Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why Ron Paul attracts some liberals. [View all]pampango
(24,692 posts)175. And Pat Buchanan attracts some liberals for his stance on free trade? I don't think so.
http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Pat_Buchanan_Free_Trade.htm
Americas freedom is tied to her economic independence
Alexander Hamilton wrote: Not only the wealth, but the independence and security of a country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation...ought to endeavor to posses within itself all the essentials of a national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing and defense. Americas political independence, Hamilton was saying, could not survive without economic independence.
Reduce dependence on trade; support Monroe Doctrine
For Americans, Buchanans book says, only America should matter. Buchanan rages against the UN, the WTO, and a previously unknown animal, the managerial elites of the New World Order. Allies in South-East Asia and Europe must do their own fighting, and America must cut down its dependence on trade. The single pillar of American foreign policy should be the Monroe Doctrine; the countrys priorities are to guard against hostile bastions in this hemisphere and to try yo keep immigrants out.
Match 100% tariffs from Japan & China
Today, we let Japan and China to run up a combined annual trade surplus of $120 billion, blithely allowing them open access to our markets while we pay up to 100% tariffs for entry into theirs. By equalizing tariffs so that imported goods carry the same tax as American-made products, we can end the exploitation of US workers, and fund flatter taxes for families, fairer competition for business, and renewed economic liberty for all Americans.
Trade deficit is tumor in intestines of US economy
Today Buchanan called the massive merchandise trade deficit-over $26 billion for February alone-a malignant tumor in the intestines of the US economy. Unattended, it will one day kill this countrys tenure as the worlds mightiest industrial power, Mr. Buchanan said. A $300 billion annual deficit will strip America of our manufacturing and production base. Manic consumption is a mark of a republic that has passed its apogee, and begun its long descent.
We will rue the day we passed NAFTA
Ross Perot and I stood up again against NAFTA. We stood up against GATT. We stood up against the World Trade Organization. We stood up against the $50 billion bailout of Mexico.
Right wing wackos are what they are.
Americas freedom is tied to her economic independence
Alexander Hamilton wrote: Not only the wealth, but the independence and security of a country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation...ought to endeavor to posses within itself all the essentials of a national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing and defense. Americas political independence, Hamilton was saying, could not survive without economic independence.
Reduce dependence on trade; support Monroe Doctrine
For Americans, Buchanans book says, only America should matter. Buchanan rages against the UN, the WTO, and a previously unknown animal, the managerial elites of the New World Order. Allies in South-East Asia and Europe must do their own fighting, and America must cut down its dependence on trade. The single pillar of American foreign policy should be the Monroe Doctrine; the countrys priorities are to guard against hostile bastions in this hemisphere and to try yo keep immigrants out.
Match 100% tariffs from Japan & China
Today, we let Japan and China to run up a combined annual trade surplus of $120 billion, blithely allowing them open access to our markets while we pay up to 100% tariffs for entry into theirs. By equalizing tariffs so that imported goods carry the same tax as American-made products, we can end the exploitation of US workers, and fund flatter taxes for families, fairer competition for business, and renewed economic liberty for all Americans.
Trade deficit is tumor in intestines of US economy
Today Buchanan called the massive merchandise trade deficit-over $26 billion for February alone-a malignant tumor in the intestines of the US economy. Unattended, it will one day kill this countrys tenure as the worlds mightiest industrial power, Mr. Buchanan said. A $300 billion annual deficit will strip America of our manufacturing and production base. Manic consumption is a mark of a republic that has passed its apogee, and begun its long descent.
We will rue the day we passed NAFTA
Ross Perot and I stood up again against NAFTA. We stood up against GATT. We stood up against the World Trade Organization. We stood up against the $50 billion bailout of Mexico.
Right wing wackos are what they are.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
193 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I kinda put some blame Kucinich for giving Paul some legitimacy to the far left in 2008
PeaceNikki
Jan 2012
#1
Grayson and/or Kennedy didn't literally, to my knowledge, say they'd pick Paul as a running mate.
PeaceNikki
Jan 2012
#79
Whatever, Democrats respect the man, that was my point. If he's such a Hitler or whatever
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#85
"mired in low level, boring, unimportant, mean-spirited, schoolyard rhetoric"
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#134
You do understand that the US military empire exists mainly for the 1%, right?
eridani
Jan 2012
#158
Claiming to align with Ron Paul's position on international matters is either terrifying or ignorant
PeaceNikki
Jan 2012
#159
You nailed it. The attempt is to smear anyone who dare challenge War, War on Drugs as
Romulox
Jan 2012
#184
Ron Paul DOESN'T attract "liberals." He attracts myopic, single-issue bots.
ClassWarrior
Jan 2012
#2
The key point, however, is that DEMS could be attracting those single-issue bots instead...
ClassWarrior
Jan 2012
#7
True. So any Dem who is truly anti-war could walk away with those particular...
ClassWarrior
Jan 2012
#20
I'm saying Paul has managed to portray himself as more anti-war than his...
ClassWarrior
Jan 2012
#28
Regardless of how "he has been able to," it's obvious that taking a strong anti-war...
ClassWarrior
Jan 2012
#47
Forget Paul, he's not even a consideration here, so I don't get the obsession with him.
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#81
The irony is did you know one the the earliest major online promoters of Paul
Blue_Tires
Jan 2012
#171
I don't see civil liberties as exactly the same as civil rights, though closely related.
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#51
I said as much though without civil liberties civil rights is just equal access to no rights.
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#176
Yes, and the OP thinks "ending the wars" is not as important as avoiding "trashing the economy."
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#112
I was speaking of your opinion of the OP who was the subject of your comment.
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#117
Yes, if the question contains an accusation. Which is why I asked for clarification.
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#139
Perhaps, people often do read more into things than is intended. Which is why I
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#161
Well now you know that Madhound has been on DU for ten years is a longtime Democrat
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#164
I watched Ronald Reagan using the same racist dog whistles to attract some "liberals", once
NNN0LHI
Jan 2012
#49
Great analysis. Some are obviously irked that you didn't chant "racist" after mentioning Paul's name
Skip Intro
Jan 2012
#63
But what does it matter whether it's based on personal racism or on 'limited government'?
LeftishBrit
Jan 2012
#89
Well, I am not even compelled to read a post unless there's info in the title.
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#83
His stance on war is much more in line with hard right isolationists of the 1930's and early 1940's
alcibiades_mystery
Jan 2012
#93
It went on for awhile, at least until the 50s-60s. We know Cuba was behind that sort of thing.
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#126
Paul exposes the fact that many Democrats *enthusiastically* (not reluctantly!) support War, War on
Romulox
Jan 2012
#95
Have you ever heard of the "Third Way" and the "New Democrat" movement??? It's EXACTLY what you
Romulox
Jan 2012
#185
You don't actually defend War, War on Drugs--instead you accuse anyone who holds these positions of
Romulox
Jan 2012
#186
Great post! Too bad your thoughtful observation will be lost in the din of invective
whatchamacallit
Jan 2012
#102
And Pat Buchanan attracts some liberals for his stance on free trade? I don't think so.
pampango
Jan 2012
#175
Um, NAFTA is loved by CATO, US Chamber of Commerce, Mitt Romney, et al. So what's your point?
Romulox
Jan 2012
#180
It's really not that hard to get. He's the only person talking about our foreign policy or the drug
Puregonzo1188
Jan 2012
#190