PDA

View Full Version : Nothing to be ashamed of...


Taco John
01-03-2008, 10:23 PM
Regardless of what the peanut gallery will say, Ron Paul supporters have nothing to be ashamed of here. We have over 10,000 supporters in a state that we knew would be hard for us. We won the battle for independant voters within the party. We obliterated the national front runner with the high profile name. We proved that we belong on the debate stage.

We have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of.

Iowanian
01-03-2008, 10:28 PM
http://www.fun4everybody.com/images/poohhug.gif

We? Who are you, Brodie Croyle?

Cochise
01-03-2008, 10:30 PM
Even though 5th place doesn't look good on paper, I'm sure it took a huge and admirable effort to pull him up to double digits from nowhere, everyone deserves credit for that.

Hopefully his campaign has been able to raise visibility on a lot of conservative issues and will have some rightening effect on the final nominee.

Taco John
01-03-2008, 10:34 PM
Votes are still coming in... The county I'm most interested in is Jefferson County. This is supposedly supposed to be a significant Paul stronghold. ABC says that third place is still a three way race... We'll see...

jAZ
01-03-2008, 10:34 PM
Kudos to you Issac, and to the rest of the REVOLution!

Iowanian
01-03-2008, 10:40 PM
Votes are still coming in... The county I'm most interested in is Jefferson County. This is supposedly supposed to be a significant Paul stronghold. ABC says that third place is still a three way race... We'll see...

Thats probably true. There is a horde of bushy haired smelly people regionally known as "the floaters". Thats because they have a big Dome in Fairfield at the Maharishi College where they think they can sit Indian style and hop...and fly. The also only live in houses with the front door that faces East?(feng suey thing).

They're some "interesting" people.....

I figured they'd be hard core democrats(alot of vegans and the like, mostly imported from out of state)

Mr. Kotter
01-03-2008, 10:54 PM
Paul exceeded realistic expectations tonight. Good show. Sort of. :clap:






It's now time for him to concede the stage to the big boys, the real contenders.

And take his go-nowhere, in the real world show....home. :shake:







FWIW, McCain, Romney, or Thompson will likely join him in the next 10-14 days or so. ;)

Taco John
01-03-2008, 10:55 PM
I told you... Ron Paul is driving towards September. He's not planning on dropping out of the race so long as he's got supporters and money.

Mr. Kotter
01-03-2008, 10:57 PM
I told you... Ron Paul is driving towards September. He's not planning on dropping out of the race so long as he's got supporters and money.

Well, if his object is to hand the Presidency to the Dems....then he would achieve his goal, if he were to do that.

Gosh, he'll be the 2008 version of John Anderson or Ralph Nader. Admirable. Cool.

:rolleyes:

jAZ
01-03-2008, 10:58 PM
It's now time for him to concede the stage to the big boys, the real contenders.

And take his go-nowhere, in the real world show....home. :shake:

Rudy can take the lead in that death march at 4%.

Cochise
01-03-2008, 10:58 PM
Paul exceeded realistic expectations tonight. Good show. Sort of. :clap:

Not really... he came in within a point or two of where polling showed he was at in Iowa.

Mr. Kotter
01-03-2008, 11:01 PM
Rudy can take the lead in that death march at 4%.

You know what, Justin? If Paul follows Issac's pathetic advice, and stays on as a protest vote.....you Dems can finally win another Presidential election. Cool.

:thumb:

4-12 for the Chiefs, in 2007. 4 out of 11 in Presidential elections during the past 44 years....wow. Congratulations. :clap:

Not really... he came in within a point or two of where polling showed he was at in Iowa.

True. But I'm still willing to give him some credit, for an "unexpected" push.

Taco John
01-03-2008, 11:05 PM
You know what, Jason? If Paul follows Issac's pathetic advice, and stays on as a protest vote.....you Dems can finally win another Presidential election. Cool.



It's not my advice. It's what his plan is. Ron Paul is in it to win it. If he doesn't win it, at the very least, he'll be keeping the Republican party honest by pushing conservativism. If that means in 4-8 years, we get a real conservative running, then all the better.

But I'm not counting us out just yet. McCain finished Iowa with 5% of the vote in 2000. He came back to win New Hampshire. We beat McCain in drawing the Independant vote in Iowa. We should be very competitive in New Hampshire.

Whatever you want to say, Ron Paul has proven that he belongs on the stage.

HolmeZz
01-03-2008, 11:06 PM
You should be ashamed. You failed to reach your own expectations, Taco Isaac.

Taco John
01-03-2008, 11:09 PM
Actually, to be honest, our numbers are about on pace for my expectations. I expected 12,000 - 15,000. With 87% reporting, it looks like that's about where we'll fall.

It's Fred Thompson's numbers that are exceeding where I thought they would be.

wazu
01-03-2008, 11:09 PM
To be honest, I'm disappointed. I would have been content with 3rd place. I really believed Paul's support was better than the polls were showing.

Almost as disappointing is the fact that Huckabee won. Between the top two, I was pulling for Romney. This party is sliding farther and farther from fiscal conservatism with each election.

Cochise
01-03-2008, 11:13 PM
True. But I'm still willing to give him some credit, for an "unexpected" push.

I'm just saying, we keep hearing over and over in this forum how BS polling is, but again it did a pretty good job of telling us where things are.

RCP average:
Huckabee 30
Romney 27
Thompson 12
McCain 12
Paul 7
Giuliani 6

Actual:
Huckabee 34
Romney 26
Thompson 13
McCain 13
Paul 10
Giuliani 3

I'm not trying to denigrate the efforts of his supporters who have an admirable dedication and zeal to the cause, but it deserves to be restated that polling is a science that can be reasonably accurate if done correctly.

One campaign tool being used to combat the "He's got no shot" argument was that the polling was BS and the grassroots nature of the caucuses was going to give him a big lift. It looks like the caucus format and the big effort did give him a lift, from 7 to 10 percent. But at the end of the day, he only beat a guy who didn't even run in Iowa.

So, for the benefit of the next time we hear about how terrible ""scientific"" polling is, let it be said.

HolmeZz
01-03-2008, 11:14 PM
Actually, to be honest, our numbers are about on pace for my expectations. I expected 12,000 - 15,000. With 87% reporting, it looks like that's about where we'll fall.

It's Fred Thompson's numbers that are exceeding where I thought they would be.

Yeah, McCain beat you too. You failed miserably. You also predicted Obama pulling up the rear due to a major lack in turnout. ROFL

wazu
01-03-2008, 11:16 PM
I'm just saying, we keep hearing over and over in this forum how BS polling is, but again it did a pretty good job of telling us where things are.

Yep, I was one of the people saying it. I didn't think it would be drastically off, but I figured you could pretty much add the margin of error to Paul's numbers and be pretty close. I was wrong. He polled at 10% earlier this week and that's right where he is. Yay for polling.

Mr. Kotter
01-03-2008, 11:17 PM
To be honest, I'm disappointed. I would have been content with 3rd place. I really believed Paul's support was better than the polls were showing....

That's because you believed guys like TJ. Sorry for that, man. :(

Paul is DOA. Unless he want's to hand the election to the Dems, which...I have contended all along is his plan.

Paul could be 2008's Ralph Nader. Nothing more. Nice. :shake:

Iowanian
01-03-2008, 11:19 PM
ronpaul is the guy Peter McNeeley fought to warm up for the guy he fought before his title shot.

Cochise
01-03-2008, 11:20 PM
Yep, I was one of the people saying it. I didn't think it would be drastically off, but I figured you could pretty much add the margin of error to Paul's numbers and be pretty close. I was wrong. He polled at 10% earlier this week and that's right where he is. Yay for polling.

It takes a lot of effort to boost your numbers like that, I mean, from 6 or 7 to 10 was almost 40% higher, so the effort was definitely there. Tons was accomplished to make that happen. I just don't think he has a lot of traction with average Republican voters.

Flustrated
01-03-2008, 11:22 PM
Votes are still coming in... The county I'm most interested in is Jefferson County. This is supposedly supposed to be a significant Paul stronghold. ABC says that third place is still a three way race... We'll see...

U were right about Jefferson County. Paul 1st place

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-03-2008, 11:29 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how delusional people are for their candidates. Just be honest.

Despite wearing out the carpet hoping Gore and Kerry would win in '00 and '04, by the next morning I knew there was no chance in rat hell that either were going to win.

Sometimes hope just paints you as a goddamned fool. It's almost like some of these guys are the Luftwaffe dropping victory pamphlets over East Berlin in late April of '45.

Cochise
01-03-2008, 11:47 PM
AP shows him winning Jefferson County.

That's one I guess.

|Zach|
01-03-2008, 11:49 PM
TJ how have Paul followers been reacting to this evening?

wazu
01-03-2008, 11:58 PM
TJ how have Paul followers been reacting to this evening?

A mix of meltdowns as well as people like TJ accentuating the positive.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=252

Taco John
01-04-2008, 12:02 AM
So, for the benefit of the next time we hear about how terrible ""scientific"" polling is, let it be said.



Stretegic Vision had Paul at 4%. American Research Group had him at 6%. Mason-Dixon had him at 5%. LA Times/Bloomberg at 1%.

Scientific polling isn't perfect.

Taco John
01-04-2008, 12:07 AM
TJ how have Paul followers been reacting to this evening?


Like you'd expect a Chiefs loss to be. Plenty of people melting down. Plenty of people trying to put things in a positive perspective.

I have always thought Iowa would be one of our hardest states, but was optimistic that we could place third. I didn't expect Fred Thompson to do so well. McCain's little push this last week also caught me off guard.

It is what it is. We didn't get what we had hoped for out of Iowa, but there's plenty to be positive about. Finishing in double digits percentage-wise is actually a big deal.

Most people would have guessed that it was Rudy finishing with 10% and Ron Paul finishing with 3%.

Cochise
01-04-2008, 12:15 AM
A mix of meltdowns as well as people like TJ accentuating the positive.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=252

Seems a lot of people are complaining about organization, that the national campaign didn't spend enough money there even though they raised a lot. One guy said he became a county chairman in Iowa two weeks ago... lots of complaining about lack of organization. But mostly it just seems like true believers who can't understand why people voted for other candidates.

|Zach|
01-04-2008, 12:15 AM
Like you'd expect a Chiefs loss to be. Plenty of people melting down. Plenty of people trying to put things in a positive perspective.

I have always thought Iowa would be one of our hardest states, but was optimistic that we could place third. I didn't expect Fred Thompson to do so well. McCain's little push this last week also caught me off guard.

It is what it is. We didn't get what we had hoped for out of Iowa, but there's plenty to be positive about. Finishing in double digits percentage-wise is actually a big deal.

Most people would have guessed that it was Rudy finishing with 10% and Ron Paul finishing with 3%.
I can't help but wonder about the actual campaign. Not Dr. Paul or his supporters but the actual campaign. What the hell are those people doing with all that money? I am not in the know nearly as much as anyone else but as someone following Obama and Paul's campaign closely while keeping up on politics that there are all kinds of better and more organized way from the campaign end to get communication, information, and connect with the candidate.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-04-2008, 12:21 AM
Although not as great as i expected I will support RP until the end. I knew Iowa would be a tough nut to crack. New Hampshire will be vital, I expect a STRONG finish there, and will be greatly disappointed if he doesn't pull a strong 3rd.

wazu
01-04-2008, 12:21 AM
Seems a lot of people are complaining about organization, that the national campaign didn't spend enough money there even though they raised a lot. One guy said he became a county chairman in Iowa two weeks ago... lots of complaining about lack of organization. But mostly it just seems like true believers who can't understand why people voted for other candidates.

Probably. I will say that the people posting on those forums have generally poured themselves into the campaign. Just as Chiefs fans are armchair GMs, coaches, and QBs, these people often believe they could do better than Ron Paul's campaign staff, and often try.

To their credit they are very well educated about every aspect of the campaign, and in many cases have picked it up and carried it to the next level with little or no help from Ron Paul's staff.

Cochise
01-04-2008, 12:22 AM
I can't help but wonder about the actual campaign. Not Dr. Paul or his supporters but the actual campaign. What the hell are those people doing with all that money? I am not in the know nearly as much as anyone else but as someone following Obama and Paul's campaign closely while keeping up on politics that there are all kinds of better and more organized way from the campaign end to get communication, information, and connect with the candidate.

I know/have known some people in this area that have worked on campaigns for national office. Some as sort of consultants on it. They get hired by campaigns to go out and run the operation, planning events, buying media, all that stuff. Sometimes just developing ads. They get paid very well and have a high success rate. Election professionals are professionals and are very good at what they do.

My guess is that the official Paul camp doesn't have a lot of (or any) people who are experienced at running campaigns, so there's probably a lot of money sitting around and nobody has any idea how to spend it. A lot of work is being done freelance, but I would like to see how much of that money the campaign has actually spent in the last two weeks or in Q4.

If you look at the other campaigns, they were probably identifying county level leadership a year plus ago, opened offices all over the state months ago, they have pros helping with all the accounting aspects and coordinating distribution of shwag and everything else. They're intricate operations.

HolmeZz
01-04-2008, 12:24 AM
Most people would have guessed that it was Rudy finishing with 10% and Ron Paul finishing with 3%.

Most people who weren't paying attention. Rudy was in f*cking New Hampshire today. Don't act like finishing ahead of him is some kind of accomplishment.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-04-2008, 12:25 AM
Most people who weren't paying attention. Rudy was in f*cking New Hampshire today. Don't act like finishing ahead of him is some kind of accomplishment.

Well considering Rudy was the supposed frontrunner a little over a month ago, i'm shocked!

Mr. Kotter
01-04-2008, 12:25 AM
.... was optimistic that we could place third. I didn't expect Fred Thompson to do so well. McCain's little push this last week also caught me off guard.

It is what it is. We didn't get what we had hoped for out of Iowa....

Indeed. Paul did well though.

What will be interesting is if, and when the first of Romney/McCain/Thompson eventually drops out of the race....to whom will those votes go. Because, whoever that is....will be the candidate to derail Huckabee. If the three of them hang on too long, Huckabee will win by default.

Romney would seem to have the advantage in the next week or two; but if he plummets as a result of the Iowa dissappointment.....McCain or Thompson, possibly both.....will benefit. Then Huckabee will meet his real competition. :hmmm:

wazu
01-04-2008, 12:27 AM
Most people who weren't paying attention. Rudy was in f*cking New Hampshire today. Don't act like finishing ahead of him is some kind of accomplishment.

I don't care where Rudy was tonight, 3% is pathetic. And it's not like he has any significant lead in other states, either. You are right that beating Rudy is no real accomplishment. To me that's just a statement about the pathetic position of his campaign.

Cochise
01-04-2008, 12:28 AM
Well considering Rudy was the supposed frontrunner a little over a month ago, i'm shocked!

He has been in steady decline in Iowa for a very long time. It's a bit surprising to see him down at 3, but 6 or 7 wouldn't have been surprising at all.

I think any of us, including myself would have predicted he would beat Rudy.

Taco John
01-04-2008, 12:30 AM
Most people who weren't paying attention. Rudy was in f*cking New Hampshire today. Don't act like finishing ahead of him is some kind of accomplishment.



It definitely was.

HolmeZz
01-04-2008, 12:42 AM
It definitely was.

No it wasn't. Your expectation was to place 3rd. You've lowered it to turning out more voters than a guy who quit caring about Iowa a while ago and wasn't even in the friggin' state for the caucus. The fact you see that as an accomplishment says plenty about the state of your second-tier campaign.

Jenson71
01-04-2008, 01:44 AM
Susan Estrich and Greta van Sustran had some nice things to say about Paul and how he's not irrelevant, he did a good job tonight, and has a dedicated group (which we know about here at chiefsplanet).

Well, hey. He's a good guy. I'm glad I voted for him, met/talked to him twice even, and glad I voted for him in the straw poll. And I don't mind buying this Ron Paul hat in the summer. :D

His foreign policy message I believe very strongly in. I believe that's the most important issue to me, and therefore, I support him because of that, vote based on principle, and that's all I ever want to do.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 07:29 AM
Not really... he came in within a point or two of where polling showed he was at in Iowa.

The only Ron Paul supporters who caucus are those who have landlines.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 07:35 AM
Although not as great as i expected I will support RP until the end. I knew Iowa would be a tough nut to crack. New Hampshire will be vital, I expect a STRONG finish there, and will be greatly disappointed if he doesn't pull a strong 3rd.

If Ron Paul can't win outright in the "Live Free or Die" state, how can anyone have hope that he'll win the nomination?

KILLER_CLOWN
01-04-2008, 07:41 AM
If Ron Paul can't win outright in the "Live Free or Die" state, how can anyone have hope that he'll win the nomination?

It is all about the message ma man, the Message! ;)

BucEyedPea
01-04-2008, 08:16 AM
Yep, I was one of the people saying it. I didn't think it would be drastically off, but I figured you could pretty much add the margin of error to Paul's numbers and be pretty close. I was wrong. He polled at 10% earlier this week and that's right where he is. Yay for polling.
Actually I said a lot earlier I thought Paul was polling at 10%—not the 2% claimed for so long. That was correct. So he did have more support than the polls showed for a long time. Paul upsurged in the last week to 10%. The closer to an election the more accurate the polls I hear.

I don't think there was enough money earlier plus a lack of time to get his message out sooner. It's not enough to have the internet. A lot of non-internet people still don't know who he is, in part because he doesn't get as much MSM coverage. I just converted a friend the other day who hadn't heard of him to even google him. Voila! A convert. Sometimes you need both medias together.

BigRedChief
01-04-2008, 08:52 AM
It is what it is. We didn't get what we had hoped for out of Iowa, but there's plenty to be positive about. Finishing in double digits percentage-wise is actually a big deal. I don't understand how you think isolationism will work in 2008? I'm all for screwing the political status quo but Paul is just too far out there.

Iowanian
01-04-2008, 09:06 AM
Ronpaul has lost his 2nd level burst. The Oppossum Defense is great in theory, but in the real world, you'll just be eaten by a stray dog or a bear anyway.

Rudy was NEVER a viable option in Iowa, and he knew it, which is why he barely made an appearance. He's an east coast elitist who doesn't give a s hit about the midwest.

I'm not surprised that Jefferson County went to Ronpaul....I again must stress what a horde of whackadoos the Maharishi are. taco would fit right in though, they recently incorporated their own utopian town(Vedic City) and try to use their own "money". Not long ago, they tried to use eminent domain to take 160 acres of a man's Century farm(been in the same family more than 100 years) so they could "build a park for their city".

patteeu
01-04-2008, 10:40 AM
Actually I said a lot earlier I thought Paul was polling at 10%—not the 2% claimed for so long. That was correct. So he did have more support than the polls showed for a long time. Paul upsurged in the last week to 10%. The closer to an election the more accurate the polls I hear.

What makes you think the earlier polls weren't just as accurate? The only reason we can look at the latest polls and evaluate their accuracy is because we have a contemporary election to compare them to. It's very possible that the earlier polls were accurate snapshots of the electorate at the point in time when they were taken. Of course, it's also possible that pollsters incorporate learnings from early polls into their algorithms for their later polls making them, indeed, more accurate.

I don't think there was enough money earlier plus a lack of time to get his message out sooner. It's not enough to have the internet. A lot of non-internet people still don't know who he is, in part because he doesn't get as much MSM coverage. I just converted a friend the other day who hadn't heard of him to even google him. Voila! A convert. Sometimes you need both medias together.

This fits well with the notion that the earlier polls were accurate and that Paul's campaign increased his appeal from the earlier 2% to the 10% on gameday.

Taco John
01-04-2008, 10:42 AM
I don't understand how you think isolationism will work in 2008?


Ron Paul does not favor isolationism. I don't think isolationism would ever work.

Taco John
01-04-2008, 10:44 AM
Rudy was NEVER a viable option in Iowa.......


The funny thing is that you said the same damn thing about Ron Paul, and he came in with 10% of the vote.

BigRedChief
01-04-2008, 10:48 AM
Ron Paul does not favor isolationism. I don't think isolationism would ever work.His own words:
I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.


In a Wednesday interview, Rep. Paul suggested closing most of our overseas military bases. The military exists to protect our national security, not our economic interests, he said. Asked if the United States did not have national security interests in containing Chinese or Russian or Iranian or North Korean ambitions, he said no. "Nobody would attack us militarily," he said.

Taco John
01-04-2008, 10:50 AM
His own words:
<DIV><DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.



Yes. Exactly right.

That's not isolationism.

Isolationism is something different than that. Isolationism involves shutting down trade in order to protect ourselves from cheaper costs outside the country.

Non-interventionism is what the founding fathers recommended, not isolationism. And I absolutely think that non-interventionism would make America a much safer place.

Iowanian
01-04-2008, 10:50 AM
ronpaul finished in 5th place.....a LONG ways out of contending. 10% of the vote at a Caucus is NOT the same thing as 10% in a general election, and its a far cry from 34% of the front runner.

he's Not a viable contender. period. You insisted he'd finish 3rd and I predicted 5th or worse.


You say ronpaul isn't an isolationist, yet he DOES say he wants to close our foreign bases, return all troops to the US, avoid those pesky treaties and entangling alliances with our long time Allies.

Some of that makes sense....Some of it, but not enough to make him a decent option as leader of the free world.

The WORLD and Liberal America don't have the stomoch to have the US be a spectator as horrible attrocities happen across the world. They hate us for being the Big brother, but they also demand it.

Taco John
01-04-2008, 10:51 AM
ronpaul finished in 5th place.....a LONG ways out of contending. 10% of the vote at a Caucus is NOT the same thing as 10% in a general election, and its a far cry from 34% of the front runner.

he's Not a viable contender. period. You insisted he'd finish 3rd and I predicted 5th or worse.



Iowa has only picked two presidents. And Ron Paul finished within 3% points of third place.

We got what we needed: double digits in a hostile state. Much needed validation that our message is getting out and that we can pull a republican base in any state.

Iowanian
01-04-2008, 10:54 AM
in 5th place. 5th.

Thanks for your entry fee.
http://trophycaseinc.com/client/Stock_Ribbons/PARTICIPANT1.jpg

Mr. Laz
01-04-2008, 10:55 AM
Well, if his object is to hand the Presidency to the Dems....then he would achieve his goal, if he were to do that.

Gosh, he'll be the 2008 version of John Anderson or Ralph Nader. Admirable. Cool.

:rolleyes:
Gooooooooooooooo Ron PBJ

Iowanian
01-04-2008, 10:57 AM
Meanwhile...the contenders recieve
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2924865/2/istockphoto_2924865_trophies.jpg

Taco John
01-04-2008, 10:59 AM
Any way you slice it, coverage like this is a big win for us:

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

patteeu
01-04-2008, 11:14 AM
Yes. Exactly right.

That's not isolationism.

Isolationism is something different than that. Isolationism involves shutting down trade in order to protect ourselves from cheaper costs outside the country.

Non-interventionism is what the founding fathers recommended, not isolationism. And I absolutely think that non-interventionism would make America a much safer place.

Give up the semantic dodge. BigRedChief is obviously clear about the part of Ron Paul's platform that he doesn't like and doesn't think will work. I think it's reasonably called isolationism, but I've granted you the courtesy of calling it neoisolationism instead to distinguish it from the type of trade isolationism that Paul opposes. But whatever you want to call it (whether "isolationism", "neoisolationism", "noninterventionism", or "the happy foreign policy of peace and prosperity"), BigRedChief is right that it won't work in 2008.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 11:17 AM
Any way you slice it, coverage like this is a big win for us:

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

Did Greta specifically ask her plastic surgeon to make her look like a Vulcan?

Taco John
01-04-2008, 11:20 AM
I don't see why you think I should quit correcting the issue. Ron Paul does not favor isolationism. In fact, his policies are exactly the opposite of isolationism. We would be MORE INVOLVED with nations around the world, reaching out to try to build better diplomatic ties. We just wouldn't be giving all of them free defense services at the expense of the American people. Why is it beneficial for us to protect Japan, and relieve them of the costs of a national defense, while they use the savings to undercut our auto manufacturing industry? Who is this making safer? It certainly isn't helping Detroit any.

I understand that you find it politically expedient to skew the facts. But however you want to cut it, Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

Iowanian
01-04-2008, 11:25 AM
I think you've been on the sit-n-Spin a little too long taco.....

that is not the message ronpaul has been putting out.

Cochise
01-04-2008, 11:25 AM
Give up the semantic dodge. BigRedChief is obviously clear about the part of Ron Paul's platform that he doesn't like and doesn't think will work. I think it's reasonably called isolationism, but I've granted you the courtesy of calling it neoisolationism instead to distinguish it from the type of trade isolationism that Paul opposes. But whatever you want to call it (whether "isolationism", "neoisolationism", "noninterventionism", or "the happy foreign policy of peace and prosperity"), BigRedChief is right that it won't work in 2008.

Isn't it true that trade isolationism is normally called protectionism, and isolationism refers to overall government policy including foreign affairs and everything else?

