My comments on uranium and high tech were in resonse to steves comment on what he thought the one paragraph was.

Please explain how we would have better diplomatic relations by ignoring institutions that others consider important.

If you start out with tariffs and embargos on all items and end up with tariffs and embargo on less items how is that not a step towards free trade.

Under the tariff acceleration, Mexico and the U.S. are eliminating tariffs on an equivalent set of products, and Mexico will eliminate tariffs on additional items for which the U.S. tariff is already zero. Mexico and Canada are eliminating tariffs between their two countries on a parallel package of goods. NAFTA originally scheduled the elimination of tariffs on the products included in the agreement through periods extending to the year 2008. Duties on covered products traded between the United States and Canada were eliminated on January 1, 1998. Following procedures set out in NAFTA, Ambassador Zoellick and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts agreed to accelerate the elimination of tariffs.

Who said anything about not talking to our neighbors? I haven’t read all these comments so don’t expect me to responsd to questions you have about other poeple’s posts. A Paul administration would have better diplomatic relations with the world than any other during your lifetime. Why do you keep going off on tangents that don’t appear to be related to my posts at all?

Of course there will never be completely free trade because there are governments. Right now, we have nothing resembling free trade. That’s the point. We only have control over US trade and we can implement free trade in the US by removing trade restrictions. NAFTA and others are steps away from Free Trade. This is pretty simple so you should be able to grasp it. Removing trade restrictions and rules are steps towards free trade, adding restrictions and rules (NAFTA, CAFTA, etc,) are steps away from free trade. I understand if you don’t want free trade. Lots of people have that opinion. But don’t try and change the meaning of free trade just so you can say you support it. That’s something politicians do and, even then, it only works on the gullible.

Here is Ron Paul’s exact quote why he opposes it, “If we were interested in free trade, as the pretense is, you could initiate free trade in one small paragraph.

Un a world where you can go from tampa to sydney on 21 hours the more you talk to your neighbors the better off you are. In a world where so much trade intertwines countries it is best to have lots of places to talk.

Nafta and the others are steps on the way to free trade. There will never be completely free trade. Even in the US there are some restrictions of free trade between the states mainly dealing with agriculture.

I don’t know where you got the idea that Paul has written a one paragraph piece of legislation for free trade but I imagine someone told you this since you seem pretty adamant about it. You should ask that person for the link. As far as I know, Paul hasn’t written something like this but, I’ll repeat, Scott’s post covers the basic idea. Our government ok’d and took part in the sale of weapons to Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Mujahideen and others but you’re worried some company might sell uranium to another country. Even if this wasn’t an absurd fear (since aquiring uranium is one of the easier steps in building a nuclear weapon), do you think no other country has uranium now? It sounds as if you’re naive or just frightened.

None of which has to do with free trade. In fact it is an argument against free trade.

The WTO has no police or army. Anything that we do with them we do because our leaders want to.

Since Bush was looking very hard for a reason to invade Iraq any reason would do. If you remember his main arguement was that they were going to nuke us.

Exactly how would pulling out on any of these organizations prevent France from taxing our goods or the ICC from trying our soldiers.

Please post the link to the one paragraph that Ron Paul says would be the free trade bill.

Steve

Don’t sell arms. Sounds like a trade restriction. I’m also surprised that you are perfectly willing to let our people sell advance technology and uranium to whatever country wants them. Plus our business already complain about the unfair trade practices of other nation. It sounds like we should open our borders to everyone and not ask other to do it.

As for NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO or any other “Trade Agreement”, as Scott has already said, they’re not required for free trade. Free trade is the absence of trade restrictions and while that language would probably differ slightly from Scott’s example, he makes the point. Here’s what Paul says on his site (the first place anyone would look for his view)…

[”So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.

The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.

The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.”]

What would that small paragraph be like? I don’t know these things. Something like this, maybe:

Yeehaw! This is cool! Citizens of USA, you are free to trade with people of any of these countries: Just don’t sell any munitions and don’t forget to pay the 2% import duty on core commodities. Don’t come running to Uncle Sam if you don’t like the trade policies of that country, that’s their problem. You don’t have all that red tape of the treaty and you don’t have the rules by some international committee changing all the time. As far as Uncle Sam is concerned this is as easy as buying from another state. Best wishes and GO FOR IT!

