No, I do not agree with the position that we should stop sending US aid in the form of money to foreign countries. (Is that plain enough for you?) Do I agree with all of it - certainly not. As I do not agree with much government spending. However, it is not even close call to me that the United States benefits from its foreign aid spending. And you are right, I never seriously considered voting for Ron Paul, although I do agree with many of his positions. To me, he was never a serious candidate for the office due to some of his more questionable positions and associations.
o why do u think we should send foreign aid to these countries? Can you give a more detailed breakdown of each country and why.
I think it is wise to aid counties who support our point of view, those who are struggling for some reason or another where we feel our money will be spent on things that will help people or aid our interests. Obviously, it does not always work out that way, but that is not a reason to stop something that does far more good for our nation than harm. As far as providing you with a "detailed breakdown of each country and why" - you have got to be kidding. I have neither the time nor desire to engage in such a meaningless task. I am just some guy who has an opinion on Ron Paul.
Why not? Many on DP think foreign islamic extremists must get American rights when captured, imprisoned & have the American constitution benefit them, so why should foreign countries not get American money?
Toopac , i never argued or debated that point because terrorists should be interrogated fro information as long as they were proven to be terrorists in a fair trial and found guilty of that crime, and not in a secret court (im all for your point). and browntown what is in our interests first? To promote democracy , freedom and the inalienable rights of people? Please do your research on how we helped destroy democracy in iran with operation ajax to take out a popularly elected, no violent leader of iran mossadegh and put in a man that was never elected to office in iran the SHAH all because mossadegh wouldnt give us controlling interest in iranian oil. Let me ask you a question. What if some foreign country wanted to have complete control of a very precious resource that america owned and even tried to overthrow the american government. How as an american would you feel about this? Gtech, and the rest of his bussies wouldnt dare to answer this. Lets see if your fair and biased and couragious enough to answer it, if you can answer this question you will have shown me that you are completely unbiased and after the truth as alot of us here are.
Who thinks they should get protections of the constitution? With your logic here, it almost appears you agree they should as you appear to be using it as a reason for them to get US funds
Of course I would object and support my country defending itself. Again though, this thread is about Ron Paul, not my foreign policy positions.
While a number ron paul supporters have proven that they will question things, as they demand of others (apparently none here, though), more information about Ron Paul Lied About Not Being the Author of the Newsletters. Ron Paul and his campaign made a huge mistake in issuing their press release, which now appears to be a deliberate lie on their part. Many ron paul supporters are starting to realize this too. (note, you now have to have an account and login to see this...can't imagine why) I've seen so many "throw in the towel" (and rightfully so) on the RP Forums, because the press release was vague, used as few words to dismiss it as possible, and has failed to objectively offer an explanation. Even more so, many are absolutely furious that they have donated money, and that money has been mismanaged with an inept campaign and many are calling for heads to roll in the campaign.
Man, first The New Republic, and now this crappy blog site. It's funny that the sites that keep trying to keep this crappy accusation flying all have ties to Israel, particularly the Asper family, described on some sites as "unabashed supporters of Zionism". Sure does look like these guys are threatened by the idea of losing their billions of dollars in foreign aid. Too bad the charges are already drifting away. I'm sure *I'll* be called an Anti-Semite for this post. Just take a minute to look into CanWest and the Aspers.
It is always the joos with you isn't it? Let me guess, some little jewish kid took your lunch money a couple of years ago and you still haven't let it go.
This story will without a doubt hurt the Paul campaign especially if it ever grows bigger. It's just too complicated to explain away easily. That's very sad to me, because... as Paul says, he may be flawed but the message isn't. The message is what this should really be about. Peace & freedom.
No, very rarely is it. I'm sure it won't matter saying it, but a few of my closest friends are Jewish, and I have no problems with Jewish people or culture. But I can play tit for tat. If people want to label my candidate as an Anti-semite, a racist, and a liar, I'm going to look at their ties, and what stakes they have in all of this. Don't you find it a bit suspicious, between the Megaphone program during the "white supremacist" debacle, the Asper family heading up The New Republic, and this blatantly pro-Israeli site, that it still isn't really covered by MSM? Mainstream media, for all their faults, doesn't have the balls to put this story out there, because they know the accusations won't stick. Hell, even Drudge pulled it off his page within a few hours. It's not like media just doesn't want to be bothered by Paul supporters, they've been dealing with us for about a year now. I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, but the people who keep crying about this story the loudest always seem to be ones who would lose the most from a withdrawal of our financial and military support of Israel.
That's uncalled for. I think you would be hard pressed to find much if anything from Fletch railing against Jews. You're basically calling him a bigot and making a personal attack because?..... It's this quick call to arms, via implied or direct accusation of "anti-semetism" that dumbs down so many discussions. We're not allowed to discuss foreign aid to Israel, because then we are holocaust deniers, or bigots or some other pejorative. If you have any sympathy for the Palestinians, you're anti-Israel. I have no problem with Israel or the Jews. But I do see a big problem, because this aggressive defense by people who think they are doing Israel or the Jews a favor, is one day going to have a mass of blowback in the form of negative perception. We've moved past the age of some topics being taboo because of their subject matter, and into the age of "what is, and what is not".
