Ron Paul:"I wouldn't send US troops to fight Nazis"

if we were in the business of intervening militarily for human rights, we would've sent 10 brigades to Africa by now.

He's an isolationist, not an anti-semite. Two different concepts that the MSM would like feeble Americans to gobble up without questioning.

Nice try.

So it's ok for a racist to run for president as-long as no-one knows that he's racist?

reply to post by Cynicaleye


That was clearly not his point.

The point of that post was to suggest that, after years of hearing careful political speech aimed at pleasing people rather than actually addressing issues, people might be put off by Ron Paul's blunt and honest treatment of the issues. Others use the "American is strong. This is a country of innovators. HOPE!" garbage. Ron Paul, on the other hand, says "look, the system is broken, the country is broken, we've been doing horrible things for years and years and years, and we need to fix it." Sure, it's nicer to hear the first, but it just isn't true. I disagree with the post--I really admire Paul's honesty and bluntness--but I must admit that, politically, it probably isn't always prudent to be so straightforward.

But really? Trying to twist that to an accusation of racism or the suggestion that the post was encouragement for presidential candidates to blatantly lie?

reply to post by Cynicaleye


Who is a racist? You believe Ron Paul is racist?

And could a racist run for office? Of course they could...

Why is it any American's business what happens in the Middle East, or Africa, or Europe, or Asia? Remember the Monroe Doctrine? Non-intervening in a situation does not mean you condone what is happening...Things will get settled for all, whether they like the outcome or not...

Originally posted by Cosmic911
He's an isolationist, not an anti-semite. Two different concepts that the MSM would like feeble Americans to gobble up without questioning.

Nice try.

His newsletters suggest otherwise, or is that a lie made by the "MSM"?

"I don't think that's because he's an anti-Semite. It's because he’s an extreme isolationist and he’s trying to be 100% principled–he doesn't think there’s any reason to intervene for human rights or any other reason anywhere on the planet." Shapiro quoted Dondero as saying.

Extreme Isolationist?

Even the CFR does not call him that. They refer to him as a Non Interventionist which is very different from an Isolationist.

Defense Policy Rep. Paul (R-TX), a noninterventionist with libertarian views, voted against the 1999 resolution that sent U.S. troops to join NATO peacekeeping forces in Kosovo. He also voted against the resolution authorizing air strikes on Yugoslavia in 1999. That resolution failed in the House. In 2003, Paul voted against the 2003 resolution for the reconstruction of Iraq.

I dont know if this story is true and I do not care. It has no bearing at all on TODAY and what is happening in this countries future. For me, debating what Ron Paul "would have done in 1943" is like arguing over who is a better boxer or who would win in a fight between Muhammad Ali is his prime or Mike Tyson in his prime. It makes for entertaining conversation, but at the end of the day it is a hypothetical situation which means absolutely nothing in regards to today.

Furthermore.. the US did not enter WW2 to "save the Jews". The writer of this article has no clue about history. The US never even declared War on Germany. Germany declared War on the US after the bombing of Pearl harbor. The issues with Jews being exterminated were not even known until the END of WW2 when the camps were discovered.

Gotta love them spin.. sadly there are many dumb people in this world who eat this up hook line and sinker and never stop to really think about it.

Calling people dumb while supporting Ron Paul. Oh the irony.

Originally posted by Cosmic911
He's an isolationist, not an anti-semite. Two different concepts that the MSM would like feeble Americans to gobble up without questioning.

Nice try.

He's not an isolationist, he's a non-interventionist..... two totally different things.

Originally posted by Cynicaleye

Originally posted by Cosmic911
He's an isolationist, not an anti-semite. Two different concepts that the MSM would like feeble Americans to gobble up without questioning.

Nice try.

His newsletters suggest otherwise, or is that a lie made by the "MSM"?

edit on 29-12-2011 by Cynicaleye because: (no reason given)

Again, not anti-semite but an isolationist. Not a racist but a white nationalist.

Spin it anyway you want...

reply to post by Sek82


So you would send your son to die in a strange land fighting an alleged enemy who is no threat to the US?
You know nothing about the problems the Germans were having with the Jews and yet you think that they should be rescued.
And yet you would send your son to die meddling in the internal affairs of a country which is no threat to the US.

