Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Question about Ron Paul >

Question about Ron Paul

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Question about Ron Paul

Old 12-23-2011, 11:38 PM
  #21  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,998
Default

Originally Posted by bigbulls View Post
I seriously doubt that Ron is just going to sit on the sidelines and let Israel deal with Iran. He did back Israel when they attacked Iran. There is no doubt in my mind that he would back Israel again as POTUS with military force if it came to that. Does any one really believe Iran is going to fire a nuke at the USA?
Unfortunately, that isn't the only way Iran could deliver a nuke to the US. Smuggling it across our porous border with Mexico is far more likely. Would Iran do this? Yes, I think they would if they could make it happen.

I don't see it this way. I believe his MOE would be more like "If we quit ****ing with the world they just might quit ****ing with us. If they do want to **** with us then we will deal with them as quickly as possible so as not to allow party politics to kill American soldiers."
I think our being over there both elevates our desirability as a target and also decreases it because we're fighting them over there. It's a difficult catch-22 type of situation.

What about this can you disagree with?

He's right when he says we don't mind our won damn business.

Reagan was able to diplomatically disarm Cuba with out ever firing a shot. Cuba was far more of a threat to the USA than Iran will ever be.
I think you mean Kennedy (assuming you're referring to nuclear missiles). If you are, the chief protagonist in that dilemma was Russia, not Cuba. Iran is completely different from Russia or even Cuba.

Why do Muslims (I'm not talking about the fringe radicals) want to kill us?
Read the Koran and pay special attention to the part about dealing with infidels who do not convert to Islam (that's us according to Muslims).

So Iran shoots down a drone that is flying over their country. Wouldn't we do the same? I would hope so. Do we go to war over a drone? Some would have us doing just that.
Paul tried to change the subject to that when Bachman went after him in the debate. From what I watched and heard, Bachman was referring to Iran developing nuclear missiles/weapons. Going to war over a down predator drone was a straw man type of argument that ignores a much more serious issue.

He is also right when he says that our military is far overextended and it costs this country trillions every year to maintain their operation and we are flat broke.
True. He doesn't appear to offer a plan on how to downsize/reduce our overseas military commitments, however, other than shutting down 900+ bases overseas.

He is also right when he says that only congress should be declaring war after careful deliberation.
I agree with this.


He recognizes the threat but he also recognizes the fact that the rest of the world is sick and tired of us occupying their countries. I don't think that he is advocating every single base around the world just close up shop but he does want to reduce our world footprint and I agree with this. He is right when he says that we don't need hundreds of bases around the world.
He honestly should offer more specifics and get his "plan" out in front of the American people.

AS far as the patriot act is concerned, it is one of the absolute worst pieces of legislation to be signed into law in modern history. There were more rights stripped from citizens in the patriot act than any piece of legislation prior to it. Every American citizen should be highly opposed to the Patriot act and every member of congress should be vowing to repeal it in its entirety.
It has problems but it also fixed some ridiculous things that should have never been broken. When somebody takes a law that contains many different parts and "lumps" them altogether, it doesn't give anybody an impression that they are knowledgeable about it. Instead, it makes one think that they are generalizing and either didn't study the issue or are in over their head.

Care to elaborate or you just want to tell us you don't like him?
I believe this question was directed at Sachiko so will let her answer it for herself.

What does the label matter, GOP or Libertarian? What matters is his voting record on the issues and if he will continue to stand on the same principles as POTUS. I don't give a rip what label he has behind his name. Newt, and Romney are nothing but wolves in sheep's clothing. More of the same **** that this country has been dealing with for the last hundred years. Their ilk have gotten us into more **** over the years.
Labels are a way for people to be lazy in their thinking and avoid drilling down into a subject. I don't think Newt and Romney are wolves but neither is a perfect conservative candidate either. Newt, Romney and Paul are all better than Obama. Newt and Romney are both better than Paul.

Why don't we try something else as our POTUS? We all keep talking how we want some real change back to real constitutional values but we keep putting up the same ole candidates year after year after year. We keep doing the same thing time after time and keep expecting different results and we all get our panties in a wad when we get the same ole results of years past.
We do need a change. Unfortunately, Paul isn't the change many of us are looking for. It's too bad because he does have some interesting ideas. I tried hard to find the direct quote from the December 16th Republican debate but that was removed. It's too bad because that transcript would have articulated Paul's position on Iran much better than his website. I don't know why the quotes were removed. Perhaps they are being corrected, etc.

