Ron Paul - our next John McCain only worse

It's obscene you're comparing us to someone recklessly playing in the road and tempting those well known road ragers that get mad and purposely target j-walkers. if that were true, then shouldn't we go after those road ragers with force?

But you and Ron Paul would never do such a thing. You'd rather back down to them and even apologize for tempting them. That's not the kind of leadership this country needs.

 

They weren't attacking us. So who was a group like al Qaeda targeting? Predominately the Saudi Arabian government that was identified as being a highly tyrannical government by every human rights group. Since when has the US opposed people fighting against tyranny? We might not have agreed with the agenda of a group like al Qaeda but we certainly couldn't condemn their choice of enemies.

Actually a better analogy would be condoning the rapist (the US) because the victim wore a short skirt. We are the ones committing the evil but many seem to forget that.

Case in point, the United States violated the Rights of the Iraqi People to self-determination by our invasion of Iraq. We did not go to the aid of the Iraqi People that had revolted and created a government to fight against the tyranny of Saddam. We invaded and then tried to cover up the fact that we had no justification for the invasion.

We invaded Afghanistan even though we had no evidence that Osama bin Ladin was involved in the 9/11 attacks. We installed the government of Norther Alliance which was rejected as the government of Afghanistan by the majority of the Afghani people. That's why they were holed up in Northern Afghanistan. They didn't have the support of the Afgani people but we put them in power.

The analogy is also correct because, like Hitler, the United States has excuses for its violations of the human rights of others. How many are aware of the fact that since WW II the US has been the primary military force that has lead to roughly 6 million innocent people dying. 6 million innocent people dying. I had to say that twice because it tends to not sink into some peoples minds. Not a single one of these deaths had anything to do with protecting the United States. Not a single one.

The fallacy is that US interventionism has ever provided security for the United States.

 

Who made us the road police?

I'd rather we don't put ourselves in a position to make ourselves targets. The Founder's never wanted us to be a hegemony, to support dictators, or to get involved in entangling alliances. Maybe we should head their advice.

 

He has his 5% of the country, come rain or shine, but he will never have enough of even one party to win the nomination. McCain was dangerous because he controlled a lot of the part of the party that controls the nomination process.

Put another way, Paul is just an entertainment, not a threat.

 

Let's hope you're right. McCain rose due to the kind media he received during the Bush years. It appears Paul my implement the same tactic.

 

McCain won the nomination because of our nominating process...we begin in a small atypical state whose winner almost never wins the nomination, then to an even smaller state almost blue where the Rino almost always wins and by the time we get to a state that has any real number of republicans in it, the process is about over.

We should change the process to begin in a major republican state peopled by folk most of the base would see as republican, and then wander to more obscure regions.

 

I really will never understand how people can justify the United States' interventionism throughout the world. What makes it even worse is that people like the OP automatically call you anti-American simply for stating a fact already accepted by the CIA. If I keep pushing people around, I would expect to get punched in the face every once in awhile.

 

Any other lies you want to say about me? Cuz the above is a duzy.

 

Can you prove him wrong? Are we not trying to dictate ME policy and who runs ME countries? Are we not nation builders?

 

*doozy*

What lie did I make about you? That you call Americans America haters because they can see that effects have causes?

 

Yes, that one.

 

Just after clarity. Once people see the real Ron Paul, my work is done.

 

McCain was a RINO that wasn't very conservative.

Ron Paul is the only fiscal Conservative candidate that actually would balance the budget, return the Federal Government to a Constitutional status and end unnecessary wars that cost American lives and waste tax-dollars. To me Ron Paul is extremely right-leaning. I think only an biased person would say otherwise.

I think your OP lacks basic factual understanding of what you are talking about.

 

I am still waiting for you to admit that you are a pro-welfare, pro-policing the world leftist liberal. Once people see the real Calminian my work will be done.

 

His policies are fine but to put it bluntly, Ron Paul is too old. A younger guy with good hair is what is needed to win in modern politics. As much as I may not like it image is maybe even more important than actual policies now days.

 

Ron Paul is the only actual true conservative in the running. The rest of the Republican field will be economically about as liberal as Obama, but they'll be "socially conservative."

 

Um..

There it is.

 

This caught my attention because I don't believe that the position that government should engage in social engineering, such as imposing discrimination related to the personal partnerships of individuals, can be called socially conservative.

The Republican Party, or more accurately the religious extremists of the Republican Party, has a history of opposing equal protection for same-sex couples and that is social engineering. Social engineering is not a "conservative" trait. Promoting personal liberty which allows individuals to do what they choose so long as they don't infringe upon someone else's rights is being socially conservative. Imposing laws that infringe upon liberty and are discriminatory in nature is not a conservative trait.

 

You really ought to get that knee looked at. Allowing it to jerk like that unchecked can be bad for you.

 

Yup. Both sides of The Party contain:

• Economic interventionists
• Social interventionists
• Military interventionists

The new term is "Progressive" in which The Party endorses usurping progressively more and more of our individual liberties. Y'all partisans need to look past the rhetoric and look at what "your" party is actually doing.

 

Or, more objectively, a historian.

He makes his point at about the 3:45 mark, if you want to jump ahead.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAXBevBcwHU"]3rd GOP Presidential Republican Debate - Ron Paul on Iran vs. Santorum: Part 6 - YouTube[/ame]

 

With all due respect, anyone who claims Ron Paul blamed America for 9/11 doesn't understand why America was attacked on 9/11.

 

OMG did you not read what you just quoted? How do you take that quote and pull-out "Ron Paul thinks Iran nukes are a good thing"? Are you dyslectic or something?

The 9-11 commission report and the CIA have state that blow back is the primary cause of 9-11. Ron Paul often reiterates the reporting of the CIA.

There is very little to no similarities between Ron and McCain.

You are lost and have lost. When you are wrong it is ok to just let go, it is just a forum........

 

We tend to overuse, misuse, and twist words to the point that they have no meaning at all. How do you define "leftist" in this context?

 

Do you seriously believe the bolded portion? Paul dominates pretty much any debate because he is the only one that is consistent. He would destroy Obama.

I support Ron Paul, and I could give two (*)(*)(*)(*)s about Iran. He is the only small government candidate that is in the race. This trumps any other factor for me, but I do support a non-interventionist approach to foreign policy.

Go to youtube. He wasn't always old and he has been supporting the same policies consistently for decades. I do agree that voters are sheep who think that the Presidential race is just another reality show.