The remark about free trade

Here is Ron Paul’s exact quote why he opposes it, “If we were interested in free trade, as the pretense is, you could initiate free trade in one small paragraph. This bill is over 1,000 pages, and it is merely a pretext for free trade. At the same time we talk about free trade, we badger China, and that is not free trade. I believe in free trade, but this is not free trade. This is regulated, managed trade for the benefit of special interests. That is why I oppose it.”

Is meaningless dribble. What is his one paragraph? How would it not give up national sovereignty ? Did NAFTA not go far enough? Is he unable to compromise to futher his cause?

Finally, before writing about Ron Paul, you should do a few minutes of research. Based on the short post above, it’s obvious your information about Paul comes from second hand sources and not your own research. Otherwise, you’d know that Dr. Paul is not an isolationist (Dubya’s foreign policy actually has more similarities to isolationism that Paul’s does). Of course, it might be the case that you’re substituting the word “isolationist” for “non-interventionist” but that would mean you’re either dishonest or using words that you don’t understand. Calling Dr. Paul an isolationist would be like me calling you a hermit because you don’t take your car and do donuts in your neighbors yard.

Again, I’m sorry you’re scared but I think you had a motive other than an open letter to Ron Paul supporters. That is obvious after finding out you support Huckabee and, in the past, Nader?!?!? I have no reason to try and convince you to support Paul. If you support the big spending, high tax politics of Nader and Huckabee, you’re someone that SHOULD NOT be voting for Paul. Paul is for small government and, since you don’t agree with that, I would suggest you stick with the candidates that are closer to your views (Huckabee, Rudy, Hillary, etc.).

But I will say this now, for those of you who thought this was a hit piece or I was directing traffic toward Mike Huckabee you could not be more wrong. Admittedly I am endorsing Huckabee but that doesn’t mean I don’t like Paul too. Were it not for his NON-INTERVENTIONIST foreign policy I too would be voting for him. The point was, and some of you got this, to address the more caustic amongst you about not shooing away potential Paul supporters with your piss poor attitude and inability to have a rational discussion. Again, not all of you but enough that I get the same feelings from you (some) folks that I got from Nader supporters (and I voted for the guy in 2000). Screaming at me to support someone is probably the least effective way to convince me you have anything worthwhile to say.

I am more than happy to entertain phone calls on this subject this Sunday at 10:00 on blogtalkradio.com/pclive

If Ron Paul does not win, who would you prefer be president? Hilary or Rudy.

I am a registered republican, and I am voting for Ron Paul in the primary.

But if he loses, I really dont know who is worse. Rudy or Bilary.

It’s ok. Everyone is doing it.

I encourage you, and other writers to take a close look at this so-called isolationism. It really is non-interventionism. What the US is doing now, is isolationist. Running around the planet, trying to make everyone become like “us”.
Ir’s costly..It makes NO friends. It isolates us.

Educate youself a little more on Ron Paul’s stance on the issues. You’re already coming around.
And think about this:

The First BIG MEDIA outlet that begins carrying non-biased, truthful news regarding the Ron Paul campaign will strike GOLD! you watch.

Respectfully yours,
J

But Ron Paul is a Congressman from Texas, running to be President of the 50 United States of America, and as such, Hezbolleh, Fatah, Hamas, etc. are combatants in a middle eastern civil war that over-laps Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Kurdistan, Turkey, and has only been exacerbated by previous US gov’t policy that acts interventionisticly in those areas as well as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan. Additionally the current Bush policy is to finance or defend dictatorships or oligarchies in Pakistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia. Today in the UN, Afghanistan supported the government of Iran, a smack in the face to the US & Canadian policy of armed intervention in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia is going to lash a female victim of gang-rape 200 times for the bizarrest so-called”crime” imaginable. This is not a regime that should be recognized or subsidized by the US. Close down those US bases in Saudi Arabia, stop subsidizing the backward feudalism of Pakistan and Afghanistan, stop the destabilization of Iraq (get out now), and Israel can defend itself very adequately.

delvis you are… how you say… ignorant.

The Neo-Con Facsists have NO chance of beating the Democrats. They have over played their hand to the point that only their diehard fools (30%) still believe anything they say.

Ron Paul is the only chance for a Republican to win this next election. Things have gotten so bad that even a lot of Democrats realize that electing Hillary or Obama is going to be good enough.

Ron Paul is a “top tier” candidate. He has clearly surpassed John McCain. Ron Paul dominates in Straw Polls, Debate Polls, Fund Raising, Web Traffic and Grass Roots Networking. I have gathered the evidence and created a website to support this statement.

