Ron Paul On The Record

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
922

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I just read the transcript of the debate last night.

Who are the people cheering Ron Paul?

His stance on foreign policy seems to be as follows:

  1. Give Al Qaeda exactly what they want.
    [/quote]

Now, I’m not saying that I think we should pull out of Iraq. I still believe in that war but just because Al Qaeda wants us out of the Arab peninsula and Ron Paul wants us out doesn’t necessarily mean that Ron Paul wants us out because he is afraid of them. Should we develop a foreign policy designed solely to piss off dickheads? No, we should do things that are in the best interest of ourselves, everyone else be damned.[quote]

  1. Trust Iran’s good will that they won’t develop a bomb. He apparently has even taken the military option off the table so we must negotiate with them from a position of weakness.[/quote]

Actually I kinda agree with him here. Why do we need to fight Israel’s battles? Israel could kick the piss out of Iran. If they develop a nuke program then Israel can preemptively attack Iran. And they should do just that. Israel kicks ASS!

So if two tough guys are walking down the street and some guy you can both beat up says, “I’m going to kick your friend’s ass.” should you beat him up or let your buddy beat him up?[quote]

Also his position on airport security is laughable. There is no doubt the feds are screwing it up and I am a strong supporter but no have the feds back out of it and let the airlines handle it is ridiculous.[/quote]

Why? 9/11 would have been thwarted if passengers on those airplanes had been packing heat. Hell, it may have only taken one guy. Do you really think keeping guns off of airplanes is making us safer? [quote]

This guy has to come up with some ideas on how to fix things instead of just saying it is someone else’s problem.

The more I read the less I like.

Once again, who is cheering this guy? Is it the motivated rage against the machine types? [/quote]

He does say how to fix things. His solution is a return to American liberty and free markets. Unfortunately, America is full of pussies nowadays that want to hear how some almighty president (read: king) will protect them. What they need to hear and what Paul is saying is that we’re responsible to protect OURSELVES. Fancy that.

Oh yeah, I hate RAGE, though they can wail. They are a bunch of socialist fucks with their little �?he Guevara shirts.

mike

925

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
…
Also his position on airport security is laughable. There is no doubt the feds are screwing it up and I am a strong supporter but no have the feds back out of it and let the airlines handle it is ridiculous.

Why? 9/11 would have been thwarted if passengers on those airplanes had been packing heat. Hell, it may have only taken one guy. Do you really think keeping guns off of airplanes is making us safer?
…[/quote]

I would like to be able to carry on a plane. Unfortunately Paul wants the airlines to determine security. As they are only interested in the bottom line I like this choice the least.

An airplane is not a store. If the airline chooses a poor method of security it can and will be exploited to the detriment of not only its customers but others as well. As we learned on 9/11 they are a dangerous weapon.

While I agree with much of his sentiment I find it too simplistic. The reason the damned government has been intervening so much into our lives is we have made a mess out of them.

I want a guy that will dial back government intervention by addressing very specific issues.

If he really wanted to take care of airport problems he would have said he will fire the incompetent and abusive security agents and issue federal carry permits that are good on planes and in any state. Instead he wants to leave it to the states to make the decisions and states like New Jersey are sure to make the wrong one.

This is not the 1700’s where travel took forever and it really didn’t matter what laws were like in NJ or what happens on the other side of the world. Communication is instant and travel is almost as fast.

It is the federal governments job to protect interstate travel and commerce. I also think it is their responsibility to do the same internationally but his withdraw from the world stance runs away from the problems instead of fixing them.

926

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Rocky101 wrote:
I like RP cause he isn’t “owned” like the top tier Repubs and Dems.

You’ve made quite a statement here junior. Do you suppose you’d like to tell us who “owns” each candidate? And I want some proof relative to each assertion.

[/quote]

Get educated

927

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
He does say how to fix things. His solution is a return to American liberty and free markets. Unfortunately, America is full of pussies nowadays that want to hear how some almighty president (read: king) will protect them. What they need to hear and what Paul is saying is that we’re responsible to protect OURSELVES. Fancy that.
[/quote]

Bingo! Even the most extreme government haters have a hard time relying on their own free will without daddy and mommy waiting in the wings to protect them.

