Romney is a Flat out Liar, a Fake, and a liberal.

[InTheLight]

Isolationism refers to America's longstanding reluctance to become involved in European alliances and wars. Isolationists held the view that America's perspective on the world was different from that of European societies and that America could advance the cause of freedom and democracy by means other than war.

American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html

This sure sounds like Ron Paul to me.

From your link:

The postwar world environment, in which the United States played a leading role, would change with the triumph of urban industry and finance, expanded education and information systems, advanced military technology, and leadership by internationalists. A few leaders would rise to speak of a return to America's traditional policies of nonintervention, but in reality, traditional American isolationism was obsolete.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Your signature is an example of classic isolationism.

That statement is a classic example of someone not knowing what they are talking about.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Open trade is just simply not isolationism. So why call it that ?

Was Thomas Jefferson an isolationist ?










:laugh:

 

[Havensdad]

Isolationism refers to America's longstanding reluctance to become involved in European alliances and wars. Isolationists held the view that America's perspective on the world was different from that of European societies and that America could advance the cause of freedom and democracy by means other than war.

American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html

This sure sounds like Ron Paul to me.

Yeah...you are quoting an open source site ran by a travel company....not exactly reliable.

From the dictionary:


"A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries."

or

"a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/isolationism

Paul quotes:

..."open up trades with other countries..."

"we have over 12000 diplomats and it's time we use them"

Again, Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist.

Non-intervention definition:

"the abstention by a state from intervening in the affairs of other states or in its own internal disputes"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonintervention

Now, AGAIN, there are 50 threads about Paul. Take it there. This thread is about that lying snake in the grass, Mitt Romney...

 

[seekingthetruth]

Get over it

Even PeeWee herman would be better than Obama.

At least PeeWee would understand that he is in over his head and take some instruction.

John

 

[webdog]

From your link:

The postwar world environment, in which the United States played a leading role, would change with the triumph of urban industry and finance, expanded education and information systems, advanced military technology, and leadership by internationalists. A few leaders would rise to speak of a return to America's traditional policies of nonintervention, but in reality, traditional American isolationism was obsolete.

Traditional American isolationism being obsolete does not mean Ron Paul is not intent on returning America to it's origins.

 

[webdog]

That statement is a classic example of someone not knowing what they are talking about.

If you are referring to Paul's...I agree

 

[webdog]

Yeah...you are quoting an open source site ran by a travel company....not exactly reliable.

From the dictionary:


"A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries."

or

"a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/isolationism

Paul quotes:

..."open up trades with other countries..."

"we have over 12000 diplomats and it's time we use them"

Again, Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist.

Non-intervention definition:

"the abstention by a state from intervening in the affairs of other states or in its own internal disputes"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonintervention

Now, AGAIN, there are 50 threads about Paul. Take it there. This thread is about that lying snake in the grass, Mitt Romney...

Oh, so Paul has changed his stance on the UN, et al? He has changed his stance on helping to defend our allies?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

If you are referring to Paul's...I agree

Again, was Thomas Jefferson an isolationist ?

 

[InTheLight]

Traditional American isolationism being obsolete does not mean Ron Paul is not intent on returning America to it's origins.

Hmmm...you may have a point. The man does want to bring our currency policy back to the 1800's, why not the foreign policy as well?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

But yes, Romney is everything the O/P says he is.

The U.S. would be better off with congress gridlocking team zero for four years, than we would be by putting up either Romney, or Gingrich, and losing congress in two years, and the presidency in two more.

Think 20 years ahead, people. Beating Obama is not worth selling out.

 

[carpro]

Paul is not an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist.

You can change the name but you can't change the game.

Paul will cut the military to the bone, with the more than willing assistance of democrats. They won't let him cut spending anywhere else.

 

[carpro]

But yes, Romney is everything the O/P says he is.

The U.S. would be better off with congress gridlocking team zero for four years, than we would be by putting up either Romney, or Gingrich, and losing congress in two years, and the presidency in two more.

Think 20 years ahead, people. Beating Obama is not worth selling out.

Good point, but can you guarantee republicans will maintain a strong enough representation in Congress to thwart Obama?

Even if they do, that won't get Obamacare repealed over a presidential veto. And based on statements Paul has mad, I don't believe he would sign legislation for a repeal.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Good point, but can you guarantee republicans will maintain a strong enough representation in Congress to thwart Obama?

I can't see the future, but I do predict a strong republican majority, in congress. I expect a lot of state legislatures will also see republican growth. Obama's first two years, with his majorities, and the lap-dog media, really taught America a lesson in liberal politics.

Even if they do, that won't get Obamacare repealed over a presidential veto.

I believe they can cripple him over this. And I am not convinced of Newt or Mitt, that they will remain stedfast conservatives. Niether's record shows it.

 

[carpro]

I can't see the future, but I do predict a strong republican majority, in congress. I expect a lot of state legislatures will also see republican growth. Obama's first two years, with his majorities, and the lap-dog media, really taught America a lesson in liberal politics.



I believe they can cripple him over this. And I am not convinced of Newt or Mitt, that they will remain stedfast conservatives. Niether's record shows it.

I agree about Newt and Romney, but don't see Paul as a viable alternative.

 

[Salty]

A billion dollars for a palace like embassy in another country is not "military" spending, ..."

Would you please provide the link indicating who stated the embassy was military spending?

 

[carpro]

Would you please provide the link indicating who stated the embassy was military spending?

It's a strawman.

 

[Havensdad]

Would you please provide the link indicating who stated the embassy was military spending?

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/01/1...supposed-to-be-conservative-spend-less-money/

Carpo is also VERY uninformed. Paul wants to build new bases here, and work on new military technology. NOT cut down on our military.

He also has absolutely zero respect, apparently, since I have asked him numerous times to quit hijacking this thread.

 

[Salty]

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/01/1...supposed-to-be-conservative-spend-less-money/

Carpo is also VERY uninformed. Paul wants to build new bases here, and work on new military technology. NOT cut down on our military.

He also has absolutely zero respect, apparently, since I have asked him numerous times to quit hijacking this thread.

From the link: Paul also brought up an example of spending a billion dollars on an embassy in Baghdad. He said, “You consider that defense spending.

Who is the "You" Paul is referring to? That is the link I would like to see.

Why build new military bases - just don't close any more.
What we need to do is to cut the non-military spending in the Defense budget.

 

[Havensdad]

From the link: Paul also brought up an example of spending a billion dollars on an embassy in Baghdad. He said, “You consider that defense spending.

Who is the "You" Paul is referring to? That is the link I would like to see.

Why build new military bases - just don't close any more.
What we need to do is to cut the non-military spending in the Defense budget.

Because numerous bases have been shut down in the U.S., and new ones opened overseas. That is dumb. We are basically providing security for large sections of Europe. and letting them get by scott free. Our soldiers are supposed to defend OUR soil, not French and German soil...

We need to increase our defense capabilities HERE.