Tired of the Ron Paul Bandwagon???

reply to post by mrgregbusybee

Now I've done some elementary reading, but I'm no expert on the individual candidates. I admit, I know more about Paul than the others who don't seem worth that much time - my issue is with the views your argument is based on. You seem more than content to allow your politicians to carry on with the military industrial complex, expansionist framework - which I am very much against. Not only as a non-American, but for the sake of Americans too.

I'd much rather you guys have a president that's assertive than continue in the aggressive vain of the cowboy neo-cons. Why are you convinced that America needs a cowboy at the helm, with one foot on potential independent nations' heads - keeping them underwater?

Ron Paul believes that we, as a country, deserved...listen to me DESERVED the 9/11 attacks.

I may be wrong, but I doubt that. That sounds like propaganda. The same was said against George Galloway in a debate - are you sure he didn't just try to explain where the contempt for America may have stemmed from? There's a big difference between doing that and saying they deserved it.

Which will lead to China gaining a head of steam against us and we mind as well throw Japan back in the mix. I think between those 3 countries alone, it's safe to say their governments despise us and would attack if they had support, which they would now have in the form of Korea, Japan and China.

Massively incorrect assumption - you think China or Japan hate the US more than they hate each other? Japan perhaps, but not so much modern Japan - America did rebuild them after all. In any case, China (the biggest player of the three) loathes Japan. These scenarios you establish are so far fetched in any case.

Within the 1st year of office, Ron Paul would mind his own business and allow Iran to continue building or complete production of nuclear weapons. Paul would allow Israel to fend for themselves and we all know that Iran wants nothing more than to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. So in under 12 months, we would at a minimum see a war in Korea and one in Israel.

What a ridiculous claim. There is no objective proof that Iran is actually building nukes and if they are they would never use them in an aggressive manner - they'd be destroyed. Why are Israel allowed nukes as a "deterrent" but not Iran? It's hardly a deterrent when no other country in the region has them. Iran is not an aggressive nation and Ahmadinejad never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map - that was a gross mistranslation of one singular speech years ago. Anyway, he doesn't have absolute power. Your grasp of international affairs seems weak..

I mean really - "allow Israel to fend for themselves"? They are the most powerful, most aggressive country in the region. I won't go into the "what about poor Palestine left to fend for themselves" argument as it's off topic but your Israel point equally doesn't affect US national security.

By that point our military will be so reduced and weak, we won't be able to protect our own coast lines.

There's a difference between pursuing a less aggressive international policy and a total dismantling of the military.

Opinions are like A$$holes, I know...but Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy alone should make you question his ability as a leader and make you strongly against him.....that's if you care to protect your own country. Some of you may say, well who the hell do you want as a president? My answer is simple, I really would like a president like Jesse Ventura not Jesse but with his attitude. At least we knew he was straight forward and not covering up anything. So my perfect president would have the attitude of Ventura, the thought processes of Ronald Reagan, the ability to communicate with foreign leaders like Bill Clinton and the ability to speak (speak only) like Obama....the man can talk. That's my perfect president... but seeing how that isn't an option....out of our choices:

You do make some nice points there - I think Jesse Ventura is brilliant, though slightly melodramatic. It would be very nice if we could take the best out of our leaders and put them together to form a super leader!

I won't debate much on the rest as I am too ignorant on the topic to do so, but I do really respect Ron Paul and from what I've seen, in an ideological sense, I really love his ideas. You mention Santorum being the best candidate but I've been lead to believe he's somewhat of a joke.. Why I like Paul so much is because of his spine, he seems like an actual man of integrity - he wouldn't be pushed around and puppeteered to the same extent as other candidates would.. although that's ideally speaking.

Anyway, my main issue was with your discussion of foreign policy - I think everyone's just about had enough of imperialism.

Originally posted by jibeho
This blind following of Ron Paul is starting to disturb me. Much like the blind following of Candidate Obama in the time leading up to the 2008 election. What gives?? There is a price to pay for everything involved in Ron Pauls stance on Foreign Policy and his views on American Defense.

Yeah it disturbs me too! I wrote a very complete response to this post a few pages back and nobody bothered to respond to it. That either proves that Ron Paul supporters are the ones that are blind and ignorant or they just don't have the attention spans to read long winded posts so they skip it.

Either way I am confident that Ron Paul won't get the nomination, this battle IS for Romney or Newt!!! Either one would be better than Obama, so it's pointless arguing what Ron Paul will do as President when he's not going to win anyway. He came in fourth in SC and not spending money in Florida as far as I can tell. I live there!

I'll be happy when this election season is over and Romney or Newt gets the nomination then ATS will be a lot cleaner of no Ron Paul posts. I've already seen a decline in them. I'm literally sick of Ron Paul but mainly his supporters. And no it's not a conspiracy if he doesn't win.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Well, it’s hard to defend RP. He’s NOT a conservative, though Paulites claim he’s the ultimate conservative.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

Well, it’s hard to defend RP. He’s NOT a conservative, though Paulites claim he’s the ultimate conservative.

Yup that's something he flip flops on. He's a libertarian posing as a conservative republican. How do you say? RHINO!!!!

reply to post by seabag


you seriously posted this? lol

right, presenting opinions when you COULD present facts.

How about this fact? Ron never voted to raise taxes in his decades in congress. Conservative? very.

Yet he garners supposedly 0% with these citizens for tax justice. What tax justice? LOL

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by MrWendal

 

What morals? What strong values?

Santorum is a man who claims to be Pro Life. He claims that all abortion is wrong, including in cases of rape and incest. He believes Doctors who perform abortions should be charged with a crime. Rick Santorum has been very clear in saying, ALL abortions are wrong, no exceptions.

Yet in 1997 Rick Santorum admitted that he and his wife planned on having a partial birth abortion for his then pregnant and dying wife. Fortunately, they did not have to have the procedure. Nature took care of the issue for them and she gave birth to a boy at 20 weeks into her pregnancy who then died 2 hours later.

So when it was Rick Santorum's wife who was facing death, abortion was an option, yet he wants to make it illegal for everyone else.

That’s a bit dishonest, bro. This is an attempt to attack him on a hot-button issue, much like the racism charge against RP. Stop reading rags and do some research. The law says...

Title : A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions.
SUMMARY AS OF:
1/21/1997--Introduced. Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit performing a partial birth abortion in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother and no other medical procedure would suffice.

link

UNLESS IT IS NECESSARY TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

Let us talk more about the morals of The Santorum's. The faithful Catholics who believe sex should only be between a man and his wife, in wedlock. Yet his wife, Karen Santorum, prior to getting married spent most of her 20's living in sin, and having premarital sex with her boyfriend who is also a very outspoken obstetrician and abortion provider who is 40 years her elder, and just happens to be the same doctor who delivered her in the 60's.

So what you call "morals and values" of the Santorum's, I call blatant hypocrisy.

Pardon me but Santorum’s wife is not running for office. Obama admits doing coc aine in college and he won an election. What you described happened around the same time and it was something the candidate’s WIFE did, not the actual candidate. Come on, man. You’ve got to do better than!

Thank for posting the law, but what does that have to do with anything? My comment centers around the opinion of Rick Santorum. He has been very clear in his views on abortion which is that ALL abortion is wrong. Even in cases or rape and incest. If Rick Santorum had his way, there would be no abortion of any kind.

Yet when it came to the life his wife, abortion was an option.

This is what we call hypocrisy. Which is also why I bring up the fact that Karen Santorum, who claims to be a devoted Catholic who believes as her husband does, is anything but. I will not speak for you, but speaking for myself, I am sick and tired of Politicians who have an attitude of do what I say, and not as I do.

reply to post by Camperguy

I'm surprised to hear a military man support our current operations. Do you feel the other canadates would make a better Comander and Chief? Who and why? Not trying to be a dick , I honestly am curious being a Vet myself.

Who said I support our current operations?

I support keeping our military bases overseas open. Ron Paul does not.

Supporting keeping bases overseas open has nothing to do with supporting the current operations.

reply to post by Slavich

Are you saying that there are other countries that are capable of invading the United States by land? Or do you fail to realize our superior geographical position on the planet?

Sure there are! Aside from our completely open boarders and lax immigration policy, how about this:

Russian Spetnaz troops could start the invasion by seizing several major airports and seaports in Alaska even as every American military base was either sabotaged or attacked by cruise missiles launched from submarines right off Alaskan and all American coastlands. This would immediately be followed by the insertion of millions of Russian and Chinese troops and armored vehicles which would arrive in Alaska via a 24/7 airlift and sealift of the armies of “Gog and Magog” into Alaska. China has built numerous tanks and armored vehicles which are designed to be small enough to be transported large distances via large air transports, as a previous post at this website detailed. It is my view that Russian and Chinese war-planners have been planning for this invasion of North America for many years. As soon as these forces landed in Alaska they would be sent southward into Canada toward the USA to seize all the physical assets of North America for themselves (as prophesied in Ezekiel 38:12-13). New invasion forces would arrive in a steady and continuous stream of airplanes and troopships. Container ships could be adapted to transport troops and military equipment for this purpose.

link

why not just make an offer to all countries that have American bases in them, cover the entire cost of operating the base as well as the pay of the troops annually, and we will leave the bases open otherwise refer to Ron Paul for your briefing of our exit plan...

reply to post by CynicalWabbit

By agreement the US currently has only 28,500 troops in Korea, South Korea has an active military of 653,000 and an active reserve of 3,200,000. So clearly we are proping up the South Korean Military

The fact that America has boots on the ground is a HUGE deterrent to the North. Any attack resulting in the loss of US military life would receive a retaliation they couldn’t handle in 1950 and damn sure couldn’t handle now. Put yourself in their shoes. Would you think twice?

I'm sure an Iran with 1 nuclear weapon will scare the Israelis to death Current estimates are that Israel has over 400 nuclear weapons. The fear mongers want you to believe that Iran will be a threat only so the US can invade for the big oil interests just like Iraq.

