PDA

View Full Version : Towery: Reagan would have voted for Ron Paul


Taco John
12-26-2007, 05:58 PM
Would Reagan Vote for Ron Paul?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Matt Towery
Dec 26, 2007


On Christmas Day, I glanced at the memorabilia from my years in politics. The photos and notes from Newt Gingrich. Candid shots of me with the likes of Jimmy Carter and of the brilliant mastermind of his presidential victory, Hamilton Jordan. Next were shots of me posing with Bill Clinton and then with both President Bushes.

And oh yes, here was a young U.S. Senate aide Matt Towery with one Ronald Reagan. Everyone knows there are plenty of people with photos of themselves with politicians. And there are loads of people who were close to Reagan. Many of them have both the credentials and the motives -- especially the motives -- to refute what I am about to write. Certainly my friends who still consider themselves respected experts and D.C. insiders would never dare write what follows. They would be cast off into the outer circles of the political establishment.

Personally, I could care less. So here goes. Reagan was once an Iowan. He once broadcast University of Iowa football games, and he later was "discovered" by Hollywood when living in Des Moines.

It is my personal belief that if Reagan were alive and living in Iowa today, and he had to choose among the Republican presidential candidates, that he would likely choose the man the GOP establishment and national media have written off -- Congressman Ron Paul.

To begin with, there is little doubt that for at least foreign policy, Reagan was basically a non-interventionist. He bragged about the fact that the United States did not occupy foreign countries. He stressed in virtually every speech about the "Evil Empire" of the Soviet Union that they must be brought down, but not by use of force or war. When provoked by Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi, the Osama bin Laden of the 1980s, Reagan used strategic bombing next to the quarters in which al-Qaddafi was sleeping to bring the brash "terrorist" to his knees.

Even the vicious murder of more than 200 troops in Lebanon did not provoke invasion or war. Instead, Reagan removed U.S. presence there in order to cool down an ultra-hot situation. Oh yes, we did invade Grenada. More a military exercise than a true battle.

As for domestic policy, again Reagan's philosophy seems closer to that of Paul's than any other Republican candidate today. Reagan constantly railed against big government. In speech after speech, he emphasized the need to adhere to the Constitution, and to respect the powers of the individual states. Sound familiar?

As for some of Dr. Paul's more far-fetched positions, they may be "out there," but it wasn't hard for me to find quotes from Reagan that reflected nearly the same sentiments. For example, Paul's concerns about a monetary system based on something closer and closer to worthless paper was similarly expressed by Reagan as early as 1964 when he stumped for Barry Goldwater for president.

In a speech that year, Reagan expressed concerns about America losing its monetary independence. And, eerily, he alluded to fears about foreign nations owning American currency.

As I try to remind my friends who were around in 1980, Reagan was considered by the mainstream Republican establishment to be as kooky as many label Paul as being.

Gerald Ford in 1980 was quoted in Time Magazine as saying that Reagan was "unelectable." It is no wonder that when Reagan challenged Ford some four years earlier for the GOP nomination, Paul was one of only a handful of sitting congressmen who supported Reagan's effort.

What Paul lacks is Reagan's movie-star looks, and the credibility that comes with having been governor of California. Even without those attributes, Paul has managed to become the first Republican candidate I've seen since 1980 that can draw huge crowds so devoted to their candidate that they seem almost cult-like in their zeal. Believe it or not, that's what we thought of the Reagan crowds that gathered early in his bid for president in 1980.

The fact is that Reagan tamed both his rhetoric and the implementation of his agenda to meet the realities of the presidency. My guess is that were Ron Paul to have such a chance, he would inevitably do the same.

I still believe that between the Republican Party's longing to appear "mainstream" and the national political media's fear of appearing to give in to "fringe elements," that Paul's quest for the nomination will fall far short in the end.

But as I have said before, Lord help both parties if he decides to run as a third-party candidate. They may not like what he might say, but he would darn sure say it.

As Reagan said once said when a debate moderator cut him short, "I paid for this microphone." Paul might just buy one of his own.

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272617901.shtml

Ultra Peanut
12-26-2007, 05:59 PM
Jesus would have voted for Ron Paul.

a1na2
12-26-2007, 06:00 PM
Towery: Reagan would have voted for Ron Paul

Considering that none of us are Ronald Reagan this is pretty much garbage.

HolmeZz
12-26-2007, 06:02 PM
Reagan: Who the hell is Matt Towery?

Ultra Peanut
12-26-2007, 06:04 PM
Reagan would have voted for Matt Towery.

Taco John
12-26-2007, 06:27 PM
Reagan: Who the hell is Matt Towery?



Towery was the only pollster last cycle who called the Kerry win in Iowa. He's pretty well known in conservative circles.

Cochise
12-26-2007, 07:58 PM
When provoked by Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi, the Osama bin Laden of the 1980s, Reagan used strategic bombing next to the quarters in which al-Qaddafi was sleeping to bring the brash "terrorist" to his knees.


Forgive me, all ye who venerate the great Ronald Reagan, but I have quite a hard time believing that Ron Paul would order such a thing.

In fact Reagan's policies toward the Soviets seem opposite of this non-interventionist mindset. The whole idea of his foreign policy directed at the Soviet Union was one of us taking the offensive and rejecting a reactive approach like the former containment policies, which had failed to give birth in many years of trying.

Will someone convince me that Ron Paul would have underwent the defense buildup that Reagan did to bankrupt the Soviet Union, trying to replace their own decades-behind technology? Would Ron Paul have spent billions on SDI, as if to say, we'll race you to the moon if we have to?

Perhaps both men would rightly recognize that the principal weakness of that system of government was that it takes away peoples' hope for a better life for themselves and encases their national feet in concrete in the process. But I don't have any trouble seeing a cold war under a non-intervention policy continuing for 20 or 30 more years, and the people of Russia suffering more decades as a result. I'm not even sure I should rule out that we would have underwent a degree of disarmament, under the auspices of maintaining an adequate defense and nothing more.

I'm not sure why non-intervention is thought to be limited to military intervention. The defense spending along with what Reagan did to deflate the price of oil, oil being their main avenue of economic viability, while convincing other nations not to export key technologies to them... none of these smack of non interventionism to me.

What part of the Paulian construct would advocate aggressively attacking the foundations of another nation's system of government and its economic infrastructure by whatever means, be they bombs or bullets or paper currency or barrels of oil or satellites that zap missiles with lasers?

Ebolapox
12-26-2007, 08:31 PM
MISTER GORBACHALF, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL! REAGON SMASH! REAGON SMASH!

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/togoornottogo/1st/family_guy-4x11-01.jpg">

HolmeZz
12-26-2007, 08:51 PM
Towery was the only pollster last cycle who called the Kerry win in Iowa. He's pretty well known in conservative circles.

If Towery can hypothetically quote Reagan, so can I.

ChiefaRoo
12-26-2007, 08:58 PM
"Well, actually I would vote for Patteeu as I find Ron Paul to be a political lightweight"
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m13/buyingguy/ronaldreagan.jpg

Taco John
12-26-2007, 10:23 PM
Perhaps both men would rightly recognize that the principal weakness of that system of government was that it takes away peoples' hope for a better life for themselves and encases their national feet in concrete in the process.

The sad thing is that we've adopted that system for all intents and purposes, and every republican but Paul is offering people government cheese of one type or another.


I'm not sure why non-intervention is thought to be limited to military intervention.

It's definitely not. Paul is an advocate of non-interventionism of all types: military, economic, and social. He truly believes in the traditional conservative laissez fair approach to governing on the macro level, allowing people to interact as representatives on the micro level. Opening trade up to communist Cuba is a good example of a Paulian policy. Dr. Paul feels that our problem isn't with the Cuban people, but with the Cuban government. He'd rather get that point across by turning the tables on them and isolating their government from their people by opening up trade relations with them and putting an American face on America (rather than the propagandized face that their government surely shows them). People can tell the difference between propaganda and the truth once they've been exposed to reality (which, by the way, is why Dr. Paul's campaign has gotten so popular and will continue to increase in popularity). Eventually, Cuban government will have to close down trade from their end, isolating the people from their government even further. Having tasted the riches of trade with America, and realizing that it is their government that is keeping them from tasting such prosperity, revolt would not be far off.

I couldn't say for certain how Dr. Paul would handle the cold war. And the point is actually more academic than it is useful. We don't live in a cold war time. We live in the so-called age of terror. I suspect that Dr. Paul would similarly want to let these problems be solved on a micro level, while working to preserve our liberty on the macro level - which especially includes the defense of our nation.

I found an article that I thought was pretty fair on the doctrine of non-intervention that is worth a read: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/goldwater_is_to_reagan_as_ron.html

penchief
12-27-2007, 07:35 AM
Reagan a nonintervenionist? You have got to be kidding.

Do you remember Lebanon? Iraq-Iran War? Iran-contra? Panama? Grenada? El-Salvador? Nicaruagua? Afghanistan?

That looks like a lot of intervention for somebody who's supposedly a noninterventionist. Paying lip service to noninterventionism and actually being a noninterventionist are two different things. Ronald Regan was a lip service president much in the same way that GW Bush is a lip service president.

Why do some people insist on rewriting history? Bush interventionist foreign policy is nothing more than Reagan's interventionist foreign policy on steroids.

a1na2
12-27-2007, 10:38 AM
Reagan a nonintervenionist? You have got to be kidding.

Do you remember Lebanon? Iraq-Iran War? Iran-contra? Panama? Grenada? El-Salvador? Nicaruagua? Afghanistan?

That looks like a lot of intervention for somebody who's supposedly a noninterventionist. Paying lip service to noninterventionism and actually being a noninterventionist are two different things. Ronald Regan was a lip service president much in the same way that GW Bush is a lip service president.

Why do some people insist on rewriting history? Bush interventionist foreign policy is nothing more than Reagan's interventionist foreign policy on steroids.

So you're a liberal, eh?

You forgot Libya.

patteeu
12-27-2007, 01:27 PM
Reagan a nonintervenionist? You have got to be kidding.

Do you remember Lebanon? Iraq-Iran War? Iran-contra? Panama? Grenada? El-Salvador? Nicaruagua? Afghanistan?

That looks like a lot of intervention for somebody who's supposedly a noninterventionist. Paying lip service to noninterventionism and actually being a noninterventionist are two different things. Ronald Regan was a lip service president much in the same way that GW Bush is a lip service president.

Why do some people insist on rewriting history? Bush interventionist foreign policy is nothing more than Reagan's interventionist foreign policy on steroids.


IMO, penchief shreds the silly notion at the heart of this thread.

Taco John
12-27-2007, 01:43 PM
I personally thought the author did a good job of pre-empting these claims. He noted that ideologically, Paul and Reagan are very similar (which is why Paul was one of the only ones supporting Reagan's candidacy early on), and he noted that "The fact is that Reagan tamed both his rhetoric and the implementation of his agenda to meet the realities of the presidency. My guess is that were Ron Paul to have such a chance, he would inevitably do the same."

Cochise
12-27-2007, 02:24 PM
If I were a Paulite I would be concerned about supporters increasingly pretending that my candidate is everything to everyone.

As evidenced by this thread, it's pretty hard to swallow that Ron Paul is a clone of Reagan for anyone but a Paulite. Especially that non-intervention bit. I mean... that doesn't even pass the smell test. Everyone here from all over the spectrum here finds it a junkpile idea.

It seems the pitch is "So, what do you want out of life? Oh, what a coincidence, our guy is exactly that!"

Be what you are. If you want people to respect you, stand on your own merits. Don't try to put on the Reagan mask. Poor strategy IMO, and an average voter can see through it.

Taco John
12-27-2007, 02:36 PM
If I were a Paulite I would be concerned about supporters increasingly pretending that my candidate is everything to everyone.

As evidenced by this thread, it's pretty hard to swallow that Ron Paul is a clone of Reagan for anyone but a Paulite. Especially that non-intervention bit. I mean... that doesn't even pass the smell test. Everyone here from all over the spectrum here finds it a junkpile idea.

It seems the pitch is "So, what do you want out of life? Oh, what a coincidence, our guy is exactly that!"

Be what you are. If you want people to respect you, stand on your own merits. Don't try to put on the Reagan mask. Poor strategy IMO, and an average voter can see through it.


What a wierd post. I don't even know how to respond to such a fundamentally flawed take. Ron Paul doesn't stand on his own merits? Ron Paul doesn't have the same rhetoric as Reagan? Do you even know what Reagan stood for?

Apparently not.

Taco John
12-27-2007, 02:37 PM
Here's some education... Towery explains his position in detail:

http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/

mlyonsd
12-27-2007, 02:56 PM
I personally thought the author did a good job of pre-empting these claims. He noted that ideologically, Paul and Reagan are very similar (which is why Paul was one of the only ones supporting Reagan's candidacy early on), and he noted that "The fact is that Reagan tamed both his rhetoric and the implementation of his agenda to meet the realities of the presidency. My guess is that were Ron Paul to have such a chance, he would inevitably do the same."
Nobody knows how Reagan would have reacted to 911. But my bet is it wouldn't be non-intervention.

ChiefaRoo
12-27-2007, 03:08 PM
Nobody knows how Reagan would have reacted to 911. But my bet is it wouldn't be non-intervention.

Reagan would of retaliated against AQ. I am confident he would of stomped them in Afghanistan. In Iraq? who knows. I suspect he would of used our spy networks and would of stretched the law in interrogation and assasination killings. Basically, what Bush has done only he would of done a better job using our allies.

Taco John
12-27-2007, 04:01 PM
Nobody knows how Reagan would have reacted to 911. But my bet is it wouldn't be non-intervention.



I doubt that the responses between Paul and Reagan would have been too terribly different. Certainly, I think Reagan would have actually targetted Al Queda, rather than using it as an opportunity to open a war with a nation that wasn't involved.

Don't get me wrong... I don't personally think Reagan was perfect-- but to me, his ideology was. It's the same ideology that Paul shares. Which is the point that Matt Towery is making.

penchief
12-27-2007, 05:30 PM
I doubt that the responses between Paul and Reagan would have been too terribly different. Certainly, I think Reagan would have actually targetted Al Queda, rather than using it as an opportunity to open a war with a nation that wasn't involved.

Don't get me wrong... I don't personally think Reagan was perfect-- but to me, his ideology was. It's the same ideology that Paul shares. Which is the point that Matt Towery is making.

You're either delusional or scrambling to save face. Either way, you're wrong.

The Neocon tactic that Reagan started by attacking countries that can't defend themselves soley for domestic political reasons has been seized on in a big way by the Bush Reaganite Neocons. Instead of Grenada the Bushies went for Iraq.

IMO, it was probably going to take an overreach such as Iraq to wake the people of this country up to the forces of greed that have infiltrated our government.

Taco John
12-27-2007, 05:41 PM
I have no need to either scramble or save face. When you're right, there is no need to save face.

Ideologically, Reagan and Paul were on the same page. Matt Towery is absolutely correct in his assessment.

penchief
12-27-2007, 05:50 PM
I have no need to either scramble or save face. When you're right, there is no need to save face.

Ideologically, Reagan and Paul were on the same page. Matt Towery is absolutely correct in his assessment.

Heh...

a1na2
12-27-2007, 06:49 PM
You're either delusional or scrambling to save face. Either way, you're wrong.

The Neocon tactic that Reagan started by attacking countries that can't defend themselves soley for domestic political reasons has been seized on in a big way by the Bush Reaganite Neocons. Instead of Grenada the Bushies went for Iraq.

IMO, it was probably going to take an overreach such as Iraq to wake the people of this country up to the forces of greed that have infiltrated our government.

Are you speaking of the rich republicans or the rich democrats? All politicians are in office for their own purposes and they have nothing to do with the constituants they represent.

Money, money, money.

penchief
12-27-2007, 07:10 PM
Are you speaking of the rich republicans or the rich democrats? All politicians are in office for their own purposes and they have nothing to do with the constituants they represent.

Money, money, money.

I'm not going to disagree with you that there are forces in both parties that have no regard for integrity. However, if one were to choose between republicans and democrats, it's easy to see that republicans are naturally more authoritarian and more easily swayed by greed while democrats are naturally more compassionate and more easily swayed by guilt.

All I was pointing out is that this country has been founded on fundamental decency (a decency which has historically been displayed by Americans via the evolution of America, AND, a mutual respect and compassion for each other). Once that decency has been compromised by greedy interests, the ideals of our founding fathers has also been compromised, IMO.

IMO, that is something that a lot of neo-s don't even try to comprehend because of their political zeal.

a1na2
12-27-2007, 07:42 PM
I'm not going to disagree with you that there are forces in both parties that have no regard for integrity. However, if one were to choose between republicans and democrats, it's easy to see that republicans are naturally more authoritarian and more easily swayed by greed while democrats are naturally more compassionate and more easily swayed by guilt.

All I was pointing out is that this country has been founded on fundamental decency (a decency which has historically been displayed by Americans via the evolution of America, AND, a mutual respect and compassion for each other). Once that decency has been compromised by greedy interests, the ideals of our founding fathers has also been compromised, IMO.

IMO, that is something that a lot of neo-s don't even try to comprehend because of their political zeal.

Which party do you feel tends to stimulate growth in the economy? Which party is bigger on taxes? Which party is bigger on social programs?

It's a little ying and yang. Each party has it's priorities and we all end up living with whomever is elected. For the next 12 years I'd rather have someone that is going to keep my 401k growing at 26%. After I draw down I think it might be irrelevant as to who is in office. I'll continue to put the maximum in the 401k that I can and hope that the company does well. I'm not holding my breath for social security, If I get mine that will be good but like all good Americans I don't count on it being there.

ChiefaRoo
12-27-2007, 07:53 PM
You're either delusional or scrambling to save face. Either way, you're wrong.

The Neocon tactic that Reagan started by attacking countries that can't defend themselves soley for domestic political reasons has been seized on in a big way by the Bush Reaganite Neocons. Instead of Grenada the Bushies went for Iraq.

IMO, it was probably going to take an overreach such as Iraq to wake the people of this country up to the forces of greed that have infiltrated our government.


You're Koo Koo for Cocoa Puffs.

BucEyedPea
12-27-2007, 08:22 PM
I doubt that the responses between Paul and Reagan would have been too terribly different. Certainly, I think Reagan would have actually targetted Al Queda, rather than using it as an opportunity to open a war with a nation that wasn't involved.
If one read Reagan's biography, they'd see that at least Reagan agrees with Paul on getting more embroiled in the conflicts of the ME that really are not our fight.

Reagan admitted as much in his biography and even on his last day in office: that going into Beirut was a mistake and that he should have never done it.

He, at least, did not compound that felony by remaining there until some sort of ill defined victory was achieved. He got out before it got worse. The difference between Reagan and Bush is that Reagan was really anti-communist; not necessarily anti-Muslim. He knew there was already someone else's raging conflict going on over there. So Reagan made mistakes in the ME and I say Beirut was just one of them along with its attendent blowback. I wouldn't even say it was the only mistake in the ME.

penchief
12-27-2007, 08:23 PM
Which party do you feel tends to stimulate growth in the economy?

I feel that the democrats economic philosophy is one that "feeds the economic base (the consumer)." In other words, "trickle up economics."

Which party is bigger on taxes?

The democrats are bigger on collecting taxes because they are traditionally more governmentally responsible. America's infrastructure is the infrastructure of the most prominent democracy on earth. Why wouldn't we want it to be strong and vibrant? Our infrastructure represents the best that we have to offer to the rest of the world.

Why is it that we used to point to poverty in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc to prove that our way of life is better? Now that our way of life has won the Cold War, we are opting for their way of life. That's just stupid, IMO.

Which party is bigger on social programs?

Republicans, if you choose to include corporate welfare programs. If you want to include only those programs intended to provide access to equal opportunity, then it would be democrats.

How can anyone complain about entitlement programs for the most vulnerable when commercial entities that reap record profits are currently the biggest beneficiaries of government entitlements?

It's a little ying and yang. Each party has it's priorities and we all end up living with whomever is elected. For the next 12 years I'd rather have someone that is going to keep my 401k growing at 26%. After I draw down I think it might be irrelevant as to who is in office. I'll continue to put the maximum in the 401k that I can and hope that the company does well. I'm not holding my breath for social security, If I get mine that will be good but like all good Americans I don't count on it being there.

I get where you are coming from but wouldn't most conservatives say that the money being invested in health insurance by both business and the individual would be better spent in the market place or on Wall Street?

On the other hand, I'm not sold on the concept of speculation. I can't quite make the connection between what people think or decide will happen and what actually constitutes the basics of commerce (i.e. ideas, capital, labor, products, services, supply, demand, etc).

How is that the corporate media has been able to convince the masses in America that the concept of free enterprise is all about speculation and money manipulation instead of substance? It's retarded if you ask me.

ChiefaRoo
12-27-2007, 08:42 PM
If one read Reagan's biography, they'd see that at least Reagan agrees with Paul on getting more embroiled in the conflicts of the ME that really are not our fight.

Reagan admitted as much in his biography and even on his last day in office: that going into Beirut was a mistake and that he should have never done it.

He, at least, did not compound that felony by remaining there until some sort of ill defined victory was achieved. He got out before it got worse. The difference between Reagan and Bush is that Reagan was really anti-communist; not necessarily anti-Muslim. He knew there was already someone else's raging conflict going on over there. So Reagan made mistakes in the ME and I say Beirut was just one of them along with its attendent blowback. I wouldn't even say it was the only mistake in the ME.

Pea, what you say is true but you can't use his words from then because globalization, 9/11 (an attack on our soil) and nuclear proliferation via (AQ Khan from Pakistan) have changed the world and upped the ante. I long for the days of the US being reluctant to use power but those days are gone. We just can't play defense and counterpunch anymore as the potential first strike is just to big of a risk. Forget Iraq for a moment and understand the USA is going to have to use our spies and special forces to keep us safe in the future. We're going to have to get down in the ditch and bare knuckle it out with some of these stateless crazies.

penchief
12-27-2007, 08:49 PM
You're Koo Koo for Cocoa Puffs.

You're Koo Koo, baby, but I still luv ya.

a1na2
12-27-2007, 08:57 PM
How is that the corporate media has been able to convince the masses in America that the concept of free enterprise is all about speculation and money manipulation instead of substance?

To me free enterprise is all about investing your money in yourself and making a business work for you. Speculation for the unwary and simple minded tends to be like going to a casino thinking that you are going to break the bank .... every payday.

penchief
12-27-2007, 09:08 PM
To me free enterprise is all about investing your money in yourself and making a business work for you.

If you are talking about small business opportunities, I don't necessarily disagree. But you must also acknowledge that in Bush's economy, small businesses are getting squeezed in favor of corporate consolidation.

That's not a liberal thing no matter how much righties like to say that liberal policies are unfavorable to small businesses. It's ultimately big business policies like those that Bush advocates that have been detrimental to small businesses.

Speculation for the unwary and simple minded tends to be like going to a casino thinking that you are going to break the bank .... every payday.

I just think that it's inappropriate for a few high rollers to be able to dictate the the condidtions under which we all have to live.

BucEyedPea
12-27-2007, 09:12 PM
Pea, what you say is true but you can't use his words from then because globalization, 9/11 (an attack on our soil) and nuclear proliferation via (AQ Khan from Pakistan) have changed the world and upped the ante.
That's only true if you drink the agit-propaganda tasting Kool-Aid.
But really long for the day? We had this during the Cold War with a nation state that could have anniliated us. We're dealing with insignificant pests. And globalism? wtf? We can trade with whoever we want like we did before.

Those days are over.

No the days for needing bases ww to contain communism is over.
It's a new era. One that needs a restoration of our Republic and Founding principles.

It's time to get out of these countries and come home.
So we agree?

I long for the days of the US being reluctant to use power but those days are gone.
This is so 20th century, Roo. It's no longer necessary and we will be safer by not putting our military into more Muslim countries. There's no need for it. It will make us safer.

We just can't play defense and counterpunch anymore as the potential first strike is just to big of a risk. Forget Iraq for a moment and understand the USA is going to have to use our spies and special forces to keep us safe in the future. We're going to have to get down in the ditch and bare knuckle it out with some of these stateless crazies.
No we don't have to get down in the ditch and fight these guys. They want the US out of their countries. That's not anything unreasonable to ask.

Spies and special forces...I'm okay on depending on how used.

ChiefaRoo
12-27-2007, 09:48 PM
That's only true if you drink the agit-propaganda tasting Kool-Aid.
But really long for the day? We had this during the Cold War with a nation state that could have anniliated us. We're dealing with insignificant pests. And globalism? wtf? We can trade with whoever we want like we did before.



No the days for needing bases ww to contain communism is over.
It's a new era. One that needs a restoration of our Republic and Founding principles.


So we agree?


This is so 20th century, Roo. It's no longer necessary and we will be safer by not putting our military into more Muslim countries. There's no need for it. It will make us safer.


No we don't have to get down in the ditch and fight these guys. They want the US out of their countries. That's not anything unreasonable to ask.

Spies and special forces...I'm okay on depending on how used.


I disagree. (too tired to write a detailed response)

BucEyedPea
12-27-2007, 10:06 PM
That's fine. You and I will never agree on our current fp. I'm not a supporter of a nc approach nor the type of globalism we're getting. I think globalism is aggravating local tensions...even here in America. The world's people prefer living under their own local customs and cultures, as well as buying and selling with who they want. That's what I want for America as well.

ChiefaRoo
12-27-2007, 10:18 PM
That's fine. You and I will never agree on our current fp. I'm not a supporter of a nc approach nor the type of globalism we're getting. I think globalism is aggravating local tensions...even here in America. The world's people prefer living under their own local customs and cultures buy and selling with who they want.


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ag8g96qsdaI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ag8g96qsdaI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>











LMAO

a1na2
12-28-2007, 05:44 AM
If you are talking about small business opportunities, I don't necessarily disagree. But you must also acknowledge that in Bush's economy, small businesses are getting squeezed in favor of corporate consolidation.

I don't know, I have some business acquaintences that are what I'd consider small businesses and they all seem to be doing well. They have lined up some bigger businesses as their clients and have had increasing profits over the last 5-7 years.

That's not a liberal thing no matter how much righties like to say that liberal policies are unfavorable to small businesses. It's ultimately big business policies like those that Bush advocates that have been detrimental to small businesses.

I don't know that I ever said that liberal policies were bad for the small guys, but if you consider my friends above there could be some ammunition for saying that. The company I work for has increased sales to over the $100M mark for the first time. This coming year looks great as well. The company is only 17 years old.

I just think that it's inappropriate for a few high rollers to be able to dictate the the condidtions under which we all have to live.

I don't think they dictate the conditions, but the conditions they cause tend to be profitable for quite a few. Why is it that others cannot see what is available right now and capitalize on it? Some people, and companies, live with a poverty outlook on things and don't have the ability to change their ways IMO.

patteeu
12-28-2007, 06:02 AM
I have no need to either scramble or save face. When you're right, there is no need to save face.

Ideologically, Reagan and Paul were on the same page. Matt Towery is absolutely correct in his assessment.

I suppose that this is destined to be a never ending argument since we'll never know what Reagan would have done in the current environment, but it's completely clear that whatever his rhetoric, Reagan was anything but a non-interventionist when our country was faced with the Cold War. Was Reagan calling for our foreign-based troops to come home? No, he was aggressively increasing the war fighting capabilities of our forward bases by, among other things, deploying Pershing II nuclear missiles in Germany and dramatically expanding the size of our Navy. Was he eschewing conflict in favor of talk and trade? No, he was retaliating against terror sponsors like Mohammar Kadafi and repelling Cubans from Grenada by force. Was he staying out of the affairs of foreign governments? No he was trading arms for hostages with Iran to raise cash in an effort to prop up factions in that country who were thought to be moderates and to support Nicaraguan contras in their efforts to overthrow their Marxist government.

Towery points to a grand total of one foreign policy example that he says supports the idea that Ronald Reagan was a non-interventionist: the lack of major military response to the marine barracks bombing in Lebanon. But how does that explain the presence of those marines in the first place? If Reagan believed as Ron Paul believes, surely he wouldn't have even considered deploying those marines to Lebanon to begin with.

After being a Reagan supporter at the time of his election, Ron Paul was so disillusioned by the Reagan presidency that he ran for president as a Libertarian. Seems to me that that is prima facia evidence of a pretty significant divergence between the two. If Reagan was just being pragmatic, he was being too pragmatic for Ron Paul. Actual history refutes Mr. Towery's thesis (at least to the extent that he paints the two men as ideological soul mates). It may well be that Reagan, if he were alive today, would vote for Ron Paul, but it would be in spite of Ron Paul's foreign policy ideology not because of it.

ChiefaRoo
12-28-2007, 12:24 PM
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ag8g96qsdaI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ag8g96qsdaI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>











LMAO

What no, "quit acting like a sexist pig" remarks Pea? You must be slipping.







PS - You know I'm kidding