Originally posted by Iwinder
Please keep in mind here that WW2 was never about saving the Jews, it was about saving Europe and possibly North America so the point of this thread is a distraction from why we fought in Europe to why we should not vote for Ron Paul......
I am Canadian but if I was just a bit south of the border here I would vote for Ron Paul
Regards, Iwinder

Exactly right. The Jews being saved was more of a...Side effect. As bad as that sounds. Yeah, Efforts were made to liberate the Jews, but that was more of a side order.

There is a reason the US did not get involved until after Pearl Harbor.

So, assuming he actually said this, then he agrees with the way the US handled the war... That's about it.

Talk about a flimsy attack. I hate how this stuff always turns up just as a politicians campaign is starting to do well. It could not be more obvious that people are trying to dig up dirt.

They still have not found anything.

Oh no! An educated man with a clean background! I'm scared!

To the OP, the only ones not right in the head are the ones who actually buy into these flimsy and weak attacks that fail because there is nothing solid to back it up.

Which reminds me, I have a bridge I am looking to sell....

reply to post by MrWendal


Good points.

Has the U.S. gone to war to stop other genocides in Africa? Well, we tried Somalia briefly and there was no public support for that. Generally, public support for such things will be short lived as it is not in our national interests. I think Ron Paul's view is a reflection on what "national interests" was intended to mean by our fore fathers.

As you point out, we did not go to war with Germany to stop Jewish genocide, it was more about supporting our ally, Great Britain, which we tried to do without getting directly into the shooting match. Like you said, it was Pearl Harbor that put us in - although we probably would have eventually entered anyway.

If he said it, I don't disagree with the statement. It is consistant with his beliefs and anyone who knows anything about him can set up questions like that all the time to portray him as fringe. I guess trying to honor our Constitution and founding fathers is fringe nowadays.

Originally posted by Cosmic911

Originally posted by Cynicaleye

Originally posted by Cosmic911
He's an isolationist, not an anti-semite. Two different concepts that the MSM would like feeble Americans to gobble up without questioning.

Nice try.

His newsletters suggest otherwise, or is that a lie made by the "MSM"?

edit on 29-12-2011 by Cynicaleye because: (no reason given)

Again, not anti-semite but an isolationist. Not a racist but a white nationalist.

Spin it anyway you want...

Originally posted by Cynicaleye

Originally posted by Cosmic911

Originally posted by Cynicaleye

Originally posted by Cosmic911
He's an isolationist, not an anti-semite. Two different concepts that the MSM would like feeble Americans to gobble up without questioning.

Nice try.

His newsletters suggest otherwise, or is that a lie made by the "MSM"?

edit on 29-12-2011 by Cynicaleye because: (no reason given)

Again, not anti-semite but an isolationist. Not a racist but a white nationalist.

Spin it anyway you want...

Is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People a "black supremacist" organization? Is the National Council of La Raza (literally "The Race") a "brown supremacist" organization? Why is it that blacks can associate *as blacks* without being accused of hating others? Likewise Latinos, Asians, and even Jews, but God forbid that any two or more white people associate *as whites* without some so-called journalist reaching for his bag of smears.

Believe it or not nobody is trying to smear Paul, just exposing his racism.

So Jeffrey Shapiro contacted Eric Dondero to look for more dirt to write about Paul? That doesn't make sense at all. First off they talk about something that happened during WW2, then it says Jeffrey later contacted Dondero? Another attempt to discredit Paul since we already busted Frum and Cohen from making such absurd allegations. Now we got Shapiro folks!

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
So Jeffrey Shapiro contacted Eric Dondero to look for more dirt to write about Paul? That doesn't make sense at all. First off they talk about something that happened during WW2, then it says Jeffrey later contacted Dondero? Another attempt to discredit Paul since we already busted Frum and Cohen from making such absurd allegations. Now we got Shapiro folks!

There's nothing to dis-credit to begin with, Paul is a joke.

reply to post by Cynicaleye


Expose what racism? It never ceases to amaze me how people like to keep changing definitions of words in midstream...

reply to post by Cynicaleye


Your thread should of said Ron Paul: "I Couldn't send US troops to fight Nazis" because at the end of the ww2 I was only 10 years old. What are you trying to prove? What is your motive Cynical? I am curious

reply to post by RARARAsputin


We "helped out" alright.

We supported the Nazis until it was no longer financially viable and then (and only then) did we jump in.