http://videos.mediaite.com/video/Rep-Ron-Paul-On-Dick-Cheney-He
as a left-of-center dude, i’d vote for a ron paul ticket.
Smart man. I watched that whole thing on CNN. That bitch on the bottom right got her ass handed to her.
In my opinion he needs to leave out the part about us provoking terroism by being there. Either that or he needs to be a bit more clear. It’s not that we are physically over there. It’s that we are picking sides. When you pick a side, you shouldn’t be suprised by backlash from the other side.
I would leave it alone all together as it is an issue much too complicated for current politics. The NeoCon rhetoric will sound much better to the masses.
What’s important is that we can no longer afford to police the world, give handouts to other nations, or practice nation building. Even if we could afford it, I don’t want them to steal my money to do so. You want to send money to one side or the other, go right ahead. Don’t force me to.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
In my opinion he needs to leave out the part about us provoking terroism by being there. Either that or he needs to be a bit more clear. It’s not that we are physically over there. It’s that we are picking sides. When you pick a side, you shouldn’t be suprised by backlash from the other side.
I would leave it alone all together as it is an issue much too complicated for current politics. The NeoCon rhetoric will sound much better to the masses.
What’s important is that we can no longer afford to police the world, give handouts to other nations, or practice nation building. Even if we could afford it, I don’t want them to steal my money to do so. You want to send money to one side or the other, go right ahead. Don’t force me to.[/quote]
If the US gov’t weren’t “over there” to pick a side then they wouldn’t need to be “over there”.
Just by being over there the US government has inherently picked a side.
US politicians preach a good game about “self determination” but none of believes in it – except Ron Paul.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]dhickey wrote:
In my opinion he needs to leave out the part about us provoking terroism by being there. Either that or he needs to be a bit more clear. It’s not that we are physically over there. It’s that we are picking sides. When you pick a side, you shouldn’t be suprised by backlash from the other side.
I would leave it alone all together as it is an issue much too complicated for current politics. The NeoCon rhetoric will sound much better to the masses.
What’s important is that we can no longer afford to police the world, give handouts to other nations, or practice nation building. Even if we could afford it, I don’t want them to steal my money to do so. You want to send money to one side or the other, go right ahead. Don’t force me to.[/quote]
If the US gov’t weren’t “over there” to pick a side then they wouldn’t need to be “over there”.
Just by being over there the US government has inherently picked a side.
US politicians preach a good game about “self determination” but none of believes in it – except Ron Paul.[/quote]
We can also pick sides with sanctions, direct aid, cheap arms, etc. All of it needs to stop.
Ron Paul may be right on this but he needs to be careful about picking his battles. He needs to understand tha rhetoric the other side will use and how to effectively frame the argument. I am fan but this seems to be his biggest weakness. In getting votes anyway.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]dhickey wrote:
In my opinion he needs to leave out the part about us provoking terroism by being there. Either that or he needs to be a bit more clear. It’s not that we are physically over there. It’s that we are picking sides. When you pick a side, you shouldn’t be suprised by backlash from the other side.
I would leave it alone all together as it is an issue much too complicated for current politics. The NeoCon rhetoric will sound much better to the masses.
What’s important is that we can no longer afford to police the world, give handouts to other nations, or practice nation building. Even if we could afford it, I don’t want them to steal my money to do so. You want to send money to one side or the other, go right ahead. Don’t force me to.[/quote]
If the US gov’t weren’t “over there” to pick a side then they wouldn’t need to be “over there”.
Just by being over there the US government has inherently picked a side.
US politicians preach a good game about “self determination” but none of believes in it – except Ron Paul.[/quote]
We can also pick sides with sanctions, direct aid, cheap arms, etc. All of it needs to stop.
Ron Paul may be right on this but he needs to be careful about picking his battles. He needs to understand tha rhetoric the other side will use and how to effectively frame the argument. I am fan but this seems to be his biggest weakness. In getting votes anyway.[/quote]
I would say his biggest weakness, if you want to call it that, is that he openly criticizes big business and it’s dubious relations with government. The establishment doesn’t like that.
Also, telling voters that they should be responsible for themselves and that the government isn’t there friend tends to make their heads spin.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]dhickey wrote:
In my opinion he needs to leave out the part about us provoking terroism by being there. Either that or he needs to be a bit more clear. It’s not that we are physically over there. It’s that we are picking sides. When you pick a side, you shouldn’t be suprised by backlash from the other side.
I would leave it alone all together as it is an issue much too complicated for current politics. The NeoCon rhetoric will sound much better to the masses.
What’s important is that we can no longer afford to police the world, give handouts to other nations, or practice nation building. Even if we could afford it, I don’t want them to steal my money to do so. You want to send money to one side or the other, go right ahead. Don’t force me to.[/quote]
If the US gov’t weren’t “over there” to pick a side then they wouldn’t need to be “over there”.
Just by being over there the US government has inherently picked a side.
US politicians preach a good game about “self determination” but none of believes in it – except Ron Paul.[/quote]
Ron Paul may be right on this but he needs to be careful about picking his battles. He needs to understand tha rhetoric the other side will use and how to effectively frame the argument. I am fan but this seems to be his biggest weakness. In getting votes anyway.[/quote]
I can agree with this. The simple truth is that radical Muslims don’t want to kill us because of our way of life, our wealth, any of that. There are reasons, something that CIA calls “blowback”, like Ron Paul said in the video I’m posted below. An example is the taking of hostages in Iran because we supported the shah. But sadly, I don’t think the majority of America is willing to accept that maybe we aren’t completely innocent when it comes to foreign policy. And that is why Ron Paul probably won’t win the election in 2012.
Something that comes to mind here is the Republican primaries debate in SC, when Ron Paul and Giuliani were arguing over terrorism/9-11.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
Something that comes to mind here is the Republican primaries debate in SC, when Ron Paul and Giuliani were arguing over terrorism/9-11.
I believe he needs to find another way to say what he is saying. “They attached up becuase we are over there” doesn’t cut it. It’s too easy for the neocons to feast on that one. The rest of it was good. Just get rid of that.
Every action we take in the middle east has consequenses. Maybe he needs to stick to a few select specifics. Something the neocons can’t refute quite as easily as “becuase we are over there”. Vague concepts can easily be combatted with mindless rhetoric like we saw from Rudy in the posted video. Rhetoric and platitudes are not as useful in explaining away specifics.