Somebody please explain Ron Paul's logic to me

[rambone]

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

If Ron Paul turns out to be a puppet I will probably stop voting.

I can't believe that though.

 

[Destro]

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.

I don’t think giving other countries cash monies is a good idea, but there are other ways foreign aid can benefit us. Cooperating on intelligence comes to mind

 

[NYFelon]

I don't think Paul would follow along the same executive path as past Presidents. However, I am realistic enough to realize that even if her were nominated and subsequently elected, he would get very little of his agenda completed. He would face an entirely hostile Congress, in both houses. The Democrats will hate him because he will try and gut their precious welfare state. The Republicans will hate him because he won't sign bills packed with moral majorist nonsense or continue to play ball with defense contractors.

He'd be a lame duck from January 20th.

 

[Destro]

I don't think Paul would follow along the same executive path as past Presidents. However, I am realistic enough to realize that even if her were nominated and subsequently elected, he would get very little of his agenda completed. He would face an entirely hostile Congress, in both houses. The Democrats will hate him because he will try and gut their precious welfare state. The Republicans will hate him because he won't sign bills packed with moral majorist nonsense or continue to play ball with defense contractors.

He'd be a lame duck from January 20th.

this...

 

[Bitter Clinger]

To those who think I am only trying to stir up trouble: I agree with the Congressman on many of his positions, particularly on abortion and auditing the Federal Reserve. The statements I found simply by searching Ron Paul on the internet - they are not exact quotes, but representative of his views. Don't take my word for it, search them yourself.

 

[NYFelon]

I don’t think giving other countries cash monies is a good idea, but there are other ways foreign aid can benefit us. Cooperating on intelligence comes to mind

I see no issue with that particular topic either. However, if said cooperation only comes about because of an annual price tag, can the recipient nation really be considered an ally?

 

[AF Gunner]

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.

So lets not even have a debate and not worry who is elected. They are all puppets to the elite and the mega banks and the UN. Let's give up now and disband the union and give the UN the keys and our rights.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Re: Iranian nukes... If the US (the only nation to ever actually USE nuclear weapons) tells Iran or anyone else that they can't have nuclear weapons, what is that but "gun control" writ large? Dr. Paul is correct that it is not our place to control who is "allowed" to have one thing or another. We CAN, however, choose not to have dealings with one or another country at our own pleasure; by that I mean that our people should be able to choose individually with whom we do business. I might choose not to purchase something made in China, but to purchase extra things I don't actually need from, say, Israel... and if I want to buy a box of Cuban cigars, that should be my choice, not controlled and/or prevented by my government.

 

[Destro]

I see no issue with that particular topic either. However, if said cooperation only comes about because of an annual price tag, can the recipient nation really be considered an ally?

exactly...im sure the cousins don't "charge" us for their intel, and i would hope visa versa, and im sure that in the history books there are many successful stories of where, the USA being "penny wise" would have been "pound foolish"....enough stories to fill a phamplet

 

[gunowner930]

I agree with Paul and will vote for him, but US foreign policy will not do a 180 as soon as he takes office. Paul advocates neutrality, but I doubt he'd be able to pull us out of NATO, but I think the percieved possibility of the US pulling out of NATO will wake up some of the European countries to do something about their putrid "armed forces," because they have relied on the US Armed Forces and the American taxpayers for their defense since the conception of NATO.

For the Korea situation. This myth that the big bad North Koreans are ready to invade the South at a moments notice is a joke. In a conventional war South Korea would steamroll the North. The North Korean Air Force is still flying MiG-17s, and they don't have the money to maintain much of the aircraft that they do possess. They can barely feed their personnel in garrison, why would one have faith that they can feed their military beyond their own borders during a war? The south should fend for themselves. However, the situation does get a little hairier if the Chinese decide to help their delinquint little buddies.

The difference is, a President Paul will not intervene in wars unless there is no other option, such as if Russia invaded a NATO country like Poland. That is a big difference from Presidents of the past including our current Nobel Peace Prize winning Commander and Chief that has decided to act in Libya on the "authority" of the UN, not Congress. Furthermore, Paul is not going to be able to enact everything he wants to do, but he will be able to cut taxes, cut spending, stop unnecessarily intervening in foreign conflicts, and call off the anti-business attack dogs at the regulatory bereaucracies in Washington. I don't trust any of the other serious Republican candidates to do anything like that.

 

[Destro]

Re: Iranian nukes... If the US (the only nation to ever actually USE nuclear weapons) tells Iran or anyone else that they can't have nuclear weapons, what is that but "gun control" writ large? Dr. Paul is correct that it is not our place to control who is "allowed" to have one thing or another. We CAN, however, choose not to have dealings with one or another country at our own pleasure; by that I mean that our people should be able to choose individually with whom we do business. I might choose not to purchase something made in China, but to purchase extra things I don't actually need from, say, Israel... and if I want to buy a box of Cuban cigars, that should be my choice, not controlled and/or prevented by my government.

