PDA

View Full Version : WaPo: Paul gets adoring crowd for isolationist message




randomname
02-11-2011, 03:57 PM
In front of a packed crowd filled with young fans, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) sought to connect his long career to last year's Republican wave."The revolution is continuing," Paul declared, making special note of one 2010 win: His son's victory in the Kentucky Senate race.

Once he got going, though, Paul made it clear that he does not agree with Republican leadership on everything.

"The PATRIOT Act is literally the destruction of the Fourth Amendment," he declared, to huge applause. "I'm still against foreign aid -- for everybody." On spending cuts, he lamented," Half the people in this room won't cut one penny from the military."

The most jarring divergence from other major CPAC speakers came when Paul addressed "American exceptionalism," a popular theme the past two days.

"We're certainly living in an exceptional country," he said, "but I think where we go astray on exceptionalism ... is when we go around the world trying to force people to be like us ... force doesn't work." He dismissed the "so-called neoconservatives" who think we can democratize other countries.

The youngish crowd was largely on Paul's side -- he got multiple standing ovations. Many of the audience members were there specifically for him; there were long lines to get out of the auditorium when the speech ended. A swarm of fans followed him for a book signing.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/cpac-2011-the-conservative-pol-1.html#paul

Lucille
02-11-2011, 04:30 PM
They keep on using that word...

Inkblots
02-11-2011, 04:32 PM
... I do not think it means what they think it means. ;)

nobody's_hero
02-11-2011, 06:22 PM
I don't know why isolationism is all that dirty of a word anyway.

Hell, if we went from 'not blowing people up' to 'not talking to them', I'd consider that a massive improvement over the status quo.

Southron
02-11-2011, 06:38 PM
I don't know why isolationism is all that dirty of a word anyway.

Hell, if we went from 'not blowing people up' to 'not talking to them', I'd consider that a massive improvement over the status quo.

I agree and have embraced the word. If someone tries to pin me as an isolationist I'll respond that I'm proud to be one. I think the "one-worlders" are the ones who tried to make it a negative word in the first place.

Lucille
02-11-2011, 06:56 PM
... I do not think it means what they think it means. ;)

Neither does FOX (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/02/11/ron-paul-brings-down-house-cpac#ixzz1DhVE9wGL)! It's always nice when progs and Paul-hating cons have a meeting of the minds, ain't it?


Paul hit on the idea of isolationism repeatedly. "The Founding Fathers talked about staying out of foreign entanglements when it's none of our business."

Dr.3D
02-11-2011, 06:59 PM
I suppose if the busybody living down the street, finally learned to keep his nose out of other peoples business, somebody would call him an isolationist.

Cdn_for_liberty
02-11-2011, 07:02 PM
I don't know why isolationism is all that dirty of a word anyway.

Hell, if we went from 'not blowing people up' to 'not talking to them', I'd consider that a massive improvement over the status quo.

Because that's the wrong word to describe Ron Paul's foreign policy.

The correct word is "non-intervensionism."

Isolationism means not to intervene in other country's affairs and no economic relationships (ie. free trade). Ron Paul supports trading with other nations so isolationism is the wrong word to describe him.

sailingaway
02-11-2011, 07:02 PM
Neither does FOX (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/02/11/ron-paul-brings-down-house-cpac#ixzz1DhVE9wGL)! It's always nice when progs and Paul-hating cons have a meeting of the minds, ain't it?

Those groups have always agreed on globalism.

dannno
02-11-2011, 07:13 PM
I agree and have embraced the word. If someone tries to pin me as an isolationist I'll respond that I'm proud to be one. I think the "one-worlders" are the ones who tried to make it a negative word in the first place.

The problem with isolationism is that it implies government force be used to hault trade with other nations.

There are lots of products from other countries that I like. For example, thai and indian spices and various ingredients that can't really be produced here.

It's also not economically very smart to stop trading with other countries.. and I don't mean the kind of trade we have today where the government inflates our currency, deflates it in China causing a huge labor differential, or where huge corporations go over to other countries, steal the people's land and setup sweatshops and sell the products over here.. I mean where we go over, buy shit from their businesses, and bring it back here, and in turn sell stuff to them.

One form of protectionism I MIGHT support would be to not allow trade with corporations who bribe leaders of other countries to let them have the resources that doesn't happen to belong to the leader of the country (NO resources belong to ANY leader of ANY country, they belong to the people). That act is essentially stealing, and if it happens across the ocean by a US citizen, I don't see why it is different than if they stole something from here, except that they would be prosecuted for the actual crime in the other country.. that doesn't mean we need to allow them to sell the stuff that they stole over here.

nobody's_hero
02-12-2011, 10:36 AM
Because that's the wrong word to describe Ron Paul's foreign policy.

The correct word is "non-intervensionism."

Isolationism means not to intervene in other country's affairs and no economic relationships (ie. free trade). Ron Paul supports trading with other nations so isolationism is the wrong word to describe him.

I agree, but my point was that isolationism would be better than what we have now (perpetual violence). Non-interventionism should be the goal, but I'd settle for isolationism in the short-term. It still gives us a chance to get our own shit in order.

JVParkour
02-12-2011, 01:27 PM
I posted your input on FaceBook Dr.3D. I thought it was great!

specsaregood
02-12-2011, 01:29 PM
I don't know why isolationism is all that dirty of a word anyway.
Hell, if we went from 'not blowing people up' to 'not talking to them', I'd consider that a massive improvement over the status quo.

It's only dirty if Dr.paul says it. Trump got cheered by these same fools for pushing a much more isolationist message.

Cowlesy
02-12-2011, 01:36 PM
Who wrote that for WaPo, Jennifer Rubin?

Wouldn't surprise me.

HOLLYWOOD
02-12-2011, 02:56 PM
...my point was that isolationism would be better than what we have now (perpetual violence). Non-interventionism should be the goal.Anything is better than the Crone Globalism the Power Elite buy from their political puppets through bribes and future rewards. There's so much government exploitation and corruption in the global market/gov arena. Whether it be first priority for America to consume Canada's oil in return for car manufacturers to move there, to Prudhoe Bay Crude-oil Priority to Japan and Korea for established military bases and troops. It's a very tangled web between Daddy War Bucks, Trade, and US Globalism/Control.

I'm still waiting for someone to do an in-depth research on how far and deep the corruption and racketeering goes between the international corporatists, central government's interaction/polices, and globalism. Remember, big Antitrust schemes in international trade and how Americans are paying for the inflation induced by much of the agreement/treaties/foreign entanglements. CHINA-US Trade agreement that comes to mind... FYI today China has a 25% tariff on all US goods (that they haven't bough-out, stolen, or salvaged. The US has a 2.5% tariff on all Chinese goods... protectionism for whom?

The trade agreement with Washington DC's "Most Favored Nation" none of the trade agreement were ever met:

Agriculture
The USA - China trade deal originally signed in 1999 provides increased access for US exports across a broad range of commodities and elimination of barriers.
Commitments include: Significant cuts in tariffs that were to be completed by January 2004.
Overall average for agricultural products will be 17% and for US priority products 14.5%.
Establishment of a tariff-rate quota (TRQ) system for imports of bulk commodities, e.g., wheat, corn, cotton, barley, and rice, that provides a share of the TRQ for private traders. Specific rules on how the TRQ will operate and increased transparency in the process will help ensure that imports occur.

Significant and growing quota quantities subject to tariffs that average 1-3%.
The right to import and distribute products without going through state-trading enterprise or middleman.
China has also agreed to the elimination of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) barriers that are not based on scientific evidence and no export subsidies on agricultural products.

Impact
China's commitments will eliminate broad systemic barriers to USA exports, such as limits on who can import goods and distribute them in China as well as barriers such as quotas and licences that restrict imports of USA products.

Tariffs
Tariffs cut to an average of 9.4% and 7.1% on USA priority products.
China will participate in the Information Technology Agreement (ITA) eliminating all tariffs on products such as computers, telecommunications equipment, semiconductors, computer equipment and other high technology products.
In the auto sector, China will cut tariffs from the current 100% or 80% level to 25% by 2007, with the largest cuts in the first years after accession. Auto parts tariffs will be cut to an average of 10% by 2007. Significant cuts will also be made in the wood and paper sectors, going from present levels of 12-18% on wood and 15-25% on paper down to levels generally between 5 and 7.5%.

China will also be implementing the vast majority of the chemical harmonisation initiative. Under that initiative, tariffs will be at 0, 5.5 and 6.5% for products in each category.