Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 110
  1. #31
    Master NYFelon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    DPRNY
    Posts
    3,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Que View Post
    Yeah, I get some of that, but at least give the guy a chance to provide the requested information. We run people off by labeling then trolls and giving them negative rep before they have the opportunity to learn the "culture" of the site. JMHO, but if anyone can provide some verification of the statements, I would be glad to read them. I'm slowly becoming more interested in Paul and would like to read a bit more in depth about his political ideologies.
    Destro provided the documentation of the positions EBG proffered. If my calling him a troll is disruptive, I'll gladly edit the post. It just seems that the OP wasn't really looking for debate, he's building a farcical argument which can't effectively be countered because it's based purely on opinion and is unsupported as a position.

    Also, I never give neg rep. I either plus rep posts I like or agree with, or just ignore it. Everyone has a right to an opinion/position, just as I have a right to disagree.

  2. #32
    Do I make you uncomfortable? Stschil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    At the edge of sanit
    Posts
    5,808
    Dr Paul on Iranian issue:

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDvaTqLlZlA&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]


    Ron Paul: We May Have to Accept Iran Nukes

    Do any of the other candidates really believe we should now start a war with Iran to prevent her from developing nuclear weapons? As John Derbyshire pointed out in his piece in the National Review, “Which Republican candidate advocates such a course of action? If the answer is ‘none’ [which of course it is], then what, in effect, is the difference between Dr. Paul’s Iran politics and that of Romney, Bachmann, Perry, and the rest?” Other than the phony rhetoric and demagoguery? Not a hill of beans.

    On his Non-intervention stance:

    Nonintervention: The Original Foreign Policy by Ron Paul

    Instead of listening to the talking heads from the Lame Stream Media,
    Listen to Dr Paul himself. You may just find that (shocker) what is being reported isnt what the man said.
    Tolerance is rarely practiced by those who demand it.
    NRA Certified Intstructor for Basic Pistol and Personal Protection In The Home
    https://www.facebook.com/realgrassroots

  3. #33
    Expert edsinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    NE Indiana
    Posts
    2,399
    Quote Originally Posted by rambone View Post
    We need to cut Israel's umbilical cord and let them fund their own wars.

    I disagree with this 100%. I would suggest a little research..

    What is funny is that the Paulites don't realize that even IF he were elected he would do as he was told, just as the others do.

  4. #34
    Master Destro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    The Khyber Pass
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by NYFelon View Post
    @ Destro

    Are they? Ron Paul has said he would end foreign aid. Israel is included in that equation. Why should they be any different? More importantly, why should Israel be singled out as solely being deserving of American money? Why the specific calling out the end of foreign aid to Israel alone as a reason to declare someone "illogical" or other derogatory term? In your own post, Dr Paul said "he would respond if Congress declred war", in accordance with the Constitution, if DPRK attacked ROK, not that he would "ignore it" as the OP implied. That's trolling.

    Ron Paul never said "Iran should have a nuclear weapon". He said it's not our place to say whether or not IRR "can" have a nuclear weapon. So that, with respect to the OP, is out and out lying. If not an intentional lie, it is either an intentional misrepresentation of a political position to foster animosity, or an unmitigated display of ignorance.

    How is that NOT trolling?
    he has made it a point for the US to take a neutral view on Israel and Palestine

    Neutrality on Israel-Palestine; start by defunding both

    It is sort of a contest: should we be pro-Israel or pro-Arab, or anti-Israel or Anti-Arab, and how are we perceived doing this? It is pretty important.

    But I think there is a third option that we often forget. Why can we not be pro-American? What is in the best interests of the US?
    I believe that it is in the best interests of the United States not to get into a fight, a fight that we do not have the wisdom to figure out. I would like to have neutrality. That has been the tradition for America, at least a century ago, to be friends with everybody, trade with everybody, and be neutral unless someone declares war against us.
    The perceptions are yes, we have solidarity with Israel. What is the opposite of solidarity? It is hostility. So if we have solidarity with Israel, then we have hostility to the Palestinians.
    I have a proposal. We should start by defunding both sides. I think we can contribute by being more neutral. Source: House speech, in Foreign Policy of Freedom, p.177-178 Dec 15, 2001
    Founder - Military Armaments Research System,

  5. #35
    Grandmaster mrjarrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hamilton County
    Posts
    15,705
    So-called "conservatives" maunder on about cutting foreign aid, but they don't really mean it. At least Paul means it. What "conservatives" really mean is "cut foreign aid to people I don't like, but keep the spigots flowing to my favourite aid cases. That's why "conservatives" should never be taken seriously. They're not serious.

