More Ron Paul thoughts...

[Lambert58]

In an effort to decide for myself who the heck Ron Paul is, I've been researching. I'm going to post what I've found for your digestion:

Ron Paul opposing the closing of a PLO office in DC (that's a problem for me):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923515/posts

In this one he blasts Defense Secretary Perry, and I don't think I agree with his logic, in fact, I wholeheartedly agree with the quote from Perry:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923489/posts

This one highlights his isolationist views during the Clinton administration, which I don't necessaryily agree with. Letting the rest of the world just stack up against us, IMO, isn't a good plan. The idea that a good defense is to pretend the rest of the world is nice is kind of naive.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923488/posts

3 days out of the week, I agree with Ron Paul, 4 days, I don't. It boils down, I think, to the idea that I agree with his doemestic policy but think his foreign policy is a little naive. That's not to say I think we should be out meddling across the globe, but having influence here or there definitely can make the difference. Just my 2 cents.

[Beowulf]

In an effort to decide for myself who the heck Ron Paul is, I've been researching. I'm going to post what I've found for your digestion:

Ron Paul opposing the closing of a PLO office in DC (that's a problem for me):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923515/posts

In this one he blasts Defense Secretary Perry, and I don't think I agree with his logic, in fact, I wholeheartedly agree with the quote from Perry:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923489/posts

This one highlights his isolationist views during the Clinton administration, which I don't necessaryily agree with. Letting the rest of the world just stack up against us, IMO, isn't a good plan. The idea that a good defense is to pretend the rest of the world is nice is kind of naive.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923488/posts

3 days out of the week, I agree with Ron Paul, 4 days, I don't. It boils down, I think, to the idea that I agree with his doemestic policy but think his foreign policy is a little naive. That's not to say I think we should be out meddling across the globe, but having influence here or there definitely can make the difference. Just my 2 cents.

I haven't made up my mind about Congressman Paul.

What's the deal with the pages you posted? I don't understand the source. They seem like excerpts mixed with commentary....?

[Thor]

In an effort to decide for myself who the heck Ron Paul is, I've been researching. I'm going to post what I've found for your digestion:

Ron Paul opposing the closing of a PLO office in DC (that's a problem for me):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923515/posts
You realize that PLO since a long time is an establised negotiating partner?

And please don't accuse me of being pro-arabic.

All-in-all you can take out loose quotes of anyone and make them look the way you want. People read between the lines and believe whatever they are inlclined to believe.

[Lambert58]

I haven't made up my mind about Congressman Paul.

What's the deal with the pages you posted? I don't understand the source. They seem like excerpts mixed with commentary....?

The pages are excerpts from Ron Paul's Survival Report, which was basically his diary at those times.

[Lambert58]

You realize that PLO since a long time is an establised negotiating partner?


And please don't accuse me of being pro-arabic.

not sure where the hell that came from but, ok, I won't.

At the time this was written, the PLO was absolutely a terrorist organisation. I'd argue that it never changed its stripes.

[Beowulf]

The pages are excerpts from Ron Paul's Survival Report, which was basically his diary at those times.

Ok, that makes more sense.

[Thor]

not sure where the hell that came from but, ok, I won't.

At the time this was written, the PLO was absolutely a terrorist organisation. I'd argue that it never changed its stripes.
I don't like it either, but I won't hold it against people who acknowledge them and negotiate.

So when was it? Before this?

http://www.sr.se/diverse/appdata/isidor/images/news_images/83/65589_337_200.jpg

[Beowulf]

Letting the rest of the world just stack up against us, IMO, isn't a good plan.

This seems to be the most frequent critique of Mr. Pauls views, and I think it is often the most misunderstood.

I think that Mr Paul's ideas about US foreign intervention are based more on avoiding things like Mossadeq's (Iran) or Guzman's (Guatemala) removal. Those are a couple of examples of US covert action that proved problematic. I would think that Mr. Paul would probably be against our involvement (militarily) in other areas such as Somalia and perhaps even the Balkans.

The question seems to be; To what extent does US involvement overseas help secure our nations interests, and to what extent does US involvement overseas prove to be a liability? Then one can begin the difficult balancing act that is statesmanship.

[block52]

Here's a great recent interview of Ron Paul.

Here's part one (of 6).

"Ron Paul addresses Nashua NH Telegraph"

http://www.youtube.com/v/hx2vLUMmSiA

[Thor]

Just a quick comment regarding the first bit of the clip were he mentioned 4-6 months for withdrawal. That is in reality 18-20 months from now.

[Lambert58]

This seems to be the most frequent critique of Mr. Pauls views, and I think it is often the most misunderstood.

I think that Mr Paul's ideas about US foreign intervention are based more on avoiding things like Mossadeq's (Iran) or Guzman's (Guatemala) removal. Those are a couple of examples of US covert action that proved problematic. I would think that Mr. Paul would probably be against our involvement (militarily) in other areas such as Somalia and perhaps even the Balkans.

The question seems to be; To what extent does US involvement overseas help secure our nations interests, and to what extent does US involvement overseas prove to be a liability? Then one can begin the difficult balancing act that is statesmanship.

I absolutely agree with you that Somalia and the Balkans were places we didn't belong. Just so it's clear: I believe we protect the sovereignty of the United States and the constitution first and foremost. And, I believe, our foreign policy should be toward those ends, and no more. Our foreign policy isn't and hasn't been aimed that way in a long time. Right now, the state department looks like a special olympics try out. Those nitwits are busy trying to dissolve the constitution via world courts as quickly as they can. Should be hung in public.

[Lambert58]

http://www.sr.se/diverse/appdata/isidor/images/news_images/83/65589_337_200.jpg

Not to bust your balls, Thor, but how many Nobel peace prize winners can you get in 1 photo who's efforts didn't result in anything even remotely resembling peace?

[Beowulf]

Not to bust your balls, Thor, but how many Nobel peace prize winners can you get in 1 photo who's efforts didn't result in anything even remotely resembling peace?

Well there has to be a similar photo with Mr. Gore.......

[Thor]

There are two major reasons why I support this fella:

1. He's a libertarian and a constitutionalist. Couldn't be closer to my views.

2. I think that US needs a clean break from the two major political dynasties and their entourages, who have runned the show since the 1980's, and quite frankly to a certain degree of corruption.

