Casper Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 That's all I need to know. Thanks.He is a dumb ass who has no idea about how the military is to be used or how it was used by our founding fathers. If he wants to change its role he will never get my support even if I agree with him on every other issue."...but she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy" - John Quincy Adams"War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few." - James Madison "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." - James Madison"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have as little political connection as possible... Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalships, interest, humor, or caprice?... It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." - George WashingtonI'm sure I can find more when I have some time. It goes on and on. It was pretty much a unanimous feeling among the founding fathers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 Let's start with the Navy being sent to the Barbary Coast; do we need a complete history lesson? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 Let's start with the Navy being sent to the Barbary Coast; do we need a complete history lesson?Which is exactly what I'm talking about. They were defending the merchant ships against pirates in the Mediterranean if I'm not mistaken. They weren't there to free anyone or to spread democracy. Our Founding Fathers nor Ron Paul were/are isolationists. The military is used to protect US interests and US citizens, not to police the world. Non-interventionism is simply not getting involved in others' disputes or affairs until it effects the United States or her people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 They were there to free those who were being held for ransoms among others mission goals. It was in our interests to maintain free trade even though it wasn't affecting us by being a threat to our mainland. There are many more instances of this over the years and a definition of our best interests is not clear. I view the simple explanation of Ron Pauls views as being an isolationist. What you see as a police action I see as a means to protect our vital interests and to protect our world standing. We see the same thing and come to a different conclusion. A mindset to conquer the world needs to have a plan for interrupting it and a strategy toward that goal is to spread democracy. I see that as being vital to our self interests. When tyranny exists we need to extinguish it because it is in our best interest weather it brings us an ally or opens the door for our safety regardless of it being a direct threat at that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 Too many old white males will blindly vote "republican" even if the nominate some hapless boobS.ftfy. Palin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 "I think it's a theory, the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSparky Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 punk has quite the stance. i'm not one for politics, and i can see where you're coming from. our best interest is to keep money flowing, especially inward. but if that involves spending our money and our soldiers lives on something, then it must be weighed very carefully. know that i have no clue about history. but, i do think practically. i thought paul was green party all along? oh well, that's how politically ignorant i am. imho, no one man is going to fix anything. whoever we elect, it's going to change very little about this country. the rich will stay rich, the politicians will continue to benefit from making laws helping their investments, the poor will continue to cry about our artificially deflated gas prices. and we'll continue in our oh-so-authentic debt herding ways. $0.02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhaag Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 ron paul was an answer......er, question on jeopardy tonight. he ran for pres in '88 under the libertarian party. i got it right, but didnt phrase my answer as a question. also, his stance isnt against defending our interests via military, it is for not occupying those nations, be they sovereign or not, afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWing'R Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 Tell me something BAD about Ron Paul Two first names. Creepy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAC Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 They were there to free those who were being held for ransoms among others mission goals. It was in our interests to maintain free trade even though it wasn't affecting us by being a threat to our mainland. There are many more instances of this over the years and a definition of our best interests is not clear. I view the simple explanation of Ron Pauls views as being an isolationist.What you see as a police action I see as a means to protect our vital interests and to protect our world standing. We see the same thing and come to a different conclusion. A mindset to conquer the world needs to have a plan for interrupting it and a strategy toward that goal is to spread democracy. I see that as being vital to our self interests.When tyranny exists we need to extinguish it because it is in our best interest weather it brings us an ally or opens the door for our safety regardless of it being a direct threat at that time.Maintain a defense force in proportion to our share of global GDP. Now - we're just taxing ourselves to keep everyone else safe. I've used this example before: We maintain 11 carrier battle strike groups. The rest of the world? Maybe six - none of which are as fully outfitted and complete as ours. Guess what gang? We don't make up 2/3 of the world's GDP or population. We're just screwing ourselves to keep Boeing and Lockheed Martin in business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drew95gt Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 (edited) You guys talk about "isolationism" views like they are a bad thing. A certain degree of isolationism is a good thing. We are running ourselves ragged being Team America world police. We send foreign aid out to countries that can't stand us to help support people that don't want us there in the first place. Another good "-ism" we should consider strongly is Protectionism. From Wikipedia -Protectionism is the economic policy of restraining trade between states through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and a variety of other government regulations designed to discourage imports and prevent foreign take-over of domestic markets and companies." Nothing has screwed our country more than globalization and outsourcing IMO. We have been building up 3rd world countries by exporting our manufacturing and technology jobs far long enough. The candidate that seriously looks to repeal NAFTA/CAFTA while ending the sensless foreign wars will have my vote 100%. Edited July 30, 2011 by drew95gt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 They were there to free those who were being held for ransoms among others mission goals. It was in our interests to maintain free trade even though it wasn't affecting us by being a threat to our mainland. There are many more instances of this over the years and a definition of our best interests is not clear. I view the simple explanation of Ron Pauls views as being an isolationist. What you see as a police action I see as a means to protect our vital interests and to protect our world standing. We see the same thing and come to a different conclusion. A mindset to conquer the world needs to have a plan for interrupting it and a strategy toward that goal is to spread democracy. I see that as being vital to our self interests. When tyranny exists we need to extinguish it because it is in our best interest weather it brings us an ally or opens the door for our safety regardless of it being a direct threat at that time.We were paying the Algerian government $1million each year to guarantee safety. We did so for ten years. Then the pirates took another of our ships hostage. That's a big difference from Iraq and/or Afghanistan, never even mind Libya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 "I think it's a theory, the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory."Why don't you give the rest of that quote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 We occupy other countries for strategic reasons from logistics to monitoring. I doubt Japan or Germany will be starting any more shit while we are occupying them while we remain one of the worlds super powers and I am okay with that. I like Ron Pauls stance on a lot of issues but they do not outweigh my dislike of his views on the military. I view him to be too much of an isolationist. Stating rhetoric that sounds good to get support from people who don't know any better feels too much like a democrat to me. While popular in times of war it takes away from the true sacrifices our military endures to keep the wolves at bay, whether or not you can see the wisdom in it or not. There have always been people who didn't agree with any military action we have ever taken but our military is one of the reasons we are the greatest nation on earth so I have a hard time giving those who don’t agree much regard. We would have never become the United States of America if it wasn’t for military action yet those who supported it and were involved with our independence were in the minority at the time. Our military is something that is all about our existence and besides infrastructure it is one of the core obligations of our federal government. I consider the rest of the issues I agree with him on to be issues that shouldn't exist. If he can get that one major issue so wrong he will never get my support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 We occupy other countries for strategic reasons from logistics to monitoring. I doubt Japan or Germany will be starting any more shit while we are occupying them while we remain one of the worlds super powers and I am okay with that. I like Ron Pauls stance on a lot of issues but they do not outweigh my dislike of his views on the military. I view him to be too much of an isolationist. Stating rhetoric that sounds good to get support from people who don't know any better feels too much like a democrat to me. While popular in times of war it takes away from the true sacrifices our military endures to keep the wolves at bay, whether or not you can see the wisdom in it or not. There have always been people who didn't agree with any military action we have ever taken but our military is one of the reasons we are the greatest nation on earth so I have a hard time giving those who don’t agree much regard. We would have never become the United States of America if it wasn’t for military action yet those who supported it and were involved with our independence were in the minority at the time. Our military is something that is all about our existence and besides infrastructure it is one of the core obligations of our federal government. I consider the rest of the issues I agree with him on to be issues that shouldn't exist. If he can get that one major issue so wrong he will never get my support.You realize he's pro-military, right? He was a doctor, in the Air Force I believe. Read up on his views. I bet he's not far off from what you believe. He just wants to get the country back to what the Founding Fathers envisioned. Policing the world is not what we should be doing. We can't afford it, and that's been beyond proven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 His vision of being pro military and mine are not the same, in my opinion he is not pro military. Saying you are pro military and not utilizing it properly are not the same. I am aware of his military experience and am thankful for his service but it doesn't make him any more right than it did John Kerry. I have military service myself and that fact shouldn’t make my views any more correct for the rest of you either. We could afford to do the things our military is doing if we spent more on our military and less on the things the government shouldn't be involved in. I wouldn't have an issue with us spending another 10% of our GDP on our military. We could do that and still be ahead if we didn't have so many other unnecessary budget draining programs in the coffers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 His vision of being pro military and mine are not the same, in my opinion he is not pro military. Saying you are pro military and not utilizing it properly are