That's odd because something happened to this country in 2001. I can't remember what, can you remind me?
Ron Paul is "popular" on the internet like the Star Wars Kid was popular. In polls of people who actually vote he gets close to 0%. He's not popular with people who matter. They want him gone from the debates because he's irrelavent. He just wastes air time. Ron Paul won't get past the primaries because his fans are mostly liberals and people who don't live in the US. France elected a pro-Bush, pro-Iraq war president so he's out of the running there now as well. Wonder why after their country has been torched a couple years in a row now by Muslim immigrants that the French people would start to think a little more like the US. Odd how that works.
Are you saying that Ron Paul's position had merit but is 7 years too late? Not at all. I'm just saying that his platform was popular and based upon a constitutionally consistent foreign policy that Ron Paul also shares.
Nope. I'm saying that we aren't living in a world where we can hide behind our borders and not expect to be attacked anymore. We did this during the 90's and look what it got us. We didn't respond to attacks in 93, 98, 2000 and several others. Look at where that got us. Now we have a candidate who thinks we shouldn't do anything again. Paul either has a slow learning curve or he doesn't believe we were attacked in 2001. Which do you prefer to believe of him?
His platform is kookiness, which is what drives most of his supporters. They finally have someone kooky like they are. That pretty much sums up why he has so much support amongst the "alex jones" crowd. Aside from the fact that alex tells them what to think.
I agree. However, the contention is that foreign policy was not "hiding behind borders". Saddam Hussein was a US puppet. Osama Bin Laden was our boy in the Aghan war against Russia. The US presence/influence in the Middle East has a long tradition. The other point is that we're talking about millions upon millions of people. Is it feasible (and desireable) to police, monitor and attack them on demand? You make a great point about Paul's policy on solutions to terrorism. I haven't heard him once offer a solution or different approach in detail. It is very likely he has no answers himself. That said, he is challenging people to think and that is always a good thing when the general populace thinks before it votes. Does he have them thinking about the wrong things? I don't feel qualified to make that determination.
Wow, you got Ron Paul there http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html If Bush can believe God told him to invade Iraq, then Ron Paul can believe the government is not trustworthy.
LMAO! You fell for that one too? Good gawd, you are gullible! That was so debunked, but then again, honesty isn't high on your priority list...never mind. Holy moly!
No. He wasn't. I -keep- debunking this point. We supported the northern alliance during the afghanistan war. OBL was a bit player during that, only seeing very minor combat. He had his own money and his own people there. He gained more power when the taliban took control during the 90's and that's when his brand of fundamentalism took over. Saying he was "our guy" during the afghanistan war is ignoring history. I simply think he should be out of the debates because he garners less than 1% of the republican vote in -real- polls. The debates need to be whittled down into the top 5 or 6 candidates. Having 10 on stage during an hour debate gives the real candidates no time to explain their positions. Who cares what RP thinks? He isn't going to win more than 1% of the vote, same with Tancredo and others. Let them go out and get 5% of the vote, then put them in the debate, otherwise, I see no reason to put them up.
What happened last time someone tried to get Ron Paul kicked out of the debates You could get rid of half the republicans at the debates and it would make essentially no difference in what was being said.
Just looked it up, and apparently Paul's approach is diplomacy and trade. Claims it has worked against the Communists. 9/11, the subsequent and post-tragedies are disheartening. I'm actually more concerned with the ghetto-ization of the West by Middle Eastern and Asian nations in a global economy through debt and devaluation of the US dollar than I am with some aged Texas Congressman and his bid for the Presidency. It would be nice to think the man (or woman) who gets elected will have the term, resolve and character to do "the right thing" whatever that is, but the more I research the problems, their causes and the candidates, the less hopeful I become. Sending more troops may be the right move morally, but economically it looks like a disaster we will pay for through future generations. Withdrawing troops might be an invitation for wolves to dine at our doorstep. I need to get some sleep.
I'll concede that just to move back to Hussein. Didn't we support him when he was a rapacious murdering bastard slaughtering and ruling through intimidation and fear? Fortunately, the system doesn't work this way. It would be nice to think that if you or I should run for office one day, regardless of our public profile or financial clout, we would have an opportunity to be heard and a chance to succeed on the merit of our position. I don't believe that democracy is about convenience and the ability to compress debate into bite size chunks for the "Dancing with the Stars" crowd (not directed at you personally).
It does for the presidential debates. If you don't garner 15%, you don't get to be on stage. Do you want to see a presidential debate with all 300 or 400 people who run each time? I think that's when you consider the enemy of my enemy is my friend. He was fighting with Iran right? Soviets were arming Iran, if I remember right. We armed Iraq, right? That's not really "support" in the sense you mean, I don't think; but given the option of having an expanding fundamentalist islamic state (Iran) take over the middle east; was that the right decision or wrong decision? And Iran is moving, again, on Iraq in this conflict. Is leaving there the right decision or wrong decision again?
But that picture implied that American cooperations which have no investment into going to war (and an Israeli flag - clearly anti-Israel) are pushing for the war. Also, the Freemasons are not a cult or some massive secret organization bent on total World Domination. Just because you're not a member and have no idea what it is, doesn't mean you should allow false information - or spreading false information yourself - to happen. The Masons today is as it has been - and without it you'd not have your freedoms because these meetings used to be between the founding fathers and such to plan on how to revolt. I mean, without that, we'd still be a colony - the meetings provided a safe place for ideas and for strategies amongst the loyal. Imagine if there had been a traitor - the revolution stopped - oh wait, you're British... you'd probably like that. To still be a world conquering superpower monarchy... right?