If Ron Paul Gets the Nod

Would you support Ron Paul if he gets the nod, regardless of who you now support?

  • Yes

    Votes: 96 72.2%

  • No

    Votes: 21 15.8%

  • Not Sure

    Votes: 11 8.3%

  • Would vote Democrat

    Votes: 5 3.8%
  • Total voters
    133
If the Russians or Chinese try to fill the role of nation building, then they will fail just as badly as we have.
Click to expand...

I actually said “world’s policeman” not “nation building”. Maybe they’d be smarter than us and not attempt nation building. Maybe they’d just bomb the crap out of whoever was irritating them on a given day.

So if we give up cop, where’s the incentive to maintain our power? If we are not involved and leading the world and we lose our distinct military advantages, whoever becomes cop can and will make us miserable. Furthermore, they could do so without directly attacking us.
 
If you try to talk to Iran, by laying down a format that talking is all that you will do, then you have already lost. Pick up your crayons and go home. I know quite a few Iranians, and their mindsets are very different than ours.

Truth is I don't know what is the right course in all this mess. The scary thing is that neither does anyones else. Before Osama attacked the twin towers, flying planes into some of our nuke plants was on the table. But they decided that plan of action might get out of control. Not even our enemy, Osama, knows what to do, except to kill us. He knows that much.

I do think that if we show weakness, we will be devoured. If we show strength, we might survive. Maybe. Six years after 9/11 a lot of us don't put much stock in the danger we are in. The left attack America and our government with a ferocity that Osama would be proud of. Right after 9/11 we were a united America. Now we are very divided and fight among ourselves. We are becoming easy pickings for our enemies.

Someday the terrorists may get suitcase nukes. I hope to God they do not, but I think that they will. And if they wipe out six or seven of our major cities, those of us that survive will stop our bickering. I think then we will know exactly what to do!
 
I was born in a Muslim country and raised that way for quite some time, even once I moved here. Question is though, do you really think that a small group of religious fanatics sets the standard of what Islam is? Jihad doesn't mean kill every "infidel" and non-believer. It means struggle, usually within. Even Muslim countries have problems with Al Qaeda, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Malaysia. The problem is, these nutcases spin religion and use it as a tool to justify their acts, while the American media keeps putting the spotlight on it as if this is what Islam is about.
Click to expand...

Thank you. My wife is also from a mostly Muslim country which I have visited. I get frustrated by people who keep saying, "Muslims believe such and such evil things". Usually they are repeating extremist beliefs not the mainstream. There aren't that many differences between the major monotheistic religions (Jewish, Christian, and Islam). The main difference between Christianity and Islam is whether one believes Jesus Christ is God or a prophet. I find it to be very ignorant to say we must be fighting radical Islam without understanding the religion or culture.
 
I find it to be very ignorant to say we must be fighting radical Islam
Click to expand...

In my mind, radical Islam… the ones that want to kill us for not being Muslim… yup; we want to fight them.

Anyone else who wants to pecefully practice any religion they want, including Islam, don't bother me.
 
The main difference between Christianity and Islam is whether one believes Jesus Christ is God or a prophet.
Click to expand...

Jesus said he was the Son of God.
Either he was right, or he was a nut.
There is no room for splitting the difference and saying he was a prophet.

I find it to be very ignorant to say we must be fighting radical Islam without understanding the religion or culture.
Click to expand...
Are there certain groups of people you would be afraid to walk among and say: "Howdy, I married this muslim woman and I have no intention of converting."?
 
Jesus said he was the Son of God.
Either he was right, or he was a nut.
There is no room for splitting the difference and saying he was a prophet.
Click to expand...
Or you could take it in a realistic historical context and realize that both may be wrong or that Muslims may be right and he never said what you think he said.

Or even funnier that both are right and he told one group one thing while telling another group another thing.
 
Ron Paul has a long and verifiable history of upholding the constitution. To the letter.

I have sent him money in all of his congressional campaigns and I will send him money tomorrow when my pay hits the bank. If he doesn't win, it will build his congressional campaign money.

I doubt seriously he's able to take us back to the gold standard or do a lot of the things he wants to do. I don't care.

I want the Constitution to be restored as the supreme law of the land.

If he doesn't win. I did by giving and supporting somebody who wants to make my kids more free.
 
I find it to be very ignorant to say we must be fighting radical Islam
Click to expand...

You know it really doesn't matter if we want to fight radical Islam; radical Islam wants to fight us. I think we need to oblige them.
 
Quote:
The main difference between Christianity and Islam is whether one believes Jesus Christ is God or a prophet.

Jesus said he was the Son of God.
Either he was right, or he was a nut.
There is no room for splitting the difference and saying he was a prophet.


Quote:
I find it to be very ignorant to say we must be fighting radical Islam without understanding the religion or culture.

Are there certain groups of people you would be afraid to walk among and say: "Howdy, I married this muslim woman and I have no intention of converting."?
Click to expand...

