Will you vote for Ron Paul?

[P F Tinmore]

What makes you think he is an isolationist?

Paul prefers to keep American troops in America, defending the borders of the nation.

That is a strange definition of isolationism.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Ron Paul is an idiot when it comes to national defense and legalizing drugs.

He can talk out his butt all day about saving money by bringing the "troops home" around the world, but then he ignores what will happen in Asia, the middle east and Europe once we leave town. Russia, China and Iran would love for us to surrender those areas of the world.

The legalizing drugs bit ignores the medical costs of treating more people hooked on drugs. Once you make something easy to get, more people will try it. The hard drugs he wants to make legal usually only take 1 hit to make someone addicted.

So when it gets down to it, he is just clueless about things beyond the end of his nose. He can talk all day about saving money with cuts to national defense and not chasing drug dealers down....but then he has no clue about the effects afterwards which are even more costly.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Good point. It makes you wonder if these labels really mean anything.

Obama is a fascist. He rapes the nation on behalf of well connected looters. The UAW and Goldman Sachs benefit mightily from Obama in power, the American people, not so much...

 

[Dr.Drock]

Ron Paul is the only politician who's proven himself to be a fiscal conservative, his actions back his words.

I'm a fiscal conservative as my #1 platform, so he'll get my vote. It'd be nice to have a choice of more than 1 fiscal conservative, but what can ya do? Even if I had choices the good Dr. Paul would prolly still get the nod from me.

 

[GoneBezerk]

So you want the US to be more unsafe under Ron Paul.

His kind was in charge in the 1920s-30s when we ignored the threats of Germany and Japan because we needed to mind our own business. It's a bit more "costly" when a World War breaks out....

Ron Paul is the only politician who's proven himself to be a fiscal conservative, his actions back his words.

I'm a fiscal conservative as my #1 platform, so he'll get my vote. It'd be nice to have a choice of more than 1 fiscal conservative, but what can ya do? Even if I had choices the good Dr. Paul would prolly still get the nod from me.

 

[Dr.Drock]

So you want the US to be more unsafe under Ron Paul.

His kind was in charge in the 1920s-30s when we ignored the threats of Germany and Japan because we needed to mind our own business. It's a bit more "costly" when a World War breaks out....

Ron Paul is the only politician who's proven himself to be a fiscal conservative, his actions back his words.

I'm a fiscal conservative as my #1 platform, so he'll get my vote. It'd be nice to have a choice of more than 1 fiscal conservative, but what can ya do? Even if I had choices the good Dr. Paul would prolly still get the nod from me.

No, I agree with Dr. Paul that we should start taking border and port security seriously, contrary to what the status quo reps and dems want.

I also agree that it is unsafe to have our military spread thin as a cracker all around the world.

So an incorrect assumption.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you want the US to be more unsafe under Ron Paul.

Having troops at home makes us more "unsafe?"

His kind was in charge in the 1920s-30s when we ignored the threats of Germany and Japan because we needed to mind our own business. It's a bit more "costly" when a World War breaks out....

Minded our own business? You mean like sinking ships that attempted to deliver oil and goods to the Empire of Japan?

No one wanted to tangle with America, but FDR made sure they had no choice.

 

[GoneBezerk]

No, he said that we should pull the troops back to defend our borders here....which is a legal tightrope having military enforce civilian law enforcement rules.

So leaving Germany, Japan, etc to guard our border against Mexicans and terrorists. Yeah, we'll post the troops on every square inch of the US border to make sure nobody sneaks by us.

We have this group called the US Border Patrol, increase their numbers and give them more technology....the military has nothing to do with "guarding the border" unless you're talking about a military attack from say Russia, China or Iran...but I prefer to fight them over there than here.

So you want the US to be more unsafe under Ron Paul.

His kind was in charge in the 1920s-30s when we ignored the threats of Germany and Japan because we needed to mind our own business. It's a bit more "costly" when a World War breaks out....

Ron Paul is the only politician who's proven himself to be a fiscal conservative, his actions back his words.

I'm a fiscal conservative as my #1 platform, so he'll get my vote. It'd be nice to have a choice of more than 1 fiscal conservative, but what can ya do? Even if I had choices the good Dr. Paul would prolly still get the nod from me.

No, I agree with Dr. Paul that we should start taking border and port security seriously, contrary to what the status quo reps and dems want.

I also agree that it is unsafe to have our military spread thin as a cracker all around the world.

So an incorrect assumption.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Only a dumb Ron Paul lemming thinks we'd be safer if China has nobody to stop them from taking land in the Pacific, Russia using their military to blackmail eastern Europe and Iran take control over the middle east.

