It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Tea Party dropping Bachman for Ron Paul??

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by seabag
 


Yeah, the Swiss have really had a hard time with remaining neutral...Who said anything about pacifism?


Whether our previous foreign policy is to blame or not, we definitely have some enemies around the world now. I’ve been to many third-world countries and I have no desire for my children to grow up that way.

I’m just a bit unsettled by waiting too long to respond…that’s all. I fear Ron wouldn’t pull the trigger until we have been decimated, and that’s alarming to me. Am I wrong? Do you think America should become a pacifist nation and only strike in retaliation? I get the feeling that's exactly what Ron Paul wants. Am I wrong? I haven't read his book. I base that on public comments he's made and his debate responses.




posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Ron would pull the trigger when congress voted for war and it was legal. Not overstep and bomb the dog # out of anyone that looked at him funny or claimed a faith that he didn't agree with.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 




MAD means madness, otherwise known as insanity...rational people do not go around making ways to kill people...Frankly, I wish we could place the fighters, warriors, and war mongerers in some kind of big box, and do away with the whole bloody lot of you..


Well that wasn't very nice!!


Paul supporters never said any garbage like that when they tout how much military support he has compared to the other candidates.

Go away…I don’t need input from someone who thinks the way you do. I'm trying to have a serious discussion here....I'm on the fence. Are you even American?


Never mind… Bye!!



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 




Our national security is none of our business? Many people seem to quickly dismiss Iran’s threats to wipe the US off the map. Saudi Arabia has never threatened our existence.


How many 9/11 hijackers were Iranian?

None.

How many were Saudi Arabian?

15

I'm so sick and tiered of Republicans and their ignorant views on geopolitics. You hate Iran because Bush and Obama told you to hate Iran. The FACT is that Iran has done nothing to us even after the massive meddling we have done in their country, including arming Saddam Hussein with weaponry to attack Iran, installing puppet governments and so forth.

We get involved in the ME for OIL and OIL corporations .. nothing more, nothing less. We have our own oil, but should move away from the substance as much as possible and we'd have no need to even consider the ME other than a giant sandbox a World away.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Today, Nikki Haley, Governor of SC and Tea Party member endorsed Mitt Romney so I don't think RP has quite all the Tea Party Support yet. My opinion is, as far as SC is concerned will rely more on who Jim Demint, republican senator SC endorses, if he does decide to do that even.
Ms. Bachmann was overly aggressive last night, probably since that was the last debate until the Iowa caucuses and I think that damaged her approval rating in the long run, however she got under Ron's skin pretty bad. I have watched nearly every debate and I have never seen him get that emotional. I think that may have hurt him a bit in winning over undecided voters who know nothing about the man, but the way I see it it only showed how convicted he is in his idealogy on foreign policy.
On a positive note it was nice to see Alan Combes on Fox say that Ron Paul is right in that we cannot declare war based on conjecture, that being a report from the UN about Iran's nuclear ambitions, or the drone that they have that we sent there.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


There are ZERO GUARANTEES in life...do you UNDERSTAND that basic premise? If you do, then you would understand the only WAY is to help other people IMPROVE their quality of LIFE!!! Not BOMB them into oblivion or talk about bombing them into oblivion...and then expect them to say, "Oh yeah, okay...how were you going to help us out?" THAT boat does not float...

Meet each other with the object of WIN-WIN...WIN-WIN works...by the way, whether this hurts your feelings or not, one thing you should understand about your kids...they will live their lives the way they want to and be just fine whether you like it or not...



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 




Paul supporters never said any garbage like that when they tout how much military support he has compared to the other candidates.


Paul gets huge military support because he doesn't wish to use them as pawns for corporate profit. Yeah.. our soldiers aren't dumb, they know when they're being used....



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shillbillyjim
Ron would pull the trigger when congress voted for war and it was legal. Not overstep and bomb the dog # out of anyone that looked at him funny or claimed a faith that he didn't agree with.


Yeah, well that’s what the article mentioned too. I agree with both of you that America should ONLY go to war with congressional approval….absolutely.

But I don’t think the congress makes the initial declaration without the President?? He has to ask them to vote on it, so ultimately it is the POTUS that makes the initial call and congress just approves or denies.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


If you are not a war mongerer, then the comment does not apply to you...no harm, no foul...but fearful, small minded people usually are war mongerers...again, if this is not you, then take no offense...As far as nice? What is not nice about typing on a keyboard?



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shillbillyjim
" Ron would pull the trigger when congress voted for war and it was legal. Not overstep and bomb the dog # out of anyone that looked at him funny or claimed a faith that he didn't agree with.
"


This is True . ONLY Congress has the Power to Declare War on another Nation and they would ONLY Consider it if Absolute Proof of a Threat to our National Security was Presented to them. If Ron Paul was President during a Time of War , he would Abide by the Decision of Congress in taking Military Action against a Possible Enemy Threat . Unlike Obama , he would not have started Military Strikes against Libya because Members of NATO or the U.N. asked him to . That Power does NOT Belong to the President of the United States ALONE .....



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 



I'm so sick and tiered of Republicans and their ignorant views on geopolitics. You hate Iran because Bush and Obama told you to hate Iran. The FACT is that Iran has done nothing to us even after the massive meddling we have done in their country, including arming Saddam Hussein with weaponry to attack Iran, installing puppet governments and so forth.

We get involved in the ME for OIL and OIL corporations .. nothing more, nothing less. We have our own oil, but should move away from the substance as much as possible and we'd have no need to even consider the ME other than a giant sandbox a World away.


I’m not a Republican or a neocon…I’m a conservative. I’m closer to Ron Paul (libertarian) than I am to any other candidate. I’m only on the fence on the foreign policy issue because I worry about the security of my country.

I’m all for using our own resources here and not buying oil from the Middle East. When is that going to happen?


So you feel that if we just close all of our bases overseas, get out of the middle east, stop meddling in other countries affairs and focus on America (Ron Paul’s agenda) that all of the perceived threats I mentioned will go away?

Hey, maybe so!! Are you willing to bet the life of your family that walking away from a nuclear Iran is the safest thing for your family? It might be! I don’t have those answers. That’s why I started the thread, bud.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Enemies we made with our constant meddling in other countries affairs. Our forefathers did not want us in foreign entanglements. But the Industrial Military Complex does to further their existence, with weapons manufacturers lining the pockets of our congressmen. Dr. Paul wants us to follow the example of our forefathers and have a strong defense at home not all over the world. It is not rocket science. How would you like drones flying over Texas or Colorado. You would be pissed but if the US does it well that is different. How?
edit on 16-12-2011 by Rothbard because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 




Hey, maybe so!! Are you willing to bet the life of your family that walking away from a nuclear Iran is the safest thing for your family? It might be! I don’t have those answers. That’s why I started the thread, bud.


Of course. I'm an isolationist.. I want no free trade, no foreign alliances, no foreign bases, no military partnerships, no open borders, no immigration and impossible penalties for businesses that move operations out of our economic zone. If someone in the ME gets pissed off at us (but why would they if we are not doing anything to them?) and lobs a nuke our way ... we have enough to decimate every city, villages, and camel caravan they possess. International Relations dictates: Mutually assured destruction is the greatest deterrent. Perhaps Iran doesn't want a nuke to use on the USA .. they want a nuke so the USA can't do anything to them. Pakistan for instance can murder our troops with free will .. we will never do anything about it. They have nukes. (and are far crazier than Iran by the way....)
edit on 12/16/2011 by Rockpuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Rothbard
 


President Eisenhower WARNED the American People about the Power of the HAWKS to Create Misery with their Constant Meddling in Foreign Affairs , have we Forgotten his Candid Insight on that Subject Today ? I Hope Not........





www.youtube.com...





edit on 16-12-2011 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Rothbard
 


The drones are already flying over our soil....seabag thinks we are winning the war on terror...once the final terrorist is killed, he is convinced the drones will stop flying overhead...



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DevilsLettuce
 



Today, Nikki Haley, Governor of SC and Tea Party member endorsed Mitt Romney so I don't think RP has quite all the Tea Party Support yet. My opinion is, as far as SC is concerned will rely more on who Jim Demint, republican senator SC endorses, if he does decide to do that even.


Ya, I saw that today. And I agree that Demint holds a lot more weight.


Ms. Bachmann was overly aggressive last night, probably since that was the last debate until the Iowa caucuses and I think that damaged her approval rating in the long run, however she got under Ron's skin pretty bad. I have watched nearly every debate and I have never seen him get that emotional. I think that may have hurt him a bit in winning over undecided voters who know nothing about the man, but the way I see it it only showed how convicted he is in his idealogy on foreign policy.


I agree that she went after them last night. Like you said, it’s the last debate before the Iowa caucuses and she needs that to even stay in at this point. I don’t think Paul looked bad at all. I think he looks the same every debate…he’s very consistent. So is his record as he always points out.



On a positive note it was nice to see Alan Combes on Fox say that Ron Paul is right in that we cannot declare war based on conjecture, that being a report from the UN about Iran's nuclear ambitions, or the drone that they have that we sent there.


I think most rational people who respect the rule of law agree that there should NEVER be a war without congressional approval. If the President has to react immediately to something he has that option but congressional approval must follow very soon (30 or 90 days I think) or the action should be abruptly halted.

Its funny how all the anti-war types were all over Bush during the start of the Iraq war (he had approval) but when Obama does far worse (and without congressional approval) he gets a pass. Where is the outrage?
Whether you agree with the war or not, if congress doesn’t approve it there should be immediate impeachment proceedings initiated if the president continues to move forward without approval.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by Rothbard
 


The drones are already flying over our soil....seabag thinks we are winning the war on terror...once the final terrorist is killed, he is convinced the drones will stop flying overhead...


First you jump on this thread and call me a fearful person because I have valid concerns. Then you say I should be locked in a box and you want to do away with me. NOW you’re proclaiming you know what I think about drones?

I asked for people to respond about Ron Paul’s foreign policy and you just want to talk smack apparently.

This may very well be why Ron Paul DOESN’T appear to have enough support to win this primary. It’s because very few of his supporters (I mean YOU) can even sway someone who is on the fence.


Way to go, jeichelberg!! You’ve really helped your cause. Maybe Ron would have a better chance if you jumped over to the Romney camp and “helped” him!!

edit on 16-12-2011 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


" First you jump on this thread and call me a fearful person because I have valid concerns. Then you say I should be locked in a box and you want to do away with me. NOW you’re proclaiming you know what I think about drones? "


You have Logical Concerns about Ron Paul , I Respect that . This thread poses an interesting Question that deserves a Civil Discussion . Please just Ignore those who might Derail it for their own Irrelevant Reasons Sir.........



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by DevilsLettuce
 



Today, Nikki Haley, Governor of SC and Tea Party member endorsed Mitt Romney so I don't think RP has quite all the Tea Party Support yet. My opinion is, as far as SC is concerned will rely more on who Jim Demint, republican senator SC endorses, if he does decide to do that even.


Ya, I saw that today. And I agree that Demint holds a lot more weight.


Ms. Bachmann was overly aggressive last night, probably since that was the last debate until the Iowa caucuses and I think that damaged her approval rating in the long run, however she got under Ron's skin pretty bad. I have watched nearly every debate and I have never seen him get that emotional. I think that may have hurt him a bit in winning over undecided voters who know nothing about the man, but the way I see it it only showed how convicted he is in his idealogy on foreign policy.


I agree that she went after them last night. Like you said, it’s the last debate before the Iowa caucuses and she needs that to even stay in at this point. I don’t think Paul looked bad at all. I think he looks the same every debate…he’s very consistent. So is his record as he always points out.



On a positive note it was nice to see Alan Combes on Fox say that Ron Paul is right in that we cannot declare war based on conjecture, that being a report from the UN about Iran's nuclear ambitions, or the drone that they have that we sent there.


I think most rational people who respect the rule of law agree that there should NEVER be a war without congressional approval. If the President has to react immediately to something he has that option but congressional approval must follow very soon (30 or 90 days I think) or the action should be abruptly halted.

Its funny how all the anti-war types were all over Bush during the start of the Iraq war (he had approval) but when Obama does far worse (and without congressional approval) he gets a pass. Where is the outrage?
Whether you agree with the war or not, if congress doesn’t approve it there should be immediate impeachment proceedings initiated if the president continues to move forward without approval.


I couldn't agree more with everything you have said here, its nice to meet a like minded individual.

I think the way Obama was able to get by with Afganistan is somehow he was able promote that war as a continuation of what work we have done since 03' in Iraq and the masses seen that as the same war just a different territory, wrong indeed, but well played. But I can't explain Libya though, did congress even vote on that? Oh that's right somehow it wasn't considered a war since we played a secondary role with the UN and the Libyan rebels were the ones fighting, not US troops.

And I support Ron Paul and I believe in a strong national defense, bringing the troops home, that sort of thing, however I think that in order for his Foreign policy to have more appeal with undecided voters he should talk more about the fact we simply can't afford it, how the last one cost us tremendously, those arguments rooted in economy where his main strenghts are it rather than trying to prove to the constituents that Iran is less of a threat than otherwise promoted by the media. Because I think people are generally afraid of what Iran could be capable of, there is a stigma with the Muslim community, and America has a deep rooted belief in defending Israel.
So if he "stuck with the numbers," economically speaking,then I believe his foreign policy would have much more appeal than trying to prove a case which unfortunately I believe is only upheld by conspiracy theorists at this point in time.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 
Hi Seabag.


I agree with Ron Paul on this issue. The US shouldn’t be sticking its nose into other countries. Having said that, when do we take action against a country with nukes who has proclaimed they want to destroy us? Do we wait until DC and NYC are glass? Just saying!

Can you clarify for me exactly when Iran said this, and what precisely was said? Then I suggest we go back and look at anything we were saying about them during the same timeframe, who said what first, and who's been carrying out more intimidating military actions. I think just that much would actually be pretty telling.

Then we can get into the likelihood of them even getting a nuke, who over there is actually in control (the supreme council), and their actual motivations and desires. Iran is actually, generally speaking, a fairly progressive country which isn't suicidal - and they're a good bit less oppressive internally than a good many of our allies. We've been giving them a hard time for quite awhile, trying to stir up internal dissent (I believe the CIA is involved with internal efforts there, or was not too long ago), and trying to get an iranian revolutionary group taken OFF our list of terrorists so they can cause more problems.

Aside from the fact that they've got a military budget smaller than Greece, the Netherlands, and Poland, I'm surprised they've been as restrained as they have been - and I can ABSOLUTELY understand why they might want a nuke, if there was proof they actually even do. North Korea developed a nuke and in my opinion is much less stable, more hostile to us, and much more oppressive than Iran and - well, we kinda started leaving them alone (EDIT: I'm not sure if there's any oil in North Korea, and haven't looked into any other strategic considerations there).

Simply, the Iran thing is overblown. It smacks entirely too much of the Iraq debacle, and misses the point anyway - Paul is not a pacifist. He just doesn't believe into jumping blindly to conclusions or acting without respect of the consequences. Given any indication of a true threat, he would at the very least make sure congress was informed and build a valid case for a declaration of war with decisive engagement to eliminate the threat directly or respond appropriately to any actual aggression, and be done with it.

Take care.


edit on 12/16/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join