Why Candidate Ron Paul is Candidate Barack Obama and they will be very similar Presidents.

reply to post by pierregustavetoutant


How do you get things done without passing legislation and working together to solve main issues? Vetoing everything doesn't work either. Sure the government could be a lot smaller, but vetoing everything isn't going to decrease the size. That, too needs to go gradually.

I'm a business person so I know you need to work long and hard at doing what you plan to do accomplish. If you need to create a new product you don't just make it and set it out there. You need to plan, get approval, get designs, get money, hire people, make about 3 prototypes maybe more (depends) while staying within budget. Then you have to test it out, market it, get feedback correct any errors or things people didn't like. Sometimes you even have to go back to the drawing board. I'm sure you've all heard that phrase before. This is how policy making works too for the most part.

reply to post by jjf3rd77
I believe I mentioned the bombs going off when we left in my first response to you?

Focus please!

I'm done .

reply to post by jjf3rd77


No no no no no no no, you are completely wrong. The reason for the suicide bombings is our presense there. Seeing invaders in a foreign country is what motivates them, and is what allows people to be convinced to kill themselves so easily. If there were no American troops there, it would be much harder to convince potential terrorists to blow themselves up.

Do some research on the level of terrorist suicide bombings, our presense is directly proportional to the increase in suicide bombings. It's almost comical how confidently you can make blatantly false statements like that.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Not really radical Islam plays a large part in it too, probably the major part. Otherwise they wouldn't scream Allah at the top of their lungs before they blew themselves up!!!! Shiites and Sunnis fight each other not over American policies but over religious traditions. This is obvious to anyone who studies cultures and foreign affairs. The region would still be unstable even if we never went there. Just look at Africa as a perfect example of what I am talking about.

reply to post by jjf3rd77

Ron Paul's Campaign message is "Restore America Now," Obama's Campaign message was, "Change we can believe in." See the difference? I do not!

It's almost as though presidential hopefuls (and future presidents) come up with slogans...

Presidential Campaign Slogans

PRESIDENTS HOME PAGE



Campaign Candidate Slogan
1840 William Henry Harrison Tippecanoe and Tyler Too
1844 James K. Polk 54-40 or fight
1844 James K. Polk Reannexation of Texas and reoccupation of Oregon
1844 Henry Clay Who is James K. Polk?
1848 Zachary Taylor For President of the People
1856 John C. Fremont Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, Free Men, and Fremont
1860 Abraham Lincoln Vote Yourself a Farm
1864 Abraham Lincoln Don't swap horses in the middle of the stream
1884 Grover Cleveland Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, The Continental Liar from the State of Maine
1884 James Blaine Ma, Ma, Where’s my Pa, Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha
1888 Benjamin Harrison Rejuvenated Republicanism
1896 William McKinley Patriotism, Protection, and Prosperity
1900 William McKinley A Full Dinner Pail
1916 Woodrow Wilson He kept us out of war
1920 Warren G. Harding Return to normalcy
1920 Warren G. Harding Cox and Cocktails
1924 Calvin Coolidge Keep cool with Coolidge
1928 Herbert Hoover A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage
1952 Dwight Eisenhower I Like Ike
1956 Dwight Eisenhower Peace and Prosperity
1960 Richard Nixon For the future
1964 Lyndon B. Johnson The stakes are too high for you to stay at home
1964 Barry Goldwater In your heart you know he’s right
1968 Richard Nixon Nixon's the One
1976 Gerald Ford He’s making us proud again
1976 Jimmy Carter Not Just Peanuts
1976 Jimmy Carter A Leader, For a Change
1980 Ronald Reagan Are you better off than you were four years ago?
1984 Ronald Reagan It’s morning again in America
1984 Walter Mondale America Needs a Change
1988 George Bush Kinder, Gentler Nation
1992 Bill Clinton Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow
1992 Bill Clinton Putting People First
1992 Ross Perot Ross for Boss
1996 Bill Clinton Building a bridge to the 21st century
1996 Bob Dole The Better Man for a Better America
2000 Al Gore Prosperity and progress
2000 Al Gore Prosperity for America's families
2000 George W. Bush Compassionate conservatism
2000 George W. Bush Leave no child behind
2000 George W. Bush Real plans for real people
2000 George W. Bush Reformer with results
2000 Ralph Nader Government of, by, and for the people...not the monied interests
2004 John Kerry Let America be America Again
2004 George W. Bush Yes, America Can!
2008 John McCain Country First
2008 Barack Obama Change We Can Believe In
2008 Barack Obama Change We Need
2008 Barack Obama Hope
2008 Barack Obama Yes We Can!

Source

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Alright buddy, you forced me to whip out the stastics. A direct quote from The Revolution, by Ron Paul, Chapter 2: The Foreign Policy of the Founding Fathers.

"The University of Chicago's Robert Pape, from his book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, collected a database of all 462 suicide terrorist attacks between 1980 and 2004. One thing he found was that religious beliefs were less important as motivating factors than we had believed......The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religion but rrather a desire "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland."

Between 1995 and 2004, the al Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the United States had troops stationed. While al Qaeda terrorists are twice as likele to hail from a country with a strong Wahhabist (radical Islamic) presence, they are ten times as likely to come from a country in which US troops are stationed. Until the US invasion in 2003, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in its entire history. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the US, France, and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. The reason the attacks stop, according to Pape, is that the Osama Bin Ladens of the world can no longer inspire potential suicide terrorists, regardless of their religious beliefs."

BOOM!

reply to post by TupacShakur


Nice try but no. One using a source from written by Ron Paul is hardly proof that I am wrong.

And second How is it our fault that the terrorist boarded one of our planes using some of our technology and using some of our bombs!!! If they really hated the west they wouldn't have declared war on us!!!!!

And for the Iraq stuff. Let's just say the mess got complicated fast. We went in there because of the Nuclear Bomb threat. Then we thought Saddam was harboring al qaeda and bombs. Turns out both were false. We went in there anyway, to take down the government there because we didn't like Saddam anymore. Then directly afterwards al qaeda shows up and starts fighting on top of the fighting that was already going on between the Shiites and the Sunnis long before we ever got there. The leave the Middle East alone plan vanished as soon as they flew into our buildings!!!

Religion deeply impacts the Middle Eastern people because 95% of the country wants religion to rule their politics!!! Sharia law etc...

Take a look at the stats on this page. Are we heavily involved in any of these countries besides for Pakistan??? Not really. www.pewglobal.org...

reply to post by jjf3rd77

Nice try but no. One using a source from written by Ron Paul is hardly proof that I am wrong.

The source wasn't Ron Paul, the source was the document that he sourced. I'm not even going to read the rest of your post if you couldn't even pick up on that simple fact.

reply to post by jjf3rd77
What conspiracy like attitude? The one the CIA confirms? Crikey, if we're to the point the people will only listen to politicians and talking heads instead of our own intelligence agencies, I'm more worried than I was...

That said, I suppose it's a good thing the republican party has been losing membership, then, and the independents growing. If they keep pushing the same thing they always have, they'll lose again just like they lost in 2008 as Paul warned.

Also, Paul's proposals are the only ones that lend any real solvency to the entitlement programs the dems push so hard on - cut the overseas/military, etc., spending and start funnelling at least half of that savings into entitlements. Then, after we've got our bigger fish fried, transition to personal/medical savings and retirement accounts.

It's possible he might not win, but this is a bigger movement that will go on - and like I said, the republicans otherwise will also have a very hard time of it themselves...they bring nothing new to the table, offer more big government, more war, more everything a LOT of people are very sick of.

As far as running Libertarian - are you at all familiar with how set up against third parties this system is? Unless you're an independent billionaire, there's not really even any point to trying, and good luck even then. Now, if things fall out with the republican nomination - god forbid but not entirely unlikely - a third party run will now be more viable as Paul will have gotten a lot more exposure and various other boons.

And, with as disgruntled as the country is, and the various political swings we've made in the last 10 years trying to figure out what we want...it's possible.

Time will tell, friend. Have a good night.

Uhm, thanks to Ron Paul, "we" were able to get a PARTIAL audit of the Federal Reserve, revealing that they gave over $16 Trillion in secret bailouts to financial institutions both here in the USA and OVERSEAS. I think that's a rather impressive piece of legislation!

reply to post by Praetorius


He always talks about puppet masters new world order etc...

But yes We will see if he does get any more traction after the northeastern primaries. My prediction is he won't just like in 2008

reply to post by jjf3rd77
Ah. I guess I haven't caught most of that content, then.

Not an area I delve into much myself, but honestly thinking about it...if you look into things (follow the money, eh....) and see how the big banks and big business are tied into policy at so many levels, then start looking at who owns them and who they report to...and then consider that they like to play & fund/arm both sides of pretty much all conflicts - it definitely gets a little weird.

Do I think it's a vast global conspiracy of some shadowy cabal working toward a nefarious grand scheme? Not necessarily - but I think there are definitely some very powerful families out there with their fingers in pretty much everything through various subsidiaries & proxies, and they seem very able to craft things to their own benefit - which usually doesn't work out so well for us.

Take care, friend. Have a great weekend and we'll see what time brings.

reply to post by jjf3rd77

Ron Paul says Iran is not a threat and 9/11 was our fault because we shouldn't be in the Middle East in the first place is a very dangerous world view point. We can't escape our war-mongering ways in one quick move. We have to gradually pull out of all the wars we are in. That usually can't happen in four years.

