Skip to comments.Why a Tea Party conservative now supports Ron Paul...including his foreign policy
Posted on 12/16/2011 7:48:40 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Ask any conservative about Ron Paul and you will usually hear the following statement: "I love him on fiscal policy but his foreign policy is naive and dangerous." You can also throw in the obligatory "He hates Israel." If someone had asked me about Paul from 9/12/01 through October of 2011, I'd have said the exact same things.
Something about my certitude always felt a bit uncomfortable, though, because I admired the "good parts" of Ron Paul (and later, his son Rand). Having participated in the Tea Party movement since its inception, and then witnessing the phony propaganda concocted to invalidate it, my BS meter began to pin whenever I heard (or spoke) harsh rhetoric denouncing Ron Paul. Since the contradiction bugged me, I decided to take the advice of my twenty-year-old son and read Ron Paul's book, Revolution. This required me to consider ideas which were once unthinkable. I undertook the mission with the promise to think outside my conservative box.
After reading the book, I came away with a completely different understanding of Ron Paul and his philosophy. I'm hoping my Tea Party compatriots, fellow conservatives, and all Americans will step outside their own comfort zones to do the same. It is vital that our nation seriously consider the important constitutional concepts and defense of liberty that Ron Paul espouses.
Today, the Middle East is falling to Islamic rule like a series of dominos. The supposed "friendly Arab nations" want our troops out of their land and threaten to side with our enemies. Our soldiers are hamstrung by politically correct rules of engagement that make them sitting ducks. Our economy is collapsing under the weight of our debt (a good portion of which goes to fund our worldwide military adventures),
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Now he is up to several good ideas from one or two.
In other words, we're either going to be isolationists because Paul implements it - something we could change after 4 or 8 years, or we're going to be isolationists because we're flat broke and our economy has collapsed to the point we will be impotent on the world stage.
Precisely. It's nail meet head. We've got two choices -- regroup an reorganize, or collapse -- and Ron Paul is the only one telling the truth on that one.
What none of the strategic thinkers around here have figured out yet is that there would actually be a great advantage for Conservatives to a Ron Paul presidency with Ron Paul as a libertarian: When Ron Paul goes after government departments and entitlement benefits with a chainsaw -- and the Democrats are screaming in pain -- hardcore Conservatives would actually look like compassionate Moderates for a change -- and Liberals would look like the communists they are. A Ron Paul presidency would be an entire paradigm shift for American politics that would define the lines again and forever obliterate the Republicrat mindset.
Was listening to Rush this morning and heard sound bites from the debate. Ron Paul is crazier than I thought.
...and if he goes third party we have Perot all over again and the re-election of Barry, which is completely unacceptable.
One day, they are teaparty activists, the next, OWS protesters.
I say this as someone who has ALREADY voted for Paul in the past, for President, last time when he ran as a Libertarian, so I am not a hater, its just a shame that he goes over the deep end.
I was at the first national Tea Party on April 15th 2009 in NYC. There were libertarian nitwits with Ron Paul and John Gault signs all over the place then, too. Libertarianism appeals to a small percentage who always refuse to think their simple solutions through to their logical conclusion. Because their numbers are small, they are constantly trying to glom on to whatever political movement will get them the most attention.
From its inception, the Tea Party was about smaller government, lower taxes, and family values. But it was also about restoring America's standing in the world. Ron Paul wants to do a 180 from that last cause, and he is purposely dishonest about his intentions. His supporters have no business polluting this conservative website with their stupidity.
Exactly. I only meant in the unlikely chance that he is the GOP nominee....
My apologies as I was not as clear as I should have been. I understood that and my comment was not directed specifically at you but at the frustration of a potential 2012 scenario.
For the good of this country and future generations, we need to do whatever we can to send the BHO regime back to Chicago in January, 2013.
The President doesn’t have to be a dictator, and he doesn’t have to shrink the entire government to make a huge difference.
He can simply refuse to appoint cabinet members to various positions and those departments will be nullified. He can choose which laws to enforce and to what level - if immigration laws can be ignored, so can others. How effective would Labor or EPA or Education be with no one at the top? Unless Democrats had majorities in both houses, there’s little chance they could do anything fast enough to make a difference.
PLus, our government is structured to keep any branch from power grabs, it’s not structured to prevent a branch from voluntarily giving up its powers. If a President Paul fires the whole department of Education, what’s Congress going to do about it? Seize control? They can barely manage themselves on a good day. It would be tied up for years before the SC got to it just like Obamacare.
If we had a solid two years with entire departments eliminated, I think enough people would see that we never needed them in the first place.
If there was one other candidate in the running who was clearly in favor of fighting only when we go all out to kill the bad guys and their enablers, rather than fighting decade long nation-building “wars” under the Care Bears Rules of Engagement, Paul’s support would be a lot less.
and I believe that if we cut the money strings to Israel we also cut the leash to the Israeli Bulldog that will then free it to eat up Islam until it says uncle or is dead. Either way is good for me.
Cut aid to Israel and Iran would be de-mullahed in 3 weeks by Israel.
we’re either going to be isolationists because Paul implements it - something we could change after 4 or 8 years, or we’re going to be isolationists because we’re flat broke
also can be said about the trade deficit. Since we lose around 40 billion a month, as isolationist we would lose zero a month. but billions would stay and circulate in the USA.
Yep. When I see in one 48 hour period our Government pass a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR STOP GAP and then an INDEFINITE DETENTION BILL......I wonder if this keeps up, will the Iranian mullahs find anything worth taking over?
Yep. I’d need a much more hawkish vp.
You know, we have had years and years of Conservatives and years and years of the war on terror and it has done nothing. We still has Islam as our enemy.
Time to wage real war or not at all. And Declar it FIRST. Thats what Paul says. I’m for that.
In practical terms, Islam has a billion people, so it is pretty much impossible to fight in real terms. But this does not mean it wins, either. It means we need a multi-pronged approach to rendering it less harmful.
To start with, we long ago realized that we had to cull the tiny fraction of Muslims who had the spunk to both join terrorist organizations, to train, be armed and travel to other countries to conduct acts of terrorism, as well as those living amongst us willing to do so.
Afghanistan and later Iraq proved to be perfect roach motels to lure these dangerous and rare ones out of their dozen or more home countries, to travel and concentrate to fight our soldiers, rather than staying anonymous and attack our civilians.
And once these terrorists are killed, there are no ready replacements of their caliber, so the sword of Islam is dulled.
I mentioned the serious risk of homegrown terrorism, which we have also addressed by taking our security seriously.
Next, we have recognized that many people are only Muslims because they are forced to be. And given the opportunity to leave that onerous religion, they take it. So if we can provide such opportunities in the more coercive nations, we seriously undermine the more radical states.
It’s a process. But unless barbarity annihilates civilization, civilization almost always wins.
Have you all seen this?
I have more in common with Ron Paul than anyone else running. If any of the other candidates win we will not get real change. They are all different sides of the same coin. If we can get half of what Ron Paul wants to do done we will be in a much better place as a country.
Russia made Afghanistan a huge roach motel. It didn’t stop attacks on our African Embassys, or the Cole. Lebannon’s roach hotel didn’t stop the attacks against Israel. I don’t believe the roach motel theory works at all.
But you nuke a few islamic cities and tell the rest of islam they are on the short list and they will .....as you say.... given the opportunity to leave that onerous religion, they take it. Unless we can replace nuking them with quick covert government overthrows that guarantee FREEDOM OF RELIGION, many will have to die.
And although it true that many are in fear of speaking out against islam in mulah controlled countries, the same comportment of moslums is seen in places where moslums live in complete freedom. England and the USA and France. Did anyone see even one single moslum on the face of the earth cheer the death of Osama?
The vast majority like being feared by and protected by Freedom loving people. They need to learn to respect U.S. as well........and right now they only see us as infidels....every last one of them.
It is estimated that the Russians killed between 150-180,000 fighters, but the overwhelming majority were either Afghans or Pakistanis. There was no worldwide push for jihad to free Afghanistan.
In large part this was because the US sponsored the northern Afghans to do most of the heavy lifting. They were more nationalist than Taliban, and were both ethnically and religiously different. For the most part, the Taliban just stayed in Pakistan, hoping, with some justification, to flood in and take power once the Soviets were kicked out by the northern alliance.
At the same time, OBL was building his organization parallel to, and friendly with the Taliban, likely headquartered in Quetta. So when the Taliban took power, it was a natural outgrowth that al-Qaeda would move in.
So the bottom line is that to some extent, Afghanistan was to the Soviets what Vietnam was to us, but with roles reversed. And while the Soviets tried to use some US Indian Wars tactics, that was about the end of the parallels.
Any recent history of head injury/brain damage?
Can you provide an example of Ron Paul advocating National Socialism?
Can you provide a contemporary example in which Ron Paul suggests that he might run as an independent? It aeems to me that It seems to me that the idea only comes from Paul's detractors.
Well, we’ll know down the road, wont we?
If any of the other candidates win we will not get real change