Indirectly ours as well as he was the first president in modern politics that brought on wild deficit spending, tripling our national debt during his presidency.Reagan said he was going to defeat them and his policies led directly to their downfall.
No, I said I it was a combination of many factors, not just Reagan. If I had to say more credit to anyone it would be George Kennan, the father of containment.BGFalcons82;1062138 wrote:No, Reagan bankrupted them. Reading what you wrote, it sounds like Ronnie was the lucky office holder when the Soviet empire came tumbling down. Bullbutter. I suppose now you'll espouse Carter as having as big an influence as Reagan in defeating the Evil Empire. Reagan said he was going to defeat them and his policies led directly to their downfall. Oh...Ptown..are you trying to insinuate that Read-My-Lips Bush defeated the Soviets? If Reagan could have remained POTUS as long as Roosevelt, then it would be moot.
I'd agree that if Ike was alive, Paul would be the closest to him. The others follow the borderline neocon route.Cleveland Buck;1062136 wrote:Again, because Charles Krauthammer believes Paul wants a 19th century foreign policy doesn't make it true. In the 19th century we had protective tariffs and we didn't share intelligence with allies around the world. Paul supports free trade with all nations and working with allies without sending them money stolen from the people here. He also supports using the navy to protect the freedom of the seas without keeping bases in countries that despise our presence there. I don't understand what is so radical about that.
Yes countries in Europe that already can't pay for their welfare states would go bankrupt if they had to defend themselves, but they are going bankrupt anyway, and it isn't our responsibility to pay for their defense.
If Eisenhower were alive he would almost definitely endorse Paul out of this bunch of bloodthirsty clowns. Ron Paul is the only one who wants to stop the wars fought for government contractors. Surely this means Eisenhower was some liberal kook.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hope of its children." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
I agree. I've posted in the past that it's time to be lean and mean when it comes to our foreign involvements.ptown_trojans_1;1062177 wrote:I'd agree that if Ike was alive, Paul would be the closest to him. The others follow the borderline neocon route. That said, to me, today the policy needs to follow like Ike, than before Wilson. We still need to be involved, we just have to make the right choices.
Reallyptown_trojans_1;1062177 wrote:I'd agree that if Ike was alive, Paul would be the closest to him. The others follow the borderline neocon route.
That said, to me, today the policy needs to follow like Ike, than before Wilson. We still need to be involved, we just have to make the right choices.
Key word.BGFalcons82;1062015 wrote:Ron Paul is not a conservative. He is a libertarian. Once you understand the difference, you will understand why conservatives have issues with him. Conservatives believe in limited government, the rule of law, equal opportunities for all, and a strong national defense. Contrary to what the media spews, conservatives believe there are certain things the government should provide.
It's been stated ad nauseum, but here goes again: His beliefs in pseudo-isolationist policies (non-interventionalist is the word he uses to make him sound so much better than all the others) and his libertarian view that drug use is A-OK as long as it doesn't hurt anyone do not make him a conservative. I will agree his free-market policies, his stances on taxes, and getting government out of the way are conservative views but it ends there. For an example of the best conservative of the past 40 years, Ronald Reagan believed in these things AND a strong national defense.
Speaking of Reagan, did you know that Nancy was his 2nd wife? I suppose that means he had bad morals, too, eh?
Key word.BGFalcons82;1062015 wrote:Ron Paul is not a conservative. He is a libertarian. Once you understand the difference, you will understand why conservatives have issues with him. Conservatives believe in limited government, the rule of law, equal opportunities for all, and a strong national<strong> defense</strong>. Contrary to what the media spews, conservatives believe there are certain things the government should provide. <br>
<br>
It's been stated ad nauseum, but here goes again: His beliefs in pseudo-isolationist policies (non-interventionalist is the word he uses to make him sound so much better than all the others) and his libertarian view that drug use is A-OK as long as it doesn't hurt anyone do not make him a conservative. I will agree his free-market policies, his stances on taxes, and getting government out of the way are conservative views but it ends there. For an example of the best conservative of the past 40 years, Ronald Reagan believed in these things AND a strong national defense. <br>
<br>
Speaking of Reagan, did you know that Nancy was his 2nd wife? I suppose that means he had bad morals, too, eh?
