BGFalcons82;1020327 wrote:Ron's way or the highway.

You too will become one with the Borg. Resistance is futile.

And as I predicted, the Gingrich bandwagon is losing weight faster than Newt on a calorie deficit. Bachman, Perry, Cain, and now Newt have all enjoyed their 15 minutes as the "one to beat Romney,"(despite absolutely no evidence that it would be the case haha.)

It seems as though Ron Paul will get a last second push as the final "one to defeat Romney," but like the others, he too will be an afterthought as quickly as he was relevant.

The big difference between Paul and the rest of the "also ran" crowd is that he is, regardless of whether you are a fan or not, certainly the candidate with the best chance of beating Obama in a general.

But Democrats have no fear, the Republican base will shoot themselves in the foot and nominate Romney.

2kool4skool;1020508 wrote:But Democrats have no fear, the Republican base will shoot themselves in the foot and nominate Romney.

Obama-lite > Obama

BGFalcons82;1020327 wrote:Y'all claim that radical Muslims hate us for our "military strongholds" and defending Judaism. Your guy will make these go away quickly.

What....you didn't think much about the consequences of his actions?
Did you forget that we are a nation built upon Judeo-Christian values/a nation of laws and the Muslims want to shove that up our azz and replace it with their brand of justice as prescribed and ordained by their holy book?
Did you forget that their hatred of Jews goes back millenias and one appeasing President is all they need to send Israel to meet their makers?
Did you forget the Middle Eastern countries control the majority of the world's oil supply and they could send us to economic hell by shutting it off? For a reminder, were you around in 1975-1979?

Come on, your guy is going to try a foreign policy that has never ever been tried before, right? It just HAS to work this time, right? Nothing else could possibly work, right?

Ron's way or the highway.

Both the 73 and 79 crisis can be directly linked to US intervention. Supplying Israel with arms in 73 and the Iranian revolution which we had a very large part in in 79.

I can't believe you want a god damned war over religion.

Quote from Axelrod "The higher a monkey climbs up the poll the more you see their butt"

Was that a Freudian slip Axelrod?


Wow! Wisdom from the Obama campaign manager own mouth. Can we apply this to Obama also? After three years not only can we see Obama butt (exposing his failures, faults and incompetency) but also the crap of the socialist agenda.

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." - HERMAN GOERING

I hate when Nazis are correct.

Cleveland Buck;1021642 wrote:"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." - HERMAN GOERING

Bravo. :rolleyes: Are you trying to say that unless Pope Ron is elected, we will be warring with some country somewhere sometime?

Let me aks the follow up question:

If you think Goering is correct, what does that mean about peace-faring, appeasing, looking-out-for-themselves countries like Poland, Belgium, Hungary and France, circa 1939-1940? Or maybe Kuwait, circa 1990? Or does he only apply when you want him to apply?

BGFalcons82;1021914 wrote:Bravo. :rolleyes: Are you trying to say that unless Pope Ron is elected, we will be warring with some country somewhere sometime?

Let me aks the follow up question:

If you think Goering is correct, what does that mean about peace-faring, appeasing, looking-out-for-themselves countries like Poland, Belgium, Hungary and France, circa 1939-1940? Or maybe Kuwait, circa 1990? Or does he only apply when you want him to apply?

For one, This is not an apples to apples comparison. Poland, Belgium, Hungary and France were not the Worlds strongest Military Power who outspend the entire world combined on Military.

So you are concerned that Iran is going to invade the United States and enslave us all like Hitler did in Europe?

pmoney25;1021972 wrote: So you are concerned that Iran is going to invade the United States and enslave us all like Hitler did in Europe?

He is, because Goebbels, I mean, Bill O' Reilly and Bret Baier tell him that is what will happen.

BGFalcons82;1021914 wrote:Bravo. :rolleyes: Are you trying to say that unless Pope Ron is elected, we will be warring with some country somewhere sometime?

Let me aks the follow up question:

If you think Goering is correct, what does that mean about peace-faring, appeasing, looking-out-for-themselves countries like Poland, Belgium, Hungary and France, circa 1939-1940? Or maybe Kuwait, circa 1990? Or does he only apply when you want him to apply?

That's not a good comparison. Goering was talking about telling people they are being attacked. Not actual attacks. Kuwait, France, Poland, etc were actually, you know, attacked. Iran hasn't attacked anyone.

believer;1021358 wrote:Obama-lite > Obama

That could be true, but Romney has a significantly worse chance to win a general than Paul. If the Republican mindset is truly "anyone but Obama" then Paul(or Huntsman) would be a pretty obvious strategic choice.

Romney could beat Obama, but it's unlikely.

I'd like to know who's out there that still supports Obama. I still feel the GOP could put a goat up there and win the election. Most everyone I know, some of which voted for Obama in 2008, can't say enough bad things about this administration. Although, most of my friends have jobs and a college education, so maybe they are in the minority.

If Perry, or Gingrich or someone like that is the candidate I'll be either writing in Ron Paul or voting for Obama.

sleeper;1022189 wrote:I'd like to know who's out there that still supports Obama. I still feel the GOP could put a goat up there and win the election. Most everyone I know, some of which voted for Obama in 2008, can't say enough bad things about this administration. Although, most of my friends have jobs and a college education, so maybe they are in the minority.

[video=youtube36x8rTb3jI][/video]

pmoney25;1021972 wrote:For one, This is not an apples to apples comparison. Poland, Belgium, Hungary and France were not the Worlds strongest Military Power who outspend the entire world combined on Military.

I was responding to Goebbels stating, "Naturally the common people don't want war:" and "But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship." Now, Goebbels might have been talking about aggressor countries, but that's not what he said in the quote above.

This is how I tagged it to Pope Ron - "It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along.." King Paul would determine the policy that we would be just like Poland, France, Belgium, Hungary and Kuwait and get out of the aggressor's way - NO MATTER HOW SMALL NOR "INFERIOR" you believe them to be. We would appease the malcontents that breed their hate on the planet and thusly...in the end...be either run over like the countries above or be dragged into their turmoil after they attack our country again like the Japanese and BinLaden perpetrated. You Ronulans believe if we just mind our own business, be fair trading partners, and withdraw from the world we will be safe and secure. This type of policy did NOT work in the 1930's with Hitler, it did NOT work for the Kuwaitis in the 80's, and it most certainly didn't work for the Poles, Frenchies, Belgians, et al.

pmoney25;1021972 wrote:So you are concerned that Iran is going to invade the United States and enslave us all like Hitler did in Europe?

Nice strawman there. False. I am concerned, as I've stated before, that if Iran believes we are out of their lives, they will indeed look to expand their sphere of influence and attempt to finish Hitler's mission of annhilating Judaism. I'll remind you that Achmedinenutjob is a Holocaust denier. Translated = he doesn't see anything wrong with murdering Jews. He'll find millions of allies in the Palestinans, Syrians, Egyptians, and possibly the Saudis to help them with their mission. Meanwhile, the Israelis ramp up their war machine and they will likely go nose-to-nose and toes-to-toes with the Muslim counterparts. Will Ron stay out of it or not? Either way, we'll be involved; it's just a matter of time.

Oh...Cleveland Buck...why not listen to O'Reilly to find out what he really thinks instead of being a bad ventriloquist.

BGFalcons82;1022291 wrote:I was responding to Goebbels stating, "Naturally the common people don't want war:" and "But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship." Now, Goebbels might have been talking about aggressor countries, but that's not what he said in the quote above.

This is how I tagged it to Pope Ron - "It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along.." King Paul would determine the policy that we would be just like Poland, France, Belgium, Hungary and Kuwait and get out of the aggressor's way - NO MATTER HOW SMALL NOR "INFERIOR" you believe them to be. We would appease the malcontents that breed their hate on the planet and thusly...in the end...be either run over like the countries above or be dragged into their turmoil after they attack our country again like the Japanese and BinLaden perpetrated. You Ronulans believe if we just mind our own business, be fair trading partners, and withdraw from the world we will be safe and secure. This type of policy did NOT work in the 1930's with Hitler, it did NOT work for the Kuwaitis in the 80's, and it most certainly didn't work for the Poles, Frenchies, Belgians, et al.

Nice strawman there. False. I am concerned, as I've stated before, that if Iran believes we are out of their lives, they will indeed look to expand their sphere of influence and attempt to finish Hitler's mission of annhilating Judaism. I'll remind you that Achmedinenutjob is a Holocaust denier. Translated = he doesn't see anything wrong with murdering Jews. He'll find millions of allies in the Palestinans, Syrians, Egyptians, and possibly the Saudis to help them with their mission. Meanwhile, the Israelis ramp up their war machine and they will likely go nose-to-nose and toes-to-toes with the Muslim counterparts. Will Ron stay out of it or not? Either way, we'll be involved; it's just a matter of time.

Oh...Cleveland Buck...why not listen to O'Reilly to find out what he really thinks instead of being a bad ventriloquist.

Your analogy would be better if Iran had actually attacked us. Or Iraq. Or Pakistan. Or Libya. You are either misinformed or too fired up by the propaganda machine if you believe that Ron Paul would lay down as president if we were in imminent danger of being attacked.

And if Ahmadinejad, who has no power in Iran anyway, wanted to wipe out the Jews, why hasn't he taken care of the Jews in Iran? or at least persecuted them so they wanted to move away? Iranian Jews are happy to stay there. Hell, they are at least as free there as we are here. How many thousands of years have Jews lived in Iran? And the evil scum haven't wiped them out yet? Do they not know they are there?

And I know what O' Reilly says. He can't wait to send someone else and their kids into Iran and start spilling some fresh blood.

I Wear Pants;1022202 wrote:If Perry, or Gingrich or someone like that is the candidate I'll be either writing in Ron Paul or voting for Obama.

Good luck with that.

QuakerOats;1022306 wrote:Good luck with that.

I know you're upset that people don't want more wars and don't give two shits if people get married.

2kool4skool;1020508 wrote:And as I predicted, the Gingrich bandwagon is losing weight faster than Newt on a calorie deficit. Bachman, Perry, Cain, and now Newt have all enjoyed their 15 minutes as the "one to beat Romney,"(despite absolutely no evidence that it would be the case haha.)

It seems as though Ron Paul will get a last second push as the final "one to defeat Romney," but like the others, he too will be an afterthought as quickly as he was relevant.

The big difference between Paul and the rest of the "also ran" crowd is that he is, regardless of whether you are a fan or not, certainly the candidate with the best chance of beating Obama in a general.

But Democrats have no fear, the Republican base will shoot themselves in the foot and nominate Romney.

The thing about Ron Pauls support is that it is lasting. Once you come on board, it is extremely unlikely you will be swayed. Does anyone know any former Ron Paul supporters? I sure as hell don't. That 15% he is polling nationally with(I bet that it is higher and will continue to grow) will not support any other candidate regardless of if RP loses the nomination. The establishment and its media are in full panic mode now that Paul is going to win Iowa and could potentially challenge Mitt in New Hampshire. Americans are becoming wise to the lies of the establishment media. These are exciting times in America.

Ron Paul 2012

BoatShoes;1019899 wrote:Well then that is sad because Ron Paul believes in crackpot macro that was itself proven wrong by a libertarian and he runs around acting like he's the smart guy in the room. The Austrians have been wrong about everything. Interest rates have remained low despite massive government borrowing...which is just what the IS/LM model predicts and Austrians can't explain; the Monetary base has tripled and yet inflation has been minimal even if you include food and commodities...which is just what the IS/LM model predicts and Austrians can't explain. Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, Allan Meltzer declared that we would have Zimbabwe style hyperinflation this year! They of course have been drastically wrong. Fiscal Austerity has made things drastically worse every where it has been tried and may cause the demise of the Euro as they ECB has done exactly what Ron Paul would have them do and refuse to be the lender of last resort. This is all of course because, as I said, Ron Paul doesn't understand the way the world works.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Dr. Paul, being in government for over 30 years, knows how the world works a bit better than you. I will also state that he is MUCH smarter and educated than you or anyone else on this site.

BGFalcons82;1020327 wrote:Y'all claim that radical Muslims hate us for our "military strongholds" and defending Judaism. Your guy will make these go away quickly.

What....you didn't think much about the consequences of his actions?
Did you forget that we are a nation built upon Judeo-Christian values/a nation of laws and the Muslims want to shove that up our azz and replace it with their brand of justice as prescribed and ordained by their holy book?
Did you forget that their hatred of Jews goes back millenias and one appeasing President is all they need to send Israel to meet their makers?
Did you forget the Middle Eastern countries control the majority of the world's oil supply and they could send us to economic hell by shutting it off? For a reminder, were you around in 1975-1979?

Come on, your guy is going to try a foreign policy that has never ever been tried before, right? It just HAS to work this time, right? Nothing else could possibly work, right?

Ron's way or the highway.

BGFalcons82;1022291 wrote:I was responding to Goebbels stating, "Naturally the common people don't want war:" and "But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship." Now, Goebbels might have been talking about aggressor countries, but that's not what he said in the quote above.

This is how I tagged it to Pope Ron - "It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along.." King Paul would determine the policy that we would be just like Poland, France, Belgium, Hungary and Kuwait and get out of the aggressor's way - NO MATTER HOW SMALL NOR "INFERIOR" you believe them to be. We would appease the malcontents that breed their hate on the planet and thusly...in the end...be either run over like the countries above or be dragged into their turmoil after they attack our country again like the Japanese and BinLaden perpetrated. You Ronulans believe if we just mind our own business, be fair trading partners, and withdraw from the world we will be safe and secure. This type of policy did NOT work in the 1930's with Hitler, it did NOT work for the Kuwaitis in the 80's, and it most certainly didn't work for the Poles, Frenchies, Belgians, et al.

Nice strawman there. False. I am concerned, as I've stated before, that if Iran believes we are out of their lives, they will indeed look to expand their sphere of influence and attempt to finish Hitler's mission of annhilating Judaism. I'll remind you that Achmedinenutjob is a Holocaust denier. Translated = he doesn't see anything wrong with murdering Jews. He'll find millions of allies in the Palestinans, Syrians, Egyptians, and possibly the Saudis to help them with their mission. Meanwhile, the Israelis ramp up their war machine and they will likely go nose-to-nose and toes-to-toes with the Muslim counterparts. Will Ron stay out of it or not? Either way, we'll be involved; it's just a matter of time.

Oh...Cleveland Buck...why not listen to O'Reilly to find out what he really thinks instead of being a bad ventriloquist.

You are so afraid of Ron Paul. I am not sure why. I understand that you support wars in the ME because you hate Islam, but that isn't really a good justification for spending and wasting billions and costing American soldiers their lives in a winless and pointless war. I am a veteran of the Iraq war and I don't feel that we accomplished much. And once we totally remove our troops it will be worse than it was before. Unless we permanently occupy the country (which I am totally against) you will never have peace. There hasn't been peace for over 1000 years in that region, we are so arrogant as a nation to think we can bring peace to it?

Dr.Pizza;1022453 wrote:The thing about Ron Pauls support is that it is lasting. Once you come on board, it is extremely unlikely you will be swayed. Does anyone know any former Ron Paul supporters? I sure as hell don't. That 15% he is polling nationally with(I bet that it is higher and will continue to grow) will not support any other candidate regardless of if RP loses the nomination. The establishment and its media are in full panic mode now that Paul is going to win Iowa and could potentially challenge Mitt in New Hampshire. Americans are becoming wise to the lies of the establishment media. These are exciting times in America.

Ron Paul 2012

I just hope that if Dr. Paul doesn't win, his son Rand will run in the future. Now that Ron Paul has got the message to people, his son can continue to deliver it and hopefully make some REAL changes one day. I hope that Rand can continue his father's work in changing the country and restoring it back to what it is supposed to be.

dwccrew;1022998 wrote:You are so afraid of Ron Paul. I am not sure why. I understand that you support wars in the ME because you hate Islam, but that isn't really a good justification for spending and wasting billions and costing American soldiers their lives in a winless and pointless war. I am a veteran of the Iraq war and I don't feel that we accomplished much. And once we totally remove our troops it will be worse than it was before. Unless we permanently occupy the country (which I am totally against) you will never have peace.

Most Americans who support the various ME wars do so for reasons other than "hating Islam". Americans took up arms to help save Muslims from starvation in Somalia, Muslims from genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo, and Muslims from brutal totalitatarian regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can disagree with intervening in various places (and it's even easier to disagree and lead from behind- a la Ron Paul- when they get unpopular) but to label the supporters of such intervention as "Muslim haters" is pretty low.

But apparently not beneath Ron Paul, who was compelled to use that phrase against Michele Bachmann.

There hasn't been peace for over 1000 years in that region, we are so arrogant as a nation to think we can bring peace to it?

1. Our interests in Iraq and Afghanistan were not to bring peace, it was to protect Americans from what was widely perceived to be a threat from hostile regimes. Now I agree with the antipathy toward democracy projects and nation-building, but not toward dismantling legitimate threats (we can argue whether Iraq, etc. were legitimate threats, but that's not the point).

2. While we're on the topic of Islam, maybe, just maybe, might that be an underlying cause for the 1000 peaceless years you're referring to?

I just hope that if Dr. Paul doesn't win, his son Rand will run in the future. Now that Ron Paul has got the message to people, his son can continue to deliver it and hopefully make some REAL changes one day. I hope that Rand can continue his father's work in changing the country and restoring it back to what it is supposed to be.

Rand seems like a smart guy, but doesn't subscribe to everything his father believes, and doesn't have the history of sketchy comments and disturbing newsletters published under his name like his dad does.

I will make a few more points on this whole Foreign Policy/War thing then I am moving on.

1.Iran- While Ahmadinejad has said some crazy things, He is not in charge in Iran. Khamenei and other top Iran officials do not agree with Ahmadinejad in regards to being a holocaust denier. They acknowledge it was real.

Also Khamenei had issued a Fatwa against Nuclear Weapons. Stating it is against the Tradition of Islam. He is the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces of Iran. I know there were a couple Muslim clerics who issued a fatwa saying it was ok to use nuclear bombs but at the end of the day, Khamenei has final say, Ahmadinejad has absolutely no power to do anything with the military.

Now the critics will say, that is all for show. But for a group of people who take their religion so seriously and believe their religion is the absolute law, I am not sure they would be so willing to break those rules.

It is no secret that Iran does not like Israel. I am not debating that. I am just debating that I doubt Iran would first off build a bomb, second, use it against Israel destroying not only Israel but Islamic Holy sites.

2. The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have done nothing to make us safer from Terrorism. All it has done is killed 6000 American Troops and Cost Trillion Dollars. I agree we should have killed anyone that had ties to 9/11. But if you think killing hundreds of thousands of Civillians in those two countires is going to increase American Favorability in that region, you are crazy. Iraq posed no real threat to us and neither did Afghanistan.

At the end of the day, I will say this. I am for defending American lives, I am for protecting our country. I am for following our rule of law and our constitution. I am not for bankrupting this country, I am not for sending American Citizens into unwinnable situations to be killed or injured. I am not for one guy or a small group of people telling us we have to go to war based off what-if scenarios.

For some reason people want to destroy the two things that truly made America what is and our true source of power. Freedom and our Economy. You will never stop terrorism, just like you will never stop murder. There will always be bad people but if you spend your life giving up your freedoms worrying about if you will be attacked/Murdered that day, you are letting the terrorists win.

Gary Johnson is going to try and become the libertarian nominee. he obviously has not had much press being the other libertarian in the GOP race. He did have a pretty successful and popular run as NM governor.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57346113-503544/gary-johnson-to-run-for-president-as-libertarian/

For the Fellow Paul supporters or anyone else for that matter, if Paul were to win or even run as a Independant, Who do you think he might choose as VP or who would you like to see?

Gary Johnson is pro-choice and pro humanitarian wars, so I doubt he would be Ron's VP choice. What I would be worried about is him being forced to pick someone one of the other GOP candidates in order to get their delegates. If Paul's VP was Romney or Gingrich, Ron would be gunned down before his inauguration.