Au contrare PlainOl'. I believe in an America that is "The" world power, with a very limited government predominately focused upon protecting its borders and it citizenry, providing for a strong national defense, and an America that is not isolationist. I don't believe that there is enough gold in the world to fund a national, much less an international currency, and I don't subscribe to a naive "Obamaesque/Paulesque" foreign policy that somehow believes that if we talk to murdering thugs who want to see Western Civilization as we know it destroyed, that everything will be alright.
Pretty plain and simple. Maybe I should be called, "PlainOl'American"? I seem to share the majority of Americans' viewpoint.....
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 10:10 AM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
Keith, let us address your question this time next year. When things
really blow up in our face in the middle east.
---
Keith believes in the interventionist policy
they are willing to sacrifice American interests for the animals in
the middle east
Internationalism is a political movement which advocates a greater
economic and political cooperation among nations for the theoretical
benefit of all. Partisans of this movement, such as supporters of the
World Federalist Movement, claim that nations should cooperate because
their long-term mutual interests are of greater value than their
individual short term needs.
Internationalism is by nature opposed to ultranationalism, jingoism,
realism and national chauvinism. Internationalism teaches that the
people of all nations have more in common than they do differences,
and thus that nations should treat each other as equals.
Washington advised the United States, in his Farewell Address, to
remain a neutral player in the international political game. He urged
the new republic to avoid conflicts and alliances with other nations.
Although he felt that economic ties with other nations should be
promoted to encourage trade and commerce, political ties should be
minimal. He was concerned that having close relations could force the
United States to unite with allies to promote their interest and be
drawn into their war.
Thomas Jefferson, stated as early as 1799 that "Commerce with all
nations, alliance with none, should be our motto", and in 1801 "I deem
[one of] the essential principles of our government [to be] peace,
commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances
with none."
On Aug 31, 12:09 pm, lbiglee75 <leroys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Keith, let us address your question this time next year. When things
> really blow up in our face in the middle east.
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Michael,
>
> > Do you consider Ron Paul's foreign policy "conservative"?
>
> > I also find it humorous, that all of the Ron Paul supporters are now crying
> > foul, now that Paul is getting all of the media attention that last week,
> > the Paul supporters were complaining that he wasn't receiving.....
>> >> and National Review, or such talk radio personalities as Rush Limbaugh, Sean
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:30 AM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> >> "Let us be blunt: The stone cold truth is that for all of their talk of
> >> "conservative" principles and the like, Paul's Republican opponents in
> >> Washington and the so-called "alternative" or "conservative" media are not
> >> now, nor have they ever been, genuinely conservative. Whether we are
> >> discussing Fox News contributors -- a shocking number of which are refugees
> >> from George W. Bush's administration -- the writers at The Weekly Standard
> >> Hannity, Bill Bennett and all of the rest, such "conservative" commentators
> >> aren't conservative at all; they are neoconservative."
>
> >> Ron Paul: Why a Top-tier Candidate Is Ignored by Republicans
> >> Written by Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.> >> In spite of the extent to which Paul has been ignored by the establishment
> >> Friday, 26 August 2011 00:00
>
> >> It is hard not to be amazed by the blackout of media coverage of Ron
> >> Paul's presidential campaign. Had Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum,
> >> Jon Huntsman, or any second-tier candidate been performing remotely as well
> >> as Paul has, he would no longer be regarded as a "second-tier" candidate. To
> >> the credit of such left-leaning outlets as Jon Stewarts' The Daily Show and
> >> The Huffington Post, this phenomenon has not gone unnoticed by everyone.
>
> >> Let's think about this.
>
> >> media in both of its leftist and rightist varieties, he unfailingly elicits> >> participated. A Fox News poll, of all places, shows that the overwhelming
> >> explosive applause in every GOP presidential primary debate in which he has
> >> majority of its respondents hold that Ron Paul achieved a decisive victory> >> A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released back in May showed that
> >> over all of the other candidates in the most recent debate in Iowa. Of 7,991
> >> "active" cities nationwide that participated in the poll, and 43,293 total
> >> votes, 27,459 people thought that Paul won the debate. Newt Gingrich came in
> >> second place -- with 5, 906 votes.
>
> >> Statistically speaking, Ron Paul practically tied with Michele Bachmann
> >> for first place in the Ames Straw Poll, a contest that is evidently so
> >> significant that "top-tier" contender Tim Pawlenty's third place showing
> >> compelled him to abandon his campaign. Bachmann beat Paul by a meager 152
> >> votes.
>
> >> among possible Republican contenders (Perry may not have been a> >> A Gallup poll from August 23 shows that if the election were held today,
> >> consideration as of yet), Paul stands the best chance of beating President
> >> Obama. This poll showed Obama leading Paul by only seven percentage points,
> >> while he led Romney by 11. Since then, however, things have changed.
