Republican candidates for 2012
-
Cleveland Buck
Ah yes, I have seen the light. Thank you for opening my eyes. I will only the value the opinions of those who have the proper, government approved indoctrination, I mean education, and credentials.HitsRus;1045681 wrote: I remind people that Ron Paul puts his pants on one leg at a time, and is as fallible as any other human being. I say this mainly to his cult like followers who seem to swallow everything that spews from his website as if it was an undeniable gospel truth. Ron Paul has his doctorate in medicine. He does NOT hold any advanced degrees in economics....nor in International relations or politics....no special expertise in nuclear non-prolifreration or arms control. His military experience is that of a flight surgeon, a position he acquired because he was drafted. His expertise on Constitutional Law comes as much from being annointed as such by his followers than by any accredited course of study, program, or experience.
Look at the prosperity the government approved economists have brought us. Look at the peace that our government approved diplomats have brought us.
You are right. Let us keep printing money. The economy will magically turn around even though all available capital has to finance our debt and can't create any jobs. As long as the countefeiters have the proper paperwork from the government that is.
Yes sir, you are right. If it is war we need, let us invade them all, so long as they send someone else to fight. -
HitsRus
No, no...by all means please respect them. I certainly do....as well as others who have served their country in non military ways. That is something lost on your boy Ron, who feels the need to call his opponents "chickenhawks". The only difference between him and his "chickenhawks" is he served because he had to BY LAW. Note also, that the others did not break any laws either.Also, am I now to not respect people that served in the military via draft -
I Wear Pants
But they have still never served and want war at seemingly every opportunity.HitsRus;1045813 wrote:No, no...by all means please respect them. I certainly do....as well as others who have served their country in non military ways. That is something lost on your boy Ron, who feels the need to call his opponents "chickenhawks". The only difference between him and his "chickenhawks" is he served because he had to BY LAW. Note also, that the others did not break any laws either. -
HitsRus
Glug, glug , glug..... slow down! your drinking too fast.!Thank you for opening my eyes. I will only the value the opinions of those who have the proper, government approved indoctrination, I mean education, and credentials
Lookj, if you don't want to study under our gov's 'indoctrination....try here:
http://www.ttu.ee/programmes/master-studies-2/international-relations-and-european-studies/ -
majorspark
I Wear Pants;1045640 wrote:All of them.
Germany and Japan? -
I Wear Pants
They did collapse. Not the same governments or countries in the least.majorspark;1045892 wrote:Germany and Japan?
When has being in wars all over the place ever worked out for a country long term? -
HitsRus
http://condoleezza-rice.gemzies.com/show/entry_13493/Rice_and_Ron_Paul_on_Iran.html
Despite his inflammatory acusations and rhetoric....Condi schools Ron on Iran....4 1/2 years ago.
He still doesn't get it today....even after Mr. "try diplomacy first", Barack Obama made two additional attempts to be nice.
Seriously...and you want this guy to be Commander in Chief? -
I Wear Pants
So you want to rule out diplomacy completely? Rick Santorum is your man then if you're already set on war with Iran. He's been talking about bombing them a lot lately.HitsRus;1045978 wrote:http://condoleezza-rice.gemzies.com/show/entry_13493/Rice_and_Ron_Paul_on_Iran.html
Despite his inflammatory acusations and rhetoric....Condi schools Ron on Iran....4 1/2 years ago.
He still doesn't get it today....even after Mr. "try diplomacy first", Barack Obama made two additional attempts to be nice.
Seriously...and you want this guy to be Commander in Chief? -
Cleveland Buck
Sanctions and threatening to invade them and bomb them and flying drones over their air space is how to be nice? Look, if you want to go to war with Iran, I hope you volunteer to go. We will be here trying to scavenge food out of garbage cans because our dollars won't buy anything to eat.HitsRus;1045978 wrote:http://condoleezza-rice.gemzies.com/show/entry_13493/Rice_and_Ron_Paul_on_Iran.html
Despite his inflammatory acusations and rhetoric....Condi schools Ron on Iran....4 1/2 years ago.
He still doesn't get it today....even after Mr. "try diplomacy first", Barack Obama made two additional attempts to be nice.
Seriously...and you want this guy to be Commander in Chief? -
majorspark
Collapse? Not since we defeated and rebuilt them. All governments change and evolve over time.I Wear Pants;1045947 wrote:They did collapse. Not the same governments or countries in the least.
I Wear Pants;1045947 wrote:When has being in wars all over the place ever worked out for a country long term?
Depends how long your term is. Empires have endured for centuries. We are quite young at nearly 236yrs. I would say it worked out quite well for some. -
I Wear Pants
We only recently started empire building.majorspark;1046092 wrote:Collapse? Not since we defeated and rebuilt them. All governments change and evolve over time.
Depends how long your term is. Empires have endured for centuries. We are quite young at nearly 236yrs. I would say it worked out quite well for some. -
Cleveland Buck
The massive empires that span much of the globe have been few throughout history. The collapse of their money is what ended them all. That collapse almost always came from spreading themselves too thin militarily and/or territorially. From the Byzantines to Rome to Great Britain to the Soviet Union to the United States. We can't afford to have 900 bases in 130 countries and be at war in 5 different countries at a time and give foreign aid to buy the subordination of other countries to our will. We just can't do it anymore. We can do something about it now or find out the hard way.majorspark;1046092 wrote: Depends how long your term is. Empires have endured for centuries. We are quite young at nearly 236yrs. I would say it worked out quite well for some. -
majorspark
We do not have it in us to build an empire like those in past history. We are too nice. Our morals get in the way. To build a lasting empire you need to rape, pillage, and steal those you have conquered's resources. Fighting wars just to set others free at your own expense does hurts the bottom line.I Wear Pants;1046149 wrote:We only recently started empire building. -
majorspark
Oh I agree. Like I said our nation is just not as ruthless as those in past history. We give them money instead of taking what little they have to support the empire. The world is governed by the agressive use of force. The people of our nation will never support ruthless aggression and pillaging of others resources. As a result in the context of history our supposed empire will die in infancy.Cleveland Buck;1046174 wrote:The massive empires that span much of the globe have been few throughout history. The collapse of their money is what ended them all. That collapse almost always came from spreading themselves too thin militarily and/or territorially. From the Byzantines to Rome to Great Britain to the Soviet Union to the United States. We can't afford to have 900 bases in 130 countries and be at war in 5 different countries at a time and give foreign aid to buy the subordination of other countries to our will. We just can't do it anymore. We can do something about it now or find out the hard way.
We do have to compete in this world governed by the aggressive use of force. Economic and militarily. There are ways of doing this reasonable and constitutionally. I got some issues with Paul here. But I am no fool. You have to have your house in order before you leave it. Like I said I will vote for Paul in the Ohio primary.
If congress declares war, defacto or official, its on. War is ruthless and when properly unleashed should be so. Kill, destroy, and take the enemies resources. If we decide to rebuild them post defeat its on their dime and our good graces. That has been our problem in recent history. Hasn't happend since WWII that we let it rip. Afghanistan is a prime recent example. Had we dealt with them as we should have every nation would have been put on notice. Saddam Hussein would have pissed down his leg. -
HitsRus
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2009/04/29/obama-faces-long-odds-on-iran-diplomacySanctions and threatening to invade them and bomb them and flying drones over their air space is how to be nice
Attempts by Obama to "be nice" early on....But Ron thinks we weren't nice enough. -
majorspark
Imagine Al Capone giving money to local speakeasies to remodel their establishment in order to "persuade" them to buy his liquor. How long would he last? Governments can be no different than the mob when they seek power. The only difference is one is legal.
-
majorspark
The idea that we should be nice to certain world leaders is as idiotic as being nice to leaders of organized crime. There are criminal leaders of nations in this world. We should deal with them as such. I think Paul should take a harder stance on Iran's leader but I don't think he is going to lay down the red carpet for the guy.HitsRus;1046477 wrote:http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2009/04/29/obama-faces-long-odds-on-iran-diplomacy
Attempts by Obama to "be nice" early on....But Ron thinks we weren't nice enough. -
Footwedge
Sorry Hits..but you are wrong...dead wrong. Gingrich eiluded the draft as did Romney....claiming a "Mormon deferment". Cheney had 5 deferments...none of which were worth a shitt.HitsRus;1045813 wrote:No, no...by all means please respect them. I certainly do....as well as others who have served their country in non military ways. That is something lost on your boy Ron, who feels the need to call his opponents "chickenhawks". The only difference between him and his "chickenhawks" is he served because he had to BY LAW. Note also, that the others did not break any laws either.
Santorum could have served and he would choose to send other people's kids to fight his religious wars.
No...Ron Paul has every right to call out these scumbags for not serving their own country...but happily enjoy sending hundreds of thousands of our kids to fight 4,000 miles from home. That...is by definition....a chickenhawk.
The day Congress passes a law requiring a child of the commander in chief to be forced into combat and serve on the front lines...then...and only then...will the charade of endless and fruitless wars be ended. Personally, I would love to see that law. Do you think Bush the 43 would have sent his daughters to Fallujah to get their tits blown off? Well, he should have. -
HitsRus
^^^that is somewhat exaggerated and filled with a lot of speculation. As for your proposed law....note that Prince William did serve in Afghanistan.
