Why is everyone on the Ron Paul bandwagon?

reply to post by projectvxn


Maybe you are just not smart enough to understand it or maybe I am not explaining it to your level. I am very highly educated and have many degrees.

Originally posted by The Old American
Not capable? What, do you think they aren't smart enough to do it? Are they just goat herders to you? They couldn't possibly have the intelligence or wit to be a threat to anyone? That's a pretty discriminatory thought process you have there about the culture that invented algebra.

Al Qaida didn't invent algebra. I did specify the crazies, right? In response to Neo's worries of Islamic extremism? Why... yeah... yeah I did.

Now. These whackadoos? They lack the numbers or even just the raw ability to "take over the world." They're not going to form their own power block, because they cannot work together. If - huge if - all the various islamic extremist groups reached some sort of concord, then they might be able to pose a sustainable regional threat... but even then they'd likely just be crushed in their nascent state.

They are more than capable of being a threat to anyone, particularly America as we have people like you in charge.

9/11 what?

/TOA

Well, with all respect to the people who lose their lives in those attacks, the fact is that those thirteen dudes didn't really do much. Our response had a worse impact on the US than those attacks did... and, not to forget, was probably exactly the response desired by hte people who conducted the attack.

We're certainly no close to being ruled by the Mullahs of Waziristan, if that was their master plan.

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE

For those who think any president needs the house or senate to get things done look up excutive orders a president can cancel/void or nullify executive orders from past presidents or add to them, and they can write new ones..

I thought Ron Paul was against executive orders.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Clinton wasn't too worried look where that got us yep go back to that complacency that led us to 9-11 and 11 years of wars with no end in sight all because that "scholar walkingfox" who "reads history" says no worries.

Got it.

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by The Old American

 

That's total BS.

If we were doing it for the oil we would have received most of the contracts to develop oil fields in Iraq. We didn't.

We are attacking oil-producing countries. Why aren't we ousting Hugo Chavez? Why is Castro still in charge? Why does the Mexican military get to cross our borders every other day? Did I mention that millions of North Koreans are starving? Oh, we don't get oil from them, so it's not our problem.

/TOA

Venezuela is actually a member of OPEC. Cuba has some really nice reserves of natural gas. Mexico is a major oil-producing nation (though is not a member of OPEC). North Korea... is... well... they have rocks and stuff, so, three out of four.

Originally posted by tHEpROGRESSIVE
I find your post to be degrading of me. I simply repeated what Ron Paul has said but somehow you are mad at me for what he said but you love him for what he said. Maybe you do not really like him as much as you think.

If you found insult then I'm surprised. Nothing in my posts should be construed to be degrading. I simply said you seem confused (or you can use mistaken) as to his position on things. You drew conclusions that are incorrect.

The problem with the programs going is that it means we are purely in a defensive mode. So we are only protected at the edge of our borders.

I thought we were talking about domestic spending and social programs, but I can change gears. We are not only protected at the edge of our borders. Our Navy is quite powerful, and one of it's prime missions is power projection, so that alone is hardly at the edge. Coupled with our arrangements with our allies and we would have a stable platform with which to assault pretty much anyone we wanted.

Is defense such a bad thing? Every other nation on Earth seems required or content to have an almost 100% defensive posture.

His answer to Iran is let them have a nuke, because we have more nukes. So it seems his answer is let them get a nuke, then when they nuke us, we will nuke them more so we win. But if millions of US citizens die in a nuke attack and tens of millions die in Iran then what kind of win is that.

This is mischaracterizing the position. The Soviet Union had close to as many nukes as we did and we didn't freak out. Why would we if Iran got one? No one in the international community wants this, so we aren't really alone. All nuclear weapons are not created equal, and when developing them there is a rather stiff curve. This is the importance of intelligence services.

Then add to it that he is going to eliminate programs that aid the elderly and poor without replacing them with anything.

Is that meaty enough for you?

We live in a nation run by the States for the large majority of our services. Would you support nationalizing the police or fire fighters or even schools? Probably not since it would not improve quality but only increase cost. If anything, history tells us that quality would go down.

If this is true, why not let the state's decide what level of social support they wish to give? I could go into quite a lengthy discussion about this if you want that pretty much closes the book on nationalizing these programs.

We have State and local governments for a reason, and they govern better because they know their particular states better than the federal government.

Again, because one says that the Federal Government should not do something does not mean they are saying no one should either. In this case it's quite the opposite. The State's SHOULD cover these items.

reply to post by neo96


Actually, no, that's because a retard from Texas thought that demolishing two nations was a good way to respond to that particular event. After being briefed on the threat months beforehand and never doing anything about it. And the crazies STILL aren't any closer to world domination. or regional domination. Hell, they can't even assure domination of a pile of rubble like the southern half of Afghanistan.

C'mon, Neo. Try. This is just sad, I know you can do better, I've seen it happen.

reply to post by jam321


Never said he would use it, just if congress tied his hands he does have a way to get things done.
And he can still void other executive orders.

reply to post by projectvxn

What do you think our biggest concern and/or real reasons for being in Saudi Arabia is? Do you think the Saudis are pro democracy at heart?

What would Pakistan care about us if we just let the middle east work it's own damn self out? You don't buy the ol' "they hate us for our freedoms" do ya?

It's a lot of questions but the line did get blurred somewhere along the way between democracy & empire as far as I can see.

reply to post by muse7

The only way we will change things is when WE the people take action and get things done, instead of depending on other people to bring the "change" that we so badly want.

That's just it!! He IS we the people.

I like how Ron Paul is considered to have a bandwagon now. Just like a few years ago when Obama had a bandwagon and Paul didn't get any media coverage.

I like him cause, for one, he's the underdog. And second, because he's about as honest as a politician can be. He's also consistent in many of his beliefs and never gets called out for contradicting himself. Hopefully that wouldn't change if/when he were elected into office, but that is still a big plus. Some of his ideas may be a bit radical but he is still the only GOP candidate who has offered realistic solutions to the problems at hand. Seems like everyone else is just pointing fingers these days.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Al Qaida didn't invent algebra. I did specify the crazies, right? In response to Neo's worries of Islamic extremism? Why... yeah... yeah I did.

What, "ohnoes teh crazy muslims is gonna take over the world!!!!"

You didn't say "crazy al-Qaeda" you specified Muslims. Your right-wing conservatism is showing. Better tuck that under your progressivism before someone sees it.

Now. These whackadoos? They lack the numbers or even just the raw ability to "take over the world." They're not going to form their own power block, because they cannot work together. If - huge if - all the various islamic extremist groups reached some sort of concord, then they might be able to pose a sustainable regional threat... but even then they'd likely just be crushed in their nascent state.

They don't need to take over the world, just a few key positions of power, which they are more than capable of doing. As far us being able to "crush them in their nascent state" (awesome word use, BTW , though they're hardly nascent. They are well-established), we haven't been able to crush anyone over there...ever. We're 10 years into our Afghanistan stay, and we're no closer to "finding al-Qaeda" than when we started. We aren't crushing anyone, we're just making them hate us more.

Well, with all respect to the people who lose their lives in those attacks, the fact is that those thirteen dudes didn't really do much. Our response had a worse impact on the US than those attacks did... and, not to forget, was probably exactly the response desired by hte people who conducted the attack.

We're certainly no close to being ruled by the Mullahs of Waziristan, if that was their master plan.

Going on the thought that 13 Muslims perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, it's not going too far afield to say that the designers of the attacks knew what it would do to America. Novelists have used that plot device for decades.

/TOA

another thread hijacked.

I'm not on 'The RP bandwagon.'

I don't think he has the physical endurance to make it through the Presidency should he get elected.

Which would leave us with the VP (whomever that might be,) becoming President.

Then:

"Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."

Which is to say depending on which party is in supremacy of the House and Senate at that time, means we either get a shill or worse.

So the 2012 you either get a man doomed to an early death by the job, and then what ever VP is the becoming puppet/loser in as President. Or the worst case Republican Perry/Romny versus President Obama.

Or should we get really screwed, both RP and his VP getting killed by an 'alphabet agency sanctioned shooter' and we end up with the 'Speaker of the House', of which is anyone's guess at this time.

So I think, since 2012 is going to be 'yet another case of bad or worse' I'll stick with Obama. At least I can more or less, guess what way he will jump.

That's my take.
M.

reply to post by KrazyJethro


The states are broke and cannot print money so how are they going to be able to afford SS and Medicare and Welfare and Medicaid.

Maybe you did not grow up during the cold war, but I did. Our government and our people freaked out at the prospect of nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

Beyond that we didn't just sit back and let them put their nukes all over the world or take over other countries without a fight.

What Ron Paul is proposing is that we pull everything back into our own borders and sit back and play nice until we are attacked. Then we can respond in his eyes.

So he would let Iran get nukes and possibly nuke Israel first, then us.

The only way we were able to outlast the USSR in the cold war was to push as many nukes close to their country as we could. Then the 15 minutes becomes a few minutes. Beyond that we flew 24/7 missions to ensure that if we were nuked first we had the subs and the planes in the air loaded with nukes to take them out. I believe it was called Mutually Assured Destruction.

Ron Paul would have none of that. We would just sit here and do nothing while the rest of the world went wild. According to Pauls logic we should have never helped the allies defeat Germany because they never attacked us. So if you want to live in a world where England and France are part of some Nazi regime then VOTE RON PAUL!

Why is everyone on the Ron Paul bandwagon

Because I genuinely believe Ron Paul is a good man, a good man who is not content with doing nothing. If I was an American he would get my vote.

Is the American Military deployed across the globe to ensure Americas freedom and safety or to secure natural resources for the 1% at the expense of American Soldiers and taxpayers?

reply to post by oddnutz


A good man? He wants to back the proverbial CO2 polluting SUV over grandma and the kids then put it in reverse and back over them again. And then back in forward until they are just a pile of mush.

reply to post by tHEpROGRESSIVE


I guess you failed to receive a degree in common sense then... I find this thread worthless and very unhelpful to say the least. I don't know what the OP is trying to point out. This thread has no sources, and the OP has no clout what so ever, and you seem to be backing him up. There is no bandwagon. Stop being trolls, and move along. If you don't want a change you don't have to be a part of it, you'll just be a problem to the solution.

Though I support RP I believe the Republican party is setting things up for Obama to win his second term.
RP will not get the nomination , the party will not let that happen , because he would beat Obama. The rest of the candidates are a bunch of losers( Perry,Bachman) and flakes ( Cain) , Mitt Romny is mediocre at best and none will beat Obama.

reply to post by muse7

He's as different as all get out! Smart and self taught. If your gun happy then go for it or give the guy a chance. Just came out with his budget in writing , step by step, and best I've seen from all the candidates. We can't continue policing the world or we go broke , so like it or not that will come to an end. I'd just like to see it end while I still have some change in my pocket. Probably our last chance for a patriot. I'm retired now and have watched him for the past 2 years on Cspan and the internet as much as possible. He is the real deal. True he's old , but that's to his advantage. He's experienced more than most of you in his lifetime and is wiser for it.