Honestly, in this day and age, it seems like this form of "playing the race card" is found more commonly with Jews than any other minority. Guerilla is right, in that anyone who dares to question our role in Israel is labeled as an anti-Semite. I think that we give too much aid to Israel, along with her neighboring Middle Eastern countries, and I think the ME conflict is a lot less one sided than either side would make it out to be. If you look at my previous posts, that's pretty much the worst I've ever railed against the Jews. It's funny that in this microcosm of society as a whole, there is mimicry of the greater issue here, Ron Paul and these newsletters. Call me as you wish, I'm not going to give any more credence to any idiot that labels me as anti-semitic for my beliefs that a lot of powerful groups have a lot to lose with a Ron Paul presidency. /EDIT: Debunked, I'm not calling you an idiot (yet). I'm giving you a pass because there are a lot of pissed off Muslims on this board who would blame a headache or a stubbed toe on the Jews, and I can understand if you took my comments as being another stereotypical rant.
I guess you never figured out that the writer and the person who made the screenshot are two different people and that the person taking the screen shot is the one with the megaphone program. It was called for - Like you say it is the age of "what is" Oh, no he is a jew therefore he is out to get us -- but but but, Jews are for RP. Do you see what I am seeing? If you hang around enough of the nazi/identity crowd you may start believing all the Jew this, Jew that propaganda.
There are Jews who are opposed to the Jewish state in Israel, there are those who would fight to the death to preserve Israel, and a lot of them tend to rest somewhere in the middle, away from the end points of radicalism. It's not a black and white issue. At the same point, there are some people who strongly believe that Ron Paul must never reach the presidency, because his pulling of support for Israel, in their opinion, threatens Israel's well-being. Whether they are wrong or right is a whole separate issue, but there is no denying that those people would be very opposed to a Ron Paul presidency. The Asper family runs The New Republic, the publication who so carefully timed the release of their article to the day before the New Hampshire primary. Google "asper zionism" for a start. Here's a quote to set you off: "Asper would occasionally pen editorials defending the nation in his various papers and was accused by a number of media observers of censoring opinions critical of Zionism or which he deemed sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Join the club, I get called that on a daily basis just for raising those very valid points. After all I care about America a whole lot more than Israel thats for sure.
Pretty much any time I end up talking about Jews, is when I or my candidate are labelled an anti-semite PRE-EMPTIVELY. I don't make Jews the issue. I'm multi-ethnic, and have a particular sensitivity to judging people on factors or conditions of existence. A man should be judged on his actions. And you were way out of line judging Fletch, when he's presenting another side of this fascinating discussion started by GTech. Why this particular controversy, which was already played out in his 1996 Congressional campaign by the Democrats, has been resurrected at this precise moment and time, and by whom? To cry "bigotry" isn't seeing the discussion in it's full light. Surely the motives of the people making the case against him count for part of the discussion. Earlier, a forum poster named Bill White had made (now debunked) accusations on a Nazi board that Paul was meeting with the WN crowd, and LGF (IIRC) drew lines between Paul and Bay Buchanan, Pat Buchanan's sister, who was the chair of the Tom Tancredo campaign. And yet, Tancredo's message was deemed potentially racist, but no one brought up Bay's name to discredit Tancredo (the way Pat was smeared after Iowa, and before NH) because he made it clear he was never really running all of the way to the White House. People don't make political attacks unless there is a potential threat to avert or advantage to be gained. That doesn't mean I am saying the attack is invalid, but it should prompt your intellectual curiousity as to why Ron Paul is getting run at now, because the articles issue is very old and no secret amongst people who have supported him for some time. And if you don't believe that there are Zionists (Jewish, Christian and otherwise) who oppose Paul (ironically, some Zionists support him), well there are. Just as there are liberals, conservatives, communists, white nationalists, socialists, elites, corporate interests etc. Just as he draws from all sides, he's also seen as a threat to those very same sides, because he doesn't endorse the agendas of any one of them, over another, and some people don't like the idea of losing their free lunch courtesy of the American people.
I'll set aside the "blame the Jews first" observations and credit it to spending too much time on the Ron Paul forums. Even "reasonable" people over there are suggesting they need to stop blaming the Jews for everything, every time something against Ron Paul comes up, especially when trying to prove he ISN'T anti-semitic with his writings. Come on fletch, think about that. The blog is simply doing the research of what Ron Paul wrote, and examining the newsletters where Paul made personal comments in the newsletters. In other words, illustrating that Ron Paul did in fact write these, because he makes personal references in the first person that only the writer would make, which is Ron Paul. You might also be aware, that it was a "blog" that first exposed the dishonesty of Dan Rather's phony documents, by simply retyping the document in default Word settings, for an exact duplicate, which later led to Dan Rather's dismissal. You might also be aware, that the NYT has a blog, that most news organizations do, and that "huffpo" is a blog as well. Simply dismissing something, because it appears on a blog, is a scapegoat. What other ron paul supporters (but not those here, from what I've seen) are doing, is looking at the evidence and asking the tough questions that they themselves have often put others in the position of doing. It works both ways. Have you actually looked at the excerpts the blog takes, from the newsletters discovered? Can you explain why Ron Paul is personally addressing his audience in these letters? As I said before, the Ron Paul forums (which, from what I've read there, the campaign is trying to distance from) is filled with post after post after post, in that every time something negative comes up, the first reaction is to blame Jews for it. Who would have expected such an unusual irony in that?
I'll take issue with this part. This has not been debunked. Unless you are considering flat out "dismissal" of it, by ron paul supporters (typical), it has not been debunked. If you have something of substance to show it has, I'd be very interested in seeing it. I do not believe you do though. What I've found with most RP supporters is, they tend to repeat something that isn't true, hoping that if it's repeated enough without being called on it, others will accept it as fact. I disagree it has been debunked. I don't believe the rest has much merit, and as I've said before, actions speak louder than words. I believe you have made clear your positions on Israel in the past, and I believe you have equally made clear your positions on it's neighbors and other muslim countries in the past. They do not represent any form of "equality." None, at all.