MEET THE PRESS: Ron Paul

[Pliablemoose]

The sad thing is that I agree with a lot of what RP says, but his take on foreign policy would lead us right back to where we were pre 9-11 (not that we're doing worth a shit right now...) But an isolationist mindset is the kiss of death for us as a country.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The sad thing is that I agree with a lot of what RP says, but his take on foreign policy would lead us right back to where we were pre 9-11 (not that we're doing worth a shit right now...) But an isolationist mindset is the kiss of death for us as a country.

Yep, that's one of the biggest reasons I'm not a RP fanboi. But I will say, he'd be much better than ANY of the candidates the dems have up and all but a few of the Reps.

 

[cpmer]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The sad thing is that I agree with a lot of what RP says, but his take on foreign policy would lead us right back to where we were pre 9-11 (not that we're doing worth a shit right now...) But an isolationist mindset is the kiss of death for us as a country.

He is not an isolationist he just believes in non intervention.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Russert was sort of a prick, he called RP out on playing the game of money & politics for his district.

I thought RP was correct in saying he was just playing the game. He's supposed to take his constituents off of the gravy train everyone else is on? As long as the rules are what they are, he's not a fool for getting $ & fed projects for his district.

 

[ProfJohn]

You Ron Paul fans really need to read up on Howard Dean.

This whole Ron Paul bit is like Dean part two, without the scream. Dean hade FAR more buzz, far more money and was leading in the polls and he still tanked.

I will be extremely surprised if Paul doesn't do the same.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: cpmer
He is not an isolationist he just believes in non intervention.

A distinction without a difference.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: cpmer
He is not an isolationist he just believes in non intervention.

A distinction without a difference.

Only to a fool like you.

Isolationism is pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist. Non-intervention is allowing other nations to solve their own problems without sending hundreds of thousands of Americans to do it for them.

 

[Obsoleet]

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
He's gaining support and momentum every day. Raising more money than the other candidates, polling higher, much more grassroots support - I'd love to see a huge turnout of new voters all vote for him just to see everyone's reaction.

I'm in probably one of the most unreceptive areas in Iowa for Ron's beautiful message.. and the fury behind this man strong.

If anyone can take out a preacher like Huck and his evangelical hobnobs, it's Ron Paul supporters. No one, not even Hucks supporters have the energy we do out here in Iowa.

Mitt has the most signs in yards around here though.
I'm thinking we'll possibly take 3rd out here in Iowa, as we're tied for it currently and support on our end is not dwindling but growing daily.

New Hampshire is something different entirely though, as they seem to value civil liberties and the rest of the stuff in general that RP supporters do.

I've never worked with such a diverse group of people. Been a straight-up fiscal conservative and social nothing (don't believe the gov't has much role in social matters other than making sure everyones rights are protected) all my life. It's truly amazing what's happening here, regardless of all the trolls attempting to downplay it. We've got kids, adults, elderly, Independents, Democrats, socialist peeps like Kucinich supporters.. it's shocking. And this is Iowa. I can't imagine the support in heavily populated areas.

If you like soundbits of "bringing America together", NOTHING has done so like this campaign. We might look strange together, but we are proud to be joined together as a true representation of America. It's the stuff other candidates dream about having behind them. I feel so good about being a part of this, it's the bane of GWB and Hillary warmonger Clinton. Only Obama can take this man on and not look like a complete fool.

Originally posted by: loki8481
interesting interview.

I wasn't aware of Ron Paul's magical theory that pulling all troops in from overseas will solve America's debt... unless he's planning on firing them all?

seemed like every domestic question that Russert asked, RP brought it back to the war.

The war is the crux of so many problems that most things come back to it. If we stop our foreign meddling policy, we'll save a ton of money. Pay back the deficit, reduce spending levels, defeat terrorism, and fix our image in the world all in one fell swoop.

Live and let live. We don't know what's best for the world when we created Osama/Manuel/Saddam. We do a better job at trading, like we do very well with Vietnam today.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Paul will be lucky to top 10% in Iowa. If he does better than 6th place he will have acheived a victory.

I doubt you're seriously this misinformed. He's tied for 3rd out here in Iowa. These polls are seriously undercutting his true support as he's drawing in from everywhere, apathetics to leftists, to authentic conservatives.

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Russert was sort of a prick, he called RP out on playing the game of money & politics for his district.

I thought RP was correct in saying he was just playing the game. He's supposed to take his constituents off of the gravy train everyone else is on? As long as the rules are what they are, he's not a fool for getting $ & fed projects for his district.

Yeah, everyone else has zero record compared to Paul, virtually no credibility beyond flipflopping and Ron works with our crooked system a little bit, but is slammed.

Yes, the man isn't perfection... he's just the best this country has seen in hundreds of years. Only a visionary with true insight on what's going on in the world said the things he said, and voted the way he did back when the Iraq war was being instigated.
The rest of these guys/gals are utter scum of the earth, but we can cherry pick on Ron's record. Whatever, the people will see through all this.

People like ProfJohn ect might attempt to downplay him and his support but you're going to be shocked after all the ridicule/dismissals/laughter at how you are missing out on a historic moment and candidate. It's annoying to me, but Ron is a better man and I'm inspired by how he handles all these tools like Guiliani.

The only fiscal conservative who has true compassion (respects our rights as individuals), neither party has an answer but through the years people will see clearer what so many do today. People love the message, everyone else is playing the same partyline game we've seen for 100 years and there's no enthusiasm behind party politics.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: cpmer
He is not an isolationist he just believes in non intervention.

A distinction without a difference.

Only to a fool like you.

Isolationism is pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist. Non-intervention is allowing other nations to solve their own problems without sending hundreds of thousands of Americans to do it for them.

ummm don't see much difference.

In both cases we do nothing. And when we do nothing we look weak and when we look weak we get attacked.

History is FULL of examples of this. Nearly every war ever fought started because one side saw the other as weak and easily defeated.

Most people learned this lesson after WW 1 and 2, but sadly we were reminded yet again on 9-11 that appearing weak is a bad thing.

 

[BoberFett]

We look weak if we don't invade other countries? What exactly do you do that makes us look tough, Captain Armchair? I've been in the Army. What the hell have you done, bitch?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
He's gaining support and momentum every day. Raising more money than the other candidates, polling higher, much more grassroots support - I'd love to see a huge turnout of new voters all vote for him just to see everyone's reaction.

I'm in probably one of the most unreceptive areas in Iowa for Ron's beautiful message.. and the fury behind this man strong.

If anyone can take out a preacher like Huck and his evangelical hobnobs, it's Ron Paul supporters. No one, not even Hucks supporters have the energy we do out here in Iowa.

You are truly a fool if you think all that energy you see around you is going to turn into some huge vote totals.

Once again I am reminded of that famous statement by some Hollywood type ?I don?t know how Bush won, I don?t know a person who voted for him?

In other words, I bet every Precinct Captain for every candidate is making similar statements and talking about the energy and how hard everyone is working?

In August of 2003 Howard Dean lead in the polls, 3 weeks after voting started he was out of the race. Prior to the voting EVERYONE talked about his ability to raise money and the energy of his supporters etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

When Paul starts to really show in the polls or at the then you can talk to me about all this energy you see, until then you are just a 'kool aid' drinker who wants to believe that all their time and effort are going to pay off in the end.

The real question in my mind is which Ron Paul supporter will be the first to admit that they were a fool for thinking he could actually win.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet

Originally posted by: loki8481
interesting interview.

I wasn't aware of Ron Paul's magical theory that pulling all troops in from overseas will solve America's debt... unless he's planning on firing them all?

seemed like every domestic question that Russert asked, RP brought it back to the war.

The war is the crux of so many problems that most things come back to it. If we stop our foreign meddling policy, we'll save a ton of money. Pay back the deficit, reduce spending levels, defeat terrorism, and fix our image in the world all in one fell swoop.

Live and let live. We don't know what's best for the world when we created Osama/Manuel/Saddam. We do a better job at trading, like we do very well with Vietnam today.

in the end, American foreign policy is less about nation building and lofty ideals and more about opening up new markets for goods and services... but who's going to buy a coke in Africa if we withdraw all foreign aid and the region goes to hell? and how would we ship it if we had never gone to the middle east in 1990 to prevent Saddam from controlling the persian gulf?

say what you will about the current war in Iraq, but the idea of cutting off all foreign aid 100% and withdrawing every single soldier back into America (where they'd probably be let go as America found itself suddenly needing a much more scaled back military, increasing unemployment nation-wide) just seems ludicrous to me.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
We look weak if we don't invade other countries? What exactly do you do that makes us look tough, Captain Armchair? I've been in the Army. What the hell have you done, bitch?

We looked weak in the 90s because we failed to respond to attack after attack by terrorists. And when we did respond it was with a few missiles and then we moved on and forgot about the terrorists.

If we had taken more forceful action after the first AQ attack their may not have been a second, third or forth one. If we had gone into Afghanistan with B-52s or F-117s instead of a dozen cruise missiles the Taliban might have decided that the risk AQ presented wasn?t worth the gain they got etc etc.

No one said our enemies were calm or rational. Even some terrorist sympathizers have come to admit that 9-11 was a huge mistake of the Muslim world and that it has afflicted FAR more damage to Islam than it did to the west. Since 9-11 about 8,000 Westerners have died due to the ?war on terror? meanwhile perhaps 100,000 Muslims have died. They thought we were weak and that somehow attacking us would expose that weakness to the world and instead all it did was bring a world of hurt down on the Muslim world.

We follow the Ron Paul model and the terrorists will go back to thinking that we are weak and won?t do anything if they attack us, HUGE mistake.

BTW... your little "I was in the army" statement is meaningless.

 

[Obsoleet]

Originally posted by: loki8481

in the end, American foreign policy is less about nation building and lofty ideals and more about opening up new markets for goods and services... but who's going to buy a coke in Africa if we withdraw all foreign aid and the region goes to hell? and how would we ship it if we had never gone to the middle east in 1990 to prevent Saddam from controlling the persian gulf?

say what you will about the current war in Iraq, but the idea of cutting off all foreign aid 100% and withdrawing every single soldier back into America (where they'd probably be let go as America found itself suddenly needing a much more scaled back military, increasing unemployment nation-wide) just seems ludicrous to me.

That is not our job, nor role in the world.

What's ludicrous is that we have the right to tell the world how to live, and anytime anyone's paying your bills... aren't you kind of beholden to that person?

There's no such thing as a free lunch, so quit imagining our intervention in the world is as gracious as it might appear in your eyes.
We're not doing any nation a service by making them subservient to our (now nonexistent) wealth.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You are truly a fool if you think all that energy you see around you is going to turn into some huge vote totals.

Once again I am reminded of that famous statement by some Hollywood type ?I don?t know how Bush won, I don?t know a person who voted for him?

Tons of people voted for Bush, get real. Some 'hollywood type'? Yeah lots of Bush votes came out of there (maybe Mel Gibson).

They poll previous Republican caucus goers. I'm not one. I'd like everyone here who IS a previous Republican caucus goer to raise their hands..

That's what I thought. Maybe one of you guys have put you're most admirable partyline convictions on the line. When that little R or D next to your name on the voter registeration card is a part of your identity, we have a problem.

I realize me being a precinct captain, which makes me nothing more than any other Ron Paul supporter (I'm just really proud to support Ron), doesnt mean I can pump up RP to a bunch of people that likely don't even live here and expect them to come out and vote in my precinct.
I post what I do because I believe in the message. Nothing else. It's not a game to be won or lost, or to try to pick a winner and say SEE I WAS RIGHT, MY TEAM WINS. I have no interest in that. I have an interest in not wasting my life for ideas that are not productive to a peaceful, prosperous world. If I fail at this, I'll only be left with a sense that I did the right thing, even under fierce opposition. That's something any man who takes up his responsibility in a free society can be proud of.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We follow the Ron Paul model and the terrorists will go back to thinking that we are weak and won?t do anything if they attack us, HUGE mistake.

BTW... your little "I was in the army" statement is meaningless.

No it's not meaningless. He has served his nation.
I suppose hatred of the US military is coming soon though, heck everyone I know currently in the military supports Ron Paul. That's about a dozen people from 20-30, but I'd wager thats more than you know who think it's a well-conceived idea to be nation building.
They do their duty and what the US asks with honor, you should not disregard the fact he had the desire to serve his nation in the armed forces. Which means he has a valuable life experience (in many regards) that you do not have.

I send out a package every month, on the dot, to a serviceman in my family in Iraq. What's wrong with you that you can't respect their service to this country by even acknowledging its significance?

 

[OokiiNeko]

I wasn't aware of Ron Paul's magical theory that pulling all troops in from overseas will solve America's debt... unless he's planning on firing them all?

Unfortunately, most of the military`s budget does NOT go to the grunts in uniform.

What pulling out all military presence in Iraq WILL do, is turn off the free flowing faucet of money going to companies with sweetheart no-bid contracts (hopefully).

With all the info about Halliburton and other companies and how they do business in Iraq, I am amazed you would make the above statement.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: BoberFett
We look weak if we don't invade other countries? What exactly do you do that makes us look tough, Captain Armchair? I've been in the Army. What the hell have you done, bitch?

We looked weak in the 90s because we failed to respond to attack after attack by terrorists. And when we did respond it was with a few missiles and then we moved on and forgot about the terrorists.

If we had taken more forceful action after the first AQ attack their may not have been a second, third or forth one. If we had gone into Afghanistan with B-52s or F-117s instead of a dozen cruise missiles the Taliban might have decided that the risk AQ presented wasn?t worth the gain they got etc etc.

No one said our enemies were calm or rational. Even some terrorist sympathizers have come to admit that 9-11 was a huge mistake of the Muslim world and that it has afflicted FAR more damage to Islam than it did to the west. Since 9-11 about 8,000 Westerners have died due to the ?war on terror? meanwhile perhaps 100,000 Muslims have died. They thought we were weak and that somehow attacking us would expose that weakness to the world and instead all it did was bring a world of hurt down on the Muslim world.

We follow the Ron Paul model and the terrorists will go back to thinking that we are weak and won?t do anything if they attack us, HUGE mistake.

BTW... your little "I was in the army" statement is meaningless.

Meaningless? For all your talk about looking tough, you're one of the weakest sounding pussies in this forum. If you want to look tough, go to Iraq yourself, you little shitstain. You're the one who's trying to prove your manhood, not me little man.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
In just over a weeks time we shall see how much support Paul has, although it will take Michigan or South Carolina before we really get a good idea of his support.

Fair enough.

whats this fair enough crapola???
I still want to know who this Ron fella is....

 

[Obsoleet]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We follow the Ron Paul model and the terrorists will go back to thinking that we are weak and won?t do anything if they attack us, HUGE mistake.

Wow.

Because our involvement in their world is not the root cause of their hatred for us?

Have you ever once thought that suicide bombing is an act of fear? Of desperation?

They are scared to DEATH of us. They feel extremely threatened by our involvement in the middle east.

Can you comprehend the thought of China occupying North America right now, and Americans wanting them to stay to 'stabilize' us? Hell no. We'd want them on the first flight out.

To end our meddling ways, would not only leave us extremely powerful back at home instead of overstretched and overextended (and bankrupt).. but would also give the world confidence that we can be trusted not to use our great power for less than noble causes.
That means, yes, they will begin to trust us. Trade will open up, and the need for terrorism will evaporate like water in a desert.

Terrorism, like the USSR, can be defeated without firing a shot. I know that's too much of a stretch for many out there.

You have a very misguided and dangerous worldview. Frankly, anyone who's reading this that believes that if we allow Bush, he will get us all killed... yeah, your vein of thinking is also the reason we're where we are at today.

 

[OokiiNeko]

ummm don't see much difference. In both cases we do nothing. And when we do nothing we look weak and when we look weak we get attacked.

If we had taken more forceful action after the first AQ attack their may not have been a second, third or forth one.

Geez, you really talk around the problem.

Did it occur to you that the reason we were attacked is because some people, acting as representatives of the US, have been meddling in other countries` internal politics?

Of course it has. That`s why you try to muddy the waters.

The choice is NOT isolationist or non-interventionist.

It is isolationist, non-interventionist, and what we do now. (I`ll take the second)

We know how that last one has been working out, don`t we ProfJohn?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Legend
CNN is really, really trying to make Paul look like a racist:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/ron-paul/

During the Sunday interview, Paul criticized the Civil Rights Act, pointing out that Barry Goldwater opposed it. But he would not say he whether would vote against the legislation today. "I get more support from black people than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics," he added.

Paul also contended that the Civil War had been unnecessary because the United States would have gotten rid of slavery ?eventually.?

Reasons why it is obvious that this is intentional:

1. Paul didn't say that slavery would just go away eventually. This was done to suggest that Paul didn't care about civil rights. Paul very clearly explained a highly relevant example that is easy to grasp: The British Empire bought the freedom of its slaves. He opposes Lincoln's absolute power, and he opposes the deaths of 600,000 American citizens. Just who the fuck is "for" that?
2. Paul explained clearly that he opposes the Civil Rights Act because of property rights. You can quote him saying that he had no problems with the human rights part of it. He just didn't want the government to be able to seize property. The article was crafted with the intention of making it look like he doesn't care about human rights.
3. The White Supremacist article below. Who the fuck cares if out of 100,000 donations, he took $500 from a racist. That's the headline?

Sounds like Paul values property rights over personal liberty.

I am beginning to agree with an earlier observation: Paul supporters are behaving like GWB supporters, their guy can do or say no wrong.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Legend
CNN is really, really trying to make Paul look like a racist:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/ron-paul/

During the Sunday interview, Paul criticized the Civil Rights Act, pointing out that Barry Goldwater opposed it. But he would not say he whether would vote against the legislation today. "I get more support from black people than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics," he added.

Paul also contended that the Civil War had been unnecessary because the United States would have gotten rid of slavery ?eventually.?

Reasons why it is obvious that this is intentional:

1. Paul didn't say that slavery would just go away eventually. This was done to suggest that Paul didn't care about civil rights. Paul very clearly explained a highly relevant example that is easy to grasp: The British Empire bought the freedom of its slaves. He opposes Lincoln's absolute power, and he opposes the deaths of 600,000 American citizens. Just who the fuck is "for" that?
2. Paul explained clearly that he opposes the Civil Rights Act because of property rights. You can quote him saying that he had no problems with the human rights part of it. He just didn't want the government to be able to seize property. The article was crafted with the intention of making it look like he doesn't care about human rights.
3. The White Supremacist article below. Who the fuck cares if out of 100,000 donations, he took $500 from a racist. That's the headline?

Sounds like Paul values property rights over personal liberty.

Could you explain that to me?

 

[Lemon law]

Israel has been the model for tough on terrorism but terrorism has not gone away for them. We have an ongoing war on terrorism declared and fought by GWB, and its only resulted in more terrorism. Read our own NIE non Prof John, before you keep making a fool out of yourself.

Terrorism is a tactic and a tool for use against what is perceived as a social wrong by large masses of people. The answer to terrorism is always the same, get the moderates back and prevent the hard line extremists on both sides from driving the agenda.

Terrorism is a documented 6000 years old and its not going to go away no matter how hard fools try to repress it. But its causes are far easier to address by removing most of the social injustices. And we must always realize, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And ole Uncle Reagan was not above arming terrorists to get the Russians out of Afghanistan. And GWB is aiding terrorists who attack Iran.

 

[Obsoleet]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I am beginning to agree with an earlier observation: Paul supporters are behaving like GWB supporters, their guy can do or say no wrong.

Before getting too carried away with dramatic statements, consider that I possibly qualify as a Paul supporter and said this in this very thread.

"Yes, the man isn't perfection... he's just the best this country has seen in hundreds of years. Only a visionary with true insight on what's going on in the world said the things he said, and voted the way he did back when the Iraq war was being instigated. "

Is he good stuff? He's the freshest breath of air we've gotten a long time.
Perfect? That's YOUR misconception of what people are saying.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Sounds like Paul values property rights over personal liberty.

I am beginning to agree with an earlier observation: Paul supporters are behaving like GWB supporters, their guy can do or say no wrong.

Property rights IS personal liberty. If I am not free to do what I wish with what I own, what am I free to do?

 

[Obsoleet]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Sounds like Paul values property rights over personal liberty.

I am beginning to agree with an earlier observation: Paul supporters are behaving like GWB supporters, their guy can do or say no wrong.

Property rights IS personal liberty. If I am not free to do what I wish with what I own, what am I free to do?

As well, my understanding is that, 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' is only rendered that way instead of 'life, liberty and property' due to being much broader than just property, such as the bill of rights and natural right to marry.