People need to Vote Against Ron Paul 2012
66CPAC says Ron Paul 2012
 | Amazon Price: $7.90 List Price: $14.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $8.40 List Price: $14.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $3.00 List Price: $21.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $11.92 List Price: $19.95 |
President Ron Paul in 2012 is what the voters at the CPAC straw polls were pushing for. In a surprise vote Ron Paul beat out Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin to become CPAC's favorite candidate to run for president in 2012. It is surprising considering that Ron Paul generally does not gain wide spread support among the Right wing of the Republican party.
Don't get too excited about this outcome Ron Paul supporters. Once again the bulk of his votes came from students that flooded the event in support of Ron Paul. There were only 2600 votes cast, and we all know how fanatical the Ron Paul followers are. If you don't know then just listen to talk radio as they call in, or post a comment on YouTube that is critical of Ron Paul. You will get to hear the Ron Paul supporters mantra, "end the fed, NWO, both parties are the same, legalize drugs, Military industrial complex." Now to the straw poll results.
According to ABC News 53% of the voters in the straw poll did not like the field of candidates. I don't know what they want, but who cares. The results were as follows: 31% selected Ron Paul, Romney 22%, Palin 7% and most importantly Mike Pence received 5%. Several other candidates were in the field, here is a poll with them all. Let's show everyone that Ron Paul can not win in a real vote. Have all of your friends come and vote, and don't forget to click my links.
Unscientific Poll
Who is your favorite Republican Candidate for President in 2012
See results without votingGo to the 5 minute mark if you want to skip his intro: Trust me you will not miss much!
Check out my other articles
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (2)
- Funny
- Awesome (1)
- Beautiful
- Interesting (1)
CommentsLoading...
Thanks James. I just can't get over Ron Paul's foreign policy idea's. I like him on the economy, and I respect his praise of the Constitution. I just can't get past his foreign policy of stay at home and wait for the enemy to attack us. It seems very naive to me.
I don't think you will see this guy in the White House but I'm sure he has some good ideas for the economy, actually, just about everyone looking for the President position in 2012 will have some creative economy strategies. Obama most likely will serve 2 terms in my prediction. Good Hub!
Thanks for the comment Michael. You are welcome to make whatever prediction you would like. I don't expect everyone to agree with me.
Nice smear job on Ron Paul. Looks like your poll backfired on you, though.
Ron Paul's foreign policy that scares the Republican {and some Democrats} is the foreign policy of the founders of our nation. The American public has been conditioned by it's media {owned by the military industrial complex} to always be afraid of some other nation that will do us in. They get support of wars, that are waged in "Americas best intrest" by fear. American politcians are lobbied {bribed} by corporations that benefit from these wars. The elected officals favor corporate interests above the peoples interests and the constitution. Our leaders tell us that they are spreading democracy, and at the same time covertly overthrow democraticaly elected leaders of other nations. Many innocent people are just colateral damage in the quest of whats in Americas best interest. The loved ones of people killed and displaced by America will hate us, just as we would hate any nation that occupied and killed our familys. For a so called Christian nation, we have cast aside the "do unto others" core value of Christianity. It doesn't apply to us. We go to war for natural resources, stratgic poisitioning, or even just to save face. We never consider how we would like it if the things we do were done to us. We have our troops spread thru out the world, policing countrys and nation building, while our citys are crumbling. We are spread so thin who will be here to defend us if we were attacked. Who would dare attack us knowing the military might we possess ? Ron Paul is the only American political figure that has the balls to be honest about Americans foreign policy. He puts Americans first. He defends our individual rights and constitution above corporate and political gain. He has promoted patriotism by reminding us of the fundimental values our country was founded upon. He may not be electable, but he is the most honorable political figure in America today. God bless Ron Paul and his message to America.
Thanks for your response hvacduderick. My poll is still alive and kicking. You better tell your friends to vote, because real conservatives are going to vote on it eventually. Ron Paul is going to get smoked.
If we followed Ron Paul's strategy all of south America would be communist and we would have Soviet troops at the Mexican border. Our ships would not be able to port in communist Africa and we would have to ask the Soviet Union (yes they would still be together) to use the Panama canal.
I did not smear Ron Paul, If I did then I would not include his CPAC speech. I like Ron Paul on a lot of things that I mention in my response to James, but I do not believe that his foreign policy is good for America.
I think people see Ron Paul as a libertarian, and right now we're not willing to support Republicans or Democrats who are too far right or left.
Thanks Sheila, I'm glad that you stopped by. I disagree on the too far right and left. Did you see that Scott Brown, the great republican hope, is voting with Obama on the jobs bill? People (me) are sick of republicans acting like democrats. If I want to vote for a democrat then I might as well get the real thing. I don't want a republican that votes democrat, that is why the Republicans kept losing elections in the first place. Give me someone who has principal, even though I disagree with Ron Paul, at least I can believe what he says. He is a true believer in his philosophy.
You are right about that. His foreign policy ideas might be suspect.
Thanks for checking back James. I also do not like his ideas of legalizing drugs (not just marijuana all drugs)and prostitution. If you go deep enough down the Ron Paul/libertarian rabbit hole the you have polygamy, pedophilia (maybe that's going to far, but you never know), but gay marriage definitely. All morality goes out the window. They look at the act of everything, such as using drugs, and they ignore the consequences like sky rocketing crime. It just seems like a lot of baggage for us to take on just to get some good economic policies.
Great article about Ron Paul. He does have very devoted followers because he has some great ideas. Problem is as you point out, he also has some very bad ideas. Your point about morality is spot on. His other problem is he will never win a general election.
Keep up the good work...by the way, I like both Santorum and and Thune. Palin has a great message but I don't think she can win this cycle.
Thanks for your comment Tom. I'm pulling for Mike Pence, but it is still early so I am not all in with anyone. I will be waiting for a true conservative to separate himself from the pack. We still have a long way to go.
Frankly, I have mixed feelings about Ron Paul. During the debates he didn't seem to make sense to me. In interviews he said things I agree with, so I'll keep an open mind. Personally I like Palin as holding my values. My daughter who is a working, married mother prefers Paul.
Thanks Dahoglund, Ron Paul has positions that everyone can like. People focus on what they like and ignore his bad ideas. It is kind of like Obama's hope and change where everyone projected their personal hopes and pretended that they were Obama's change.
Ron Paul would be my second Choice.. My first would be Mike Huckabee. They are both great guys though.
God help us all. Ron Paul is the polar opposite of Obama. Your pole looks just like the straw pole. If he gets elected the world will explode. We can't reverse directions that fast. Obama to Paul. Maybe 2012 will be the end of the world as we know it.
If paul could win and I thought he would do any of the things that he advocates, then I would vote for him!!
but he wouldn't! Once the candidate become the president, he totally bows to corporate power....witness the 44th president.
I think it doesn't matter what you think cause really all you want to to get a lot of views by writing something with a scandalous title like "vote against Ron Paul". You know there are a lot of Ron Paul supporters who will be interested in commenting here and refuting everything you say.
Ron Paul is the only hope not just for the US. I am actually from the Philippines and yet I support him because I know that Ron Paul and the message of liberty will make give the world peace and prosperity. This is backed by economic facts and not just political rhetoric like saying "yes we can"
Paul is the opposite of a Liberal. Liberals say Yes yes yes. Paul says No no no. We need someone that will govern. Parking our military on the borders is not good for the world. Being from the Philippians you of all people should realize that. Unless you would like to be bowing to the emperor of Japan. Paul would blame America for the attack on Pearl Harbor. He is an appeaser and a useful idiot that appears frequently on Russia Today. No American Patriot should ever be used as propaganda for Russia.
Michiganman- Are you aware that we currently have 900 military bases in over 130 countries, 300,000 troops overseas in places such as England, Japan, Germany, and Saudi Arabia still? We give away over 400 billion a year to foreign nations for free.
But none of it's our money. It's all payed for by the Chinese and private banks such as The Federal Reserve. How do I know for sure? Well check the WhiteHouse.gov numbers, or the Congressional Budget Office numbers, or any credible factsite.
Obama spends about 3.6 trillion a year. We tax in about 2.2 trillion. That means we're making up the difference from creditors. And that is why our debt is so large, and started to grow exponentially at the beginning of George W. Bush's first term. So technically, we CAN'T, and are not, paying for these wars by ourselves. No, someone else is, and we're going to have to pay them back, plus interest.
Considering that, how can you call yourself a fiscal Conservative?
According the head of intelligence operations for NATO’s International Security Assistance Force, Maj. Gen. Mike Flynn who is considered one of the closest confidants of Four-Star U.S General McChrystal; says that the Taliban has seen their numbers in Iraq increase by tenfold since 2004.
And it's not just Iraq, but in Afghanistan, and Africa, and Yemen, and other places. So the facts show that our presence, creates more terrorism. So is our presence actually protecting us?
Well, there have been over thirty foiled terrorist attacks on the U.S after 2001 according to the Obama Administration, but were foiled by “the result of good law enforcement and effective intelligence gathering and information sharing” by U.S Homeland Security efforts set up after 2001, not the troops in the field.
So due to the facts, and not your blind rhetoric, we can observe that our presence has increased the number of terrorists, (and the number of terrorist attempts), but our security precautions are what are responsible for stopping the attempts.
Economists also warned, and still warn, that our presence in the Middle East is costly, and that it is the first war in U.S history to be paid for entirely off of borrowing and without tax hikes.
Looking at history, we can see that every major empire has fallen because it tried to spread itself too far and too thin. The Romans, the British, etc. We started doing the same thing in 2001, and after the credit bubble popped in 2008, we have seen a steady decline in our wealth and livelihood (at least among the majority of Americans who are middle class). And our debt which is the largest in America, and world history, is screaming at us that we're going to fall soon.
The Founders, urged against foreign influence, alliances, and debt, for a reason. Because they were the reason for the fall of empires, and soon to be realized, world wars.
Thomas Jefferson once said “Commerce with all nations, alliance with none,” and that it “should be our motto."
Ron Paul, and the Founders, do not urge Isolationism as screaming Neo-Cons, such as you appeared to be, like to fearmonger around.
Ron Paul echoes the Founders, and the Constitution- which both urge trading with all nations, being friendly with all nations, having a strong national defense, and most importantly a strong navy. They also give the right to choose to go to war to defend our allies if we decide to do so, but not to be obligated or FORCED to do so.
They urge to be conservative fiscally (which you, and America are not), and not to go to war so easily (which America does all the time), and they guarantee if both are followed we will be well off. Well... we don't follow both, and we're suffering. Weird isn't it?
You would think the general populace would put two and two together, but they don't.
We get people such as you, with Neo-Conservative fear mongering and acting like if we aren't everywhere at once, then we are Isolationists and WILL DEFINITELY be attacked. It's sad, and history will remember it as sad.
Both Ron Paul, and the Founders call for a middle ground, where we can choose to protect certain allies so our enemies don't come surround us (as you assume to think the leaders in the Middle East have the ability to take out everyone in the world and join forces and surround us), commerce and be friendly with all nations, and have a strong national defense to retaliate if attacked.
But they did not wish for us to be spending trillions and trillions of dollars we do not have, being involved everywhere at once, playing the world's policemen, and indebting our children and grandchildren for decades to come. This is irresponsible, unethical, criminal, and no other nation in the history of the world needed to do it to survive, let alone survived trying to do it.
So please stop the Neo-Conservative misinformation about Ron Paul, and get your facts straight.
If you would like to refute my facts and evidence based on information from The White House, the Constitution, history itself, and top commanders in the military, please show me some contradicting evidence from somewhere other than your rhetoric spewing pie-hole. Good day sir.
@ AM TOM....Why did Ron Paul vote for the war in Afghanistan then SIR if he is a " Constructionist" as you state? Was there a declaration of war by the Congress?
If you do not vote Ron Paul you deserve Bush and Obama!
Many Ron Paul supporters are way, way out there! I like Rand a lot more.
But, how do you ask who are favorite GOP candidate is and include john Thune, Mike Pence and Rick Santorum, while leaving Herman Cain out?
Your poll needs a No Confidence choice!
Morality is purely subjective...just because his views are atypical does not mean that he's morally corrupt, nor will it lead to a societal moral meltdown.
When such illicit drugs and actvities are legalized, there tends to be a loss of appeal. Part of what makes them popular is that they are illegal. It's seen as rebellious and part of the so-called "counterculture".
Besides, the government could make money off of both actions then. Why not take advantage of a new opportunity?
@Irishduke:
He supported going in after those responsible for the attacks on American soil. He has stated this himself and expressed his disappointment that it has essentially become a war on the entire country.
Some people criticize the foreign policy for being too soft, some for being "isolationist." Unelectable either way, so no worries.
Ron Paul is very electable. You're discounting the polls because Ron Paul's supporters flooded them? What do you think is going to happen during the primaries and general election?
Ron Paul has real grassroots support. No other candidate has as many motivated voters. Period.
His stance on foreign policy is a constitutional one. It's not isolationism, and it's not "waiting to be attacked" either.
No other country can oppose us militarily. We are a very efficient military-industrial complex. We have become that at the expense of our economy.
Intelligence, a strong national defense, and a non-interventionist foreign policy are the safest course for our country's future.
More of the same foreign policy will only further endanger our nation security, and we can't afford to continue even if we wanted to.
Over 70% of Americans don't want it to continue, BTW.
Thanks for the comment Chris. I think that during the election/Primary Paul will get some support. I don't think that he will ever get over 30% of the vote. Too many people would stay home rather than vote for him.
Your discription of his foreign policy makes no sense to me. I don't mean to be offensive, I'm just being honest. I don't see any difference between Ron Paul's foreign policy verses Jimmy Carter's. I think that he is naive when it comes to the Muslims. They attack us because the Quran tells them to spread Islam by the sword and to kill every Jew. They know that we protect our ally Israel so in order for them to destroy the Jews (and bring in their Mahdi)they need to bring down America first. If we treat the Arabs like we treat Europe then we will be attacked over and over again.
No country has to defeat us militarily when we destroy ourselves. I agree with you there. But, building up a military is constitutional. And, our military spending is not higher than many other countries as a percentage of GDP. I believe in peace through strength. Appeasement does not work and it will not work. Another major concern for me and I think that you will agree is what is going to happen with any savings from military spending. Oh guess what we just found money for Government health care. More money to waste and a weaker military.
Maybe we need to start getting some spoils of war. This policing the world for nothing isn't my cup of tea either. Spreading democracy is a waste of time in my opinion. The problem is that Ron Paul isn't the only one in Government that can't tell the difference between Europeans and Muslim fundamentalists.
Okay, if you call naive taking head of the CIA's warning of blowback. The CIA says that our biggest national security threat at the moment is blowback from the countries in which we are meddling.
Spoils of war? Believe me when I tell you that there is a ton of profit being made, but it will never be for you or me.
Regardless of whether or not you think it is righteous to enter preemptive wars, we simply cannot afford to do it much longer.
If we do, it will be at the sacrifice of our standard of living. There is no real military threat to us out there, but real economic failure is looming.
I just saw the results of your pole. One word: ironic.
Chris, the head of the CIA said that Saddam had stockpiles of Chemical and Biological weapons. They said that entering Bagdad would create 30,000 casualties. So yes, I consider hit opinion to be naive as well. Were is our blowback in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam? We only have "blowback" with muslims. What did we do to Iran for them to take hostages in the 1970's? Do we have to abandon Israel as an ally in order to keep them happy. We have to let the Arabs tell us who we can have as friends?
michiganman567,
I am sorry, but I just have to disagree and here is why:
"...the head of the CIA said that Saddam had stockpiles of Chemical and Biological weapons."
So if that was all bad intelligence and war propaganda, then why are you believing the war propaganda now, especially since there is even less "evidence" this time around?
"Where is our blowback in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam?"
We didn't overthrow any of their of their democratically elected leaders with military force (outside of WWII, of course) and we only dealt with those European countries only after they decided it was better for us to help rather than be annihilated (and we actually had a stake in the war since we were attacked and our national security interests were in winning the war). Vietnam was a miserable failure that we never should have been involved with. We do not have a military presence in that country now either. The truth is we still have resentment directed at us from a lot of countries because of our militarism/interventionism (and, no, they aren't just Muslim countries).
Just because it appears that some people are more tolerant of US interventionism, does that mean that blow-back isn't real? If some people are okay with it, that means that others aren't going to be motivated to retaliate? Keep in mind that we are violating their holy land, killing their people, and helping their enemies and have been doing so for decades. We are the ones who radicalized and created Al Queda. We funded them, taught them to hate and fight the Soviets, and gave them the weapons to do it! And we act surprised that some of them might try to get us back the minute we turn on them.
"What did we do to Iran for them to take hostages in the 1970's?"
Well, in 1953, we assassinated their democratically elected leader and installed the Shaw. We have been messing with Iran for a very long time.
"Do we have to abandon Israel as an ally in order to keep them happy?"
Our involvement there has only made things worse. We threaten their sovereignty by making them dependent on us and developing a relationship where they need to ask our permission before they can do anything. Israel's Prime Minister, Netanyahu, said that Israel doesn't need the U.S. to take care of it and that Israel can take care of itself. And guess what... Israel had a large part in creating Hamas (kind of like we did in creating Al Queda).
"We have to let the Arabs tell us who we can have as friends?"
No, we need to follow the Constitution and only go to war with an actual declaration of war and we only declare war when we are actually threatened and it is in our nation's best interest to do so (that was never the case in Iraq, and is not the case with Iran).
Besides, even if we were going to keep up these wars and start a new one with Iran (or any other country some say is a "threat"), how do you suggest we pay for it? The truth is, we do not have the money and militarism provides some of the greatest incentives to expand the powers of the federal government at the cost of our precious liberties.
Ron Paul supported going to war without an actual declaration of war. Was he disobeying the constitution? I think that if we intervened in Egypt then we would have a much better government there than we do right now. What do you think on that one? Do you support allowing Islamists to take over the entire Middle east?
I think that the war in Iraq is over and Afghanistan is winding down fast. So should our military sit on our shores doing nothing. We still have to pay them you know. Are you against any form of standing army?
How should we pay for wars? Since when did America start paying for anything? Don't you know that our debt is $15 trillion dollars. Ron Paul was a member of the congresses that approved all of that spending. He is a big government insider. If you expect change to come from the inside, then you are as naive as Paul is on his Muslim policies.
Your accusations of Ron Paul are completely unfounded. Ron Paul never voted to go to war without a declaration from Congress.
He earned the nickname, "Mr. No" for voting no on every bills that was unconstitutional. You're way off base there.
Ron Paul is one of the few members of Congress that never voted to raise taxes or increase spending. He never voted for an unbalanced budget, and he never voted to increase the size of government.
Ron Paul would not eliminate the military, only cut spending back to that of 2006 (at least at first). That would still be a military budget four times larger than our closest military competitor.
I think it is telling that you said this:
"I think that the war in Iraq is over and Afghanistan is winding down fast. So should our military sit on our shores doing nothing. We still have to pay them you know."
I guess it just about sums up your distorted views on foreign policy.
You can't talk about economic repair without talking about cutting military spending. The two are intertwined.
Paul voted for the war in Afghanistan and there is not a declaration of War. If he voted not to fund the military operation in Afghanistan then he is nothing more than a politician. He would be putting soldiers in harms way then not giving them the money to succeed. That is selfish and wrong. If he did give them funding then he basically voted to raise spending. He probably packed he bill full of his Dr. Pork too. We need more shrimp studies don't we?
I already know the Ron Paul distorted view. Abandon every military base around the world. Maybe we can park all of our ships at Pearl Harbor again. That strategy worked out well.
Wow! You are way off base. Ron Paul never, and I repeat NEVER, voted for a war in Afghanistan.
He wanted special forces to take out Osama Bin Laden covertly. It would have been the most logical, cost effective way to handle the situation.
Instead we invaded Iraq? Why? Not for Bin Laden, but for control of the Caspian pipelines. OIL, in other words.
You're forgetting that any constitutional war would have to be declared by Congress. You cannot vote to furlough the Congressional declaration of war.
The only other way to go to war is through the illegal, and unconstitutional executive orders put in place by Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
Those illegal executive orders need to be repealed, so that our wannabe dictators cannot thrust us into another unrighteous war.
You mentioned Pear Harbor. Ah, the good ol' days, when we went to war for the right reasons. WW2 was the last righteous war that American fought in.
Since WW2, all major American military efforts have been about nation building.
As far as the earmarks thing goes, that's simply a Congressman trying to get some of his represented state's money back for the state. Otherwise, it goes into a pool for indiscriminate federal spending.
Ron Paul wants to completely ride the states of the burden of having to earmark or beg to keep some of their own money - which in some cases is desperately needed.
He argues, however, that - with the current system of earmarks - at least earmark spending is out in the open.
"How should we pay for wars? Since when did America start paying for anything?"
Did you really think that one through? I will tell you how costly these wars have been other than the several thousand American lives and upwards of 100,000+ lives that include innocent civilians, women and children.
The truth is we have spent trillions of dollars for these illegitimate wars that have only compromised our national security. How do we pay for these wars and massive deficits that occur as a result? It is actually quite simple: taxes and borrowing (which includes monetary inflation).
Since the government cannot pay for all of its militarism/interventionism with just tax revenues, it has to borrow to cover the rest. And who does the government borrow from? They borrow from investors here, abroad, and (most importantly) the Federal Reserve.
Do you know how that we are going to have to pay back every single dollar the United States borrows through taxes? Well, borrowing now means more taxes later. There is no way around it. We can get hit with tax hikes, or the most sinister of all taxes, the inflation tax. As the Federal Reserve expands the money supply beyond what the market would bear, every dollar becomes worth less. In other words, you pay higher prices as a result of Uncle Sam's adventures over seas blowing bridges up and then rebuilding them.
It is the reason why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The Fed creates all of this money out of thin air, gives it to commercial banks who invest in big businesses (while government gives billions in corporate welfare) and they get to ride the train as their wallets get fatter. Soon afterwards, prices rise while most incomes of poor and middle class Americans stay relatively stagnant (relative to the rate of inflation) or even decrease in many cases. It is the worst kind of wealth transfer ever. It is stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.
Not to mention that all of the money going into building tanks, planes, bullets, bombs, and other assets is taken from the private sector and put into all of these special interests and assets that destroy. War is never good for the economy. NEVER!
So if you want to the economy to get better, the United States has to end these wars. Even if we wanted to, we cannot pay for it without huge taxes going up! I mean really! So many so-called conservatives want lower taxes and smaller government while also wanting to engage in interventionism and militarism. You cannot have your cake and eat it too! War and preparation of war (or militarism/policing the world) provides the greatest incentives for the expansion of government and leads to the inevitability of higher taxes. If conservatives are really about smaller government and lower taxes, they MUST reject this militarism if they wish to be consistent.
Even if we all wanted to continue these wars of aggression, we will eventually exhaust any ability to even have a military. We will hit the wall and we won't have any choice but to end the wars and will be left with a much poorer, much weaker America than we have ever seen before. The debt is our greatest national security threat.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h200
It sure looks like he voted YES to me. You can talk all you want about what he says or what he wants. This is what he did. Now go talk to Paul about spending on these wars that he voted for.
Why is Paul useless on meaningful legislation when it comes to his principals, but they go out the window when he is packing bills full of pork. If he was a man of principal then he would not have any pork and he could lead. Ron Paul is not a leader.
We never said that he did not support the use of force to go after Osama Bin Laden and Al-Queda. That was what the vote was for in the first place. He even said several times that he voted for that but then he said that it turned into an all out war against Afghanistan and the Taliban. That is when he started saying that if we were going to go to war with Afghanistan, we needed to declare said war! Get your facts right!
I see at as total hypocrisy that you have the nerve to criticize him for earmarks (getting some of the money back for his state/district that was taken from them by force/ stolen from them) while at the same time supporting a racket that will destroy us financially, leaving us completely vulnerable. He was trying to right a wrong, while you are advocating perpetual wars and blood shed that will destroy us and create more enemies.
He is willing to tell the truth that so many so called conservatives refuse to hear. The United States is not intrinsically exceptional, it makes mistakes all the time, and will eventually destroy itself if it does not return to its founding principles: non-interventionism, free-trade, and free markets.
Ron Paul is sounding even more gullible to me. He voted to authorize the president to use force, but not to invade Afghanistan. Even though Bush made it clear that he was going to remove the Taliban. You are either with us or with the terrorists, remember that line? Maybe Paul needs to spend more time reading bills and less time campaigning and raising money if he thought that we were sending in a police officer to arrest Bin Laden.
Nonsense. Please explain how continuing this insane spending in order to maintain this militarism is not going to destroy us economically? You really think we can sustain these wars and still have enough money for everything else like protecting our own borders? Riddle me this: where does government get the money to do all of this? You have not answered any of the hard questions. You have done a horrible job defending your naive notions of militarism and have totally ignored the contradiction of your neo-conservative ideology.
Props to cbl2988 for nailing it over and over. I totally agree.
Michigan, the one thing that you've said that I agree with is that Republicans need to quit acting like Democrats.
Why are you not supporting Ron Paul again? Are you a loyal party voter?
I think most people who are waking up to the corruption in politics realize that parties are meaningless, for the most part.
The two party system is just a puppet show, and the real agenda will be carried out by either party - unless we elect a President that will upset the status quo.
People voted for Obama because we all wanted something to change, and he promised change. We didn't get change, and most of us didn't even know what exactly needed to change.
Enter Ron Paul - an honest man who has been warning America about the impending economic collapse for 30 years.
He was able to predict it, because he knows how we got into this mess if the first place. He is the only candidate who is serious about getting this country back on track.
Ron Paul was smart enough to hire Peter Schiff as one of his economic advisers.
Peter says that Ron Paul is so well versed in economics that he doesn't need advisers, and should be giving lessons himself.
Nobody can touch this guy on economics, and our country is in an economic crisis.
When did I say anything about wars? I think that we should maintain our presence at military bases around the world. I don't see the benefit to sitting our military on our shores when our military can be based at strategic locations across the globe. Ron Paul does not support border control. He has a poor voting record when it comes to stopping illegal immigration.
I can not support a libertarian. I don't know why you support him. He told you not to vote for the Republican candidate in the last election, why should you run back to the Republican party now? Ron Paul helped Obama to get elected, he is a great patriot!
How would I pay for things? We had a balanced budget in the 1990's and the same military. It can be done. Clinton was even fighting a war in Bosnia. We have to grow the economy, eliminate regulations, get rid of Obama care, restructure SS and Medicare. As for the fed. Do you want this congress to have the control to print money? I think that if we had responsible leaders, then it would be a good idea, but I don't see any reason to give congress more responsibility. I trust bankers more than these people. We still have 40% of the people saying that they approve of Obama. Until that number changes, there isn't anything that anyone will be able to fix. The Democrats will use scare tactics and cow the republicans if they try to cut anything. Then the republicans stop trying because they are cowardly politicians just like Paul. Where was Paul's budget proposal. Maybe you need to lecture your candidate about militarism rather than lecturing me. I never voted to give anyone authorization to use military force on a foreign country. Your guy has. Go talk to that NeoCon Paul, or better yet don't listen to Paul, go and see his votes.
Where does government get the money. We do not have any money. That money that you pay in taxes is paper paying interest on other paper. The debt is something like 70 trillion in unfunded obligations. Our GDP is 12 trillion. How do you plan to pay that off without hyperinflation? That is the only way that it can happen. Either that or a real revolution where we dissolve the current government. I deal in reality. You are the libertarian ideologue. If not then tell me one thing that you disagree with Ron Paul or the majority of Libertarians on.
"How do you plan to pay that off without hyperinflation?"
The answer is we can't. That is what I have been trying to tell you this whole time!!! That's why we need to stop this militarism and end the welfare state! Have you been paying attention to anything that I have been saying?! That is the central theme behind all of my arguments!
"I deal in reality."
Then why are you avoiding facts and insist on the totally irrational position of maintaining empire?
"You are the libertarian ideologue."
Yes, I am a libertarian. Thank you very much.
"If not then tell me one thing that you disagree with Ron Paul or the majority of Libertarians on."
Where we disagree is actually where most libertarians are divided. Paul is pro-life, I am pro-choice. Libertarians are pretty divided on this issue. Most libertarians (pro-life or not) want to make it a state issue. I can live with that, but I also see the need for Roe v Wade. Ultimately, I do not think it is necessarily a federal issue.
Ron Paul is a Christian, I am an atheist. However, his policies are informed by his libertarian philosophy, not his Christianity (whether or not they are consistent with his Christianity is another issue).
Ron Paul is a little bit tougher on immigration than I would be. He wants to put many troops on the ground and put a lot of money into protecting our borders. I can agree with that to a point, but I think it isn't terribly necessary. I think ending the war on drugs and getting rid of the insane bureaucracy that makes legal immigration so damn long and hard would be enough to greatly diminish the problem. He is for that too, so we disagree just a little bit on this issue.
Some libertarians are anarho-capitalists/voluntarists. I am a free-market, minarchist, libertarian that believes a minimal government is necessary to have a free market and that anarchy would not last very long anyway. In other words, as much as I would love to live in a stateless society, I do not think it is possible.
You seem to think that all libertarians are the same. There actually are libertarian-socialists and anarcho-socialists whom are often referred to as left-libertarians. Most American libertarians are right-libertarians. Some, such as Noam Chomsky, are left-libertarians. However, we are all libertarians in the sense that advocate little to no State. Libertarian is simply the opposite of authoritarian. Conservatives like you tend to oversimplify things. That is one of your ideology's biggest problems (apart from its inherent contradictions).
"Our constitution," said John Adams (first vice-president and second president of the United States), "was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" (John R. Howe, Jr., The Changing Political Thought of John Adams, Princeton University Press, 1966, p. 185).
I think this is why we have so many differences. I can not have a political ideology that swings from anarchy to communism without a blink. You are following a document that was never intended for lawless people.
Lot's of luck my friend! Talking to Paul supporters is far more aggravating than talking to a wall. They throw the same phrases around and never stop the in your face tactics. They have no idea how many people they are turning off by their behavior!
You've gotta be trolling... calling Ron Paul a neo-con? Weak on border control? Please.
You also blatantly lied again by saying that Ron Paul told us to support the Republican candidate in the last election.
Ron Paul specifically said that he would not vote for McCain, unless he changed his ideas on foreign policy. He never endorsed McCain, and he never asked anyone else too.
He said there was no difference between Obama and McCain on economics or foreign policy. He never supported McCain.
As for Congress controlling the printing of money - I would rather have big monetary decisions go out to the 435 members of Congress than leave those decisions up to a handful of elite bankers.
Besides, we can elect honest men to Congress, if we get more involved (and people are). We have no authority to replace the private banking cartels that cause these booms and busts in the economic cycle.
"He told you not to vote for the Republican candidate in the last election, why should you run back to the Republican party now? "
Reading Comprehension, it is a wonderful thing. Now edit your comment please and stop calling me a liar. I do not have to approve any of your comments.
I would look up his NO votes on border control, but you wouldn't believe me or you would make up an excuse for your hero. It isn't worth my time because you will not listen.
Thanks for the comment Mike. I think that Santorum stuck a stick into the Ron Paul hive and stirred them up.
You're spinning, then accusing me of not comprehending what I'm reading. Typicall, I guess.
Here's a simple answer to your misguided question - because Ron Paul is running as a Republican again.
What's so hard to understand? I think it is you that has a comprehension problem, my friend.
You're right about me not believing what you write, because I've fact checked everything we've been arguing about. Enough said.
You resort to insults, like most Ron Paul haters. I prefer substance.
No, you said that I wrote that Ron Paul told you to vote for a republican when I did not. You missed the word NOT in my comment above, then called me a liar. So yes, your reading comprehension was poor in that case.
I gave you the link to his vote for an attack on Afghanistan. So what exactly did I lie about? Did Ron Paul support McCain? No, he thinks that any Republican not named Paul is the same as Obama. I don't have much use for him. He is a corrupt 30 year political con man
First, use of military force is different than war. What would be the point of declaring a war for the world to see, when you intend to use special forces?
You were trying to portray Paul as flip flopping on his position of needing a congressional declaration of war - which he has not.
As for misreading your comment - easy mistake. My answer to the question you posed is no less accurate.
What exactly is corrupt about a man who never voted to raise his pay, and doesn't participate in the lucrative congressional pension plan?
Disagreeing with his ideals is one thing, but calling him corrupt discredits you a bit, IMO.
Saying that Paul didn't vote for the attack on Afghanistan is like saying that he doesn't vote for bills that he packs full of earmarks. Ron Paul wants to have his cake and eat it too, don't be a sucker. I know that you support him, but he is not Jesus Christ. He is a dirty 30 year career politician. Why is he running when even he says that he can not win? So that he can grease the pathway for his carpetbagging son.
Another thing that I don't like about Paul is that he appears frequently on Russian Television (RT) as a pawn to discredit America in front of the world.
As for the Federal reserve and limiting government, sure, I am for that. But, I am not for all of his lawless beliefs. Do you really think that the founders would be defending homosexuals? Ron Paul wants to pretend that he follows the founders real intent of the constitution, but in reality he wants to use the constitution and our laws to further pervert the country.
There you go again using words like attack instead of war, and saying that Paul himself said he could not win.
The most he ever said in that respect is that he understands the odds, and that even if he doesn't win he will accomplish his goal of injecting the real issues into the debates.
Paul is pretty optimistic so far. It's Russia Today (RT), and they are a pretty good unbiased news platform. I don't agree with everything that is aired, but RT is less biased than mainstream media.
Also, Paul appears on CNN as well. Do you think Paul agrees with the bias of CNN?
As far as homosexuals go, I almost don't want to go there; but I feel like I need to distance myself from you on this a bit.
Homosexuality is nothing new. I do believe the founding fathers meant exactly what individual liberties means to the full extent.
You or I may not personally agree with the lifestyle, but it is not our right to take away the liberties of anyone.
That's why the founding fathers made this country a republic. That's what the Bill of Rights is about.
RT, have you ever looked it up. It is a Russian funded media outlet designed to give the western world the Russian perspective on the news. It is heavily slanted and anti American to the core!
You are free to distance yourself from me. I said the h word, oh no, so much for freedom to express my opinion. Is That is where you draw your line on freedom? Speech and ones personal beliefs and convictions are too much for the liberty loving Paul supporters?
You're just being ridiculous now. Of course you have the right say what you want, but you have no right take the liberties away from any person or group - regardless of your personal beliefs.
I love doing research. I would say don't believe everything that you read. There are always alternative sides to any story.
I watch RT from time to time. Like I said, they are less biased than mainstream media - therefore they can be a good source to get info that the mainstream intends to keep from us.
I've learned to ignore media bias. Instead I used mainstream as well as alternative media as a starting point for my own research.
It's rewarding to know what's really going on in the world, instead of blindly following your favorite spincaster. Excuse me... newscaster.
Responding to the comment about 'South America would be communist'. Why is that our business?? That's not our business. To interfere with their ability to govern themselves how they choose - or even they way they are forced - will only cause them to resent us - regardless of what government is in place. Why don't you do some research on the Lybia conflict and see what that's really about and what really went down there. Our actions are dangerous to others and to ourselves. If we continue them, they will backfire.
So we just ignore the votes because they were.. students? That makes no sense at all.
Sounds like a hater, I'll stick with Ron Paul.. If he ends up dropping, I'll just vote for Obama again.. The rest of the republican candidates are morons..
Only Republican candidate I would consider would be Ron Paul. I agree with many of his libertarian views.
No Harry, we ignore the results because they are skewed. This was written in 2010 at a straw poll. Not during a real election. As you can see by the real primary results, Ron Paul is not as popular as the internet would lead you to believe.
Absolutely correct! He only has won CPAC before, because of the shannanigans of some of his followers.That was stopped recently, and then Romney won it! I hear all of the time how Americans want Ron to be president. No they don't! Look at the polls and the primary results. His supporters say" He is the ONLY one that understands the Constitution, and our economy, and foreign affairs....blah blah.
I say, he is the ONLY one who has failed to win a state!
Keep up the good work 567!
Thank you for the comment Mike. After looking and seeing that Harry Santos is from the Philippians, I am beginning to think that Ron Paul's supporters are being very anti-American. It is one thing to talk some nonsense to Americans, but they are putting our country in a bad light to foreign nations now by lying about our voting process.
They are spreading lies across the internet claiming that Ron Paul is being shut out by the media; that his votes are being stolen; and that our government is illegitimate. I am always concerned with voter fraud. I would be the first one to defend Paul if I thought that he was being robbed, but it simply is not true.
Paul's biggest problem has become his supporters! They call radio talk shows and yell at the host for not inviting Ron Paul on. Then we have to listen to host after host tell us that they have been inviting him, but he refuses. I do not mind being disagreed with. Being lied to is another story! The local Ron Paul people do the same nonsense that they do in California, Texas, and The Philippians! Its gotten old!
Then they want to defend this guy that handed over classified information to wikileaks. How do the same people that call Bush a traitor defend a real life traitor?
The foreign policy doesn't make sense because it won't be under AIPAC control when Ron Paul take over. The current and past administration has no foreign policy and never had one. It was was always ISRAEL controlled.
Hi Michiganman,
Regarding Ron Paul's foreign policy. As I understand it, Dr. Paul wishes to enact the original American foreign policy.
[Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments."] - excerpted from http://mises.org/daily/2514
Either Jefferson and Washington were right, or they were wrong. They they were anything but vague when it came to their foreign policy approach. And it worked out pretty well.
However, I have read and heard claims stating things similar to "...the Soviets would still be in country X if America had not had an interventionist policy in containing Socialism".
These types of statements do give me pause. Socialism in general and that of the USSR was and remains a violent system of private property expropriation - starting with your right to your own life.
However, looking at it from another angle, I wonder if there needs to be a conflict of interests here at all.
I do not think we need be torn between protecting constitutional government and civil liberties at home and helping allies overseas defeat enemies.
I think the main problem has been that as Congress has ceded more and more of the War Powers to the executive branch (for expediency or to promote a particular agenda), and even to foreign bodies of law, our interventionist military actions have been without direct mandate from the American people.
American history is full of outspoken war critics who would rather not spill American blood on foreign or domestic battles - what argument can truly justify the loss of a loved one in the absolute horrors of warfare?!
But, even from the beginning of American our history is also full of heroic individuals who would volunteer and die if need be to help secure our freedoms.
The questions then becomes: Do we believe that a fully informed, American people would not press our legitimate representatives for a declaration of war against any hostile force if the threat were deemed grave enough? Or are we afraid that the American people are too inept to make that decision through their representatives? What makes a small group of individuals smart enough to make those decisions for us? They are human like the rest of us?
In the end, I think this is the real debate. If the American people, through our Congress legitimately, and openly declared war against an unjust aggressor, how can that be an unjust interventionist policy? It could only be self-defense.
I think that what we need to be worried about most is a war that we are not prepared for. I am not for nation building , but I am for American influence across the Globe. It protects and supports america's interests around the world. Peace through strength is a fact.
As for congress, I don't have much faith in their ability to do anything. They are a collection of partisan hacks.
And your solution would be to put even more faith into a smaller group of partisan hacks (executive branch) with an open mandate for global warfare?
Michiganman,
Do you or do you not agree with the foreign policy of Jefferson and Washington? How can you disagree with them?
What do you mean worried about a war that we are not prepared for? http://milexdata.sipri.org/ Search by country - our military is intensely prepared to decimate any nation or non-nation actor that would do us harm.
If you want the world to be ruled by fear of potential use of force, you want a fascist or socialist state (corporate cronyism or outright state rule of individuals and their work, respectively).
Otherwise, if you want a world that is ruled by respect for individuals, you want a limited state that respects individualistic, free market capitalism.
You cannot at once want violent force (the state) to be the driving force in society abroad while wanting free exchange (the market) to be the driving force domestically.
The hypocrisy in such a statement is self-evident and can only serve to fuel hatred of any nation foolishly enough to believe the golden rule does not apply to them except in dealing with their fellow citizen.
Jefferson went to war without congressional approval. So I don't really know what you are asking. I don't have a problem with our current system. Congress can defund war at anytime
We already are ruled by a potential use of force. When a police officer tells you to get on the ground do you listen? That is how we keep order in our nation among our citizens and that is how we make sure that other nations respect us. It is not communism or fascism, it is civilization. Civilized people can not pursue their interests when dangerous criminals threaten their existence. The same is true on the world stage. If you don't think that we need a force in the world, then you go and sail a ship off the coast of Somolia and let me know how it goes.
Your poll seemed to have backfired lol. Looks like Ron Paul PWNED the others.The reason why he doesn't win any primaries or caucuses is because they are all rigged. The establishment will have who they want in office. It will be either Romney or Obama again and they are both the same basically they are both just puppets of the bankers and elites that really run this country. You may be blind and asleep atm but you will be forced to wake up when the economy collapses.
Yes you are right. Ron Paul is the most popular politician in the Muslim World. He is also the favorite politician of every communist around. They love the idea of America withdrawing to our borders.
Yeah he most likely is. I would rather have these people love us then hate us for invading their countries and overthrowing their government. If their government is corrupt its on the people to stand up and fight for their freedoms. LMAO at your sail a ship of the coast of Somolia comment. That is just stupid, so I guess the coast of America is no good for you? And I guess since the coast of Somolia is dangerous WE need to go over there and kill some Somolians. Alright cowboy go get you some only thing stopping you is your lack of conviction. Our nation should be promoting peace not war. All you people that are worried about these small countries with no navy , no airforce and are not a threat to us only themselves are severely mislead by media. I find it funny that we bought Afghanistan an airforce how ingenious was that? We aren't helping our security this way. You keep giving away your freedoms for the sake of some false security and to help other countries that will like to do us harm if you want to. I'll be here protecting my country not over there protecting theirs.
The only thing that your comment is missing is 9/11 is an inside job! Come on say it, you know that you want to. How do you like your old coot in a suit selling you out to Romney, ha! Your messiah is a piece of something.
Haha that's funny so the man is a sell out if he admits hes friendly and closer to Romney then the other candidates. Go ahead bud believe that propaganda garbage your media feeds you. As I said you will wake up one day obviously not by choice. Calling Ron Paul my messiah is a joke also, my messiah is Jesus Christ. I don't worship Paul like you would like to believe. I just vote for him and try to educate people who are misinformed. You sir are misinformed if you believe helping other countries will help our own. As for 9/11 it was a terrorist attack not by a country but by individuals in our country so our best bet is to keep these guys out by securing OUR borders and strengthen OUR defenses. Also you claim Paul is in cahoots with Romney because why? He doesn't attack Romney like the others? or because he is friends with Romney? I don't know if you noticed he is running against Romney and won't endorse him or accept a VP nomination. Romney on the other hand would probably take Paul as VP but I believe he will go with Bob McDonnell. I will end this ridiculous argument by saying I am proud of who I support question is are you?
No I will not watch your video. I do not owe you anything and you are not paying me anything. You go ahead and watch your videos and Maybe you can read the Bible to find out the reasons for evil. This is a spiritual war, and it is not going to be won through ideology. Muslims are serving their Father. The same father that is telling them that killing Jews and Christians will send them to paradise. I do not value the opinion of many experts that will put their heads in the sand rather than say something politically incorrect. When a "leader" comes out and says that Islam is evil. Then I will start to listen to the rest of what he has to say. If a politician wants to play make believe and claim that we all worship the same God, then I can not take them seriously.
How many Paultards do I have to talk to here. Don't comment again Chicago. I dont want you visiting my articles. I do not owe you ANYTHING so go bug someone that cares.
Ron Paul might be honest, but he's an idiot.
Ron Paul smoked this pole. He is the only republican running that I like. Mitt Romney is a noted liar. When Newt Gringrich calls you a liar, then it is pretty serious. We all know what a monster Newt is.
Yeah, it seems like ron paul's supporters are the only ones that actually care about his polls. They are known for spamming polls using twitter. He is king of the internet, too bad the real world doesn't value online polls.
Ron Paul is winning the majority of delegates. The main stream media is eating their words.
Are you serious? I don't think that anyone is worried about Ron Paul except for his supporters. He is once again irrelevant. I will bet you that Romney is the republican candidate if you would like.
James A Watkins Level 8 Commenter 2 years ago
I must confess, I am intrigued by Ron Paul. I don't think he'd ever win a general election for the presidency. He does have some great ideas.