PDA

View Full Version : How do I respond to this?




latkinson6
02-08-2008, 05:10 PM
How do I respond to this? (in a letter)


Paul is an isolationist who would like to pull out all U.S. troops.
Stephanie Smith KLEW

Redcard
02-08-2008, 05:11 PM
How do I respond to this? (in a letter)

I don't think you can until you ascertain why she thinks it's a bad idea.

Lord Xar
02-08-2008, 05:14 PM
this has been expressed sooo many times. Ron Paul even talks about this.. "isolationism" is just the media's spin for a keyword to turn off people. Ron Paul is OPPOSITIE of islationism as Ron Paul wants to trade and have GOOD relations with all. If anything, our current foreign policy is more isolationist because it breeds contempt towards us. We create environments around the world, that makes us enemies. So instead of using diplomacy and trade, we make up excuse for war and start it. And then when we are shown that ALL of the reason for war are lies, we now say "but we can't just leave. what about the poor civilians"..... YET, Bill Clinton and Bush have set up policies.. trade embargoes and sanctions, and now bombs that have killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Innocents.. ridiculous.

thehittgirl
02-08-2008, 05:17 PM
Ask her what the troops in Iraq have to do with whether or not he is an Isolationist? Does she really feel we are helping the Iraqis? Point out to her that the Iraqis had more freedom under Saddam.

Tell her Ron Paul is not an isolationist and would freely trade with anyone. He just would not ally us with anyone else. Big difference. Why should we be allied with anyone? It's not our job to police the world.

jkm1864
02-08-2008, 05:18 PM
Ask Him if He knows why recruitment numbers are so low. Could it be no one wants to goto Iraq or goto war. Those idiots need to get a clue.

RoyalShock
02-08-2008, 05:19 PM
Explain to her first that isolationism means that you completely withdraw from the world. No trade or diplomacy. Paul wants true free trade and diplomacy with ALL nations. That runs counter to isolationism and is instead called non-interventionism.

Then explain that Paul wants to re-station our troops within our own borders to improve national security and reduce goverment spending. The net effect will be a safer nation with a stronger dollar, stronger economy and lower taxes.

pacelli
02-08-2008, 05:20 PM
Ron Paul is for military actions that are voted upon by Congress.

Ron Paul voted to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

He is for armed neutrality.

He is for free trade with the entire world.

He cannot pull out all US troops without the approval of the Congress.

midevilmark
02-08-2008, 05:22 PM
This is part of a letter I sent to Rush Limbaugh, print it out and give it to your friend.

2) Foreign Policy – This is one area that I know bothers most conservatives. Dr. Paul has been accused multiple times of “blaming America first”. Nothing could be further from the truth. Dr. Paul has said numerous times that the acts against the US were categorically despicable, and the work of mad men. As a doctor he must have been trained to look past the symptom, terrorism, and ask what is the root cause of the disease. Dr. Paul has never once suggested that America lay down to anyone, but has insisted that we ask, “What is the root cause of this animosity?” Dr. Paul’s belief in a strong military is proof positive that he is by no means a pacifist, but a believer in minding our own business. However, if provoked, declare war constitutionally and finish it quickly. Looking back on the “Police Actions” and “Conflicts” the US has endeavored upon over the last 60 years, I would like to ask anyone this question. Who would be the first to sign their son up for Vietnam today, knowing what we know now? Ron Paul’s point is this: why do we have military bases all over the world? Do we need over 700 bases in over 130 countries? Why do we need to defend England, Germany, Italy, etc? Isn’t there a European Union with 27 countries capable of doing just that? What does all of this cost?

I know this antidotal, but I have traveled all over the world, and have never experienced problems as an “America citizen”, but have encountered great hostility for our government. People everywhere love the American citizens, our freedoms, our way of life, our culture, and our success as a country, but they hate our Government. I repeat, they hate our Government. The US Government has a reputation for meddling in the affairs of other sovereign nations for years, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Cuba, Egypt, etc. How long would we stand for this if, for instance, China turned the tables on us and set up bases on our shores and told us how to live?

This interventionalist mindset toward nation building is the height of liberal arrogance on a macro scale. You condemned these same actions during the Clinton Administration in Kosovo, for example. When Liberals state that individuals must seed control of their lives for the elites know better, we say that is crazy. When we as a nation tell Iraq the same thing, it is to stabilize the world. The easiest way, sometimes, to see the flaws in an argument, is to scale it up or down. Did we not reject the same imperial hubris from the British in 1776 with violence and terror in order to just be left to self governance?

Rahl
02-08-2008, 05:26 PM
good letter

Broadlighter
02-08-2008, 05:28 PM
The word, isolationism, has taken on the pejorative meaning that you are not for war or policing the world.

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist He believes in real free trade and friendly relations with other nations. He does not believe in supporting global government, which is another angle some in the media would paint him with the isolationist label.

John McCain tried that angle in one of the debates saying that his brand of 'isolationism' was what helped bring Hitler to power. The irony of that charge is that the Neo-Cons believe that the U.S. has to beat down the bullies by being an even bigger bully. By their definition, Hitler would not have been an isolationist.

This show hostess is doing a disservice to her listeners.

Utter nonsense.

latkinson6
02-08-2008, 05:28 PM
Cool. Thank you all. I sent a letter to the writer and all the other address's listed on there website. http://www.klewtv.com/about/contactus/index.html
Im not a very good writer buy I'm motivated.
Local media will be hearing from me. every day.

idrake
02-08-2008, 05:33 PM
Ask him how many countries have troops in the US. Answer: 0. Does that make every other country in the world isolationist?

Ask him how providing security to other nations at the expense of the American tax payer benifits us.

manny
02-08-2008, 05:36 PM
this has been expressed sooo many times. Ron Paul even talks about this.. "isolationism" is just the media's spin for a keyword to turn off people. Ron Paul is OPPOSITIE of islationism as Ron Paul wants to trade and have GOOD relations with all. If anything, our current foreign policy is more isolationist because it breeds contempt towards us. We create environments around the world, that makes us enemies. So instead of using diplomacy and trade, we make up excuse for war and start it. And then when we are shown that ALL of the reason for war are lies, we now say "but we can't just leave. what about the poor civilians"..... YET, Bill Clinton and Bush have set up policies.. trade embargoes and sanctions, and now bombs that have killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Innocents.. ridiculous.


Sums it up very nicely.

The idea that Bush's interventionist - one might well call it anti-isolationist position - has brought any benefits is risible.

As it happens I loathe isolationism, though I know there are some who like it. Ron Paul is not an isolationist - he is a free-trader. He wants the absolute maximum - since he knows free trade ultimately benefits both parties or it wouldn't happen - interaction between the USA and the rest of the world.

Isolationists tend to be socialists with fantasies about economic self-sufficiency with their export drives and national plans etc. Ron is as far from them as can be.

LEK
02-08-2008, 05:42 PM
Go to the ISSUES page on the campaign site - here is the page about National Defense and non-interventionism. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/national-defense/

I highly recommend going to Ron Paul's government link that lists all of his speeches and statements: http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml

Statement on the Iraq War Resolution
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr021407.htm

We Just Marched In (So We Can Just March Out) http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr041707.htm

Why Are Americans So Angry (note the explanantion of The Just War Theory)
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr062906.htm

pdavis
02-08-2008, 05:49 PM
Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism).

Non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.

Isolationism is not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries.

Bossobass
02-08-2008, 05:52 PM
Ron Paul is a Non-Interventionist, Constitutionalist and a Realist. From David Walker, the Comptroller of the United States:

Humming the same tune he's been singing in a tour of the nation, Government Accountability Office chief David Walker warned senators Tuesday that the federal budget is spiraling out of control and that little time remains to steer it to safer ground. Driven by a combination of soaring healthcare costs and the demographic swell of baby boomers on the cusp of retirement, Walker told the Senate Budget Committee that "the federal budget is on an imprudent and unsustainable path" and that "the passage of time only serves to worsen this situation."Congress and the next president, he said, have about five years to get a firm grip on the problem or burden taxpayers with huge tax hikes and beneficiaries of federal programs with steep cuts in aid. As of the start of this year, Walker said, the nation's debt was $9 trillion -- up from $5.8 trillion in 2001.

Bush has asked for another $400 billion dollar deficit. The last balanced budget came from Andrew Jackson. Some point to the Clinton budget surpluses, but that was achieved by looting the Social Security Trust Fund's (then) trillion dollar surplus. In actuality, Clinton ran a nearly $300 billion deficit.

