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
---
so, you support using our military to protect our borders and deport
illegal alien/criminals and disagree with spending our tax dollars on
nation building, meddling in the affairs of foreign nations, and
defending israel?
thanks ... I know you're one of the good guys
On Sep 1, 10:57 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> <plainolameri...@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.....
>
> > > > 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
> > > >> and National Review, or such talk radio personalities as Rush
> > Limbaugh, Sean
> > > >> 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.
> > > >> 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.
>
> > > >> In spite of the extent to which Paul has been ignored by the
> > establishment
> > > >> media in both of its leftist and rightist varieties, he unfailingly
> > elicits
> > > >> explosive applause in every GOP presidential primary debate in which
> > he has
> > > >> participated. A Fox News poll, of all places, shows that the
> > overwhelming
> > > >> majority of its respondents hold that Ron Paul achieved a decisive
> > victory
> > > >> 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.
>
> > > >> A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released back in May showed
> > that
> > > >> among possible Republican contenders (Perry may not have been a
> > > >> 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.
>
> > > >> A Gallup poll from August 23 shows that if the election were held
> > today,
> > > >> Mitt Romney would beat Obama by two percentage points (48 percent-46
> > > >> percent) and Rick Perry would tie with him (at 47 percent). It is true
> > that
> > > >> this same poll has Obama beating Paul by (only) two points (47
> > percent-45
> > > >> percent); but it has Obama beating "top-tier" candidate Bachmann by
> > four
> > > >> points (48 percent-44 percent)! However, when it comes to that much
> > > >> cherished "independent" vote, Paul leads Obama by three points. The
> > > >> 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
> > > >> grasp that Romney is the only other Republican candidate who leads
> > Obama
> > > >> among independents by this much (but only this much). "Top-tier"
> > candidate
> > > >> Perry leads Obama in this category by two points while "top-tier"
> > candidate
> > > >> Bachmann trails Obama among independents by six points.
>
> > > >> In a Texas poll among "882 highly active Republican voters," these
> > voters
> > > >> 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
> > > >> and National Review, or such talk radio personalities as Rush
> > Limbaugh, Sean
> > > >> Hannity, Bill Bennett and all of the rest, such "conservative"
> > commentators
> > > >> aren't conservative at all; they are
>
> ...
>
> 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.
