Why should I support Ron Paul?

[Alonzo]

Electability aside, why should I support Ron Paul for president? I'm a relatively typical liberal. I believe in:

-The right to an abortion
-Moderate affirmative action in colleges and job environments where diversity is important. Police are a good example, since people in crime ridden areas may relate better to someone with a similar background.
-homosexual rights
-strong environmental regulations
-freedom of religion and keeping religion out of government
-social services such as health care, unemployment etc.
-use of the military as primarily a peacekeeping force or to prevent genocide

I also oppose a withdrawal from Iraq in the near future.

[Elrathin]

I also oppose a withdrawal from Iraq in the near future.


Honestly, the getting out of Iraq thing is a statement that Ron Paul is going to eat in the future and it will be known as one of those "Read my lips....no new taxes" promises.

Whomever is elected president WILL NOT get us out of Iraq quickly, they just won't.

I really wish I could bet on it being a lie from him, but I don't think he is going to be elected as a primary anyway so we never will know.

[micfranklin]

Well you could ask yourself a similar question: why should I support anyone else in the race?

[Alonzo]

Well you could ask yourself a similar question: why should I support anyone else in the race?


Well, people seem to think it's odd I dislike him. And I've had people here, and in real life, tell me that I share a lot of common ground with him and they can't understand why I oppose him.

So I'm basically asking people to tell me what I'm missing about Paul. I don't see much common ground here.

[qwerty]

Spend your time here educatimg yourself,

www.ronpaullibrary.com

[Alonzo]

Ya, see when I make a thread asking people to tell me why I should support him I'm expecting you to tell me.

Given my positions, why should I support him?

[micfranklin]

Well Zo, you and him do both believe in homosexual rights, as is evident when Paul voted against an amendment banning gay marriages. He does want environmental regulations also, but he wants the state governments to do it rather than the feds.

I think we're all clear he wants to leave Iraq now, but you don't want to leave now. That's one difference.

What do you think about gun rights and sacrificing liberty for security though?

[Elrathin]

I think what Zo is trying to say is that the important issues he holds are different than Ron Paul's views. And that would be fair. To some people, certain issues completely weigh in an individuals beliefs.

Myself I guess I view Ron Paul as a future "Read my lips....no new taxes" situation. He promises a lot but the presidency is a lot different than congress and very few political promises as the ones he is claiming (such as getting out of Iraq right away and repealing the patriot act) will be kept.

I also don't think he has the strength to stand his ground as a president.

[micfranklin]

Myself I guess I view Ron Paul as a future "Read my lips....no new taxes" situation. He promises a lot but the presidency is a lot different than congress and very few political promises as the ones he is claiming (such as getting out of Iraq right away and repealing the patriot act) will be kept.

I can see him having the Patriot Act and Military Commissions repealed, but as for withdrawing from Iraq he'd got a lot of road bumps.

But who would serve as Vice President under him then?

[qwerty]

Ya, see when I make a thread asking people to tell me why I should support him I'm expecting you to tell me.

Given my positions, why should I support him?


First, i´m not american!

I like him cause,

- He´s Honest (i haven´t seen a man like him, i have seen a video from year 88 and he´s talking same things, can provide you the link)

- He talks for SOUND MONEY, that´s the money that counts...

- He wants to pull out troops (He realisizes that your current policies only make people HATE America all over the world)

- He´s true less goverment guy

- He´s talks about personal liberties and have talked all the time.

I can continue this list so long...

Please, visit the library really and read WHY he support the things what you don´t agree with him![hr]DOLLAR IS DYING AND PRICES ARE GOING UP AND YOU DON`T WANT CHANGE ?

What´s wrong with you, do you really need to see the final collapse ?

[firefox]

Electability aside, why should I support Ron Paul for president? I'm a relatively typical liberal. I believe in:

-The right to an abortion
-Moderate affirmative action in colleges and job environments where diversity is important. Police are a good example, since people in crime ridden areas may relate better to someone with a similar background.
-homosexual rights
-strong environmental regulations
-freedom of religion and keeping religion out of government
-social services such as health care, unemployment etc.
-use of the military as primarily a peacekeeping force or to prevent genocide

I also oppose a withdrawal from Iraq in the near future.


Abortion: Right to seek one, not a positive "right" to force someone else to perform the procedure for you.

Affirmative Action: No, at least not as a legal mandate. Think of the unintended consequences.

Homosexual rights: Yes, they are just people too!

Separation of church/state: I'd add separation of school and state too ;)

Social services: We need them! Just not crappy government versions that steal from people and don't work.

Military: Ideally, I'd like to see it go away, but at the very least, it needs to be used for defence only.

Overall, I'm with Ron Paul except for his positions on abortion and the borders. I support abortion and want borders to be open.

[micfranklin]

Aside from his environmental stances and (possibly) abortion, what's not to like?

[Alonzo]

Well Zo, you and him do both believe in homosexual rights, as is evident when Paul voted against an amendment banning gay marriages. He does want environmental regulations also, but he wants the state governments to do it rather than the feds.

If the states decide regulations then we'd have the green states get greener and the more polluting states, the ones the legislation is needed to force them to act, likely get worse.

He also supports don't ask don't tell, with some changes:

"I think the current policy is a decent policy.

And Paul on same-sex marriage:

Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html

So he essentially supports the status quo on same-sex marriage.

First, i´m not american!

I like him cause,

- He´s Honest (i haven´t seen a man like him, i have seen a video from year 88 and he´s talking same things, can provide you the link)

- He talks for SOUND MONEY, that´s the money that counts...

- He wants to pull out troops (He realisizes that your current policies only make people HATE America all over the world)

- He´s true less goverment guy

- He´s talks about personal liberties and have talked all the time.

I can continue this list so long...

Please, visit the library really and read WHY he support the things what you don´t agree with him!

I never said you were an American. I never commented on your location at all.

But I expected better. This is a candidate you love, you want to convince people about all the great things he can do for America, yet your argument seems to amount to "I like that he advocates freedom, less government, and that he's honest". Those are abstract concepts for the most part. Your reason to support him seems devoid of any real, concrete policies and real concrete goals. The only actual policy you described to me is withdrawing from Iraq, something I said I oppose.

I can get up there and say you should vote for Hillary because "Hillary wants to have universal health care, provide a bond for people to spend on college when they reach adulthood, repeal don't ask, don't tell, and legalize civil unions nationwide" you have a real idea of policies she supports, and you can say whether or not you agree. If I were to say that you should vote for Hillary because she's "Intelligent, knows how to get what she wants, experienced, well meaning, and wants to protect the civil rights of all americans" that tells you nothing about her actual policies. What I just said there practically every candidate would argue that they fit that description, and that they fit that description better than anyone else. You're not going to convince anyone with that argument.

Your argument for Paul seems to be little more than an intellectual equivalent of "I support Bush because he seems like a great guy to drink beer with". Personally I don't care whether the person I vote for is scum, as long as they accomplish what I want them to.

Please, don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I know people who can argue for Paul and say why they think his POLICIES will benefit America. I'm just saying that your particular argument is devoid of that. I'm not saying that Paul's arguments are devoid of any real policies.

[Alonzo]

Abortion: Right to seek one, not a positive "right" to force someone else to perform the procedure for you.

He opposes Roe vs. Wade, likely meaning women in 30 states won't be able to get abortions.

Affirmative Action: No, at least not as a legal mandate. Think of the unintended consequences.

I think the consequence of less diversity on campus is worse. There aren't many negative consequences now.

This is a particularly scary bill he introduced, and it relates to gay rights and abortion:

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts.

Homosexual rights: Yes, they are just people too!

Whose rights to marry and adopt would be based on the whims of the states, not a federally guaranteed civil right.

Separation of church/state: I'd add separation of school and state too ;)

Church and state yes. School and state would simply mean better schools for the rich, and utter trash that would make the current school system look like harvard for the poor.

Social services: We need them! Just not crappy government versions that steal from people and don't work.

And all the charities seem to insist they can't do it alone.

Military: Ideally, I'd like to see it go away, but at the very least, it needs to be used for defence only.

I agree with the second part, not the first. Though I'd add for the defense of human life, since using it to stop genocide is something that should be encouraged.

The parts where I quoted Pauls positions come from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

[potter]

Well you could ask yourself a similar question: why should I support anyone else in the race?


Well, people seem to think it's odd I dislike him. And I've had people here, and in real life, tell me that I share a lot of common ground with him and they can't understand why I oppose him.

