[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Ron Paul.. does it again (Page 1 of 5)
Posted: 11/17/2010 1:46:56 PM EDT
https://twitter.com/RepRonPaul/status/4945382488416256# yep another TSA thread |
|
Quoted: Quoted: He used to be a kook and a loser with orthopedic shoes.  Now all of the sudden he "might" be someone worth listening to. Domestically he is always worth listening to. Maybe not agree with, but at least listen to. foreign policy? Not so much. Would you rack up your credit cards to make sure you had 12 AR 15's and 1000 rounds for each? Enough to outfit the whole neighborhood since its not a priority for them. Make sense? |
|
Quoted:
I voted for Ron Paul when he was running for President and will continue to do so whenever he is on my ballot. What's wrong with his foreign policy? Bring troops home, stop being the world's police. Sounds OK to me. Yep, I voted for him in 1988 when he ran as a Libertarian. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I voted for Ron Paul when he was running for President and will continue to do so whenever he is on my ballot. What's wrong with his foreign policy? Bring troops home, stop being the world's police. Sounds OK to me. Yep, I voted for him in 1988 when he ran as a Libertarian. Hopefully he'll run this time too. I believe that a lot more people will listen. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I voted for Ron Paul when he was running for President and will continue to do so whenever he is on my ballot. What's wrong with his foreign policy? Bring troops home, stop being the world's police. Sounds OK to me. Because when the US goes into its shell, we get world wars. The absence of leadership is anarchy. If the US doesn't lead, someone else will. Right now the choice is between Russia and China. Which do you want dictating terms? |
|
I didn't used to agree with RP on foriegn stuff. He is right on with domestic stuff. However, with world affairs I am starting to think he might be right. We used to have one enemy, the Ruskies. A boxing fight. No way we should step out of the ring. Now the world is just....screwed. Time to back out of the bar fight for a bit and let things play out. We can't afford it right now, fiscally or otherwise. |
|
Quoted:
I didn't used to agree with RP on foriegn stuff. He is right on with domestic stuff. However, with world affairs I am starting to think he might be right. We used to have one enemy, the Ruskies. A boxing fight. No way we should step out of the ring. Now the world is just....screwed. Time to back out of the bar fight for a bit and let things play out. We can't afford it right now, fiscally or otherwise. I am glad people are coming around to seeing the self fulfilling fallacy that is our foreign policy. |
|
Quoted: We can't afford not to be engaged globally.I didn't used to agree with RP on foriegn stuff. He is right on with domestic stuff. However, with world affairs I am starting to think he might be right. We used to have one enemy, the Ruskies. A boxing fight. No way we should step out of the ring. Now the world is just....screwed. Time to back out of the bar fight for a bit and let things play out. We can't afford it right now, fiscally or otherwise. Our interests––economic, strategic, and military––are to widespread to pull back into our shell. Look at it this way––our LACK of engagement after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989 is what led to the problems we're having today. Our isolationism before, during and after WWI directly led to WWII (at least on the Pacific front). And if we withdraw militarily, how will we be able to defend/fight for our economic well-being? Besides, I'd rather fight our enemies over there (wherever THERE might be) than close to home––and if our troops/systems aren't forward-deployed, then OVER THERE becomes RIGHT HERE. There's a reason the Roman Empire at it's height encompassed a large part of three continents, and at the end was centered around one city (Constantinople). History––those not understanding, doomed to repeat, etc. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
He used to be a kook and a loser with orthopedic shoes.
Now all of the sudden he "might" be someone worth listening to. Domestically he is always worth listening to. Maybe not agree with, but at least listen to. foreign policy? Not so much. Yeah, only issue I've ever really had with him was that he's a bit myoptic on foreign policy. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
We can't afford not to be engaged globally.
