2012 GOP Nomination

[n_huffhines]

I agree a lot with what Ron Paul says about issues, and I really appreciate the fact that he is very consistent in his beliefs, but then he throws some nutball stuff out about foreign policy and I just can't find myself agreeing with him.

You may disagree with it, but if you think his ideas are nutball, then you are ill-informed. Very well respected people in the intelligence community agree with Ron Paul. Ron Paul's foreign policy is actually more consistent with Ronald Reagan's than the party platform is. It's not nutball, it's just not mainstream.

 

[PKT_VOL]

That's cool, but you are fooling yourself If you think there is no correlation between young voter support and a candidate who is pro drugs

I don't doubt there are a few Paul supporters out there who are attracted to his legalization of drugs stance. However, to infer that the majority of his youth support him due to his stance on drugs is just simply not true. The youth in America are more concerned with our foreign policy and crushing debt that you realize.

 

[n_huffhines]

 

[golfballs]

young voters are idealists and likewise support candidates who cater to their vision.

 

[theFallGuy]

You may disagree with it, but if you think his ideas are nutball, then you are ill-informed. Very well respected people in the intelligence community agree with Ron Paul. Ron Paul's foreign policy is actually more consistent with Ronald Reagan's than the party platform is. It's not nutball, it's just not mainstream.

I'm sorry but saying that he doesn't see a problem with Iran having nukes is naive at best. Now, I'm not saying we should go in and invade but I'm not dumb enough to hink that the Ayatollahs are completely trustworthy with a nuke.

 

[n_huffhines]

I'm sorry but saying that he doesn't see a problem with Iran having nukes is naive at best. Now, I'm not saying we should go in and invade but I'm not dumb enough to hink that the Ayatollahs are completely trustworthy with a nuke.

He's not saying the Ayatollah is trustworthy. He's saying our best alternative is to leave it alone. What would you like our leaders to do about it? Provoke war?

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

When I google: "young american for liberty" marijuana, I get 719 results.

When I google "young american for liberty" afghanistan, I get 888 results.

When I google "young american for liberty" debt, I get 961 results.

 

[theFallGuy]

He's not saying the Ayatollah is trustworthy. He's saying our best alternative is to leave it alone. What would you like our leaders to do about it? Provoke war?

How do you leave it alone? You turn a blind eye to the Ayatollah acquiring a nuclear weapon?

These are the guys that blatantly tell you they are going to blow Israel off the map.

He also said that he wouldn't have gone in and killed Osama Bin Laden. I'm sorry, I think that is idiotic as hell. The guy killed thousands maybe even tens of thousands through the promotion of various terror techniques. I don't see the problem with taking him out.

Would Ron Paul have said we shouldn't have gone in and attempted to assasinate Hitler because he was inside a sovereign country called Germany? It's the same logic.

 

[n_huffhines]

How do you leave it alone? You turn a blind eye to the Ayatollah acquiring a nuclear weapon?

These are the guys that blatantly tell you they are going to blow Israel off the map.

He also said that he wouldn't have gone in and killed Osama Bin Laden. I'm sorry, I think that is idiotic as hell. The guy killed thousands maybe even tens of thousands through the promotion of various terror techniques. I don't see the problem with taking him out.

Would Ron Paul have said we shouldn't have gone in and attempted to assasinate Hitler because he was inside a sovereign country called Germany? It's the same logic.

They actually didn't say that. The proper, and accepted translation was that Israel's "regime should vanish from the page of time". I don't know how it got twisted into, "We're gonna blow them off the map.", but that's how our war machine media works.

Even if they want to blow up Israel, I don't see why it's my problem. And I don't see any solution involving US intervention that improves our position.

 

[theFallGuy]

And don't get me wrong. I'm all for staying out of military campaigns if we can. But not everything is as cut and dry as Ron Paul wants to make it. YOu can't apply the same answer to all problems. The real world isn't like that.

 

[n_huffhines]

He also said that he wouldn't have gone in and killed Osama Bin Laden. I'm sorry, I think that is idiotic as hell. The guy killed thousands maybe even tens of thousands through the promotion of various terror techniques. I don't see the problem with taking him out.

I don't know where you got this from. Ron Paul said he would issue a letter of marque and reprisal for Osama Bin Laden, which means he would kill him, he just wouldn't waste half a trillion dollars and a bunch of American lives doing it.

 

[theFallGuy]

They actually didn't say that. The proper, and accepted translation was that Israel's "regime should vanish from the page of time". I don't know how it got twisted into, "We're gonna blow them off the map.", but that's how our war machine media works.

Even if they want to blow up Israel, I don't see why it's my problem. And I don't see any solution involving US intervention that improves our position.

Seriously, you are using semantics to apologize for the ayatollah. It's blantantly obvious what they are getting at.

So, you disagree with going into a sovereign country to kill Obama but you don't see the problem with an Iranian nutjob blowing up a sovereign country and killing millions of people. Gee that make sense.

 

[theFallGuy]

Rep. Ron Paul took an interesting position for a likely presidential candidate Tuesday – he explained to a Iowa radio station why he would not have ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden.
The answer seemed to catch Iowa radio host Simon Conway off guard; he asked Paul to repeat it.
Paul was unequivocal: “No, not the way it took place,” Paul said of the killing of bin Laden.
Why?
“It was absolutely not necessary and I think respect for the rule of law, international law – what if he’d been in a hotel in London?" Paul asked. "We wanted to keep it secret. Would we have sent the helicopters into London? Because they were afraid the information would get out. No you don’t want to do that.”
Paul said the U.S. government should have worked with the Pakistani government, respecting borders, to get at Osama bin Laden. He pointed to other terror suspects who were captured and tried. Paul pointed to the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, widely accepted as the 9/11 mastermind, by Pakistani authorities. Mohammed now sits at Guantanamo Bay awaiting trial by a military tribunal.

 

[theFallGuy]

“Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have been explicit, and they wrote and said that we attacked because you had bases on our holy lands in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians a fair treatment,” Paul said before being interrupted by more boos. “I didn’t say that, I’m just trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombings.”

I'm sorry Mr. Paul, I don't care what their motive is and I think this line of thinking about islamo-fascists is extremely naive.

 

[n_huffhines]

Seriously, you are using semantics to apologize for the ayatollah. It's blantantly obvious what they are getting at.

So, you disagree with going into a sovereign country to kill Obama but you don't see the problem with an Iranian nutjob blowing up a sovereign country and killing millions of people. Gee that make sense.

You make an argument for me, then defeat it. That's pretty legit.

I have a problem with wasting a half a trillion to kill Osama. I respect the sovereignty of other nations, regardless of what they choose to do with it. I want other nations to respect our sovereignty. If they don't, we'll blow them up. We have no authority, nor logical reason to destroy ourselves economically to supposedly protect the world.

And if the Ayatollah has a nuke, and if he really wants to use it against Israel (two pretty big "ifs" according to the intelligence community), Israel has the firepower to wipe them off the map. They don't even need our intervention.

You still haven't offered a solution. You say "we can't do nothing" but you haven't offered a solution.

 

[n_huffhines]

People think our foreign policy is so black and white. Good guys vs bad guys. There are clearly bad guys, but are there good guys? I'm sure a lot of you think we are the good guys, but I'd bet most Iranians think they are the good guys. I'd say most Russians probably think they are the good guys.

I don't know how a party like the GOP, based on a lack of trust for government, can blindly trust that our wild west foreign policy is in our best interest.

 

[Weezy]

I don't think the proper response to Iran having nukes is "nuh-uh." And it's not like Israel doesn't have any.

Personally, I like Ron Paul because he isn't bought and paid for (amongst other things). And I only dislike a few of his stances.

 

[VOLatile]

i don't think the proper response to iran having nukes is "nuh-uh." and it's not like israel doesn't have any.

Personally, i like ron paul because he isn't bought and paid for yet (amongst other things). And i only dislike a few of his stances.

ftfy

 

[GAVol]

Pretty good article. Ron Paul could do much better than forecasted as his youth following grows quickly.

Ron Paul's Secret Weapon: America's Youth

Betting on 18-24 year olds to turn out is a dicey proposition.

 

[n_huffhines]

I don't think the proper response to Iran having nukes is "nuh-uh." And it's not like Israel doesn't have any.

Personally, I like Ron Paul because he isn't bought and paid for (amongst other things). And I only dislike a few of his stances.

His response is more like, "who cares?".

I've never heard him say they aren't getting a nuke. I'm getting that from the IAEA.

 

[Weezy]

His response is more like, "who cares?".

I've never heard him say they aren't getting a nuke. I'm getting that from the IAEA.

You misunderstood. I'm talking about the neocons who say "we won't let Iran have nukes." Sure we don't want Iran to have nukes, but you sound like a drunk in a bar fight.

 

[n_huffhines]

You misunderstood. I'm talking about the neocons who say "we won't let Iran have nukes." Sure we don't want Iran to have nukes, but you sound like a drunk in a bar fight.

Got ya.

 

[theFallGuy]

nbaker,

I don't have time to argue anymore. We'll just have to agree that I won't be voting for Ron Paul. Sorry brah!

 

[theFallGuy]

You make an argument for me, then defeat it. That's pretty legit.

I have a problem with wasting a half a trillion to kill Osama. I respect the sovereignty of other nations, regardless of what they choose to do with it. I want other nations to respect our sovereignty. If they don't, we'll blow them up. We have no authority, nor logical reason to destroy ourselves economically to supposedly protect the world.

And if the Ayatollah has a nuke, and if he really wants to use it against Israel (two pretty big "ifs" according to the intelligence community), Israel has the firepower to wipe them off the map. They don't even need our intervention.

You still haven't offered a solution. You say "we can't do nothing" but you haven't offered a solution.

So if a sovereign nation chooses to rape and kill children do you sit idly by and not get involved? Or is there not a moral obligation to put an end to it? Wasn't there a moral obligation to get involved in WWII?

I'm just posing hypotheticals here.

I guess my question here is, at what point do Ron Paul supporters decide America should get involved in foreign affairs? never? no matter what the extent? I just don't agree with a foreign policy that is that rigid. Not all circumstances are the same.

 

[Weezy]

So if a sovereign nation chooses to rape and kill children do you sit idly by and not get involved? Or is there not a moral obligation to put an end to it? Wasn't there a moral obligation to get involved in WWII?

I'm just posing hypotheticals here.

I guess my question here is, at what point do Ron Paul supporters decide America should get involved in foreign affairs? never? no matter what the extent? I just don't agree with a foreign policy that is that rigid. Not all circumstances are the same.

We have people for these situations.