If you think we caused WWII then you need to be locked in a hole for life.

So you want the US to be more unsafe under Ron Paul.

Having troops at home makes us more "unsafe?"

His kind was in charge in the 1920s-30s when we ignored the threats of Germany and Japan because we needed to mind our own business. It's a bit more "costly" when a World War breaks out....

Minded our own business? You mean like sinking ships that attempted to deliver oil and goods to the Empire of Japan?

No one wanted to tangle with America, but FDR made sure they had no choice.

 

[Sheldon]

I like Paul until he starts with the isolationist B.S.

I think he's more of a non-interventionist than an isolationist. Isolationism includes protectionism, but he advocates for free trade.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, he said that we should pull the troops back to defend our borders here....which is a legal tightrope having military enforce civilian law enforcement rules.

Defending the borders isn't civilian law enforcement.

So leaving Germany, Japan, etc to guard our border against Mexicans and terrorists. Yeah, we'll post the troops on every square inch of the US border to make sure nobody sneaks by us.

Makes more sense than having them in Germany and Japan, let them provide their own defense.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Arresting people is a civil law enforcement matter. The National Guard on the border RIGHT NOW has to CALL the Border Patrol to actually stop and arrest illegals running the border.

As for Japan and Germany paying for more of their defense, that is correct but a dumb premise that they should do it and we should leave too.

No, he said that we should pull the troops back to defend our borders here....which is a legal tightrope having military enforce civilian law enforcement rules.

Defending the borders isn't civilian law enforcement.

So leaving Germany, Japan, etc to guard our border against Mexicans and terrorists. Yeah, we'll post the troops on every square inch of the US border to make sure nobody sneaks by us.

Makes more sense than having them in Germany and Japan, let them provide their own defense.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Only a dumb Ron Paul lemming thinks we'd be safer if China has nobody to stop them from taking land in the Pacific, Russia using their military to blackmail eastern Europe and Iran take control over the middle east.

If you think we caused WWII then you need to be locked in a hole for life.

You think that without an American presence in Germany, China would invade Korea?

Why would China invade anyone? They are far more successful making cheap consumer products.

 

[Dr.Drock]

No, he said that we should pull the troops back to defend our borders here....which is a legal tightrope having military enforce civilian law enforcement rules.

So leaving Germany, Japan, etc to guard our border against Mexicans and terrorists. Yeah, we'll post the troops on every square inch of the US border to make sure nobody sneaks by us.

We have this group called the US Border Patrol, increase their numbers and give them more technology....the military has nothing to do with "guarding the border" unless you're talking about a military attack from say Russia, China or Iran...but I prefer to fight them over there than here.

So you want the US to be more unsafe under Ron Paul.

His kind was in charge in the 1920s-30s when we ignored the threats of Germany and Japan because we needed to mind our own business. It's a bit more "costly" when a World War breaks out....

No, I agree with Dr. Paul that we should start taking border and port security seriously, contrary to what the status quo reps and dems want.

I also agree that it is unsafe to have our military spread thin as a cracker all around the world.

So an incorrect assumption.

Civilian law enforcement rules? No our troops are to protect america, hence guarding the places we're most vulnerable i.e. our ports and borders.

We're not vulnerable in Bolivia or Germany, and we don't need to launch cruise missiles at Libya and Afghanistan in order to keep them from taking over the U.S. So again, that's not for defense as our border security is.

 

[GoneBezerk]

How did you go from Germany being connected to China? Being in Germany helps us deter Russia in Europe and provides a quick launching point for operations in Africa and the middle east.

As for China, they are in dispute with Japan and Taiwan over islands and oil reserves under the ocean. Also, China has to feed itself....so more land helps them. China is not our friend, never will be.

Only a dumb Ron Paul lemming thinks we'd be safer if China has nobody to stop them from taking land in the Pacific, Russia using their military to blackmail eastern Europe and Iran take control over the middle east.

If you think we caused WWII then you need to be locked in a hole for life.

You think that without an American presence in Germany, China would invade Korea?

Why would China invade anyone? They are far more successful making cheap consumer products.

 

[GoneBezerk]

You're like Ron Paul....clueless about national defense.

FYI...you're talking to someone in national defense and my clearance is far above Ron Paul's clearance if he's even allowed near anything.

No, he said that we should pull the troops back to defend our borders here....which is a legal tightrope having military enforce civilian law enforcement rules.

