Interesting Ron Paul video

[soonerwings]

Do your research, he has never said that Iran doesn't want a bomb. He believes that it is not our right to keep them from building one. People argue that Iran will use the bomb if they have it. During the Cold War we were positive that Russia would use the bomb, but they didn't. Same goes for China and N Korea. As far as his other foreign policies go, why is it our resposibility to protect countries that have the means to protect themselves? Countries we protect invest their money into infrastructure, education, etc instead of military. Kinda funny considering we invest too much in our military and our infrastructure is falling apart.

In one of the debates Dr. Paul replied to Bachmann by saying that there was NO evidence that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon while the IAEA report states that certain activities of the program are ONLY relevant to developing nuclear weaponry. Comparing Russia to Iran in this instance is like comparing apples to oranges. Russia doesn't have a theocracy nor does it's government have a stated goal of wiping another race of people off the map. As much as I don't like Santorum, I agree with his stance that the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine isn't effective against a culture that embraces martyrdom in pursuit of advancing its religion.

You can click here to read about Dr. Paul saying that there was no evidence of Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon before the Iowa caucuses. How about that for some research?

As far as military spending being too high, I'd argue that entitlement and other "mandatory" spending is the real culprit behind our failing infrastructure. Defense spending has not increased dramatically as a percentage of GDP while mandatory spending as a percentage of GDP has skyrocketed.

 

[MLRyan]

Comparing N Korea to Iran makes sense, right? They have claimed to want to wipe out S Korea before, but haven't. Touche, BTW, with the RP link. I agree about the "mandatory" spending being ridiculous. I used military budget as my example because I get to see how the military wastes money on a daily basis.

 

[soonerwings]

Comparing N Korea to Iran makes sense, right? They have claimed to want to wipe out S Korea before, but haven't. Touche, BTW, with the RP link. I agree about the "mandatory" spending being ridiculous. I used military budget as my example because I get to see how the military wastes money on a daily basis.

I don't really think that comparison is very good either. It's one thing to threaten to go to war with someone over secular or economic differences but quite another to want to have a stated long term goal of annihilating a race to advance religion. You and I are on the same page about military waste...I get to see it all the time myself. I could think of a TON of ways my wing could cut its budget and not lose any readiness/effectiveness. That being said, the problem lies with our outdated line item budgeting system that focuses more on control than on benefit vs. cost or "bang for the buck". Bureaucrats (military officers included) are forced to blow all their money for the year or face a reduced budget the next year. What kind of crazy system punishes saving money? Ours.

 

[Glocktogo]

I do not believe what anyone tries to feed me, including Ron Paul. I prefer to research on my own. I have been following politics for far to many years to believe much of anything the media or any politician says. It is all about what they do.



Start with his stance on pork spending. While claiming to be against it, he makes sure plenty of his in bills he knows are going to pass no matter what, then votes against them. That way he not only gets his pork but can claim that he always votes against it.

Then for fun look at his reasons for leaving the GOP in 87 (just in time to run as a Libertarian in 88) many of his reasons make no sense if you look at what was really going on at the time he quit. When that did not work out for him, he comes crawling back to the GOP so that maybe he can run for prez and stand a chance of winning. Like all of them, Ron Paul will do and say anything to get elected. He is no better then any of the others.

So you're aware that pork spending is money already allocated to be spent and it comprises about 1% of the whole budget. That some of that money is allocated for needed infrastructure projects and that it's really a red herring argument in the grand scheme of things.

As for Paul leaving the GOP, it could honestly be said that the GOP left it's principles instead.

The Ron Paul presidential campaign of 1988 began in early 1987 when former Congressman Ron Paul of Texas announced his candidacy for the 1988 presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party. He joined the third party after leaving the Republican Party over the Reagan administration's handling of the federal budget. He ran on a platform that included non-interventionism in foreign conflicts, decriminalization of illegal drugs on a federal level, a return to the gold standard, the abolition of the Federal Reserve and a reduction in all government spending.

Paul defeated Native American activist Russell Means at the Libertarian Party's National Convention in Seattle to win the party's presidential nomination. Former Alaska State representative Andre Marrou was selected as his running mate. After over a year of campaigning as the Libertarian Party nominee, Paul received very little media coverage, and was excluded from Presidential debates. On Election Day, he was on the ballot in 46 states and the District of Columbia, and finished in third place with approximately 0.47% of the vote, behind Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis and the winner Vice President George H.W. Bush.

As usual, the GOP and the DNC actively undermined his attempt to steer the US back to sound fiscal policies and responsible foreign policy. Something neither party wanted or tolerated. The result is what we have today. The US is broke, busted, has a terrible reputation internationally and somehow continues to pretend that the emperor is wearing clothes.

Keep regurgitating the spin. You may win the battle this year, but you're ultimately going to loose the war. So long as you refuse to demand reforms within your own party, you will NEVER convince anyone else to reform theirs. You are an integral cog in the GOP political machine, which is 50% ow what's destroying America.

 

[mhphoto]

 

[Glocktogo]

What would we do? We'd ignore it, deride it and ultimately destroy it, because it made us uncomfortable and exposed our hypocrisy. It's been over 2,000 years, and we've never really learned the lesson of the crucifiction at all.

 

[Blinocac200sx]

My biggest fear if Ron Paul gets elected is that I think we will see at least 1 assassination attempt.

 

[Glocktogo]

My biggest fear if Ron Paul gets elected is that I think we will see at least 1 assassination attempt.

Which is a valid fear, and one completely irrelevant to your vote. Every POTUS is in jeopardy of an assassination attempt.

 

[Blinocac200sx]

Which is a valid fear, and one completely irrelevant to your vote. Every POTUS is in jeopardy of an assassination attempt.

By no means do I mean I wouldn't vote for him, I just hope he survives to a second term.

 

[cjjtulsa]

My biggest fear if Ron Paul gets elected is that I think we will see at least 1 assassination attempt.

Heard that when Obama was elected, too.

Russia doesn't have a theocracy nor does it's government have a stated goal of wiping another race of people off the map.

And likely niether has Iran.

Two other well-established translation sources confirm that Ahmadinejad was referring to time, not place. The version of the October 26 2005 speech put out by the Middle East Media Research Institute, based on the Farsi text released by the official Iranian Students News Agency, says: "This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history."

and:

As a result of my inquiry and the controversy generated, they had gone back to the native Farsi-speakers who had translated the speech from a voice recording made available by Iranian TV on October 29 2005. Here is what the spokesman told me about the "off the map" section: "The monitor has checked again. It's a difficult expression to translate. They're under time pressure to produce a translation quickly and they were searching for the right phrase. With more time to reflect they would say the translation should be "eliminated from the page of history".

You’ll notice he also says “regime”, and not Israel, it’s people, etc. Eliminating Hitler from the pages of history didn’t include “wiping Germany off the map”. It’s rhetoric designed to take us to war with Iran, and for the benefit of Israel, not the U.S.