So I'm basically asking people to tell me what I'm missing about Paul. I don't see much common ground here.


Even six months ago I would have abhorred the idea of a Libertarian as president...

But I look at the sad group of idiots running for president and he shines as honest and intelligent.

I see the US government as an out of control monster, answerable only to corporate intersts and definately not working in the best interest of the people it's supposed to represent. To the federal Government, "we the people" are all suspected terrorists and enemies. So let's let him run things for awhile. Pull back our troops, dismantle as much of the government as he can...bring down the national debt. He can't touch state and local govenments so it wouldn't affect most people. He can't do too much dismantiling but maybe just enough to put the fear of God and some common sense into the Feds.

And after 4 or 8 years we can re-build a better federal government...or not....

IMO, it's time to try something radically different, cause what we have now don't work and hasn't for decades.

[preservanation]

"Paul is just dandy...sweeter than candy.
However...
If he runs as a spoiler, I would like to see his lollipop dunked in the sand."
-Bohemian haiku

[tony mitra]

I have heard Ron Paul, and if I was an American, I would support him, except if his opponent was Kucinich, in which case it would be a toss up.

Regarding Abortion, I heard him speak at length, and can agree with that. His point is like this - he personally believes life is special even before birth, and therefore abortion should be illegal. To that extent, he would like it if Row vs Vade verdict was overturned somewhere.

However, then he goes on to say that his belief in the constitution far outweighs his personal opinion about abortion. Therefore he strongly believes it should not be the Federal Government's business at all, and neither should it be that of the supreme court, to pass judgment on it that must be followed nationwide. He believes this matter is strictly to be decided by individual states. If some like abortion, then, even if he is personally opposed to it, he does not believe he as a president should have any constitutional right to overrule the state. Likewise, if some states ban it, which he would personally approve, he would not have any constitutional right to prop that up.

I dont know if I could want to argue with that.

By the way, he would abolish the internal revenue department ( he states that it did not exist for a good part of the US history) and even the Feds (Federal Reserve Bank) and its ability to tinker with the money supply. He would also bring back the gold standard, and prevent the government from printing money whenever they wanted it, without any backing, thereby creating inflation and devaluation of the dollar and various other ills including fighting wars for nothing.

[qwerty]

I never said you were an American. I never commented on your location at all.

But I expected better. This is a candidate you love, you want to convince people about all the great things he can do for America, yet your argument seems to amount to "I like that he advocates freedom, less government, and that he's honest". Those are abstract concepts for the most part. Your reason to support him seems devoid of any real, concrete policies and real concrete goals. The only actual policy you described to me is withdrawing from Iraq, something I said I oppose.

I can get up there and say you should vote for Hillary because "Hillary wants to have universal health care, provide a bond for people to spend on college when they reach adulthood, repeal don't ask, don't tell, and legalize civil unions nationwide" you have a real idea of policies she supports, and you can say whether or not you agree. If I were to say that you should vote for Hillary because she's "Intelligent, knows how to get what she wants, experienced, well meaning, and wants to protect the civil rights of all americans" that tells you nothing about her actual policies. What I just said there practically every candidate would argue that they fit that description, and that they fit that description better than anyone else. You're not going to convince anyone with that argument.

Your argument for Paul seems to be little more than an intellectual equivalent of "I support Bush because he seems like a great guy to drink beer with". Personally I don't care whether the person I vote for is scum, as long as they accomplish what I want them to.

Please, don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I know people who can argue for Paul and say why they think his POLICIES will benefit America. I'm just saying that your particular argument is devoid of that. I'm not saying that Paul's arguments are devoid of any real policies.

OMG!

I told you that i´m not american, cause i wanted to say to it´s not so easy to have this conversation to me since english isn´t my first language ?

I like his issues, http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

I like his writings on ronpaullibrary.com

HE KNOWS WHAT´S WRONG IN USA....

[micfranklin]

Regarding Paul's environmental stances, I take them back because from what I've looked at on Wikipedia and some of those links provided, he prefers it if the states did their job on environmental protection, rather than the feds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Environmental_prot ection

Honestly if people campaigned for him more in real life and more people took a look at his record, he might actually have the same chance of winning as the lame front-runners.

And for the record not all of the other candidates in the race are idiots, its just that the front-runners lack any substance and can't seem to answer questions and think they're name will get them by.

[Alonzo]

Regarding Paul's environmental stances, I take them back because from what I've looked at on Wikipedia and some of those links provided, he prefers it if the states did their job on environmental protection, rather than the feds.

But the states that need to be regulated, like texas, louisiani etc., are the ones least likely to enact regulation on their own. States like MA and California don't need the feds stepping in because their regulations would likely go above and beyond the federal requirements.

OMG!

I told you that i´m not american, cause i wanted to say to it´s not so easy to have this conversation to me since english isn´t my first language ?

I'm not sure how I'd know American meant english. Though you are reading english and typing english, so I have no way of knowing.

[micfranklin]

But the states that need to be regulated, like texas, louisiani etc., are the ones least likely to enact regulation on their own. States like MA and California don't need the feds stepping in because their regulations would likely go above and beyond the federal requirements.

Well that would be their responsibility and theirs alone.

[Alonzo]

So we should allow them to screw up the environment? It's not like its something that only effects them, the pollution affects everyone and the loss of wildlife and land obviously affects species.

[micfranklin]

So we should allow them to screw up the environment? It's not like its something that only effects them, the pollution affects everyone and the loss of wildlife and land obviously affects species.


There are states' rights to consider, but if something bad happens to the land there, that means we didn't allow them to screw the environment and the wildlife up, they themselves allowed it to happen.

[Alonzo]

So we should allow them to screw up the environment? It's not like its something that only effects them, the pollution affects everyone and the loss of wildlife and land obviously affects species.


There are states' rights to consider, but if something bad happens to the land there, that means we didn't allow them to screw the environment and the wildlife up, they themselves allowed it to happen.


Am I hearing this right, the important thing isn't whether the environment is ruined, it's whether or not we can blame someone else?

Besides, removing restrictions that you know are likely to lead to that end makes you pretty guilty in my mind.

It's like handing a known serial killer a gun and then claiming you had nothing to do with it when he uses it to kill five people.

When it comes to animals and the environment I really don't give a fuck what's constitutional. The constitution should apply to humans, when humans effect the well being of other beings then whatever method best prevents that should be used. I'm not saying that I don't think the current laws are constitutional, just that constitutional arguments on the environment mean nothing to me.

[micfranklin]

So we should allow them to screw up the environment? It's not like its something that only effects them, the pollution affects everyone and the loss of wildlife and land obviously affects species.


There are states' rights to consider, but if something bad happens to the land there, that means we didn't allow them to screw the environment and the wildlife up, they themselves allowed it to happen.


Am I hearing this right, the important thing isn't whether the environment is ruined, it's whether or not we can blame someone else?

Besides, removing restrictions that you know are likely to lead to that end makes you pretty guilty in my mind.

It's like handing a known serial killer a gun and then claiming you had nothing to do with it when he uses it to kill five people.

When it comes to animals and the environment I really don't give a fuck what's constitutional. The constitution should apply to humans, when humans effect the well being of other beings then whatever method best prevents that should be used. I'm not saying that I don't think the current laws are constitutional, just that constitutional arguments on the environment mean nothing to me.


Okay maybe I worded that wrong. What I was trying to say was this: if, say, the swamps and wetlands in Florida are ruined by the people living there, it's Florida's own fault and theirs alone. They did that and it's their responsibility to acknowledge it and fix it.

[Alonzo]

Okay maybe I worded that wrong. What I was trying to say was this: if, say, the swamps and wetlands in Florida are ruined by the people living there, it's Florida's own fault and theirs alone. They did that and it's their responsibility to acknowledge it and fix it.

I understood what you said the first time. I didn't realize that humans were the only thing occupying the environment, or that whatever they do to the environment has no affect on anything else in that environment. I also wasn't aware that no matter how much one states fucks up they cannot have an impact on another state.

I get what you're saying. You're willing to take actions that, even if you know it will fuck things up, you'd still take them. How someone can think that is good policy is beyond me.

[qwerty]

Zo, You say that you care about environment, how can you support wars ?

:shame:

[Alonzo]

I assume your comment refers to Iraq. If we pull out it won't stop any war, it will merely stop our involvement. Iraq falling into complete chaos would be even worse for the environment, and it would take long to restore a stable government that was capable of protecting the environment.

Leaving Iraq won't end any war, staying may help prevent it from going completely to hell though and slowly stabilizing.

[qwerty]

I assume your comment refers to Iraq. If we pull out it won't stop any war, it will merely stop our involvement. Iraq falling into complete chaos would be even worse for the environment, and it would take long to restore a stable government that was capable of protecting the environment.

Leaving Iraq won't end any war, staying may help prevent it from going completely to hell though and slowly stabilizing.


You allways forget that USA´s politics have caused this chaos!

When you start to understand that PEOPLE DON`T WANT THAT USA INVADES THEIR COUNTRIES ?

Do you want CHINA to Usa ?

I know that most of the people most of the people have good intentions even if they support war, but when you start listening people there ?

You don´t want ANY country to invade USA, Iraqis think the same.

You just CAN´T force them to live like us !

[Alonzo]

You allways forget that USA´s politics have caused this chaos!

When you start to understand that PEOPLE DON`T WANT THAT USA INVADES THEIR COUNTRIES ?

When will you understand we did invade Iraq and you can't go back in time and fix that. You have to work from where we are now. Not being in Iraq was a good idea in 2003, not now.

Do you want CHINA to Usa ?

No, at the same time I'm not sure if I'd want them to leave quickly if they've already destroyed the government, infrastructure, and there's white power gangs roaming the streets.



You just CAN´T force them to live like us !


I always thought not being blown up was a universal desire. Now how that takes place may differ, but preventing that seems universal.

[qwerty]

When will you understand we did invade Iraq and you can't go back in time and fix that. You have to work from where we are now. Not being in Iraq was a good idea in 2003, not now.

When you start understand that PEOPLE WILL HATE USA IF USA INVADES THEIR COUNTRY ?

You have driven that land to CHAOS and they don´t want your help anymore, they want you OUT! They don´t want to live like western people and we must respect that.

They HATE Usa, they just want to you out, can´t you how easy it is to terrorists to recruit new people.

Think that all as it would happen to your OWN country! and WAKE UP!

No, at the same time I'm not sure if I'd want them to leave quickly if they've already destroyed the government, infrastructure, and there's white power gangs roaming the streets.

So, you would like them to stay in your country and spread communism, their way of life...

Please, don´t lie.

LOL, first USA´s tax payers are taxed to BOMB the country, then they tax you to FIX the same country! OMG!

:ecstatic:

[Alonzo]

When you start understand that PEOPLE WILL HATE USA IF USA INVADES THEIR COUNTRY ?

Considering we already did I fail to see the point in arguing that.

You have driven that land to CHAOS and they don´t want your help anymore, they want you OUT! They don´t want to live like western people and we must respect that.



So they want to live with terrorists roaming their streets? Are you suggesting that they want to live like that?

It will be afghanistan again if we pull out, and even the afghani's hated that. Remember, pre-soviets Afghanistan was a relatively modern and secular society for that area.

LOL, first USA´s tax payers are taxed to BOMB the country, then they tax you to FIX the same country! OMG!

So if Americans fuck up a country they should, to spare their money, do nothing to rebuild it?

[tony mitra]

Interesting debate here.

One might consider that the most stable condition where a nation can be at peace with itself over long period of time, is the same condition when the nation was previously in a stable condition for a long period of time.

In the case of Iraq - the answer is "never". It did not exist as a single unified country at peace with itself, although the history of the people and its culture and civilization go back almost seven thousand years.

Iraq was created less than a hundred years ago, by the British, for a purpose - to gobble up the crumbling Ottoman Empire. It was kept in one piece through first colonial rule, then a propped up dictator, and later through local single party dictatorship such as the Baath party of Saddam Hussain. Now, the Americans are attempting the same.

The most stable state of equilibrium would be for Iraq to revert to its splinters along Shia, Sunni and Kurdish lines. These ethnic divisions are not 7,000 years old, but go for a lot longer than a thousand years, and with differences that are a mix of linguistic, ethnic, religious and political.

The problem for America is that it is impossible to plan for this splinter which would still accept US control, or even a group of nations that would be friendly towards USA or Israel, over the long term. The very creation of the three suspicious groupings might become the epicenter of friction between the Shia and the Sunni, the Arabs and the Persians, and the hardliner Muslims (shia and sunni) against the moderates (kurds). Any single group, if it is friendly to the west, would result in the other groups being anti-west.

