RON PAUL's foreign policy is the best thing about RON PAUL.

/RON PAUL!

It's amazing how the liberal MSM hates RON PAUL. The Weekly Standard, National Review and HotAir are all jumping on the hate wagon. Wow.

Bucky Katt: It's amazing how the liberal MSM hates RON PAUL. The Weekly Standard, National Review and HotAir are all jumping on the hate wagon. Wow.

I figured his own party would crucify him if he got anywhere near the Primaries.

Bucky Katt: It's amazing how the liberal MSM hates RON PAUL. The Weekly Standard, National Review and HotAir are all jumping on the hate wagon. Wow.

He doesn't want to bomb everything. No wonder the GOP hates him.

GAT_00: Bucky Katt: It's amazing how the liberal MSM hates RON PAUL. The Weekly Standard, National Review and HotAir are all jumping on the hate wagon. Wow.

He doesn't want to bomb everything. No wonder the GOP hates him.

And Paulites think "the liberals" are the enemy. It's funny but sad.

Still, any way you cut it, the picture Dondero paints isn't pretty. Among his contentions:
--Paul is anti-Israel. "His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs."
-- "He is not all bigoted towards homosexuals. He supports their rights to do whatever they please in their private lives. He is however, personally uncomfortable around homosexuals" and refused to use a bathroom in a gay supporter's home.
-- "Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11." He planned to vote against the invasion despite threats of staff resignations and a constituent uproar, Dondero says; he changed his mind at the last minute.
"If Ron Paul should be slammed for anything, it's not some silly remarks he's made in the past in his Newsletters. It's over his simply outrageously horrendous views on foreign policy, Israel, and national security for the United States. His near No vote on Afghanistan. That is the big scandal," he concludes.
Paul has said he did n

I have no problems with any of this. "Lunacy" could also be defined as doing the same things over and over again, and expecting different results.

GAT_00: Bucky Katt: It's amazing how the liberal MSM hates RON PAUL. The Weekly Standard, National Review and HotAir are all jumping on the hate wagon. Wow.

He doesn't want to bomb fund everything. No wonder the GOP hates him.

To be fair, his foreign policy is not just a joke, it's an isolationist's wet dream and coupled with a what amounts to an economic suicide pact, he is perhaps not the sane choice for President. Entertaining? Certainly. In the same sense that Ross Perot was entertaining.

Libertarians are interesting folks to put into office, at least into the Congress. You keep them no where near the Committees where they have to actually look at other nations, and they do fine enough. But Paul is not, nor has he ever been, Presidential material. He is a counterbalance, he is an alternative view that gets their voice heard, but putting the man in the Presidency is not Crazy Uncle Shouting at Clouds material, but akin to putting a gun in your mouth, and liking the taste...

To be fair: I was not for the invasion of Afghanistan. I thought we should have made 9/11 a matter of criminal justice, not force projection, but once committed to it, we were exactly that, committed to it, and it behooved us once we toppled their government to get them at least near a tack to sail in their own political waters. Iraq, I was against, because the reasoning was crap. Glad to see our boys coming home, and sad because we essentially handed the nation over to fellas who are pretty much just about as bad for the US as the guy who had wrangled over folks there before.

Paul sometimes takes a stand that is indeed principled. His reasoning, is sometimes even based on a well thought position. Often, it is just as knee jerk as anything the Teahadi promote.

Paul is only getting his moment in the sun, because Newt is flagging, and the news agencies need a new story to pimp. It is generated and about as true as a winter roaming monarch butterfly in New England though...

How can one criticise Ron Paul's foreign policy, if he essentially he does not have one, unless you consider 100% isolationism a policy?

I remember him getting almost booed off the stage in one of the republican debates for challenging that same farking statement that the terrorists "hate us for our freedom" and thought he might have something there.

And yes, Israel is more trouble than it's worth.

shivashakti: I agree with most of his take on foreign policy. Though, refusing to use a gay person's bathroom is just beyond stupid and bigoted. Particularly for a doctor, who should know better.


However, it doesn't matter. Ron Paul isn't going to get the nomination.

I'd love to see someone more sane with a similar foreign policy get elected. Not completely 100% isolationist. I mean, I believe in trading with other countries.

Just not invading them.

There are saner candidates. Johnson, is a few times removed from the Crazy Train that Paul rides--his monetary policy is not real bright, but he has the ability to make pragmatic choices in the face of facts. Huntsman is far from perfect, but is far saner than any of the "top" candidates, and that includes kleptocrat Romney. I still think that I'll be putting down Roemer for the Primaries, because of the field, he is the sanest choice. Not the one anointed by the press or PACS, but the guy on the field that I think would actually do a decent job in the office.

Ron Paul's foreign policy is that he wants to completely cut his tribe off from any kind of cooperation or organization with the rest of the world. My Tribe First and Only*

*I'm also fine with Darwinian struggle within my tribe and some of my tribe members starving to death out of principle.

shivashakti: I'd love to see someone more sane with a similar foreign policy get elected. Not completely 100% isolationist. I mean, I believe in trading with other countries.

Uh, dude, Paul's foreign policy stance calls for trade with everybody. He's pretty much shouted it from the rooftops. That's how you get friendly with countries and keep them from going to war with you. You establish a mutually beneficial relationship.

WorldCitizen: Ron Paul's foreign policy is that he wants to completely cut his tribe off from any kind of cooperation or organization with the rest of the world.

You're so far from correct on this that you've actually stated the exact opposite of his policy.

Congratulations.

Actually, RON PAUL's foreign policy is the only part of his platform that isn't batshiat crazy, though I think it's wrong in a lot of ways. It's his domestic policy that's totally nuts.

jbuist: WorldCitizen: Ron Paul's foreign policy is that he wants to completely cut his tribe off from any kind of cooperation or organization with the rest of the world.

You're so far from correct on this that you've actually stated the exact opposite of his policy.

Congratulations.

Which rooftops has he shouted this off?

jbuist: WorldCitizen: Ron Paul's foreign policy is that he wants to completely cut his tribe off from any kind of cooperation or organization with the rest of the world.

You're so far from correct on this that you've actually stated the exact opposite of his policy.

Congratulations.

Well, he wants the US out of the UN, WTO, NATO, WHO, and pretty much any other form of organized cooperation with the rest of the world, so how exactly is that wrong?

He is also very libertarian which falls a lot toward the socially Darwinian view of society. So again?

Yeah yeah he's a secret Muslim too and pals around with terrorist.

There's a lot I don't like about RP. His foreign policy isn't one of those things.

Part of the reason people voted in George W. Bush was that he ran on "less foreign adventures" and "less policing the globe". His message was to the left of Clintons.

Obama's message on foreign occupations was to the left of Bush's.

Paul's message on foreign occupations is to the left of Obama's.

And, IMHO, especially for a war-weary US, the message to the left resonates more.

There's a lot to call Paul crazy for, but I really don't think this is one of them.

Doesn't Isreal have nukes? So they're good right?

Shaggy_C: His message was a lie.

I completely agree about Bush's being a lie. Obama too, but to a lesser degree (Obama didn't say "no more wars" and then attack a random country on suspect info, even if he drew out an existing conflict longer than he said he would).

But this part:

Paul's message on foreign occupations is to the left of Obama's ?????.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Paul is far less of a hawk than Obama, and far less supportive of policing the world (Obama did run pretty centrist. He wasn't the pinko-lib republicans painted him as. Sh*t, at one point the McCain campaign was calling him a war-monger). And in the current climate, any one in favor of military draw-downs is on the left, and the more draw-downs, the further left, because the GOP has made "Invade all the brown places" a litmus test to be in their retarded club.

I Said: There's a lot I don't like about RP. His foreign policy isn't one of those things.

Part of the reason people voted in George W. Bush was that he ran on "less foreign adventures" and "less policing the globe". His message was to the left of Clintons.

Obama's message on foreign occupations was to the left of Bush's.

Paul's message on foreign occupations is to the left of Obama's.

And, IMHO, especially for a war-weary US, the message to the left resonates more.

There's a lot to call Paul crazy for, but I really don't think this is one of them.

I agree for the most part, except:
9/11 truther is tin foil hat territory
pulling out of every international org from the UN to WHO is stupid, the kind of stupid borne from a simple principle combined with a lack of practical knowledge.

MisterRonbo: I agree for the most part, except:
9/11 truther is tin foil hat territory
pulling out of every international org from the UN to WHO is stupid, the kind of stupid borne from a simple principle combined with a lack of practical knowledge.

I agree. I was talking of the larger "Pull out of other countries/stop being the world police", but I agree w/ you on the rest.

I voted for Ron Paul when he ran for President in 1988. He was considered a fringe lunatic back then, eight years after Reagan and before Bush I, not exactly a liberal time in our history.

He hasn't changed one bit on anything but now he's a viable candidate for the Republican nomination. This says less about him and more about how the Republicans have changed in the past couple of decades. Weird.

jbuist: shivashakti: I'd love to see someone more sane with a similar foreign policy get elected. Not completely 100% isolationist. I mean, I believe in trading with other countries.

Uh, dude, Paul's foreign policy stance calls for trade with everybody. He's pretty much shouted it from the rooftops. That's how you get friendly with countries and keep them from going to war with you. You establish a mutually beneficial relationship.

True. But he also wants to pull out of international orgahizations that facilitate trade. I worked for a company that ran a fleet of ships around the world, things like standards for port codes and passport data make commerce work so much better

bestie1: The fact is that no real contender wants to be president right now

Oh give me a break. Is this something Republicans actually believe? Is this what they tell themselves when they cry themselves to sleep at night?

Well he is right about Israel (full disclosure I am Jewish). Israel should never have been created - to say the land was stolen is an understatement... The fact that we continue to prop up that failed state should be grounds for the ICJ to try our leaders for war crimes.

/ RON PAUL!

gregoropolis: ourbigdumbmouth: Doesn't Isreal have nukes? So they're good right?

What if in exchange for military aid every American gets discounted vacation packages to Israel?

Add in Brazil and we have a deal

Confabulat: bestie1: The fact is that no real contender wants to be president right now

Oh give me a break. Is this something Republicans actually believe? Is this what they tell themselves when they cry themselves to sleep at night?

Some do. None want to face the reality that they've made this odd image of Ronald Reagan where he represents their hopes more than he does his actual historical self, and that these hopes are so f*cking contradictory that they're impossible for ANY candidate to live up to. This is why everyone gets to be a front runner until the base learns anything about them. So instead of blaming themselves for concocting this impossible mold in their own heads, they say "oh, well, I'm sure there are a ton of super qualified people who just don't want the job"

Shaggy_C: There's question marks because you can't legitimately know what a prospective president is going to do until they become president and circumstances warrant a response. There's a certain amount of realpolitik that takes over; Paul's dislike of foreign intervention from an executive standpoint would immediately become null and void the second the Congress actually declared war (since then it would pass the constitutional test).

AH, ok you're right. I just meant that their 1st term campaign message was to the left of the actions of their predecessor. W. Bush's 2nd term campaign message was far to the right of his own first term.

But I agree with you completely

pmdgrwr: It really sounds like you people think Paul will win and you people are scared that he will make you fend for yourselves and become responsible for your actions. Hahahaha, bunch of panty waste you people have become.

WTF kind of mind comes up with this version of reality? That's scary to witness.