interventionist policy as imperialist
do you want to be happy or do you want to be right?
On Nov 24, 9:48 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dr. Paul clearly made his bed during the last debate, sealing his fate as a
> crackpot. Paul's political career is doomed, even his chances as a cabinet
> member and sharing his fiscal insight will be no more.
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 6:47 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > *Ron Paul vs. the Rest of the GOP Presidential Field on Foreign Policy
> > * Brian <http://reason.com/people/brian-doherty> Doherty<http://reason.com/people/brian-doherty>| November 23, 2011
>
> > Without Ron Paul in the mix, last night's debate would have been more a
> > bidding up of hostility to foreigners (except Israel) than any actual arena
> > of opposing ideas on the future of American foreign policy.
>
> > Paul started off talking of "needless and unnecessary wars" making us less
> > safe and beggering our coffers; probably slipped by using Timothy McVeigh
> > as an example of how normal legal procedures can deal with terrorism (and I
> > wish he'd have challenged Ed Meese on the factual significance of these
> > alleged 42 terror assaults that Patriot Act has stopped; aren't they in
> > fact mostly ginned-up nonsense such as Jacob Sullum blogged about<http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/23/is-the-government-catching-terroris...>earlier today?) since it allowed Gingrich to claim that the real goal are
> > legal procedures that make sure nothing bad ever happens. Paul had a good
> > rescue by stressing the threat to liberty of priviliging stopping crimes
> > above any other concern, but I wonder how resonant such concerns are.
>
> > Paul reminded us that we might not want to give the president the sole
> > power to assassinate Americans on his say so; that Israel can likely make
> > the most intelligent decision on their own as to whether to start attacking
> > Iranian alleged nuclear site and we should neither be dictating such
> > decisions nor committing to help with them; that trying to buy friendship
> > overseas with foreign aid doesn't always work; that foreign aid isn't
> > necessary for overseas development and in fact is often more like making
> > poor people here support rich people over there; and kept reminding his
> > fellow alleged fiscal conservatives that foreign policy has real financial
> > costs that they are never thinking of.
>
> > Paul also last night hit the drug war as "another war we ought to cancel,"
> > at length, concluding "the federal war on drugs is a total failure" with
> > specific hat tips toward the absurdity of federal assaults on states with
> > medical pot; and that meddling in the Middle East is what gins up terror
> > against us in the Middle East, with his usual calls to empathetic
> > understanding, considering what we would think/do if other countries did to
> > us what we blithely do to other countries--"it's just looking for trouble,
> > why don't we mind our own business?"
>
> > Paul's most summational quotable quote, applicable to not only foreign
> > policy but so much about the current plans and ambitions of the U.S.
> > government: "It's a road to disaster. We better wake up."
>
> > Here's the Paul-centric highlights clip from last night:
>
> > *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZAW2spbZys&feature=player_embedded
>
> > *In other Paul observations and news:
>
> > *Paul as the only voice last night against racial profiling<http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/162771/ron-paul-the-only-candidate-to...>in the name of the war on terror.
>
> > *AEI sums up the debate<http://www.aei.org/article/foreign-and-defense-policy/republican-hope...>it co-sponsored, giving as much attention to Jon Huntsman's wan
> > anti-nation-building comments as to Paul's concerted assault on the roots
> > of GOP and American foreign policy.
>
> > *Glenn Greenwald from *Salon* attacks the nature and character<http://www.salon.com/2011/11/23/what_endless_war_looks_like/singleton/>of the interlocutors at the debate, and hat-tips to Paul's rare sense:
>
> > It was like a carnival of war criminals, warmongers, torturers, and
> > petty tyrants: Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese, best known for his 1980s
> > war on pornography, was dredged up to demand that the government be vested
> > with more Patriot Act powers (because he's a believer in individual liberty
> > and small government); there was long-time supporter of Ahmad Chalabi<http://www.aei.org/article/foreign-and-defense-policy/regional/middle...>and a war
> > on Iran <http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/pletka_danielle>,
> > Danielle Pletka; Iraq War propagandist and torture<http://washingtonindependent.com/39988/more-on-wolfowitz-and-torture> regime
> > architect<http://washingtonindependent.com/39988/more-on-wolfowitz-and-torture>Paul Wolfowitz; and Fred Kagan of the mighty
> > Kagan warrior family<http://www1.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/16/neonepotism/index....>.
> > But remember: as the supremely "objective" CBS' Bob Schieffer made clear in
> > his snickering, scornful interview on
> > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXvHPkRHBvk&feature=feedu> Face the Nation<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXvHPkRHBvk&feature=feedu>this weekend, it is Ron Paul who is crazy and bizarre for suggesting that
> > U.S. aggression played a role in motivating 9/11 and for being worried that
> > bellicose actions against Iran are making things worse and may lead to war.
>
> > *From Paul's campaign web site blogger Jack Hunter, a set of media stars giving
> > Paul props<http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/11/23/paul-vs-romney-tweets-from-last...>for schooling Romney last night on the myth of defense cuts.
>
> > *The Christian Science Monitor from a few days ago collecting examples of
> > major media now taking Paul seriously<http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1120/Ron-Paul-s...>,
> > in a story that was front-page linked on Drudge. While I don't follow
> > Drudge meticulously, various Paulistas believe this might have been his
> > first big-time positive play for Paul on that site, which they see in
> > itself as a further sign of Paul's reputational rise.
>
> > *In a poll commissioned by Paul-supporting superpac RevolutionPAC, Paul
> > actually is winning in Iowa<http://www.revolutionpac.com/2011/11/new-iowa-poll-places-ron-paul-fi...>with 25 percent. Here's why they think their poll is better than others:
>
> > The TeleResearch survey is the first to incorporate disaffected
> > Democrats and Independents who will not vote to reelect Obama and will
> > instead crossover to participate in the Iowa Republican Caucus, as well as
> > likely Republican caucus-goers.
> > Survey sample size is approximately 2,900, with almost 700 likely
> > Republican caucus-goers. Indiana's TeleResearch Corp., which has been
> > polling voters for more than 18 years, reports that the margin of error is
> > less than 3%.
> > Factoring in both Republican caucus-goers and disaffected Democrats and
> > Independents who've indicated that they will participate in the Iowa
> > Republican Caucus, Ron Paul leads at 25%, with an approximate 4-point
> > advantage over Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain.
>
> >http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/23/ron-paul-vs-the-rest-of-the-gop-pre...
>
> > --
> > 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment