Ron Paul On The Record

[center]“Surrender Should NOT be an Option”
by Ron Paul[/center]

Sep 04, 2007 - 08:15 AM

Surrender Should Not Be an Option

Faced with dwindling support of the Iraq War, the warhawks are redoubling their efforts. They imply we are in Iraq attacking those who attacked us, and yet this is not the case. As we know, Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character, had nothing to do with 9/11. The neo-cons claim surrender should not be an option. In the same breath they claim we were attacked because of our freedoms. Why then, are they so anxious to surrender our freedoms with legislation like the Patriot Act, a repeal of our 4th amendment rights, executive orders, and presidential signing statements? With politicians like these, who needs terrorists? Do they think if we destroy our freedoms for the terrorists they will no longer have a reason to attack us? This seems the epitome of cowardice coming from those who claim a monopoly on patriotic courage.

In any case, we have achieved the goals specified in the initial authorization. Saddam Hussein has been removed. An elected government is now in place in Iraq that meets with US approval. The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is our military presence. Why are we still over there? Conventional wisdom would dictate that when the “mission is accomplished”, the victor goes home, and that is not considered a retreat.

They claim progress is being made and we are fighting a winnable war, but this is not a view connected with reality. We can’t be sure when we kill someone over there if they were truly an insurgent or an innocent Iraqi civilian. There are as many as 650,000 deaths since the war began. The anger we incite by killing innocents creates more new insurgents than our bullets can keep up with. There are no measurable goals to be achieved at this point.

The best congressional leadership can come up with is the concept of strategic redeployment, or moving our troops around, possibly into Saudi Arabia or even, alarmingly enough, into Iran. Rather than ending this war, we could be starting another one.

The American people voted for a humble foreign policy in 2000. They voted for an end to the war in 2006. Instead of recognizing the wisdom and desire of the voters, they are chided as cowards, unwilling to defend themselves. Americans are fiercely willing to defend themselves. However, we have no stomach for indiscriminate bombing in foreign lands when our actual attackers either killed themselves on 9/11 or are still at large somewhere in a country that is neither Iraq nor Iran. Defense of our homeland is one thing. Offensive tactics overseas are quite another. Worse yet, when our newly minted enemies find their way over here, where will our troops be to defend us?

The American people have NOT gotten the government they deserve. They asked for a stronger America and peace through nonintervention, yet we have a government of deceit, inaction and one that puts us in grave danger on the international front. The American People deserve much better than this. They deserve foreign and domestic policy that doesn’t require they surrender their liberties.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

Okay, first one you FAILED

Therefore, it seems that it is you who has manipulated the facts in order to push your agenda.
[/quote]

What facts did I manipulate again? You refuse to acknowledge the unique support that Ron Paul garners. I understand completely how he is lacking in national polls but the unusual feature about Paul is how well he fares in other markers of support.

No - I said that you are off mark by saying Paul’s campaign is underfunded. Look at John McCain who has been in the primaries before and knows what the cost of running a successful campaign are. He has less money than Ron Paul. You’re just wrong - you can say Ron Paul doesn’t have as much money as other candidates but to say he’s underfunded is ridiculous.

This means absolutely nothing. Who knew who Mitt Romney was before this election? Who heard of Bill Clinton before he ran for president or John Kerry? You act like Americans know the names of senators, governors, and congressmen and they don’t. Once the candidates get narrowed down - the American public will learn about them.

Ron Paul is one or two headlines away from being a top tier candidate - unfortunately big media won’t give him that.

Let’s see - you think congressmen never win so Ron Paul can’t win. Well genius - you can use this same argument against any other candidate. X doesn’t get elected historically so Y will not get elected.

This is the first election since the 50’s where there isn’t an incumbent running for election. There are all sorts of candidates who have little or no chance of winning if you are going to base your view on statistical probability. So once again - your fact is no fact.

Can you answer my question as to why he’s done so well in Straw Polls and do you have the age groups of voters who participate in straw polls? That would be far more interesting then that giant waste of space I just read above.

[/quote]
You read thirty articles on Presidential Charisma? Now I understand why you don’t get things people post here only 3 or 4 times. Your “fact” that Ron Paul is uncharismatic has no support other than your personal preference. Just because you found JFK, Reagan, and Clinton more sexually attractive than Ron Paul doesn’t mean he lacks charisma. Get it? I know that’s only the third time I told you this but I doubt I’ll get 27 more chances.

again…why don’t you discuss policy or issues?

Translation: You can’t.

One last question for you - you mentioned earlier that you worked on a political campaign and “studied political cycles” (lol) so who’s campaign did you work on and what was your role? and what did your study of “political cycles” consist of? You’re a joke.

Ron Paul wins Maryland Straw Poll…
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2007/09/03/daily17.html

Ron Paul wins debate on Fox according to all votes so far (something the usa election polls predicted)…

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The individual consumer/producer is all that matters in economics. He is the basis for supply and demand–that is all. In the end it comes down to the fact that all organisms have needs and all organisms compete with other organisms for those needs because of scarcity. Every idea in economics is derived from these principles.[/quote]

If we’re just going to quite truisms at each other from slightly different viewpoints, I guess perhaps we don’t have much to argue about.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
vroom wrote:
[i]LOL.

Nice way to slam the concept of an “open mind”. Anyhow, your characterization is almost as silly as the situation of having your mind made up no matter what the actual facts are.

We see a lot of that around here too.[/i]

As usual, you swing and miss. If you read more carefully, you’ll notice the quote marks around the term “open mind” (scare quotes) - as in, that ain’t really what an open mind is all about in my opinion, but that is the version Lifticus operates by and thinks is an “open mind”.

And you are correct, my characterization of an “open mind” was describes that type of operation as silly - that was intentional and the entire point. The type of “open mind” I suggested is no worthwhile open mind at all - and not what I consider to be a legitimate “open mind”, hence my attack on operating that way.

Thanks for playing, though. [/quote]

Oh, I get it, you thought I was attacking you didn’t you?

I watched the debates tonight - and it became blatantly obvious why all the cradle-to-grave socialists have such a hard-on for Paul.

He wants out of Iraq.

So much for intellectual honesty.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I watched the debates tonight - and it became blatantly obvious why all the cradle-to-grave socialists have such a hard-on for Paul.

He wants out of Iraq.

So much for intellectual honesty. [/quote]

It does go to show just how short-sighted most people are. Unless Thompson grows a pair my vote is going to Paul. But it is crazy how libs push for a guy who will destroy the governmental monster that is required to run their little socialist dreamland just on account of a silly little war.

That said, I see the same thing in Republicans. They’ll vote for socialists like Romney and authoritarians like Guliani because they won’t “cut and run”.

No one seems to get the big picture here. I’m pro-Iraq in a big way, but I care more about the defense of liberty against an encroaching government than about kicking a little ass overseas. As such, I’ll give him a pass on being against the war if he’ll actually tear down the IRS, DEA, and BATFE(the biggest group of JBT’s in the country).

We talk a good game here in the US about freedom, but from what I see, Paul is one of the few that back it up. This country is being inundated by cowards that are deathly afraid of some backwards Jihadis thousands of miles away. They’ll give up everything that makes being an American special so as to keep the power running so they won’t miss American Idol. Pussies. And I’ll end on a joke:

Two muslims walk into a bar.
No one survives.

mike

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I watched the debates tonight - and it became blatantly obvious why all the cradle-to-grave socialists have such a hard-on for Paul.

He wants out of Iraq.

So much for intellectual honesty. [/quote]

Most Americans do.

So what?

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You talk about how great Ron Paul is.

I then explain in a fair amount of detail why he won’t win. [/quote]

There you go. How about debating his platform instead of speculating on his chances of losing?

Surely that oughta be a more constructive debate.

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
But it is crazy how libs push for a guy who will destroy the governmental monster that is required to run their little socialist dreamland just on account of a silly little war. [/quote]

WTF???

Your “silly little war” has killed and maimed thousands. It turned a country into chaos, created millions of refugees, catalyzed global hatred towards Americans, and exacerbated the divide in the US at a time when you need unity. The only ones profiting from it already have money pouring out of their ears.

I’ll stop here as I’m having real trouble containing myself.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I watched the debates tonight - and it became blatantly obvious why all the cradle-to-grave socialists have such a hard-on for Paul.

He wants out of Iraq.

So much for intellectual honesty. [/quote]

It is a joke. Paul would dismantle so many things they support yet because he wants out of Iraq he is their hero?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I watched the debates tonight - and it became blatantly obvious why all the cradle-to-grave socialists have such a hard-on for Paul.

He wants out of Iraq.