[Lambert58]

There are two major reasons why I support this fella:

1. He's a libertarian and a constitutionalist. Couldn't be closer to my views.

2. I think that US needs a clean break from the two major political dynasties and their entourages, who have runned the show since the 1980's, and quite frankly to a certain degree of corruption.

I can't disagree with you. I'm just not certain his foreign policy would cover all the bases.

[Lambert58]

Well there has to be a similar photo with Mr. Gore.......

LOL true, I'd forgotten about Mr. Global Warming Till I'm Famous.

[Thor]

Not to bust your balls, Thor, but how many Nobel peace prize winners can you get in 1 photo who's efforts didn't result in anything even remotely resembling peace?
Now I'm going to provide my - what I'm inclined to believe - part:

Things do change a bit when you reach power. Almost all politicians become less radical and move closer to the middle bit by bit. E.g. in reality Ron Paul's 4-6 months will probably double should he reach office.

GWB would probably not invade Iraq again, and who would have thought in year 2000 that he by his second term would acknowledge global warming in a state of the union speech?

[Beowulf]

Now I'm going to provide my - what I'm inclined to believe - part:

Things do change a bit when you reach power. Almost all politicians become less radical and move closer to the middle bit by bit. E.g. in reality Ron Paul's 4-6 months will probably double should he reach office.

I think the same thing. Especially once he starts to get some "pushback" from the joint chiefs: security, logistics etc.

[Lambert58]

I think the same thing. Especially once he starts to get some "pushback" from the joint chiefs: security, logistics etc.

I'm eager to read John Bolton's new book: Surrender is Not an Option. One of the points he makes in the book is that the Secretary of State should be the White House's representative to the State Department, not the other way around, and he argues that the last Secretary of State that actually did it right was James Baker.

I'd have to agree. Should be a good read.

[shocker1]

I think the same thing. Especially once he starts to get some "pushback" from the joint chiefs: security, logistics etc.
I have issue with some of his aspects of foreign policy. My thinking is like your's though in that I put more trust in his integrity to appoint the right people and make the right decision in accordance with the Constitution. His domestic policies are right on for me and no one else matches him there. Dr. Paul's even handed approach to diplomacy would do us a great service after the mess we have made in that area.

As far as that PLO issue, this once again points to the un-biased approach he wants to take. In diplomacy this can be an asset as well as a big stick to back it up. The later is the rub I think but the man is smart and I think he would do what is right.

Let us not forget that the current POTUS ran in 2000 on a policy of anti-UN, non-intervention, no world police role, small government. We got none of the above and Dr. Paul IMO would at least give us an Executive that sticks with his position. His record show as much

Also I want to point out the title of the PLO issue link. This Free Republic is very free with it's bias and mud slinging.

Ron Paul supported the PLO terrorists

[Thor]

I think the same thing. Especially once he starts to get some "pushback" from the joint chiefs: security, logistics etc.
Yes, probably. However Ron Paul is in fact an untried card. Maybe he is too radical and not suited for the job?


So if you want continuity and to now exactly what to expect, you elect Hillary now and Jeb Bush after her.

[Beowulf]

Yes, probably. However Ron Paul is in fact an untried card. Maybe he is too radical and not suited for the job?


So if you want continuity and to now exactly what to expect, you elect Hillary now and Jeb Bush after her.

Yes! Then we can have the Gore/Clinton Reverse Ticket.

america F-yeah

[shocker1]

Yes! Then we can have the Gore/Clinton Reverse Ticket.

america F-yeah
http://thatmagicalnight.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/big_bill_in_groundhog-731047.gif

Well there was a Quail in the Bush, a Clinton and a Gore that turned into a Bush and now we may have a Clinton with a bush. Full circle

[Lambert58]

Yes, probably. However Ron Paul is in fact an untried card. Maybe he is too radical and not suited for the job?


So if you want continuity and to now exactly what to expect, you elect Hillary now and Jeb Bush after her.

/Chelsea '24!!! Holy Mother of God. 50 years of Clinton/Bush. I think there should be a constitutional amendment that says if we're stupid enough to do that we should turn our nukes on ourselves and launch them all.

[usa320]

his foreign policy is a pile of turds id never waste my vote on him.

Ignoring terrorists wont make them go away.

[shocker1]

his foreign policy is a pile of turds id never waste my vote on him.

Ignoring terrorists wont make them go away.
Care to enlighten us as to what constitutes this pile of turds and when he said he ignores terrorists? he is only standing in the position our founders wanted us to take. Granted he is limited in his scope of military solutions to problems. However Washington is filled with extremes of both sides. We need an Executive who can balance things out. IMO his scrutiny of the issues will help give us a more responsible Government.

[Beowulf]

his foreign policy is a pile of turds id never waste my vote on him.

Ignoring terrorists wont make them go away.

I've mentioned it at least twice, make sure that you provide some substance if you're going to offer criticism.

[Rictor]

Now here's my question to you doubters: why do you assume that if the US ceases to constantly intervene in the affairs of other nations, whether militarily, economically or politically, that they will suddenly "stack up" against the US? What possible motivation could they have to do so? Nations are rarely driven by ideology, and those that are are swiftly driven into the ground. Trading with the United States is of such immense benefit that there are very few who would be stubborn enough to persist in unfriendly relations just for the hell of it.

I think that it's abundantly clear that the cause of anti-American resentment is interventionism, not the result. All people in all nations simply want to be left alone? Is that really so strange? Are they not entitled to it?

Less interventionism = more security. Not the other way around.

[NuclearHead]

Less interventionism = more security. Not the other way around.

That pretty much sums up his position and makes a lot more sense than the other way around.

[Invisigoth]

As a foreigner what really stuns me about Ron Paul is the fact that he actually seems genuine.

Today you only seem to see slick, media-trained politicians who say a lot without saying anything at all, especially in the U.S.. Listening to Congressman Paul is incredibly refreshing, simply for the reason that he seems to genuinely mean what he says.

You can also trace his success, not simply by funding, but by the energy put into slandering him in the news media. Whenever I see anything about Ron Paul, its some clip of him being interviewed on Fox where the reporter is trying to insinuate that hes a kook like Ross Perot. At the same time it seems to be a general indicator of how threatened 'the establishment' feels. Current threat level - irritated.

[loganinkosovo]

I Think he's just a Trojan horse. He will be tossed out on his butt in the primaries and then run as an independent trying to pull votes away from someone with common sense and insure a Hitlery win.

