Why we support Ron Paul.

[rightwinger]

Ron Paul is a very nice old man and sincere in his beliefs

His problem is he can't break from strict libertarianism. There are some issues where libertarianism makes sense. Others where you have to be bat shit crazy to think like a libertarian. Paul's views on foreign policy are just plain crazy and prevent him from being taken seriously

We are not supposed to be fighting wars on an offensive basis. That's all he is trying to stop. We were never meant to occupy the world. We can still maintain our national defense without having 900 military bases around the world.

We have to go where the terrorists are and hit them where they are hiding. It has been very effective

Paul wants to pull back and let them do what they may

 

[LibertyForAll]

Ron Paul is a very nice old man and sincere in his beliefs

His problem is he can't break from strict libertarianism. There are some issues where libertarianism makes sense. Others where you have to be bat shit crazy to think like a libertarian. Paul's views on foreign policy are just plain crazy and prevent him from being taken seriously

We are not supposed to be fighting wars on an offensive basis. That's all he is trying to stop. We were never meant to occupy the world. We can still maintain our national defense without having 900 military bases around the world.

We have to go where the terrorists are and hit them where they are hiding. It has been very effective

Paul wants to pull back and let them do what they may

Would you advocate Canada sending a strike team into the U.S. to take out a group of suspected terrorists?

We are relying on intel groups that gave us the wrong intel and got us into a war in Iraq. If indeed it was the intel that the decisions were based on and not some other agenda.

If we take what TPTB say at face value it was and if it was then how can we trust them enough to send a missile into another sovereign nation to blow up a camp that could have children in it? Do you not think this will piss off the people there even more?

 

[Katzndogz]

If it a terrorist camp it will certainly have children in it. That is part of their tactics. Which is why the camp should be blown up whether or not it has children in it.

 

[Paulie]

If it a terrorist camp it will certainly have children in it. That is part of their tactics. Which is why the camp should be blown up whether or not it has children in it.

There's something seriously wrong with you.

 

[dblack]

We are not supposed to be fighting wars on an offensive basis. That's all he is trying to stop. We were never meant to occupy the world. We can still maintain our national defense without having 900 military bases around the world.

We have to go where the terrorists are and hit them where they are hiding. It has been very effective

Paul wants to pull back and let them do what they may

Would you advocate Canada sending a strike team into the U.S. to take out a group of suspected terrorists?

We are relying on intel groups that gave us the wrong intel and got us into a war in Iraq. If indeed it was the intel that the decisions were based on and not some other agenda.

If we take what TPTB say at face value it was and if it was then how can we trust them enough to send a missile into another sovereign nation to blow up a camp that could have children in it? Do you not think this will piss off the people there even more?

It's different when we do it.

 

[Katzndogz]

If it a terrorist camp it will certainly have children in it. That is part of their tactics. Which is why the camp should be blown up whether or not it has children in it.

There's something seriously wrong with you.

Terrorists can protect all of their camps by using children as human shields. Following that line of thinking, they can pot shot at us all they want. We just can't fight back "for the chhhuuuuuullllllllddddren".

We don't negotiate with terrorists. It makes them worse. We shouldn't give them this benefit either.

 

[Paulie]

If it a terrorist camp it will certainly have children in it. That is part of their tactics. Which is why the camp should be blown up whether or not it has children in it.

There's something seriously wrong with you.

Terrorists can protect all of their camps by using children as human shields. Following that line of thinking, they can pot shot at us all they want. We just can't fight back "for the chhhuuuuuullllllllddddren".

We don't negotiate with terrorists. It makes them worse. We shouldn't give them this benefit either.

I'm the last person you'll get a "for the children" argument from, but advocating blowing up camps regardless of whether or not there's children in it is just nuts.

What kind of greater good is this? They might SOMEDAY, MAYBE be able to kill some children here in the US if we don't blow up the camp, but if we blow up the camp we DEFINITELY kill children.

What it comes down to is you're trading the lives of Afghani, or Yemeni, or whatever, children for our children here. Innocent civilians are innocent civilians, and you don't get to play God and decide which innocent civilians are more significant.

There's got to be a better way of dealing with the problem.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We are not supposed to be fighting wars on an offensive basis. That's all he is trying to stop. We were never meant to occupy the world. We can still maintain our national defense without having 900 military bases around the world.

We have to go where the terrorists are and hit them where they are hiding. It has been very effective

Paul wants to pull back and let them do what they may

I believe Paul is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes, the attacking terrorists part is fine, it’s the staying after the attack that’s the problem. That, of course, and attacking the right country to begin with.

