Ron Paul chooses Vice Pres running mate

[TheRedHorseman]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoCJ

I disagree. I've read up on Paul's foreign policy and it reads like a chapter out of an isolationist manual.
BTW, you've never supported your view, all you've posted is your opinion(s) of what Paul stands for.

You read them where? From somebody doing a hit piece on him?

Here's the other end of the spectrum from his website:

Defense:

* Make securing our borders the top national security priority.

* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.

* Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.

* End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.

* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.

* Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.

* Ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return.

* Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.

* Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency.

* Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid.

Oooh, cutting foreign aid, that sure sounds like isolationism.

Then there's that "let's cut out the nation building thing" that's about as close to isolationist as he seems to get. However, in the light of the utter failure of Iraq and Afghanistan to allow themselves to be "built" that sounds like a pretty good idea.

Are you really foolish enough to think that putting a base in every nation across the world is a good idea? You don't think that there would be resentment from the locals akin to if the French put a base in South Carolina? With our ability to project military power as needed, we don't need these cold war era forward bases, nor do we need to keep propping up South Korea while playing nice with North Korea.

[4xbrian]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoCJ

Facts ? Nice to see you look at history and come up with your conclusions and I come up with mine.
You've presented no facts, just your opinions as to why events happened.

Holy shit dude. Please, point out where I gave an opinion. I'll help you, by admitting the words 'disgusting' and maybe 'tyrant' are in fact opinions. The rest? Not so much. Please, at least disagree on those opinions! Good try at a typical duck and weave, though.

[Jamtoy]

Originally Posted by rockota

you seem to ignore that history also tells us that interventionalism leads to more war and more deaths. That shit hasn't been working. Explain why you support the last 80 years of interference, please. How has it made the US safer? How does it support COTUS?

See below.

Originally Posted by TheRedHorseman

How do you figure? Because the Nazis and Imperial Japan haven't reformed tried to take over the world again?

[COLOR="Red"]To some extent yes but the bigger picture was the soviet expansion. The Soviets would have easily pushed further west and into Asia had we not been there. In effect they would have stifled trade and been in a better position to dictate international policy. In todays world China's ambitions are only hampered by our positions in SE Asia and Korea.

It was our steadfast military expansion that led to the Soviet downfall. It was our presence in Korea, Japan that held off a further communist advance and chines aggression throughout the region.

You mean our intervention that led to the formation of groups like Al Qaeda?
This statement and premise proves just how stupid you are. Al Queda was formed in 1988 by veterans of the anti-soviet civil war. At it's start the intention was to usurp Arab governments with hard line Islamic rule. The United States dealings with Arab nations was strictly used an an excuse to justify the goal.
Places like Libya, Syria, Egypt and such should deal with crap on their own. Somehow I doubt that they are going to run out and amass an armada to make a huge D-Day like landing on the shore of New York.
Your ignorance continues. What you are going to find should you decide to crack a history book is that the Middle East is easily ruled by the one with the biggest fist. By ignoring that area you have now allowed what in time will be an Islamic league. The Islamic's could give two shits about where we are or if we take our toys and go home. The ultimate goal is world domination and yes they will have the ability one day to launch against us. Will they storm our shores? No, but they can and could easily, should Iran go unfettered, in time have ICBM's capable of reaching our shores as well as the ability to launch another 9/11 type scenario. Does anyone else remember that we as a nation are broke and living on credit?
Apparently you choose to ignore the reality and facts about military spending and the % of GDP that we spend on it. Our biggest dime is spent on social welfare entitlements. Military spending only accounts for 3-4% of GDP. Where is he claiming that he is going to reach out to an invading nation and claim "peace in our time?" This is more of the crap you hear on talk radio, taken from carefully selected clips of speeches.

He has said he would be attempt friendship with Iran, he believes despite facts to the contrary and an obvious mis-understanding of Islamic fascism that if we just let them be they will leave us alone, he makes false claims about the military budget breaking us when it is in fact minor compared to other spending, he claims the founders where non-interventionist(or the code Paul word for Isolationist) yet both Adams and Jefferson took us into undeclared wars. He has claimed our involvement in WWII was wrong despite the evidence of genocide and Germany's intention to expand it's war to our shores, not to mention that little thing the Japanese did. There are many other examples of Paul's ignorance of world events and historical failure's of isolationism.

There are many things I admire about him, his foreign policies and ideas are not one of them.

[SanDiegoCJ]

Originally Posted by Jamtoy

See below.


He has said he would be attempt friendship with Iran, he believes despite facts to the contrary and an obvious mis-understanding of Islamic fascism that if we just let them be they will leave us alone, he makes false claims about the military budget breaking us when it is in fact minor compared to other spending, he claims the founders where non-interventionist(or the code Paul word for Isolationist) yet both Adams and Jefferson took us into undeclared wars. He has claimed our involvement in WWII was wrong despite the evidence of genocide and Germany's intention to expand it's war to our shores, not to mention that little thing the Japanese did. There are many other examples of Paul's ignorance of world events and historical failure's of isolationism.

There are many things I admire about him, his foreign policies and ideas are not one of them.

At least someone here sees through Paul's nonsense.

[rockota]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoCJ

At least someone here sees through Paul's nonsense.

still waiting on your facts. I'm guessing your curled up in the fetal position crying to your mommy that people are mean for asking you to support your claims (opinions) with fact

I'll continue to wait. You'll continue to duck and weave and call names.

[SanDiegoCJ]

Originally Posted by rockota

still waiting on your facts. I'm guessing your curled up in the fetal position crying to your mommy that people are mean for asking you to support your claims (opinions) with fact

I'll continue to wait. You'll continue to duck and weave and call names.

You really are laughable Brian. I've posted up my reasons for my statement about Paul's foreign policy. The fact that you refuse to accept them doesn't bother me in the least.
All you Paulbots have never shown any factual info refuting what I think of Paul's foreign policy. All I get from you are your opinions that you claim are facts.

[TJVigilante]

I'm less concerned about foreign policy than our own domestic issues right now. Foreign policy of pulling soldiers out of warzones and making even tenuous peace with aggressive nations is acceptable to me if it allows us to focus on getting the economy settled down and unemployment rates (real ones, not just reported ones) down.

The thing you have to think about is all presidential candidates have their pet projects. And all presidents work on their previous pet projects, but never really get everything they want.

If Ron Paul is president, you can assume that we won't be joining every worldwide conflict that arises. You can assume that he'll be very leery of green-lighting any foreign military action unless there's strong, direct provocation for it. I doubt even Ron Paul would have ignored 9/11. But I tend to think that Ron Paul would have used more reason and ordered an inquiry on the matter and had a better plan of action prior to pulling the proverbial trigger.

[rockota]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoCJ

You really are laughable Brian. I've posted up my reasons for my statement about Paul's foreign policy. The fact that you refuse to accept them doesn't bother me in the least.
All you Paulbots have never shown any factual info refuting what I think of Paul's foreign policy. All I get from you are your opinions that you claim are facts.

you mailed:Gary: perfectly! Well done! Now answer my questions

[SanDiegoCJ]

Originally Posted by rockota

you mailed:Gary: perfectly! Well done! Now answer my questions

As expected. You didn't get an answer you liked so you accuse me of not answering. Typical liberal tactic.

[rockota]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoCJ

As expected. You didn't get an answer you liked so you accuse me of not answering. Typical liberal tactic.

here. I'll help. Is Pauls foreign policy ideas in line with COTUS or not?

[RedPurdueYJ]

Originally Posted by rockota

here. I'll help. Is Pauls foreign policy ideas in line with COTUS or not?

Ask again later.

The SCOTUS hasn't ruled on that yet.

[Pavemen]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoCJ

I see you've learned nothing from history except for the small parts that fit your isolationist agenda.
You're a left-over person from a left-over time. The world is a much different place today than it was when this country was founded.

So do you feel the same way about the COTUS then? The US and the World are different places than 200 years ago, is COTUS meaningless now and needs an overhaul?

Also, you seem to have one issue with Ron Paul, his "isolationist" views as you put it. How many issues do you with the other candidates or the Big O himself? Just one issue with those guys, or more than one?

No candidate is ever going to be 100% of what anyone person wants in a President. However, that candidate can be 80% or more of what people want for a significant portion of the populace. I agree with most of Ron Paul's views. Does this make him perfect, not at all, but it still makes him, in my opinion, the best of the options we have and far better than Obama ever was or will be.

[SanDiegoCJ]

Originally Posted by Pavemen

So do you feel the same way about the COTUS then? The US and the World are different places than 200 years ago, is COTUS meaningless now and needs an overhaul?

Also, you seem to have one issue with Ron Paul, his "isolationist" views as you put it. How many issues do you with the other candidates or the Big O himself? Just one issue with those guys, or more than one?

No candidate is ever going to be 100% of what anyone person wants in a President. However, that candidate can be 80% or more of what people want for a significant portion of the populace. I agree with most of Ron Paul's views. Does this make him perfect, not at all, but it still makes him, in my opinion, the best of the options we have and far better than Obama ever was or will be.

Wow, lots and lots of wild ASSumptions there with nothing to back them up except your own prejudices.

[Pavemen]

First line, I was just asking a simple question based on your commentary about the world being a different place and that previous ideologies are or may no longer be valid.

My second comment was based on the fact that you have not presented many other concerns you have r.e. Paul in thie thread. Yes that was an assumption but based on your only argument agasint Paul in this thread (that I recalled reading). I only asked another simple set of questions that made zero assumptions.

The third line is my opinion and has nothing to do with you

[rockota]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoCJ

Wow, lots and lots of wild ASSumptions there with nothing to back them up except your own prejudices.

still can't answer questions.

[rockota]

Originally Posted by RedPurdueYJ

Ask again later.

The SCOTUS hasn't ruled on that yet.

all net!