Posted on 08/13/2011 10:01:23 AM PDT by chatter4
Great video, well worth hearing. Ron Paul's remarks about Iran, followed by commentaries of Levin, Rush and Beck all in one place.
And you’re a horse’s butt. LMAO
Where exactly are the “ad hominem” attack? I spoke clearly about your mindset of thinking. This is stage five of the “Ron Paul is Great” crowd. Everything is a personal insult because I don’t subscribe to your “Free Love” thinking. Sure Reagan had some issues that were not fully realized when he left office. For one, he had some spineless jellyfish backing him in the congress like Bob Michel and Howard Baker. Beyond that, he did a great job. What sorts of policies would the fantastic Ron Paul have instituted to make that period better? Not a thing. He is a back bencher and always will be.
Funny stuff coming from the guy who posted these comments.
I’m a Texan and can tell you if a foreign country had a mil base in Texas I’d get pretty extreme pretty fast.
The fact that you equate this with our presence in certain foreign countries tells me your an emotional puss.
And you call me an etuff guy for saying this...
Figures, all you’ve got is ad-hominem and dismissal. Not even man enough to be direct about it.
How many shots and beers does it take to see logic in that?
Gosh, folks, let’s give the old guy a little slack. We are early on still, about 14 possible candidates, some may still announce. Ron will be winnowed out. But now, it’s actually a bit interesting how his bizarre statements force some issues into the open, such as the Iran exchange with Santorum. Or the idea of not having marriage licenses at all, much less defining it. This is a free society and anyone can run for president, he has the right to have his say.
When it’s clear he is what no younger man could ever be, an isolationist, people will not support him. Terrorism is still real. But, hey, these debates are pretty stupid and low-level. Let’s enjoy the exotic spice of Ron Paul while we can for a few more months. He might inadvertently do some good by his challenges to conventional thinking.
That's pretty funny stuff coming from the guy whose first post on this thread was this...
Most here on FR wont even listen to anything positive about RP. They hate him because they’ve drank the neocon cool-aid and don’t even realize it. I voted for him in the last primary.
There are two unwritten rules here.
1. You can’t like RP.
2. You can’t ever say anything bad about Israel.
Forget red herrings, you should just work on a simple concept like 'consistency.'
“The USSR built nukes to maintain a standoff with us. Iran is building nukes to use them. Apparently RP is too stupid to see that.”
Right you are. I groaned when he compared Iran to the USSR (again) in the debate. As I’ve said, he knows nothing about the motivation driving Iran’s race toward nukes, or that of any other fanatical, Islamic terrorist.
The dynamics are entirely different than with Russia - back in the Cold War, both sides understood (and respected) Mutually Assured Destruction as impetus to keep peace. Cultist fanatics like Ahmedinejad will simply say “bring it on”. They welcome it. Twelvers such as he believe they can hasten or bring about the return of the twelfth Imam, or Mahdi, only through a worldwide caliphate, global bloodshed, martyrdom and death/destruction of all Infidels (non-Muslims). The mentality of Islamists is totally different from that of any other culture, and many (like Paul, evidently) simply can’t think outside the box enough to wrap their minds around that fact.
Everyone had best learn to take them at their word - such as Ahmedinejad publicly stating over and over (even at the UN) that he will wipe Israel off the map, and Bin Laden derisively telling the West, “We love death the way you love life”.
Good luck getting Paul or his fans to address those basic facts with anything other than straw men.
Ron Paul has some good ideas regarding the financial background that drives this nation.
His foreign policy ideas aren’t worth considering. I listened to his “Ignore Iran and it will go away” policy the other night, and it was clear that his idea was unworkable. He did not believe in acknowledging a real and present threat.
His plan was the same as Europe’s prior to Hitler.
His defense of Iran based on a CIA takedown of a previous Iranian government and the installing of the Shah, ignores so much history.
The “democratic” Iran taken down was preparing to nationalize the oil industry of Iran. This was by a man who had seen to the rise of a Shah who was deposed in 1941 for his ties to Hitler. President Eisenhower, no friend of former friends of the Nazis, especially those talking of nationalizing oil, approved the CIA takedown of Mossadeq(?) and replacing him with the SON of the Shah Mossadeq had supported. It seemed a fair compromise at the time. It was probably also punishment for questionable associations with Nazis leading up to WWII.
In Ron Paul’s mind, Iran deserves a pass because the CIA overthrew their government in the early 1950’s. What he doesn’t acknowledge is that it probably prevented a Venezualan type socialist state.
“That geography no longer represents a serious obstacle to our enemies, and to the extent that Paul’s isolationism continues to reflect the geopolitical realities of 1787, he is, indeed, a crackpot.” “9/11 and Israel: he’s an ass, who’s [nearly] disqualified himself with his slimy insinuations.”
And there you have it.
I think all true conservatives have libertarian aspects in that we believe in the Constitution. And I agree with RP about sound money vs. fiat currency and that the Fed is harmful for the reasons you (and he) have cited.
BUT - your comments listed at the top of my post illustrate why, in this dangerous, modern, politically correct climate, Ron Paul’s foreign policy outlook, ignorance and refusal to learn the facts are HUGE deal-breakers that would be suicidal for our country, and far outweigh the few other things that he’s right about.
“Newt Gingrich, no (l/L)ibertarian by any means, is largely on-board with Ron Paul in re: the Fed, and he is correct.”
He did, however, say the other night (either in the debate or accompanying interview) that we need a central bank (in reference to the Fed).
“Conservatives don’t favor big government.”
Who here favors big government??? No one I’ve seen.
Geeeeeeeez - is anyone who has a problem with RP’s ideas on foreign policy or purist Libertarian beliefs a Leftist, Marxist, Nanny State, NeoCon Warmonger in your eyes?
And yes, one can indeed be a Conservative Republican or Republican Conservative, take your pick. Although way too many Republicans have strayed far afield of the party’s original, founding principles, a lot of us are making at least one last-ditch effort to get things back on track and restore the party back to what it was meant to be. It may be that many Tea Partiers agree, by not rushing to form a third party.
“I really want to agree with you here, but I ask you this - if Ron Paul is supposed to be a Republican yet won’t even endorse the eventual nominee of his own party, what good is he? What good is he to Republicans if the supporters he supposedly brings simply bail the minute he loses the nomination? What good is he if his supporters won’t even likely vote for Republicans downballot because they can’t vote for socially conservative candidates?
Everyone knows Paul is simply using the Republican party label because no one would even pay attention to him if he ran as the Libertarian he truly is. I don’t mind candidates having a libertarian streak, but Ron Paul isn’t a conservative with some libertarian views, he is a straight up Libertarian candidate dishonestly using the GOP label.”
Your points are so good I just had to reprint them! :-)
We probably do, but, an institution as powerful as the Federal Reserve using the public treasury must be accountable to The People via the mechanisms of republican representation. Conservatives who believe monetary policy should be beyond the reach of political institutions are advocating oligarchy, and they aren’t conservatives at all.
...Mark...
I am not a Ron Paul supporter for President
So, that is an assumption on your part.
We were dealing with the issue of libertarianism.
I asked you did Reagan leave the government larger then when he came in.
It is a simple question.
And the answer is, yes, he did.
George Washington's opinions expressed more than two hundred years ago when the US was a defenseless infant nation protected only by oceans might be more relevant if he had been around to see what sort of nutcases this nation is up against. One of his subordinate officers, a subsequent POTUS of the early Virginia dynasty was James Monroe who, a couple of decades after Washington, warned Europe to keep its grubby paws off the Western Hemisaphere or else. Washington was a military officer as a British Army colonel in the French and Indian War and a respected general in the Revolution who would have been hanged if he had lost. That is not a very good analogy to paleoPaulie. The best analogy to the paleosurrenderman is Neville Chamberlain.
There is little wrong with interventionism intelligently applied. We do not need to be in Libya. There seems to be increasingly little purpose in being in Iraq or Afghanistan, since, like Vietnam, the craven politicians are determined to see to it that war is hobbled by bureaucracy and useless diployak rather than waged forcefully, effectively and spectacularly without the modern bureaucratic interference. What would Patton do without being interfered with by politicians?
All this touchy feely crap of Paul's about loving those who would nuke us when given half a chance while Ron Paul promotes a foreign policy of sitting around the old campfire roasting Smores while crooning Kumbaya with Ahmadinejad and every other America-hating savage is no solution for genuine conservatives.
He may be personally pro-Life (and maybe a Houston Astros fan and possibly a stamp or coin collector), which is irrelevant. Ron Paul hides behind the 10th Amendment to avoid DOING anything about it. Meanwhile he winks to his libertoonian college enthusiasts. He claims to be pro-family but once again interposes 10th Amendment arguments. The fact is that this is not 1795. The federal courts generally and SCOTUS in particular have been cramming social revolution down our throats since Griswold vs. Connecticut and Roe vs. Wade. As with Ahmadinejad and the Iranian nuclear threat, paleoPaulie's "solution" is to hold hands with the enemy and sing Kumbaya while another 50 million babies are sliced, diced and hamburgerized courtesy of SCOTUS. He would probably want to appoint to SCOTUS justices who would protect abortion since it is "none of our business" like Iranian nukes but force the sale of lighthouses on some arcane theory that the "constitution" according to early pre-Christian Murray Rothbard does not grant lighthouse authority to the federales.
The paleosurrenderman is also a rank fraud on spending by cramming each federal budget with Galveston pork projects, then voting against the Appropriations bill, and depending on the Nancy Pelosis and John Boehners to vote his pork through while he poses for "fiscal conservative" holy pictures.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.