Ron has said many, many times, correctly, that thousands of years of history has shown us that all great Empires fall, not because of ideology or any other reason, but for financial reasons.

The United States has had to borrow every single dime of the cost of the Iraq war from a Communist country! This has imperiled our national security more than terrorism. The Chinese recently threatened Congress by indicating that they would 'dump dollar holdings' if Congress passed a tariff bill against China for violating intellectual rights and international patents. Congress immediately backed off.

Ron has also told America, speaking on the House floor, that exporting our inflation is only a temporary fix that will come home to roost when those inflated dollars are used by foreigners holding US debt to purchase US assets. Recent purchase of multi-billion dollar chunks of Citi, the nation's largest bank, by Dubai and China is only one example of Ron's insight proving true.

Ron rightfully cites Vietnam as a perfect example of the difference between the monumental drain on our economy ($750 billion in debt) and troops (60,000 lost) through a decades-long war that we lost vs opening a diplomatic relationship and trading with that country.

War can only be waged by incurring debt. There are 3 ways to pay for that debt. One, raise taxes, which incumbents are loathe to do as the result is losing their political office. Two, is to borrow the money. Recently, China and Japan have shut us off, as will many other nations who have been stung by our 'sub prime poisoned well'. Asset backed securities that aren't backed by assets. The final method is just to print the money. This leads to run away inflation, which we are facing today and will lead to a severe recession as the only way to avoid the ruination of the dollar.

Exxon will be upset if we pull out of the middle east, but most of us tend to lack any sympathy for the company that has earned more profit in a single quarter than the average company grosses in a year.

Bosso

ziggrl
02-08-2008, 05:53 PM
Example:

You have a parent with a 25 year old out of control son that wants to go jihad on everyone.
You want the best for that son and you console him, advise him, show him your love.
But you really can't tell him what to do because he's 25 years old and he's an adult.
He's going to do what he wants anyway no matter what you do or say, right?
He's not going to listen to you.
Besides he hates you.
So the parent is hurt because of the hate.
The parent tried and tried but the son only gets worse.
So do you make this son's life worse by intervening to the point where he's even more jihad?
It's time for some tough love.
You back off.
We'll be there for you when you come to your senses and want to talk.

sharedvoice
02-08-2008, 05:55 PM
Ask the the person if he/she understands the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism.

freelance
02-08-2008, 07:00 PM
He cannot pull out all US troops without the approval of the Congress.

There was no (Congressional) declaration of war, so I don't see why he couldn't just bring them home a.s.a.p.

latkinson6
02-08-2008, 11:39 PM
See people. we need to keep writeing and being active.
Thanx to Lord Xar for the text. Awsome bro.

heres my email text:

From: "Meyer, Greg" <GMeyer@klewtv.com> Save Address Block Sender This Is Spam
To: "L....d A....n" <len....@engineer.com> :edited
CC:
Subject: RE: Republicans ready to rumble
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 19:05:23 -0800

Show Full Headers Back To [INBOX]
Thanks for contacting us Leonard.

There was an error in the story we aired and published, in that our reporter failed to attribute the "isolationist" comment to the person she was interviewing. We corrected it in our newscast this evening.

Greg Meyer

Greg Meyer
News Director
KLEW-TV
2626 17th St. Lewiston 83501
208-746-2636


From: Leonard Atkinson [mailto:lenatkinson@engineer.com]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 3:21 PM
To: Meyer, Greg; Loveless, Matt; Flipper, Natalie; Fickenwirth, Fred; Stellmon, Dan; Larson, Stacy; Manfull, Daren; Kelly, Chani
Subject: Republicans ready to rumble


"Paul is an isolationist who would like to pull out all U.S. troops." - Stephanie Smith

this has been expressed sooo many times. Ron Paul even talks about this.. "isolationism" is just the media's spin for a keyword to turn off people. Ron Paul is OPPOSITIE of islationism as Ron Paul wants to trade and have GOOD relations with all. If anything, our current foreign policy is more isolationist because it breeds contempt towards us. We create environments around the world, that makes us enemies. So instead of using diplomacy and trade, we make up excuse for war and start it. And then when we are shown that ALL of the reason for war are lies, we now say "but we can't just leave. what about the poor civilians"..... YET, Bill Clinton and Bush have set up policies.. trade embargoes and sanctions, and now bombs that have killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Innocents.. ridiculous.

--
Want an e-mail address like mine?
Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com!