Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
How does Ron Paul look now?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="mugsy" data-source="post: 2049909" data-attributes="member: 18914"><p>Ah...I have found the disgruntled Libertarian thread. </p><p>Bulbboy is correct - RP would have lost by an even larger gap than Romney.</p><p>RP did, practically, stand for isolationism -- which does not mean no trade - never has, that is a neo-Libertarian definition.</p><p>In many years of following US national politics the Libertarian party has never called for no trade but it has been isolationist in international affairs.</p><p>It goes well beyond non-interventionism which should, I agree, be the default US position in most areas.</p><p>While I did support RP's call to closer following of the Constitution's original intent that doesn't mean I necessarily came to the same conclusions about specific actions - any more than when someone says he's "Bible Believing" that you can tell what that means on any specific topic in advance.</p><p></p><p>The biggest "issue" I had is that the US's leadership in the international arena is vital - because the alternative is that regional powers like China or Russia will start filling a void left by the US if we simply withdraw. There should still be a debate about how/when to take actions and under what authority but RP seemed inclined to ignore what are manifestly important events - at least it seemed so to me and to many Conservatives.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mugsy, post: 2049909, member: 18914"] Ah...I have found the disgruntled Libertarian thread. Bulbboy is correct - RP would have lost by an even larger gap than Romney. RP did, practically, stand for isolationism -- which does not mean no trade - never has, that is a neo-Libertarian definition. In many years of following US national politics the Libertarian party has never called for no trade but it has been isolationist in international affairs. It goes well beyond non-interventionism which should, I agree, be the default US position in most areas. While I did support RP's call to closer following of the Constitution's original intent that doesn't mean I necessarily came to the same conclusions about specific actions - any more than when someone says he's "Bible Believing" that you can tell what that means on any specific topic in advance. The biggest "issue" I had is that the US's leadership in the international arena is vital - because the alternative is that regional powers like China or Russia will start filling a void left by the US if we simply withdraw. There should still be a debate about how/when to take actions and under what authority but RP seemed inclined to ignore what are manifestly important events - at least it seemed so to me and to many Conservatives. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
How does Ron Paul look now?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom