> Random House College Dictionary states this "Politician suggests the
> schemes and devise of a person who engages in politics for a party's
> end or his own advantage. [a crafty politician} Statesman, suggests the
> eminent ability, foresight, and unselfish devotion to the interest of his country. of a person dealing with affairs of state ". Maybe we should elect more statesmen.
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:23 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ron Paul is more of a Statesman than a Politician
>> ---
>> and would be an even better potus
>>
>> but repubs, dems, and rest need not worry ... they'll get another
>> potus who supports US interventionist policies in the middle east and
>> the rest of the planet, feels obligated to protect oil and israel, and
>> will diminish American values by opening the border to even more
>> immigrants from non-white countries
>>
>> know the enemy
>>
>> On Aug 20, 11:00 am, lbiglee75 <leroys...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I would ask one question about Ron Paul and the other candidates and
>>> it is this. How many times compared to the others have you heard Ron
>>> Paul say what he would do other than what we should do as a nation?
>>> Ron Paul is more of a Statesman than a Politician
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > What I find both humorous, but at the same time troublesome, is that the
>>> > writer of this epistle doesn't have his facts correct. "They" being
>>> > those that call themselves "Libertarian"; really "don't get it".
>>>
>>> > On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 8:59 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Tell me, just how many more times must this single encounter be
>>> >> "translated" so we can understand it??
>>>
>>> >> That so many fine authors want to put such a short list of short
>>> >> encounters in front of me with such long in-depth definitions and
>>> >> explanations is so very Republican/Democratic of them.
>>>
>>> >> I was under the impression that the best thing about Paul supporters
>>> >> was that they "get it". Those that don't "get it" probably never
>>> >> will.
>>>
>>> >> Just what is to be gained by boring the piss out of me and making sure
>>> >> that I ignore the next 20 minute article about a 5 minute
>>> >> conversation?
>>>
>>> >> Answer... I will ignore all that follow whether about new info or
>>> >> not.
>>>
>>> >> On Aug 19, 5:53 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>>> >> > Friday, August 19, 2011Ron Paul s Exchange with Santorum Says It Allby
>>> >> > Jacob G. Hornberger
>>> >> > The exchange over Iran between Ron Paul and Rick Santorum in the recent
>>> >> > Republican presidential debate goes a long way in explaining why the
>>> >> > mainstream statists, including those in the Republican Party and the
>>> >> > mainstream media, wish that libertarians would just go away.
>>> >> > Santorum pointed to 1979, the year of the Iranian revolution, when the
>>> >> > Iranian people took U.S. diplomats hostage and held them in captivity for
>>> >> > about a year. Santorum pointed to that pivotal event to show that the United
>>> >> > States has been at war with Iran ever since.
>>> >> > For statists, Santorum s point is the end of the discussion. The U.S.
>>> >> > government is good. It is innocent. It was just minding its own business
>>> >> > when Iranian revolutionaries attacked our country without any reason
>>> >> > whatsoever.
>>> >> > We saw the same phenomenon after the 9/11 attacks. They just hate us for
>>> >> > our freedom and values, U.S. officials cried. We were just minding our own
>>> >> > business when the terrorists decided to kill Americans. The sentiment was
>>> >> > the mindset of American statists.
>>> >> > And what happens if a libertarian says, Wait a minute. The story isn t
>>> >> > that simple. Let s look at what motivated these foreigners to do these
>>> >> > things. Let s examine what the U.S. government has been doing in foreign
>>> >> > affairs ?
>>> >> > Well, we all know what happens. The statists go ballistic, both in
>>> >> > politics and in mainstream newspapers across the land. Oh, you re blaming
>>> >> > America! You hate our country! You must be a terrorist yourself. America,
>>> >> > love our government or leave our country!
>>> >> > In fact, Paul s exchange with Santorum wasn t the first time this has
>>> >> > happened. Recall that famous debate exchange between Paul and Rudy Guliani
>>> >> > four years ago. Paul pointed out that the terrorists came here on 9/11 to
>>> >> > kill us because our government had been over there for years killing them.
>>> >> > Guliani went ballistic, as did his fellow statists on the stage. Their
>>> >> > fellow statists in the mainstream media went crazy too. No one, and
>>> >> > certainly not a presidential candidate, is supposed to say such things. It s
>>> >> > considered beyond the pale. Everyone knows that our government is good,
>>> >> > wise, and benevolent, believes in freedom and democracy, and would never do
>>> >> > anything bad to foreigners.
>>> >> > Yet, that s actually when Ron Paul s 2008 presidential campaign took
>>> >> > off. Tens of thousands of ordinary Americans instinctively knew that here
>>> >> > was a man who wasn t feeding them pabulum. Here was a man who had the
>>> >> > courage to speak the truth about U.S. foreign policy. He was willing to
>>> >> > observe openly that the emperor wore no clothes.
>>> >> > And that s why the statists wish that Ron Paul would just go away. It s
>>> >> > why they wish libertarians would just go away. That s why they resent us. We
>>> >> > cause people to confront reality, which is sometimes not a comfortable thing
>>> >> > to do. In a sense, we libertarians are therapists, people who help their
>>> >> > patients confront realities that are oftentimes quite painful to face.