 

[LibertyForAll]

If it a terrorist camp it will certainly have children in it. That is part of their tactics. Which is why the camp should be blown up whether or not it has children in it.

There's something seriously wrong with you.

Terrorists can protect all of their camps by using children as human shields. Following that line of thinking, they can pot shot at us all they want. We just can't fight back "for the chhhuuuuuullllllllddddren".

We don't negotiate with terrorists. It makes them worse. We shouldn't give them this benefit either.

I am not saying don't fight back but what's wrong with having verifiable proof before we kill other people? If I hear that someone said they want to kill me should I be able to go and kill him? Why are governments given a pass to murder? Let me rephrase that...Why is our government given a pass to murder? Other governments don't count because when they do it we sanction them or institute a no fly zone.

Here is the interesting thing. Libya had a government that was relativly stable then a rogue element decided to start a revolution. Were these revolutionaries domestic terrorists? Maybe not according to us but Qaddafi might have had a different take on it. What if a communist revolution started in this country? Would it be ok if China aided them because it was in their best interest to have a communist government take us over?

 

[Paulie]

We are not supposed to be fighting wars on an offensive basis. That's all he is trying to stop. We were never meant to occupy the world. We can still maintain our national defense without having 900 military bases around the world.

We have to go where the terrorists are and hit them where they are hiding. It has been very effective

Paul wants to pull back and let them do what they may

I believe Paul is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes, the attacking terrorists part is fine, it’s the staying after the attack that’s the problem. That, of course, and attacking the right country to begin with.

Not exactly.

When a couple guys who pledge no allegiance to any specific country, and were not acting on behalf of any specific country, attack the US, it becomes quite hard to ascertain exactly WHO we're supposed to retaliate against. What we did with 9/11 was we targeted the country known to be harboring the organization that was responsible for 9/11. That's why Paul voted YES for the Afghan war.

Beyond that, it's gray area. If another nation comes out and states that it backs Al-Qaeda and supports the cause against the US, I would expect Paul to go to congress and conclude whether or not war is necessary based on information about whether or not it is a threat to our national security.

Iran, for instance, does not qualify here, because they've never expressed support for Al-Qaeda and in fact their government has expressed a belief that the US government perpetrated 9/11 against itself.

It wasn't an idea that attacked us. It was in fact a tangible opponent. One organization. We went to where they were being harbored, and we took care of the job. Now Bin Laden is dead, and Al-Qaeda is severely weakened. We've done what we were supposed to do, and it is not an excuse to continue building nations.

That's where Paul stands.

 

[Crackerjack]

I'm shocked that left liberals don't like Ron Paul. Absolutely shocked!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm shocked that left liberals don't like Ron Paul. Absolutely shocked!

What about right liberals and left conservatives?

 

[oreo]

The below link...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/magazine/does-anyone-have-a-grip-on-the-gop.html?pagewanted=all

...gives the low down on the GOP behind the scenes elitists & their fellow DNC behind the scenes elitists who sleep in the same bed together. The truth always hurts the most, those that defend their political behind the scenes idols that are always lurking in the shadows. It's not their political stage puppets(candidates) getting bumped that get the "keep it the same" constituency jumping up & down... it's when their behind the scenes puppet masters get exposed/bumped that gets the "keep it the same" constituency crowd screaming at the top of their lungs.
This is why the Ron Paul hecklers scream so loud, for they know Ron will change the game on them.... & the "keep it the same" hecklers want to keep the politics as usual so they don't lose out on the 'free' crumbs thrown to them by their elitists that own them. Enjoy the article as it's a pretty good one!

I don't think this country is going to elect a RACIST--and that is exactly what Ron Paul is--and I can see the ads right now that the Obama campaign committee would launch-- You can't put out your OWN newsletter--and then deny these type of comments within your newsletter---came from some other unknown source--

In January 2008, the New Republic ran my story reporting the contents of monthly newsletters that Paul published throughout the 1980s and 1990s. While a handful of controversial passages from these bulletins had been quoted previously, I was able to track down nearly the entire archive, scattered between the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society (both of which housed the newsletters in collections of extreme right-wing American political literature). Though particular articles rarely carried a byline, the vast majority were written in the first person, while the title of the newsletter, in its various iterations, always featured Paul’s name: Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. What I found was unpleasant.

“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” read a typical article from the June 1992 “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of “The Coming Race War,” and an article the following year about disturbances in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., was entitled “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” had also “seduced underage girls and boys.” The man who would later proclaim King a “hero” attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”

No conspiracy theory was too outlandish for Paul’s endorsement. One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “Needlin’,” in which “gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes. Another newsletter warned that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” a strange claim for a physician to make.