I don't know how you took what I said, but my wife and I are Christian. She is from a country that is mostly Muslim. We believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but why should that keep us from maintaining our friendships with those who don't believe the same. There are radicals and ignorant people in all religions and cultures. We create ourselves more harm by acting as if we've been attacked by ALL Muslims which only creates more enemies.
 
I just watched a segment of the O'Reilly factor. He was talking to Ron Paul. If you support Paul you might as well support Hilary.
Click to expand...
Its clear you have no idea how Ron Paul thinks.......hint...see constitution......hint...go to the basement of the GOP party and dust off that concept called a "limited Govt" platform.
Hilary and Paul think alike....wow...just wow:barf:
 
Ron Paul's problem in a nutshell are:

1. He is perceived as weak on terrorism. While I agree with Paul that we should not stick our noses in everyone's business, its really too late for us to change that now. We have stuck our noses in other peoples business, and that can't be undone. His views on Iran are a major problem. I don't see how they can be negotiated with. Their President is insane, and would like to see the USA destroyed, and Israel wiped off the map. This is not someone we can allow to have nuclear weapons. I think we will ultimately have to go to war with Iran, the only question is should it be before or after they pass a nuke off to terrorists to blow up NYC.

2. His domestic policy is too extreme and scares people. He is calling for the dissolution of many government bureaucracies that many people rely on. The days of individualism, self reliance, and self determination are over. To suddenly dissolve the bureaucracies that are taking care of most people's problems is going to be an extremely unpopular and frightening idea to most people.
 
Unregistered said:
Not invade. We can probably destroy their ability to make nukes via air strikes against their facilities. Israel took out Saddam's nuclear capability in a similar fashion. If we cannot take them out from the air, then yes I think we should use any and all means necessary including invasion to keep nukes out of the hands of their insane President.

...

I also agree that nation building is not a good idea.
Click to expand...

I had heard that weapons development has now gone deep underground, where we may not be able to affect it (if we can find it) with air strikes.

I think we are headed for another invasion. Given that, what are the odds that we will just sweep through the country, eliminate WMD's, and leave? Zero, I would say. Does anyone disagree?

So, once again I must point out that if Iraq is any guide, half a million troops and $1.5 trillion will be required for the initial nation-building phase after the invasion.

On your point 2 above, I agree. Very few Americans are interested in rolling back the expansion of federal power and returning to a more decentralized structure consistent with our Constitution.
 
what are the odds that we will just sweep through the country, eliminate WMD's, and leave? Zero, I would say. Does anyone disagree?
Click to expand...

Can’t say I disagree, but it’s a shame. When are we going to learn to accept our limitations and protect our interests and only our interests? What is wrong with destroying enough of Iran’s infrastructure to accomplish our goals and then get the hell out?

I’m not sure that we should have attacked Iraq with ground troops, but for the sake of argument let’s say it was necessary. The first three weeks of the event went very well and accomplished the goals of destroying military infrastructure and removing Sadam. We should then have sucked enough oil out of the ground to pay for our trouble, packed up and left with the warning that the country had better choose a friendlier path, or we’d be back and in that case we wouldn’t be so polite. Let them work it out.

I won’t be surprised if someone here attacks me as a callous, under-evolved caveman (or worse), but the reality of this world is and always has been, that failure to address one’s own interests will result in others exploiting that failure to advance their own. Unless we accept our limitations to affect change in others and learn the harsh realities of this world soon, we’ll be relegated to the heap of also-rans.

While I admire many of Ron Paul’s beliefs, I think he and his ilk deny the realities described above. Maybe we didn’t need to invade Iraq, but negotiating with Iran (ie., paying them off) would prove counter to our interests. Don't think I could support someone so willing to do that.
 
Last edited:
What is wrong with destroying enough of Iran’s infrastructure to accomplish our goals and then get the hell out?
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me, but then, so does a return to limited Constitutional government, so what do I know?

What is wrong if you ask someone besides me?

Well, many will say it is irresponsible and immoral to act that way, and nations should not just demolish a government and leave the place in anarchy. It seems to be a prevailing view, which is why no one will seriously disagree with my assessment.
 
Very few Americans are interested in rolling back the expansion of federal power and returning to a more decentralized structure consistent with our Constitution.
Click to expand...

Because most Americans are responsible enough to realize that that changing times call for changing measures, and that our constituion is flexible enough to accomodate reality.

I would like to think that the drafters of the constitution were smart enough to realize that over time, the US would evolve from a small agrarian country dominated by English white males where blacks were held in slavery, women were second class citizens, Native Americans were eradicated like animals and personal rights were limited to the beacon of personal and economic freedom we are today. Troglodytes like Paul dont get it.

WildwhatdidyoudotoadvancegunrightstodayAlaska TM
 
Because most Americans are responsible enough to realize that that changing times call for changing measures, and that our constituion is flexible enough to accomodate reality.
Click to expand...

Here's the rub, though: There are established methods in place to alter and amend the Constitution.

But we're not doing that. We're just ignoring it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top