have YOU taken the time to see Ron Paul's Iowa debate responses?

[blind ear]

other candidates support his ideas, at the end of the clip.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3QJL6IiNYo

[Bill T]

The fact of the matter is that Ron Paul is going nowhere. He is NOT a Republican. He is a Libertarian masquerading as a Republican. Libertarians have always been 10% ers' and always will be. This guy has run for President 3 times since 1988 and went nowhere each time. His foreign policy is out there where the buses don't run, and he has zero chance of getting the Republican nomination, and an even worse one of getting elected. Ron Paul has his hard core supporters, and that will be all he ever has. He will never sell his politics to enough people to ever get one single Electoral Vote. He hasn't yet.

[Bill T]

Tag him however you wish. It all means nothing because he will never be elected.

[nw_hunter]

The fact of the matter is that Ron Paul is going nowhere. He is NOT a Republican. He is a Libertarian masquerading as a Republican. Libertarians have always been 10% ers' and always will be. This guy has run for President 3 times since 1988 and went nowhere each time. His foreign policy is out there where the buses don't run, and he has zero chance of getting the Republican nomination, and an even worse one of getting elected. Ron Paul has his hard core supporters, and that will be all he ever has. He will never sell his politics to enough people to ever get one single Electoral Vote. He hasn't yet.

Not sure how old you are Bill, but some of us old time Republican's remember the time when the GOP were more Libertarian than Liberal!Your right about paul having hardcore supporters, but he also has a lot of (NEW... YOUNG) supporters from the Republican (AND) Democrat party.

As far as masquerading!I think Newt and Mitt are the ones doing that. They are NWO Liberals posing as Conservative republicans. There voting records show anything but!

One of the biggest negatives about Paul I hear coming from people, is his Foreign policy views.
But they never go into detail about it! Most just say.......They don't like it

I think people are starting to come around, as the Iowa debate shows.One can hope Paul's following continues to grow

[Bill T]

Not sure how old you are Bill.

Old enough to know better. Ron Paul has run for President twice before. He has never gotten one single Electoral Vote. Not one. He will do no better this time. His foreign policy scares people. He doesn't articulate well, and many simply view him as a senile crackpot. He will return to Texas a 3 time loser. Over 91% of his own party doesn't want him. That may sound cruel, but facts sometimes are.

[Bill T]

One of the biggest negatives about Paul I hear coming from people, is his Foreign policy views.
But they never go into detail about it!

He wants to let Iran go nuclear. That is a stupid, dangerous position. The American people en masse will NEVER buy into it, regardless of how much the Paulie's defend it, or try to sell it for him.

[Matt]

One of the biggest negatives about Paul I hear coming from people, is his Foreign policy views.
But they never go into detail about it!

He wants to let Iran go nuclear. That is a stupid, dangerous position. The American people en masse will NEVER buy into it, regardless of how much the Paulie's defend it, or try to sell it for him.

And yet another GBO member who does not believe in the Constitution... what a shame.


Matt

[NWBear]

What "RIGHT" do we have to tell Iran or any other country what they can and can't do?


Really curious.  Talk about arrogance.


If you attack us (the US or our allies) be prepared for holly s--t to be rained down on you.  Where do we get the idea we can dictate to other countries???


I believe it is the hallmark of police states to "arrest" you BEFORE you commit a crime against the "People" AKA the current regime.

[nw_hunter]

One of the biggest negatives about Paul I hear coming from people, is his Foreign policy views.
But they never go into detail about it!

He wants to let Iran go nuclear. That is a stupid, dangerous position. The American people en masse will NEVER buy into it, regardless of how much the Paulie's defend it, or try to sell it for him.

Was going to comment, but it looks like Matt and Bear covered most of what I would say!

[scootrd]

Looks to me Ron Paul is an American assuming the role of a Republican; the rest are imperial neocon globalists masquerading as 'Republicans'....same for the neolib democrats masquerading as "Democrats"...
 
 
..TM7
.

I agree

[scootrd]

One of the biggest negatives about Paul I hear coming from people, is his Foreign policy views.
But they never go into detail about it! Most just say.......They don't like it
I think people are starting to come around, as the Iowa debate shows.One can hope Paul's following continues to grow

Because he is sane and rational and sees it is unsustainable to be the police of the world.
Additionally this is right in line with one of our greatest presidents Thomas Jefferson.

When Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as president, he called for “peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” If two countries are having a dispute, it’s not the job of the U.S. government (or the U.S. taxpayer) to intervene. If you want to go fight on one side or the other, go ahead. You’re on your own.

[Bill T]

Because he is sane and rational and sees it is unsustainable to be the police of the world.
Additionally this is right in line with one of our greatest presidents Thomas Jefferson.

When Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as president, he called for “peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” If two countries are having a dispute, it’s not the job of the U.S. government (or the U.S. taxpayer) to intervene.

You really need to wake up. Smokeless powder didn't exist when Thomas Jefferson was alive, let alone nuclear weapons. If you want a nuclear Iran, judging by Ron Paul's poll numbers, You're on your own.

[scootrd]

Because he is sane and rational and sees it is unsustainable to be the police of the world.
Additionally this is right in line with one of our greatest presidents Thomas Jefferson.

When Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as president, he called for “peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” If two countries are having a dispute, it’s not the job of the U.S. government (or the U.S. taxpayer) to intervene.

You really need to wake up. Smokeless powder didn't exist when Thomas Jefferson was alive, let alone nuclear weapons. If you want a nuclear Iran, judging by Ron Paul's poll numbers, You're on your own.

Bill , I am not going to get into a long debate with you . I don't live in a bubble. I understand a nuclear Iran is not in the best interests of anyone. However , Do you truly think anyone can actually prevent this from eventually happening.?
Iran has been in alliance with N. Korea for years exploiting their missile technologies (the nuclear delivery mechanism.)  ie: the Axis of evil . Apply all the sanctions you want. My point is .... we are not the world Police.. it is unsustainable . At present I believe Iran's missile capabilities have a range of approx 1250 miles (someone can correct me if I am wrong). these are the Shahab-3 and the Sajjil.

Israel is the most threatened by these missiles, I'm sure they will deal with Iran situation on their own schedule.
Given that , Removing our troops from ME, and concentrate on "Securing our Own US borders" . seems the most logical and effective approach.

Ron Paul's approach is the most logical approach.

JMHO
 
Semper FI
 

[blind ear]

Bill T;
 
Did you listen to Ron Paul's Iowa debate responses?
 
Thanks, ear

[Bill T]

I understand a nuclear Iran is not in the best interests of anyone. However , Do you truly think anyone can actually prevent this from eventually happening.?

JFK would not accept Soviet Missiles in Cuba. But you and the rest of the Paulie's have zero problem with Iran having them. This in spite of the fact they think Israel should be, "Wiped off the face of the Earth." That is a hell of a long way from Khrushchev's, "We will bury you!". There is no "logic" to Ron Paul's approach, which is basically no approach at all.

[scootrd]

I understand a nuclear Iran is not in the best interests of anyone. However , Do you truly think anyone can actually prevent this from eventually happening.?

JFK would not accept Soviet Missiles in Cuba. But you and the rest of the Paulie's have zero problem with Iran having them. This in spite of the fact they think Israel should be, "Wiped off the face of the Earth." That is a hell of a long way from Khrushchev's, "We will bury you!". There is no "logic" to Ron Paul's approach, which is basically no approach at all.

If Iran was parking missels off the coast of US that would be a different scenario.
So Bill , I'm open minded enough to consider other solutions. What is the solution you would you like to put forth?
obviously sanctions are not working. I suggest to stay on topic of this post , please start a new thread,  and we can pick up the discussion there.

[Bill T]

If Iran was parking missels off the coast of US that would be a different scenario.

Why? They can easily give one to a group that can sail it right up the Hudson and hit the button. What is there to stop them? You, (and Ron Paul), are willing to play a very dangerous game with these people. This whole idea of "we leave them alone, and they'll leave us alone", is ludicrous. These people hate us and want a nuclear weapon to destroy us, and Israel. Letting them accomplish this by obtaining a nuclear weapon borders on insanity. Sooner or later their facilities will have to be destroyed. Either by us or Israel. We cannot accept a nuclear Iran. It is simply too dangerous, and not worth the risk. Frankly, I could care less about world opinion when it involves Muslims. It is one thing to "police the world". It is another to defend your country from enemies who hates us.

[scootrd]

If Iran was parking missels off the coast of US that would be a different scenario.

Why? They can easily give one to a group that can sail it right up the Hudson and hit the button. What is there to stop them? You, (and Ron Paul), are willing to play a very dangerous game with these people. This whole idea of "we leave them alone, and they'll leave us alone", is ludicrous. These people hate us and want a nuclear weapon to destroy us, and Israel. Letting them accomplish this by obtaining a nuclear weapon borders on insanity. Sooner or later their facilities will have to be destroyed. Either by us or Israel. We cannot accept a nuclear Iran. It is simply too dangerous, and not worth the risk. Frankly, I could care less about world opinion when it involves Muslims. It is one thing to "police the world". It is another to defend your country from enemies who hates us.

Bill ,
It's interesting to me Col. Wilkerson,  has come right out and said it is the best interest of our national security to get out of Iraq , and bring the troops home and stop being bogged down in Iraq and the greater ME at large.

He believe the policies of Ron Paul are not only sound but also the most logical approach moving forward and pulling back will actually strengthen our military.

Passing responsibility over to Iraqi's (which by the way they hate persians). will not only instill Iraqi nationalism and ownership in the future of their own country, as a byproduct it will will further promote stabilization in the region and help keep Iran in check. 

not my words , the Col's.  and Just an FYI the Colonel is a staunch Republican. 

BTW ..to stay on topic latest polling now shows Ron Paul is now only 1 point behind Newt in Iowa Caucus.

 - Semper Fi

[Cuts Crooked]

While I consider myself a Paul supporter, I am not sure I agree wih his views on foreign policy....I keep remembering how AMERICA came into being.......with the interference of another country....meddling in in our fracus with Briton.

There are those who consider Paul a real wingnut, but after looking over the field of republican offerings.......I think he is the wingnut that most represents MY views on fiscal and domestic policy. I simply refuse to vote for the rest of them even if they take the nomination! If Gingrich or Romney get the nod, neither will be able to beat Obama. There are too many true conservatives like me who will not vote for them.......perhaps what the republican machine needs right now....a good spanking in the election, to make them see that they need to run real conservatives, or even a libertarian!

[blind ear]

While I consider myself a Paul supporter, I am not sure I agree wih his views on foreign policy....I keep remembering how AMERICA came into being.......with the interference of another country....meddling in in our fracus with Briton.

There are those who consider Paul a real wingnut, but after looking over the field of republican offerings.......I think he is the wingnut that most represents MY views on fiscal and domestic policy. I simply refuse to vote for the rest of them even if they take the nomination! If Gingrich or Romney get the nod, neither will be able to beat Obama. There are too many true conservatives like me who will not vote for them.......perhaps what the republican machine needs right now....a good spanking in the election, to make them see that they need to run real conservatives, or even a libertarian!

The Republican Party has to get back to views of conservative people to run a conservative candidate. The Republicans have been the party of banks and coorporations (the FED)  for too long. ear

[Doublebass73]

There are those who consider Paul a real wingnut, but after looking over the field of republican offerings.......I think he is the wingnut that most represents MY views on fiscal and domestic policy. I simply refuse to vote for the rest of them even if they take the nomination! If Gingrich or Romney get the nod, neither will be able to beat Obama. There are too many true conservatives like me who will not vote for them.......perhaps what the republican machine needs right now....a good spanking in the election, to make them see that they need to run real conservatives, or even a libertarian!

Well said Cuts

[scootrd]

There are those who consider Paul a real wingnut, but after looking over the field of republican offerings.......I think he is the wingnut that most represents MY views on fiscal and domestic policy. I simply refuse to vote for the rest of them even if they take the nomination! If Gingrich or Romney get the nod, neither will be able to beat Obama. There are too many true conservatives like me who will not vote for them.......perhaps what the republican machine needs right now....a good spanking in the election, to make them see that they need to run real conservatives, or even a libertarian!

Well said Cuts

+1

[Bill T]

If Gingrich or Romney get the nod, neither will be able to beat Obama.

And you honestly think Ron Paul could? You're getting all worked up over a fringe candidate that has zero chance of winning the Republican nomination, regardless of what happens in Iowa. American voters simply do not want this guy, or his politics, regardless of how much you wave the Constitution, or chant otherwise. There are a lot of ways to change this country. Betting your hopes on a fringe candidate who has NEVER polled more than 9% in 3 Presidential elections, is certainly not one of them.

[Singleshotsam]

If Gingrich or Romney get the nod, neither will be able to beat Obama.

And you honestly think Ron Paul could? You're getting all worked up over a fringe candidate that has zero chance of winning the Republican nomination, regardless of what happens in Iowa. American voters simply do not want this guy, or his politics, regardless of how much you wave the Constitution, or chant otherwise. There are a lot of ways to change this country. Betting your hopes on a fringe candidate who has NEVER polled more than 9% in 3 Presidential elections, is certainly not one of them.

And you believe that hedging your vote on a series of Republicans that keep getting more and more progressive and socialist as the years go by is the only way to beat a slightly more socialist president currently in office?  I would like to point out that it's this exact line of thinking that has landed our country in the big mess of fecal matter were currently residing in.  The end result is Communism.  The only difference is that if you keep beating the RINO drum then we get there a bit slower than we would if we just went ahead and voted Liberal.

[Bill T]

 
And you believe that hedging your vote on a series of Republicans that keep getting more and more progressive and socialist as the years go by is the only way to beat a slightly more socialist president currently in office?

THAT IS NOT THE POINT. You are backing a candidate who cannot possibly win. He has never even remotely showed the slightest possible chance of winning in no less than 3 Presidential elections. Every other point is moot.
 
Look, I'm not saying that I think our current crop of candidates is so wonderful. To be honest I don't like them anymore than you do. But that doesn't change the reality of the fact Ron Paul has no chance of winning, and never did. So knowing that, why would you throw your vote away on him, and in the process help Hussein get elected, who we both agree is the worst possible choice?
 
If you like Ron Paul go ahead and vote for him in the primary elections. That is your right, and you harm no one by doing so. But after he fails to get nominated.....yet again, writing him in is only going to help split the Republican vote. And in the process get the worst possible candidate elected. Loving Ron Paul to the bitter end isn't going to change the mathematics of how our President gets elected.

[magooch]

Right you are, Bill and for anyone who thinks that what this country needs is a good spanking by having another term of hopless change and obamunism--you're nuts.

[scootrd]

and so you think casting my vote for more of this is truly better ? no thanks.

“I am completely opposed to the Obamacare mandate on individuals. I fought it for two and half years at the Center for Health Transformation. ..........and I am against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone because it is fundamentally wrong and I believe unconstitutional.”  - Newt

yet when you check the facts  ---------

Romney: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.
Gingrich: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
Romney: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.
Gingrich: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
Romney: And you never supported them?
Gingrich: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.

In 1993, the former speaker appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” saying: I am for individuals being required to have health insurance.” Gingrich reiterated that point in 2005 during an interview on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation.”In Gingrich’s 2009 book, he wrote: “Those who oppose the concept of insurance should be forced to post a bond to cover costs.

Newt is for Newt. Whatever sells a book.
I will not cast a vote just for expediancy. sake and get more of the same.

Ron Paul at least walks the walk. I don't consider this throwing my vote away.

Give us clear vision, that we may know where to stand and what to stand for - because unless we stand for something, we shall fall for anything. ~ Peter Marshall, US Senate Chaplain 1947
- Semper Fi
 - JMHO

[Singleshotsam]

 
 
And you believe that hedging your vote on a series of Republicans that keep getting more and more progressive and socialist as the years go by is the only way to beat a slightly more socialist president currently in office?

 
THAT IS NOT THE POINT. You are backing a candidate who cannot possibly win. He has never even remotely showed the slightest possible chance of winning in no less than 3 Presidential elections. Every other point is moot.
 
Look, I'm not saying that I think our current crop of candidates is so wonderful. To be honest I don't like them anymore than you do. But that doesn't change the reality of the fact Ron Paul has no chance of winning, and never did. So knowing that, why would you throw your vote away on him, and in the process help Hussein get elected, who we both agree is the worst possible choice?
 
If you like Ron Paul go ahead and vote for him in the primary elections. That is your right, and you harm no one by doing so. But after he fails to get nominated.....yet again, writing him in is only going to help split the Republican vote. And in the process get the worst possible candidate elected. Loving Ron Paul to the bitter end isn't going to change the mathematics of how our President gets elected.

How is that "Not the point!"?  That's exactly the point and it is far from a "moot" one.  Were in a cycle of electing Progressive candidates who are each cycle getting more and more progressive.  The only difference with the choices we will have in this election is do you want the candidate that will get us to a Socialist state faster or do you want to drag it out by electing RINO's?  That's your choice there Bill.  It's been going on for decades as you can clearly tell by the state our country is in. If the people don't start standing up and picking the best possible candidate to halt the steps towards socialism, then you may as well cast your vote for BHO and get it over with. 

So you can cut off the dogs tail a little bit at a time because you think it keeps it from hurting, you can chop off the tail quickly because you know that the best way to get it over with w/ the least amount of pain.  OR you can take the dog to an expert that may be able to save the tail without removing it at all.

[Bill T]

Ron Paul at least walks the walk. I don't consider this throwing my vote away.

And he'll be walking it right back to Texas, a 3 time loser. Then you will realize you have in fact thrown your vote away. By then however, it will be too late.

[Bill T]

Were in a cycle of electing Progressive candidates who are each cycle getting more and more progressive.

That I won't argue. What you fail to understand is you are in fact making it worse by trying to elect a candidate that is completely unelectable. The result of this foolishness is you are contributing the maximum amount to getting the worse candidate elected. You need to stop studying politics, and start studying mathematics. I didn't choose all of these candidates. All any of us can do is try to elect the best possible one WHO CAN WIN. Not help get the worst one elected by supporting the best one who CANNOT.