Have you heard about Ron Paul?

[t3rmin]

I should also note another part of history: the Treaty of Versailles. This meddlesome document became a major impetus for Germany's later aggression. Meddling in the affairs of other nations always has consequences later on. The CIA calls it blowback. The founding fathers advised against it.

Think about it. Almost every one of our current/recent enemies/concerns are of our own "creation". Saddam, Osama, Musharaff, Iran, Korea. If we were smart, we'd take the advice of history and stop using force to impose our will.

Isolation is bad, and so is meddling. The reasonable route is respect and friendship with rest of the world. It's in the country's best interest, it's in the people's best interest, but it's not in the military-industrial complex' best interest...

[Bud Manley]

Re: I don't understand

Originally posted by tsears
Mr. Manley,
What does this mean?
"
Whatever happened to one man one vote? I feel like a Negro. Wheres Jessie Jackson when I need him most?
"

The One MAn One Vote reference was for humor. If you recall Jesse was all up in arms about Florida election recounts and disenfranchisement charges from 2000 and come to think of it every thing else too.


Michigan has decided to break the rules of DNC and RNC and host their primaries early.
As a result the DNC has banned Michigans delegates votes from counting in the primary elections. All the Democrat nominees signed a pledge that if any state held an early primary, besides the four states they selected, then they would drop from the race. Hillary of course reneged and is running against Kucinich and Some guy named Gravel.
The RNC has decided that only 50% of the delegates votes will count. Basically Michigans votes mean nothing.
There is a push by a lot of liberal groups to have the democrats vote for Romney or Ron Paul to keep them in the race. They like Ron Paul because he has almost no chance of winning against Hillary and they really like Romney because he runs a ton of attack ads on other Republicans and if he wins he's almost as liberal as some of the democrats.

[prometheus578]

"I understood it as the "3/5th compromise"

Reference the 50% man...

During the Philadelphia Convention, the compromise concerned the southern state's negro population only being counted as 3/5ths.

[t3rmin]

Re: Re: I don't understand

Originally posted by Bud Manley

They like Ron Paul because he has almost no chance of winning against Hillary

Hey, there's another one I hadn't heard yet.

Fact is, head-to-head polling data has indicated Ron Paul has the best chance against Hillary of any of the Republicans.

It's just common sense. 7/10 of Americans are opposed to the war. And until it started vying with the economy as top-dog, the war was hands-down the #1 issue with voters. Not to mention Ron Paul also places highly in exit polls on the economy issue -- it's his #1 talking point.

If the Republicans choose a pro-war candidate, they will lose, period.

Ron Paul's simple message of liberty resonates with Democrats and independents as much as Republicans. My local Meetup group organizer was a lifelong Dem, as are many members. Other folks have never voted before. It's broad appeal like that, across political boundaries that wins elections.

The Republican sheep will fall in line with whatever candidate gets the nomination. Winning or loosing this election hinges not on "the faithful", but on the new voters, the independents, and the cross-over Dems. And the last thing any of those folks want is another Bush clone.

[Winterhawk]

The elections are all rigged by DIEBOLD.

Billderbergs will once again place a member as the new USA President.

I confused now, Why are we in Iraq? WMD's?

Oh that's right we took the guns of every law abiding Iraqi citizen.

An Illegal war and a treasonous President BU$H.

[prometheus578]

"Yeah... but you see...."

One must always understand the mind of the American voter.
But before that, let's look at numbers.
Usually, less than 50% of the people vote, anyway.
Divide that by the Two Party System, and you get a president elected by only a quarter, or less, of the citizens of this country.
Now, let's dwell on the people who actually vote.
A certain percentage of them actually follow policy, keep abreast of things, look at issues, etc.
Then there's the rest o' them; the largest majority.
And we all know people like them.
"I'm voting democratic..cause my father used to."
"Well, what is the democrat's stand on XXXXX policy?"
"Uhmm.. I don' tknow."
"Well, were do they stand on YYYYY?"
"Uhmm... I don't know."
"Well, just what do you know?"
"Uhmm... I know I'm voting for the Democratic Party."
(And I could have used Republican for this example, too.)
Point is... people are swayed by emotions, not logic.
Everybody knows this(except the people, themselves)
OPRAH ENDORSES OBAMA!
Now there was a marketing coup!
Can you imagine what would have happened, not if Hillary ran, but if OPRAH ran for office?
All the mindless drones would have been out in force... the polling places wouldn't have been able to handle the crowds.

Like I've said years before...
Considering the choices people make concerning their life-styles, clothes, music, entertainment.... Do I really trust their choice of who should run the show?
This is a popularity contest, tragically decided by people who watch "Wheel of Fortune" instead of "Jeopardy".

[MAXIMAN]

I have a question for you Ron Paul supporters. Personally I can't find alot about him I don't like. The man is a Constitutionalist in the vein of my all time hero Thomas Jefferson. He is opposed to the d@mned government sticking it's nose in every facet of my life and I like that! He is opposed to government social programs...and I like that.

But the thing that concerns me about Paul is his foreign policy position. From every thing I can gather the guy basically wants to spool up our military and keep them ALL home. I suppose he wants to abandon bases all over the world and simply become isolationists.

So what happens when thugs seize the straits of Hormuz and shut down the flow of energy to the free world? The one deterent to this now is the US NAVY. No one else in the world can insure the straits stay open. They simply don;t have the fire power. And this is just one of many example scenarios of the illogic of isolationism.

If it weren't for our utter dependency on foreign energy we could be much more "isolationists". Lord knows I personally would like to give the whole d@mned world the BIG MIDDLE finger! But energy is in fact the life's blood of any free nation and until we get ourselves energy independent I don't see how we can just withdraw from the world as Paul seems to propose.

Thoughts? I'd love to hear your answers.

[t3rmin]

Originally posted by MAXIMAN
I have a question for you Ron Paul supporters. Personally I can't find alot about him I don't like. The man is a Constitutionalist in the vein of my all time hero Thomas Jefferson. He is opposed to the d@mned government sticking it's nose in every facet of my life and I like that! He is opposed to government social programs...and I like that.

But the thing that concerns me about Paul is his foreign policy position. From every thing I can gather the guy basically wants to spool up our military and keep them ALL home. I suppose he wants to abandon bases all over the world and simply become isolationists.

So what happens when thugs seize the straits of Hormuz and shut down the flow of energy to the free world? The one deterent to this now is the US NAVY. No one else in the world can insure the straits stay open. They simply don;t have the fire power. And this is just one of many example scenarios of the illogic of isolationism.

If it weren't for our utter dependency on foreign energy we could be much more "isolationists". Lord knows I personally would like to give the whole d@mned world the BIG MIDDLE finger! But energy is in fact the life's blood of any free nation and until we get ourselves energy independent I don't see how we can just withdraw from the world as Paul seems to propose.

Thoughts? I'd love to hear your answers.

Like I said, RP is very much against isolationism. The true isolationists are those who go around pissing off the rest of the world through invasion, occupation, sanctions, etc.

If you do what we want, we'll subsidize you. If you don't do what we want, we'll take the money away, or impose sanctions, or maybe just invade you outright. THAT is the surest way to isolate the USA from the rest of the world. We don't make any friends with nonsense like that.

Ron Paul wants to have free and open trade and dialogue with all nations. He wants to respect their sovereignty, just as we expect them to respect ours. He wants to stop being the bully and policeman of the world, and treat other nations like adults. Our "empire" spans 130 of the world's 150 countries for goodness sake!

Our military is spread far and thin. Now Bush and his friends are chomping at the bit to go into Iran. Our attention is everywhere but where it should be. Just look at the sorry state of our border security.

We can't afford this. Our foreign policy is costing $1 trillion a year. We just can't keep it up, it's bankrupting us. China is going to own us without firing a single shot at the rate we're borrowing from them.

Ron Paul is, as I said, an anti-isolationist. He believes in peace through strength. He was in favor of going after the real perpetrators of 9/11 (Al Quaeda) all along. He would act as required against any enemies who attack us or our vital interests.

To address your specific example, Ron Paul has stated his support for Jefferson's action against the Barbary Pirates. Same type of scenario.

When we are attacked, war is justified. Ron Paul has NO problem with just war. He believes in a strong defense, and fighting to WIN.

He does not believe in unjust and unconstitutional wars, or preposterous wars against tactics (terrorism is a tactic -- you can't have a war against a tactic).

Ron Paul's foreign policy is the foreign policy of the founders, and of the Republican party until very recent years. When we have deviated from it, it has hurt us (see my previous posts).

[t3rmin]

I should also comment on what you said about oil.

We have untapped resources of our own, but politics block their use. Why are we willing to go around the world, killing and being killed, and spending billions of $$$, rather than take on the environmentalists?

We let Ted Kennedy block an offshore wind farm because it would block the view from his beach house. We practically ignore the cleanest and most practical energy source: nuclear. Etc. Etc.

We have many options open which could reduce or eliminate our dependence on middle-east oil. But we'd rather go to war.

Furthermore, I'm not convinced our access to mid-east oil is threatened anyway. The USA is the largest oil consumer in the world. They want our money just as much as we want their oil. They'll keep selling as long as we're buying, pure and simple.

[MAXIMAN]

I can't argue with the position on energy...other than the Saudi Royal family could easily be toppled by extremists. If that happens there will be no "free flow" of energy because the extremist don't give a flip about our money. They are idealogues bent on world domination. However the USA has mucho resources (conventional and otherwise) that could...over time ...solve our energy problems. But the Nimby's and the Notes (Not Over There Either) will never allow it. I know this from personal experience.

So what's your solution to terror attacks on the USA? Negotiate?

Please don;t tell me if we leave them alone they'll leave us alone. That is utterly naive.

They have proven this time and again with Isreal. Isreal gives and gives and gives...then cuts their nuts off and give them that. Still the miserable SOBs fire rockets into Isreal.

These maniacs will do same here. And they did on 911. But of course YOU are convinced that was our fault. This is where I part ways with this way of thinking.

What do you propose we do with Kim Jong Il? Negotiate? The maniac already has the entire world against him and sanctions to boot. The sanctions haven't even phased him. What? Should we trade with him and enable him to build MORE nukes to ultimately be used on us or our friends (Japan). I suppose you actually believe if we leave him be he'll leave everyone alone?

I suppose we should wait until he nukes us or Japan....THEN do something? That would be a day late and dollar short dontcha think?

[t3rmin]

Again, learn from history.

Most of our current and recent enemies are basically of our own creation. Meddling doesn't work. We've tried it.

Ron Paul would aggressively pursue those who attack us, and use diplomacy on those who don't. How do you think we won the cold war? Russia had nukes too.

Why are we in Iraq? Did they attack us? Did we declare war on them? Are you saying we are safer now because we are in Iraq? There were no Al-Qaeda in Iraq when we went in, now they're all over the place. Islamic terrorist organizations have more money and better recruitment now than before we went in.

We're playing right into their hand. It's so much easier for them to kill Americans over there than over here. Every day we occupy their land more firmly galvanizes their support and extremism. It's a natural consequence when you piss people off like that.

They killed 3000 over here, now we've handed them almost 4000 of our brave soldiers as well. And there's no end in sight. This year has been the bloodiest of the conflict. We aren't winning. What would it mean to "win" anyway? What are the goals? They don't want democracy. Whatever we set up over there will collapse as soon as we leave. Maybe that's why McCain wants to be there another 100 years.

We are without a doubt less safe because of our actions in Iraq. And before you argue for another MINUTE about our safety, LOOK AT OUR BORDERS. Wide open. If this administration were really concerned about protecting Americans from terrorists, our borders would be fixed. Period.

I'll come right out and say it: Islam is a problem. It's a religion of war and hatred. It's an environment that, given the right motivation, pushes people to do these horrible things.

The people responsible for the 9/11 attacks are the terrorists. The ideology which cultivated it is Islam. The policies which helped to motivate them to these extremes are the US government's. We've been over there, occupying their land and insulting their religious sensibilities (barbaric as they are) for 50 years. It doesn't justify what they did, but how would you feel if your country were occupied and your religion slighted? Would you not fight back? I would.

These extremists did not materialize overnight, and they won't go away overnight. Even if we begin to do everything right, we'll be dealing with an angered Muslim world for a long time. Ron Paul has no illusions about any of that.

I used to believe in the war. I used to think just like yourself. It took about a year of consideration but I finally realized the truth of the matter.

Here's some reading material to get you started:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/...ide-terrorism/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul224.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul413.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul424.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul262.html

[MAXIMAN]

If you really think that if we just get out of their backyard and leave them alone they'll "play nice"....you are horribly naive and hopeless.

I agree with Paul on many issues. But this one the guy is wack. However he is going nowhere so this is really a moot issue.

Nice discussion.

[mro]

you are horribly naive and hopeless

Hi Cody,
Rather brief, no monolog?


mro

[Winterhawk]

The people responsible for the 9/11 attacks are the terrorists.

They are terrorists, but it was not who you think. Just as the Anthrax attacks on Congress to get the Patriot Act I passed. 9/11 was planned out in the 50's and was orchestrated by our own Government. Yes it was an inside job.

Google Operation Northwoods
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html



http://www.911truth.org/

[prometheus578]

"Without going into detail, let me just say..."

...play nice, people.
We all have our opinions. Some people's opinions are factually based, some are emotionally based, and some are, I'm afraid to say, based upon nothing at all, it seems.
Be that as it may...
I've always found the best way to win a debate or sway an opposing opinion during an arguement, was by either stating facts, or by pointing out fallacies and inconsistancies in the other side's logic.
Making snide remarks and innuendo only leads to the other side having to stoop down to your level to retaliate.

*If any members take offense by me having to point this out, then maybe they should re-analyse the strength of their position or alter the way in which they present their views.*