I didn't used to agree with RP on foriegn stuff. He is right on with domestic stuff. However, with world affairs I am starting to think he might be right. We used to have one enemy, the Ruskies. A boxing fight. No way we should step out of the ring. Now the world is just....screwed. Time to back out of the bar fight for a bit and let things play out. We can't afford it right now, fiscally or otherwise. Our interests––economic, strategic, and military––are to widespread to pull back into our shell. Look at it this way––our LACK of engagement after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989 is what led to the problems we're having today. Our isolationism before, during and after WWI directly led to WWII (at least on the Pacific front). And if we withdraw militarily, how will we be able to defend/fight for our economic well-being? Besides, I'd rather fight our enemies over there (wherever THERE might be) than close to home––and if our troops/systems aren't forward-deployed, then OVER THERE becomes RIGHT HERE. There's a reason the Roman Empire at it's height encompassed a large part of three continents, and at the end was centered around one city (Constantinople). History––those not understanding, doomed to repeat, etc. It could also be argued that our engagement in the Pacific prompted even more aggression from the Japanese and ultimately war, but that is beside the point. Why is this always presented as a false dichotomy between our current mass level of interventionism, and complete isolationism. There is always some level of engagement. Your analogies are false. Defeating the projected enemies overseas while your country rots back home from greater threats is not a solution. We are not an Empire, nor were we ever envisioned to be one. |
|
Quoted:
Ron Paul is my hero. Ron Paul / John Stossel 2012! Or maybe Paul/(Judge)Napolitano. As much as I would love for Paul to get elected... I don't see it happening. The media hates him, he's not loved by the R's or the D's, and it's far too easy to portray him as nutty. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: We can't afford not to be engaged globally.I didn't used to agree with RP on foriegn stuff. He is right on with domestic stuff. However, with world affairs I am starting to think he might be right. We used to have one enemy, the Ruskies. A boxing fight. No way we should step out of the ring. Now the world is just....screwed. Time to back out of the bar fight for a bit and let things play out. We can't afford it right now, fiscally or otherwise. Our interests––economic, strategic, and military––are to widespread to pull back into our shell. Look at it this way––our LACK of engagement after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989 is what led to the problems we're having today. Our isolationism before, during and after WWI directly led to WWII (at least on the Pacific front). And if we withdraw militarily, how will we be able to defend/fight for our economic well-being? Besides, I'd rather fight our enemies over there (wherever THERE might be) than close to home––and if our troops/systems aren't forward-deployed, then OVER THERE becomes RIGHT HERE. There's a reason the Roman Empire at it's height encompassed a large part of three continents, and at the end was centered around one city (Constantinople). History––those not understanding, doomed to repeat, etc. ...So how does that matter when our economy collapses because it cannot afford the trillion dollar defense machine that gives every other NATO country an opportunity to save its money and spend elsewhere? Whats wrong with making the pansy European mainland and Japan become accountable for their military affairs? Must we continue to dole out money to provide for military bases in allied countries while their military spending plummets? Does that make sense? It wasn't a lack of engagement in Afghanistan that caused the problems. Quite the opposite - we engaged in helping Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, which then allowed the Taliban to come into power. Furthermore, the arguments about Chinese and Russian growth and aggression in the wake of non-interventionism are counter to likely reality. With RP as our president, we would have a flourishing economy in a few years, and we would begin to attack China where it really hurts - their exports. China and Russia exist as threats not because of their militaries, but economic strangleholds on key strategic resources. With a good president and the right domestic agenda (lower taxes, lower government spending, create jobs and business growth), they would be weakened as America began to export its resources to its allies, hurting the economic influence of Chinese' manufactured goods, and Russian energy resources. We can keep meddling overseas which has obtained us wonderful things such as Saddam Hussein (won because of US interference in Iran-Iraq war), Pol Pot, and the like, or we could focus on America for once, and stop playing Team America: World Police. Its not to say that we don't engage people, but we don't do it by merely using military assets - we free the economic American beast that's dormant due to excessive government intervention. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I voted for Ron Paul when he was running for President and will continue to do so whenever he is on my ballot. What's wrong with his foreign policy? Bring troops home, stop being the world's police. Sounds OK to me. Because when the US goes into its shell, we get world wars. The absence of leadership is anarchy. If the US doesn't lead, someone else will. Right now the choice is between Russia and China. Which do you want dictating terms? Who says we have to lead with a gun? Why can't we lead through example. We did it successfully in the past. What Ron Paul preaches is NOT isolationism. It's non-interventionism. There will be no going into a shell. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
He's good on domestic policy, but horrible on foreign policy. Economic policy is domestic policy, and he's as bad on that as he is on foreign policy. As this thread demonstrates, he is abysmal on domestic national security policy too. I have noticed that you always make assertions with no explanations as to why. Please elaborate and give examples. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I voted for Ron Paul when he was running for President and will continue to do so whenever he is on my ballot. What's wrong with his foreign policy? Bring troops home, stop being the world's police. Sounds OK to me. Because when the US goes into its shell, we get world wars. The absence of leadership is anarchy. If the US doesn't lead, someone else will. Right now the choice is between Russia and China. Which do you want dictating terms? Who says we have to lead with a gun? Why can't we lead through example. We did it successfully in the past. What Ron Paul preaches is NOT isolationism. It's non-interventionism. There will be no going into a shell. Carter was good at that, too. |
|
Quoted: so you support the TSA huh?Quoted: He's good on domestic policy, but horrible on foreign policy. Economic policy is domestic policy, and he's as bad on that as he is on foreign policy. As this thread demonstrates, he is abysmal on domestic national security policy too. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ron paul is an idiot Poignant, well thought out, nuanced, and quite eloquent. 
Go away troll. You go away, troll. No trolling is worse than this hyping up ron paul shit. So you are calling me a troll? Provide some evidence of it. These one line "fuck____" and "_____is and idiot" posts with no other constructive explanation or contribution is TROLLING. You ought to know. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
He's good on domestic policy, but horrible on foreign policy. Economic policy is domestic policy, and he's as bad on that as he is on foreign policy. As this thread demonstrates, he is abysmal on domestic national security policy too. So you sobered up eh? I liked your drunken posts better. They made more sense. Though I can't knock you for posting nonsense whilst shitfaced. That would be a "pot meet kettle" moment. Paul is a brilliant guy on economic policy. He's called his shots for years, and been nothing but right. He is an asset to the .gov, so long as he doesn't set foreign policy. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: so you support the TSA huh?Quoted: He's good on domestic policy, but horrible on foreign policy. Economic policy is domestic policy, and he's as bad on that as he is on foreign policy. As this thread demonstrates, he is abysmal on domestic national security policy too. Unreservedly. My life depends on transportation security. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who says we have to lead with a gun? Why can't we lead through example. We did it successfully in the past. What Ron Paul preaches is NOT isolationism. It's non-interventionism. There will be no going into a shell. Carter was good at that, too. Oh you, silly  . 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ron paul is an idiot Poignant, well thought out, nuanced, and quite eloquent. Go away troll. You go away, troll. No trolling is worse than this hyping up ron paul shit. So you are calling me a troll? Provide some evidence of it. These one line "fuck____" and "_____is and idiot" posts with no other constructive explanation or contribution is TROLLING. You ought to know. Defending Ron Paul = debasing America. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ron paul is an idiot Poignant, well thought out, nuanced, and quite eloquent.
Go away troll. You go away, troll. No trolling is worse than this hyping up ron paul shit. So you are calling me a troll? Provide some evidence of it. These one line "fuck____" and "_____is and idiot" posts with no other constructive explanation or contribution is TROLLING. You ought to know. Defending Ron Paul = debasing America. Gets my vote for most retarded post of the year. Have you used the word "unpatriotic" in the thread yet? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ron paul is an idiot Poignant, well thought out, nuanced, and quite eloquent.
Go away troll. You go away, troll. No trolling is worse than this hyping up ron paul shit. So you are calling me a troll? Provide some evidence of it. These one line "fuck____" and "_____is and idiot" posts with no other constructive explanation or contribution is TROLLING. You ought to know. Defending Ron Paul = debasing America. Are you really accusing me of debasing America? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: so you support the TSA huh?Quoted: He's good on domestic policy, but horrible on foreign policy. Economic policy is domestic policy, and he's as bad on that as he is on foreign policy. As this thread demonstrates, he is abysmal on domestic national security policy too. Unreservedly. My life depends on transportation security. To use your words. Defending TSA = debasing America. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ron paul is an idiot Poignant, well thought out, nuanced, and quite eloquent. Go away troll. You go away, troll. No trolling is worse than this hyping up ron paul shit. So you are calling me a troll? Provide some evidence of it. These one line "fuck____" and "_____is and idiot" posts with no other constructive explanation or contribution is TROLLING. You ought to know. Defending Ron Paul = debasing America. Are you really accusing me of debasing America? When you trolled the ron paul critic in this thread you contributed in a very small way to supporting someone who is just plain bad for America. |
|
Quoted: I love how people all gather together to root for more of the same, and then after more of the same are elected, they bitch about electing more of the same.... Ron Paul supports more freedom than most people can handle, pure and simple. Freedom to stay home all day because you don't have a job, freedom to do more with less, freedom to be ashamed of yourself and what your country has sunk too. Too much freedom for me to handle, no argument here. |