On Jan 2, 10:03 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Once again.....How naive of you PlainOl......
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:10 AM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > his views on national security are asinine
> > ---
> > leaving the jews and muzzies to fight their own war is hardly asinine
>
> > choose sides carefully
>
> > On Dec 31 2011, 2:57 pm, GhostOfAdams <virtua...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > No thanks. I love his interpretation of the constitution, But his
> > > views on national security are asinine and his expectations about what
> > > a president can actually move forward and accomplish are wholly
> > > unrealistic.
> > > Again, No thanks.
>
> > > On Dec 31, 12:43 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Why Conservatives Should Support Ron PaulFriday, 30 December 2011 11:33
> > > > Dennis Behreandt
> > > > As Ron Paul has surged over recent weeks becoming a front-runner for
> > the Republican nomination despite mainstream attempts to derail his growing
> > popularity, among some conservatives, concern is growing.
> > > > Specifically, among those conservatives most concerned with foreign
> > policy, Ron Paul is viewed with skepticism, if not disdain. Support for the
> > Texas congressman, they say, will mean weakening America's position in the
> > world, leaving Israel weak and undefended, and giving Iran a free hand to
> > go nuclear. On the basis of these concerns, Paul's conservative critics
> > say, he would be bad, and possiblydangerous, for the country as president.
> > > > Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only would a Ron Paul
> > presidency help the country become economically stronger and militarily
> > more secure, it would reinvigorate the conservative cause.
> > > > To begin, it is necessary to put Ron Paul and the movement that
> > supports him into contextvis-a-visthe modern conservative movement at
> > large. Much continues to be made of Ron Paul as alibertarianrather than a
> > conservative. But while there may be some utility in considering Paul and
> > his supporters as libertarian, for some certainly are, it is more useful to
> > consider Paul an outgrowth, or an example of, American orthodoxy.
> > > > There is a subtle but important difference between an orthodox
> > political movement and a conservative political movement. In a broad sense,
> > those of a conservative mindset seek to save and preserve institutions
> > because they view those institutions as having demonstrated some
> > utilitarian value to culture and society simply by the virtue of their
> > existence. This was a theme explored by historian Jerry Z. Muller of the
> > Catholic University of America in the introduction to his bookConservatism:
> > An Anthology of Social and Political Thought from David Hume to the Present.
> > > > According to Muller, "The conservative defends existing institutions
> > because their very existence creates a presumption that they have served
> > some useful function, because eliminating them may lead to harmful,
> > unintended consequences, or because the veneration which attaches to
> > institutions that have existed over time makes them potentially usable for
> > new purposes."
> > > > Because existing institutions vary from nation to nation, conservatism
> > likewise varies from nation to nation. As a result, conservatives have
> > sought to save and preserve many things over the years in many countries.
> > Soviet conservatives sought to preserve Soviet institutions, for example.
> > An American conservative would look askance, for instance at an attempt to
> > paint the Soviet planning agency GOSPLAN as a vital and important
> > institution as it would violate the tenets of free enterprise most American
> > conservatives hold dear. Yet it would not be surprising to find that a
> > Soviet conservative might think that GOSPLAN should have been preserved.
> > > > In the United States, the institutions that tend to be of interest to
> > conservatives are of broadly two types. The first are those explicitly
> > created by the charter of government that brought the nation into being.
> > Therefore, American conservatism tends to be supportive of the separation
> > of powers among the branches of government. As a consequence of this, for
> > example, American conservatives often lament the prospect of judicial
> > tyranny or the tendency of modern presidents to rule by executive order,
> > which many see as infringing upon and diminishing the Constitutional role
> > of Congress. This also explains the seemingly contradictory position some
> > conservatives take of actually supporting the idea of a powerful,unitary
> > executiveas they see the Hamiltonian ideas of a more powerful presidency as
> > of central importance.
> > > > Second, American conservatives have generally been supportive of the
> > cultural institutions that they see as existing prior to the state. Among
> > these are defense of traditional values, defense of the family, and defense
> > of the idea of the common law. In both areas among conservatives these
> > things are valued primarily for theirutility. Because they exist, they must
> > therefor perform a useful function and we tamper with them at our own risk.
