IDBillzFan Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 Unfortunately, every time I hear Ron Paul speak, I wait for him to tell me how it takes a tough man to make a tender chicken. Ideas don't lead. And neither does a man who sounds like Frank Perdue.
truth on hold Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 Buffalo native and former CIA operative Michael Scheuer expresses support for Ron Paul's foreign policy
UConn James Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into the idea that becoming an isolationist state will help us WRT the GWOT and "other countries hating us." Now, I'm all for reducing military spending that's wasteful and unnecessary, but we're involved in many areas and pulling our resources back with such a brunt as Ron Paul wants to do decreases stability, creates a power vacuum that other countries will fill and use to their political and economic advantage, and just leave us open to whatever entities want to come at us for payback once the word is out that we've turned into a weak sister.... The Islamic extremist set --- and even the moderate --- doesn't forget things easily. They carry grudges from 1,500 years ago like it just happened yesterday. People alive now beat themselves bloody for not being alive 700 years ago to stop the murder of such-and-such religious icon. Disengaging and pulling out from the Middle East to Paul's degree only guarantees the slow (or fast) destruction of Israel, and a free forum to plan attacks on the U.S. homeland in a "AND STAY OUT!!" milieu. That kind of sense was palpable on our exit from Iraq --- a place where we poured in trillions gave us the cold shoulder. We can't ever do something like that again, and Paul's point that Europe and other places need to be forced to start paying for their own protection rather than getting a free ride on our dollar is something I do agree with but that doesn't mean we should basically bring everyone home and hunker down. Especially at the prospect of a nuclear Iran ==> the Islamic Bomb. The idea that "blowback" will end toute suite once we disengage is foolish and preposterous.
Alaska Darin Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into the idea that becoming an isolationist state will help us WRT the GWOT and "other countries hating us." Now, I'm all for reducing military spending that's wasteful and unnecessary, but we're involved in many areas and pulling our resources back with such a brunt as Ron Paul wants to do decreases stability, creates a power vacuum that other countries will fill and use to their political and economic advantage, and just leave us open to whatever entities want to come at us for payback once the word is out that we've turned into a weak sister.... The Islamic extremist set --- and even the moderate --- doesn't forget things easily. They carry grudges from 1,500 years ago like it just happened yesterday. People alive now beat themselves bloody for not being alive 700 years ago to stop the murder of such-and-such religious icon. Disengaging and pulling out from the Middle East to Paul's degree only guarantees the slow (or fast) destruction of Israel, and a free forum to plan attacks on the U.S. homeland in a "AND STAY OUT!!" milieu. That kind of sense was palpable on our exit from Iraq --- a place where we poured in trillions gave us the cold shoulder. We can't ever do something like that again, and Paul's point that Europe and other places need to be forced to start paying for their own protection rather than getting a free ride on our dollar is something I do agree with but that doesn't mean we should basically bring everyone home and hunker down. Especially at the prospect of a nuclear Iran ==> the Islamic Bomb. The idea that "blowback" will end toute suite once we disengage is foolish and preposterous.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into the idea that becoming an isolationist state will help us WRT the GWOT and "other countries hating us." Now, I'm all for reducing military spending that's wasteful and unnecessary, but we're involved in many areas and pulling our resources back with such a brunt as Ron Paul wants to do decreases stability, creates a power vacuum that other countries will fill and use to their political and economic advantage, and just leave us open to whatever entities want to come at us for payback once the word is out that we've turned into a weak sister.... The Islamic extremist set --- and even the moderate --- doesn't forget things easily. They carry grudges from 1,500 years ago like it just happened yesterday. People alive now beat themselves bloody for not being alive 700 years ago to stop the murder of such-and-such religious icon. Disengaging and pulling out from the Middle East to Paul's degree only guarantees the slow (or fast) destruction of Israel, and a free forum to plan attacks on the U.S. homeland in a "AND STAY OUT!!" milieu. That kind of sense was palpable on our exit from Iraq --- a place where we poured in trillions gave us the cold shoulder. We can't ever do something like that again, and Paul's point that Europe and other places need to be forced to start paying for their own protection rather than getting a free ride on our dollar is something I do agree with but that doesn't mean we should basically bring everyone home and hunker down. Especially at the prospect of a nuclear Iran ==> the Islamic Bomb. The idea that "blowback" will end toute suite once we disengage is foolish and preposterous. And you support Romney??? You do realize that Ambassador Bolton in basically a part of team Romney now? As hard as it may be for you right wingers to accept, Obama's foreign policy is closer to Paul's than the establishment GOP's is. Hell, if you people support less debt you should support Obama too, Romney won't cut anything except his taxes making more debt. But whatever
Chef Jim Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 Hell, if you people support less debt you should support Obama too, Please explain.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 Please explain. Lower taxes=more debt Romney won't cut and spending, he will probably increase it, just like all Republicans
3rdnlng Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 Lower taxes=more debt Romney won't cut and spending, he will probably increase it, just like all Republicans http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/01/20/dallas-plant-investigated-for-dumping-pig-blood-into-trinity-river/
Chef Jim Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 Lower taxes=more debt Romney won't cut and spending, he will probably increase it, just like all Republicans So you're saying Romney will spend more than Obama?
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 So you're saying Romney will spend more than Obama? Absolutely. No one is going to touch medicare, which will increase anyway. SS, the same How about military spending? If McCain won in 08 we would still be sending BILLIONs to Iraq, we are not now. Obama is cutting military spending, you really believe Williard will do that? Why do you like Romney so much?
Chef Jim Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 Absolutely. No one is going to touch medicare, which will increase anyway. SS, the same How about military spending? If McCain won in 08 we would still be sending BILLIONs to Iraq, we are not now. Obama is cutting military spending, you really believe Williard will do that? Why do you like Romney so much? Who said I liked Romney? So if McCain won we'd still be in Iraq? How do you know that? What if Romney wins the election and gets rid of Obamacare? Not saying that would happen but hey I can use conjecture too.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 Who said I liked Romney? So if McCain won we'd still be in Iraq? How do you know that? What if Romney wins the election and gets rid of Obamacare? Not saying that would happen but hey I can use conjecture too. Because McCain said so....pay attention! http://www.kpho.com/story/16324864/mccain-reacts-to-troop-pullout-from-iraq I doubt Mitt can or even will take away 30 million people's health care. You know how the Senate "works" right?
Dante Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 And you support Romney??? You do realize that Ambassador Bolton in basically a part of team Romney now? As hard as it may be for you right wingers to accept, Obama's foreign policy is closer to Paul's than the establishment GOP's is. Hell, if you people support less debt you should support Obama too, Romney won't cut anything except his taxes making more debt. But whatever Lower taxes equates to more government revenue. Not more debt. You see, because lower taxes stimulates commerce thus increasing the amount of taxes taken in. Cool huh?
IDBillzFan Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 I doubt Mitt can or even will take away 30 million people's health care. The Supreme Court, however...
TPS Posted January 22, 2012 Posted January 22, 2012 Lower taxes equates to more government revenue. Not more debt. You see, because lower taxes stimulates commerce thus increasing the amount of taxes taken in. Cool huh? The two significant tax cut experiments by Reagan and Bush2 resulted in significant increases in deficits. Bush2 added over $2 trillion in debt and he started with surpluses left over from Clinton.
truth on hold Posted January 22, 2012 Posted January 22, 2012 I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into the idea that becoming an isolationist state will help us WRT the GWOT and "other countries hating us." Now, I'm all for reducing military spending that's wasteful and unnecessary, but we're involved in many areas and pulling our resources back with such a brunt as Ron Paul wants to do decreases stability, creates a power vacuum that other countries will fill and use to their political and economic advantage, and just leave us open to whatever entities want to come at us for payback once the word is out that we've turned into a weak sister.... The Islamic extremist set --- and even the moderate --- doesn't forget things easily. They carry grudges from 1,500 years ago like it just happened yesterday. People alive now beat themselves bloody for not being alive 700 years ago to stop the murder of such-and-such religious icon. Disengaging and pulling out from the Middle East to Paul's degree only guarantees the slow (or fast) destruction of Israel, and a free forum to plan attacks on the U.S. homeland in a "AND STAY OUT!!" milieu. That kind of sense was palpable on our exit from Iraq --- a place where we poured in trillions gave us the cold shoulder. We can't ever do something like that again, and Paul's point that Europe and other places need to be forced to start paying for their own protection rather than getting a free ride on our dollar is something I do agree with but that doesn't mean we should basically bring everyone home and hunker down. Especially at the prospect of a nuclear Iran ==> the Islamic Bomb. The idea that "blowback" will end toute suite once we disengage is foolish and preposterous. What in the world are you talking about? The 2 unresolved situations since WWII are north and south Korea, and israeli and palestine. We'v been heavily involved both, at a huge cost to us in lives and dollars. Theres no evidence out involvement solves anything, in fact the evidence suggests out involvement prolongs conflicts indefinitely.
PromoTheRobot Posted January 22, 2012 Posted January 22, 2012 I can't support Ron Paul on several issues but he is spot on in that video. All I can do is roll my eyes at candidates that want to invade half the world, cut taxes, but still balance the budget. How is that supposed to happen? PTR
meazza Posted January 22, 2012 Posted January 22, 2012 What in the world are you talking about? The 2 unresolved situations since WWII are north and south Korea, and israeli and palestine. We'v been heavily involved both, at a huge cost to us in lives and dollars. Theres no evidence out involvement solves anything, in fact the evidence suggests out involvement prolongs conflicts indefinitely. How has the involvment in Israel and Palestine cost lives?
truth on hold Posted January 22, 2012 Posted January 22, 2012 How has the involvment in Israel and Palestine cost lives? Couple of direct examples: - 34 US sailors die on USS Liberty June 8, 1967 when attached by Israeli fighter jets in the Sinai Peninsula - 241 US service members (mostly Marines) on October 23, 2008 while on peace keeping mission in Beirut, Lebanon when a bomber blew up their compound. Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, hoping to crush the PLO. In exchange for an Israeli withdrawal, the U.N. sent in a peacekeeping force made up of troops from Great Britain, France, Italy and the United States. Most dramatic indirect example of course is 9/11, when US support for Israel against Palestine was cited as a main cause for the attack. 2,977 fatalities.
Recommended Posts