Fox news nationwide poll shows ron paul has huge lead in popularity

[eflatminor]

Ron Paul is an isolationist. I dont care that his supporters bleat about "non-interventionism". It is a distinction without a difference. The United States is not a two bit republic on the ass-end side of the world, as we were in 1798. We are the sole super power in the world. That means in part we have interests all over the world, of one kind or another. Withdrawing from those responsibilities is simply irresponsible. Ron Paul would not have gone to war against Hitler. He would not have gone to war against Islamic extremism. His statements about the GWOT are very disturbing, echoing the loony left that we had it coming to us, or somesuch.

We certainly do have interests everywhere. Where I disagree with your assessment is in what constitutes irresponsibility. We are not talking about a wholesale withdraw overnight.

Take South Korea for example. They are among the wealthiest, most prosperous nations in Asia. Surely if we gave them a reasonable timeline, they could provide for their own security. The same holds true for scores of nations around the world where we provide security. We can have allies and even treaties of mutual response in case of conflict but do we really need troops in 150 countries? I think we can responsibly reduce that number over time.

Regarding past wars, our point is that many conflicts could have been avoided in the first place had we shunned so many foreign entanglements. For instance, if American had not intervened in WWI, I strongly believe there never would have been a WWII. Had we not had troops stationed near Mecca, it is doubtful 9/11 would have taken place. History should teach us - the interventionist approach was tried by the British empire and it failed, like so many superpowers before them.

At the end of the day, our goal is not to avoid our responsibility with other nations but to enhance our relationship with other countries through trade. Our omnipresent military makes that extremely difficult while cost US taxpayer dearly. I think we can do better.

Lastly, non of this means we shouldn't have the biggest, baddest, most well equipped military the world has ever known!

Do you honestly think 9/11 would not have happened if the US had done anything differently? That's a blame the victim mentality, which is what makes Paul such a nutjob.

Depends on what you mean by "done anything differently" but of course, your question is impossible for anyone to answer with certainly. However, I strongly suspect that we could minimized the chances for war while improving chances at trade had we not done things like working to install the Shah in Iran, holding sanctions over Iraq, favoring some countries over others with taxpayer aid, and, as I stated before, stationing troops throughout the region, including near Mecca. I wonder how we would feel if another country put their troops outside DC? Bottom line, our meddling has not produced positive returns and it costs us dearly in terms of lives and dollars. There are better ways to minimize the chances of terrorism than the broad sword that is the US military. This is my opinion.

 

[eflatminor]

I agree, Ron Paul has no chance of winning so therefore we should all get behind the George Bush Clone Rick Perry.

Your blind hatred of Bush brought us Obama.
Now your blind hatred of Obama will bring us Bush again in Perry.

Stop watching the news and just support the best candidate. That would be Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is not the best candidate. He is hardly a candidate at all.

A whole bunch of folks in Iowa, and elsewhere, disagree.

 

[Truthmatters]

Ron Paul didnt win the straw poll, what does that mean?

 

[Douger]

Ron Paul is an isolationist. I dont care that his supporters bleat about "non-interventionism". It is a distinction without a difference. The United States is not a two bit republic on the ass-end side of the world, as we were in 1798. We are the sole super power in the world. That means in part we have interests all over the world, of one kind or another. Withdrawing from those responsibilities is simply irresponsible. Ron Paul would not have gone to war against Hitler. He would not have gone to war against Islamic extremism. His statements about the GWOT are very disturbing, echoing the loony left that we had it coming to us, or somesuch.

We certainly do have interests everywhere. Where I disagree with your assessment is in what constitutes irresponsibility. We are not talking about a wholesale withdraw overnight.

Take South Korea for example. They are among the wealthiest, most prosperous nations in Asia. Surely if we gave them a reasonable timeline, they could provide for their own security. The same holds true for scores of nations around the world where we provide security. We can have allies and even treaties of mutual response in case of conflict but do we really need troops in 150 countries? I think we can responsibly reduce that number over time.

