Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:34 am    Post subject: National Post endorses Ron Paul Reply with quote

ROOTING FOR RON PAUL

Quote:
the GOP needs a reminder of its roots in limited government and the Constitution. Ron Paul won['t be the next president, but the next president will have to take notice of what he has achieved by means of nothing more than patience, plain speaking and stubborn integrity.


While the article notes that he is "eccentric" and pretty hardcore even by libertarian standards, the fact that a national Canadian newspaper endorses him draws into question some of the "nut case" labels that have been given to him around here.

And this is coming from someone who isn't the slightest bit libertarian. I'm a little surprised that those who call themselves libertarian haven't offered a more impassioned defense of this guy.
yoshi





Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 59
Reputation: 40Reputation: 40Reputation: 40Reputation: 40

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have no view on Ron Paul. But the bigger question for me is why or should a national news paper be endorsing a candidate in a foreign country.

Would we not get upset if the wall street journal or any other major US paper
endorsed one of our political candidates ?

:?
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yoshi wrote:
But the bigger question for me is why or should a national news paper be endorsing a candidate in a foreign country.


It is customary that foreign politicians don't get involved in foreign elections. But newspaper can do whatever they want and often do.

Quote:
Would we not get upset if the wall street journal or any other major US paper
endorsed one of our political candidates ?


They often do. We can get upset about it sure - but that's what freedom is all about.
yoshi





Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 59
Reputation: 40Reputation: 40Reputation: 40Reputation: 40

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very good point. Freedom of the press is important ( charter right ).
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Freedom of the Press, except for liable.

I still do not like it when foreign newspapers do endorse candidates in other countries. Freedom of press is great, however there is no need. Canadians canít vote in the American elections.

I saw Ron Paul on Glenn Beck the other night. I have kind of warmed up to him, but I still think he is a big of a weirdo.
yoshi





Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 59
Reputation: 40Reputation: 40Reputation: 40Reputation: 40

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps they are trying to influence Americans that are living and working here.
But Why ?
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ron Paul is more about pushing the ideas rather than coveting the office.

Maybe the National Post yearns for more ideas-based politicians in Canada.
mltoryblue





Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 109
Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I saw Paul on Glen Beck too and was impressed.

I think he is the only straight shooter of all the candidates. Most of the leading candidates talk out the side of their mouths when it comes to the major problems facing America. Paul doesn't gloss over anything, he tells it exactly the way it is.
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Link


Ron Paul on Glenn Beck
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
I'm a little surprised that those who call themselves libertarian haven't offered a more impassioned defense of this guy.


In my case, as a somewhat-libertarian, I just can't get over his foreign policy issues. A Ron Paul presidency would, IMO, be very dangerous for the US and the Anglosphere, and quite possibly an economic disaster for Canada. And while I acknowledge that Dr. Paul isn't himself a Truther, he panders far too much to them for my liking.
truth4freedom





Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 255
Reputation: 23.7Reputation: 23.7
votes: 3
Location: Bible Belt USA!

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
Craig wrote:
I'm a little surprised that those who call themselves libertarian haven't offered a more impassioned defense of this guy.


In my case, as a somewhat-libertarian, I just can't get over his foreign policy issues. A Ron Paul presidency would, IMO, be very dangerous for the US and the Anglosphere, and quite possibly an economic disaster for Canada. And while I acknowledge that Dr. Paul isn't himself a Truther, he panders far too much to them for my liking.


I have never seen him pander to the truther's. Post a quote and source for that accusation. And how would true free trade with all nations and a withdrawal from entangling alliances be bad for our economy and security or yours?
mltoryblue





Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 109
Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even if Paul won the Presidency, there would be no way he would be able to implement most of his ideas. His ideas on free trade would never make it through the congress. The business lobby in Washington would make it nearly impossible for Paul to try and implement some of these policies.

Also NAFTA is law, there is no way that Paul could come in and just rip it up!
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To avoid repeating the same debate in 3 or 4 different threads, I'll reply to everything here.

Quote:
have never seen him pander to the truther's. Post a quote and source for that accusation.


Very well. However, I will again emphasize that I don't believe Paul to be one himself, as I've seen him explain his position on 9/11. That doesn't change the fact that he panders to them like so:

Malkin Round-up: Link
(Note: I accept that partial explanation that Paul has offered, for the 9/11 Scholars videos)

He had also made frequent appearances on a truther radio show:

Quote:
CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . Iím tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?

HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we donít have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy thereís not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isnít going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.


This issue here, what makes this different from getting ambushed once at a keg party, is that he knows exactly who he's talking to, and what they believe. He doesn't believe it himself, but he keeps things ambiguous enough to gain their support. That is a huge problem for me - anything less than total refutation of their theories is base pandering.

Quote:
... Sadly some are still using neo con fear and smear tactics ...


You should be very careful with this kind of language. For one, its highly reminiscent of the phrasing used by the most insane fringes of the left. For another, it turns off anyone who is interested in actual debate.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
And how would true free trade with all nations...


I'm not at all convinced free trade is what Ron Paul is seeking. I understand his objections based on sovereignty, but the only conceivable reason to eliminate an agreement like NAFTA is in order to implement tariffs and other trade barriers without penalty. That is not free trade.

I'm heard him speak on the 'NAU' issue, and he seems more reasonable about it than his supporters - he doesn't view it as a grand conspiracy, just a possible result of the convergence of seperate interests. The only real problem I have here is that trying to stop economic globalization is akin to herding cats.

Dr. Paul has also stated his willingness to trade with Cuba - I can't say I object to this specific point. However, he has also stated that he would not consider the use of economic sanctions as a diplomatic tool. Considering he also wishes to end all foreign and military aid, one wonders whether a Ron Paul presidency could engage in meaningful diplomacy at all.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
... a withdrawal from entangling alliances be bad for our economy and security or yours?


Believe me, I'm all about abandoning / reforming the UN and dropping Kyoto. I'm generally not a fan of that type of internationalism. The worthiness of NATO is currently being tested in Afghanistan, and in the end NATO may not be worth continuing (or hopefully, it will emerge stronger and with renewed purpose). What my objection comes down to here is that a global economy ultimately requires some forms of international cooperation, whereas Dr. Paul seems to reject relations with the outside world.

On the issue of monetary aid, we're not diametrically opposed. I think there are many times where it does more harm than good. However, it would be irresponsible to suddenly cease assistance to places like Iraq or Afghanistan.

Along the same lines, the withdrawal of military support from Afstan and Iraq, at this point in time, would be disastrous. I agree that troops should be withdrawn from protecting Europe - they have the resources needed to provide their own security and should do so. South Korea is problematic - implementation of Ron Paul's policies would practically guarantee its capture by the Norks.

Israel probably can survive without financial aid, but Paul seems to support a position of total neutrality - the idea that an independant and democratic Israel does not benefit the US is ludicrous to me.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 4

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


National Post endorses Ron Paul

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB