Salon reviews Ron Paul's book

[DrNoZone]

In an article titled "All The Candidates' Books (http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/10/18/candidate_books/)", which reviews one book from each of the candidates running in 2008 (well, except Colbert!), they had this to say about RP's book:

"A Foreign Policy of Freedom: 'Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship'" by Ron Paul

I'd never say anything bad about Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, if only because I tremble at the thought of the avenging Paulista hordes summoned to their keyboards by the resulting Google alert. I do think, however, that the jacket of his latest book, "A Foreign Policy of Freedom," might be a little enthusiastic in describing Paul as "the premier advocate for liberty in politics today." Also, Paul couldn't even get through 10 pages before referring to "The New World Order," which is almost never a good thing.

But the book, which is really just a collection of writings and speeches about foreign policy, is a good introduction to the Ron Paul phenomenon, and gives some insight into his allure for voters who might otherwise be allergic to a Republican. Anyone who opposes the Iraq war can find something to agree with in his generally isolationist, libertarian, anti-neocon views about the role of the United States in the world. They'll just have to ignore his views on a lof of the other topics not covered by this book, meaning the environment, civil rights, taxes, healthcare, abortion ...

[nullvalu]

They'll just have to ignore his views on a lof of the other topics not covered by this book, meaning the environment, civil rights, taxes, healthcare, abortion ...

Well fucking DUH, the book is titled "A Foreign Policy of Freedom".. What part about the book's subject of foreign policy didn't he understand?

BTW, that is not a review.. It's like he flipped through a few pages and thought he'd seen enough.

[Cindy]

Well fucking DUH, the book is titled "A Foreign Policy of Freedom".. What part about the book's subject of foreign policy didn't he understand?


The new world order part? lol

[grfgerger]

wow that's a badly written review. this is a major website?

[runderwo]

A "little enthusiastic"? I invite them to nominate anyone else currently holding office.

Someone needs to remind this author that it is trade embargoes and preemptive assaults on sovereign nations that isolates us... not Dr. Paul's policy of trade, diplomacy, private charity, and not attempting to be the police of the world.

[c0unterph0bia]

More people calling him an isolationist when he is the exact opposite. Awesome.

[Cindy]

wow that's a badly written review. this is a major website?

It sure is a bad book review.

In what chapter of Pauls book on foriegn Policy, is it discussed how his supporters get google alerts to man their key boards and go after hacks?

[JMann]

A good example as to why liberals hold an equal standing in society as rat dung.

[davidkachel]

A good example as to why liberals hold an equal standing in society as rat dung.

What?? They've had an upgrade???

[saku39]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm writing them a long letter exaplining politely why they are completely wrong.

[Ridiculous]

Any mention of New World Order, is not a good thing from a campaign marketing perspective.

[DrNoZone]

Well fucking DUH, the book is titled "A Foreign Policy of Freedom".. What part about the book's subject of foreign policy didn't he understand?


Yep, that's exactly what I said in a letter I wrote to Salon (you can see it in the letters section under that article).

[DrNoZone]

wow that's a badly written review. this is a major website?

Yes, this is a VERY popular website.

[steph3n]

I think these people are socialist, he got 3 "ratings" which was pretty good for a republican!

[DrNoZone]

I think these people are socialist, he got 3 "ratings" which was pretty good for a republican!

But notice they used the cosmonaut icon for their ratings on Ron Paul. Here is their explanation for the rating icons:

"In the 16 reviews that follow, the books are rated on a rising scale of one to five, with icons appropriate to the candidates -- the first President Roosevelt for the Republicans, the second for the Democrats, and cosmonauts for the more, um, idealistic entrants in the race for the White House."

That said, 3 is still better than what others received (Tancredo got 1/2, Ghouliani got 1, Brownback got 2, and Huckster got 2).

[Cindy]

Any mention of New World Order, is not a good thing from a campaign marketing perspective.

I don't see what the fuss is. Bush Senior talked about and promoted his New World Order vision in his speeches. Bush Senior said, they are creating a New World Order. Bush senior validates it's creation and existance.

See for yourselves- here is a Lou dobbs news piece on it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdxI0zClV_Y&eurl=



Not surprising to find it addressed in a Congressmens book about Americas Foriegn Policy.

[swissmiss]

On the good side: At least the reporter had to read 10 pages...

"We see here a man doing all he can to reverse the tide of American interventionism, against the warmongering inertia of both parties, and if his words at times become somewhat repetitive it is only because he is tirelessly repeating the negelcted truths and wisdom of the noninterventionist strain traditional to America. These truths need to be heard, and although his 30 years' worth of speeches may at times become frustrating to read, in light of how much his words have been ignored, we can only be enthralled by how boldly and heroically he has persisted in his mission to educate his compatriots"

Anthony Gregory about RPs book in: Freedom Daily Vol, 18 www.fff.org

Switzerland used to be an imperialistic country, believe it or not. But we only had to miserably fail once to see that this is a really really stupid idea.

[SWATH]

I was listening to Laura Inghram the other day when she had a congressman on as a guest, I forget from where. They were talking about the Dream Act as a new backdoor for amnesty and Laura asked: "why do they keep pushing for amnesty, so they not know we don't want it?"

He replied: "well it's all part of the New World Order that is being sureptitiously constructed all around us, Bush is in on it as are most higher members of the government, as well as Texas govener Rick Perry. They are lax in enforcing the border because they want to dissolve the border and create a North American Union."

Laura said very sceptically: "WAAAIT a minute, there is nothing being done in secret, there is no conspiracy, where is your evidence for any of this, Bush has done nothing in secret"

He said: "Oh yes he has, he met in secret with the president of Mexico and negotiated a deal where illegal aliens can be made eligable to receive social security benefits, and this wasn't revealed until 2 years later when a freedom of information request and multiple court hearings forced them to turn over the documents"

Without responding Laura immediatly changed the subject to something completely different for a minute then ended the interview.

[Cindy]

Why are people calling the NWO a secret conspiracy when Bush Senior publically, openly and freely talks about it?

What's with all the denial of that fact caught on tape, by many politicians besides Bush Sr. supporting it?

It's real. The more we accept the fact of it the sooner everyone will deal with it straight forwardly like RP does.

People in denial of the NWO are starting to sound like people who deny the Holocaust.

[slantedview]

The "isolationist" label shows the obvious bias the reviewer has against Dr. Paul. There's a difference between an isolationist and standing up for national sovereignty.

[jmdrake]

Ok. Who else thinks this person wrote a bad review precisely because he HOPE angy Ron Paul supporters will click on it and read it just so they can formulate a proper response? A webclick is a webclick.

Regards,

John M. Drake