AR15.Com Archives
 I friggin hate to say it, but...........
nukldragr  [Team Member]
8/3/2011 4:54:09 PM
Ron Paul may just now have my vote in the primary. Oh and vote out evryone who voted yes!!!!!!!!!
wrighteouskill  [Member]
8/3/2011 5:34:53 PM
dont know why it took you so long to come around to the revolution???? if you want to keep your freedoms ron is the man with the plan.
SWATH  [Member]
8/3/2011 5:35:05 PM
Why would you hate to say that? You are sticking to your principles. Cheers.
packnru  [Team Member]
8/3/2011 6:52:46 PM
Hell, I voted for him in 1988 when he ran as a Libertarian.

I will vote for him any chance I get, twice if they let me.
nukldragr  [Team Member]
8/4/2011 11:22:58 AM
Originally Posted By SWATH:
Why would you hate to say that? You are sticking to your principles. Cheers.


I believe his foreign policy is suicidal
1sonofliberty  [Team Member]
8/5/2011 3:53:27 AM
+1 for Ron Paul

Sharpshooter  [Member]
8/5/2011 11:20:14 AM
In the past I have not voted for him, but he is the only one not consumed with greed and power, and as such has the ethical and moral fortitude to not only tell us what is wrong, but what we must do to fix it. Washington is filled with those who are not looking out for the best interests of the nation.

It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. James Madison
SWATH  [Member]
8/5/2011 2:39:12 PM
Ron Paul proposes legisaltion to eliminate "gun free zones"

Texas Congressman and GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul continues to champion constitutional rights. His latest endeavor is a bill that would abolish “gun-free zones,” ultimately permitting teachers to carry firearms on school grounds. Predictably, anti-gun groups are calling the legislation “extremist.” CNS News reports, “H.R. 2613, the Citizens Protection Act of 2011, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and remove all federally created criminal safety zones.”

The Gun-Free School Zones Act was first enacted as section 1702 of the Crime Control Act of 1990. The text of the act reads, “It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.”

Paul’s bill will permit individuals, including teachers, to carry firearms onto high-school and middle-school campuses.

The Gun-Free School Zones Act faced adamant opposition from Second Amendment advocacy groups like Gun Owners of America, which has indicated its support for Paul’s legislation.

According to a news release from Gun Owners of America, the Gun-Free School Zones Act protects criminals. The release points to attacks at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Fort Hood, all of which are “government facilities where the private possession of firearms was prohibited.”

The release continues, “It’s time to say NO to criminal safe zones. And a great place to start is the blatantly unconstitutional Gun-free School Zones Act.”

A number of pro-gun groups argued that the shootings at Columbine High School and Platte Canyon, two high schools in Colorado, necessitated the repeal of the School Zones Act so that campuses would be safer.

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said that despite the intentions of the School Zones Act, it ultimately created “target-rich, no-risk environments for monsters who have no fear of encountering an armed teacher or administrator, or a legally armed private citizen who might happen to be in the building.”

"This sort of thing didn't happen before the advent of gun-free school zone laws," Gottlieb said. "You never saw such an outrage in the days when high schools typically had rifle teams, and — particularly in the West — where it was common in the fall to find both teachers and students with hunting rifles or shotguns locked in their cars.”

Gun control groups, on the other hand, believe Paul’s legislation to be dangerous and extreme.

Ladd Everitt, communications director for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said of the bill, “It’s a horrific piece of legislation that will present a direct threat to public safety. ‘Gun-free zones,’ despite the gun lobby’s propaganda, are far and away the safest places in our country.”

Everitt asserts that the bill will likely garner support only from extremist groups:

Rep. Paul’s legislation is the latest in a series of extreme pieces of legislation to come from the National Rifle Association. Bills like this have no public support whatsoever and seek to elevate the interests of the gun industry and a tiny minority of gun owners over the wishes, well-being, and safety of American families in communities across the United States.

But Gun Owners of America points out that the federal government’s efforts have unintended consequences:

No one — including politicians, the police, or the individual citizen — can predict where the next deranged serial killer will attack. And yet politicians continue to create “criminal safe zones” such as schools, churches, parks, restaurants that serve alcohol, etc., where the law-abiding are disarmed.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said gun-free school zones have “disarmed the wrong people and left our schools, and the children inside, vulnerable to this kind of atrocity.”

The most recent example may be the developing story at Virginia Tech, where students are on lockdown after three students attending a summer camp spotted what they believed to be a gunman on campus near the student dining facility. Some fear it may result in a repeat of the tragic 2007 shooting rampage that left 33 people dead.

If passed, Paul’s legislation could allow students and teachers to be armed and prepared in incidents such as these.

For now, Paul’s legislation has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
dixiedawg  [Team Member]
8/6/2011 10:52:15 AM
Wasted vote. The man is unelectable.

That said, there may not BE an electable Conservative in the field this time around. If that turns out to be the case, I'll probably vote for RP as well, and we'll just deal with Obama for another four years.

