And if one actually did that one would see that Ron was the only candidate worth supporting.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/bthesite/the-ridiculous-report-blog/bal-who-won-the-gop-debate-the-audience-thought-ron-paul-did-20110614,0,419922.story[/quote]
Really, an applause-o-meter?[/quote]
So much less objective than media shills.
[/quote]
Or one could listen and decide for one’s self.[/quote]
Son, with that attitude you better get a gun.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/bthesite/the-ridiculous-report-blog/bal-who-won-the-gop-debate-the-audience-thought-ron-paul-did-20110614,0,419922.story[/quote]
Really, an applause-o-meter?[/quote]
So much less objective than media shills.
[/quote]
Or one could listen and decide for one’s self.[/quote]
Son, with that attitude you better get a gun.
[/quote]
lol
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
Ron Paul as usual was the best, but he’s not going to be elected. The winners, other than Paul, were Romney and Bachman. Bachman wasn’t half bad but yes, as LIFTI said, too much rhetoric. But Bachman is a big step up from Palin.[/quote]
I really wanted to hear more from Bachman. It seemed like she was ignored a lot of the time. They would ask someone a question then get an opinion from someone else on that answer and it was never her.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
Ron Paul as usual was the best, but he’s not going to be elected. The winners, other than Paul, were Romney and Bachman. Bachman wasn’t half bad but yes, as LIFTI said, too much rhetoric. But Bachman is a big step up from Palin.[/quote]
I really wanted to hear more from Bachman. It seemed like she was ignored a lot of the time. They would ask someone a question then get an opinion from someone else on that answer and it was never her. [/quote]
now that you mention it, you’re right. I don’t remember her speaking that much.
10:55 - RP:
'I wouldn’t wait for my Generals, I’m the commander in chief. I make the decisions, I tell the Generals what to do and I’d bring them home as quickly as possible…and I’d get ‘em out of Iraq as well. I wouldn’t start a war in Libya and I’d quit bombing Yemen, I’d quit bombing Pakistan…our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. We have no purpose there. We should learn the lessons of history…our presence there is not making friends I can tell ya’
Lessons from history? Pearl Harbour? 9/11?
Making friends? Adolf Hitler? Stalin?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
10:55 - RP:
'I wouldn’t wait for my Generals, I’m the commander in chief. I make the decisions, I tell the Generals what to do and I’d bring them home as quickly as possible…and I’d get ‘em out of Iraq as well. I wouldn’t start a war in Libya and I’d quit bombing Yemen, I’d quit bombing Pakistan…our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. We have no purpose there. We should learn the lessons of history…our presence there is not making friends I can tell ya’
Lessons from history? Pearl Harbour?[/quote] A direct result of the US embargo which shut off 80% of Japans oil supply. Also, by sending the Flying Tigers to China, we had already committed an act of war against Japan.
[quote]9/11?[/quote]30 years of meddling in the Middle East.
[quote]Making friends? Adolf Hitler?[/quote] An indirect result of the punishing Treaty of Versailles,
[quote]Stalin?[/quote] Was actually a US ally…
I’m in no way part of the “blame America” crowd, but if the US had followed Jefferson’s advice (Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none) the history of the world would have been different.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
10:55 - RP:
'I wouldn’t wait for my Generals, I’m the commander in chief. I make the decisions, I tell the Generals what to do and I’d bring them home as quickly as possible…and I’d get ‘em out of Iraq as well. I wouldn’t start a war in Libya and I’d quit bombing Yemen, I’d quit bombing Pakistan…our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. We have no purpose there. We should learn the lessons of history…our presence there is not making friends I can tell ya’
Lessons from history? Pearl Harbour? 9/11?
Making friends? Adolf Hitler? Stalin?[/quote]
First off, get your facts straight. Ron Paul does not believe in intergovernmental alliances.
He wants the citizens of different countries to trade and associate freely with each other without government involvement.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Yeah that stuttering grunting was extremely irritating.[/quote]
My wife made less noise during child birth!
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
10:55 - RP:
'I wouldn’t wait for my Generals, I’m the commander in chief. I make the decisions, I tell the Generals what to do and I’d bring them home as quickly as possible…and I’d get ‘em out of Iraq as well. I wouldn’t start a war in Libya and I’d quit bombing Yemen, I’d quit bombing Pakistan…our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. We have no purpose there. We should learn the lessons of history…our presence there is not making friends I can tell ya’
Lessons from history? Pearl Harbour?[/quote] A direct result of the US embargo which shut off 80% of Japans oil supply. Also, by sending the Flying Tigers to China, we had already committed an act of war against Japan.
[quote]9/11?[/quote]30 years of meddling in the Middle East.
[quote]Making friends? Adolf Hitler?[/quote] An indirect result of the punishing Treaty of Versailles,
[quote]Stalin?[/quote] Was actually a US ally…
I’m in no way part of the “blame America” crowd, but if the US had followed Jefferson’s advice (Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none) the history of the world would have been different.[/quote]
Right on all accounts.
Ron Paul was winning Fox News online poll so they restarted it and are now trying to make it look like bachmann won.
Fox did this last debate to make it look like Cain won, wonder how long it will be till the rest of the MSM calls them out on this.
I caught five minutes of the Jimmy Kimmel show last night. They did a skit with an actor playing the part of King where he kept getting the candidates confused so they had to intruduce themselves (using the clips from the intro). Big surprise! They showed all 6 candidates intruductions except Ron Paul’s. Not a huge deal. Just one more of the many examples of the media’s bias towards him.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
10:55 - RP:
'I wouldn’t wait for my Generals, I’m the commander in chief. I make the decisions, I tell the Generals what to do and I’d bring them home as quickly as possible…and I’d get ‘em out of Iraq as well. I wouldn’t start a war in Libya and I’d quit bombing Yemen, I’d quit bombing Pakistan…our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. We have no purpose there. We should learn the lessons of history…our presence there is not making friends I can tell ya’
Lessons from history? Pearl Harbour?[/quote] A direct result of the US embargo which shut off 80% of Japans oil supply. Also, by sending the Flying Tigers to China, we had already committed an act of war against Japan.
[quote]9/11?[/quote]30 years of meddling in the Middle East.
[quote]Making friends? Adolf Hitler?[/quote] An indirect result of the punishing Treaty of Versailles,
[quote]Stalin?[/quote] Was actually a US ally…
I’m in no way part of the “blame America” crowd, but if the US had followed Jefferson’s advice (Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none) the history of the world would have been different.[/quote]
Good post.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
Ron Paul as usual was the best, but he’s not going to be elected. The winners, other than Paul, were Romney and Bachman. Bachman wasn’t half bad but yes, as LIFTI said, too much rhetoric. But Bachman is a big step up from Palin.[/quote]
I really wanted to hear more from Bachman. It seemed like she was ignored a lot of the time. They would ask someone a question then get an opinion from someone else on that answer and it was never her. [/quote]
now that you mention it, you’re right. I don’t remember her speaking that much.[/quote]
Even though I’m a Democrat, I liked her answer about the gay marriage thing. It was the most concise answer any of them gave. I believe she said something like she approves of a constitutional amendment to make marriage between a man and a woman only (UGH!), she would not use the power of the WH to interfere in states’ rights to legalize gay marriage. She didn’t consider that part of her job description.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
10:55 - RP:
'I wouldn’t wait for my Generals, I’m the commander in chief. I make the decisions, I tell the Generals what to do and I’d bring them home as quickly as possible…and I’d get ‘em out of Iraq as well. I wouldn’t start a war in Libya and I’d quit bombing Yemen, I’d quit bombing Pakistan…our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. We have no purpose there. We should learn the lessons of history…our presence there is not making friends I can tell ya’
Lessons from history? Pearl Harbour?[/quote] A direct result of the US embargo which shut off 80% of Japans oil supply. Also, by sending the Flying Tigers to China, we had already committed an act of war against Japan.
[quote]9/11?[/quote]30 years of meddling in the Middle East.
[quote]Making friends? Adolf Hitler?[/quote] An indirect result of the punishing Treaty of Versailles,
[quote]Stalin?[/quote] Was actually a US ally…
I’m in no way part of the “blame America” crowd, but if the US had followed Jefferson’s advice (Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none) the history of the world would have been different.[/quote]
- The US embargo on oil in July 1941 was due to:
a) A DECADE of Japanese aggression and war crimes beginning with the invasion and rape of Manchuria in 1931 then the second Sino-War.
b) A military coup in 1936 resulting in the Toseiha faction dominating followed by complete fascist-type military dictatorship in 1940 with the formation of the Imperial Assistance Rule Association.
c) The occupation of French Indochina in 1940.
d) The fucing TRIPATITE PACT! signed with Nazi Germany and fascist Italy in September 1940.
e) The expectation that Imperial Japan would invade the Philipines which was under US control and had strategically important US military bases.
YES! The Japs attacked Pearl Harbour because the US cut off oil. The US cut off oil because the Japs were running rampant like the fucking Nazis in Europe. Pearl Harbour was committed in the midst of feigned peace negotiations.
- You’ve missed my point about Hitler and Stalin. Ron Paul says ‘we aren’t making any friends’ in the Muslim world by being involved in Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen/Libya. My point is we CAN’T make friends with anyone in the Muslim world no matter what we do. Nothing we do could possibly disfuse the situation. Examples were:
a) Appeasement of Adolf Hitler. Oh, let’s not upset this nut! We’ll let him militarise the Rhineland, eat Austria, then the Sudetenland. Maybe he won’t be a fucking nut anymore if we let him do that and all Europe will be safe.
b) Stalin(who was a wartime ally of Nazi Germany and invaded Poland with them.) Oh, let’s try to win over the nut! If we ‘give him everything we possibly can and ask for nothing in return…he won’t try to annexe anything and will work for a world of peace and democracy after the war’.
-
Jefferson didn’t really follow his own advice though did he? He supported revolutionary France(he was actually there in 1792 watching the crowds beheading people and shit) and didn’t withdraw his support during the Reign of Terror, the Jacobins’ dictatorships etc. I’m a great admirer of the founding fathers but I view them in the historical context of a nation under the thumb of a foreign Monarch in the 18th century as opposed to a guide as to how the US should conduct its foreign and domestic policies today.
-
Do you think the US should’ve refused any military aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in WWII? If Japan had continued to receive oil and all of Asia(and Australia/NZ) was conquered, and the Nazis conquered Britain and the USSR, wouldn’t the US have had some things to worry about?
Never thought you were anti-America reddog. But you’re sounding like a Ron Paul supporter. Not sure which is worse in terms of US foreign policy.
BTW - I don’t think US/Britain should be aiding anti-Gaddafi forces in Libya. I don’t think we should’ve invaded Iraq before we dealt with Al Qaeda everywhere they lurk. I also think the way we attack Al Qaeda(drone strikes etc) is WAY too expensive and we should use small infantry units and bear the casualties instead of the millions of dollars per drone attack.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
10:55 - RP:
'I wouldn’t wait for my Generals, I’m the commander in chief. I make the decisions, I tell the Generals what to do and I’d bring them home as quickly as possible…and I’d get ‘em out of Iraq as well. I wouldn’t start a war in Libya and I’d quit bombing Yemen, I’d quit bombing Pakistan…our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. We have no purpose there. We should learn the lessons of history…our presence there is not making friends I can tell ya’
Lessons from history? Pearl Harbour?[/quote] A direct result of the US embargo which shut off 80% of Japans oil supply. Also, by sending the Flying Tigers to China, we had already committed an act of war against Japan.
[quote]9/11?[/quote]30 years of meddling in the Middle East.