Please visit http://www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge for yourself.

What the writer really should say is that he does not like Paul’s policy of non-interventionism, which is an affront to the world-builders who apparently have superior abilities to design a world far better than a free market would allow. This is an amazing talent; but, it simply doesn’t conform to reality. The central planners in Moscow realized this years ago and gave up on it. The central planners in the neoconservative cabal are still learning.

As to threats from Iran, the writer has to be clear on what threats he is worried about. Is there an economic threat? That depends on how you define the Empire. If the Empire has to contain a large portion of the world’s oil (Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia), then I suppose it should feel threatened if Iran can readily do business with China and Russia, while members of the “isolationist” cabal within the Empire feel compelled to own it all. Should the U.S. feel militarily threatened? What, the world’s largest superpower, afraid of Iran? That’s been laughed off a long time ago. But, if the Empire decides it cannot have even one little nation taking business orders from other competitors, then such dissent must be considered a threat. So, yes, the Empire should feel threatened.

And, when I figure out what 1983 has to do with 2007, in terms of threats, then I’ll post on that. But I probably won’t be back.

Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist by way of the Founders advice.

Not bad for someone who is at “2%” in the polls and who’s support supposedly consists of anti-war kooks and leftists. I can’t wait for that crap-eating grin is wiped off Giuliani’s face.

“Nafta is meant to eliminate tariffs and other barriers between the us, canada, and mexico. Now it does not eliminate all tariffs and does allow for a transition period.”

Here is Ron Paul’s exact quote why he opposes it, “If we were interested in free trade, as the pretense is, you could initiate free trade in one small paragraph. This bill is over 1,000 pages, and it is merely a pretext for free trade. At the same time we talk about free trade, we badger China, and that is not free trade. I believe in free trade, but this is not free trade. This is regulated, managed trade for the benefit of special interests. That is why I oppose it.”

“As for the UN how exactly does that entangle us or neuter us? We have a permanent seat on the security council with veto powers. They have no armed forces that can force us and we supply a great deal of their budget. What it does supply is a forum for talk and possibly cooperation.”

We are in Iraq because of UN Resolutions. Didn’t you know that? Bush got approval from the UN to go to war, NOT the congress! That is a direct infringment on the US Constitution and absolutely interfers with our
sovereignty.

Here is a good article that explains more:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul82.html

OK?

Even to assume we are over there for good intentions you cant forget this is a very religious area of the world and to think we can install already hated “western” democracy with no regard to 1300 years of Religious Ideology. I know if they were here trying to force Islam on the people here we would also be fighting them.

This isn’t as complicated as its made out to be, if we leave then they wont have anyone to attack. The reports coming out of Basra with the British is that since they left violence has dropped by 90%. So this whole argument is only being supported by the same people that said this would be a cake walk. The American people are suffering while a few corporate elites are getting rich.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,156377,00.html

Also let s not forget, while we are over there fighting they took a two month vacation during this last year. Not to mention this will cost every single American 12k to a total of 3.5 trillion dollars.

You said, “The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing was a major incident on October 23, 1983, during the Lebanese Civil War.”

Right there… in the first sentence, you already lost your argument. Under a Ron Paul administration, our troops would not have been in BEIRUT sticking our nose into the LEBANESE CIVIL WAR. What good did it do for the US for us to be there???

What really pisses me off is that you’re OK with sacrificing our soldiers lives to keep the status quo but YOU’VE NEVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY, you WIMP SOCIAL WORKER GLENN BECK WANNABE!!! I’ve served. About the first time a bullet wizzed past your head you’d be ready for a diaper change.

YOU MAKE ME FRIGGIN SICK!!!!!!!!!!

Then it all abruptly stopped and a very tiresome petit-maitre possessed you, I had to read a never-ending, patriarchal lecture teaching those rascals how to behave. Bobby Everle revisited.

For a honest change of heart, why don’t you try to address unruly pupils outside the Ron Paul campus? Here’s a hint, Open Letter to: Edward Morrisey’s buccaneers, LGFBs, Mona Charen, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, … the list goes on and it’s real (doesn’t include lame posters).

Take your vitamins and do impart some sense of civility and decorum to that RRRRRRepublican class. Before you, or Bobby or any other colored coach tries again the “let me show you how it’s done” letter.

Medved is a Neocon, which is not an insult.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

“Paul is nuttier than Aunt Mabel’s pecan pie.” How is that helpful?, well, by Jove, is that Mark raising his hand? Now you tell uncle Morrisey.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010033.php

PS: Life goes on after election day.

