If Ron is the nominee, I would like him to pick Jon Huntsman. I don't think they match policy wise, but Huntsman seems like a cool guy and well spoken.

jhay78;1023034 wrote: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.

Lol, did I say everyone that supports the wars in the middle eat are Islamhaters? I was directing that at a poster who had suggestive tones in his posts.

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?

first off, you can't discount our reasoning for going into Iraq. It wasn't a threat to the united states. Second, Islam is not the only religion in that region that has had a Violent past.

The world is a dangerous place. Governed by the aggressive use of force (economic and military). Leaders are judged by their actions or inactions. Imagine the warmonger Winston Churchill had been elected prime minister of Great Britain in the 1930's and used force against Germany to bring it into compliance with the Treaty of Versailles, thus preventing the future slaughter of 6 million jews.

Would he be heralded as saving the lives of 6 million jews? No. He would be the imperialist warmongering butcher desperately trying to preserve the empire. That would have been how history recorded him.

We elect leaders we hope justly make these calls. None of them hold a crystal ball. Just world history and the best guess of our intelligence services is all they can rely on. Its a gamble and they can be damned either way. Just look at how history records Chamberlain as a foolish appeaser.

That said I will likely vote for Paul in the Ohio primary. I disagree with some of Paul's views reguarding foreign policy. Reguardless of the constitutionality of some of our federal domestic liabilities that ball is already rolling down the hill and it will have to be dealt with in a just manner. We are out of money and unfortunatley our years running amok of the constitution and reckless spending will force sacrafice. Some of those sacrafices will come on the defense end in order to justly deal with the unconstitutional and false promises our federal government has made. We have to come to terms with this.

I don't fear a Paul presidency like some on the right. Paul might be the cog in the wheel we need. To quote Cleveland Buck "we are not electing a dictator". Paul is not going to get everything he wants. He will get very little. He is at best is a needed balance. If he is true to his word the best he can do is break out the veto pen. Horrible it is I know. The right used to love gridlock in Washington.

When given solid intelligence Paul is not currently privy to I have no fear he will not act aggressively when our national defense is affected.

sleeper;1023275 wrote:If Ron is the nominee, I would like him to pick Jon Huntsman. I don't think they match policy wise, but Huntsman seems like a cool guy and well spoken.

Reverse that.
In a sane universe, Huntsman will be one of the front runners. Guy knows his stuff. Instead, we get idiots.
I like Paul over all the others except Huntsman, mainly cause he is so different. Both are a breath of fresh air.

majorspark;1023482 wrote: When given solid intelligence Paul is not currently privy to I have no fear he will not act aggressively when our national defense is affected.

This.

Someone from Paul's camp, I forget who, either Doug Wead or Jack Hunter, did an interview yesterday and said that if our security was in jeopardy Paul would act more aggressively than any of the other Republicans or Obama would. This is because we would get a declaration of war in Congress, hundreds of thousands of troops would be mobilized and ready to go because they would be home instead of spread around the globe, and the proper funding to equip them would accompany the war declaration. You then destroy the mother fuckers and come home, leaving them to nation build after we are done.

Cleveland Buck;1023536 wrote:Someone from Paul's camp, I forget who, either Doug Wead or Jack Hunter, did an interview yesterday and said that if our security was in jeopardy Paul would act more aggressively than any of the other Republicans or Obama would. This is because we would get a declaration of war in Congress, hundreds of thousands of troops would be mobilized and ready to go because they would be home instead of spread around the globe, and the proper funding to equip them would accompany the war declaration. You then destroy the mother ****ers and come home, leaving them to nation build after we are done.

This brings up a good point, maybe people would stop messing with us if they knew that after we destroyed their country, we wouldn't be their to clean up the mess. Ron Paul has said that he is not Anti-War, Like Buck just mentioned, he believes in the "Just War"

Here is a link for those not sure what that means

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory

Also the constant talk about Chamberlain and appeasement is getting out of hand, One can simply turn that argument around and say that the United States is acting similar to Germany. Hitler declared a war on terror, attack countries that had nothing to do with it, the enabling act was passed to temporarily suspend civil liberties(NDAA/Patriot Act sound familiar) and due to the fact that the economy was in the tank and the people believed they were under a constant threat of terrorism. They went along with it until it was too late.

Let me tag a disclaimer to that last paragraph. I know that Hitler started the parliament fire that caused the war on terror..etc. and I absolutely do not believe that the US had any part in staging 9/11. I also am not equating the United States with Nazi Germany. Just stating that this Ron Paul the Appeaser talk can easily be flipped around when talking about what caused WWII. I was just playing a little devils advocate with that one.

I know that if Paul was in office, some of these things might change. I know that he probably wont bring home every troop. I just believe that if War was necessary that he would be a rational, intelligent and honest President who would follow the Constitution on Declaring War and Win the war vs. Going crazy and attacking people because they called us a name or said they don't like us.

Paul would not pick anyone running in the GOP field. Gary Johnson would be his best bet but that wont happen. I'd like to see him cross lines and grab Kucinich.

Dr.Pizza;1024419 wrote:Paul would not pick anyone running in the GOP field. Gary Johnson would be his best bet but that wont happen. I'd like to see him cross lines and grab Kucinich.

You could likely be the only person in America that believes a Paul-Kucinich team is the best option for Americans. I suppose if you believe combining a Libertarian and a near-Communist ends up giving you ultimately something in the middle, then you've got a case for them.

There is only 1 choice for pappa Paul....and that is the son of Ron. Since he claims that he never changes his principles, there are no "worthy" Republicans to place on the Republican ticket that stand as alone as he often does.

dwccrew;1022998 wrote: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.

Look, who am I? I'm a nobody on a message board. I've never claimed to have any special insight. I could be up late on a message board because I'm lucky enough to have the day off tomorrow or I could be a tranvestite prostitute blogging in his/her hotel waiting for her next trick to arrive. What's it matter? Attacking me personally makes no difference; it's about the arguments made in 2008 about what would happen and what actually did happen. Austrians in publications all over the place were declaring that we would have hyperinflation by now...not high inflation, not moderate inflation...weimar style hyperinflation. They are like Harold Camping...constantly moving the goal posts when they are wrong and their followers continue to believe.

Milton Friedman was a true libertarian who did more for the liberty movement than any other man. He also believed the Fed should not exist and many of the other liberty-related things Ron Paul believes in. But, he did not believe in the crackpot economics and business cycle theories that Ron Paul believes in and openly propagates. He said it best, "There's no such thing as Austrian economics...There's good economics and then their's bad economics."

Go ahead an attack me but I'm just saying the same things that Milton Friedman would be if he were with us today. And I have more faith in his opinion on how the world works than Ron Paul's.

So to me, the fact that Ron Paul has been evangelizing ABC ideas for 30 years when the most prominent libertarian contemporary of his time was saying they were nonsense, to me, gives me even more reason to be skeptical.

jmog;1020130 wrote:Manipulated graphs and quotes from people who agree with you does not equate to "evidence from the real world".

If you don't believe statistics/data can be/is manipulated when making such graphs by BOTH SIDES, then I suggest you take a course in statistics, especially applied statistics.

Ok, let's take inflation; Austrians claim that we have secretly high inflation. I have provided graphs from the bureau of labor statistics, thomson reuters, bloomberg, the St. Louis Federal Reserve, The Atlanta Fed and MIT's billion price index to demonstrate that those claims are untrue and that inflation is actually low despite large expansions in the monetary base and that it is trending downward. I've provided links from the IMF with regard to the effects of austerity on GDP in Europe. I have also cited the CBO and the tax policy center with regard to the deficit and the CBO, moody's, Christy Romer and several other economic research papers with regard to the effect of the stimulus.

Perhaps you might point out to some graphs and quotes are manipulated? I can do my best to try and satisfy your keen eye for statistical purity.

jhay78;1023034 wrote:
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).

How is it not the point whether or not Iraq or Afghanistan were legitimate threats? You say in the same paragraph that the goal of going into Afghanistan and Iraq was to make Americans safer from hostile regimes. Isn't whether or not Afghanistan or Iraq were legitimate threats and whether, based on the evidence, U.S. policy makers were justified in believing so at the time they entered hostilities the point? But I digress.

Also, as far as finding reasons to dislike Ron Paul I think you're the worst offender. Ron Paul is the only Republican running for President that will pursue domestic policies anywhere close to what tea partiers claim to want. Republicans/Conservatives have repeatedly said that Domestic Policy is number one...that our economic collapse is imminent if we don't drastically cut spending.

Ron Paul is the only person running for President who would drastically cut spending. The man has not wavered for multiple decades in his quest to scrap the size of government. Literally he is the only credible person in Washington with regard to really slashing spending in a meaningful way in the way that Tea Partiers really want. Period. How you are finding a way not to support him because of his foreign policy views in the most "important election of our time" is beyond comprehension to me. Would you rather he be willing to put a war with Iran on the credit card?

Believer thinks Ron Paul would become a pragmatist but I don't know. I think if there's any President who would stick to his guns no matter what it is Ron Paul. The guy has never voted to increase the debt ceiling. Do you think he would give a crap if Ben Bernanke was begging him to do so saying there would be an economic meltdown if he didn't? I don't.

To me, Majorspark has the P.O.V. toward Paul that I would expect from a Tea Party type conservative in this election. All I've been hearing for Obama's presidency is lower taxes, cut spending, lower the debt, etc. Maybe you don't agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy views but if this election and the Tea Party movement are about finally reducing the size of government and getting back to Constitutional purity as the chief issues, you gotta pull the lever for Ron Paul at least in the primary.

majorspark;1023482 wrote:The world is a dangerous place. Governed by the aggressive use of force (economic and military). Leaders are judged by their actions or inactions. Imagine the warmonger Winston Churchill had been elected prime minister of Great Britain in the 1930's and used force against Germany to bring it into compliance with the Treaty of Versailles, thus preventing the future slaughter of 6 million jews.

Would he be heralded as saving the lives of 6 million jews? No. He would be the imperialist warmongering butcher desperately trying to preserve the empire. That would have been how history recorded him.

We elect leaders we hope justly make these calls. None of them hold a crystal ball. Just world history and the best guess of our intelligence services is all they can rely on. Its a gamble and they can be damned either way. Just look at how history records Chamberlain as a foolish appeaser.

That said I will likely vote for Paul in the Ohio primary. I disagree with some of Paul's views reguarding foreign policy. Reguardless of the constitutionality of some of our federal domestic liabilities that ball is already rolling down the hill and it will have to be dealt with in a just manner. We are out of money and unfortunatley our years running amok of the constitution and reckless spending will force sacrafice. Some of those sacrafices will come on the defense end in order to justly deal with the unconstitutional and false promises our federal government has made. We have to come to terms with this.

I don't fear a Paul presidency like some on the right.

Well said. I don't fear a Paul presidency as much as I do a Paul 3rd-party candidacy. As of now, he "has no intention of running" 3rd party, and we all know what that means.

From a few weeks ago: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11346/1196088-109-0.stm#ixzz1hBBuuUhz

pmoney25;1023583 wrote:I know that if Paul was in office, some of these things might change. I know that he probably wont bring home every troop. I just believe that if War was necessary that he would be a rational, intelligent and honest President who would follow the Constitution on Declaring War and Win the war vs. Going crazy and attacking people because they called us a name or said they don't like us.

If Ron Paul thought the wars were "based on lies" then he should've introduced a bill to repeal the AUMF from Sept 2011. If he thought there was "glee" in the Bush administration after 9/11, and that they rushed to war after deceiving the American public, then he should've introduced articles of impeachment against GWBush.

To my knowledge he has done neither. Instead he leads from behind when the wars get unpopular (although he did oppose Iraq from the beginning), and makes outrageous statements that to me are disrespectful to people who have served and lost loved ones in both places. I have a problem with more than simple foreign policy; it's a worldview thing.

BoatShoes;1024770 wrote:How is it not the point whether or not Iraq or Afghanistan were legitimate threats? You say in the same paragraph that the goal of going into Afghanistan and Iraq was to make Americans safer from hostile regimes. Isn't whether or not Afghanistan or Iraq were legitimate threats and whether, based on the evidence, U.S. policy makers were justified in believing so at the time they entered hostilities the point? But I digress.

I meant whether or not they were actual threats, not how they were perceived at the time. Mutiple intelligence sources, multiple countries, multiple US administrations perceived there was some sort of threat. That's why they went to war. It was not to bring peace to some random hellhole.

Also, as far as finding reasons to dislike Ron Paul I think you're the worst offender. Ron Paul is the only Republican running for President that will pursue domestic policies anywhere close to what tea partiers claim to want. Republicans/Conservatives have repeatedly said that Domestic Policy is number one...that our economic collapse is imminent if we don't drastically cut spending.

We disagree on the bolded part. I suppose Ron Paul is the only candidate who's read the Constitution before.

Ron Paul is the only person running for President who would drastically cut spending. The man has not wavered for multiple decades in his quest to scrap the size of government. Literally he is the only credible person in Washington with regard to really slashing spending in a meaningful way in the way that Tea Partiers really want. Period. How you are finding a way not to support him because of his foreign policy views in the most "important election of our time" is beyond comprehension to me. Would you rather he be willing to put a war with Iran on the credit card?

I'll give you Ron Paul's history and his consistency. But what happens if another 9/11 style attack occurs, and say Iran is behind it? Do we ignore them because we're broke? Is there anything he would "put on the credit card" in a real dire national emergency? I really want to cut spending also, but not at the cost of national suicide. No Tea Partier would argue for eliminating our military so we could balance the budget and pay down our debt. I think Ron Paul would agree with that.

jhay78;1025107 wrote:We disagree on the bolded part. I suppose Ron Paul is the only candidate who's read the Constitution before.


I'll give you Ron Paul's history and his consistency. But what happens if another 9/11 style attack occurs, and say Iran is behind it? Do we ignore them because we're broke? Is there anything he would "put on the credit card" in a real dire national emergency? I really want to cut spending also, but not at the cost of national suicide. No Tea Partier would argue for eliminating our military so we could balance the budget and pay down our debt. I think Ron Paul would agree with that.

Which candidate running for President do you think is as serious as the Tea Party with cutting spending and adhering to an originalist view of the constitution both?

Michelle Bachmann? Her Federal Abortion Bill requiring a sonogram that she introduced is facially unconstitutional under a Tea Party or Justice Thomas style of interpreting the Constitution as it would require that Congress has a federal police power which has been reserved to the states according to this view. I doubt you're going to vote for her anyways.

Newt Gingrich? Santorum? Romney???? All of them would fall under the type of Constitutional scrutiny for views they have put forth.

Ron Paul on the other hand did vote in support of going into Afghanistan without a declaration of war after 911 and said it was justified because the founding father's provided the tools of grants of marque and reprisal.

I am not a Ron Paul fan and think he would be a bad thing for America but there's nothing to support the view that he would not respond aggressively if America were attacked and he would actually be able to justify it within an originalist view of the Constitution.

Look how often do I argue on here with Cleveland Buck et al about Ron Paul...but what evidence do you have that he would "destroy our military." Any Ron Paul supporter would say "Ron Paul wants to have our troops home in America being trained and ready to respond if America is actually attacked or in danger and that this actually makes our military stronger." They'd say "Ron Paul won't borrow money from China to protect Japan from China but he'll keep us safe if we're actually attacked."

I personally don't agree with Ron Paul's isolationist foreign policy views but I also don't think he would just roll over if America were actually attacked and he's never even intimated as much.

In the general election we are going to be having a battle between Obama's grades vs. Romney's tax returns.

News this week was that Romney all but ruled out ever letting his tax returns see the light of day (would fuel the 1% argument to the hilt) and in turn the White House is already attacking.

This has led to many conservative sites calling on the President to release his college records which he has put under lock and key to a degree which we haven't seen. Clearly there is something in there he doesn't want seen.

Now that Newt has fallen off a cliff Romney is going to be the guy, and it is nice to see both sides are already warming up with the petty tit for tat stuff like college grades and tax returns. Lord knows we don't have better things to be focusing on in this country.

jhay78;1025107 wrote: But what happens if another 9/11 style attack occurs, and say Iran is behind it?

1.) lol at this being a realistic possibility in anyone's mind

2.) If that were to happen, we better hope we don't have our resources tied up in places that don't concern us and/or with nation building efforts. If Iran launched an attack on U.S. soil, the best case scenario would be to have the full weight of the U.S. military ready to attack.

BoatShoes;1024766 wrote:Look, who am I? I'm a nobody on a message board. I've never claimed to have any special insight. I could be up late on a message board because I'm lucky enough to have the day off tomorrow or I could be a tranvestite prostitute blogging in his/her hotel waiting for her next trick to arrive. What's it matter? Attacking me personally makes no difference; it's about the arguments made in 2008 about what would happen and what actually did happen.

You took that as a personal attack? LOL, you are that sensitive? I was merely suggesting that I would take Ron Paul's word over yours because I know that no one on this board is as educated or involved as he is.

BoatShoes;1024766 wrote:Go ahead an attack me but I'm just saying the same things that Milton Friedman would be if he were with us today. And I have more faith in his opinion on how the world works than Ron Paul's.

Well, Friedman isn't here today and what you believe he would say and how you interpret what he said matter not to me. Again, don't be so sensitive, I wasn't attacking you. I was stating that I would take Dr. Paul's word over yours because I know for a fact that he is more involved and in touch with politics than you will ever be and that he is also much more educated than anyone on here, including you. You took that as an attack? I never claimed you were ignorant, just not as EDUCATED as DR. PAUL.

Cleveland Buck;1022305 wrote: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.

Yup. True dat.

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.

Yes, there are Jews that live in Iran. The Israeli gov'ment have written pleas to them and asked them to"come home"...to which they have collectively told Bibi and his clan of warmongers to eff off...they love living in Iran.

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?

Careful now....you have infringed on the playbook....rule #1...for the neoconservatives..and the neolibs for that matter.

Jews good...Persians/Arabs bad.

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.

Anyone else see the pattern here on the chickenhawks?

Bill-O: "bawk....bawk...bawk...bawk."

dwccrew;1025383 wrote:You took that as a personal attack? LOL, you are that sensitive? I was merely suggesting that I would take Ron Paul's word over yours because I know that no one on this board is as educated or involved as he is.



Well, Friedman isn't here today and what you believe he would say and how you interpret what he said matter not to me. Again, don't be so sensitive, I wasn't attacking you. I was stating that I would take Dr. Paul's word over yours because I know for a fact that he is more involved and in touch with politics than you will ever be and that he is also much more educated than anyone on here, including you. You took that as an attack? I never claimed you were ignorant, just not as EDUCATED as DR. PAUL.

Sorry if I came off as sensitive. My point was I don't see how it gets us anywhere to talk about whether or not a person on here is smarter than someone is. When I was saying you were laying a "personal attack" I was saying it in the philosophical sense...in that it was not an attack on the argument at hand. I didn't think you were trying to attack me as in "You're a ***, Boatshoes" etc.

Even if it is true that Ron Paul is way smarter than I will ever be what does that have to do with anything? Can I not weigh in on the fact that his investment portfolio is 60% gold and silver mining stocks which is extremely out of the norm of what most investment pros would say is good? Can I not suggest that his view on how the world works does not align with the way most other people who are also way smarter than I will ever be think it does?

It's like saying to a man wanting to engage in the moral issues of abortion: "What do you know, you've never carried a child" etc.

BoatShoes;1025452 wrote:Can I not weigh in on the fact that his investment portfolio is 60% gold and silver mining stocks which is extremely out of the norm of what most investment pros would say is good?

You can weigh in on whatever you want, but Dr. Paul's portfolio destroyed the market and most (if not all) of Wall Street over the last decade. They should probably ask him for investment advice, and he didn't even need to be bailed out like they did.

BoatShoes;1024766 wrote: Milton Friedman was a true libertarian who did more for the liberty movement than any other man. He also believed the Fed should not exist and many of the other liberty-related things Ron Paul believes in. But, he did not believe in the crackpot economics and business cycle theories that Ron Paul believes in and openly propagates. He said it best, "There's no such thing as Austrian economics...There's good economics and then their's bad economics."

Milton did a lot for liberty, but that doesn't mean he was perfect. His preference was for the market to determine our money, not to have the Fed printing it out of thin air. He did call for a steady rate of inflating the money supply if that was the system you were using, but he ultimately preferred market money. Now he may not have believed that the market would choose precious metals, but I'm sure it wouldn't have chosen continually debased paper promises to pay you nothing.

I don't know how his desire for market money would have lined up with his desire to intervene in the economy during recessions. You can't print free market money out of thin air, so I don't know. Maybe he covered that somewhere and I just never read it.

Anyway, just because one man who was known to flip-flop and changes his views over the years didn't approve of the Austrian business cycle theory certainly doesn't discredit it. F.A. Hayek won a Nobel Prize for it, so I'm sure someone saw some merit in it.

If you add up aggregate numbers like demand and spending and investment, act like those numbers mean something, and try to apply that to the Austrian business cycle theory, you probably won't come up with anything helpful, mainly because it has more of a micro application rather than a macro one. Once you know where the newly printed money and credit is going and where the government tries to direct it, then you can see all the evidence you want of the theory.

Dr.Pizza;1024419 wrote:Paul would not pick anyone running in the GOP field. Gary Johnson would be his best bet but that wont happen. I'd like to see him cross lines and grab Kucinich.

WTF???

The only good thing about Kucinich is if he was Paul's VP they probably wouldn't try to kill Paul.

Tobias Fünke;1025567 wrote:
WTF???

Unity. The two party system divides everyone and pits us against each other over stupid issues like abortion and gay marriage, both of which should be personal choices and no one elses business but for some reason these are huge issues among Dumbacrats and Redumblicans.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups


Romney 45%
obama 39%

November '12 cannot arrive soon enough.