MEET THE PRESS: Ron Paul

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: burr4392
Sure:

My second brain turned up:

3rd Quarter Military Fundraising Huston Chronicle

3rd Quarter WIStv

2nd Quarter Breakdown

Plus there is always the wiki article. Use it as a base and check the references. But I don;t want to do all the work for you.

Wiki Article

Not that it would convince you, but having spoken with several members of the US Navy, Army and AF serving in the middle east, they are all for Ron Paul. I personally know several who have donated in excess of $100. And these are guys that could have used that for beer money!

That's just...odd... but then again, there's this:
"Also, many contributors do not disclose their occupations, making it difficult to determine the total extent of military contributions to any one candidate."
and this:
"Contributions where no employer was specified were naturally not included."
or this:
"Many contributors don't list their occupations, so the total donations from military-related personnel to any campaign could be higher."

I guess that claim is about as scientific as every other RP claim...

You may be right, but I honestly dont know many RP supporters IRL... many people, like myself, think that he has a lot of good things to say; but nobody really takes his candidacy, or him, seriously.

Oh and how many countries have we withdrawn from and they survived and prospered? You go off and research that one, will ya. Give you a hint though... There's a lot more than one.

You do realize that there are forces in play, in Iraq, that are unique to the situation in Iraq, right?

No two wars, conflicts, engagements, occupations, invasions, etc, are the same. Most are hardly even comparable.

Do I need to explain the analytical process and geopolitics to you?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: burr4392
Sure:

My second brain turned up:

3rd Quarter Military Fundraising Huston Chronicle

3rd Quarter WIStv

2nd Quarter Breakdown

Plus there is always the wiki article. Use it as a base and check the references. But I don;t want to do all the work for you.

Wiki Article

Not that it would convince you, but having spoken with several members of the US Navy, Army and AF serving in the middle east, they are all for Ron Paul. I personally know several who have donated in excess of $100. And these are guys that could have used that for beer money!

That's just...odd... but then again, there's this:
"Also, many contributors do not disclose their occupations, making it difficult to determine the total extent of military contributions to any one candidate."
and this:
"Contributions where no employer was specified were naturally not included."
or this:
"Many contributors don't list their occupations, so the total donations from military-related personnel to any campaign could be higher."

I guess that claim is about as scientific as every other RP claim...

You may be right, but I honestly dont know many RP supporters IRL... many people, like myself, think that he has a lot of good things to say; but nobody really takes his candidacy, or him, seriously.

Oh and how many countries have we withdrawn from and they survived and prospered? You go off and research that one, will ya. Give you a hint though... There's a lot more than one.

You do realize that there are forces in play, in Iraq, that are unique to the situation in Iraq, right?

No two wars, conflicts, engagements, occupations, invasions, etc, are the same. Most are hardly even comparable.

Do I need to explain the analytical process and geopolitics to you?

Yep Iraq situation can be summed up with three letters:

OIL

 

[burr4392]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: burr4392
Sure:

My second brain turned up:

3rd Quarter Military Fundraising Huston Chronicle

3rd Quarter WIStv

2nd Quarter Breakdown

Plus there is always the wiki article. Use it as a base and check the references. But I don;t want to do all the work for you.

Wiki Article

Not that it would convince you, but having spoken with several members of the US Navy, Army and AF serving in the middle east, they are all for Ron Paul. I personally know several who have donated in excess of $100. And these are guys that could have used that for beer money!

That's just...odd... but then again, there's this:
"Also, many contributors do not disclose their occupations, making it difficult to determine the total extent of military contributions to any one candidate."
and this:
"Contributions where no employer was specified were naturally not included."
or this:
"Many contributors don't list their occupations, so the total donations from military-related personnel to any campaign could be higher."

I guess that claim is about as scientific as every other RP claim...

You may be right, but I honestly dont know many RP supporters IRL... many people, like myself, think that he has a lot of good things to say; but nobody really takes his candidacy, or him, seriously.

Oh and how many countries have we withdrawn from and they survived and prospered? You go off and research that one, will ya. Give you a hint though... There's a lot more than one.

You do realize that there are forces in play, in Iraq, that are unique to the situation in Iraq, right?

No two wars, conflicts, engagements, occupations, invasions, etc, are the same. Most are hardly even comparable.

Do I need to explain the analytical process and geopolitics to you?

I think I might need to explain a few things to you, sir. When a foreign army occupies a nation, the people get pissed. This leads toward violence directed at those that the local populace sees as the invaders. In the Iraq case, not only have we overstayed our welcome by the locals (who for the most part have only begun to express this in words, but they are speaking louder), but we have trampled all over the Islamic religion and the local politics of the region. Things like bases in Saudi, using the CIA to install the Shah of Iran, funding Israel and forcing GCC countries to trade with them or face economic sanctions, while at the same time funding the militaries of those that are not appreciative of Israel. In short, we have been fucking with their internal politics for generations, and they strike at us.

Where ever you go, people remain the same. You can find examples of this type of situation throughout history, including America's history (although not too many, but we have a relatively short history of invasions and aggressive wars). Leaving Iraq in the hand of Iraqi's is the right thing to do. It is their country after all. Our interests do not need to be enforced by the point of a gun - the oil can be bought on the free market and if the Nation of Iraq decides to go to war, then we are more than able to defend ourselves.

But I work with a few people who believe otherwise. Their summary goes something along the lines that as it is in our interests we can and should use our military power to enforce our right to our interests - AKA use our military to force those that have the resources we want, read OIL, to provide it to us, compensated of course, but forced, none the less. Their reasoning being that if WE don't, then someone else might and cut off our supply. Really when I listen to this it brings me back to a similar argument, that white men had a right to the land and resources of America and the natives did not..... My mind is failing me for the exact term, as it is approaching midnight local and I'm only operating on a few hours of sleep anyway. Perhaps someone might be able to help me...

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Braznor
It's my observation that isolationist periods of 20th century United States coincided with the festering of great evil. eg. Nazi Germany, Soviet Union etc.

It is my belief that there should be a greater international effort to combat evil in the world. It is unethical and hypocritical to expect the US to be engaged in an one man show alone in the Middle East and far east. Other countries affected by terror should be morally/ legislatively coerced to contribute, otherwise risk being cast off from the global terror effort in a defined framework of sanctions.

In this Iraqi War
Thousands of US military personel have been wounded, maimed, and killed. Tens to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been wounded, maimed, and killed.

I bet the Iraqis would not have minded if the US had been in an isolationist period for the last 10 years or so.

 

[Obsoleet]

Originally posted by: burr4392
But I work with a few people who believe otherwise. Their summary goes something along the lines that as it is in our interests we can and should use our military power to enforce our right to our interests - AKA use our military to force those that have the resources we want, read OIL, to provide it to us, compensated of course, but forced, none the less. Their reasoning being that if WE don't, then someone else might and cut off our supply. Really when I listen to this it brings me back to a similar argument, that white men had a right to the land and resources of America and the natives did not..... My mind is failing me for the exact term, as it is approaching midnight local and I'm only operating on a few hours of sleep anyway. Perhaps someone might be able to help me...

Manifest destiny, imperialism?

What I would usually say to someone who got done explaining the POV a few of your coworkers described is that even if I am a naive, peaceful fool.. the overstretching of our military will come to an end no matter who's right due to our failing economic policy. We can't afford it.
Depends if they want an easy end to this unsustainable path, or a crash putting us in the streets like the USSR.

I actually care about the USA and our own people. Not to mention, we haven't done a whole lot of favors for anyone in the middle east the past 50 years.

 

[dyn2nvu]

Here's a pretty good analysis.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo...w/archives/017971.html

 

[morkinva]

neocon alert: begin (lame) smear attack of Ron Paul - first up? pnac cofounder bill kristol:


FIRE !!!



sounds desperate, doesn't he? :roll:

 

[Hacp]

If Mitt Romney had said the same things, he would have been accused of flip-flopping. Instead, Ron Paul gets a free ride.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: morkinva
neocon alert: begin (lame) smear attack of Ron Paul - first up? pnac cofounder bill kristol:


FIRE !!!



sounds desperate, doesn't he? :roll:

WOW! The spin is so fucking thick with that video its sickening! :|

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: morkinva
neocon alert: begin (lame) smear attack of Ron Paul - first up? pnac cofounder bill kristol:


FIRE !!!

sounds desperate, doesn't he? :roll:

Wow. What a joke of an interview.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: morkinva
neocon alert: begin (lame) smear attack of Ron Paul - first up? pnac cofounder bill kristol:


FIRE !!!

sounds desperate, doesn't he? :roll:

Wow. What a joke of an interview.

And lie after lie after lie! :|

EDIT: Anyone else wanna meet this liar in a dark alley? :|

 

[dyn2nvu]

They are desperate aren't they? Lies, falling ratings, poor tv shows...

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: morkinva
neocon alert: begin (lame) smear attack of Ron Paul - first up? pnac cofounder bill kristol:


FIRE !!!

sounds desperate, doesn't he? :roll:

Wow. What a joke of an interview.

And lie after lie after lie! :|

EDIT: Anyone else wanna meet this liar in a dark alley? :|

What a sloppy hit piece too. They didn't even cut him off, Paul gave his full explanation. Anyone of any intelligence would agree that buying and releasing slaves is better than killing 600,000 Americans. I mean, what the fuck.

Edit: "No examples" after Paul cited the British Empire. What a joke. I think my IQ just dropped 10 points after watching that drivel.

 

[bamacre]

?How can I run for office and say I want to be a weak president? We need a strong president, strong enough to resist the temptation of taking power the President shouldn?t have.? - Ron Paul

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
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?

My dad and my brother have 40+ years in the Navy. My step dad served in Vietnam, my uncle was in the army. My former roomie is still in the navy. All of my good friends when I lived in Virginia were in the Navy.

My comment went to the 'I was in the Army, you weren't, so don't talk to me about the military' attitude that he had.

I've never been a police man, does that mean I can't talk about law and order issues?
Never been a doctor, can I not talk about healthcare? etc etc etc

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
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?

My dad and my brother have 40+ years in the Navy. My step dad served in Vietnam, my uncle was in the army. My former roomie is still in the navy. All of my good friends when I lived in Virginia were in the Navy.

My comment went to the 'I was in the Army, you weren't, so don't talk to me about the military' attitude that he had.

I've never been a police man, does that mean I can't talk about law and order issues?
Never been a doctor, can I not talk about healthcare? etc etc etc

So do your military family and friends like being thrown into harms way just because your penis is too small and you attempt to compensate by being an armchair general?

PS The problem isn't in your weighing in on the issue. The problem is that you say we need to look tough, but you contribute nothing to the cause.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Kristol gets pie faced! Too bad they didn't get the chance to waterboard him, being that its not torture an all. Another part of the neocon spin think tank crap is the word spin they use. "waterboarding" sounds like an amusement park ride.

Oh yeah, that kid that pie faces him, he can get a beer on me anytime :beer:

 

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Kristol gets pie faced! Too bad they didn't get the chance to waterboard him, being that its not torture an all. Another part of the neocon spin think tank crap is the word spin they use. "waterboarding" sounds like an amusement park ride.

Oh yeah, that kid that pie faces him, he can get a beer on me anytime :beer:

When I see things like that, it really makes me still love America.

I don't think it compares to the "Go F Yourself, Mr. Cheney" though.. That guy is a national hero.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
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?

My dad and my brother have 40+ years in the Navy. My step dad served in Vietnam, my uncle was in the army. My former roomie is still in the navy. All of my good friends when I lived in Virginia were in the Navy.

My comment went to the 'I was in the Army, you weren't, so don't talk to me about the military' attitude that he had.

I've never been a police man, does that mean I can't talk about law and order issues?
Never been a doctor, can I not talk about healthcare? etc etc etc

So do your military family and friends like being thrown into harms way just because your penis is too small and you attempt to compensate by being an armchair general?

PS The problem isn't in your weighing in on the issue. The problem is that you say we need to look tough, but you contribute nothing to the cause.

Do you contribute to the cause when it comes to law and order or medical needs or immigration or balancing the budget or a dozen other things?

History is full of examples where those who acted weak ended up paying the price for it.

 

[OokiiNeko]

My dad and my brother have 40+ years in the Navy. My step dad served in Vietnam, my uncle was in the army. My former roomie is still in the navy. All of my good friends when I lived in Virginia were in the Navy.

I don`t get you ProfJohn. Talk to your family and friends that have been overseas. There is no one out to "get us", with the exception of a very, very small radical element. Usually that radical element is shunned by their own societies.
In fact, there should be some stories about how the "natives" let visiting Americans know about certain "dangers". Even something as simple as "don`t go down that street".

And yet, you seem to buy off on the big bad boogeyman that the MSM tries to sell.
Ask some of your relatives who have been overseas how accurate the MSM has been over the last 20 to 30 years when they tell stories about countries and societies other than in the US.

 

[ProfJohn]

^ I am sure you are right about the small radical element part.

However that small radical element part managed to kill nearly 3000 people on 9-11.

My whole point, in response to Ron Paul's 'non interference policy' is that if you don't respond to the crazies in a firm way you only encourage them.

How many times did Osama call us weak during the 90s? Did we do anything to show him otherwise?

Contrast that to Lybia in the 80s. After one major bombing raid Lybia all but stopped its anti-American terror support.

The idea isn't to run around and invade countries after they get out of hand, the idea is to deter them from getting out of hand in the first place.

 

[Lemon law]

Non Prof John does make one good point------------------The idea isn't to run around and invade countries after they get out of hand, the idea is to deter them from getting out of hand in the first place.

The point being that now applies to the USA. If you think the rest of the world is going to sit idly by and let the USA destabilize other countries like we did with Iraq, you are very likely sadly mistaken. There is that little boy who cried wolf effect we will spend decades overcoming. Even out allies are alienated and refuse to believe or help GWB. And now Russia effectively blocks any attempts to effectively deal with the Iranian nuclear program.

Sadly PNAC in the hands of GWB&co has turned into a how to destroy America quick. I don't think any here question your families service to this country, but we do question your total blindness and inability to see how defective leadership perverts that military service.

 

[OokiiNeko]

However that small radical element part managed to kill nearly 3000 people on 9-11.

There are still very big unanswered questions about that.

My whole point, in response to Ron Paul's 'non interference policy' is that if you don't respond to the crazies in a firm way you only encourage them.

And Paul`s point is, if we would quit fvcking with them, we`d have a lot less crazies to worry about in the first place.

How many times did Osama call us weak during the 90s? Did we do anything to show him otherwise?

No, we kept right on buying his family`s oil and providing him with money.
I agree with you there.

Contrast that to Lybia in the 80s. After one major bombing raid Lybia all but stopped its anti-American terror support.

And yet we haven`t done anything to Saudi Arabia, even though they are where most of the suicide bombers in Iraq come from. I agree with you on that as well.

The idea isn't to run around and invade countries after they get out of hand, the idea is to deter them from getting out of hand in the first place.

I would say the idea is to not give them a reason to hate us in the first place.

So, I would say that we agree to punish the people that actively seek to terrorize us, even though they pretend to be our friends. Even though we sell them some of our best weapons. Even though we have them visit the White House.

Imagine how much the rest of the Arab world hates us for INVADING THE WRONG COUNTRY?

 

[burr4392]

True, a small radical element did manage to kill 3000 people on 9-11, but it really could have been a lot more. I am actually quite grateful that those who commit these acts are not all that bright, innovative, and resourceful. Yes, within their skillset they are fairly good - IED's and such, but they could be one hell of a lot more effective at what they do. I won't exactly get in to specifics, but there are things that are well within their technical means, not to mention readily available items all over the world that could be used to great effect (I'm sure that each and every one that reads this has one in their homes and probably a few at work).

The problem with responding, is that depending on your response you will encourage more people to join the radical elements. If possible, only the radical elements should be targeted. However, in the instance of state sponsored terrorism, then an attack may be considered an act of war and a different approach could be used. But either way a swift and decisive response is generally best - for non-state sponsored, take out all of those that were involved, for state-sponsored.... There are a great many varied and interesting ways, assuming you don't mind any international backlash, and lets face it, if we are attacked, we really don't care too much what the UN might have to say about us dealing with the situation in more creative ways than are traditional amongst them.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: dyn2nvu
They are desperate aren't they? Lies, falling ratings, poor tv shows...

desperate? with Ron Paul polling in single didget and his prime issue fast receding as a major issue in voter's minds? /shrug

hell, I wonder if the only reason Tim Russert had RP on was to stop a non-stop flood of spam mail or something.

I respect the fervor with which people support Ron Paul, but you can't really think he has a chance, can you?