Ron Paul supporters, what do you disagree with Ron Paul on?

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I only threw major support to Cain. I casually support Newt but really don't care as long as Obama is ousted.

But if the mud is where you want to play we can certainly go there. I have thus far refrained from my usual Paul hate.

You really need to pull your shorts outta your ass, bro.

But it's the only thing keeping him from shitting his brains out.

Now that, was funny. +1

 

[Paulie]

You really need to pull your shorts outta your ass, bro.

But it's the only thing keeping him from shitting his brains out.

Now that, was funny. +1

So who's it gonna be? You really don't have much choice other than Romney I guess, huh?

 

[High_Gravity]

I haven't heard him address this, but I wish he would allow illegal immigrants who work and do not receive government subsidies to be allowed to live their lives. No amnesty, but just the freedom to work hard and continue with their lives here. The high paying jobs we are losing is coming from over seas, from better educated and qualified techs/engineers, not service sector laborers.

I can't tell you how many times I have driven down the 280 or 87 and seen a banner that says "Que es Mas Importante, Amnesty or Liberty?" or "Libertad por Todos - Ron Paul 2012." It makes you feel like the message of freedom unites us around a common banner.

Wow, you want illegals who don't recieve government subsidies to stay? thats dangerous because you are letting people in third world shit holes know that as long as they stay off the dole they can just come to America, thats crazy.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

But it's the only thing keeping him from shitting his brains out.

Now that, was funny. +1

So who's it gonna be? You really don't have much choice other than Romney I guess, huh?

I will vote for Newt if given the chance. I think he can govern. At least he was successful at it in the past.

ABO ftw

 

[Paulie]

Now that, was funny. +1

So who's it gonna be? You really don't have much choice other than Romney I guess, huh?

I will vote for Newt if given the chance. I think he can govern. At least he was successful at it in the past.

ABO ftw

I respect your conviction for a certain candidate, but then you lose when you put ABO. Gingrich polls horribly against Obama and has a ton of baggage that will not bode well in a general.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I think this thread needed to be made.


I disagree with him that a Fed can't work, I agree with him that THIS Fed doesn't work.


I think his view on evolution is an embarassment. It spits in the fact of common sense and science, especially for a doctor who had to deal with the flu.



But he's better than the others and it's not even close. I don't have to agree with a politician on everything, he/she just has to be for fiscal responsibility and a small federal gov't.



What say you?

I totally back Ron Paul, however I'm opposed to his foreign policy and believe his position there is dangerous and batshit crazy.. It seems he has no desire to play geo-politics or protect our allies..

I must say I do believe if there were ever a foreign threat to the US Paul would turn that threat into dust... He would never send troops he would just bomb the threat into oblivion.. However I do fear Paul would wait until that threat reached our soil before he did anything...

Paul takes libertarianism to a geo-political level and I view that as noble and dedicated but certainly shortsighted and extreme..

I'm in 100% agreement with him on domestic issues...

 

[manifold]

The Oh-Boy gets my vote if Ron Paul's name isn't on the ballot.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So who's it gonna be? You really don't have much choice other than Romney I guess, huh?

I will vote for Newt if given the chance. I think he can govern. At least he was successful at it in the past.

ABO ftw

I respect your conviction for a certain candidate, but then you lose when you put ABO. Gingrich polls horribly against Obama and has a ton of baggage that will not bode well in a general.

True, but Obama has his baggage as well (his record)

Time will tell.

 

[KSoze]

I'm not as well studied on it as I should be but I'm not sure I agree with getting rid of the EPA. If a river that flows through many states gets polluted, can you count on the states to do the right thing. Too many times companies just pay the fine and continue polluting. I think I am more for a re-vamping of it and less for getting rid of it entirely.

I also think something needs to be done with the healthcare system. I'm not for mandates or universal healthcare. However, at the same time people with conditions that they are born with shouldn't be denied healthcare coverage. There are also too many instances of people losing their jobs, thereby losing their health coverage. They get sick, run up an atrocious hospital bill
Why should some guy that's been paying in all of this time, lose his insurance and get screwed? I realize stuff happens but there has to be a better way of dealing with that.
Something needs to be done to make coverage cheaper in this country.
I don't know how you deal with this problem, but I want more than someone saying I'm going to repeal Obamacare. Okay, what the @#$ are you going to do in return then? I hear more people talking about the dangers of Obamacare yet not presenting any alternative.

 

[Paulie]

I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I think this thread needed to be made.


I disagree with him that a Fed can't work, I agree with him that THIS Fed doesn't work.


I think his view on evolution is an embarassment. It spits in the fact of common sense and science, especially for a doctor who had to deal with the flu.



But he's better than the others and it's not even close. I don't have to agree with a politician on everything, he/she just has to be for fiscal responsibility and a small federal gov't.



What say you?

I totally back Ron Paul, however I'm opposed to his foreign policy and believe his position there is dangerous and batshit crazy.. It seems he has no desire to play geo-politics or protect our allies..

I must say I do believe if there were ever a foreign threat to the US Paul would turn that threat into dust... He would never send troops he would just bomb the threat into oblivion.. However I do fear Paul would wait until that threat reached our soil before he did anything...

Paul takes libertarianism to a geo-political level and I view that as noble and dedicated but certainly shortsighted and extreme..

Who can threaten us on our soil? I'd love to know.

I don't mean someone blowing up a shopping mall in the name of Allah. I mean what foreign nation threatens our sovereignty?

 

[Paulie]

I will vote for Newt if given the chance. I think he can govern. At least he was successful at it in the past.

ABO ftw

I respect your conviction for a certain candidate, but then you lose when you put ABO. Gingrich polls horribly against Obama and has a ton of baggage that will not bode well in a general.

True, but Obama has his baggage as well (his record)

Time will tell.

It's much tougher to beat an incumbent with a bad record. You need to prove to the country that you're not only better than Obama, but that you aren't just going to be another Bush.

Gingrich's congressional record looks like he'd be another Bush. Have you ever actually looked at it? The guy looks like a democrat, gramps. He CONSTANTLY voted to increase the size of government.

How do conservatives actually like this guy? I don't get it.

 

[truthsaga]

I haven't heard him address this, but I wish he would allow illegal immigrants who work and do not receive government subsidies to be allowed to live their lives. No amnesty, but just the freedom to work hard and continue with their lives here. The high paying jobs we are losing is coming from over seas, from better educated and qualified techs/engineers, not service sector laborers.

I can't tell you how many times I have driven down the 280 or 87 and seen a banner that says "Que es Mas Importante, Amnesty or Liberty?" or "Libertad por Todos - Ron Paul 2012." It makes you feel like the message of freedom unites us around a common banner.

Wow, you want illegals who don't recieve government subsidies to stay? thats dangerous because you are letting people in third world shit holes know that as long as they stay off the dole they can just come to America, thats crazy.

For those that are already here. I was referring that when Ron Paul is president I know the border would be secure and all the incentives that drive illegal immigration would be ended or reserved to the states. But, to kick out millions of people by force isn't reality. You do not have to refer to people as that and it may not be long before we want to leave this country when the dollar and economy finally collapse.

Illegal immigration is driven by incentives, if you remove the incentives of birthright, free education, and healthcare etc., you reduce the illegal movement of people. Legal immigration is great, but they are the ones taking our higher paying jobs because the distortions in our education system are turning out more liberal arts degree's then engineers and technicians. There is a lot we need to to do to reset our economy and rebuild our industries, but I can not see how starting a War on Illegals will do anything more then undercut more of our liberties and drive us deeper down the hold.

 

[manifold]

Obama has his baggage as well...

Why you gotta go after his wife's ass like that?

Have you no couth?

 

[High_Gravity]

I haven't heard him address this, but I wish he would allow illegal immigrants who work and do not receive government subsidies to be allowed to live their lives. No amnesty, but just the freedom to work hard and continue with their lives here. The high paying jobs we are losing is coming from over seas, from better educated and qualified techs/engineers, not service sector laborers.

I can't tell you how many times I have driven down the 280 or 87 and seen a banner that says "Que es Mas Importante, Amnesty or Liberty?" or "Libertad por Todos - Ron Paul 2012." It makes you feel like the message of freedom unites us around a common banner.

Wow, you want illegals who don't recieve government subsidies to stay? thats dangerous because you are letting people in third world shit holes know that as long as they stay off the dole they can just come to America, thats crazy.

For those that are already here. I was referring that when Ron Paul is president I know the border would be secure and all the incentives that drive illegal immigration would be ended or reserved to the states. But, to kick out millions of people by force isn't reality. You do not have to refer to people as that and it may not be long before we want to leave this country when the dollar and economy finally collapse.

Illegal immigration is driven by incentives, if you remove the incentives of birthright, free education, and healthcare etc., you reduce the illegal movement of people. Legal immigration is great, but they are the ones taking our higher paying jobs because the distortions in our education system are turning out more liberal arts degree's then engineers and technicians. There is a lot we need to to do to reset our economy and rebuild our industries, but I can not see how starting a War on Illegals will do anything more then undercut more of our liberties and drive us deeper down the hold.

Ok I get where your going with this, I can agree with you to an extent to kick out millions of people isn't realistic.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I think this thread needed to be made.


I disagree with him that a Fed can't work, I agree with him that THIS Fed doesn't work.


I think his view on evolution is an embarassment. It spits in the fact of common sense and science, especially for a doctor who had to deal with the flu.



But he's better than the others and it's not even close. I don't have to agree with a politician on everything, he/she just has to be for fiscal responsibility and a small federal gov't.



What say you?

I totally back Ron Paul, however I'm opposed to his foreign policy and believe his position there is dangerous and batshit crazy.. It seems he has no desire to play geo-politics or protect our allies..

I must say I do believe if there were ever a foreign threat to the US Paul would turn that threat into dust... He would never send troops he would just bomb the threat into oblivion.. However I do fear Paul would wait until that threat reached our soil before he did anything...

Paul takes libertarianism to a geo-political level and I view that as noble and dedicated but certainly shortsighted and extreme..

Who can threaten us on our soil? I'd love to know.

I don't mean someone blowing up a shopping mall in the name of Allah. I mean what foreign nation threatens our sovereignty?

I think "who would want to" would be the better question to ask?..

Then you would have to narrow it down to those who have the capabilities to do such...

Of course you would have to look at the economic validity to do such.

I suppose China would love to attack us, however they have too much at stake, Russia as well... Those are the two major nations that would attack us...

They'd both love our resources, however they know they would have to destroy them to gain access to our country, hence making an invasion moot. Not to mention the global economic ramifications that would hurt them..

North Korea would love to attack us but they don't have the resources to do such.

Iran however is crazy enough and has enough resources and capabilities to attack us. Ahmadinejad would certainly go on some Middle East conquest if Paul stuck to his no intervention policy.... Ahmadinejad would build a coalition of Islamic countries/states and before you knew it you would have an army the size of China's army heading for the shores of the US looking to do what the Spanish did in South America circa 16th century..

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I totally back Ron Paul, however I'm opposed to his foreign policy and believe his position there is dangerous and batshit crazy.. It seems he has no desire to play geo-politics or protect our allies..

I must say I do believe if there were ever a foreign threat to the US Paul would turn that threat into dust... He would never send troops he would just bomb the threat into oblivion.. However I do fear Paul would wait until that threat reached our soil before he did anything...

Paul takes libertarianism to a geo-political level and I view that as noble and dedicated but certainly shortsighted and extreme..

Who can threaten us on our soil? I'd love to know.

I don't mean someone blowing up a shopping mall in the name of Allah. I mean what foreign nation threatens our sovereignty?

I think "who would want to" would be the better question to ask?..

Then you would have to narrow it down to those who have the capabilities to do such...

Of course you would have to look at the economic validity to do such.

I suppose China would love to attack us, however they have too much at steak, Russia as well... Those are the two major nations that would attack us...

They'd both love our resources, however they know they would have to destroy them to gain access to our country, hence making an invasion moot. Not to mention the global economic ramifications that would hurt them..

North Korea would love to attack us but they don't have the resources to do such.

Iran however is crazy enough and has enough resources and capabilities to attack us. Ahmadinejad would certainly go on some Middle East conquest if Paul stuck to his no intervention policy.... Ahmadinejad would build a coalition of Islamic countries/states and before you knew it you would have an army the size of China's army heading for the shores of the US looking to do what the Spanish did in South America circa 16th century..

I think that's a bit of a stretch. Israel will not allow Iran to gain much more strength before they intervene.

 

[Paulie]

Iran however is crazy enough and has enough resources and capabilities to attack us. Ahmadinejad would certainly go on some Middle East conquest if Paul stuck to his no intervention policy.... Ahmadinejad would build a coalition of Islamic countries/states and before you knew it you would have an army the size of China's army heading for the shores of the US looking to do what the Spanish did in South America circa 16th century..

This is pretty sensationalist, that's for sure.

Let's just assume for the sake of argument this was correct. Why do we need to fill the middle east up with hundreds of thousands of troops and spend trillions of dollars stationing them and building embassies? Why can't we just simply state that Country A is our ally, and if you engage them militarily you will have missiles raining down on your capital in a matter of minutes?

Regardless of what you think about foreign interventionism, the way we are going about it is just way too extreme. We have the kind of technology that we don't need to BE everywhere to be able to strike everywhere, if that makes sense.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Who can threaten us on our soil? I'd love to know.

I don't mean someone blowing up a shopping mall in the name of Allah. I mean what foreign nation threatens our sovereignty?

I think "who would want to" would be the better question to ask?..

Then you would have to narrow it down to those who have the capabilities to do such...

Of course you would have to look at the economic validity to do such.

I suppose China would love to attack us, however they have too much at steak, Russia as well... Those are the two major nations that would attack us...

They'd both love our resources, however they know they would have to destroy them to gain access to our country, hence making an invasion moot. Not to mention the global economic ramifications that would hurt them..

North Korea would love to attack us but they don't have the resources to do such.

Iran however is crazy enough and has enough resources and capabilities to attack us. Ahmadinejad would certainly go on some Middle East conquest if Paul stuck to his no intervention policy.... Ahmadinejad would build a coalition of Islamic countries/states and before you knew it you would have an army the size of China's army heading for the shores of the US looking to do what the Spanish did in South America circa 16th century..

I think that's a bit of a stretch. Israel will not allow Iran to gain much more strength before they intervene.

Are you kidding me?

Israel is no threat to Iran and Iran would bomb Israel into oblivion... The only defense Israel has over Iran is nuclear weaponry - and even then I don't think Iran gives a shit because if Israel did send a nuke their way Ahmadinejad would spin it as "the evil Jews have come to kill us so now you kill every non-Muslim you can find."

It would be a total disaster..... It would be WWII all over again, but this time Ahmadinejad would play the role of Hitler..

 

[Paulie]

I think "who would want to" would be the better question to ask?..

Then you would have to narrow it down to those who have the capabilities to do such...

Of course you would have to look at the economic validity to do such.

I suppose China would love to attack us, however they have too much at steak, Russia as well... Those are the two major nations that would attack us...

They'd both love our resources, however they know they would have to destroy them to gain access to our country, hence making an invasion moot. Not to mention the global economic ramifications that would hurt them..

North Korea would love to attack us but they don't have the resources to do such.

Iran however is crazy enough and has enough resources and capabilities to attack us. Ahmadinejad would certainly go on some Middle East conquest if Paul stuck to his no intervention policy.... Ahmadinejad would build a coalition of Islamic countries/states and before you knew it you would have an army the size of China's army heading for the shores of the US looking to do what the Spanish did in South America circa 16th century..

I think that's a bit of a stretch. Israel will not allow Iran to gain much more strength before they intervene.

Are you kidding me?

Israel is no threat to Iran and Iran would bomb Israel into oblivion... The only defense Israel has over Iran is nuclear weaponry - and even then I don't think Iran gives a shit because if Israel did send a nuke their way Ahmadinejad would spin it as "the evil Jews have come to kill us so now you kill every non-Muslim you can find."

It would be a total disaster..... It would be WWII all over again, but this time Ahmadinejad would play the role of Hitler..

Bomb Israel into oblivion with WHAT? Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, and Iran, if they're even trying to make them, MIGHT end up with one.

Where do you come up with this shit?

 

[Dr.Drock]

I think "who would want to" would be the better question to ask?..

Then you would have to narrow it down to those who have the capabilities to do such...

Of course you would have to look at the economic validity to do such.

I suppose China would love to attack us, however they have too much at steak, Russia as well... Those are the two major nations that would attack us...

They'd both love our resources, however they know they would have to destroy them to gain access to our country, hence making an invasion moot. Not to mention the global economic ramifications that would hurt them..

North Korea would love to attack us but they don't have the resources to do such.

Iran however is crazy enough and has enough resources and capabilities to attack us. Ahmadinejad would certainly go on some Middle East conquest if Paul stuck to his no intervention policy.... Ahmadinejad would build a coalition of Islamic countries/states and before you knew it you would have an army the size of China's army heading for the shores of the US looking to do what the Spanish did in South America circa 16th century..

I think that's a bit of a stretch. Israel will not allow Iran to gain much more strength before they intervene.

Are you kidding me?

Israel is no threat to Iran and Iran would bomb Israel into oblivion... The only defense Israel has over Iran is nuclear weaponry - and even then I don't think Iran gives a shit because if Israel did send a nuke their way Ahmadinejad would spin it as "the evil Jews have come to kill us so now you kill every non-Muslim you can find."

It would be a total disaster..... It would be WWII all over again, but this time Ahmadinejad would play the role of Hitler..

Iran fought a long war to a stalemate with Iraq, but would bomb the Israel military that's loaded with US made weapons and nukes into oblivion?


How's that equation work out?