So leaving Germany, Japan, etc to guard our border against Mexicans and terrorists. Yeah, we'll post the troops on every square inch of the US border to make sure nobody sneaks by us.

We have this group called the US Border Patrol, increase their numbers and give them more technology....the military has nothing to do with "guarding the border" unless you're talking about a military attack from say Russia, China or Iran...but I prefer to fight them over there than here.

No, I agree with Dr. Paul that we should start taking border and port security seriously, contrary to what the status quo reps and dems want.

I also agree that it is unsafe to have our military spread thin as a cracker all around the world.

So an incorrect assumption.

Civilian law enforcement rules? No our troops are to protect america, hence guarding the places we're most vulnerable i.e. our ports and borders.

We're not vulnerable in Bolivia or Germany, and we don't need to launch cruise missiles at Libya and Afghanistan in order to keep them from taking over the U.S. So again, that's not for defense as our border security is.

 

[kwc57]

Ron Paul is an idiot when it comes to national defense and legalizing drugs.

He can talk out his butt all day about saving money by bringing the "troops home" around the world, but then he ignores what will happen in Asia, the middle east and Europe once we leave town. Russia, China and Iran would love for us to surrender those areas of the world.

The legalizing drugs bit ignores the medical costs of treating more people hooked on drugs. Once you make something easy to get, more people will try it. The hard drugs he wants to make legal usually only take 1 hit to make someone addicted.

So when it gets down to it, he is just clueless about things beyond the end of his nose. He can talk all day about saving money with cuts to national defense and not chasing drug dealers down....but then he has no clue about the effects afterwards which are even more costly.

So you're a conservative socialist then?

 

[Dr.Drock]

You're like Ron Paul....clueless about national defense.

FYI...you're talking to someone in national defense and my clearance is far above Ron Paul's clearance if he's even allowed near anything.

No, he said that we should pull the troops back to defend our borders here....which is a legal tightrope having military enforce civilian law enforcement rules.

So leaving Germany, Japan, etc to guard our border against Mexicans and terrorists. Yeah, we'll post the troops on every square inch of the US border to make sure nobody sneaks by us.

We have this group called the US Border Patrol, increase their numbers and give them more technology....the military has nothing to do with "guarding the border" unless you're talking about a military attack from say Russia, China or Iran...but I prefer to fight them over there than here.

Civilian law enforcement rules? No our troops are to protect america, hence guarding the places we're most vulnerable i.e. our ports and borders.

We're not vulnerable in Bolivia or Germany, and we don't need to launch cruise missiles at Libya and Afghanistan in order to keep them from taking over the U.S. So again, that's not for defense as our border security is.

Yes I'm clueless, you've shown me the light.

Without the wars in Libya and Afghanistan they'd nuke us tomorrow and the few of us left would be bowing towards Mecca.

 

[GoneBezerk]

...and you're a f'n idiot.

Strange that I have an Economics degree and MBA, but I'm a socialist.

I guess being against drug addicted idiots like you openly doing drugs at Burger King makes me a socialist.

Ron Paul is an idiot when it comes to national defense and legalizing drugs.

He can talk out his butt all day about saving money by bringing the "troops home" around the world, but then he ignores what will happen in Asia, the middle east and Europe once we leave town. Russia, China and Iran would love for us to surrender those areas of the world.

The legalizing drugs bit ignores the medical costs of treating more people hooked on drugs. Once you make something easy to get, more people will try it. The hard drugs he wants to make legal usually only take 1 hit to make someone addicted.

So when it gets down to it, he is just clueless about things beyond the end of his nose. He can talk all day about saving money with cuts to national defense and not chasing drug dealers down....but then he has no clue about the effects afterwards which are even more costly.

So you're a conservative socialist then?

 

[GoneBezerk]

Who said I support the half-ass job in Libya? If we're going to bomb that country, then at least kill the #1 terrorist running the place.

As for killing terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, the horn of Africa, etc....yes, it makes you safer and able to follow an idiot like Ron Paul.

You're like Ron Paul....clueless about national defense.

FYI...you're talking to someone in national defense and my clearance is far above Ron Paul's clearance if he's even allowed near anything.

Civilian law enforcement rules? No our troops are to protect america, hence guarding the places we're most vulnerable i.e. our ports and borders.

We're not vulnerable in Bolivia or Germany, and we don't need to launch cruise missiles at Libya and Afghanistan in order to keep them from taking over the U.S. So again, that's not for defense as our border security is.

Yes I'm clueless, you've shown me the light.

Without the wars in Libya and Afghanistan they'd nuke us tomorrow and the few of us left would be bowing towards Mecca.