baseballstud24;865388 wrote:haha...So how do you guys describe him falling just 1 % behind Bachmann in the straw poll? Oh, let me guess, the straw poll doesn't mean anything all of the sudden?

Of course it does. It's the beginning of the nomination process.

Me being part of the "you guys" you were referring to is only offering my opinion regarding him not being electable based on his views on foreign policy. I believe he will and has been injecting a much needed approach to federal purpose which is something I think we need to revisit due to our nation seemingly relying on federal action and participation to solve any and all ills that our country might experience.

Ron Paul --- 1988

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anmlPvmd1Ew&playnext=1&list=PL6C323B483DA235C3

Con_Alma;865311 wrote:Ron Paul's foreign policy positions will keep him from being electable.

While I agree with most of Paul's economic policy positions, his protectionist foreign policy views will not allow him to gain my vote. I agree with the other posters that say he would make a good cabinet secretary. Hell, I'd put him in charge of the agency that keeps dibs on the Federal Reserve, noting how Paul loves them so much.

BGFalcons82;865528 wrote:While I agree with most of Paul's economic policy positions, his protectionist foreign policy views will not allow him to gain my vote. I agree with the other posters that say he would make a good cabinet secretary. Hell, I'd put him in charge of the agency that keeps dibs on the Federal Reserve, noting how Paul loves them so much.

Yeah, Santorum (who's not my favorite candidate) pretty much shot down his whole "Iran is nothing to worry about" argument from the debate the other night.

BGFalcons82;865528 wrote:While I agree with most of Paul's economic policy positions, his protectionist foreign policy views will not allow him to gain my vote. I agree with the other posters that say he would make a good cabinet secretary. Hell, I'd put him in charge of the agency that keeps dibs on the Federal Reserve, noting how Paul loves them so much.

This. I was in shock when he said that about Iran the other night.

With backing like this, how can Perry lose??

http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/0811/Kiss_frontman_is_a_Rick_Perry_fan.html

BGFalcons82;865528 wrote:While I agree with most of Paul's economic policy positions, his protectionist foreign policy views will not allow him to gain my vote. I agree with the other posters that say he would make a good cabinet secretary. Hell, I'd put him in charge of the agency that keeps dibs on the Federal Reserve, noting how Paul loves them so much.

Works for me.

jhay78;865563 wrote:Yeah, Santorum (who's not my favorite candidate) pretty much shot down his whole "Iran is nothing to worry about" argument from the debate the other night.

First, yes Iran is a threat, but not to the level of Santorum. Man, he was wrong the links to Afghanistan, and how Iran has the highest deaths for Americans (what al Qaeda doesn't count, neither does the Sunni insurgents?) He was also wrong the level of the Iranian program and the level of the Iranian missile program.
But, whatever, he is a no-name.

Paul, really underestimates the impact of Iran in the region. He really misses the point on how the rest of the Gulf is balancing against Iran, especially the Gulf states. The Saudis are looking to buy US Aegis ships that have missile defense capabilities.

Paul, as strong as he runs, isn't Presidential material. He, as others have said, is more a Sec of Tres. or cabinet level.

ptown_trojans_1;865734 wrote: Paul, really underestimates the impact of Iran in the region. He really misses the point on how the rest of the Gulf is balancing against Iran, especially the Gulf states. The Saudis are looking to buy US Aegis ships that have missile defense capabilities.

Ron Paul isn't an idiot, hell I have no doubt that he is the most intelligent guy in Washington. I'm sure he's well aware of Iran's impact in the region. He's also well aware that we are the United States of America, not the United States of the Middle East or the United States of the World. Paul pointed out after the debates last week that Iran hasn't invaded another country in 1,000 years. They have no navy or air force. Hell they have to import gasoline because they can't refine their oil. And most importantly, we aren't going to stop them from having a nuclear weapon unless we invade and occupy the country, which we can not afford and the American people would never go for. If we develop our own energy and drive down the price of oil, there is a better chance that the Iranian people will force their government to stop working on the weapon so they can eat rather than us stopping their work on the weapon by any means available to us.

With Perry stepping into the race and leading in a recent Rasmussen poll by double digits the Republican establishment is scrambling to find alternatives to Perry. Romney was their man but now Perry has their panties in a wad. Perry is a strong proponent of the 10th amendment and trimming Washington's power to meddle in nearly every domestic issue.

Big central government republicans are looking to divide the "radicals" in the party further by pressuring the likes of Paul Ryan and Chris Christie to enter the race. Ryan knows the game in Washington and has no balls to change it. He talks a good game though. He will fold like a cheap lawn chair.

I like Christie. He is definitely what New Jersey needs. Not sure yet if he is what the nation needs. He does not speak much on federal issues. He is reigning in a state and doing it well. Keep in mind that state is constrained by its constitution to balance the budget. At this point the federal government is not.

The problem with our federal government is it has overstepped its authority to spend the peoples money. Reigning that spending in will take a fundamental change in their authority to spend. The states, localities, and the people have looked to the feds to supplement their budget limitations.

The feds seemingly can borrow without end. They can run deficits or print money to sustain themselves. The lower levels of government and its dependent individuals have joined hands and looked past any constitutional limitations to keep their people happy. More and more Americans are coming to the realization that this is unsustainable.

I am definitely leaning heavily towards Governor Perry as the most viable candidate to make the fundamental changes needed at the federal level of governance. If we can take a step back and get closer to returning to the proper balance and spending authority the framers intended we might just stand a chance.

Alan West is back on the beam. This was in response to Maxine Waters' discussion about black unemployment - http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/177311-rep-west-im-here-as-the-modern-day-harriet-tubman

The take-home:

"So you have this 21st-century plantation that has been out there where the Democratic Party has forever taken the black community for granted and you have established certain black leaders who are nothing more than the overseers of the plantation and now the black people on that plantation are upset because they've been disregarded, disrespected and their concerns are not cared about," West said to guest host Laura Ingraham on Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor."

"So I'm here as the modern-day Harriet Tubman to kind of lead people on the underground railroad away from that plantation and to a sense of sensibility."

BGFalcons82;866316 wrote:Alan West is back on the beam. This was in response to Maxine Waters' discussion about black unemployment - http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/177311-rep-west-im-here-as-the-modern-day-harriet-tubman

The take-home:

I heard him say this. That has been my opinion for a while. Makes me wonder what black people think about it.

Yeah, this guy is what we need.

Bank of America Will Help Rick Perry Out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRAXKbj7V4E

At this point, I would vote third party before I vote for Perry or Romney.

Cleveland Buck;867377 wrote:Yeah, this guy is what we need.

Bank of America Will Help Rick Perry Out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRAXKbj7V4E

At this point, I would vote third party before I vote for Perry or Romney.

OK, I saw your linked video and then the YouTube poster's original. The guys on the video are certainly wound up that Rick Perry was caught on tape/mic accepting a....GASP...business card from a potential donor. Big doings, I'll say. Good thing C-Span was all over it. Let me see if I understand your point:

You are upset that Bank of America is willing to donate to Perry?
You are upset that corporate America has a say in politics in general?
You will only support candidates that take personal donations, no corporate money, or are so independently wealthy (ala John Kerry or Mit Romney) that the mere thought of corporate campaign contributions turns you off.

Help me to understand why you would only support 3rd party candidates.

Cleveland Buck;867377 wrote:Yeah, this guy is what we need.

Bank of America Will Help Rick Perry Out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRAXKbj7V4E

At this point, I would, in effect, be making it easier for Obama to get reelected by voting third party, before I vote for Perry or Romney.

Fixed.

bigdaddy2003;867351 wrote:I heard him say this. That has been my opinion for a while. Makes me wonder what black people think about it.

Most likely 95% of them think he is an Uncle Tom.

Little Danny;867617 wrote:Most likely 95% of them think he is an Uncle Tom.

Yeah probably and that is sad stuff.

QuakerOats;865403 wrote:Ron Paul --- 1988

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anmlPvmd1Ew&playnext=1&list=PL6C323B483DA235C3

Interesting, isn't it? Looks like Stewart wasn't that far off when he said that Paul planted the "grass" in this whole "grass roots" movement.

And yet, because he doesn't wig out at the thought of an incredibly inferior and self-preserving country (hostile intent or not) getting nuclear capability, he won't end up electable.

The people in this country are so foolish sometimes.

bigdaddy2003;865570 wrote:This. I was in shock when he said that about Iran the other night.

Why? Don't get me wrong, I don't think Iran is zero threat (and actually, Paul has since said that as well), but I also don't think it's the end of American security if they get nuclear technology. The Reds had nukes, and I'm betting they wanted to use one or two during the Cold War.

ccrunner609;865643 wrote:god damn he is one smart mother fucker. I love everything he said.

As do I.

ptown_trojans_1;865734 wrote:Paul, really underestimates the impact of Iran in the region. He really misses the point on how the rest of the Gulf is balancing against Iran, especially the Gulf states. The Saudis are looking to buy US Aegis ships that have missile defense capabilities.

Paul, as strong as he runs, isn't Presidential material. He, as others have said, is more a Sec of Tres. or cabinet level.

Honestly, I would contend that Paul would be fantastic in the executive role, provided he had a good Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Foreign Policy. Then again, I agree with a lot of his social policy, which is probably why I wouldn't like to see him so relegated to just the economic side of things (though I agree that he'd be excellent at that, as it is indeed his forte).

jhay78;867466 wrote:Fixed.

Your assumption is that someone who doesn't vote for either of the two main party candidates would vote against Obama if they were forced to pick one of the status quo parties.

Honestly, this attitude is unfortunate, when the right to vote for who we think is best for the office is socially ridiculed unless it is set aside to "keep the evil Rat Fink from winning again." The current president has been a huge disappointment, even for many of those who did not vote for him, and rightfully so. However, as I recall, the ballot does not ask me to check who I least want in office. I don't get to vote against someone. I only get to vote for someone. As such, I'll vote for the person I think should get the job, and quite frankly, I would hope that everyone does the same.

^^^ Solid post

O-Trap;868202 wrote:And yet, because he doesn't wig out at the thought of an incredibly inferior and self-preserving country (hostile intent or not) getting nuclear capability, he won't end up electable.

The people in this country are so foolish sometimes.

Why? Don't get me wrong, I don't think Iran is zero threat (and actually, Paul has since said that as well), but I also don't think it's the end of American security if they get nuclear technology. The Reds had nukes, and I'm betting they wanted to use one or two during the Cold War.

The Reds didn't have a death wish built into their ideological view of the world. Mutually Assured Destruction worked because the Soviets (whose system was built upon atheism) enjoyed being alive. Quite different when you're promised dozens of virgins in the afterlife as a reward for being a martyr/ killing the infidel.

Your assumption is that someone who doesn't vote for either of the two main party candidates would vote against Obama if they were forced to pick one of the status quo parties.

Honestly, this attitude is unfortunate, when the right to vote for who we think is best for the office is socially ridiculed unless it is set aside to "keep the evil Rat Fink from winning again." The current president has been a huge disappointment, even for many of those who did not vote for him, and rightfully so. However, as I recall, the ballot does not ask me to check who I least want in office. I don't get to vote against someone. I only get to vote for someone. As such, I'll vote for the person I think should get the job, and quite frankly, I would hope that everyone does the same.

My assumption is the current reality. I wish the current reality were different, and that the two major parties weren't so entrenched. However, since Jesus Christ isn't running for president anytime soon, I get to choose between a few imperfect, fallen candidates. And although I can vote "for" whomever I wish, the current political realities (and also the reality of the last 150+ years of presidential politics in this country) tell me that I get to pick person A or person B, and sometimes that person will be the lesser of two evils.

jhay78;868377 wrote:The Reds didn't have a death wish built into their ideological view of the world. Mutually Assured Destruction worked because the Soviets (whose system was built upon atheism) enjoyed being alive. Quite different when you're promised dozens of virgins in the afterlife as a reward for being a martyr/ killing the infidel.

This isn't apples-to-apples with the people who attacked on 9/11. The hate for the West likely stem MUCH more from the coup in 1953, which was pushed by the US and England. Do you actually think that Iran is willing to no longer exist in order to attempt to wound the US? We're not dealing with a faction of zealots, but with an entire nation, whose motivations are not purely and unadulteratedly religious in nature.

I'm not saying we trust them or that we completely write them off, and I don't think ANYONE is saying that. They dislike the US, sure, but it's ludicrous to think that they're automatically going to use the first nuke they get on the US just because they don't like the US. They don't like a LOT of countries ... particularly one in their back yard ... who should be MUCH more afraid of (but still confident in their ability to handle) a nuclear Iran.

jhay78;868377 wrote:My assumption is the current reality.

Based on what? Either way, we end up with a party that has done as much harm as they have done good. You can feel free to try to determine which is the lesser of the evils. I'm going to choose what I think is the greatest good. If the country goes to hell because of who the idiot masses chose, then their hands are the dirty ones. Not mine, because I did what I could do to make things better, instead of just trying to decide that one party is ruining the country at a slower pace than the other (really, it's pretty much a crap shoot, anymore ... the party formerly known as the Republicans are no longer true Republicans anyway).

jhay78;868377 wrote:I wish the current reality were different, and that the two major parties weren't so entrenched. However, since Jesus Christ isn't running for president anytime soon, I get to choose between a few imperfect, fallen candidates. And although I can vote "for" whomever I wish, the current political realities (and also the reality of the last 150+ years of presidential politics in this country) tell me that I get to pick person A or person B, and sometimes that person will be the lesser of two evils.

People spending those 150 years picking what they perceive to be the lesser of the two evils has gotten us where we are today. After 150 years, you'd think people would realize that it isn't working.

O-Trap;868202 wrote:Why? Don't get me wrong, I don't think Iran is zero threat (and actually, Paul has since said that as well), but I also don't think it's the end of American security if they get nuclear technology. The Reds had nukes, and I'm betting they wanted to use one or two during the Cold War.

If you're referencing if Iran is a threat to the USA, then I agree they are close to a zero threat. That's not what Iran gaining nukes is all about. There's a little country, about the size of New Jersey, within a few hundred miles of Iran, of which the Iranians in charge have sworn hatred against for quite some time. They, along with the rest of the Muslim-dominated countries, have publicly stated they'd like nothing better than to see Israel obliterated from the map. The Iranian president has also disavowed the Holocaust and stated they made it up. People call birthers, "Batshit crazy" for believing Obama has faked his birth certificate. What does that make Achmedinejad for denying the multi-million death toll at the hands of a true satan?

I wrote the above to state that having a strong anti-nuke Iran policy is far more important than just letting them be as we erect protectionist borders around our country like Mr. Paul advocates. If anyone thinks Bebe, or the next Israeli Prime Minister, will sit idly-by while his country faces another potential holocaust, is sadly out of touch. What happens if Israel gets involved...does that get US involved? You know it does, so why have a "let them be" policy?

I know Barry has tried to break the bonds with our previous-strongest ally, but the pressure to be involved in a common defense of Israel would win the day. How can we help defend them if Mr. Paul has already circled the wagons around our borders and would basically tell them to fend for themselves? They won't go away without a fight and if nukes get tossed about, we better have a President that knows what he's doing and not one turning deaf ears.

Good point, BG. The Cold War was essentially a two-player ballgame, whereas now there are more players on the field. There is so much hatred toward Israel from Iran that I wouldn't be surprised if their attitude was "what is the West going to do if we reduce Israel to a parking lot?". I think a nuclear-armed Iran is a much greater threat to the entire world than just the Middle East. A first strike against Israel would probably escalate into something we don't want to imagine, and the U.S. would have no choice but to defend Israel with everything we have. This is, IMO, the tinderbox which could ignite something catastrophic.

BGFalcons82;868425 wrote:If you're referencing if Iran is a threat to the USA, then I agree they are close to a zero threat. That's not what Iran gaining nukes is all about. There's a little country, about the size of New Jersey, within a few hundred miles of Iran, of which the Iranians in charge have sworn hatred against for quite some time. They, along with the rest of the Muslim-dominated countries, have publicly stated they'd like nothing better than to see Israel obliterated from the map. The Iranian president has also disavowed the Holocaust and stated they made it up. People call birthers, "Batshit crazy" for believing Obama has faked his birth certificate. What does that make Achmedinejad for denying the multi-million death toll at the hands of a true satan?

Even more batshit crazy.

I reference that little New-Jersey-sized country in the post above yours, and I agree that we should act as an ally, but being an ally does NOT mean babysitting or even subjugating their enemies. That will only cause the animosity to be directed more and more in our direction. The more we attempt to dictate the nuclear haves and have-nots without the adequate authority to do so, the more enmity will be directed toward us by the countries we've arbitrarily (from the rest of the world's perspective) decided should be the have-nots.

I don't know about you, but I'm not a fan of unnecessarily stirring up hostility against us.

We have stood in solidarity with Israel for quite some time. We've helped them in numerous ways. Hell, THEY'VE had nukes for quite awhile already. The US doesn't need to be a helicopter parent to Israel. We've helped them amass quite a military. I don't see why we can't let them use it instead of trying to do all the intervening.

BGFalcons82;868425 wrote:I wrote the above to state that having a strong anti-nuke Iran policy is far more important than just letting them be as we erect protectionist borders around our country like Mr. Paul advocates. If anyone thinks Bebe, or the next Israeli Prime Minister, will sit idly-by while his country faces another potential holocaust, is sadly out of touch. What happens if Israel gets involved...does that get US involved? You know it does, so why have a "let them be" policy?

Because UNTIL they are involved (assuming that's the best policy ... which is up for debate as well), the US doesn't need to be coddling Israel and keeping all the "meanies" away. A lot of countries in the Middle East don't like Israel, yes. But Israel is rather well-equipped militarily, at least as far as Middle Eastern countries go. Why do we need to be protecting what is possibly the biggest fish in that small pond? They're capable. They're not some damsel in distress that the US needs to protect or rescue.

BGFalcons82;868425 wrote:I know Barry has tried to break the bonds with our previous-strongest ally, but the pressure to be involved in a common defense of Israel would win the day.

Defense should be on an "as necessary" basis, meaning only if Israeli forces prove to be insufficient in defending themselves. Why are we the suddenly their proverbial bodyguard, when they are as equipped as any nation in the Middle East to defend themselves?

BGFalcons82;868425 wrote:How can we help defend them if Mr. Paul has already circled the wagons around our borders and would basically tell them to fend for themselves?

What on earth is wrong with seeing if a country can fend for itself? If they can successfully do so, why is it our duty to step in? We can sell them supplies and help train troops and even share technology, but why is it our duty to fight their battle, when they are likely capable of fighting their own?

BGFalcons82;868425 wrote:They won't go away without a fight and if nukes get tossed about, we better have a President that knows what he's doing and not one turning deaf ears.

Knowing what he's doing and meddling are two distinctly different things. One can certainly be abreast of the situation without unnecessarily stepping into the middle of it.

stlouiedipalma;868442 wrote:Good point, BG. The Cold War was essentially a two-player ballgame, whereas now there are more players on the field. There is so much hatred toward Israel from Iran that I wouldn't be surprised if their attitude was "what is the West going to do if we reduce Israel to a parking lot?". I think a nuclear-armed Iran is a much greater threat to the entire world than just the Middle East. A first strike against Israel would probably escalate into something we don't want to imagine, and the U.S. would have no choice but to defend Israel with everything we have. This is, IMO, the tinderbox which could ignite something catastrophic.

Oh, I certainly don't disagree on the tinderbox comment, but it's not just now coming to that point, and the "if" in "what is the West going to do if we reduce Israel to a parking lot" is an enormous one. Even if Iran was to gain nuclear capability tomorrow, Israel would be superior militarily.


All that aside, I have a question for those who support our active engagement in the effort to police and prevent the access to nuclear technology: How much money are you willing for the Federal government to spend doing such?