[quote]Making friends? Adolf Hitler?[/quote] An indirect result of the punishing Treaty of Versailles,
[quote]Stalin?[/quote] Was actually a US ally…
I’m in no way part of the “blame America” crowd, but if the US had followed Jefferson’s advice (Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none) the history of the world would have been different.[/quote]
- The US embargo on oil in July 1941 was due to:
a) A DECADE of Japanese aggression and war crimes beginning with the invasion and rape of Manchuria in 1931 then the second Sino-War.
b) A military coup in 1936 resulting in the Toseiha faction dominating followed by complete fascist-type military dictatorship in 1940 with the formation of the Imperial Assistance Rule Association.
c) The occupation of French Indochina in 1940.
d) The fucing TRIPATITE PACT! signed with Nazi Germany and fascist Italy in September 1940.[/quote]
None of which involved the USA
[quote]e) The expectation that Imperial Japan would invade the Philipines which was under US control and had strategically important US military bases.[/quote] Go back further, why was the Philipines under US control, exept for imperial ambitions?
[quote]YES! The Japs attacked Pearl Harbour because the US cut off oil. The US cut off oil because the Japs were running rampant like the fucking Nazis in Europe. Pearl Harbour was committed in the midst of feigned peace negotiations.[/quote] Other than being the worlds police-man, why should we care? If we had allowed China to fall under Japanese control, maybe our lives today would be better…
[quote]2. You’ve missed my point about Hitler and Stalin. Ron Paul says ‘we aren’t making any friends’ in the Muslim world by being involved in Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen/Libya. My point is we CAN’T make friends with anyone in the Muslim world no matter what we do. Nothing we do could possibly disfuse the situation. Examples were:
a) Appeasement of Adolf Hitler. Oh, let’s not upset this nut! We’ll let him militarise the Rhineland, eat Austria, then the Sudetenland. Maybe he won’t be a fucking nut anymore if we let him do that and all Europe will be safe.[/quote] Why were Austria and Poland vital to US interests? Why not just eliminate all US trade with Germany (Many US companies traded with the 3rd Reich right up to our declaration of war) financially help it’s enemy’s, but keep our soldiers home.
[quote]b) Stalin(who was a wartime ally of Nazi Germany and invaded Poland with them.) Oh, let’s try to win over the nut! If we ‘give him everything we possibly can and ask for nothing in return…he won’t try to annexe anything and will work for a world of peace and democracy after the war’.[/quote] I’ve never said anything about appeasing anybody. I just don’t think we need to go to war with every country that acts aggresive.
[quote]3. Jefferson didn’t really follow his own advice though did he? He supported revolutionary France(he was actually there in 1792 watching the crowds beheading people and shit) and didn’t withdraw his support during the Reign of Terror, the Jacobins’ dictatorships etc. I’m a great admirer of the founding fathers but I view them in the historical context of a nation under the thumb of a foreign Monarch in the 18th century as opposed to a guide as to how the US should conduct its foreign and domestic policies today.[/quote] How many US troops were committed to help France? How much financial aid did the US Govt give to the revolutionaries? None and none. There’s a diference between cheering for one side and joining them.
I think we should have help support GB & Russia financially, while ensuring no US companies traded with Germany or Japan.
[quote]Never thought you were anti-America reddog. But you’re sounding like a Ron Paul supporter. Not sure which is worse in terms of US foreign policy.[/quote] I’m very pro-American. I’m also a smart enough to understand the law of unintended consequences. I don’t see that us acting as the worlds ploce force has ever been a very smart move.
I think we should mind our own business. Then if we are ever attacked in any fashion, we go to war and wipe the atackers off the face of the map. No Marshall Plan, no nation building, just smoke corpses. If we aren’t willing to go that far, then we don’t hae sufficinet cause for war.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
None of which involved the USA
[/quote]
They involved the entire world. That’s why it became a world war. Poland, for instance was unable to remain neutral. See what I mean?
Don’t need to go back further. The US WAS there. The US had strategically vital military positions there. The US servicemen in the Philipines who were captured by the Japs were fucking starved/worked or bayoneted to death.
[quote]How many US troops were committed to help France? How much financial aid did the US Govt give to the revolutionaries? None and none. There’s a diference between cheering for one side and joining them.
I think we should have help support GB & Russia financially, while ensuring no US companies traded with Germany or Japan.
[/quote]
Ridiculous. Britain desperately needed WAR MATERIALS. Especially destroyers. Britain couldn’t feed itself without imports and without destroyers the fucking Uboats would’ve starved them out. Russia would’ve crumbled without US/British WAR MATERIALS.
The US never wanted to act as the world’s police. It was always forced into it by necessity. People realised that having the rest of the world exterminated and subjugated by Japs and Nazis would not be good for the US. People realised that having the rest of the world living under Communist dictatorships would not be good for the US. I understand how expensive and unfair it is but you’ve got no choice pal. You’re our police force. Get used to it.
[quote]
I think we should mind our own business. Then if we are ever attacked in any fashion, we go to war and wipe the atackers off the face of the map. No Marshall Plan, no nation building, just smoke corpses. If we aren’t willing to go that far, then we don’t hae sufficinet cause for war.[/quote]
You WILL be attacked in EVERY fashion if you allow the rest of the world to be subjugated by Islamists/Communists. Even the conservatives here think I’m an extremist but your comments about smoking corpses and letting the rest of the world die becaue they’re not American is fucking morally AND rationally bankrupt.
^^
Sorry about the quotes fuckup. Makes it harder to read. Don’t want to fuck around forever trying to fix it though.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
None of which involved the USA
[/quote]
They involved the entire world. That’s why it became a world war. Poland, for instance was unable to remain neutral. See what I mean?
Don’t need to go back further. The US WAS there. The US had strategically vital military positions there. The US servicemen in the Philipines who were captured by the Japs were fucking starved/worked or bayoneted to death.
[quote]How many US troops were committed to help France? How much financial aid did the US Govt give to the revolutionaries? None and none. There’s a diference between cheering for one side and joining them.
I think we should have help support GB & Russia financially, while ensuring no US companies traded with Germany or Japan.
[/quote]
Ridiculous. Britain desperately needed WAR MATERIALS. Especially destroyers. Britain couldn’t feed itself without imports and without destroyers the fucking Uboats would’ve starved them out. Russia would’ve crumbled without US/British WAR MATERIALS.
The US never wanted to act as the world’s police. It was always forced into it by necessity. People realised that having the rest of the world exterminated and subjugated by Japs and Nazis would not be good for the US. People realised that having the rest of the world living under Communist dictatorships would not be good for the US. I understand how expensive and unfair it is but you’ve got no choice pal. You’re our police force. Get used to it.
[quote]
I think we should mind our own business. Then if we are ever attacked in any fashion, we go to war and wipe the atackers off the face of the map. No Marshall Plan, no nation building, just smoke corpses. If we aren’t willing to go that far, then we don’t hae sufficinet cause for war.[/quote]
You WILL be attacked in EVERY fashion if you allow the rest of the world to be subjugated by Islamists/Communists. Even the conservatives here think I’m an extremist but your comments about smoking corpses and letting the rest of the world die becaue they’re not American is fucking morally AND rationally bankrupt.[/quote]
I was very impressed with much of what Ron Paul had to say and what he stands for but the bottom line is his foreign policy ideas are simply too simplistic.
SM pegged it above ^. His (SM’s) grasp of history is good and unless POTUS also has a good grasp of history you simply can’t be an effective, pragmatic and yet still principled chief executive in the 21st century of the most powerful nation in human history.[/quote]
So everything our founding fathers envisioned is wiped away because the world needs us. What a load of shit. The world fall into communism? Bullshit. The system would have collapsed far quicker if they tried that. The only thing that would have done is make America richer because as soon as it fell we would have all the money to buy assets.
Here is the result or your policy we are broke. What do people not understand about this simple fucking concept. What is so moral about the massive black hole we are going to leave once this crash really gets going and we are forced back for economic reasons.
The way we have punished the dollar to fund this idea is down right evil. People in the united states are watching their savings disappear while food prices and energy and almost everything they need in life is rising in prices.