from
his own district, only to vote Nay when the legislation was sure to
pass,
and only to keep his track record of "Voting Against Earmarks" in
check.
----
blah, blah, blah ... an accusation by a disgruntled associate
There are a lot of good things that Paul stands for. I hope he
continues
to be influential in the Republican Party.
---
just keep him away from the foreign policy front, eh?
Paul serves on the House Committees on Foreign Affairs and Financial
Services, and on the Joint Economic Committee. He is the chairman of
the Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and
Technology.
RP knows the cost of an interventionist policy.
One scoring method published in the American Journal of Political
Science found Paul the most conservative of all 3,320 members of
Congress from 1937 to 2002. Paul's foreign policy of nonintervention
made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted
against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. He advocates withdrawal from
the United Nations, and from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty. He endorses
free trade, rejecting membership in the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization as "managed trade".
He endorses increased border security and opposes welfare for illegal
aliens, birthright citizenship and amnesty; he voted for the Secure
Fence Act of 2006. He voted for the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Terrorists in response to the September 11 attacks, but
suggested war alternatives such as authorizing the president to grant
Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists. An
opponent of the Iraq War and potential war with Iran, he has also
criticized neoconservatism and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East,
arguing that both inadvertently cause terrorist reprisals against
Americans. Paul has stated that "Israel is our close friend" and that
it is not the place of the United States to "dictate how Israel runs
her affairs"
On Jan 4, 2:44 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You ignore the hypocrisy of Paul, who frequently would submit earmarks from
> his own district, only to vote Nay when the legislation was sure to pass,
> and only to keep his track record of "Voting Against Earmarks" in check.
>
> There are a lot of good things that Paul stands for. I hope he continues
> to be influential in the Republican Party.
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:38 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I am literally laughing out loud! "The Greatness of Ron Paul"?
> > ---
> > but compare his track record in federal and state government programs
> > to that of GWB or RR. Intellectually, they were misguided sheep who
> > were used by neocons.
>
> > Put the crack rock pipe down MJ.....I didn't even get to the author,
> > much
> > less the article....
> > ----
> > yeah, you prefer zionist warmongers and mentally ill liars like
> > Ronald "I Can't Recall" Reagan
>
> > On Jan 3, 8:52 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I am literally laughing out loud! "The Greatness of Ron Paul"?
>
> > > Put the crack rock pipe down MJ.....I didn't even get to the author, much
> > > less the article....
>
> > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:17 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > > > *The Greatness of Ron Paul
> > > > **By introducing moral imagination to the foreign-policy conversation,
> > > > the Republican candidate is doing the nation an important service.
> > > > *By Robert Wright
> > > > Jan 3 2012, 5:59 PM ET
>
> > > > A dispute has broken out<
> >http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/is-ron-paul-setting-b...>among
> > fans of Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy about whether
> > > > he's a strategic liability. Paul, says<
> >http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/01/crackpots-messengers>Kevin
> > Drum, is such a "toxic, far-right, crackpot messenger" that "the only
> > > > thing he's accomplishing is to make non-interventionism even more of a
> > > > fringe view in American politics than it already is."
>
> > > > It's certainly true that Paul's hawkish critics are using his weirder
> > > > ideas and checkered past to try and make non-interventionism synonymous
> > > > with creepiness. But, whatever their success, Paul is making one
> > > > contribution to the foreign policy debate that could have enduring
> > value.
>
> > > > It doesn't lie in the substance of his foreign policy views (which I'm
> > > > largely but not wholly in sympathy with) but in the way he explains
> > them.
> > > > Paul routinely performs a simple thought experiment: He tries to
> > imagine
> > > > how the world looks to people *other than Americans*.
>
> > > > This is such a radical departure from the prevailing American mindset
> > that
> > > > some of Paul's critics see it as more evidence of his weirdness. A
> > video
> > > > montage <http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/diss-1.html>meant
> > to discredit him shows him taking the perspective of Iran. After
> > > > observing that Israel and America and China have nukes, he asks about
> > > > Iranians, "Why wouldn't it be natural that they'd want a weapon?
> > > > Internationally they'd be given more respect."
>
> > > > Can somebody explain to me why this is such a crazy conjecture about
> > > > Iranian motivation? Wouldn't it be reasonable for Iranian leaders,
> > having
> > > > seen what happened to nukeless Saddam Hussein and nukeless Muammar
> > Qaddafi,
> > > > to conclude that maybe having a nuclear weapon would get them more
> > > > respectful treatment?
>
> > > > Paul's error is clear: He's departed from approved
> > > > Republican-presidential-candidate talking points, according to which
> > the
> > > > only explanation for an Iranian nuclear program is a desire to destroy
> > > > Israel. (Even Jon Huntsman, supposedly one of the more sensible
> > Republicans
> > > > on foreign policy, seems to be a slave to the talking points: It's the
> > > > Huntsman campaign that created the video montage in question!)
>
> > > > A favorite Paul pedagogical device is to analogize foreign situations
> > to
> > > > American ones. A campaign ad<
> >http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/ron-pauls-in-our-...>promoted
> > by a Paul-supporting super PAC begins by asking us to imagine
> > > > Russian or Chinese troops in Texas. The point is that this is how our
> > > > occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan look to locals.
>
> > > > I've long thought that the biggest single problem in the world is the
> > > > failure of "moral imagination"--the inability or unwillingness of
> > people to
> > > > see things from the perspective of people in circumstances different
> > from
> > > > their own. Especially incendiary is the failure to extend moral
> > imagination
> > > > across national, religious, or ethnic borders.
>
> > > > If a lack of moral imagination is indeed the core problem with
> > America's
> > > > foreign policy, and Ron Paul is unique among presidential candidates in
> > > > trying to fight it, I think you have to say he's doing something great,
> > > > notwithstanding the many non-great and opposite-of-great things about
> > him
> > > > (and notwithstanding the fact that he has in the past failed to extend
> > > > moral imagination across all possible borders).
>
> > > > Paul's hawkish detractors may succeed in using him to taint a
> > > > non-interventionist foreign policy. Even so, if in the meanwhile Paul
> > gets
> > > > enough people exercising their moral imaginations, maybe doves will
> > get the
> > > > last laugh.
>
> > > >http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/the-greatness-of-.
> > ..
>
> > > > --
> > > > 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment