Ron Paul still just on the fringe?

[dugby]

When the SOP is insane the fringe can be a good place to be!

Send some money to Ron Paul. Consider it an early christmas present for our country.

 

[MLRyan]

Ron Paul is the #1 candidate supported by the troops.

 

[tRidiot]

Ron Paul is the #1 candidate supported by the troops.

Because he says they should come home, each and every one? Big surprise there.

I like a lot of Paul's ideas, but I'm not sure that true isolationist xenophobia is a good one. I think there's a balance there... I'm not sure what it is, but I don't think it's total isolationism.

 

[been]

Because he says they should come home, each and every one? Big surprise there.

I like a lot of Paul's ideas, but I'm not sure that true isolationist xenophobia is a good one. I think there's a balance there... I'm not sure what it is, but I don't think it's total isolationism.

its not isolationism. he doesn't want to have people overseas when they don't need to be. Military force would be used if it was a threat to OUR national security. Not Israels, Not Europe's, Not S. Korea's. OURS!

 

[cowzrul]

Ron Paul is the #1 candidate supported by the troops.

You might want to quantify that with your source or possibly branch of service you speak with that support him. The Marines I know don't endorse him.

 

[SMS]

RP supporters tried to claim that last time around. Never saw a credible source for the claim.

 

[Glocktogo]

Because he says they should come home, each and every one? Big surprise there.

I like a lot of Paul's ideas, but I'm not sure that true isolationist xenophobia is a good one. I think there's a balance there... I'm not sure what it is, but I don't think it's total isolationism.

Can you quantify how you've concluded that he's a xenophobic isolationist? Seems to me there's a difference between expeditionary interventionism (which he's against) and xenophobic isolationism.

I'm going to crib the post of someone on another board as my reply to this, because I couldn't possibly say it any better.

I think it is high time we had a foreign policy that was a little more Thomas Jefferson and a little less Woodrow Wilson.

And we would still have a strong War Lobby in Congress. They could vote for all of the wars they want. Except this time, they would actually have to put their money where their mouth is and actually DECLARE war. No more "well, we voted to let the President do whatever he wants as long as we can take the credit or place the blame depending on how things turn out."

And, we could actually let the chickenhawks put their money where their mouth is and buy War Bonds.

Military Adventurists need not fear Ron Paul. You can get all the war you want. You just have to vote for it and pay for it.

 

[Werewolf]

its not isolationism. he doesn't want to have people overseas when they don't need to be. Military force would be used if it was a threat to OUR national security. Not Israels, Not Europe's, Not S. Korea's. OURS!

A capital L Libertarian's idea of threat to the US is short sighted. To be considered a threat we just about have to suffer a pearl harbor type event.

Threats to places like S. Korea, Israel, W. Europe may not be threats in the short run but they are definitely threats to us in the long run be they social, economic or military they are still threats that will impact our security and well being.

I may be wrong but I believe that Paul is one of those Libertarians that believes in open borders. In a perfect world that might be OK but we don't live in a perfect world.

 

[dugby]

Pauls suggestion that the "Blowback" from our 1953 involvment in Iran trickles through all our problems with the mideast, sure strikes a chord with me. How many of you remember the arms and money we sent to the Mujahadeen? Pretty easy to see the "Blowback" from that. We aren't hated because we are rich and free, we are hated because we have a military presence in their countries.