Why do we need Ron Paul?

[urge]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Because he is the only one who knows what he is talking about.

Watch his predictions from 2002. All have come true.

[YOUTUBE]ifJG_oFFDK0[/YOUTUBE]

Dare you to show a candidate more accurate.

 

[W222]

Let see, a guy who has a history of publishing and selling absurd and racist rants to the *****s in this country and then doesn't have the balls to admit he made a mistake? No thanks.

 

[urge]

Let see, a guy who has a history of publishing and selling absurd and racist rants to the *****s in this country and then doesn't have the balls to admit he made a mistake? No thanks.

So much for being racist.

[YOUTUBE]8Rv0Z5SNrF4[/YOUTUBE]

He already said he messed up by not reading his own newsletter.

 

[dhb]

😱 Amazing Ron Paul 👍

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[bronx43]

Let see, a guy who has a history of publishing and selling absurd and racist rants to the *****s in this country and then doesn't have the balls to admit he made a mistake? No thanks.

It's pretty funny that this is the thing that the sheep are latching onto when they try to discredit Ron Paul. This is basically reality television politics right here. I mean, come on, there are a ton of different ways to disparage his campsign... he is a die hard libertarian and is a self proclaimed student of the Austrian school of economics who calls for the end of the Fed (both are highly radical and controversial ideas), and THIS is what has been going around? I guess when you have no idea about economics, politics, and the financial system, you gotta hang your hat on a 20 year old newsletter that Ron Paul likely didn't write.

 

[bronx43]

So much for being racist.

[YOUTUBE]8Rv0Z5SNrF4[/YOUTUBE]

He already said he messed up by not reading his own newsletter.

I see your Ron Paul video and I'll raise you another.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY&feature=pyv[/youtube]

 

[Narcotized]

This is why we need Ron Paul:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45928149

 

[bronx43]

This is why we need Ron Paul:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45928149

Now, I realize a lot of people drank the koolaide in college during your politically based economic courses, but the truth is burying the country in staggering debt is horrendously bad economic policy created by and for those who are mathematically challenged.

Don't worry about it, dude. Look at the Japanese debt to GDP ratio. We can go at least another 100% of GDP before we should start worrying. Plus, with the near-zero percent interest rates, we can just roll over our debt ad infinitum. In the meantime, let's invade Iran.

 

[dhb]

Among advanced economies, only Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan and Portugal have debts larger than their economies.

'nuff said

 

[yappy]

I wonder how many successful CFO's use Ron Pauls thinking on debt or would agree with his stances on gold standard...

Fairy tales - I agree.

EDIT: To be clear; I'm a cheap person. I have no credit card debt, car debt, medical debt, and no eductaion debt (thanks GI bill) so i'm not for "buring the country" in debt for the sake of debt. But I think the extreme-anti-gov-debt croud is a little intellectualy dishonest or maybe just a little naive in their views of how debt, montary and fiscal issues. Having said that - I would like to see Ron Paul be given a state that he can run with no outside funding - I'm not saying that to make some sort of point - it would be really interesting to me. one thing is for sure - we need to cut our budget - I just dont think Ron Paul is the type to do it well.

 

[bronx43]

I wonder how many successful CFO's use Ron Pauls thinking on debt or would agree with his stances on gold standard...

Fairy tales - I agree.

EDIT: To be clear; I'm a cheap person. I have no credit card debt, car debt, medical debt, and no eductaion debt (thanks GI bill) so i'm not for "buring the country" in debt for the sake of debt. But I think the extreme-anti-gov-debt croud is a little intellectualy dishonest or maybe just a little naive in their views of how debt, montary and fiscal issues. Having said that - I would like to see Ron Paul be given a state that he can run with no outside funding - I'm not saying that to make some sort of point - it would be really interesting to me. one thing is for sure - we need to cut our budget - I just dont think Ron Paul is the type to do it well.

Why would CFOs ever employ Ron Paul's line of thinking? That makes zero sense whatsoever, unless I'm misunderstanding your point.