No one could be this much of a loser on Foreign Policy and be serious.

America First didn't work in '39 and it won't work now.

Does this dink understand that we are in a war?

[SOG]

There are two major reasons why I support this fella:

2. I think that US needs a clean break from the two major political dynasties and their entourages, who have runned the show since the 1980's, and quite frankly to a certain degree of corruption.

they've run the show for much longer than since the 80's, they are just more prevalent now.

split from the major parties? nah, fantasy. not when people are so damn wound up and still taking sides. political controversy creates a union that in turn replenishes the power of opposing sides. although our political arms are opposed to some degree they have shown they can work quite well together on some issues, like say, voting for power to start the war and finishing it to the end.

also a lot of people don't like to "throw their vote away" on someone feasibly better for the job, yet less likely to win.

personally i'm still leaning towards giuliani because he was able to work with both sides in new york including a heavy liberal mass, clean it up and leave on a positive note including 911. i think he has strong business sense which which in turn lends to a degree of higher awareness concerning action and reaction to what you do.

my base reasoning is: he did a ABOVE average job at running the US's biggest city, maintaining it and leaving it better than it was before.

ron paul has some interesting ideas based on his ideology that are almost romantic in a "sweet promises" sense that may feather back to what this country "used to be" or needs. however, i believe thats all they are and HIGHLY doubt he can work with both sides to bring about true change or serious reform. how many times have we heard that?

whereas i feel that giuliani more likely has practical solutions that sound less appealing but work in the real world bringing us closer together which in turn may allow a "type" of independant to be elected and bring about heavier change. or allow a major party sh!t head to come into power and screw it all up again :roll:

as for now, i would rather put a vote down for what is more likely to work than what sounds good on paper.

[SOG]

Less interventionism = more security. Not the other way around.

i personally believe that statement to be false, let me explain:

Less interventionism = more security. not in reality. what happens when we intervene less? we have less of a reason to keep around those forces that engage in such activities. translation? why spend on something we dont need = major budget cuts = less forces/technology etc = what? thats right, less "security."

now the other way around, ie the way we have been doing it:
More interventionism = more security. we have a need because of our progressive activities which in turn create certain hostilities towards us which in turn fuels a base funding for more security. like this war. we gutted our military for so long because we had some belief we would only engage in small scale wars to some extent. this was a prevailing attitude until invading and settling a small country awoke us as to the realities we ourselves had created.

now personally, i dont like us doing so much intervention. my attitude is screw most of the world, lets work on ourselves to an larger extent. (the money we could save...) but the FACT that is when we have had such lulls in our history that allow us to breathe and relax, we become spoiled and indignant as to our own affairs. we then GUT the security that made us what we are, a vigilant and active nation. then some "epic" event comes across our path and rouses the sleeping giant and we overstep our bounds "yet again".

so while what you say sounds right ie "Less interventionism = more security.", it is not a reality in which we live. i think the phrase should be coined: "More interventionism = more security because we are constantly embattled." it's like a low level cold war that always pushes and maintains your security forces.

and again, this is why i don't think ron paul is practical. what he says makes sense, but i do not believe it can be practically applied in todays climate. do you really believe he can reign in both sides and magically make them work together to such envisioned ends? i think he's plying a pipe dream which works to his "pseudo independent image" but like most politicians has no platform to achieve such lofty goals.

ALL canidates would like to see some great reform they envision. pipe dream unless progress is first made in that direction. its feasible ron paul could move us in that direction. but achieve it? highly doubtful.

[Rictor]

First of all, I would challenge your claim that the US military was ever "gutted". Even at it's lowest point (under Clinton I'm assuming) the budget never fell below $300m a year, and that's just the declared budget. That's more than all European spending combined. The US never ceased being the world most powerful military, not for one second. It's simply a matter of perspective - you may think that anything less than, say, $1.5 trillion a year is underfunded, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it bears no relation to the reality of global arms-spending.

Secondly, aircraft carriers and F-22s do not contribute one iota to your security. Nor do 700 military bases in 130 countries. Not one bit. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, no nation-state has be capable of possibly presenting the tiniest threat to US security. And the reality is that none will in the forseeable future, not because America is strong (which it is) but because it has no real (national) enemies. Let me say this again, just for effect: there is no nation on Earth that has both a desire and an ability to kill American civilians in significant numbers. The 9/11 hijackers could have been stopped by a dozen US Marshalls with Glocks. Or, alternately, better intelligence. But everything which could prevent another terrorist attack falls squarely into the "police work" category. Ron Paul supports stronger border security, which is just the thing that practically improves security.

As a side-note, I think we need to distinguish very clearly between US security and US interests. You have a legitimate right to be safe in your country and free from attacks. You have no legitimate right to get your preferred candidate elected in a given country or for a US company to be awarded a certain contract or for a nation's political, religious or ideological views to be acceptable to you. An overseas empire serves US interests (which, by the way, are not those of the vast majority of the population) but harms US security. Which one do you prefer?

[wales]

Ron Paul has no chance of winning the election, the only people who support him are far right lunatics like the strangely named Thor. PS I never read replies, so say what you like about this statement.

[shocker1]

SOG, excellent posts and thank you for suppling intelligent debate to this issue. I must say you seem to want to support Dr. Paul but are afraid of throwing your vote away on a looser. I think our election system allows us to elect who we think would do the best job for us. We only have to vote with our conscience and on principles. Voting for the perceived heavily supported is exactly why polls, pundits and commentators make you think the winner is the safest place for your vote. If Americans would vote for who they think has integrity and right on on most issues. We would elect much better folks to DC.Vote for what you think is right and never vote based on who will win. Rudy has a thousand skeletons in his closet. His term would be 99% scandals and 1% broken promises.


Rictor I must disagree here. These items make me feel very secure.

Secondly, aircraft carriers and F-22s do not contribute one iota to your security.

[Bert]

I Think he's just a Trojan horse. He will be tossed out on his butt in the primaries and then run as an independent trying to pull votes away from someone with common sense and insure a Hitlery win.

No one could be this much of a loser on Foreign Policy and be serious.

America First didn't work in '39 and it won't work now.

Does this dink understand that we are in a war?

Someone with common sense? Like Giuliani, the champion of the NYC gun ban campaign? Romney, the governor of Massachusetts who 'wouldn't oppose' a new AWB and who has championed socialist healthcare in Mass? I'm sorry, the old 'left vs. right' doesn't go anymore because the so-called 'front runners' on both sides are socialists, communitarians, collectivists. They're worthless.

And yes, he, more than anyone else understands that we are at war (I say we because my country is a part of NATO and the operations 'down there'), and he understands the cause behind it. He will end the war rather than wasting money and lives on it thinking somehow that such measures help. He is to the War on Terrorism what Reagan was to the Cold War. He is willing to follow a new way rather than the same old, and he will end it.

[SOG]

First of all, I would challenge your claim that the US military was ever "gutted". Even at it's lowest point (under Clinton I'm assuming) the budget never fell below $300m a year, and that's just the declared budget. That's more than all European spending combined. The US never ceased being the world most powerful military, not for one second. It's simply a matter of perspective - you may think that anything less than, say, $1.5 trillion a year is underfunded, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it bears no relation to the reality of global arms-spending.

1. the military was gutted by the military itself by spending money on programs instead of bolstering troop numbers which WERE needed. my entire post focussed on manpower vs high tech+small number army. your reply isn't even directed at my post because it focuses on political spending, not practical security which I was addressing. i never made the call for more money to be spent ie overall budget nor was that my complaint, simply money spent more wisely. (total failure to communicate randomness in my head to keyboard, sorry) when we become complacent we tend to think overall manpower doesn't matter. ie, we don't need troops because they don't do anything, well then lets spend it on projects and officer promotions. look at the number of HIGH ranking officers in proportion to any other part of our military history. (waste) we spend money on things that matter less which in turn leaves us shorthanded when we gear up.

2. you just proved my point. because of regular engaging in small conflict hot spots around the globe we maintain the "need" to keep our "security" at a certain size/budget. under clinton, under bush, under whoever. the military can always make its case for usefulness. if their is a NEED then there is always a budget.


Secondly, aircraft carriers and F-22s do not contribute one iota to your security.

i agree about carriers, i do not hold your views however over the f22. i think it would be an awesome deterrence considering national home defense. expensive but outright deadly especially on home turf.


Nor do 700 military bases in 130 countries. Not one bit.

i can't agree with this. the bases present a web of wealth considering logistics, mobility, training with others, intervention etc. personally i feel that some of our national security lies in outside interests.

quick point: if you run a business, odds are you depend on an outside source to complete your business. from product manufacturing, to shipping even for retail sales. well the same applies to our country. we have strong financial interests tied round the world as do most countries. if those are disrupted by chaos what do we do? send a letter to the UN? OUR security is not merely attached to OUR shorelines and everything inside. we have the power to politically sway countries from delving into chaos by applying outside pressure to them. thats just the tip of the iceberg.

so my belief is sometimes you need a teddy roseavelt big stick to keep your business inline just like you need police/courts/lawyers to keep a consumer business inline. you think we do not from what i gather. i think we can both agree it can be abused at times.


Since the fall of the Soviet Union, no nation-state has be capable of possibly presenting the tiniest threat to US security. And the reality is that none will in the foreseable future, not because America is strong (which it is) but because it has no real (national) enemies. Let me say this again, just for effect: there is no nation on Earth that has both a desire and an ability to kill American civilians in significant numbers.

i totally agree. basically you just said our foreign policies have paid off huge dividends to the security of our nation and no one anywhere would dare mess with us for ANY reason. see? now your saying, take what has made us secure, and bring it all back home. so home-active instead of pro-active. im not saying it cant work, but on a practical level i dont think it can be correctly implemented.


The 9/11 hijackers could have been stopped by a dozen US Marshalls with Glocks. Or, alternately, better intelligence. But everything which could prevent another terrorist attack falls squarely into the "police work" category.

i need a better definition of "police work" category. are you plying strictly continental police work ie FBI and local police or are you plying CIA and external threat prevention and handling agencies?

i would have to disagree with the sentiment that local policing including FBI can handle everything and stopping terrorism merely comes down to them. i believe that pro-active prevention such as CIA, special forces etc working on foreign soil will go much further initially if we have the courage and drive to act on the intel we come across.

and i highly disagree that everything that could prevent another terrorist attack falls squarely in the police work category. unless you think the CIA/NSA and all the other alphabet soup agencies are merely police in their duties, which they most certainly are not.


Ron Paul supports stronger border security, which is just the thing that practically improves security.

tons of people do and tons of people don't. i think right now our nation is not nearly on the same page enough to instill or agree on border security. i don't want to see ron paul's plan for border security (ie a pipe dream), i want to see his plan to get our politicians to agree on a number of points and compromises on the issue, addressing outstanding qualms on both sides, agreeing to disagree on certain issues, work on where current and future funding will come from, start the political process to get it passed in congress, house etc THEN we can talk about the fantasy of border security. but i dont think he has any of that. he may have a desire or a proposed plan but if it cant get through our politics he doesnt have jack.

having an independent president means NOTHING if the rest of the politicians are still equally divided and sided.


As a side-note, I think we need to distinguish very clearly between US security and US interests.

too broad a topic. you could point out one example, i could point out another and we could go all day. security and interest are very tightly interwoven at times and on some points they are very distanced. i think we have a tendency to abuse our interest with our backing of power which is the problem, not having the external interest in the first place. although one may argue that by having that option of exercising external interest it will always be subject to abuse.


You have a legitimate right to be safe in your country and free from attacks. You have no legitimate right to get your preferred candidate elected in a given country or for a US company to be awarded a certain contract or for a nation's political, religious or ideological views to be acceptable to you. An overseas empire serves US interests (which, by the way, are not those of the vast majority of the population) but harms US security. Which one do you prefer?

i see the last part of what you just said contradictory to your previous statements. you are plying that what we do now harms US security YET our national soil IS secure concerning devastating attacks to our population. as you said no nation will screw with us concerning intent plus ability. we go with very long lapses between any type of small scale attacks. notably, 911. so basically from the time of pearl harbor to 911 our foreign policy has paid off concerning national security and attacks on NATIONAL soil. see? you ply security, we have plenty of it. why? because what we are doing now works. you have an issue of "how" we do it, but the results of how we are doing it are very successful although you could argue "contempt-able".


SOG, excellent posts and thank you for suppling intelligent debate to this issue. I must say you seem to want to support Dr. Paul but are afraid of throwing your vote away on a looser.

to some far off degree yes, HOWEVER, no. i think concerning political reality what he says is a fantasy and because he is toned down and less "political" in his presentation he presents himself more reasonably outside of our normal political circus. that being said, i think he is no different than any other canidate offering up visions he cannot practically implement. i will agree a lot of what i personally believe lines up with him (what i know of him) to various extents but i do not believe he can pull of what he proposes.

example: i wish my friends well in various endeavors and i hope people succeed at what they set out to try, but i have no illusions as to their ability to do so which is an entirely different matter. i feel paul and mccain are the same. i dig what they say on many fronts. i dont think the have the clout of hard pipe hitting business sense to pull it off.




I think our election system allows us to elect who we think would do the best job for us. We only have to vote with our conscience and on principles. Voting for the perceived heavily supported is exactly why polls, pundits and commentators make you think the winner is the safest place for your vote. If Americans would vote for who they think has integrity and right on on most issues. We would elect much better folks to DC.Vote for what you think is right and never vote based on who will win.

i am voting on who i think is right instead of who will win. i do not think ron paul has the political pimp hand to reign in our prospective political parties and make them work together nor does he posses any plans to do so. if i were to vote in a dreamer i would vote for disaster. i vote for what works, not what sounds good. ron paul plies a wonderful drink of ambrosia. he doesnt say where it came from, how he's going to get it, how it was made, who will help him make it etc. in other words he's no different that other politicians saying he wants this and that appealing to the voters sense hope and fantasy. i cannot follow that at all. now im not saying ron paul is a pure fantisist, and im not saying giuliani or others dont have the same problem. but i think others are better at being a pragmatist over ron paul and that makes an effective difference in reality. im saying others have a better sense of how to get what they want by knowing what they need to give to get it.


Rudy has a thousand skeletons in his closet. His term would be 99% scandals and 1% broken promises.

he handled the largest city in the US with scandals and broken promises for what, 8 years i think? he has been attacked, pecked at and under constant scrutiny. the skeletons in his closet have been pryed wide open and we've all seen them. in addition to that he still reigned in new york, cleaned it up and made it prosper. i can vote for that.


Someone with common sense? Like Giuliani, the champion of the NYC gun ban campaign? Romney, the governor of Massachusetts who 'wouldn't oppose' a new AWB and who has championed socialist healthcare in Mass? I'm sorry, the old 'left vs. right' doesn't go anymore because the so-called 'front runners' on both sides are socialists, communitarians, collectivists. They're worthless.

sorry, your engaging in left/right politics as you speak. you are plying single personal stances or acts on behalf of the above politicians and saying they are worthless because of it. if you pick apart an individual based on his failures without looking at their entire carreer and overall success then that is rather petty and sniping which boils down to typical politics ie pointless.




And yes, he, more than anyone else understands that we are at war (I say we because my country is a part of NATO and the operations 'down there'), and he understands the cause behind it. He will end the war rather than wasting money and lives on it thinking somehow that such measures help.

disagree on several points:
he will not end the war because he does not have the power to do so. if he gets congress, the house etc to go along with him then he will.


He is to the War on Terrorism what Reagan was to the Cold War. He is willing to follow a new way rather than the same old, and he will end it.

he is nothing to the war on terrorism except promises for NOW. period. he has ideas and cannot be compared to history that happened especially concerning a romantic falsehood.

also the reagan comparison fails. reagan was elected at a time and place where he was able to end the cold war. i'm not saying he had NO hand in it, but to disregard all action, money and time committed by our forces beforehand during the entirety of the cold war is to dismiss the bulk of the work done before he came to office. reagan was a case of coming in to power at a good time and a great place which allowed him to be conveyed in such a powerful light. however you cannot ignore the actions and ground work layed before him which made his presidency such a success.

also for a huge side debate reagan had glaring faults on middle east crisis and prevention but thats a massive topic on its own.

[Thor]

I will skip this page. Sorry SOG, but to make your case you also need get your points through efficiently.


split from the major parties? nah, fantasy.
That's not what I said:

2. I think that US needs a clean break from the two major political dynasties and their entourages
Not refering to GOP/Dem in general.

[Yellowbelly]

Ron Paul has no chance of winning the election, the only people who support him are far right lunatics like the strangely named Thor. PS I never read replies, so say what you like about this statement.

The far right lunatics are usually for any war just to kill so called terrorists despite how much damage it causes to other nations.

Paul's foreign policy is not necessarily isolationist. He still supports trade among other nations and would like to build friendships. It's the foreign policy that the framer's had in mind so I can't disagree with it. It's obvious that our foreign policy since WW2 has been utter crap. We move from one fear to another, the first being Communism. Why the crap should we worry about 3 third world countries going under a regime change? We lost one conflict and another is still on hold. That whole Iran thing sure worked out well, and all for what? It's not our business to be in those countries because every time we do, we lose thousands of american lives not to mention the destruction of those countries and the enemies gained. The media scares the US population about commies, drugs, poverty, and now terrorists and global warming and the government just gets more support to become bloated, inefficient, too powerful, and too dangerous. Terrorists are all the fear now. We've basically disabled Al Qua'ida, and we're still fighting against some idea in Iraq and no one really knows what it is and why. I'd rather not pull out of Iraq; i'd rather finish the job but once we do, we don't need to meddle in other people's business. More terrorists are being created every day just because of it. We give them a reason to hate us. That's the whole reason of getting out of all the mess we're in.

[gaijinsamurai]

"far right lunatics"?
I've been a registered Democrat for the past fifteen years, and side with the liberals on most social issues. I support him, and hardly define myself as "far right". A lunatic? Perhaps.

[Snoshi]

Paul's foreign policy is not necessarily isolationist. He still supports trade among other nations and would like to build friendships. It's the foreign policy that the framer's had in mind so I can't disagree with it. It's obvious that our foreign policy since WW2 has been utter crap. We move from one fear to another, the first being Communism. Why the crap should we worry about 3 third world countries going under a regime change? We lost one conflict and another is still on hold. That whole Iran thing sure worked out well, and all for what? It's not our business to be in those countries because every time we do, we lose thousands of american lives not to mention the destruction of those countries and the enemies gained. The media scares the US population about commies, drugs, poverty, and now terrorists and global warming and the government just gets more support to become bloated, inefficient, too powerful, and too dangerous. Terrorists are all the fear now. We've basically disabled Al Qua'ida, and we're still fighting against some idea in Iraq and no one really knows what it is and why. I'd rather not pull out of Iraq; i'd rather finish the job but once we do, we don't need to meddle in other people's business. More terrorists are being created every day just because of it. We give them a reason to hate us. That's the whole reason of getting out of all the mess we're in.

So by pulling out the terrorits will start to love you? Cut the ****. The Islamic terrorists live on their hate of USA.. And by pulling out of the Iraq and the Middle East in general will make them think that they achived the victory... This is what happened when Brits left Basra and when Israel left Gaza.. Instead of killing americans in Iraq they will try to kill americans in different parts of the world.

[evanfitz]

Now here's my question to you doubters: why do you assume that if the US ceases to constantly intervene in the affairs of other nations, whether militarily, economically or politically, that they will suddenly "stack up" against the US? What possible motivation could they have to do so? Nations are rarely driven by ideology, and those that are are swiftly driven into the ground. Trading with the United States is of such immense benefit that there are very few who would be stubborn enough to persist in unfriendly relations just for the hell of it.

I think that it's abundantly clear that the cause of anti-American resentment is interventionism, not the result. All people in all nations simply want to be left alone? Is that really so strange? Are they not entitled to it?

Less interventionism = more security. Not the other way around.

x1325

pretty much common sense

[Yellowbelly]

So by pulling out the terrorits will start to love you? Cut the ****. The Islamic terrorists live on their hate of USA.. And by pulling out of the Iraq and the Middle East in general will make them think that they achived the victory... This is what happened when Brits left Basra and when Israel left Gaza.. Instead of killing americans in Iraq they will try to kill americans in different parts of the world.

so they don't try this already? Israel is in a different situation because they think they stole their land. They hate america because of our support for israel and how we've been messing with their countries for the last 50 years.

[Snoshi]

so they don't try this already? Israel is in a different situation because they think they stole their land. They hate america because of our support for israel and how we've been messing with their countries for the last 50 years.

And you know because they told you? What about the war on infidels that they talk about?

So again, can you answer me.. Do you think that they will start loving the USA after USA stops to mess with their countries?

And they surly try... But its harder to execute it because USA keeps "messing" with their countries.

[Player]

Israel is in a different situation because they think they stole their land.

It's not so simple as you make it sound, trust me most of the Islamists don't give a **** neither about this tiny piece of land nor about the Palestinians themselves. "They stole their land" thing is just being used as an excuse for their hatred towards Israel.

They hate Israel because Israel is infidel, democracy and western culture. There are plenty of other reasons but those are the main ones.


They hate america because of our support for israel
and how we've been messing with their countries for the last 50 years.

Also because America is infidel, democracy and western culture.

[block52]

And you know because they told you? What about the war on infidels that they talk about?

So again, can you answer me.. Do you think that they will start loving the USA after USA stops to mess with their countries?

And they surly try... But its harder to execute it because USA keeps "messing" with their countries.

Invading iraq was just what AQ wanted. It's much easier to detonate roadside bombs and snipe soldiers from windows than to pull of operations like the Cole bombing or 9/11.

Since we've invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, the number of terrorist attacks around the world has skyrocketed. Our actions, no matter how good intentioned, have unintended consequences.

[9mmRifle]

Dark Horse Candidate Ron Paul Skips New Hampshire for Leno's Couch


http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4100382&page=1

[Gurdil]

In an effort to decide for myself who the heck Ron Paul is, I've been researching. I'm going to post what I've found for your digestion:

Ron Paul opposing the closing of a PLO office in DC (that's a problem for me):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923515/posts

In this one he blasts Defense Secretary Perry, and I don't think I agree with his logic, in fact, I wholeheartedly agree with the quote from Perry:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923489/posts

This one highlights his isolationist views during the Clinton administration, which I don't necessaryily agree with. Letting the rest of the world just stack up against us, IMO, isn't a good plan. The idea that a good defense is to pretend the rest of the world is nice is kind of naive.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923488/posts

3 days out of the week, I agree with Ron Paul, 4 days, I don't. It boils down, I think, to the idea that I agree with his doemestic policy but think his foreign policy is a little naive. That's not to say I think we should be out meddling across the globe, but having influence here or there definitely can make the difference. Just my 2 cents.

I didn't have time to read the whole thread already.
Ron Paul think America has nothing to do in middle eastern politics. they are irrational and not understandable.
Isolationism and non interventionism isn't the same. you still have a lot to read.
And if you think people hate America because America is free and prosperous. You need to check your history lessons.

[Snoshi]

I didn't have time to read the whole thread already.
Ron Paul think America has nothing to do in middle eastern politics. they are irrational and not understandable.
Isolationism and non interventionism isn't the same. you still have a lot to read.
And if you think people hate America because America is free and prosperous. You need to check your history lessons.

So wait.. Middle Eastern politcs are irrational and not understanble, but still every major country is trying to score allies in that region..
If USA withdraws from ME then Russia and China will replace it and that is good?

Leftists hate USA for its actions, but Islamic terrorists hate USA no matter what.. They will always blame USA just to continue their terror against it.

Ron Paul is someone who terrorists would love to see in charge of USA. He will withdraw US support from "dictators" in power and it will lead to Islamists seizing power in some countries and i think that everyone agrees that its better to have a dictator like Musharraf in power then having Islamic extremists controlling large countries.

Most of Ron Pauls supporters are very intelligent people, but they are naive and think that US and the world can get rid of terrorists just by not interfering..

[Protected]

And you know because they told you? What about the war on infidels that they talk about?

So again, can you answer me.. Do you think that they will start loving the USA after USA stops to mess with their countries?

And they surly try... But its harder to execute it because USA keeps "messing" with their countries.

They don't have to love the USA they just have to not hate us, take away their motive to attack. Our support of Israel is a big liability and is the main reason they hate our government.

[Snoshi]

They don't have to love the USA they just have to not hate us, take away their motive to attack. Our support of Israel is a big liability and is the main reason they hate our government.

US support for Israel is the main reason that terrorists hates USA?
Al-Qaida dont care less. They have never been interested in Palestine or Palestinians.. This is the case with most arab governments too...

I also wonder how you came to that conclusion? Bin Laden told that on TV?

Like i said again.. Terrorists will always find a reason to hate USA...
Lets say USA cuts support for Israel, terrorists will take about "divine victory" and then tell that they hate USA because they support Pakistan.. And this will go on and on..

[Protected]

[quote=Snoshi;2971154]So wait.. Middle Eastern politcs are irrational and not understanble, but still every major country is trying to score allies in that region..
If USA withdraws from ME then Russia and China will replace it and that is good?
Wrong, no proof that will happen.. sounds like a scare tactic. There are many places without U.S bases that China and Russia have not taken over.

Leftists hate USA for its actions, but Islamic terrorists hate USA no matter what.. They will always blame USA just to continue their terror against it.

Another scare tactic...Islamic terrorist do not hate the U.S no matter what. They have reasons and motives and if you did some research on the subject you can easily find out why they hate our government. Here's a clue it has something to do with middle-east countries and nothing to do democracy.

[Protected]

US support for Israel is the main reason that terrorists hates USA?
Al-Qaida dont care less. They have never been interested in Palestine or Palestinians.. This is the case with most arab governments too...

I also wonder how you came to that conclusion? Bin Laden told that on TV?

Like i said again.. Terrorists will always find a reason to hate USA...
Lets say USA cuts support for Israel, terrorists will take about "divine victory" and then tell that they hate USA because they support Pakistan.. And this will go on and on..

So Al-Qaida doesn't care about Palestine but they hate the U.S no matter what? Sorry that will not fly with me. Bin Laden has been interviewed before and has stated the reasons why they dislike the U.S. The U.S should not support Pakistan and its corrupt leaders. It will not go on and on like you say. The U.S needs to get out of the middleast and many other countries its only cause trouble and no benefit to the US and infact is very costly.

[Clayton Gold]

So Al-Qaida doesn't care about Palestine but they hate the U.S no matter what? Sorry that will not fly with me. Bin Laden has been interviewed before and has stated the reasons why they dislike the U.S. The U.S should not support Pakistan and its corrupt leaders. It will not go on and on like you say. The U.S needs to get out of the middleast and many other countries its only cause trouble and no benefit to the US and infact is very costly.

So we should be kinder to the extremists so they will leave us alone ?

You do realize you're talking about organizations whose doctrine calls for Our destruction, and nothing else ?

[Shadowstorm]

Benjamin Netanyahu put it this way clearly. Israel is little Satan, Europe is middle Satan and the United States is big Satan. So you think packing up and leave the area and cut ties with Israel is going to stop it. Hell No!

[Snoshi]

So Al-Qaida doesn't care about Palestine but they hate the U.S no matter what? Sorry that will not fly with me. Bin Laden has been interviewed before and has stated the reasons why they dislike the U.S. The U.S should not support Pakistan and its corrupt leaders. It will not go on and on like you say. The U.S needs to get out of the middleast and many other countries its only cause trouble and no benefit to the US and infact is very costly.

So i was right when i wrote that you listen to OBL and assume that he tells the truth??

Some time ago OBL said that he fights USA because it have troops in Saudi Arabia.. US withdrew and now he found a new reason..

About Pakistan.. Would you rather have Islamic extremists in power then Musharraf?

You are an perfect example of a Ron Paul supporter..

"Bin Laden told us that he hates USA because we support Israel!!!" "Lets cut the support to stop terrorism!!" *USA cuts support for Israel
"Bin Laden told us that he hates USA because we support Saudi Arabia" "Lets cut the support to stop terrorism!!" *USA cuts support to Saudi Arabia
"Bin Laden said that he hates USA because we support Pakistan" "Lets cut the support to stop terrorism!!" *USA cuts support to Pakistan

Damn you are basically saying that USA should listen to OBL no matter what.

[Litti]

From my perspective Ron Paul stands for some of those aspects I dislike about old school libertarianism. I agree with some of his views but there is no reason or common sense behind his statements. He appeals to the constitution and uses it like it is somekind of a holy bible but fails to see the big picture.

He doesn't understand how you can create sustainable change in the society. You have to be a total lunatic to believe that the best road to a libertanian society is to take out all the taxes, leave from UN and WTO, and close all the army bases from those nations that are historically important allies to you.

The only reason why Ron Paul is getting support - eventhough it still far from what certain groups want us to believe - is, because of his non-interventionalist policies. People are so pissed off with Bush and the current administration in Washington that they are willing to try out anything. If there was no Iraq war, Ron Paul would be just another marginal idiot, the image he has always had where the real power lies.

If you want to change your governmental policies to a more liberal direction and speak about how the international organizations should work, be my guest. But you cant just call it quits right away and expect that things will work out.

Should USA leave from WTO, Nafta etc. It would mean that your exports would face heavy tolls all over the world when other countries wouldn't welcome you like a cheap prostitute. And crying about it would do no good since the old bi/multilateral agreements would be void at this point.

And I'm not even going to speak about his policies concerning the army's role in international politics.

Long story short : I think he's a clown and that's what his presidency would be.

[Snoshi]

From my perspective Ron Paul stands for some of those aspects I dislike about old school libertarianism. I agree with some of his views but there is no reason or common sense behind his statements. He appeals to the constitution and uses it like it is somekind of a holy bible but fails to see the big picture.

He doesn't understand how you can create sustainable change in the society. You have to be a total lunatic to believe that the best road to a libertanian society is to take out all the taxes, leave from UN and WTO, and close all the army bases from those nations that are historically important allies to you.

The only reason why Ron Paul is getting such wide support is, because of his non-interventionalist policies. People are so pissed off with Bush and the current administration in Washington that they are willing to try out anything. If there was no Iraq war, Ron Paul would be one of those marginal idiots, the image he has always had in the congress.

If you want to change your governmental policies to a more liberal direction and speak about how the international organizations should work, be my guest. But you cant just call it quits right away and expect that things will work out.

Should USA leave from WTO, Nafta etc. It would mean that your exports would face heavy tolls all over the world when other countries wouldn't open their legs like a cheap prostitute. And crying about it would do no good since the old bi/multilateral agreements would be void at this point.

And I'm not even going to speak about his policies concerning the army's role in international politics.

Long story short : I think he's a clown and that's what his presidency would be.

X2.
Basically what i think

[Shadowstorm]

I don't agree with Ron Paul ether. His foreign policy plan sounds like its from the 1930's and his other policies goes to the extreme.

[Mastermind]

RP lost me when he said he could eliminate the IRS and not create a new taxation structure.

