Ron Paul should be asked this question If someone attacked or declared war on the USA

would he fight back with military force?

As a younger person I often find myself asking my older peers what do they think about Ron Paul. Most talk mainly about his military position and think he wouldn't stand up and defend america if something catastrophic happens.
I think this question needs to be asked during a debate so we can be clear and know If america would be protected.

 

Just every country in NATO

We got your back buddy , even if you're back is huge and those attacking you would probably be quite a force (or totally bonkers) .

 

Well what if king of Swazilend will declare war on usa.. Do you go out and bomb it?

 

I agree. he should be asked that question and others with regard to defense. . When I hear Ron Paul speak I just think he would have been the person who leaned over to Hitler and said....hey do what you wish.... I don't care.

Of course Stalin did that....and Hitler attacked Russia also. It seems to me Ron Paul's philosophy gets him to paint every evil killer/despot, dictator, expansionist as a sweet innocent.

 

A good reason it will likely be President Gingrich, not President Paul.

 

Oh God, please tell me this is a joke. Not your statement, but just the idea of President Gingrich altogether. To me I look at 3 individuals who are hard line right wingers in terms of those most people know..... Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Newt Gingrich, in that order, so I guess we can't get the Worst.

I don't see Gingrich winning since he's so diametrically opposed to Obama. Not saying that that in itself won't win, but that Gingrich would be too much like what America saw through 8 years of Bush and I'm not sure if people are ready for that again so soon. It seems that with these 2 candidates, Obama and Gingrich, that everyone considered a moderate and in the middle has no option whatsoever. It's like make a choice: radical left policies involving handing away the farm to EVERYBODY and ANYBODY regardless of effort vs. ultra uber-conservative right involving supporting crooked Big Business efforts including but not limited to Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Banking, The Fed and anyone else that lobbies with tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. If the Republican party were smart, they'd put up a candidate that was more moderate than that of a right winger to guarantee more votes.

 

Seems all the attacks on Newt right now claim he is not conservative enough, whether it be his stance on immigration or global warming. From a foreign policy standpoint, I can't see Newt's military spending being too different than Obama's, though I can definitely see him taking a different, less apologetic tone with foreign leaders. From where I sit, Newt and Romney are pretty moderate. Paul, on the other hand, is both hard right and hard left. He wants to gut the federal government (hard right), and withdraw from all foreign engagements (hard left). Right now, any of them make an attractive alternative to Obama, who is a genius at campaigning, and hasn't the first clue how to lead, build consensus, or govern.

Also interesting to see you put Bush in the spectrum of "Right wingers", when Bush spent like a liberal on steroids, much of the money on liberal agenda items like No child left behind, and the eradication of Aids in Africa. If you want to know why all of Bush's legislation passed both houses of congress, even after the Democrats took over in 2006, one has only to look at his policies. The most irritating thing about Bush is that his most conservative aspects were social, not fiscal. Seriously, a ban on use of stem cells in research? Brilliant. Bank bailouts with no penalty attached? Brilliant.

I think you need to evolve from the simple left/right analysis of the candidates and look at their positions on individual issues and how they will govern. Summing people up with simple statements like "too right" or "too left" does a disservice to understanding who these people are.

 

I am sure every soldier in Army, Navy or Air force would like to thank Romania for giving a hand (or more) to lonely soldiers, far far from their home. LOL.

 

Ron Paul would mobilize the full force of the nation in response to any attack on the United States, but he would go through congress and get a declaration of war so that it was a legal war. Unlike what we are doing now.

 

Just out of curiosity, which part of this guy's cheating, lying, duplicitous, family values/I want an open marriage with a mistress: character traits do you find so appealing that you decided to anoint him as President. Is it because he is so honest and believable??

 

You won't find it surprising that I don't care if Newt wanted an open marriage, assuming that isn't just some sour grapes lie made up by an Ex-Wife. Besides, after watching Obama for three years, I was under the impression that darkly cynical dishonesty was a prerequisite for the job.

All the reason you need for Newt to be president can be found by examining his leadership as speaker of the house. It stands in stark contrast to Pelosi's reign of terror, or Boner's fumbling. I think most Americans look back at those years as good times.

If you need reasons why Newt shouldn't be president, his ex-wife would be the first person I'd ask.

 

Any president will defend their country. The thing is to get someone who's not going to attack for futile reasons...From all, Gingrich is the one who most likely will find a country and a reason to have his war...

 

Wasn't it Obama that just ran a prolonged bombing campaign on a country that we were not at war with, without authorization from congress?

 

Which part of his leadership as speaker of the house do you admire and respect?

This part?

Or this part wherein his own party was so disgusted with him they forced him out???

It appears that your characterization of Newt runs contrary to:

A) His ex wives
B) The American public who blamed him (the Public wasn't even aware while attacking Clinton, Newt had an ongoing affair and told his then wife, who was suffering from MS that he wanted an open marriage with a mistriss). Even though the public didn't know what was going on with the duplicitous Newt...they just didn't like him.
C.) The Republicans in Congress with whom he worked.

I'm glad you think so highly of him.

 

Well, we know that Ron Paul was against any intervention in Libya.

By any measure Obama's efforts were an amazing success. No American injuries or deaths. Very limited involvement. Relatively quick results. The desired result in getting Quadaffi, the murderer, out of power and protecting a lot of innocent Libyans, let alone protecting the supplies of oil to Europe.

Meanwhile Congress didn't object. They didn't offer an ultimatum. Congress grumbled. Obama acted while Congress grumbled. Big deal.

And of course our friend Newt had some interesting perspectives on Libya:

He was for Obama's actions on March 7 and frankly couldn't even bother to mention Congress....

Here's Newt Gingrich from March 23. (time flies with Newt, the trustworthy)

Okay, I have to interject here: 16 days earlier Newt, the believable was emphatically for intervention. Didn't believe that anyone had anything to say. Just go in and do it. Case Closed.

16 days later....Newt tells us...he would not have intervened.

So I got this question...after listening to Newt, the trustworthy: If the guy becomes President and starts telling the public something...anything...do you feel as the public...he'll be speaking to you in the same forked tongue he would use on his ex wives????

 

One question Earlpearl. Did you accidentally omit the fact that all 84 charges were dropped, or did you do it to purposefully mislead us all?

Why earlpearl, I'm ever so pleased to see you considerthe house republicans to be the guardians of truth and justice. Can I take this to mean you will be voting Republcan this year?

And now you speak for the American Public!!! Terrific!

I guess you showed me. I'll have to take solace in knowing there is at least one person who likes Newt.

I know, I know. You can't help yourself. Bill Clinton cheats on his wife while in the oval office, depositing his semen all over the blue dress of someone who works for him, making it not only cheating but a completely inappropriate workplace relationship, and you are willing to write that off (like most Americans are). Clinton looks in the camera and lies to us all, saying he did not have sexual relations with Lewinsky, and you are willing to write that off (like most Americans are).

Gingrich, on the other hand, you expect us to crucify. Ignore the fact that, under his leadership, house Republicans managed to shrink government, cut welfare, and balance the budget for the first time in a very long time, while the opposing party held the whitehouse. Lets instead hypocritcally focus on what he does in the bedroom.

Are you some kind of religious nut?

 

It's hard to find violations that stick and all of the corruption when you have enough money to pay to make them disappear. Apparently, there was still enough that they found, for him to still owe $300,000 in an overwhelming vote. And I do remember him stepping down because of the distrust and disapproval. Is that something that you want from your commander in chief?

People might think that he's some genius that can fix all of our problems, all the while being highly saintly and dealing with everyone with ease. However, with Gingrich I see further corruption and a return to the years of Bush Jr. That's the last thing this country needs right now.

 

And yet somehow, I'm guessing you would gladly take back the first president to be impeached since 1808, one of only two presidents to be impeached ever. Now how do you reconcile that and not call it hypocrisy?

 

I wouldn't take back anyone that was impeached. If you're referring to some hardline stance I have, that's just simply untrue. Just because I cannot stand Gingrich doesn't mean that I'm for a return of any politician that has been impeached, regardless of party or ideological stance.

So as to being a hypocrite, I am not. I've stated that I'm in support of Ron Paul all along and have spoken to my disdain for both Perry and Gingrich. That has not wavered.

 

Fair enough. Just so long as we have you on record stating that you wouldn't take Clinton back. It takes the hypocrisy out of your statements, even if it leaves you out of popular opinion.