So, running no deficit year on year is naive? Ok, buddy. Explain to me how continual deficit spending can possibly work out in the long run without a concurrent exponential growth in the economy. Then, explain to me how unbridled exponential growth is possible in the long run.

Yes, it would be very interesting to see how RP would run a country without debt - it was be interesting to see ANYONE do this after a period of excessive spending. And why isn't RP the type to do it well? From what are you drawing these conclusions?

 

[Narcotized]

"Among advanced economies, only Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan and Portugal have debts larger than their economies."



There, I corrected it for you. 🙂 The only one of those countries sustaining for now is Japan, and with their lost decade or two that's not exactly the standard of economic excellence.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that "saving the Jews," was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just "blowback," for Woodrow Wilson's foreign policy errors, and such.
I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He'd finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust


He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.



http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/12/ronpaulusshouldnthavefoughthitler.html

 

[BLADEMDA]

The biggest problem with the Iranians possessing nuclear weapons is the (likely) possibility that classical deterrence wouldn't work. The Soviets were communists, and communists are atheists. The last thing an atheist wants to do is die in a mushroom cloud, because there's no afterlife for him. Iran, on the other hand, has been the Islamic Revolutionary State for over 30 years. Iran sent "martyr" brigades on suicidal attacks against Saddam's forces in the 1980s. It has made preparations for the coming of the Mahdi, the 12th Imam of Shi'ite lore, which has emphasized martyrdom since the 7th century. It's entirely possible that the Iranian leadership might decide that it is preferable to die as martyrs than share the world with the Great Satan, the United States.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/ron_paul_is_wrong_about_iran.html#ixzz1j3zV5J5x

 

[dhb]

not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust[/B]

Nor was the Holocaust prevented nor was it the reason for the US getting involved.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Nor was the Holocaust prevented nor was it the reason for the US getting involved.

My point is that many of us in the GOP simply don't agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy. While I admire the man and his stand on domestic policy, economics,etc I can not vote for him due to his views on foreign policy.

The USA must not retreat in the face of pure evil; Our policy in IRAQ was a failed one due to NATION BUILDING and not because we toppled Saddam Hussein. Once Hussein was gone from office we should have picked a new leader and left the country while the existing Iraqi military structure was intact.

IMHO, our failure to stop Iran's Nuclear program will cost thousands if not millions of lives down the road.


For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? Mark 8:36

 

[BLADEMDA]

I see your Ron Paul video and I'll raise you another.

[YOUTUBE]XKfuS6gfxPY[/YOUTUBE]

I agree we need to slash our foreign bases by 50% and over the next 5 years cut even more. But, remove every last soldier? Cut every last base?

There is Evil in the world; Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

Paul opposes just about all international treaties and organizations. He would have the United States pull out of the United Nations and NATO. He would do away with foreign aid, abolish the CIA and essentially turn his back on the rest of the world. This is pretty much what used to be called isolationism, and it allowed Hitler to presume, quite correctly as it turned out, that America would not interfere with his plans to conquer Europe, Britain included. It took Germany's declaration of war on the United States, not the other way round, to get Uncle Sam involved.

 

[BLADEMDA]

http://www.newsy.com/videos/is-ron-paul-an-isolationist/

Ron Paul responds to charges of Isolationism. I can not vote for this man. His foreign policy views are too extreme and dangerous; others will disagree. Fortunately, the average GOP voter sees Ron Paul as the danger he really is to our nation and our world.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Israel is preparing for Iran to become a nuclear power and has accepted it may happen within a year, the London Times reported on Monday citing an Israeli security report.
The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) think-tank prepared scenarios for the day after an Iranian nuclear weapons test at the request of former Israeli ambassadors, intelligence officials and ex-military chiefs, the paper reported.




Israel has so far maintained it will do all within its power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities, but has shifted its position following recent United Nations' reports, according to the Times.
The UN atomic agency said Monday that Iran is now enriching uranium at a new site in a hard-to-bomb mountain bunker, in a move set to stoke Western suspicions further that Tehran wants nuclear weapons.
INSS specialists including a former head of Israel's National Security Council and two former members of the prime minister's office conducted the simulation study in Tel Aviv last week.
If Iran does test a nuclear weapon, INSS predicts a profound shift in the Middle East power balance.
According to extracts of the report seen by the British publication, experts believe the US would propose a defence pact with Israel, but would urge it not to retaliate.
Russia would seek an alliance with the US to prevent nuclear proliferation in the region, although Saudi Arabia would likely pursue its own nuclear programme, the report concluded based on current policies.
INSS specialists believe that an Iranian test in January 2013 would follow increasingly provocative demands by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime, including the redrawing of its Iraqi borders and action against the vessels of the US Fifth Fleet.
"The simulation showed that Iran will not forgo nuclear weapons, but will attempt to use them to reach an agreement with the major powers that will improve its position," said a passage of the report published by the Times.
"The simulation showed that (the Israeli military option), or the threat of using it, would also be relevant following an Iranian nuclear test," it added.
Israel condemned intelligence chief Meir Dagan last June after he speculated that Iran may obtain nuclear weaponry.
Conclusions from the simulation have been sent to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Times reported.
Iran, which insists its nuclear programme is for exclusively peaceful purposes, has repeatedly said it will not abandon uranium enrichment despite four rounds of UN Security Council resolutions calling on Tehran to desist.
While nuclear energy plants need fuel enriched to 3.5 percent, Iran says the 20-percent enriched uranium is necessary for its Tehran research reactor to make isotopes to treat cancers.

 

[D P356]

Israel is preparing for Iran to become a nuclear power and has accepted it may happen within a year, the London Times reported on Monday citing an Israeli security report.
The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) think-tank prepared scenarios for the day after an Iranian nuclear weapons test at the request of former Israeli ambassadors, intelligence officials and ex-military chiefs, the paper reported.

QUOTE]


I personally think we shouldn't meddle in world affairs, the US can't afford to be the world police. People dislike the police b/c they are the police and they tell people what to do, etc. Folks don't hate America b/c we are America, folks hate America b/c our armed forces "occupy" other nations.

The Occupy Wall Street folks took a page out of the US government's playbook; occupy a place you where you have no business being, waste time and money being unproductive, all while doing this to promote their "way of thinking."

Like one who seizes a dog by the ears is a passer-by who meddles in a quarrel not his own. proverbs 26:17 (aka, that dog is going to bite and you're going to get hurt)

I agree that there is evil in the world, Blade. I also feel that their is some validity in Roosevelt's qoute, "speak softly but carry a big stick." If someone wants to attack us, then they are asking to be destroyed, period. We can't afford to give foreign aid to everyone and help everyone out.

Ron Paul's ideas may be "out there," but he is remaining true to himself and consistent. He's not playing the game telling everyone what they want to hear. He is telling the country what we need to hear. I'd like to give the guy a chance, and let him show if he really is a man of his word.

I'm tired of seeing Newt and Mitt acting like children towards each other. They are playing the political game.

 

[dhb]

D p356 +1000000

 

[pgg]

Seems like there ought to be a reasonable middle ground between Paul's isolationism ... and invading Iran.

If he was elected, I'm sure he'd find it, else he'd never get anything past Congress.

I can't get myself too worked up over him and those newsletters.

 

[bdrensch]

Oh boy... where to start...

Let see, a guy who has a history of publishing and selling absurd and racist rants to the *****s in this country and then doesn't have the balls to admit he made a mistake? No thanks.

Except that's wrong. He has admitted to the mistake of mismanagement.... 20 YEARS AGO. He did not write those statements and publicly abhors them. We can all admit it was poor management on the publishing of his newsletter, but it was 20 years ago, and back in a time where true conservative and libertarian ideologies were unfortunately bogged down by a large portion bigots, racists, and libertines. (Fortunately this is changing and giving the movement for credibility.) Are you going to tell me none of the other candidates have made any poor management or judgement calls in the last 20 years? Now if it was more recent it would be reason for concern, but otherwise it is a poor excuse to write Ron Paul off as a poor candidate.

I wonder how many successful CFO's use Ron Pauls thinking on debt or would agree with his stances on gold standard...

Fairy tales - I agree.