Both sides achieved many objectives. The British agreed to vacate the six western forts by June 1796 (which was done), and to compensate American ship owners (the British paid $10,345,200 by 1802).[4] In return, the United States gave most favored nation trading status to Britain, and acquiesced in British anti-French maritime policies. The United States guaranteed the payment of private prewar debts owed by Americans to British merchants that could not be collected in U.S. courts (the U.S. paid £600,000 in 1802). Two joint boundary commissions were set up to establish correctly the boundary line in the northeast (it agreed on the Saint Croix River) and in the northwest (this one never met). Jay, a strong opponent of slavery, dropped the issue of compensation for slaves, which angered Southern slaveowners. Jay was unsuccessful in negotiating an end to the impressment of American sailors into the Royal Navy, which later became one of the key issues that led to the War of 1812.

Seems like Washing gave up some of our sovernety to accomplish his goals.

The author stated he disagreed with one of Paul’s ideas, not because he wanted to debate it, but because he wanted to prove that Paul’s supporters would attack him with over-bearing tones and pompous wording. THE POINT IS THAT EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT, IT WILL NOT DO ANY GOOD TO BE AN ASS. Think before you post, and please read the full article.

Ron Paul should be a point of unity for people like us, not division.

As for the UN how exactly does that entangle us or neuter us.? We have a permanent seat on the security council with veto powers. They have no armed forces that can force us and we supply a great deal of their budget. What it does supply is a forum for talk and possibly cooperation.

1. China holds more than 1 trillion dollars of our debt, and can cripple the economy overnight by dumping this debt onto world markets. Interest rates would soar, our dollar would be crushed, our ability to borrow to finance this charade of war and social programs terminated, and our economy sent into a tailspin for decades

2. China is about to have 30 million more marriage-aged men than women to marry them. This gender imbalance is due to their cultural preference for sons merged with availability of ultrasound in the 1980’s (and a proclivity for female infanticide). What’s an oppressive communist country to do with 30 million frustrated twenty-somethings?

3. China continues to showcase a willingness to test military boundaries with the US. Their recent successful anti-satellite test makes one wonder why they would need such a capability? Just yesterday China denied a scheduled USS aircraft carrier docking at a Hong Kong port, and we’ve seen incidents with Chinese submarines surfacing aggressively close to US Navy ships in recent months.

You’re assessing the case for Iran in a vacuum, asking us to disprove this administrations assertions on Iran’s evil intentions. The people of Iran are largely decent and educated, and Iran as a nation has little to gain by being aggressive against the United States or Israel. They would be destroyed in minutes. The neoconservative agenda in this region is driven more by a desire to exert US dominance, ultimately fueled by religious agendas and convictions. Syria will follow after Iran is toppled once again.

I applaud Ron Paul for questioning the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton view that we must dominate the Middle East. This policy against “terrorism” and “islamofascism” is shallow window dressing designed to appeal to a populace driven more by paranoia, fear, and “patriotism” than reason. If we purport to be concerned about national security, why aren’t we addressing the significantly greater threat from China? What can Iran possibly do to us by comparison?

But about the “read more” link (http://pc-live.tv/2007/11/22/125/#more-125)…The full article explains this guy’s position better, and you’ll see he has opinions on Rudy and Hillary, too. Discouraging people from looking at things from someone else’s perspective goes against what Ron Paul is teaching. We cannot fail to realize this when we speak with such bold assertion (and we are confident because we believe so strongly in Paul’s ideas).

I agree with Ron Paul very strongly, and it is hard to not feel like I’m “right” and everyone else just hasn’t seen the light, but talking down to people will only scare them away from our cause.

Let’s just, for argument’s sake, say that Mark Radulich and “Delvis” are total morons. Instead of telling them so, we should pretend they are not and simply use our superior intellect to persuade them to support Paul. Because, morons or not, they can still vote. Anyway, we should be focusing on convincing the average American, not other internet independents, to vote for Paul. Ron Paul will not get anywhere if his popularity is significant only on the Internets.

Sir, I rather vote my conscience and have my candidate lose with integrity, honestly, and truth on his side…instead of having a candidate who wakes up every morning putting up his (Giuliani) or her (Hillary) wet finger in the air to see which way the political wind is blowing or crafting views according to lobbies (Israel) and interest groups.

