Repeat After Me: Constitutional Foreign Policy

[ItsTime]

Ron Paul will bring back a Constitutional foreign policy. The self proclaimed tea partiers can not argue with this. They will try but they will quickly back themselves into a corner. We must stress this issue.

[CaptUSA]

Good point.

I've been pushing "conservative foreign policy", but constitutional is a more specific alternative.

It's Constitutional to follow the process laid out. It's conservative to want limited involvement.

[ItsTime]

Good point.

I've been pushing "conservative foreign policy", but constitutional is a more specific alternative.

It's Constitutional to follow the process laid out. It's conservative to want limited involvement.

That is a good one, but I have found most people think preemptive strikes are conservative, but they are unconstitutional.

[Sola_Fide]

I agree.

[Travlyr]

"A Foreign Policy of Freedom" (http://mises.org/books/foreign_policy_freedom_paul.pdf) by Ron Paul

Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship
Entangling Alliances with None
- Thomas Jefferson
First Inaugural Address, 1801

[CaptUSA]

That is a good one, but I have found most people think preemptive strikes are conservative, but they are unconstitutional.Yeah, how weird is it that bombing countries willy nilly can be considered "conservative"? Conservative means cautious, careful, and restricting yourself as much as possible. Nothing about our foreign policy is "conservative".

[Cleaner44]

+rep

There is one useful thing to be gained from Frank Luntz... words do matter.

Constitutional Foreign Policy

Just as the MSM constantly uses phrases like "libertarian Ron Paul" and "isolationist foriegn policy" for branding negative impressions, we can also brand with positive phrases.

P.S.
Fuck you Frank!

[Cleaner44]

Constitutional Foreign Policy video that actually converts!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVTs44unYWU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVTs44unYWU

[affa]

Something like this?:

Ron Paul is for a core principle of the Constitution -- checks and balances. The Constitution clearly gives the power of declaration of war to the Congress, but for the past few decades the Executive Branch has effectively done an end run against Congress, and codified this ability to avoid Congressional declaration with the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973, which allows the President to wage war for 90 days... at which point, it becomes impossible to leave, binding the Congress to fund it. While you may agree with some of our targets over the years, removal of this layer of checks and balances also allows for all the 'wars' you may not have been for, including everything from the Vietnam War (actually, 'Conflict') to our recent foray with Libya and drone bombings in numerous countries.

By returning the power of declaration of war to the Congress, we can still engage in war if deemed necessary by our Congress, as per Constitutional guidelines, and the power to wage war gets taken out of the hands of a single person - the President of the United States, because even if you like our President at any given time, you may not agree with the next one. The President would still have the ability for instant reprisal/defense in certain situations, such as if we found ourselves under imminent threat (say, a foreign navy encroaching on our coasts).

[ItsTime]

^+Rep sweet.

[ItsTime]

Constitutional Foreign Policy video that actually converts!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVTs44unYWU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVTs44unYWU

Love this video.

[ItsTime]

Winning catch phrase, keep spreading it.

[Paul4Prez]

Or "more humble foreign policy." Or "more mainstream foreign policy," avoiding unnecessary wars. Or "more sensible foreign policy." Or "more fiscally conservative foreign policy." Or "more traditionally Republican foreign policy".

The other guys are the crackpot loon fringe candidates who want to start a war the American people want no part of.

[ItsTime]

Or "more humble foreign policy." Or "more mainstream foreign policy," avoiding unnecessary wars. Or "more sensible foreign policy." Or "more fiscally conservative foreign policy." Or "more traditionally Republican foreign policy".

The other guys are the crackpot loon fringe candidates who want to start a war the American people want no part of.

A constitutional foreign policy is all those things. However, a "tea partier", if they hear humble, sensible, ect will call it weak, but have no defense when you call it a constitutional foreign policy, which is what Ron Paul is promoting.

[ZanZibar]

Yes I have tried this before... some of the "smarter" ones come back by saying "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" :rolleyes:

[ItsTime]

Yes I have tried this before... some of the "smarter" ones come back by saying "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" :rolleyes:

So they do not believe in the constitution? lmao..... All hail Obama!

[EBounding]

Unfortunately, the response will be "The constitution is not a suicide pact".

[ItsTime]

Unfortunately, the response will be "The constitution is not a suicide pact".

So they believe the president has the authority to start wars? I do not see the problem with congress declaring wars, what is their problem with that?

Like I said they walk themselves into a corner and sound like a progressive.

[wsc321]

That guy in the video was excellent. Wow. "Constitutional Foreign Policy" - love it.

[Echoes]

Yes, ron should stay away from neocon vocab. Another one is foreign welfare, not 'foreign aid'. Dept of War, etc.

[MMXII]

Ron Paul will bring back a Constitutional foreign policy. The self proclaimed tea partiers can not argue with this. They will try but they will quickly back themselves into a corner. We must stress this issue.

Great strategy! It will be very hard to discredit him and his foreign policy when framed this way. I think it also helps defend against the latest suggestions that he is "to the left of obama on iran." Doug Wead actually defended Ron this afternoon this way when meghan kelly suggested that Paul is to the left of obama.........
No, he's not to the left or right, he's right in line with our constitution.

[FrankRep]

9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes I have tried this before... some of the "smarter" ones come back by saying "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" :rolleyes:
I've heard stuff like "these are different times and the old ways are too archaic". :rolleyes: And this is from so-called "conservatives". I'm no conservative, but that kind of nonsense is clearly not conservative by any measure.

[heavenlyboy34]

Constitutional Foreign Policy video that actually converts!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVTs44unYWU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVTs44unYWU
Huh. Jack is thinner and older than I imagined him from his SA videos.

[ItsTime]

I've heard stuff like "these are different times and the old ways are too archaic". :rolleyes: And this is from so-called "conservatives". I'm no conservative, but that kind of nonsense is clearly not conservative by any measure.

Yup. But maybe they will go home and think about it some more.

[Tax the Fed]

Great -

and if that doesn't work ya' can always
just wing your copy of A Foreign Policy of Freedom at their head !

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/fpfronpaul.jpg

Some though, do discredit that constitutional foreign policy
with a crap statement that they say they've learned about RP from Fox News (uggh).