Guess who has been saying the same thing for almost a quarter of a century and still stands by it. If you said anyone except Ron Paul, you were wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anmlPvmd1Ew
Printable View
Guess who has been saying the same thing for almost a quarter of a century and still stands by it. If you said anyone except Ron Paul, you were wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anmlPvmd1Ew
Great video.
I wonder what happened to the Paul/Ventura ticket. Hearing mention of that a while back got me pretty amped.
He may be consistent, and I agree with a lot of his domestic policy, but I just can't support somebody who blames America for the rest of the world hating us. Just can't do it.
So he's been consistently wrong for a quarter century? Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have been saying the same thing for that long, too. Doesn't mean they have any more credibility.
Not a Ron Paul fanboy because of his foreign policy and national security stances.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
Yeah, we've never done anything wrong that would cause another nation or group of people to hate us, ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
The top dog is always loathed, but don't worry we won't have that problem for much longer.
H.
I'm not saying we've never done anything wrong, but I will neither apologize for America's greatness nor will I blame it for the reason why most of the world hates us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier
We need a Libertarian of Constitutionalist in the white house. Screw the Repubs or Democraps, Ron Paul for president!
So tell me, what did we do to provoke the murder of over 3,000 American civilians on our own soil? (Other than the fact that we're all infidels and deserve to go to hell).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier
So you cant agree with strengthening our borders? You agree that we should continue to fight unsustainable wars that are costing us money we can't afford and costing us more lives of men and women of this country? You cant agree with letting the rest of the world fight their own battles? We should just keep backing one side, then turning on them the next conflict?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
We backed Afghanistan against the Soviets, then turned our back on them. We backed Saddam when he went into Iran, then went after him twice. You dont think that sends a message that we have nto true allegiance to anyone?
I'm all for looking out for this countries best interests, but I refuse to believe that we should not expect to be hated when we have been establishing governments that end up being worse for these people than the last one was. We made Bin Laden the power he became. We made Saddam the power he became. If you believe we have never done anything that would inspire hatred, then you are mistaken.
Ron Paul doesn't say we should apologize for making mistakes, he say we should stop making them. He doesn't say we owe the world anything, he just says we should stop trying to be the world police.
My thing is this. I don't agree with everything Ron Paul believes, far from it actually. What I do want in a candidate, he has. Honesty, integrity, and backbone. There wi never be a politician that everyone agrees with. There will never be one that his entire party agrees with. That is part of being human, we can never fully agree. The one thing I know is this, I want an honest man in office. I want someone who actually votes the way he talks. And there is no other candidate that has voted consistently his entire political career besides Ron Paul. Perry was Al Gore's campaign manager for Christ sakes. Romney back social healthcare and gun control in Massachusetts.
There are two things in this country that need to stop. The Federal Reserve, and unsustainable wars. I agree we should have sought revenge for 3000+ American lives. I think we should have gone in there, prepared for full war, no bullshit pussy footing. Made them regret ever having fucked with us. Instead we have fought a war of insurgency that has not gotten the job done, reinforced that section of the worlds view of us. and started laying in the ground work for another government that we will eventually turn against. We have lost well over 3000 American soldiers, so now we have lost twice the otiginal number and still no end in sight. We spend billions of dollars a day on this war. And those dollars were printwd to us and loaned to us a nation, with interest. Therefore we are even more indebt. We aee in debt on every dollar printed the moment the ink hits the paper. The same banks that print our money have backed all of our enemies since world war one. Causing endless wars that have never caused change.
Whether you agree with him 100% or not, show me another candidate that has more integrity. Show me another candidate that stands against the big banking system that runs this country. Show me another candidate that will get us out of the middle east. Show me someone who truly believes what he tells us. When you do, I'll take him under serious consideration.
Quote:
Yeah, we've never done anything wrong that would cause another nation or group of people to hate us, ever.