Iran not in violation of NPT--so talk without preconditions

I am concerned about the pre-conditions set by the administration before it will agree to begin talks with Iran. The pre-condition is that the Iranians abandon their uranium enrichment program. But this is exactly what the negotiations are meant to discuss.

By demanding that Iran give up its uranium enrichment program, the US is unilaterally changing the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. UN inspectors have been in Iran for years, and International Atomic Energy Agency Director El Baradei has repeatedly reported that he can find no indication of diversion of nuclear materials to a military purpose.
As a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the “inalienable right” to the “development, research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” Yet the US is demanding that Iran give up that right en though, after years of monitoring, Iran has never been found to have diverted nuclear material from peaceful to military use. Source: House speech, in Foreign Policy of Freedom, p.359-360 Jun 20, 2006

 

[Bitter Clinger]

Whoa - hold it. The president of Iran has said he would wipe Israel off the map. So we should sit back and allow him to build the weapon to do that?

The gun control analogy is absurd. If I walked into a gun store and said I wanted to blow my neighbor's head off, do you think they would sell me a gun?

I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation of Dr. Paul's statements.

 

[jeremy]

so...your saying we are still at war with NK

No we are not at War with NK. There was a an Armistice Agreement reached in July 1953 that effectively ended Hostilities.

 

[mrjarrell]

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

No, "we" are not. The UN and South Korea are still at war with the DPRK. The US never declared war on them. It was a UN police action.

 

[jeremy]

Whoa - hold it. The president of Iran has said he would wipe Israel off the map. So we should sit back and allow him to build the weapon to do that?

Since when did Israel become the 51 State of the Union...

The gun control analogy is absurd. If I walked into a gun store and said I wanted to blow my neighbor's head off, do you think they would sell me a gun?

Personally I see no reason you should not be sold a Firearm. Unless you do not have the Cash that is...

I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation of Dr. Paul's statements.

And we are still waiting for you to quit pulling a Rambone with the OP...

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

"thoughtful reasoning" and "Libertarianism" do not mix together.

Really? Please explain.

Most libertarians that I know are extremely rational and can explain their positions as well as the rationale for them far better than most. And particularly better than those who merely fling vague insults at an idea rather than offer a thoughtful argument in opposition to it.

Many Objectivists (a philosophy which holds reason to be man's highest virtue) identify as libertarians. Most libertarians, including those who do not identify as objectivists, would agree with that tenet of objectivism.

I would love to hear more from you on this topic.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

Whoa - hold it. The president of Iran has said he would wipe Israel off the map. So we should sit back and allow him to build the weapon to do that?

The gun control analogy is absurd. If I walked into a gun store and said I wanted to blow my neighbor's head off, do you think they would sell me a gun?

I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation of Dr. Paul's statements.

Could you have some quotes already. All your doing is throwing out grossly miss representative MSM statements. That would be like saying "I can see Russia from my house"

Besides the absolute most important issue is the federal researve. Without cutting of its head were doomed. Paul is the only one that will touch the FED.

Iran got crippled by the US/Isreal stuxnet virus anyways they won't have a weapon in 4 years. If they got close Isreal would just bomb there plant. Give paul 4 years, then if he has not been assasinated by the bankers you will give him 8.

Favorite troll line.....I agree with most of.........but....bash, bash, bash.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

Ron Paul: Current Policy Encourages Iran Nukes

 

[firehawk1]

I don't think Paul would follow along the same executive path as past Presidents. However, I am realistic enough to realize that even if her were nominated and subsequently elected, he would get very little of his agenda completed. He would face an entirely hostile Congress, in both houses. The Democrats will hate him because he will try and gut their precious welfare state. The Republicans will hate him because he won't sign bills packed with moral majorist nonsense or continue to play ball with defense contractors.

He'd be a lame duck from January 20th.

Easy there... You're stating what I've said a couple of times, and some don't want to hear stuff based in reality.

 

[pudly]

Bitter Clinger: Whoa - hold it. The president of Iran has said he would wipe Israel off the map. So we should sit back and allow him to build the weapon to do that?
WWIIIDefender: Could you have some quotes already. All your doing is throwing out grossly miss representative MSM statements.

Although the OP doesn't seem to want to throw out any sources, this has been documented over and over. Ahmadinejad is hardly a benign leader.

Ahmadinejad: Destroy Israel, End Crisis (2006)
Ahmadinejad: Dozens of threats against Israel
Iran determined to destroy Israel (this week)
and many more as any trivial search will find

Besides the absolute most important issue is the federal researve.

The Fed is certainly a big problem, but there are many "most important issues".

• Getting govt spending under control
• Getting businesses going again
• Getting people employed and off various govt support programs
• Slashing the regulatory state
• Straightening out the current foreign relations disasters.

I'd love to see whoever becomes president make Paul the chairman of the Fed..

Iran got crippled by the US/Isreal stuxnet virus anyways they won't have a weapon in 4 years.

Please cite your source for this intelligence. I don't believe they've been set back nearly that far in their nuclear program.