> > > > In contrast to the conservative point of view, the orthodox outlook
> > says that a given institution exists because it is in alignment with a
> > transcendental truth. Says Professor Muller: "...the orthodox defense of
> > institutions depends on belief in their correspondence to some ultimate
> > truth.... The orthodox theoretician defends existing institutions and
> > practices because they are metaphysicallytrue: the truth proclaimed may be
> > based on particular revelation or on natural laws purportedly accessible to
> > all rational men...."
> > > > It is from this latter point of view that we must understand the
> > phenomenon of Ron Paul. In the introduction to his bookLiberty Defined,
> > Paul places himself firmly within the orthodox American tradition by
> > acknowledging that he believes in natural rights that precede the
> > foundations of government. He writes: "The definition of liberty I use is
> > the same one that was accepted by Thomas Jefferson and his generation. It
> > is the understanding derived from the great freedom tradition, for
> > Jefferson himself took his understanding from John Locke (1632-1704)." Put
> > succinctly by Jefferson, this is the idea "that all men are created equal,
> > that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
> > that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These
> > are, to put it as Muller did, "natural and accessible by all rational men."
> > > > There is a substantial nexus between the orthodox American point of
> > view represented by Ron Paul and the modern American conservative movement.
> > The orthodox view holds that the rights enjoyed by individuals, including
> > to live, to build a family, to own property, to speak one's mind, to
> > associate with whom one wishes, etc., are inviolate and that governments
> > lack any legitimate interest in legislating in these areas. Meanwhile, the
> > conservative simply sees the outcomes of the exercise of these rights as
> > the institutions (the family, for instance) as worth protecting because of
> > its utility. But both the orthodox American and the conservative American
> > can agree on the value of the family and other such institutions. Moreover,
> > the explicit political institutions brought into being during the founding
> > era were created largely by orthodox American thinkers. In defending these
> > institutionsbecause they now existconservatives find themselves in
> > agreement with orthodox Americanists who defend them because in their view
> > it is morally right that they existedin their proper formin the first place.
> > > > Because there is a nexus of interests between the American orthodox
> > outlook and the conservative outlook, there should be a natural affinity
> > between the two. And while this has not necessarily been the case at least
> > since the 1950s, with both sides tending to look askance at one another,
> > the opportunity now exists for the two movements to work together for the
> > same goals. Consider some of the outcomes that are possible:Foreign
> > Affairs: Conservatives want the United States to be the preeminent power in
> > the world, both economically and militarily. The orthodox position cares
> > nothing for this as a goal in and of itself. Nonetheless, the orthodox
> > Americanist approach naturally creates conditions wherein the United
> > Statesmustbe the preeminent military and economic power. The orthodox
> > position is to call for the shrinkage of government down to
> > Constitutionally authorized levels (thus Ron Paul's plan to eliminate five
> > cabinet departments). The shrinkage of government means the government will
> > need to tax less and inflate the money supply to a lesser degree, leaving
> > vastly more money in the pockets of Americans, supercharging the free
> > enterprise system by leaving property in the hands of its rightful owners.
> > Under such conditions the U.S. will dominate the world economically because
> > all other nations will have, by comparison, larger and more intrusive
> > governments that disrupt their economies.Military Strength:
> > Counterintuitively, Ron Paul'sdesireto bring troops home would improve the
> > U.S. military's capabilities. Currently, with large deployments abroad,
> > both men and material tire and wear out. There are obvious costs involved
> > with regard to the necessary health care and maintenance this requires.
> > Less obviously, budgets for new and improved types of equipment come under
> > fire as the maintenance cost of keeping expeditionary forces in the field
> > grow. Over time this leads to a military with decreased war-making ability.
> > It is easy to see this starting to play out in the U.S. military. Warships
> > are increasingly old and are not being replaced. Frontline aircraft face
> > similar pressures. We currently fight with F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s, all
> > featuring designs dating to the 1960s. The B-52 bomber is older still, a
> > remnant of the
>
> ...
>
> 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment