Congressman Paul Returns Over $100,000 to Treasury

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Rex_B, Mar 2, 2010.

Page 3 of 3
  1. Chase4LSU

    Chase4LSU Waiting on Mettenberger

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    74
    I didn't say pull away from every base, or turn every base over to another country, or fire every member of the military. I don't think we do anyone's bidding but our own. I don't believe we can be a truely isolated nation. But there are some places in the world that can solve their own problems and we should let them. I would be ok with doubling or tripling bases where needed.
     
    Chase4LSU, Mar 3, 2010
    #21
  2. TwistedTiger

    TwistedTiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Messages:
    14,073
    Likes Received:
    4,977
    What a radical, no wonder no one but Independents like him. Could you imagine someone becoming President and using common sense? That's even more radical than the current Socialist leader we have now, it will never fly.
     
    TwistedTiger, Mar 3, 2010
    #22
    1 person likes this.
  3. Chase4LSU

    Chase4LSU Waiting on Mettenberger

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    74

    :rofl: That's even less likely than law being the profession of the majority of Congress
     
    Chase4LSU, Mar 3, 2010
    #23
  4. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    nowadays, and always before. RFK might have been president, and JQ adams was, and even FDR was a 5th cousin to ted. and always lawyers have been president. not a problem because being president involves laws.

    i feel like wacked principles is the problem, not family connections or occupations.

    if chelsea clinton wants to get law degree and be president, thats fine with me if she is for low taxes and aggressive national defense.
     
    martin, Mar 3, 2010
    #24
  5. Rex_B

    Rex_B Geaux Time

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,926
    Likes Received:
    187
    I figured you already knew his political background of nearly 50 years...
     
    Rex_B, Mar 4, 2010
    #25
  6. Bandit88

    Bandit88 Old Enough to Know Better

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    6,068
    Likes Received:
    511
    Well, I didn't define it. But I gather you mean you think it's OK to pull out of regions where we have long term, strategic interests. You don't think it'd be isolationist to reduce our footprint in Iraq, Europe and Asia.

    I disagree. It's EXACTLY what isolationism means. Navel-gazing at the cost of leadership.

    I understand the Libertarian perspective on this. It's why I'm a small "l" libertarian. I think big "L" Libertarians have gone 'round the bend on some stuff - much like big "L" Liberals and big "C" Conservatives.
     
    Bandit88, Mar 5, 2010
    #26
  7. OkieTigerTK

    OkieTigerTK Tornado Alley

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    18,000
    Likes Received:
    1,286
    first of all, before anyone gets their panties wadded, i am not not necessarily talking about ron paul. i could be talking about albert einstein, jethro bodine, or jesus christ.

    it doesnt matter how good a person is or what they "understand", if i dont agree with their policies, im not voting for them.
     
    OkieTigerTK, Mar 5, 2010
    #27
  8. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Isolationism means retaining all forces on American territory, as we did before WWII, and refusing to involve ourselves in foreign wars. This was the republican party stance right up until December 7, 1941.

    It would be isolationist to pull everything back to North America, but reducing our footprint makes a lot of sense in a lot of places. The EU combined has a big population, plenty of wealth, and a bigger armed forces than the US. They should be footing the bill for their own defense, now that the Russian menace is a shadow of its former self. They should buy their own missile defense system, too.

    We still need overseas bases to remain a global superpower, especially air and naval bases, but we do not need to maintain huge overseas garrisons except where they are vital, as in Korea. We do not need permanent bases or garrisons in Iraq. We have dozens of other bases in the region, in more friendly countries that are easier to logistically support.
     
    red55, Mar 6, 2010
    #28
  9. Rex_B

    Rex_B Geaux Time

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,926
    Likes Received:
    187
    Isolationism is not wanting anything to do with another country. Just because your military isn't there doesn't make you an isolationist.

    Trade with people. Have diplomacy. Military not needed.
     
    Rex_B, Mar 7, 2010
    #29
Page 3 of 3

Share This Page