We are really fooling ourselves. [Archive]

SteyrAUG

01-30-12, 23:43

He's a lunatic. He would weaken our foreign policy and doesn't stand a chance. Hell, I have a better chance of becoming President. Just speaking the truth.

And that is why you are correct about Obama winning. The typical Republican see's Paul as some kind of dangerous radical and the "safe" Republicans are "politics as usual" candidates.

We will probably end up with Romney vs. Obama for the same reasons we ended up with McCain vs. Obama and that means everyone who is sick of status quo candidates will vote for an independent and Obama will win.

The math works like this:

If Paul got the nomination, those who would prefer Romney or Gingrich will vote for Paul regardless.

If Romney or Gingrich get the nomination, those who would prefer Paul will vote independent or not vote.

I seriously doubt Paul will get the nomination so that means we are probably looking at a second Obama term.

I do disagree with many of his Foreign Policy issues and beliefs, but I'd rather have his than Obamas. And Mitt is very anti gun when it comes to black rifles.

For those interested:

http://www.issues2000.org/ron_paul.htm

http://www.issues2000.org/Mitt_Romney.htm

http://www.issues2000.org/Newt_Gingrich.htm

SW-Shooter

01-31-12, 00:08

Jellybean

01-31-12, 00:09

I'm sure I'm missing some of the more important issues, but I think a big part of the problem is there just isn't a likeable candidate among those that have been chosen for us mere mortals to decide between (no, I'm not an obamanite). I'll bet many folk out there like me look at the lineup and go 'ugh... moron, moron, d-bag, two-face (ooh- primary mag:laugh:) - you get the idea.
Now granted I tend to take a lot of things at literal face value- and I'm usually pretty good at calling what people are by how they look and act (from the way the current prez acted and was portrayed during his running, I called this was how it was going to turn out . And quite a few others through the years personally as well. No, I'm not patting myself on the back), and quite frankly the current lineup looks like, for lack of a better word.... politicians. And not one of them, imvho has an ounce of honest appeal to them.
Which in the end, isn't that what this all pretty much boils down to- who you trust the most?

Sensei

01-31-12, 02:24

I Will vote for the candidate I believe in, which is none of them.

Romney - Out of touch with real Americans, too moderate, etc..
Gingrich - Personal life values are shit, part of the past problems.
Paul - Needs a white strapped jacket with his foreign, military policy.
Santorum - Snore, is anyone in there.

We need energy, a savior, if you will. For ****'s sake I'd rather have Palin running over these four snoozers. I don't believe we have one real pro-gun candidate other than Newt and his personal baggage is enough for Southwest Airlines to charge baggage fee's.

You are waiting for Superman my friend, and he does not exist. There is no such thing as a savior in politics. Stop looking for the perfect candidate who is going to make Eggs Benedict for you in the AM. Even the most revered modern Republican president, Ronaldo Magnus Reagan, was once a liberal Democrat and thought to be unelectable. We are WAAAY too early in this election cycle to settle for last place. A lot can happen in 9 months - trust me, I just had a kid ;)

Just a Jarhead

01-31-12, 03:28

This has been the hardest decision in my lifetime so far regarding who to vote for. D-Day here in Florida and both my wife and I are on the same page as usual and having only finally decided last night, we'll be voting for Gingrich. We'll try not to throw up afterwards. And we'll definitely take a shower afterwards.

We were both hoping for Santorum but he as absolutely no traction we feel it would be throwing our vote totally away. We both just can't stomach Romney, and Ron Paul, without instigating too much, I'll just say once again I agree with the OP. Lunatic is the best word I can come up with. Seems to be the favorite word of most people when RP's name comes up, other than with his small, very small lunacy fringe zealot base. Like it or not, that's what you all are, and that's how most of us (overwhelming majority of people) non RP supporters think of his base. Fringe Lunatics. Zealots.

SW-Shooter

01-31-12, 03:57

lane,

I'm not looking for superman, I'm just looking for someone that has morals, ethics, and the experience and knowledge to lead this country. Hell, I'd settle for someone that I could believe 50% of the time. I'll break this down in the manner which I am most familiar with, militarily.

When I was in the military as a Squad leader I was always getting assigned brand new butter bars, I happened to be the most seasoned NCO and that butter bar knew by my reputation that I would keep things squared away and he could count on me to get the job done in his absence (while he worked on getting that silver bar). All he had to do was his job and not mine and his.

Look at the American citizen as that butter bar, that's what we're looking for, someone that we can trust will get the job done without worrying if it'll cost them their livelihood or life. Someone that has the ethics, experience, knowledge, and intestinal fortitude to do what's necessary without micro management.

So let's look as the candidates as I see them:

I love Newt, but he's that proverbial ****ed up Corporal that can't seem to garnish enough points for the cut-off to E-5, he has the experience and knowledge. He gets drunk, cheats on his wife, and has had an Article 15. He'll get the job done every time, but he's liable to try too hard and muck it up at everyone's expense. His past screw ups is a liability as the COC is concerned. He's a guy you can depend on when the shit gets real, and he's combat tested.

Ron Paul is that Platoon Sergeant that has been around so long he is cynical about the military and knows he won't make Master Sergeant in his in his twenty years let alone Sergeant Major. He likes the good old days when everything was simpler and he could have a beer during lunch, he remembers when there was a time of no drug testing. He missed out on combat because he was always chosen for rear detachment, and now fears actually having to go to combat. Oh, he whines when he talks which is like nails on a chalkboard.

Mitt Romney is that PFC that went through the **** your buddy program, has a college degree and thinks he's smarter than everyone because he has a degree in finance. He never really ever got dirty or had to scrape by in his life as a civilian, has a great family that always sends care packages. So, now in the military he is just as ho hum as he was back then. He'll do whatever is asked but is always looking to get promoted without serving the time and doing the dirty work.

Rick Santorum is that pesky PVT/E-2 that asks what it will take to get promoted to PFC. He does his job, is quiet, and hasn't caused any aggravation. He needs constant reminder that he is doing a good job but also does things to get noticed. This is going to be a solid troop someday but he is rather unremarkable and is an out of sight out of mind kind of Soldier. He will make grade along with his peers because he doesn't inspire complete confidence.

That's my assessment, I may be off but hey we all have our opinions. Please feel free to opine.

austinN4

01-31-12, 04:38

I live in Texas, which used to be the home of Conservative thinking. To see so many progressive liberal minded people here scares the shit out of me. We have lost the state to the many left coasters that have fled in search of jobs that were plentiful here.
I agree, we are losing Texas to the big city liberals who have moved here in the last 10 to 20 years.

From Wiki (hey, it's easy):

"Despite overall Republican dominance, however, there remain some cities and regions with strong Democratic power."

"Austin, the state capital, is a Democratic stronghold and a center of progressive political activism."

"El Paso and the Rio Grande Valley also remain loyal to the Democratic Party."

"In addition, the mayors of most major Texas cities, though running in "nonpartisan" races, are affiliated with the Democratic Party."

"Cities like Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio usually support Democrats, while their suburbs are heavily Republican."

IMO, if it were not for the conservatives in the smaller cities/counties, and thank goodness there are a lot of them, the whole state would go to a Democrat majority. But the trend is clear.

I, too, am starting to believe Obama will win a second term, not because he deserves one, but because the Repubs are so fractured.

Hmac

01-31-12, 05:10

There is going to come a time soon when we HAVE to vote for someone. If it is Paul, are you simply going to "not vote"?

There isn't anyone in the Republican field that I wouldn't vote for over Obama, but I hope it isn't Ron Paul because he doesn't have a hope of winning anymore than Ross Perot did.

Hmac

01-31-12, 05:18

I Will vote for the candidate I believe in, which is none of them.

So you won't be voting then? In other words, you'll be voting for Obama?

I don't give a crap about Newt's personal life. I only care that he can do the job.

Sensei

01-31-12, 05:25

You guys are suffering a case of the mid-Primary Doldrums. This happens every times the GOP has to duke it out in a primary. The combined effect of the MSM and damage inflicted on each other makes them all look like imbeciles. Not to mention that this season's crop is a little weak on true conservatism. However, things will start turning around once a nominee is chosen to provide that contrast of what "4 more years" would do to the country.

variablebinary

01-31-12, 05:32

So you won't be voting then? In other words, you'll be voting for Obama?

I don't give a crap about Newt's personal life. I only care that he can do the job.

I don't care about Newt or Romney's ability to do the job. Technically Carter did the job, as did George H. W. Bush.

I'm concerned about their willingness to shit on me with laws that take away personal freedom, the right to bear arms and the right to a private life without government interference.

SW-Shooter

01-31-12, 05:32

variablebinary

01-31-12, 05:36

Would you vote against your conscious? My morals will not allow me to just settle, so not voting is my only ethical choice. It is the same option I was faced with last time, I didn't vote in the last Presidential election because I won't put my name on someone I don't believe in.

I know that irritates some people, but I have to stand by my beliefs.

Depending on how things go over the next 9 or so months if Newt or Santorum gets the nomination I may vote for either of them, anyone else gets the nod I stay home. Romney and Paul are simple decisions, neither can earn my vote.

Some on this forum equate this mindset to a de facto vote for Barry Obama.

I disagree. I will only vote for who I believe in.

Hmac

01-31-12, 05:41

I don't care about Newt or Romney's ability to do the job. Technically Carter did the job.

I'm concerned about their willingness to shit on me with laws that take away personal freedom, the right to bear arms and the right to a private life without government interference.

Ultimately you will have to choose between only two people...Obama, and Newt or Romney. You may have to choose the one that will shit on you the least.

Carter did the job? Really?

Hmac

01-31-12, 05:42

Some on this forum equate this mindset to a de facto vote for Barry Obama.

I disagree. I will only vote for who I believe in.

So, Obama then. I understand. A matter of principle.

SW-Shooter

01-31-12, 06:01

So, Obama then. I understand. A matter of principle.

I don't think that is what he is saying. Not voting is not a de facto vote for Obama. The Electoral College takes care of that, your vote doesn't count as much as people think it does. I think the EC should be removed and make the votes count as they should.

montanadave

01-31-12, 06:28

This was George Carlin's take on the election four years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dqsNrmXgP0

Nice to know we've turned the page in American politics. :rolleyes:

variablebinary

01-31-12, 06:43

This was George Carlin's take on the election four years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dqsNrmXgP0

Nice to know we've turned the page in American politics. :rolleyes:

"If you vote, you have no right to complain"

Pretty much.

Low Drag

01-31-12, 07:06

The_War_Wagon

01-31-12, 07:32

If we're stuck with Romney - the Bob DULL/John MCCAN'T bad acid flashback candidate - then I'll vote CONSTITUTION PARTY... AGAIN... like I did in '08.

And if Obama wins, then we'll finally KNOW when the 2nd American Revolution begins - sometime BEFORE 2016.

"Death is NOT the worst of evils - Live FREE or DIE."

- Gen. John Stark, penned to his Vermont troops at an 1809 reunion of Revolutionary War Veterans -

SW-Shooter

01-31-12, 07:53

Tell all the folks you know stuck in their ideology to grow the hell up and vote for the candidate they think will inflict the least harm upon the nation. Or not, I could be full of it in your opinion.

Governments and politicians (those in power and power tends to corrupt) only have the power to destroy. Rarely do they produce anything positive.

So with that logic you should:

Settle for a job making minimum wage,
Settle for the ugly easy fat chick instead of the gorgeous woman waiting for a good man to come along.
Buy the cheapest available products even though the quality ones will cost less in the long run.
Move to Canada because health care is free to all.
Settle for everything because it's the best thing for everyone.

I could go on, but I'll stop here.

Hmac

01-31-12, 08:07

I don't think that is what he is saying. Not voting is not a de facto vote for Obama. The Electoral College takes care of that, your vote doesn't count as much as people think it does. I think the EC should be removed and make the votes count as they should.

So, Obama gets the majority of the popular vote in your state because "principled people" won't vote for his opponent's electors, therefore Obama wins your state's electors. Maybe I'm missing something. Please explain your take on the Electoral College...

"I won't vote for Romney/Gingrich/Paul/Santorum because I don't believe in them, even if it means 4 more years of Obama". Sorry, I just don't get that.

austinN4

01-31-12, 08:51

"I won't vote for Romney/Gingrich/Paul/Santorum because I don't believe in them, even if it means 4 more years of Obama". Sorry, I just don't get that.
I don't get it either. I will vote for whomever the Repub nominee is, even if I don't prefer them, so as to try to vote Obama out of office.

jmp45

01-31-12, 08:54

We'll vote for whomever makes it to the finish. We just can't afford another 4 years for any reason imho. My preference would rather be Allen West & Mark Rubio in either office.

Eurodriver

01-31-12, 10:18

I Will vote for the candidate I believe in, which is none of them.

Romney - Out of touch with real Americans, too moderate, etc..
Gingrich - Personal life values are shit, part of the past problems.
Paul - Needs a white strapped jacket with his foreign, military policy.
Santorum - Snore, is anyone in there.

We need energy, a savior, if you will. For ****'s sake I'd rather have Palin running over these four snoozers. I don't believe we have one real pro-gun candidate other than Newt and his personal baggage is enough for Southwest Airlines to charge baggage fee's.

You're an idiot.

Really.

Have you looked at Ron Paul's foreign policy? I doubt it. Don't sit here and ****ing say you have either, because its painfully obvious you haven't. He isn't saying we should submit to whoever wants to attack us. He's just saying we need congressional approval before going to WAR. Is there a reason we need tens of thousands of US troops in places like Germany, Australia, Holland, Djibouti and Korea? He is not advocating anything that the same document protecting your 2nd amendment rights isn't.

I just voted for Ron Paul today in the Florida Primary.

What is ironic about this thread is that you yourself are part of the very problem you are complaining about.

You fool.

Grizzly16

01-31-12, 10:30

So, Obama gets the majority of the popular vote in your state because "principled people" won't vote for his opponent's electors, therefore Obama wins your state's electors. Maybe I'm missing something. Please explain your take on the Electoral College...

"I won't vote for Romney/Gingrich/Paul/Santorum because I don't believe in them, even if it means 4 more years of Obama". Sorry, I just don't get that.
That is the worst part about how strong our 2 party system is. There is a good candidate I want to vote for (Ron Paul in my case) but I really doubt he will win the election. My dilemma is do I vote for him and hope it gives momentum to the ideas he puts forth and that later my "wasted" vote pays off. Or do I vote for whoever isn't Obama but is pretty darn close. Might stave off some crap the next four years but does little to push the country in the right direction.

woodandsteel

01-31-12, 10:31

We'll vote for whomever makes it to the finish. We just can't afford another 4 years for any reason imho. My preference would rather be Allen West & Mark Rubio in either office.

We are planning the same. However, Romney scares me. I don't think he'll actively go after gun control. But, if Congress sends him a bill, I don't see him vetoing it.

Mitt Romney on Gun Cotrol from the On The Issues Website;
Find common ground with pro-gun & anti-gun groups. (Jan 2012)

For those who plan to "not vote", at least vote for a conservative house or Senate candidate. Especially the Senate! The last two Supreme Court Justices had way too easy of a confirmation. You can always write in a presidential candidate of your choice.

Irish

01-31-12, 10:33

I live in Texas, which used to be the home of Conservative thinking.

You do realize that Dr. Ron Paul, "the lunatic" as you put it, has been a Congressman for the state of Texas during 2 separate stints totaling a period of over 24 years don't you?

Instead of slandering him with simplistic evening news guest commentator statements why not ask questions to learn more about him and his policies? There are many people here on M4C who are quite knowledgeable about Dr. Ron Paul and his stances on the issues who would be glad to help you.

There is a wealth of information in the 2012 Presidential thread although it would be rather difficult to wade through at this point in time. Here's a link for you - https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=81192

Doc Safari

01-31-12, 10:37

Romney - Out of touch with real Americans, too moderate, etc..

This doesn't even begin to describe it. Wait until he's the nominee and Obama plants certain operatives in the media to tell everyone how weird the Mormon religion is and that it's a cult. Personally I listen to Glenn Beck so I don't have anything against Mormons, but you can believe the BHO team is salivating at the chance to ruin Romney this way.

glocktogo

01-31-12, 10:53

Jer

01-31-12, 10:54

He's a lunatic.

Why?

Paul - Needs a white strapped jacket with his foreign, military policy.

Ask yourself why Paul's active duty military contributions FAR exceed all other candidates combined. It seems to me these are the Americans who are most able to speak on the topic of foreign military policy.

CarlosDJackal

01-31-12, 10:57

Jer

01-31-12, 11:02

That is the worst part about how strong our 2 party system is. There is a good candidate I want to vote for (Ron Paul in my case) but I really doubt he will win the election. My dilemma is do I vote for him and hope it gives momentum to the ideas he puts forth and that later my "wasted" vote pays off. Or do I vote for whoever isn't Obama but is pretty darn close. Might stave off some crap the next four years but does little to push the country in the right direction.

Personally, I vote for the right man for the country. That man is Ron Paul and I don't care what the media is trying to force down people's throats he has decades of proven track record and he's NEVER wavered in his American citizens first stance. I will write him in if I have to because I feel that voting for the right man is more important than voting for the lesser of two evils. A lot of people 'wasted' their vote last time around on an Independent which makes more people willing to do the same this go 'round. If more people would be willing to vote for the right candidate it would encourage even more people to do so moving forward.

The irony in this is that to me, Obama winning another 4yrs with a Republican Congress is a lesser of two evils than either Newt or Mitt winning with a Republican Congress in power. The Republican party has done just as much to our liberties as the Democratic party so as far as I'm concerned neither one represents my interests which primarily are to return the power to the people and stop the degradation of our constitution.

Irish

01-31-12, 11:04

Ron Paul is that Platoon Sergeant that has been around so long he is cynical about the military and knows he won't make Master Sergeant in his in his twenty years let alone Sergeant Major. He likes the good old days when everything was simpler and he could have a beer during lunch, he remembers when there was a time of no drug testing. He missed out on combat because he was always chosen for rear detachment, and now fears actually having to go to combat. Oh, he whines when he talks which is like nails on a chalkboard.

You're simplistic analogy discounts the fact that the only person on that stage with military experience is Dr. Ron Paul, who in fact served as a flight surgeon in the USAF during the 60's.

Paul has far more active duty military's support than any other candidate receiving over double the amount of campaign money than all other candidates combined!

Jer

01-31-12, 11:07

The choice is simple. You either have to vote for or against obama. It is unfortunate, but that's the reality we face.

If obama wins a second term, then those who did not vote AGAINST him should learn to just bear whatever goodness he brings down on them. It's like the morons who voted for Perot or did not vote at all back in 1992. No matter how much they lie to themselves, the fact is they voted klinton into power.

Do I like any of the Conservative choices? Yes I do. But his chances of winning are pretty much nil. Do I like either Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul? Hell no!! But if any of them become the Republican candidates they can count on my vote in November.

The only choice we might have is either we endure 4 more years of obama (something we are currently living with); or 4 years of Mitt, Newt, Ron or Rick (something unknown). IMHO, any of them are better qualified than the current moron and his lemmings. JM2CW.

Statements like this require no effort to actually get to know the candidates, what they represent or what their track record are. Just call them morons and pull the level for Republican because it's the only way to save the world. It's this rhetoric exactly that has gotten us into the trouble we're in now. Grouping Paul into the same category as Mitt and Newt proves you don't know the candidates. Either of those corporate shills in power with a Republican Congress are FAR more dangerous to our freedoms than 4 more years of Obama fighting a Republican Congress. You want to see some actual change that shifts power from the federal government back to the states and, more importantly, the people? Take a deep hard look at what Ron Paul has to say and more importantly what his track record has been for decades.

montanadave

01-31-12, 11:18

This doesn't even begin to describe it. Wait until he's the nominee and Obama plants certain operatives in the media to tell everyone how weird the Mormon religion is and that it's a cult. Personally I listen to Glenn Beck so I don't have anything against Mormons, but you can believe the BHO team is salivating at the chance to ruin Romney this way.

I'm not a Glenn Beck fan but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say most Mormons have no more interest in Beck being seen as a representative of the LDS church than I have in him representing the recovery community.

I've got some strong opinions vis-a-vis the Mormon church, having lived in an area of the country with a significant LDS presence, but this ain't the place to grind that axe.

Beck's a carnival barker who'll say whatever he needs to say to pump up his advertising revenue so he can keep cashing in and basking in the fading glow of his cult of celebrity.

glocktogo

01-31-12, 11:21

Sry0fcr

01-31-12, 11:22

Why?

Because evangelical "neo-conservatives" have hijacked the republican party and the term conservatism. Like hard left wingers, the concept of minding their own is foreign. Not using the force and power of the government to push their agenda (domestic or foreign) is lunacy to them.

Dirk Williams

01-31-12, 11:24

When was the last time you actually voted for a candidate rather then using your vote to block someone else from winning.

Anybody but Obama is ok with me. God help us if that cull wins a second term

dirk

glocktogo

01-31-12, 11:26

The choice is simple. You either have to vote for or against obama. It is unfortunate, but that's the reality we face.

If obama wins a second term, then those who did not vote AGAINST him should learn to just bear whatever goodness he brings down on them. It's like the morons who voted for Perot or did not vote at all back in 1992. No matter how much they lie to themselves, the fact is they voted klinton into power.

Do I like any of the Conservative choices? Yes I do. But his chances of winning are pretty much nil. Do I like either Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul? Hell no!! But if any of them become the Republican candidates they can count on my vote in November.

The only choice we might have is either we endure 4 more years of obama (something we are currently living with); or 4 years of Mitt, Newt, Ron or Rick (something unknown). IMHO, any of them are better qualified than the current moron and his lemmings. JM2CW.

Yep, they said the sky was falling with Clinton. Did it? No. I doubt Obama will be any more effective in destroying our country than Clinton was. Is he bad? Absolutely. Is he worse than an appeasing apologist like Romney who pretends to be on our side? I'm not sure. I do know that a vote for Romney is a vote for continued destruction of our country by incrementalism. It's an affirmation that the Republican party is on the right track, when they absolutely aren't.

Sometimes it's better to take an early hit than a harder one later on.

Grizzly16

01-31-12, 11:32

Yep, they said the sky was falling with Clinton. Did it? No. I doubt Obama will be any more effective in destroying our country than Clinton was. Is he bad? Absolutely. Is he worse than an appeasing apologist like Romney who pretends to be on our side? I'm not sure. I do know that a vote for Romney is a vote for continued destruction of our country by incrementalism. It's an affirmation that the Republican party is on the right track, when they absolutely aren't.

Sometimes it's better to take an early hit than a harder one later on.
Bah, once we get our moonbase and they apply for statehood everything will be fixed!

glocktogo

01-31-12, 11:39

Bah, once we get our moonbase and they apply for statehood everything will be fixed!

Now THAT, is funny! :D

Gutshot John

01-31-12, 11:42

Bah, once we get our moonbase and they apply for statehood everything will be fixed!

Oh please, there is a difference between promoting space exploration as a way of developing new economies such as we did in the 1960s with microwave ovens, computers, telecommunications etc. and promoting the moon as the 51st state. I'm sure team Romney is very glad that there are useful idiots buying into this line of attack. :nono:

How about we keep things within the realm of reality?

Honestly I don't see anyone in the Republican party worth voting for. They haven't learned their lesson and they're content to eat their own and espouse political dogma over the real problems facing this country. Guess what it ain't working, and the American people are tired of the middle class getting the shaft. Talking about crony capitalism either from the left or the right is thoroughly discouraging. I've just about given up on the political process.

I HATE the guy but of all the candidates that have a realistic chance of being elected, Obama is by far the most likely to get my vote. I don't see it happening but the GOP STILL needs to learn a lesson, both the establishment and the tea party. They both suck BFHD. If I'm going to cast a protest vote, I'm going to cast it for the guy that will screw the GOP sideways.

And yes not choosing is a choice. I'll cast a vote for Senator and Congress, but honestly if Obama gets elected to a second term, I blame no one but the GOP. I'm so disgusted with the GOP right now I could spit. They really are the party of stoooopid.

Palmguy

01-31-12, 11:44

I voted for RP...first time I've voted in the primary. I expect that Mitt will win (FL and the nomination, coin toss on the general).

montanadave

01-31-12, 11:46

This country is faced with long-term structural deficits which can only be addressed through significant cuts/reductions to the Big Three of federal spending: Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and defense spending. And that's just to stop the bleeding. As for trying to pay down the debt ... well, let's just not even go there.

And the generation of leaders we expect to tackle these issues and break the bad news to the American people that they're going to have to expect a little less from Uncle Sam are the Baby Boomers-- arguably the most entitled, self-serving, pain-averse generation in our nation's history. And I should know; it's my generation.

So cut to Mitt Romney campaigning in Florida. He's attacked President Obama for proposing military cutbacks and says he will reverse that policy and "rebuild America's military." And he sings America the Beautiful to a bunch of folks in a nursing home and assures them that the Republican Party will never touch their Social Security or Medicare. WTF? This guy is an alternative to Obama? How? And Gingrich is no better. ****, he wants to build a colony on the goddam moon!

There's an old saying that we get the leaders we deserve. Not a particularly flattering picture at the moment. And I am beginning to seriously think this country will not be capable of making the hard choices required of us until my generation is shoved out the door. I just don't know if the country can wait that long.

thopkins22

01-31-12, 11:52

Sometimes it's better to take an early hit than a harder one later on.

Exactly. Republicans who fail to actually stand by the platform(like...99% of them,) do far more damage to our future than Obama could dream of. They wind up creating the illusion that the policies are to fault for problems, when in fact it's the near total abandonment of them that did. Another Obama term, especially if we keep enough members of congress to keep him relatively lame wouldn't be that bad at all.

This thread is full of stupid ideas. Get rid of the electoral college? Do we realize that would give a HUGE boost to the democrats by creating pure democracy? Mob rule is not the answer for anyone interested in individual rights. The electoral college(while not perfect) is a pretty good way to ensure that the country isn't run by New York City and Los Angeles.

Paul only has a "very, very small group of fringe followers"? So I guess he doesn't have two second place finishes? He's imperfect, but I would argue that it's lunacy for someone to think that not addressing his big issues leads to a healthy America in any fashion. I know a lot of relatively reasonable and intelligent folks who think that he's a little wonky, but they don't view him as a lunatic...except perhaps for the reason that he speaks his mind openly and honestly. But yep, let's get excited about candidates who talk to us like morons. The only person in the race whom I view as a lunatic(and I believe that most Americans share my opinion) is Santorum. He needs to move to the Vatican City and/or get out of public life. I will actively oppose him should he have any luck in any non hyper-religous states like Iowa.

People that believe in the whole Christian Conservative/going to war recklessly need to realize that most of them used to be Democrats. I wish they'd make that switch again.

We need a Taft. We need a Goldwater. If like the OP, those two guys make you cringe, then I'd like to see you leave the party, vote for Obama, and hasten the speed at which your candidates would get us to the end result. When the primary comes, I'll vote for Paul. If next year it's Newt, I'll hold my nose and vote for him. If it's Romney or Santorum? I honestly don't think I'll bother doing anything at all. Perhaps I'll vote for a write in, "No Confidence."

Irish

01-31-12, 12:06

More than likely Dr. Paul will not win the GOP nomination. But, if you like his ideas and are open to learning more about a similar candidate take a look at the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson. http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues

Hmac

01-31-12, 12:15

Hmac

01-31-12, 12:20

It sends a message. It says: "Keep promoting Dole/McCain/Romney and keep losing. Only you can prevent stupid choices."

In the meantime, you've helped put Obama in office for another 4 years. You must feel that sending your "message is worth that outcome. I just don't get that.

Jer

01-31-12, 12:22

Ron Paul isn't my first choice, but if he wins the nomination, I will certainly vote for him because just like anyone in the Republican primary race, he's a better choice than Obama.

The question is, when it comes down to voting in the presidential election (not a state primary) and you only have two choices, do you vote for whichever republican has won the republican primary, do you just not vote, or do you write in some candidate who has no prayer of winning? The latter two choices, while possibly the moral high ground for you, are, in essence, a vote for Obama.

Something tells me the founding fathers didn't risk EVERYTHING in order for us to piss all over that a few hundred years later by 'voting for the lesser of two evils' so this is the reason I vote for the right man for our country. Party lines be damned.

Jer

01-31-12, 12:22

In the meantime, you've helped put Obama in office for another 4 years. You must feel that sending your "message is worth that outcome. I just don't get that.

Because a vote for the right man is the right vote. A vote for the wrong man is the wrong vote no matter what reasoning you apply.

Gutshot John

01-31-12, 12:27

Because a vote for the right man is the right vote. A vote for the wrong man is the wrong vote no matter what reasoning you apply.

This applies to parties as well. The system has been too well gamed to two parties and if my vote for the "right" man is actually going to help Obama get re-elected, I might as well just vote for him and get it over with. Either way I'm going to get bent over, might as go all in rather than making up some lame argument about voting for the "right" man.

Things have to change and honestly the only hope for the GOP is to be incinerated and then be reborn. This protest vote thing works great when the country isn't in abject decline. Strong medicine is needed now, or the time is going to come very soon for the pitchforks and torches.

montanadave

01-31-12, 12:29

The latter two choices, while possibly the moral high ground for you, are, in essence, a vote for Obama.

I understand the logic of this argument, but how in the hell do you get the message across to the party leadership (and that includes both parties) that the party faithful are sick and tired of being subjected to the same menu of stale, compromised candidates and shopworn, pandering political rhetoric?

If the GOP saw the number of republican votes cast in the primary election actually fall in the general election with their candidate suffering a resounding defeat, maybe they would finally wake up and realize people are no longer content to hold their nose and vote for the retread with the "R" after his (or her) name simply because they dislike the Democratic candidate more.

Despite arguments to the contrary, not voting is indeed a political statement. And, ultimately, it may be the only one the powers that be respond to.

Hmac

01-31-12, 12:39

Because a vote for the right man is the right vote. A vote for the wrong man is the wrong vote no matter what reasoning you apply.

Right. Obama it is then.

Jer

01-31-12, 12:41

This applies to parties as well. The system has been too well gamed to two parties and if my vote for the "right" man is actually going to help Obama get re-elected, I might as well just vote for him and get it over with. Either way I'm going to get bent over, might as go all in rather than making up some lame argument about voting for the "right" man.

Things have to change and honestly the only hope for the GOP is to be incinerated and then be reborn. This protest vote thing works great when the country isn't in abject decline. Strong medicine is needed now, or the time is going to come very soon for the pitchforks and torches.

So how do you know that's the case? Past events, right? Past events predict future outcomes. So here's your chance to affect 'past events' now if nothing else. Four years from now if enough people decide enough is enough (seriously, how much further do you think we can do down this current road before we drop off the cliff?) and cast a vote for Ron Paul then people will look back on this election and say, 'The incumbent president won but look how many people were willing to speak out against the current system (R & D) with their votes. I can assume that many will vote for the 'right man' this time around plus tons more who, like me, were inspired by the turnout increase last time. This is the time to take a stand. You said it yourself, you're just as good voting for Obama so why not vote for the right guy if it means future voters will take notice? This seems like the best election to do that if you don't think voting for the right guy is reason enough. The Republicans haven't put anyone forward that I think would be better than Obama and that's saying a lot for how awful the options are (other than RP) for the Republican candidate. So why for a giant douche or a turd sandwich when you can vote for the leader America needs?

I miss the 'good old days' when people voted for the candidate they thought best represented their beliefs and the foundation of this nation instead of being brainwashed by the media 24/7 day in and day out as to who will win or who won't win or we will or won't like.... when do we actually make up our own minds?

A vote for Obama or Newt/Mitt promises one thing: the same shit for another four years.

Hmac

01-31-12, 12:42

Despite arguments to the contrary, not voting is indeed a political statement. And, ultimately, it may be the only one the powers that be respond to.

Maybe they'll the message you're trying to send by 2016, after Obama's next term. I admire your long term view. Besides, how much damage can Obama do in just 4 years?

thopkins22

01-31-12, 12:44

Gutshot John and I went in circles about this kind of thing last cycle...but he's right this time. ;) The party(with a few exceptions who don't really follow the party line anyway) needs reborn. Not all thrown out and replaced with new faces...totally revamped.

I'd like to see some freaking ideological consistency for one. If the government isn't smart enough to manage my money, they sure as hell aren't smart enough to manage my bedroom...this would bring in huge amounts of voters who believe that fiscal conservatism is right, but they don't want to associate with(at least the perception of) backwards gay bashers/abortion clinic bombers.

A conservative monetary policy...instead of a system that allows us(temporarily) to be socialist without actually paying the taxes required. We don't have to go to Gold...but the current system that exists with bipartisan support is killing this country with increasing effectiveness.

The balls to make real cuts...no holds barred. The military spending is obscene. I want our soldiers to have the best available equipment, training, pay, and benefits. They can have that at a fraction of the current spending. Guess what? The money isn't going to them. It's going to Boeing, Northrop Grumman, L3, Raytheon, and GE.

Create pathways for young people to opt out of Social Security/Medicare. These are the two most significant issues facing this country in the foreseeable future, and only the "unelectable" candidate will even talk about stopping the beast. The others want to make them sustainable instead of addressing the problem.

Honu

01-31-12, 12:46

sometimes both choices suck and you have to choose the lesser of the two evils

Jer

01-31-12, 12:46

Right. Obama it is then.

Only because people like you are too much of a coward to vote for the right person. I will do the right thing and vote for the right person. I can't be blamed for everyone else's cowardliness who didn't. As much as you want to try to point the finger at me to take the attention from yourself because you blew your vote on a guy you knew wasn't the right man but was 'the lesser of two evils'. You should be ashamed for trying to convince others of the same coward stance. You should be ashamed of trying to talk someone out of making the choice you wish you and other had the courage to make. This nation wasn't founded by a bunch of cowards who followed the herd and it's sad that that spark is all but dead in this nation.

Jer

01-31-12, 12:48

sometimes both choices suck and you have to choose the lesser of the two evils

No, you don't HAVE to do anything you suggested. :suicide2:

thopkins22

01-31-12, 12:49

Maybe they'll the message you're trying to send by 2016, after Obama's next term. I admire your long term view. Besides, how much damage can Obama do in just 4 years?

Not much more than than he did in the first 4, which wasn't much more than GWB did.

If we keep the house, then he won't do much...and if we get the Senate? He can't do anything...at least nothing that Republicans wouldn't have made a bad choice on anyway.

GWB held the office and created/pushed for the largest increase in entitlement spending the country had seen in three decades. I'm done with making a bad choice because the other is vaguely worse.

Doc Safari

01-31-12, 12:53

Just watching the bickering in this thread it should be clear that Obama is a shoo-in for a second term.

Better buy your guns and ammo now, boys.

Oh, and stop saying that shit on the internet. TSA is watching. :suicide:

Jer

01-31-12, 12:55

Not much more than than he did in the first 4, which wasn't much more than GWB did.

If we keep the house, then he won't do much...and if we get the Senate? He can't do anything...at least nothing that Republicans wouldn't have made a bad choice on anyway.

GWB held the office and created/pushed for the largest increase in entitlement spending the country had seen in three decades. I'm done with making a bad choice because the other is vaguely worse.

Exactly. I'm beginning to think nobody can think for themselves anymore. If they could they would see that Obama has limited power right now even if he wins again so THIS is the right time to 'throw away your vote' more than any other time by voting for the right man. Heaven help us if either Newt or Mitt get into office with a Republican House because THAT is the worst of two evils.

Gutshot John

01-31-12, 12:59

So how do you know that's the case? Past events, right? Past events predict future outcomes. So here's your chance to affect 'past events' now if nothing else.

There haven't even been enough protest votes for Paul in the Republican primary for the GOP establishment to consider him to be a threat or try to find a way to appeal to his supporters. In fact their actions demonstrate the abject contempt they have for him and his supporters. He doesn't even qualify as a political speed bump.

I'm all for Ron Paul as a third party candidate, go nuts, I have no problem with him running or with people voting for him as long as they do so with both eyes open. Even if he did, by some miracle, get elected, what do you think he's going to be able to accomplish? His ideas become so much flowery rhetoric. He needs a movement behind him, he needs a solid majority to be able to do anything, the Constitution is designed this way. A President hostile to the entrenched two-party establishment is irrelevant.

I don't view Paul as the "right man" anymore than I do Mittens or Newt. For me the ultimate protest vote is voting in the election for Senator and Congress, but voting "none of the above" for President is about as powerful a message as I can think of.

I pride myself on independent thought, unhindered by dogma or party platforms. Currently neither party holds any appeal for me and I don't see much difference between any of them. It's a bad joke, tragic actually, and I'm tired of being on the losing end. What this election cycle has done to me is changed how I view the process. I no longer view Obama's reelection as the worst outcome that the establishment GOP would have us believe. Honestly the worst outcome is that this abject stupidity continues.

If you really want to change this then you need to start with establishing a parliamentary form of politics.

Gutshot John

01-31-12, 13:07

Best summation I've seen...

Romney and Gingrich Set GOP on Path to Self-Destruction (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/30/romney-and-gingrich-set-the-gop-on-a-path-toward-self-destruction.html?obref=obinsite)

I'd like nothing more than to throw some gasoline on the GOP and light a match.

Jer

01-31-12, 13:14

There haven't even been enough protest votes for Paul in the Republican primary for the GOP establishment to consider him to be a threat or try to find a way to appeal to his supporters. In fact their actions demonstrate the abject contempt they have for him and his supporters. He doesn't even qualify as a political speed bump.

I'm all for Ron Paul as a third party candidate, go nuts, I have no problem with him running or with people voting for him as long as they do so with both eyes open. Even if he did, by some miracle, get elected, what do you think he's going to be able to accomplish? His ideas become so much flowery rhetoric. He needs a movement behind him, he needs a solid majority to be able to do anything, the Constitution is designed this way. A President hostile to the entrenched two-party establishment is irrelevant.

I don't view Paul as the "right man" anymore than I do Mittens or Newt. For me the ultimate protest vote is voting in the election for Senator and Congress, but voting "none of the above" for President is about as powerful a message as I can think of.

I pride myself on independent thought, unhindered by dogma or party platforms. Currently neither party holds any appeal for me and I don't see much difference between any of them. It's a bad joke, tragic actually, and I'm tired of being on the losing end. What this election cycle has done to me is changed how I view the process. I no longer view Obama's reelection as the worst outcome that the establishment GOP would have us believe. Honestly the worst outcome is that this abject stupidity continues.

If you really want to change this then you need to start with establishing a parliamentary form of politics.