>>> >> > Look at the drug war. The statists just want to keep doing what they ve
>>> >> > been doing for 40 years -- busting drug sellers, busting drug users, and
>>> >> > locking people up for the rest of their lives. Along come libertarians and
>>> >> > point out the utter inanity of the whole thing. The never-ending deaths,
>>> >> > destruction, corruption, violence, gang wars, and infringements on privacy
>>> >> > and liberty. Libertarians say: End this idiocy by legalizing drugs.
>>> >> > But that s considered outside the pale for the statists. It s okay to
>>> >> > call for reform of such programs. But abolition? Oh my gosh! I wish those
>>> >> > libertarians would just shut up and go away. Everything is working out so
>>> >> > fine without them.
>>> >> > Look at how Ron Paul responded to Santorum. He explained to Santorum
>>> >> > that the history of bad relations between Iran and the United States did not
>>> >> > begin in 1979 but rather in 1953. That was the year that the CIA, the U.S.
>>> >> > government s secret intelligence force, entered into Iran and ousted the
>>> >> > democratically elected prime minister of the country, Mohammed Mossadegh, a
>>> >> > man who had been named Time Magazine s Man of the Year.
>>> >> > Why did the CIA do that? No, not for freedom and democracy, as the
>>> >> > statists would like to believe. Instead, the CIA interfered with the
>>> >> > internal affairs of Iran to retaliate for Mossadegh s nationalization of
>>> >> > British oil concessions. Yes, the CIA s anti-democracy coup was about oil,
>>> >> > not freedom and democracy.
>>> >> > In fact, having ousted a democratically elected prime minister, the CIA
>>> >> > proceeded to install a non-elected brutal dictator, the Shah of Iran, into
>>> >> > power. The CIA then proceeded to train and work closely with the Shah s
>>> >> > counterpart to the CIA, his brutal and tortuous Savak intelligence force.
>>> >> > The Shah then proceeded to impose one of the harshest dictatorial regimes in
>>> >> > the world on the Iranian people, with the full support of the CIA and the
>>> >> > rest of the U.S. government.
>>> >> > Of course, U.S. officials didn t care one whit what the Shah was doing
>>> >> > to the Iranian people. All that mattered was that he was our friend.
>>> >> > Imagine if Savak had assassinated John Kennedy in order to get Lyndon
>>> >> > Johnson into power. How would the American people feel about that some 50
>>> >> > years later? I ll tell you: the deep anger and rage would still be palpable.
>>> >> > Well, that s how the Iranian people felt about the U.S. government in
>>> >> > 1979. That s why they took the U.S. officials hostage. They were still angry
>>> >> > about the CIA s ouster of their democratically elected prime minister. They
>>> >> > were still angry about the Iranian people who had been brutalized,
>>> >> > incarcerated, and tortured by the Shah and his goons, with the full support
>>> >> > and cooperation of the CIA.
>>> >> > That s what Santorum and his fellow statist cohorts don t want to
>>> >> > confront. They want to continue living their blissful little lives of
>>> >> > delusion. For them, the federal government is god. It is all-good. It is
>>> >> > all-knowing. It is all-powerful. It doesn t support dictatorships. It
>>> >> > believes in freedom and democracy. It never does bad things to people, not
>>> >> > even conduct syphilis experiments on them.
>>> >> > That s the myth that is inculcated in every public school across America
>>> >> > and in most government-licensed private schools. That s the mindset that is
>>> >> > produced in people like Santorum and the other statist candidates on that
>>> >> > stage.
>>> >> > It s also the mindset of the mainstream news media reporters asking the
>>> >> > questions. That s why they feel so comfortable with the statists on stage.
>>> >> > That s why they feel so uncomfortable whenever Ron Paul is answering their
>>> >> > questions.
>>> >> > Let s face it: the statists wish that libertarians had never been born
>>> >> > and are extremely concerned about the rising popularity of libertarianism
>>> >> > among the American people. That s why they ve done their best to lock the
>>> >> > Libertarian Party out of the political process with their inane
>>> >> > ballot-restriction barriers. That s why they kept Ron Paul, a long-serving
>>> >> > congressman, out of the early presidential debates four years ago. That s
>>> >> > why they are keeping Gary Johnson, a popular two-term governor of New
>>> >> > Mexico, out of the current round of debates. After all, Johnson, another
>>> >> > libertarian, is also calling for ending the drug war and bringing the troops
>>> >> > home. Why should it surprise us that they re locking him out of the
>>> >> > presidential debates, as they tried to do four years ago with Ron Paul?
>>> >> > They think that if they can just keep hewing to their little myths and
>>> >> > delusions and keep teaching them to their children in their
>>> >> > government-approved schools, everything will be fine. If they could only
>>> >> > shut out those pesky libertarians who confront people with truth and
>>> >> > reality, everything would be hunky dory.
>>> >> > But truth will out, which is why so many people are gravitating to Ron
>>> >> > Paul. They instinctively know that he s speaking truth to power, and they
>>> >> > can see that power doesn t like it.
>>> >> > Ron Paul summed up the problem most eloquently when, in response to Rick
>>> >> > Santorum, he stated, We just plain don t mind our own business. That s our
>>> >> > problem.
>>> >> > Of course, that s the problem with statists. They mind
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> read more »
>>
>> --
>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>
>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>
>
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment