Ron Paul Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
scipio337 said:
And Paul supporters obviously have repeated “he was mistranslated” enough times to believe their own lies.

You need to be able to ignore this kind of heavy amount of cognitive dissonance to be a Paul supporter.
Click to expand...
I would rather say that those who oppose Ron Paul should not ignore charity and engage in personal attacks and name-calling. We are adults here, not in kindergarten.
 
Roy5 said:
Code: 
 I will try to resist addressing this topic again. It seems to be a waste of time because most posters appear to have their ill-informed opinion carved in stone.
Click to expand...
Do you apply this both to Ron Paul’s supporter *and *detractors, as in that Golden Rule thing we are supposed to follow?

I really will never understand how we can justify the past decade of military intervention in the Middle East as being promoting peace. How does one invade, bomb and assault peacefully?

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80875,00.html
Pope John Paul II and top Vatican officials are unleashing a barrage of condemnations of a possible U.S. military strike on Iraq, calling it immoral, risky and a “crime against peace.”
Click to expand...
answers.com/topic/john-paul-ii
In 2003, John Paul II became a prominent critic of the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq
Click to expand...
.[37] In his 2003 State of the World address, the Pope declared his opposition to the invasion by stating, “No to war! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity.”[135] He sent former Apostolic Pro-Nuncio to the United States Pío Cardinal Laghi to talk with American President George W. Bush to express opposition to the war. John Paul II said that it was up to the United Nations to solve the international conflict through diplomacy and that a unilateral aggression is a crime against peace and a violation of international law.
Here is a link to Pope Benedict on the Iraq war, too much to quote

ratzingerfanclub.com/justwar/

Or these two great people also “ill-informed?” Exactly which side really seeks peace in the Middle East, and which uses war as a quicker alternative?
 
scipio337 said:
Because that would require honestly assessing the issue. See above.

I at least enjoy his new use of the phrase “NeoCon”. We don’t have to wonder if it is a code word for “Jew”, anymore.
Click to expand...
The original definition of neo-con was and is “neoconservative.” There is nothing anti-semitic about it. Your fallacious attempt to associate it with anti-semitism would be laughable if it were not so predictable. If you want to know what neoconservatism is the best place to start would be the writings of self-proclaimed neconservatives like Max Boot or the “godfather” of the movement Irving Kristol. Perhaps you should read what these self-proclaimed necons have to say about neconservatism if you wish to seriously educate yourself on the subject.

The first generation of neoconservatives were ex-Trotskyites, socialists, leftists and liberals who backed FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ. When the Democratic party was captured by McGovern in 1972 - on a platform of cutting defense and “Come Home America!” - these Cold War liberals found themselves isolated and ignored in their own party. Adrift, they rafted over to the Republican Party and were pulled aboard as conservatism’s long voyage was culminating in the triumph of Reagan. Kevin Phillips wrote then that a neoconservative was more likely to be a magazine editor than a bricklayer. Today, he is more likely to be a resident scholar at a public policy instittute like AEI, or its clones such as the Center for Security Policy or the Project for the New American Century. Almost none came out of the Goldwater campaign, the catalyzing event of modern conservatism, or out of the business world or the military. As one wag has written, a neocon is more familiar with the inside of a think tank than of an Abrams tank.

In numbers, neoconservatism is a tiny movement, without a national constituency, “all chiefs and no Indians,” as was said in the 1970s. In his *Wall Street Journal *essay “What the Heck is a Neoconservative?” Max Boot says that “this was a movement founded on foreign policy.” He called support for Israel “a key tenet of neconservatism.” It was the only tenet Boot mentioned, adding that Commentary, the magazine of the American Jewish Congress, is the “neocon bible.”

According to Iriving Kristol, the “godfather” of neoconservatism, “the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be…to convert the Republican Party and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.”

Neconservative tutoring of “the Republican Party and American conservatism” is done thru publications they control: the Weekly Standard, Commentary, The New Republic, and National Review, for example. Don’t listen to what I have to say about Neconservatism. Take it from the mouths of self-proclaimed Neocons.
 
markomalley said:
From the National Journal:
Ron Paul’s supporters have donated millions of dollars and provided countless hours of work boosting his presidential bid – all for a man who, according to many top political analysts, cannot win the Republican nomination or the presidency, no matter how well his campaign performs in the early states.
It begs an important question: Who are Ron Paul’s supporters, and why do they back him?
(snip)
  1. Homeschoolers
    (snip)
  2. Goldbugs
    (snip)
  3. College Students
    (snip)
  4. Isolationists
    (snip)
  5. Internet Denizens
    (snip)
  6. Small Farmers
    (snip)
    If you are a Ron Paul supporter, I’m curious to see which group you’d classify yourself as part of. Or is this taxonomy all wet?
And, just curious, as a supplemental thing. If you firmly support him, would you go so far as to support who he endorses if he is not the GOP nominee. You may recall he made some non-GOP endorsements when he lost the nomination back in 2008. It is not beyond the pale that he would do so if that happens again this year.
Click to expand...
It is incorrect to refer to Ron Paul as an isolationist. He is NOT an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. There is a massive difference between the two.

There is another category of voters that you didn’t identify above, and that is libertarians. However, I suspect that many libertarians - who for the most part like Ron Paul - will have great difficulty voting for anyone with an “R” next to their name, and will ultimately vote for the actual Libertarian Party candidate.
 
Kubark
Code: 
 Great post on the background of the neocons.:thumbsup:Thanks.

 When I lived in NYC during my college days and beyond (20 years altogether) I read *Commentary *and the old *New Leader* regularly - both becoming neocon mouthpieces. I believe the *New Leader* died. The editorial folks were mainly ex-leftists of secular Jewish, Eastern European background who had been socialists of different varieties, among them Trotskyiites. They were bitterly anti-Bolshevik, had been mostly supporters of Joe McCarthy and certainly were fervent boosters of Israel, etc. Interesting and stimulating group of intellectuals actually, though I disagreed with many of their viewpoints. I still read *Commentary* from time to time in the local library, where neocons make take their stand - e. g., bomb Iran now! etc. 

  I was inclined to think that some of them carried over their Trotskyite 'world revolution' mindset. They always were pressing for action, often the sort that would/could lead to war and/or revolution. There was a fervent militancy about many of their number. Their ideology and dogmatism in some ways brought to mind ardent religious devotion.
 
Thought this was an interesting read:
[Country Squire in the White House (1940)]
Click to expand...
As I write this, the war in Europe has reached a critical stage for the two great empires, England and France. We know that the overwhelming conviction of the American people is that we should stay out of that war. There are some who would like to help the empires as much as possible without going to war. But they are adamant for not becoming involved.
Click to expand...
It is very important, however, to realize the existence of various groups eager for American participation in the war, if it should become evident that our participation is essential to defeating Germany. These people constitute a small minority. They are to be found in certain groups, and everybody recognizes who they are. Some of them are intriguing actively to get us in.
Click to expand...
In this situation what must we expect to happen when we pour a set of facts and events like this into the mind of the president? What kind of result may we expect to come out of that mind?
Click to expand...
We have merely to remember the president’s general state of mind on armaments. Of course the president, like everyone, frequently protests his desire for peace. Everyone does this. And I think we may assume he is quite sincere about it.
Click to expand...
But we must keep in mind the president’s long, constant attitude toward armaments and military training. He is a lover of arms. He is above all a lover of naval arms. He is one of those men whose mind and imagination are fascinated by battleships and guns. He is also one — as frequently happens in these lovers of arms — who is disposed to be somewhat truculent in his notion of the uses of these arms. Most Americans believe that we should have arms to defend ourselves; defending ourselves means defending our country from invasion. They do not believe that we should establish interests all over the world, follow our traders around with ships and undertake to police the seas of the world for those interests. We have warned Americans to get out of the fighting zones. We have warned our ships to leave the areas of war. We have passed a law to that effect. We have voted to give up the Philippine Islands, which every military man agrees we cannot possibly defend. But the president, whatever he may seem to feel, does not agree with these views. He said, while assistant secretary of the navy,
Click to expand...
Our national defense must extend all over the Western Hemisphere, must go a thousand miles out to sea, must embrace the Philippines and over the seas wherever our commerce may be.… We must create a navy not only to protect our shores and our possessions but our merchant ships no matter where they may go in time of war.
Click to expand...
This represents his ground philosophy respecting the navy. There is a touch of the Junker in him, the jingo, who, saying, “We’ve got the men, we’ve got the ships, we’ve got the money too,” is prepared to assert a nationalist right on every sea. He is for peace as an ideal, but he is one of those lovers of peace who is too ready to choose war as a solution of the problem.

But he goes further than this. If there is one thing that the people of America hate with all their souls it is militarism. By militarism I mean that system of compulsory military training, universal military service and national armies that has made a shambles out of Europe. To escape militarism, millions of European immigrants flowed past the Statue of Liberty to America before the Great War.

Franklin D. Roosevelt is one of the few Americans who has advocated the establishment of a national army and universal military service — conscription during times of peace. During the World War he wrote,
Is it not time that the people of the United States should adopt definitively the principle of national government service by every man and woman at some time in their lives?… I hope to see the time when national government service is not only an established fact but also one of the most highly prized privileges of all Americans. I, as a father, look forward to the time when my boys will be able to render service to their country. This means service in times of peace as well as in times of war and means service in the civilian branches as well as the military branches. The day will soon be at hand when the army and the navy of this great republic will be looked upon by its citizens as a normal part of their own government and their own activities.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

More:

mises.org/daily/5711/The-President-Goes-to-War
 
kubark said:
Neconservative tutoring of “the Republican Party and American conservatism” is done thru publications they control: the Weekly Standard, Commentary, The New Republic, and National Review, for example. Don’t listen to what I have to say about Neconservatism. Take it from the mouths of self-proclaimed Neocons.
Click to expand...
That would make William Buckley a neocon. I’m pretty sure that alot of people around here are not going to like that characterization, but if the shoe fits, particularly his hostility towards Ayn Rand.
 
Christopher68 said:
It is incorrect to refer to Ron Paul as an isolationist. He is NOT an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. There is a massive difference between the two.

There is another category of voters that you didn’t identify above, and that is libertarians. However, I suspect that many libertarians - who for the most part like Ron Paul - will have great difficulty voting for anyone with an “R” next to their name, and will ultimately vote for the actual Libertarian Party candidate.
Click to expand...
Ya, Gary Johnson is going nowhere and the LP knows it.
 
Three NH Newspapers Endorse Ron Paul
Click to expand...
Three New Hampshire newspapers endorsed Ron Paul for President on Wednesday, the Texas congressman’s campaign headquarters said in a press statement.
Click to expand...
The Littleton Courier, Berlin Reporter, and Coos County Democrat all endorsed Paul for president in the 2012 election.
Click to expand...
“Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been in the lead for months,” wrote one of the op-eds, “but voters still seem desperate for an alternative. There’s always another candidate pulling stronger or almost as strong numbers in the polls. Voters have lost faith in Obama, but they are not sold on Romney to replace him. Congressman Ron Paul, however, has never voted to raise a tax and voted against all of the bailouts that have riled up Tea Partiers and Occupy Wall Streeters alike,” editors at these papers said. The three dailies are all owned by the same company, Salmon Press Newspapers out of Meredith, NH.
Click to expand...
forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/04/three-nh-newspapers-endorse-ron-paul/
 
gilliam said:
The news papers lean Left
Click to expand...
Romneys the moderate, someone should let them know.

They are three of eleven that endorsed Hillary five years ago, now they endorse Dr. Paul. 🤷

Would you have said the same if Santorum was out of the race and they endorse Romney?
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
That would make William Buckley a neocon. I’m pretty sure that alot of people around here are not going to like that characterization, but if the shoe fits, particularly his hostility towards Ayn Rand.
Click to expand...
He had good reason to be hostile towards Ayn Rand.
 
Just remember a vote for any third-party candidate is a vote for the opposition.
 
rlg94086 said:
She was a social darwinist who was hostile to religion. Her views are incompatible with the Catholic faith. Buckley was a faithful Catholic.
Click to expand...
Paul Ryan is a faithful Catholic who gives credit to Ayn Rand for some of her economic philosophy. Touche.

I am a social darwinist as well. I guess by your judgement, I am a bad Catholic. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top