Welcome to the First Coast Tea Party
Who will it be???
Ok, so who is the Tea Party backing for the Republican nomination? For President? I'm sure you all have done more reseach than I have, so I'd be interested in reading your opinions.
Views: 1863
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Barry Lee Phillips on
-
I like Ron Paul, but I cannot support his foreign policy. He thinks like a 19th century isolationist. The 21st century reality is we cannot ignore the potential threats posed by other countries to our existence as a nation.
After Obama guts the military, which he is in the process of doing, it is going to take a President committed to rebuild the military and to the national defense beyond our borders if necessary. Ron Paul is not willing to go beyond our borders. Newt Gingrich is. Romney does not have the experience dealing with defense issues that Gingrich does.
As a veteran and a student of history, I know who our enemies are and I know what it is going to take to either neutralize them or defeat them.
The question is moot for me. I early voted for Newt Gingrich.
John said:Who will it be?
The answer to this in my opinion is, answered by looking at the mission statement.
"First Coast Tea Party promotes the principals of our founding fathers and our constitution"
What candidate fits that description? Who has been urging us to return to the constitution?!
Who has been promoting the return to the principals of liberty that our founding fathers laid out?!
Romney? X
Gingrich? X
Santorum? X
Paul? YES!
-
-
See comment.
-
Permalink Reply by Roma and Tom Cox on
-
Lee Phillips said:I like Ron Paul, but I cannot support his foreign policy. He thinks like a 19th century isolationist. The 21st century reality is we cannot ignore the potential threats posed by other countries to our existence as a nation.
After Obama guts the military, which he is in the process of doing, it is going to take a President committed to rebuild the military and to the national defense beyond our borders if necessary. Ron Paul is not willing to go beyond our borders. Newt Gingrich is. Romney does not have the experience dealing with defense issues that Gingrich does.
As a veteran and a student of history, I know who our enemies are and I know what it is going to take to either neutralize them or defeat them.
The question is moot for me. I early voted for Newt Gingrich.
-
-
The Progressives/ liberals have labeled the Founding Fathers and anyone that wants a return to the constitution as "Isolationists."
American Heritage writes about how the word "Isolationism" came about here: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/12/the-myth-of-isolat...
_____________________
The Heritage Foundation explains what the Constitution says about Foreign Relations this way:
7. Foreign Policy
For the Founders, foreign and domestic policy were supposed to serve the same end: the security of the people in their person and property. Therefore, foreign policy was conceived primarily as defensive. Foreign attack was to be deterred by having strong arms or repulsed by force. Alliances were to be entered into with the understanding that a self-governing nation must keep itself aloof from the quarrels of other nations, except as needed for national defense. Government had no right to spend the taxes or lives of its own citizens to spread democracy to other nations or to engage in enterprises aiming at imperialistic hegemony.
The Progressives believed that a historical process was leading all mankind to freedom, or at least the advanced nations. Following Hegel, they thought of the march of freedom in history as having a geographical basis. It was in Europe, not Asia or Africa, where modern science and the modern state had made their greatest advances. The nations where modern science had properly informed the political order were thought to be the proper leaders of the world.
The Progressives also believed that the scientifically educated leaders of the advanced nations (especially America, Britain, and France) should not hesitate to rule the less advanced nations in the interest of ultimately bringing the world into freedom, assuming that supposedly inferior peoples could be brought into the modern world at all. Political scientist Charles Merriam openly called for a policy of colonialism on a racial basis:
[T]he Teutonic races must civilize the politically uncivilized. They must have a colonial policy. Barbaric races, if incapable, may be swept away…. On the same principle, interference with the affairs of states not wholly barbaric, but nevertheless incapable of effecting political organization for themselves, is fully justified.
Progressives therefore embraced a much more active and indeed imperialistic foreign policy than the Founders did. In "Expansion and Peace" (1899), Theodore Roosevelt wrote that the best policy is imperialism on a global scale: "every expansion of a great civilized power means a victory for law, order, and righteousness." Thus, the American occupation of the Philippines, T.R. believed, would enable "one more fair spot of the world's surface" to be "snatched from the forces of darkness. Fundamentally the cause of expansion is the cause of peace."
Woodrow Wilson advocated American entry into World War I, boasting that America's national interest had nothing to do with it. Wilson had no difficulty sending American troops to die in order to make the world safe for democracy, regardless of whether or not it would make America more safe or less. The trend to turn power over to multinational organizations also begins in this period, as may be seen in Wilson's plan for a League of Nations, under whose rules America would have delegated control over the deployment of its own armed forces to that body. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/07/the-progressive-mo...
-
-
Lee, the reason so much information is put out there is because the establishment is afraid Ron Paul will keep his campaign promise concerning the Federal Reserve. People use to ridicule him over his economic policy, but because so many support him in this, they can only ridicule and misinform his foreign policy. If they continue to fool us, we will never be free.
-
-
I think for myself and I don't support imperialism on the part of the United States to gain hegemony over other countries.
I do support the judicious use of military force to strike enemies who are bent on the destruction of the United States. If they reside beyond our borders, then so be it.
You do remember 9/11 don't you? If Americans think that radical Islamists don't want to destroy this country, then they are deluded.
All that Ron Paul nonsense about "let's just talk to them" is just that -- nonsense. You cannot "talk" to someone who has taken a blood oath to destroy you. They won't listen -- they just detonate the suicide vest.
-
-
Lee, Ron Paul also agrees with military force to strike enemies who are bent on the destruction of the United States. If they reside beyond our borders. He voted to go after Ben Laden (see video). So it is misinformation that leads you to believe that he is only for just talking to the enemy...it is untrue.
-
-
Lee, I completely understand your statement about "let's just talk to them" because I felt that way too. For a long time. Ron Paul has done a great job of discussing the economy. Of discussing the Fed. Not so great on discussing National Defense and Foreign Policy. And I don't know why his advisers aren't getting him to rectify that. R&T is right. It is a misconception that has existed for too long that Ron Paul is either an isolationist or weak on defense. He isn't. He's against government waste, pure and simple. He's against America's nation building activities, plain and simple.
Now you asked the question "You do remember 9/11 don't you?" Well, I sure do. And if you think the security theater that the government has been using to take away our liberty, for the sake of false security is the way to go, then the three stooges that represent mainstream Republican Failure, is the candidate for you. Just pick one. They are all three the same anyway so it doesn't really matter. Pick Romney because that way you will probably pick the "winner". Unfortunately you and I will both be the losers. If you liked the Soviet Union style of government, you can pick any one of the three stooges or keep OBozo. All four will get is there. It's just whether you want to ride the bullet train with OBozo, or take the old family sedan of Romnie, Gingrich, and Santorium.
If you drink from a poisoned well there is only one who wins. The Grim Reaper. But if you drink instead from the well of pure sweet water, then the Death of America will have to wait longer to rejoice.
Lee Phillips said:I think for myself and I don't support imperialism on the part of the United States to gain hegemony over other countries.
I do support the judicious use of military force to strike enemies who are bent on the destruction of the United States. If they reside beyond our borders, then so be it.
You do remember 9/11 don't you? If Americans think that radical Islamists don't want to destroy this country, then they are deluded.
All that Ron Paul nonsense about "let's just talk to them" is just that -- nonsense. You cannot "talk" to someone who has taken a blood oath to destroy you. They won't listen -- they just detonate the suicide vest.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack on
-
Lee, its about time someone on my side spoke up. I was beginning to think that I was out here alone.........
Lee Phillips said:I like Ron Paul, but I cannot support his foreign policy. He thinks like a 19th century isolationist. The 21st century reality is we cannot ignore the potential threats posed by other countries to our existence as a nation.
After Obama guts the military, which he is in the process of doing, it is going to take a President committed to rebuild the military and to the national defense beyond our borders if necessary. Ron Paul is not willing to go beyond our borders. Newt Gingrich is. Romney does not have the experience dealing with defense issues that Gingrich does.