Rockclimbg  [Member]
8/6/2011 11:09:26 AM

Why do people on this site get down on Ron Paul so much. People act like he is anti-military but of all the canidates in the primary, HE IS THE ONLY ONE WHO ACTUALLY SERVED!!

nukldragr  [Team Member]
8/6/2011 12:13:39 PM
Originally Posted By Rockclimbg:

Why do people on this site get down on Ron Paul so much. People act like he is anti-military but of all the canidates in the primary, HE IS THE ONLY ONE WHO ACTUALLY SERVED!!



as a gynaecologist
SWATH  [Member]
8/6/2011 10:16:22 PM
As a flight surgeon and attaining the rank of Captain.

He also received more than twice as much in donations from military members than all other Republican candidates combined in Q2 fundraising, and almost twice as much as Obama.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/jul/23/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-members-military-have-given-him-far-/
"Summing up, Paul’s military-connected contributions for the three months more than double such contributions to all the other Republican presidential candidates—and they also exceed Obama’s.
We rate his statement True."



or

we could just vote for Mitt Romney since he is electable and see if he can reverse the crushing tide of parabolic run away government...man I can't even type that with a straight face. Besides the "wasted vote" argument is so retarded I can't believe it is still being brought up. This is the primary you can't "waste" your vote.

Oh and he also happens to poll the best against Obama out of all the other candidates.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/05/cnn-poll-still-no-front-runner-in-the-battle-for-the-gop-nomination/
"Who does best against Obama? Paul. The congressman from Texas, who also ran as a libertarian candidate for president in 1988 and who is well liked by many in the tea party movement, trails the president by only seven points (52 to 45 percent) in a hypothetical general election showdown."

All this of course is beside the fact that he has been vindicated on all counts.
par0thead151  [Member]
8/6/2011 11:37:29 PM
Originally Posted By nukldragr:
Originally Posted By SWATH:
Why would you hate to say that? You are sticking to your principles. Cheers.


I believe his foreign policy is suicidal


our current spending is even more suicidal.
nukldragr  [Team Member]
8/7/2011 7:17:37 AM
Originally Posted By par0thead151:
Originally Posted By nukldragr:
Originally Posted By SWATH:
Why would you hate to say that? You are sticking to your principles. Cheers.


I believe his foreign policy is suicidal


our current spending is even more suicidal.


That's the big question aint it?
nukldragr  [Team Member]
8/12/2011 12:15:52 PM
Changed my mind "Iran should have Nukes"
SWATH  [Member]
8/12/2011 12:23:31 PM
Do you honestly think Iran will attack us with nukes...? Should we also threaten Pakistan and China and Russia and dis-allow them from having nukes as well? Should we attack North Korea since they have nukes? Do you believe we should be the policemen of the world? If you answered yes, do you think that Iran nuking us is a greater threat to us than the collapse of our economy?
dixiedawg  [Team Member]
8/12/2011 12:42:32 PM
Originally Posted By nukldragr:
Changed my mind "Iran should have Nukes"




Yep, he lost me forever last night too. He's no longer my "safety valve".

Civilian trials, Miranda rights, for captured T's? Seriously? His whole hippy-esqe "if we're nice to Iran they'll be nice to us" outlook is just ridiculous. It'd be downright terrifying, if he were actually electable - which thank God he's not, as I said before.

SWATH  [Member]
8/12/2011 1:43:04 PM
Well if you all hate Iran acquiring a nuke so bad then you must support Ron Paul, since he would untie the hands of Israel to deal with them as they see fit. Dixie your arguments are just stupid. When did it become "hippy-esque" to refrain from from invading a country and getting entangled into a 6th war when our own house of cards is collapsing and we are bankrupt, and for no other reason than "well they might nuke us with their 3rd world technology weapons they don't even have yet and we just can't defend ourselves against that".
nukldragr  [Team Member]
8/12/2011 2:08:59 PM
Originally Posted By SWATH:
Do you honestly think Iran will attack us with nukes...?


Do you honestly think they wouldn't give them to someone who would?





Weed is bad for you.
coldair  [Team Member]
8/12/2011 2:26:38 PM
He is a moonbat
SWATH  [Member]
8/12/2011 2:44:42 PM
Originally Posted By nukldragr:
Originally Posted By SWATH:
Do you honestly think Iran will attack us with nukes...?


Do you honestly think they wouldn't give them to someone who would?





Weed is bad for you.


Well then maybe we should go ahead and nuke Pakistan, would that be ok with you, or China, or Russia? Should Iran attack the US since we actually have threatened to use nukes against them to prevent them from getting a nuke? Yes I honestly think that there is no way Iran would give someone a nuke to attack us knowing full well that we would find out about it. The retribution that would be inflicted back on Iran would be devastating to them. Sure their government pops out its chest and pumps its fist in defiance but they are not going to attack us and they are not going to attack Israel, they don't have the capabilities and they don't have the intent to self-destruct. So why would they want a nuke? I would want a nuke too if all of my enemies which surround me also have them and the only countries that get bullied are the ones without them. Acting like a frightened irrational child with a loaded gun is also a bad way for a rational country to act. Would you support the UN or somebody telling us we can't have nukes because we are the only country to have actually used them on another country? Paul is not saying Iran should have a nuke, he is saying it doesn't threaten our national defense so it's none of our business.
dixiedawg  [Team Member]
8/12/2011 4:02:52 PM
Originally Posted By SWATH:
Well if you all hate Iran acquiring a nuke so bad then you must support Ron Paul, since he would untie the hands of Israel to deal with them as they see fit. Dixie your arguments are just stupid. When did it become "hippy-esque" to refrain from from invading a country and getting entangled into a 6th war when our own house of cards is collapsing and we are bankrupt, and for no other reason than "well they might nuke us with their 3rd world technology weapons they don't even have yet and we just can't defend ourselves against that".


