Who is Ron Paul?

#2
#2
Ideological? YES!!! Pragmatically? Unfortunately, no. The Libertarian movement needs to get solid representation in state legislatures first, then move up through Congress, and then the Executive Office.
 
#3
#3
He's fine til he descends into his blather about how US support for Israel is the reason for all of the problems in the Middle East. His isolationism doesn't sit well with a lot of people either. He really is little more than Pat Buchanan wrapped up in a slightly warmer and fuzzier package.
 
#4
#4
Speaking of people that don't have a chance of winning, has there been a Ralph Nader sighting in a while?
 
#5
#5
**ORANGEBLOOD** said:
Some people in my community say he would be a better choice than Romney or McCain. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I'd move to another community. :p

Seriously, he's got some good ideas and I like some of his explanations when it comes to economicpolicy, but he flies off the tracks for my tastes when he discusses foreign policy and starts sounding like a cult leader.
 
#6
#6
Love most of his thoughts and would vote for him if not for his tax plan
 
#7
#7
Paul was the GOP's last hope. Now they'll have to decide between Romney and McCain. Neither of these guys are true conservatives, neither really has a plan to control the border, neither has a plan to control spending, neither has a plan to achieve energy independence. All they want to do is move to the center, keep the borders open and have amnesty for illegals, and waste a bunch of American capital on wind mills, solar power, and shutting down coal plants.

May as well let one of the two commie candidates (Hillary or Obama) win.

LOL at Romney and McCain fighting like two little school girls over some he said/she said crap.

Are these the best two conservative candidates that the GOP has?
 
#9
#9
GAVol said:
Not exactly
Click to expand...

With no other conservative on deck, you can look forward to 2 terms of Hillary. Nobody on deck or on the GOP bench is anymore conservative than Fred Thompson... unless Jeff Sessions runs in 2012. :crazy:
 
#11
#11
volsforever27 said:
Like stated before, his foreign policy attitude is nuts. I'm all for less government though.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that our current president looked into the eyes of a former KGB agent and could see good in him. If that ain't nuts, I don't know what is.

Our current foreign policy is to prop up a dubious monarchy in Saudi Arabia, prop up a military dictator in Pakistan, handcuff the only ally between Moracco and Indonesia that has been able to mop the floor with these Middle Eastern countries despots(Israel), appease Western Europe/the UN, and have an open border to Mexico that not only threatens our middle class, but also is a gateway for possible WMDs/terrorists.

You're right... our current policy is flawless.
 
#12
#12
Rasputin_Vol said:
Keep in mind that our current president looked into the eyes of a former KGB agent and could see good in him. If that ain't nuts, I don't know what is.

Our current foreign policy is to prop up a dubious monarchy in Saudi Arabia, prop up a military dictator in Pakistan, handcuff the only ally between Moracco and Indonesia that has been able to mop the floor with these Middle Eastern countries despots(Israel), appease Western Europe/the UN, and have an open border to Mexico that not only threatens our middle class, but also is a gateway for possible WMDs/terrorists.

You're right... our current policy is flawless.
Click to expand...



I'm the last person to defend Bush anymore, but if you honestly think that the right policy to have is let Isreal stand by itself, then no offense you're crazier than he is. Just because Bush is wrong at times doesn't prove that Ron's policies are right.
 
#13
#13
volsforever27 said:
I'm the last person to defend Bush anymore, but if you honestly think that the right policy to have is let Isreal stand by itself, then no offense you're crazier than he is. Just because Bush is wrong at times doesn't prove that Ron's policies are right.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm not saying let Israel stand by itself, but what we have done over the past 35 or so (Since 1973 War) is handcuff Israel and forced them to broker deals with a terrorist organization (PLO/Arafat, R.I.P.). But Israel has shown the ability to mop the florr with the Arabs in every war they've been in without us having to put boots on the ground. And just like Israel bombed th Osiris (sp) Iraqi nuclear facility back around 1980 or so, they are more than able to handle a threat from that clown in Iran. Instead of us making Israel give up land that they won fair and square after the Arabs attacked them, we should be allowing them to defend themselves and doing what they need to do without us (or the UN) damaging their soverignty.
 
#14
#14
volsforever27 said:
I'm the last person to defend Bush anymore, but if you honestly think that the right policy to have is let Isreal stand by itself, then no offense you're crazier than he is. Just because Bush is wrong at times doesn't prove that Ron's policies are right.
Click to expand...

He's been wrong more often than right over the last 7 years. Going into Iraq wasn't the problem. Going into Iraq without wanting to achieve victory at any and all costs is what I had a problem with. Appeasing the UN/Western Europe/liberals here in America by not allowing our troops to get information by any means necessary is where I have a problem. Taking the nuclear option off the table is where I have a problem (after those contractors were dragged through the streets of Fallujah and hung from a bridge reminiscent of Black Hawk Down, he should have given that town 3 days to turn over all those that are guilty or else turned that place into a sheet of glass in the desert). The liberals and UN are going to scream and whine anyways, so lets give them something to really whine about while at the same time givng our guys the ability to do their jobs without political strategies getting in the way. Petreus may have gotten things turned around in Iraq and this may be a moot point, but at the end of the day, it should have never gotten to the point it had gotten in late 2006/early 2007.
 
#15
#15
Rasputin_Vol said:
With no other conservative on deck, you can look forward to 2 terms of Hillary. Nobody on deck or on the GOP bench is anymore conservative than Fred Thompson... unless Jeff Sessions runs in 2012. :crazy:
Click to expand...

From what I've heard and read the GOP's best chance is for Hillary to win the nomination.
 
#18
#18
Mullet Vol said:
From what I've heard and read the GOP's best chance is for Hillary to win the nomination.
Click to expand...

You can never count out Bill Clinton in an election. Heck, he's already convinced the Dems that Obama is the "black candidate" and you've got black voters now rethinking their choice. Bill issimply amazing on the campaign trail.
 
#19
#19
Rasputin_Vol said:
Appeasing the UN/Western Europe/liberals here in America by not allowing our troops to get information by any means necessary is where I have a problem.

............

The liberals and UN are going to scream and whine anyways, so lets give them something to really whine about while at the same time givng our guys the ability to do their jobs without political strategies getting in the way
Click to expand...

The reason we have struggled mightily in Iraq during the first year had little to do with politics and more to do with what we were prepared for heading INTO the region. If people want to blame liberals, the UN, and other people...so be it. But the current administration failed us miserably heading INTO Iraq and it showed in a very harsh way and still does to a degree today.

Now, I would agree that politics really hit hard during the later part of 14+ months in and THAT does anger me but that is another story for another day.

Petreus may have gotten things turned around in Iraq and this may be a moot point, but at the end of the day, it should have never gotten to the point it had gotten in late 2006/early 2007.
Click to expand...

Now, this is all JUST MY OPINION and I am sure others that have been over may disagree butttttt....

1) Iraq is far from "turned around"....I think you may be confusing the ridiculous low line we are setting in Iraq and now that we are above it, it is considered a "success" to some.

2) It should never have gotten to MANY points in this conflict and that is traced back to the men who puts us here in the first place AND their preparation for what was to occur.
 
#20
#20
U-T said:
Now, this is all JUST MY OPINION and I am sure others that have been over may disagree butttttt....

1) Iraq is far from "turned around"....I think you may be confusing the ridiculous low line we are setting in Iraq and now that we are above it, it is considered a "success" to some.

2) It should never have gotten to MANY points in this conflict and that is traced back to the men who puts us here in the first place AND their preparation for what was to occur.
Click to expand...
I usually have a lot of respect for your opinions and comments, however, you are completely misinformed and bordering on ignorant with this comment.
 
#21
#21
No good use would ever come out of chest-pounding service so we will disagree
 
#22
#22
therealUT said:
I usually have a lot of respect for your opinions and comments, however, you are completely misinformed and bordering on ignorant with this comment.
Click to expand...

Do you have to incessantly label everyone who doesn't share your opinion as ignorant or worse?

Is it possible for you to fathom the idea that 2 people can look at the same set of facts and arrive at 2 different conclusions without one of them being ignorant?

On Ron Paul, he's a trained physician and has as much education as anyone running for President. I don't think peple labeling him as some out in left field crackpot is fair. He's an intelligent, educated man.
 
#23
#23
oklavol said:
Do you have to incessantly label everyone who doesn't share your opinion as ignorant or worse?

Is it possible for you to fathom the idea that 2 people can look at the same set of facts and arrive at 2 different conclusions without one of them being ignorant?

On Ron Paul, he's a trained physician and has as much education as anyone running for President. I don't think peple labeling him as some out in left field crackpot is fair. He's an intelligent, educated man.
Click to expand...
If someone is obviously misinformed (i.e. implying that the standards of success in Iraq are low) then I certainly have no qualms in stating so.
 
#24
#24
therealUT said:
If someone is obviously misinformed (i.e. implying that the standards of success in Iraq are low) then I certainly have no qualms in stating so.
Click to expand...

Nothing I said was remotely incorrect. If you believe otherwise, you were either late to the party or just refuse to look at the reality of the current situation.

The initial goals that we had for the future (sustained in 5-6 years) of Iraq and the goals we have now are not even remotely the same. In fact, they are scaled back by a monumental amount. Of course you can look at numerous situations in between the beginning and now (Spike in bombings, Surge, etc...) and claim they are the reason for the change in plans OR you can claim politics has taken over (which I stated in another thread) but either way, I stand by everything I said.

Having been in Iraq for almost more than two total years (including the initial wave), I would say without hesitation that I have yet to meet a single person in/around my time that would even slightly disagree with me. Maybe you are the first....and more power to you. Everyone has their own view on Iraq.

I will be out for the next week or so......so keep the faith, fight the power, and god bless
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top