The Company Ron Paul Keeps | The Weekly Standard

 

[Crackerjack]

The below link...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/magazine/does-anyone-have-a-grip-on-the-gop.html?pagewanted=all

...gives the low down on the GOP behind the scenes elitists & their fellow DNC behind the scenes elitists who sleep in the same bed together. The truth always hurts the most, those that defend their political behind the scenes idols that are always lurking in the shadows. It's not their political stage puppets(candidates) getting bumped that get the "keep it the same" constituency jumping up & down... it's when their behind the scenes puppet masters get exposed/bumped that gets the "keep it the same" constituency crowd screaming at the top of their lungs.
This is why the Ron Paul hecklers scream so loud, for they know Ron will change the game on them.... & the "keep it the same" hecklers want to keep the politics as usual so they don't lose out on the 'free' crumbs thrown to them by their elitists that own them. Enjoy the article as it's a pretty good one!

I don't think this country is going to elect a RACIST--and that is exactly what Ron Paul is--and I can see the ads right now that the Obama campaign committee would launch-- You can't put out your OWN congressional newsletter--and then deny these type of comments within your congressional newsletter---as--coming from some other unknown source--

In January 2008, the New Republic ran my story reporting the contents of monthly newsletters that Paul published throughout the 1980s and 1990s. While a handful of controversial passages from these bulletins had been quoted previously, I was able to track down nearly the entire archive, scattered between the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society (both of which housed the newsletters in collections of extreme right-wing American political literature). Though particular articles rarely carried a byline, the vast majority were written in the first person, while the title of the newsletter, in its various iterations, always featured Paul’s name: Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. What I found was unpleasant.

“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” read a typical article from the June 1992 “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of “The Coming Race War,” and an article the following year about disturbances in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., was entitled “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” had also “seduced underage girls and boys.” The man who would later proclaim King a “hero” attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”

No conspiracy theory was too outlandish for Paul’s endorsement. One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “Needlin’,” in which “gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes. Another newsletter warned that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” a strange claim for a physician to make.

The Company Ron Paul Keeps | The Weekly Standard

Why don't you post this fifteen more times. It'll probably help with your ED problem.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm shocked that left liberals don't like Ron Paul. Absolutely shocked!

You're right. Given hsi basic belief that the US is an evil power in the world that ought to resonate pretty well with the Left, which believes the same thing. Add in free drug use and you would think the lefties would be flocking to him.

 

[WatertheTree]

I'm shocked that left liberals don't like Ron Paul. Absolutely shocked!

You're right. Given hsi basic belief that the US is an evil power in the world that ought to resonate pretty well with the Left, which believes the same thing. Add in free drug use and you would think the lefties would be flocking to him.

Here is a news flash for you. Conservatives agree. And so do independents.

That is why come 2012 Ron Paul is going to be the president that will lead us out of socialism into prosperity once more.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm shocked that left liberals don't like Ron Paul. Absolutely shocked!

You're right. Given hsi basic belief that the US is an evil power in the world that ought to resonate pretty well with the Left, which believes the same thing. Add in free drug use and you would think the lefties would be flocking to him.

Here is a news flash for you. Conservatives agree. And so do independents.

That is why come 2012 Ron Paul is going to be the president that will lead us out of socialism into prosperity once more.

ROn Paul polls 7% among Tea Party members. He's not going to be anything except unemployed.
NEW GALLUP POLL: NUTJOB RON PAUL ONLY GETS 7% OF THE TEA PARTY VOTE | RedState

 

[Crackerjack]

I'm shocked that left liberals don't like Ron Paul. Absolutely shocked!

You're right. Given hsi basic belief that the US is an evil power in the world that ought to resonate pretty well with the Left, which believes the same thing. Add in free drug use and you would think the lefties would be flocking to him.

Thanks for proving you don't know shit about his positions.

How about if you compare him to Adolph Hitler again to completely scuttle yourself?

Assclown.

 

[Unkotare]

I'm shocked that left liberals don't like Ron Paul. Absolutely shocked!

You're right. Given hsi basic belief that the US is an evil power in the world that ought to resonate pretty well with the Left, which believes the same thing. Add in free drug use and you would think the lefties would be flocking to him.

Here is a news flash for you. Conservatives agree. And so do independents.

That is why come 2012 Ron Paul is going to be the president that will lead us out of socialism into prosperity once more.

You shouldn't post and take drugs at the same time.

 

[BOBO]

...try to do his best on this. Remember, Ron as POTUS is up against a stacked deck with the capital hill gang.

I have no doubt if Paul wins he will kill all the shit Bush started and obama extended