Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

So you dont like Ron Paul because of his foreign policy?

Watch completely.
«1

Replies

  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 902 Senior Member
    I do not like Ron Paul as he has not demonstrated any Leadership or Executive experience. Just because he is a Constitutionalist and for small government, does not qualify him to Commander in Chief. In many of the debates he has refused to answer many of the questions posed to him, instead giving his usual talking points, just like so many other politicians. He presents the least image of a real executive, IMO.

    He couldn't get nominated last time and will not get nominated this time either.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,118 Senior Member
    Doesn't do a thing to change my mind about him....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    His erratic rants in several of the debates put him in the same "raving moonbat" category as Ross Perot, and a lot of us who were of voting age back then remember what his antics caused. Carving away a substantial chunk of the ultra-conservative vote assures that we will end up with a fatal dose of communism, especially in the upcoming election. The circular firing squad the wannabes are creating right now might accomplish that feat anyway.
    Jerry
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 25,126 Senior Member
    I figured it out, you like RP----he is not electable in this election; maybe any national election.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,911 Senior Member
    I guess no one thinks the government creates problems, lies about what they are doing and then finds someone else to blame for the results.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    I watched the video, it was not compelling at all, to me, at least. Lots of emotional appeal always puts me on guard, it's a tool of the left.
    So a bit of googling and I came up with two interesting articles, the first entitled "The 'Blowback Myth : How Bad History Could Make Bad Policy" by Thomas H. Henriksen of the Hoover Institute. It's a long read, but worth it. Blowback is not set in stone, rather far from it. Those who want to blame U.S. interventions overseas for things like the 9/11 attack, just have it wrong.

    The article begins: "Like other accepted historical myths—Paul Kennedy’s American "imperial overstretch," CIA knowledge of a contra–drug dealers connection, or the "accidental presidency" of George W. Bush—the Afghanistan blowback myth has taken on a life of its own. A putative CIA term, blowback has insinuated itself into a variety of pundits’ pontifications."

    http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6516

    A Wikipedia article :"A number of commentators have described Al-Qaeda attacks as blowback or an unintended consequence of American aid to the mujahideen. In response, the American government, American and Pakistani intelligence officials involved in the operation, and at least one journalist (Peter Bergen) have denied this theory. They maintain the aid was given out by the Pakistani government, that it went to Afghan - not foreign - mujahideen, and that there was no contact between the Afghan Arabs and the CIA or other American officials, let alone arming, training, coaching or indoctrination."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_%E2%80%93_Osama_bin_Laden_controversy
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    As a matter of principle, I do not watch videos or other links that the poster doesn't at least take time to summarize or explain. So I have zero idea what the video says and won't watch it until you provide YOUR opinions and thoughts on the thing.

    However, I don't think that Ron Paul has changed his stance on an essential "neutral" policy re. Israel. I understand that the US should not be a World Policeman. But total isolationism and neutrality are also wrong.

    Look what happened to Denmark or Holland when they tried to be neutral to the Nazis. Look what happened to most of my family members in Amsterdam (you'll find them on the Shoah -- Holocaust --- registry of those murdered in the death camps).

    We all have our hot buttons. For most of us, it's 2nd Amendment rights, of course. We have slightly different views but we do agree on certain essential rights of gun ownership. And that's certainly a hot button for me, too.

    Another of my serious passions is to be pro-Israel. I think it's wrong to take an essentially neutral stance, as if Iran or Syria are "equal" in behavior. If countries bordering Israel would simply STOP sending rockets daily into the Israeli villages, and REMOVE from their charters (and behavior) the express desire to destroy Israel and kill all Jews, then maybe a neutral attitude could be explained.

    Until I hear an express condemnation of these destructive policies from Ron Paul, he's beneath my consideration.

    Not everyone is a strong supporter of Israel, fine. But it's my choice to be one.
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,721 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    As a matter of principle, I do not watch videos or other links that the poster doesn't at least take time to summarize or explain. So I have zero idea what the video says and won't watch it until you provide YOUR opinions and thoughts on the thing.

    You are entertaining Sam.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Buford wrote: »
    You are entertaining Sam.

    I don't know how to take that but you gotta understand, if someone is passionate about something enough to post a new thread, then fer pete's sake, SAY something about it that YOU personally think is worth sharing. And then, also, post a link if you want.

    But we don't visit this forum to learn what videos are out there on the net -- otherwise we'd just cruise for popup ads and junk videos. We come here to talk about what OTHERS here think and not what some slick ad thinks.

    So when someome ONLY posts a banner or ad or link and doesn't give his own views, it's lazy lazy lazy and if the person says "watch this" my reply is "nope".

    Instead, say, "Here's why I like Ron Paul (or Romney or whomever), a, b, c." AND there's a video that backs me up. Now I'm okay with that.

    But don't come here, post a link, then run away run away, expecting us to simply "Duh, must click, man says to, duh" because we're not mind-numbed democrats. We think for ourselves and we want YOU (the people who start threads) to SAY something that YOU think.

    Nuff said.
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 25,126 Senior Member
    Sam:

    I for the most part don't watch them either even more so for e-mails.
  • deadeyedeadeye Member Posts: 73 Member
    I believe that Ron Paul is the best of all the GOP candidates by a long shot. If one of the rest of those clowns gets nominated and does get elected we are gonna be screwed if we arent already.
    No Need To Run, You Will Only Die Tired
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,721 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    I don't know how to take that but you gotta understand, if someone is passionate about something enough to post a new thread, then fer pete's sake, SAY something about it that YOU personally think is worth sharing. And then, also, post a link if you want.

    But we don't visit this forum to learn what videos are out there on the net -- otherwise we'd just cruise for popup ads and junk videos. We come here to talk about what OTHERS here think and not what some slick ad thinks.

    So when someome ONLY posts a banner or ad or link and doesn't give his own views, it's lazy lazy lazy and if the person says "watch this" my reply is "nope".

    Instead, say, "Here's why I like Ron Paul (or Romney or whomever), a, b, c." AND there's a video that backs me up. Now I'm okay with that.

    But don't come here, post a link, then run away run away, expecting us to simply "Duh, must click, man says to, duh" because we're not mind-numbed democrats. We think for ourselves and we want YOU (the people who start threads) to SAY something that YOU think.

    Nuff said.

    Point made.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    Thanks for the spam, but the questions about Ron Paul's foreign policy views on the use of force have still never been answered, and I suspect they never will be. I've been waiting four years for any Ron Paul disciple to do something besides change the subject when this question is asked. It's kind of important, you know.
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,721 Senior Member
    I'll vote for who ever thinks we should mind our own business. We need to clean up our back yard before anymore aid money leaves this country.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    Thanks for the spam, but the questions about Ron Paul's foreign policy views on the use of force have still never been answered, and I suspect they never will be. I've been waiting four years for any Ron Paul disciple to do something besides change the subject when this question is asked. It's kind of important, you know.

    This is where Paul leaves me behind, too. I have NO problems if someone says, "Vietnam was a mistake" or "Iraq was a mistake" and here's why, etc etc etc. because this is a legit stance that can be defended and challenged.

    I myself have serious doubts about whether our involvement in Vietnam was worth the cost in life and turmoil. This doesn't lessen our great military and they way they performed, hampered as they were by "rules".

    I'm still undecided about Iraq. I tend to think it was worth it, marginally. But I'm glad to hear otherwise.

    This however isn't how Ron Paul sees things. He seems to want ZERO involvement of any kind and appears to think that, for example, all the countries in the Middle East are "equal" in their rights and policies, like flipping a coin. And that we can "get along" with these tyrant Jew-hating leaders as long as we're "nice" to them.

    BS!! Flash back to the old newsreels of Neville Chamberlain, getting off the plane and waving the signed and guaranteed promises from Chancellor Hitler that there will be no more aggression. How long did that last?

    Sit down and READ a few genuine, authoritative books on the history of WW-1 and WW-2. Read a book or two on the history of the Middle East. Not political diatribes but honest, historic studies.

    You will easily see that the US could have avoided entry into WW1 but at great cost to the future of Europe, even worse than what happened. And WW2? Staying neutral would have been impossible. Heck, even the Canadians fought the Germans!

    Read about the Middle East. Read how it's been "kill all Jews" from the beginning. It's impossible to sit back and pretend to be neutral.

    If Ron Paul were to be sensible, cautious, careful in his support of Israel, fine. But he really wants the US to ignore the Middle East, pretend that powderkeg doesn't exist or hasn't been driven by radical Islamic regimes whose written, stated policy -- actually documented in their charter -- is total destruction of Israel and death to all Jews.

    Sorry, that won't wash with me. If a Paul supporter would like to tell me the list of Middle East history books he's read that he used to form an opinion that parallels Paul's, go fer it.
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Member Posts: 203 Member
    Your interpretation of Paul's views towards the ME are incorrect and I bet that not one of you have ever visited his website to find out what they are but mostly get your indoctrination from Hannity or Limbaugh. Both of which seem rather petrified that Paul might win Iowa that they have to perpetuate lies. Limbaugh has gone so far as to subtly endorse Jeb Bush on Monday... lol. Ron Paul is the ONLY congressman who DEFENDED Israel's right to defend itself when it bombed the Iraqi Nuclear sites... everyone else chastised them.

    We cant afford your US world view, it is just that simple. This is not pre-WW2. The Iranians are not the Germans. The Jews are not defenseless(we harm their safety more than we help it.)

    Today's headline: US Fed asks banks to keep more cash at hand

    Wake up. The unravelling is coming. They fear the coming run on the banks. When this baby rolls over, you wont have enough ammo and guns to protect yourself and there will be no place to hide. And our way of life will be lost forever. The American experiment will never be restored.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,118 Senior Member
    :popcorn:
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    Your interpretation of Paul's views towards the ME are incorrect and I bet that not one of you have ever visited his website to find out what they are but mostly get your indoctrination from Hannity or Limbaugh. Both of which seem rather petrified that Paul might win Iowa that they have to perpetuate lies. Limbaugh has gone so far as to subtly endorse Jeb Bush on Monday... lol. Ron Paul is the ONLY congressman who DEFENDED Israel's right to defend itself when it bombed the Iraqi Nuclear sites... everyone else chastised them.

    We cant afford your US world view, it is just that simple. This is not pre-WW2. The Iranians are not the Germans. The Jews are not defenseless(we harm their safety more than we help it.)

    Today's headline: US Fed asks banks to keep more cash at hand

    Wake up. The unravelling is coming. They fear the coming run on the banks. When this baby rolls over, you wont have enough ammo and guns to protect yourself and there will be no place to hide. And our way of life will be lost forever. The American experiment will never be restored.

    I'm not biting on the same old straw-man arguments you put up four years ago.

    When you can tell me what I need to know about Ron Paul's ideas on the use of force, we can have a conversation. I don't intend to pore over his website trying to find the answers to questions I have already seen him dodge on live TV or video. I don't need to see him drone on and on about the mistakes others have made and how the terrorist attacks on us were our fault. I need to know what uses of force, blockades, sanctions, and various other acts of war, by American presidents, that he has approved of, else I will continue to assume he is either a pacifist or an appeaser...the very type of politician I can never support for the job of Commander-In-Chief.

    Don't you want to know the answer to that? This is an issue that is every bit as important as the ones you bring up to change the subject. You are apparently 100% sold on him, yet you can't possibly have a clue as to how he might respond to an attack on this country or on an ally.

    :popcorn:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    His erratic rants in several of the debates put him in the same "raving moonbat" category as Ross Perot, and a lot of us who were of voting age back then remember what his antics caused. Carving away a substantial chunk of the ultra-conservative vote assures that we will end up with a fatal dose of communism, especially in the upcoming election. The circular firing squad the wannabes are creating right now might accomplish that feat anyway.
    Jerry


    :agree::that:
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    I agree with Bisley. YOU tell us about Paul's mideast policy, do NOT tell us to go to his website.

    So now tell me, what BOOKS HAVE YOU READ about the middle east to learn about things there? This is a partial list of the ones I've read:
    A History of the Middle East, Mansfield
    A Peace to End All Peace, Fromkin
    History of the Middle East, Catherwood
    What Went Wrong?, Lewis
    Israel, a History, Gilbert
    The Case for Israel, Dershowitz

    And yes the last book is definitely pro-Israel. But the others are neutral. So now tell me the books YOU have read on the subject.... tick tock...

    Now we won't have enough ammo or guns? What is this, Red Tide or whatever that Russian invasion movie was? No place to hide from whom? And what actually does Ron Paul say about an invasion where we'll need guns and ammo? I don't recall this. Refresh my memory.

    And don't tell me to go to a Ron Paul site and watch a video. YOU watch the video and the YOU tell us the critical facts about it. This isn't a class assignment.

    Oh, and PLEASE tell me, how exactly do we harm the Israeli safety more than we help it under Ron Paul's ideas? Doesn't he want to cut off all aid to Israel? Or am I wrong there? Correct me if I'm wrong.

    I DO know that RP said the way to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons is to be "nicer" to them and "talk" with them. It's Neville Chamberlain and Chancellor Hitler all over again. Head in the sand mentality -- if we ignore Iran they'll be nice to us and maybe they'll go away.

    Pardon me, but that sounds like liberal self defense logic: If I'm nice to criminals and rapists they won't break into my home and savage me. D'oh!
  • 104RFAST104RFAST Senior Member Posts: 1,281 Senior Member
    I don't trust any candidate who simply will not answer the question they were asked, instead going off on a rant about talking points they want to discuss and have
    rehearsed. Paul has a history of avoiding questions as do most of the current crop. The other night Bill O'Riley asked Romney if he thought Obama was a socialist, his
    response told me all I need to know, he's a coward. At least Gingrich is willing to say openly that Obama is a radical Marxist Socialist, that's a good starting point.
    Having said that, I will vote for anybody running against Obama, warts and all.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    You're right, politicians all know how to avoid making any definitive statement. They're experts at dissembling.

    But I'm still waiting for some feedback from the RP supporters here, their own comments, not instructions to visit a website. This isn't facebook where people post links to goofy videos or horrible pop singers. We come here to discuss things and SAY things that we're thinking, not parrot stuff a politician tells us. Why this forum is so excellent is the different opinions given here, interesting comments even though we might disagree with them. So speak up, gang. Tell me how RP plans to deal with Iran going nuclear.

    Some months ago someone -- I forget who -- said that one day we'd want to get down on our knees to Ron Paul and beg forgiveness. Er, NO. On my knees to God, sure. Beg forgiveness from a dear friend or loved one I've wronged, sure. But a politician? Not in a gazillion years.
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 902 Senior Member
    A former aide to Ron Paul for 12 years has some interesting comments about Paul's views on Foreign Policy, at http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ex-aide-to-ron-paul-makes-stunning-claims-about-old-boss-anti-israel-911-truther-doesnt-believe-u-s-had-any-business-fighting-hitler/

    Fox News had an interesting visual on RP's performance in Congress, where he had proposed 620 laws, only 4 were voted on and only 1 passed.

    I would like Ron Paul supporters explain why the believe he is qualified to be President as a leader and what executive experience he has demonstrated. Seems to me he has a very lackluster performance in Congress for several decades and only other experience was as a medical doctor.
  • HakkonenHakkonen Member Posts: 251 Member
    I watched the video. Paul said some things that I agree with. I've believed for a long time that, in a number of ways, we are our own worst enemy when it comes to intervening in other countries. The whole thing about the CIA bringing down Mossadegh? True. Every word of it. The government of the United States of America, which claims to hold democracy among the highest virtues, deliberately and with malice aforethought engineered the ouster of a democratically elected leader, for no other reason than that he wanted one of our allies to quit ripping off his country. Do the Iranians still remember that? I'm sure they do. I know I would, in their place. I'd be furious if somebody pulled that on us. And hey, look at that: the Iranians are furious at us. The Islamist government over there has been riding (and fueling) that fury for 32 years now, and shows no signs that it's in danger of burning out. Funny how that works out, don'tcha think?

    I've also believed for a long time that we need to scale back our support for Israel. The Israelis are hardly the victims of unjustified aggression they like to paint themselves as; Israeli settlements on Palestinian land are blatantly illegal, the Israelis acknowledge that they're illegal, but refuse to remove them. They engage in deliberate provocation, they treat the Palestinians like prisoners in their own country, and they do it all in the sure and certain knowledge that if the Arabs were to finally unite against them, they could come crying to us and we'd make it all better. The government of Israel is like a spoiled child, and it's about damn time we let- no, forced them to stand on their own. Does Israel have a right to defend itself? Of course it does. But the Israelis are just as guilty of perpetuating the conflict as the Arabs are.

    I want to bring all our troops home from places like Europe, and Korea, and Japan. We spend more on our military, both in terms of number of dollars and as a percentage of GDP, than any other country on Earth. We spend more than the next twenty nations combined. How is it that the People's Republic of China, which has more than four times as many people as the United States, can defend itself with a military budget less than one-fifth of ours? Simple: they don't set themselves up as the world's policemen. Neither should we. Interventionism does make us poorer and less safe.

    So, I guess I kind of have the opposite problem to that posited by the OP: Ron Paul's foreign policy is the only thing I like about him.
    "If money is speech, then no money means no speech." --Bill Moyers

    Money is not speech, corporations are not people, and wealth does not trickle down.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    Hakkonen wrote: »
    But the Israelis are just as guilty of perpetuating the conflict as the Arabs are.

    That is simply not true. Of course they have conducted pre-emptive attacks, assassinations, and retaliated with excessive force on numerous occasions. They are a tiny country, barely wide enough in places to mount a workable defense plan, and surrounded by enemies who will not even concede that they have a right to draw breath, much less exist as a nation.

    You also overlook the fact that they have given back huge chunks of land, as peace overtures, that they took legitimately in self-defense conflicts that would have increased their security immensely, had they kept it, and that they could have conquered and occupied most of their neighboring countries on numerous occasions. They have gone to great lengths and given up much security, in an attempt to be considered a legitimate democracy by the western world.

    As for our support of Israel, why wouldn't we? We either stand up for the freedom of men to rule themselves and live their lives the way they want, or we let the brutes and bullies of the world subjugate them.
    How is it that the People's Republic of China, which has more than four times as many people as the United States, can defend itself with a military budget less than one-fifth of ours? Simple: they don't set themselves up as the world's policemen. Neither should we. Interventionism does make us poorer and less safe.

    That is quickly changing, and as their military and economic capabilities quickly approach the level of ours, you may see them dictating to the world in a way that the USA never has. There will be a world superpower, and if you honestly don't mind that superpower being somebody besides us, you need to brush up on your history.

    They don't set themselves up as the world's policemen for two reasons. The first is that they don't give a damn about the world, beyond what they can extract from it to meet their own desires; and second, because they have never had the resources to project power around the world. When they do, the Cold War will be seen to have been child's play, compared to the new one that pits a declining western world with a very robust China.
  • N320AWN320AW Senior Member Posts: 648 Senior Member
    deadeye wrote: »
    I believe that Ron Paul is the best of all the GOP candidates by a long shot. If one of the rest of those clowns gets nominated and does get elected we are gonna be screwed if we arent already.

    I agree. Ron Paul stands for everything this country should have NOT done for many years. The most important being common sense!

    The last thing we need in the WH is another politician!
  • HakkonenHakkonen Member Posts: 251 Member
    bisley wrote: »
    That is simply not true.
    Of course it is. Israeli settlements continue to expand in the West Bank in blatant contravention of international law. The government of Israel is held hostage by Judaist zealots who hold to the idea that Yahweh has given the Jewish people a divine mandate to rule over the entire Holy Land, an idea every bit as absurd as that held dear by Islamist zealots on the other side, that Allah has given Muslims a divine mandate to rule over the entire Holy Land. Both parties are at fault, and if there is ever to be real peace in the region, both parties must abandon their delusions of grandeur.
    That is quickly changing, and as their military and economic capabilities quickly approach the level of ours, you may see them dictating to the world in a way that the USA never has. There will be a world superpower, and if you honestly don't mind that superpower being somebody besides us, you need to brush up on your history.

    They don't set themselves up as the world's policemen for two reasons. The first is that they don't give a damn about the world, beyond what they can extract from it to meet their own desires; and second, because they have never had the resources to project power around the world. When they do, the Cold War will be seen to have been child's play, compared to the new one that pits a declining western world with a very robust China.
    The idea that attending to our own defense rather than others' means losing our status as a superpower is a pretty bold assertion. We can reduce our military spending to more manageable levels and still retain the ability to meet any putative threat from China.
    "If money is speech, then no money means no speech." --Bill Moyers

    Money is not speech, corporations are not people, and wealth does not trickle down.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    N320AW wrote: »
    I agree. Ron Paul stands for everything this country should have NOT done for many years. The most important being common sense!

    The last thing we need in the WH is another politician!

    He's been elected how many times? How many terms? Looking at his record he's served on and off since 1975, and run for the Presidential nomination 3 times, counting now. So how is he not a politician?

    And if he stands for everything we should not have done, why should we elect him?
    I'm just here for snark.
  • N320AWN320AW Senior Member Posts: 648 Senior Member
    He's been elected how many times? How many terms? Looking at his record he's served on and off since 1975, and run for the Presidential nomination 3 times, counting now. So how is he not a politician?

    And if he stands for everything we should not have done, why should we elect him?

    When I speak of politician I am referring to the stereotypical type. You know, thousand dollar suit, big flashy smile, nothing but promises (most will not be kept as per history), and the usual ego! Actually I think I just described Mitt Romney!

    As far as Paul is concerned, anyone who wants to do away with the Department of Education and stop this nation-building tripe will have my vote!
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    I'd be interested where Hakkonen gets his facts about the Middle East, where he blames Israel equally with Islamic govermnents whose STATED goal is the destruction of Israel and death to all Jews (whom they conveniently call Zionists).

    Has he been reading the Protocols of the Elders of Zion again? Or what? Please tell us what books you base your knowledge on.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement