Once again.....How naive of you PlainOl......
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:10 AM, plainolamerican <[email protected]>wrote: > his views on national security are asinine > --- > leaving the jews and muzzies to fight their own war is hardly asinine > > choose sides carefully > > On Dec 31 2011, 2:57 pm, GhostOfAdams <[email protected]> wrote: > > No thanks. I love his interpretation of the constitution, But his > > views on national security are asinine and his expectations about what > > a president can actually move forward and accomplish are wholly > > unrealistic. > > Again, No thanks. > > > > On Dec 31, 12:43 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why Conservatives Should Support Ron PaulFriday, 30 December 2011 11:33 > > > Dennis Behreandt > > > As Ron Paul has surged over recent weeks becoming a front-runner for > the Republican nomination despite mainstream attempts to derail his growing > popularity, among some conservatives, concern is growing. > > > Specifically, among those conservatives most concerned with foreign > policy, Ron Paul is viewed with skepticism, if not disdain. Support for the > Texas congressman, they say, will mean weakening America’s position in the > world, leaving Israel weak and undefended, and giving Iran a free hand to > go nuclear. On the basis of these concerns, Paul’s conservative critics > say, he would be bad, and possiblydangerous, for the country as president. > > > Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only would a Ron Paul > presidency help the country become economically stronger and militarily > more secure, it would reinvigorate the conservative cause. > > > To begin, it is necessary to put Ron Paul and the movement that > supports him into contextvis-a-visthe modern conservative movement at > large. Much continues to be made of Ron Paul as alibertarianrather than a > conservative. But while there may be some utility in considering Paul and > his supporters as libertarian, for some certainly are, it is more useful to > consider Paul an outgrowth, or an example of, American orthodoxy. > > > There is a subtle but important difference between an orthodox > political movement and a conservative political movement. In a broad sense, > those of a conservative mindset seek to save and preserve institutions > because they view those institutions as having demonstrated some > utilitarian value to culture and society simply by the virtue of their > existence. This was a theme explored by historian Jerry Z. Muller of the > Catholic University of America in the introduction to his bookConservatism: > An Anthology of Social and Political Thought from David Hume to the Present. > > > According to Muller, “The conservative defends existing institutions > because their very existence creates a presumption that they have served > some useful function, because eliminating them may lead to harmful, > unintended consequences, or because the veneration which attaches to > institutions that have existed over time makes them potentially usable for > new purposes.” > > > Because existing institutions vary from nation to nation, conservatism > likewise varies from nation to nation. As a result, conservatives have > sought to save and preserve many things over the years in many countries. > Soviet conservatives sought to preserve Soviet institutions, for example. > An American conservative would look askance, for instance at an attempt to > paint the Soviet planning agency GOSPLAN as a vital and important > institution as it would violate the tenets of free enterprise most American > conservatives hold dear. Yet it would not be surprising to find that a > Soviet conservative might think that GOSPLAN should have been preserved. > > > In the United States, the institutions that tend to be of interest to > conservatives are of broadly two types. The first are those explicitly > created by the charter of government that brought the nation into being. > Therefore, American conservatism tends to be supportive of the separation > of powers among the branches of government. As a consequence of this, for > example, American conservatives often lament the prospect of judicial > tyranny or the tendency of modern presidents to rule by executive order, > which many see as infringing upon and diminishing the Constitutional role > of Congress. This also explains the seemingly contradictory position some > conservatives take of actually supporting the idea of a powerful,unitary > executiveas they see the Hamiltonian ideas of a more powerful presidency as > of central importance. > > > Second, American conservatives have generally been supportive of the > cultural institutions that they see as existing prior to the state. Among > these are defense of traditional values, defense of the family, and defense > of the idea of the common law. In both areas among conservatives these > things are valued primarily for theirutility. Because they exist, they must > therefor perform a useful function and we tamper with them at our own risk. > > > In contrast to the conservative point of view, the orthodox outlook > says that a given institution exists because it is in alignment with a > transcendental truth. Says Professor Muller: “...the orthodox defense of > institutions depends on belief in their correspondence to some ultimate > truth.... The orthodox theoretician defends existing institutions and > practices because they are metaphysicallytrue: the truth proclaimed may be > based on particular revelation or on natural laws purportedly accessible to > all rational men....” > > > It is from this latter point of view that we must understand the > phenomenon of Ron Paul. In the introduction to his bookLiberty Defined, > Paul places himself firmly within the orthodox American tradition by > acknowledging that he believes in natural rights that precede the > foundations of government. He writes: “The definition of liberty I use is > the same one that was accepted by Thomas Jefferson and his generation. It > is the understanding derived from the great freedom tradition, for > Jefferson himself took his understanding from John Locke (1632-1704).” Put > succinctly by Jefferson, this is the idea “that all men are created equal, > that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, > that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These > are, to put it as Muller did, “natural and accessible by all rational men.” > > > There is a substantial nexus between the orthodox American point of > view represented by Ron Paul and the modern American conservative movement. > The orthodox view holds that the rights enjoyed by individuals, including > to live, to build a family, to own property, to speak one’s mind, to > associate with whom one wishes, etc., are inviolate and that governments > lack any legitimate interest in legislating in these areas. Meanwhile, the > conservative simply sees the outcomes of the exercise of these rights as > the institutions (the family, for instance) as worth protecting because of > its utility. But both the orthodox American and the conservative American > can agree on the value of the family and other such institutions. Moreover, > the explicit political institutions brought into being during the founding > era were created largely by orthodox American thinkers. In defending these > institutionsbecause they now existconservatives find themselves in > agreement with orthodox Americanists who defend them because in their view > it is morally right that they existedin their proper formin the first place. > > > Because there is a nexus of interests between the American orthodox > outlook and the conservative outlook, there should be a natural affinity > between the two. And while this has not necessarily been the case at least > since the 1950s, with both sides tending to look askance at one another, > the opportunity now exists for the two movements to work together for the > same goals. Consider some of the outcomes that are possible:Foreign > Affairs: Conservatives want the United States to be the preeminent power in > the world, both economically and militarily. The orthodox position cares > nothing for this as a goal in and of itself. Nonetheless, the orthodox > Americanist approach naturally creates conditions wherein the United > Statesmustbe the preeminent military and economic power. The orthodox > position is to call for the shrinkage of government down to > Constitutionally authorized levels (thus Ron Paul’s plan to eliminate five > cabinet departments). The shrinkage of government means the government will > need to tax less and inflate the money supply to a lesser degree, leaving > vastly more money in the pockets of Americans, supercharging the free > enterprise system by leaving property in the hands of its rightful owners. > Under such conditions the U.S. will dominate the world economically because > all other nations will have, by comparison, larger and more intrusive > governments that disrupt their economies.Military Strength: > Counterintuitively, Ron Paul’sdesireto bring troops home would improve the > U.S. military’s capabilities. Currently, with large deployments abroad, > both men and material tire and wear out. There are obvious costs involved > with regard to the necessary health care and maintenance this requires. > Less obviously, budgets for new and improved types of equipment come under > fire as the maintenance cost of keeping expeditionary forces in the field > grow. Over time this leads to a military with decreased war-making ability. > It is easy to see this starting to play out in the U.S. military. Warships > are increasingly old and are not being replaced. Frontline aircraft face > similar pressures. We currently fight with F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s, all > featuring designs dating to the 1960s. The B-52 bomber is older still, a > remnant of the 1950s. Ending deployments abroad, or at least being much > smarter about them, would free up money in the budget for badly needed > equipment upgrades and replacements. The result would be a stronger and > more effective U.S. military that is not stretched so thin by being > deployed all over the world.Israel: Where does a much less interventionist > foreign policy leave Israel? Concern for the Jewish state is particularly > prevalent among conservatives who view it as a bastion of Judeo-Christian > civilization surrounded and threatened by aggressive theocratic and > dictatorial neighbors. A Ron Paul presidency would mean the abandonment of > Israel, according to some conservatives. And > > > > ... > > > > 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. > -- 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.