You say he's just a speed bump, based on what? What the media wants to talk about? Because I saw him take a 2nd place finish early on and not word one was said about him. From that point forward he's been fighting just to get the airtime the others get and to the masses.. that's everything. You say he couldn't do anything in office as a independent but that's wrong. You know what he can do? Veto. He wouldn't sign the bullshit bills that Obaman and GWB before him signed due to part pressure. That alone would make a WORLD of difference compared to what we have now. Signing away our freedoms on bill at a time and even issuing signing statements admitting to it. THEN JUST DON'T SIGN IT IF YOU KNOW IT'S WRONG! For crying out loud, you're the one person that has the power to do so.

Actually, I hope Obama wins and it's as awful as the hard core Republicans would have you believe because then we can get on with the revolution and restore this nation to what it should be before I'm old and unable to do anything about it.

Jer

01-31-12, 13:16

I'd like nothing more than to throw some gasoline on the GOP and light a match.

Actually, I hope Obama wins and it's as awful as the hard core Republicans would have you believe because then we can get on with the revolution and restore this nation to what it should be before I'm old and unable to do anything about it.

I think we can say we agree on this. But I also think that gasoline should be splashed all over the whole 'system' because it's broken. A vote for RP is as close as I can come to effecting this change peacefully.

Gutshot John

01-31-12, 13:40

Taking 2nd place in one state, doesn't come close to making yourself noticeable. The contempt with which he and his followers are treated by their own party is another.

To be credible he not only has to finish 2nd in many more states, he even has to win a few. He does that and I'd be happy to reconsider my vote but he has to demonstrate he has credible support. So far, not so much.

The issue goes far beyond the candidates themselves. The GOP establishment and the punditocracy can't see the forest for the trees, they only see their own pecuniary interests. Only a bunch of craven hypocrites and cowards could make the most politically damaged and ruthlessly cynical president in my lifetime seem like the adult choice.

F*%K THEM ALL! And I mean that in the nicest possible way. :eek:

glocktogo

01-31-12, 14:17

In the meantime, you've helped put Obama in office for another 4 years. You must feel that sending your "message is worth that outcome. I just don't get that.

I do. If it means 4 more years of Obama and 4 more years for the GOP to grow up, then so be it. I don't understand your capitulation to subpar politicians. :(

Belmont31R

01-31-12, 14:23

I do. If it means 4 more years of Obama and 4 more years for the GOP to grow up, then so be it. I don't understand your capitulation to subpar politicians. :(

They aren't going to learn but Im still not voting for Romney. They are running the guy who lost to McCain who lost to Obama.

Irish

01-31-12, 16:22

I will be voting for Ron Paul and my reasoning runs parallel to Jer. I will vote for who I consider to be the best candidate who was remained consistent to his principals of freedom and the Constitution of the United States.

http://gunowners.org/2012presidential.htm

Ron Paul A+
Rick Perry A
Rick Santorum B-
Newt Gingrich C
Mitt Romney D-

Ron Paul is the only one in the race who hasn't voted for any sort of gun control bill in any form. Romney is well known, but Santorum voted for mandatory trigger locks and the Lautenberg Amendment. Newt supported the Lautenberg Amendment and here's some more about his anti-gun record. http://gunowners.org/newtgingrich-2012.htm

Hmac

01-31-12, 16:33

Only because people like you are too much of a coward to vote for the right person. I will do the right thing and vote for the right person. I can't be blamed for everyone else's cowardliness who didn't. As much as you want to try to point the finger at me to take the attention from yourself because you blew your vote on a guy you knew wasn't the right man but was 'the lesser of two evils'. You should be ashamed for trying to convince others of the same coward stance. You should be ashamed of trying to talk someone out of making the choice you wish you and other had the courage to make. This nation wasn't founded by a bunch of cowards who followed the herd and it's sad that that spark is all but dead in this nation.

:rolleyes:

SW-Shooter

01-31-12, 16:37

Wow, it didn't take long for the personal attacks from the Paulbots to take hold. We can't enter a civilized discussion without those attacks from occurring for a whole 24 hours?

If you like RP, fine vote for him. I don't and I'm not some lemming you can somehow lead off of the cliff.

It's obvious people here aren't as open to other peoples opinion as I thought. If you aren't part of their majority they jump on you like a pack of wild dogs.

I won't vote for RP because he wants to legalize drugs, and those are those piece of shits that supports his 420 ideology. Also leaving Iran alone is tantamount to suicide. So he served for a few years, that doesn't give him the "great man" card in my mind, by that criteria I should ****ing run. I'm a Goddamn war hero compared to RP, but I don't think that'll make me worthy of the office.

The GOP is screwed and I won't further support their idiocy by voting for their guy or giving them my hard earned money. I won't settle no matter the outcome. There comes a time when you have to stand by your principles no matter how much peer pressure is applied.

Kfgk14

01-31-12, 16:39

The American Conservative does not have a candidate worthy of drawing the necessary "Independent" voter, therefore I have surmised that many just won't bother voting. This will result in another term for Obama. The American populace have become lemmings, one merely needs to enter a discussion on a gun forum, social website, or any other locale of discussion. The me too "jump on the opposite opinion guy" crowd is prevalent, and now beyond the norm.

I live in Texas, which used to be the home of Conservative thinking. To see so many progressive liberal minded people here scares the shit out of me. We have lost the state to the many left coasters that have fled in search of jobs that were plentiful here.

I wanted to put this up on the record, Obama will win in 2012. I don't want this, nor do I hope for it. The fact is the Republican party is broken, we haven't a worthy candidate in the running and I have succumbed to this, and I am sad. I will now start drinking. Good evening Gentlemen and Lady(ies).

Shit man...you know, even if he doesn't win. We get ****ing Romney, it's a forgone conclusion. You know that the Gingrich guys will walk, no-one who isn't already in Romney's pen supports the guy (I.e. the independents see through the haze of vaporized BS), and we all know that supporters of Paul aren't gonna back Romney (not that a Paul Supporter like myself wants Romney or any of my fellow Paul supporters to support Romney).

Santorum is gonna fold and sell his supporters to Romney.

Obama is gonna take us over the brink at 150, Romney will take us over at the speed limit.

**** campaign contributions, I'm buying more guns.

ForTehNguyen

01-31-12, 16:40

How on earth is Romney moderate? A Texas democrat is probably more to the right than Romney, a Massachusetts Republican.

Gutshot John

01-31-12, 16:46

Ron Paul...blah blah blah. I'll never understand this notion that he's the savior of the American republic, especially if he loses. You can justify a vote for RP anyway you want but let's not pretend that it's actually going to accomplish anything even if by some miracle he's elected.

Hate to break it to you but Constitutionally stepping back 200 years is not going to happen, Ron Paul can't pull it off, especially without support in the legislature which he's never going to get. The very Constitution he purports to defend prevents a President from doing so. He either knows this and is engaging in the same kind of political pandering of the rest of the field, or he's too stupid/crazy to be President. That no one has bothered to ask him how he's structurally going to pull it off is the only thing that keeps him from being utterly discredited.

Quite honestly he is an intellectual pygmy, his foreign policy stance is a complete no-go. The notion that we should have consulted the Pakistanis to arrest OBL is epically stupid. His crowning virtue is that he's the tallest pygmy in the room but let's not pretend he has some kind of monopoly on Constitutional virtue.

Sorry but if I'm going to waste my vote I'm going to waste it in florid style and vote NOTA. If 40 million people vote NOTA, it will have a far more bracing effect than a throwaway vote for RP. Ron Paul may be very pro-2a but voting for him will have the exact opposite effect if that's your sole reason for voting.

glocktogo

01-31-12, 16:46

Wow, it didn't take long for the personal attacks from the Paulbots to take hold. We can't enter a civilized discussion without those attacks from occurring for a whole 24 hours?

If you like RP, fine vote for him. I don't and I'm not some lemming you can somehow lead off of the cliff.

So MODS, please lock this thread. It's obvious people here aren't as open to other peoples opinion as I thought. If you aren't part of their majority they jump on you like a pack of wild dogs.

What's funny is that your mind is no more "open" than anyone espousing RP. You're lamenting personal attacks while you call anyone who supports RP a "Paulbot". Look who you want us to vote for:

I will be voting for Ron Paul and my reasoning runs parallel to Jer. I will vote for who I consider to be the best candidate who was remained consistent to his principals of freedom and the Constitution of the United States.

http://gunowners.org/2012presidential.htm

Ron Paul A+
Rick Perry A
Rick Santorum B-
Newt Gingrich C
Mitt Romney D-
Ron Paul is the only one in the race who hasn't voted for any sort of gun control bill in any form. Romney is well known, but Santorum voted for mandatory trigger locks and the Lautenberg Amendment. Newt supported the Lautenberg Amendment and here's some more about his anti-gun record. http://gunowners.org/newtgingrich-2012.htm

So who's crazy now :confused:

glocktogo

01-31-12, 16:57

How on earth is Romney moderate? A Texas democrat is probably more to the right than Romney, a Massachusetts Republican.

But, but, he has an "R" after his name! If we don't vote for him, we'll all perish in the Obama fire! :rolleyes:

Ron Paul...blah blah blah. I'll never understand this notion that he's the savior of the American republic, especially if he loses. You can justify a vote for RP anyway you want but let's not pretend that it's actually going to accomplish anything even if by some miracle he's elected.

Hate to break it to you but Constitutionally stepping back 200 years is not going to happen, Ron Paul can't pull it off, especially without support in the legislature which he's never going to get. The very Constitution he purports to defend prevents a President from doing so. He either knows this and is engaging in the same kind of political pandering of the rest of the field, or he's too stupid/crazy to be President. That no one has bothered to ask him how he's structurally going to pull it off is the only thing that keeps him from being utterly discredited.

Quite honestly he is an intellectual pygmy, his foreign policy stance is a complete no-go. The notion that we should have consulted the Pakistanis to arrest OBL is epically stupid. His crowning virtue is that he's the tallest pygmy in the room but let's not pretend he has some kind of monopoly on Constitutional virtue.

Sorry but if I'm going to waste my vote I'm going to waste it in florid style and vote NOTA. If 40 million people vote NOTA, it will have a far more bracing effect than a throwaway vote for RP. Ron Paul may be very pro-2a but voting for him will have the exact opposite effect if that's your sole reason for voting.

If we were smart, we'd have someone legally change their name to "None Of The Above" and get them on the ballot in all 50 states in 2016. They'd win by a landslide. :)

thopkins22

01-31-12, 16:58

Nevermind...should have learned this lesson about GJ in 2008.

SW-Shooter

01-31-12, 17:05

I don't advocate voting for anyone you don't believe in. What I stated on page one or two is my personal views. I never said you had to vote as I do.

You do your thing, I'll do mine. Re-read my posts, it was my personal view. Never once did I insult anyone, that is until I used the word Paulbot. At the time it was applicable to those RP lemmings that espouse their illogical rhetoric of the greatness that the whiny Ross Perot stunt double emits. He is a loon, that has a couple of good ideas. I'm sure everyone here as though of something good in their lifetime, I often do when I'm on the can. Then I go back to my real life and the daydream is over with the wipe, flush, and the washing of my hands.

Grow up kids, Ron Paul is pandering to his crowd, the 420's, the anti-war, the over-worked under paid military, the "Constitutionalists". It all reads like a cast call for the movie The Warriors. Everyone wants our troops home, but at least untie their hands for six months and let them do Gods work and kill as many as they bastards as they possibly can, but that won't happen with RP as President.

I equate a RP Presidency to the ships captain of the Costa Concordia, when he hits the rock we are all screwed.

Belmont31R

01-31-12, 17:08

I just don't see how anyone who believes in limited government and rights can vote for any of the other 3 besides RP.

The other 3 have a past filled with voting for huge growth in government, anti-gun legislation, and are far more to the center than they would admit.

Im ready to vote for someone who actually has a record of voting down growth in government, and isn't going to get us involved in every stupid conflict going on in the world. Thats what Republicans used to campaign on.

thopkins22

01-31-12, 17:09

Grow up kids, Ron Paul is pandering to his crowd, the 420's, the anti-war, the over-worked under paid military, the "Constitutionalists". It all reads like a cast call for the movie The Warriors. Everyone wants our troops home, but at least untie their hands for six months and let them do Gods work and kill as many as they bastards as they possibly can, but that won't happen with RP as President.

I don't agree...but for the record that's a much nicer way to explain why you won't vote for him.

For the record, the reason I don't agree is because I believe the rocks this ship will hit are domestic in the form of bankruptcy, inflation, and so forth...and that the foreign enemies are currently equivalent of rough seas(dangerous and worthy of attention but not nation enders.)

Irish

01-31-12, 17:14

Grow up kids, Romney/Newt/Santorum is pandering to his crowd, the chickenhawks, the industrial war complex, the religious far right wingnuts, the GOP Republican simpletons, definitely not the "Constitutionalists". It all reads like a cast call for the movie The Warriors. Everyone wants our troops home, but at least untie their hands for six months and let them do Gods work and kill as many as they bastards as they possibly can, but that won't happen with RP as President.

You can use the same type of rhetoric for any of the nominees. Out of curiosity what is "God's work" and where can I read about it in the Bible? What bastards should we be killing? Where will we get the money to fund these operations? When will Congress approve us going to war as outlined in the Constitution?

SW-Shooter

01-31-12, 17:16

I don't agree...but for the record that's a much nicer way to explain why you won't vote for him.

For the record, the reason I don't agree is because I believe the rocks this ship will hit are domestic in the form of bankruptcy, inflation, and so forth...and that the foreign enemies are currently equivalent of rough seas(dangerous and worthy of attention but not nation enders.)

I like your civility.

I just think Iran giving Jihadists a nuke to bring to the U.S. is too big of a threat to ignore. They have given them everything else to kill our warriors, they wouldn't stop at conventional weapons. Ron Paul would leave them alone. How's that family trip to Disney going to go when the nuke goes off in the parking lot, or in Tel Aviv. I can imagine it happening if Iran is left alone to do what it wanst to do.

thopkins22

01-31-12, 17:28

How's that family trip to Disney going to go when the nuke goes off in the parking lot, or in Tel Aviv. I can imagine it happening if Iran is left alone to do what it wanst to do.

I tend to think that might suck. I don't actually believe that they're stupid enough to do it, rather I DO think they want something that will allow them to keep the Israelis at arms length. Is it okay? No...but I get it.

I don't think they would do it because the Israelis would turn their country into glass almost immediately.

SW-Shooter

01-31-12, 17:51

I tend to think that might suck. I don't actually believe that they're stupid enough to do it, rather I DO think they want something that will allow them to keep the Israelis at arms length. Is it okay? No...but I get it.

I don't think they would do it because the Israelis would turn their country into glass almost immediately.

When it happens it will be blamed on some Jihadist group, not Iran. Modus operandi of Iran is to provide weapons but not take credit.

Belmont31R

01-31-12, 18:10

I like your civility.

I just think Iran giving Jihadists a nuke to bring to the U.S. is too big of a threat to ignore. They have given them everything else to kill our warriors, they wouldn't stop at conventional weapons. Ron Paul would leave them alone. How's that family trip to Disney going to go when the nuke goes off in the parking lot, or in Tel Aviv. I can imagine it happening if Iran is left alone to do what it wanst to do.

Its a threat, and what RP said was that given the area they are in its obvious they would want those weapons, too, and that he isn't going to take action against them until they are a credible threat to us. If our country is in danger he would act.

At the end of the day Israel is responsible for their own security, and while we are allies that doesn't mean the US tax payer and US soldier should be #1 when it comes to their defense.

What about Pakistan? They allow their entire border region in the western part of their country to be taken over by Taliban groups and other extremists which provides them safe lands to recruit from, rearm, and plan attacks. They also sent Pakistanis into Afghanistan to help the Taliban take over and provided funding to them. When we were chasing AQ over the mountains the Pakistanis sat back and let them into their country.

Eurodriver

01-31-12, 18:33

Ron Paul is going to look alot better in 20 years when the US resembles the Roman Empire in 476.

At least then there won't be anyone to stop us from giving ass whoopings to the "conservatives" who voted for liberals like Noot and Mittens.

Eurodriver

01-31-12, 18:35

Jer

01-31-12, 19:53

If the US stopped playing world police and pulled out of the middle east, what motive would terrorists have to attack us?

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!!

For those who thing we should be taking the battle to every country that doesn't shine our coin purse, watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

It's an interesting exercise in 'how would you react if it was you'.

We don't need to be world police for the rest of the world to respect us enough to leave us alone. In fact, a lot of our enemies wouldn't be our enemies if we weren't the world police in the first place.

If you disagree with all of that where do you propose we get the money to continue our current coarse of action?

Irish

01-31-12, 19:54

Thank you FTN for the following...
http://media.reason.com/mc/tcavanaugh/obamney.jpg?h=476&w=328

Gutshot John

01-31-12, 19:56

Nevermind...should have learned this lesson about GJ in 2008.

What lesson is that? That I won't waste my vote on a crackpot, who panders just as much to people not bright enough to figure out that he can't do what he claims, and whose other policies I don't agree with? Why would I waste my vote on Paul anymore than I would waste my vote on Romney. Neither man is going to win and honestly neither man will make that much of a difference.

If I'm going to cast a vote to re-elect Obama anyways, I'll cast a vote for him and save myself all the trouble of whining about it later.

If you think one man, namely Ron Paul, can change the GOP I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Jer

01-31-12, 20:04

What lesson is that? That I won't waste my vote on a crackpot, who panders just as much to people not bright enough to figure out that he can't do what he claims, and whose other policies I don't agree with? Why would I waste my vote on Paul anymore than I would waste my vote on Romney. Neither man is going to win and honestly neither man will make that much of a difference.

If I'm going to cast a vote to re-elect Obama anyways, I'll cast a vote for him and save myself all the trouble of whining about it later.

If you think one man, namely Ron Paul, can change the GOP I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Summary: You won't vote for the guy who honestly wants to enact change by any means within his power (and has a track record of doing so a couple decades long) because you're skeptical about how much of it he can actually get done because it's never been tried before from the position of president but you'll vote for the guy who blatantly lied about change to get votes.

And you say he's the crackpot. :rolleyes:

Gutshot John

01-31-12, 20:29

Summary: You won't vote for the guy who honestly wants to enact change by any means within his power (and has a track record of doing so a couple decades long) because you're skeptical about how much of it he can actually get done because it's never been tried before from the position of president but you'll vote for the guy who blatantly lied about change to get votes.

And you say he's the crackpot. :rolleyes:

Summary: you haven't been paying attention. I'm not merely skeptical that Ron Paul can get it done, he can't and either he knows this and is lying or he doesn't understand the very thing he pretends to protect, the Constitution. Neither of which inspires a whole lot of confidence.

The President doesn't make laws, he enforces them. Without a Congress at his back (See Article I of the Constitution) he can't make a single change that he's promising, any more than Romney can repeal Obama/RomneyCare and if a vote for RP was half as clever as you pretend his supporters would see through this fraud.

As for the issues themselves...I agree with some of what he says, the rest of it is completely crackpot.

Belmont31R

01-31-12, 21:29

If you think one man, namely Ron Paul, can change the GOP I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

At least we can agree on that. The GOP gave up small government non-interventionalism a long time ago, and now they are nothing but commie/liberal lites.

If you are small government and for individual freedom then you don't have a party to vote for anymore. The GOP and string pullers aren't going to go for a guy like Paul even if he was younger and had spectacular speaking ability/presence. There is too much riding on either side with sweetheart deals, tit for tat contracts, GOP becoming the party of the domestic police state grown on the fears of terrorism, war mongering, at times religious political rule, ect.

We won't see a small government until their money is so worthless they can't do shit and people are marching through the streets burning shit down. Not that I want to see that and am saddened that this communist streak runs even through the 'right wing' which USED to stand for small government. Not anymore they don't.

SW-Shooter

01-31-12, 21:50

Its a threat, and what RP said was that given the area they are in its obvious they would want those weapons, too, and that he isn't going to take action against them until they are a credible threat to us. If our country is in danger he would act.

At the end of the day Israel is responsible for their own security, and while we are allies that doesn't mean the US tax payer and US soldier should be #1 when it comes to their defense.

What about Pakistan? They allow their entire border region in the western part of their country to be taken over by Taliban groups and other extremists which provides them safe lands to recruit from, rearm, and plan attacks. They also sent Pakistanis into Afghanistan to help the Taliban take over and provided funding to them. When we were chasing AQ over the mountains the Pakistanis sat back and let them into their country.

If we don't, who will? As a Jew I can tell you the story of my family, half of which never made it out of Poland alive. When we stop coming to their aid, we will have devolved as a civilization.

Belmont31R

01-31-12, 21:56

If we don't, who will? As a Jew I can tell you the story of my family, half of which never made it out of Poland alive. When we stop coming to their aid, we will have devolved as a civilization.

Coming to their aide is entirely different than doing their bidding for them. I have no problem with selling them certain defense related items and generally being allies. Again doesn't mean our tax dollars and troops are their 'front line' internationally at any given moment.

My family came here in the 40's after living in Nazi occupied Holland almost the entire war. My grandpa was part of the Dutch Underground.

SW-Shooter

01-31-12, 22:04

Coming to their aide is entirely different than doing their bidding for them. I have no problem with selling them certain defense related items and generally being allies. Again doesn't mean our tax dollars and troops are their 'front line' internationally at any given moment.

My family came here in the 40's after living in Nazi occupied Holland almost the entire war. My grandpa was part of the Dutch Underground.

I find that acceptable, as long as it isn't Egypt, Syria, Iran, etc.. against Israel. If that's the case we better damn well give them our full support, short of that I know the IDF can handle the pups in the region.

HES

01-31-12, 22:04

I voted for RP...first time I've voted in the primary. I expect that Mitt will win (FL and the nomination, coin toss on the general).
I voted for him as well today. I switched my affiliation from independent to Republican just to vote for him.

As it was mentioned earlier, if Paul got the nomination, then those who would have voted for another republican candidate would vote for him and Obama would fall. If Paul does not get the nomination then the Paul voters will go else where. It's simple math.

It is people voting their conscience.

DeltaSierra

01-31-12, 22:19

When we stop coming to their aid, we will have devolved as a civilization.

Oh, please....

"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Our armed forces are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have a capability to take the world down with us, and I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under." - Martin Van Creveld, Professor of Military History at Hebrew University at Jerusalem and adviser to the Israeli Armed Forces, March 2, 2010.

SteyrAUG

01-31-12, 23:37

Edit: Deleted because I don't want to contribute to a thread hijack.

SteyrAUG

01-31-12, 23:40

I voted for him as well today. I switched my affiliation from independent to Republican just to vote for him.

As it was mentioned earlier, if Paul got the nomination, then those who would have voted for another republican candidate would vote for him and Obama would fall. If Paul does not get the nomination then the Paul voters will go else where. It's simple math.

It is people voting their conscience.

At this point it looks like Mitt is gonna be it. I really hope he can beat Obama.

Belmont31R

01-31-12, 23:44

I find that acceptable, as long as it isn't Egypt, Syria, Iran, etc.. against Israel. If that's the case we better damn well give them our full support, short of that I know the IDF can handle the pups in the region.

Backing them up is different than going on the offensive for them when they are capable for much more than sitting back and letting us do the dirty work.

Our country spent trillions during the cold war era propping up western europe and allowing them to turn into the socialist paradises they are now while it was our guys who would be thrust into the Fulda Gap, lost their lives in Vietnam, Korea, South America, ect. Granted we are a super power this 'cost' can cannot come at the price of the 100% debt to GDP ratio we have now and just slinging missiles people because one puppet in one country said something years ago.

thopkins22

02-01-12, 00:25

What lesson is that?

Not the lessons you described. If you weren't on the debate team in school, you should have been as you understand how to shape conversations really well.

There are mainstream political strategists who have written about the impact Ron Paul is having on the Republican Party, he doesn't have to believe that he can win or even actually accomplish anything in his lifetime to accomplish something great. There isn't really a greater stage to put these ideas into the mainstream than getting into the debates and doing the interviews that come along with a run for the presidency.

How many people have been persuaded to the libertarian side of a few issues thanks to him? Clearly not enough to make him president, but enough to get a small foothold in the party. He was running for the same reasons Dennis Kucinich ran last election...to bring up issues that the establishment candidates and that the money doesn't want brought to light. The issues and policy suggestions differ, but the principle doesn't.

I don't think anyone has argued that he's a great politician, but he has proven to be consistent in his positions at the risk of ridicule and without the safety blanket of big money. Is he the guy to win it? NO. But hopefully he's the Barry Goldwater to some charismatic Ronald Reagan out there.

It's no longer crackpot...the pot is cracking. We as the American people will apparently keep electing guys with hammers and belittling the guy with super glue even when we recognize that there is a problem. If he's not suitable(and it's A-OKAY if he's not) then we really need to be pushing suitable people towards public life/office. Assuming the the GOP will get the message right, when they've got so many things wrong in the last decade(or three) is lunacy.

I wholeheartedly agree that the party needs to be revamped...but what in the world makes us think that they won't lose and just put forward idiot/flipflopper/Limbaugh's pet v.3?

Jer

02-01-12, 01:50

Summary: you haven't been paying attention. I'm not merely skeptical that Ron Paul can get it done, he can't and either he knows this and is lying or he doesn't understand the very thing he pretends to protect, the Constitution. Neither of which inspires a whole lot of confidence.

The President doesn't make laws, he enforces them. Without a Congress at his back (See Article I of the Constitution) he can't make a single change that he's promising, any more than Romney can repeal Obama/RomneyCare and if a vote for RP was half as clever as you pretend his supporters would see through this fraud.

As for the issues themselves...I agree with some of what he says, the rest of it is completely crackpot.

Well that's a relief. The way you hear people talk around here the last 4 years you would think that Obama has the ability to run this country into the ground and take away ALL of our guns before taking away our freedoms. It's SUCH a relief to know that he can't do anything so it really doesn't matter who's president. In fact, why even vote? I mean, the president is unable to lift a finger to do a single thing so what does it matter who's president? I mean, that's what you're saying.... right? It doesn't matter what he thinks/wants/does because it's impossible for him to enact any change or block any change, right?

...or, could it be that you are wrong regarding what you keep trying to convince people about him not being able to do anything about any of his policies and whatever it is that causes people to fear Obama are the same reasons Ron Paul would be a good choice for president?

Low Drag

02-01-12, 06:42

So with that logic you should:

Settle for a job making minimum wage,
Settle for the ugly easy fat chick instead of the gorgeous woman waiting for a good man to come along.
Buy the cheapest available products even though the quality ones will cost less in the long run.
Move to Canada because health care is free to all.
Settle for everything because it's the best thing for everyone.

I could go on, but I'll stop here.
The difference is I'm in full control of the items you ticked of, I am not in full control of who leads this nation. You do see the difference don't you?

I think you missed my point by a mile. Government IS NOT a positive force, it is a necessary evil. I have been voting since 1980 and have yet to find my "perfect" candidate. If I find a candidate I really like I will devote some of my time at their local office going grunt work.

Bottom line is if you take your marbles and go home because you do not have your "perfect" candidate you will see a 2nd Obama term. So the cure will be worse than the illness.

Then I guess we'll see how many tough guys on this forum and others "rise up"......:rolleyes:

Low Drag

02-01-12, 06:49

That is the worst part about how strong our 2 party system is. There is a good candidate I want to vote for (Ron Paul in my case) but I really doubt he will win the election. My dilemma is do I vote for him and hope it gives momentum to the ideas he puts forth and that later my "wasted" vote pays off. Or do I vote for whoever isn't Obama but is pretty darn close. Might stave off some crap the next four years but does little to push the country in the right direction.

The multi-party system is stupid, just think it through......
In a multi-party system you vote for your "perfect" :rolleyes: candidate for parliament. No one gets a clear majority, then they have to form a coalition government by compromising amongst themselves in parliament, without you and I by the way, to come up with a "majority" then they elect a prime minister. That result could be NOTHING like you thought you were voting for.

In our 2 party system we KNOW AHEAD OF TIME what coalitions make up each party and cast our vote accordingly.

Multi-party system = coalitions are formed AFTER the election
Two party system = coalitions are formed BEFORE the election

Hmac

02-01-12, 08:50

Then I guess we'll see how many tough guys on this forum and others "rise up"......:rolleyes:

I doubt it. The internet if full of internet tough guys and self-righteous blowhards (while they're sitting anonymously behind their keyboards) and while that's certainly true here on M4C as well, this place is such a skewed microcosm of the American public that I suspect that it barely "rises up" to the level of statistical significance.

Gutshot John

02-01-12, 12:18

Well that's a relief. The way you hear people talk around here the last 4 years you would think that Obama has the ability to run this country into the ground and take away ALL of our guns before taking away our freedoms. It's SUCH a relief to know that he can't do anything so it really doesn't matter who's president.

Wow, you went miles out of your way to miss the point. You do know how the government creates and enforces laws don't you? You have actually read the Constitution right? Ever heard of a little thing called "separation of powers"? President Obama on his own can't do any of that, President Obama with a Democratic Congress (which he had in the first two years of his presidency) and a Democratic Senate in the last four years...CAN!

Ron Paul won't have either of those two things unless you're counting on a Republican House/Senate (assuming he gets one) cutting their own throats and going along with his ideas. More likely Democrats will have significant say in the legislative process and will work with Republicans to protect their interests. One way or the other...color me skeptical.

This is what gets me about RP and his supporters, they talk a lot about the Constitution but they don't actually understand what the implications are for his campaign promises. They just buy into his nonsense hook line and sinker without an ounce of critical thought.

If you want to vote for RP as a protest vote, knock yourself out, but don't vote for him under the delusion that even if he gets elected he's going to change a damn thing without a radical shift in the makeup of the Legislative and Judicial branches.

thopkins22

02-01-12, 12:35

Ron Paul won't have either of those two things unless you're counting on a Republican House/Senate (assuming he gets one) cutting their own throats and going along with his ideas. More likely Democrats will have significant say in the legislative process and will work with Republicans to protect their interests. One way or the other...color me skeptical.

This is what gets me about RP and his supporters, they talk a lot about the Constitution but they don't actually understand what the implications are for his campaign promises. They just buy into his nonsense hook line and sinker without an ounce of critical thought.

So...in order to continue this argument you're going to ignore my last response? He's gone on the record acknowledging that other than moving the military from place to place, writing an executive order nullifying previous executive orders, and the power of the veto pen he can't accomplish anything. The veto pen is a pretty potent tool though.

He isn't giving campaign promises...if someone asks what he thinks about XYZ he's going to tell them. I know based on past discussions that there are areas where you think he's wrong and that's fine. But dislike him for reasons that are real, not ones you've created. Saying things like that isn't intellectually small, rather it's finding something you don't like and then screaming "LALALA I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU SAY!" without listening to the reason behind an answer or whether or not the person thinks it could actually be done.

Hell in one of the last debates they asked him if it was possible to overturn Obamacare, and he said that of course it's possible...but extremely unlikely.

If he said, "elect me and I will..." that would be a campaign promise.

Jer

02-01-12, 12:36

Wow, you went miles out of your way to miss the point. You do know how the government creates and enforces laws don't you? You have actually read the Constitution right? Ever heard of a little thing called "separation of powers"? President Obama on his own can't do any of that, President Obama with a Democratic Congress (which he had in the first two years of his presidency) and a Democratic Senate in the last four years...CAN!

Ron Paul won't have either of those two things unless you're counting on a Republican House/Senate (assuming he gets one) cutting their own throats and going along with his ideas. More likely Democrats will have significant say in the legislative process and will work with Republicans to protect their interests. One way or the other...color me skeptical.

This is what gets me about RP and his supporters, they talk a lot about the Constitution but they don't actually understand what the implications are for his campaign promises. They just buy into his nonsense hook line and sinker without an ounce of critical thought.

If you want to vote for RP as a protest vote, knock yourself out, but don't vote for him under the delusion that even if he gets elected he's going to change a damn thing without a radical shift in the makeup of the Legislative and Judicial branches.

Thanks for making the assumption I know nothing about the balance of power via checks & balances and the constitution. Makes your argument a little easier to attack my intelligence, doesn't it? You also scanned past the point I made which is that some say Obama, if given 4 more years, will destroy this country as he has already done the previous 4 yet for some reason when RP is president he can't do anything. Hands tied. Yeah, I know all too well how things work and I even made mention of that in post when talking about signing bills into law. You do realize that's part of the checks and balances system, right? You seem to gloss over that part as well as the other points I made which clearly demonstrate my knowledge of how this whole things works. I guess I made those points in conversational format so they were lost on you so next time I will try to bullet them so people like you don't miss them the way you have. If a bill passes that infringes on the rights of the individuals as spelled out in the US constitution he doesn't have to sign it.... wait, I said that before and you missed it so let me do it this way:

*Presidential veto - the act of not signing a bill into law

There, you get it that time? Example: The Patriot Act. Part of Obama's platform was that the Patriot Act was unconstitutional and if he became president he would see to it that this would end when it sunsetted. Funny, the bill came up when he was president and he singed it. That's the funny part is he actually had to do less work to stick to his word. Same thing with the NDAA which he also signed. He issued a first ever 'signing statement' basically admitting it was wrong but yet he still signed it. He didn't exercise his presidential powers the way they were designed. He was elected to uphold and protect the US Constitution yet when a bill came up that he knew was unconstitutional he signed it and made it law. Oh sure, he said 'his administration wouldn't use it on US citizens' but that may get us through the next year or so. Either way, he KNEW it was wrong and STILL signed it. This is part of the powers that play into the checks & balances of the government.

Now, do you think Ron Paul would have signed EITHER of those into law? Hell no! Do you think he would ever sign anything anywhere near those into law if he were president? Hell no! So you ask when he can do to meet his promises as president and I say aside from appointments and dismantling overbearing government programs and agencies he can do more by doing nothing than our previous presidents (or either of these proposed GOP yahoos) will ever do for us the citizens.

I should be having this discussion with someone who doesn't believe that we deserve the liberties he's preaching because they don't understand what big government is costing us. I can't believe I have to have this argument with someone with that avatar who claims to want the same things RP preaches yet refuses to cast his vote that way simply because he doesn't believe he can do it. Define irony.

Gutshot John

02-01-12, 12:38

There are mainstream political strategists who have written about the impact Ron Paul is having on the Republican Party, he doesn't have to believe that he can win or even actually accomplish anything in his lifetime to accomplish something great. There isn't really a greater stage to put these ideas into the mainstream than getting into the debates and doing the interviews that come along with a run for the presidency.

That you think he's going to accomplish something great is admirable. I'm not merely skeptical that he can accomplish what he claims. Much of the things he wants to accomplish, I want nothing to do with, especially in regards to a foreign policy that makes left-wingers look well-informed, reasonable and sober by comparison.

The biggest part of the President's job is to protect the nation against foreign threats, enforce the law, and represent the nation overseas. The virtue of Ronald Reagan was that he was a staunch defender of those ideals and put not only America's interests forward but his own credibility on the line against the Soviet Union. The power of the President to shape the domestic agenda (bully pulpit) is ahistorical and a product of 20th century liberalism. This is actually the larger point that Gingrich was trying to make when he said “I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very ... I would be against a conservative [President] imposing radical change” but it got lost in the soundbyte-driven media even though he was Constitutionally correct.

Over and above this...RP's foreign policy is dangerous and naive and that alone disqualifies him in my opinion. You may disagree and you obviously do, but even though I agree with some of his domestic policies and his interpretation of the Constitution (the President's role by that Constitution is neither to set the domestic agenda, nor interpret the Constitution), there are too many other glaring shortcomings for me to ever support his candidacy either in substance or ideology.

glocktogo

02-01-12, 12:39

Jer

02-01-12, 12:41

So...in order to continue this argument you're going to ignore my last response?

It seems that if he ignores factual statements it makes his arguments more powerful somehow. :jester:

Gutshot John

02-01-12, 12:48

Thanks for making the assumption I know nothing about the balance of power via checks & balances and the constitution.

I made no assumption at all. Your statement made that assumption. You went the strawman route by stating that the President had no power at all to do anything which is neither what I said nor the point I was trying to make.

A veto is all well and good for future legislation but it does nothing to undo the very substantive structural changes that would be needed to restore the Constitution to its primacy of centuries past which RP has EXPLICITLY claimed he was going to do, but has neglected to explain how he's going to do this without the assent of the Senate. RP's campaign is as vapid as Romney's claim that he's going to repeal Obamacare. Neither man can do what they say without the full throated support of the Legislative branch.

Like I said, if you want to vote for RP as a protest vote, knock yourself out it's your vote. I have no trouble with that, but don't think that your vote for him is going to change anything, even if by some miracle he gets elected, which he won't. If you actually believe that Obama's re-election is the worst possible outcome of 2012 election, than a vote for RP will all but assure that.

For myself, I don't think it matters one way or the other whether it's Romney or Obama. I do think the best hope is for the GOP to lose badly and come back in 2016. In that vein I hope you do vote for RP.

Gutshot John

02-01-12, 12:54

RP can't force Congress to change, but the oval office is a damned good bully pulpit from which to shine a harsh light on Congress.

Who coined the term "bully pulpit"? The answer undermines your argument about restoring the Constitution.

If RP's intent is to restore the Constitution, he should reject the whole notion of the bully pulpit as an extra-constitutional power of the President

If you acknowledge that times have changed and that the bully pulpit is a de facto power of the President, RP is intellectually inconsistent.

The legislative, in the original intent of the Constitution, is the primary branch of government.

This is the larger point of my criticism of RP, he's essentially arguing that you need an 'emperor' to restore the republic. This is the same argument the caesars made. Look how well that turned out.

If you want to emotionally invest yourself in the misguided belief that one man has all the answers and the power to affect these changes, you've already abandoned the core principles of the Constitution you and RP purport to hold sacred.

Gutshot John

02-01-12, 12:56

So...in order to continue this argument you're going to ignore my last response?

I'll reserve the right to ignore what I find irrelevant.

I don't like RP, he's a goofball. You've emotionally invested yourself into supporting his candidacy and so you cannot understand why someone might disagree with his positions. Believe whatever you want, vote however you want, but if you're going to do so, do so with both eyes open. For myself a vote for RP won't change anything in the GOP except insofar as it hands them an electoral thumping. If you want me to vote for RP on principal you're going to have to give me a more compelling reason than you have.

thopkins22

02-01-12, 13:09

I don't care if you disagree with his positions...in fact I know that you do. I do however care if you go on a rant about him being an idiot or a liar because he answers ideological questions ideologically. Disagree with the ideology...not the fact that he actually has one.

Meanwhile, calling anyone that supports him a mental midget in a colorful fashion...ignoring the fact that we realize he'd follow the constitution and not accomplish much by himself on the minute possibility that he wins. Calling someone "an intellectual Pygmy" isn't meant to elicit an emotional response? Please, you're smarter than that.

Are there people that think he can change the world singlehandedly? Sure...there were people who thought Obama would cover their bills, and that McCain might personally take up arms in the middle east.

It's insulting, and does nothing to further your own credibility.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gutshot John

02-01-12, 13:20

I don't care if you disagree with his positions...in fact I know that you do. I do however care if you go on a rant about him being an idiot or a liar because he answers ideological questions ideologically.

I didn't say he was lying. I said he either knows better, in which case he's as cynically disingenuous as any other politician, or that he should know better and doesn't. Neither of which speaks to his credibility as a Presidential candidate; neither of which positions him as the stalwart defender of the Constitution his supporters claim he is.How is this any different than compromising on any other politician out there?

Meanwhile, calling anyone that supports him a mental midget in a colorful fashion...ignoring the fact that we realize he'd follow the constitution and not accomplish much by himself on the minute possibility that he wins.

I didn't call anyone a mental midget. I simply pointed out the logical fallacies of the argument that to support the Constitution, you must also support RP or that a vote for RP represents the best chance of reforming a broken system.

The best chance for reforming a broken system is for more a plurality of the electorate to vote "NOTA".

The best realistic option is a divided Executive and Legislative resulting in 4 more years of gridlock.

thopkins22

02-01-12, 13:29

If an intellectual pygmy isn't a mental midget I don't know what is.

The best realistic option is a divided Executive and Legislative resulting in 4 more years of gridlock.

I can agree with that...and will retire on a common note. I've said it(perhaps not often enough) that the legislature is far more important than the president. The president gets more attention because it's easier to focus on one person.

Gutshot John

02-01-12, 13:34

If an intellectual pygmy isn't a mental midget I don't know what is.

I called RP an intellectual pygmy, he is. I also said he was "the tallest pygmy in the room."

I didn't call you or any of his supporters any such thing.

Armati

02-01-12, 14:58

He's a lunatic. He would weaken our foreign policy and doesn't stand a chance. Hell, I have a better chance of becoming President. Just speaking the truth.

Our current "foreign policy" has not changed much in over 12 years, and really is pretty much the policy we have been running since GB I. I would not really say it has been working well for us. What is it exactly that you like about our current foreign policy?

What would Ron Paul do to make the situation worse?

Never the less, if you look at the nation polling, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are both within the statistical margin of error to win against Obama. Or, in other words Ron Paul is EQUALLY as 'electable' as Mitt Romney. And, this is because Ron Paul and Mitt Romney BOTH appeal to coveted independents.

glocktogo

02-01-12, 15:49

That you think he's going to accomplish something great is admirable. I'm not merely skeptical that he can accomplish what he claims. Much of the things he wants to accomplish, I want nothing to do with, especially in regards to a foreign policy that makes left-wingers look well-informed, reasonable and sober by comparison.

The biggest part of the President's job is to protect the nation against foreign threats, enforce the law, and represent the nation overseas. The virtue of Ronald Reagan was that he was a staunch defender of those ideals and put not only America's interests forward but his own credibility on the line against the Soviet Union. The power of the President to shape the domestic agenda (bully pulpit) is historical and a product of 20th century liberalism. This is actually the larger point that Gingrich was trying to make when he said “I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very ... I would be against a conservative [President] imposing radical change” but it got lost in the soundbyte-driven media even though he was Constitutionally correct.

Over and above this...RP's foreign policy is dangerous and naive and that alone disqualifies him in my opinion. You may disagree and you obviously do, but even though I agree with some of his domestic policies and his interpretation of the Constitution (the President's role by that Constitution is neither to set the domestic agenda, nor interpret the Constitution), there are too many other glaring shortcomings for me to ever support his candidacy either in substance or ideology.

I think you're completely wrong on this topic and refuse to listen to any arguments otherwise.

Who coined the term "bully pulpit"? The answer undermines your argument about restoring the Constitution.

If RP's intent is to restore the Constitution, he should reject the whole notion of the bully pulpit as an extra-constitutional power of the President

If you acknowledge that times have changed and that the bully pulpit is a de facto power of the President, RP is intellectually inconsistent.

The legislative, in the original intent of the Constitution, is the primary branch of government.

This is the larger point of my criticism of RP, he's essentially arguing that you need an 'emperor' to restore the republic. This is the same argument the caesars made. Look how well that turned out.

If you want to emotionally invest yourself in the misguided belief that one man has all the answers and the power to affect these changes, you've already abandoned the core principles of the Constitution you and RP purport to hold sacred.

First off, I think you're using the term "bully" in a modern sense. It meant something else in Teddy's time. Teddy was an awesome president BTW, easily one of the top 5.

You're incorrectly asserting what you mistakenly believe to be my point. I do not believe that it takes an emperor. I believe it takes a man, to sway other men, to sway the minority, to sway the majority. Do you believe that me writing Congress will effect the change we need? Do I have as much power to sway Congress and a sitting president? What I find wildly incongruent is your adamant belief (and it's nothing more than a belief regardless of what you think), that a president cannot effect any changes on Congress unless he's part of the old boy network. Yet you act like Obama can destroy the country more easily than Congress Gone Wild. It's a non sequitur.

It's fine for you to say you don't agree with RP's political policies. It's not fine for you to illogically state that his policies are wrong without basis, and that the country would be better off with any of the three stooges who are part and parcel of what got us where we are today, which is on the brink of collapse. Many knowlegeable people believe that RP's foreign policy would usher in a new era for the US. A better era on the international front. We know that the economic policies of Obama, Romney or Gingrich will destroy this country from within.

Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face! :(

glocktogo

02-01-12, 16:06

Our current "foreign policy" has not changed much in over 12 years, and really is pretty much the policy we have been running since GB I. I would not really say it has been working well for us. What is it exactly that you like about our current foreign policy?

What would Ron Paul do to make the situation worse?

Never the less, if you look at the nation polling, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are both within the statistical margin of error to win against Obama. Or, in other words Ron Paul is EQUALLY as 'electable' as Mitt Romney. And, this is because Ron Paul and Mitt Romney BOTH appeal to coveted independents.

People who dislike Ron Paul on an emotional level love to call him names like lunatic, goofball and intellectual pigmy. They have no logical basis for their dislike, to they emotionalize it and attempt to marginalize him personally, and by extension, anyone who supports his presidential bid (you know, paulbots). Nothing they say or do eliminates him as a threat to the very forces that have been destroying our country from within for the past quarter of a century. He's the pink elephant in the corner of the room they're desperate to ignore. Yet somehow, they've failed to produce a single viable candidate to dethrone the current powers that be. It's almost like they're wringing their hands over the situation while simultaneously conceding that NOTHING and no one can fix the problem.

I can't come to any other conclusions. Either they don't want to sacrifice what every American will have to sacrifice in order to right the ship, or they secretly yearn for the societal breakdown and eventual anarchy we're on a collision course with. How can there possibly be any other explanation? :confused:

Bolt_Overide

02-01-12, 17:28

Would you vote against your conscious? My morals will not allow me to just settle, so not voting is my only ethical choice. It is the same option I was faced with last time, I didn't vote in the last Presidential election because I won't put my name on someone I don't believe in.

I know that irritates some people, but I have to stand by my beliefs.

Depending on how things go over the next 9 or so months if Newt or Santorum gets the nomination I may vote for either of them, anyone else gets the nod I stay home. Romney and Paul are simple decisions, neither can earn my vote.

that is indeed your choice.

its my choice to say, shut the hell up, people automaticaly lose their right to bitch when they fail to vote.

Not to mention credibility.

(please note, that was not inteneded as a personal attack, merely a statement of personal beleif.)

SW-Shooter

02-01-12, 17:52

that is indeed your choice.

its my choice to say, shut the hell up, people automaticaly lose their right to bitch when they fail to vote.

Not to mention credibility.

(please note, that was not inteneded as a personal attack, merely a statement of personal beleif.)

So let's say hypothetically you had three choices and you must choose one. You have to vote for:

Chavez
Castro
or not vote at all

What would you do? I bet you'd vote for someone rather than abstain, after all you'd lose your credibility and right to bitch. That would make you an *idiot. *That statement was not INTENDED as a personal attack, it was merely a statement of my personal belief.:sarcastic:

J8127

02-01-12, 18:05

If all the people who said "I like Ron Paul but he can't win" would vote for him, he would win.

Armati

02-01-12, 18:08

First off, I think you're using the term "bully" in a modern sense. It meant something else in Teddy's time.

A common problem in this day and age. People have no understanding of the historical use of language - a direct result of too much TV.

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

http://www.google.com/search?aq=0&oq=bully+de&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=bully+definition

Bolt_Overide

02-01-12, 20:03

So let's say hypothetically you had three choices and you must choose one. You have to vote for:

Chavez
Castro
or not vote at all

What would you do? I bet you'd vote for someone rather than abstain, after all you'd lose your credibility and right to bitch. That would make you an *idiot. *That statement was not INTENDED as a personal attack, it was merely a statement of my personal belief.:sarcastic:

Personally, Id figure out which one was the lesser of the two evils, and vote for him.

Or not vote, and continue bitching, and live with being hypocrite.

Eventually I would probably realise that I was sorta like the kid on the playground who takes the ball and goes home because he doesnt like who he is stuck playing with.

I dont like the idea of voting for romney or obama, but I like the idea of obama in office 4 more years one whole HELL of a lot less than I do seeing romney get it, or newt, or hell even jessie jackson for that matter.

But I beleive no matter which of them gets the nomination, its better than obama, so I will live with better than obama sooner than I will live with Obama, you are of course free to take your ball, and move to sweden.

Gutshot John

02-01-12, 20:14

I think you're completely wrong on this topic and refuse to listen to any arguments otherwise.

No I simply disagree. If I was to apply your logic, I could just as easily say that you're wrong and that you refuse to listen to any arguments otherwise. I don't like RP, I won't vote for him. If you want to vote for him, by all means knock yourself out, but don't delude yourself into believing that he's going to accomplish anything that he claims.

First off, I think you're using the term "bully" in a modern sense. It meant something else in Teddy's time. Teddy was an awesome president BTW, easily one of the top 5.

Your assumption above is profoundly wrong. I'm not referring to the term "bully" at all. I certainly never called TR a "bully" in the modern context, so I 'm not sure where you're getting any of that. I'm pointing out that TR was a President that viewed the office as an activist position. That's exactly what "bully pulpit" means, that the President has the strength to shape policy and compel Congress to act by his words. This notion is antithetical to the foundational principles of this country. The Executive branch is contained in Article II of the Constitution, after the Legislative which was Article I. The Executive takes a second place to Congress, and TR's concept is in direct opposition to the precedents of the Presidency set by people like George Washington. The president isn't a crypto-emperor. He merely enforces the laws passed by Congress, who represent the will of the people. Outside of the veto, the President has ZERO constitutional authority to affect law. So when you say that RP is going to exercise the "bully pulpit" you're ascribing actions that are constitutionally ahistorical and stand in direct opposition to his stated goals of restoring the primacy of the Constitution. Either he misunderstands his ability, the role of the constitution or you do. Neither is a ringing endorsement of his candidacy.

As for being one of the top 5 Presidents of this country, he was decidedly part of the Progressive movement (if you don't know what that is I suggest you study up on your history). This movement was a significant reason why we have so many problems with our country today and is the ideological opposite of Ron Paul's stated goals.

Let me know when you get caught up on your history and restate the rest of your argument in a cogent fashion and I'll be happy to respond.

Gutshot John

02-01-12, 20:15

doubletap

J8127

02-01-12, 20:46

Gutshot John, I only skimmed your posts but you keep talking about the Constitution and the power the president does or doesn't have.

You are aware of how grossly out of control the executive branch is, and how no matter how many times you say the Constitution says this or that, nobody in Washington gives a shit? The President today has the power to assassinate american citizens. The President today can wage decades of war without congressional approval. The President today can stand up unconstitutional alphabet agencies on a whim.

That's the kind of shit that is going on that makes a President like RP so needed. He CAN walk in day one and cut all of that shit. All these unconstitutional powers that presidents have given themselves can be "given back" overnight.

SW-Shooter

02-01-12, 21:20

If all the people who said "I like Ron Paul but he can't win" would vote for him, he would win.

Wow, you can quote the Facebook social media network. Impressive.:alcoholic:

SW-Shooter

02-01-12, 21:24

Personally, Id figure out which one was the lesser of the two evils, and vote for him.

Or not vote, and continue bitching, and live with being hypocrite.

Eventually I would probably realise that I was sorta like the kid on the playground who takes the ball and goes home because he doesnt like who he is stuck playing with.

I dont like the idea of voting for romney or obama, but I like the idea of obama in office 4 more years one whole HELL of a lot less than I do seeing romney get it, or newt, or hell even jessie jackson for that matter.

But I beleive no matter which of them gets the nomination, its better than obama, so I will live with better than obama sooner than I will live with Obama, you are of course free to take your ball, and move to sweden.

I'd rather see Obama get 4 more years, and the republican party finally get its shit together and become the driving force this nation needs. In four years without Congress he is mostly harmless, so I'd rather see us win the two parts of government with the real power. We're going to lose SCOTUS, but if Romney gets the nod that's a forgone conclusion anyway. I didn't say I wouldn't vote, I did say I'd have to see how things are come the time.

J8127

02-01-12, 21:44

Wow, you can quote the Facebook social media network. Impressive.:alcoholic:

Not as impressive as your ignorance and hypocrisy, but I wasn't going to bother with that.

Gutshot John

02-01-12, 22:54

You are aware of how grossly out of control the executive branch is, and how no matter how many times you say the Constitution says this or that, nobody in Washington gives a shit? The President today has the power to assassinate american citizens. The President today can wage decades of war without congressional approval. The President today can stand up unconstitutional alphabet agencies on a whim.

I'm exactly aware and that's what I'm talking about. RP supporters out of one side of their mouth want a President who won't be out of control and will remain consistent with the Constitution and out of the other side of their mouth want a President who will use the "bully pulpit" to restore the original intent of the Constitution.

There is an inconsistency there. An activist President who supersedes his Constitutional authority, even if he's someone you agree with, isn't any better than one who supersedes it in ways you don't.

This is the exact same argument that the Caesars and virtually every military dictatorship in history made. That you need a strong Executive to restore a republic, even if a strong executive is a de facto end of that republic.

I wish RP supporters would make that choice with both eyes open and that RP himself would acknowledge the inherent contradiction of his candidacy and what he's talking about. If he/they did I would feel much better about him.

thopkins22

02-01-12, 23:06

I wish RP supporters would make that choice with both eyes open and that RP himself would acknowledge the inherent contradiction of his candidacy and what he's talking about. If he/they did I would feel much better about him.

You're pretending to be daft. I can go to YouTube and find video after video of him explaining exactly what he could do as President within the strict confines of the constitution. He can overturn executive orders. He can veto bills. He can bring the military out of Germany and whatnot. That's about it.

He's also raised the point that he won't be elected at all unless Americans get serious about these issues...which would go hand in hand with electing better people to congress. As it is, it's a campaign to get ideas and issues into the conversation that otherwise wouldn't be there. A concept that seems to elude you.

glocktogo

02-01-12, 23:37

No I simply disagree. If I was to apply your logic, I could just as easily say that you're wrong and that you refuse to listen to any arguments otherwise. I don't like RP, I won't vote for him. If you want to vote for him, by all means knock yourself out, but don't delude yourself into believing that he's going to accomplish anything that he claims.

Your assumption above is profoundly wrong. I'm not referring to the term "bully" at all. I certainly never called TR a "bully" in the modern context, so I 'm not sure where you're getting any of that. I'm pointing out that TR was a President that viewed the office as an activist position. That's exactly what "bully pulpit" means, that the President has the strength to shape policy and compel Congress to act by his words. This notion is antithetical to the foundational principles of this country. The Executive branch is contained in Article II of the Constitution, after the Legislative which was Article I. The Executive takes a second place to Congress, and TR's concept is in direct opposition to the precedents of the Presidency set by people like George Washington. The president isn't a crypto-emperor. He merely enforces the laws passed by Congress, who represent the will of the people. Outside of the veto, the President has ZERO constitutional authority to affect law. So when you say that RP is going to exercise the "bully pulpit" you're ascribing actions that are constitutionally ahistorical and stand in direct opposition to his stated goals of restoring the primacy of the Constitution. Either he misunderstands his ability, the role of the constitution or you do. Neither is a ringing endorsement of his candidacy.

As for being one of the top 5 Presidents of this country, he was decidedly part of the Progressive movement (if you don't know what that is I suggest you study up on your history). This movement was a significant reason why we have so many problems with our country today and is the ideological opposite of Ron Paul's stated goals.

Let me know when you get caught up on your history and restate the rest of your argument in a cogent fashion and I'll be happy to respond.

I'm well aware of TR's historical role as president, so no need for me to "brush up" on anything. Am I to assume that since you refute the progressive movement in his day, that you are a misogynist who doesn't believe women should vote? Am I to assume that you favor corruption in politics as exemplified by Tammany Hall in that era? "Progressive" wasn't always the dirty word we view it to be today. Without the progressive movement, we would more resemble the democracy of Mexico today than our own. Only absolutists refuse to see that. Anyone who tries to pretend that TR wasn't good for our country is going to be tilting at windmills. It's a non-starter.

When the legislative branch acts responsibly, there's no need for the administrative branch to assume the bully pulpit. In our dilemma, we need a leader to coalesce a new reform movement. One to strike at the corruption and malfeasance of the legislative branch today.

Besides winning a Nobel Peace Prize for actually doing something worthwhile, TR is also the only presidential candidate as a 3rd party runner to ever defeat one of the two main party candidates. That's something I'd enjoy seeing Ron Paul do today. All the Ron Paul haters love to point out that he briefly left the Republican party to run as an independent, as if that is somehow a bad thing. When your own party abandons it's principles, sometimes drastic measures are called for.

This country couldn't be so lucky as to have someone like TR for president today. And no, I'm not saying RP is another TR. Far from it. But he's the only one on the stage that's even in the same universe as TR. :(

glocktogo

02-01-12, 23:45

You're pretending to be daft. I can go to YouTube and find video after video of him explaining exactly what he could do as President within the strict confines of the constitution. He can overturn executive orders. He can veto bills. He can bring the military out of Germany and whatnot. That's about it.

He's also raised the point that he won't be elected at all unless Americans get serious about these issues...which would go hand in hand with electing better people to congress. As it is, it's a campaign to get ideas and issues into the conversation that otherwise wouldn't be there. A concept that seems to elude you.

I'm beginning to think that some on this board actually prefer our country ignore the constitution, rather than admit that a president is supposed to be a leader. Someday we'll awaken to find that congress has magically rediscovered the constitution, without any guidance at all from the administrative branch. :rolleyes:

Gutshot John

02-01-12, 23:53

I'm well aware of TR's historical role as president, so no need for me to "brush up" on anything. Am I to assume that since you refute the progressive movement in his day, that you are a misogynist who doesn't believe women should vote?

And there it is, anyone who disagrees with you must be somehow [insert random epithet here...racist, misogynist, nazi, homophobe etc.]. So the straw man isn't going to work for you so you resort to the reductio ad absurdum.

That you credit TR with giving women the right to vote, something that didn't occur until a Constitutional amendment more than a decade after his presidency was over, passed, points to the intellectual bankruptcy of your position.