not the same. I am aware of his military experience and am thankful for his service but it doesn't make him any more right than it did John Kerry. I have military service myself and that fact shouldn’t make my views any more correct for the rest of you either. We could afford to do the things our military is doing if we spent more on our military and less on the things the government shouldn't be involved in. I wouldn't have an issue with us spending another 10% of our GDP on our military. We could do that and still be ahead if we didn't have so many other unnecessary budget draining programs in the coffers.So what politicians have you backed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 At this point I am not thrilled with any of the prospects. I am closely aligned with Newt but am enough of a realist to understand that his baggage is insurmountable. His knowledge of our current political climate, how to work around it along with his knowledge of our history and his interpretation of its meaning makes him my guy but sadly not a viable candidate. It's kind of funny I can look past his baggage but I can't get by Palin's. I hate to hear her mentioned as a viable candidate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drew95gt Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 Protectionism sounds a lot like "anti-freetrade-ism" I don't like the cut of your jib.Yeah because free trade is a f*cking joke. All free trade does is build up underdeveloped countries at the expense of well established countries like the U.S. Yeah we may get some goods cheaper but big deal if no one can afford them because we have shipped all of our jobs overseas and become a service industry nation. Look at India for example...they have cut the percentage of people living at or below poverty level in HALF since 1978. Accoridng to studies ...Over the next two decades' date=' the country’s middle class will grow from about 5 percent of the population to more than 40 percent and create the world’s fifth-largest consumer market.[/size']You're welcome India, enjoy our jobs!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revelstoker Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 As an Economist and Libertarian, I share many of his views in part or theory and have proposed similar policy changes that Ron puts forward. In many cases, Ron's ideas have considerable merit but many fail to go far enough or are just a bit off. On the whole, he is much better than anything the other parties have come up with. Funny thing, if we won, I am sure we would finally see bipartisanship. Both parties agreeing to disagree with him.As a Libertarian, I do not agree with his stance on abortion and he could have a much stronger political position on homosexual (marriage/military) issues. I could see him making a real effort to reverse RvW and for that, I could not support him in the past and I will not support him in the future. He defaults to the "States Rights" argument far too often and co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act. While, he might argue, that he did this to force states rights, I find it more as an attempt to protect DOMA. Shame, as I would really like the Libertarian party to become a viable 3rd party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
614busa Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 He has two first names Idk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhaag Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 i've come to realize that this country doesnt deserve a Ron Paul. lets just stay with business as usual, Keynesian economics, fiat money, the establishment, power to the powerful, complacency, apathy, etc, etc, etc......its worked so well so far!!AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!!beam-me-the-fuck-up, already! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWing'R Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 He has two first names IdkBeat you to it in post 34...Two first names. Creepy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 As an Economist and Libertarian, I share many of his views in part or theory and have proposed similar policy changes that Ron puts forward. In many cases, Ron's ideas have considerable merit but many fail to go far enough or are just a bit off. On the whole, he is much better than anything the other parties have come up with. Funny thing, if we won, I am sure we would finally see bipartisanship. Both parties agreeing to disagree with him.As a Libertarian, I do not agree with his stance on abortion and he could have a much stronger political position on homosexual (marriage/military) issues. I could see him making a real effort to reverse RvW and for that, I could not support him in the past and I will not support him in the future. He defaults to the "States Rights" argument far too often and co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act. While, he might argue, that he did this to force states rights, I find it more as an attempt to protect DOMA. Shame, as I would really like the Libertarian party to become a viable 3rd party.He personally doesn't agree with abortion because of his many years as an OB/GYN, but politically he believes the government should have no say. You disagree with the government not having a say? Or his personal feelings on the topic? As for states' rights, well I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that one. I'm a firm believer of if it isn't in the Constitution, it's up to the states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 Why don't you give the rest of that quote? Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it's a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don't accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think it probably doesn't bother me. It's not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think the Creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. So I just don't...if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have our...if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office. not sure how that contradicts anything? it just says he doesnt think its the most important issue. it does not change the fact that he clearly stated he denies the validity of the theory of evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.