BGFalcons82;1062138 wrote:No, Reagan bankrupted them. Reading what you wrote, it sounds like Ronnie was the lucky office holder when the Soviet empire came tumbling down. Bullbutter. I suppose now you'll espouse Carter as having as big an influence as Reagan in defeating the Evil Empire. Reagan said he was going to defeat them and his policies led directly to their downfall. Oh...Ptown..are you trying to insinuate that Read-My-Lips Bush defeated the Soviets? If Reagan could have remained POTUS as long as Roosevelt, then it would be moot.
Reagan understood the Middle East because he pulled out of Beirut, eh? Then how do you explain going after Quaddafi? How do you explain his intimidation of the Iranian "students" holding American hostages? Reagan carried a big stick and was unafraid to use it. Matter of fact, he loved to wave it at penny-enny tin pot dictators because it was effective. Cutting the military budget, reducing our strength, and isolating ourselves are not conservative actions, I don't care how many times you write that it is.
If this is Ron Paul's 'non-interventionism" then he needs to be more forthcoming especially to his disicples. Other than that, I'll agree alot with ptown in that Kennan's ideas and influence, along with the National Security Act of '47, was an acknowledgement that no longer could the United States ignore world politics.....and that by it's very nature as a superpower, would be a major and dominant player on the world stage economically, politically, and militarily.Really
1953 overthrow of Mossadegh regime in Iran
1954 over throw of Arbenz regime in Guatemala\
1958 US Marines intervene in Lebanon
1960 Lubumba overthrown in the Congo
900 military advisers into South Vietnam
Threat of use of Nuclear weapons on North Korea and China
And versus what a bigot like Paul would do
1957 US troops into Little Rock Arkansas to enforce school integration
Yea and since 1947 we have got the Korean War, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan...Those all worked out pretty well for us. That has been a great philosophy. All this money that we have spent on Policing the World has brought us nothing.HitsRus;1063616 wrote:If this is Ron Paul's 'non-interventionism" then he needs to be more forthcoming especially to his disicples. Other than that, I'll agree alot with ptown in that Kennan's ideas and influence, along with the National Security Act of '47, was an acknowledgement that no longer could the United States ignore world politics.....and that by it's very nature as a superpower, would be a major and dominant player on the world stage economically, politically, and militarily.
What we signed after WWII means absolutely nothing. We agreed to abolish torturing prisoners of war. How's that working out for us?HitsRus;1063616 wrote:If this is Ron Paul's 'non-interventionism" then he needs to be more forthcoming especially to his disicples. Other than that, I'll agree alot with ptown in that Kennan's ideas and influence, along with the National Security Act of '47, was an acknowledgement that no longer could the United States ignore world politics.....and that by it's very nature as a superpower, would be a major and dominant player on the world stage economically, politically, and militarily.
HitsRus;1063690 wrote:Since 1947 the United States has prospered for the most part, save for the past few years. No world wars have conflagrated due to our vigilance. Every president since Truman has recognised the need for American presence in global affairs. I think a lot of Americans listen to what Paul is saying and just scratch their heads..."Just how is that going to WORK?" His stuff makes for a great talking point, but in practicality, ehhhh just how is that going to work? It seem so clear to you Paulists....how come evrybody isn't grasping it? Why? because it's either bull**** or he's not communicating it very well. Or you could be like Buck and just chalk it up to our 'indoctrination'...lol
pmoney25;1063658 wrote:Yea and since 1947 we have got the Korean War, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan...Those all worked out pretty well for us. That has been a great philosophy. All this money that we have spent on Policing the World has brought us nothing.
