I believe in an America that is "The" world power, with a very limited government predominately focused upon protecting its borders and it citizenry, providing for a strong national defense --- so, you support using our military to protect our borders and deport illegal alien/criminals and disagree with spending our tax dollars on nation building, meddling in the affairs of foreign nations, and defending israel?
thanks ... I know you're one of the good guys On Sep 1, 10:57 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Au contrare PlainOl'. I believe in an America that is "The" world > power, with a very limited government predominately focused upon protecting > its borders and it citizenry, providing for a strong national defense, and > an America that is not isolationist. I don't believe that there is enough > gold in the world to fund a national, much less an international currency, > and I don't subscribe to a naive "Obamaesque/Paulesque" foreign policy that > somehow believes that if we talk to murdering thugs who want to see Western > Civilization as we know it destroyed, that everything will be alright. > > Pretty plain and simple. Maybe I should be called, "PlainOl'American"? I > seem to share the majority of Americans' viewpoint..... > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 10:10 AM, plainolamerican > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > Keith, let us address your question this time next year. When things > > really blow up in our face in the middle east. > > --- > > Keith believes in the interventionist policy > > they are willing to sacrifice American interests for the animals in > > the middle east > > > Internationalism is a political movement which advocates a greater > > economic and political cooperation among nations for the theoretical > > benefit of all. Partisans of this movement, such as supporters of the > > World Federalist Movement, claim that nations should cooperate because > > their long-term mutual interests are of greater value than their > > individual short term needs. > > Internationalism is by nature opposed to ultranationalism, jingoism, > > realism and national chauvinism. Internationalism teaches that the > > people of all nations have more in common than they do differences, > > and thus that nations should treat each other as equals. > > > Washington advised the United States, in his Farewell Address, to > > remain a neutral player in the international political game. He urged > > the new republic to avoid conflicts and alliances with other nations. > > Although he felt that economic ties with other nations should be > > promoted to encourage trade and commerce, political ties should be > > minimal. He was concerned that having close relations could force the > > United States to unite with allies to promote their interest and be > > drawn into their war. > > > Thomas Jefferson, stated as early as 1799 that "Commerce with all > > nations, alliance with none, should be our motto", and in 1801 "I deem > > [one of] the essential principles of our government [to be] peace, > > commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances > > with none." > > > On Aug 31, 12:09 pm, lbiglee75 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Keith, let us address your question this time next year. When things > > > really blow up in our face in the middle east. > > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Michael, > > > > > Do you consider Ron Paul's foreign policy "conservative"? > > > > > I also find it humorous, that all of the Ron Paul supporters are now > > crying > > > > foul, now that Paul is getting all of the media attention that last > > week, > > > > the Paul supporters were complaining that he wasn't receiving..... > > > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:30 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> "Let us be blunt: The stone cold truth is that for all of their talk > > of > > > >> “conservative” principles and the like, Paul’s Republican opponents in > > > >> Washington and the so-called “alternative” or “conservative” media are > > not > > > >> now, nor have they ever been, genuinely conservative. Whether we are > > > >> discussing Fox News contributors -- a shocking number of which are > > refugees > > > >> from George W. Bush’s administration -- the writers at The Weekly > > Standard > > > >> and National Review, or such talk radio personalities as Rush > > Limbaugh, Sean > > > >> Hannity, Bill Bennett and all of the rest, such “conservative” > > commentators > > > >> aren’t conservative at all; they are neoconservative." > > > > >> Ron Paul: Why a Top-tier Candidate Is Ignored by Republicans > > > >> Written by Jack Kerwick, Ph.D. > > > >> Friday, 26 August 2011 00:00 > > > > >> It is hard not to be amazed by the blackout of media coverage of Ron > > > >> Paul’s presidential campaign. Had Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Rick > > Santorum, > > > >> Jon Huntsman, or any second-tier candidate been performing remotely as > > well > > > >> as Paul has, he would no longer be regarded as a “second-tier” > > candidate. To > > > >> the credit of such left-leaning outlets as Jon Stewarts' The Daily > > Show and > > > >> The Huffington Post, this phenomenon has not gone unnoticed by > > everyone. > > > > >> Let’s think about this. > > > > >> In spite of the extent to which Paul has been ignored by the > > establishment > > > >> media in both of its leftist and rightist varieties, he unfailingly > > elicits > > > >> explosive applause in every GOP presidential primary debate in which > > he has > > > >> participated. A Fox News poll, of all places, shows that the > > overwhelming > > > >> majority of its respondents hold that Ron Paul achieved a decisive > > victory > > > >> over all of the other candidates in the most recent debate in Iowa. Of > > 7,991 > > > >> “active” cities nationwide that participated in the poll, and 43,293 > > total > > > >> votes, 27,459 people thought that Paul won the debate. Newt Gingrich > > came in > > > >> second place -- with 5, 906 votes. > > > > >> Statistically speaking, Ron Paul practically tied with Michele > > Bachmann > > > >> for first place in the Ames Straw Poll, a contest that is evidently so > > > >> significant that “top-tier” contender Tim Pawlenty’s third place > > showing > > > >> compelled him to abandon his campaign. Bachmann beat Paul by a meager > > 152 > > > >> votes. > > > > >> A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released back in May showed > > that > > > >> among possible Republican contenders (Perry may not have been a > > > >> consideration as of yet), Paul stands the best chance of beating > > President > > > >> Obama. This poll showed Obama leading Paul by only seven percentage > > points, > > > >> while he led Romney by 11. Since then, however, things have changed. > > > > >> A Gallup poll from August 23 shows that if the election were held > > today, > > > >> Mitt Romney would beat Obama by two percentage points (48 percent-46 > > > >> percent) and Rick Perry would tie with him (at 47 percent). It is true > > that > > > >> this same poll has Obama beating Paul by (only) two points (47 > > percent-45 > > > >> percent); but it has Obama beating “top-tier” candidate Bachmann by > > four > > > >> points (48 percent-44 percent)! However, when it comes to that much > > > >> cherished “independent” vote, Paul leads Obama by three points. The > > > >> significance of this vis-à-vis my contention that Paul is a top-tier > > > >> candidate himself and should be recognized as such becomes obvious > > once we > > > >> grasp that Romney is the only other Republican candidate who leads > > Obama > > > >> among independents by this much (but only this much). “Top-tier” > > candidate > > > >> Perry leads Obama in this category by two points while “top-tier” > > candidate > > > >> Bachmann trails Obama among independents by six points. > > > > >> In a Texas poll among “882 highly active Republican voters,” these > > voters > > > >> said that if the Texas primaries were held at the time that the poll > > was > > > >> taken, they would vote for Congressman Paul before they would vote for > > any > > > >> other Republican contender including their own Governor, Rick Perry > > (who > > > >> was second choice). > > > > >> As I write this, a Gallup Presidential Nomination preference poll > > shows > > > >> that Paul has leapt ahead of “top-tier” candidate Michele Bachmann and > > is > > > >> now third place behind Perry and Romney. Twenty-nine percent of those > > polled > > > >> prefer Perry; 17 percent are partial to Romney; and Paul picks up 13 > > percent > > > >> of the vote against Bachmann’s 10 percent. > > > > >> Polls fluctuate. In any event, they are no substitutes for actual > > votes. > > > >> Still, the point here is not that Paul is likely to get his party’s > > > >> nomination or that he would actually win the general election if he > > did; in > > > >> these propositions it is not my purpose to either affirm or deny. > > Rather, > > > >> the point is only to show that by the very standards by which > > establishment > > > >> pundits and pollsters determine top-tier candidates, Paul should be > > > >> considered a top-tier candidate. > > > > >> But he is not. > > > > >> The reason for this, I think, is pretty clear. > > > > >> Even though he is the partisan for constitutional or “limited” > > government > > > >> par excellence, Paul is despised and feared by the party of “limited > > > >> government.” That is, he is anathema to the GOP establishment, for > > while he > > > >> has proved prescient regarding the economic collapse of 2008, and > > while an > > > >> ever increasing number of Americans generally and Republican-minded > > voters > > > >> in particular have gravitated toward embracing many of his views over > > the > > > >> last three years, Paul’s uncompromising repudiation of his party’s > > foreign > > > >> policy vision has earned him quite a few enemies within it. > > > > >> Let us be blunt: The stone cold truth is that for all of their talk of > > > >> “conservative” principles and the like, Paul’s Republican opponents in > > > >> Washington and the so-called “alternative” or “conservative” media are > > not > > > >> now, nor have they ever been, genuinely conservative. Whether we are > > > >> discussing Fox News contributors -- a shocking number of which are > > refugees > > > >> from George W. Bush’s administration -- the writers at The Weekly > > Standard > > > >> and National Review, or such talk radio personalities as Rush > > Limbaugh, Sean > > > >> Hannity, Bill Bennett and all of the rest, such “conservative” > > commentators > > > >> aren’t conservative at all; they are > > ... > > 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.
