Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Ron Paul in 2012


CitizenX

Recommended Posts

Who?

i thought you followed politics beyond the foxnews headlines. if you did, you'd know tom davis to have been one of the most sought after politicians in south carolina by the gop candidates. davis is quite popular with the tea party. santorum also acknowledges davis' importance and that's why he called his endorsement a 'big deal'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 661
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i thought you followed politics beyond the foxnews headlines. if you did, you'd know tom davis to have been one of the most sought after politicians in south carolina by the gop candidates. davis is quite popular with the tea party. santorum also acknowledges davis' importance and that's why he called his endorsement a 'big deal'.

Who did he endorse in 2008?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do the Ron Paul supporters agree with him that the federal income tax rate should be zero percent? Just wondering.

Not all his supporters agree with everything he says, however, I would say that Paul supporters agree with more of his items, than let's say Romney supporters agreeing on Romney's items.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what about the rest of his domestic agenda? Cutting a trillion dollars in the first year. Eliminating 5 departments, etc?

The things I like most about Ron Paul is him wanting to end the war on terrorism, end the war on drugs, end the patriot act and ending the Federal Reserve. I also prefer Austrian economics over Keynesian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The things I like most about Ron Paul is him wanting to end the war on terrorism, end the war on drugs, end the patriot act and ending the Federal Reserve. I also prefer Austrian economics over Keynesian.

I see, so privatizing employment insurance, cutting a trillion dollars from the budget in the first year, eliminating 5 federal agencies, all take a back seat? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what about the rest of his domestic agenda? Cutting a trillion dollars in the first year. Eliminating 5 departments, etc?

You never wasted an opportunity to get the jabs in for Obama's over spending, and yet you complain when someone wants to drastically cut the budget of the government? Ok.

If the departments are ineffective money pits, then yes .. axe them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You never wasted an opportunity to get the jabs in for Obama's over spending, and yet you complain when someone wants to drastically cut the budget of the government? Ok.

If the departments are ineffective money pits, then yes .. axe them.

No, I actually applaud Ron Paul for much of his domestic policy agenda. It just seems to me, at least in this forum, that the Paul supporters completely overlook his domestic agenda, and simply support him mostly on foreign policy. When his domestic policy is a lot more significant, and would effect people's day to day lives to a much greater extent.

But he loses me when he compares Osama Bin Laden to a Chinese dissident. It's just really hard to take somebody seriously that has the kind of view.

Edited by Shady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I actually applaud Ron Paul for much of his domestic policy agenda. It just seems to me, at least in this forum, that the Paul supporters completely overlook his domestic agenda, and simply support him mostly on foreign policy. When his domestic policy is a lot more significant, and would effect people's day to day lives to a much greater extent.

But he loses me when he compares Osama Bin Laden to a Chinese dissident. It's just really hard to take somebody seriously that has the kind of view.

I love his domestic policies. Ending the Fed, the drug war, the war on terrorism, balancing the budget, cutting several departments, I see nothing wrong with that. I would like to see our Federal governmnent shrink as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the reasons why I just couldn't ever really support Ron Paul for President of the United States.

One of the reasons he says he wouldn't have ordered the operation that ended up killing Osama Bin Laden, is because Bin Laden was unarmed. I mean, how do you take seriously somebody so juvenile? I just don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the reasons why I just couldn't ever really support Ron Paul for President of the United States.

One of the reasons he says he wouldn't have ordered the operation that ended up killing Osama Bin Laden, is because Bin Laden was unarmed. I mean, how do you take seriously somebody so juvenile? I just don't get it.

Paul would have talked to Pakistani officials first. The act of going into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden could have been considered an act of war from Pakistan's perspective. Not saying it would happen, but that is a scenario the others may not have considered. Paul seems to be a guy that thinks before he speaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul would have talked to Pakistani officials first.

How do you know that? He never says anything like that. But let's assume you're right. So he'd have talked to Pakistani officials even though there was substantial evidence suggesting some Pakistani officals knew of Bin Laden's presence and kept quiet about it?

The act of going into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden could have been considered an act of war from Pakistan's perspective.

Yet Ron Paul voted for the authority to attack Afghanistan, and insisted killing Osama Bin Laden at Tora Bora was completely legitimate. Even though there was no offical declaration of war from congress. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know that? He never says anything like that. But let's assume you're right. So he'd have talked to Pakistani officials even though there was substantial evidence suggesting some Pakistani officals knew of Bin Laden's presence and kept quiet about it?

That is always going to be a risk no matter what country you are dealing with.

[quoteYet Ron Paul voted for the authority to attack Afghanistan, and insisted killing Osama Bin Laden at Tora Bora was completely legitimate. Even though there was no offical declaration of war from congress. :blink:

Well, Tora Bora is in Afghanistan, where the US/NATO/WEST brought the fight to Al-Queda and the Taliban. So operationally it would have made sense to kill him there. But somehow the attack did not go as planned, and Bin Laden escaped.

Oh .. and PERRY IS DONE !!!!! Separating the children from the men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know that? He never says anything like that. But let's assume you're right. So he'd have talked to Pakistani officials even though there was substantial evidence suggesting some Pakistani officals knew of Bin Laden's presence and kept quiet about it?

He addressed all of your points in the South Carolina Debate. If you watched it you would have known but you have no interest in learning anything about the Republican Candidates or what they believe you just hate Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He addressed all of your points in the South Carolina Debate. If you watched it you would have known but you have no interest in learning anything about the Republican Candidates or what they believe you just hate Obama.

No worries, he will ignore this as well and two pages down he will come back post again, and we can point this stuff, something about someone being obtuse or we will hear about complete and utter nonsense with nothing to back it up ect.

So, Perry done, endorsing Gingrich. The 'top tier' is quitting leaving only one choice in the end. So maybe we should place some bets on who is next to drop out of the race. Top Tier candidates don't quit. And those who have quit, were never top tier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He addressed all of your points in the South Carolina Debate.

Actually he didn't. His answer during the last debate was completely incoherent. No worries though. I'm pretty sure the Paulbots ignore most of what he says anyways, and just focus in on their particular pet issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually he didn't. His answer during the last debate was completely incoherent. No worries though. I'm pretty sure the Paulbots ignore most of what he says anyways, and just focus in on their particular pet issue.

It really wasn't. It made sense I didn't agree with it but it made perfect sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really wasn't. It made sense I didn't agree with it but it made perfect sense.

It was the exact opposite of perfect sense. Are you sure you really listened to it? :rolleyes:

He says he didn't agree with the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden because it "violated Pakistan's sovereignty." (Also because Bin Laden was unarmed, but that's too stupid to even bother with), well stick to Pakistan's sovereignty. However, within the same answer, Ron Paul wonders why the operation wasn't handled the same way the capture of Saddam Hussein was. Except that the capture of Saddam Hussein was a result of a full-scale military operation that completely disregarded any sort of Iraqi sovereignty. :blink:

Completely nonsensical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the exact opposite of perfect sense. Are you sure you really listened to it? :rolleyes:

He says he didn't agree with the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden because it "violated Pakistan's sovereignty."

Which would be the FIRST thing the USA would bitch about if another country did an attack in the USA to get a top terrorist.

(Also because Bin Laden was unarmed, but that's too stupid to even bother with), well stick to Pakistan's sovereignty. However, within the same answer, Ron Paul wonders why the operation wasn't handled the same way the capture of Saddam Hussein was. Except that the capture of Saddam Hussein was a result of a full-scale military operation that completely disregarded any sort of Iraqi sovereignty. :blink:

Completely nonsensical.

I think he is refering to why let Saddam live to stand trial in Iraq, but not allow Bin Laden to have his day in court.

WQell they had their chance like you said in Tora Bora. But failed.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/05/10-years-of-war-the-battle-of-tora-bora-missed-opportunity/

Gen. Tommy Franks, then the commander of U.S. and allied troops in Afghanistan, disputed Berntsen's claim. In a 2004 opinion article in the the New York Times, he wrote, "We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001."

But this may be the reason he was not captured.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1072109/We-bin-Laden-Tora-Bora---I-aborted-mission-says-elite-Delta-Force-Commander.html

Not to sure I like 'anon' sources. But if this has weight, then it's part of the reason Bin Laden escaped that day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...