So much for intellectual honesty. [/quote]

Ron Paul couldn’t have said it any better - the same people that told us Iraq would be a cakewalk and wouldn’t cost anything are now preaching the horrors of withdrawal. Why believe them?!?

Paul’s been opposed to the war since day one, you can look up his congressional speeches and voting record prior to the Iraqi invasion. He was right then and he’s right now. What “intellectual honestly” are you talking about?

By the way Ron Paul is the antithesis of socialism, either you don’t understand socialism or you don’t understand Paul. Giuliani touting his national ID card was the closest thing to a socialist last night.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I watched the debates tonight - and it became blatantly obvious why all the cradle-to-grave socialists have such a hard-on for Paul.

He wants out of Iraq.

So much for intellectual honesty.

It is a joke. Paul would dismantle so many things they support yet because he wants out of Iraq he is their hero?

[/quote]

What are the so many things we support? The Federal Reserve? The Department of Education?

[quote]mstott25 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I watched the debates tonight - and it became blatantly obvious why all the cradle-to-grave socialists have such a hard-on for Paul.

He wants out of Iraq.

So much for intellectual honesty.

It is a joke. Paul would dismantle so many things they support yet because he wants out of Iraq he is their hero?

What are the so many things we support? The Federal Reserve? The Department of Education? [/quote]

The EPA, HUD, affirmitive action, Roe v Wade, gun control…

[quote]mstott25 wrote:
Paul’s been opposed to the war since day one, you can look up his congressional speeches and voting record prior to the Iraqi invasion. He was right then and he’s right now. What “intellectual honestly” are you talking about?

By the way Ron Paul is the antithesis of socialism, either you don’t understand socialism or you don’t understand Paul. Giuliani touting his national ID card was the closest thing to a socialist last night.[/quote]

You really need to read more posts in this thread. I posed my questions earlier. Someone who had actually read the previous discussion might know this.

You either don’t know how to read, or you enjoy making baseless assumptions .

[quote]mstott25 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I watched the debates tonight - and it became blatantly obvious why all the cradle-to-grave socialists have such a hard-on for Paul.

He wants out of Iraq.

So much for intellectual honesty.

It is a joke. Paul would dismantle so many things they support yet because he wants out of Iraq he is their hero?

What are the so many things we support? The Federal Reserve? The Department of Education? [/quote]

Welfare
Social Security
Dept of Education
Pretty much everything FDR set up in the New Deal
Pretty much everything LBJ set up in the Great Society

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I watched the debates tonight - and it became blatantly obvious why all the cradle-to-grave socialists have such a hard-on for Paul.

He wants out of Iraq.

So much for intellectual honesty.

Most Americans do.

So what?

[/quote]

Wanting out and pulling a France aren’t the same thing.

GREETINGS!!!

I watched the debate last night with interest.

I was laughing out loud at ron paul and his Rage Against the Machine fanbase. It was quite amusing when paul was asked about the bloodbath that would follow a precipitous withdrawal of American troops.

His answer was something along the lines of, “Only the neocons think that will happen.”

His reasoning (I think) is: There have been errors in the war planning and execution. Therefore, every premise and action taken by the planners and those involved is invalid. Nothing they say can be believed. Let’s pull everyone out.

I HATE WHEN THAT CLOWN quotes bin laden’s reasons for attacking us as justification to leave.

I do understand what the youngsters find attractive about this guy. His, let’s eliminate most of the government and immediately pull out, plays well to a crowd who can only think one-dimensionally. Further, the black and white approach to these issues is very attractive when you are young and inexperienced.

However, for any of the ron paulie’s who are above the age of age 30, shame on you.

In summary, I’m looking forward to the day that the candidate of the Rebel’s without a cause/Rage Against the Machiners is asked to step off the stage.

I’ll bet he slinks off firing barbs like, “Woe, to our poor country. They wanted to silence me because I speak truth.”

It will never occur to him that he has been evaluated and rejected by the VAST majority of the voters.

JeffR

P.S. FOX NEWS IS THE SINGLE GREATEST BREAKTHROUGH IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SINCE THE PRINTING PRESS!!!.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
You talk about how great Ron Paul is.

I then explain in a fair amount of detail why he won’t win.

There you go. How about debating his platform instead of speculating on his chances of losing?

Surely that oughta be a more constructive debate.[/quote]

Warning to anyone who supports this ron paul character: lixy and bota (orion) also favor him.

Warning.

Think it through.

JeffR