I'm not sure why we'd redefine 'isolationism' instead of using a term that already exists for that.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 11:55 AM
Isn't it true that trade isolationism is normally called protectionism, and isolationism refers to overall government policy including foreign affairs and everything else?

I'm not sure why we'd redefine 'isolationism' instead of using a term that already exists for that.

Even protectionists are willing to trade, they just want the trade to be on terms that benefit the home country. I don't think any of these terms capture everything about a particular policy. In this argument though, we all understand what Ron Paul stands for so I don't think it matters what anyone calls it.

Here is the first definition of "isolationism" from dictionary.com:

the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

It sounds like Ron Paul's foreign policy to me.

dirk digler
01-04-2008, 12:03 PM
Here is the first definition of "isolationism" from dictionary.com:

the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

It sounds like Ron Paul's foreign policy to me.

I am not a RP supporter by any means but he has said he wants "to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, and international agreements"

The bad side of Paul is he wants to withdraw militarily from the world which is a horrible idea

Taco John
01-04-2008, 12:08 PM
All of this "Ron Paul can't win" stuff is pretty meaningless when you figure that there isn't a Republican right now who looks like they could beat Obama.

In fact, Ron Paul is probably the only "change candidate" that the Republicans have who *could* compete with Obama.

This is looking like landslide central.

Mr. Kotter
01-04-2008, 12:14 PM
All of this "Ron Paul can't win" stuff is pretty meaningless when you figure that there isn't a Republican right now who looks like they could beat Obama.

In fact, Ron Paul is probably the only "change candidate" that the Republicans have who *could* compete with Obama.

This is looking like landslide central.

If you don't think the race will close, substantially, once the Republicans settle on a candidate....you are wrong.

I agree Obama could be a formidible candidate, but I think there are at least 3 candidates on the Republican side.....that one-on-one could defeat Obama. And, fwiw....Huckabee isn't one of them.

A landslide? Highly unlikely, for EITHER party in the current political climate.

dirk digler
01-04-2008, 12:21 PM
If you don't think the race will close, substantially, once the Republicans settle on a candidate....you are wrong.

I agree Obama could be a formidible candidate, but I think there are at least 3 candidates on the Republican side.....that one-on-one could defeat Obama. And, fwiw....Huckabee isn't one of them.

The only one I could see beating Obama is McCain and possibly Huckabee. The rest really have no shot for various reasons.

Mr. Kotter
01-04-2008, 12:39 PM
The only one I could see beating Obama is McCain and possibly Huckabee. The rest really have no shot for various reasons.

I'll respectfully disagree.

Cochise
01-04-2008, 12:42 PM
All of this "Ron Paul can't win" stuff is pretty meaningless when you figure that there isn't a Republican right now who looks like they could beat Obama.

In fact, Ron Paul is probably the only "change candidate" that the Republicans have who *could* compete with Obama.

This is looking like landslide central.

So are you going to switch back over with Kotter then?

Mr. Kotter
01-04-2008, 12:48 PM
So are you going to switch back over with Kotter then?

Nah, he'll write in Dr. Paul or....maybe Shanahan.

Cochise
01-04-2008, 12:50 PM
Nah, he'll write in Dr. Paul or....maybe Shanahan.

I was just wondering if this another person with strong conservative values (sic) looking wistfully at the most liberal candidate in either race.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 12:52 PM
I am not a RP supporter by any means but he has said he wants "to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, and international agreements"

I disagree and I'd have to see a quote to believe what you're saying here. First let me stipulate that if isolationism can only mean total isolation of the type that pre-Nixon China couldn't even hope to achieve, then no one is an isolationist. Second, there is an element of incrementalism in Ron Paul's positions so I'm not trying to suggest that every alliance, foreign economic commitment, and international agreement would be torn up on Paul's first day in office, but on balance he opposes those things. Having stipulated to those two realities, Paul is generally opposed to "entering into alliances, foreign economic commitments, and international agreements". Here are just a couple of examples:

Ron Paul opposes expanding NATO (http://www.counterpunch.org/paul3.html) and he says "NATO is an organization that has outlived its usefulness." While Paul might be willing to enter into temporary defensive alliances, he has no interest in the type of ongoing alliances that commit our troops to the defense of foreign lands where he doesn't recognize any US interests. On the spectrum of willingness to form alliances, he's as far to the "not interested" end as anyone in US national politics.

"We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America." - RonPaul2008.com (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/american-independence-and-sovereignty/) - His website doesn't have a policy section on trade specifically, but I'd point out that there isn't a single trade treaty or commitment that doesn't infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States to some extent. Among the economic treaties he rejects are NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA. Now, again, I would expect a Paul administration to be somewhat pragmatic about this, but the ideology of Paul opposes foreign economic commitments at the government level. He would allow individuals to make personal trade deals of course.

And of course there's Paul's opposition to the UN in general. Here's a page (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=4) that collects his various writings on these topics.

I'd be interested to see any specific refutation of my conclusion if you can find it.

The bad side of Paul is he wants to withdraw militarily from the world which is a horrible idea

That is a bad side, but the other side isn't necessarily all good (although there are some aspects of it that I agree with).

BigRedChief
01-04-2008, 12:53 PM
I don't see why you think I should quit correcting the issue. Ron Paul does not favor isolationism. In fact, his policies are exactly the opposite of isolationism. We would be MORE INVOLVED with nations around the world, reaching out to try to build better diplomatic ties. We just wouldn't be giving all of them free defense services at the expense of the American people. Why is it beneficial for us to protect Japan, and relieve them of the costs of a national defense, while they use the savings to undercut our auto manufacturing industry? Who is this making safer? It certainly isn't helping Detroit any.

I understand that you find it politically expedient to skew the facts. But however you want to cut it, Ron Paul is not an isolationist.I don't find it politically expedient. I've not made up my mind and I've voted conservative Republican to Liberal Dem so I don't think I have an anti-Ron Paul agenda.

Just because he takes some quotes from Wahington to add credence to his views doesn't make it right. The founding fathers were slave owners for crissakes. You can't pick and choose what you want from the founding fathers and say this is what we are suppose to be about. This is what Washington and Jefferson wanted.

Non-interventism = isolationism And that will not work in 2008.

Please give me an example of how this would work to our benefit?

Mr. Kotter
01-04-2008, 12:55 PM
I was just wondering if this another person with strong conservative values (sic) looking wistfully at the most liberal candidate in either race.