All that aside, here is my take on this seasons crop of Political wannabees...If it were some how possible in a Mad Scientists laboratory to meld all the Republicans into one candidate and run them against a similarly mind-melded Democrat Critter the resuting contest between the Conglom-monsters, I think would the look exactly like a Wheel barrow full of runny cow patty running against a five foot tall stack of cat siht.

Basically, this go a round, I hate to say it...we're all fcuked!

[Shadowstorm]

Yeah, I agree on that.

[Shadowstorm]

Tell you the truth, these are the worst candidates I have ever seen. All their doing talking about nothing or flip-flop around like a merry-go-round. The only person I kind of support is John McCain.

[Rictor]

Because he wants to stay in Iraq for a hundred years? Sure, what's not to love.

[Shadowstorm]

Will be Iraq anyway for a very longtime just like Afghanistan and it dosen't make no different which candidate get in their. But he has more experince than most of those candidates up their.

[Lt. James Anderson]

But he has more experince than most of those candidates up their.

What experience?

[Shadowstorm]

Helping are troops over there in Iraq, Afghanistan and other trouble spots, cutting wasteful spending by the government and a whole bunch other stuff etc etc... What experience does Ron Paul have.

[Protected]

Benjamin Netanyahu put it this way clearly. Israel is little Satan, Europe is middle Satan and the United States is big Satan. So you think packing up and leave the area and cut ties with Israel is going to stop it. Hell No!

Do you think Netanyahu has an agenda? Maybe drag the US into Israel's conflicts? Of course he would love to have the US fight Israels wars. What better way to get the U.S. scared into attacking Israels enemies. Netanyahu lies. Israel is the big satan, the U.S supplies the big satan with arms and cash and thus becomes a target. No arms, no cash no target!

[Shadowstorm]

Whatever man and why would we fight Israel's wars if they can fight it their selfs. Any way Israel supplies the U.S with military equipment and ammunition.

[JJC]

Do you think Netanyahu has an agenda? Maybe drag the US into Israel's conflicts? Of course he would love to have the US fight Israels wars. What better way to get the U.S. scared into attacking Israels enemies. Netanyahu lies. Israel is the big satan, the U.S supplies the big satan with arms and cash and thus becomes a target. No arms, no cash no target!

What do you think AQ or Hezbullah is going to forgive you for propping up and supporting a pro western government in Lebanon, or supporting Saudi Arabia's, Egypt's monarchy, of supporting Kuwait and having its bases there.

If you really want them to leave us alone, we need to stop supporting and dealing with middle eastern nations, and allow the Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt, or AQ style gov take over Saudi Arabia, and of course "build" diplomatic relations with the Taliban in A stan...

[Protected]

So i was right when i wrote that you listen to OBL and assume that he tells the truth??

Some time ago OBL said that he fights USA because it have troops in Saudi Arabia.. US withdrew and now he found a new reason..

About Pakistan.. Would you rather have Islamic extremists in power then Musharraf?

You are an perfect example of a Ron Paul supporter..

"Bin Laden told us that he hates USA because we support Israel!!!" "Lets cut the support to stop terrorism!!" *USA cuts support for Israel
"Bin Laden told us that he hates USA because we support Saudi Arabia" "Lets cut the support to stop terrorism!!" *USA cuts support to Saudi Arabia
"Bin Laden said that he hates USA because we support Pakistan" "Lets cut the support to stop terrorism!!" *USA cuts support to Pakistan

Damn you are basically saying that USA should listen to OBL no matter what.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that Muslims in the middle east hate Israel and if the US supports Israel with bombs, guns and money the US will also be hated by Muslims in the middle east. Anybody with any commonsense would believe OBL when he says US is a target because of it's support of Israel.

[Shadowstorm]

It not Israel and the U.S. AQ has struck targets in Thailand, Bali, Indonesia, Morocco, Spain, UK and other places around the world. So don't think they will stop even if we left the Middle East. And some of them had nothing to do with U.S or Israel.

[Protected]

What do you think AQ or Hezbullah is going to forgive you for propping up and supporting a pro western government in Lebanon, or supporting Saudi Arabia's, Egypt's monarchy, of supporting Kuwait and having its bases there.

If you really want them to leave us alone, we need to stop supporting and dealing with middle eastern nations, and allow the Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt, or AQ style gov take over Saudi Arabia, and of course "build" diplomatic relations with the Taliban in A stan...

If we stopped support and got out of the ME they would definitely stop targeting Americans. What happens in Egypt or Saudi is their business not ours.

[Ameen]

I hate the US because of their support for Israel. I make multiple trips to the US every year and I love the country and the majority of the people. I do not stereotypically hate Americans (even though they are the ones who voted in the administration), but my hostility is directed more towards the American government.

[JJC]

If we stopped support and got out of the ME they would definitely stop targeting Americans. What happens in Egypt or Saudi is their business not ours.

How old are you? How do you think U.S. gets to be a superpower? Are you ready to drive crappy European cars, cause we ain't gonna have that oil to drive the SUVs.

[Ameen]

How old are you? How do you think U.S. gets to be a superpower? Are you ready to drive crappy European cars, cause we ain't gonna have that oil to drive the SUVs.

I am fine driving a BMW lol

[Snoshi]

Do you think Netanyahu has an agenda? Maybe drag the US into Israel's conflicts? Of course he would love to have the US fight Israels wars. What better way to get the U.S. scared into attacking Israels enemies. Netanyahu lies. Israel is the big satan, the U.S supplies the big satan with arms and cash and thus becomes a target. No arms, no cash no target!

Israel always thought its own war itself... Unlike many other countries..

And again.. Answer Shadowstorm. Why did AQ target UK, Indonesia, Alegeria and other countries that never supported Israel?

Again.. You are a classical RP supporter who thinks that you can solve terrorism by just surrendering to the terrorists.

[Lt. James Anderson]

Again.. You are a classical RP supporter who thinks that you can solve terrorism by just surrendering to the terrorists.

LOL ... I fought "big bad terrorists" in Afghanistan and Iraq and I can asure you that we can kick their azz any time we want to ...
Also I support RP, he's a good man and good American, and I don't think we should be over there either. Surrender? LOL ... I know you're not serious, but that **** is funny, man. ;)

[Hollis]

Man, you guys derailed this thread........... it is about Ron Paul, Not Fruit loops, not Israel, Not your dirty underwear...........

It's closed............ Other wise a bunch of you would be on holiday.