Dedicated To All Neocons That Booed Ron Paul (Video)

Alright, folks.. I've gotten quite sick of everyone who states that they like Ron Paul except for his "crazy" foreign policy stance.. These same people are beating their damn war drums and refuse to look at the history of American Interventionism, whether it be CIA, SF, our globalist bureaucracy, or whatever..

In my opinion the biggest deception of all is that "THEY" hate us because of our "freedom". We're just so damn free over here that they hate the hell out of us because they're simply jealous. "I'll buy that for a dollar"...

Originally posted by rstregooski
Alright, folks.. I've gotten quite sick of everyone who states that they like Ron Paul except for his "crazy" foreign policy stance.. These same people are beating their damn war drums and refuse to look at the history of American Interventionism, whether it be CIA, SF, our globalist bureaucracy, or whatever..

I beg to differ! But continue your broad strokes. I would like us to become much less involved in foreign affairs and close down nearly every base save about 4 (Germany, Japan, England and one in the Middle East); yet I cannot fathom the complete isolationism of Ron Paul.

So no, those that dislike and think his foreign policy is extreme don't all sit around a camp fire singing war songs hoping we set off for war once again.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


The fact that you are calling Ron Paul an isolationist proves you are buying MSM propaganda. I like him but he can't win. I like he but he doesn't want to start WWIII. I like him but he has crazy ideas about end the FED. Like there is a choice. Ron Paul or who. There isn't a who.

It is the biggest deception "They" hate us because of our freedom? Who in the hell would believe such a silly statement?

They hate us because we're the ones taking their freedom.
The corporatocracy does it all over the world in the name of the united states government. (or other governments, depends on who is bought and who is not)
Poverty is only an issue because of the corporatocracy, So is war (at least, what war is today)

Another term i hate is "Well, we're not as bad as africa!"... ... *give it a sec* ... ... STFU, seriously, Africa is poor because of unregulated multinational corporations and banks going in, and tricking them into getting enormous loans they can never pay off (from the world bank and imf). Then when they cant afford it, they pay us with oil fields and resources and they get a pittance of the real worth, while they have to do austerity measures to pay said loans, seriously.

Process -> Economic hitmen go in, if they fail -> the jackals go in (cia trained assassins and such to remove the current government, usually democratically elected), if they fail -> Send in the troops and make up a reason to do it. Level the country, and use 'foreign aid' to pay for US companies to rebuild nations.

Oh, and the big loans they get if the EHM's succeed, are used so US companies can build their infrastructure (note: The poor are left to die, the middle class is left to slip into poorness, and the rich get rich and the US controls another country)

/rant,
Sorry, kinda off topic.
Go ron paul, he's good for america because he doesnt bow down to the corporatocracy, and he wants to end that crap, and end foreign aid (TPTB don't want that, thats a gravytrain for them).
Many countries will follow his lead.

Note: Has RP actually said he wants to close down every single military base globally? or just the ones we don't need to at.

Originally posted by redrose123
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

The fact that you are calling Ron Paul an isolationist proves you are buying MSM propaganda. I like him but he can't win. I like he but he doesn't want to start WWIII. I like him but he has crazy ideas about end the FED. Like there is a choice. Ron Paul or who. There isn't a who.

Buying into MSM? His views upon sending the United States Army into a war are spot on and mirror my political mentor Barry Goldwater (who would absolutely be disgusted at the state of the Republican party and how far the Democrats have fallen since John F. Kennedy); which is if you are going to go to war, do it right. Get Congress to declare, send in an overwhelming force and get out.

Other than that how is it not isolationist? Constitutional authority of going to war is isolationist in nature (which I am sorry you took to be a bad thing), but he needs to expand his policy to shake off the very persistent notion that I presented.

What does he want to do? Tell us, don't make me go digging through well thought-out copy on a website. Focus your arguments and stop rambling, etc. (you/your refers to Ron Paul).

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by rstregooski
Alright, folks.. I've gotten quite sick of everyone who states that they like Ron Paul except for his "crazy" foreign policy stance.. These same people are beating their damn war drums and refuse to look at the history of American Interventionism, whether it be CIA, SF, our globalist bureaucracy, or whatever..

I beg to differ! But continue your broad strokes. I would like us to become much less involved in foreign affairs and close down nearly every base save about 4 (Germany, Japan, England and one in the Middle East); yet I cannot fathom the complete isolationism of Ron Paul.

So no, those that dislike and think his foreign policy is extreme don't all sit around a camp fire singing war songs hoping we set off for war once again.

There is nothing "Isolation-ist" about Ron Paul. It's called NON-INTERVENTION.

You sir are painting with the big brush now........Ron Paul's "complete isolationism" That is simply not true.
That video made me mad as hell because what it really showed is that too many of my Countrymen are still large ignorant peasant sluts. (Garrison Kelior phrase) but it conveys my strong sentiment without violating ATS rules...I hope.

I have to type faster I guess...you guys were much quicker

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Tell you what , go get a DICTIONARY and Look Up 2 WORDS.........

" Isolationist " and "Noninterventionalist " Ron Paul could be Described as One of Them , but Not the First...............

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
You sir are painting with the big brush now........Ron Paul's "complete isolationism" That is simply not true.
That video made me mad as hell because what it really showed is that too many of my Countrymen are still large ignorant peasant sluts. (Garrison Kelior phrase) but it conveys my strong sentiment without violating ATS rules...I hope.

They are ignorant to whom? You? I get it, we all need to step lock stock in the Ron Paul thinking to be enlightened. And, next time, put it in quotes that way you can convey it (at least that is what I would do.) But you are right, isolationist is a bit of strong word and like I said before -- most of his policies are not all that bad but he really needs to get the word out if wishes to change peoples' minds about where he stands.

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Tell you what , go get a DICTIONARY and Look Up 2 WORDS.........

" Isolationist " and "Noninterventionalist " Ron Paul could be Described as One of Them , but Not the First...............

Already did recant my isolationist remark as too hard a word. But thank you for referring me to a dictionary.

ETA: I did make that last remark satirically but in fun.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Your Welcome Kind Sir...........

Originally posted by rstregooski
Alright, folks.. I've gotten quite sick of everyone who states that they like Ron Paul except for his "crazy" foreign policy stance.. These same people are beating their damn war drums and refuse to look at the history of American Interventionism, whether it be CIA, SF, our globalist bureaucracy, or whatever..

In my opinion the biggest deception of all is that "THEY" hate us because of our "freedom". We're just so damn free over here that they hate the hell out of us because they're simply jealous. "I'll buy that for a dollar"...

edit on 26-2-2012 by rstregooski because: beer

How can those that boo RP be convinced of the truth ? They accept the MSM version of history and feel RP is putting our country down, so they boo. If one does only a little "digging " , it quickly becomes clear that we meddle now and have been meddling in various countries throughout our history...all for self aggrandizement. It's all about the military industrial complex as Kennedy and Eisenhower warned. The neocons don't want any change, other than Republicans to regain the White House and that doesn't include RP.

reply to post by rstregooski


Unfortunately, all those people who booed Ron Paul only get their information and ideologies from the MSM- particularly Fox News. They likely will never see this video, or something similar too it because they only watch and believe what the TV tells them.

Thank goodness most of my generation and the newer generation pretty much ditch TV in favor of the internet. I have some hope for the future.... albeit not too much.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Other than that how is it not isolationist? Constitutional authority of going to war is isolationist in nature (which I am sorry you took to be a bad thing), but he needs to expand his policy to shake off the very persistent notion that I presented. What does he want to do? Tell us, don't make me go digging through well thought-out copy on a website. Focus your arguments and stop rambling, etc. (you/your refers to Ron Paul).

Of everything we're involved in today, ask yourself why we're not going after North Korea and the oppressive government imposed on the people. Of course war has many agendas, but what do you desire, exactly? Isolation is a far cry from non-intervention. We just overthrew Libya and they then installed the crazy Sharia Law. How has that worked out for your ideololgy?

reply to post by Monts

Thank goodness most of my generation and the newer generation pretty much ditch TV in favor of the internet. I have some hope for the future.... albeit not too much.

ATS Hi-Five!!

Originally posted by rstregooski
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Other than that how is it not isolationist? Constitutional authority of going to war is isolationist in nature (which I am sorry you took to be a bad thing), but he needs to expand his policy to shake off the very persistent notion that I presented. What does he want to do? Tell us, don't make me go digging through well thought-out copy on a website. Focus your arguments and stop rambling, etc. (you/your refers to Ron Paul).

Of everything we're involved in today, ask yourself why we're not going after North Korea and the oppressive government imposed on the people. Of course war has many agendas, but what do you desire, exactly? Isolation is a far cry from non-intervention. We just overthrew Libya and they then installed the crazy Sharia Law. How has that worked out for your ideololgy?

You hardly know my ideology other than the minute portion I have explained here. One, I oppose many of the military actions we seem to want to engage in, that portion of Ron Paul's stance doesn't bother me. What I want to know is when something sudden explodes in the world, how is President Paul going to respond to a threat to a strategic sphere of influence of the United States?

The War Power's act has been abused, but a President needs the ability to respond quickly (and full fledged war of course should always fall upon the Peoples' House); so what would he do?

What if our embassy in Israel is overrun by some group (doesn't matter the group nor the country of choice) and we need to utilize military personnel to free and take back the embassy? Do we debate in Congress? Does the President make an executive decision?

I don't want to wait till such happens to find out. Ron Paul has been wholly ineffectual in getting his platform out.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

You hardly know my ideology other than the minute portion I have explained here. One, I oppose many of the military actions we seem to want to engage in, that portion of Ron Paul's stance doesn't bother me. What I want to know is when something sudden explodes in the world, how is President Paul going to respond to a threat to a strategic sphere of influence of the United States?

Well fair enough. I respect your stance and wasn't trying to pick a fight..

For starters I'd say that Ron Paul's voting record, including voting for going after Bin Laden (whether or not the story is true) is a good indicator for what you're talking about...

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Being the Only GOP Candidate who actually Served in the Military and did a Tour in Viet Nam as a active duty Air Force Flight Surgeon, I am sure Ron Paul , if faced with a situation as you describe , would know Exactally what to do as President . Question the Intel his Military Advisors give him , then Decide if any Actions need to be taken . What would make you Think anything Otherwise ?......

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Being the Only GOP Candidate who actually Served in the Military and did a Tour in Viet Nam as a active duty Air Force Flight Surgeon, I am sure Ron Paul , if faced with a situation as you describe , would know Exactally what to do as President . Question the Intel his Military Advisors give him , then Decide if any Actions need to be taken . What would make you Think anything Otherwise ?......

Because you are inferring based on his prior military experience and you have to "guess" what he would do. I can care less if he is a veteran; if his stance is going to be "Well, I at least served" then he should pack his bags now.

You are awfully sure on what the Honorable Paul would do -- are you him? I respect the man, but seriously this whole "he walks on water" persona that his supporters bring is crazy. Not you specifically but you are confident that is the way he would act how? What supporting evidence shows this? How do you know that he wouldn't sit on his hands while Congress debated?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
You sir are painting with the big brush now........Ron Paul's "complete isolationism" That is simply not true.
That video made me mad as hell because what it really showed is that too many of my Countrymen are still large ignorant peasant sluts. (Garrison Kelior phrase) but it conveys my strong sentiment without violating ATS rules...I hope.

They are ignorant to whom? You? I get it, we all need to step lock stock in the Ron Paul thinking to be enlightened. And, next time, put it in quotes that way you can convey it (at least that is what I would do.) But you are right, isolationist is a bit of strong word and like I said before -- most of his policies are not all that bad but he really needs to get the word out if wishes to change peoples' minds about where he stands.

"get the word out".......Perfect! Do you see how you are making my point, or are you being sardonic?
For the sake of argument let us say you are not.

You are like those people in the audience....you are the people they target their catch phrases/sound bytes for...."job creators" for instance instead of the rich elites........"No New Taxes".......you like that too.

Is that the only way Ron has a chance to win? Does he have to dumb down his message? What more does he have to say about Iran? Israel has said they will take care of it themselves. What possible justification or sense would it make for the U.S. to ignore that?

You might be right though.....He might have to just lie like the rest of them and just tell the ignorant sluts what they want to hear and get elected......then once President, do it his way and forget the dumb promises he made to get elected.......that is how the game is played anyway.

get the word out.....you meant to say, "he needs to bash people over the head by saying some tested phrase over and over again"