Starting with our instrumental role in the creation of Israel, and running through us dropping a half a million US soldiers in the "holy land" of Saudi Arabia in 1991, we did quite a few things that "provoked" these fundamentalist Muslims. From our perspective each step may be the correct one, but collectively it's easy for them to market and sell it to their populations as the United States has done these horrible things, and is the great satan, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcantar18c
Then there are the things we know are wrong, but have been willing to do because it's in our collective interest. For example, supporting dictators because they allied themselves with the US and turn a blind eye to their atrocities. We saw it backfire with the Shah in Iran in 1979, I'm hoping we don't see a repeat now in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria etc.
H.
I said nothing of the sort and you know it. You're simply a Ron Paul fan and you're obviously letting it interfere with your critical thinking.
Let me make it simple for you. Ron Paul recently said this:From an article in the Houston Chronicle:Now maybe you don't see that as a problem. That sort of naive ideology is a deal killer for me. Paul takes the "Hate America First" philosophy to new heights and lots of people recognize that whether you do or not.
He (Ron Paul) engaged those who lofted questions, including a man worried that if U.S. troops were pulled out of other countries, those who wish to harm the United States could benefit. Which enemy? “Islam,” came the answer.
“I don’t see Islam as our enemy,” said Paul, who blamed U.S. occupation of other countries and the killing of “a lot of innocent people” for creating enemies.
Sure...I agree with a lot of things he espouses. I do not agree that our "interventionist" policies are what causes those who believe in their radical version of Islam to kill innocent people.
Frankly, I don't think any republican candidate understands the constitution and the way our government works better than Newt Gingrich. I don't think there's any question he is the smartest of the Republican candidates.
Unfortunately, he's got so much baggage and he's said so many dumb things that he won't get the nomination, either.
But I think he would actually make the best president of all the candidates, strictly from a practical point of view.
I still like Michele Bachmann.
Because he doesn't think we should be interceding in every other nations affairs and engaging in nation building? (yea that's always worked out great) , and doesn't think we should be sacrificing our liberties to form a police state under the banner of protection from terrorists?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Deja vu all over again. [Bang]Quote:
Originally Posted by stevelkinevil
Maybe it is because you're missing the point. Do i agree that he doesnt see Islam as,an enemy, bo I do not. Do i agree that we have in part made their hatred of us worse, yes I do. Do I believe we need to get out of the middle east? You bet your ass I do. Do i think we need stiffer immigration laws and people willing to enforce them. Yes I do. Do I believe that the decision of Roe v Wade should be over turned? No I do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
I dont agree with everything the man says, and you admitted you agreed with most of what he says. But because of one small thing you disagree with you would vote for more the same bullshit we already have. If that is truly how you look at it then maybe that is what is wrong with America. Too many people looking for someone that is their entire reclection in one politician. That will never happen, and that is why dishonest men hold office.
I am tired of wondering who is lying the least. Is rather vote for the only one that doesnt lie.
You call me a Ron Paul fanboy, which I am far from. I wish there was another candidate that was honest and had a backbone. Like I said in my last post, I would take a seriius look at another candidate if they had the record for honesty Ron Paul has. Unfortunately there is no other candidate that does. We can have Romney, who sponsored universal healthcare and gun control in Mass. Or Perry who was Al Gore's campaign manager back in Texas, with his record of flip flopping. Or Bachmann who honestly I don't know a damn thing about other than she filled out Ol Dudley's gun rights poll. And every other GOP candidate is already showing signs of either early resignation from the race, or the normal GOP stance of running until the end just to take votes from other candidates. The three others that have a chance besides Paul, are all wishy washy poster buts for the same shit we have had for a hundred years in this country. I want real change, not keyword Obama change, actual chanfe. Ron Paul just so happens to be the only one willing to truly offer it.
Then vote for Ron Paul. No one said you shouldn't. But stop blaming his failures to get elected on everyone and everything except Ron Paul.
And I said I agree with a lot of things he says...not most.
I will say this...if Ron Paul gets the republican nomination he'll have my vote at that point...not before. If Ron Paul really had the ethics and character you seem to think he has he'd be running as a Libertarian.
Except for the simple fact that nobody in this country will vote third party. Under the same views you have for not voting for him in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
What views do the other candidates have that you agree with more than Paul's? Because I can't honestly stand behind any of the GOP candidates. They all have the same flip flop, no true stance bullshit as the democrats. In fact half of them are democrats in hiding. Look at Romney.
Simply not true. I hate to admit it but I voted for Ross Perot. He got almost 20% of the vote in the election as a third party candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by CMP_5.56
Not going to rehash it as I've said it here over and over. Michele Bachmann is my candidate of choice. Look at her website "Issues" page if you're interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by CMP_5.56
I don't care for Romney at all. But if he's the Republican nominee he's got my vote.
Republicans and Democrats have been the two parties in power that have led us down the current path we are on. So does anybody really think that these two parties are going to make any change for their constituents? C'mon, do ANY of them follow the constitution?? Will ANY of them cut spending, and close wasteful govt agencies?? Will ANY of them push to get rid of all the gun laws which are totally unconstitutional?? Will ANY of them put an end to foreign aid? Will ANY of them stop all the "entitlements"?? How about the illegal, unconstitutional, income tax, and the thousands of pages of regulations attached?? Will ANY of them do anything about all the illegal ALIENS, yes aliens, NOT "immigrants" that are bleeding us dry, and stealing what little jobs we have left?? Will ANYBODY in the current parties step up to the plate on even 1 of these problems?? No, NONE of them will do a damn thing to rock the boat, It's just business as usual. We need someone other than the same old tired Bull sh---ers that are the current repuglicans and democraps.
Ron Paul has a tremendous domestic ideas but he don't know jack about much else. Isolationism will eventually bring us another world war and do you really want China, Russia, and India to have greater influence over world affairs than the United States?
Ron Paul won't win the GOP nomination anyway so discussion about that is moot. At this point the nominee will be Romney or Perry, neither of whom will get my vote.
Isn't the point of having a cabinet to help you fill in your blind spots?
I'm not sure Ron Paul would listen to his cabinet. Ron is a unique critter in Washington. Do you think he'd get someone with a completely different idea of foreign policy than his?Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
The optimist in me thinks that if Ron is as smart and focused as people want to believe, that he would be open to reason from people with direct experience with whatever issue he is trying to deal with.
You just stated you would vote for a gun grabbers as our president. It's obvious that I don't understand your viewpoint. And quite frankly, and rather thankfully, I never will!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. Paul and I differ on some issues, but he is closest to what I believe we need in the White House. I think he is principled, logical, and analytical. It makes sense that he would be willing to accept advice from experienced cabinet members.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Sadly, I'll bet Perry gets the nomination though. I'm not sure how he is perceived back in the land that God blessed (Colorado), but he has an almost cult like following here in Texas.
Michele Bachmann.
http://bachmann.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=2864
This translates to more spending and backing of an unsustainable war. Blow the hell out of them, show the world we mean business, get out. That is the only way to handle this war.Quote:
Michele Bachmann wrote: "The United States has been blessed with a strong, dedicated military which can and will defend our nation’s security and preserve the freedoms we cherish each day. I believe in the mission of our men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and support providing them with the necessary funding they need to achieve success overseas. Our commanders on the ground deserve praise as they have taken the fight to the enemy in both Afghanistan and Iraq and have prevented terrorists from striking us here at home. I support their efforts to combat terrorism, to ensure the safety of our country, and to further democracy in other parts of the world."
I absolutely agree, and nowhere else in this world could we better defend our country than from the inside of our borders. No more nation building.Quote:
Michele Bachmann wrote: " We have an obligation to future generations of Americans to ensure our country keeps terrorism off U.S. soil. I will continue to support efforts to strengthen our national defense and support our uniformed men and women who are committed to protecting America."
http://bachmann.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=4318
She supports better energy practices, and using national resources, the only thing i dont like, is putting Colorado in that mix. I can see Alaska, where the impact on people would be far less intrusive, but in Colorado, it would cost people land and homes. That I don't agree with.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/pers...2216&tab=votes
Michele Bachmann's absent voting record. The graph shows how often she was absent during votes in congress. She went way above that 90th percentile a few times since 2007.
Her voting record in entirety. Haven't finished going through it, but a few things already make me wonder. Her absent days for one. And not seeing many votes for spending cuts.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote...&person=412216
All in all, I like a lot of what she says, but I haven't gone through her voting record enough to see if she votes consistently the way she speaks. One glaring thing I cant support, is nation building and spending more money on unsustainable wars. And she is all for. So again, sounds like business as usual.
I need to look into Ron Paul a little more, but so far, the thing that I like about him most, is that I never hear him talking about stupid stuff like gay marriage, abortion, or any of the other retarded social issues that politicians use to get the retarded masses to vote for them over.
First off, that was 20 years ago. I didn't have the same political priorities 20 years ago as I do today nor was I anywhere near as politically aware then as I am today. Would I vote for him again today. No, I wouldn't. That's the same as the lame-ass talking points people use against Rick Perry's past in support of democrat candidates.Quote:
Originally Posted by CMP_5.56
Did you vote for Reagan? I did...twice. He was the first president for which I was old enough to vote. He signed the Mulford Act in 1967. Ronald Reagan was a strong supporter of the Brady Bill. Reagan was not a strong gun-rights supporter at all.
Neither was Bush 1. He was responsible for the 1989 import ban.
I voted for both of them and my guess is, you did, too, if you were old enough to vote.
Bush 2 was not a real strong gun-rights president, either. But I voted for him twice. Did you?
So gimme a break with the voting "for a gun grabber" bullshit.
I gave you an instance of Americans, in rather large numbers, voting for a 3rd party candidate because you made the assertion that "nobody" would vote for a 3rd party candidate.
Furthermore, voting records rarely tell the whole story. I'd be cautious about judging a candidate solely on their past voting records. The reason I say that should be obvious if you know how the house/senate works.
I have no problem with that because: 1) I don't need your understanding, and 2) I don't care.Quote:
Originally Posted by CMP_5.56
Your so blinded by the whole Ron Paul is the perfect candidate ideology that it doesn't surprise me.
Here are some reasons I don't like Ron Paul:Q: How many troops do we have overseas right now? A: I don’t know the exact number, but more than we need. We don’t need any.
- He's against the death penalty.
- Mixed feelings on some of his "drugs" and "war on drugs" ideas
- He wants to stop all foreign aid to Israel
- He's against any pre-emptive war
- Wants the US out of Korea and let Koreas "unify".
- He says product safety should not be a condition for continued trade with China. WTF?
- Pretty poor record on pork spending...$4B alone in 2006. How do you reconcile this with his smaller gov and less spending platitudes?
- Voted against the Lawful Protection of Commerce Act. Does that make him anti-gun?
- He's against having "any" troops abroad. That's zero. This is what he said in a "Meet the Press" interview in 2007:
Q: It’s 572,000. And you’d bring them all home?
A: As quickly as possible. They will not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble. And we can defend this country without troops in Germany & troops in Japan. How do they help our national defense? Doesn’t make any sense to me. Troops in Korea since I’ve been in high school! It doesn’t make any sense.
To be fair, and I've said it before, there are a lot of things he stands for that I do like. I wouldn't have any problem supporting him should he win the republican nomination because I have sense enough to know there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. But I won't support him in the primary. His foreign policy and national security ideas are a deal killer for me as a primary candidate.
- He thinks that illegal immigration results from a poor economy. I think that contributes, but I don't think that's the reason or even the main reason we have an illegal immigrant problem.
- He thinks radical Muslims want to kill Americans because we occupy their lands.
- Intervention abroad incites hatred & attacks like 9/11.
- He believes we went into Iraq under false pretenses of WMD and 9/11. That's bullshit.
First off, I never ensure he was the perfect candidate. I said hewas the only honest one. There is ahuge difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
I did not vote for Regan, too young. Did not vote for Bush 1, again too young. In 1996 I voted,quite reluctantly for Dole. Voting for the lesser of two evils, which I hated having to do.
I voted for Bush 2 twice, again lesser of two evils. I didnt want hime, but none of the people running against him were worth a shit.
And I voted for McCain, again not because I wanted to, bt out of fear of the other parties man.
I have voted city, county, state since I was 20 and do so at every chance I get. I believe yiu have to fight for the right man at the bottom if you want him the right man on top. I personally made a decision I will no longer vote for someone I can't stand behind. My conscience is more important to me than most I guess. I have never agreed with my final choice of vote. I'm tired of feeling I went against my own morals in my vote.
If Ron Paul doesn't get the nod, and your choice Bachmann gets it, i might be able to live with that. But I will not vote for social healthcare, gun grabbers Romney, nor will I vote for Perry who's track record is spotty at best, refuses to answer where he stands on the 2nd amendment.
The great thing about this country is we can disagree all we want. I know how I feel, and I will vote by my morals of wanting honesty in office.
The point I was trying to make, that most ignored is that most people will vote for either whoever their party tells them, or to put a liar in office instead of a bigger liar. You have helped me prove that, as well as my past voting record has proved that. I for one am willing to change, even though it is not the easy way out.
I think a lot of the things that people think that Ron Paul is against, are actually things that he thinks the Federal government has no business having a hand in. Internet Neutrality and the War on Drugs for example.
government illusion
http://abstrusegoose.com/strips/illusion.PNG
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by TDYRanger
That is exactly how hecsees it. He looks at things from a constitutional stand point, and tginks our governments hands are in far too many things. That is a lot of what I agree with him on, is the fact that the federal government was never supposed to take care of our nations people, the rule of law was meant to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
I think eventually you're going to find there are few absolutes. Even choosing not to vote rather than voting for someone with whom you don't entirely agree is a compromise. It's a poor compromise at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by CMP_5.56
In my opinion you're far better served by voting for someone who's at least fairly close to sharing your ideals.
I don't care for McCain's politics at all. But casting a vote for McCain was a far better option than not voting at all.
You're going to have to realize at some point that there is no perfect candidate and we don't have a perfect system. I don't like it either. But right now, it's part of the system we have and it's the best in the world.
For argument's sake, let's say the republicans share a very narrow margin in the house and senate over democrats. Obama is re-elected in a replay of what happened in 92 due to a minor 3rd party candidate taking away votes from the R candidate. We get stuck with 4 more years of bullshit.
Alternatively, people who think like you and I (for the most part) are realistic rather than idealistic and vote for the R candidate and Obama is defeated. Now we have a R house, senate and president.
Out of those scenarios, which do you think is going to benefit your political preferences most?
For me, it's the 2nd scenario.
I would love to see our system evolve to the point we have more than 2 viable parties. It isn't there yet so you play with what we have.
Being idealistic is one thing. Being realistic is another.
At this point in the game, the place to start voting for 3rd party candidates is locally.
Excellent post Bailey Guns. Idealism vs realism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Ron Paul can afford to be consistent and ideological, he'll never get the GOP nomination so he has nothing to lose.
I'm not a huge O'Reilly fan but he has the top-rated cable news show in the country, by a fairly substantial margin. Hannity is almost 3/4 of a million viewers behind and he's second.
Ron Paul, who's constantly whining about getting snubbed by the media, just turned down an appearance on O'Reilly's show because, he said, "O'Reilly isn't much of a journalist."
I think it's pretty ridiculous to complain about not getting exposure when the number 1 show, with almost 3 million viewers nightly, asks you on and you decline.
Time for Paul to find another scapegoat.
The reason Paul doesn't have a chance is because the American people don't agree with his policies.
Paul is a free-marketer. If you think conservatives are pro-free market, I have a bridge i Brooklyn to sell you. Conservatives are for marginally less government involvement in the economy as compared to liberals, but they are nowhere near free market. Look at Perry's long list of "public-private partnerships" - thats fascism, not capitalism.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pancho Villa
Disagree with your assessment of conservatives. Conservatives are definitely pro-free market and for much smaller government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pancho Villa
I think your description accurately describes neo-conservatives.
True conservatives and classical liberals have a lot in common.