9-11 was our fault is a convenient, zero sum characterization.

Dr. Paul's argument has been & continues to be that American foreign policy motivated the attacks of 9-11. The distinction is neither dangerous nor subtle.

We can't escape our war-mongering ways in one quick move. I don't agree. While "war-mongering ways" may be something akin to a substance abuse issue, it is not true that all Americans are addicted to war. But if everyone is confined to the view that we are inescapably bound to warmongering now & for the forseeable future, then this self-fulfilling prophecy is probably true.

In terms of Iran ... Dr. Paul's argument or a libertarian argument is not needed to convince me that Iran does not pose a threat to the United States. Well, I suppose it depends on how we choose to understand threat. I would contend that Iran poses a threat to America's Middle East foreign policy objectives. Maybe it's appropriate to stipulate what we mean by threat? Should we say that Iran poses an existential threat to the United States? That is a pervading catchword. What does it mean? Probably nothing that can be proven with acumen; and that is probably the intended purpose. So maybe we should focus instead on economic threat and physical threat? The economic threat that comes to mind centers on recent Iranian rhetoric to disrupt or halt shipping lanes. Do I believe it? No. I think it's hot air and would, ultimately, result in soft condemnation from both Russia and China. As for what physical threat Iran poses to the U.S. ... I have no answer. What do you think?

Ron Paul's Campaign message is "Restore America Now," Obama's Campaign message was, "Change we can believe in." See the difference? I do not!

Yeah, there is a difference. The former is atavistic while the latter represented a progressive platform.

In a sense I think you are correct (i.e. the universe is not static, but a symphony of change), yet the aspect of change to which they refer are in diametric opposition to one another. Metaphoriically, the ideas behind the slogans move in different directions. Irrespective, I think I understand what you are emphasizing.

____________

Vote for the candidate you believe will best serve the interests of the people of the United States. If in your estimation that candidate is not Ron Paul then okay.

Originally posted by Kovenov
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

Ron Paul says Iran is not a threat and 9/11 was our fault because we shouldn't be in the Middle East in the first place is a very dangerous world view point. We can't escape our war-mongering ways in one quick move. We have to gradually pull out of all the wars we are in. That usually can't happen in four years.

9-11 was our fault is a convenient, zero sum characterization.

Dr. Paul's argument has been & continues to be that American foreign policy motivated the attacks of 9-11. The distinction is neither dangerous nor subtle.

We can't escape our war-mongering ways in one quick move. I don't agree. While "war-mongering ways" may be something akin to a substance abuse issue, it is not true that all Americans are addicted to war. But if everyone is confined to the view that we are inescapably bound to warmongering now & for the forseeable future, then this self-fulfilling prophecy is probably true.

In terms of Iran ... Dr. Paul's argument or a libertarian argument is not needed to convince me that Iran does not pose a threat to the United States. Well, I suppose it depends on how we choose to understand threat. I would contend that Iran poses a threat to America's Middle East foreign policy objectives. Maybe it's appropriate to stipulate what we mean by threat? Should we say that Iran poses an existential threat to the United States? That is a pervading catchword. What does it mean? Probably nothing that can be proven with acumen; and that is probably the intended purpose. So maybe we should focus instead on economic threat and physical threat? The economic threat that comes to mind centers on recent Iranian rhetoric to disrupt or halt shipping lanes. Do I believe it? No. I think it's hot air and would, ultimately, result in soft condemnation from both Russia and China. As for what physical threat Iran poses to the U.S. ... I have no answer. What do you think?

Ron Paul's Campaign message is "Restore America Now," Obama's Campaign message was, "Change we can believe in." See the difference? I do not!

Yeah, there is a difference. The former is atavistic while the latter represented a progressive platform.

In a sense I think you are correct (i.e. the universe is not static, but a symphony of change), yet the aspect of change to which they refer are in diametric opposition to one another. Metaphoriically, the ideas behind the slogans move in different directions. Irrespective, I think I understand what you are emphasizing.

____________

Vote for the candidate you believe will best serve the interests of the people of the United States. If in your estimation that candidate is not Ron Paul then okay.

Thank you for taking the time to read and try to understand my position on the topic. I seriously think that most people on ATS just read the title and then cherry pick lines out of posts they don't like just to argue about them. I think the whole concept of voting is a little silly but I do my part so I can have my voice. I didn't vote in 2008 but I do want to vote this time around, maybe guilty conscious. IDK but if only more people were out there like you and me who look at both sides of the issues and then tell people why they choose the position they choose, without blindly supporting one ideology. I think the world will have a lot less useless arguing around. Oh well, we don't live in an ideal world though.