What about this Ron Paul fellow??????

Came across a very informative site that will let you know more about the man.

For the youtube people you have two interesting take's

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4oDx0Q50EJw

http://youtube.com/watch?v=p8rsMhQUFkA


Cool music too!!!

 

I am a libertarian conservative, Dr. Paul's candidacy and positions interest me although some of his positions are out there. He holds to the strict libertarian position of a weak foreign policy. I do wish more "conservatives" would be more like him. Are you listening George Bush????

 

Non-interventionist is not the same as weak. We can decline to intervene in other nations' affairs, while at the same time standing up for our own sovereignty.

I think old-line conservatives tend to be a lot closer to the Libertarian point of view than the neo-cons we have running the country now. Conservative used to mean fiscally responsible and non-interventionist.

 

You mean the United States of America first and foremost? What a novel concept that I as a legal US citizen expect my government to look out for my rights and wallet first before a non US citizen or some other country first.

 

Wonder what Ron Paul would think of this of this statement...written in 1999?


"The United States has unthinkingly embarked upon a neo-imperial policy that must involve us in viturally every great war of the coming century--and wars are the deaths of republics...if we continue on this course of reflexive interventions, enemies will one day answer our power with the weapon of the weak--terror, and eventually cataclysmic terrorism on U.S. soil...then liberty, the cause of the republic, will itself be in peril".

 

Sure you have the date right on that quote?

Source: Where The Right Went Wrong, by Pat Buchanan, p. 13-17&34-35 Sep 1, 2004

 

Actually it was reprinted in his book Where The Right Went Wrong....it originally appeared in his book A Republic, Not an Empire which was published in 1999.

 

No where qualified to answer for Ron Paul, however I am guessing that based on these articles that he would agree with most of it.

 

OK, but the first paragraph in the link I posted references Bush, and I don't think he was president in 1999.

 

I know that Bush was not president in 1999.....we had a felon named.....I mean fellow named Clinton.....:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

No matter when Buchanan said it I think that the intention is clear. If we decide to invade countries we need to follow the guidelines that our founders intended. That will greatly reduce the dissonance that we have experienced under Clinton and Bush and the military conflicts both have engaged us in.

 

Back to Flint Benson's question, based on what I have read about Ron Paul and what I heard him say in the debate, I tend to think he would agree with Pat Buchanan's statement as quoted above.

 

Part of the problem with that link, it is taking a paragraph from page 15 of Where The Right Went Wrong"The US has unthinkingly embarked upon a neoimperial policy that must involve us in virtually every great war of the coming century-and wars are the death of republics. If we continue on this course of reflexive interventions, enemies will one day answer our power with the weapon of the weak-terror, and eventually cataclysmic terrorism on US soil." and combining it with a paragraph from page 17 of Where The Right Went Wrong But for Bush this war was not, as Clausewitz would have it, an extension of politics, but a moral imperative that transcended politics. Bush holds that the war on terror is between good and evil and it will not end until we eradicate all terror networks of a global reach. Bush holds to a policy of preemptive and preventative war. This is a formula for endless conflict.

The first part starts out as: In my 1999 book, A Republic, Not an Empire, I warned of the certainty of blowback:"The US has unthinkingly embarked upon a neoimperial policy that must involve us in virtually every great war of the coming century-and wars are the death of republics. If we continue on this course of reflexive interventions, enemies will one day answer our power with the weapon of the weak-terror, and eventually cataclysmic terrorism on US soil".

By page 17 he is talking about President George W. Bush.

 

Actually KD, it was your statement above that got me to thinking about Pat Buchanan's book. It sounds just like something he would have written.

IMO, so many times candidates "without a chance" are written off as crackpots, when in actuality some of their main ideas may very well be ahead of the curve. I remember back in '92, '96, and 2000 people making fun of Perot and Buchanan for some of their views on immigration, jobs, etc. (I was as guilty as anyone). Now some of those views are much more mainstream and people can see the truth in them. (How many in '99 or 2000 would have guess how prophetic Buchanan's words were in his book?)

I hear the same things about Ron Paul having no chance because he doesn't have deep pockets filled with money. But before someone like Rudy G. calls for an apology from him like he did in the last debate, maybe more people should keep an open mind about what Ron Paul is actually saying, and not be so willing to give their vote up to one of the poll-leaders.

 

I agree with you about writing candidates off so quickly. Just so you know where I'm coming from, since you seem to be kind of new to this forum, I am a liberal Democrat, but I am not a crazy person (although some on the forum might disagree with that last part!). I disagree with a lot of what Pat Buchanan says, but I do find myself agreeing with him from time to time, much to my own surprise.

I thought Giuliani was way out of line in that last debate, but it seems to be working for him politically. I think he misconstrued or misrepresented what Ron Paul was saying, and the media let him get away with it.

Pat

 

Quickest way the Republicans lose is give Giuliani the nomination. Only way he would win is if it was against Clinton.

 

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. The prefix "neo" means "new". Neither George Bush nor anyone it his inner circle are new Republicans. George Bush, Richard Cheney, etc. have been registered Republicans for decades. You are obviously either a mindless dolt who has no word comprehension skills, or someone who needs to have a serious talk with their doctor about Alzheimer’s. Either way, get help before you continue to embarrass yourself.

 

I thought you wanted to elevate the debate? Yes, "neo" means new. That is the only thing you got right. To call someone a "neo-conservative" has nothing to do with when or even whether they registered as a Republican.

Conservative is a very old political term. Neo-conservative refers to a newer political philosophy. American politicians I would classify as conservative include Pat Buchanan, President Eisenhower, and President Teddy Roosevelt. The neo-conservatives include George Bush, Karl Rove, Grover Norquist.

Examples of policy differences:
Conservative values include fiscal responsibility. Neo-conservatives don't mind huge deficits, leaving a mountain of debt for our grandchildren.

Conservative values include non-interventionist foreign policies. Neo-conservatives believe it is fine to invade a sovereign nation on false pretenses and try to force democracy on them.

Now do you get it? I'm sorry, but I could not think of enough one syllable words to explain this, so I hope you can find someone to help you with the big words.

 

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. The term "con" represents "conservative" which is not the same as the term "Republican" as you wish to state. This would be a perfect example of a Strawman Fallacy. In case you do not know what that is, here is a link for you.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Obviously, you are mistaken and seem to have projeciton issues. You may wish to follow your own advice ... get help before you continue to embarrass yourself

 

Some research material in case there is more confusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy14.html

Conservative – Specifically a "fusionist" conservative of the National Review - Heritage Foundation mold. Someone who believes in traditional morality and capitalism, and the need for a limited government to allow both to flourish.

Neoconservative – A "neocon" is more inclined than other conservatives toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well.

Paleoconservative – "Paleocons" want less US involvement in foeign affairs than other conservatives and oppose mass immigration. They are also more favorably disposed toward the South and the idea of secession, or at least decentralization, than neoconservatives.

 

Could you not substitute liberal for Neo-conservatives?