Who here said anything about invading Iran?? Paul doesn't even believe in sanctions against Iran.

And without any US help, Iran would whip Israel's lily-white ass. Hell, Israel can't even push Hezbollah guerrillas off their own border! Now picture Hezbollah x1000, with an Air Force and a Navy. Yeah, Paul would untie Israel's hands all right ... and Iran would promptly chop them the fuck off - while RP stood back, shrieking that it was none of our business.


SS109  [Team Member]
8/12/2011 4:05:44 PM
Originally Posted By nukldragr:
Originally Posted By SWATH:
Why would you hate to say that? You are sticking to your principles. Cheers.


I believe his foreign policy is suicidal


Actually he would be at best a figurehead if he won. It would take a long time to actually withdraw troops from treaty obligations etc, even if he had the main line Republicans supporting him.

Ranman223  [Member]
8/12/2011 4:06:04 PM
Ron Paul certaintly over Mitt Romney
BakerMike  [Member]
8/12/2011 4:14:50 PM
Originally Posted By nukldragr:
as a gynaecologist


I am thoroughly on the record as not being in favor of Ron Paul, but what job do you think that the USAF and the ANG should put medical doctors in?

Infantry, right? No, better, they should probably serve in ammunition battalions, and lug heavy shit around all the time. Why would a doctor who worked for the military do anything but be a doctor? Why would a guy with an MD who joined the Air Force be anything but a Flight Surgeon?

I don't like Ron Paul, but that's a stupid criticism.
SWATH  [Member]
8/12/2011 4:56:23 PM
Originally Posted By dixiedawg:
Originally Posted By SWATH:
Well if you all hate Iran acquiring a nuke so bad then you must support Ron Paul, since he would untie the hands of Israel to deal with them as they see fit. Dixie your arguments are just stupid. When did it become "hippy-esque" to refrain from from invading a country and getting entangled into a 6th war when our own house of cards is collapsing and we are bankrupt, and for no other reason than "well they might nuke us with their 3rd world technology weapons they don't even have yet and we just can't defend ourselves against that".


Who here said anything about invading Iran?? Paul doesn't even believe in sanctions against Iran.

And without any US help, Iran would whip Israel's lily-white ass. Hell, Israel can't even push Hezbollah guerrillas off their own border! Now picture Hezbollah x1000, with an Air Force and a Navy. Yeah, Paul would untie Israel's hands all right ... and Iran would promptly chop them the fuck off - while RP stood back, shrieking that it was none of our business.




Because sanctions against Iran are acts of WAR which only serve to harm their people and unify them against us in support of their government. And when they fail what are we going to do other then start with the bombs. Forcing Iran to do anything is ultimately backed up with bombs. Why do you think Iran's government is so rhetorically defiant against us? They want us to fall into the trap of bullying them so they can rally their people to support them against us. They want us to impose sanctions so they can say "see, I told you, the West wants to emasculate and conquer us, join us and help us resist" That will make approximately the 6th middle eastern country we've bombed in the last 10 years what make you think this is helping us or that we can afford it? What makes you think a borderline impoverished nation with no significant military and no nukes and little by way of resources is going to "whip" a country with an elite modern military and over 300 nukes? And what business is it of our to shed our blood to defend Israel or to give them our money when we are broke ass, they have there own responsibility to defend themselves. If they are too lazy or stupid to prepare for their own defense how is that our fault?
Fullautoguy  [Member]
8/12/2011 8:25:02 PM
Originally Posted By nukldragr:
Originally Posted By Rockclimbg:

Why do people on this site get down on Ron Paul so much. People act like he is anti-military but of all the canidates in the primary, HE IS THE ONLY ONE WHO ACTUALLY SERVED!!



as a gynaecologist


Does that make his service any less important?
nukldragr  [Team Member]
8/12/2011 11:24:04 PM
Originally Posted By Fullautoguy:
Originally Posted By nukldragr:
Originally Posted By Rockclimbg:

Why do people on this site get down on Ron Paul so much. People act like he is anti-military but of all the canidates in the primary, HE IS THE ONLY ONE WHO ACTUALLY SERVED!!



as a gynaecologist


Does that make his service any less important?
during the Vietnam war???? Yes. "There I was on the Poontang peninsula, the bush was thick and them VDs were everywhere like Crabs.... I shit you not!!!"

nukldragr  [Team Member]
8/12/2011 11:26:47 PM
Originally Posted By SWATH:
Originally Posted By nukldragr:
Originally Posted By SWATH:
Do you honestly think Iran will attack us with nukes...?


Do you honestly think they wouldn't give them to someone who would?





Weed is bad for you.


Well then maybe we should go ahead and nuke Pakistan, would that be ok with you, or China, or Russia? Should Iran attack the US since we actually have threatened to use nukes against them to prevent them from getting a nuke? Yes I honestly think that there is no way Iran would give someone a nuke to attack us knowing full well that we would find out about it. The retribution that would be inflicted back on Iran would be devastating to them. Sure their government pops out its chest and pumps its fist in defiance but they are not going to attack us and they are not going to attack Israel, they don't have the capabilities and they don't have the intent to self-destruct. So why would they want a nuke? I would want a nuke too if all of my enemies which surround me also have them and the only countries that get bullied are the ones without them. Acting like a frightened irrational child with a loaded gun is also a bad way for a rational country to act. Would you support the UN or somebody telling us we can't have nukes because we are the only country to have actually used them on another country? Paul is not saying Iran should have a nuke, he is saying it doesn't threaten our national defense so it's none of our business.


Are you fucking kidding me?????????????
M4A1Carbine  [Member]
8/13/2011 1:14:16 AM
Originally Posted By nukldragr:
Originally Posted By SWATH:
Why would you hate to say that? You are sticking to your principles. Cheers.


I believe his foreign policy is suicidal


Even if that is true, we must remember our own government poses a MUCH bigger risk to our personal freedoms than another country does.


Just so you know, your thread made me smile. Your vote for Ron Paul is a vote for liberty, personal freedom and constitutional government. I will be voting for him alongside you and many many others.


Does anyone think the people who say "he can't win" sound at all like the loyalist of the American Revolution who said "they can't win" ? Just wondering because that what it sounds like to me. People who wont stand up for what or who they believe in because they are afraid of failure annoy me.
SWATH  [Member]
8/13/2011 2:16:02 AM
Originally Posted By nukldragr:
Originally Posted By SWATH:
Originally Posted By nukldragr:
Originally Posted By SWATH:
Do you honestly think Iran will attack us with nukes...?


Do you honestly think they wouldn't give them to someone who would?





Weed is bad for you.


Well then maybe we should go ahead and nuke Pakistan, would that be ok with you, or China, or Russia? Should Iran attack the US since we actually have threatened to use nukes against them to prevent them from getting a nuke? Yes I honestly think that there is no way Iran would give someone a nuke to attack us knowing full well that we would find out about it. The retribution that would be inflicted back on Iran would be devastating to them. Sure their government pops out its chest and pumps its fist in defiance but they are not going to attack us and they are not going to attack Israel, they don't have the capabilities and they don't have the intent to self-destruct. So why would they want a nuke? I would want a nuke too if all of my enemies which surround me also have them and the only countries that get bullied are the ones without them. Acting like a frightened irrational child with a loaded gun is also a bad way for a rational country to act. Would you support the UN or somebody telling us we can't have nukes because we are the only country to have actually used them on another country? Paul is not saying Iran should have a nuke, he is saying it doesn't threaten our national defense so it's none of our business.


Are you fucking kidding me?????????????


No I'm not fucking joking about starting a war with a country on the possibility that they might attack their well armed neighbor with a hypothetical weapon that they may or may not acquire at some point in the future. Hell that sounds good enough for me, what are we waiting for lets bomb the shit out of them right now and while were at it lets nail Pakistan too and we better throw Russia and China in there for good measure and India oh and we can't forget North Korea. Lets just bomb the whole goddamn planet in case someone might want to attack us. Seriously what are you suggesting we do? Make them ask us permission for one? Come and kneel and kiss the ring of the president? Should we send in the CIA to Ajax regime change them again? Maybe we can put a pro-America government in. I wonder if we can get the same deal we did with Iraq or at least the one we got in 1953? Or should we just go ahead and start some kinetic peace bombing? Because ultimately if they want one they are going to get one and the only recourse we have to stop it is force and we are in no position to be starting yet another war. Iran knows that countries with nukes don't get fucked with that is why they want one so bad. North Korea is the most repressive and anti-social country in the world and yet we pretty much leave them alone since they got a nuke. Iran has US occupied Iraq on one side and US occupied Afghanistan on the other, and we have been bombing Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, so yeah they're a little nervous.

M4A1Carbine  [Member]
8/13/2011 2:43:59 AM
Swath, you articulated your point very well and I agree with you 100%. Some people get so caught up in an American's point of view that they forget other countries want to act in their own best interest as well and we are better off being nice to people than we are starting wars.

Another thing to consider is how many Americans have been killed in Iraq since 2003? How much money has the war cost us? How many people have we pissed off due to occupying their country? Is Iraq more prosperous or safer now than it was in 2002? Do you honestly think that if we just left Iraq alone things would have been worse than they are now?

Iran would be the exact same situation. We should leave them alone, they are a sovereign country. We should have open trade with them and start good relations. Do not make a mistake about what I am saying though, If they attack us or our allies then we attack them with the full force of the US Military. But we can't even do that right now because our military is fighting in so many other theaters. And if that time did come, we should not occupy their country afterwords and act as a police force their new corrupt government.
dixiedawg  [Team Member]
8/13/2011 12:11:06 PM
That's funny, because I was just thinking that SWATH, if he really wants to help RP get elected, should probably endeavor to simply keep silent.