>
> >> Mitt Romney would beat Obama by two percentage points (48 percent-46> >> this same poll has Obama beating Paul by (only) two points (47 percent-45
> >> percent) and Rick Perry would tie with him (at 47 percent). It is true that
> >> percent); but it has Obama beating "top-tier" candidate Bachmann by four> >> cherished "independent" vote, Paul leads Obama by three points. The
> >> points (48 percent-44 percent)! However, when it comes to that much
> >> significance of this vis-à-vis my contention that Paul is a top-tier
> >> candidate himself and should be recognized as such becomes obvious once we> >> among independents by this much (but only this much). "Top-tier" candidate
> >> grasp that Romney is the only other Republican candidate who leads Obama
> >> Perry leads Obama in this category by two points while "top-tier" candidate> >> In a Texas poll among "882 highly active Republican voters," these voters
> >> Bachmann trails Obama among independents by six points.
>
> >> and National Review, or such talk radio personalities as Rush Limbaugh, Sean> >> said that if the Texas primaries were held at the time that the poll was
> >> taken, they would vote for Congressman Paul before they would vote for any
> >> other Republican contender including their own Governor, Rick Perry (who
> >> was second choice).
>
> >> As I write this, a Gallup Presidential Nomination preference poll shows
> >> that Paul has leapt ahead of "top-tier" candidate Michele Bachmann and is
> >> now third place behind Perry and Romney. Twenty-nine percent of those polled
> >> prefer Perry; 17 percent are partial to Romney; and Paul picks up 13 percent
> >> of the vote against Bachmann's 10 percent.
>
> >> Polls fluctuate. In any event, they are no substitutes for actual votes.
> >> Still, the point here is not that Paul is likely to get his party's
> >> nomination or that he would actually win the general election if he did; in
> >> these propositions it is not my purpose to either affirm or deny. Rather,
> >> the point is only to show that by the very standards by which establishment
> >> pundits and pollsters determine top-tier candidates, Paul should be
> >> considered a top-tier candidate.
>
> >> But he is not.
>
> >> The reason for this, I think, is pretty clear.
>
> >> Even though he is the partisan for constitutional or "limited" government
> >> par excellence, Paul is despised and feared by the party of "limited
> >> government." That is, he is anathema to the GOP establishment, for while he
> >> has proved prescient regarding the economic collapse of 2008, and while an
> >> ever increasing number of Americans generally and Republican-minded voters
> >> in particular have gravitated toward embracing many of his views over the
> >> last three years, Paul's uncompromising repudiation of his party's foreign
> >> policy vision has earned him quite a few enemies within it.
>
> >> Let us be blunt: The stone cold truth is that for all of their talk of
> >> "conservative" principles and the like, Paul's Republican opponents in
> >> Washington and the so-called "alternative" or "conservative" media are not
> >> now, nor have they ever been, genuinely conservative. Whether we are
> >> discussing Fox News contributors -- a shocking number of which are refugees
> >> from George W. Bush's administration -- the writers at The Weekly Standard
> >> Hannity, Bill Bennett and all of the rest, such "conservative" commentators
> >> aren't conservative at all; they are neoconservative.
>
> >> In all fairness, it may be a lack of familiarity with the conservative> >> movement in America that accounts for why some of these folks wrongly, but
> >> intellectual tradition or even a reliable history of the conservative
> >> sincerely, confuse their commitment to neoconservatism with conservatism> >>http://www.thenewamerican.com/opinion/jack-kerwick/8751-ron-paul-why-...
> >> proper. As for many of them, though, I suspect that they know exactly what
> >> they are doing when they deceptively identify themselves as "conservative."
>
> >> My intention here is not to criticize Paul's detractors for being
> >> neoconservatives. The term "neoconservatism" is not, or at least should not,
> >> be interpreted as a slur. As I and others, including its apologists, have
> >> argued, neoconservatism is a distinct political-philosophical orientation,
> >> an expression of the Enlightenment liberal rationalism that continues to
> >> dominate our political imagination. But philosophically, neoconservatism is
> >> as far from classical conservatism as is socialism.
>
> >> There is no more shame in a neoconservative arguing and defending his
> >> convictions than there is shame in anyone else doing the same. There is,
> >> however, shame in a neoconservative pretending that he is something other
> >> than he is.
>
> >> And, like today's "progressives" who pretend they are not "socialists"
> >> because of the unpopularity of the idea of "socialism," our neoconservatives
> >> pretend they are "conservatives" because of the unpopularity of
> >> neoconservatism.
>
> >> To sum this all up, Ron Paul has proven to be, at the very least,
> >> competitive with the best that this GOP primary race has to offer. However,
> >> as long as his party remains dominated by neoconservatives, he will face an
> >> uphill battle.
>
>
> >> --
> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.> >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >> * Visit our other community athttp://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 seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://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.
--
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