It is kind of Ironic that you bring up us winning the Cold War when the main reason we won that war was that the Soviets could not keep up economically with all the money they were spending trying to maintain the Union and defense spending.
Even if we cut our MILITARY spending by what Paul wants, we would still outspend everyone else by a wide margin. I highlighted the most important word in your post. Without the economy no amount of military might will prevent this country from collapse.
Footwedge;1063693 wrote:What we signed after WWII means absolutely nothing. We agreed to abolish torturing prisoners of war. How's that working out for us?
Our founders made it clear..."we do not seek out monsters to destroy"..."free trade and friends with all nations...and entangling alliances with none".
Hits...who's paying for the empire anyway? Not you nor me that's for sure. You must not care a whole lot about a 15 trillion dollar national debt either.
From 1945-1991 the threat of all out thermonuclear war dominated U.S. foreign policy. Any and all actions must be taken in that context.pmoney25;1063749 wrote:I disagree, I would say most Americans would rather us spend money and resources here rather than policing the world or as you call it, having a strong global prescense. I would gather by the fact Paul recieves more support from the militarythan any of the other candidates that the people who fight these wars dont agree with you.
And for the last time Paul has never said he wants to eliminate the military nor has he said he is anti war. He just believes we should do it the right way.
It is easy to say containment and our worldwide presence worked because the Soviets eventually bankrupted themselves, but that is a logical fallacy. Their collapse had nothing to do with our actions and everything to do with their economic system. If anything our meddling across the world propped them up longer than they would have lasted. If they were able to invade countries and spread their empire they probably would have bankrupted themselves 25 years earlier. They weren't going to attack us because they would have been destroyed.ptown_trojans_1;1064528 wrote:From 1945-1991 the threat of all out thermonuclear war dominated U.S. foreign policy. Any and all actions must be taken in that context.
Also, yes, our GDP and military presence around the globe from 1945-1991 helped defeat the Soviets. Containment worked, it just took a while.
As to since 1991, the 90s were all about trying to figure out what to do post-Cold War, and we really didn't have a strategy. Post 9/11 same deal, the policies were largely over-reactionary and a frankly wrong.
Now, we still need to be involved around the world, the global economy depends on it. We just have to pick our spots.
That all said, Paul is not as crazy as people make him to be, but I'd still lean against all his proposed cuts.
He told us when he was running for President that energy rates would necessarily have to sky rocket.QuakerOats;1067568 wrote:The Job-Killer President strikes again ----- this time First Energy will shut down 6 power plants specifically because of obama's EPA and their radical agenda. Hundreds will lose their jobs in Ohio and PA. It is perhaps the only political rhetoric that this president is making good on: he said he would bankrupt the coal industry and he is well on his way to doing so by FORCING coal-generated plants to close.
Change we can believe in ......
QuakerOats;1067639 wrote:FirstEnergy says that new Obama administration’s environmental regulations led to a decision to shutdown 6 coal-fired power plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, laying off more than 400 employees. The plants, which are in Cleveland, Ashtabula, Oregon and Eastlake in Ohio, Adrian, Pennsylvania and Williamsport, Maryland, will be retired by September 1[SUP]st[/SUP]. They have generated about 10% of the electricity produced by FirstEnergy over the last 3 years, the company said. ‘This decision is not in any way a reflection of the fine work done by the employees at the affected plants, but is related to the impact of new environmental rules,’ said James Lash, president unit. He said that a review of the company’s coal-fired plants determined it would not be cost-effective to get the older ones into compliance with the stringent new regulations EPA announced in December. The new standards are designed to drive up the cost of coal and oil-fired power plants so that they can’t compete with subsidized renewables and natural gas and are shut down. A recent survey found that the changes are likely shutdown dozens of units in the Midwest and in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia. FirstEnergy said its decision would directly affect 529 employees.FirstEnergy Shutting Down 6 coal-Fired Power Plants