Ron Paul 2012 Support.

[planet news]

Regardless of Ron Paul the candidate, this is a great video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao461iG9UsA

[Fiscal]

C'mon now, Paul-people. When MrPink asked about WW2, three people jumped all over him in just 16 minutes. I asked how Paul's foreign policy responds (if it responds at all) to foreign atrocities over a week ago, and nobody's tried to answer.

I like Paul in plenty of ways, but this tendency of his supporters to dogpile and dismiss claims like this isn't exactly encouraging. It's a fair question to ask how a given ideology responds to a very simple foreign policy situation: so what's the answer? What does Paul say, and if you're not sure, what do each of you say?

I am just really forgetful on posts I want to respond to.

Look, what I was hinting at earlier is that it's difficult to speculate transferring his modern foreign policy to WWII. Who is to say that he would avoid fighting Nazi's after entering WWII legally against Japan? It's seems away from a point to me, but listen Chris, you describe it as isolationism and it's not. Paul is very clear that he will get involved with other nations if it is necessary. He even explains when it is necessary! It just happens that it is not necessary right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRbyrIzPCh4

@ 1:35

Wolf Blitzer: Under what circumstances, Congressman Paul, if you were President, would you intervene outside the borders of the united states in some sort of crisis around the world?

Ron Paul: When Congress directs me to or in an act of war, if our national security was threatened and we went through the proper channels...


...and he explains that WWII would've been hard to avoid. Once again, not complete isolationism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k0u_v9T0F8

[wintertriangles]

the policy "everyone looks for his own ass" led by Ron Paul will plunging the world into World War III.This is a stupid statement. Here's why: how the hell could pulling our 190 bases from foreign countries ruin anything? The Middle East is already screwed but that's been going on forever, no one else will start a world war, no one wants to, and the only violence that could ever happen in the near future are terrestrial riots because of governments becoming unbelievably insane, and you're probably part of the voters who don't see a problem with any of them. Ron Paul isn't Jesus but he's immeasurably better than most politicians.

[will.15]

no one else will start a world war, no one wants to.
That is so good to hear.

[planet news]

There's been a world war in the DRC for the last ten years actually...

coulda used some peacekeeping there... (i.e. both a counter-argument to absolute isolationism and a criticism of how the military has been used since Roosevelt)

[John McClane]

Fiscal is right.

[will.15]

Regardless of Ron Paul the candidate, this is a great video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao461iG9UsA
Hystericsl nonense speaking in generalities ignoring the actual reality and distorting it. And containing some actual lies. A real good reason not to vote for Ron Paul.

[will.15]

I am just really forgetful on posts I want to respond to.

Look, what I was hinting at earlier is that it's difficult to speculate transferring his modern foreign policy to WWII. Who is to say that he would avoid fighting Nazi's after entering WWII legally against Japan? It's seems away from a point to me, but listen Chris, you describe it as isolationism and it's not. Paul is very clear that he will get involved with other nations if it is necessary. He even explains when it is necessary! It just happens that it is not necessary right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRbyrIzPCh4

@ 1:35

Wolf Blitzer: Under what circumstances, Congressman Paul, if you were President, would you intervene outside the borders of the united states in some sort of crisis around the world?

Ron Paul: When Congress directs me to or in an act of war, if our national security was threatened and we went through the proper channels...


...and he explains that WWII would've been hard to avoid. Once again, not complete isolationism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k0u_v9T0F8
I listened to those clips and what I heard is different than you.

First clip, I was opposed to Iraq also, but he was also opposed to Afghanistan and that is an absurd position to take. His comment about when he supported war was very evasive, when Congress declares war, as if Congress takes the initiative to authorize war separate from a request from the President. The real answer would have been under what circumstances would he ask Congress for a declaration of war. And he says he is for non interventionism, not isolationism, but never explained the difference, without defining terms it is difficult to understand his point.

And he again is very evasive about World War II, saying it would have been hard to avoid (which is very different saying it had to be fought) then turning it around saying it was a continuation of World War I and we should have stayed out of that. And is there really a direct connection to World War I when it comes to Japanese militaristic actions in the South Pacific? The first World War explains Hitler's Germany, not necessarily Japan.

[DexterRiley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idV12epKanY&feature=relmfu

[Sedai]

Relevant to this discussion...

http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/01/republican-jewish-coalition-bars-ron-pau

[Sedai]

the policy "everyone looks for his own ass" led by Ron Paul will plunging the world into World War III.

Yes...how dare people be required to take care of themselves! The nerve of some people! The idea that I have to get up each day and make something of myself....Ridiculous!

[will.15]

Relevant to this discussion...

http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/01/republican-jewish-coalition-bars-ron-pau
It is no big surprise a Libertarian Magazine would defend Ron Paul.

It is also no big surprise a Jewish organization even a Republican based one gets all super defensive about Israel.

[Yoda]

I am just really forgetful on posts I want to respond to.
No worries. :)

Look, what I was hinting at earlier is that it's difficult to speculate transferring his modern foreign policy to WWII. Who is to say that he would avoid fighting Nazi's after entering WWII legally against Japan? It's seems away from a point to me, but listen Chris, you describe it as isolationism and it's not. Paul is very clear that he will get involved with other nations if it is necessary. He even explains when it is necessary! It just happens that it is not necessary right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRbyrIzPCh4

@ 1:35

Wolf Blitzer: Under what circumstances, Congressman Paul, if you were President, would you intervene outside the borders of the united states in some sort of crisis around the world?

Ron Paul: When Congress directs me to or in an act of war, if our national security was threatened and we went through the proper channels...
Thanks for that. :) My problems with this are threefold:

First, when someone says they'll do it "when it's necessary" but neglect to define exactly when that is, they haven't told us much. He says we should do it "if our national security was threatened," but that's a truism; nobody disagrees with that. The issue is always when that is.

Second, I'm not really trying to make the case that he's a "complete" isolationist, because I'm not sure such a creature exists in anything resembling mainstream politics. But if someone says they're not an isolationist, but isn't sure they can come up with any example in which they'd intervene in foreign affairs over the last say, century or so, then I don't think there's any serious distinction between the two, nor any problem with using the label. The difference sounds pretty theoretical.

Third, Paul's punting on this question when he says he'll go to war "When Congress directs me to." Meaning what? Congress decides, and he just does what they tell him? That doesn't seem quite right. I also have a bit of an issue with his interpretation of the purpose of Congress declaring war, too, but I'm not trying to get into an argument about Constitutional interpretation. We can't even really establish meaningful ground rules on the topic, anyway, because Paul sometimes defines thing in the Constitution as unconstitutional, because he seems to use that word ("unconstitutional") to describe things he feels are not in the initial spirit of the thing, even legally ratified Amendments. But even putting that aside, it's still a pretty obtuse answer to the question. He's being asked a profound moral question, and he's giving a bland, legal answer.

Don't get hung up on WW2, though; that's just convenient shorthand for "righteous cause." To avoid any issues with that, I rephrased the question to refer to foreign atrocities in general. Would he intervene in Rwanda to stop ethnically-targeted slaughtering, for example? Do you think we should intervene in those sorts of circumstances?

...and he explains that WWII would've been hard to avoid. Once again, not complete isolationism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k0u_v9T0F8
I think this hurts Paul more than helps him. He gives us a little history lesson about the relationship between the two wars, but saying a war is hard to avoid tells us essentially nothing about his position. If anything, it indicates that he'd probably have held off longer than FDR did.

Paul does this sort of thing a lot, by the way: he gives vague answers about direct foreign policy questions, and then segues to talking about historical context, even when that context doesn't help answer the question. He does it in this clip when he explains the genesis of WW2, and he does it in the debates when someone asks him about Iran. He segues to complaining about the policies that have led to a given situation instead of answering the question. That works okay as a condemnation of cumulative U.S. foreign policy, but it does nothing to defend his proposed alternative.

[Yoda]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idV12epKanY&feature=relmfu
I intended the question for you too, Dex: how does a Paul foreign policy respond to foreign atrocities, if at all? And how do you think it should respond?

I've got some possible follow-up questions, as well, if you'll indulge them. I'm skeptical that your stated political positions can be reconciled with your support of Paul.

[planet news]

Hystericsl nonense speaking in generalities ignoring the actual reality and distorting it. And containing some actual lies. A real good reason not to vote for Ron Paul.Mind pointing out the lies and the distortions? Mind pointing out just one? I don't even support Paul, but I think the video is spot on.

Honestly, it sounds like it's just your emotional backlash to the video.

[will.15]

I am not going through listening to it again, but the most most glaring lie was Obama is continuing Bush's policies in Iraq when we are withdrawing our troops.

The rest of it was simplistic crap. I didn't support the war in Iraq but those supposed freedom fighters mostly targeted Iraqis belonging to different tribes and not American troops. They were killing each other more than us and fighting for freedom had nothing to do with it. They left out the part justifying Americans killing each other based on religion and skin color because there was a foreign military force here.

[DexterRiley]

For those that like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo&feature=player_embedded

[Yoda]

Soldiers overwhelmingly supported Bush, too, as I recall. I'm guessing that doesn't change your mind much about him.

I'll take another shot: how does a Paul foreign policy respond to foreign atrocities, if at all? And how do you think it should respond?

[DexterRiley]

Soldiers overwhelmingly supported Bush, too, as I recall. I'm guessing that doesn't change your mind much about him.



The difference being this is among Republicans. Paul was the landslide leader back in 2008 as well, even though War Hero McCain got the nomination.

I'll take another shot: how does a Paul foreign policy respond to foreign atrocities, if at all? And how do you think it should respond?

which Foreign Atrocities?

Saudi Arabia you mean?

[Yoda]

The difference being this is among Republicans. Paul was the landslide leader back in 2008 as well, even though War Hero McCain got the nomination.
I'm not sure I understand the point. The military strongly supports Ron Paul (I haven't verified that but it sounds true enough to me), and you're presenting that as an argument that Republicans should support his foreign policy, yes? So wouldn't that have been an argument for Bush's foreign policy as well, given how strongly the military supported him?

The point, of course, is that we shouldn't be ceding our opinions about foreign policy to whatever a majority of the military chooses at a given time. Military support is something people cite when it favors them, and respectfully disagree with when it doesn't.

which Foreign Atrocities?

Saudi Arabia you mean?
It's a hypothetical, so you can feel free to make one up, or explain what kinds you would support and what kinds you wouldn't.

In general, however, I was thinking of things like ethnic cleansing or genocide and, to a lesser extent, oppressive governments persecuting their citizens. Does Paul's foreign policy take a hands-off approach to these things? If so, do you agree with that?

[Deadite]

I'd like to know your answer to that hypothetical, Yoda.

Do you support trusting our government to shape the world for their (our?) benefit with foreign interventions/occupations? And if so, how do you reconcile the cognitive dissonance of believing our government messes up when it meddles within our borders yet believe it should be allowed to meddle outside of our borders?

[Yoda]

My answer is that we do need to reserve the right to intervene when atrocities are taking place. Determining what meets that threshold is the tough part, but I think it's clear that we can't just write the world off and hole ourselves up. I think that's problematic both morally and (in the long-term) pragmatically.

As for trusting government to do things: there is simply no incentive for private citizens to band together and stop genocide half a world away. There is no serious argument to be made that market forces apply to that sort of thing. This doesn't make government a great option for it; it makes it the only one. This is no more a hurdle for someone who believes in the power of markets than the idea that the government needs to enforce laws in general. Everybody outside of the die-hard libertarians acknowledges that some things have to be done collectively. This is one of them.

Why, what's your answer? Or are you still not taking questions?

[Deadite]

I agree: It's hard to find an appropriate line. Ideally, it would be nice to help oppressed peoples without ideologues taking it too far. The problem is, since our government has been hijacked by wealthy corporate and financial interests, it has become far too easy for agendas motivated by profit (and pie-in-the-sky long term ideological plans to shape global affairs for the benefit of ostensibly capitalist and democratic interests) to get greenlit while being backed loud and hard by mouthpiece media who help create and maintain an aura of righteousness and necessity.

So while I love the idea of helping people, as well as fostering democracy especially when it's more than a buzzword used when an elite needs cannon fodder but then disappears from conversation or is considered an outright threat when they don't, and while I also think capitalism works well enough especially when it isn't monopolized by a few who warp the system as needed, I unfortunately find our foreign activities dubious, to say the least.

[Fiscal]

My answer is that we do need to reserve the right to intervene when atrocities are taking place. Determining what meets that threshold is the tough part, but I think it's clear that we can't just write the world off and hole ourselves up. I think that's problematic both morally and (in the long-term) pragmatically.

Ok. This is widely agreed upon. Ron is simply saying it isn't the President's move to determine what meets that threshold. He should go to other members of the government unlike our past two presidents. Anyway, we are doomed with SOPA and the lock up American citizens believed to be terrorists legislation. We need you Ron. Our could tries outlook is bleak. Ill probably be fighting in Iran by 2013 if any of these other clowns are elected. Love that video Dex, made me feel a bit emotional.

Chris, what do you think about the videos blowback illustration?

Also re: bush foreign policy. It was a good policy when he was campaigning.

http://youtu.be/F9SOVzMV2bc

[will.15]

My answer is that we do need to reserve the right to intervene when atrocities are taking place. Determining what meets that threshold is the tough part, but I think it's clear that we can't just write the world off and hole ourselves up. I think that's problematic both morally and (in the long-term) pragmatically.

As for trusting government to do things: there is simply no incentive for private citizens to band together and stop genocide half a world away. There is no serious argument to be made that market forces apply to that sort of thing. This doesn't make government a great option for it; it makes it the only one. This is no more a hurdle for someone who believes in the power of markets than the idea that the government needs to enforce laws in general. Everybody outside of the die-hard libertarians acknowledges that some things have to be done collectively. This is one of them.

Why, what's your answer? Or are you still not taking questions? The United States should never unilaterally invade another country for the sole purpose of human rights, never. It would be a recipe for disaster. And we don't, not ever. As part of a UN mandate in a coalition, that is different.

[will.15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6A7Iggebm4

[DexterRiley]

My answer is that we do need to reserve the right to intervene when atrocities are taking place. Determining what meets that threshold is the tough part, but I think it's clear that we can't just write the world off and hole ourselves up. I think that's problematic both morally and (in the long-term) pragmatically.

As for trusting government to do things: there is simply no incentive for private citizens to band together and stop genocide half a world away. There is no serious argument to be made that market forces apply to that sort of thing. This doesn't make government a great option for it; it makes it the only one. This is no more a hurdle for someone who believes in the power of markets than the idea that the government needs to enforce laws in general. Everybody outside of the die-hard libertarians acknowledges that some things have to be done collectively. This is one of them.

Why, what's your answer? Or are you still not taking questions?

Well obviously that is a case by case basis. A lot of it depends on whether it can be afforded.

Personally i dont think America is in the right financial shape to be borrowing from China to finance these made up war on terror campaigns.

I'd maybe get behind American Foreign Policy a bit more if they didnt only choose to intervene when texas tea was in teh region.


Hypothetical atrocities are a bit silly though.

[DexterRiley]

I'm not sure I understand the point. The military strongly supports Ron Paul (I haven't verified that but it sounds true enough to me), and you're presenting that as an argument that Republicans should support his foreign policy, yes? So wouldn't that have been an argument for Bush's foreign policy as well, given how strongly the military supported him?




What im saying is, ChickenHawks that love the War effort, and would wish it to continue forever and ever, who believe a boogieman hides behind every tree, maybe might pause of a moment and wonder, why would military people, knowing what Pauls stated intention is, why on earth would they overwelmingly throw their support in for him?

why would they do that?

[Yoda]

Well obviously that is a case by case basis. A lot of it depends on whether it can be afforded.
And if it can be afforded, in what kind of circumstances would it be justified? That's the question being posed.

Hypothetical atrocities are a bit silly though.
The idea of using a "hypothetical atrocity" was for your benefit, so you can describe exactly the kinds of circumstances under which you believe intervention is necessary. In real life, the types of things I'm talking about are not hypothetical, but plenty common, and something any modern President will have to grapple with at some point.

So, this is take five of the same question: what does a Paul foreign policy say about foreign atrocities (ethnic cleansing, genocide, or pick something else as an example, if you wish), and what do you think should be done in those situations?

[Yoda]

What im saying is, ChickenHawks that love the War effort, and would wish it to continue forever and ever, who believe a boogieman hides behind every tree, maybe might pause of a moment and wonder, why would military people, knowing what Pauls stated intention is, why on earth would they overwelmingly throw their support in for him?

why would they do that?
Because they agree with him right now, obviously. And before, most of them agreed with Bush. As I said, military support is something people use as an argument when it suits them, but disagree with respectfully when it doesn't. When they supported Bush, I assume you respectfully disagreed with them, yes?

[Yoda]

The United States should never unilaterally invade another country for the sole purpose of human rights, never. It would be a recipe for disaster. And we don't, not ever. As part of a UN mandate in a coalition, that is different.
We weren't talking about full-scale invasion, let alone unilateral invasion.

[Yoda]

Ok. This is widely agreed upon. Ron is simply saying it isn't the President's move to determine what meets that threshold. He should go to other members of the government unlike our past two presidents.
I sort of answered this before in our last exchange: Paul's answering a moral and strategic question as if it were a legal one. When asked how we handle these things, he says we should start by declaring war properly. But we both know his problem with the Iraq war doesn't vanish into thin air if we make a formal declaration of war: he doesn't believe we should be there at all, formal declaration or not, so it's a disingenuous answer.

Chris, what do you think about the videos blowback illustration?
I think, like almost all of Paul's arguments about foreign policy, it works better as a condemnation of how we're doing things, and not very well as a defense of how he would do things.

Also re: bush foreign policy. It was a good policy when he was campaigning.
Aye, it changed after 9/11. No denying that. But Bush's military support, from the polls I saw, stayed quite high for years even after that shift.

[Yoda]

Sorry to post again, but I want to keep these different lines of discussion at least somewhat organized.

Did anyone see the debate last night? I talked a page or two back about the way Paul evades questions about foreign policy by just talking about their historical context or other things. There was a very blatant example of this last night: the moderator asked him what he would do if he had reliable intelligence that Iran had nukes. He said he didn't think there was any evidence that they did and went off on a boilerplate tangent about war. The moderator clarified the question (even though it was plenty clear the first time), pointing out that he was asking what he would do if he had that information. He again dodged the question. The guy asked a third time, and he still refused to answer, talking about war and Iran in general.

He also amusingly got into it with Bachmann, first denying that the report on Iran she referenced existed, then less than a minute later saying it existed but was simply wrong.

This is a bit of a habit. I don't know if he realizes he's doing it, but I suspect he's plenty smart and knows full well that his position on these things sounds pretty bad to most people. He does this pretty much every time he's asked about just how far his non-intervention policy goes, though. I find it difficult to believe it isn't deliberate. And this coming from someone who likes Paul a bit more than not.

The guy is really, really evasive on this issue.

[DexterRiley]

We weren't talking about full-scale invasion, let alone unilateral invasion.

really.

a 10 year occupation is what exactly?

[Fiscal]

Relevant.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/23/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-iran-has-threatended-launch-/

He was saying it didn't exist in that context.

Also, he mentioned that he doesn't want Iran to get nukes, but if they do, we shouldn't take military action. There are thousands of nukes surrounding Iran. Israel has clear air space through Iraq to attack Iran now that we are gone. Iran doesn't have a nuclear delivery method. Iran hasn't threatened the US with nuclear attacks. Bachmann straight up lied about this issue in the debate last night.

[Yoda]

really.

a 10 year occupation is what exactly?
Huh? I wasn't talking about Iraq at all. I was answering a question about when it's reasonable to intervene, and will responded with a non-sequitur about Iraq and unilateral intervention.

[DexterRiley]

What were you talking about?

Israel has committed atrocities left right and centre for 30 years. The US response? Well arm em to the teeth obviously.

yeah that makes sense.

[Yoda]

What were you talking about?

Israel has committed atrocities left right and centre for 30 years. The US response? Well arm em to the teeth obviously.

yeah that makes sense.
Man, getting you to answer a question is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

Take six: what does a Paul foreign policy say about foreign atrocities (ethnic cleansing, genocide, or pick something else as an example, if you wish), and what do you think should be done in those situations?

I'm not asking if you find U.S. foreign policy to be good, bad, inconsistent, or whatever. I have a pretty good idea of what you think about that already. I'm asking you what Paul's policy is in those kinds of situations, and whether or not you agree with it/what you think it should be.

[Yoda]

Relevant.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/23/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-iran-has-threatended-launch-/

He was saying it didn't exist in that context.
I can't find a transcript, so I'll withhold judgment until I can find one. But watching the debate last night I gotta say that, if this is what he meant, that's not what I got.

Also, he mentioned that he doesn't want Iran to get nukes, but if they do, we shouldn't take military action.
When did he say that? I don't necessarily mean that as a challenge, I mean that I was watching, and I don't remember him saying anything this clear. I remember Baier asking him the same question three times, and him dodging it all three times. I remember him sort of implying this, but going to great lengths to avoid actually saying it.

His MO in these situations has been pretty consistent: ignore the question and quickly segue to general complaints about U.S. foreign policy. Surely you've noticed this in the video clip about WW2 you posted before that we talked about. It's fine if you support him anyway, but I think this is a shortcoming his supporters have to come to grips with.

There are thousands of nukes surrounding Iran. Israel has clear air space through Iraq to attack Iran now that we are gone. Iran doesn't have a nuclear delivery method. Iran hasn't threatened the US with nuclear attacks. Bachmann straight up lied about this issue in the debate last night.
Yeah, the U.S. statement was bizarre; she tacked her own conjecture onto a fact as if they were both facts. But I wasn't taking sides on Bachmann vs. Paul, I was just referencing the person who he was tussling with when he said those things. Bachmann being wrong doesn't make the other things Paul said right, just like his condemning aspects of U.S. foreign policy isn't the same thing as defending his proposed alternatives.

[DexterRiley]

Man, getting you to answer a question is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

Take six: what does a Paul foreign policy say about foreign atrocities (ethnic cleansing, genocide, or pick something else as an example, if you wish), and what do you think should be done in those situations?

I'm not asking if you find U.S. foreign policy to be good, bad, inconsistent, or whatever. I have a pretty good idea of what you think about that already. I'm asking you what Paul's policy is in those kinds of situations, and whether or not you agree with it/what you think it should be.

i answere that already.

how many different ways can i say the same thing?

[Yoda]

No you didn't: you said you didn't think we could afford it, and I asked you what we should do when we can afford it.

The closest thing you came to an answer was saying it was case-by-case...which is fine. But that's why I asked you for examples of what kind of cases would be justified, and which ones wouldn't. I have read every post of yours on this topic, and I have no idea what kind of interventions Paul supports, according to you, and what kind of interventions you support.

[DexterRiley]

ChickenHawk ways are confusing.

How come the welfare and well being of foreigners are of paramount importance, while on the homefront, its pull yourself up by the bootstraps and dont u dare complain hippie.

Iraqi's have a nationalized healthcare system for instance.

Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution, drafted by your right-wing Bushies in 2005 and ratified by the Iraqi people, includes state-guaranteed (single payer) healthcare for life for every Iraqi citizen.

Article 31 reads:

"First: Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different types of hospitals and health institutions.

Second: Individuals and entities have the right to build hospitals, clinics,or private health care centers under the supervision of the State, and this shall be regulated by law."

So its a great for Iraqis but socialism on the homefront.

how do chickenhawks square that away in their heads?

I personally dont agree with Dr Pauls stance on US healthcare, however at least his logic is consistent.

[DexterRiley]

No you didn't: you said you didn't think we could afford it, and I asked you what we should do when we can afford it.

The closest thing you came to an answer was saying it was case-by-case...which is fine. But that's why I asked you for examples of what kind of cases would be justified, and which ones wouldn't. I have read every post of yours on this topic, and I have no idea what kind of interventions Paul supports, according to you, and what kind of interventions you support.

really, you seriously want me to judge a hypothetical case ?

and psssst

you can never afford it. you cant afford it now. What you think the Banking Cartels are gonna let the note slide?

Empires rise and Empires fall. What makes America so special that you think they are immune to the whims of the moneychangers?

[Yoda]

How come the welfare and well being of foreigners are of paramount importance, while on the homefront, its pull yourself up by the bootstraps and dont u dare complain hippie.
Well, I don't believe that, actually, but this logic presents a serious problem for you: why do you hate the by-your-bootstraps argument in domestic policy, but think we should apply it to people in other countries? I distinctly recall you chastising other people awhile back for what you perceived to be them putting more value on American lives than those of foreigners, but you're doing the exact same thing when you say they should be left to fend for themselves so we can focus on our problems here. How do you reconcile that?

[will.15]

Huh? I wasn't talking about Iraq at all. I was answering a question about when it's reasonable to intervene, and will responded with a non-sequitur about Iraq and unilateral intervention.I wasn't talking about Iraq at all, the explicit purpose of that was not because they were messing with human rights. But throwing out human rights as a purpose for war is always a problem. I ain't crazy about it even in the most extreme examples, but if that is the main purpose it makes a little more sense if you just bomb and don't put troops on the ground as happened in Libya and, of course, with the United states not leading the way to take the heat. But it is still opening a powder keg. We may end up with Muslim fundamentalists running the country and that is not really good for us. But what the hell can you do? Governments in the Middle East that violate human rights (all of them to some extent) when they fall are usually replaced by governments that are not democratic either and also violate human rights. Our reaction to violation to human rights violations shouldn't go any further than economic sanctions. If it continues, then it continues.

[Yoda]

really, you seriously want me to judge a hypothetical case ?

and psssst
Now you're just not listening. I said you could use a hypothetical so that you could explain exactly what you do and do not support, and now you're using that (which was to help make it easier to answer the question) as some weird cover to avoid answering it.

Since you're going to use this as cover, confusing as that is, then you can pick from a list of real-world atrocities: Rwanda. Syria. Libya. Not hypotheticals. It is not hypothetical to say that the next President will, at some point, be informed of some kind of ethnic cleansing or systematic genocide, and have to decide whether or not to intervene. So I'm asking, for the seventh time: what does a Paul foreign policy say about foreign atrocities (ethnic cleansing, genocide, or pick something else as an example, if you wish), and what do you think should be done in those situations?

[Yoda]

I wasn't talking about Iraq at all, the explicit purpose of that was not because they were messing with human rights. But throwing out human rights as a purpose for war is always a problem. I ain't crazy about it even in the most extreme examples, but if that is the main purpose it makes a little more sense if you just bomb and don't put troops on the ground as happened in Libya and, of course, with the United states not leading the way to take the heat. But it is still opening a powder keg. We may end up with Muslim fundamentalists running the country and that is not really good for us. But what the hell can you do? Governments in the Middle East that violate human rights (all of them to some extent) when they fall are usually replaced by governments that are not democratic either and also violate human rights. Our reaction to violation to human rights violations shouldn't go any further than economic sanctions. If it continues, then it continues.
Understood, and I agree with most of this. But Ron Paul doesn't support the kind of intervention we engaged in in Libya, either.

[DexterRiley]

Well, I don't believe that, actually, but this logic presents a serious problem for you: why do you hate the by-your-bootstraps argument in domestic policy, but think we should apply it to people in other countries? I distinctly recall you chastising other people awhile back for what you perceived to be them putting more value on American lives than those of foreigners, but you're doing the exact same thing when you say they should be left to fend for themselves so we can focus on our problems here. How do you reconcile that?

answering a question with a question. Isn't that the thing that gets your panties all in a twist?

[Yoda]

When it's all someone does, yeah. When they only use them to evade, yeah. But when it's to point out that someone is contradicting themselves, or making an argument that cuts both ways? I'm okay with that. Especially seeing as how I already answered the question (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=782730) when Deadite asked it earlier. And I know from vast experience that my answering questions never seems to get you to follow suit, anyway.

For those of you keeping score, that's seven times the question was asked without being answered, and one time on this new question.

If arguments were open-field tackles, you'd be Barry-flippin'-Sanders.

[Deadite]

So what are you saying, Yoda? That you oppose isolationism? We can all demand each other to answer hypotheticals lest we be accused of not having sound foreign policy, yet even you yourself let yourself off the hook with a vague assertion that we must "reserve the right to intervene" in foreign affairs.

That's just common sense; No president in our age of global terror and potential nuclear threats is going to take intervention totally off the table. But there are appropriate ways to go about such things, and to me it seems Paul's more about being against hasty foreign actions which could have worse repercussions for us than no action at all.

And in my opinion, we have clearly been seeing the results of, how to put it... reactionary and opportunistic foreign policy? For some time now.

So if that type of thinking (RP's) is somehow bad for being cautious, then I'd love to see a change for the "worse".

But I'll end with a resigned prediction that RP will never be president. He's too sane.

[DexterRiley]

Because they agree with him right now, obviously. And before, most of them agreed with Bush. As I said, military support is something people use as an argument when it suits them, but disagree with respectfully when it doesn't. When they supported Bush, I assume you respectfully disagreed with them, yes?

its not about me. its about the troops.

if they, the fighting men and woman boots on the ground want to get the hell out and thus support Paul, then shouldn't you?

I mean you espouse the free market..Ron Paul is your man. He's a Christian, so whats not to like from your perspective?

[Sedai]

I've ALWAYS said he is unelectable, and that is still the case. I still like the guy better than all the other candidates.

[wintertriangles]

He's only unelectable because people gave up on their vote by settling

[Fiscal]

Disagree entirely with the notion that he is unelectable as in not presidential. Unfortunately I would agree if you mean that he is unelectable because of the politics game.

Ill still vote for him, even third party if not just out of principle. If its between Mitt/Newt and Obama, I honestly don't care anymore,, that's how little I care about the GOP table outside of Paul.

I'm not on this, we have to beat Obama game so you better support the outcome of the GOP race. Mitt/Newt are just as bad, even though they speak like they have similar views as I, I know that they are not principled, trustworthy people, and that is what we need right now.

[Sedai]

It's half politics game and half current mindset of the American public. I support him as a presidential candidate, but I am just being realistic. I'll set an escape hatch by stating that this fact can and probably will change in the relatively near future. In this election, though, he won't get in.

For what it's worth, he has my vote.

Also, I sent multiple emails to both Brown and Kerry in regards to the NDAA, as well.

[will.15]

I looked into this the military supports Ron Paul.

False.

This claim is based on the fact Ron Paul in 2008 received more contributions from military personnel than any other candidate.

That doesn't mean he received more votes than any other candidate in the primaries by those in the military.

I don't see a poll that shows a majority of people serving in the military supports Ron Paul.

[DexterRiley]

He's only unelectable because people gave up on their vote by settling

well to be fair, in 08' Paul pulled out even though he had plenty of cash, and opted to concentrate on running for Congress again.

What i'd love to see is to run as an independant (after the RNC gives the nom to Mitt)

A legit 3rd party in the hunt is long over-due.

[wintertriangles]

Just finished the debate. Not sure what Yoda wants to hear. His foreign policy isn't black and white, though it may seem so from his adamance against stupid questions from the condescending moderators, and I get the impression that he wouldn't ignore genocides or other atrocities of that magnitude and I don't know why anyone would think he's an isolationist. His foreign policy isn't that big of a deal even if you disagree with it because he won't start a war and he won't ignore one either.

Besides, Bachmann has got to be the scariest person up there. She sounds like she wants to kill everyone for national safety. "Biggest underestimation in history" my ass, get a history book, and not one that we've rewritten to make ourselves look good.

[Fiscal]

I looked into this the military supports Ron Paul.

False.

This claim is based on the fact Ron Paul in 2008 received more contributions from military personnel than any other candidate.

That doesn't mean he received more votes than any other candidate in the primaries by those in the military.

I don't see a poll that shows a majority of people serving in the military supports Ron Paul.

A real investigator you are. He has always claimed to receive the most contributions from military. Its true, even today. Also, I hear it from airman and soldiers alike. I really hope that when you say you were looking into this you didn't mean doing a solo Google search.

[will.15]

A real investigator you are. He has always claimed to receive the most contributions from military. Its true, even today. Also, I hear it from airman and soldiers alike. I really hope that when you say you were looking into this you didn't mean doing a solo Google search.
His campaign PR is deceptive. Look at the top of this link. It says flat out Ron Paul is the candidate most poular with the military. Then it has a USA Today link. And what does it say? It is the 2007 report about Ron Paul's political contributions. I am not impressed with your informal poll. It might be accurate or not. It just means that the people you've talked to that are in the military support Ron Paul. I am not surprised he receives more contributions from the military than the other candidates. Ron Paul's supporters tend to be Joe Blow types rather than big money guys. He has a strong, but not large following. But the vast majority of people don't give political contributions. They just vote. Are military people aware if Ron Paul was president our military force would be much smaller because our military presence overseas would be minimal? Many of them would be out of a job?

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/08/10/ron-paul-gets-most-military-support/

Oh, and that's right, I did a google search. And what is your evidence he is number one with the military? You talked to some soldiers and airmen?

[DexterRiley]

pretty weak monologue by Leno notwithstanding, good stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMUZIVYuluc

[Deadite]

If we have to rely on having a humongous military presence all over the world to create jobs, then we really are the imperialist empire that critics say we are.

[Fiscal]

His campaign PR is deceptive. Look at the top of this link. It says flat out Ron Paul is the candidate most poular with the military. Then it has a USA Today link. And what does it say? It is the 2007 report about Ron Paul's political contributions. I am not impressed with your informal poll. It might be accurate or not. It just means that the people you've talked to that are in the military support Ron Paul. I am not surprised he receives more contributions from the military than the other candidates. Ron Paul's supporters tend to be Joe Blow types rather than big money guys. He has a strong, but not large following. But the vast majority of people don't give political contributions. They just vote. Are military people aware if Ron Paul was president our military force would be much smaller because our military presence overseas would be minimal? Many of them would be out of a job?

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/08/10/ron-paul-gets-most-military-support/

Oh, and that's right, I did a google search. And what is your evidence he is number one with the military? You talked to some soldiers and airmen?

Dude seriously? The ABC link you are referring to has a direct link to politifact that confirms he has received the most contributions in 2011. Literally any other Google result brings up 2011 results, even by seperate quarters, in which Ron Paul leads military contributions.

See, there are constantly waves of surplus and deficit manning in the military. It's generally solved in recruiting. They don't bring as many people in. Sure some people will be booted, but they are the ones that have UCMJ punishment or can't promote, or can't past their pt test.

I don't care if you believe my.poll, I experience it though, and its damn refreshing.

[will.15]

Dude seriously? The ABC link you are referring to has a direct link to politifact that confirms he has received the most contributions in 2011. Literally any other Google result brings up 2011 results, even by seperate quarters, in which Ron Paul leads military contributions.

I didn't say I doubted he received the most military contributions. What I am disputing is that translated into votes.

I didn't see that politifact fact check, but I saw the current one about Ron Paul saying the same thing and, yes it is true. Ron Paul receives more contributions. And they are more impressive this year compared to the other Republican candidates. In 2007 not so much. He was only doing a little better than John McCain. And do you know how much money we are talking about? Practically nothing. Look at my link from the Ron Paul campaign with their chart. Military people clearly don't make a habit of contributing to presidential campaigns.

See, there are constantly waves of surplus and deficit manning in the military. It's generally solved in recruiting. They don't bring as many people in. Sure some people will be booted, but they are the ones that have UCMJ punishment or can't promote, or can't past their pt test.

You don't seem to understand how many troops are overseas.

Approximately twenty to twenty-five percent of American troops are stationed overseas. And under Paul we probably would need less troops over here as well.

Okay, that link didn't have that chart. I'll find it and post it.

I found another link with different number that included contributions to democrats and they show how skewed the numbers are. Look how well Obama did and we know those contributions didn't translate into votes for him.
http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/17/ron-paul-leads-all-08-candidates-with-one-third-of-military-contributions-for-q2/

[Fiscal]

Amazing video supporting Paul's argument on Iran. The truth hurts, stop the fear mongering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WVtpao0KSM

[wintertriangles]

The media is making it look like Bachmann destroyed Paul, I don't get how anyone could be so dumb

[will.15]

Amazing video supporting Paul's argument on Iran. The truth hurts, stop the fear mongering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WVtpao0KSM
Some of it is true somewhat and some of it is bull, like the Shaw was trying to destroy Islam. Is this how?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TYi4vizQbM

[DexterRiley]

Amazing video supporting Paul's argument on Iran. The truth hurts, stop the fear mongering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WVtpao0KSM

Rut Roh

Iran has been linked to 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw5v-kkIix8&feature=player_embedded

Reeks of Kangaroo court proceedings imo. Level charges, no due process = default ruling.

get ready folks, the war drums will start beaten anytime now.

[Deadite]

They passed through Iran? Really?

That tears it, let's bomb Saudi Arabia!

[iluv2viddyfilms]

He's only unelectable because people gave up on their vote by settling

True. I switched my voter status to Republican the other day. I don't get this unelectable thing. If everyone who said he was unelectable who liked him, voted for him, he'd probably be our next president.

To me voting for the lesser of two evils Obama vs Newt or Obama vs Romney, is just a waste of a vote. Write in who you want to be president or don't vote for that section of the ballot.

This idea of voting against someone is absolutely ridiculous. Vote for the man you want in the office. In this case I'm voting for Ron Paul in the Iowa caucus and the general election even if he doesn't get the Republican ticket or run as a third party.

I had a chance to listen to him speak in Indianola Iowa a few weeks ago. I filmed him and put it up on my youtube if anyone wants to watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfcGD9RRZJA

[Sedai]

Once again - no one said I wasn't voting for him! I said he is unelectable and I am STILL voting for him. Who said he was unelectable and then said they weren't voting for him?

[DexterRiley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfcGD9RRZJA

[iluv2viddyfilms]

Sorry to post again, but I want to keep these different lines of discussion at least somewhat organized.

Did anyone see the debate last night? I talked a page or two back about the way Paul evades questions about foreign policy by just talking about their historical context or other things. There was a very blatant example of this last night: the moderator asked him what he would do if he had reliable intelligence that Iran had nukes. He said he didn't think there was any evidence that they did and went off on a boilerplate tangent about war. The moderator clarified the question (even though it was plenty clear the first time), pointing out that he was asking what he would do if he had that information. He again dodged the question. The guy asked a third time, and he still refused to answer, talking about war and Iran in general.

He also amusingly got into it with Bachmann, first denying that the report on Iran she referenced existed, then less than a minute later saying it existed but was simply wrong.

This is a bit of a habit. I don't know if he realizes he's doing it, but I suspect he's plenty smart and knows full well that his position on these things sounds pretty bad to most people. He does this pretty much every time he's asked about just how far his non-intervention policy goes, though. I find it difficult to believe it isn't deliberate. And this coming from someone who likes Paul a bit more than not.

The guy is really, really evasive on this issue.

I noticed that too regarding the specific question. Here's the thing; he has said in the past that Iran is entitled to nukes because they are surrounded by their enemies. The question by the moderator is imflamatory because it is designed to get Paul to say nothing which would lead to the follow up, "Well they have said they would attack Israel." I don't know that it's the United States' role to decide who can and cannot have nukes. If Iran attacks Israel we should do something about it, however the assumption that Iran getting nukes equals an attack on Israel might be a bit too presumptuous.

We know Ahmedineghad (sp?) is a blowhard who talks way more than he ever intends to act. Sure Paul evaded the question a bit, but I think he did so less out of fearing to answer it directly, and more so because he know the question was presumptuous and a setup based on a belief that Iran already has nuclear capabilities or is on their way to getting a nuke. The moderators are schrewd with their questioning and Paul just didn't play into it.

[iluv2viddyfilms]

Soldiers overwhelmingly supported Bush, too, as I recall. I'm guessing that doesn't change your mind much about him.

I'll take another shot: how does a Paul foreign policy respond to foreign atrocities, if at all? And how do you think it should respond?

A Paul foreign policy would respond to foreign atrocities if it served our interest (not just the UN) and an ally of ours was directly attacked by another country.

A Paul foreign policy would not get involved in domestic genocide or domestic uprisings (nor should it) to over throw regimes (such as Libya, Egypt). The problem is the culture of these places is different than ours because they are theocracies and whoever replaces one evil regime will be as likely just as bad.

The people tend to forget that the US gave massive ammounts of weapons to Iraq and Afghanistan in the 80s, and put Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden in power to fight the Russians.

Non-interventionalism is the best route.

[wintertriangles]

The moderators are schrewd with their questioning and Paul just didn't play into it.THIS THIS THIS seriously

[Yoda]

So what are you saying, Yoda? That you oppose isolationism? We can all demand each other to answer hypotheticals lest we be accused of not having sound foreign policy, yet even you yourself let yourself off the hook with a vague assertion that we must "reserve the right to intervene" in foreign affairs.

That's just common sense; No president in our age of global terror and potential nuclear threats is going to take intervention totally off the table. But there are appropriate ways to go about such things, and to me it seems Paul's more about being against hasty foreign actions which could have worse repercussions for us than no action at all.
Well, first and foremost, I'm saying that people who want to pimp a candidate relentlessly should be ready to answer a few simple questions about them. Right off the bat, you're drawing a false equivalence here.

I'm also saying that there are two prongs to the question: first, what Dex believes, and how he reconciles that with what Paul believes. You say it's common sense that we have to intervene sometimes, but the whole point is that Paul doesn't seem to believe this. He goes to great pains to avoid actually saying that and he seems to find no real-world examples where he would intervene (that I've seen, at least). He only talks about the perils of intervention, and he is consistently evasive when pressed to list possible exceptions. I think Dex is right when he says that it depends; the problem is that I don't see much reason to believe that Ron Paul thinks so.

[wintertriangles]

I think Dex is right when he says that it depends; the problem is that I don't see much reason to believe that Ron Paul thinks so.I think that stems from your doubt over him. The only reason he hasn't directly acknowledged it is so not to fall into media traps as has been established. There's also no reason to think Ron Paul wouldn't think so either, going by your logic.

[Yoda]

I noticed that too regarding the specific question. Here's the thing; he has said in the past that Iran is entitled to nukes because they are surrounded by their enemies. The question by the moderator is imflamatory because it is designed to get Paul to say nothing which would lead to the follow up, "Well they have said they would attack Israel." I don't know that it's the United States' role to decide who can and cannot have nukes. If Iran attacks Israel we should do something about it, however the assumption that Iran getting nukes equals an attack on Israel might be a bit too presumptuous.

We know Ahmedineghad (sp?) is a blowhard who talks way more than he ever intends to act. Sure Paul evaded the question a bit, but I think he did so less out of fearing to answer it directly, and more so because he know the question was presumptuous and a setup based on a belief that Iran already has nuclear capabilities or is on their way to getting a nuke. The moderators are schrewd with their questioning and Paul just didn't play into it.
To say he didn't "play into it" makes it sound like a trick. But there's nothing inflammatory about asking a question with an obvious follow-up. It's an obvious follow-up because it's the most rational, pointed question to ask about his ideology. It's completely fair game. If the logical implication of Ron Paul's foreign policy is that Iran should be allowed to attack Israel, than he should say it. If his position is that they should be allowed to obtain the nuke and we should only attack them after they've wiped Israel off the map, then he should say it. If his position is that we shouldn't be allies with Israel at all, he should say that too.

Ron Paul was asked about the implications of his position, and he refused to provide them. This is not an automatic disqualifier--all candidates do this sort of thing sometimes. But let's not pretend it was some kind of ambush or trick.

[Yoda]

its not about me. its about the troops.

if they, the fighting men and woman boots on the ground want to get the hell out and thus support Paul, then shouldn't you?
No, I shouldn't, not just because of that. We don't make policy that way. We don't live in a militarist state. They are entitled to my thanks and my respect, and they have both, but they are not entitled to my agreement with whatever they say.

And, as I keep pointing out, this attempt at an argument is easily refuted by applying it to the very recent past: if they wanted to follow through in Iraq and thus supported Bush at the time, shouldn't you have? Did you, based on that? Apply the logic consistently.

I mean you espouse the free market..Ron Paul is your man. He's a Christian, so whats not to like from your perspective?
His foreign policy. Pretty sure I've made that abundantly clear. ;)

As I've said many times, I like lots about Ron Paul.

[Yoda]

I think that stems from your doubt over him. The only reason he hasn't directly acknowledged it is so not to fall into media traps as has been established.
It's not a "trap" to get someone to acknowledge the logical implication of their position. That's like saying it's a "trap" to ask a liberal if higher taxes mean people will have less money, or to ask a conservative if lower ones mean they'll be less room for social programs in the budget. These are the kinds of questions everyone gets asked, and should get asked, and the candidates should be ready and willing to answer them. And when they're not, they ought to be called on it.

There's also no reason to think Ron Paul wouldn't think so either, going by your logic.
Sure there is: the fact that he spends all his time talking about the perils of intervention and refuses to acknowledge exceptions to the idea even when given big, obvious ones like WW2. Technically speaking I can't prove a negative, but the evasiveness sort of speaks for itself. He stands to gain far more politically from acknowledging those exceptions than from denying them, so when he avoids saying either way, that's not really a neutral piece of information.

[iluv2viddyfilms]

More later, but one thing he DID support was going after Bin Laden right about 911. He's gone on the record as having said that, so I imagine if there is a direct threat to the United States he will intervene.

[Yoda]

No rush. Look forward to hearing your thoughts. I know he's said he wouldn't have ordered the raid that killed him, though, so I'm curious about whether or not his position has evolved over time at all, too.

[will.15]

More later, but one thing he DID support was going after Bin Laden right about 911. He's gone on the record as having said that, so I imagine if there is a direct threat to the United States he will intervene.
He may have said something, but what action specifically did he approve of?

He certainly didn't support going into Afghanistan to get him.

[will.15]

I think it is outrageous Ron Paul thinks it is fine for Iran to have nukes.

They are not surrounded by enemies.

Iraq is not an enemy.

Syria is not an enemy.

With that attitude if he was around then he probably would have been an apologist for Hitler during the early part of the war.

[DexterRiley]

Will Ron Paul kill the caucuses?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70674.html

Video Breakdown. (its Awesome imo) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGPDTkeYjFs

[will.15]

Yeah, he might win Iowa, maybe. But he can't win in any primary. No way Republicans nominate him. If they do Obama can declare he was born on Mars and still win easy.

[wintertriangles]

He would destroy Obama in debates. And if he wins Iowa, he'll have lots of momentum from then on assuming other states make decisions based on what happens in the first 8-10 votes

[7thson]

YikeS

[will.15]

He would destroy Obama in debates. And if he wins Iowa, he'll have lots of momentum from then on assuming other states make decisions based on what happens in the first 8-10 votes
He won't destroy Obama in debates.

Unless he flip flops on foreign policy (fat chance), a lot of Republicans would not vote for him in a general election. He would pick up some Democrats and independent younger voters, but I doubt he would get enough to make up for the loss.

A win in Iowa doesn't necessarily create momentum. It didn't do it for Huckabee. And it would definitely not do it for Ron Paul with all the political pundits/analysts spinning it as a fluke. The real winner would be Romney who can't win Iowa and the loser would be Gingrich because a win for him there could help him in NH.

None of the other candidates matter. Rick who?

[will.15]

Fiscal gave me a neg for speaking the truth.

Ron Paul has no chance of getting the Republican nomination.

And here is another thing.

He is 76 years old.

When is the last time a candidate was elected President (the first time) that was past 69?

Never.

Reagan was in his late sixties, but looked ten years younger easy.

Ron Paul looks his age.

You Ron Paul fans will have to give up the fantasy he will go to the White House and maybe look at Rand Paul as your next hope. He seems to be a bit more pragmatic than his old man as he flip-flopped faster than Romney on his criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, so he might disappoint you.

Never

[DexterRiley]

I think it is outrageous Ron Paul thinks it is fine for Iran to have nukes.

They are not surrounded by enemies.

Iraq is not an enemy.

Syria is not an enemy.

With that attitude if he was around then he probably would have been an apologist for Hitler during the early part of the war.

Derp

The USA is surrounded by Canada and Mexico.

[will.15]

We are a superpower nation trying to make sure other nations like North Korea and China don't don't try to invade their neighbors and set off a nuclear war. Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons for that. They are one of the countries we have to worry about. They have proven they are not a good neighbor.

[MrPink]

We are a superpower nation trying to make sure other nations like North Korea and China don't don't try to invade their neighbors and set off a nuclear war. Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons for that. They are one of the countries we have to worry about. They have proven they are not a good neighbor.

Iran says publicly she wants to destroy Israel and the United States.

What Ron Paul does not understand is exactly why Israel needs nuclear weapons as well, to create a deterrent.

While Israel needs nuclear weapons for defense, Iran wants nuclear weapons for destruction.

[wintertriangles]

Yeah because Israel is never on the offense. It's only been 3000 years of fighting.

[will.15]

Yeah because Israel is never on the offense. It's only been 3000 years of fighting.
Israel (this version of it) hasn't been around for 3000 years, just since after World War 2.

[DexterRiley]

Iran says publicly she wants to destroy Israel and the United States.

What Ron Paul does not understand is exactly why Israel needs nuclear weapons as well, to create a deterrent.

While Israel needs nuclear weapons for defense, Iran wants nuclear weapons for destruction.

do you understand how deterrants work?

Nukes arent a defensive weapon.

They are a weapon of last resort. period.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzItWg7VTf4&feature=player_embedded

[MrPink]

do you understand how deterrants work?

Nukes arent a defensive weapon.

They are a weapon of last resort. period.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzItWg7VTf4&feature=player_embedded

why Jordan did not enter the Yom Kippur War through the the Jordan Valley?, because he was afraid that Israel will use nuclear weapons.

[will.15]

Ron Paul (http://www.movieforums.com/tags/topic/Ron+Paul) walked out on CNN (http://www.movieforums.com/tags/topic/Cable+News+Network)’s Gloria Borger (http://www.movieforums.com/tags/topic/Gloria+Borger) during an interview Wednesday, in case you haven’t heard. Ms. Borger kept pressing (http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2011/12/21/tsr-bts-borger-ron-paul-newsletters.cnn#/video/bestoftv/2011/12/21/tsr-bts-borger-ron-paul-newsletters.cnn) the Texas (http://www.movieforums.com/tags/topic/Texas) libertarian on what he knew, and when he knew it, about racist comments in newsletters published under his name in the 1980s and ’90s.
Representative Paul insisted the questions were irrelevant because they’ve been asked and answered for years.
“I didn’t read them at the time, I didn’t write them, and I disavow them. That is the answer,” Paul said in reply to Borger.


She persisted in raising the issue, so Paul took off his mike, handed it to a technician, and walked away.
Will the walkout hurt his chances of winning the Iowa caucuses (http://www.movieforums.com/tags/topic/Iowa+Caucus)? Per se, it probably won’t. But the newsletter issue could be a big problem for Paul, despite the fact that he thinks he’s addressed it adequately.
First of all, the comments were indeed ugly. After the Los Angeles (http://www.movieforums.com/tags/topic/Los+Angeles) riots in 1992, Paul’s newsletter commented, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.”
Many voters probably weren’t aware of the controversy over the newsletters, even though it’s been reported in years past. They might be surprised to find out that the crinkly and consistent libertarian they admire today was ever associated with such words. Paul might need to not just disavow them, but disavow them with emotion, emphasizing that he recognizes how hateful they sound today.
That’s the kind of response Borger appeared to be pressing for on CNN – she kept using the word “incendiary” – and Paul didn’t give it. He talked in his usual dispassionate manner.
Second, Paul hasn’t answered all the questions raised by these long-ago comments. His disavowal is a good start on damage control, but why didn’t he read those newsletters back then? He was sending them out under his own name, and making money off them: Was he not aware of their content? If so, why not? That’s a question that could shed some light on his ability to administer the duties of the office of president of the United States (http://www.movieforums.com/tags/topic/United+States).
When did he become aware of these comments and begin to say they did not reflect his views? Already, journalists and bloggers are picking through years of old Paul interviews in an attempt to find replies that are inconsistent with what he’s saying now. On the conservative blog RedState (http://www.movieforums.com/tags/topic/RedState.com), for example, contributing editor Leon Wolf pointed out (http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/22/about-those-racist-ron-paul-newsletters-that-he-didnt-read-and-completely-disavowed/) Thursday that in a 1995 C-SPAN (http://www.movieforums.com/tags/topic/National+Cable+Satellite+Corporation) appearance, Paul was still touting the newsletters as something folks should read.
“Apparently, Paul did not change his story on these newsletters until 2001,” Mr. Wolf wrote.
Third – and this may be the biggest danger to Paul’s Iowa (http://www.movieforums.com/tags/topic/Iowa) chances – the controversy makes Paul look like just another politician.
To this point in the 2012 election cycle, Paul has been distinguished by his consistency and his willingness to tell GOP (http://www.movieforums.com/tags/topic/U.S.+Republican+Party) audiences such tough truths as the fact that US budgets rose during the presidency of their icon, Ronald Reagan (http://www.movieforums.com/tags/topic/Ronald+Reagan). Comedian Jon Stewart (http://www.movieforums.com/tags/topic/Jon+Stewart) has called Paul the candidate of “uncomfortable silences.”
But now, suddenly, it’s Paul who is deflecting a journalist’s inquires, as Mitt Romney (http://www.movieforums.com/tags/topic/Mitt+Romney) does when the subject is the Massachusetts (http://www.movieforums.com/tags/topic/Massachusetts) health-care law, and as Newt Gingrich (http://www.movieforums.com/tags/topic/Newt+Gingrich) does when his earnings from Freddie Mac (http://www.movieforums.com/tags/topic/Freddie+Mac+Holdings) come up.
“Paul can run but he can’t hide,” charged Washington Post (http://www.movieforums.com/tags/topic/The+Washington+Post+Company) opinion writer Jonathan Capehart in his take (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/ron-pauls-disqualifying-racist-newsletters/2011/03/04/gIQAvUJXBP_blog.html) on the subject.

As the other candidate found out, when polls show you have a lead, as some do for Paul in Iowa, with it comes new scrutiny, and those racist newsletters have probably killed his chances of winning Iowa. He may still come in a strong second, but I can't see him taking the lead because of the way the caucus runs, Republicans who are not strong Paul voters will not look at him as a second choice consensus candidate if the controversy is there on election day. Paul's stance has been completely unconvincing. He didn't know about it and and has no idea who wrote them? Come on. Even if that was true, and I doubt it, that is what you want from a president, he doesn't even know what is going on in a newsletter going out under his name? A real hands on leader.

[wintertriangles]

These newsletters are his equivalent of Obama's birth certificate. No one cares.

[Fiscal]

I'd say he is doing something right if the only thing anyone can find on the guy is two decades old, been debunked, and has been elected many times amidst previous hit pieces formed from these newsletters.

He has been answering this question for weeks now. When some reporter keeps asking the same question over and over with slightly different verbiage, yeah, I'd get frustrated. He is a better man then me, I wouldn't lost my cool quick.

[will.15]

We'll see.

The difference is the birth certificate was a made-up controversy. Those newsletters exist and we still don't know who wrote the racist comments that went out under Ron Paul's name. There is still a possibility Paul wrote them. And even if he didn't, it is hard to beleive he didn't know about them at the time.

[will.15]

I'd say he is doing something right if the only thing anyone can find on the guy is two decades old, been debunked, and has been elected many times amidst previous hit pieces formed from these newsletters.

He has been answering this question for weeks now. When some reporter keeps asking the same question over and over with slightly different verbiage, yeah, I'd get frustrated. He is a better man then me, I wouldn't lost my cool quick.
It hasn't been debunked at all. I know there are a bunch of Ron Paul supporters on the internet using those words, but it hasen't been. The only way it could be debunked if the author was revealed and he said he put those opinions in Ron Paul's newsletter without Paul being aware of it. If Paul wanted to identify the author he could. He doesn't know who contributed to his newsletter? Is that remoterly believable?

[Fiscal]

lol, so do you believe Ron Paul to be a homophobe or a rascist?

Look man, the guy was done with politics, he was practicing medicine at the time. There is a well cited FAQ out there somewhere. I'm on a mobile, don't really have the means to link it right now.

Everything he has ever done directly contradicts what these newsletters are saying. It is known that he hardly authored any of the neWsletters, he simply stopped the editing after his presidential bid and went back to medicine and raising a crap load of kids. He didn't quit politics to become a rascist anti gay activist. This is a non issue and totally ridiculous.

[will.15]

Look what I found.

Ron Paul has been lying.

Who wrote the racist comments?

It was Ron Paul.

Dallas Morning News, The (TX)



The Dallas Morning News


May 22, 1996
Candidate's comments on blacks questioned

Author: Catalina Camia; Washington Bureau of The Dallas Morning News
Edition: HOME FINAL
Section: NEWS
Page: 8A
Dateline: WASHINGTON





Index Terms:
ELECTIONS '96

Estimated printed pages: 3


Article Text:
WASHINGTON - Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot."
An official with the NAACP in Texas said the comments were racist and offensive.
Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.
"It's typical political demagoguery," he said. "If people are interested in my character . . . come and talk to my neighbors."
Dr. Paul, an ex-congressman and former Libertarian Party presidential candidate, defeated Rep. Greg Laughlin, R-West Columbia, in April for the Republican nomination for the U.S. House.
An obstetrician from Surfside, he faces Democratic lawyer Charles "Lefty" ! Morris of Bee Cave in the November general election. Mr. Morris, who said he was familiar with the writings in question, declined to comment about the specifics.
"Many of his views are out on the fringe," Mr. Morris said. "But voters in the 14th District have to characterize these the way they see it. His statements speak for themselves."
According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."
Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff.
Dr. Paul also said he did not know how his newsletter came to be ! included in a directory by the Heritage Front, a neo-Nazi group based in Canada. The newsletter was listed on the Internet under the directory's heading "Racialists and Freedom Fighters."
No one answered calls to the Heritage Front, which lists only a hotline connected to a tape-recorded message in the Toronto telephone directory.
Gary Bledsoe, president of the Texas NAACP, urged Dr. Paul to apologize for his comments about blacks and asked Republicans to denounce their nominee.
"We need someone who can represent all the constituents of Texas, not someone who is negative or engages in stereotypes," Mr. Bledsoe said. "Someone who holds those views signals or indicates an inability to represent all constituents without regard to race, creed or color."
About 11 percent of the population in the 14th District, stretching from near Austin to the Gulf Coast, is black.
Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be r! ead and quoted in their entirety to avoid
misrepresentation.
Dr. Paul also took exception to the comments of Mr. Bledsoe, saying that the voters in the 14th District and the people who know him best would be the final judges of his character.
"If someone challenges your character and takes the
interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.
He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.
Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `Given the inef! ficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report
Caption:
PHOTO(S): Dr. Ron Paul . . . says his comments are being taken out of context.




Copyright 1996 The Dallas Morning News Company
Record Number: DAL1568670

[Fiscal]

Glad you cracked the case :rolleyes:


http://teapartywpbfl.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/rp12-racist-2.jpg

[will.15]

If he is or isn't isn't the point.

But he has not been truthful explaining his contribution to the newsletter and his knowledge of its contents and that is.

When you take a hard look at Ron Paul he isn't as straight forward as he seems at first glance.

Like being for earmarks before he was against it (putting earmarks in for his district, then voting no, knowing it would pass anyway with the earmarks he put in).

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Ron-Paul-s-Earmarks

[DexterRiley]

Will, the Contrarian.

lulz.

[Deadite]

It's not surprising that he be attacked personally, considering his integrity on the big issues.

[Fiscal]

Oh, that interview that Paul stormed out of... It was an edited piece from CNN. The uncut interview is much different, turns out he took the mic off, you know, when the interview was over.

[will.15]

I don't know when he took off the microphone, but the reality is he has not been truthful about that newsletter.

At least some of the comments in them appear to have been written by him as he didn't deny he wrote them in 1996 in an interview and defended the comments.

The other comments appear to have his tacit approval. The evidence strongly shows he was aware of the contents of his newsletters.

The articles in the newsletter not written by him are probably in the third person while the first person comments with personal anecdotes and observations are by Ron Paul. Some of the controversial comments are in those articles.

Some of his supporters are conceding some of the controversial comments were written by Paul, but are trying to separate them from the other comments, saying they are not racist and have a basis in fact. My issue isn't that they are racist, but that he isn't being honest about them.

Come on, you Ron Paul supporters, do any of you really believe at the very least he wasn't aware of the controversial remarks that went into his newsletter at the time? Would any of you put out a newsletter with comments in them you didn't agree with or, minimum, strongly objected to? At the very least you would put out a disclaimer that the comments were not written by you and don't reflect your views. At the very least. Would he have allowed remarks in his newsletter that were socialist?

[will.15]

With friends like this defending him, Ron Paul doesn't need enemies. To give the old guy some slack, this was during the height of the AIDS epidemic:

As more evidence surfaces (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/26/ron-paul-newsletters-swiftness-of-black-men_n_1169990.html?ref=politics) that Ron Paul knew about the racist and homophobic messages of the 1980s and 90s newsletters he published, a former senior aide to the congressman has come forward with a lengthy statement (http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-from-fmr-ron-paul-staffer-on-newsletters-anti-semitism/) attempting to absolve Paul of racism while detailing shocking incidents involving Paul and gay supporters.
Eric Dondero writes on Right Wing News (http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-from-fmr-ron-paul-staffer-on-newsletters-anti-semitism/) that his former boss "is not all bigoted towards homosexuals" and supports their rights to do whatever they want in private. He is, however, "personally uncomfortable around homosexuals," as the following story shows:
In 1988, Ron had a hardcore Libertarian supporter, Jim Peron, Owner of Laissez Faire Books in San Francisco. Jim set up a magnificent 3-day campaign swing for us in the SF Bay Area. Jim was what you would call very openly Gay. But Ron thought the world of him. For 3 days we had a great time trouncing from one campaign event to another with Jim's Gay lover. The atmosphere was simply jovial between the four of us. (As an aside we also met former Cong. Pete McCloskey during this campaign trip.) We used Jim's home/office as a "base." Ron pulled me aside the first time we went there, and specifically instructed me to find an excuse to excuse him to a local fast food restaurant so that he could use the bathroom. He told me very clearly, that although he liked Jim, he did not wish to use his bathroom facilities. I chided him a bit, but he sternly reacted, as he often did to me, Eric, just do what I say. Perhaps "sternly" is an understatement. Ron looked at me directly, and with a very angry look in his eye, and shouted under his breath: "Just do what I say NOW."Dondero goes on to relay another display of Paul's "discomfort" with gays, years later at a Surfside Beach party:
"Bobby," a well-known and rather flamboyant and well-liked gay man in Freeport came to the BBQ. Let me stress Ron likes Bobby personally, and Bobby was a hardcore campaign supporter. But after his speech, at the Surfside pavilion Bobby came up to Ron with his hand extended, and according to my fellow staffer, Ron literally swatted his hand away.According to Dondero, Paul is not racist (as evidenced by his frequent hiring of blacks for office staff), but again there are significant caveats.
He is what I would describe as "out of touch," with both Hispanic and Black culture. Ron is far from being the hippest guy around. He is completely clueless when it comes to Hispanic and Black culture, particularly Mexican-American culture. And he is most certainly intolerant of Spanish and those who speak strictly Spanish in his presence, (as are a number of Americans, nothing out of the ordinary here.)Dondero claims that while Paul is not an anti-Semite, he is "most certainly Anti-Israel" and wishes the Israeli state did not exist. But Paul has "no problem with" American Jews.
The controversial newsletters, which are filled with slurs against gays and African-Americans, have recently made their way back into the news cycle (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/23/ron-paul-newsletter-media_n_1167689.html) to haunt Paul's presidential campaign. Paul has denied writing them (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20/ron-paul-newsletters_n_1161536.html), but as more old videos (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/23/ron-paul-newsletter-interview_n_1167645.html)turn up showing Paul promoting and even taking credit for the newsletters (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/26/ron-paul-newsletters-1995-interview_n_1169886.html), it will be hard for him to continue to deny involvement.
Read Dondero's full statement here (http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-from-fmr-ron-paul-staffer-on-newsletters-anti-semitism/).

[John McClane]

:rolleyes:

[Sedai]

So, the thread has come around to the point where a Libertarian is being trashed for allegedly saying or not saying something that "offends" someone.

Buahaha hahahah hahahahahahahahahahaha.

So ridiculous.

[will.15]

What does Ron Paul being a Libertarian have to do with looking at comments made in his newsletter?

He has a right to say anything or publish anything. And the media has the right to bring it up.

That is the Libertarian way, isn't it?

[Sedai]

Libertarians don't waste our time getting offended - too busy living life and enjoying ourselves to muck around in other people's lives and business.

[will.15]

Paul is running for President and most of the voters are not committed Libertarians.

And, again, the issue that is tripping him up is not if he is a closet racist or whatever, but character. He is having the same problem Nixon and Clinton had. No, there is no lawbreaking involved, but I would think even Libertarians would want a president that wouldn't have a problem with a straight honest answer about those newsletters. If from the beginning of this controversy he just said some of those were written by me over twenty years ago and I no longer feel that way, that would have been it. This is a mess of his own making, not because of the newsletters but the inept way he has handled it, and will probably prevent him from winning Iowa.

[robin01]

I've posted my thoughts on Ron Paul a few times. Half the things he say make me want to pump my fist, and the other half make me want to shake my fist. I think he's wrong about income taxes being unconstitutional, and I think he's really wrong to suggest an isolationist foreign policy and protectionist trade policies.

[will.15]

The latest Iowa polls are all over the place. One has Paul in the lead, another Romney, one has Santorum surging, the other notices no surge. They all agree Gingrich has been sinking, probably because of attack ads he can't counter because he doesn't have the money for them.

If Romney wins Iowa it is all over.

If Paul wins, it won't be by much and will povide no momentum.

I am amazed at all these candidates who think they can go for the extreme right vote and win the nomination. It is the road to nowhere. Santorum, Bachmann, and Perry have painted themselves into an ideological corner. They cannot under any circumstances win the nomination and would be DOA in a general campaign if they somehow did.

[Yoda]

I like plenty about Ron Paul, and in theory I don't have any issue with people who support him when they can concede that they don't agree with everything he says, but care more about the things they do support than the things they don't. That's a reasonable position to hold. In theory, at least.

But in practice, in this thread, you see how it usually goes: not a reasonable defense, by a borderline hysterical one. Questions about Paul's foreign policy are "tricks" and "games," and questions about Iran lead to non-sequiturs about blowback. Even softball questions on WW2 lead to evasiveness, which is incredible. Criticism for owning bigoted, paranoid newsletters is somehow used to demonstrate that he's being unfairly attacked for his views, even though there's not a candidate in the world who could own those newsletters (let alone be so muddled in their attempts to explain that ownership) and not be pointedly questioned about it.

These aren't low blows, they're just blows. This is standard stuff, not character assassination, and it would behoove some of Paul's supporters to learn the difference.

[Yoda]

For what it's worth, Pat Dollard says he asked Ron Paul about the Holocaust, and that he replied he wouldn’t risk American lives" (http://patdollard.com/2011/12/ron-paul-%E2%80%9Ci-wouldn%E2%80%99t-have-risked-american-lives%E2%80%9D-to-end-the-holocaust/) to stop it. A former aide of Paul's says the same (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ex-aide-says-ron-paul-911-truther-isolationist-who-thinks-us-shouldnt-have-fought-hitler_614883.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter), also claiming that he's a 9/11 "truther."

So, here's what I want to know: if you (you being whoever) still support Paul, is it because you think it's okay to believe these things, or because you (for some reason) think he doesn't actually believe them? If not, why not, especially given that the Holocaust comment seems consistent with his evasiveness on the topic in more prominent media venues?

[MovieMad16]

Does Anyone care ?

None of the candidates will be strong enough to topple Obama. Its interesting with The Republicans because I find them to be the most interesting out of the two parties. Democratic Candidates are usually dull and uninteresting and no character, where as its the complete opposite with Republicans.

People are also adamant to let The Republicans back in after the recession and economic crisis going on now.

[DexterRiley]

Imagine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

Another Ron Paul Campaign ad hit out of the park imo.

Frequently Asked Questions on Ron Paul's National Defense

Sean Hannity keeps calling Ron Paul an “Isolationist”. Is Ron Paul really an Isolationist?
Ron Paul is not even close to being an Isolationist. Isolationists have to have both of the following policies:
Protectionism – No trade or friendship with other nations.
Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial differences (self-defense).
Ron Paul is the opposite of a Protectionist and would open up free trade with every country in the world. That is far from isolationism. It is the same foreign policy of peace and prosperity that Thomas Jefferson wisely suggested; “Commerce with all nations -- entangling alliances with none."

The proper term for people like Jefferson and Paul is “non-interventionist”.

Is it possible to be a non-interventionist and still have a strong National Defense?

Absolutely! In fact our interventions weaken our national defense. Watch Bruce Fein, a top Justice Department official under the Reagan administration; explain why Ron Paul is the strongest candidate for National Defense.

Iran: Isn't Iran trying to get a nuclear bomb and wipe the USA and Israel off the map?

Just like Iraq, the media is building up fear around Iran. The arguments are almost identical. Yes Iran is our sworn enemy, but so was Russia. Russia had 40,000 nukes and we kept the peace without a missile being fired. Iran doesn't even have a nuke and the media is pumping Iran and preparing for another war. Compared to our economic concerns, Iran is not a major issue.

What about Israel? Glenn Beck claims Ron Paul is "dead wrong" on Israel?

Ron Paul understands that our current policies are not only weakening the USA but also weakening Israel. Ron Paul would actually help Israel more than all the current politicians who claim they are "pro-Israel" because Ron Paul would cut ALL foreign aid not just to Israel but to ALL Israel's enemies. Currently, the USA gives 3 times more money to Israel's worst enemies than we do to Israel! Cutting all aid not only helps Israel defend themselves, but allows the USA to stop spending money it doesn't have.

Rick Santorum says that Ron Paul believes that terrorists were justified in attacking the USA because of our foreign policy and that the terrorists attacked the USA because they hate our way of life and our freedom and prosperity. Is this true?

Ron Paul does not believe the terrorists were justified in the 9/11 attacks. Ron Paul does want to understand the motive behind 9/11.
Saying that Ron Paul is justifying the terrorists is like saying that a man who murdered his wife with her adulterous lover after catching them in the act is justified because his motive was anger at his wife's wrong doing. Cheating on your husband might be wrong, but it in no way justifies your husband to kill you.

Bill Kristol has insinuated that Ron Paul is a 9/11 Truther. Is Ron Paul a Truther?
ABSOLUTELY NOT. A common smear tactic against Ron Paul is that he is a Truther: someone who believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy orchestrated by the government. Here is Ron Paul's Position on Truthers and 9/11:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/wx3pYcKsBzU
http://www.youtube.com/embed/v60TWZNVgtk



Ron Paul takes the CIA at their word when they say that flaws in US foreign policy causes “Blowback”. Here is the Wikipedia definition of “blowback” (emphasis added):
Blowback is the espionage term for the violent, unintended consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government. To the civilians suffering the blowback of covert operations, the effect typically manifests itself as “random” acts of political violence without a discernible, direct cause; because the public—in whose name the intelligence agency acted—are ignorant of the effected secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them. Specifically, blowback denotes the resultant, violent consequences—reported as news fact, by domestic and international mass communications media, when the actor intelligence agency hides its responsibility via media manipulation. Generally, blowback loosely denotes every consequence of every aspect of a secret attack operation, thus, it is synonymous with consequence—the attacked victims’ revenge against the civil populace of the aggressor country, because the responsible politico-military leaders are invulnerable.
Originally, blowback was CIA internal coinage denoting the unintended, harmful consequences—to friendly populations and military forces—when a given weapon is carelessly used. Examples include anti-Western religious fanatics (see Osama bin Laden) who, in due course, attack foe and sponsor; right-wing counter-revolutionaries who sell drugs to their sponsor’s civil populace (see CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US); and banana republic juntas (see Salvadoran Civil War) who kill American reporters or nuns (see Dorothy Kazel).

In formal, print usage, the term blowback first appeared in the Clandestine Service History—Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran—November 1952–August 1953, the CIA internal history of the US’s 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Examples of blowback include the CIA’s financing and support for Afghan insurgents to fight an anti-Communist proxy guerilla war against the USSR in Afghanistan; some of the beneficiaries of this CIA support joined al-Qaeda's terrorist campaign against the United States.

