Quoted:







So you would consider propping up a dictator in South Vietnam to be a communist takeover?  Self determination is a communist takeover?  And you would consider Diem to be a freely elected democratic leader?  Hmmm.



So having a strategic interest in a country gives us the right to attack it and effect regime change?  Wow.

Quoted:

I hate it. But I don't think Paul will fix it is somehow magically elected. Paulbots seen to think he will ride in on the magic Constitution unicorn waving a wand and throwing gold dollars around and all will be fixed. Presidents don't make much fiscal policy, the House does, and his track record of getting the House on board with his agenda is pretty sad. I am also a realist on how much he can do in the office.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't see him as a magic wand of anything. As you touched upon, even if he is elected president, he still has to get Congress to work with him to get things through as any president would. Even a frothing at the mouth Paul supporter has to accept that. Where I do see the value with Ron Paul is having a man who understands the financial sector and more importantly understands and values a free market. That said, five years ago, voters weren't even considering the Federal Reserve much less talking about it. As silly as it sounds, it's outstanding to me that people are actually understanding the Federal Reserve is a private bank. People are realizing it's a central bank issuing a public currency, and are realizing that that in and of itself is unconstitutional. People are beginning to learn about Argentina, and other historical examples of economies that went into hyperinflation due to unstoppable printting presses. Even if they knew of this and thought it as "normal" before, they are now feeling the effects of it personally (at least my generation is) and realizing that it's NOT "ok." Is all of this attributed to Ron Paul? No, but I would argue a large majority of this awareness is.

I'm not an expert on Keynesian economics. I'm not an expert on monetary policy in general. But I have studied as much I can on our Federal Reserve System, I have studied fractional reserve banking, and I have studied historical economies that have failed. It is more than obvious to a simple mind like me that our system is unsustainable as well as outright unconstitutional. Indeed, it's the very taxation without representation we fought the British over hundreds of years ago. It has manifested itself back in our lives and there is only one candidate that truly understand the imperative need to end that system, and that happens to be RP. To be fair, Rick Perry has shared his dismay at the Fed, but I don't feel there is any fruit of it, looking at the way he handles his politics. I think it's fashionable posture.

On his house record of getting people "on board," remember these are the same people who Americans are protesting in the streets to kick out of office for not voting with their constituents. These are the same people who would logroll unconstitutional spending into bills such as the original "Audit the Fed" bill that RP sponsored––to which, of course he had to vote "no" on. A man who has voted without fail for constitutional principles is a rareity, and something to given a second look. That should be the norm, not the exception.

It isn't even domestic policy I disagree with him on, As I said, I think he would make a great governor. He should have run for governor of Texas a couple decades ago, maybe he would have accomplished something in his career.

His foreign and military policy is where we disagree, and that is the realm where a President has the most power.

Overseas bases. He keeps saying close them all. This is idiocy to anyone who understands military logistics and strategy. In addition, Paul repeatedly claims we have 900+ bases. We don't. We he says that he is showing he can't even read the DOD report that lists our bases, and he doesn't understand it. So he goes around saying we should close all the bases he doesn't understand why we have them, or even how many there are. He has made this a major plank of his platform for 8+ years, yet he can't bother to understand the facts that his decision should be based on? Tells me he has done zero study, he is just throwing out a soundbite that he thinks will gather him support.

His neo-isolationist foreign policy is essentially running away and hiding. He blames the US for everything, it is all about "blowback" for him. Well the only way to avoid "blowback" is hide, never do anything, and capitulate to anyones demands who says they will get mad. That isn't sound foreign policy, it is essentially cowardice on an international scale. He isn't a non-interventionist, he is more of a pacifist.

He at one point was calling for an 80% reduction in defense. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is displaying deeply flawed judgement.

In fact the Department of Defense doesn't even know how many their are (perhaps a sign it's a bit out of control). According to the DoD's 2010 Baseline report, there are approximately 632 U.S. Military installations worldwide, exlcuding things like embassies, etc. In my own research I've found varying sources posing different numbers.

In my opinion, I think what RP is getting at is the notion that we must maintain a foreign military strategy if at all. It was system that was built up for decades to fight the Soviet threat, which is non existent now. Our only real security threat lies in organizations that have no border, and to which no government claims official responsibility. Do we truly need a global presence (often in countries who do no want us there) to maintain security for our own borders? Is it our job as the biggest and richest nation to police the rest of the world––for which we charge the price of installing our own economies, politicians, and governments?

The concept of blowback is very real and very valid, even if RP didn't exist. Why is it that we so easily call British military expansionism and colonialism "imperialistic" in a historical sense, but the same does not apply to the U.S. at present? The same scenarios exists for our military bases and corporations all over the world. Some countries care not of our presence, other have a big problem with it. The French experienced this in Vietnam, as we later did, also. And quite frankly, communist or capitalist, any country's sovereignty should be respected and they can have the government they wish. If it truly was a human rights issue, or otherwise, we'd be liberating several countries a day. Blowback (in an agression sense) is created only when another condition exists, and that is pre-emptive war or agression.

An attack on the United States simply cannot be caused by violent, bored people. There is always a reason. It is not our job to "run away," rather it is our job to objectively ask ourselves "why did this happen?" and "are we willing to continue the behavior or policy that will entice similar attacks and accept the consequences?" There is an enormous difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.

In some cases the effects of our presence is indeed keeping the peace. But again, is that our job to do in the first place? Historically, empires fall when they have an overstretched military, and unsound money at home. We're right there, and it's being propped up day by day. Remember a few months ago when they were worried about paying retiree benefits? What happens when that lack of funds hits the soldiers on the ground? Will we just print more money up?

There is more, but these are fundamental points where I just can't back him on.

And while I don't think he is a racist, his newsletters will be used to portray him as such and destroy him should he get the nomination. They exist, and we must look at the real world ramifications of their existence if we are considering putting him against Obama. No, they don't bother his supporters. But they will bother all the moderates you must have to win. To deny that is not realistic.

The publishing of them raises profound questions about his judgement, and his explanation (the current version anyway) isn't believable and pretty much everyone can tell he is feeding us a lie about it. If he isn't telling us a lie, it means he is the most inept leader ever and that raises even more questions.

I think as with anything it's going to be media spin. It's no reason in my mind not to support him, though. I'm not so sure who "everyone" is. The last election this came up and it was pretty obvious to myself at least that it was the comments of someone who contributed to the newsletter, and was subsequently removed thereafter because of it. If an employee is caught stealing, I don't think that shows a question of character on the store owner.

So all other issues aside, no matter how good you may think he is, these newsletters in his past and his dishonest bumbling explanation for them kill any chances of winning a general election. That is before we even get into his age, habit of saying crazy shit, or other issues not related to policy that hurt his electability.

I think if media gave him more than 89 seconds and he could address these concerns, the truth would be settled. Even a disinterested party would be curious to know the real story even from a gossip's perspective. I look forward to him setting the record straight, and am personally not worried about it. On his health, Cheney has a fake heart, and that didn't stop him... Have you also seen Ron Paul challenging each candidate to a bicycle race? The guy in excellent health––he's a physician. I'm not worried about it.

In brief summary, even if he can do nothing he and his voter base would like him to do due to Congress, the important thing is he at least didn't make it worse like each president in the past has done exponentially, but more importantly he was in the spotlight long enough to raise issue and make people who were otherwise asleep to the matter aware of the issue that affect his or her own liberty. Bush's spending was horrible. Then Obama came and quadrupled that. Bush's raping of the Bill of Right's was abhorrant, and Obama not only continued that, but in many cases took it to new levels. Even he's lost a large part of his base.

I think Ron Paul is actually the most electable person there is at the moment because he resonates with conservatives as well as displaced and dismayed liberals. More importantly, he resonates with those who value a free society above all, left or right.

Again, it's about the message, not the man.

Quoted:


Jarhead:



Explain to me how North Korea attacked the United States justifying war?  It didn't.



Explain to me how, absent a declaration of war, it was Constitutionally justified for us to makie war on the Korean peninsula?  It wasn't.



The people of these United States are sovereign, not the United Nations.



Tired of the USA playing the world's policeman, expending our blood and treasure with nothing but contempt from the world in return.



-David

Quoted:


Who sent the "ROK Advisory Group" over to Korea prior to the war?



Kinda like sending American Advisors over to Vietnam to help with Diem's government, don't you think?



Politicians send a small advisory force over to a foreign country where a revolution is going on (Vietnam, Korea).  Predictably, they get killed or captured.  Instant plausable excuse for going to war because "we have been attacked."



Gulf of Tonkin ring a bell?



Can we say naive?

Quoted:


Yeah you fucking fail at history again, surprise, surprise. There was no "Revolution" going on in Korea in 1950 a Soviet and Red Chinese backed invasion occurred over the placement of the 38th parallel and the expansion of the Soviet/ChiCom block, but there was no "Revolution" going on in the RoK.

Quoted:







Yeah, another book you may find interesting:



The North Korean Revolution 1945-1950

by Armstrong, Charles K.



Why do you think the U.S. was sending advisors in the first place?



Keep scratching. Eventually you'll realize your trapped in a suffocating world view.

Quoted:


Republican Fanboys  =  not bound by the logic of LIBERTY.



Paul Revere and the Sons of Liberty would roll over in their graves if they could hear you turkeys.

Quoted:
Republican Fanboys  =  not bound by the logic of LIBERTY.

Paul Revere and the Sons of Liberty would roll over in their graves if they could hear you turkeys.

Quoted:


Liberty as defined by you?  

Quoted:


Oh you've GOT to be joking.....

You think the Federal Reserve is compatible with LIBERTY?
A Government that inflates your money into worthlessness is LIBERTY?
You think the United Nations running the show is LIBERTY?
You think the National Firearms Act of 1934 is LIBERTY?
What about the Gun Control Act of 1968?  Is that LIBERTY?
Seat Belt Laws, No Smoking Laws, Illegal Marijuana...  Are these LIBERTY?
Taxes at every level you can image.  Is that LIBERTY?

No sir, i do not think the Republican establishment is for LIBERTY.

This country was founded by people that were pissed about a 3% tax on TEA,
a FEDERAL court system being established, regulations on how they should meet,
and being put on the terror watch list for storing assault weapons and food.

And you think my definition of LIBERTY is wacked?

-David

Quoted:
K

Here's white supremacist, defender of Liberty, and Ron Paul Supporter James Kelso with Cindy Sheehan.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PVyDmTkfk6s/R2xj_GlU_MI/AAAAAAAAAas/zrxO89LfN-o/s1600/RonPaulFtWorthSheehan.jpg

Quoted:
Yet again your history is a fail.  Allied powers split up Korea at the end of WWII.  There was a communist takeover in the north, supported by the Chinese and Russians.  The south had a pro-western gov't propped up by the United States.  The north attacked the south to re-unify the country after years of Japanese rule, followed by allied post-war rule.  Sounds like a revolution to me.

Nope, communism doesn't work.  And fighting it in east and southeast Asia didn't kill it.  It died under it's own weight, by fighting against man's basic desire to better his and his family's condition.

I'm an Adam Smith free market capitalist.

If you wanna read something written in the 20th century that pretty much describes my pattern of thought, take a look at "Free to Choose", by Milton Friedman.  Pretty much nails it, so far as I'm concerned.

-David

Quoted:


So you would consider propping up a dictator in South Vietnam and defending him to be justification for war?  Self determination is a communist takeover?  And you would consider Diem to be a freely elected democratic leader?  Hmmm.

So having a strategic interest in a country gives us the right to attack it and effect regime change?  Wow.

And what strategic interest did we have in Vietnam or Korea, PRIOR to the wars in those nations?  Containment of communism is pretty darn similar to preemptory war...."We're going to attack you because you might attack us in the future."

Quoted:


Oh you've GOT to be joking.....

You think the Federal Reserve is compatible with LIBERTY?
A Government that inflates your money into worthlessness is LIBERTY?
You think the United Nations running the show is LIBERTY?
You think the National Firearms Act of 1934 is LIBERTY?
What about the Gun Control Act of 1968?  Is that LIBERTY?
Seat Belt Laws, No Smoking Laws, Illegal Marijuana...  Are these LIBERTY?
Taxes at every level you can image.  Is that LIBERTY?

No sir, i do not think the Republican establishment is for LIBERTY.

This country was founded by people that were pissed about a 3% tax on TEA,
a FEDERAL court system being established, regulations on how they should meet,
quartering soldiers,  and being put on the terror watch list for storing assault weapons and food.

(Muskets were assualt weapons of the day.  Admiralty courts were the fed courts of the day)

And you think my definition of LIBERTY is wacked?

-David

Quoted:

So, is democracy and freedom only good enough for US citizens, and the rest of the world can be oppressed and suffer?

Quoted:

And Ron Paul will not deliver LIBERTY.

Quoted:


Sounds like an invasion to me.

Sounds like bias to me

So, is democracy and freedom only good enough for US citizens, and the rest of the world can be oppressed and suffer?

Quoted:


Neither will "You Have No Heart" Perry or crooked Gingrich.  

Quoted:


THIS IS NOT a nation founded on DEMOCRACY.  This is a REPUBLIC.  Democracy is mob rule...i.e. 3 wolves voting to eat 2 sheep.  Lots of folks here need a good civics lesson.  The US education system is shining through in many of these posts.

If this was about ending repression, we'd be at war with about 1/2 of the world's countries.  If folks want to be free, it's up to them to throw off the oppresive regimes that are in power.  It's not our job to police the world.  The French didn't help us until we were already winning...after the battle of Saratoga.  I like to see other folks trying to build free nation-states have some skin in the game before we give them any help.

It's the economy, stupid.  If we don't get our economy in order, we won't be able to help anyone, including our own children and grandchildren.

-David

Quoted:


Who gives a fuck what you are tired of.

When you Paulbots stop spamming this board about him, maybe you would see less slamming of the fuckin' weirdo asshole motherfucker liar POS.

Quoted:




http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6059/6345889089_84cbf9e630.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6236/6346633214_8bb7e52101_m.jpg

Quoted:



Couldn't have said it any better, Larry - spot on!!!


   - georgestrings

Quoted:

The concept of blowback is very real and very valid, even if RP didn't exist. Why is it that we so easily call British military expansionism and colonialism "imperialistic" in a historical sense, but the same does not apply to the U.S. at present? The same scenarios exists for our military bases and corporations all over the world. Some countries care not of our presence, other have a big problem with it. The French experienced this in Vietnam, as we later did, also. And quite frankly, communist or capitalist, any country's sovereignty should be respected and they can have the government they wish. If it truly was a human rights issue, or otherwise, we'd be liberating several countries a day. Blowback (in an agression sense) is created only when another condition exists, and that is pre-emptive war or agression.

An attack on the United States simply cannot be caused by violent, bored people. There is always a reason. It is not our job to "run away," rather it is our job to objectively ask ourselves "why did this happen?" and "are we willing to continue the behavior or policy that will entice similar attacks and accept the consequences?"

Quoted:


This very thread was started as an anti-Paul thread. You own it.

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/n/U/moran.jpg

Quoted:


Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ you people are out of your fucking minds with this drivel you continuously spout! The only thing I despise more than that shrill old whackjob are his wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth idiotic followers.  

Quoted:


Peacenik, pacifism, and isolationism at it's finest.

Also, a whole lot of cowardice.

Quoted:




Spot on Larry!

Quoted:


Paul has had decades in office and can't even get a single piece of his own agenda passed.

Why do you think he would fair better as President?

Not to mention his hypocritical stance on pork.

BTW, Newt balanced the budget and dropped the deficit to 25 million dollars while he was in congress. What has Paul accomplished other than being a hyocrite on pork spending?

Quoted:


They are probably delusional enough to believe that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone.

That's blatant stupidity that all isolationists/non-interventionists suffer from.

Quoted:


Paul oughta have a poster of Neville Chamberlain in his office!


Hey, photoshop time?

Quoted:

... he starts talking and changes my mind.  

I mean, I've honestly tried to give this guy a fair hearing, but it's hard to believe someone in his position can be so off-kilter when it comes to foreign policy.

I'm hating this primary.

Quoted:


They are probably delusional enough to believe that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone.

That's blatant stupidity that all isolationists/non-interventionists suffer from.

Quoted:


Paul has had decades in office and can't even get a single piece of his own agenda passed.

Why do you think he would fair better as President?

Not to mention his hypocritical stance on pork.

BTW, Newt balanced the budget and dropped the deficit to 25 million dollars while he was in congress. What has Paul accomplished other than being a hyocrite on pork spending?

Quoted:


LarryG and several of you other turkey's are blinded by your hatred of Obama.



You use your hate to justify electing more of the same anti-LIBERTY, anti-CONSITITUTION hipocrites you and the Dems have elected for years.



I've got no hate for Obama...they guy is simply a symptom of the disease of APATHY and IGNORANCE that has been taking over this country since the late 1940's.



Too bad the "Greatest Generation" threw their hat in the air and let the country run on autopilot after whipping Hitler's and Tojo's a**es.  They should have come back and worked to repeal the NEW DEAL and get the country back on track.



We didn't get here in a day.  We won't get out of here in a day.



But electing a candidate for LIBERTY is one step down the road.  And even if we don't win, the Republican establishment is going to have to recognize they can't count on us to vote for their RINO/ESTABLISHMENT/THEOCRAT stooges anymore.



God Bless.  I'm headed to church.



-David

Edgewood, NM

Quoted:

Civics 100- the Congress sets 99%+ of the policy that gets in our way and causes big government problems. The President can't change laws on his own, can't disband agencies, can't do much in that arena on his own.

The Presidents largest powers are in military and foreign affairs. It is idiotic to ignore major problems with a candidate in that arena.

I see what you want, and I agree. But your going after it the wrong way and pining all your hopes on a one trick pony that won't be able to get much done if he gets in office.

Quoted:


Larry, you need to read some history before you go full out military-industrial complex FANBOY.

Quoted:

... he starts talking and changes my mind.  

I mean, I've honestly tried to give this guy a fair hearing, but it's hard to believe someone in his position can be so off-kilter when it comes to foreign policy.

I'm hating this primary.

Quoted:







Oh you've GOT to be joking.....



You think the Federal Reserve is compatible with LIBERTY?

A Government that inflates your money into worthlessness is LIBERTY?

You think the United Nations running the show is LIBERTY?

You think the National Firearms Act of 1934 is LIBERTY?

What about the Gun Control Act of 1968?  Is that LIBERTY?

Seat Belt Laws, No Smoking Laws, Illegal Marijuana...  Are these LIBERTY?

Taxes at every level you can image.  Is that LIBERTY?



No sir, i do not think the Republican establishment is for LIBERTY.



This country was founded by people that were pissed about a 3% tax on TEA,

a FEDERAL court system being established, regulations on how they should meet,

quartering soldiers,  and being put on the terror watch list for storing assault weapons and food.



(Muskets were assualt weapons of the day.  Admiralty courts were the fed courts of the day)



And you think my definition of LIBERTY is wacked?



-David

Quoted:

If none of them will, then why should I vote for Paul?

Quoted:
Let me throw out an idea to you:

Islam isn't our biggest enemy. They are a short-term adversary that can and will be put down by any intelligent Western or even Eastern society.

Our real enemy is China and our reckless economic spending.

While we spent well over a trillion dollars in the War on Terror, China is building its vast armies in preparation for a pan-Asian war. Their economic ascension has been backed fully by their interest payments on OUR debt.

All the while we wage war on piss-ant 2nd and 3rd-rate countries. Countries that had very little to do with the financial backers and masterminds of 9-11. We've spent hundreds of billions building back up these countries after we bombed them, only to get ridden out of the country with no good will, and a continuing unstable future in the region.

We've fought all the wars that didn't matter. Our homefront is dying by a generation raised to believe they are entitled to everything they deserve, by a government that promises them anything and everything they want. No president, Democrat or Republican has stood up against this, but rather has enjoyed to divert attention to other things while they and their kin were kept in power by promising much and delivering it through rampant debt.

So forgive me, and the rest of the people that like Ron Paul that believe that the bigger issue to our security is being totally ignored, like it always has been, by the major GOP candidates. Obama, Romney nor Gingrich are going to reduce the debt to manageable levels like Ron Paul has promised with his $1 trillion cut to government spending. Cutting the deficit and removing the job-killing tendrils of big government are a more clear and present danger than an Iranian nuclear bomb, because unlike that bomb, big government permeates all facets of our business and lives. A nuclear bomb may kill a million people, but the entitlement culture will be what kills the nation at large - something the fanatics could never dream of achieving, and something the Chinese are gladly watching is plummet into.

Additionally, let me throw out another tactic to destroy Islamic fundementalism - how about we actually do something to destroy their infrastructure? Ron Paul as president could easily hurt them where it counts the most: Their money. De-regulation of the oil industry and the American energy industry would do far more harm to these terrorists than a bomb will. As long as these people have safe, financially sound safe havens, they can do what they do. Iran nearly has the nuke because of oil. Iraq threatened others because of oil. Saudi Arabia (the financial backers of 9-11) promote their agenda with oil money. Crash that market, and the ME returns to the 15th century tomorrow.