EDIT: To be clear; I'm a cheap person. I have no credit card debt, car debt, medical debt, and no eductaion debt (thanks GI bill) so i'm not for "buring the country" in debt for the sake of debt. But I think the extreme-anti-gov-debt croud is a little intellectualy dishonest or maybe just a little naive in their views of how debt, montary and fiscal issues. Having said that - I would like to see Ron Paul be given a state that he can run with no outside funding - I'm not saying that to make some sort of point - it would be really interesting to me. one thing is for sure - we need to cut our budget - I just dont think Ron Paul is the type to do it well.

I don't understand your argument. What specific policies of the 'extreme-anti-gov-debt croWd' (aka conservative?) are you opposed to? I'm obsessed with economics and would enjoy a civil debate on the matter.

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.
I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust


He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.



http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/12/ronpaulusshouldnthavefoughthitler.html

I'm not entirely sure how valid your statements are regarding your discussions with him. Publicly he has not expressed those viewpoints. Entangling alliances, sanctions, foreign occupation, and foreign aid have in nearly all examples of history lead to war in one form or another. He is a strong supporter of international trade and diplomacy. He is also not against the use of military, but each war must be approved by congress as expressed in our constitution, and must be for our national defense. As result of our very careful and conservative strategy with WW2, the US was one of the few countries in the world to sustain very limited damage as result of the war. Perhaps its selfish, but our military is for OUR defense, it is not intended to fight wars for foreign countries. They can defend themselves. If our sovereignty is threatened, then war with our military is certainly justified. I believe a defensive war with Iran in the future is almost certainly closing in, but it will be a result of our militaristic misadventures that lead to the war. No other candidate is discussing the use of diplomacy or exploring the motives and causes of the increasing tensions, which is a result of our interventionist policies in the region. Again, it sounds selfish but israel can defend her self, she has hundreds of nuclear weapons and a very strong military, and to be honest, our military doesn't really provide a whole lot of defense to the nation regardless, and we often intervene when she does make her own attempts to defend herself.

Most important of all, we can't defend ourselves at all if we go bankrupt. End of story.

The biggest problem with the Iranians possessing nuclear weapons is the (likely) possibility that classical deterrence wouldn't work. The Soviets were communists, and communists are atheists. The last thing an atheist wants to do is die in a mushroom cloud, because there's no afterlife for him. Iran, on the other hand, has been the Islamic Revolutionary State for over 30 years. Iran sent "martyr" brigades on suicidal attacks against Saddam's forces in the 1980s. It has made preparations for the coming of the Mahdi, the 12th Imam of Shi'ite lore, which has emphasized martyrdom since the 7th century. It's entirely possible that the Iranian leadership might decide that it is preferable to die as martyrs than share the world with the Great Satan, the United States.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/ron_paul_is_wrong_about_iran.html#ixzz1j3zV5J5x

That's just ignorant and conspiratorial. One could (ignorantly) apply the same analogy to the US, as we are a country of evangelical christians, and many view islam (and nations such as Iran) as an encroaching satanic-like evil.

My point is that many of us in the GOP simply don't agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy. While I admire the man and his stand on domestic policy, economics,etc I can not vote for him due to his views on foreign policy.

The USA must not retreat in the face of pure evil; Our policy in IRAQ was a failed one due to NATION BUILDING and not because we toppled Saddam Hussein. Once Hussein was gone from office we should have picked a new leader and left the country while the existing Iraqi military structure was intact.

IMHO, our failure to stop Iran's Nuclear program will cost thousands if not millions of lives down the road.


For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? Mark 8:36

I agree with you on Iraq, except we should not have been there in the first place. Ron Paul is not against war with Iran if they they truly threaten our sovereignty, But he is not a believer in pre-emptive war and is the only candidate that wishes to use diplomacy before bombs. He understand we cannot fight and win a war when we are bankrupt. And that it is our interventionist policies that are causing these dangerous relationships with these countries. Iran is not interested in blowing up sweden, switzerland, canada, etc....

I agree we need to slash our foreign bases by 50% and over the next 5 years cut even more. But, remove every last soldier? Cut every last base?