Last edited by CalHunter; 12-24-2011 at 07:41 AM.
CalHunter is online now  
Old 12-23-2011, 11:43 PM
  #22  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,998
Default

Originally Posted by tight360 View Post
What are your thoughts on his wanting to cut the Dept. Of Interior? That one really affects hunting and our most precious possessions as a nation?
I'd like more information to figure out what he thinks isn't being done correctly and exactly how Paul thinks benefits like Fish and Wildlife, etc. can be replaced or not. He talks about just cutting an entire department (like Interior, Energy, Education, etc.) but doesn't say what he would replace or fill that void with. All of the departments have problems, inefficiencies, waste money and make mistakes. It would be nice to hear or read about how he proposes to fix those problems, other than just eliminate a department. That type of blanket response looks more like a knee-jerk reaction than a well thought out strategy. JMHO but that's what I think so far.
CalHunter is online now  
Old 12-24-2011, 06:22 AM
  #23  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,929
Cool

Quote:
I don't like Ron Paul's view or foreign policy. But he is also, basically, a libertarian. And I cannot express how opposed I am to libertarianism.
Care to elaborate or you just want to tell us you don't like him?

I think Calhunter has gone into great detail as to why Paul's approach to foreign policy is not realistic. I essentially agree and I see no need for repetition.

Libertarians tend to believe that society has no right to impose moral standards on the individual. In other words, issues like gay marriage, abortion rights, etc. should be up to the individual. To me that's no difference than the liberal approval of issues like that.
sachiko is offline  
Old 12-24-2011, 09:32 AM
  #24  
Boone & Crockett
Thread Starter
 
bigbulls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,679
Default

It would be nice to hear or read about how he proposes to fix those problems, other than just eliminate a department
He wants the states to handle these issues as it should be. Every body here complains about the DOE, EPA, etc... and how these federal agencies shouldn't even exist in the first place. Now that we have a candidate willing and wanting to phase out these departments and rightfully turn the power over to the states and locals everyone suddenly questions it. I really don't understand the flip flop.

Libertarians tend to believe that society has no right to impose moral standards on the individual.
And how is this a problem? The federal government should not be in the business of morality. This should be a states and local issue(s).

In other words, issues like gay marriage, abortion rights, etc. should be up to the individual. To me that's no difference than the liberal approval of issues like that.
He has never claimed such. He has said that the these issues should be handled by the individual states and he is spot on.




I seriously doubt that Ron is just going to sit on the sidelines and let Israel deal with Iran. He did back Israel when they attacked Iran. There is no doubt in my mind that he would back Israel again as POTUS with military force if it came to that. Does any one really believe Iran is going to fire a nuke at the USA?
Unfortunately, that isn't the only way Iran could deliver a nuke to the US. Smuggling it across our porous border with Mexico is far more likely. Would Iran do this? Yes, I think they would if they could make it happen.Sure they could smuggle it across our porous border as of right now. Hell, you could walk across the border with a nuke strapped to a mule right now. However Paul is all for, and I believe would, make securing our borders a major priority.

I don't see it this way. I believe his MOE would be more like "If we quit ****ing with the world they just might quit ****ing with us. If they do want to **** with us then we will deal with them as quickly as possible so as not to allow party politics to kill American soldiers."
I think our being over there both elevates our desirability as a target and also decreases it because we're fighting them over there. It's a difficult catch-22 type of situation.

What about this can you disagree with?

He's right when he says we don't mind our won damn business.

Reagan was able to diplomatically disarm Cuba with out ever firing a shot. Cuba was far more of a threat to the USA than Iran will ever be.
I think you mean Kennedy (assuming you're referring to nuclear missiles). If you are, the chief protagonist in that dilemma was Russia, not Cuba. Iran is completely different from Russia or even Cuba.Yes, it was Kennedy. My apologies. The point still stands. He was able to diplomatically disarm Cuba with out firing a shot. True Russia, Cuba, and Iran are different and require different tactics but war should be an absolute last resort. Israel will not let Iran develop nukes and become a threat to the world. We should be there as a supporting country to Israel and there to back them if needed.

Why do Muslims (I'm not talking about the fringe radicals) want to kill us?
Read the Koran and pay special attention to the part about dealing with infidels who do not convert to Islam (that's us according to Muslims). Most modern Muslims do not hold true to these writings. The same could be said of the Old testament.

So Iran shoots down a drone that is flying over their country. Wouldn't we do the same? I would hope so. Do we go to war over a drone? Some would have us doing just that.
Paul tried to change the subject to that when Bachman went after him in the debate. From what I watched and heard, Bachman was referring to Iran developing nuclear missiles/weapons. Going to war over a down predator drone was a straw man type of argument that ignores a much more serious issue.He did address Bachman about the nukes.
I think Bachman would have us over there in another war with Iran.

“I’ll tell you the reason why, the reason why I would say that is because we know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally Israel off the face of the map and they stated they will use it against the United States of America. Look no further than the Iranian constitution, which states unequivocally that their mission is to extend jihad across the world and eventually to set up for worldwide caliphate. we would be fools to ignore their purpose and their plan.”
More propaganda and scare tactics. How does she know with out a shadow of a doubt that Iran wipe out Israel? Israel WILL NOT ALLOW Iran to develop nukes. Israel has one of the best trained and supplied military forces in the world. Israel could and would wipe Iran off the map with out batting an eye if they needed to.


He is also right when he says that our military is far overextended and it costs this country trillions every year to maintain their operation and we are flat broke.
True. He doesn't appear to offer a plan on how to downsize/reduce our overseas military commitments, however, other than shutting down 900+ bases overseas.I don't think that he is advocating just shutting them down over night and he wouldn't shut them all down. Many of the strategically important bases would would remain.

He is also right when he says that only congress should be declaring war after careful deliberation.
I agree with this.


He recognizes the threat but he also recognizes the fact that the rest of the world is sick and tired of us occupying their countries. I don't think that he is advocating every single base around the world just close up shop but he does want to reduce our world footprint and I agree with this. He is right when he says that we don't need hundreds of bases around the world.
He honestly should offer more specifics and get his "plan" out in front of the American people.Agreed. He needs to have a plan for the people to analyze, but he is right that we need to scale back.

AS far as the patriot act is concerned, it is one of the absolute worst pieces of legislation to be signed into law in modern history. There were more rights stripped from citizens in the patriot act than any piece of legislation prior to it. Every American citizen should be highly opposed to the Patriot act and every member of congress should be vowing to repeal it in its entirety.
It has problems but it also fixed some ridiculous things that should have never been broken. When somebody takes a law that contains many different parts and "lumps" them altogether, it doesn't give anybody an impression that they are knowledgeable about it. Instead, it makes one think that they are generalizing and either didn't study the issue or are in over their head.Just like there are a few good things in the health care bill but the vast majority of it is a far over reaching piece of legislation that stripped more rights from citizens than any piece of legislation in history. It is lumped together because it is one bill with one signature. Repeal it and offer individual bills that address specific concerns.


What does the label matter, GOP or Libertarian? What matters is his voting record on the issues and if he will continue to stand on the same principles as POTUS. I don't give a rip what label he has behind his name. Newt, and Romney are nothing but wolves in sheep's clothing. More of the same **** that this country has been dealing with for the last hundred years. Their ilk have gotten us into more **** over the years.
Labels are a way for people to be lazy in their thinking and avoid drilling down into a subject. I don't think Newt and Romney are wolves but neither is a perfect conservative candidate either. Newt, Romney and Paul are all better than Obama. Newt and Romney are both better than Paul.Yes, they (labels) are nothing but ways to allow people to be lazy. Newt and Romney are as far from conservative as any one running. Both are for national health care. Both are support the Patriot act. They support spying on American citizens under the guise of offering us "security". The list of nonconservatism is long with these two. They are the same damn thing we got with Bush. Maybe worse.

Why don't we try something else as our POTUS? We all keep talking how we want some real change back to real constitutional values but we keep putting up the same ole candidates year after year after year. We keep doing the same thing time after time and keep expecting different results and we all get our panties in a wad when we get the same ole results of years past.
We do need a change. Unfortunately, Paul isn't the change many of us are looking for. It's too bad because he does have some interesting ideas. I tried hard to find the direct quote from the December 16th Republican debate but that was removed. It's too bad because that transcript would have articulated Paul's position on Iran much better than his website. I don't know why the quotes were removed. Perhaps they are being corrected, etc.

Here is the transcript concerning the nukes.
During Thursdays Republican presidential debate, Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann came to blows over national security.

“With all due respect to Ron Paul, I think I have never heard a more dangerous answer for American security than the one that we just heard from Ron Paul,” Bachmann exclaimed. “I’ll tell you the reason why, the reason why I would say that is because we know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally Israel off the face of the map and they stated they will use it against the United States of America. Look no further than the Iranian constitution, which states unequivocally that their mission is to extend jihad across the world and eventually to set up for worldwide caliphate. we would be fools to ignore their purpose and their plan.”

“Obviously, I would like to see a lot less nuclear weapons,” Paul countered. I don’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I would like to reduce them because there would be less chance of war. But to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same, this is dangerous talk. Yeah, there are some radicals. But they don’t come here to kill us because we’re free and prosperous. Do they go to Switzerland and Sweden? That is absurd.”

“They come here and explicitly explain it to us,” Paul continued. “The CIA has explained it to us. It said they come here and they want to do us harm because we are bombing them! What is the whole world about the drone being in Iran? And we’re begging and pleading and how are we going to start a war to get the drone back? Why were we flying a drone over Iran? Why do we have to bomb so many countries? Why are we — why do we have 900 bases in 130 countries and we’re totally bankrupt. How do you rebuild a military when we have no money? How are we going to take care of the people? I think this wild goal to have another war in the name of defense is the dangerous thing. the danger is really us overreacting. we need a strong national defense. and we need to only go to war with a declaration of war and carelessly flubbing it and starting these wars so often.”

