People not understanding RP's foreign/ military policy.
- Thread starter nicname
- Start date
ProudPaulbot
Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2012
- Messages
- 2
My die-hard neoconservative Father is just the same.
We are constantly getting into semi-hostile debates.
He calls me a Paulbot, I call him a neocon...
I'm beginning to think he really is incapable of being the slightest bit open-minded long enough to hear my explanation for a non-intervention foreign policy I tried to explain the importance of the 1953 Iran coup and he said "Oh, that doesn't matter, that was 50 years ago." Then when I e-mailed him "You like Ron Paul, except on his foreign policy," he never watched it. Asked why I would ever send him a video about "Whackjob Ron."
All he ever spews at me is that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, Iran has nukes or is right on the verge of having nukes and Israel depends on us to protect them. (Showed him Netanyahu's speech before Congress. Said that the Prime Minister meant that they didn't NEED our help, but they would like it & could use it.)
He stands by the idea that if Ron Paul was elected, Israel would be taken over by Islamic, extremist, jihadists.
This is the same man who told me "don't hate on Bush," "Michelle Bachmann is a true constitutionalist," and my favorite, "we need Sarah Palin in office right now."
Last week we were talking and he said that "If America is strong and rich, everyone else will follow. I said back to him, "You realize that is what Ron Paul wants to do? Make us stronger by bringing home the troops and make us richer by cutting a trillion bucks the first year and balance the budget in three?"
He laughed and said "I'm just not voting for Ron Paul. I would maybe vote for RAND PAUL, but not RON PAUL."
ಠ_ಠ
We are constantly getting into semi-hostile debates.
He calls me a Paulbot, I call him a neocon...
I'm beginning to think he really is incapable of being the slightest bit open-minded long enough to hear my explanation for a non-intervention foreign policy I tried to explain the importance of the 1953 Iran coup and he said "Oh, that doesn't matter, that was 50 years ago." Then when I e-mailed him "You like Ron Paul, except on his foreign policy," he never watched it. Asked why I would ever send him a video about "Whackjob Ron."
All he ever spews at me is that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, Iran has nukes or is right on the verge of having nukes and Israel depends on us to protect them. (Showed him Netanyahu's speech before Congress. Said that the Prime Minister meant that they didn't NEED our help, but they would like it & could use it.)
He stands by the idea that if Ron Paul was elected, Israel would be taken over by Islamic, extremist, jihadists.
This is the same man who told me "don't hate on Bush," "Michelle Bachmann is a true constitutionalist," and my favorite, "we need Sarah Palin in office right now."
Last week we were talking and he said that "If America is strong and rich, everyone else will follow. I said back to him, "You realize that is what Ron Paul wants to do? Make us stronger by bringing home the troops and make us richer by cutting a trillion bucks the first year and balance the budget in three?"
He laughed and said "I'm just not voting for Ron Paul. I would maybe vote for RAND PAUL, but not RON PAUL."
ಠ_ಠ
Last edited:
Here is an actual argument with the same guy. It starts with a facebook status update.
ME: (status update) Apparently the "golden rule" doesnt apply to us foreign policy.
Him:Ru Paul is a kook, dude! He's a lib in sheep's clothing... I like his view on the Fed and that's about it. HE CAN"T WIN!!!
ABO brotha!
ME: Tom, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from calling candidates names. I would be happy to converse with you on all of Ron Paul's positions and demonstrate to you exactly how Ron Paul is the only true conservative in the race.
HIM: Question for you Paul supporters: If someone other than Paul wins the GOP nomination will you vote for them or Obama? Exactly! I bet most of you will vote for Obama, point proven!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/turnstyle/why-young-liberals-like-m_b_1181427.html
Why Young Liberals, Like Me, Will Vote Ron Paul
www.huffingtonpost.com
By: Jacquelyn Cuddeback Photo Credit: Charlie Foster Grassroots organizing office for Ron Paul in Coralville, Iowa.
HIM: Oh, and the third party idea is essentially a vote for Obama since it ensures he gets reelected...
ME: None of that has anything to do with Paul's positions.
HIM: “He reportedly thinks the U.S. should not have gone to war against Nazi Germany. Imagine for a moment that Mr. Paul, not Franklin Roosevelt, served as U.S. president and commander-in-chief in the Second World War. Imagine that the U.S. went to war against only Japan, that Germany won the war in Europe – and that Hitler was able to keep the death camps running through the Age of Aquarius.
Mr. Paul justifies his isolationism on strictly fiscal grounds. Wars cost money. End the wars, end the taxes required to wage them. For some Americans, this seems a reasonable proposition. But this is almost certainly an evasion. Mr. Paul’s isolationism extends beyond fiscal restraint – and reaches implicitly to global surrender.
In his 2011 book Liberty Defined, for example, Mr. Paul cites Israel as a racist state that threatens American freedom. In a Boxing Day blog, former senior aide Eric Dondero – just fired for insubordination after 12 years of service – elaborated: Mr. Paul “most certainly is anti-Israel, and anti-Israeli in general. … His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolition of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.”
The Weekly Standard, a conservative journal, quoted Mr. Dondero further: Mr. Paul “does not believe that the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler. He expressed to me countless times, that ‘saving the Jews’ was absolutely none of our business.” A few days later, Weekly Standard reporter John McCormack asked Mr. Paul four times to respond: Was Mr. Dondero telling the truth? Four times, Mr. McCormack said, he “remained silent.” Mr. Paul’s campaign staff subsequently clarified Mr. Paul’s silence: If Congress had declared war on Germany, Mr. Paul, as commander-in-chief, would have felt constitutionally obliged to wage it. (Germany, in fact, declared war on the U.S. before the U.S. declared war on Germany.)
This apparent reluctance to wage war on Nazi Germany goes beyond Mr. Paul. In his 2008 book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, controversial author Pat Buchanan (who himself once ran for the Republican presidential nomination) documents this dark, enduring niche in American conservatism. Mr. Buchanan blames Churchill, not Hitler, for the Second World War.
In fact, though, Mr. Paul gets even his economic argument wrong. The essential obligation of any state is defence – which doesn’t come free. Mr. Paul would take the U.S. out of NATO; would close American bases around the world; would end American foreign aid. But the U.S. cost of self-defence would inevitably rise, not fall, with each of these retreats into Fortress America. Would the U.S. Navy have use only of American ports? How long would international waterways remain open to unrestricted global commerce? What’s the ultimate financial cost of long-term appeasement?
U.S. defence spending is already at a record low, or very close to it, relative to GDP. U.S. military spending has increased 90 per cent since 9/11, yet remains far below its historical share of GDP. The U.S. spent 40 per cent of its GDP, for three years, to win the Second World War. The U.S. fought the Cold War for 30 years at a GDP cost of 10 per cent a year. By 2000, though, U.S. defence spending was costing only 3.6 per cent of GDP: 3.6 cents per dollar of the national economy.”
By: NEIL REYNOLDS, From Monday's Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Jan. 16
HIM: His ideas are unrealistic in today's "global" world and utterly discount the global trade importance our military carries throughout the world, not to mention his anti-Israel racist writings. He seems to think if we just disengage militarily global trade will flow along as usual. He's delusional, and dismissive of the multiple dangerous realities which exist to world trade which we keep at bey, and is therefor a dangerous "KOOK"!
ME: Once again, I'll ask you to refrain from namecalling. Paul has said numerous times that if a real threat to the US occurred he has no doubt that congress would declare war (which he would agree with. and he would act in a way to end that war swiftly and in victory. Even when he wouldn't personally agree with a decision to go to war he would act as obligated by the rule of law to proceed if congress decided war was needed.
ME: here is Dr. Paul in his own words on the situation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKse3W0Yt_k
ME: Concerning Israel was the only member of congress to stand up for Israel years ago when they acted in war by bombing a country (i think iran) as it is their sovereign right to do so. He does not support aiding both Israel and their enemies at the same time while the countries fight argue in the middle east.
ME: He thinks Israel is a sovereign nation and can take care of it self. I agree. So does Netinyahu. Here is netinyahu himself --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mad9Q4TPaDk
ME: In comments to the "fortress America" comment and with regards to certain trade agreements. We don't need these agreements if the US as a sovereign nation openly and honestly allows free trade with all nations. If France and Turkey want to stop trade with China then so be it. That is there problem, we are still open to trade with all three.
ME: like I said earlier. I would be happy to converse over any one of Ron Paul's issues with you to figure out where you are coming from, and shed some light on the positions of a candidate whom I believe is the only one out there who really, really stands for the values that our country was founded on. Here is a link to the official campaign page with all issue positions readily available. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/ It's always a good time to get another to join the fight for real American liberty.
HIM: ABO
I finally figured out that ABO means anyone but obama, except apparently Ron Paul
ME: (status update) Apparently the "golden rule" doesnt apply to us foreign policy.
Him:Ru Paul is a kook, dude! He's a lib in sheep's clothing... I like his view on the Fed and that's about it. HE CAN"T WIN!!!
ABO brotha!
ME: Tom, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from calling candidates names. I would be happy to converse with you on all of Ron Paul's positions and demonstrate to you exactly how Ron Paul is the only true conservative in the race.
HIM: Question for you Paul supporters: If someone other than Paul wins the GOP nomination will you vote for them or Obama? Exactly! I bet most of you will vote for Obama, point proven!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/turnstyle/why-young-liberals-like-m_b_1181427.html
Why Young Liberals, Like Me, Will Vote Ron Paul
www.huffingtonpost.com
By: Jacquelyn Cuddeback Photo Credit: Charlie Foster Grassroots organizing office for Ron Paul in Coralville, Iowa.
HIM: Oh, and the third party idea is essentially a vote for Obama since it ensures he gets reelected...
ME: None of that has anything to do with Paul's positions.
HIM: “He reportedly thinks the U.S. should not have gone to war against Nazi Germany. Imagine for a moment that Mr. Paul, not Franklin Roosevelt, served as U.S. president and commander-in-chief in the Second World War. Imagine that the U.S. went to war against only Japan, that Germany won the war in Europe – and that Hitler was able to keep the death camps running through the Age of Aquarius.
Mr. Paul justifies his isolationism on strictly fiscal grounds. Wars cost money. End the wars, end the taxes required to wage them. For some Americans, this seems a reasonable proposition. But this is almost certainly an evasion. Mr. Paul’s isolationism extends beyond fiscal restraint – and reaches implicitly to global surrender.
In his 2011 book Liberty Defined, for example, Mr. Paul cites Israel as a racist state that threatens American freedom. In a Boxing Day blog, former senior aide Eric Dondero – just fired for insubordination after 12 years of service – elaborated: Mr. Paul “most certainly is anti-Israel, and anti-Israeli in general. … His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolition of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.”
The Weekly Standard, a conservative journal, quoted Mr. Dondero further: Mr. Paul “does not believe that the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler. He expressed to me countless times, that ‘saving the Jews’ was absolutely none of our business.” A few days later, Weekly Standard reporter John McCormack asked Mr. Paul four times to respond: Was Mr. Dondero telling the truth? Four times, Mr. McCormack said, he “remained silent.” Mr. Paul’s campaign staff subsequently clarified Mr. Paul’s silence: If Congress had declared war on Germany, Mr. Paul, as commander-in-chief, would have felt constitutionally obliged to wage it. (Germany, in fact, declared war on the U.S. before the U.S. declared war on Germany.)
This apparent reluctance to wage war on Nazi Germany goes beyond Mr. Paul. In his 2008 book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, controversial author Pat Buchanan (who himself once ran for the Republican presidential nomination) documents this dark, enduring niche in American conservatism. Mr. Buchanan blames Churchill, not Hitler, for the Second World War.
In fact, though, Mr. Paul gets even his economic argument wrong. The essential obligation of any state is defence – which doesn’t come free. Mr. Paul would take the U.S. out of NATO; would close American bases around the world; would end American foreign aid. But the U.S. cost of self-defence would inevitably rise, not fall, with each of these retreats into Fortress America. Would the U.S. Navy have use only of American ports? How long would international waterways remain open to unrestricted global commerce? What’s the ultimate financial cost of long-term appeasement?