There is Evil in the world; Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

Yes every single one that does not contribute directly to our own national defense. Gradual of course, but it needs to be done. Running out of money, making enemies, and entangling ourselves in various unnecessary alliances only weakens our national defense.

Paul opposes just about all international treaties and organizations. He would have the United States pull out of the United Nations and NATO. He would do away with foreign aid, abolish the CIA and essentially turn his back on the rest of the world. This is pretty much what used to be called isolationism, and it allowed Hitler to presume, quite correctly as it turned out, that America would not interfere with his plans to conquer Europe, Britain included. It took Germany’s declaration of war on the United States, not the other way round, to get Uncle Sam involved.

Sounds about right to me. But you are wrong to some extent, while he does oppose these treaties, it is not any part of his political campaign. He doesn't support the UN or NATO, because the both have done little to advance to peace internationally, but have done alot to threaten our own sovereignty as well as the sovereignty of foreign nations, while being vulnerable to corruption, costing money, and again increasing unnecessary alliances. Humanitarian foreign aid has NEVER worked. A majority of our foreign aid is in the form of military "help", which again just makes enemies and "friends" we don't need. The CIA is militaristic in nature, and should be a part of the military, not independent, that's his only viewpoint on the CIA.

http://www.newsy.com/videos/is-ron-paul-an-isolationist/

Ron Paul responds to charges of Isolationism. I can not vote for this man. His foreign policy views are too extreme and dangerous; others will disagree. Fortunately, the average GOP voter sees Ron Paul as the danger he really is to our nation and our world.

Too extreme? It's simply American. It's a policy that has kept domestic attacks on the US to nearly nothing for decades upon decades, while countries such as those Europe with a strong history of alliances and foreign intervention has been engulfed by war nearly every couple decades.

Israel is preparing for Iran to become a nuclear power and has accepted it may happen within a year, the London Times reported on Monday citing an Israeli security report.
The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) think-tank prepared scenarios for the day after an Iranian nuclear weapons test at the request of former Israeli ambassadors, intelligence officials and ex-military chiefs, the paper reported.




Israel has so far maintained it will do all within its power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities, but has shifted its position following recent United Nations' reports, according to the Times.
The UN atomic agency said Monday that Iran is now enriching uranium at a new site in a hard-to-bomb mountain bunker, in a move set to stoke Western suspicions further that Tehran wants nuclear weapons.
INSS specialists including a former head of Israel's National Security Council and two former members of the prime minister's office conducted the simulation study in Tel Aviv last week.
If Iran does test a nuclear weapon, INSS predicts a profound shift in the Middle East power balance.
According to extracts of the report seen by the British publication, experts believe the US would propose a defence pact with Israel, but would urge it not to retaliate.
Russia would seek an alliance with the US to prevent nuclear proliferation in the region, although Saudi Arabia would likely pursue its own nuclear programme, the report concluded based on current policies.
INSS specialists believe that an Iranian test in January 2013 would follow increasingly provocative demands by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime, including the redrawing of its Iraqi borders and action against the vessels of the US Fifth Fleet.
"The simulation showed that Iran will not forgo nuclear weapons, but will attempt to use them to reach an agreement with the major powers that will improve its position," said a passage of the report published by the Times.
"The simulation showed that (the Israeli military option), or the threat of using it, would also be relevant following an Iranian nuclear test," it added.
Israel condemned intelligence chief Meir Dagan last June after he speculated that Iran may obtain nuclear weaponry.
Conclusions from the simulation have been sent to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Times reported.
Iran, which insists its nuclear programme is for exclusively peaceful purposes, has repeatedly said it will not abandon uranium enrichment despite four rounds of UN Security Council resolutions calling on Tehran to desist.
While nuclear energy plants need fuel enriched to 3.5 percent, Iran says the 20-percent enriched uranium is necessary for its Tehran research reactor to make isotopes to treat cancers.

Ron paul would defend Israels right to defend herself by any means necessary. (Same goes for the US of course) War with Iran may be unpreventable at this point, but if it does occur it is our interventionist policies and lack of willingness to be diplomatic that have lead to it.

