Tired of the Ron Paul Bandwagon???

page: 6
40
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrgregbusybee
RP quote for you: “Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference."

That's the kind of statements that your RP makes.... does that sound like a man that is going to protect our country and be prepared for war. or better yet...do you think ron paul will pull the trigger when it's needed and we should be at war?? when his policy allows attacks in our homeland...and you get pissed off and want us to retaliate...will he pull the trigger? i don't believe he would....


Actually, I think he would.. one of the core principles of freedom in a national sense is sovereignty. The national government has a responsibilty to provide for the common defense. Anything less than that would be a violation of the constitution. However, I think Paul is correct that we cannot give up any aspect of freedom in exchange for safety and expect a positive outcome.




posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mrgregbusybee
 



RP quote for you: “Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference."

That's the kind of statements that your RP makes.... does that sound like a man that is going to protect our country and be prepared for war. or better yet...do you think ron paul will pull the trigger when it's needed and we should be at war?? when his policy allows attacks in our homeland...and you get pissed off and want us to retaliate...will he pull the trigger? i don't believe he would....
Like I've told you several times already, and you've failed over and over again to understand, his foreign policy cuts MILITARISM, not DEFENSE. Militarism means overseas bases and occupations. Defense means bases at home.

His policy isn't to get rid of all guns, battleships, fighter jets, and shut down the military. Did you even watch the video I posted earlier where he clearly explains this very thing? Watch this video:


It's funny that you don't even understand the foreign policy that you're criticizing.
:shk:



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The biggest evidence imo that you're simply dead wrong that we need to maintain or expand military expenditures is a vast amount of support Paul has from the military. They are weary of being corporate pawns. They know first hand none of our actions "keep us safe" .. that they are not a detriment to attacks against us, that they cause hate and anger because of political folly's from DC. They are used and abused by politicians for corporate interest.. and asshats like you call it "defense" .. it's not defense, it's offensive econo/political maneuvering for the sake of the bottom line, it doesn't keep us safe at night.

They know this. They've known it. And are obviously tired of being used, abused, then cast aside when not needed anymore and left with subpar care when they get home.


I never said expand our military expenditures. I said we have to be prepared. We can not sit back and believe that other countries will leave us alone. that's naive and ignorant to believe in. i served in the military...did you? i spent almost 8 years in afghanistan...did you? i do believe that our military are tired of false campaigns. i can agree to that. again, for the 100th time, i can't agree with a foreign policy that is naive and ignorant and leaves our country open for attack. His foreign policy is weak.... it's not one that comes from strength and this time in our country, we need a strong foreign policy. the military would not be angry and opposed to a war if the reasons were warranted and validated...not hidden by the corporate bottom line you discussed earlier. if iran ever had a nuclear weapon, i would expect us to attack. do you think ron paul would pull the trigger first? do you think he would try to reason and talk things out which might end up being "too late"? that's what i see ron paul as being...a talker



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   


Ron Paul's view on foreign policy is as follows; If we aren't there causing problems, they won't have a reason to hate us or I want a policy of non-intervention, neutrality, & independence. As an American, here's how I perceive this man's statement. Listen Iran, I'm pretty sure I'm a nice guy and I think that if I take all our troops out of the Middle East and from every country in the world, I think you will actually respect us and never want to cause us problems because I'm not going to monitor you or bother you anymore.
reply to post by mrgregbusybee
 

It sounds good to me. Ever hear of the Golden Rule?

Treat others as you would like others to treat you.

It's worked well for centuries, and when people stray from it, chaos ensues.


Peace.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mrgregbusybee
 


The deal is this,Even if Ron Paul got in,the worst that could happen,is he says NO to any foreign intervention,with his VETO power.


I then ask this serious question..........

Would Newt have a problem rallying congress,for a preemptive strike of Iran?

And if so,does America,right now, need this?

How do you change a theocracy based regime,without troops on the ground?

Is this a wise foreign policy ?



But Mr. Gingrich went further, saying that the U.S. should bomb Iran's facilities to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power "as a last recourse, and only as a step toward replacing the regime."


LINK

Its a touchy subject,I know. One that I think about,cause it affects MANY lives. But the questions do remain..................



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
100 Replies and only 4 flags?

When it comes to the Anti-Paul crowd, why are you guys always in the minority in terms of support? And it's always a very small number compared to the Pro-Paul crowd? I see it here. I see it on almost every website I visit. Why is that?

Are people just getting sick of the MSM bandwagon perhaps? Maybe the Neo-Con bandwagon? Perhaps the Progressive bandwagon?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by mrgregbusybee
 



RP quote for you: “Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference."

That's the kind of statements that your RP makes.... does that sound like a man that is going to protect our country and be prepared for war. or better yet...do you think ron paul will pull the trigger when it's needed and we should be at war?? when his policy allows attacks in our homeland...and you get pissed off and want us to retaliate...will he pull the trigger? i don't believe he would....
Like I've told you several times already, and you've failed over and over again to understand, his foreign policy cuts MILITARISM, not DEFENSE. Militarism means overseas bases and occupations. Defense means bases at home.

His policy isn't to get rid of all guns, battleships, fighter jets, and shut down the military. Did you even watch the video I posted earlier where he clearly explains this very thing? Watch this video:


It's funny that you don't even understand the foreign policy that you're criticizing.
:shk:


and like i've told you...ridding our foreign bases is the beginning to the end. tell me what happens when we pull our troops out of south korea? just answer me that 1 question.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mrgregbusybee
 



and like i've told you...ridding our foreign bases is the beginning to the end. tell me what happens when we pull our troops out of south korea? just answer me that 1 question.
You're going around in circles. What happens when we pull our troops out of South Korea? Those troops come home and spend that money in America. That's a fact. Your delusions that North Korea will storm across the border as if the US military was some sort of dam are nothing more than speculative paranoia.

Now, do you understand that Ron Pauls foreign policy draws a clear distinction between militarism and defense? Answer me that one question



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
WOW.... I can't believe some of these folks. Listen everyone, my stance on Ron Paul is this, by voting him into the white house, we are leaving ourselves as a country vulnerable strictly because of the predictable actions that will happen. That's all. I think Ron Paul is behind, he would've been useful prior to WWII. Now is not the time for our country to have the "Golden Rule".



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrgregbusybee
tell me what happens when we pull our troops out of south korea? just answer me that 1 question.


May I answer that?

You would have an itchy North Korea, a Itchy Chinese Government, thinking that it wouldn't be so hard,to take what they believe is theirs.

Yep,these kids would want to play.........



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mrgregbusybee
 


How does a base in Britain help our security?

Or Germany?

Or Japan?

Or Kuwait?

Or Iraq?

Or South Korea?

Or in Columbia?

Or anywhere else?

They don't.

We maintain the ability to rapidly deploy literally tens of thousands of troops, armor, aircraft, naval fleets and more in a matter of HOURS, reaching and mobilizing at their destination in a matter of days. We don't use forward basing for these operations .. we deploy directly from American soil to combat zones, we have aircraft that take off from the USA and bomb the crap out of little terrorist states in a matter of hours, we have the naval capability to decimate all other navies combined, being at port in the USA. If someone actually thought to take us on .. they would lose. Instantly. And the nuclear deterrent of assured mutual destruction means war between major powers is all but impossible.

No, forward bases do not keep us safe. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by mrgregbusybee
 



Listen everyone, my stance on Ron Paul is this, by voting him into the white house, we are leaving ourselves as a country vulnerable strictly because of the predictable actions that will happen.
But as I've pointed out, we aren't doing that, because he's not going to take away from our defense. He may leave other countries vulnerable, that being the case if your futuristic vision of North Korea invading South Korea the second we look the other way is true, but America will be in no danger whatsoever.

Iran won't invade our country or nuke us, terrorists won't launch missiles at your office building while all hell breaks loose in the streets, bombs won't be getting dropped on your neighborhood, none of that will happen. It doesn't matter what talking point Megyn Kelly throws at you, what factoid Wolf Blitzer brings up, what criticism arises in the form of a debate question-- that's nonsense.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Yes, I fully understand the differences and what RP wants to do. He wants us to bring every troop home to America and vacate every foreign base that we occupy.

It's not that our troops provide a dam for south korea, it's that we made an allegiance to stand by and protect them from tyranny of North Korea. It's well known that North Korea could take out all the troops in South Korea in under 5 minutes. However; the reason we are there is to keep that from happening....how's that possible? because if they kill any american soldier in an act of war, our military will destroy north korea. It's inevitable and ignorant to sit there and think if we remove all troops from all foreign bases that we won't see things like what I discussed above happen. It will, without a doubt.

I don't understand how you believe the golden rule as someone put it is what our country needs. F*ck...we are in a depression....we are on the brink of martial law by the current idiot...coming from a stance that is weak is the last thing we need



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mrgregbusybee
 


Please answer these questions

Why did we get attacked on September 11th?

Do you think the financial condition of a country is important to its national security?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mrgregbusybee
 



It's not that our troops provide a dam for south korea, it's that we made an allegiance to stand by and protect them from tyranny of North Korea.
An allegiance you say? What allegiance is this exactly? And where is such an allegiance specified in the Constitution?


It's well known that North Korea could take out all the troops in South Korea in under 5 minutes.
And it's well known that A) America is not South Korea, and B) We could get over there in hours as RockPuck pointed out, not that I would support doing that at all.


However; the reason we are there is to keep that from happening
Why not put a military base in every country? How about every city in every country in the world?! That way the whole world could be safe!


because if they kill any american soldier in an act of war, our military will destroy north korea.
IDGAF


It's inevitable and ignorant to sit there and think if we remove all troops from all foreign bases that we won't see things like what I discussed above happen. It will, without a doubt.
In your opinion. But we don't have the money for all of that world policing. Sorry, but that's the reality of the situation.


I don't understand how you believe the golden rule as someone put it is what our country needs. F*ck...we are in a depression....we are on the brink of martial law by the current idiot...coming from a stance that is weak is the last thing we need
So more occupation and more potential wars creating more potential enemies causing more potential terrorist attacks in the form of blowback or more excuses for false flags in order to pass more oppressive tyrannical legislation is a good way to combat this imminent martial law?
edit on 22-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by mrgregbusybee
 


The deal is this,Even if Ron Paul got in,the worst that could happen,is he says NO to any foreign intervention,with his VETO power.


I then ask this serious question..........

Would Newt have a problem rallying congress,for a preemptive strike of Iran?

And if so,does America,right now, need this?

How do you change a theocracy based regime,without troops on the ground?

Is this a wise foreign policy ?



But Mr. Gingrich went further, saying that the U.S. should bomb Iran's facilities to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power "as a last recourse, and only as a step toward replacing the regime."


LINK

Its a touchy subject,I know. One that I think about,cause it affects MANY lives. But the questions do remain..................


I said that earlier...I don't think Newt is the best choice either. I'd like to take a little of each...minus romney. I don't believe a word out of that mans mouth... but I do like santorium and believe he comes from good morals and ethics...my opinion. i think if santorium incorporated about half of ron pauls policies and mixed them with his own conservative approach and have newts balls and ability not to put up with any BS, then that would be the candidate i'd vote for. I don't disagree with all of RP's policies. He makes sense, he speaks about things that common sense tells us and we've used our entire lives...i'm strictly discussing pulling our troops and using the golden rule in the time of worldy unrest. i don't think it's smart or safe for our country. i'm a patriot, to the bone. i worry about our future and i know war isn't the answer....but we've been driven so far in the ground right now that we have to be on our toes and have to have our troops strategically placed as we do. our country can't be perceived as weak or we will be rolled over.

bottom line, we don't change that theme of troops on the ground....not yet. we can't afford to as a country. to much political unrest right now. maybe 10 years from now....possibly. i think ron paul needed to be around prior to WWII. had he been in place during that time frame, I think things would be different today. I think he's too late for the problems we face today



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


you summed it up...you don't give a f*ck. therefore you're biased and impossible to discuss this topic with.

so let me ask you, you believe that we should bring every troop home and vacate every foreign base and who cares what happens to other countries, weaker countries etc...let the chips fall as they may? is that where you stand?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mrgregbusybee
 



you summed it up...you don't give a f*ck. therefore you're biased and impossible to discuss this topic with.
No, I just don't care for your muscle flexing. I don't feel the need to make myself and my country feel manly and tough by talking about how many people we could kill and how we would destroy anybody who messed with us. That's just a bunch of testosterone fueled primitive caveman like chest pounding that doesn't mean anything to me.


so let me ask you, you believe that we should bring every troop home and vacate every foreign base and who cares what happens to other countries, weaker countries etc...let the chips fall as they may? is that where you stand?
Yep! We would save trillions of dollars, and soldiers could pump some money into the economy. Defend our own country, and let other nations do the same.
edit on 22-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ping9
reply to post by mrgregbusybee
 


Please answer these questions

Why did we get attacked on September 11th?

Do you think the financial condition of a country is important to its national security?


I believe we were attacked on 9/11 because of an ulterior motive that we are unaware of. I believe that either 1, we had an idea it was gonna happen or 2 a certain few knew and allowed it. I don't believe america deserved it. NOT at all. I do believe our government is corrupt to the highest level and that includes our current president now. I believe that our government had an ulterior motive in iraq that we aren't aware of just yet...

I believe that war was started not to go to Iraq for oil, if that was the case, we'd have gas prices of .35 cents per gallon. it was never about WMD's and it was never about oil. I have been working on my conspiracy theory for the iraq war but i'm stonewalled right now with information. For those reasons, I hate that our country went to war under false pre-tenses and soldiers died. I absolutely hate that.

yes financial condition of a country is important to national security. absolutely.

i don't believe our troops need to be removed from every foreign base. i don't believe in the golden rule...not in this world that's full of countries that are predictable but unpredictable at the same time, meaning you never really know what day one of the radicalists is going to fire off a rocket or missile to an allied country.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
You're going around in circles. What happens when we pull our troops out of South Korea? Those troops come home and spend that money in America. That's a fact. Your delusions that North Korea will storm across the border as if the US military was some sort of dam are nothing more than speculative paranoia.




You've made some semi coherent replies thus far but this one...

This one is lacking both in facts and a clear understanding the Korean issue.

I'm sorry, but stick to the topics you know.
edit on 22-1-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
40
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join