I just don't get this criticism of people resisting intrusion by government by the Paul camp. Seems to me to be every bit as duplicious as what they criticize about 'chickenhawks' . Apparently resistance to the draft...or using legal means to elude it, is not glorious if it doesn't suit one's political aspirations. So we can jawbone about individual freedoms and limited government, but pick and choose who we will criticize for resisting government intrusions. Let's cut the bullshit and realize that "chickenhawks" is just a Ron Paul talking point. -
I Wear Pants
And doesn't help anyone else either.majorspark;1046299 wrote:We do not have it in us to build an empire like those in past history. We are too nice. Our morals get in the way. To build a lasting empire you need to rape, pillage, and steal those you have conquered's resources. Fighting wars just to set others free at your own expense does hurts the bottom line. -
Tobias Fünke
It would be equally stupid for a President to shy away from a necessary war (not talking about the current ones) because he was afraid that his daughter may get her "tits blown off."Footwedge;1046533 wrote:Sorry Hits..but you are wrong...dead wrong. Gingrich eiluded the draft as did Romney....claiming a "Mormon deferment". Cheney had 5 deferments...none of which were worth a shitt.
Santorum could have served and he would choose to send other people's kids to fight his religious wars.
No...Ron Paul has every right to call out these scumbags for not serving their own country...but happily enjoy sending hundreds of thousands of our kids to fight 4,000 miles from home. That...is by definition....a chickenhawk.
The day Congress passes a law requiring a child of the commander in chief to be forced into combat and serve on the front lines...then...and only then...will the charade of endless and fruitless wars be ended. Personally, I would love to see that law. Do you think Bush the 43 would have sent his daughters to Fallujah to get their tits blown off? Well, he should have.
Every member of our military is there voluntarily, so I don't really side with the "they're sending our sons off to war!" crap; your son sent himself off to war, respectfully.
But yeah, the people who avoided the war back in the day are absolute pussies. Romney actually went on a Mormon mission, and those are no joke (yes, not even 1% of what war is...and he went to southern France hah) but at least he did it for a legitimate religious purpose. By comparison, my father volunteered to go to Vietnam twice as an FO, but I wouldn't want a replica of my father to be President. I want the shrewdest businessman we have in the Oval Office who will fix the economy and let America prosper again. I could personally give a shit if he pussed out of going to 'nam, honestly. -
jhay78
You are obviously exaggerating my positions and are frequently prone, along with other Ron Paul supporters on this site, to hyperbole and misstating your opponents positions. I was merely stating that Congress, not GWBush (whom Dr. Paul compared to a monarch) authorized the endless wars that killed trillions of civilians and caused us to invade thousands of countries.pmoney25;1045433 wrote:Thats all fine and dandy jhay, you obviously believe ron paul would let america be destroyed and without defense. You believe war is good and that invading countries and killing millions of citizens and a few terrorist is successful foreign policy.
You obviously believe that our military will survive without a sound economy. That spreading our defense around the world in other countries yards makes friends not enemies.
Those are good ideas, unfortunately history and logic do not agree.
Again, I have to question your priorities here. Just about every candidate has expressed concern over waste and corruption with the DOD budget, and the need to trim things back. The fact is defense spending consumes about 20% of the federal budget, when under JFK (when Ron Paul served) it was about 50%, and somehow we've survived and prospered for half a century since then. Why aren't entitlements (SS, Medicare) and the welfare state at the top of the list for you guys, when they consume close to half the budget and grow larger every day?Cleveland Buck;1046174 wrote:The massive empires that span much of the globe have been few throughout history. The collapse of their money is what ended them all. That collapse almost always came from spreading themselves too thin militarily and/or territorially. From the Byzantines to Rome to Great Britain to the Soviet Union to the United States. We can't afford to have 900 bases in 130 countries and be at war in 5 different countries at a time and give foreign aid to buy the subordination of other countries to our will. We just can't do it anymore. We can do something about it now or find out the hard way.
If you and Ron Paul didn't act like DOD spending took up 80% of the budget you might be taken more seriously. The reality is we can't afford anything right now- one year of no federal government spending and no military maybe would come close to erasing our debt. I agree with majorspark's assessment: "We do have to compete in this world governed by the aggressive use of force. Economic and militarily. There are ways of doing this reasonable and constitutionally". If Ron Paul focused more on the "reasonable and constitutional" part, and less on calling GWBush a monarch and everyone who disagrees with him a war-mongering neo-con chickenhawk I would respect him a bit more.
Another thing I've noticed about Ron Paul and his attacks on other candidates. He and his campaign have smeared, slimed, attacked, and name-called every Republican candidate in the field: Santorum, Bachmann, Gingrich (especially), Perry, etc, except one. Why no concerted attacks against Mitt Romney? Some have theorized that he's assuming Romney will be the nominee, and thus Paul can save the good stuff for his third-party candidacy. In any case it makes no sense why he spares Romney when he slings the mud. -
jhay78
Religious bigotry in full swing in New Hampshire, led by these brochures passed out by the Rick Santorum, ERRRR, Ron Paul campaign (I'm waiting for I Wear Pants to denounce this moral-superiority, religious bigotry)
http://theothermccain.com/2012/01/09/ron-paul-campaign-flyer-emphasizes-opposition-to-gay-marriage-abortion/:
-
Cleveland Buck
We need to slash the entitlements too, but unless you are going end them immediately we will bankrupt within the decade while maintaining our overseas empire. And Paul is the only candidate with a plan to deal with the entitlements anyway. The fact is it is politically impossible to just up and eliminate Social Security and Medicare and unemployment insurance while telling people that we need that money to prop up the Pakistani dictator and the try to incite revolution in Belarus and post guards around the the Afghani poppy fields so we make sure the contractors get their cut of the opium trade.jhay78;1047172 wrote: Again, I have to question your priorities here. Just about every candidate has expressed concern over waste and corruption with the DOD budget, and the need to trim things back. The fact is defense spending consumes about 20% of the federal budget, when under JFK (when Ron Paul served) it was about 50%, and somehow we've survived and prospered for half a century since then. Why aren't entitlements (SS, Medicare) and the welfare state at the top of the list for you guys, when they consume close to half the budget and grow larger every day?
If you and Ron Paul didn't act like DOD spending took up 80% of the budget you might be taken more seriously. The reality is we can't afford anything right now- one year of no federal government spending and no military maybe would come close to erasing our debt. I agree with majorspark's assessment: "We do have to compete in this world governed by the aggressive use of force. Economic and militarily. There are ways of doing this reasonable and constitutionally". If Ron Paul focused more on the "reasonable and constitutional" part, and less on calling GWBush a monarch and everyone who disagrees with him a war-mongering neo-con chickenhawk I would respect him a bit more.
Another thing I've noticed about Ron Paul and his attacks on other candidates. He and his campaign have smeared, slimed, attacked, and name-called every Republican candidate in the field: Santorum, Bachmann, Gingrich (especially), Perry, etc, except one. Why no concerted attacks against Mitt Romney? Some have theorized that he's assuming Romney will be the nominee, and thus Paul can save the good stuff for his third-party candidacy. In any case it makes no sense why he spares Romney when he slings the mud.
If our foreign adventurism isn't cut, nothing will be cut. Not to mention most of it is a waste of time and just creates more enemies for us. And if nothing is cut our economy is finished. If we do cut overseas maybe people will realize that it is a serious problem and allow some cuts domestically too.
Fact is even Dr. Paul's plan to cut $1 trillion year one probably doesn't cut enough to save us. In 2012 we will have $6 trillion of debt to roll over. That means we will pay higher rates or the Fed will have to print a lot of money and buy a lot of those t-bills to keep rates down. Either one is bad news for us. Interest rates don't have to rise very much before they take all entire federal revenue. Or they can just print a lot of money, invade Iran, and we can pay $10/gallon for gas. That will be fun.
Ron's attack ads have used the other candidates own words and positions. None of it was personal smears or irrelevant nonsense like the others and the media do to him. If the media won't vet his opponents then he has to. They sure spend enough time smearing him on irrelevant garbage and outright lies. He hasn't attacked Romney yet because he needs to be the last alternative to Romney standing. Then Mitt is the easiest one to attack since he is pretty much a liberal Democrat. -
fish82
Epic Truth....and reppage.Tobias Fünke;1047101 wrote:It would be equally stupid for a President to shy away from a necessary war (not talking about the current ones) because he was afraid that his daughter may get her "tits blown off."
Every member of our military is there voluntarily, so I don't really side with the "they're sending our sons off to war!" crap; your son sent himself off to war, respectfully.
But yeah, the people who avoided the war back in the day are absolute pussies. Romney actually went on a Mormon mission, and those are no joke (yes, not even 1% of what war is...and he went to southern France hah) but at least he did it for a legitimate religious purpose. By comparison, my father volunteered to go to Vietnam twice as an FO, but I wouldn't want a replica of my father to be President. I want the shrewdest businessman we have in the Oval Office who will fix the economy and let America prosper again. I could personally give a **** if he pussed out of going to 'nam, honestly.