As a veteran and a student of history, I know who our enemies are and I know what it is going to take to either neutralize them or defeat them.
The question is moot for me. I early voted for Newt Gingrich.
I have heard Ron Pauls foriegn policy repeated numereous times. I have heard it right from the horses mouth. Ron Paul has said absolutely nothing to imply anything different. He repeatedly states that we spend to much money with bases in 130 different countries and that we need to close them all down, pack up all of our toys and come home. He usually then elaborates by saying that the US and it's foreign policies are the only reason that our enemies hate us. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY BULLSHIT!!! They have been at war with non-muslims for over a 1000 years. They want all of us dead. If you think that packing up our toys, coming home and leaving them alone is going to change that then you are as naive as Ron Paul is.
-
-
I watched and listened to Ron Paul during the debates. I got the very distinct impression he would prefer talking and free trade when dealing with some of the very real enemies of this country. Now I don't have a problem with either talking or free trade. But you cannot stick your head in the sand and pretend that some of these nations do not have the destruction of the United States in mind.
If I am misinformed, then it was Ron Paul himself who misinformed me. In my opinion he is weak when it comes to national defense and this country needs a President who is going to be very strong in that area.
That being said, I would support Ron Paul over Barack Obama any day.
Lee, Ron Paul also agrees with military force to strike enemies who are bent on the destruction of the United States. If they reside beyond our borders. He voted to go after Ben Laden (see video). So it is misinformation that leads you to believe that he is only for just talking to the enemy...it is untrue.
-
-
Lee, I for one agree with you 100%. Ron Paul is either naive like you and I both think he is or he is the worst person in the world at explaining himself because I too hear him saying the same thing. If it wasn't for his weak foreign policy I would support him. If he were to get the nomination I would still support him anyways because even his foreign policy is better than Obamas. However with the way that HE HIMSELF describes his foreign policy I think its weak, dangerous and naive and I agree that this country needs a president with a much stronger stand on national defense.
-
-
You are not alone Jack. I have been reading your posts. You and I agree more than we would disagree.
Lee, its about time someone on my side spoke up. I was beginning to think that I was out here alone.........
Lee Phillips said:I like Ron Paul, but I cannot support his foreign policy. He thinks like a 19th century isolationist. The 21st century reality is we cannot ignore the potential threats posed by other countries to our existence as a nation.
After Obama guts the military, which he is in the process of doing, it is going to take a President committed to rebuild the military and to the national defense beyond our borders if necessary. Ron Paul is not willing to go beyond our borders. Newt Gingrich is. Romney does not have the experience dealing with defense issues that Gingrich does.
As a veteran and a student of history, I know who our enemies are and I know what it is going to take to either neutralize them or defeat them.
The question is moot for me. I early voted for Newt Gingrich.
John said:Who will it be?
The answer to this in my opinion is, answered by looking at the mission statement.
"First Coast Tea Party promotes the principals of our founding fathers and our constitution"
What candidate fits that description? Who has been urging us to return to the constitution?!
Who has been promoting the return to the principals of liberty that our founding fathers laid out?!
Romney? X
Gingrich? X
Santorum? X
Paul? YES!
National Debt Clock
The First CoastTea Party is a non-profit organization. We have no deep-pocketed special interest funding our efforts.
You may contact us at:
First Coast Tea Party
1205 Salt Creek Island Dr
Ponte Vedra, FL 32082
904-392-7475
Helpful Links
Blog Posts
RYAN NICHOLS - Hardened Criminal?? Seriously??
If you're not already aware. This is what's going on in DC while dangerous criminals are allowed back out on the streets. It's horrifying that this is happening to our citizens and veterans for protesting the hijacking of our election process. This is still happening! They are STILL being tortured and treated like full on terrorists.
You may not be aware of the typical things they're forced to go through...…
ContinuePosted by Babs Jordan on August 14, 2022 at 8:44am
© 2025 Created by LeadershipCouncil.
Powered by
