Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

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

2»

Replies

  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    N320AW wrote: »
    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!

    Just one question: how will Mr. Paul get everything done plans on doing? We're electing a President, not a dictator/potentate. Last time I checked, he'll need Congress to go along with his goals. Little thing called "checks and balances."

    And while Mr. Paul might not be your definition of a politician, he still is one. I mean, he fits all the basic qualifications: runs for office, gets elected, making promises. Seems to have a capacious ego, usually wears a good suit, and does smile a bit.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • N320AWN320AW Senior Member Posts: 648 Senior Member
    Just one question: how will Mr. Paul get everything done plans on doing? We're electing a President, not a dictator/potentate. Last time I checked, he'll need Congress to go along with his goals. Little thing called "checks and balances."

    And while Mr. Paul might not be your definition of a politician, he still is one. I mean, he fits all the basic qualifications: runs for office, gets elected, making promises. Seems to have a capacious ego, usually wears a good suit, and does smile a bit.

    Hardly anyone who is elected President gets everything done. Of course congress has a say in the process. But, at least with Paul, we will have someone in the WH who is ready and willing to take congress on up front. Hey, Bush invaded Iraq without any approval from congress. Ron Paul will just pull our troops out of these hot-spots, congress notwithstanding.

    A problem I see with Paul is that he is basically not electable. This is too bad because most people have knee-jerk reactions and tend to cast their vote for a possible winner. I'm still going to support him anyway because its still the American way. And my choice!
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    Without approval from Congress??? Then how was the action paid for? What was the root of Sen. Kerry's famous "I was for the invasion before I was against it." Why did Senator Clinton say, basically, that they authorized the action without thinking that Bush would take them up on the offer?

    Finally, if the invasion wasn't approved, why did Congress pass the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 on October 16, 2002? It passed 297-133 with 3 "Presents."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq

    I'd suggest you actually learn about what you speak of so confidently. Because you're batting average ain't so great.

    Also, pulling troops out Congress notwithstanding? :roll:
    I'm just here for snark.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    Hakkonen wrote: »
    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.

    I won't waste my time trying to teach you history, since you apparently favor the carefully edited versions that justify the politics you favor. But I will tell you that using international law as a baseline for anything is silly, since it is based solely on treaties and agreements that are regularly ignored just as casually as they are enforced, by all the parties to them.

    If international law was anything but a sad joke, there would be no contest for the ownership of Israel, since it was the UN that established it in the first place. The Middle East is a free-for-all, and the strongest wins, always. We should support Israel because it is a successful democracy that has turned chaos into order, while defending itself on all sides for decades, from an ideology that is about as far away from our own ideas of freedom as it is possible to be.
  • N320AWN320AW Senior Member Posts: 648 Senior Member
    This is the basis for my assertion:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html

    Fact or fiction?
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    What assertion is that? Did you not read my post? Did you not notice that the resolution I linked gave the President to do the authority to do all he did? That Congress kept funding the actions? No, no war has been declared, but President Bush did not request a declaration of war. What Mr. Paul put up is neither fact nor fiction, but opinion.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • N320AWN320AW Senior Member Posts: 648 Senior Member
    What assertion is that? Did you not read my post? Did you not notice that the resolution I linked gave the President to do the authority to do all he did? That Congress kept funding the actions? No, no war has been declared, but President Bush did not request a declaration of war. What Mr. Paul put up is neither fact nor fiction, but opinion.

    Well, opinion is either based on one or the other.

    Speaking of opinions, here is what the United Nations had to say:

    "The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.[58][59] A "war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force.” We note with “deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression.”[59][59][60]
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    So, who gives a rosy red rodent's rectum about what the UN says? Aren't their people prone to commit all sorts of human rights violations, including rape, wherever they're supposedly in control of areas all over the world? Why do we continue to give these people a place to squat in our country? Throw the bums out!
    Jerry
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,721 Senior Member
    I will say it again. Get the US out of the un and get the un out of the United States.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    So, who gives a rosy red rodent's rectum about what the UN says? Jerry

    Teach you pretty well summed it up for me. I mean, Cuba is on the UN human rights committee. Duh.

    Lemme as one question to the Ron Paulites --- what's this deal about his wearing fake eyebrows? Whom do you know in your everyday life who does that? What do you think this says about the mental stability of the eyebrow-merkin wearer?
  • N320AWN320AW Senior Member Posts: 648 Senior Member
    What assertion is that? Did you not read my post? Did you not notice that the resolution I linked gave the President to do the authority to do all he did? That Congress kept funding the actions? No, no war has been declared, but President Bush did not request a declaration of war. What Mr. Paul put up is neither fact nor fiction, but opinion.

    Now, back to Ron Paul!

    Breamfisher, since you have catagorized Congressmans Paul's statement as just an OPINION, then why is it that none of his opponents, in all of the Republican debates, have never challenged his opinions about our invasion of Iraq?

    If his statements were not so succinct, they would have attacked him like a school of priranhas on a bloody corpse!
  • N320AWN320AW Senior Member Posts: 648 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    Or, maybe, they get the fact he is bat scat crazy and just ignore him.

    Tonight that "bat scat crazy" is #2 in the Iowa polls!
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    Iowa polls? You mean the caucus that hasn't been held yet, and bats about 50% in being predictive of the Republican nomination?

    Why haven't his opponents attacked him in the debates? I don't believe the subject has come up. I've not really paid attention to the debates, so I could be wrong about that, but the coverage I've read hasn't mentioned Iraq. And if it has, it's just that: his opinion. We're all entitled to them. I won't speculate on why is hasn't been brought up because I'm not a mind reader.

    And being succint has nothing to do with fact. It means that the person saying or writing the statement does it without any extra words (and I'm not really sure it's Dr. Paul who does that, he might have a writer like most politicians.)

    For instance, I could say someone is bereft of logic, common sense, basic moral guidance, and without fail will endeavor to tell falsehoods.

    A succint way of saying the same thing is to say that they're an ignorant, lying degenerate.

    By the way: are you going to address the issues I've asked you about?
    1. Your quote that "Ron Paul stands for everything this country should have NOT done for many years. The most important being common sense!" Why should we support someone who stands for everything the country should not have done? I'd rather support the man who stands for everything the country should have done.
    2. The Iraq invasion was authorized by Congress.
    3. How will Dr. Paul get his agenda done without Congressional assistance? Looking at his ads, he'll magically poof things away.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    Watch completely.


    I love Ron Paul, he's my personal U.S. Representative. He is as straight shooting as anyone in our government and way moreso than most and what he says you can take it to the bank that he truly believes it. If he gets the Republican nomination I will vote for him. However, all that said he is an Isolationist to a degree. I do NOT agree with him on this. Not completely anyway. The Blowback may have come from some of our passed actions but who says what we did was wrong at the time? This guy on the video accuses Ike of doing what he did because of some political motivation. The Dummycrats would have you believe Ike was this sort of idiot, but I was around back then and Ike was no idiot. he did nothing out of political motivation. He was a good, honest conservative and had a big hand in winning WWII. Some would have you believe different, but they are full of it.

    This in part sounds like a liberal production using Ron Paul. The reason we are in the Middle East, I believe, is two fold. One, and a very big reason, is to protect our ally Israel. That's the reason the radical Iranians dont like us. The educated Iranians love us. But they are kept down under the fanatic's thumb. The other reason we are there is what any sane nation in our predicament would pursue, to protect our oil interests. I mean the Tree huggers won't allow us to drill for our own oil or slack off on the environmental laws enough to let us build efficient refineries. So we need to keep an eye on things or we'll be paying $500 a barrel for oil and we'll all be forced to walk and ride bicycles, which by the way is what the environmental whacko tree huggers want us to have to do anyway!

    Another thing I disagree with on this video is, yes Saddam was sort of an ally, but not a really friendly one. He was a criminal. He killed his own people. But this Video is not mentioning that. Why did he invade Kuwait? Because he wanted their oil and he really didn't understand the American mind set. He, like many other tyrants, such as Adolf Hitler and the Japanese leaders before WWII under estimated us. They didn't think we had the heart to retaliate. He really believed the Western powers would just sit back and let him take it. Wrongo Saddam.

    Anyway, I think this is all some dreamed up crap to get us off balance and split the conservative votes of this country up before the election. I think that if Ron Paul doesn't get the Republican Nomination, they would love to influence him to run as an independent sans Ross Perot and divide the conservative vote to where Obama would be a shoe in. Don't fall for all this crap people! And I would recommend everyone be careful what they post up here or anywhere because things may not be as they seem or as you hear.

    And what did this have to do with us not listening to what our veterans say? I know many veterans that wouldn't believe what this video said either. If you vote for Ron Paul, do it because he's an honest conservative politician, not because you think he's got the inside track on foreign policy.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    Whew!!!!! Amen to Bream and Bisley. Good write up by both of you. Hakkonen, I think you fell into the Kool Aid vat and had to drink your way out.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    Does it bother anyone that, if Paul were to win, he would be 81 years of age in his fourth year as pres?
  • mkk41mkk41 Banned Posts: 1,932 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

    Hey , I voted for Perot. Twice in fact!

    I still agree with him that America should be run like a business and the President should be the CEO. And he would have been a good one to do it.

    Leave the politics to others.

    Not necessarily Admiral Stockdale though!
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