Americans have let themselves become pussies–and to prove they’re not they are ready to fight anyone with a smaller, weaker army.

928

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Rocky101 wrote:
I like RP cause he isn’t “owned” like the top tier Repubs and Dems.

You’ve made quite a statement here junior. Do you suppose you’d like to tell us who “owns” each candidate? And I want some proof relative to each assertion.

[/quote]

How do you think the top tier candidates get their multi-millions of dollars? That’s right corporations and special interest groups. Do you want to live in a corporate/military industial complex nation, I sure as hell don’t. But until people wake up this is what we are heading for.

I am not stupid I don’t think RP will get the nod, he is too honest and can’t be bought. THe consensus on the street today was that RP owned the other candidates in the debate, but you won’t hear that on our corporate controlled media.

929

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

You are a meaningless tool.

Yes, I’m all those nasty words that make you feel better.
[/quote]
I know.

930

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I would like to be able to carry on a plane. Unfortunately Paul wants the airlines to determine security. As they are only interested in the bottom line I like this choice the least.

An airplane is not a store. If the airline chooses a poor method of security it can and will be exploited to the detriment of not only its customers but others as well. As we learned on 9/11 they are a dangerous weapon.

While I agree with much of his sentiment I find it too simplistic. The reason the damned government has been intervening so much into our lives is we have made a mess out of them.

I want a guy that will dial back government intervention by addressing very specific issues.

If he really wanted to take care of airport problems he would have said he will fire the incompetent and abusive security agents and issue federal carry permits that are good on planes and in any state. Instead he wants to leave it to the states to make the decisions and states like New Jersey are sure to make the wrong one.

This is not the 1700’s where travel took forever and it really didn’t matter what laws were like in NJ or what happens on the other side of the world. Communication is instant and travel is almost as fast.

It is the federal governments job to protect interstate travel and commerce. I also think it is their responsibility to do the same internationally but his withdraw from the world stance runs away from the problems instead of fixing them.
[/quote]
The bottom line is that the airlines will lose business if they are not secure. The government does not make us safe. There is no accountability for them to do so.

The State has no accountability to anyone–NOT EVEN VOTERS.

931

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Iraq has a choice and has consistently asked the U.S. to stay. In fact, they’ve gone so far as to have their elected representatives lobby our Congress.

JeffR

How nice of them to ask our government to disregard our Constitution–and we blindly follow.

So the choice is to be dictated to by: Iraq–NOPE; al Qaeda–NOPE; the Constitution–HELL YES.

We (the American people) owe Iraq nothing. You neocons will be digging into your pockets for all eternity attempting to buy your way out of hell–may you rot there.

Have fun with that.[/quote]

You do know, dinglefritz, that the Constitution has nothing I can find regarding a situation like this.

In fact, the neat part of the Constitution is it’s flexibility. Last count, we had 27 amendements.

Perhaps we need to make Amendement number 28. Something along the lines of: If you support violent terrorists, use WMD on your own people and other nations, deceive world bodies’ in their attempts to inspect your weapons, and fire on our armed forces, the CIC shall then ask Congress for Authorization to remove the threat.

Of course, one could make a pretty compelling argument that Bush FOLLOWED THE CURRENT CONSTITUTION regarding Iraq.

The Constitution states that Congress has the duty to:

“To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;”

Article I | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Therefore, I believe Bush correctly asked for and received the following votes: 296-133 in the House, and 77-23 in the Senate.

In it Bush was explicitly given the power to:

"use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to–
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

So take your little talking points to your local Rage Against the Machine, Daddy doesn’t love me, grungefest.

JeffR

932

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Rocky101 wrote:
I like RP cause he isn’t “owned” like the top tier Repubs and Dems.

You’ve made quite a statement here junior. Do you suppose you’d like to tell us who “owns” each candidate? And I want some proof relative to each assertion.

How do you think the top tier candidates get their multi-millions of dollars? That’s right corporations and special interest groups. Do you want to live in a corporate/military industial complex nation, I sure as hell don’t. But until people wake up this is what we are heading for.