  6. #36
    Master Destro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    The Khyber Pass
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by NYFelon View Post
    Destro provided the documentation of the positions EBG proffered. If my calling him a troll is disruptive, I'll gladly edit the post. It just seems that the OP wasn't really looking for debate, he's building a farcical argument which can't effectively be countered because it's based purely on opinion and is unsupported as a position.

    Also, I never give neg rep. I either plus rep posts I like or agree with, or just ignore it. Everyone has a right to an opinion/position, just as I have a right to disagree.

    I don't think there is a reason to edit your post, I think the OP assumed those points of view were well known.

    Also lets not forget, we are still at war with DPRK
    Founder - Military Armaments Research System,

  7. #37
    Master Destro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    The Khyber Pass
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjarrell View Post
    So-called "conservatives" maunder on about cutting foreign aid, but they don't really mean it. At least Paul means it. What "conservatives" really mean is "cut foreign aid to people I don't like, but keep the spigots flowing to my favourite aid cases. That's why "conservatives" should never be taken seriously. They're not serious.
    when you say foreign aid, are you talking money only? Aid can come in many forms
    Founder - Military Armaments Research System,

  8. #38
    Master NYFelon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    DPRNY
    Posts
    3,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Destro View Post
    he has made it a point for the US to take a neutral view on Israel and Palestine

    Neutrality on Israel-Palestine; start by defunding both

    It is sort of a contest: should we be pro-Israel or pro-Arab, or anti-Israel or Anti-Arab, and how are we perceived doing this? It is pretty important.

    But I think there is a third option that we often forget. Why can we not be pro-American? What is in the best interests of the US?
    I believe that it is in the best interests of the United States not to get into a fight, a fight that we do not have the wisdom to figure out. I would like to have neutrality. That has been the tradition for America, at least a century ago, to be friends with everybody, trade with everybody, and be neutral unless someone declares war against us.
    The perceptions are yes, we have solidarity with Israel. What is the opposite of solidarity? It is hostility. So if we have solidarity with Israel, then we have hostility to the Palestinians.
    I have a proposal. We should start by defunding both sides. I think we can contribute by being more neutral. Source: House speech, in Foreign Policy of Freedom, p.177-178 Dec 15, 2001
    Personally,I'm inclined to agree with him on that topic. Personally, I don't give a rat's posterior about either the Israeli's or the "other Arabs that the rest of the Arab world wants nothing to do with."

    That however doesn't really address my question of why the position of ending all foriegn aid only becomes a flashpoint when Israel is named. Why should it be okay to end foreign aid to Bolivia, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, Tibet, Lithuania, and Azerbaijan, but if you say "let's stop spending $3B per annum on Israel" people s**t the bed and start calling other people lunatics? That's the question I'm asking. I'm aware Dr Paul has said he would end fical and military aid to Israel, I'm asking why it's a bigger deal then say, ending foreign aid to Nigeria?

    Edit: Also, the Iran thing is total and complete hogwash.

  9. #39
    Grandmaster jeremy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Fiddler's Green
    Posts
    16,374
    Quote Originally Posted by Destro View Post
    Also lets not forget, we are still at war with DPRK
    Really...

    Huh...

    I thought the UN was at War with NK, and Truman put us there under UNSCR 84, 1950...
    Maybe I just have my History wrong...

  10. #40
    Master Destro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    The Khyber Pass
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy View Post
    Really...

    Huh...

    I thought the UN was at War with NK, and Truman put us there under UNSCR 84, 1950...
    Maybe I just have my History wrong...

    so...your saying we are still at war with NK
    Founder - Military Armaments Research System,

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •