Ron Paul:"I wouldn't send US troops to fight Nazis"

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 
I can do that. Paul's personally against abortion, believes life begins at conception, and has introduced legislation to repeal Roe v. Wade and remove federal jurisdiction for courts to hear abortion cases as the federal government has no constitutional authority to address the issue in the first place (forcing the states to resolve the issue for themselves).

One of his long-standing views is that the more complex and emotionally-charged an issue is, the closer to home it needs to be addressed. As an OBGYN, he has said he can understand use of the morning-after pill (likely for several reasons we can delve into if desired).
edit on 12/30/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 




I would have to say he's consistent.

If you haven't seen this...It's worth a look.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cynicaleye


THIS --->

The man is clearly not right in the head.


Assuming one people's lives are more important than other people's lives.

He said it was a personal choice, nothing would prevent volunteer brigades from
fighting in Europe. Read what is written, or read History, a comparison of this statement
can be made with 1930's Spanish revolution when Volunteers from across the globe fought against Franco's forces.

Judge not lest ye be judged.
edit on 30-12-2011 by Radekus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
Shouldn't this be in the hoax bin?

Since he never said this.


The typical response to criticism about Ron Paul. What has the Reporter got to gain by lieing?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Radekus

Originally posted by Cynicaleye


THIS --->

The man is clearly not right in the head.


Assuming one people's lives are more important than other people's lives.

He said it was a personal choice, nothing would prevent volunteer brigades from
fighting in Europe. Read what is written, or read History, a comparison of this statement
can be made with 1930's Spanish revolution when Volunteers from across the globe fought against Franco's forces.

Judge not lest ye be judged.
edit on 30-12-2011 by Radekus because: (no reason given)


The volunteer Brigades failed to win the war for the Spanish Republicans. The organised Armies that the US sent to Europe and Asia helped to win the Second World War. I'm British, but Ron Paul is starting to scare me.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius

Could you give me one single example of the "clear for all to see" racism outside the newsletters, which I've already addressed?


See if you cannot find any of his statements on the LA riots and how it all ended when the blacks finally had to go get their welfare checks. See what you can dig up if you really need an example handed to you from 20 years worth of published writings.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Algernonsmouse
 

See if you cannot find any of his statements on the LA riots and how it all ended when the blacks finally had to go get their welfare checks. See what you can dig up if you really need an example handed to you from 20 years worth of published writings.

I think you misunderstood my request, or you'll need to clarify your response. Paul's accused of being a racist, but his public record shows every indication to the contrary and any serious research on this issue shows it to be at most an unfortunate case of remote oversight while he was a full time OBGYN again - that is being used to distract from weightier matters.

As far as the newsletters, the few in question actually only spanned about 6 years, and also contain praise for the ethiopians in DC, the Koreans in LA, and various others.

What were you trying to say, exactly? If you want some material, you can find TNR's archive of (I'm assuming) all available newletters here.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


Such was the destiny of Spain then, to lose to Franco's forces.
The only reason nations should interfere in wars is if, and only if,
one nation, or group of nations, attempts at world domination.

We have just such a scenario unfolding here this very day.
America is the aggressor.

By the OP's analogy, every other nation should interfere and declare
war on America (and NATO forces).
I doubt the OP would like to be drafted to a world war,
and I doubt you would too.

Of course, a war between superpowers leads to imperialistic dreams,
once the main foe is eliminated, what stops... say... Russia, or China,
from seeking world dominance themselves?
I wouldn't wish to see neither superpower rule the world.
Empires are ran by ruthless psychotic dictators,
those don't tend to have the people's best interest at heart.

All nations should adopt isolationism for the sake of peace.
Technology used to improve living conditions and space exploration
and exploitation. Perhaps one day a world order of peace could exist,
but not through slathering by the sword, because if it does, it will never be peaceful,
and most assuredly oppressive.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Algernonsmouse
 

See if you cannot find any of his statements on the LA riots and how it all ended when the blacks finally had to go get their welfare checks. See what you can dig up if you really need an example handed to you from 20 years worth of published writings.

I think you misunderstood my request, or you'll need to clarify your response. Paul's accused of being a racist, but his public record shows every indication to the contrary and any serious research on this issue shows it to be at most an unfortunate case of remote oversight while he was a full time OBGYN again - that is being used to distract from weightier matters.

As far as the newsletters, the few in question actually only spanned about 6 years, and also contain praise for the ethiopians in DC, the Koreans in LA, and various others

What were you trying to say, exactly? If you want some material, you can find TNR's archive of (I'm assuming) all available newletters here.



Remote oversight? It's a pretty big oversight if you ask me....
edit on 30-12-2011 by Cynicaleye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by timi0000
He's said he wouldn't have fought the Civil War. He clarified that he would have bought the slaves to free them. Sometimes Ron needs to be a politician and use a little more discretion.


I agree completely. His propensity to not explain what he means is going to destroy his campaign IMO. When they say that he doesn't care about Iran getting a nuclear weapon and he would do nothing about it, he should make it clear that he would not go to war without the approval of Congress, unlike Bush and Obama. When he talks about taking all drug laws off the federal books he should be more clear about his intentions to leave it up to the states to enforce their own drug laws. People who are too lazy or too dumb to figure out what he really means only get half the message, and that makes him out to be loony in their minds.

Unfortunately, the American people have gotten used to presidents who act as dictators and as a result have come to expect them to control everything, so when a candidate comes along who wants to give that power back to the people, they become confused and can't accept that as normal. Shows just how effective this gradual brainwashing has become.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by AntiNWO

Originally posted by timi0000
He's said he wouldn't have fought the Civil War. He clarified that he would have bought the slaves to free them. Sometimes Ron needs to be a politician and use a little more discretion.


I agree completely. His propensity to not explain what he means is going to destroy his campaign IMO. When they say that he doesn't care about Iran getting a nuclear weapon and he would do nothing about it, he should make it clear that he would not go to war without the approval of Congress, unlike Bush and Obama. When he talks about taking all drug laws off the federal books he should be more clear about his intentions to leave it up to the states to enforce their own drug laws. People who are too lazy or too dumb to figure out what he really means only get half the message, and that makes him out to be loony in their minds.

Unfortunately, the American people have gotten used to presidents who act as dictators and as a result have come to expect them to control everything, so when a candidate comes along who wants to give that power back to the people, they become confused and can't accept that as normal. Shows just how effective this gradual brainwashing has become.


How have previous presidents acted like dictators? I don't believe dictators would allow elections..



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I cant believe the @#$%$ on here still attacking Ron Paul's character. Dont you dullards get it YET??

EVERY OTHER CONTENDER IS AN IDIOT!!!!!

Are you so obsessed with winning an argument that you cant see he is your only hope. Short of revolution RON PAUL is the last resort to save America. It really is that simple.

AND.... if... IF!! he doesnt deliver as promised. then just burn it all down OR drop your pants and get lubing. Just stop crying about how your beloved country is being raped by corrupt politicians and power mad corporations and big banks. STHU and get off your asses and do something about it.

There is nothing you can reply to this comment that will justify the stupid mud slinging against Ron Paul. either he will deliver or he wont. regardless he is the best choice you have so just get over it. Or run for president yourself.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 
I'm not surprised you see it so, with as strongly as you want to react to this in light of all the things our nation is facing right now that Paul warned us about years in advance and the geniuses in Washington saw fit to disregard.

Imagine, having heeded his warnings and taken his advance, 9/11 would have been avoided. The housing crash, and economic collapse. Prisons burgeoning with non-violent offenders, forcing states to release actually-violent ones early, over a failed drug policy that actually causes increased drug use, violations of civil rights, and has *actual* racist origins.

And you want to give a full-time country doctor who also served this country in the military a hard time for not proofreading every article prior after the newsletters had been running without hitch for a couple of years - and anoint another interchangeable knucklehead with most of the same wrong ideas to keep leading this nation further down the wrong roads and likely to war with at least two more countries?

Shame on you.
edit on 12/30/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
When you understand Ron Paul his answers to questions are always very clear. When you don't understand Ron Paul his answers can make you do a double take. It will be interesting to see how Ron Paul plays with the larger American public. Honestly though given the lowest common denominator factor, odds are he will be largely misunderstood by a large segment of the public.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cynicaleye
www.ynetnews.com...



Journalist Jeffrey Shapiro posted a 2009 interview he held with the GOP's leading candidate, in which Paul clearly states that if it were up to him at the time, saving the Jews from annihilation in Europe would not have been a "moral imperative." "I asked Congressman Paul: If he were president of the United States during World War II would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany to save the Jews? And the Congressman answered: No, I wouldn't.I wouldn't risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn't do that," Shapiro wrote.


Ron Paul,folks.The man is clearly not right in the head.



It's because of this little thing called the Constitution. Only Congress can declare war. Not the President.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 

How have previous presidents acted like dictators? I don't believe dictators would allow elections..
As far as elections, I'd suggest looking into the 2000 debacle in Florida and the 'election irregularities' in Ohio in 2004.

As to how presidents have acted like dictators - sometimes art imitates (or at least accurately references) life:


Now, thanks to our government refusing to listen to Paul or practice common sense on its own, we overreact to allow indefinite detainment and assassination of american citizens. We throw aside habeas corpus. We allow the government to sneak into our homes with no justifiable probable cause. We scrap posse comitatus.

The founders most certainly WOULD be ashamed, as should we all.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Soooo, the "mainstream" media cannot be believed, but on THIS site we all deny ignorance??? Springer and overlord are laughing all the way to the bank. This is a conspiracy site, yet we get all these political trolls like this moron, beezer, neo, project, to name a few, and we get 7 pages of ad revenue?? All of you here, your favorite candidate from your favorite party could kill a baby and you'd alibi it. Why not just admit, you are ALL unsure, and basically ignorant when it comes to anything that says "political", because that's where intelligence ends, and we will all be happier, and stress free on this comedic site



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by RARARAsputin
 


IGNORANT!!!



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 
Oh. Another former military/CIA endorsement for Paul - for national security and foreign policy reasons - from Robert Steele (wiki here).



That Paul. He's a nut! I am curious. Have any terrorism experts or intelligence officers openly endorsed any of the other candidates? Anyone know?
edit on 12/30/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 


To save the Jews? Is that what WWII was about? Wow, never knew that one. Don't worry about English, Pols, Russians, and others, just save the Jews right? Seriously, this is getting old.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join