By ardee, November 10 at 12:10 pm

“What can one do, Fearless but replay my initial response to your attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear?”

Simply trying to elaborate on my position to prevent an impasse in communication. Looks like I’ve failed. I’ve made my point by responding to all of yours. Perhaps I’m miscomprehending your position.

In any event, I’m finished going back to this aging Newt Gingrich article. See you in the next foreign policy et al thread.

ardee, November 8 at 2:30 pm

You are correct, Ron Paul is against wars of aggression (and trade embargoes) and indeed favors a strong defense. He is not, however, an isolationist. He is insistent strong foreign relations based on peaceful diplomacy and finds no justification for military aggression in the Constitution or the human conscience.

A military reaction to an attack on the United States would be a defensive action. A military reaction to an attack on our foreign economic interests is military aggression, not defense. A military reaction to an attack on, say, our foreign bases would be closer to a defensive action; though, this is one reason why Ron Paul wants to dissolve our foreign bases.

Admittedly, I use “anti-war” broadly and relatively to emphasize that he is, in fact, the only candidate (other than Gary Johnson, if he’s still around) who opposes military aggression. Perhaps “anti-aggression” would be a better term.

Why wouldn’t Paul put “America First?” He is an American congressman and intends on being the American president. I should hope that America is his top priority. And he has made clear that this priority will not be at the expense of aggression imposed on other nations.

I see multinational corporations’ unaccountable raping of the world to be enabled by an interplay of both deregulation AND regulation. MNC interests shape our domestic and international law and policy, thus both the absence of regulation AND many of the regulations/trade agreements/treaties in place promote for-profit neoliberal pillaging.

While I favor a truly free market, one with virtually no state interference; I concede that a state-imposed action such as an anti-trust dismantling of MNCs, and other concentrations of economic power, may be prerequisite in order for a truly free market to function for the benefit everyone.

The Republicans are running Jeb Bush for President.  They can’t run Romney because they will lose their base.  They will nominate Bush from the floor of the convention next year in Florida, declare him the “native son,” and hail him as the next coming of Christ. That way he avoids all the pre-primary b.s. and trashing his opponents.

At this point in the 2008 republican race McCain was third or forth in most of the polls. Almost no one expected him to win the nomination.

Our current divisive, poisonous and intractable political gridlock now crippling this country were fathered by the likes of then speaker Gingrich and convicted political money hocus pocus man Tom Delay in the early nineties.  Newt engineered the shutdown of the government twice.  Is this the caliber of pol as President we now need to bring about the financial and social healing we so desperately need in these tumultuous times?  I think not.

Ron Paul is not my “ala carte candidate.” I am not in complete agreement with his domestic policies. Nonetheless, I am in complete agreement with him on reversing our shameful foreign policy, which I feel to be our most pressing issue.

Sugarcoat it all you want, we are killing innocent men, women, and children in the name of economic interests. Please explain to me why this is not the most pressing issue for you all, even in light of your opposing Ron Paul’s domestic policies?

What about Ron Paul? THE ONLY ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE?

Zero coverage on ‘progressive’ Truthdig.

Yet another day in fascist bizarro-world.