Ron Paul to Run for President

[saden1]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

I dont think he is running with the thought that hes gonna get the GOP ticket. Hes running because he is shaping the GOP ticket.

Whats attracted new conservative to the republican party and whats helped re-energize the republican party is the Barry Goldwater/facially conservative/personal freedoms/Tea Party like ideology that Ron Paul has largely become the spokesperson for since GW took his second term. The November 2010 elections were shape by this ideology and hopefully the congressional and presidential 2012 elections will be too. The HUGE strides he made for the fiscal conservatives and civil liberty types in the last election are now coming to fruition, hopefully his rhetoric this time around will resonate even louder for future legislators and legislation.

Also depending on who gets the ticket I think he stands a good chance of being nominated for security of state or another appointed position….. possibly even vice president.

Corporate America won't like him and so he will never be nominated or picked for any meaningful post.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Ron Paul is a good guy, but he just doesn't have broad appeal. And for good reasons. The thing that makes him appealing to many, his Libertarian platform, would be a major weakness when it comes to foreign policy, education reform, and the role of the Fed. His solution to nearly everything is to drastically reduce the role of or completely dismantle government. That's just not practical. If Ron Paul were president, we don't ever catch bin Laden.

A lot of his rhetoric sounds good to the average voter, but when you boil it down to actual policy and how it affects our everyday lives, some of his positions are really kind of dangerous, in my opinion.

If the government had stuck to the vision and principles of Ron Paul throughout the 20th century, and not covertly overthrown democratically elected governments, propped up and armed horrific maniacal dictators, imposed sanctions which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Arabs, immersed itself in Mesopotamian border disputes, and started wars against nations that never attacked us -- bin Laden would never have had any reason to attack us in the first place.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

If the government had stuck to the vision and principles of Ron Paul throughout the 20th century, and not covertly overthrown democratically elected governments, propped up and armed horrific maniacal dictators, imposed sanctions which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Arabs, immersed itself in Mesopotamian border disputes, and started wars against nations that never attacked us -- bin Laden would never have had any reason to attack us in the first place.

Wooo, woo, woo. Thats un-American talk right there! We are America! We can do what we want without consequence! A-M-E-R-I-C-A!!!!!! 'Merica!

Paul: Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East….I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there.

Giuliani: May I comment on that? That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.) And I would ask the Congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that. (Applause.)

Paul refused saying, in part: “If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there.”

Ron Paul Tells The Truth About Attacks By Terrorists; Giuliani Exposed As Clueless, Unfit To Be President

I think this was the exact moment that i realized Giuliani was a idiot last election......

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Wooo, woo, woo. Thats un-American talk right there! We are America! We can do what we want without consequence! A-M-E-R-I-C-A!!!!!! 'Merica!

Paul: Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East….I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there.

Giuliani: May I comment on that? That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.) And I would ask the Congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that. (Applause.)

Paul refused saying, in part: “If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there.”

Ron Paul Tells The Truth About Attacks By Terrorists; Giuliani Exposed As Clueless, Unfit To Be President

I think this was the exact moment that i realized Giuliani was a idiot last election......

You said it, bro. I lost all respect for Rudy at that very moment. What a complete douchebag he is.

Just goes to show that way too many people believe that when an Arab comes over here to kill Americans it's called terrorism -- But when the U.S. Gov't does the same thing over there it's called counter-terrorism.

Hopefully some day we'll learn...

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

You said it, bro. I lost all respect for Rudy at that very moment. What a complete douchebag he is.

Just goes to show that way too many people believe that when an Arab comes over here to kill Americans it's called terrorism -- But when the U.S. Gov't does the same thing over there it's called counter-terrorism.

Hopefully some day we'll learn...

T-paw has done a marvelous jobs replacing him. So much potential wasted.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

You said it, bro. I lost all respect for Rudy at that very moment. What a complete douchebag he is.

Just goes to show that way too many people believe that when an Arab comes over here to kill Americans it's called terrorism -- But when the U.S. Gov't does the same thing over there it's called counter-terrorism.

Hopefully some day we'll learn...

I disagree with that. We are not terrorists. But i will say you don’t hear of many terrorist attacks in Canada or Australia….. maybe its because they don’t have a occupational presence felt around the world? We are so isolated geographically and could have things so good with regards to peace. Maybe we shouldn’t try and police the world Team America style?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

If the government had stuck to the vision and principles of Ron Paul throughout the 20th century, and not covertly overthrown democratically elected governments, propped up and armed horrific maniacal dictators, imposed sanctions which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Arabs, immersed itself in Mesopotamian border disputes, and started wars against nations that never attacked us -- bin Laden would never have had any reason to attack us in the first place.

Germany would have won and our economy would be stagnant. There is a valid reason why his "exotic" ideas don't win and it doesn't stem from lack of knowledge on the part of the public.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by saden1

Germany would have won and our economy would be stagnant. There is a valid reason why his "exotic" ideas don't win and it doesn't stem from lack of knowledge on the part of the public.

It's not a guarantee that Germany would have won WWII, -- (I assume that's the war you're referring to). Most people don't know that leading up to the final stages of the invasion of Berlin, the Soviet Army actually destroyed 70% of the German war machine. In other words, just like WWI, it was a European conflict that would have been solved by Europeans.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

It's not a guarantee that Germany would have won WWII, -- (I assume that's the war you're referring to). Most people don't know that leading up to the final stages of the invasion of Berlin, the Soviet Army actually destroyed 70% of the German war machine. In other words, just like WWI, it was a European conflict that would have been solved by Europeans.

How is Japan and Germany taking over/controlling the entire world a European conflict?

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

If the government had stuck to the vision and principles of Ron Paul throughout the 20th century, and not covertly overthrown democratically elected governments, propped up and armed horrific maniacal dictators, imposed sanctions which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Arabs, immersed itself in Mesopotamian border disputes, and started wars against nations that never attacked us -- bin Laden would never have had any reason to attack us in the first place.

But see Beemnseven that logic is sort of flawed because you presuppose that the world operates according to the same moral code; that the law of morality always, in every circumstance, trumps immoral and sinister deeds. And more importantly that the United States is insulated from the rest of the world.

We don't live in a society where everything goes from A to B - where good always overcomes evil. The premise of your argument actually suggests, on some level, that evil doesn't exist. And that if we mind our business other people will mind theirs. That's not good policy, it's not good diplomacy, and I'm not sure it's even constitutional.

Maybe I'm reading too much into your statement, but I'm not convinced that Ron Paul, or you for that matter, would stand up for America based on some strict constitutional requirement. In other words, if the choices are should the government run a prolonged military operation or draw the line in the sand and give up because of how we interpret the constitution, then I don't like Ron Paul's vision for America.

Give me George W. Bush any day of the week, warts and all, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. When our sovereignty is under siege and our freedoms are in jeopardy, I don't want a leader to interpret the Constitution, I want a leader to defend and protect it at all costs.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

But see Beemnseven that logic is sort of flawed because you presuppose that the world operates according to the same moral code; that the law of morality always, in every circumstance, trumps immoral and sinister deeds. And more importantly that the United States is insulated from the rest of the world.

We don't live in a society where everything goes from A to B - where good always overcomes evil. The premise of your argument actually suggests, on some level, that evil doesn't exist. And that if we mind our business other people will mind theirs. That's not good policy, it's not good diplomacy, and I'm not sure it's even constitutional.

Maybe I'm reading too much into your statement, but I'm not convinced that Ron Paul, or you for that matter, would stand up for America based on some strict constitutional requirement. In other words, if the choices are should the government run a prolonged military operation or draw the line in the sand and give up because of how we interpret the constitution, then I don't like Ron Paul's vision for America.

Give me George W. Bush any day of the week, warts and all, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. When our sovereignty is under siege and our freedoms are in jeopardy, I don't want a leader to interpret the Constitution, I want a leader to defend and protect it at all costs.

Wow, man, where do I start?

Where did the idea get started that Ron Paul wouldn't defend America? He's not a pacifist, and neither am I. The philosophy of non-intervention certainly isn't based on the notion that evil doesn't exist. And interpreting the Constitution doesn't mean we lay down and do nothing if we're attacked. I really struggle to see how you've arrived that conclusion.

Where and when has our sovereignty EVER been under siege in the middle east? If anything, we have rammed "our sovereignty" up the ass of every Arab man, woman, and child for the past 60 years. They finally decide that they don't like it, and when they respond, Americans are mortified and cry that they just don't understand how anyone could strike at such a freedom, and peace-loving society like ours.

Marching all over the world, and acting like the police chief of the planet Earth isn't 'national defense'. It pisses people off, and we shouldn't be surprised when it comes back to bite us.

Clearly we have to convince both sides of the political spectrum this basic truth.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Wow, man, where do I start?

Where did the idea get started that Ron Paul wouldn't defend America? He's not a pacifist, and neither am I. The philosophy of non-intervention certainly isn't based on the notion that evil doesn't exist. And interpreting the Constitution doesn't mean we lay down and do nothing if we're attacked. I really struggle to see how you've arrived that conclusion.

Where and when has our sovereignty EVER been under siege in the middle east? If anything, we have rammed "our sovereignty" up the ass of every Arab man, woman, and child for the past 60 years. They finally decide that they don't like it, and when they respond, Americans are mortified and cry that they just don't understand how anyone could strike at such a freedom, and peace-loving society like ours.

Marching all over the world, and acting like the police chief of the planet Earth isn't 'national defense'. It pisses people off, and we shouldn't be surprised when it comes back to bite us.

Clearly we have to convince both sides of the political spectrum this basic truth.

First let me say that I'm in no way questioning your love of country or Ron Paul's for that matter.

I don't know if Ron Paul is a pacifist, but I maintain I'm not sure if he would, under extreme circumstances, stand up and defend this nation. In a recent interview Mr. Paul said he wouldn't haven't killed bin Laden. He would have cooperated with the Pakistani government to try to bring bin Laden to justice and uphold the rule of law. These are his words. So I have a very difficult time reconciling his stance on matters of protecting our national interests with his interpretation of the Constitution and upholding the rule of law. I believe he's a good man, but following the Constitution to the letter can sometimes be a tricky proposition and doesn't guarantee that we will be at peace with the world.

Whether or not we can draw a straight line from our sometimes flawed foreign policy towards Arab nations over the past 60 years to the atrocities of 9/11 is somewhat of an open question, to be honest. Did the unprovoked invasion of Iraq fuel hatred towards the West, I believe so. (see my final comment below) But on the other hand, muslims are also guilty of murdering and oppressing muslims by the thousands through repressive regimes, without any U.S. involvement or military intervention. Interestingly enough, though, we're now seeing the Arab world reach out to the United States to get involved with the new wave of democracy spreading across the region. So no, it's not all about us shoving our way of living up their asses.

We both agree with your following statement: Marching all over the world, and acting like the police chief of the planet Earth isn't 'national defense'. It pisses people off, and we shouldn't be surprised when it comes back to bite us.

[Chico23231]

Bottom line is Obama is getting my vote unless the Repubs can put someone fresh up with some good ideas.

Newt is a big fat effing loser, Mitt Romney ehhh fox hates him cause of health care so he wont garner any support, Ron Paul the isolationist, Pawlenty is plain garbage and not strong enough, Huckebee F*ckabee, so far the field is extremely weak. Palin and Trump just make me giggle. Not looking too good.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Bottom line is Obama is getting my vote unless the Repubs can put someone fresh up with some good ideas.

Newt is a big fat effing loser, Mitt Romney ehhh fox hates him cause of health care so he wont garner any support, Ron Paul the isolationist, Pawlenty is plain garbage and not strong enough, Huckebee F*ckabee, so far the field is extremely weak. Palin and Trump just make me giggle. Not looking too good.

So you're a sheep to the media?

tsk tsk

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

So you're a sheep to the media?

tsk tsk

no just generally amused