In the 1980s blowback was a central theme in the legal and political debates about the efficacy of the Reagan Doctrine, which advocated public and secret support of anti-Communist counter-revolutionaries (usually the losers of civil wars). For example, by secretly funding the secret war of the militarily-defeated, right-wing Contras against the left-wing Sandinista government of Nicaragua, which led to the Iran-Contra Affair, wherein the Reagan Administration sold American weapons to US enemy Iran to arm the Contras with Warsaw Pact weapons, and their consequent drug-dealing in American cities. Moreover, in the case of Nicaragua v. United States, the International Court of Justice ruled against the United States’ secret military attacks against Sandinista Nicaragua, because the countries were not formally at war.

Critics of the Reagan Doctrine note that blowback is inevitable and that such unilateral intervention causes Third World civil wars to expand beyond their borders and risks the long-term safety of Americans who may be killed in the resulting violence. Reagan Doctrine advocates, principally the Heritage Foundation, replied that support for anti-Communists would topple Communist régimes without retaliatory consequences to the United States and help win the global Cold War.

http://www.revolutionpac.com/defense/?utm_source=YouTube&utm_medium=cpv&utm_term=early%2Bstates&utm_content=National%2BDefense%2BLink&utm_campaign=National%2BDefense

[Yoda]

Dude, your political views are not even remotely compatible with Ron Paul's. You've called the pro-life position (which is his position) extreme and you've posted hundreds of things that directly contradict his entire economic philosophy. Even on foreign policy you take a more interventionist view, though you've flat-out refused to explain how you reconcile that view with what appears to be his (you can finally address that here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=782962). Extra credit if you decide to answer this (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=783265), too).

If Ron Paul were a MoFo, you'd argue with him all the time.

[Fiscal]

Chris, I don't agree with that comment. Can you not consider though, just a little, that some of these things aren't just attacks before Iowa? Ron Paul is taken out of context quite often. For instance, Ron Paul try's to justify terror attacks on 9/11. That's simply not true. Anyway, I heard about this comment a few days ago, and actually found a smart, short article that decribes how I feel, in a way, about the comment on the holocaust.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2011/12/27/would-ron-paul-have-stopped-the-holocaust/

Look dude, I don't agree with your description of the newsletters, your WWII question, blowback, that whole paragraph of you summing up this thread. I can't speak for everyone, but it's not a true summary for myself, if I was being referred to, and I feel I was, because of blowback comment and the newsletter line. I'm not nearly as good as you are at putting words and explanations onto the screen, so if that's how it seems I am responding, my bad.

Edit: also, because you like quick yes or no answers without trying to explain or seemingly avoid; no, I don't agree with that comment about the holocaust, given this specific situation, and our hindsight.

[DexterRiley]

Dude, your political views are not even remotely compatible with Ron Paul's. You've called the pro-life position (which is his position) extreme and you've posted hundreds of things that directly contradict his entire economic philosophy. Even on foreign policy you take a more interventionist view, though you've flat-out refused to explain how you reconcile that view with what appears to be his (you can finally address that here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=782962). Extra credit if you decide to answer this (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=783265), too).

If Ron Paul were a MoFo, you'd argue with him all the time.

His private beliefs religious wise, are his. He personally is pro-life, but as a politician, has no intent whatsoever to overturn Roe Vs Wade.

So really, what do i care what he believes in the sancity of his own home or place of worship?

you know how much i care?

not at all. However if he was invoking his god left right and centre when talking policy justification, and the like, then yes id have a problem with it.

I havent seen nor read nor heard of Dr. Paul invoking righteousness into his policies. Has he? post em if you gottem.

:D

[DexterRiley]

Also, i argue with you all the time Chris, while at the same time Love ya.

Not sure what your point was again.

[Yoda]

@Fiscal:

First off, my apologies if you thought I was referring to you. I can see how it might seem that way, but no, I had others in mind. I guess I think you're going kind of easy on him in regards to the newsletters (I don't think it's just a binary bigot/not-a-bigot question, for example), but that's about it.

Re: distorting Paul's words. Oh yeah, it happens. But I don't know if it happens any more than it does to any other candidate, and if it does I think it's mainly a reflection of the fact that he can be a little careless about what he says sometimes. I don't think he's being unfairly targeted.

Re: the Holocaust comment. I'm a little confused on this point; you say you don't agree with it, but the article you posted (which you said sort of describes how you feel) seems to defend the idea behind it. Could you clarify where you come down on this? Either way, I have lots of thoughts about that article and the debate in general, if you're interested.

[DexterRiley]

For what it's worth, Pat Dollard says he asked Ron Paul about the Holocaust, and that he replied he wouldn’t risk American lives" (http://patdollard.com/2011/12/ron-paul-%E2%80%9Ci-wouldn%E2%80%99t-have-risked-american-lives%E2%80%9D-to-end-the-holocaust/) to stop it. A former aide of Paul's says the same (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ex-aide-says-ron-paul-911-truther-isolationist-who-thinks-us-shouldnt-have-fought-hitler_614883.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter), also claiming that he's a 9/11 "truther."

So, here's what I want to know: if you (you being whoever) still support Paul, is it because you think it's okay to believe these things, or because you (for some reason) think he doesn't actually believe them? If not, why not, especially given that the Holocaust comment seems consistent with his evasiveness on the topic in more prominent media venues?

Correct me if i'm wrong, but America didnt wade into WW2 until they were attacked @ Pearl Harbor in 41'. My moms dad was in the ***** in 39 and 40. My dads dad didnt get involved till late 1940 though he wasnt regular Air Force. He was a civilian contractor in the Top Secret (at the time) Ferry Command.

While we are bending time and suggesting hypotheticals though, I think Paul likely would have done the same that was done then. Stayed out of it until being attacked i mean.

I also think he would have come down on Prescott Bush and the boys for financing the Nazi War Machine.

Do you think so Chris? and would you have hypothetically agreed?

[Yoda]

His private beliefs religious wise, are his. He personally is pro-life, but as a politician, has no intent whatsoever to overturn Roe Vs Wade.
From Ron Paul's website (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/):

And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”
Also, none of his economic policies are subject to this. He hates socialized health care and favors basically no business regulation whatsoever. So you think he's crazy extreme on at least three major issues, yes?

Also, i argue with you all the time Chris, while at the same time Love ya.
Well-played. ;) Your flattery is extremely disarming.

That said, I'll bet you wouldn't vote for me, eh? I'm not saying you shouldn't like the guy on some personal level. I'm saying there appears to be no good reason for you to support him politically.

[Yoda]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but America didnt wade into WW2 until they were attacked @ Pearl Harbor in 41'. My moms dad was in the ***** in 39 and 40. My dads dad didnt get involved till late 1940 though he wasnt regular Air Force. He was a civilian contractor in the Top Secret (at the time) Ferry Command.

While we are bending time and suggesting hypotheticals though, I think Paul likely would have done the same that was done then. Stayed out of it until being attacked i mean.
But that's the whole point: Pearl Harbor was proof we were wrong to have waited as long as we had. It showed that we had underestimated the threat and didn't realize our error until it hit us in the face. This is the same basic argument Newt and Paul had about Timothy McVeigh a few debates ago, by the way.

And if Paul probably would have done the same thing, why not say so? God knows he's been asked that question, and it would assuage a number of people's doubts about him if he'd say this sort of thing. So why doesn't he, when asked?

I also think he would have come down on Prescott Bush and the boys for financing the Nazi War Machine.

Do you think so Chris? and would you have hypothetically agreed?
With which part? That financing Nazis is bad? Uh, yeah, I agree with that.

[DexterRiley]

Nope if i Was American, there is no way no how i could vote for an Evangelical Christian. I mean i couldnt vote here for a person that wears there religion (whatever religion that is..doesnt matter to me..they all the same to me), so in that regard im consistent.

I'll say it again, though i think ive been pretty clear. Ron Paul has my support in the GOP because of his stance on WAR.

Given my druthers, i'd much rather Ralph Nader as the POTUS with say Dennis Kucinich as his VP.

But the likelehood of that is slim and nil and slim left town at present. The 2 party duopoly stranglehold is too strong. At least it is at present.

If the RNC opts to give the nomimation to Newt say, which would be frankly hilarious. but say that happens.. I think Paul could make some serious waves as an independant Ross Perot style.

Its a buffet of crappy choices in the GOP. Of the bunch, Paul is heads and shoulders above the pack.

A Ron Paul/Gary Johnson ticket would beat Obama.

[will.15]

But that's the whole point: Pearl Harbor was proof we were wrong to have waited as long as we had. It showed that we had underestimated the threat and didn't realize our error until it hit us in the face. This is the same basic argument Newt and Paul had about Timothy McVeigh a few debates ago, by the way.

Wrong. Nobody in the White House underestimated the threat. Roosevelt wanted to enter the war, but couldn't because Americans were strongly opposed to it. But we were also no longer neutral and strongly opposed to the Axis Powers and were doing everything short of it. If Ron Paul was president then there would have been no attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese attacked because the United States had effectively cut off Japan's oil supply. They had two options enter negotiations to leave China or invade the Pacific Rim and get oil from captive countries that had it. Attacking Pear Harbor was part of their strategy to do the latter. Ron Paul would have allowed the occupation of China by Japan to continue, would have remained neutral in Europe so Britain would have lost and Hitler would have taken over Europe.[/quote]

[will.15]

A Ron Paul/Gary Johnson ticket would beat Obama.
Ron Paul couldn't beat Obama even if Beyonce was his VP.

[Fiscal]

@Fiscal:

First off, my apologies if you thought I was referring to you. I can see how it might seem that way, but no, I had others in mind. I guess I think you're going kind of easy on him in regards to the newsletters (I don't think it's just a binary bigot/not-a-bigot question, for example), but that's about it.

Re: distorting Paul's words. Oh yeah, it happens. But I don't know if it happens any more than it does to any other candidate, and if it does I think it's mainly a reflection of the fact that he can be a little careless about what he says sometimes. I don't think he's being unfairly targeted.

Re: the Holocaust comment. I'm a little confused on this point; you say you don't agree with it, but the article you posted (which you said sort of describes how you feel) seems to defend the idea behind it. Could you clarify where you come down on this? Either way, I have lots of thoughts about that article and the debate in general, if you're interested.

It's all good man. I agree that the targeting is across the board, just saying that this comment could be a distortion.

I think the article describes problems with humanitarian involvement well. But, I believe we should've helped out in WWII. I think the article describes Pauls position better than the comment you posted.

[will.15]

The problem with that article defending Ron Paul's' Holocaust position is it says Roosevelt didn't enter the war to save Jews from the Holocaust either. That is correct. But it is irrelevant because there was no Holocaust in December of 1941 when the United States formally declared war. Ron Paul would have allowed Hitler and Japan to win the war and enslave other nations. That is the reality. There is nothing in his statements to refute this. Saying World War 1 caused World War 2 is also irrelevant. So what if true? And the real problem wasn't the United States entering the war, it was the peace that was negotiated. Wilson may have been an idealist, but we entered the first World War because Germany was attacking our ships.

[Yoda]

Wrong. Nobody in the White House underestimated the threat. Roosevelt wanted to enter the war, but couldn't because Americans were strongly opposed to it.
This doesn't contradict what I was saying: I said that "we" underestimated the threat. Whether that refers to FDR, the White House, or the American people in general has no bearing on the point, which was that Pearl Harbor revealed a misjudgment. Thus, the fact that Ron Paul probably would have gone to war after that (though "probably" is still being generous given what he's said about this time period and others) doesn't really defend Paul at all.

[Yoda]

Nope if i Was American, there is no way no how i could vote for an Evangelical Christian. I mean i couldnt vote here for a person that wears there religion (whatever religion that is..doesnt matter to me..they all the same to me), so in that regard im consistent.

I'll say it again, though i think ive been pretty clear. Ron Paul has my support in the GOP because of his stance on WAR.

Given my druthers, i'd much rather Ralph Nader as the POTUS with say Dennis Kucinich as his VP.
The question is not why you prefer Paul to other GOP candidates (though that's pretty weird, too), the question is why you spend so much time arguing for a candidate you find so extreme, according to your own words. You disagree with him very strongly on 95% of the issues, and even on the other 5% you don't completely line up. You'll post something in the OWS thread and then you'll come over here and ardently defend the candidacy of someone who stands for the absolute opposite of the thing you just posted.

And in the post before this one, you said Paul wasn't for overturning Roe v. Wade. But he is--he really is. You either didn't know this or didn't care, but decided to say the opposite anyway. Why? Are you making this up as you go along, or do you honestly not know what his positions are?

[will.15]

This doesn't contradict what I was saying: I said that "we" underestimated the threat. Whether that refers to FDR, the White House, or the American people in general has no bearing on the point, which was that Pearl Harbor revealed a misjudgment. Thus, the fact that Ron Paul probably would have gone to war after that (though "probably" is still being generous given what he's said about this time period and others) doesn't really defend Paul at all.
My other point was if Ron Paul was president we would not have gone to war over Pearl Harbor because the United States would have remained neutral and would not have been preventing Japan from getting oil. The only thing that would compel Paul to declare war is an attack, but his non interventionist policies would make such an attack unnecessary.

[will.15]

It is possible he may win Iowa today with the help of Democrats who can switch parties on the day of the caucuses. Hey, if I was in Iowa I might have done that since there is not reason to caucus among Democrats since Obama is unopposed. And maybe vote for Ron Paul just for the helluva it.

[Yoda]

Yup, he may very well win it. Followed by several days of his supporters magnifying its significance, followed by him not winning in any of the next three states, followed by those supporters blaming the media, or something.

Iowa is generally good for pro-life conservatives, and it's a caucus, so it rewards candidates whose supporters are more energetic than they are numerous. Paul is both.

[John McClane]

Ron Paul can win it and the states following it.

[wintertriangles]

If anything he should get the vote merely as a "restart button" option.

[Fiscal]

If he ran as a third party, do you think he would exceed the 18.9% popular vote Ross Perot received? What about electoral votes?

[Yoda]

Ron Paul can win it and the states following it.
Based on what? He's not within 20 points in any of the three states after Iowa, and he's apparently neck and neck with Romney in Iowa despite the inherent advantages he enjoys there.

[Yoda]

If he ran as a third party, do you think he would exceed the 18.9% popular vote Ross Perot received? What about electoral votes?
Dunno if this was addressed to any one in particular, but I think he'd get less. Not because he isn't a better candidate or possible President, but because a) people are much more aware of the possibility of third-party "spoilers" than they used to be, thanks in large part to Nader, and b) people are going to be far more fired up for this election than they were in 1992. That was pretty lackluster; Bush was unpopular, but not hated, and Clinton took office with just 43% of the vote.

Anyway, I strongly doubt Paul will run as a third party, for a number of reasons. But if he does, Obama wins, easy.

[DexterRiley]

The question is not why you prefer Paul to other GOP candidates (though that's pretty weird, too), the question is why you spend so much time arguing for a candidate you find so extreme, according to your own words. You disagree with him very strongly on 95% of the issues, and even on the other 5% you don't completely line up. You'll post something in the OWS thread and then you'll come over here and ardently defend the candidacy of someone who stands for the absolute opposite of the thing you just posted.

And in the post before this one, you said Paul wasn't for overturning Roe v. Wade. But he is--he really is. You either didn't know this or didn't care, but decided to say the opposite anyway. Why? Are you making this up as you go along, or do you honestly not know what his positions are?

Paul is for letting the states decide. Thats why he didnt attend the silly debate set up by the personhood society.

What is it that you find weird about me favouring Paul over the other GOP candidates?

also not all issues carry equal weight of reasonance. Ending the War Machine policy is massively more important imho.

[will.15]

Dunno if this was addressed to any one in particular, but I think he'd get less. Not because he isn't a better candidate or possible President, but because a) people are much more aware of the possibility of third-party "spoilers" than they used to be, thanks in large part to Nader, and b) people are going to be far more fired up for this election than they were in 1992. That was pretty lackluster; Bush was unpopular, but not hated, and Clinton took office with just 43% of the vote.

Anyway, I strongly doubt Paul will run as a third party, for a number of reasons. But if he does, Obama wins, easy.
Actually, if Paul was a third party guy I don't think he would affect the vote much, he would be closer to Nader support than Ross Perot's, which historically is still pretty decent for a third party candidate. And Paul's support is all over the map so he could hurt Obama potentially more in a close race in a state like Florida. My guess being super optimistic Paul wouldn't do better than 6-8 percent and I think it would be more like three or four.

[Yoda]

Paul is for letting the states decide. Thats why he didnt attend the silly debate set up by the personhood society.
Letting the states decide what, exactly? Certainly not personhood; he reintroduced a version of the Sanctity of Life Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act). I see absolutely no way to spin the abortion stuff. Paul is super pro-life. Why did you say/think otherwise?

You asked about Paul and religion, too. Here's a quote from an article he wrote in 2003 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html):

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion ... The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."
Does this sound like someone who shares your view of religion's role in political life?

What is it that you find weird about me favouring Paul over the other GOP candidates?
The fact that you have to give so many other issues you've talked fervently about the shaft to do so. But as I said, my main concern is not why you prefer him to Romney, or whoever, but why you spend so much time supporting a candidacy that you admit you find extreme on almost every issue. You say he has no shot, anyway, so why not dedicate your time to pimping Nader or Kucinich? Your support of Paul is, as I said, odd to me, but it's the amount of time and effort you put into supporting him that's downright inexplicable.

also not all issues carry equal weight of reasonance. Ending the War Machine policy is massively more important imho.
You're going a lot further than saying one issue is important than another. You're saying partial agreement on one issue is enough to dwarf complete and utter disagreement on almost every other major issue. You think his economic philosophy is the one that destroyed the economy, and you've called less pro-life stances than his "extreme," yet his foreign policy is so significant as to make all that tolerable? That's basically saying only one issue matters, period, even though the others are obviously important (which you must agree with, given that you spend plenty of time arguing about those, too).

[MrPink]

the support in Ron Paul is so big and it's shows where American society deteriorated.
it's no secret that the vast majority of supporters are young, because Ron Paul is going against the flow something.
They do not understand that his separatist policies will destroyed the economy of United States even more.

[wintertriangles]

This is like the fifth time you've made that claim with literally nothing to back it up. Do you even live here? American deterioration is mutually exclusive from most of Ron Paul's stances. I think YOU do not understand what you're talking about.

[Deadite]

Reality check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V36MT5lAMrc&feature=player_embedded

[wintertriangles]

Interesting having To Live Is To Die in the back

[DexterRiley]

The fact that you have to give so many other issues you've talked fervently about the shaft to do so. But as I said, my main concern is not why you prefer him to Romney, or whoever, but why you spend so much time supporting a candidacy that you admit you find extreme on almost every issue. You say he has no shot, anyway, so why not dedicate your time to pimping Nader or Kucinich? Your support of Paul is, as I said, odd to me, but it's the amount of time and effort you put into supporting him that's downright inexplicable.




Well first off, there is no way the Dems are gonna run Obama through the meat grinder of a Primary, so that means Kucinich would have to run as an independant, and he has no where near the profile required to make that work.

however, this idea was bandied about in 2008,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18

i think with Pauls advanced age, they may give it a go. Its a game changer. Not that i think they can, win, because i don't, but because it will get the meat on the table. Less of the 3 G wedge issue posturing, and more brass tax, rubber meet the road sort of Debate.

Which will be a welcome change of scenery imho.

Kucinich was who the Dems should have ran in 2008, but Dennis K didnt offer up concessions to the Financial giants in exchange for Campaign dollars. He's a principaled fellow. Unlike Obama who gives wishy washy a new figurehead. Its the Golden Rule. Whoever has the Gold makes the rules. Obama was easier to buy outright.

[Sedai]

Read a great article from a pissed off progressive today. She still dislikes Paul, but she goes to bat for him a bit, and some of the things she says near the end of the article apply to this thread, which I will paste just below the link to the full article.

Pollitt's Perplexity... (http://translationexercises.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/pollitts-perplexity-about-pundits-on-ron-paul/)

"Here’s my other question: Why does this have to turn into a “guilt by association” debate? Why can’t we discuss the questions that are being raised as serious and important questions, rather than referendums on voters’ or pundits’ moral character? I don’t have to like Ron Paul (and why do we need to LIKE our politicians?). I don’t have to have dinner with him. He doesn’t need to be a friend. He is raising the questions that every other liberal and progressive and feminist (yes, including you, Katha) should be raising and forcing the Democrats to address. As Greenwald as pointed out, these issues only become outrage-worthy when the Republicans are spearheading human rights violations, because it gives the libs and progs a lever by which to claim political superiority. The silence on the Democrats’ record of human rights violations is deafening. And they’re more than cherries on a blighted tree. They’re dead bodies on the blighted conscience of Americans."

[will.15]

She supports his stand on one issue, foreign policy, the one area where leftists have a similar position to isolationists on the right. Criticism of Paul about the views expressed in his newsletter has always been less about if he is or isn't a racist as it has been his less than candid explanations of who wrote what and when did he know what was in it and the amount of editorial control he had. I also am a little confused to exactly what she is saying. I suppose it is Ron Paul's view on race and other matters doesn't make his position on American interventionism less credible. I suppose not if you agree with him on that and nothing else, but so what? If someone thinks Ron Paul's view on foreign policy is so important, they should look pass other issues where they are in strong disagreement (perhaps Dexter Riley's view) then fine. But when it comes to supporting a presidential candidate most of us look at all of their positions, their entire record, and look at other things as well like character. This person seems to be looking at Ron Paul strictly as a protest candidate because she regards him by her definition the only peace candidate. Previous peace candidates like George McGovern and Eugene McCarthy had a much less isolationist world view than Ron Paul.

[Sedai]

Yeah, I got into it with a lady friend of mine earlier today and she said this:

"I don't CARE, Mike...I just don't...I don't care if everything else about the man is sunshine and rainbows and he is the perfect man for the country. I disagree with his stance of Pro-Life and I know he just want to take my rights away, and as a free-thinking female, I can't stand for it."

I showed her the stated positions about the Constitution protecting her rights and that Paul stood behind that, but that his PERSONAL views were that of strong pro-life.

I asked if she felt she was being manipulated with an issue that was clearly emotional for her, and she said "probably".

Which is why health care issues shouldn't be political bargaining chips, but we are way too far gone for that...

And yes, i feel like this girl went off the deep end a couple of times, actually, but I liked the stuff I bolded in regards to discussion....

[wintertriangles]

At the end of last night's debate, they showed the twitter polls for who did the best in every category. Paul won all of them, I'm surprised Fox aired that bit.

[Yoda]

That always happens; Paul's fans flood every online poll. As always, it's an indication of the fervor (and relative youth) of his supporters. I'm pretty sure he scored highly on topics he was hardly even talking about last night.

[MrPink]

hello paul's fanboys.

[Yoda]

Well first off, there is no way the Dems are gonna run Obama through the meat grinder of a Primary, so that means Kucinich would have to run as an independant, and he has no where near the profile required to make that work.

however, this idea was bandied about in 2008,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18

i think with Pauls advanced age, they may give it a go. Its a game changer. Not that i think they can, win, because i don't, but because it will get the meat on the table. Less of the 3 G wedge issue posturing, and more brass tax, rubber meet the road sort of Debate.
All true, but as you admit, none of them have a real chance, and it doesn't even look likely Paul will run as a third-party, so why not go nuts for the guy you actually agree with on most issues, as opposed to the one you think is crazy and extreme on all but one? Surely you can see how that's odd. If your goal is just to move the debate (which is a good goal most of the time, IMO, as opposed to compromising just to win), that's all the more reason to support the guy most closely aligned to you. Or heck, at least a guy you agree with on more than a single issue, or whose positions on other issues you don't straight-up hate.

What of the abortion/religious stuff? What led you to believe he didn't want to overturn Roe v. Wade, or had views on religion and politics consistent with your own? It's one thing to overlook these differences, but it's another to not know what they are.

[will.15]

Ron Paul out of more friendly Iowa and New Hampshire found South Carolina's debate audience to be real hostile to his foreign policy views.

Some sources are rating him for the first time to be a loser in those winners and losers analysis of the candidate's debate performance.

[7thson]

Not even sure who takes the place holder here....

[ManOf1000Faces]

Ron paul has my vote!!

[will.15]

He is not running anymore.

[ManOf1000Faces]

Ron Paul said he would eliminate our debt instead of liquidate it like the others do, he would legalize gay marriage and give back some power to the states.

[ManOf1000Faces]

then go Gary Johnson.

[gandalf26]

If I was a US citizen voting I would take a big black marker pen into the voting booth and write RON PAUL!!! on the card (yes I know probably electronic voting now).

**** the red and blue puppets.

[Sedai]

Johnson 2012