Actually, I know nothing about Ron Paul, but I thought I'd start a Ron Paul thread like everyone else.
Lol, good thread, usasportstraining. DharmaSeo, $4.2 million dollars in a day and growing poll numbers and tons of anticipation and excitement on the eve of one of the biggest political rallies of the campaign have to disagree with you, bud.
Want to explain yourself a bit more? "Don't vote Guiliani because everything he stands for is a farce and our country will become a police state." "Don't vote Hillary because she will bring our country socialism by the end of her first term." See, I can make unsubstantiated claims without explaining my rationale behind the conclusions, too! If you want to make a claim, particularly one as radical as that, how about going in depth a bit more about why you believe it to be so? Citing sources would also be a good step.
This is nonsense. We were #1 economic superpower in the world when we did things the way he wants to do Sure, because big oil companies bribed the Congress to outlaw small-scale oil drilling as well as foreign competition, and also because dollar is worthless thanks to Federal Reserve. Ron Paul didn't vote to either outlaw free market or authorize Federal Reserve though...
If we don't do the things he wants to do, we will do them too late, and a lot of people will suffer. The end of the central bank will come if there is another depression. The end of fiat money will come with a currency collapse. Too many Americans are aware and educated now on the counterfeiting system that is being run, and if it breaks (and it is headed in that direction), the new system will not allow for those actions because a vocal majority won't stand for that.
Our economy will crash if we pull out of Iraq right away? Where are you going with this? Also, Ron Paul does not want immediate withdrawal. He would withdraw our troops as quickly as logistically possible, and that would most probably entail a lot of input from military commanders. I remember a number of people explaining how we couldn't leave Vietnam right away because losing Vietnam would mean communism had won, and we would see an eventual spread of communism throughout Asia like a domino effect. How right were those pro-war naysayers in the end?
Right near Iraq there are 2 countries. Saudi Arabia and Iran. So we just leave a battered country by itself, and expect no one to take advantage of that? We have a lot of oil in control in Iraq.
Actually, we've had plenty. Actually, outside of JFK, I don't think any president got out much, growing up, know whaddimean?
http://www.energyrefuge.com/archives/where_oil_comes_from.htm http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pipeline/peopleevents/e_consumption.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html Bzzttttt...wrong. We have heavily diversified oil imports, with a lot coming from our neighbors to the North and South, and a good portion from Venezuela and other South American countries. Add in the fact that we get a decent amount of oil from our own land. Iraq is a non-factor in our oil needs.
Oil was $28 a barrel when we went in. It's at all time highs right now. Part of this is worldwide demand, part of it is the war (strife and consumption for military activities), and the biggest part of it is that the American dollar is devaluing. Iraq is not battered. It's in a civil war, and fighting it's occupiers. It was battered in the 90s when Clinton conducted a non-stop bombing campaign, followed by the Food for Oil program which killed nearly 1 million people, most of them children under the age of 5. And yet, oil was still $28 a barrel when we went in.