The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: BAC on February 08, 2012, 12:50:44 PM
-
Opening a can of worms.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48494 (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48494)
Anyone But Ron Paul for President
by Gary Bauer
01/02/2012
Some of the most indelible images from September 11, 2001, are of video footage of cheering Muslim crowds in the streets of Ramallah and East Jerusalem as news of the attacks swept across the Middle East.
Is there any doubt that if Ron Paul is elected President, his inauguration will elicit similar jubilation in the cities of America’s worst enemies?
Words such as “noninterventionist” and “isolationist” have been used to describe Paul’s foreign policy views. A more apt word is “dangerous.”
I like the Texas congressman’s opposition to Big Government. But his foreign policy and national security views are so dangerous that they should disqualify him for the presidency.
It is tempted to compare Paul’s foreign policy views to those of President Obama. Both seem to enjoy stressing America’s sins, real and imagined, and both naively believe a little diplomacy is all that’s needed to appease rogue regimes such as Iran.
Like Obama, Paul wants terrorists caught in the U.S. to be treated not as enemy combatants but as common criminals. Also like Obama, Paul supported the building of a mosque near Ground Zero in New York City, insisting that opposition to its construction was “all about hate and Islamophobia.”
But Paul’s foreign policy views are much more radical than Obama’s. Paul disapproves of Obama’s drone strikes on terrorists, and would shutter U.S. military bases abroad. Paul says he would not have ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden. You’d be hard-pressed to find one in a million Americans who would agree with that.
Paul’s foreign policy views would stand out even in a field of the most liberal Democrats. In fact, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, perhaps the most left-wing presidential candidate ever, has said he and Paul “agree tremendously on international policy.” Paul says he’d consider naming Kucinich to his Cabinet—perhaps as head of a newly formed “Department of Peace.”
But Paul’s views of America and its place in the world go beyond the liberal appeasement of Obama or Kucinich. In fact, in their sheer conspiratorial lunacy, they align more closely with Obama’s former pastor and mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Consider both Wright’s and Paul’s reaction to 9/11. Wright described the attacks as “America’s chickens coming home to roost,” and said of America’s government, “We’re the same as al-Qaeda.”
Paul has said that America’s foreign policy was a “major contributing factor” to the attacks, and he allegedly wanted to vote against authorizing war in Afghanistan. Both Wright and Paul are conspiracy theorists. According to a former longtime aide, Paul suggested that the attacks may have been coordinated by the CIA or that the Bush administration knew about the attacks ahead of time. Paul has claimed that 9/11 caused “glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq.” He has also suggested that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, was responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Wright has claimed that the U.S. government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill black people. And Paul has allegedly written that the government is “lying” about the threat of AIDS.
Both Wright and Paul are radically anti-Israel. Wright has called the state of Israel “illegal” and “genocidal.” He gave a lifetime achievement award to radical Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, an anti-Semite who Wright said “truly epitomized greatness.”
According to his former aide, Paul “wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all.” The ex-adviser said Paul “sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.”
Paul has also said he would not have intervened in World War II if Japan hadn’t attacked the U.S., even against Hitler’s Germany to prevent the Holocaust. This, he insists, somehow fits into a foreign policy based on the Golden Rule.
Paul rarely criticizes President Obama, but has a disturbing tendency to slander his country and fellow Republicans. He has charged that America has declared “war on 1.2 billion Muslims,” and accused Michele Bachmann of hating Muslims and Rick Santorum of hating gays. This extremist does the conservative cause an injustice by playing into the Left’s worst false stereotypes of Republicans. No wonder Paul derives much of his support from the fringe Left.
Many Paulites say they support him for his economic policy views, while dismissing his foreign policy extremism. But they should realize that in the highly improbable case that Paul becomes President, he would, as Commander-in-chief, have much power to enact his national security agenda and much less influence over economic policy.
By regularly casting America as the world’s villain and by advocating the abandonment of our alliances and the abdication of our duties around the world, a Ron Paul presidency would cheer our enemies, demoralize our friends and guarantee a decline in our national security.
I can already hear the cries of "zionist" and "neocon" for posting this. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
But at least you put it in the Political forum were it belongs, instead of general pop ;D
-
Ron Paul is retreading ground covered by Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson's foolishness caused 3 wars and nearly destroyed the infant nation.
The only good thing about a Paul nomination or election would be hearing the establishment talking heads go apeshit.
-
Tom,
I agree, and that shouldn't be surprising, but I not sure if it would be as bad as when Pres. Jefferson did it.
I believe that whatever we do to return to where we should be will include pain for all. Some will be minor and some will be strong; some will be short lived and some will be long term; but it will take pain. The reason I choose Santorum over Paul is that I believe that Santorum is talking stopping and changing the broken parts, where Paul is talking about finding a matching old model and resurrecting it to replace our current modified wreck. As far as Romney and Newt ... They just want to pump more fix-a-flat in the tires, bars leaks in the radiator, and plastic metal filler in the oil, while they spray duplicolor over the bondo filled rust holes.
-
But at least you put it in the Political forum were it belongs, instead of general pop ;D
Vehemently disagree that this belongs here.
Here is what the stated purpose of the forum is...
Politics & RKBA
Discuss political issues related to gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment.
How is this "related to gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment" ?
We do not have a straight 'politics' forum so this thread belongs in the 'cafe'.
-
Vehemently disagree that this belongs here.
Here is what the stated purpose of the forum is...
How is this "related to gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment" ?
We do not have a straight 'politics' forum so this thread belongs in the 'cafe'.
Because if we keep on the current course our put Gov. Romney in the White House the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution will go the way of the 18th Amendment. Just like the 21st came along we will have an ugly 28th.
-
Then it shouldn't be politics and RKBA
-
Then it shouldn't be politics and RKBA
Pay no attention, that's just the Cat clawing the furniture.
Tom,
I agree, and that shouldn't be surprising, but I not sure if it would be as bad as when Pres. Jefferson did it.
I believe that whatever we do to return to where we should be will include pain for all. Some will be minor and some will be strong; some will be short lived and some will be long term; but it will take pain. The reason I choose Santorum over Paul is that I believe that Santorum is talking stopping and changing the broken parts, where Paul is talking about finding a matching old model and resurrecting it to replace our current modified wreck. As far as Romney and Newt ... They just want to pump more fix-a-flat in the tires, bars leaks in the radiator, and plastic metal filler in the oil, while they spray duplicolor over the bondo filled rust holes.
My comment only applied to Paul's foreign policy, I can't even begin to visualize the confused mess his economic policies would create.
Where does the gold and silver come from to back his plan ? How is it implemented. How much is the exchange rate of old $ for new ? What is the time frame for price and wage conversion?
What happens to the unemployed from the Govt agencies he plans to end ?
-
Pay no attention, that's just the Cat clawing the furniture.
No, I am not just clawing the furniture.
What I quoted is EXACTLY what it says on the forum description.
-
No, I am not just clawing the furniture.
What I quoted is EXACTLY what it says on the forum description.
I concur.....
We need a straight politics forum.
-
BAC, The only reason I brought it up was Jnevis said it was the correct place to post it. I pointed out that it was not the intended use of this forum.
-
If we are going to split hairs, than so be it....
Six and one/half dozen.....
I have posted enough political "stuff" on this thread that does not involve firearms directly, but does effect the inevitable outcome of a Liberal mindset that will rid us of them.
Either way, if a differentiation is needed/warranted, or wanted I support it.
Just my owing .02....
Compensated for the current economic state..
-
I'll also chime in that for the most part, this forum is used with good intentions. However, there are a few that post threads to be provocative and then wait for others to argue amongst themselves.
Personally, I've been ignoring anything about Ron Paul. I don't completely disagree with his Constitutional views, it's the rest of his views that bother me.
I've been trying unsuccessfully to ignore this forum.
-
Look guys, I posted my reply simply to clear up what I believe was a misconception of what was the purpose of the forum.
I made and make no comment directly about the content of this thread, ONLY the purpose of the forum.
-
Look guys, I posted my reply simply to clear up what I believe was a misconception of what was the purpose of the forum.
I made and make no comment directly about the content of this thread, ONLY the purpose of the forum.
Nay, good sir, I do not bite my thumb at thee. I do however, bite my thumb! ;)
Thanks to Willie Shakespeare.
-
I concur.....
We need a straight politics forum.
With the way we jump around and the places our drifts take us, do you really think everything will be crystal clear by adding a couple more areas?
-
(Almost) anybody but Romney.. Still think Perry (or Duncan Hunter or Steve Forbes, but I digress) would be head and shoulders above anybody in the field.
Can't do Romney.. He never changed his mind, just his rhetoric.. He "might" appoint marginally better judges, but that's it..
-
With the way we jump around and the places our drifts take us, do you really think everything will be crystal clear by adding a couple more areas?
Maybe not! It was more of a suggestion. I just worded it poorly!