From [url=http://campaignsandelections.com/SC/articles/?ID=168]Campaigns and Elections[/url]: "In a style similar to another Fox show, American Idol, more than 40,000 people voted by text message to pick a winner. Romney grabbed the most with 29 percent, but Paul was right behind with 25 percent.
"Giuliani had 19 percent, Huckabee 8 percent, Hunter 5 percent, McCain 4 percent, Tancredo 3 percent, Brownback 1 percent and Gilmore and Thompson less than 1."
From the [url=http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/05/2nd_republican_debate_winn... Post Blog[/url]: "Paul's straight-talking nature won him some kudos from folks following the first debate. But he strayed into very dangerous waters last night with what sounded to many like a suggestion that America had provoked the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "They attack us because we've been over there," Paul said. "We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." Giuliani demanded that Paul rescind his comment, which he refused to do. Say what you will about Paul, but the suggestion that America is to blame for Sept. 11 is simply not a winning position in a presidential race, no matter what party you represent. Any good he did for his candidacy in the first debate was immediately erased with those comments last night."
Vote.com has these poll results:
[quote="Apollo"]I always thought it was pretty weird that the Libertarian Party prided itself on personal liberty and no government interference, but then be the only political party that requires you to sign some kind of loyalty oath. Even the Democrats don't require you to sign a loyalty oath.
"Members of the Party shall be those [u]persons who have certified in writing [/u]that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals. "[/quote]
It isn't a loyalty oath.
It is a statement that you don't believe in violence to get your way.
Some people think it was started to keep the Nixon thugs from claiming the early LP was anarchistic.
Some people think we did it to maintain our principles.
I don't think it does much for us, and only confuses the flabby-minded, like Apollo.
So Apollo, you do not agree with private organizations having the right to define themselves?
What are you, a LIBERAL?
[quote="Apollo"]My God, he doesn't sound any different than the appeasement surrender monkey liberals in Congress right now, or people like Cindy Sheehan. Blaming America for the acts of terrorists. Unbelievable.[/quote]
What is unbelievable is your inability to get beyond the tripe you hear on talk radio. In fact, you can't even express yourself without relying on its insipid lingo.
Actually, I'll defend Apollo on this - Ron Paul sounded like a moonbat on the notion that we incited the terrorist attacks on 911. It is the same argument that much of the left makes: i.e. American actions in the mideast have inflamed the terrorsts. They will be well behaved and leave us alone if only we don't make them mad.
Ron Paul and Dennis Kusinich - two sides of the same coin. The mother ship is calling boys.
Don't substitute your talk radio based claptrap perceptions onto what Paul is saying.
It's all over your statements, surrender monkeys, moonbats, the terrorists will be leave us alone if only we are nice.
You aren't the only ones listening to these shows.
Trouble is, all that tripe has nothing to do with what Paul is saying.
[quote="rklindell"]Ron Paul is a global free-trader. He is not an isolationist. He just prefers our foreign entanglements to be peaceful and based on commerce and voluntary exchange rather than military force.
The isolationists in the 1930s favored tariffs and trade barriers. Ron Paul opposes tariffs and trade barriers.
Isolationists in the 1930's were nationalists and expansionists. Ron Paul is neither of those.[/quote]
How were Isolationists Expansionists?
Had history been differnt, Germany may well have attacked the USA, but not as I see all of you posting- Germany had a significant population and support in South America, and would have used at least 3 of the countries there as stage points to move north ( Argentina, Puraguay and Uraguay).
The operation Torch was in November of '42 wasn't it?
American political expansionism started much before the 1930s in both Political parties (on the National level). TR was clearly expansionist. McKinley was a reluctant imperialist. Wilson- the pacifist warrior, was moved by events into a grasp of world wide political power ( which he missed). Taft was closest to an Isolationist in the early 1900s, and that was only in the shade of TR.
I doubt there is a possibility that the USA could return to any form of isolationism considering the economic interdependence and trade considerations we have today, or even moreso- because the American population has a mindset that we are a world power, and this is how world powers act.( This last is surely personal opinion)
Will anyone make the case that we were correct in our Shah of Iran policy of the 60's and 70's?
Is this what you all mean about the benefits and wisdom of our foreign policy?
Mark, you aren't comparing the rise of totalitarianism as results of our isolationism prior to WWII with the rise of fanaticism following our efforts to defeat Communist aggression during the Cold War?
I don't think so. I'm just trying to figure out the best foreign policy for America.
We want to be engaged in the world's economy. And we want secure borders. And we want Americans safe around the world.
I want our enemies to know we will retaliate harshly to any attack of Americans, anywhere. I want our enemies to fear us. I want nukes and delivery systems and high tech weapons and a missile defense system that works.
Troops in 100 plus foreign nations, not so much.
What I do not know is how neccessary it is to be involved in foreign entanglements, like proping up leaders favorable to us, yet hated by their people. Things like that.
Anyting specific for particular country or region or are you talking about wanting to see a dramatic reduction in foreign aid or a reduction in military bases around the globe or a reduction in foreign CIA agents or...
I don't know. I've never even been abroad. I was hoping to get some ideas from others.
I don't want any foreign aid, government to government.
As far as closing bases, it sounds good. But I am aware that enemies will work to fill any opening we leave.
Maybe we've never made any foreign policy mistakes and all that we inherit is as good as it's going to get in a bad world.
I don't really think that.
Ron Paul brought out an issue that needed to be brought out. Our (and the west's) mistreatment of the Middle East dating back to the very beginning of decolonization is one of the largest reasons why today is the way it is today. But you'll hardly ever hear anyone talk about it. Hardly any casual news watching citizen has any idea about the CIA coup of the Shah of Iran and what followed. What people do know, however, is what has happened since 1979.
of course we have made our share of foreign policy gaffes. The elder Bush vomiting on his counterpart in Japan comes to mind ;) Every foreign policy decision needs to be reviewed on what was happening in the world at the time. Theodore Roosevelt decided that the United States was going to be a major world military power. He pushed through a spending bill that increased the military and he had the Navy go on a global tour to show how tough we were. He is the one who pulled the genie out of the bottle. Getting the genie back in is a different matter. The question isnt whether we are or are not the global superpower. We are. The debate is whether we should be (or need to be) and then if yes the next discussion is to what level.
[quote="_ _"] But you'll hardly ever hear anyone talk about it.[/quote]
Quite likely because any time it is brought up, people get panic-stricken and refuse to hear what is being said.
The statement of reasons for the hatred is almost always confused with justification of that hatred. The mere statement of fact is turned into appeasement. It's sad, because until we admit what it is they hate, we will not be able to deal with terrorism.
Agree with all that Henry.
Seems to me we can have a discussion about the down side to foreign entanglements and still clean up and wind down the Iraq War.
What's the point of getting all defensive? It will only drive more people to the Democrats.
[quote="Marlin94"]Actually, I'll defend Apollo on this - Ron Paul sounded like a moonbat on the notion that we incited the terrorist attacks on 911. It is the same argument that much of the left makes: i.e. American actions in the mideast have inflamed the terrorsts. They will be well behaved and leave us alone if only we don't make them mad.
Ron Paul and Dennis Kusinich - two sides of the same coin. The mother ship is calling boys.[/quote]
What you are doing is raising an argument that is made, you say, by much of the left. That argument has two parts.
1) American actions in the mideast have inflamed the terrorists.
2) They will be well behaved and leave us alone if only we don't make them mad.
Then, you are attributing that argument to Ron Paul, and dismissing it as a "moonbat notion".
The reality is that he did not make that argument. Point #1 is a valid point. As Dr. Paul went on to say last night, the concept of "blowback" is real. Even for those unfamiliar with this CIA terminology, there is the common sense understanding of unintended consequences. Do you disagree that human actions generally have more than one consequence, including unforseen or unintended consequences?? This is a basic concept that is widely accepted as a true proposition. Sometimes it is even known as [i]"The Law of Unintended Consequences"[/i].
But, rather than deal with that reality, you have conveniently attached a second, much weaker proposition to it, whereby you can simply conflate the two and dismiss the whole thing out of hand. But the two are not connected.
By acknowledging that unintended, negative consequences are a reality that need to be addressed in assessing policy, one does not have to accept the idea that the baddies will behave if we don't make them mad. Dr. Paul is only addressing point #1. It is not a moonbat notion.
About Rudy's comment that he'd never before heard anyone say American policies were at all culpable for 9/11
The bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report says Osama bin Laden's 1996 fatwa called "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places", reveals his anger with American policies as his reason for declaring a fatwa. In his fatwa, bin Laden cites the reasons for attacking America as, in order: 1.) American involvement in the Middle East, 2.) Palestine, and 3.) sanctions on Iraq.
Also, The CIA's former bin Laden and al Qaeda specialist, Michael Scheuer, has told CNN, "We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live."
You'd think a big foreign policy expert like Rudy would be familiar with these reports.
[quote="Hildy Johnson"]You'd think a big foreign policy expert like Rudy would be familiar with these reports.[/quote]
Of course he is, but that wouldn't make for a very sexy sound byte, now would it?
You are right. Michael Scheuer's experience is extensive and he has spoken out very clearly in the past and at some risk to himself about our involvement in the Middle East.
I would stack his knowledge of our Middle Eastern situation against Rudy's any day.
The sexy sound byte is right on the money, in fact that is American political debate as seen on the major media outlets.
Let's hope that Fox will sponsor a debate between Paul and Guilianni, I'll bet guilianni will have more important things to do that day or anyday, because if he actually debates Ron Paul one on one, Guilianni loses and that goes for the other sexy republicans out there.
ALL who critize Ron Paul for what he said about 911 is peaking through sheer ignorance.
"Anyone who disagrees with my candidate is stupid."
Mark, I think it is perfectly appropriate to discuss what aspects one wants to look at for possible cuts and where the military should or shouldn't be. That is a discussion about specifics and where America should be putting her time, effort and resources. To make a broad statement that essentially boils down to "we were attacked because we went looking for it" is not at all the same.
[quote]To make a broad statement that essentially boils down to "we were attacked because we went looking for it" is not at all the same.[/quote]
That's not what Paul said. That's what the frothing, flag waving, talk-radio addicted, xenophobic idiots heard and what they are incessantly repeating over and over and over. What utter clueless, blind, and ignorant fools they are.
Pat, taking Ron at his words, even Ron Paul disagrees with you.
It is completely logical for someone with Ron Paul's philosophy with regard to foreign entanglements to say, "the 911 murderers were motivated by American military presence on the Arabian peninsula."
However, embracing his viewpoint on this entails embracing his fundamental belief that America should not use its military abroad either as a peacekeeper or police force or otherwise (eg - not in Bosnia or Somalia or Darfur either).
Dr. Paul seems to be pretty consistent on this. Darfurscores.org gives him an "F": [url=http://www.darfurscores.org/ron-paul?download=y]Source[/url]
Interestingly enough, 2 of their 4 "champions" are also Republican candidates: Sam Brownback & Tom Tancredo. Dick Durbin and Donald Payne are the other two.
[quote]However, embracing his viewpoint on this entails embracing his fundamental belief that America should not use its military abroad either as a peacekeeper or police force or otherwise (eg - not in Bosnia or Somalia or Darfur either).[/quote]
While this may be true in the black and white minds of many on this forum, most intelligent Americans realize that one can agree with a person on some points but not on others.
Considering most Americans don't know who Ron Paul is yet, I would guess that you are making not only a leap in logic as well as yet another derisive comment about your fellow posters. Do you look in a mirror and say that everyone else is stupid or is this just a hobby for you?
#1 - Do me a favor, please, and take the vitriol down a few notches. It's unnecessary and it's a drag to read.
#2 - Rather than a tirade on others' wrong interpretations of what Ron Paul said, why not save time and tells us what you think he said.
[quote]While this may be true in the black and white minds of many on this forum, most intelligent Americans realize that one can agree with a person on some points but not on others.[/quote]
While this may be true in the black and white minds of many [b]conservatives[/b], most intelligent Americans realize that one can agree with a person on some points but not on others.
If you object to the edited statement as vitriolic, then you must also object to thousands of other posts on this forum.