So You Like Ron Paul EXCEPT On Foreign Policy?

[Mad Scientist]

U.S. military veterans and active duty soldiers overwhelmingly support Ron Paul for President in 2012. Find out why.

[youtube]I8NhRPo0WAo#![/youtube]

 

[Katzndogz]

That's why the military voted for Bush and not Paul in 2008, because they support him so much.

 

[WatertheTree]

Doubt this thread will get much action. Its only proper to support the troops when the war machine is beating the drums through the propaganda networks.

Only in America does the foolish public believe that supporting the troops is spending 1.98 for a magnet on a car and blind faith in the Oligarchy's use of military force for profit.

 

[Katzndogz]

War is not the best way of deciding issues. It is only the best way of having them decided for you.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Doubt this thread will get much action. Its only proper to support the troops when the war machine is beating the drums through the propaganda networks.

Only in America does the foolish public believe that supporting the troops is spending 1.98 for a magnet on a car and blind faith in the Oligarchy's use of military force for profit.

This thread has nothing to so with supporting the troops. It's about Paul and that's why it won't get any traction.

 

[dblack]

That's why the military voted for Bush and not Paul in 2008, because they support him so much.

???

 

[JDzBrain]

"From time to time, the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants!" ---Thomas Jefferson

Failure to recognize that is to abdicate liberty!

 

[Unkotare]

You don't get to be absolutely bat-shit crazy on just one issue. If you are absolutely bat-shit crazy, you ARE absolutely bat-shit crazy. That old duffer IS absolutely bat-shit crazy. He should be in a home somewhere having Rand feed him soup, not running for president.

 

[dblack]

This thread has nothing to so with supporting the troops. It's about Paul and that's why it won't get any traction.

This thread is 'about' whatever we want it to be. To me, the interesting point raised by the video (beyond the obvious cheerleading for Paul) was the idea that supporting our current foreign policy isn't the same as supporting the troops. Likewise, that criticizing our current foreign policy is not the same as criticizing the troops. The demagogues - especially those on the right - routinely conflate the two.

 

[Mad Scientist]

That's why the military voted for Bush and not Paul in 2008, because they support him so much.

You're wrong about 2008:
Obama, Paul net most military workers' campaign donations - ABC News

Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Ron Paul have little in common politically, except their opposition to the Iraq war. Both top a new list of presidential candidates receiving campaign contributions from people who work for the four branches of the military and National Guard, according to a study released Thursday by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

What is it for 2012?:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9044-ron-paul-campaign-receive-most-military-donations

Overall, 71 percent of military donations for the 2012 presidential race have gone to Ron Paul

Hmm, why is that?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This thread has nothing to so with supporting the troops. It's about Paul and that's why it won't get any traction.

This thread is 'about' whatever we want it to be. To me, the interesting point raised by the video (beyond the obvious cheerleading for Paul) was the idea that supporting our current foreign policy isn't the same as supporting the troops. Likewise, that criticizing our current foreign policy is not the same as criticizing the troops. The demagogues - especially those on the right - routinely conflate the two.

Your answer does not surprise me. The title CLEARLY STATES the position of why we don't support PAUL.

But you can't face facts, much like Paul, so you make believe that if we don't support Paul we don't support the troops. Preposterous on every level.

 

[thereisnospoon]

U.S. military veterans and active duty soldiers overwhelmingly support Ron Paul for President in 2012. Find out why.

[youtube]I8NhRPo0WAo#![/youtube]

Paul has no economic expertise. While that in and of itself does not disqualify him, my trust in Paul to hire smart economic advisers is non existent.
Paul's shrill tone when he gets excited is not what I would label as "Presidential".
A President should always appear in control. As though he knows exactly what he is doing all the time. As though he is well versed. And should speak with an authoritative tone. He should use speech that punches bullet points without raising his voice or using higher octaves.

 

[rdean]

Foreign policy is pretty important.

 

[JDzBrain]

That old duffer IS absolutely bat-shit crazy.

Ron Paul is a great American who has spent 30 years fighting the government abuses that have led us to the point of destruction we now find ourselves!

Is he kooky on an issue or two...YES! But ya know what. If you spent 30 years being treated like Don Quixote by fellow conservatives and the very people you are fighting to protect, you might develop a bit of an attitude about it to!

I LIKE Ron...for the most part. He's DEAD WRONG on a couple issues. So wrong that I can't support putting our national security in his hands. But to be honest, I'd feel a DAMN sight more comfortable with him as commander in chief than I do with Obama's insanity!

 

[dblack]

Your answer does not surprise me. The title CLEARLY STATES the position of why we don't support PAUL.

But you can't face facts, much like Paul, so you make believe that if we don't support Paul we don't support the troops. Preposterous on every level.

Uh.. never said that. Maybe you got my post confused with someone else's.

The topic of the post, is Ron Paul's foreign policy. Your persistent desire to silence any thread related to Ron Paul is just a distraction.

 

[Mad Scientist]

A President should always appear in control. As though he knows exactly what he is doing all the time. As though he is well versed. And should speak with an authoritative tone. He should use speech that punches bullet points without raising his voice or using higher octaves.

You just described Obama. How's he working out?

 

[dblack]

A President should always appear in control. As though he knows exactly what he is doing all the time. As though he is well versed. And should speak with an authoritative tone. He should use speech that punches bullet points without raising his voice or using higher octaves.

I have to agree with this to some extent. But I don't think there's any real 'danger' of Paul getting nominated, much less elected. The real question is on the growing support for his foreign policy views. On the one hand, those views may prevent him from ever being nominated, but on the other, they're exactly why many of us are supporting him. More and more Americans are ready to call bullshit on the warfare machine.

 

[KSoze]

His foreign policy is one of the reasons I like him. People are tired of the war propaganda, especially the shape this country is in and we don't need to be policing the world.

I think many of his viewpoints are misinterpreted. The man would go to war if the need arises, he just thinks they should be declared by Congress like the Constitution says, etc. He is a nominee that's actually been in the military and has voted Yes to war before.

His whole problem is the way he presents his viewpoints, sometimes his presentation IS a bit wacko.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

U.S. military veterans and active duty soldiers overwhelmingly support Ron Paul for President in 2012. Find out why.

[youtube]I8NhRPo0WAo#![/youtube]

He is an Isolationist. He would take us back to the 1930's on foreign policy. We would abandon our allies, we would abandon the 3rd world, we would abandon everyone.

This truly is a global economy and society. WE CAN NOT revert to 1930's. It would give rise to EXACTLY what happened in the 30's. It would embolden despots, and Governments bent on control of regions and areas of the world.

I don't care what his other policies are this is a ender.

 

[dblack]

He is an Isolationist. He would take us back to the 1930's on foreign policy. We would abandon our allies, we would abandon the 3rd world, we would abandon everyone.

This truly is a global economy and society. WE CAN NOT revert to 1930's. It would give rise to EXACTLY what happened in the 30's. It would embolden despots, and Governments bent on control of regions and areas of the world.

I don't care what his other policies are this is a ender.

Riiiight. The two choices are "rule the world" or turtle up as isolationists.

This blows my mind actually, that we can't conceive of some middle ground between 'isolationist' and a military that costs as much of the rest of the world's combined. WE are off the rails people.