Every Republican waxes Ronald Reagan rhetoric .... but do YOU really know what he stood for?

Here's a hint: Barry Goldwater

Don't believe me? Watch this and tell me it doesn't sound an awful lot like Ron Paul of today.

this is wear the cult of personality and hero worship takes you, complete ignorance of history. The Kook of record is the polar opposite of Reagan on foreign policy, Reagan and his congress also spent more than Bush has as percent of GDP. Although with Paul's $400 million worth of pork request this year I'm sure he has no real problem with that.


the Time for Choosing speech is a good one, I have it on DVD along with the "Evil Empire", "tear down this wall" and another I can't think of, off the top of my head. all clear evidence of how dumb Ron Paul is in the real world.

double post...

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Every Republican waxes Ronald Reagan rhetoric .... but do YOU really know what he stood for?

Here's a hint: Barry Goldwater

Goldwater didn't even support Reagan by the end of his presidency....


I did find the Goldwater/Paul link though. It is craziness....

In a 1988 interview on Larry King's radio show, Goldwater was asked if he thought the U.S. Government was withholding UFO evidence; he replied "Yes, I do." He added:

Quote: I certainly believe in aliens in space. They may not look like us, but I have very strong feelings that they have advanced beyond our mental capabilities....I think some highly secret government UFO investigations are going on that we don't know about — and probably never will unless the Air Force discloses them.

Goldwater was important though, he got beat in a landslide of course but did put focus back on some small govt. principles. many of which are political impossible, just look at attempts to do a modest reform to Social Security. It was DOA...

the real smack down of Ron Paul type thinking by Reagan in this paticular video is around the 23.20 mark. He makes it clear isolationism is a non-starter, and being 'nice' to them(non-interventionism) in hopes they will 'change there ways' is stupid.

key part:

Quote:"Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that we can have peace without victory. They call their policy accommodation. That if we avoid direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us."

All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems.

Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!" Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace...and you can have it in the next second...surrender!

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy?--or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard around the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain! Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance! This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength!"

-------------

"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail at least our children and our children's children will say of us – we justified our brief moment here on earth. We did all that could be done."

Ron Paul is not a "Peace through strength" politician, he's an appeaser who has an absurd non-starter of a theory of 'blowback' and 'non-interventionism'.....

another way to put it: "The road to Auschwitz was built by hate, but paved with indifference." - Ian Kershaw

It's not Goldwater the man -- it's Goldwater the principle.

That's why it's called the Ron Paul Revolution .... it's about much more than just his candidacy. It's about the return of the Goldwater (eg Libertarian) wing of the Republican Party. The system of elections in this country is rigged. If you're a third party you spend all your time just getting on the ballot. The real means of change is to takeover one of the big two parties from within, just like the neocons did with the Republican Party. Ron Paul proved the Goldwater wing is still out there, and is much larger in numbers than previously imagined. As long as we continue to grow within the GOP -- bringing in independents, disenchanted Republicans, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists -- we'll get somewhere.

What Reagan said in that speech is pretty close to Ron Paul's stance. And when you get down to it -- Reagan was similar in foreign policy too. He had a strong defense, but he didn't go around bullying third world nations with it, trying to get them to emulate us or grab for oil, or whatever the next neocon motivation is. He realized, and wrote in his memoirs, that the Middle East is irrational, and he pulled us out of Lebanon. Is that appeasement? No. Is that weak on defense? No. That's creating a strong military, and keeping it here at home until we have a real and direct threat upon America or her REAL allies (UK/Australia). It's called non-interventionism ... and you confuse it with the completely different policy of isolationism. And that thing you dismissed called blowback -- that's something our CIA recognizes and teaches. In fact, it's something the 9/11 Commission Report recognizes and mentions as well. Perhaps you need to be assigned Rudy Giuliani's reading list too?

yep, the Ron Paul cult worship is so strong its still registering within the margin of error in scientific polls. It just so happens that 10's of thousands of them flock to the internet and form a very odd, tiny, coalition.

as for Reagan you know absolutely nothing of his stance and what he did. He bombed Lybia trying to kill Gadafi, gave Saddam weapons in early years to fight our enemy Iran then through Iran contra funded the iranian side. Supplied the Afghans with weapons to ward off the Soviets and countless other mideast special ops, all things Ron Paul has said he is against. Then all the Central America stuff, Reagan invaded Grenada for crying out loud, among other things.


the CIA's 'blowback' is only dealing with when a special ops mission goes bad, not payback for doing the mission in the first place. Ron Paul is a fool purposely misrepresenting that fact. Just like he did about "why they attack us" in the debates. Bin Laden mentions specifically us not retailiating in Beirut, along with Somalia and the 90's stuff, as reasons why the US was a paper tiger and they could beat us because we didn't have the will to fight them. a Simple FACT of the matter, it was one of Reagan's big mistakes not doing something but when looked at it from his time frame he was focused on the Soviets.

Quote:What Reagan said in that speech is pretty close to Ron Paul's stance. And when you get down to it -- Reagan was similar in foreign policy too.

this is the biggest joke of a statement, read up on what Reagan actually did and keep in mind his enemies weren't living within and abroad. He is the complete anti-thesis of a RP foreign policy.

Quote:called non-interventionism ... and you confuse it with the completely different policy of isolationism.

again see above, all the things Reagan did were INTERVENTIONISM, not 'non-intereventionism' and in the speech you linked its a complete put down of the morally repugnant views of Paul on the matter.

just rent the Reagan Foreign policy related dvd I linked above sometime.

an important point, we did non-interventionism after WW1, our indifference led directly to WW2 and the rise of Hitler(who never attacked us).

after WW2, we realized as a whole how morally repugnant that was as a world power and learned from Churchill(a Reagan before Reagan) and after WW2 we were no longer non-interventionist since it was stupid.

this policy, even when it was detente but we were still active in ways, is what avoided a WW3 in which we had direct military confrontation with the Soviet Union which would've been the ultimate blood path. Instead we did Interventionism around the world and avoided this! all our interventionism and wars against smaller Soviet backed satellite states avoided the ultimate blood bath, and made expanding for the soviets much harder as they were Totalitarian, world conquerors just like the Islamist.

Now we have fools trying to take us back to post WW1 thinking/feelings and stick our head in the sands and wish the evil away. Doesn't work in the real world.

Of course, Ronnie was in favor of open borders and guest worker status.

..........what a pinko liberal.........