Regarding past wars, our point is that many conflicts could have been avoided in the first place had we shunned so many foreign entanglements. For instance, if American had not intervened in WWI, I strongly believe there never would have been a WWII. Had we not had troops stationed near Mecca, it is doubtful 9/11 would have taken place. History should teach us - the interventionist approach was tried by the British empire and it failed, like so many superpowers before them.

At the end of the day, our goal is not to avoid our responsibility with other nations but to enhance our relationship with other countries through trade. Our omnipresent military makes that extremely difficult while cost US taxpayer dearly. I think we can do better.

Lastly, non of this means we shouldn't have the biggest, baddest, most well equipped military the world has ever known!

Do you honestly think 9/11 would not have happened if the US had done anything differently? That's a blame the victim mentality, which is what makes Paul such a nutjob.
It makes him about like this asshole.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mIVT0sWP4A]America's Chickens Come Home to Roost - Rev Jeremiah Wright - YouTube[/ame]

Sorry Nazi but the reverend is spot on.

 

[eflatminor]

Yeah, Iran is just a bastion o' civility......They should have a nuclear weapon......Really, they should!

Ron Paul just proved he's a friggin' whackjob to the core.

I find it interesting that among US military officers, the overwhelming choice for their commander in chief is Ron Paul. I suspect they know more about what it would mean for Iran to have nuclear capability than most.

That said, we don't really care how civil Iran is. The point is there is nothing we can do to stop them from buying or building a nuke if that's what they want to do. Eventually, they'll get what they want. It's the same thing in South Central Los Angeles. You can have all the gun laws in the world but it isn't going to stop thugs from getting Glocks.

I don't care if Iran bought or built a nuclear weapon. All I care about is that we do what is most likely to avoid it's use. That means having a strong military arsenal protecting our borders while making it clear that US retaliation means we wipe your existence off the planet. More importantly, let us business people trade with ALL nations. History proves again and again that the best way to avoid conflict is to do business. When both sides have shared financial interests, they tend not to kill one another.

Guns laws never stop criminals from getting guns...no matter what kind of gun you're talking about.

 

[eflatminor]

Ron Paul didnt win the straw poll, what does that mean?

Other than 152 more people preferred Bachmann, I don't know what it means.

 

[The Rabbi]

We certainly do have interests everywhere. Where I disagree with your assessment is in what constitutes irresponsibility. We are not talking about a wholesale withdraw overnight.

Take South Korea for example. They are among the wealthiest, most prosperous nations in Asia. Surely if we gave them a reasonable timeline, they could provide for their own security. The same holds true for scores of nations around the world where we provide security. We can have allies and even treaties of mutual response in case of conflict but do we really need troops in 150 countries? I think we can responsibly reduce that number over time.

Regarding past wars, our point is that many conflicts could have been avoided in the first place had we shunned so many foreign entanglements. For instance, if American had not intervened in WWI, I strongly believe there never would have been a WWII. Had we not had troops stationed near Mecca, it is doubtful 9/11 would have taken place. History should teach us - the interventionist approach was tried by the British empire and it failed, like so many superpowers before them.

At the end of the day, our goal is not to avoid our responsibility with other nations but to enhance our relationship with other countries through trade. Our omnipresent military makes that extremely difficult while cost US taxpayer dearly. I think we can do better.

Lastly, non of this means we shouldn't have the biggest, baddest, most well equipped military the world has ever known!

Do you honestly think 9/11 would not have happened if the US had done anything differently? That's a blame the victim mentality, which is what makes Paul such a nutjob.

Depends on what you mean by "done anything differently" but of course, your question is impossible for anyone to answer with certainly. However, I strongly suspect that we could minimized the chances for war while improving chances at trade had we not done things like working to install the Shah in Iran, holding sanctions over Iraq, favoring some countries over others with taxpayer aid, and, as I stated before, stationing troops throughout the region, including near Mecca. I wonder how we would feel if another country put their troops outside DC? Bottom line, our meddling has not produced positive returns and it costs us dearly in terms of lives and dollars. There are better ways to minimize the chances of terrorism than the broad sword that is the US military. This is my opinion.

So you have no proof. Hell, you don't even have a good argument.
We could have avoided the attack by adopting Sharia law and submiiting to the caliphate. I doubt anyone wants to go there.

 

[eflatminor]

Do you honestly think 9/11 would not have happened if the US had done anything differently? That's a blame the victim mentality, which is what makes Paul such a nutjob.

Depends on what you mean by "done anything differently" but of course, your question is impossible for anyone to answer with certainly. However, I strongly suspect that we could minimized the chances for war while improving chances at trade had we not done things like working to install the Shah in Iran, holding sanctions over Iraq, favoring some countries over others with taxpayer aid, and, as I stated before, stationing troops throughout the region, including near Mecca. I wonder how we would feel if another country put their troops outside DC? Bottom line, our meddling has not produced positive returns and it costs us dearly in terms of lives and dollars. There are better ways to minimize the chances of terrorism than the broad sword that is the US military. This is my opinion.

So you have no proof. Hell, you don't even have a good argument.
We could have avoided the attack by adopting Sharia law and submiiting to the caliphate. I doubt anyone wants to go there.

No one has any proof of anything that "might of happened". That's like the lefties telling us that without all their domestic intervention, things would have been worse. That defies logic and reason, as does the idea of military interventionism. Nobody is saying we should have adopted their laws, that's ridiculous. All we're saying is we would be better off if we didn't practice the government meddling abroad that we fiscal and Constitutional conservatives so hate domestically. Every time we fuck with a country or a people, it comes back to bite us in the ass. When we finally leave a country alone, things improve for not only the country we were previously screwing with but for our relationship with that country (trade picks up). Vietnam is a perfect example.

Anyway, your idea of policing the planet will come to an end. If not for the efforts of folks that think like we do than for pure financial reasons. We are broke. Time for other nations to provide for their own security.

 

[Toro]

Do you honestly think 9/11 would not have happened if the US had done anything differently? That's a blame the victim mentality, which is what makes Paul such a nutjob.

Depends on what you mean by "done anything differently" but of course, your question is impossible for anyone to answer with certainly. However, I strongly suspect that we could minimized the chances for war while improving chances at trade had we not done things like working to install the Shah in Iran, holding sanctions over Iraq, favoring some countries over others with taxpayer aid, and, as I stated before, stationing troops throughout the region, including near Mecca. I wonder how we would feel if another country put their troops outside DC? Bottom line, our meddling has not produced positive returns and it costs us dearly in terms of lives and dollars. There are better ways to minimize the chances of terrorism than the broad sword that is the US military. This is my opinion.

So you have no proof. Hell, you don't even have a good argument.
We could have avoided the attack by adopting Sharia law and submiiting to the caliphate. I doubt anyone wants to go there.

Rabbi

If we didn't have military bases in the region, funded and supported Israel almost unconditionally, overthrew governments and propped up dictators who tortured and killed their own people, do you think 9/11 would still have happened?

We aren't to blame for 9/11. Oil is a strategic interest so we have to be there, and the region is pretty fucked up to begin with. However, to assume that 9/11 would still have happened even if we were not involved in the Middle East is a stretch to say the least.

 

[The Rabbi]

Depends on what you mean by "done anything differently" but of course, your question is impossible for anyone to answer with certainly. However, I strongly suspect that we could minimized the chances for war while improving chances at trade had we not done things like working to install the Shah in Iran, holding sanctions over Iraq, favoring some countries over others with taxpayer aid, and, as I stated before, stationing troops throughout the region, including near Mecca. I wonder how we would feel if another country put their troops outside DC? Bottom line, our meddling has not produced positive returns and it costs us dearly in terms of lives and dollars. There are better ways to minimize the chances of terrorism than the broad sword that is the US military. This is my opinion.

So you have no proof. Hell, you don't even have a good argument.
We could have avoided the attack by adopting Sharia law and submiiting to the caliphate. I doubt anyone wants to go there.

Rabbi

If we didn't have military bases in the region, funded and supported Israel almost unconditionally, overthrew governments and propped up dictators who tortured and killed their own people, do you think 9/11 would still have happened?

We aren't to blame for 9/11. Oil is a strategic interest so we have to be there, and the region is pretty fucked up to begin with. However, to assume that 9/11 would still have happened even if we were not involved in the Middle East is a stretch to say the least.

What evidence do you have that it would not have happened? The U.S. has supported Muslims in the past (Bosnia), has aided Muslim countries threatened with extinction (Kuwait), has kept Israel from annhilating Egypt and Lebanon, and has aided Muslims in expelling foreign governments (Afghanistan). Of the top 10 recipients of foreign aid, 5 of them are Muslim countries.
And none of that mattered. Because it is not our actions, it is our ideology. And unless we changed that to adopt shari'a law 9/11 was going to happen.

 

[eflatminor]

So you have no proof. Hell, you don't even have a good argument.
We could have avoided the attack by adopting Sharia law and submiiting to the caliphate. I doubt anyone wants to go there.

Rabbi

If we didn't have military bases in the region, funded and supported Israel almost unconditionally, overthrew governments and propped up dictators who tortured and killed their own people, do you think 9/11 would still have happened?

We aren't to blame for 9/11. Oil is a strategic interest so we have to be there, and the region is pretty fucked up to begin with. However, to assume that 9/11 would still have happened even if we were not involved in the Middle East is a stretch to say the least.

What evidence do you have that it would not have happened? The U.S. has supported Muslims in the past (Bosnia), has aided Muslim countries threatened with extinction (Kuwait), has kept Israel from annhilating Egypt and Lebanon, and has aided Muslims in expelling foreign governments (Afghanistan). Of the top 10 recipients of foreign aid, 5 of them are Muslim countries.
And none of that mattered. Because it is not our actions, it is our ideology. And unless we changed that to adopt shari'a law 9/11 was going to happen.

When you support one Muslim, you inevitably piss off another Muslim from a different tribe. No good deed goes unpunished I guess. Whatever the reason, why keep the expensive military meddling in place when we can just focus on the terrorism in America part? Even if you're right and following a withdraw the terrorists keep coming, we'll have plenty of resources to do the best job possible to stop them. Instead, I'm supposed to look after South Korean and 149 other countries? Our priorities are all screwed up when it comes to interventionism. If you want evidence, look to OBL's statements, look to the studies of many scholars (Olsen, Paine, Washington) or just look to logic and reason. The less we screw with them, the less they'll screw with us...especially when we're packing the biggest gun in town. And when you start to do business with one another, which war and sanctions prevent...we call that peacetime.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Yeah, Iran is just a bastion o' civility......They should have a nuclear weapon......Really, they should!

Ron Paul just proved he's a friggin' whackjob to the core.

I find it interesting that among US military officers, the overwhelming choice for their commander in chief is Ron Paul. I suspect they know more about what it would mean for Iran to have nuclear capability than most.

That said, we don't really care how civil Iran is. The point is there is nothing we can do to stop them from buying or building a nuke if that's what they want to do. Eventually, they'll get what they want. It's the same thing in South Central Los Angeles. You can have all the gun laws in the world but it isn't going to stop thugs from getting Glocks.

I don't care if Iran bought or built a nuclear weapon. All I care about is that we do what is most likely to avoid it's use. That means having a strong military arsenal protecting our borders while making it clear that US retaliation means we wipe your existence off the planet. More importantly, let us business people trade with ALL nations. History proves again and again that the best way to avoid conflict is to do business. When both sides have shared financial interests, they tend not to kill one another.

Guns laws never stop criminals from getting guns...no matter what kind of gun you're talking about.

I suspect you had better come up with the proof that military officers overwhelming support Paul.....I can tell you right now, you're full o' shit.

Better come up with that proof, 'cause most miltary officers damn sure know how dangerous Ron (my favorite martian lookin' motherfucker) Paul truly is.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, Iran is just a bastion o' civility......They should have a nuclear weapon......Really, they should!

Ron Paul just proved he's a friggin' whackjob to the core.

I find it interesting that among US military officers, the overwhelming choice for their commander in chief is Ron Paul. I suspect they know more about what it would mean for Iran to have nuclear capability than most.

That said, we don't really care how civil Iran is. The point is there is nothing we can do to stop them from buying or building a nuke if that's what they want to do. Eventually, they'll get what they want. It's the same thing in South Central Los Angeles. You can have all the gun laws in the world but it isn't going to stop thugs from getting Glocks.

I don't care if Iran bought or built a nuclear weapon. All I care about is that we do what is most likely to avoid it's use. That means having a strong military arsenal protecting our borders while making it clear that US retaliation means we wipe your existence off the planet. More importantly, let us business people trade with ALL nations. History proves again and again that the best way to avoid conflict is to do business. When both sides have shared financial interests, they tend not to kill one another.

Guns laws never stop criminals from getting guns...no matter what kind of gun you're talking about.

I suspect you had better come up with the proof that military officers overwhelming support Paul.....I can tell you right now, you're full o' shit.

Better come up with that proof, 'cause most miltary officers damn sure know how dangerous Ron (my favorite martian lookin' motherfucker) Paul truly is.

Only 6% of scientists are Republicans. And 94% of military officers support Ron Paul. Fact!

 

[eflatminor]

Yeah, Iran is just a bastion o' civility......They should have a nuclear weapon......Really, they should!

Ron Paul just proved he's a friggin' whackjob to the core.

I find it interesting that among US military officers, the overwhelming choice for their commander in chief is Ron Paul. I suspect they know more about what it would mean for Iran to have nuclear capability than most.

That said, we don't really care how civil Iran is. The point is there is nothing we can do to stop them from buying or building a nuke if that's what they want to do. Eventually, they'll get what they want. It's the same thing in South Central Los Angeles. You can have all the gun laws in the world but it isn't going to stop thugs from getting Glocks.

I don't care if Iran bought or built a nuclear weapon. All I care about is that we do what is most likely to avoid it's use. That means having a strong military arsenal protecting our borders while making it clear that US retaliation means we wipe your existence off the planet. More importantly, let us business people trade with ALL nations. History proves again and again that the best way to avoid conflict is to do business. When both sides have shared financial interests, they tend not to kill one another.

Guns laws never stop criminals from getting guns...no matter what kind of gun you're talking about.

I suspect you had better come up with the proof that military officers overwhelming support Paul.....I can tell you right now, you're full o' shit.

Better come up with that proof, 'cause most miltary officers damn sure know how dangerous Ron (my favorite martian lookin' motherfucker) Paul truly is.

Well, in the 2008 election, Ron Paul got more contributions from military personnel than any other candidate, by quite a margin. In this election, Ron Paul has once again taken in more money from military donations then any of the Republican candidates or President Obama. His donations from active military are more than all the other candidates combined!

There are lots of articles out there, here's one:
Support for Ron Paul Runs High Among Members of the Military | The State Column

I don't know exactly how military members vote in primaries but their contributions sure say a lot I think.

 

[Wicked Jester]

I find it interesting that among US military officers, the overwhelming choice for their commander in chief is Ron Paul. I suspect they know more about what it would mean for Iran to have nuclear capability than most.

That said, we don't really care how civil Iran is. The point is there is nothing we can do to stop them from buying or building a nuke if that's what they want to do. Eventually, they'll get what they want. It's the same thing in South Central Los Angeles. You can have all the gun laws in the world but it isn't going to stop thugs from getting Glocks.

I don't care if Iran bought or built a nuclear weapon. All I care about is that we do what is most likely to avoid it's use. That means having a strong military arsenal protecting our borders while making it clear that US retaliation means we wipe your existence off the planet. More importantly, let us business people trade with ALL nations. History proves again and again that the best way to avoid conflict is to do business. When both sides have shared financial interests, they tend not to kill one another.

Guns laws never stop criminals from getting guns...no matter what kind of gun you're talking about.

I suspect you had better come up with the proof that military officers overwhelming support Paul.....I can tell you right now, you're full o' shit.

Better come up with that proof, 'cause most miltary officers damn sure know how dangerous Ron (my favorite martian lookin' motherfucker) Paul truly is.

Well, in the 2008 election, Ron Paul got more contributions from military personnel than any other candidate, by quite a margin. In this election, Ron Paul has once again taken in more money from military donations then any of the Republican candidates or President Obama. His donations from active military are more than all the other candidates combined!

There are lots of articles out there, here's one:
Support for Ron Paul Runs High Among Members of the Military | The State Column

I don't know exactly how military members vote in primaries but their contributions sure say a lot I think.

So, are you going to provide that proof that miltary officers overwhelmingly support Paul?

 

[Stashman]

Check out this poll... Astounding...

Iowa GOP Debate - Topix

NONSENSE- the guy is a nut case.

Just exactly what makes him a nut case? Inquiring minds want to know. LOL!

 

[Stashman]

I see a lot of negative comments about Paul - references questioning the sanity of his supporters, being on drugs, delusional, etc, but no criticism of his policies. That all seems rather childish to me. What is it exactly that you naysayers don't like about the man's plan and policies?

Granted, he doesn't have presidential hair but let's see if we can get to the meat of the issues.

They won't do that. If they bring something up as far as his constitutionally backed policies go, than you will be able to say they are against the U.S. Constitution. Which apparently they are, but they won't admit here.

 

[The Rabbi]

I suspect you had better come up with the proof that military officers overwhelming support Paul.....I can tell you right now, you're full o' shit.

Better come up with that proof, 'cause most miltary officers damn sure know how dangerous Ron (my favorite martian lookin' motherfucker) Paul truly is.

Well, in the 2008 election, Ron Paul got more contributions from military personnel than any other candidate, by quite a margin. In this election, Ron Paul has once again taken in more money from military donations then any of the Republican candidates or President Obama. His donations from active military are more than all the other candidates combined!

There are lots of articles out there, here's one:
Support for Ron Paul Runs High Among Members of the Military | The State Column

I don't know exactly how military members vote in primaries but their contributions sure say a lot I think.

So, are you going to provide that proof that miltary officers overwhelmingly support Paul?

No. Because he cannot. Even the cited article does not say that. IT says merely that more contributions from people whose employer is military have gone to Paul than any other candidate. That is pretty well meaningless.

 

[Toro]

What evidence do you have that it would not have happened? The U.S. has supported Muslims in the past (Bosnia), has aided Muslim countries threatened with extinction (Kuwait), has kept Israel from annhilating Egypt and Lebanon, and has aided Muslims in expelling foreign governments (Afghanistan). Of the top 10 recipients of foreign aid, 5 of them are Muslim countries.
And none of that mattered. Because it is not our actions, it is our ideology. And unless we changed that to adopt shari'a law 9/11 was going to happen.

Can't prove a negative.

It is not our ideology. Generally, American people are admired, even in the MidEast. It is the actions of the US government that makes America unpopular. This is true almost universally. It's even true in America. I find it odd that conservatives, who seem to despise government so much because the government is violating American's sovereignty and freedom, don't see the American government doing the same thing to foreigners abroad. The American government is unpopular in America. Why would you think it is not unpopular abroad?

 

[The Rabbi]

What evidence do you have that it would not have happened? The U.S. has supported Muslims in the past (Bosnia), has aided Muslim countries threatened with extinction (Kuwait), has kept Israel from annhilating Egypt and Lebanon, and has aided Muslims in expelling foreign governments (Afghanistan). Of the top 10 recipients of foreign aid, 5 of them are Muslim countries.
And none of that mattered. Because it is not our actions, it is our ideology. And unless we changed that to adopt shari'a law 9/11 was going to happen.

Can't prove a negative.

It is not our ideology. Generally, American people are admired, even in the MidEast. It is the actions of the US government that makes America unpopular. This is true almost universally. It's even true in America. I find it odd that conservatives, who seem to despise government so much because the government is violating American's sovereignty and freedom, don't see the American government doing the same thing to foreigners abroad. The American government is unpopular in America. Why would you think it is popular abroad?

No, American prosperity is envied.
Generally when you are the sole super-power others envy and hate you. Nothing different there.
No, the radical Arabs hate America for what it is, not for what it does.