Eh, Edwards is more liberal; Hillary is probably at least as liberal....heh, maybe even McCain and Guiliani too, depending on the issue.

The only thing that really scares me about Obama is what, potentially, he could do to the Supreme Court. And that's the major reason I will have to look long and hard before I'd actually cast a vote for him....

dirk digler
01-04-2008, 12:56 PM
I'll respectfully disagree.

My rationale is that Obama, McCain, and Huckabee can pull alot of independents and also members from the competing party to form a broad majority. You could also put Rudy in there as well.

The rest of the candidates IMHO are to politically divisive and they really don't have a centrist or moderate message.

Just my .02 cents :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
01-04-2008, 01:07 PM
My rationale is that Obama, McCain, and Huckabee can pull alot of independents and also members from the competing party to form a broad majority. You could also put Rudy in there as well.

The rest of the candidates IMHO are to politically divisive and they really don't have a centrist or moderate message.

Just my .02 cents :shrug:

I understand your argument; I just don't buy it. Independent-minded and centrist voters will support each of the guys you mention.

However, Huckabee (and McCain to a lesser degree) has the potential for alienating significant factions within the party--and that would suppress turn-out, or possibly even make a third party challenge (which would hand the election to Obama) more likely. FWIW, I realize the opposite could be true too.

Candidates will have to "moderate" during the general election, but they can't totally alienate important segments of their base.

That's why Fred should be the candidate. While he lacks charisma, he's the most-likely candidate to unite the party--while being able to appeal to at least some moderates and independents (ones who, for example, would welcome having an adult in the WhiteHouse....as opposed to the 16 years of adolescence we're about to end, hopefully.)

oldandslow
01-04-2008, 01:16 PM
Eh, Edwards is more liberal; Hillary is probably at least as liberal....heh, maybe even McCain and Guiliani too, depending on the issue.

The only thing that really scares me about Obama is what, potentially, he could do to the Supreme Court. And that's the major reason I will have to look long and hard before I'd actually cast a vote for him....

...and is a huge reason I support him.

Mr. Kotter
01-04-2008, 01:38 PM
...and is a huge reason I support him.

Yeah, I know. :shake:

You and Amnorix....and the other groupie fans of liberal judicial activism. ;)

HolmeZz
01-04-2008, 01:48 PM
All of this "Ron Paul can't win" stuff is pretty meaningless when you figure that there isn't a Republican right now who looks like they could beat Obama.

In fact, Ron Paul is probably the only "change candidate" that the Republicans have who *could* compete with Obama.

This is looking like landslide central.

Yesterday you said it was looking like the end of the road for Obama. Now it's landslide central.

dirk digler
01-04-2008, 01:50 PM
I disagree and I'd have to see a quote to believe what you're saying here. First let me stipulate that if isolationism can only mean total isolation of the type that pre-Nixon China couldn't even hope to achieve, then no one is an isolationist. Second, there is an element of incrementalism in Ron Paul's positions so I'm not trying to suggest that every alliance, foreign economic commitment, and international agreement would be torn up on Paul's first day in office, but on balance he opposes those things. Having stipulated to those two realities, Paul is generally opposed to "entering into alliances, foreign economic commitments, and international agreements". Here are just a couple of examples:

Ron Paul opposes expanding NATO (http://www.counterpunch.org/paul3.html) and he says "NATO is an organization that has outlived its usefulness." While Paul might be willing to enter into temporary defensive alliances, he has no interest in the type of ongoing alliances that commit our troops to the defense of foreign lands where he doesn't recognize any US interests. On the spectrum of willingness to form alliances, he's as far to the "not interested" end as anyone in US national politics.

"We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America." - RonPaul2008.com (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/american-independence-and-sovereignty/) - His website doesn't have a policy section on trade specifically, but I'd point out that there isn't a single trade treaty or commitment that doesn't infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States to some extent. Among the economic treaties he rejects are NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA. Now, again, I would expect a Paul administration to be somewhat pragmatic about this, but the ideology of Paul opposes foreign economic commitments at the government level. He would allow individuals to make personal trade deals of course.

And of course there's Paul's opposition to the UN in general. Here's a page (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=4) that collects his various writings on these topics.

I'd be interested to see any specific refutation of my conclusion if you can find it.



The reason why I said that was because I happened to watch the re-run of his interview with Glenn Beck (I was terribly bored) and Beck asked him about being an isolationist and he said he wasn't that he wanted open and free trade.

RP does want to get out of all the trade agreements so maybe I am misunderstanding what you're saying.

Paul is a proponent of free trade, but opposes many "free trade agreements" including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),[39] stating that "free-trade agreements are really managed trade".[40] He says they serve special interests and big business, not citizens.[41] He often proposes instead that the U.S. engage in unilateral free trade by the simple abolition of trade barriers at home (similar to Hong Kong's approach), rather than send massive, unaccountable foreign aid.

He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), holding that it increased the size of government, eroded U.S. sovereignty, and was unconstitutional.[39] He has also voted against the Australia–U.S. FTA, the U.S.–Singapore FTA, and the U.S.–Chile FTA, and voted to withdraw from the WTO. He believes that "fast track" powers, given by Congress to the President to devise and negotiate FTA's on the country's behalf, are unconstitutional, and that Congress, rather than the executive branch, should construct FTA's.[41]

Paul also has an above 83% pro fair trade voting record in the House of Representatives according to Global Trade Watch

patteeu
01-04-2008, 02:07 PM
The reason why I said that was because I happened to watch the re-run of his interview with Glenn Beck (I was terribly bored) and Beck asked him about being an isolationist and he said he wasn't that he wanted open and free trade.

RP does want to get out of all the trade agreements so maybe I am misunderstanding what you're saying.

The open and free trade he wants essentially means little or no government interference. (I'm unclear about his position on tariffs). I don't necessarily disagree with that sentiment, but it's different than the government entering into economic agreements with foreign governments.

He's distinguishing between his policy and an all encompassing isolationism that would limit trade and travel and do things like ban or censor the internet and other information sources to keep it's population from being exposed to dangerous external ideas.

dirk digler
01-04-2008, 02:08 PM
I understand your argument; I just don't buy it. Independent-minded and centrist voters will support each of the guys you mention.

However, Huckabee (and McCain to a lesser degree) has the potential for alienating significant factions within the party--and that would suppress turn-out, or possibly even make a third party challenge (which would hand the election to Obama) more likely. FWIW, I realize the opposite could be true too.

Candidates will have to "moderate" during the general election, but they can't totally alienate important segments of their base.

That's why Fred should be the candidate. While he lacks charisma, he's the most-likely candidate to unite the party--while being able to appeal to at least some moderates and independents (ones who, for example, would welcome having an adult in the WhiteHouse....as opposed to the 16 years of adolescence we're about to end, hopefully.)

The problem as I see it on the Republican side is whoever is nominated is not going to have the full support of the party unless Hillary wins the Dem nomination.

If Rudy, McCain and possibly Romney or Thompson wins the Christian right is not going to vote for those guys.

Huckabee will get the support of the Christian right but the fiscal conservatives hate the guy.

The republicans have a real dilemma on their hands.

Now if Hillary becomes the nominee all bets are off because they would unite behind Satan just to defeat a Clinton

Cochise
01-04-2008, 02:19 PM
If Rudy, McCain and possibly Romney or Thompson wins the Christian right is not going to vote for those guys.


That's crazy. I'm telling you from their midst, you line up whatever liberal you want to who's campaigning about being pro-abortion and for the gay lobby and all those other issues, and the religious right is still going to come out and vote.

Cycle after cycle they are underestimated, and last time they were disaffected in a few states for a midterm election after Congress had lost their way so much, but for a presidential election they will still be there.

I'm not sure why you think Thompson is odious to evang's either.

irishjayhawk
01-04-2008, 02:21 PM
That's crazy. I'm telling you from their midst, you line up whatever liberal you want to who's campaigning about being pro-abortion and for the gay lobby and all those other issues, and the religious right is still going to come out and vote.

Cycle after cycle they are underestimated, and last time they were disaffected in a few states for a midterm election after Congress had lost their way so much, but for a presidential election they will still be there.

I'm not sure why you think Thompson is odious to evang's either.

Sad and true.

dirk digler
01-04-2008, 02:31 PM
That's crazy. I'm telling you from their midst, you line up whatever liberal you want to who's campaigning about being pro-abortion and for the gay lobby and all those other issues, and the religious right is still going to come out and vote.

Cycle after cycle they are underestimated, and last time they were disaffected in a few states for a midterm election after Congress had lost their way so much, but for a presidential election they will still be there.

I'm not sure why you think Thompson is odious to evang's either.

Even Rudy? I find that hard to believe because he basically has the same positions as they do.

As far as Thompson and or Romney goes that is why I put possibly because I don't know how they feel about those 2 guys and the only reason I threw Thompson in there is because I figured some on the Christian right might not like he lobbied for a pro-choice group.

dirk digler
01-04-2008, 02:33 PM
The open and free trade he wants essentially means little or no government interference. (I'm unclear about his position on tariffs). I don't necessarily disagree with that sentiment, but it's different than the government entering into economic agreements with foreign governments.

He's distinguishing between his policy and an all encompassing isolationism that would limit trade and travel and do things like ban or censor the internet and other information sources to keep it's population from being exposed to dangerous external ideas.

I am totally uneducated about trade agreements and the like but I guess my question to RP supporters or you is how does open and free trade work without government interference? And who would negotiate such trade agreements or would they be none?

Cochise
01-04-2008, 02:35 PM
Even Rudy? I find that hard to believe because he basically has the same positions as they do.

It's pretty ignorant to say Rudy basically has the same positions as all these other candidates. You seem to know little about Thompson or Romney in particular.

Besides, Rudy's chances have diminished to 5th or so. Any talk about Rudy being the nominee AFAIC is academic.

Mr. Kotter
01-04-2008, 02:36 PM
The problem as I see it on the Republican side is whoever is nominated is not going to have the full support of the party unless Hillary wins the Dem nomination.

If Rudy, McCain and possibly Romney or Thompson wins the Christian right is not going to vote for those guys.

Huckabee will get the support of the Christian right but the fiscal conservatives hate the guy.

The republicans have a real dilemma on their hands.

Now if Hillary becomes the nominee all bets are off because they would unite behind Satan just to defeat a Clinton

As Cochise says, you are just plain wrong about "most" Evangelicals...they will have no problem voting for Thompson. Nonewhatsoever, despite Dobson's snubb. As far as McCain, Romney, or Giuliani??? Most will simply hold their noses and vote, rather than see Hillary or Obama win. Bet on it.

Mr. Kotter
01-04-2008, 02:41 PM
...I figured some on the Christian right might not like he lobbied for a pro-choice group.

That criticism, brought by Thompson's detractors, is a joke. A complete joke. Google it, and read some of the more objective accounts.

dirk digler
01-04-2008, 02:45 PM
It's pretty ignorant to say Rudy basically has the same positions as all these other candidates.

He is pro-choice and IIRC he doesn't support an amendment to ban gay marriage. What else do I need to know?

You seem to know little about Thompson or Romney in particular.

That is true. I only put Romney in there because he is Mormon. Would the Christian right feel comfortable for voting for a Mormon? In the general they might but they sure in the hell didn't last night.

Besides, Rudy's chances have diminished to 5th or so. Any talk about Rudy being the nominee AFAIC is academic.

I am not counting Rudy out yet

dirk digler
01-04-2008, 02:49 PM
As Cochise says, you are just plain wrong about "most" Evangelicals...they will have no problem voting for Thompson. Nonewhatsoever, despite Dobson's snubb. As far as McCain, Romney, or Giuliani??? Most will simply hold their noses and vote, rather than see Hillary or Obama win. Bet on it.

You get no argument from me if Hillary is the nominee. Like I said before the republicans would rally behind Satan just to defeat a Clinton.

Cochise
01-04-2008, 04:02 PM
He is pro-choice and IIRC he doesn't support an amendment to ban gay marriage. What else do I need to know?


To say Rudy is basically the same as all the other candidates betrays a lack of really any knowledge about them. He's the same on foreign policy, but other than that, they have little in common.


That is true. I only put Romney in there because he is Mormon. Would the Christian right feel comfortable for voting for a Mormon? In the general they might but they sure in the hell didn't last night.

I have not heard anyone say, 'don't go vote for a mormon'. I have heard people say they don't think it's a big issue. I've heard speakers like radio hosts say they do or don't support him but to examine it and decide on your own. I've never heard a one say, "Don't vote for mormons"

Romney has a bigger problem, and that's that he hasn't really been conservative until a few years ago. Maybe he would be in office, he's making the right sounds now. But I think that is his main problem.


I am not counting Rudy out yet

By the time Florida gets here, he's going to be an afterthought.

dirk digler
01-04-2008, 04:14 PM
To say Rudy is basically the same as all the other candidates betrays a lack of really any knowledge about them. He's the same on foreign policy, but other than that, they have little in common.

I think we are having a failure to communicate. My point is Rudy has similar views as some Dem candidates as far as he is pro choice and is against an amendment to ban gay marriages. Which IMHO most on the Christian Right won't support him. Am I wrong?

patteeu
01-04-2008, 04:54 PM
I am totally uneducated about trade agreements and the like but I guess my question to RP supporters or you is how does open and free trade work without government interference? And who would negotiate such trade agreements or would they be none?

I was hoping one of the Paul guys (or gal) would take this one, but since they haven't my answer is that each individual or company would do it's own negotiations. For the most part, Paul would favor something approximating a laissez faire attitude toward trade. He may tolerate tariffs (because our founding fathers did and the constitution allows it), but he probably wouldn't use them as weapons in a trade war or as tools intended to encourage one type of trade but discourage another. Maybe the RP supporters can provide a more specific statement about what RP's trade policy would look like. He doesn't have a policy statement on his campaign website which leads me to believe I'm right about this. In any event, I'm confident that his outlook on trade is very much aligned with the "isolationism" definition that I provided earlier in the thread.

Taco John
01-04-2008, 04:58 PM
Here are some resources to better understand Paul's positions on Free Trade. Of particular interest is the speech "What is Free Trade." He discusses it very well in this article:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=12

Cochise
01-04-2008, 05:15 PM
I think we are having a failure to communicate. My point is Rudy has similar views as some Dem candidates as far as he is pro choice and is against an amendment to ban gay marriages. Which IMHO most on the Christian Right won't support him. Am I wrong?

Rudy is not going to be the nominee so there's no point to even worrying about it.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 05:16 PM
Here are some resources to better understand Paul's positions on Free Trade. Of particular interest is the speech "What is Free Trade." He discusses it very well in this article:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=12

Can't you give us a thumbnail account, particularly for the high bandwidth media impaired?

Edit: FWIW, after scanning the "What is Free Trade" speech he made, I think I described his position pretty accurately.

BucEyedPea
01-04-2008, 09:12 PM
Can't you give us a thumbnail account, particularly for the high bandwidth media impaired?

You might try trading more or working more to afford it.
Edit: FWIW, after scanning the "What is Free Trade" speech he made, I think I described his position pretty accurately.
All but the isolationist part. Allowing the people to buy and sell with whom and to whom they want in their mutual self-interest is a free-trade non-isolationist stand. Is govt involved to some degree, as dirk asks? Yes! By non-protective tariffs and enforcement of our laws in our country including use of our own courts. These are merely the natural barriers of being a sovereign country instead of part of an international global governance.

What Paul does not support is the central planning modesl of Nafta, FTAA, CAFTA, GATT and WTO which are set up to benefit certain corps in bed with govt, include protectionism as well as subsidies. Mercantilism aka cartel capitalism. These are not free trade agreements despite their monikers and they do not benefit the people.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 11:34 PM
You might try trading more or working more to afford it.

Yeah, I guess if I work enough I could lay the fiber to my house and provision a central office nearby for DSL. Or, instead of relying on videos and other high bandwidth media to do the talking for you, the Ron Paul people could describe his policies in their own words.

All but the isolationist part. Allowing the people to buy and sell with whom and to whom they want in their mutual self-interest is a free-trade non-isolationist stand. Is govt involved to some degree, as dirk asks? Yes! By non-protective tariffs and enforcement of our laws in our country including use of our own courts. These are merely the natural barriers of being a sovereign country instead of part of an international global governance.

What Paul does not support is the central planning modesl of Nafta, FTAA, CAFTA, GATT and WTO which are set up to benefit certain corps in bed with govt, include protectionism as well as subsidies. Mercantilism aka cartel capitalism. These are not free trade agreements despite their monikers and they do not benefit the people.

Like I said, I got it right. And it fits the definition I posted for isolationism very well. I know you want to narrowly define isolationism because you don't like the connotations and I agree that Paul doesn't favor a cut-the-American-people-off-from-the-outside-world model of isolationism, but his approach is still a form of isolationsim.

It fits this definition:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
i·so·la·tion·ism –noun
the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

and it also fits this definition:

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
isolationism

The doctrine that a nation should stay out of the disputes and affairs of other nations. The United States practiced a policy of isolationism until World War I and did not pursue an active international policy until after World War II. (See “entangling alliances with none.”)

A pre-Woodrow Wilson foreign policy is what you keep advocating, no?

BucEyedPea
01-04-2008, 11:51 PM
I said all but the isolationist part. I stand by it. Paul advocates your second definition and not fully the first. He does not not restrict the foreign economic commitments of his citizens aka commercial relations or cultural exchanges.

I'd like the name of the first dictionary. I have a Cultural Literacy dictionary but I found it to have more than a few falsehoods and contradictions to other sources. Just look up the history of the word and who coined it—internationalists. Self serving propaganda can find it's way into such things. You shoulda seen my kid's Middle School History books. "America is a democracy where the people make the laws." Oh brother!

Oh and even an isolationist believes in some interventions.
And no I do not believe we should be in a pre-Wilson fp totally, anyway.
I supported the Cold War, mostly. What I don't support is Empire.

patteeu
01-05-2008, 12:12 AM
I said all but the isolationist part. I stand by it. Paul advocates your second definition and not fully the first. He does not not restrict the foreign economic commitments of his citizens aka commercial relations or cultural exchanges.

I'd like the name of the first dictionary. I have a Cultural Literacy dictionary but I found it to have more than a few falsehoods and contradictions to other sources. Just look up the history of the word and who coined it—internationalists. Self serving propaganda can find it's way into such things. You shoulda seen my kid's Middle School History books. "America is a democracy where the people make the laws." Oh brother!

Oh and even an isolationist believes in some interventions.
And no I do not believe we should be in a pre-Wilson fp totally, anyway.
I supported the Cold War, mostly. What I don't support is Empire.

There's nothing in the first definition about restricting citizen activity.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/isolationism

Sorry I forgot the link before. And it's worth pointing out that you aren't nearly as scrupulous about tracing and sticking to the original meaning of the word "neoconservative" as you seem to be about the word "isolationism".