1 nuclear weapon in Iran's possession scares me to death!! What planet are you on that you are free from fallout?

reply to post by seabag

Why don't we just march right into North Korea? We have such superiority. What is keeping us from invading?
Surely we can save the North Koreans from their evil dictator, can't we?

reply to post by MrWendal

Thank for posting the law, but what does that have to do with anything? My comment centers around the opinion of Rick Santorum. He has been very clear in his views on abortion which is that ALL abortion is wrong. Even in cases or rape and incest. If Rick Santorum had his way, there would be no abortion of any kind.

That’s not true. He voted for the law I posted, sir, which includes provisions for extreme cases. I’m a conservative and that view is shared by the majority, with the exception of the religious extreme. You’d be amazed what you’d do if I threatened the life of you wife if you didn’t comply…

This is what we call hypocrisy. Which is also why I bring up the fact that Karen Santorum, who claims to be a devoted Catholic who believes as her husband does, is anything but. I will not speak for you, but speaking for myself, I am sick and tired of Politicians who have an attitude of do what I say, and not as I do.

I don’t like that either. I don’t believe your view of Santorum’s position is accurate though. And in the Christian faith, all Christian (all humans) are sinners; hence the term redemption. Are you perfect or infallible?

Redemption - The restoration of man from the bondage of sin to the liberty of the children of God through the satisfactions and merits of Christ. link

reply to post by eLPresidente

you seriously posted this? lol

right, presenting opinions when you COULD present facts.

How about this fact? Ron never voted to raise taxes in his decades in congress. Conservative? very.

Yet he garners supposedly 0% with these citizens for tax justice. What tax justice? LOL

There was nothing inaccurate in my post, sir. Why don’t you use your own brain and stop relying on what your fellow Paulites tell you?

He earned a 0% rating!

CTJ

reply to post by Chamberf=6


I do not. What I said was based on the Op only. That is not something I would ever endorse even for my worst enemy.

reply to post by seabag

Well, it’s hard to defend RP. He’s NOT a conservative, though Paulites claim he’s the ultimate conservative.

He's a Classical Liberal, also known as a Libertarian, which is a form of "Conservatism". Think of it like a circle.. you can be so conservative that eventually you're a Liberal.

reply to post by CaDreamer

why not just make an offer to all countries that have American bases in them, cover the entire cost of operating the base as well as the pay of the troops annually, and we will leave the bases open otherwise refer to Ron Paul for your briefing of our exit plan...

What countries have US military bases? And of those, which ones want us to leave????

The only exit plan I want to see from Ron Paul is the one that involves him dropping out of the presidential race!

As I've pointed out...it's not about money because the defense budget is only 20% of Federal Spending, so you can drop that tired argument.

The fact that "christians" would boo the Golden Rule is just another sign, (to me) of how far we have fallen as a country both in morals AND common sense.

reply to post by schadenfreude

Great point. It is extremely distressing to see people that claim that they are Christians ignore the words of Christ. Furthermore, as a Christian, I truly doubt that if Christ were here in the flesh today, He would certainly not approve of our nation's belligerent attitude and actions. People may call themselves "Christian", but the Christ I know would never approve of what they are proposing.
Ron Paul, in my humble opinion, truly understands Christianity, much better than the other candidates in either party, and he LIVES out that understanding.
It is a sad society when the MSM, and the majority of the people, and the other candidates claim to be Christian, and have the gall to call Ron Paul a "kook" for advocating talk, rather than bombing civilians back to the stone age. Such people are barbarians.

On the way to the Florida GOP Debate - Ron Paul 2012

Obviously many people support him and his decent outlook on life.

youtube tag isnt working.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by seabag

 

Well, it’s hard to defend RP. He’s NOT a conservative, though Paulites claim he’s the ultimate conservative.

He's a Classical Liberal, also known as a Libertarian, which is a form of "Conservatism". Think of it like a circle.. you can be so conservative that eventually you're a Liberal.

You're exactly right. It does come full circle. If you look between extreme libertarian and extreme liberal in that circle you'll find anarchy; go one way or the other and you're back to civilization.

Very. Mitt Romney is going to win the nomination and eventually the general election. We will then have 4 years of prosperity with lots and lots of jobs being created (whether in defense/military or the private sector) with a successful businessman and veteran in job creation as commander in chief. We will also invade and reduce Iran, Syria, North Korea, and possibly Cuba and Venezuela to wastelands, institute puppet governments that obey our interests, and seize their resources. If all plans go well, we will continue this top-down approach throughout South America and Asia until 85% or more of the world's resources belong to us. We can only get this done with strong conservatives as commanders in chief such as Mitt Romney and even Gingrich or Santorum could do well.

Our main goal is to give the majority of Americans the good taste of a true conservative government, so they keep voting conservative. Pacifist liberal democrats and Ron Paul can ruin this great plan, and should thus be stopped at all costs (whether through attack ads, corporate donations, etc).