of credit bubbles caused the Asian crisis of the 90's. However, the Asian economies kept growing rapidly after the crisis. Indonesia's pre-crisis GDP per capita was $1,083 in 1997, and $3,594 in 2012. Thailand's number was $2,481 in 1997, and $5,390 in 2012. South Korea's number was $11,583 in 1997, and $22,589 in 2012. Malaysia's number was $4,601 in 1997, and $10,345 in 2012. Compare that to the US number of $31,553 in 1997 and $51,704 in 2012. While US GDP per capita has grown, it has grown slower than any of the Asian countries that headlined the Asian Crisis, each of which has since almost (or more than) doubled its income number.
The country that really stands out in this time interval is China, which went from a number of $771 in 1997 to $6,071 in 2012. That's almost an eight-fold per capita output increase, and probably the reason that China went from a rounding error on the revenue statements of most foreign companies to one of their top 3 markets (#1 for KFC, #2 for Coach and Tiffany).
As did every GOP contender in the 2012 primaries that I'm aware of.
Do you know of a GOP potential candidate this is not in support of DADT?
Or, any service member that is not?
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.