U.S. defence spending is already at a record low, or very close to it, relative to GDP. U.S. military spending has increased 90 per cent since 9/11, yet remains far below its historical share of GDP. The U.S. spent 40 per cent of its GDP, for three years, to win the Second World War. The U.S. fought the Cold War for 30 years at a GDP cost of 10 per cent a year. By 2000, though, U.S. defence spending was costing only 3.6 per cent of GDP: 3.6 cents per dollar of the national economy.”
By: NEIL REYNOLDS, From Monday's Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Jan. 16
HIM: His ideas are unrealistic in today's "global" world and utterly discount the global trade importance our military carries throughout the world, not to mention his anti-Israel racist writings. He seems to think if we just disengage militarily global trade will flow along as usual. He's delusional, and dismissive of the multiple dangerous realities which exist to world trade which we keep at bey, and is therefor a dangerous "KOOK"!
ME: Once again, I'll ask you to refrain from namecalling. Paul has said numerous times that if a real threat to the US occurred he has no doubt that congress would declare war (which he would agree with. and he would act in a way to end that war swiftly and in victory. Even when he wouldn't personally agree with a decision to go to war he would act as obligated by the rule of law to proceed if congress decided war was needed.
ME: here is Dr. Paul in his own words on the situation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKse3W0Yt_k
ME: Concerning Israel was the only member of congress to stand up for Israel years ago when they acted in war by bombing a country (i think iran) as it is their sovereign right to do so. He does not support aiding both Israel and their enemies at the same time while the countries fight argue in the middle east.
ME: He thinks Israel is a sovereign nation and can take care of it self. I agree. So does Netinyahu. Here is netinyahu himself --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mad9Q4TPaDk
ME: In comments to the "fortress America" comment and with regards to certain trade agreements. We don't need these agreements if the US as a sovereign nation openly and honestly allows free trade with all nations. If France and Turkey want to stop trade with China then so be it. That is there problem, we are still open to trade with all three.
ME: like I said earlier. I would be happy to converse over any one of Ron Paul's issues with you to figure out where you are coming from, and shed some light on the positions of a candidate whom I believe is the only one out there who really, really stands for the values that our country was founded on. Here is a link to the official campaign page with all issue positions readily available. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/ It's always a good time to get another to join the fight for real American liberty.
HIM: ABO
I finally figured out that ABO means anyone but obama, except apparently Ron Paul
When they start talking about voting for the GOP candidate I have found good success with the following which was posted by someone on this blog before (don't remember who)
Here is the quote from Ayn Rand about voting for the lesser of two evils:
Ayn Rand who lived through Stalin,
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .
When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil."
about a minute ago · L
Here is the quote from Ayn Rand about voting for the lesser of two evils:
Ayn Rand who lived through Stalin,
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .
When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil."
about a minute ago · L
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
"Going after" someone is not the same as assassinating them. If it were, the cops would have killed a whooooooole lot more people by now.
Paul implies he supported killing bin Laden after 9-11, even supported the bill. So let's not play semantics, thanks.
Republicanguy
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,464
Mr Paul would actually be behaving like the founders had intended to, such as no expansion unlike successive governments over the next century from when America was founded. If the constitution had been followed a lot of territories wouldn't of been taken over. The only right way in that era would of been to purchase the lands from the Natives. So when talking about the founders it can be mis-leading. In truth America should of stayed thirteen or fifteen states and traded with the Native nations. The constitution says that. What did that part actually mean?
Lishy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,499
Ron Paul is a baddass. I don't know why people believe he's soft? He's BEEN in war for crying out loud! And he bluntly stated that IF there's a threat, we would bomb them without cleaning up the mess! How much harder do you want him to be? If a President Paul attacks any other country, they are DONE! FINISHED! We wouldn't even help rebuild it! They would be obliterated off the face of the earth!
Similar threads