 

[urge]

Ron Paul responds to charges of Isolationism. I can not vote for this man. His foreign policy views are too extreme and dangerous; others will disagree. Fortunately, the average GOP voter sees Ron Paul as the danger he really is to our nation and our world.

Why doesn't anyone want to attack Switzerland? They don't have any "freedom" to envy there? They don't have money coming out of their wazoo? As far as I know those guys have a better standard of living than we do.

Could it simply be because they don't mess with other people?

It's not rocket science.

 

[Sam212]

Why doesn't anyone want to attack Switzerland? They don't have any "freedom" to envy there? They don't have money coming out of their wazoo? As far as I know those guys have a better standard of living than we do.

Could it simply be because they don't mess with other people?

It's not rocket science.

pwnage

 

[BLADEMDA]

Ron Paul came in second again. Two more primaries to go and Paul will be finished as a serious contender for the nomination.

Mitt Romney or Obama. That's your choice this November.

 

[urge]

Ron Paul came in second again. Two more primaries to go and Paul will be finished as a serious contender for the nomination.

Maybe the media will not be able to ignore him anymore.

[YOUTUBE]hF8fPDQmArE[/YOUTUBE]

 

[BLADEMDA]

I'm watching him right now on FOX. He isn't being ignored. His message is loud and clear. I agree with him on domestic policy. Foreign affairs is another matter entirely.

 

[bronx43]

I'm watching him right now on FOX. He isn't being ignored. His message is loud and clear. I agree with him on domestic policy. Foreign affairs is another matter entirely.

So, you agree with cutting entitlements to the core, but you disagree that we should do the same for foreign military bases? That is not a political stance that would fly in the least bit.

 

[BLADEMDA]

So, you agree with cutting entitlements to the core, but you disagree that we should do the same for foreign military bases? That is not a political stance that would fly in the least bit.

Of course we need to cut foreign military bases. But, Paul wants to gut all foreign bases, foreign aid and most of our current foreign policy. Paul goes too far.

If it wasn't for Paul's foreign policy he would be a real contender for the GOP nomination this year.

 

[bdrensch]

Of course we need to cut foreign military bases. But, Paul wants to gut all foreign bases, foreign aid and most of our current foreign policy. Paul goes too far.

If it wasn't for Paul's foreign policy he would be a real contender for the GOP nomination this year.

He wants to because he has ideals, but of course it has absolutely no part of his cuts that he is currently campaigning on for president. His cuts extent mostly to the bases that you yourself agree should be cut. He's not campaigning on ending the government over night, but he's the only candidate truly suggesting cuts to the size of the government, which we NEED.

But I agree with you otherwise. I wish he made it clearer to his audience his true stance on war. (he's not a great speaker or explainer.) It's about improving and strengthening our military by securing us financially, reducing unnecessary foreign military endeavors, and by using diplomacy. But he's not anti-war at all costs, it just must be congress approved and diplomacy should be used to its full extent first (meaning avoiding protectionism, mercantilism, sanctions, and minding our own business.) The issue with Iran is tough, but people are not even looking into the issue if they truly believe that we have made any effort of diplomacy with the nation. It's my opinion that a war with Iran may be unavoidable, even if Paul was voted president, but if Paul had been president (and his bills succeeded) previously I think it may have been avoidable, of course no point in using 'what-ifs' as an argument.

 

[yappy]

But I wanted Rick Santorum 🙁

Ron Paul came in second again. Two more primaries to go and Paul will be finished as a serious contender for the nomination.

Mitt Romney or Obama. That's your choice this November.

 

[D P356]

I had a neighbor who smoked weed a couple times a week, and I could vaguely tell when I would go outside. Should I have gone out there and policed him up and said that it is not ideal for him to do that, then consistently "check" on him to make sure he isn't doing things that I would not do? No, Sir. We have our law enforcement for those types of details and it is not my conern or job and it really doesn't affect me. (and guess what, other nations have laws as well as law enforcement. so they clearly have grounds for acceptable and unacceptable public behavior, unless they are neanderthals). I would much rather study, watch tv, youtube, etc. I wouldn't act until I legitimately felt threatened.

Let other nations take care of themselves; if their nation crumbles, then it shows that it wasn't going to work anyway. Let them thrive or crumble on their own, and find a system that works for them. If they endanger us, make an example out them. The giant has to sleep. He can't be up all the time. But when he wakes up, he should pound the attacking enemy until they submit, and then kill them to send a message. We don't have to throw the first punch, but we should throw the last.

Besides, the check and balances b/n the legistative, executive and judicial branch are set up so no drastic changes occur. Leaving us with our freedom to help "liberate" other nations and help them come to the light of, well, our indebted, a**-kissing-politician led, bloated system.

Creating jobs is pointless. That is like a CEO saying, "let's create more overhead without creating a better product to sell." Honestly, most govt jobs where a skill/service is not being performed, is not pivotal for operation and is not profitable is just excess overhead that any sane business person would axe as soon as he/she had the chance.

 

[ronaldo23]

Mitt Romney or Obama. That's your choice this November.

Honestly, there is no difference between the two, so I would disagree with your assesment as that being a "choice" in November.

I can't imagine voting for either, but i will say that at least Obama winning doesn't shut the door for Rand to win the Republican nomination in 2016 and possibly save this nation from a Greece-style financial collapse

 

[yappy]

I think there will be war and military attacks reguardless of our military presense. We leave a huge foot print even if we never set foot on other peoples soil (large economy, lots of consumption, economic policies to protect our interest at the expense of others). Plus, the reason switzerland is safe, in part, is because of the promise of a powerful counter attack by US forces.

Why doesn't anyone want to attack Switzerland? They don't have any "freedom" to envy there? They don't have money coming out of their wazoo? As far as I know those guys have a better standard of living than we do.

Could it simply be because they don't mess with other people?

It's not rocket science.

 

[pgg]

But I wanted Rick Santorum 🙁

:notsureifserious:

Rick Santorum is a bad person.

Why doesn't anyone want to attack Switzerland?

Same reason nobody wants to attack Canada. (It's not because they're friendly beer-swilling hockey nuts who say 'eh' and can't pronounce the letter 'o' ...)

It's a combination of international irrelevancy and powerful friends.

 

[moosetracks]

So this is what goes on in the anesthesiology forum.

better than the premed trolls

ron paul 2012

 

[link2swim06]

Of course we need to cut foreign military bases. But, Paul wants to gut all foreign bases, foreign aid and most of our current foreign policy. Paul goes too far.

If it wasn't for Paul's foreign policy he would be a real contender for the GOP nomination this year.

The US defensive is massive (and thats a complete understatement). Nobody in the world could even close to threatening our borders whatsoever. The presidency is for 4 years, 8 max, therefore do you really think we are going to be under threat in that period? Hell, you could cut the defensive in 1/2 and we would still multiple times bigger than our closest competitor.

Iran is joke... countries and probably people we dont want to have nukes already have them. Iran will not use it for the same reason nobody else does, we will easily turn their country into a parking lot if they tried something. Even Israel tells us they dont need any help defending themselves from Iran.

 

[pd4emergence]

The US defensive is massive (and thats a complete understatement). Nobody in the world could even close to threatening our borders whatsoever. The presidency is for 4 years, 8 max, therefore do you really think we are going to be under threat in that period? Hell, you could cut the defensive in 1/2 and we would still multiple times bigger than our closest competitor.

Iran is joke... countries and probably people we dont want to have nukes already have them. Iran will not use it for the same reason nobody else does, we will easily turn their country into a parking lot if they tried something. Even Israel tells us they dont need any help defending themselves from Iran.

Iran doesn't have the ability to strike the us in a conventional way. Nobody wants them to have nukes because the country is run by a bunch of crazies who would most likely have no problem putting a few small suitcase nukes on a plane and shipping them to us via ups. At this point we can sit on our hands and let them acquire nukes or we can act in a both nonconventional and conventional way to keep them from getting them. The nonconventional ways are already being utilized. Nuclear scientists being car bombed, stuxnet, possibility of oil sanctions. I say we just let Israel do what they do and stay out of it. I think the rest of the Arab world would breathe a private sigh of relief.

 

[Big McHuge]

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.
I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust


He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.



http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/12/ronpaulusshouldnthavefoughthitler.html

I'm curious as to why you think extremist muslims and al-qeada hate us? Is it because we are free, and wealthy? Does it have anything to do with our presence in their countries? You seriously need to read Robert Pape's book "Dying to win." Your history is very murky by the way. Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor? Because they hated us right? No, FDR had a strong dislike for the Japanese and put trade restrictions on coal, iron, oil, and other natural resources. This was decimating their economy and they felt threatened, just as we would if China dumped our dollar. Did FDR know the attacks were coming? I'm in no position to answer that. However, the idea of blowback should have been fresh in his mind since WWII was going on. This brings me to your refusal to acknowledge that the United States, and other western powers, caused WWII. I'm assuming you are aware of the Treaty of Versailles. You know, one of the most damning pieces of legislation inflicted on a country. The Germans were forced to pay for WWI, which led to hyperinflation, and were to be occuped by foriegn troops in certain areas, they had restrictions placed on their military might as well. If it wasn't for the Treaty of Versailles, we would have never heard of Adolf Hitler. Think that is an outrageous claim? Do a little research on how this powerless, unknown German became popular and began to gain steam. In every stump speech, Hitler brought up the damaging treaty of versailles. It renewed a strong national sentiment in the German people that has been lost since the treaty's enactment. I used to be a neoconservative, supported Huckabee in 08, I am glad I have seen the light. Last thing I want to say is, the neconservative movement has a stranglehold on Christianity in America. It is real. It amazes me how Christians totally ignore the Christian-Just war theory and support preventative wars and sanctions. You should read "Christianity and War" by Laurence Vance.

 

[Big McHuge]

I think there will be war and military attacks reguardless of our military presense. We leave a huge foot print even if we never set foot on other peoples soil (large economy, lots of consumption, economic policies to protect our interest at the expense of others). Plus, the reason switzerland is safe, in part, is because of the promise of a powerful counter attack by US forces.

You need to read Robert Pape's "Dying to Win." Occupation of their land and sanctions lead to events like 9/11. Think about it, we weren't even attacked by an organized military or navy. We were attacked by a handful of disgruntled, hateful, extremist muslims. Sanctions crush these "common" citizens which lead to an anti-US sentiment. Sanctions never hurt the dictatorships, and if anything help them because it keeps their citizens in a state of fear and hatred for the West. As for them not attacking other countries due to fear of us getting involved is totally baseless. It goes against everything Al-qeada has stated. They want us over there, they want us bogged down, and most importantly, they want us to go broke. History has a sick way of repeating itself, do some research on the Soviets experience in Afghanistan.

 

[Vergie]

Paul opposes just about all international treaties and organizations. He would have the United States pull out of the United Nations and NATO. He would do away with foreign aid, abolish the CIA and essentially turn his back on the rest of the world. This is pretty much what used to be called isolationism, and it allowed Hitler to presume, quite correctly as it turned out, that America would not interfere with his plans to conquer Europe, Britain included. It took Germany’s declaration of war on the United States, not the other way round, to get Uncle Sam involved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5zNwOeyuG84#!

This is the problem with UN and NATO. They are usurping power from the United States Congress. Why are we even electing representatives if they have less power than our foreign allies?

 

[Big McHuge]

Let see, a guy who has a history of publishing and selling absurd and racist rants to the *****s in this country and then doesn't have the balls to admit he made a mistake? No thanks.

1. even the NAACP has stated Ron Paul did not write those letters.
2. He has admitted that he morally failed by not reviewing the letters before they were sent out.
3. Deep down, I could care less whether Ron Paul is a racist or not, as long as it does not have an impact on how he legislates. Don't we all have our own judgements? I don't think very highly of fundamental Christians, but if I was a congressman I would never impinge on their rights and freedoms to express their faith, nor do I treat any of the ones I know badly. Ron Paul has no history of legislating as a racist. I'd say a guy who wants to end the FEDERAL war on drugs is probably not too racist, considering blacks are disproportionately affected by this war.