(08-12-2011 03:43 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 03:31 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 03:27 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 03:19 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  If I have a dollar my friends are never broke, if I have food they're never hungry and I need to help them defend their soil they all know they can call me. Thats the relationship we should have with Israel.

I also will go the distance for my personal friends. There is a distinction though that should be noticed. One is a personal relationship....the other is collective relationship. There is a vast difference in the two...mainly because you are depending upon the fruits of others labors to support that collective relationship. What if I don't care to participate for whatever reason? Maybe you are wrong in your defense of this collective relationship?

Isreal is hardly sucking us dry of our resources. Like I said earlier I'm all for cutting ties and closing military bases with other countries but one we created and SURROUNDED by people bent on their demise is hardly an ally you turn your back on. If nothing else its a biblical mandate that Israel survive.

I stand against ALL foreign aide that is not humanitarian in nature. I want to have open trade and open diplomatic relationships with ALL nations. This is my stance and I am pretty sure Ron Paul has the same stance. That does not mean that I do not support a strong defense or that I do not favor coming to the defense of others in cases where OUR national security is at risk. I am also pretty sure Ron Paul also agrees with this stance. What I can not tolerate is the WASTE and the unintended consequences of our militarism all over the world. I am pretty sure that Ron Paul also feels this way. I hope this is clear.

Thats a national policy that would lead to the demise of the US. We can't offer to help our allies only when we have something to lose. If RP feels this way the second he communicates it on a national stage his campaign is over...and that doens't make me a neocon.:noisycricket:

(08-12-2011 04:00 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 03:43 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 03:31 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 03:27 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 03:19 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  If I have a dollar my friends are never broke, if I have food they're never hungry and I need to help them defend their soil they all know they can call me. Thats the relationship we should have with Israel.

I also will go the distance for my personal friends. There is a distinction though that should be noticed. One is a personal relationship....the other is collective relationship. There is a vast difference in the two...mainly because you are depending upon the fruits of others labors to support that collective relationship. What if I don't care to participate for whatever reason? Maybe you are wrong in your defense of this collective relationship?

Isreal is hardly sucking us dry of our resources. Like I said earlier I'm all for cutting ties and closing military bases with other countries but one we created and SURROUNDED by people bent on their demise is hardly an ally you turn your back on. If nothing else its a biblical mandate that Israel survive.

I stand against ALL foreign aide that is not humanitarian in nature. I want to have open trade and open diplomatic relationships with ALL nations. This is my stance and I am pretty sure Ron Paul has the same stance. That does not mean that I do not support a strong defense or that I do not favor coming to the defense of others in cases where OUR national security is at risk. I am also pretty sure Ron Paul also agrees with this stance. What I can not tolerate is the WASTE and the unintended consequences of our militarism all over the world. I am pretty sure that Ron Paul also feels this way. I hope this is clear.

Thats a national policy that would lead to the demise of the US. We can't offer to help our allies only when we have something to lose. If RP feels this way the second he communicates it on a national stage his campaign is over...and that doens't make me a neocon.:noisycricket:

He has been communicating it for 30 years. Where have you been?

(08-12-2011 04:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 04:00 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 03:43 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 03:31 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 03:27 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I also will go the distance for my personal friends. There is a distinction though that should be noticed. One is a personal relationship....the other is collective relationship. There is a vast difference in the two...mainly because you are depending upon the fruits of others labors to support that collective relationship. What if I don't care to participate for whatever reason? Maybe you are wrong in your defense of this collective relationship?

Isreal is hardly sucking us dry of our resources. Like I said earlier I'm all for cutting ties and closing military bases with other countries but one we created and SURROUNDED by people bent on their demise is hardly an ally you turn your back on. If nothing else its a biblical mandate that Israel survive.

I stand against ALL foreign aide that is not humanitarian in nature. I want to have open trade and open diplomatic relationships with ALL nations. This is my stance and I am pretty sure Ron Paul has the same stance. That does not mean that I do not support a strong defense or that I do not favor coming to the defense of others in cases where OUR national security is at risk. I am also pretty sure Ron Paul also agrees with this stance. What I can not tolerate is the WASTE and the unintended consequences of our militarism all over the world. I am pretty sure that Ron Paul also feels this way. I hope this is clear.

Thats a national policy that would lead to the demise of the US. We can't offer to help our allies only when we have something to lose. If RP feels this way the second he communicates it on a national stage his campaign is over...and that doens't make me a neocon.:noisycricket:

He has been communicating it for 30 years. Where have you been?

Not following RP...

(08-12-2011 04:06 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 04:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 04:00 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 03:43 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 03:31 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Isreal is hardly sucking us dry of our resources. Like I said earlier I'm all for cutting ties and closing military bases with other countries but one we created and SURROUNDED by people bent on their demise is hardly an ally you turn your back on. If nothing else its a biblical mandate that Israel survive.

I stand against ALL foreign aide that is not humanitarian in nature. I want to have open trade and open diplomatic relationships with ALL nations. This is my stance and I am pretty sure Ron Paul has the same stance. That does not mean that I do not support a strong defense or that I do not favor coming to the defense of others in cases where OUR national security is at risk. I am also pretty sure Ron Paul also agrees with this stance. What I can not tolerate is the WASTE and the unintended consequences of our militarism all over the world. I am pretty sure that Ron Paul also feels this way. I hope this is clear.

Thats a national policy that would lead to the demise of the US. We can't offer to help our allies only when we have something to lose. If RP feels this way the second he communicates it on a national stage his campaign is over...and that doens't make me a neocon.:noisycricket:

He has been communicating it for 30 years. Where have you been?

Not following RP...

No problem...I only heard of him about 10 years ago. I have a feeling you are going to be tired of hearing him in the next year or so. I fully expect him to be marginalized again as in the past. I simply hope he can push the discussion in regard to the Fed and government waste both home and abroad. If he can do that...I will be happy.

(08-12-2011 04:20 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  He has been communicating it for 30 years. Where have you been?

Which explains why he is not considered a mainstream candidate. While many Americans can agree with some of his economic ideas, it is the foreign policy stands where he gets crossed off the list.

Libertarianism is very seductive until you begin looking at the implications of those ideas dealing with foreign policy. They are not realistic given the world we live in. This is Libertarianism's parallel to the all too familiar liberal wishful thinking.

I AM for the idea of getting out of our wars and then stopping the military adventurism abroad. Stay out of the business of other nations. Let them take care of themselves. We can cut military expenses greatly by starting there. Our military should NOT be the policemen of the world but by acknowledging that, we must understand that it will result in some really bad things happening elsewhere on the globe. Nobody else in the world will lift a finger to stop these things. We have far too many in D.C. that can't wait to send our young people into some place we have no business being. It will be a tough habit to break.

(08-12-2011 05:40 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 04:20 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  He has been communicating it for 30 years. Where have you been?

Which explains why he is not considered a mainstream candidate. While many Americans can agree with some of his economic ideas, it is the foreign policy stands where he gets crossed off the list.

Libertarianism is very seductive until you begin looking at the implications of those ideas dealing with foreign policy. They are not realistic given the world we live in. This is Libertarianism's parallel to the all too familiar liberal wishful thinking.

I AM for the idea of getting out of our wars and then stopping the military adventurism abroad. Stay out of the business of other nations. Let them take care of themselves. We can cut military expenses greatly by starting there. Our military should NOT be the policemen of the world but by acknowledging that, we must understand that it will result in some really bad things happening elsewhere on the globe. Nobody else in the world will lift a finger to stop these things. We have far too many in D.C. that can't wait to send our young people into some place we have no business being. It will be a tough habit to break.

Well....I agree that RP's views on the interventionism are a problem for him.

I would though say that he has never advocated anything but a strong defense and has repeatedly stated his approval of interdiction where our national security is at risk. The problem is that his criteria for such a move is based upon the damn Constitution. The rest of these yahoo's around him have chosen to piss upon that document in this regard and using the growing NEOCON view of the GOP have gotten us into much of the damn mess we now are in. Most of these fools never bothered to listen to Ike when he left office when he warned us against this very sh!t.

I fail to see in ANY way where Ron Paul's foreign policy views put American in any danger what so ever. It amazes me the foolishness of constantly rolling out some view that America is suddenly going to be invaded. That is just damn nonsense. We are geographically blessed and have friends of no threat on our borders. Our Navy and Air Force alone is capable of handling almost any threat on the globe without putting troops on the ground. A lot of Dr. Paul's objections to our militarism has to do with having "standing armies". He believes that this has lead to the vast empire we now have all over the globe. I agree.

It is funny as hell that 2 of the most revered Hawks ever to be in power BOTH had great respect for Dr. Paul and his views....Reagan and Goldwater.

It is my hope that if nothing else comes of the Paul candidacy that he gets the conversation rolling in regard to the MASSIVE waste we now have BOTH at home and abroad in regard to defense. We simply can not afford to do things the way they have been done over the last several decades anymore. WE ARE FUKING BROKE people!!!!

For president it will be either Romney or Perry. I would go with Paul Ryan as VP as that would force the country to discuss entitlement reform during the election and offer the country a way out of the economic slump and solve the debt crisis long term. Put the plan front and center before the american people and tell them you can choose this plan or the status quo of Obama and Harry Reid's partisan politics with certain gridlock in washington that wants to kick the can down road four more years.That gives the public the option of more of the same gridlock or hand the Republicans the Senate and the White House so that they can reduce the size of goverment, lower the debt and grow the economy and create jobs and wealth again. If this county picks Obama then you better give his the House of Reprensentatives too and let him drive the country off the cliff forever. May it clear to the american people the consequences of their actions at the voting booth. Tell them there is no turning back at this point. You want socialist government with national health care and extremly high taxes or a small goverment that has lower taxes and more personal freedom and individual responsibility.

(08-12-2011 11:44 PM)OhioBobcatJohn Wrote:  For president it will be either Romney or Perry. I would go with Paul Ryan as VP as that would force the country to discuss entitlement reform during the election and offer the country a way out of the economic slump and solve the debt crisis long term. Put the plan front and center before the american people and tell them you can choose this plan or the status quo of Obama and Harry Reid's partisan politics with certain gridlock in washington that wants to kick the can down road four more years.That gives the public the option of more of the same gridlock or hand the Republicans the Senate and the White House so that they can reduce the size of goverment, lower the debt and grow the economy and create jobs and wealth again. If this county picks Obama then you better give his the House of Reprensentatives too and let him drive the country off the cliff forever. May it clear to the american people the consequences of their actions at the voting booth. Tell them there is no turning back at this point. You want socialist government with national health care and extremly high taxes or a small goverment that has lower taxes and more personal freedom and individual responsibility.

It is early yet and Palin is going to be a factor also. I am not a fan of Romney and honestly know very little about Perry to even comment inteligently about him. Who ever the GOP runs....they damn well better be able to draw the independent vote. That is the key to beating Obama. I would think Rand Paul would make a good running mate for someone and would help with that segment of voter.

(08-13-2011 09:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 11:44 PM)OhioBobcatJohn Wrote:  For president it will be either Romney or Perry. I would go with Paul Ryan as VP as that would force the country to discuss entitlement reform during the election and offer the country a way out of the economic slump and solve the debt crisis long term. Put the plan front and center before the american people and tell them you can choose this plan or the status quo of Obama and Harry Reid's partisan politics with certain gridlock in washington that wants to kick the can down road four more years.That gives the public the option of more of the same gridlock or hand the Republicans the Senate and the White House so that they can reduce the size of goverment, lower the debt and grow the economy and create jobs and wealth again. If this county picks Obama then you better give his the House of Reprensentatives too and let him drive the country off the cliff forever. May it clear to the american people the consequences of their actions at the voting booth. Tell them there is no turning back at this point. You want socialist government with national health care and extremly high taxes or a small goverment that has lower taxes and more personal freedom and individual responsibility.

It is early yet and Palin is going to be a factor also. I am not a fan of Romney and honestly know very little about Perry to even comment inteligently about him. Who ever the GOP runs....they damn well better be able to draw the independent vote. That is the key to beating Obama. I would think Rand Paul would make a good running mate for someone and would help with that segment of voter.

I would actually like to see Rand do a full term in the senate and then either during his second term going for the VP slot or governors slot in KY. That will give him some solid executive experience if he wins either of those races. The partial term senator running on the hot hand already failed us once this century, we don't need it happening again.

(08-12-2011 03:34 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 03:28 PM)Rebel Wrote:  ...and it has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that he thinks terrorist attacks are caused by our friendship with Israel. ...yet, he cannot explain the terrorist attacks by Muslims on countries with no relationship with Israel or involvement in the ME.

RP has repeatedly stated that he understands that there is a radical form of Islam that is dangerous and should be dealt with. He has been consistent in this as far as I seen. What he has stated is that we have encouraged this radical form to grow by our meddling in the ME. I agree.

Then RP and I disagree on this point. The empirical evidence shows otherwise: Islam is spread by violence throughout the world, regardless of involvement in the ME or not.

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/

Ron Paul to speak at 2:15 PM ET. Tune in a few mins before to see the Revolution march in. If they overwhelm the arena, he'll win the straw poll.

Santorum might have 100-150 people there. He's gonna lose badly. As it turns out, there's more to being President than gay bashing and abortion.

Paul up after a brief talk by the Lt Gov

The Ron Paul booth from this morning ..... holy cow!

The Revolution is marching in now.

I'm watching a gas guy right now.

Awlllll they limited the number of people who could stand in front of the podium.

Looks like he is going to go ahead and get the social conservative stuff out of the way first.

Ahhhh this isn't vintage Paul. He's tired and birdhopping around.

(08-13-2011 01:26 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Awlllll they limited the number of people who could stand in front of the podium.

Looks like he is going to go ahead and get the social conservative stuff out of the way first.

First time I've heard him talk about abortion so in depth.

Sounds like he's really trying to win this thing by dropping a lot of hints at his social conservative ideas.