Ron Paul for president

[ManInBlack]

I am stunned by the profound ignorance and unbridled mindlessness of this paragraph.

And yet you did nothing to refute any of my assertions (which are accurate) and brought nothing new to the table. Good job.

It illustrates how completely absent of thought a person must be to be a rabid foaming at the mouth paulbot, and it is exactly why RP will remain a fringe candidate (with help from the 9/11 truth tin foil hat brigades of course).

Do ad hominem attacks win many arguments for you?

No one with any self respect would want to be associated with people who think it would be a better world if the chi-coms dominated it. Sure, they dump undervalued currency into 3rd world $#!tholes so they can gut it's resources without regards to the environment, or leave any lasting infrastructure that would help the people. The same China that bullies it's neighbors the same way leftists accuse the US of doing should be the dominating power on earth? The same country that crushes all dissent within it's borders, and regulates the most intimate aspects of the lives of it's people?

I never said that I think it would be a better world if the "chi-coms" dominated it. I despise their form of government. However, it is a fact that the United States spends more than all other nations combined on its military. It is a fact that the United States has been involved in a decade of war, while the Chinese have not.

I don't think that any nation should be the dominating power on earth. I don't believe in domination. If you do, you should probably find out what it is that compels your aggression towards other human beings.

Then you smugly rail at Eye for his principles?

Eye has no principles. He is a statist coward. He pretends to put me on ignore but then can't resist reading and responding to my posts. It's quite funny, really.

I expect psudeo-intellectual drivel like this out of leftist bed wetters. Furthermore when I see the word "neo-con" regurgitated in reference to any candidate that isn't Ron Paul I know better than to pay attention to anything else that poster has to say.

The leftist bed-wetters are like broken clocks; right twice a day...just about the same as the Republican establishment.

Not all of the other Republican candidates are neocons (Gary Johnson comes to mind) but for the media-ordained major candidates, the label applies. Perhaps you should look up the definition before you assail a label that you do not understand.

I'd still like to see eye defend some of Cain's principles that I listed above...

P.S.: I just want to make sure you know that you can disagree with "El Rushbo" and still not be a leftist bed wetter. Really, it's ok...

 

[ManInBlack]

You may not have liked McCain as a candidate, but to call a man who suffered as he did and kept his honor as a POW for over six years a "milquetoast" is unmitigated BS. Even Slick Willy said no man, short of dieing for his country, has given more to the US than he. And of course his fellow POWs. Perry is a former Air Force Pilot. What is Paul's military service? He was an Air Force Flight Surgeon. That's fine and honorable service, but doesn't hold a candle to McCain's. I've tried to be even handed with Paul, although clearly I support Perry, but slurring McCain doesn't sit well with me as a Vietnam veteran and fellow Aviator.

I wasn't referring to his military service. I was referring to his inability to stand on principle and unwillingness to strongly confront leftist statism.

 

[Brass Magnet]

The behaviors are different and have different impacts in the military environment. It is reasonable that the behaviors (not the people) are treated differently. People have rights to be treated equally. Behaviors do not.[snip]

Can you cite a study that proves they unequivocally have a different and detrimental impact on the military? Even if there was one, I don't agree that certain behaviors can be treated unequally. Some, that have a direct and detrimental impact on others surely can but those that are more or less personal decisions; even if indirectly affecting something as arbitrary as others feelings of fellow soldiers, may not be regulated in good faith. It's not the benign personal behavior that needs to change, it's the feelings towards that behavior. If everyone respected the other individuals rights in the matter it wouldn't be a problem. Treating same-sex behavior differently than opposite-sex behavior is perpetuating the problem.

 

[georg jetson]

I am stunned by the profound ignorance and unbridled mindlessness of this paragraph. It illustrates how completely absent of thought a person must be to be a rabid foaming at the mouth paulbot, and it is exactly why RP will remain a fringe candidate (with help from the 9/11 truth tin foil hat brigades of course). No one with any self respect would want to be associated with people who think it would be a better world if the chi-coms dominated it. Sure, they dump undervalued currency into 3rd world $#!tholes so they can gut it's resources without regards to the environment, or leave any lasting infrastructure that would help the people. The same China that bullies it's neighbors the same way leftists accuse the US of doing should be the dominating power on earth? The same country that crushes all dissent within it's borders, and regulates the most intimate aspects of the lives of it's people?

Then you smugly rail at Eye for his principles? I expect psudeo-intellectual drivel like this out of leftist bed wetters. Furthermore when I see the word "neo-con" regurgitated in reference to any candidate that isn't Ron Paul I know better than to pay attention to anything else that poster has to say.

I wouldn't get into this particular convo except for the this...

"It illustrates how completely absent of thought a person must be to be a rabid foaming at the mouth paulbot, and it is exactly why RP will remain a fringe candidate"

Rp is NOT a fringe candidate. Those that agree with him do so because he understands that the office of president has a definition found in the US constitution and that, in general, the fed gov has limitations spelled out in said document. Rp supporters such as myself understand the need to have representation and leadership that understands what authority and responsibility the people have given to the fed government. Those that say RP is fringe are implying that following the constitution is an idea on the fringe. It's unfortunate things have become so twisted. We remained a free country while we required our government servants to remain within the chains of the several constitutions. We have become a socialist country when we allowed our servants to shed their chains. The road back to freedom is a long one and the citizen must exercise due diligence finding candidates at all levels of government that UNDERSTAND the necessary LIMITATIONS required that guarantees a REPUBLIC. Otherwise, down the path to fascism we go...

As for the poster that motivated such a response as this, It appears to me that he/she doesn't know what they're talking about and to act as if his/her ideas reflect those of RP or a majority of his supporters is most certainly unfounded.

 

[Gunslinger]

No offense, GS, but nobody was calling his service into question.

Regarding the term milqetoast, I understand MIB to be adjective-fying McCains unwillingness to stand firm on rights, spending, etc.

McCain did his military service, yes. But, he then became a part of the government party, and a politician. If as a politician he stood as firm for freedom as he did against the NVA attempts to break him, we'd all be better for it.

And, lets not forget he was fine with a fed law requiring backround checks for all gunshow gun sales, even private sales by non-FFLs.

A POW in hell for 6+ years is more than "doing his military service." There are lots of political gaffes he made that I disagree with as much as anyone, but calling him a milquetoast is over the line.

 

[Gunslinger]

I wasn't referring to his military service. I was referring to his inability to stand on principle and unwillingness to strongly confront leftist statism.

Fair enough, but it would be best to separate the two in his case conclusively in the post.

 

[ManInBlack]

Fair enough, but it would be best to separate the two in his case conclusively in the post.

[h=3]milque·toast/ˈmilkˌtōst/[/h]Noun: A person who is timid or submissive

I disagree. I think when I called him the "weakest presidential candidate in memory," it was pretty clear that I was speaking of political timidity and submissiveness.

Also, I'm not sure if you're aware because of your statement that he "kept his honor" during his imprisonment, but John McCain did break under torture and gave a propaganda "confession" for the N. Vietnamese. I'm not saying that I wouldn't have done the exact same thing, but I just wanted to make the record clear.

 

[PrayingForWar]

I wouldn't get into this particular convo except for the this...

"It illustrates how completely absent of thought a person must be to be a rabid foaming at the mouth paulbot, and it is exactly why RP will remain a fringe candidate"

Rp is NOT a fringe candidate. Those that agree with him do so because he understands that the office of president has a definition found in the US constitution and that, in general, the fed gov has limitations spelled out in said document. Rp supporters such as myself understand the need to have representation and leadership that understands what authority and responsibility the people have given to the fed government. Those that say RP is fringe are implying that following the constitution is an idea on the fringe. It's unfortunate things have become so twisted. We remained a free country while we required our government servants to remain within the chains of the several constitutions. We have become a socialist country when we allowed our servants to shed their chains. The road back to freedom is a long one and the citizen must exercise due diligence finding candidates at all levels of government that UNDERSTAND the necessary LIMITATIONS required that guarantees a REPUBLIC. Otherwise, down the path to fascism we go...

As for the poster that motivated such a response as this, It appears to me that he/she doesn't know what they're talking about and to act as if his/her ideas reflect those of RP or a majority of his supporters is most certainly unfounded.

I'll grant you RP isn't himself fringe. Some of his most vocal (and obnoxious) acolytes are indeed fringe however. Whether it's the 9/11 truthtards, the blame America First crowd, or the bed wetting liberals who pretend to be "libertarians" even though all they care about is smoking dope without consequences. If the later crowd really considered the fact that RP would eliminate most of the funding that sustains them they'd change their position in a second.

I can get along w/ most RP supporters though. I support everything he stands for on a domestic and financial basis though I think he'd probably slash the military budget too much. It's his foriegn policies I take issue with. I do think he's the most honest politician, but I'm in the tank for the one guy who isn't a politician. That's Herman Cain. I believe he would do the right things fiscally, slash government departments, leave guns alone, maintain a strong military and wouldn't be beholden to special interests. No matter who ends up opposing obozo will get my vote though.

 

[georg jetson]

I can get along w/ most RP supporters though. I support everything he stands for on a domestic and financial basis though I think he'd probably slash the military budget too much. It's his foriegn policies I take issue with. I do think he's the most honest politician, but I'm in the tank for the one guy who isn't a politician. That's Herman Cain. I believe he would do the right things fiscally, slash government departments, leave guns alone, maintain a strong military and wouldn't be beholden to special interests. No matter who ends up opposing obozo will get my vote though.

Why would you think he'd slash the military budget TOO much. Bringing our assets from around the world back to the states would in affect, mean that the military could operate on a cheaper budget. I've seen no evidence that Dr. Paul is for cutting the size of the military OR, more importantly, its capability. Indeed, it appears to me that he understands how important it is too keep our military the best in the world... just not spread out around the world.

What about his foreign policy do you not like? We can't afford the one we have now so...

Herman Cain is most definitely a well spoken man. He caught my interest when he joined the race. However, he's gone on record as saying things that indicate to me that even though he may have his head in the game fiscally, he doesn't understand the LIMITATIONS of government.

 

[PrayingForWar]

Why would you think he'd slash the military budget TOO much. Bringing our assets from around the world back to the states would in affect, mean that the military could operate on a cheaper budget. I've seen no evidence that Dr. Paul is for cutting the size of the military OR, more importantly, its capability. Indeed, it appears to me that he understands how important it is too keep our military the best in the world... just not spread out around the world.

What about his foreign policy do you not like? We can't afford the one we have now so...

Herman Cain is most definitely a well spoken man. He caught my interest when he joined the race. However, he's gone on record as saying things that indicate to me that even though he may have his head in the game fiscally, he doesn't understand the LIMITATIONS of government.

I suppose I have nothing to base my impression he'd slash too much out of the military. It's just a feeling I get. Sure the military is over funded and a LOT of money is wasted, I'm suprised obozo hasn't cut it in half for that matter so he can hand out more cash to parasites. I also don't think bringing home all our assests is strategically sound. Having at least a few small bases with prepositioned stocks of material in various areas allows for a much more rapid deployment. I think by now though we can move most everything out of europe, stay out of africa entirely, and turn Korea loose.

What I've heard RP say about "non-intervention" is too extreme. There is no diplomatic solution for Iran, North Korea or islamic jihad. These countries need to be contained and the jihadists need to be killed. RP seems all too willing to blame our relationship with Israel and believe that if we abandon them jihadists won't want to kill us anymore. He seems perfectly content to blame our response to islamic jihad for Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, nor willing to do a thing to prevent it.

HC seems to at least realize government is acting far beyond it's limits. It's unlikely it will be reigned back within it's limits under 8 years of any presidency.

 

[ManInBlack]

What I've heard RP say about "non-intervention" is too extreme. There is no diplomatic solution for Iran, North Korea or islamic jihad. These countries need to be contained and the jihadists need to be killed. RP seems all too willing to blame our relationship with Israel and believe that if we abandon them jihadists won't want to kill us anymore. He seems perfectly content to blame our response to islamic jihad for Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, nor willing to do a thing to prevent it.

Do you really believe that the Persians (Iranians) would push the self-destruct button on four thousand years of culture and civilization by using a nuke?

Do you really believe that any country has the right to tell another country what sorts of weapons they are allowed to have? That sounds a lot like EMPIRE...

Do you really deny that the blank check support of the United States for Israel is a major cause of Islamic terrorism?

 

[Brass Magnet]

As far as I understand it, he wants to turn Israel loose and let them deal with their enemies. I think that would be the best for them and us. Without us getting in their way they'll no doubt take care of business.

Iran would be completely suicidal to mess with them without us in the way.

We've done more to hurt Israel with our meddling than help lately. Cutting off foreign aid to the region will be net gain for them as well since we give more to their enemies.

 

[georg jetson]

I suppose I have nothing to base my impression he'd slash too much out of the military. It's just a feeling I get. Sure the military is over funded and a LOT of money is wasted, I'm suprised obozo hasn't cut it in half for that matter so he can hand out more cash to parasites. I also don't think bringing home all our assests is strategically sound. Having at least a few small bases with prepositioned stocks of material in various areas allows for a much more rapid deployment. I think by now though we can move most everything out of europe, stay out of africa entirely, and turn Korea loose.

Exactly how much presence we need to leave in the world is certainly debatable... and is an issue worthy of discussion. However, it is Dr. Paul that is bringing this debate to the mainstream. I hear nothing from him that indicates that he would relinquish our empire in a way that would cause harm to our defensive position.

What I've heard RP say about "non-intervention" is too extreme. There is no diplomatic solution for Iran, North Korea or islamic jihad. These countries need to be contained and the jihadists need to be killed. RP seems all too willing to blame our relationship with Israel and believe that if we abandon them jihadists won't want to kill us anymore. He seems perfectly content to blame our response to islamic jihad for Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, nor willing to do a thing to prevent it.

Calling ourselves a free Republic while going around the world telling others what to do is paramount to calling ourselves a free Republic and yet allowing slavery to exist. We should cease from this because it goes against what we stand for... AND it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL already.

Now, this does not mean that we have no defense. What most forget is that we have the most technologically advance military in the world... despite what the recent president has done. It is technology that will allow us a reliable defense without being the world's policemen. I'm sure if one were to query Dr. Paul as to his defense strategy, it would most certainly entail appropriate funding to extend our technological edge. There's simply no reason to fear third world nations when technology within our grasp makes any weapon's delivery system they may gain ineffective.

 

[PrayingForWar]

As far as I understand it, he wants to turn Israel loose and let them deal with their enemies. I think that would be the best for them and us. Without us getting in their way they'll no doubt take care of business.

Iran would be completely suicidal to mess with them without us in the way.

We've done more to hurt Israel with our meddling than help lately. Cutting off foreign aid to the region will be net gain for them as well since we give more to their enemies.

Turning Israel loose and letting them fight their own battles would be a good thing, as long as they were uninhibited from going all the way. I'm not going to pretend to understand the logic, but there are a lot of nuances I think none of us understand, and that's the reason that through so many administrations not much has changed.

Iran seems more than prepared to commit suicide. Especially since the people making decisions will probably think they're safe under their bunkers. Islamic sociopaths have no fear of "suicide". They'd just as easily martyr their entire country with the belief of that 12th Imam coming.

 

[ManInBlack]

Turning Israel loose and letting them fight their own battles would be a good thing, as long as they were uninhibited from going all the way. I'm not going to pretend to understand the logic, but there are a lot of nuances I think none of us understand, and that's the reason that through so many administrations not much has changed.

Iran seems more than prepared to commit suicide. Especially since the people making decisions will probably think they're safe under their bunkers. Islamic sociopaths have no fear of "suicide". They'd just as easily martyr their entire country with the belief of that 12th Imam coming.

Or maybe that's exactly what they want Fox News viewers to believe...it's called psychological warfare.

P.S.: The "12th Imam" has already come, at least for the SHIITE Iranians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Mahdi

Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Mahdī (محمد ابن الحسن المهدى) (born c. July 29, 869; 15 Sha‘bān 255 AH) is believed by Twelver Shī‘a Muslims to be the Mahdī, an ultimate savior of humankind and the final Imām of the Twelve Imams.

What are you talking about?

 

[PrayingForWar]

Exactly how much presence we need to leave in the world is certainly debatable... and is an issue worthy of discussion. However, it is Dr. Paul that is bringing this debate to the mainstream. I hear nothing from him that indicates that he would relinquish our empire in a way that would cause harm to our defensive position.



Calling ourselves a free Republic while going around the world telling others what to do is paramount to calling ourselves a free Republic and yet allowing slavery to exist. We should cease from this because it goes against what we stand for... AND it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL already.

Now, this does not mean that we have no defense. What most forget is that we have the most technologically advance military in the world... despite what the recent president has done. It is technology that will allow us a reliable defense without being the world's policemen. I'm sure if one were to query Dr. Paul as to his defense strategy, it would most certainly entail appropriate funding to extend our technological edge. There's simply no reason to fear third world nations when technology within our grasp makes any weapon's delivery system they may gain ineffective.

The delivery system of a tactical nuke is a rucksack. I'd love it if we could secure every square inch of coast and border, but we both know that would be impossible.

Someone will eventually be the "world's police". It was the euroweenies for 300 years of imperial strife. We ended up trying to maintain stability after the world wars.

There is nothing in the Constitution that dictates foriegn policy.

 

[ManInBlack]

Someone will eventually be the "world's police". It was the euroweenies for 300 years of imperial strife. We ended up trying to maintain stability after the world wars.

Your reading of history is flawed. During the three hundred years before the end of the Second World War, the "euroweenies" were constantly at war. It was a multipolar world. There was no "world police." Why do you think a "world police" is necessary? It certainly has no precedent in history.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Turning Israel loose and letting them fight their own battles would be a good thing, as long as they were uninhibited from going all the way. I'm not going to pretend to understand the logic, but there are a lot of nuances I think none of us understand, and that's the reason that through so many administrations not much has changed.

Iran seems more than prepared to commit suicide. Especially since the people making decisions will probably think they're safe under their bunkers. Islamic sociopaths have no fear of "suicide". They'd just as easily martyr their entire country with the belief of that 12th Imam coming.

That's just it, I have no reason to think that Pauls foriegn policy would inhibit Israel from going as far as they need to in protecting themselves. I honestly see this as being a win-win. They have over 300 nuclear weapons and have stated what they'd do if Iran got one. Mossad has already been taking care of some business with their neighbors. Do I want our CIA involved in such operations? No, but if another country feels the need to defend themselves who am I to decide what they need to do. If Iran crosses Israel in a manner gravely unaccepable to Israel, I think you can be relatively sure that Iran just did martyr their entire country.

I'll reiterate that I believe we do far more to hurt Israel by giving their enemies foreign aid and holding them back from defending themselves than we would if we'd just left them alone with their own sovereignty. The Israelis are "big boys" and can undoubtedly take care of themselves.

 

[Aknazer]

Do you really believe that the Persians (Iranians) would push the self-destruct button on four thousand years of culture and civilization by using a nuke?

Yes. If not their general public, then at the least their leadership would.

Do you really believe that any country has the right to tell another country what sorts of weapons they are allowed to have? That sounds a lot like EMPIRE...

When a country can't be trusted with said weapons, yes. Kind of like how it's illegal for various people to own weapons. Now if only our country had the balls to do something about it should Iran get nukes.

Do you really deny that the blank check support of the United States for Israel is a major cause of Islamic terrorism?

Yes. The thing that first set off Bin Laden was that he was that when he offered to have his fighters help I believe Kuwait, he was told no that they would rather ask the US to help. Outside of that there's the issue with everything else we're doing in the region besides supporting Israel. We've been supporting Israel for over half a century, but the Islamic terrorism didn't really start until ~15 years ago.

 

[ManInBlack]

When a country can't be trusted with said weapons, yes. Kind of like how it's illegal for various people to own weapons. Now if only our country had the balls to do something about it should Iran get nukes.

So, who has the lawful authority to make that decision, you? The jokers at the U.N.? Obama?

Give me a break. If you believe in liberty, then you must believe in the sovereignty of nations.