I am not stupid I don’t think RP will get the nod, he is too honest and can’t be bought. THe consensus on the street today was that RP owned the other candidates in the debate, but you won’t hear that on our corporate controlled media.
[/quote]

ron paul is a joke. He may be an HONEST joke. However, those of us who donate to campaigns would never support this clown.

It doesn’t have anything to do with any “BIG CORPORATION/FOXNEWS/HALLIBURTON” telling us anything.

If you use your brain, you will see that paul’s world view is dangerously naive. It’s more geared to living in 1800. You could maintain neutrality, pull within your borders easier in that age.

However, the guys who were killed by France/England prior to and during the War of 1812 would tell you that EVEN THEN the U.S. couldn’t escape from world affairs. See impressment.

JeffR

933

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I also think it is their responsibility to do the same internationally but his withdraw from the world stance runs away from the problems instead of fixing them.[/quote]

This is really stupid. The Spaniards, Chinese, Swedes, Brazilians, or Swiss aren’t running away from anything. They have enough common sense to distinguish between situations that require military force and things that are best taken care of by international police cooperation.

934

[quote]rocky101 wrote:
JeffR wrote:

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

Is that why he won in a landslide in the polling last night.

[/quote]

How many times did you vote in that poll?

Every time this clown “wins” one of these, I ask the same question.

It’s fun to imagine your consternation when he wins exactly zero primaries. Then he’ll be asked to leave. Finally, he’s probably too old to try again in four years.

You lose in every regard.

JeffR

935

[quote]rocky101 wrote:
I like RP cause he isn’t “owned” like the top tier Repubs and Dems. He follows the Constitution(remember the document this country was founded and built on). What is not to like about him, unless you like living in a corporate controlled environment where your activities are monitored. [/quote]

ron paul is “owned” by his own ambition. It is naked and on display for all to see.

IMAGINE if he won. His pompous attitude would allow exactly zero compromise. Who could work with this clown?

His ambition is on the scale of hillary. His fantacism reminds me of peta or the global warming zealots.

However, I’ll give him credit. When compared to hillary, at least he sticks to the same talking points (uninformed and naive as they may be.)

JeffR

936

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iM47kc-2TqnQGFAX1Hz_0xGWE-ig

Nice article

937

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I also think it is their responsibility to do the same internationally but his withdraw from the world stance runs away from the problems instead of fixing them.

This is really stupid. The Spaniards, Chinese, Swedes, Brazilians, or Swiss aren’t running away from anything. They have enough common sense to distinguish between situations that require military force and things that are best taken care of by international police cooperation.[/quote]

Bullshit. It is the US Navy that protects shipping lanes from pirates, Iranian minelayers etc.

938

Mike Huckabee:

Let me make this clear, if there is anybody on this stage, that understands the word honor, I’ve got to say Sen. McCain understands that word, because he has given his country a sacrifice, the rest of us don’t even comprehend and on this issue, when he says we can’t leave, until we’ve left with honor, I 100% agree with him, because, Congressman (Ron Paul) , wether ot not we should we have gone into iraq is a discussion the historians can have but we’re there, we bought it, because we broke it, we got a respo to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in iraq and ever served in our military, to not leave them with anything less then the honor that they deserve.

Such a honor-hugging dimwit wants to become US president?
HilarioUS!

939

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Such a honor-hugging dimwit wants to become US president?
HilarioUS!
[/quote]

When you got no rational arguments, what do you do? You appeal to emotions. This is nothing new and Bush have been using that line for years now. “Axis-of-evil”, “cut-and-run”, and a multitude of other irrational expressions have been carefully selected to appeal to the masses.

940

I said:

This is the first election since the 50’s where there isn’t an incumbent running for election.

You said:

LOL! Uh-oh Mick your ignorance is showing. Psst…when I (and the rest of the world) say this is the first election since the 50’s where there isn’t an incumbent running for office, we mean that there’s no sitting president or vice president running (hence the no incumbent phrase). Thought I’d clue you in but hey “it’s just the internet right?” Now go back to studying your political cycles.

and just some fyi - the last election where there was no incumbent running was 1952 - since that time either a sitting president or vice president has been in every single election.

Why do I waste my time with you again?