Glenn Beck Question (Heads up Ron!)

[jaumen]

I can't wait to see this interview tonight.

 

[shadowhooch]

These do seem like very common questions he gets asked. I REALLY hope he goes into how this will help us fight the Islamofascists. Basically undermining their support by removing the fuel that angers the people living in that country. Marginalization by illegitimatizing the justifications, and efficient surgical strikes against identified threat (not nation building).

Yep, and it is really all that separates him from Glenn Beck's and many other conservative's views. If we can bridge that gap, there is no stopping Ron Paul.

That and Glenn Beck doesn't understand what Ron means by getting rid of the FBI....

 

[micahnelson]

The United States will not go hiding within its borders. If we have a threat to national security, we will defend the nation. We can do that without having military bases in the middle east. The days of needing a permanent base of operations in hostile territory is over. Our military can address the threats without this vast network of overseas bases. Our economy can no longer sustain it, so we should transition to a wiser, more specific defense strategy.

We will defend the country, this is a constitutional imperative. We just need to change the way we are doing it, because it is not in line with our goals of a peaceful world. We don't need to give Bin Laden a recruitment tool like our vatican-sized embassy in Iraq.

 

[dirka]

Who can come up with the most convincing, clear, and concise argument to address this EXTREMELY COMMON concern of Republican voters?

Here is your answer: Go into someon'es front yard in another city, start making a little place were you can sleep and bring your gun and tell the person you are going to help them...do you think he will get mad or not??

 

[shadowhooch]

The United States will not go hiding within its borders. If we have a threat to national security, we will defend the nation. We can do that without having military bases in the middle east. The days of needing a permanent base of operations in hostile territory is over. Our military can address the threats without this vast network of overseas bases. Our economy can no longer sustain it, so we should transition to a wiser, more specific defense strategy.

We will defend the country, this is a constitutional imperative. We just need to change the way we are doing it, because it is not in line with our goals of a peaceful world. We don't need to give Bin Laden a recruitment tool like our vatican-sized embassy in Iraq.

"mmmm....nice and strong. me likey", said the neocon.

 

[paulie]

And I care about what happens to Israel why? The policies of iron fist like rule have made them this bed, they can sleep in it now. I am glad Ron Paul says NO MORE! They either will find a way to co-exist with their neighbors and population of different faiths or they will dissolve. I don't really care either way. Why we support a violent theocracy at all is a mystery to me, they routinely show they are against any of our values. I guess we need them as a destination for exported prisoners so they can be tortured...

 

[Alex Libman]

Glenn Beck listeners see "Islamofascists" everywhere they look, hiding under every bed! By now they probably think "Islamofascists" fought George Washington during the revolutionary war!

They don't know the first thing about the middle east except that they stole our oil somehow and don't want to give it back...

 

[Talldude1412]

The key is very simple, succinct answers:



"Islamofacists" do not hate nor attack Switzerland. Why?



With 200+ nuclear bombs, why does Israel need our help?

The "Switzerland isn't attacked" is an easy rebuttal. Basically because the US is the pillar of worldly strength and the biggest road block to an Islamic Caliphates expansion. I understand where you would draw that logic, but I think there is an inherent easy out with it. I personally believe that concentrating on "Peace through Strength", and avoiding entangling alliances is all we have to say. Also point out that we will NEVER completely eradicate their ideology just like we never completely eradicated Nazism or Communism, but we did marginalize them. That is all we should be pushing for, and nation building is an ineffective costly means of trying to deal with it.

 

[Antonius Stone]

I think the best way we can answer this question is this way:

If we leave their country, then they will be forced to rebuild their country themselves.

If you pay attention to what's been happening in Iraq you'll see that its a total departure from what George Bush promised in year 2000- he said that we would not have a "nation building corps", and the people living there should be the ones employing themselves...

...if that is so, then WTF is Halliburton, KBR, etc etc.? US corporations have gorged themselves on the contracts to rebuild Iraq, all the while using FOREIGN Laborers and US truckers to do all the work. So you can bet your that Average Ahmed the Iraqi is kind of pissed off sitting on his hands because all these foreigners are putting up the infrastructure of his country and he's not getting a chance to do anything. I bet that Average Ahmed would love to make his country great again, he's just not being given the opportunity.

So I say that the first course of policy should be to break contracts with the War Profiteers and give the Iraqi's a chance to rebuild their country. Nothing inspires more pride than the fruits of one's labor.

 

[KeyLimer]

I believe Dr Paul has already outlined the argument of the effect of a non-interventionist foriegn policy, on Isreal:

to paraphrase and condense it somewhat: Without the in your face backing of the US it will be in Isreal's own interest to encourage and to cooperate to promote a stable Middle East.

 

[slantedview]

Can't wait to hear Ron tell what Israel can hope for if they come under heavy attack. They have nukes! What do they need our taxpayer's money for!

 

[ladyliberty]

Any good way to condense this into a few simple Glen-Beck sized sound bites?

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul44.html

What Would a Foreign Policy For Peace Look Like?

Our troops would be brought home, systematically but soon. Being in Europe and Japan for over 50 years is long enough. The failure in Vietnam resulted in no occupation and a more westernized country now doing business with the United States. There's no evidence that the military approach in Vietnam was superior to that of trade and friendship. The lack of trade and the imposition of sanctions have not served us well in Cuba or in the Middle East. The mission for our Coast Guard would change if our foreign policy became non-interventionist. They, too, would come home, protect our coast, and stop being the enforcers of bureaucratic laws that either should not exist or should be a state function.

All foreign aid would be discontinued. Most evidence shows that this money rarely helps the poor, but instead solidifies power in the hands of dictators. There's no moral argument that can justify taxing poor people in this country to help rich people in poor countries. Much of the foreign aid, when spent, is channeled back to weapons manufacturers and other special interests in the United States who are the strong promoters of these foreign-aid expenditures. Yet it's all done in the name of humanitarian causes.

A foreign policy of freedom and peace would prompt us to give ample notice before permanently withdrawing from international organizations that have entangled us for over a half a century. US membership in world government was hardly what the founders envisioned when writing the Constitution. The principle of Marque and Reprisal would be revived and specific problems such as terrorist threats would be dealt with on a contract basis incorporating private resources to more accurately target our enemies and reduce the chances of needless and endless war. This would help prevent a continual expansion of conflicts into areas not relating to any immediate threat. By narrowing the target, there's less opportunity for special interests to manipulate our foreign policy to serve the financial needs of the oil and military-weapon industries.

The Logan Act would be repealed, thus allowing maximum freedom of our citizens to volunteer to support their war of choice. This would help diminish the enthusiasm for wars the proponents have used to justify our world policies and diminish the perceived need for a military draft.

If we followed a constitutional policy of non-intervention, we would never have to entertain the aggressive notion of preemptive war based on speculation of what a country might do at some future date. Political pressure by other countries to alter our foreign policy for their benefit would never be a consideration. Commercial interests and our citizens investing overseas could not expect our armies to follow them and protect their profits. A non-interventionist foreign policy would not condone subsidies to our corporations through programs like the Export/Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. These programs guarantee against losses, while the risk takers want our military to protect their investments from political threats. This current flawed policy removes the tough decisions of when to invest in foreign countries and diminishes the pressure on those particular countries to clean up their political acts in order to entice foreign capital to move into their country. Today's foreign policy encourages bad investments. Ironically this is all done in the name of free trade and capitalism, but it does more to export jobs and businesses than promote free trade. And yet when it fails, capitalism and freedom are blamed.

A non-interventionist foreign policy would go a long way toward preventing 9/11 type attacks. The Department of Homeland Security would be unnecessary, and the military, along with less bureaucracy in our intelligence-gathering agencies, could instead provide the security the new department is supposed to provide. A renewed respect for gun ownership and responsibility for defending one's property would provide additional protection against potential terrorists.

 

[KeyLimer]

this may be out of line but the Isreal/US situation reminds me of a Damon Runyon remark:

as a writer, you hang around with the heavy guys long enough, and pretty soon your're talking tough to the waiters.

 

[shadowhooch]

Someone should email Glenn Beck the "Ron Paul Toughest on Terrorism" essay.

 

[Talldude1412]

I think in the face of a catastrophic multi-state assault on Israel, Congress would still have us go to war and protect them. The likelihood of this happening anytime soon is slim to none, and they can easily handle any single state threats they face.

There is nothing wrong with protecting our allies. But pledging to do so with some ridiculous treaty and then requiring that our grandchildren continue to adhere to it even in an ever changing geopolitical climate is moronic.

 

[shadowhooch]

Can't wait to hear Ron tell what Israel can hope for if they come under heavy attack. They have nukes! What do they need our taxpayer's money for!

I think the common neocon response to that is...."islamofacists don't care if they have mutual anhialation because they believe they will go to heaven and have 100 virgins". So we have to attack the islamofacists before they get a nuke and get strong. (or something to that sort)

At least that's what my dad used to say (former neocon) and Glenn Beck watcher.

 

[shadowhooch]

I think in the face of a catastrophic multi-state assault on Israel, Congress would still have us go to war and protect them. The likelihood of this happening anytime soon is slim to none, and they can easily handle any single state threats they face.

There is nothing wrong with protecting our allies. But pledging to do so with some ridiculous treaty and then requiring that our grandchildren continue to adhere to it even in an ever changing geopolitical climate is moronic.

That's a good response. If Congress and the people want it, so it shall be done.

 

[Talldude1412]

That's a good response. If Congress and the people want it, so it shall be done.

Exactly.

 

[texasbelle]

The United States will not go hiding within its borders. If we have a threat to national security, we will defend the nation. We can do that without having military bases in the middle east. The days of needing a permanent base of operations in hostile territory is over. Our military can address the threats without this vast network of overseas bases. Our economy can no longer sustain it, so we should transition to a wiser, more specific defense strategy.

We will defend the country, this is a constitutional imperative. We just need to change the way we are doing it, because it is not in line with our goals of a peaceful world. We don't need to give Bin Laden a recruitment tool like our vatican-sized embassy in Iraq.

this sounds like it would set well with Glenn becks audience...

 

[sergeant_x]

I'm a little worried about RP being on Beck tonight. He's just seemed kind of tired for the last few days. His interviews from the this morning seemed like he was very low on energy. If he rises to the occasion, this could be a real breakout for us.