From where I sit, with his every post he makes himself (and by extension, RP) look more and more detached from reality. And Paul, I might add, needs no help in this regard.

SWATH  [Member]
8/13/2011 9:25:18 PM
Alright I'll be quiet and you guys can continue to bash him on a position that he is correct on despite it being an unpopular dose of reality to the mainstream voter.
ProCCW  [Team Member]
8/13/2011 9:51:55 PM
If you take away the understanding that Iran bankrolls terrorists (Hamas) to attack our ally (Israel) than you would understand why it is important that Iran have no nuclear capabilities.

We don't need to pay another North Korea for it's silenced chest thumping.
SWATH  [Member]
8/13/2011 11:14:26 PM
Then Israel is responsible for taking out their nuclear facilities like they did with with Iraq in 1981. It should be no problem for them to do that and we shouldn't condemn them for it like we did at that time.
ProCCW  [Team Member]
8/13/2011 11:25:09 PM
SWATH,

If you want to defend Iran, that's your decision.

But know that you'll probably be but a handful of people on this site that do.

Israel doesn't kill homosexuals, Christians, etc.

Israel's people have democracy, Iran's people do not.

Israel is our ally, Iran is not.

Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the map".

If Rep Ron Paul does not see this, I can't make him or you no less, see the difference.
SWATH  [Member]
8/14/2011 12:10:30 AM
I know this is hard for many to grasp but saying you don't want to start a war we can't afford with a country for tenuous reasons is not defending them. I'm not defending Iran, and I would never advocate defending Iran. I really don't care what Iran does in its own borders from a policy standpoint. Yeah they have some bad people over there that do bad things but the world is full of bad dudes and it doesn't affect us and we shouldn't go looking for dragons to slay. Libya has some bad dudes too so does that make Obama right for bombing them. Darfur has some bad dudes too, so does China, North Korea, and Sierra Leone. If Israel fears that it is going to be wiped off the map or more accurately the "regime occupying Jerusalem [will] vanish from the page of time" then they might ought to think about defending themselves and striking their facilities, and we ought to think about letting them settle it themselves and not insisting on being the stick that Israel pokes the hornets nest with. If Mexico threatened us would we expect Israel to jump to our aid?
MaverickH1  [Member]
8/15/2011 5:03:28 PM
Why do we care about Israel again? Are they a US state?

It's worth mentioning that Ron Paul only supports war if declared, as is constitutional law. He voted FOR the authority to go after Bin Laden, for example. He only opposes the war now because it turned away from that authority and started into nation building. His point is mainly that CONGRESS needs to have the authority, as dictated by the constitution, of declaring a goal for the war and it is the president's job to meet that goal. That does NOT give the president the authority to pursue any other goal.

America should not go to war over resources. America should not go to war over hypotheticals. America should not go to war over religion.

War should work in exactly the same way as a crime committed in the states. You wanting to have a gun in the home when you are surrounded by armed neighbors with questionable motivations is IDENTICAL to Iran wanting to have a nuke. And Ron Paul would say "you have the right to have that gun until you commit a crime with it." That is the stance of liberty. If Iran was dumb enough to attack us, you can bet your ass that the congress would give the authority for Ron Paul to unleash HELL on Iran.

We're broke. The easiest thing to fix is the failed foriegn policy. Get those troops on our own borders.
MaverickH1  [Member]
8/15/2011 5:09:54 PM
Also, this "unelectable" BS needs to stop. A person is electable if people support that person and vote for them. It is that simple.

It is a REALLY sad state of affairs when the only person on the conservative stage that believes completely in conservative principles is called "unelectable".

I'm looking forward to watching candidates drop out of the race so there can be more time spent with Ron Paul and whomever is left to discuss the issues.

I'm ESPECIALLY looking forward to seeing Ron Paul and Obama on the same stage. Obama has a lot to answer for, and it would be great to see someone with 35 years of consistent voting do the questioning.
nukldragr  [Team Member]
8/15/2011 5:59:57 PM
Originally Posted By SWATH:
Originally Posted By nukldragr:
Originally Posted By SWATH:
Originally Posted By nukldragr:
Originally Posted By SWATH:
Do you honestly think Iran will attack us with nukes...?


Do you honestly think they wouldn't give them to someone who would?





Weed is bad for you.


Well then maybe we should go ahead and nuke Pakistan, would that be ok with you, or China, or Russia? Should Iran attack the US since we actually have threatened to use nukes against them to prevent them from getting a nuke? Yes I honestly think that there is no way Iran would give someone a nuke to attack us knowing full well that we would find out about it. The retribution that would be inflicted back on Iran would be devastating to them. Sure their government pops out its chest and pumps its fist in defiance but they are not going to attack us and they are not going to attack Israel, they don't have the capabilities and they don't have the intent to self-destruct. So why would they want a nuke? I would want a nuke too if all of my enemies which surround me also have them and the only countries that get bullied are the ones without them. Acting like a frightened irrational child with a loaded gun is also a bad way for a rational country to act. Would you support the UN or somebody telling us we can't have nukes because we are the only country to have actually used them on another country? Paul is not saying Iran should have a nuke, he is saying it doesn't threaten our national defense so it's none of our business.