Although it seems you are unaware of a RE-LOVE-TION going on throughout America by fellow Americans tired and angry of politicians-media axis to keep anyone they deem as “underdog” out of the Presidential race.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=awCKV4Lpx9c

That was so convincing with all the exclamation points!!1!!1

If Hillary wins, you can blame the Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, McCain supporters, because that means Ron Paul didn’t get the nomination.

In fact, keep your dear friend Mark here on your blame list. It is they who are rejecting any chance of victory. Ron Paul has the support of the independents, the others do not.

Reject the independents and you lose.

Accept Ron Paul and it’s an easy Republican win.

Plain and simple.

What’s your problem man? Who are you to tell us how to vote? Do you have some crystal ball that has the outcome all figured out? Go vote for your Giuliani or Huckabee, and we’ll vote for Dr. Paul and may the best man win!

Besides, it’s not about voting for someone who has a shot at this because the MSM has conditioned us into thinking that way. It’s about voting our conscience. As someone much wiser said, “the lesser of two evils is still evil”.

It is just a giuliani supporter writing another hit-piece. It’s almost comical how you always find that PajamasMedia link on the anti-Pauler blogs.

We cannot let the often aggressive, childish message board culture be the downfall of Ron Paul. We have to be smarter than that and not give Paul’s opponents any justification for labeling his supporters as maniacs.

It is clear to me that you follow the neocon, Zionist, interventionist school of thought as clearly seen by the Presidential candidates you support like Giuliani and Huckabee. I have a strong hunch you believe the US should be doing Israel’s bidding in the Middle East, which if true, fantastically proves why Mr. Paul is the only candidate that has a chance to change America’s image in the world.

You have links to the hate-site Pajamas Media, a far right, anti-Muslim blog where every problem in the world can be attributed to one group of people: “the Muslims.”

You state, “Hezbollah directly attacked the US Marine barracks in 1983″ quoting Wikipedia. While that may be true on the surface, you damn well omitted the circumstances surrounding the bombing.

1) The US military on the orders of President Reagan attacked the Lebanese coast, on behalf of Israel, angering ordinary Lebanese when US troops were hosted by Lebanon in Beirut.

2) By clearly aiding and abetting Israel in the 1982 Israel-Lebanon war, the US lost credibility as an “neutral, honest broker” and earned the contempt of many Lebanese who saw 2,000 people be butchered by Israel and its allies the Lebanese Phalanges militia in two refugee camps Sabra and Shatilla.

3) Ariel Sharon, marched his troops all the way to Beirut to drive out the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) because of personal rivalry and hatred he had for the corrupt leader Yasir Arafat.

4) In the ruins of the 1982 war and massacre, Hezbollah was formed by the Shi’a Lebanese to defend their interest against the US-Israel axis.

5) A foreign military target was bombed on Lebanese soil (not civilian) after the foreign army sided with Lebanon’s enemy, supplying it with state of the art, advanced weaponry… therefore it wasn’t an unprovoked “terrorist” attack by the Lebanese Hezbollah, rather a strategic attack to drive out the occupyier: US in 1983 and Israel in 2000.

So tell me, would the Marines have been bombed in Lebanon if we never had our troops there in Lebanon, meddled in the affairs of Middle Eastern politics, and playing favorites with Israel???

I think IT IS PRECISELY Mr. Paul’s strong foreign policy credentials that make him in my view the sole credible candidate, especially when it comes to America’s role in the world.

And you sir, Mr. RADULICH, need to do some objective reading…not some neocon, pro-Israel drivel a la NYPost, WSJ, NY DailyNews, US News and World Report, FoxNews, National Review, FrontPage, RealClear Politics, PajamasMedia, et. al….

No one would expect an Israel-first believer to think any different.

As far as non-interventionism, how would we like it if the Soviet Union was interfering in our local affairs seeking to have certain congressman or senators elected that might favor a more communist style of government. Do you think we would appreciate it? I think not. Do not do unto others what you would not have others do unto you.

As Dr. Paul always says, if we think democracy is so great, the best way to spread it is to act as a model for the rest of the world to emulate us. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. But, for us to go into other people’s backyards, interfere in their internal affairs, in the name of spreading democracy is disingenuous. We should learn to mind our own business and God knows we have plenty of problems to deal with right here at home.

# Voted against a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Chile[37]
# Voted against free trade with Singapore[38]
# Voted against free trade with Australia[39]
# Voted against CAFTA[40]
# Voted against the U.S.-Bahrain trade agreement[41]
# Voted against the Oman trade agreement[42]
# Voted against normal trade relations with Vietnam

wants to get out of the UN & WTO”

Chris,

No problem. Those are all MANAGED trade programs and are not really free trade. Just because you put free trade before them doesn’t change what the legislation was. The UN and the WTO are world bodies that interfer with our national sovereignty and goes against being a noninterventionist.

If you would put up specific vote bill numbers, I’m sure we can find you the reasoning why Paul voted as he did. Names of bill don’t count. Does ayone still believe the Patriot Act was about patriotism?

The local population has the RIGHT to resist, just as the Iraqis are resisting us today. Just as Hizbullah (if it were Hizbullah) has the undisputable RIGHT to resist a foreign army on its soil whether it is the marines in 1983 or the Israelis in Southern Lebanon. Who are we kidding here?

How would we feel if 241 Chinese army units took up a base in Miami or San Francisco? Would we not regard it as occupation? Would we not feel that we have the right to resist? The marines in Lebanon were army units, not innocent civilians. When we choose to drag our army into a sovereign nation, they must be prepared to fight. This is not a joke. Just because we are the sole superpower, we think we have the right crush anyone we want anytime we please, walking into other people’s land like it’s our own. Who do we think we are? To act like the schoolyard bully and not expect a retaliation is ridiculous.

As I said every local population has a RIGHT to resist whether it’s Hizbullah in Lebanon, the Iraqis in Iraq or the Palestinians in the Occupied territories. If the ruling administration chooses to label a completely justified local resistance terrorism, they may succeed in convincing those feather-brained Americans who have Biblical images of glory etched into their heads. But, those are the real kooks and nut jobs as the anti-Paul media likes to say. Not us Ron Paul supporters who see Americans as well as other people across the globe commonly endowed with the God-given right of individual liberty and the pursuit of our own destiny.

Now, unlike most people, I do not believe we need the Mideast Oil. I believe we should let the people of the mideast and every other country eat their oil and we will keep the FOOD. How is that for an answer.

Food for Oil would have a whole new meaning! I bet a bushel of corn or rice would equal a barrel of oil in a relative short amount of time! If we would just Butt Out of everyone else’s business and minded our own we would be better off!

Our politicians are the one’s at fault from the 9/11 incident to the elimination of our civil liberties, and the ignorant masses of this country should be ashamed although all they have to go by is the MSM which are nothing more than shills for the present government(Dems and Repugnant). We and the media are at fault! Time to stand up and be counted. I will vote for Ron Paul and the rest of the sheep be damned. I will never vote for the lesser of two evils again. MY VOTE COUNTS!!!

# Voted against a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Chile[37]
# Voted against free trade with Singapore[38]
# Voted against free trade with Australia[39]
# Voted against CAFTA[40]
# Voted against the U.S.-Bahrain trade agreement[41]
# Voted against the Oman trade agreement[42]
# Voted against normal trade relations with Vietnam

wants to get out of the UN & WTO

You have a responsibility to know the difference between ‘non-interventionist’ vs. ‘isolationist’. I see what you “did there” to your “friends”. You abused your power.

This was just a lead in to a total hit piece. He continues that last sentence with:

“Now do you see what I just did there friends? I stated simply that I disagreed with one of Ron Paul’s positions and gave a reason for my disagreement. You’ll notice the absence of shrill language and name calling. You’ll also notice that I didn’t call him or anyone else a fascist, a communist, a fag, a Nazi, a racist, Britney Spears or insane in the membrane. You’ll notice that I didn’t insinuate that Ron Paul hates children or the poor. I didn’t even make a “Yo Momma” joke. That’s called having a rational discussion.”

And do you see what we have done here, friend? We pointed out where you were completely factually incorrect in your “reason for disagreement”. We did not call you a fascist, a communist, a fag, a Nazi, a racist, Britney Spears or insane in the membrane. You’ll notice that we didn’t insinuate that you hate children or the poor. We didn’t even make a “Yo Momma” joke. That’s called having a rational discussion.

YOU are the one being intellectually lazy and not willing to have rational discussion as the rest of your attack clearly shows.

What a waste of time.

How do YOU know that Iran is a threat? Besides hearing the repeated talking points from the Whitehouse and Fox “news.”?

Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:

1. Non-interventionism - Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
2. Protectionism - There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

Last time I checked part 2 is not one of Ron Paul’s stances. So according to the definition, Isolationism is innacurate.