Ron Paul for president

[Hazcat]

Until we have a constitutional amendment that states that no person can be elected president unless they receive more than fifty percent of the votes cast (popular or electoral--either one), the best that you can do is to vote against the worst alternative. Please write/call your congress critters on this topic!!!

I'll go with this on ELECTORAL votes only.  If it was on popular vote our President would always be whomever NY, CA and a few other states want.  We are a representative republic and NOT a democracy for a reason.

[Cogz]

Kimbertac2,

Here's is some reading for your benefit http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm and just to let you know I too have spent time overseas in the military.

I guess as far back as the Barbary Pirates (Muslims) it was or foreign policy that caused them to attack?

Also RP has now flat out stated that there is NO reason to ever go to war and that no one would dare attack us because we a re so powerful.  I guess he has missed a few things like the 1st WTC and the USS Cole, etc.

Hazcat, you posted that same link before.  Yes, we understand there were terrorist events going back that far.  Notice however that the first item that has anything to do with Islam is 1970.

As to your claim that he has stated there is NO reason to ever go to war - watch the video - at 5 minutes he is asked a question:

Interviewer - "Can you think of a military operation or a war that a Ron Paul administration would INITIATE - can you think of a reason if you were elected president that you would go beyond our current borders?"

RP- "In our current circumstances? In the world today? There should be no reason."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/10/11/VI2007101101200.html

In regards to your jab "I guess he has missed a few things like the 1st WTC and the USS Cole, etc."

Those events were the the result of Al Qaida - A terrorist organization and not a country. (some call them thugs)  Ron Paul has supported issues Letters of Marque and Reprisal - a power authorized by the constitution - to deal with these isolated individuals where a standing army is too big and blunt of a weapon to combat them.

George Bush the other day GIGGLED while threatening Iran with the prospect of WWIII.
President Bush - "... we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/world-war-iii-is-going-to_b_68914.html

So, we have troops literally right over the border, and the leader of our country JOKES about World War III.  Of course they are going to be nervous.  Seriously - if Iran wants to get nuclear weapons more power to them.  They have neighbors (all our friends) who have nukes - are we so daft as to assume that they don't have the right to defend themselves?  They surely know that any missile launch would be suicide, and they know Israel won't hesitate to pull the trigger if provoked.

You mention the Barbary Pirate wars.  I was steeped in that legend myself while in the Corps.  Even back then there was debate on wither the President had authority to send the troops.  I either watched a show on it or read a book about it (I forget) but the gist of it was that the only reason nobody raised hell about the unconstitutional use of power was because it was over so quickly and it was successful.  (If I find references, you can be assured that I will post them as I have with all my other references) 

You mentioned that they were Muslims - how is this relevant?  If you look back to the history of Naval warfare, pirates came from every culture.  Countries commissioned pirates (and called them privateers).  Blackbeard wasn't a pirate unless I am mistaken...  The reason we attacked the Barbary Pirates as opposed to others was due to the geography.  The area that the Barbary Pirates held was too valuable to let them keep kidnapping our crews for ransom.

I personally am fine with war.  Matter of fact, I joined the Active Reserve Marine Corps so I could go to Afghanistan following 9/11.  But since then I have grown more particular, I require that it is declared.  Wars that are not declared do not require objectives and reasoning.  (If I can find it I will post a link to the addresses that were given upon us entering World War II.)  Declarations of war impact treaties, alliances and have wide reaching ramifications.  In this world we live in, there is no reason for us to INSTIGATE or INITIATE war.  (defense is another thing, and it does not require invading a country)

EDIT:  GREAT link regarding the constitutionality of the Barbary Pirate wars
http://www.pccua.edu/keough/Thomas%20Jefferson%20and%20the%20Barbary%20Pirates.htm

[Teresa Heilevang]

  I MUST remember that I am a lady... 
But the more I listen to Ron Paul.. the more bizzare he sounds.
Just my opinion... but I think he is a whole lot of "out of control "talk..and when push come to shove.. he don't have what it takes to shove.
With that small amount said.. I'll stop ..and quietly bow out of this conversation. 

[Dharmaeye]

I MUST remember that I am a lady... 
But the more I listen to Ron Paul.. the more bizzare he sounds.
Just my opinion... but I think he is a whole lot of "out of control "talk..and when push come to shove.. he don't have what it takes to shove.
With that small amount said.. I'll stop ..and quietly bow out of this conversation. 

Please understand the circumstances of the original constitution.

[Cogz]

Marshal'ette,

I am not trying to challenge you in a bad way per'se, but could you tell me what you refer to when you say "out of control" talk?  I am a Ron Paul supporter - and honestly maybe there is stuff that I overlook because I agree with him on other issues.  If there is some area where he really is out of line, I would like to understand why people believe that, because maybe I might be wrong.

Lets put it this way - in a way, Ron Paul is like the dude who said the emperor has no clothes.  Now, the very idea that the emperor has clothes makes no sense to me, and I imagine likewise you see the very same things and can't believe someone is claiming that he ISN'T wearing clothes so to speak.

My example of this is foreign policy.  I have read enough of the sources he lists in support of his policy of reducing our footprint on the world in order to reduce terrorism and to "save" our country financially.  To me, this proves that our presence in Iraq is hurting more than helping (in general, not saying surge isn't making things better) and that it isn't just hate that makes them want to kill us.  Other people believe that if we leave things will disintegrate and we will be less safe in the world.  

My question is, are they looking at the same set of data, and are they seeing something completely different?  Or, are they looking at a different set of evidence?  What is the reasoning, what is the evidence, and how do you come to this conclusion?  What makes the pro-war evidence more powerful than the CIA expert?  I honestly want to know, because maybe I am misunderstanding things.

[Sponsor]

[Teresa Heilevang]

I guess my main problem with Ron Paul is that he thinks we deserved to be attacked on 9/11.   

When he was ask what he thought of the term "Islamic fascism." he said it is a false term to make people think we're fighting Hitler, and that the war propaganda was designed to generate fear so that the war has to be spread." When I heard that I came unhooked!
When he says that the war in Iraq is a mistake and that it's bankrupting America, he's making a serious statement which I'm sure  a majority of Americans agree with -- though how many Republicans..I'm not sure..

When he says 9/11 was the result of "blow-back" from decades of U.S. foreign policy abroad, he's still tiptoeing on thin ice .. but at least there is some small shred of intellectual basis for his statements.

But....when he said that the term "Islamic fascism" is propaganda designed to spread war...in my humble female opinion...    he has dropped over into the sort of paranoid off the wall bizarreness that makes me feel like he is a side-show act.

He sticks to the view that religious fundamentalism is not the driving force behind Islamic terrorism and that if we simply remove all of our troops from Muslim parts of the world, attacks against America and the West will cease. ..and we will all be happy in our own safe little part of the world.  I couldn't disagree more.

More to the point, his willingness to so severely downplay the threat posed to America by Islamic fundamentalists makes me  question his ability to fulfill the constitutional duty of the President and Commander in Chief to protect our country from all threats, foreign and domestic.

So I guess ..although he has great ideas about how things should work..and I DO like some of what he talks of.. This particular one is just too much against what I believe is so. I don't like war any better than anyone else.. but to pull out now will leave us here like sitting ducks on a fence post.. Just waiting to be shot down and roasted for dinner. I think then , we will see war right here on our doorstep.
He might have some good points in other areas.. but this one sure ain't one of 'em.

I guess when the votes are finally in and counted ( for whatever that is worth) we will have the majority of the people's choice..whether I or anyone else agrees with it or not.

[Cogz]

Marshal'ette,

Thank you for being honest and communicating what you feel clearly.

I can't speak for Ron Paul - but it is tough for me to sit by and let the same misinformation stand.

Saying that Ron Paul thinks we deserved to be attacked on 9/11 is the (forgive me for saying it) neo-conservative spin on his stance regarding foreign interventionism.  It is putting words in his mouth to discredit him and make him look like a loon.  It is those of us who 'want' to simplify the reasons people hate us into simple terms when the issue is so much more complex.  I used to feel this way too.  But then I started to make friends with Australians, British, Germans, (dare I say it) and French.  Common citizens around the world see our military reach, see the posturing and war-mongering of our government, and forgive me but, the stupidity of our fellow citizens, and it reflects on ALL of us.  The arrogance of the few drown out us normal patriots.

As to your (and I imagine many other) fury when he termed 'islamofascism' a false term, first understand that words can have strong emotional ties, especially after the experience we as a country shared fighting REAL fascism.

Fascism is defined on dictionary.com as:
-  A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
-  A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

Btw, check out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4  Feel manipulated yet?

What we face is not governmental in nature, it is the very opposite.  There is no dictator, there are no socioeconomic controls, and there is no opposition through censorship.  Hitler was a fascist.  Mussolini was a fascist.  "Islamic Fascism" is at WORST extreme Islamic Fundamentalism.  But perhaps we pulled away from that because it wasn't strong enough of a euphemism and did not incite as much hate.  While the goals of Islamic fundamentalism might be a fascist state, that is not what we are fighting currently, and they are not the people who are trying to kill us.

This is where I may get some people thinking I am a conspiracy theorist - which I am not.  If you have an open mind, please keep reading.

The power we project over the world is expensive.  If we were to bring back our troops from bases we maintain around the world and instead maintain training relationships with various countries, as well as keep a fleet of ships patrolling the world in case anything really dangerous pops up, we would save a LOT of money.  We as a country are spending billions if not trillions of dollars a year that we do not have.  We are borrowing against countries like China, and it is devaluing our dollar.  If we do not cut spending (and the biggest portion of the budget is Military) we will not be able to afford the INTEREST payments on our debt by 2050.  Just like the drug companies lobby for more drug restrictions, and the HMO's lobby for more structured health care, the industries supporting the Military lobby to keep spending, to keep the machine of war rolling. 

And guess what?  I don't consider them evil - they are just protecting their jobs!  When your paycheck comes from lets say, selling Hybrid vehicles - you tend to rationalize it so that you can do a better job at night and feed your family with a clear conscience.  Nobody sets out in the morning to do evil (ok, serial killers, but they do random, not focused).  Even Osama Bin Ladin believes in his heart that he is right!  When in the case immediately above - the truth is that the extra cost of the Hybrid along with the cost of replacing and recycling the batteries (and overall impact of those batteries on the environment) outweigh in many ways the savings in gasoline over the typical course of a vehicles usefulness.  But hey, when you depend on it for a living - you eventually start to believe the propaganda.  (btw, I am not saying Hybrid is bad, I just think that in its current form they don't offer ME a good value in money or impact on the environment)

So what I am saying is this.  There are a lot of good people who have sold themselves into the paranoia that is Islamic terrorism.  Yes, its horrible, but in my opinion we are making things worse by being over there.  And by 'over there' I don't just mean Iraq.  Muslims may have odd traditions and regrettable history of repression of their own people, but they are people just like us that get angry, afraid, laugh and cry.  When we do things that incite them it only distracts the people who want to bring change and democracy and inflames the hate in others and directs it outwards.  And look at us, we are doing the same things.  We look outwards at Iran, Iraq, and a bunch of Al Qaeda thugs instead of the loss of OUR rights, the invasion of OUR country by illegals, the disarming of OUR public, the overspending and irresponsibility of OUR government - all out of fear and anger.

By all means, lets handle those thugs.  But lets do it constitutionally.  Lets let our freedoms and rights work for us, and not give them up for the mirage of safety.

Ooh-Rah!

[Cogz]

Forgive me for posting again, but I am inspired...

I don't want to post again so soon, so I want to touch on something that is my belief (because I don't have references to show that Dr. Paul stated it too).

You Marshal'ette stated (and I am sure many people feel this way):
"He sticks to the view that religious fundamentalism is not the driving force behind Islamic terrorism and that if we simply remove all of our troops from Muslim parts of the world, attacks against America and the West will cease. ..and we will all be happy in our own safe little part of the world.  I couldn't disagree more.

More to the point, his willingness to so severely downplay the threat posed to America by Islamic fundamentalists makes me  question his ability to fulfill the constitutional duty of the President and Commander in Chief to protect our country from all threats, foreign and domestic."
______________________

Islamic fundamentalism (in my opinion) is a VIEWPOINT shared by few Arabs.  I say viewpoint because without a provocateur it has no direction.  But, when followers of an extreme viewpoint see what they consider EVIDENCE of a transgression, it MOTIVATEs them and gives them direction to move against that transgression.  Exampe: Timothy McVeigh. 

Timothy McVeigh was a survivalist who's VIEWPOINT was that the government was evil and corrupt (simplifying a bit), but he was MOTIVATED by the government actions at Waco and Ruby ridge that gave EVIDENCE of this evil which backed up his world view.  In his mind, he was a patriot!

Now, if the federal government had immediately started shutting down gun shows (a place he frequented), raided private militias and survivalists, and generally started making a mess - McVeigh would eventually be seen as a hero, because his view of the government would be adopted by more and more people that saw the evil that he did.  If this were the case, people who's VIEWPOINT somewhat resembled McVeigh would see the EVIDENCE provided by the government that it was going overboard, and it would MOTIVATE them to do something about it.

My point is this.  There are plenty of Arabs who have the VIEWPOINT that the USA is trying to occupy and control the region.  Why do we keep using blunt force trauma to take care of the problem rather than handling it the way we handled McVeigh.  All we are doing is creating more EVIDENCE and bringing more people in who's viewpoints are sympathetic and turning them against us too.

[Pathfinder]

Marshal'ette,

Thank you for being honest and communicating what you feel clearly.

I can't speak for Ron Paul - but it is tough for me to sit by and let the same misinformation stand.

Saying that Ron Paul thinks we deserved to be attacked on 9/11 is the (forgive me for saying it) neo-conservative spin on his stance regarding foreign interventionism.  It is putting words in his mouth to discredit him and make him look like a loon.  It is those of us who 'want' to simplify the reasons people hate us into simple terms when the issue is so much more complex.  I used to feel this way too.  But then I started to make friends with Australians, British, Germans, (dare I say it) and French.  Common citizens around the world see our military reach, see the posturing and war-mongering of our government, and forgive me but, the stupidity of our fellow citizens, and it reflects on ALL of us.  The arrogance of the few drown out us normal patriots.

As to your (and I imagine many other) fury when he termed 'islamofascism' a false term, first understand that words can have strong emotional ties, especially after the experience we as a country shared fighting REAL fascism.

Fascism is defined on dictionary.com as:
-  A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
-  A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

Btw, check out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4  Feel manipulated yet?

What we face is not governmental in nature, it is the very opposite.  There is no dictator, there are no socioeconomic controls, and there is no opposition through censorship.  Hitler was a fascist.  Mussolini was a fascist.  "Islamic Fascism" is at WORST extreme Islamic Fundamentalism.  But perhaps we pulled away from that because it wasn't strong enough of a euphemism and did not incite as much hate.  While the goals of Islamic fundamentalism might be a fascist state, that is not what we are fighting currently, and they are not the people who are trying to kill us.

This is where I may get some people thinking I am a conspiracy theorist - which I am not.  If you have an open mind, please keep reading.

The power we project over the world is expensive.  If we were to bring back our troops from bases we maintain around the world and instead maintain training relationships with various countries, as well as keep a fleet of ships patrolling the world in case anything really dangerous pops up, we would save a LOT of money.  We as a country are spending billions if not trillions of dollars a year that we do not have.  We are borrowing against countries like China, and it is devaluing our dollar.  If we do not cut spending (and the biggest portion of the budget is Military) we will not be able to afford the INTEREST payments on our debt by 2050.  Just like the drug companies lobby for more drug restrictions, and the HMO's lobby for more structured health care, the industries supporting the Military lobby to keep spending, to keep the machine of war rolling. 

And guess what?  I don't consider them evil - they are just protecting their jobs!  When your paycheck comes from lets say, selling Hybrid vehicles - you tend to rationalize it so that you can do a better job at night and feed your family with a clear conscience.  Nobody sets out in the morning to do evil (ok, serial killers, but they do random, not focused).  Even Osama Bin Ladin believes in his heart that he is right!  When in the case immediately above - the truth is that the extra cost of the Hybrid along with the cost of replacing and recycling the batteries (and overall impact of those batteries on the environment) outweigh in many ways the savings in gasoline over the typical course of a vehicles usefulness.  But hey, when you depend on it for a living - you eventually start to believe the propaganda.  (btw, I am not saying Hybrid is bad, I just think that in its current form they don't offer ME a good value in money or impact on the environment)

So what I am saying is this.  There are a lot of good people who have sold themselves into the paranoia that is Islamic terrorism.  Yes, its horrible, but in my opinion we are making things worse by being over there.  And by 'over there' I don't just mean Iraq.  Muslims may have odd traditions and regrettable history of repression of their own people, but they are people just like us that get angry, afraid, laugh and cry.  When we do things that incite them it only distracts the people who want to bring change and democracy and inflames the hate in others and directs it outwards.  And look at us, we are doing the same things.  We look outwards at Iran, Iraq, and a bunch of Al Qaeda thugs instead of the loss of OUR rights, the invasion of OUR country by illegals, the disarming of OUR public, the overspending and irresponsibility of OUR government - all out of fear and anger.

By all means, lets handle those thugs.  But lets do it constitutionally.  Lets let our freedoms and rights work for us, and not give them up for the mirage of safety.

Ooh-Rah!

Where to begin?

Your premise that we are causing our own sorrows by our military and cultural extensions int the rest of the world begs a huge questions. IF this were true, how then do you explain the hundred of years of Muslim attack against western culture and civilization? How can this explain Suleimon's presence at the gates of Vienna in the 13th century, or the muslim conquest of most of Spain that ended in the 15th century? Can we minimize these and hundreds of other events simply by ascribing them to just some form of fundamentalism - another term used to minimize anyone with a religious point of view, BTW, or the opinions of a few?

If you've read the Koran and seen the suras that state quite clearly - more than 2 dozen times in fact - that it is good to kill non-believers, you will begin to understand that it is not fundamentalism, or the few, it is part of the essence of the religion. Domination is the goal, the so-called world caliphate based on reason if possible, but death and destruction is perfectly acceptable too.

Your point has minor validity in that many, if not most, of the people we face (based on the ones we kill or capture) are not native Iraqis, but foreigners who have been smuggled into Iraq through Iran and Syria bent on killing the "infidel". Our presence in Iraq is drawing them into the fight. But that simple fact cannot be extended to cover the fourteen hundred years in which the world's civilizations have been faced with Muslim attacks.

In this you, and to the degree I have read his stuff, Ron Paul are at best dangerously naive.

[kimbertac2]

I just have to say that this is the most inspiring and informative forum I've ever encountered. Its interesting too though, despite everyone's intense knowledge of history the evident vast differences in perception of historical cause and effect. And still,  a significant fiber of respect remains.  And despite the verbose nature of the responses, the reading is incredibly captivating in large part to the well written and obviously well educated responses. Nice to listen to folks who know how to "THINK" while entertaining opposing views.

Too bad our congress can't exhibit some of this outstanding character.