Are you fucking kidding me?????????????


No I'm not fucking joking about starting a war with a country on the possibility that they might attack their well armed neighbor with a hypothetical weapon that they may or may not acquire at some point in the future. Hell that sounds good enough for me, what are we waiting for lets bomb the shit out of them right now and while were at it lets nail Pakistan too and we better throw Russia and China in there for good measure and India oh and we can't forget North Korea. Lets just bomb the whole goddamn planet in case someone might want to attack us. Seriously what are you suggesting we do? Make them ask us permission for one? Come and kneel and kiss the ring of the president? Should we send in the CIA to Ajax regime change them again? Maybe we can put a pro-America government in. I wonder if we can get the same deal we did with Iraq or at least the one we got in 1953? Or should we just go ahead and start some kinetic peace bombing? Because ultimately if they want one they are going to get one and the only recourse we have to stop it is force and we are in no position to be starting yet another war. Iran knows that countries with nukes don't get fucked with that is why they want one so bad. North Korea is the most repressive and anti-social country in the world and yet we pretty much leave them alone since they got a nuke. Iran has US occupied Iraq on one side and US occupied Afghanistan on the other, and we have been bombing Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, so yeah they're a little nervous.
http://www.liraspg.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/American-troops-around-Iran.png

So if we end up invading I guess I'll see you in the Iranian Foreign Legion. Catch ya later
ProCCW  [Team Member]
8/16/2011 12:27:54 AM
Originally Posted By MaverickH1:
Why do we care about Israel again? Are they a US state?

It's worth mentioning that Ron Paul only supports war if declared, as is constitutional law. He voted FOR the authority to go after Bin Laden, for example. He only opposes the war now because it turned away from that authority and started into nation building. His point is mainly that CONGRESS needs to have the authority, as dictated by the constitution, of declaring a goal for the war and it is the president's job to meet that goal. That does NOT give the president the authority to pursue any other goal.

America should not go to war over resources. America should not go to war over hypotheticals. America should not go to war over religion.

War should work in exactly the same way as a crime committed in the states. You wanting to have a gun in the home when you are surrounded by armed neighbors with questionable motivations is IDENTICAL to Iran wanting to have a nuke. And Ron Paul would say "you have the right to have that gun until you commit a crime with it." That is the stance of liberty. If Iran was dumb enough to attack us, you can bet your ass that the congress would give the authority for Ron Paul to unleash HELL on Iran.

We're broke. The easiest thing to fix is the failed foriegn policy. Get those troops on our own borders.


So, Ignore our allies? (Who fight side by side with us, help us with intel, are a democracy like us.) hell of a foreign policy that is....

Authority to go after Bin Laden only? I thought he controlled Al-Qaida. (Which means we also need intel from "every" source. (isolation from intel will leave us in the dark.)

You want Iran to get a bomb "first", then do something "afterwards", after they attack us? (should we not be pro-active, instead of reactive?) sounds like a tactical advantage to me.

We may be broke, but were not stupid.

ProCCW  [Team Member]
8/16/2011 12:35:22 AM
Originally Posted By MaverickH1:
Also, this "unelectable" BS needs to stop. A person is electable if people support that person and vote for them. It is that simple.

It is a REALLY sad state of affairs when the only person on the conservative stage that believes completely in conservative principles is called "unelectable".

I'm looking forward to watching candidates drop out of the race so there can be more time spent with Ron Paul and whomever is left to discuss the issues.

I'm ESPECIALLY looking forward to seeing Ron Paul and Obama on the same stage. Obama has a lot to answer for, and it would be great to see someone with 35 years of consistent voting do the questioning.


Ron Paul is a conservative now?

Funny, I thought he was a libertarian.

I see eye to eye with the man on a lot of issues, but his isolationist view for our foreign policies leaves alot to be desired.

Could you ignore your friends?

Bacon08  [Member]
8/16/2011 3:07:48 AM
Originally Posted By ProCCW:
Originally Posted By MaverickH1:
Also, this "unelectable" BS needs to stop. A person is electable if people support that person and vote for them. It is that simple.

It is a REALLY sad state of affairs when the only person on the conservative stage that believes completely in conservative principles is called "unelectable".

I'm looking forward to watching candidates drop out of the race so there can be more time spent with Ron Paul and whomever is left to discuss the issues.

I'm ESPECIALLY looking forward to seeing Ron Paul and Obama on the same stage. Obama has a lot to answer for, and it would be great to see someone with 35 years of consistent voting do the questioning.


Ron Paul is a conservative now?

Funny, I thought he was a libertarian.

I see eye to eye with the man on a lot of issues, but his isolationist view for our foreign policies leaves alot to be desired.

Could you ignore your friends?



Ron Paul is on par with what our founding fathers believed in, especially foreign policy. The relationship with Israel (AIPAC) and America is nothing but the tail wagging the dog. A bunch of cave people and third world sheep herders don't commit a terrorist attack on the other side of the globe just because they disagree with our freedom and morals, the 9/11 Commission Report actually covers this on page 41 if I remember correctly. America's undying support of the ever expanding Israel has done nothing but damage foreign relations and create more problems for this country. Everything America does in the middle east boils down to Israel every time. This has resulted in America wasting Trillions that should be spent here at home and military force that should be focused on OUR borders.

By the way, you label him an isolationist, that is not accurate. An isolationist would be against free trade with other countries, Dr. Paul advocates free trade just not sticking our nose in the politics of other nations. He is simply against the foreign entanglements that have lead America to where it is now. If we stood up against the USSR in the cold war, Iran is not a problem for the USA. Also, I noticed that you have a Thomas Jefferson quote in your sig...

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.
-Thomas Jefferson

Let me just say that I am not trying to be rude, just friendly debate. I tend to lurk more than post.
nukldragr  [Team Member]
8/16/2011 5:14:08 AM
Originally Posted By Bacon08:
Originally Posted By ProCCW:
Originally Posted By MaverickH1:
Also, this "unelectable" BS needs to stop. A person is electable if people support that person and vote for them. It is that simple.

It is a REALLY sad state of affairs when the only person on the conservative stage that believes completely in conservative principles is called "unelectable".

I'm looking forward to watching candidates drop out of the race so there can be more time spent with Ron Paul and whomever is left to discuss the issues.

I'm ESPECIALLY looking forward to seeing Ron Paul and Obama on the same stage. Obama has a lot to answer for, and it would be great to see someone with 35 years of consistent voting do the questioning.


Ron Paul is a conservative now?

Funny, I thought he was a libertarian.

I see eye to eye with the man on a lot of issues, but his isolationist view for our foreign policies leaves alot to be desired.

Could you ignore your friends?



Ron Paul is on par with what our founding fathers believed in, especially foreign policy. The relationship with Israel (AIPAC) and America is nothing but the tail wagging the dog. A bunch of cave people and third world sheep herders don't commit a terrorist attack on the other side of the globe just because they disagree with our freedom and morals, the 9/11 Commission Report actually covers this on page 41 if I remember correctly. America's undying support of the ever expanding Israel has done nothing but damage foreign relations and create more problems for this country. Everything America does in the middle east boils down to Israel every time. This has resulted in America wasting Trillions that should be spent here at home and military force that should be focused on OUR borders.

By the way, you label him an isolationist, that is not accurate. An isolationist would be against free trade with other countries, Dr. Paul advocates free trade just not sticking our nose in the politics of other nations. He is simply against the foreign entanglements that have lead America to where it is now. If we stood up against the USSR in the cold war, Iran is not a problem for the USA. Also, I noticed that you have a Thomas Jefferson quote in your sig...

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.
-Thomas Jefferson

Let me just say that I am not trying to be rude, just friendly debate. I tend to lurk more than post.


Ever expanding Isreal???? No Shit
MaverickH1  [Member]
8/16/2011 8:02:08 AM
Originally Posted By ProCCW:
Ron Paul is a conservative now?

Funny, I thought he was a libertarian.

I see eye to eye with the man on a lot of issues, but his isolationist view for our foreign policies leaves alot to be desired.

Could you ignore your friends?


He wants to stop all government growth and turn the trend. Nobody else on the stage wants to do that. That's true conservatism.

Isolationist is the wrong word.

And again, he's talking about ending the unconstitutional wars, not repeating the mistakes of Korea, not repeating the mistakes of Vietnam, and when history finally smiles down on our current affairs, not repeating the mistakes of Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, ... did I forget one?

You don't ignore the "friends". You trade intel and goods with them, you don't block them unjustly for wanting to sell in US markets as a protection for US vendors, the only difference is that you don't stick your noses in their internal affairs, nor do you have an obligation to fight a war that they decided to make.

Unless you get approval from Congress and the people.

Originally Posted By ProCCW:
So, Ignore our allies? (Who fight side by side with us, help us with intel, are a democracy like us.) hell of a foreign policy that is....

Authority to go after Bin Laden only? I thought he controlled Al-Qaida. (Which means we also need intel from "every" source. (isolation from intel will leave us in the dark.)

You want Iran to get a bomb "first", then do something "afterwards", after they attack us? (should we not be pro-active, instead of reactive?) sounds like a tactical advantage to me.

We may be broke, but were not stupid.


No allies. Just people that we share commerce with. The United States does not have the obligation of protecting any country but the United States. And we aren't doing a good job of that.

There's a problem with being "pro-active". It lends itself to judgment of who the enemy is. And then when you are "pro-active" and wrong, horrible things are guaranteed to happen. When you are "pro-active" and right... well, let's just say that it's damn near impossible to know when that happens, and our track record in this department isn't doing very well.
SWATH  [Member]
8/16/2011 10:22:25 AM
Originally Posted By nukldragr:

So if we end up invading I guess I'll see you in the Iranian Foreign Legion. Catch ya later


If they try to attack us I'll help you invade
cybrguy  [Member]
8/18/2011 1:54:58 PM
I looked to see what people on the forums were saying about Ron Paul since I saw this bit today.

Aug 16th - Jon Stewart Defends Ron Paul From Ridiculous Media Coverup

I must say, it looks like the Ron Paul supporters here know their stuff. I've seen a lot of underhanded attacks at Ron Paul, and very few proper debates about his policy, so its good to see a bit of depth of discussion.




nukldragr  [Team Member]
8/18/2011 4:11:50 PM
I think he'd be an awesome secretary of the treasury
ProCCW  [Team Member]
8/18/2011 7:30:54 PM
Originally Posted By Bacon08:
Originally Posted By ProCCW:
Originally Posted By MaverickH1:
Also, this "unelectable" BS needs to stop. A person is electable if people support that person and vote for them. It is that simple.

It is a REALLY sad state of affairs when the only person on the conservative stage that believes completely in conservative principles is called "unelectable".

I'm looking forward to watching candidates drop out of the race so there can be more time spent with Ron Paul and whomever is left to discuss the issues.

I'm ESPECIALLY looking forward to seeing Ron Paul and Obama on the same stage. Obama has a lot to answer for, and it would be great to see someone with 35 years of consistent voting do the questioning.


Ron Paul is a conservative now?

Funny, I thought he was a libertarian.

I see eye to eye with the man on a lot of issues, but his isolationist view for our foreign policies leaves alot to be desired.

Could you ignore your friends?



Ron Paul is on par with what our founding fathers believed in, especially foreign policy. The relationship with Israel (AIPAC) and America is nothing but the tail wagging the dog. A bunch of cave people and third world sheep herders don't commit a terrorist attack on the other side of the globe just because they disagree with our freedom and morals, the 9/11 Commission Report actually covers this on page 41 if I remember correctly. America's undying support of the ever expanding Israel has done nothing but damage foreign relations and create more problems for this country. Everything America does in the middle east boils down to Israel every time. This has resulted in America wasting Trillions that should be spent here at home and military force that should be focused on OUR borders.

By the way, you label him an isolationist, that is not accurate. An isolationist would be against free trade with other countries, Dr. Paul advocates free trade just not sticking our nose in the politics of other nations. He is simply against the foreign entanglements that have lead America to where it is now. If we stood up against the USSR in the cold war, Iran is not a problem for the USA. Also, I noticed that you have a Thomas Jefferson quote in your sig...

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.
-Thomas Jefferson

Let me just say that I am not trying to be rude, just friendly debate. I tend to lurk more than post.


Sorry, I vehemently disagree with your position.

As a country, we cannot simply stick our heads in the sand while other countries build up arms around us. (to use on us, and our allies.)

You can't persuade me, just as you couldn't persuade armed forces for re-enlisting again to help our allies.

Israel is, and will always be an ally of the United states like it or not.

Terrorists "do" in fact attack us for our beliefs.

I for one, don't think like Dr. Paul. (We caused/deserved 9/11)

P.S. Ronald Wilson Reagan ended the cold war. (A conservative republican that believed in a large, and strong military.) And he didn't do it by "backing down".

ProCCW  [Team Member]
8/18/2011 7:55:09 PM
Originally Posted By MaverickH1:
Originally Posted By ProCCW:
Ron Paul is a conservative now?

Funny, I thought he was a libertarian.

I see eye to eye with the man on a lot of issues, but his isolationist view for our foreign policies leaves alot to be desired.

Could you ignore your friends?


He wants to stop all government growth and turn the trend. Nobody else on the stage wants to do that. That's true conservatism.

Isolationist is the wrong word.

And again, he's talking about ending the unconstitutional wars, not repeating the mistakes of Korea, not repeating the mistakes of Vietnam, and when history finally smiles down on our current affairs, not repeating the mistakes of Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, ... did I forget one?

You don't ignore the "friends". You trade intel and goods with them, you don't block them unjustly for wanting to sell in US markets as a protection for US vendors, the only difference is that you don't stick your noses in their internal affairs, nor do you have an obligation to fight a war that they decided to make.

Unless you get approval from Congress and the people.

Originally Posted By ProCCW:
So, Ignore our allies? (Who fight side by side with us, help us with intel, are a democracy like us.) hell of a foreign policy that is....

Authority to go after Bin Laden only? I thought he controlled Al-Qaida. (Which means we also need intel from "every" source. (isolation from intel will leave us in the dark.)

You want Iran to get a bomb "first", then do something "afterwards", after they attack us? (should we not be pro-active, instead of reactive?) sounds like a tactical advantage to me.

We may be broke, but were not stupid.


No allies. Just people that we share commerce with. The United States does not have the obligation of protecting any country but the United States. And we aren't doing a good job of that.

There's a problem with being "pro-active". It lends itself to judgment of who the enemy is. And then when you are "pro-active" and wrong, horrible things are guaranteed to happen. When you are "pro-active" and right... well, let's just say that it's damn near impossible to know when that happens, and our track record in this department isn't doing very well.


I'm also for culling government growth as well. (as long as the security of this great nation is not compromised.)

Isolationist is the correct term, unless you have a better definition?

You mean to tell me that we'd be better off as a country if we were to not get involved in other countries affairs that involve genocide. (in your world, Idi Amin, Hitler, Mao, Pol pot, etc, still exist alive?)

In your world, we do nothing about Hugo Chavez, The Castro brothers, Muslim brotherhood, Mahmood Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-il?

Misguided, your ideology is at best.