“The problem would be the greatest underreaction in world history if we have an avowed madman who uses that nuclear weapon to wipe nations off face of the earth,” Bachmann jabbed. “Then we have an IAEA report that recently came out that says literally Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that weapon. Nothing could be more dangerous than the comments we just heard.”

Paul called the Congresswoman’s remarks “totally wrong.”

“There has been no enrichment,” the plucky libertarian argued. “She took my time!”

“If we agree with that, the United States people could be at risk in our national security,” Bachmann replied sharply.

Last edited by bigbulls; 12-24-2011 at 09:44 AM.
bigbulls is offline  
Old 12-24-2011, 09:59 AM
  #25  
Boone & Crockett
Thread Starter
 
bigbulls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,679
Default

We do need a change. Unfortunately, Paul isn't the change many of us are looking for.
So, exactly what kind of change are you all looking for? No one candidate is going to be perfect but aside from Paul, Rick Santorum is the closest thing we have to a true conservative and constitutionalist.

Voting for People like Newt and Mitt aren't going to get it for you. We'll be here complaining about the same ole crap in three years if one of these two gets the presidency.
bigbulls is offline  
Old 12-24-2011, 10:43 AM
  #26  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,929
Smile

Originally Posted by bigbulls View Post
So, exactly what kind of change are you all looking for? No one candidate is going to be perfect but aside from Paul, Rick Santorum is the closest thing we have to a true conservative and constitutionalist.

Voting for People like Newt and Mitt aren't going to get it for you. We'll be here complaining about the same ole crap in three years if one of these two gets the presidency.
Along with my other dislikes of Ron Paul, I don't think he can get enough support to beat O'Bama. I think a number of people who would normally be willing to vote Republican might very well skip out on Paul.

My husband and I were fairly sure we would not have voted for Cain if he got the nomination. We are also fairly sure we will not vote for Paul if he, by some miracle, gets the nomination.


May The Sheep Be With You
sachiko is offline  
Old 12-24-2011, 03:26 PM
  #27  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 974
Default Thanks for thr response....

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
I'd like more information to figure out what he thinks isn't being done correctly and exactly how Paul thinks benefits like Fish and Wildlife, etc. can be replaced or not. He talks about just cutting an entire department (like Interior, Energy, Education, etc.) but doesn't say what he would replace or fill that void with. All of the departments have problems, inefficiencies, waste money and make mistakes. It would be nice to hear or read about how he proposes to fix those problems, other than just eliminate a department. That type of blanket response looks more like a knee-jerk reaction than a well thought out strategy. JMHO but that's what I think so far.
I"m still working on the DOI. My GOD the bizzaed. Not a thought out preposition in any way!
tight360 is offline  
Old 12-25-2011, 03:20 AM
  #28  
Dominant Buck
 
Champlain Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 20,814
Default

I was reading in today’s paper that Paul has maintained a full time PAC since the 2008 primary season which answers the question why he is so well funded, organized and has such popularity for this election. Apparently there is a fine line between the PAC and the non profits used for election campaigns. From what I can understand a PAC is exempt from any fund raising guidelines and reporting as opposed to an election fund raising campaign which is regulated. There is some talk that his PAC extends beyond what is normal and legal for an election campaign. Seeing that he has such good numbers in Iowa it is strange that he would possibly win the GOP caucus there since he is a Libertarian which is far away from the conservative roots espoused by the GOP.
Champlain Islander is offline  
Old 12-25-2011, 07:40 AM
  #29  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,998
Default

Originally Posted by sachiko View Post
Along with my other dislikes of Ron Paul, I don't think he can get enough support to beat O'Bama. I think a number of people who would normally be willing to vote Republican might very well skip out on Paul.

My husband and I were fairly sure we would not have voted for Cain if he got the nomination. We are also fairly sure we will not vote for Paul if he, by some miracle, gets the nomination.


May The Sheep Be With You
Just to clarify, are you and your hubby saying you wouldn't vote at all if Cain or Paul was the Republican running against Obama or vote for a 3rd party/write-in candidate?
CalHunter is online now  
Old 12-25-2011, 07:57 AM
  #30  
Boone & Crockett
Thread Starter
 
bigbulls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,679
Default

Funny how stuff like this is coming out when his popularity is soaring.
since he is a Libertarian which is far away from the conservative roots espoused by the GOP.
The modern GOP is far away from their conservative roots. The GOP's true roots are much closer to Paul's views then they are the current GOP. They once stood for true conservatism and stood by the constitution. No so much any more and haven't for a long time now. At least on a national level.
bigbulls is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.