This stable solution does not seem to fit the American agenda for the region. And there lies the biggest problem USA has, not to mention the importance of oil that lies under the sands too.

So, in short, the US is screwed if it stays and screwed if it leaves. Meanwhile, an ethlic cleansing is ongoing, with or without US help. People are beginning to filter out of each others territory, with clear demarkation between the Shia, the Sunni and the Kurd. This is ensuring less internal violence on one side, and same time ensuring that the nation is inexorably drifting towards splintering on the other side. This would be similar to having and USA where the Catholics occupy different states than the protestants, and same time the Mexicans and Asians etc have their specific states, with little of any intermingling.

The state of Iraq is causing not only the political fall out in USA, it has ratcheted up the Muslim-West divide considerably around the world, and has given rise to Islamic fundamentalism too. These fundamentalists argue, with some justification when it comes to the middle east, that the west is out to screw the Muslims. This is also endangering the position of the pro-west dictators and Kings that are almost the only Muslim nations of the region that have accepted peace with Israel and assumed a somewhat pro-western foreign policy. It looks like it is a matter of time before one by one those anti-democratic regimes fall under the weight of popular uprisings, and the Islamists are generally gaining ground everywhere.

The intellectuals within Israel are, I am sure, quite aware of the development. But these and the progressives, much like in USA, are in the back seat. Israeli politics have been hijacked by the right wing for quite a while.

Drum beats will roll across the land, not just in Iraq, for a while now, before the dust ever settles.

As far as that goes, Ron Paul is right on the money. There is little the US can do in the long term shaping of Iraq, while the longer it stays there, more it will bleed the US coffers, less it will have friends willing to join it there, and more enemies it will create among the fundamentalists around the world.

USA however, would find it hard to cut losses and return home. This is not just accepting defeat in Iraq - this is saying good bye to the Neo-con agenda about the world. It is the end of a dream. Therefore, the US will not disengage quickly.

Interestingly, it is the Islamist thinkers themselves who judged USA more accurately than the rest of the world, and wagered that the US would not be able to retreat from the middle east - which plays into their hands just right.

These guys have been unsuccessful so far in toppling the Muslim regimes and bringing in Islamic rule. It is their hope that the US stays, and that the regimes in all these countries starting with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, collapse, ushering in the Caliphate.

To that end, USA and Israel will help out, unwittingly, if they can be tickled enough to continue invading other Muslim nations.

Cheers and have a good one.

:)

[Alonzo]

USA however, would find it hard to cut losses and return home. This is not just accepting defeat in Iraq - this is saying good bye to the Neo-con agenda about the world. It is the end of a dream. Therefore, the US will not disengage quickly.

Leaving would provide a short boost in world opinion, but the disaster that it creates would further sink the worlds opinion of us, provide more fuel for extremism, and provide a breeding and training ground for it.

[Elrathin]

Leaving would provide a short boost in world opinion, but the disaster that it creates would further sink the worlds opinion of us, provide more fuel for extremism, and provide a breeding and training ground for it.


Or without us there the Iraqis would ban together against AQ and kick their asses out. We are a hinderence to this war.

[micfranklin]

Leaving would provide a short boost in world opinion, but the disaster that it creates would further sink the worlds opinion of us, provide more fuel for extremism, and provide a breeding and training ground for it.


Or without us there the Iraqis would ban together against AQ and kick their asses out. We are a hinderence to this war.


Besides the Iraqis should be helping us out in the fighting, too.

[qwerty]

USA however, would find it hard to cut losses and return home. This is not just accepting defeat in Iraq - this is saying good bye to the Neo-con agenda about the world. It is the end of a dream. Therefore, the US will not disengage quickly.

Leaving would provide a short boost in world opinion, but the disaster that it creates would further sink the worlds opinion of us, provide more fuel for extremism, and provide a breeding and training ground for it.


OMG, do ever listen someone else than yourself or your neo-con friends ?

People of IRAQ WANT YOU OUT from their land, they don´t want to live like us. You have MORE enemies than ever everywhere and you can´t thank your neo-con friends, those who want to have military in 130 countries...OMG, what you expect, people to love you ?

:madlaugh:

Lol, you and you friends are fighting against terrorists abroad when you don´t even know WHO IS IN YOUR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY ? OMG!!!

How much are you willing to pay, oil is raising and fisrt they taxed you to bomb iraq and now they tax you to build it back up when the bridges in USA are collapsing...

Military people see it and that´s why they donate mostly to RON PAUL! You don´t have such a knowledge about these things.

[Alonzo]

OMG, do ever listen someone else than yourself or your neo-con friends ?

I'm a neocon! I think I've been called everything now.

People of IRAQ WANT YOU OUT from their land, they don´t want to live like us. You have MORE enemies than ever everywhere and you can´t thank your neo-con friends, those who want to have military in 130 countries...OMG, what you expect, people to love you ?

Again, they want to live in the middle of groups that would provide more death and far less safety than saddam ever did?

Lol, you and you friends are fighting against terrorists abroad when you don´t even know WHO IS IN YOUR OWN f_cking COUNTRY ? OMG!!!

Name a first world country than can claim to know everyone who's in their country.

How much are you willing to pay, oil is raising and fisrt they taxed you to bomb iraq and now they tax you to build it back up when the bridges in USA are collapsing...

I'll tell you something, the amount of money that I'm willing to pay my neighbor to rebuild his house would increase astronomically if I set fire to it.

Military people see it and that´s why they donate mostly to RON PAUL! You don´t have such a knowledge about these things.

Where are you posting from? Unless it's somewhere in Iraq you really should pay closer attention to the meaning of your posts.

[lavisod]

america is leading the world for aggressive war. The cia takes part in assassinating popular elected people around the world. so calling revolutionaries terrorists is a misconception. The cia started this shit, and they control the drug trade. The military lies about aliens and alien technology that could end our dependence on oil. The military is preparing for an alien invasion and martial law. The real alien invasion hasnt started yet but a minor invasion has. They are taking people from thier homes cloning them and killing the real one. You just havent realized what we are up against. call me a nut but its your ignorance that will lead to our demise. Dissidents like me will be incinerated by the gov in mass. Ron paul is our only hope.

[qwerty]

I'm a neocon! I think I've been called everything now.

Yes, cause you want to continue occupation.

Again, they want to live in the middle of groups that would provide more death and far less safety than saddam ever did?

If you occupy that country, you will only divide the Iraqis...There are the some who supports Usa and some who don´t.

Name a first world country than can claim to know everyone who's in their country.

How old are you...

Like Ron says,

It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked.

I'll tell you something, the amount of money that I'm willing to pay my neighbor to rebuild his house would increase astronomically if I set fire to it.

Would you first pay to bomb someones house and then pay to rebuild it..

Where are you posting from? Unless it's somewhere in Iraq you really should pay closer attention to the meaning of your posts.

Europe...

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

Where are you posting from? Unless it's somewhere in Iraq you really should pay closer attention to the meaning of your posts.

Europe...
We see how good Europe is handling the Muslim terrorist NO THANKS I'LL just say no to Ron [the kook ]Paul

[qwerty]

Where are you posting from? Unless it's somewhere in Iraq you really should pay closer attention to the meaning of your posts.

Europe...
We see how good Europe is handling the Muslim terrorist NO THANKS I'LL just say no to Ron [the kook ]Paul


Are you really feeling safe now when your own border is left open and your wars all over the world are creating more and more terrorists...

See, you can´t have a war agaisnt terrorism, it´s a TACTIC...:thumbsup:

Occupation was the one of the main reasons what caused 911, read the comission report...

How is it now with vietnam ?

[qwerty]

Where are you posting from? Unless it's somewhere in Iraq you really should pay closer attention to the meaning of your posts.

Europe...
We see how good Europe is handling the Muslim terrorist NO THANKS I'LL just say no to Ron [the kook ]Paul


Would you even listen to your troops ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvEil9LukKk&eurl=

[micfranklin]

You know something I just thought of?

In that GOP debate in May where people said Ron Paul "suggested" that the U.S. caused 9/11, Giuliani made that outburst about everything Paul said just before being an absurd statement. As I look at the video of it on YouTube now, nowhere in that segment of the debate did Giuliani bring any facts to the table to disprove what Paul said.

Here's the clip of the debate I'm referring to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpUZiud98lE

Also, I went to Ontheissues.org to look at Paul's views on war, and I note that about half of what he said in that segment wasn't listed in any of his quotes. And curiously, the source that listed that is from X-Ref Giuliani....