It's worth noting that the President has ZERO role in the Amendment process, but thank you for playing.

glocktogo

02-02-12, 00:07

And there it is, anyone who disagrees with you must be somehow [insert random epithet here...racist, misogynist, nazi, homophobe etc.]. So the straw man isn't going to work for you so you resort to the reductio ad absurdum.

That you credit TR with giving women the right to vote, something that didn't occur until a Constitutional amendment more than a decade after his presidency was over, passed, points to the intellectual bankruptcy of your position.

It's worth noting that the President has ZERO role in the Amendment process, but thank you for playing.

I didn't credit TR with giving women the right to vote, so don't put words in my mouth. And I guess you think women's suffrage happened only in 1919? You're the one that brought out the progressive movement logical fallacy, so you get to live with it now. FWIW, the Democrats were the ones opposed to it and it was the progressive movement, LED BY THE REPUBLICANS that made it happen. My point (and I DO have one) is that you're still playing wordsmith by trying to bridge over a century of time with the same definitions. It doesn't wash. I also NEVER used any epithet and I never Godwin'd the thread. I simply cautioned you that going down the path of attacking TR was foolish. That dog won't hunt.

You're not playing with a fool, so intellectually dishonest debate tactics aren't going to serve you very well. :D

Gutshot John

02-02-12, 07:39

I didn't credit TR with giving women the right to vote, so don't put words in my mouth.

And yet you seem to be perfectly content to do the same to me, more importantly labeling me as a misogynist is contemptible.

Your hypocrisy and bad faith is transparent and not worth any further discussion.

glocktogo

02-02-12, 11:58

And yet you seem to be perfectly content to do the same to me, more importantly labeling me as a misogynist is contemptible.

Your hypocrisy and bad faith is transparent and not worth any further discussion.

Oh come on now! Playing the wounded victim is unbecoming of you! I never said you were a misogynist any more than I said you were in favor of Tammany Hall politics or that TR gave women the right to vote! You went down a path you shouldn't have and I used those questions as a method to point out your logical fallacy. I no more believe you're a misogynist than I believe you favor corruption.

That's why debate tactics like these are bad. We were having a perfectly good debate and suddenly you're butthurt (or pretending to be) that I called you a misogynist when I never did. How about we dispense with the feints and attack debating and return to the topic at hand? Peace? :)

Jer

02-02-12, 12:52

Armati

02-02-12, 13:32

I am still waiting for one of the Ron Paul haters to explain to me our current foreign policy and what Ron Paul would do to make it worse.

ForTehNguyen

02-02-12, 16:02

I am still waiting for one of the Ron Paul haters to explain to me our current foreign policy and what Ron Paul would do to make it worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IYoYaDNjnY

if Ron Paul's foreign policy was so bad for America why is his active armed forces donations twice as big as everyone elses combined? Note how many former CIA officials agree with him on blowback

foreign policy thought exercise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

Cesiumsponge

02-02-12, 16:33

Don't introduce facts to obscure emotion! We need more soundbytes, not long, detailed explanations to break down complex topics.

J-Dub

02-02-12, 16:43

Damn those RP supporters who want to end the Imperialism and World Policing that the AMERICAN PEOPLE are paying for....(read withh extreme sarcasm)

The sad fact is, the neoconservative crowd has been brainwashed to believe the shit they're shoveling. We shouldnt be world police, we should realize our actions have consequences, we're going to go ****ING BROKE chasing the god damn boogey man around the entire world.

Rick Santorum has openly endorsed TERRORISM against Iran, now how in the hell is he ANY better than a muslim terrorist??? Let me guess, he's not brown and is a "christian" (that believes in killing anyone that MIGHT get in our way)

This country is swirling the bowl....

Gutshot John

02-02-12, 16:45

You should be a politician. You're very good at diverting the topic whenever you feel you are wrong or losing ground.

So he didn't divert the topic by calling me a misogynist? But I diverted the topic when I wouldn't play his game? Unique perspective, not the least bit fair-minded, but whatever.

Heaven forbid anyone should question the great Ron Paul and point out the transparent flaws in his arguments, which his supporters are content to gloss over, and attack anyone who points them out.

You've made an emotional investment in his cult of personality and can no longer see the forest for the trees. Whatever, vote for who you want, I've never said anything differently, I'd be happy for you to vote for RP as it will guarantee re-election of Obama and hasten the implosion of the Republican establishment, but at least have the intellectual fortitude to examine his candidacy with a critical eye and understand that this is what you're doing. I'd be quite content if his supporters just admitted that this is what they were doing, but so far all I've seen is a big tub of kool-aid that views RP as some sort of savior that he can never be.

As for his foreign policy, it's a completely false choice to state we either have to go the RP route or become the world's policeman. There is a middle way. The naivete he demonstrates in formulating his foreign policy is what disqualifies him, not the specific policies. For example, stating that we should have negotiated with the Pakistanis to capture OBL was floridly moronic.

chadbag

02-02-12, 17:02

Note how many former CIA officials agree with him on blowback

"blowback" is some holy word whose mere pronouncement makes the argument it is used in self evidently correct.

What a load of horse manure.

Blowback means NOTHING. It is just a fancy word to say that whatever actions you take have costs associated with them. The word "Blowback" itself does NOT say anything about the action itself and whether the costs are reasonable or not.

Gutshot John

02-02-12, 17:14

"blowback" is some holy word whose mere pronouncement makes the argument it is used in self evidently correct.

What a load of horse manure.

Blowback means NOTHING. It is just a fancy word to say that whatever actions you take have costs associated with them. The word "Blowback" itself does NOT say anything about the action itself and whether the costs are reasonable or not.

Exactly correct. Every choice has a cost. Every choice has negative, as well as positive consequences. Comparing the benefits and costs is what should rule decisions. Sometimes the perception of these benefits and costs is deeply skewed and can result in consequences, but doing nothing can equally result in negative costs.

I'm not sure however that random CIA agents have any sort of credibility in this regard. Things often have a way of being perfectly clear in hindsight, but in foresight, random CIA agents are as likely to be incorrect as correct...and often have been.

ForTehNguyen

02-02-12, 17:26

Former head of OBL hunting unit of the CIA endorsed RP too.

chadbag

02-02-12, 17:29

Former head of OBL hunting unit of the CIA endorsed RP too.

And this is significant, how? A "technician", which is what this guy is, is credible on foreign policy how?

(And this guy and his changing positions and self promotion and books has been discussed here on M4C)

For the record, I am in favor of the ideology behind RP's foreign policy. I think his pronouncements and specific remedies may be lacking in the "reality" department given the actual circumstance we and the world are in at the moment. If you "retreat" or "advance", you need to do so in a way that does not expose you to attack on your flanks.

Jer

02-02-12, 20:18

So he didn't divert the topic by calling me a misogynist? But I diverted the topic when I wouldn't play his game? Unique perspective, not the least bit fair-minded, but whatever.

Heaven forbid anyone should question the great Ron Paul and point out the transparent flaws in his arguments, which his supporters are content to gloss over, and attack anyone who points them out.

You've made an emotional investment in his cult of personality and can no longer see the forest for the trees. Whatever, vote for who you want, I've never said anything differently, I'd be happy for you to vote for RP as it will guarantee re-election of Obama and hasten the implosion of the Republican establishment, but at least have the intellectual fortitude to examine his candidacy with a critical eye and understand that this is what you're doing. I'd be quite content if his supporters just admitted that this is what they were doing, but so far all I've seen is a big tub of kool-aid that views RP as some sort of savior that he can never be.

As for his foreign policy, it's a completely false choice to state we either have to go the RP route or become the world's policeman. There is a middle way. The naivete he demonstrates in formulating his foreign policy is what disqualifies him, not the specific policies. For example, stating that we should have negotiated with the Pakistanis to capture OBL was floridly moronic.

So I take it you agree the current system is broken by your statement that if BO wins another election it will implode quicker allowing us to hit the reset button & make everything right? Do you realize at what cost that reset button comes? We're in agreement that the system is broken but you don't realize your statements & actions are the exact reason we're in this mess. It amazes me how people say it's broken but then are outspoken AGAINST the only candidate with a track record of fighting against those who wish to perpetuate this. Who cares how much of his agenda he can bring about in 4yrs... at least he's trying. That's more than I can say for any other corporate shill candidate.

No wonder this country is doomed. You get one guy with an actual track record of fighting for 'the people' and those who should be excited to support him call him a crazy man & make shit up.

Gutshot John

02-02-12, 20:45

So I take it you agree the current system is broken by your statement that if BO wins another election it will implode quicker allowing us to hit the reset button & make everything right? Do you realize at what cost that reset button comes? We're in agreement that the system is broken but you don't realize your statements & actions are the exact reason we're in this mess. It amazes me how people say it's broken but then are outspoken AGAINST the only candidate with a track record of fighting against those who wish to perpetuate this. Who cares how much of his agenda he can bring about in 4yrs... at least he's trying. That's more than I can say for any other corporate shill candidate.

No wonder this country is doomed. You get one guy with an actual track record of fighting for 'the people' and those who should be excited to support him call him a crazy man & make shit up.

Do you really believe that nonsense you just spouted? You're simply projecting. It's predictable and makes me sad for this country, those that purport to love this country have checked their brains at the door, if someone expresses an opinion that calls into question that choice and they take it as a personal attack, and so an inability to respond intelligently means they have to lash out in anger.

One more time since you have a problem with actually reading what I write:

1. You think I'm talking about imploding the whole system. I still believe in the system. I just no longer believe in the the two parties that run the system. The Republican party is as contemptible and corrupt as the Democrats.

2. The best hope for reforming the Republican party is to lose and lose big. Four more years of Obama is nothing if the Republicans don't learn their lesson.

3. If you actually believe an Obama administration will result in a "reset button" your vote for RP is a de facto vote for him. Like it or not, that's what it is. At least have the character to admit that reality. Personally I no longer see any daylight between the GOP and the Democrats

4. I don't like RP, he's not very bright, he's naive and while I like some of his ideas, the rest of his ideas are crackpot. His supporters fail to see through this veil. Even if by some miracle he gets elected, he won't be able to do shit other than suck on a hind tit as the GOP and Democrats unite in opposition to anything he wants to do.

5. If you're seriously suggesting that I must vote for RP because he represents the "least bad of a bunch of bad options" how is that different than the GOP saying I should vote for Romney?

6. I don't like him, I won't vote for him. Get over it. Just because you think he's the savior of the Republic doesn't mean I have to agree. That you've put all your faith into a frail, senile old man, means you're setting yourself up for deep disappointment.

7. One more time...VOTE FOR HIM...I don't care. I'm not trying to convince you to do otherwise. A vote for him is as good an outcome as I can expect as it is the most likely way that the GOP will wake up when they have to deal with another Obama term with no one but themselves to blame for the mess THEY created.

That you want to blame me for the mess of this country is indicative of a very thin skin, an inability to think critically, a complete lack of understanding the Constitution you claim to hold so dear. The real mess is caused by people LIKE YOU that refuse to cast your vote with BOTH eyes open.

I'm being honest with you, apparently you don't like honesty. That you have spent so much effort to vociferously attack me means that you recognize the truth of my words and it hurts, the truth often does. Not my fault, not my problem.

I used to believe in fairy tales. Then I grew up. I'd suggest you do the same.

chadbag

02-02-12, 20:47

So I take it you agree the current system is broken by your statement that if BO wins another election it will implode quicker allowing us to hit the reset button & make everything right? Do you realize at what cost that reset button comes? We're in agreement that the system is broken but you don't realize your statements & actions are the exact reason we're in this mess.

No. That is total BS and very disingenuous.

Do you realize that it is support (in the general election) for BS candidates who cannot get a majority (or large minority) of the population to agree with him that is part of the problem? Getting someone who is "trying" but can't get more than a few percent, if that, in the general election does not help anyone and can hurt the chances of the better of the two running in the general election of getting elected, thereby ACCELERATING the demise and downfall?

I am all for supporting RP in the primaries. But if he does not get the nod, those of you who will either vote for Obama or sit out the election are PART OF THE PROBLEM, not PART OF THE SOLUTION.

You have to work with what you have. If the better candidate cannot get more than a very small percentage of the populace to support him, even if he is the better candidate, he ends up being useless and potentially detrimental if he brings support away from the preferable of the two in the General Election.

It amazes me how people say it's broken but then are outspoken AGAINST the only candidate with a track record of fighting against those who wish to perpetuate this. Who cares how much of his agenda he can bring about in 4yrs... at least he's trying. That's more than I can say for any other corporate shill candidate.

I get tired of BS statements like "corporate shill candidate." Most candidates, even progressive ones you and I may not like, or not "corporate shill candidates." They believe in their message and are not on some corporate payroll somewhere being told what to do. (That does not make there message good or right, but calling them "corporate shill candidates" just diminishes your own guys message and discredits you and him).

No wonder this country is doomed. You get one guy with an actual track record of fighting for 'the people' and those who should be excited to support him call him a crazy man & make shit up.

"make shit up"? For example? (any more than anything is made up about any other candidate -- a certain amount of hyperbole is part of elections and politics)

RP fanbois do more to discredit their own candidate and positions and do more to make sure he will not be elected with this sort of BS spewing forth than you would believe.

You need to get support for your positions at the local level and get people used to thinking about limited government and restricted government before they will adopt those sorts of things at the national level.

When will you RP fanbois get this through your heads? RP is not the savior. Even if elected, he would be a one term President that would lead to a Democratic majority and President in 4 years. And he would get nothing done. Not because most of his ideas are bad, but he and his supporters are few in number and cannot get the general populace behind him/them. And many of his supporters act like goofballs and idiots (some of the discussions I've had with RP fanbois on other sites guarantee that anyone they talk to and spew their 9/11 Truther baloney to [and other fringe stuff] will never support them no matter what their ideas).

I will be voting RP in the primary and in general I try and support his ideological positions in public discussions, as much as possible. But he has no broad based support and no broad based "Base" to rely on and provide support for allies to get into Congress, etc. RP would be a disaster as President because he has no Base to fill the rest of government with (that people will trust and not laugh out of town).

Calling people who understand the realities of politics "part of the problem" just shows how unrealistic RP and his fanbois are.

SW-Shooter

02-02-12, 21:05

Do you really believe that nonsense you just spouted? You're simply projecting. It's predictable and makes me sad for this country, those that purport to love this country have checked their brains at the door, if someone expresses an opinion that calls into question that choice and they take it as a personal attack, and so an inability to respond intelligently means they have to lash out in anger.

One more time since you have a problem with actually reading what I write:

1. You think I'm talking about imploding the whole system. I still believe in the system. I just no longer believe in the the two parties that run the system. The Republican party is as contemptible and corrupt as the Democrats.

2. The best hope for reforming the Republican party is to lose and lose big. Four more years of Obama is nothing if the Republicans don't learn their lesson.

3. If you actually believe an Obama administration will result in a "reset button" your vote for RP is a de facto vote for him. Like it or not, that's what it is. At least have the character to admit that reality. Personally I no longer see any daylight between the GOP and the Democrats

4. I don't like RP, he's not very bright, he's naive and while I like some of his ideas, the rest of his ideas are crackpot. His supporters fail to see through this veil. Even if by some miracle he gets elected, he won't be able to do shit other than suck on a hind tit as the GOP and Democrats unite in opposition to anything he wants to do.

5. If you're seriously suggesting that I must vote for RP because he represents the "least bad of a bunch of bad options" how is that different than the GOP saying I should vote for Romney?

6. I don't like him, I won't vote for him. Get over it. Just because you think he's the savior of the Republic doesn't mean I have to agree. That you've put all your faith into a frail, senile old man, means you're setting yourself up for deep disappointment.

7. One more time...VOTE FOR HIM...I don't care. I'm not trying to convince you to do otherwise. A vote for him is as good an outcome as I can expect as it is the most likely way that the GOP will wake up when they have to deal with another Obama term with no one but themselves to blame for the mess THEY created.

That you want to blame me for the mess of this country is indicative of a very thin skin, an inability to think critically, a complete lack of understanding the Constitution you claim to hold so dear. The real mess is caused by people LIKE YOU that refuse to cast your vote with BOTH eyes open.

I'm being honest with you, apparently you don't like honesty. That you have spent so much effort to vociferously attack me means that you recognize the truth of my words and it hurts, the truth often does. Not my fault, not my problem.

I used to believe in fairy tales. Then I grew up. I'd suggest you do the same.

I like the way you think.

Armati

02-02-12, 22:26

I am still waiting for one of the Ron Paul haters to explain to me our current foreign policy and what Ron Paul would do to make it worse.

And still waiting....

The fact is that the RP haters do not understand foreign policy, nor are they capable of articulating what our foreign policy has been over the Bush/Obama years.

They just regurgitate what they heard on talk radio.

thopkins22

02-02-12, 22:36

And still waiting....

The fact is that the RP haters do not understand foreign policy, nor are they capable of articulating what our foreign policy has been over the Bush/Obama years.

They just regurgitate what they heard on talk radio.

It's easy to say that something is working when the alternative is never attempted. Quantitive easing, bailouts, or Wilsonian foreign policy...time to try something new.

The people that are "experts" have been leading this country for a long time. The "experts" are pushing the ideas that both democrats and republicans listen to. I'm done with experts.

Gutshot John

02-02-12, 22:43

And still waiting....

The fact is that the RP haters do not understand foreign policy, nor are they capable of articulating what our foreign policy has been over the Bush/Obama years.

They just regurgitate what they heard on talk radio.

That's because you haven't been paying attention and aren't really interested in

I could talk about his idiotic assertions about the "assassination" of OBL. Oh wait I have. I could also talk about his idiotic take on Iranian nuclear weapons. I could talk about a lot of things that I disagree with. He's entitled to his opinion and I'm entitled to mine. What I've heard him express however disqualifies him in my view. YMMY, but in the end you're not actually interested in any of that.

You're framing the argument in such a way that I either have to defend our foreign policy wholesale or I have to bend to his way of thinking. Like I said EARLIER in the thread, it's a false choice.

For the record I would rather chew glass than listen to talk radio. Nice try though.

Armati

02-02-12, 22:43

It's easy to say that something is working when the alternative is never attempted.

Yes, but they don't even know what it is that they think is working.

Gutshot John

02-02-12, 22:48

Yes, but they don't even know what it is that they think is working.

Like I said, you're not interested in an honest debate. You just want to discredit anyone who disagrees with RP by claiming they don't understand the "truth" he's speaking. It's convenient and self-serving bullshit.

I'll put my foreign policy knowledge up against yours (and Ron Paul's) any day of the week.

Armati

02-02-12, 23:23

I'll put my foreign policy knowledge up against yours (and Ron Paul's) any day of the week.

Then please state, in strategic terms, what exactly is our foreign policy.

If that is too hard, then let's get a bit more specific:

Why did we go to war with Iraq? What did we 'win'? Why do we still have troops there? What is our Mission End State?

Why did we go to war in Afghanistan? Why are we still there? What is our Mission End State?

In military terms, do you even know what Mission End State is?

What is our China policy?

What is our strategy for the Middle East?

I know it is going to be hard because Rush doesn't discuss this from "noon-three".

J-Dub

02-02-12, 23:28

T
I know it is going to be hard because Rush doesn't discuss this from "noon-three".

Rush Pillbaugh doesnt discuss anything of any value. He's too worried about his next round of oxy...

Sensei

02-03-12, 01:07

Former head of OBL hunting unit of the CIA endorsed RP too.

You do understand the Mr. Scheuer was building the case FOR war with Iraq just after 9/11 by claiming evidence of an association between AQ and Saddam? If you want to know why we went to war with Iraq, take a look at guys like Scheuer who provided faulty intelligence about WMD and the connection to AQ. Now, he makes millions selling books to a captivated libertarian audience that ignores his past mistakes. Enjoy this exchange on Meet the Press a few years ago:

MR. RUSSERT:* You've talked about Iraq being a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda, that you said the invasion of Iraq was not a pre-emption, it was an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat.*If you go back and read your first book, "Through Enemies' Eyes," you seem to lay out a pretty strong case of connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq.* Let me show you page 190:* "In pursuing tactical nuclear weapons, bin Laden has focused on the [Former Soviet Union] states and has sought and received help from Iraq."
This week's new Weekly Standard lays out this one:* "There's information showing that in '93-94, bin Laden began" working "with Sudan and Iraq to acquire a [chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear] capability."
And this:* "We know for certain that bin Laden was seeking [chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear] weapons ... and that Iraq and Sudan have been cooperating with bin Laden."
MR. SCHEUER:* Yes, sir.
MR. RUSSERT:* So you saw a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden?
MR. SCHEUER:* I certainly saw a link when I was writing the books in terms of the open-source literature, unclassified literature, but I had nothing to do with Iraq during my professional career until the run-up to the war.* What I was talking about on "Hardball" was I was assigned the duty of going back about nine or 10 years in the classified archives of the CIA.* I went through roughly 19,000 documents, probably totaling 50,000 to 60,000 pages, and within that corpus of material, there was absolutely no connection in the terms of a--in terms of a relationship--in the terms of a relationship...

Irish

02-03-12, 07:30

4. I don't like RP, he's not very bright, he's naive and while I like some of his ideas, the rest of his ideas are crackpot.
GJ - Have you ever read any of his articles he's published or any of his books he's written? I'm curious to know where you get your opinion of Paul? Is it just evening news and the small snippets that are broadcast or do you do any type of real investigation and analysis before coming to your conclusions? Claiming Dr. Ron Paul is not very bright is very disingenuous.

Gutshot John

02-03-12, 09:32

GJ - Have you ever read any of his articles he's published or any of his books he's written?

Indeed I have. Again, I'm underwhelmed.

Gutshot John

02-03-12, 09:42

Then please state, in strategic terms, what exactly is our foreign policy.[quote]

You and I both know it isn't that simplistic...or at least you should know. There is no single foreign policy.

If you absolutely have to one single foreign policy it is to protect and promote American interests overseas including diplomacy, trade and security. Does it always work? No. Are mistakes made? Yes.

[quote]If that is too hard, then let's get a bit more specific:

Why did we go to war with Iraq? What did we 'win'? Why do we still have troops there? What is our Mission End State?

Again you want me to either endorse RP's foreign policy or defend the current policy decisions. It isn't that simple. If you don't know this you should.

Certainly there have been many strategic mistakes. In EVERY war we've ever fought going back to the Revolution there have been strategic mistakes.

Does that mean RP is some foreign policy savant who has all the answers? Nope. Just because I'd agree that there have been many mistakes doesn't mean I agree with his solutions.

We live in a globalized world, where decisions made in 3rd world countries affect us, we can't just stick our head in the sand and pretend otherwise. We have an obligation to stick by our agreements. We have a duty to support our allies if we expect them to support us. We have an obligation to oppose in hard and soft methods those that would seek to harm us directly or through proxies against our allies.

Your turn, exactly how does RP intend to achieve the above objectives?

ForTehNguyen

02-03-12, 11:49

Gutshot John

02-03-12, 12:04

yea were supporting our allies all right, essentially military defense welfare. How does this make our allies strong again? Why do US taxpayers have to spend who knows how much money for bases in Germany and Korea. Then meanwhile back at home we can't even control a border to the south of us, because we are too worried about other peoples borders compared to our own.

The transparent lack of understanding apparent in the above comment is one of the reason why RP's supporters undermine his candidacy. There are countries in both regions that wish to harm our interests and are not afraid of an aggressive foreign policy to fill in any vacuum we leave behind.

Likewise military aid is far and away given in loans, not grants. There is no welfare.

Its also funny how people are like we need to protect Israel. Then at the same time we give more money in foreign aid to Israel's enemies. This help's our ally? Then Israel basically has to ask us permission before they do something. How is taking away national sovereignty for Israel helping Israel? This is how screwed up our foreign policy is.

I didn't mention Israel at all but if you're not aware of the fact that an explosion of war in that region will have profound impacts on our economy and interests than you're not paying attention. It's as much in our interests in restraining Israel to prevent a conflict as it is to protect an ally. If we throw Israel to the wolves they might be desperate enough to start a preemptive war.

So far neither RP or his fanboys have explained what that policy might be other than cutting all aid. Such a decision has consequences. Acknowledge them and explain why those consequences are less than the consequences of our support and I might be convinced.

chadbag

02-03-12, 12:14

At the very least, if you want to implement RP type policies, you need to put forth detailed plans on how it is going to happen, and it should probably happen over a longer period of time so that everyone can make adjustments and you don't create a vacuum to be filled. Ie, create more problems than you are "solving."

Ideologically I agree with the ideas behind the RP "solutions." Practically, though, they do not give me warm and fuzzies. They are not well thought out and probably would lead to greater problems than we are facing now due to hastiness and creating power vacuums.

Armati

02-03-12, 17:59

You and I both know it isn't that simplistic...or at least you should know. There is no single foreign policy.

?

Then what is it you do not like about Ron Paul's foreign policy? What is your hot button foreign policy issue? What are we doing now, and what would Ron Paul do that would make it worse?

It is really a simple question that none of the Ron Paul haters seem capable of answering.

Low Drag

02-03-12, 18:52

And still waiting....

The fact is that the RP haters do not understand foreign policy, nor are they capable of articulating what our foreign policy has been over the Bush/Obama years.

They just regurgitate what they heard on talk radio.

I don't hate RP, I think his is naive and misguided. BUT I would love to see him as SecTres!

Armati

02-03-12, 19:20

I don't hate RP, I think his is naive and misguided. BUT I would love to see him as SecTres!

Same question. Naive and misguided on what? Cite the current policy you are talking about and compare/contrast with what Ron Paul is recommending.

Gutshot John

02-03-12, 22:51

?

Then what is it you do not like about Ron Paul's foreign policy? What is your hot button foreign policy issue? What are we doing now, and what would Ron Paul do that would make it worse?

It is really a simple question that none of the Ron Paul haters seem capable of answering.

I don't hate anyone. I just don't view him as a realistic or desirable choice. That doesn't mean I hate him.

That said have you actually bothered to read my posts? I can't help that you don't like the answer but I've addressed it repeatedly.

Sensei

02-04-12, 00:26

Same question. Naive and misguided on what? Cite the current policy you are talking about and compare/contrast with what Ron Paul is recommending.

Here are the RP policies that I disagree with:

1) Iran - Within the past 12 months, Paul has taken the position that there was no evidence of Iran furthering a nuclear weapons program. This was perhapse the most uninformed statement that I've heard from the campaign. He has sence walked that back a bit and now claims that any Iranian interest in a nuclear weapons program is a logical result of our (US, Europe, and Israel) foreign policy, and is not necessarily something to be feared. I disagree with this policy and any other that tolerates a nuclear armed Iran.

2) Israel - I believe that the state of Israel has the right to exist, and I would not cut any aid to Israel at this time.

3) Clandestine Action - Paul was critical of the raids that killed OBL and Al-Awalki. I understood his reasons in both cases and I disagree with both of his positions in these cases. I look forward to hearing about more drone strikes and raids against cedible threats to US interest in Somalia, Yemen, etc.

4) Monetary Policy - Paul believes that only gold and silver should be legal currency. I disagree. I also would not completely abolish the Fed.

5) Drugs - Paul calls for an end to the war on drugs, but will not specify which drugs he would legalize other than pot. I would not change any federal drug laws until all federal entitlements (Medicaid, housing, etc.) are abolished.

6) Boarder Security - I favor a fence for most of our southern border, but would be satisfied with electronic survalence in some areas where terrain makes a fence impractical. From what I can tell, Paul does not favor a fence on the border.

Just a Jarhead

02-04-12, 05:56

Here are the RP policies that I disagree with:

1) Iran - Within the past 12 months, Paul has taken the position that there was no evidence of Iran furthering a nuclear weapons program. This was perhapse the most uninformed statement that I've heard from the campaign. He has sence walked that back a bit and now claims that any Iranian interest in a nuclear weapons program is a logical result of our (US, Europe, and Israel) foreign policy, and is not necessarily something to be feared. I disagree with this policy and any other that tolerates a nuclear armed Iran.

2) Israel - I believe that the state of Israel has the right to exist, and I would not cut any aid to Israel at this time.

3) Clandestine Action - Paul was critical of the raids that killed OBL and Al-Awalki. I understood his reasons in both cases and I disagree with both of his positions in these cases. I look forward to hearing about more drone strikes and raids against cedible threats to US interest in Somalia, Yemen, etc.

4) Monetary Policy - Paul believes that only gold and silver should be legal currency. I disagree. I also would not completely abolish the Fed.

5) Drugs - Paul calls for an end to the war on drugs, but will not specify which drugs he would legalize other than pot. I would not change any federal drug laws until all federal entitlements (Medicaid, housing, etc.) are abolished.

6) Boarder Security - I favor a fence for most of our southern border, but would be satisfied with electronic survalence in some areas where terrain makes a fence impractical. From what I can tell, Paul does not favor a fence on the border.

Succinct and well stated Lanesmith. All the reasons that most of us hold our positions on RP as we do. Call this next part superficial if you'd like but it goes into the equation, like it or not, rightly or wrongly, all the above and the fact that he just really looks and comes off qookey & squirrely compounds all the above. When you take the totality of everything about RP, and consider the "whole package", the word "lunatic" gets thrown on him by many. It's not hard to see why... for most of us anyhow. IMHO, those of you who are not objective enough to see & understand this are "too close to the forest to see the trees".

ForTehNguyen

02-04-12, 06:55

RP wants competing currency, gold/silver vs paper. Guess what people would choose if they had that choice? Paper money is one of the primary reasons we are in the situation we are in and we are staring at a future currency collapse.

J-Dub

02-04-12, 08:00

No he wants a currency BACKED by gold/silver. Not backed by thin air, or printed out of it.

I'll be honest, this shit is scary. It seems just about everyone here has zero problem going to war with or carrying out terror attacks against whomever disagrees with us. Not because they attacked us, but because they MIGHT, or just dont agree or want to trade with us.

The brainwashing has taken full affect it seems.

People bitch and moan when another country/group commits a terroristic attack on the U.S.A but we have no problem doing the same to other countries. Because its "different", we're doing it in the name of "RIGHTEOUSNESS"....**** THAT SHIT.

Dropping bombs on a Soveriegn nation that hasnt attacked us in any way is Terrorism. Fact.

Low Drag

02-04-12, 08:14

Same question. Naive and misguided on what? Cite the current policy you are talking about and compare/contrast with what Ron Paul is recommending.

Removing all our forces from bases outside the US, non-intervention etc. While it sound great it is not practical and naive. If we leave SOMEONE is going to fill the vacuum. Are you ready for the consequences?

It can easily be argued that our policy of non-intervention prior to WWII caused many more causalities, e.g. a much larger war that if we go in early.

Please do not go to the middle school (not even sophomoric) end of the debate and say something to the effect of "oh yeah, well I guess you'd like to see our troops die all over the planet to keep you comfortable"...... etc.

There needs to be some middle ground, we can't go tromping all over the place but we can't totally leave either. Thinking we can remove our forces is just silly.

Without writing a book is that enough for you sir?

montanadave

02-04-12, 08:36

Removing all our forces from bases outside the US, non-intervention etc. While it sound great it is not practical and naive. If we leave SOMEONE is going to fill the vacuum. Are you ready for the consequences?

It can easily be argued that our policy of non-intervention prior to WWII caused many more causalities, e.g. a much larger war that if we go in early.

Please do not go to the middle school (not even sophomoric) end of the debate and say something to the effect of "oh yeah, well I guess you'd like to see our troops die all over the planet to keep you comfortable"...... etc.

There needs to be some middle ground, we can't go tromping all over the place but we can't totally leave either. Thinking we can remove our forces is just silly.

Without writing a book is that enough for you sir?

I agree the United States needs to maintain a military presence at strategic areas around the globe. And with a deep water navy and a handful of air bases we can do just that. What we don't need are dozens of large scale military bases with ground forces essentially garrisoning the globe.

Armati

02-04-12, 10:26

Here are the RP policies that I disagree with:

Thank you. One person has the intellectual honesty to post specific issues.

1) Iran - Within the past 12 months, Paul has taken the position that there was no evidence of Iran furthering a nuclear weapons program. This was perhapse the most uninformed statement that I've heard from the campaign. He has sence walked that back a bit and now claims that any Iranian interest in a nuclear weapons program is a logical result of our (US, Europe, and Israel) foreign policy, and is not necessarily something to be feared. I disagree with this policy and any other that tolerates a nuclear armed Iran.

Firstly, we have seen this play before - Iraq, WMDs. Sound familiar? We seem to perfectly willing to live with a nuclear Pakistan and North Korea. The Pakistani ISI has been actively engaged in killing US troops but this really doesn't seem to be a problem for most people.

All the same, Paul's position is to simply get out of the way of Israel and let them take care of Iran. Right now, we are paying the freight in blood and treasure. It's time Israel kicked in a few sheckles for it's own defense. And the same goes for Saudia Arabia. They are the ones who have the most to lose against a nuclear Iran.

In general terms, you don't kill your best customer. Ron Paul is suggesting that we have more gain by engaging Iran in trade and commerce than going to war with them. We defeated Communism with trade and commerce (cell phones, media, and the internet). We will do the same with Radical Islam. The Arab Spring is a direct result of Western educated students challenging their leadership as to why the West has it so good and the Middle East is so ****ed up. This was done with beats not bombs.

Of course, if the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.

2) Israel - I believe that the state of Israel has the right to exist, and I would not cut any aid to Israel at this time.

Yep, Israel has a right to exist. And they are a very prosperous country. I think we need to take a hard look at all of our international aid and how it is being spent. Don't you?

What exactly is America getting for it's aid dollars? I am firm believer in money as a weapon. It is usually far cheaper to send cash than to send troops. I just want to make sure we are getting a good value.

All the same, Congress appropriates the funds.

3) Clandestine Action - Paul was critical of the raids that killed OBL and Al-Awalki. I understood his reasons in both cases and I disagree with both of his positions in these cases. I look forward to hearing about more drone strikes and raids against cedible threats to US interest in Somalia, Yemen, etc.

Being critical does not mean he would not have pulled the trigger in the same situation. The truth is often highly classified.

In the case of Al-Awalki, this is actually a very dangerous precedent. Yes, today we are assassinating the mean old Muslim Terrorists. However, there is, in fact, no "controlling legal authority" that prevents the president from assassinating any American citizen that finds himself on some govt list. This is a very dangerous extra-constitutional power that will inevitably be abused at some point - see Waco and Ruby Ridge.

4) Monetary Policy - Paul believes that only gold and silver should be legal currency. I disagree. I also would not completely abolish the Fed.

Wrong. He believes that gold and silver should be once again legal tender (as they were prior to FDR) and that paper money should be BACKED by gold and silver as was the case prior to Nixon.

Under the current Fed system currency is backed by nothing and the Fed is free to print as much of it as they think is necessary.

This is the system that gave us TARP and the bail outs. Bush, McCain, Obama, Romney and The Newt were all for it.

5) Drugs - Paul calls for an end to the war on drugs, but will not specify which drugs he would legalize other than pot. I would not change any federal drug laws until all federal entitlements (Medicaid, housing, etc.) are abolished.

And the 'War on Drugs' that we have been "fighting" since Regan is working so well?

Clearly, drug law is a states rights issue like ABC laws and fireworks.

6) Boarder Security - I favor a fence for most of our southern border, but would be satisfied with electronic survalence in some areas where terrain makes a fence impractical. From what I can tell, Paul does not favor a fence on the border.

'Our' kind of people get all hot in the face whenever some Lefty wants more gun control. We say "enforce the existing law." And that is exactly what needs to happen here. The fence is a little silly and not very cost effective. The biggest thing right now to slow, stop and reverse illegal immigration has been the recession. There is simply 'no trabajar aqui.' In the same vein, what will END illegal immigration is when ICE starts to show up at large industrial farms and meat processors, and takes the OWNER and managers out in hand cuffs. The President has direct control over ICE and can easily tell them the name of the tune. Prosecute Tyson and ADM under RICO. That will fix our little 'illegal' problem quick, fast and in a hurry!

Sensei

02-04-12, 11:58

I'll be honest, this shit is scary. It seems just about everyone here has zero problem going to war with or carrying out terror attacks against whomever disagrees with us. Not because they attacked us, but because they MIGHT, or just dont agree or want to trade with us.

These having nothing to do with our desire to stop Iran's nuclear weapons aspirations. It is Iran's financial and arms support for Hamas (which has in its charter the destruction of Israel), Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah that is the central issue. Then, there is Iran's support for organizations like AQ in Iraq and their providing enhanced IED's to insurgents fighting US forces. Oops, I forget about their recent freeing top AQ leaders in Iran and the recent attempted assignation of the Saudi ambassador on US soil.

Sensei

02-04-12, 12:19

Wrong. He believes that gold and silver should be once again legal tender (as they were prior to FDR) and that paper money should be BACKED by gold and silver as was the case prior to Nixon.

I did not get that impression after listening to his Congressional testimony while questioning Ben Bernanke or his statements in the Jesse Waters interview.

http://nation.foxnews.com/ron-paul/2011/09/07/factor-producer-jesse-watters-confronts-ron-paul

BTW, I only listed the policy statements with which I disagree. I did not mention my distrust of his economic predictions. While he may have predicted the housing bubble, he and his advisors (mainly Peter Schiff) have been dead wrong in their predictions of hyperinflation.

Gutshot John

02-04-12, 12:33

Thank you. One person has the intellectual honesty to post specific issues.

Really? I listed at least half of those including Iran, Foreign Aid and Clandestine action as foreign policy issues I disagreed with.

You either don't read very well or aren't as intellectually honest as you claim.

This gets back to the point, that RP fanboys do as much to discredit their candidate as anyone else. They're not interested in how people might disagree with RP, how those disagreements make him an unsuitable candidate for them. They're so heavily invested into the cult of RP that any critique of not only his policies, but their fanboyism, becomes a personal attack.

You like RP, vote for him, I've never said or tried to convince you to do anything different, but don't claim that I don't have my reasons for not voting for him or that those reasons are either incorrect or dishonest. Have as much respect for my choice as I have for yours...

THAT'S intellectual honesty.

arizonaranchman

02-04-12, 13:48

Yeah I'm not thrilled with our choices in the conservative race, but what the hell are you gonna do? Sit home and let this communist POS get re-elected???

If you do you're an idiot.

Armati

02-04-12, 14:18

Really? I listed at least half of those including Iran, Foreign Aid and Clandestine action as foreign policy issues I disagreed with.

Ok Sparky, we are going to try this one last time.

What is our current policy? You tell me. Please explain to me what is working well with said current policy. Then please explain to me what Ron Paul would do to make it worse. Think you can handle that?

Yes, I know you don't agree with Ron Paul, but do you know why you don't agree with him?

Armati

02-04-12, 14:26

I did not mention my distrust of his economic predictions. While he may have predicted the housing bubble, he and his advisors (mainly Peter Schiff) have been dead wrong in their predictions of hyperinflation.

The Big Govt Dems, and the Big Govt Gops are both driving us off a cliff. Do you disagree? The Dems are doing it at 90mph, and the Gops are happy to do it at an easy 55. Just because we don't have hyperinflation yet does not mean we are not cruising in that direction.

Do you mean to suggest that our current easy money Fed policy is working just fine? Have you considered how currency devaluation is causing the apparent rise in food and energy prices? It is not that commodities are in such short supply, it is that our currency is worth less and less every time the Fed does a little Quantitative Easing (printing money).

J-Dub

02-04-12, 17:05

These having nothing to do with our desire to stop Iran's nuclear weapons aspirations. It is Iran's financial and arms support for Hamas (which has in its charter the destruction of Israel), Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah that is the central issue. Then, there is Iran's support for organizations like AQ in Iraq and their providing enhanced IED's to insurgents fighting US forces. Oops, I forget about their recent freeing top AQ leaders in Iran and the recent attempted assignation of the Saudi ambassador on US soil.

Keep being brainwashed.

J8127

02-04-12, 17:28

Pakistan is a nuclear armed country. Pakistan harbored OBL for a decade. ISI is behind the Taliban. Pakistan MANUFACTURES "Production Quality" IED PARTS and ships them into Afghanistan.

But we're allies?

Also, a lot of what RP gets called crazy on is just a constitutional, federal level stance. Some things can be gray area ideological differences but a lot of times when you call RP crazy you are really calling the Constitution crazy, since thats where he draws all of his stances from. Take drugs, he doesn't condone them, he's against drugs he's a ****ing doctor, but it isn't the federal governments business.

Armati

02-04-12, 20:03

If we leave SOMEONE is going to fill the vacuum.

Yes, we will. But with our economic power - not our military.

Again, you don't kill your best trading partner.

You guys should get out more. China is very busy building business relationships all over Southwest Asia and Africa. Meanwhile, we are very busy destroying our own economy, sending jobs to China, and bombing Southwest Asia and Africa. Who do you think is going to win this race? Think about it...

Armati

02-04-12, 20:07

Just a Jarhead

02-05-12, 06:56

Hmm, anyone from the anti-Paul crowd want to take that one? Anyone? Bueler....

As this NPR headline describes it "Pakistan: Our Ally from Hell". http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/11/04/142012795/pakistan-the-ally-from-hell-that-hides-its-nukes-from-the-u-s

Saying they are our ally is like saying the Police snitch is the cops friend. They may simply work together for a time, use each other, the snitch gets money, the cop information, but the cop and snitch are hardly friends or allies. They're (snitch and Pakistan) simply useful idiot's who become more and more useless with time. Pakistans usefulness is just about played out. None of us care what anyone in our State Department uses to publicly describe our relationship with Pakistan. Using the term "ally" is a term of convenience only. A necessary evil, placating. No one doubts this for a second or thinks otherwise.

No one on this planet, other than Pakistan, believes that Pakistan having nukes is a good thing. The U.S. has plans drawn up to seize the nukes if necessary. Pakistan knows it and are constantly trying to hide them from the U.S. The U.S. has always been concerned with "loose Nukes" in Pakistan. Pakistan having nukes is a huge threat to the entire world. Everyone knows this. From their rogue unstable goverment leaders, to their ties with terrorist, to loose nukes going missing and falling into the wrong hands. We don't need any more countries like this obtaining nukes.

Armati

02-05-12, 08:43

As this NPR headline describes it "Pakistan: Our Ally from Hell". http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/11/04/142012795/pakistan-the-ally-from-hell-that-hides-its-nukes-from-the-u-s

Saying they are our ally is like saying the Police snitch is the cops friend.

You really want to use that analogy? In this particular case, that snitch has killed a few cops. At what point do you take this asshole down?

Again, we hear lots of saber rattling against Iran but we seem to be ok with Pakistani IED factories, the ISI running the HIG, Pakistani attacks against our supply lines, and Paki nukes. So where is the outrage against Pakistan? You don't here a peep about it from The Newt or Romney. Please explain.

glocktogo

02-05-12, 08:56

Yeah I'm not thrilled with our choices in the conservative race, but what the hell are you gonna do? Sit home and let this communist POS get re-elected???

If you do you're an idiot.

That's just it. There IS no "conservative" race. :(

Just a Jarhead

02-05-12, 09:13

You really want to use that analogy? In this particular case, that snitch has killed a few cops. At what point do you take this asshole down?

Again, we hear lots of saber rattling against Iran but we seem to be ok with Pakistani IED factories, the ISI running the HIG, Pakistani attacks against our supply lines, and Paki nukes. So where is the outrage against Pakistan? You don't here a peep about it from The Newt or Romney. Please explain.

If you didn't like that analogy you're certainly not going to like this term. It's called collateral damage and keeping your eye on the bigger picture. Sad I agree, but true and necessary.

Dirk Williams

02-05-12, 09:16

Whichever Republican gets the nod gets my vote. Anybody but Obama.

I admire all of you for your conviction regarding your belief in specific candidates. I can't remember a time when I actually voted for a candidate rather then against or trying to block the other partys candidate. That is truly sad.

But to not vote is simply un-American. Now more then ever we need solidarity to rid the country of this corrupt way of doing business. this country can not take 4 more years of the turd in the box now.

Dirk

ForTehNguyen

02-05-12, 10:01

not voting when you have two un-American candidates wouldnt be un-American to me.

J-Dub

02-05-12, 10:12

Now more then ever we need solidarity to rid the country of this corrupt way of doing business.

Dirk

Lol and you think electing Romney, newt, or Satanorum arent corrupt?? Lol You actually believe they'll change something?

Ok......Good luck with that fairytale...

Armati

02-05-12, 10:15

It's called collateral damage and keeping your eye on the bigger picture.

What exactly is the collateral damage? And collateral to what specific goal? What is the sacrifice 'x' we are making for objective 'y'?

Given your logic, 911 is simply the collateral damage of having a failed Middle East policy.

montanadave

02-05-12, 10:18

Not voting out of apathy is one thing.

Choosing not to support any of the candidates on the ballot is another matter.

The former expresses a complete indifference to the democratic process. The later is indicative of a totally different mindset and represents a conscious decision to abstain, which is a legitimate choice when confronted with unacceptable alternatives.

Sensei

02-05-12, 22:29

Keep being brainwashed.

Perhaps it is you who needs to remove the soap suds in your ears ;)

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/ayatollah-kill-all-jews-annihilate-israel/

ForTehNguyen

02-06-12, 07:39

Perhaps it is you who needs to remove the soap suds in your ears ;)

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/ayatollah-kill-all-jews-annihilate-israel/

all they do is talk shit like this they wont attack Israel. Israel can turn that entire country into class single handedly. 300 nukes vs no nukes

Sensei

02-06-12, 08:12

all they do is talk shit like this they wont attack Israel. Israel can turn that entire country into class single handedly. 300 nukes vs no nukes

Exactly. That is why I support the use of force as a last resort to prevent Iran from ever having a single nuke. A nuclear Pakistan has created enough problems in the region - we don't need to compound the situation with genocidal psychopaths in Iran.

chadbag

02-06-12, 11:03

all they do is talk shit like this they wont attack Israel. Israel can turn that entire country into class single handedly. 300 nukes vs no nukes

But what if they aren't just talking sh*t?

They have 50000 missiles aimed at Israel through their Lebanese proxy Hezbollah. They also supposedly have a bunch of their own missiles that can reach Israel.

A massive first strike of said missiles from Lebanon and Iran could overwhelm Israel. In the aftermath of such an attack, would Israel really push the button? Would they be able to get such an response attack off the ground in the aftermath? Even then would an Israeli politician be willing actually to use a nuclear weapon?

This is all speculation on the part of many (including you), but to outright dismiss Iran as just "talking sh*t" is dangerous.

-

ForTehNguyen

02-06-12, 12:40

chadbag

02-06-12, 12:50

5 Muslim countries tried to attack Israel in 6 days and Israel gained territory, but yea a nuke-less country is such a huge danger to Israel. I'm sure Iran leveling the holy land sacred to three different religions will ring well to the rest of the world.

Stick your head in the sand and say "ah ah ah ah ah I can't hear you". Try to inform yourself a little better.

The last few wars with muslims have not gone so well. 30 or more years ago does not compare to the situation today. When Israel went to war a few years ago against Hezbollah only they came out behind the eight ball. And Hezbollah had only 1/4 of the rockets and missiles that they have now, and used a less than 1/2 of the ones they had at the time.

Iran doesn't have to attack Jerusalem to wipe out Israel with over 50000 missiles and rockets (theirs and Hezbollahs'). And Iran doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks, obviously [or we wouldn't be having this conversation] (To your "holy land" argument)

The situation is a much different situation today than it was 30 years ago.

-

maximus83

02-06-12, 14:20

For me, the "political calculus" here for this election cycle is fairly simple:

* We have several imperfect, less-than-ideal candidates on the "less-socialist" side of things.
* We have an off-the-charts socialist President who is not just "enabling our decline," he is ACTIVELY PROMOTING OUR DOWNFALL across many fronts in the cultural war.

Though no Republican candidate is ideal or to my liking right now, I would back and vote for ANY of them versus BHO for President. Forming a strategic alliance, even with a perceived "enemy" (like a Republican whose support for the 2A is less than whole-hearted), can still be the smart play when the alternative is utter chaos, decline, and a loss of freedom should BHO win.

As I see it, we have deep cultural and economic problems, and we have two choices for the rate of decay over the next 4 years:
* Elect BHO, and the rate of decline and loss of freedom will ACCELERATE.
* Elect one of the others, and have at least an opportunity to slow the rate of decline, while working for better candidates and solutions long term.

That's it. Not ideal, but that's the way I am looking at it. I am not going to give up on our country because still I think we have good PEOPLE. And it is us, not ultimately the politicians, that will determine our future.

Gutshot John

02-06-12, 14:47

Ok Sparky, we are going to try this one last time.

What is our current policy? You tell me. Please explain to me what is working well with said current policy. Then please explain to me what Ron Paul would do to make it worse. Think you can handle that?

Yes, I know you don't agree with Ron Paul, but do you know why you don't agree with him?

Asked and answered...I don't know why I bother to have a conversation with someone who can't even be bothered to reply to what I write...but one more time..."Sparky."

Copied directly from a previous post.

You and I both know it isn't that simplistic...or at least you should know. There is no single foreign policy.

If you absolutely have to one single foreign policy it is to protect and promote American interests overseas including diplomacy, trade and security. Does it always work? No. Are mistakes made? Yes.

Certainly there have been many strategic mistakes. In EVERY war we've ever fought going back to the Revolution there have been strategic mistakes.

Does that mean RP is some foreign policy savant who has all the answers? Nope. Just because I'd agree that there have been many mistakes doesn't mean I agree with his solutions.

We live in a globalized world, where decisions made in 3rd world countries affect us, we can't just stick our head in the sand and pretend otherwise. We have an obligation to stick by our agreements. We have a duty to support our allies if we expect them to support us. We have an obligation to oppose in hard and soft methods those that would seek to harm us directly or through proxies against our allies.

Your turn, exactly how does RP intend to achieve the above objectives?

Now that I've answered your questions, twice without you bothering to read them...How about answering my question this time? The one in bold

If RP doesn't answer these questions, than he risks American credibility, long standing allies and our security and economic position in the world. Those are the implications. Does that mean I expect perfection? Nope. Again mistakes happen but understand the world has changed and there are a bunch of nations (China, Russia, Iran etc.) who would like nothing more for the US to retreat from the influence it hold in the Far East, Europe and the Middle East so they can fill the void. How is RP going to address that?

Armati

02-06-12, 16:53

American foreign policy is a complete disaster and has been so for some time. Obama has simply followed the failed foreign policy created by the hive mind of Rove/Wolfowitz/Cheney/Rumsfeld, because like his predecessor, he has no idea what he is doing.

Americans in general have a very immature and fantastical view of what can actually be accomplished with military force. We have been very good at starting wars but have no idea how to properly end them - see Korea, Viet Nam, The First Gulf War, and our current war. We lack a coherent strategic vision to put national effort toward and we deploy our troops without giving them the conditions for victory or mission end state.

How Ron Paul could make this situation any worse is beyond me. I do know for certain that will not fix our current woes with the same thinking that got us here in the first place. We tried Woodrow Wilson, maybe it is now time to try a little Thomas Jefferson.

chadbag

02-06-12, 17:04

American foreign policy is a complete disaster and has been so for some time. Obama has simply followed the failed foreign policy created by the hive mind of Rove/Wolfowitz/Cheney/Rumsfeld, because like his predecessor, he has no idea what he is doing.

So, this foreign policy is something new that Rove et al came up with?

Americans in general have a very immature and fantastical view of what can actually be accomplished with military force. We have been very good at starting wars but have no idea how to properly end them - see Korea, Viet Nam, The First Gulf War, and our current war. We lack a coherent strategic vision to put national effort toward and we deploy our troops without giving them the conditions for victory or mission end state.

I didn't know Rove et al got us into Korea, Vietnam, or Desert Shield/Desert Storm?

How Ron Paul could make this situation any worse is beyond me. I do know for certain that will not fix our current woes with the same thinking that got us here in the first place. We tried Woodrow Wilson, maybe it is now time to try a little Thomas Jefferson.

You still have not answered GSJ question.

Gutshot John

02-06-12, 18:03

American foreign policy is a complete disaster and has been so for some time.

In your opinion...but assuming that your opinions are objective fact... Please identify which parts are a disaster and quantify what they were supposed to achieve and how they have failed. Some of our policy has been a disaster, some of it has been an unqualified success, some of it is somewhere in between. So when you talk about a single "foreign policy" you're way out of your depth.

Obama has simply followed the failed foreign policy created by the hive mind of Rove/Wolfowitz/Cheney/Rumsfeld, because like his predecessor, he has no idea what he is doing.

Wow, buzzwords, so you must know what you're talking about there...sadly I don't even know where to begin with the flaws inherent in the above statement. Specifically that you can't distinguish how foreign policy has shifted under Obama you're discrediting yourself and your candidate...again.

Americans in general have a very immature and fantastical view of what can actually be accomplished with military force. We have been very good at starting wars but have no idea how to properly end them - see Korea, Viet Nam, The First Gulf War, and our current war. We lack a coherent strategic vision to put national effort toward and we deploy our troops without giving them the conditions for victory or mission end state.

Foreign policy isn't just about war, in fact war usually occurs when foreign policy falls short. That said I'm sure you would agree that there were other events beyond our control that made those wars necessary.

How Ron Paul could make this situation any worse is beyond me. I do know for certain that will not fix our current woes with the same thinking that got us here in the first place. We tried Woodrow Wilson, maybe it is now time to try a little Thomas Jefferson.

It's funny how you invoke Wilson when someone earlier accused me of being a misogynist by critiquing Teddy Roosevelt. Again it's not an all or nothing proposition, any policy is going to be flawed, you have to quantify where those flaws are and how they are worse than what RP would do. In that vein It's kind of funny that you invoke Jefferson without understanding his foreign policy, his failures, or the fact that he engaged in some very extreme extra-constitutional behavior including the Louisiana Purchase, the Barbary Pirates and in fact wanted us to get in the middle of a war between France and England. Moreover his so-called "embargo" on Europe nearly destroyed the American economy and in fact his Presidency might be considered one of the primary causes of the War of 1812.

Again RP's supporters undermine his position by invoking history and the Constitution without actually understanding it.

You still haven't answered my question, but no worries, your silence speaks volumes.

Dirk Williams

02-06-12, 19:03

ForTehNguyen

02-06-12, 20:31

what a great contribution to this debate that post was

I voted in the last election and I will in this one.

montanadave

02-06-12, 20:39

For teh Hgyen and J-Dub, it's pretty simple if you didn't vote last election then shut your pie hole.

If you don't intend to vote this election, The shut your ****ING pie hole!.

Other then that have a great day.

Dirk

So the Bill of Rights is contingent on suffrage?

Maybe you should ask your 8th grade U.S. history teacher for your money back. :rolleyes:

Armati

02-06-12, 21:57

You still haven't answered my question, but no worries, your silence speaks volumes.

You didn't answer mine either, and I gave you specific questions. In any event, in case I missed it, what was your question again?

In general terms, questions tend to end with 'question marks', in case you didn't know that.

All the same, I am waiting with baited breath for someone to explain to me what our current plan is in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. What are our objectives in each and what are we doing (or have done over the last 12 years) that will yield that result? Really, what?

Armati

02-06-12, 22:05

I didn't know Rove et al got us into Korea, Vietnam, or Desert Shield/Desert Storm?

You must know that Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rummy were big brains involved with The First Gulf War.

Unless you are being intentionally obtuse, I am talking more generally about the neo-imperial track we have been on since Wilson.

I would love to give GSJ an answer but seriously I am not sure what his question is. Ask a question, and end it with a question mark so I know it is actually a question - not a declaration. I am not playing games, I really don't know what his question was.

Armati

02-06-12, 22:21

In your opinion...but assuming that your opinions are objective fact... Please identify which parts are a disaster and quantify what they were supposed to achieve and how they have failed.

Off the top of my head:

A war lasting over 10 years with no end in sight and a vast expenditure of blood and treasure yielding little to show for it. Yes, we killed OBL but we had a chance to kill him in the 90's. The time to have supported the Northern Alliance was when they were trying to form and independent state. Google around for Able Danger. A lot of establishment types on both sides of the isle did not want to hear any evil about some "crazy" terrorist plot. Following 911 there was a huge cover up to protect careers. The 911 Commission was largely a white wash, made up of a lot of the people who ignored the intel, to ensure that certain facts never came to light. How is that for a failed policy?

Gutshot John

02-06-12, 23:04

Off the top of my head:

A war lasting over 10 years with no end in sight and a vast expenditure of blood and treasure yielding little to show for it. Yes, we killed OBL but we had a chance to kill him in the 90's. The time to have supported the Northern Alliance was when they were trying to form and independent state. Google around for Able Danger. A lot of establishment types on both sides of the isle did not want to hear any evil about some "crazy" terrorist plot. Following 911 there was a huge cover up to protect careers. The 911 Commission was largely a white wash, made up of a lot of the people who ignored the intel, to ensure that certain facts never came to light. How is that for a failed policy?

And how is that any different than any other period of history where foreign policy has met with success and failure?

You expect perfection and you identify foreign policy, like any manmade policy, that one is often made of mistakes, false assumptions, and short-term benefit over long-term gain. It also occasionally meets with success. The foreign policy of Cheney et al was formed during the time of Ronald Reagan who had extraordinary foreign policy success, and yet his was far more aggressive, expansive and centrally planned even than Obama. You win some, you lose some. While I have significant criticisms for the First Gulf War, it is invariably viewed as one of the foreign policy successes of the post cold war era by both liberals and conservatives alike. Few endeavors are so universally admired as having been the right thing to do.

And how exactly is Ron Paul going to be any different? He isn't. Any of the choices he talks about making are equally fraught with peril and are equally short-sighted. As Jefferson learned, it's easy to criticize a policy of those you disagree with, and point out where it has fallen short of perfection that is neither achievable, nor possible. It's quite another when you have to make those choices yourself.