Author Topic: Ron Paul on the Neocon Movement in America (Read 1402 times)

Gary G · « **on:** February 14, 2012, 07:09:31 AM »

I wish that everyone would read this. It is long, but very important to your liberty. I believe that if all people understood, America would move away from the destructive path that we are following. However, some that think they are conservatives will learn that they are not. Voting would surely be different. If not, then I expect that we will in the not too distant future be living in a hell-hole much like the former soviet union where people will be trying to get out, but are fenced in.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

twoshooter · « **Reply #1 on:** February 14, 2012, 04:26:25 PM »

Thanks for the link. Excellent.

Singleshotsam · « **Reply #2 on:** February 15, 2012, 01:05:58 AM »

Good writeup. Thanks for the link.

Sadly 3/4 of the people who comment against Ron Paul wont take the time to read it before the bashing begins... $:-\$

nw_hunter · « **Reply #3 on:** February 15, 2012, 05:44:35 AM »

A Great read! Thing is.......He is preaching to the choir in a lengthy article such as this.Most Republican and Democrat voters today won't take the time to read or listen to a long speech or article. The turn on their favorite talking head and listen to one liner sound bites.

I think Rockwell and other informative sites should have two versions.One for people who really are looking for truth in the issues that are important, and one for people who can only digest bits and pieces.(AKA) Liberals and Neocons.They can listen for hours to so called entertainment such as John Stewart or Rush Limbaugh, but they have to be funny, entertaining or both to keep their attention.

BUGEYE · « **Reply #4 on:** February 15, 2012, 09:44:35 AM »

I read down to where he took it upon himself to his list 17 things that y'all say that I believe.
nothing could be farther from the truth. in fact, in another thread recently, I stated that the people who were sent by the tea party, did NOT do the job they were sent to do.
you accuse me of hating RP, I don't. I'm more on your side than you realize.
my non-support of RP came about because of his earmark scam. he deliberately lied which put him in the same category as the other candidates. I chose Santorum because of his stand on family issues.

how many of you even know about his earmark scam?

jimster · « **Reply #5 on:** February 15, 2012, 10:42:48 AM »

I don't claim to know a lot about the ear mark thing, but as Ron Paul stated, the ear mark rules in place as of now say that the federal government already has a certain amount of funds they took from the state to Begin with, the rules say if anyone representing their state turns down the money, it goes back to the feds who blow it any way they want...so the smart thing now is to play the game, grab the money and send it back to the state, where it came from to begin with....if ya don't, they (the feds) will squander it. So Paul sent it back to the state, where it belongs.

He also said he would like to get rid of all the earmark rules and let the states keep more of their money in the first place.
I don't know the answers to any of this, but it seems right now we are all stuck with earmark fed rules, no matter who you are. Any Senators who say "keep it" to the feds, is pretty dumb, their state would be better off with it, so maybe that's why hardly anyone gives it back to the feds, unless they want some PR...? Who knows...all in all Ron Paul is the best choice in my book, if you search long enough and listen long enough he explains himself pretty good. No he ain't perfect...neither am I. But I'm glad after his explaining how all this earmark mess and rules are a pain...he sent the money back to his state. He figured it belonged there instead of in the feds pocket...who knows where that would go. That's what I got out of it. Anyway, earmarks is used politically just like anything else, you give your state the money, or let the feds run guns across the border with it, either way, your toast in somebody's book.

BUGEYE · « **Reply #6 on:** February 15, 2012, 11:01:46 AM »

earmarks have to be put in the budget to be spent.
republicans tried to get a moratorium on earmarks thereby saving millions. but RP and three other republicans ignored it and requested millions. RP then voted against the budget which he knew would pass, then he said, oh well, if I don't spend it, obama will.
that's a crock. if the money is not in the budget, it won't be borrowed from china.
he's as much a part of the problem as the rest.

nw_hunter · « **Reply #7 on:** February 15, 2012, 12:04:26 PM »

Listen or read what Paul has to say about earmarks.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-11/ron-paul-on-earmarks/

BUGEYE · « **Reply #8 on:** February 15, 2012, 12:28:52 PM »

just more koolaid. for an earmark to be justified, you would have to know to the penny how much your district paid in federal taxes before you could request money. but if you do that, those people would be dumping everything on the rest of the country instead of paying their share of defense etc.
did ALL of his constituents benefit? of course not. the money went to pay off big contributors in his machine. earmarks are nothing but payoffs, nothing more.
the people in congress are sent there to try to run the countrys business, not to do favors for a select few. if his earmarks happen to cost more than his district contributed, then he has stolen from all of us.
he gave a huge amount to the shrimp industry to "learn how to market shrimp" give me a break.
when will you admit that he is a politician.
his argument that the executive branch would get it if he doesn't spend it is the biggest bunch of malarky I've heard. if you don't want obama to spend money, take it out of the budget.

Lost Farmboy · « **Reply #9 on:** February 15, 2012, 01:50:28 PM »

I say Ron Paul just beat bugeye in a debate, and he didn't even know he was debating.

BUGEYE · « **Reply #10 on:** February 15, 2012, 02:14:04 PM »

Quote from: Lost Farmboy on February 15, 2012, 01:50:28 PM

I say Ron Paul just beat bugeye in a debate, and he didn't even know he was debating.

that's the beauty of this country. you can debate.

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #11 on:** February 15, 2012, 02:20:53 PM »

Quote from: BUGEYE on February 15, 2012, 02:14:04 PM

that's the beauty of this country. you can debate.

Ah!!! But for how much longer can we do that if things keep going the way they are now? $:-\$

spitpatch · « **Reply #12 on:** February 15, 2012, 02:43:23 PM »

I'd say that bugeyes comment is correct. To think that RP is the only one thats honest, one would have to had drank gallons of koolaide. While I totally agree with his economic policy 100%.....his foreign policy is totally off the edge of the envelope!.... Thats what kills RP for me.

Would RP lie to the press?? In case your wondering... that was a retorical question. I find it very interesting that most of the politicans will talk the talk, but very few walk the walk after the election......if RP wins the nomination, I'll vote for him....

I do love that "neocon" thing....makes me chuckle every time I hear it. Would that make RP a "neolib"?

I would truely like to see RP's economic plan implemented, but with his foriegn policy, I'm sure the other countries of the world would wipe their feet on him/us like a doormat.

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #13 on:** February 15, 2012, 02:58:50 PM »

Quote from: spitpatch on February 15, 2012, 02:43:23 PM

I'd say that bugeyes comment is correct. To think that RP is the only one thats honest, one would have to had drank gallons of koolaide. While I totally agree with his economic policy 100%.....his foreign policy is totally off the edge of the envelope!.... Thats what kills RP for me.

Would RP lie to the press?? In case your wondering... that was a retorical question. I find it very interesting that most of the politicans will talk the talk, but very few walk the walk after the election......if RP wins the nomination, I'll vote for him....

I do love that "neocon" thing....makes me chuckle every time I hear it. Would that make RP a "neolib"?

I would truely like to see RP's economic plan implemented, but with his foriegn policy, I'm sure the other countries of the world would wipe their feet on him/us like a doormat.

I'm curious....have YOU read A Foreign Policy of Freedom By Ron Paul? I'm not asking about what you've heard others say about it....I'm asking if you've actually READ it?

scootrd · « **Reply #14 on:** February 15, 2012, 03:12:45 PM »

Quote from: spitpatch on February 15, 2012, 02:43:23 PM

I'd say that bugeyes comment is correct. To think that RP is the only one thats honest, one would have to had drank gallons of koolaide. While I totally agree with his economic policy 100%.....his foreign policy is totally off the edge of the envelope!.... Thats what kills RP for me.

Guess I'm a Koolaide Drinker.
I think RP walks the walk , Talks the Talk , and his foreign policy approach is spot on and in line with Thomas Jefferson.
If we are attacked we defend else we stay out if the affairs of others.

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem the essential principles of our government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801.

"We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with the general affairs of Europe. Peace with all nations, and the right which that gives us with respect to all nations, are our object." --Thomas Jefferson to C. W. F. Dumas, 1793.

"We wish to cultivate peace and friendship with all nations, believing that course most conducive to the welfare of our own. It is natural that these friendships should bear some proportion to the common interests of the parties." --Thomas Jefferson to Rufus King, 1802.

- Semper Fi

Singleshotsam · « **Reply #15 on:** February 16, 2012, 12:31:58 AM »

I like how Bugeye is staunchly opposed to Ron Paul because he "lied" about earmarks. That's the only thing Bugeye has accused him of lying about, but yet Bugeye will support a candidate who lies about EVERYTHING!

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 16, 2012, 01:49:07 AM »

Quote from: BUGEYE on February 15, 2012, 09:44:35 AM

I chose Santorum because of his stand on family issues.

Family issues? What are those? What positions on... families does Santorum have? Got a list?

spitpatch · « **Reply #17 on:** February 16, 2012, 02:51:20 PM »

Yes I've read many of RP's works and have been reading his newsletters for some time. I do admire the man for many things, but the fact is, it's simply nuts to believe that we can leave the rest of the world to themselves and they, in turn, will do the same.

A great many people thought that back in WWII. Had we not got involved in other nations affairs back then, I assure you that we'd all be speaking German right now. In todays world it's the radical muslims.

Do you think for one moment that if Iran aquires a nuke they won't use it? We are in a global market place and we are intertwined with the rest of the world, weather we like it or not.

For RP "himself" to declare that he sees nothing wrong with Iran aquiring a nuke is just plain nuts! Is anyone here gullible enough to think that Iran wouldn't use a nuke if they had it?

Scootrd, your quotes by T. Jefferson and the rest are good rules we should have followed 150 YEARS AGO, but sadly, do not apply in todays world......Those boys never seen a radical muslim, and all the world IS intertwined. We have to deal with the reality of TODAYS world

To believe that we can leave radical Islam alone and it will leave us alone is just plain foolish. (IMHO)

Gary G · « **Reply #18 on:** February 16, 2012, 05:19:57 PM »

Quote from: spitpatch on February 16, 2012, 02:51:20 PM

Yes I've read many of RP's works and have been reading his newsletters for some time. I do admire the man for many things, but the fact is, it's simply nuts to believe that we can leave the rest of the world to themselves and they, in turn, will do the same.

A great many people thought that back in WWII. Had we not got involved in other nations affairs back then, I assure you that we'd all be speaking German right now. In todays world it's the radical muslims.

Do you think for one moment that if Iran aquires a nuke they won't use it? We are in a global market place and we are intertwined with the rest of the world, weather we like it or not.

For RP "himself" to declare that he sees nothing wrong with Iran aquiring a nuke is just plain nuts! Is anyone here gullible enough to think that Iran wouldn't use a nuke if they had it?

Scootrd, your quotes by T. Jefferson and the rest are good rules we should have followed 150 YEARS AGO, but sadly, do not apply in todays world......Those boys never seen a radical muslim, and all the world IS intertwined. We have to deal with the reality of TODAYS world

To believe that we can leave radical Islam alone and it will leave us alone is just plain foolish. (IMHO)

Do you think Germany would have come to America in the Navy they didn't have or in the airplanes that would crash in the ocean as the ran out of gas?

Do you think Iran would attack us with the bomb they don't have on the end of a missile that they don't have that will fly this far?

Which is the only country in the world to ever use a nuclear bomb?

Why has no other country ever used a nuclear bomb?

scootrd · « **Reply #19 on:** February 16, 2012, 06:32:16 PM »

Quote from: spitpatch on February 16, 2012, 02:51:20 PM

A great many people thought that back in WWII. Had we not got involved in other nations affairs back then, I assure you that we'd all be speaking German right now.

Do you think for one moment that if Iran acquires a nuke they won't use it?

For RP "himself" to declare that he sees nothing wrong with Iran acquiring a nuke is just plain nuts! Is anyone here gullible enough to think that Iran wouldn't use a nuke if they had it?

To believe that we can leave radical Islam alone and it will leave us alone is just plain foolish. (IMHO)

A great many people thought that back in WWII. Had we not got involved in other nations affairs back then, I assure you that we'd all be speaking German right now. - Actually It was Britain's and France's fault and problem at the time. In 1936 Hitler ordered German troops to enter the Rhineland. At this point the German army was not very strong and could have been easily defeated. Yet neither France nor Britain was prepared to start another war. Hitler's next step was to begin taking back the land that had been taken away from Germany. In March 1938, German troops marched into Austria. Six months later he demanded that the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia be handed over to Germany. In March 1939 invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. When Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, he broke the terms of the Munich Agreement. Although it was realized that the policy of appeasement had failed, Chamberlain was still not prepared to take the country to war over "..a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing." Instead, he made a guarantee to come to Poland's aid if Hitler invaded Poland. German troops then invaded Poland on 1st September 1939.

Hitler had no interest in the United States, he was trying to reclaim lands he believed were part of Germania.
Our involvement came at the aid of Britian who if they acted earlier Hitller most likely would have been suppressed, To say we would be speaking German today is just not accurate.

Do you think for one moment that if Iran acquires a nuke they won't use it?
The US needs no involvement , Israel will not let it happen.

For RP "himself" to declare that he sees nothing wrong with Iran acquiring a nuke is just plain nuts! Is anyone here gullible enough to think that Iran wouldn't use a nuke if they had it?

He never said that. This is what he said:

Paul said "it is natural for Iran to want a bomb as it is surrounded by countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel which all have one and with China, the United States and Russia all involved in the region. He said the U.S. should not get involved in the country’s internal affairs.""I think there's nothing wrong with considering the Just War principles that have been around since Saint Augustine," Paul explained. "You fight war in defense and you do it proportionally. You do it after you talk to people and you do it to protect your own people." - Ron Paul

To believe that we can leave radical Islam alone and it will leave us alone is just plain foolish. (IMHO)

Bin Laden for example told us exactly why he attacked us. In his letter to America. He believed we were attacking them. He wanted our military bases out of his lands and to leave his people alone.

Ok, the guy was clearly a nut Job. But it's not what we believe true, it's what they believed to be true. It's our presence in their lands that angers them. To say RP is wrong with wanting to get untangled from ME and let them solve their issues is foolish. I disagree. They have been fighting over there for 5000 years and will fight for 5000 more. Our presence in ME just exacerbates their disputes and destabilizes the region more. It's not for us to be the world police.

Jefferson's positions are just as relevant today as they were when first stated.
RP positions are in line with Jefferson's Positions. I view neither man as foolish.

and that's JMHO

Semper FI

Swift One · « **Reply #20 on:** February 17, 2012, 04:41:21 AM »

Scootrd, Excellent points. America and all it "sticking it's nose in foriegn affairs and playing world police" is starting to catch up with it. We need to take a real hard long look at us before we go around pushing other people around. We left europe for the new world because of all the bullying that those governments did. And now look at us, we are doing alot of the bullying. And lets face it. Our boys are over their dying for oil, not freedom. We allowed ourselves to let terrorists into our country and set up the attack with our relaxed attitudes and lack of action on the administration at the time.

I believe its highly unlikely that any nukes will be used on us on our soil. OUR SOIL. Lets get our folks back her to that soils and secure the borders, waterways, and airspace.

BUGEYE · « **Reply #21 on:** February 17, 2012, 07:46:39 AM »

Quote from: Singleshotsam on February 16, 2012, 12:31:58 AM

I like how Bugeye is staunchly opposed to Ron Paul because he "lied" about earmarks. That's the only thing Bugeye has accused him of lying about, but yet Bugeye will support a candidate who lies about EVERYTHING!

I have a couple of other issues that I covered in another thread.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #22 on:** February 17, 2012, 09:24:55 AM »

Germany's plan in WWII was to take Russia, Asia, Africa, then build a large navy to conquer Brittan and America with Japan's help in Asia. Germany got involved via Japan in a two front war that was unwinable.

Iran would probably use a nuke against Israel or any other country who stood in their way. The Muslims, once they did away with Isreal, would once again try to take Europe, Asia, and All of Africa with their cult religion. Then if one Muslim charismatic leader emerges, and units all the Muslims, they would take on the whole world. It is in their prophecies, and their ultimate goal.

spitpatch · « **Reply #23 on:** February 17, 2012, 07:51:07 PM »

As I remember, just the other week, Iran was testing a long range missle (delivery system). I wonder.....could that have been for a bomb? naaaah....I'm probably just paranoid. If they think nothing of killing themselves, what would make one think they would care about nuclear fallout?

Thats the biggest problem with western thinking......they do not think like us, or play by our rules of engagement. Their only though is to kill us....all of us, by any means available.

Dixie Dude......great post.

BUGEYE · « **Reply #24 on:** February 18, 2012, 03:03:54 AM »

Dixie Dude and spitpatch, that is the truth you have spoken.
iran has a plan and it's not for our good health.

scootrd · « **Reply #25 on:** February 18, 2012, 03:57:36 AM »

Quite frankly I think most of Iran would want this idiot deposed, he is ruining their economy.

Tuesday 7 February 2012 14.58 EST
The Iranian parliament has summoned the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to answer a series of questions over the government's handling of the economy and his personal judgments.The move is unprecedented in the history of the Islamic republic.

After a year of internal debate and unsuccessful attempts to question or impeach the president, MPs secured enough signatures for an attempt to summon Ahmadinejad. They succeeded in persuading the parliament's presiding board to read the motion during Tuesday's open session.

The move comes at a time of discontent at home owing to western economic sanctions and growing international isolation over Iran's nuclear program. In recent weeks, fears of a major confrontation between Iran and the west have grown. Within a month of receiving the summons, Ahmadinejad is required by law to appear in the parliament. Otherwise, MPs may impeach him.

Previous attempts by Iranian MPs to question Ahmadinejad failed owing to apparent intervention by the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who holds the ultimate power in Iran. Khamenei, who adopted Ahmadinejad as his protege in the past, does not appear to have stepped in this time.

A former adviser to an Iranian president, who asked not to be named, said: "The summoning has come at the worst time for Ahmadinejad. It is a shock for the campaign of those of his supporters who are running in the parliamentary elections.

At the time when he should be campaigning for his allies, he has to sit in the position of the wrongdoer and defend himself."

Ron Paul is spot on with is foreign policies. Bring troops home and let em all clean up their own messes, the sanctions are working.

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #26 on:** February 18, 2012, 04:24:25 AM »

So.........we are how many trillion in debt that we cannot pay? And we are going to continue to try and be the worlds police?

Yeah right.!!!!!!!!!!!

That's gonna work...............SURE!!!

scootrd · « **Reply #27 on:** February 18, 2012, 04:30:56 AM »

Quote from: spitpatch on February 17, 2012, 07:51:07 PM

As I remember, just the other week, Iran was testing a long range missle (delivery system).

The largest missile they have is the the Shahab-3. (it's basically a scud) It's a single-stage, liquid-fueled, medium-range missile with a range of approximately 800 miles. It could reach Israel , but its a looong lonnnnng way off from reaching us.Wack Jobs North Korea sold it to 'em. It's the first missile that allows them the capability to threaten targets (like Israel) which lie beyond Iran’s immediate borders.

Additionally , the Shahab-3 is not fitted for Nuke deployment. They can tell that by the nose cones.

The only one who has tested a long range missile is Israel -

In November 2011, Israel tested what experts said was a long-range ballistic missile, firing it out to sea from an Air Force base just south of Tel Aviv. The test came after nearly a week of reports and speculation in the Israeli news media about whether the country’s prime minister and defense minister had decided to attack Iran’s nuclear complexes.

The only thing I see that's causing an escalation is all this jacked up rhetoric . Ron Paul is spot on with is foreign policies. Bring troops home and let em all clean up their own messes, the sanctions are working.

- JMHO
Semper Fi

twoshooter · « **Reply #28 on:** February 18, 2012, 04:52:34 AM »

There is no debate here, there is only this statement:

My side is knowledgeable, informed, intelligent, logical, patriotic, moral, and RIGHT, while YOUR side is

ignorant, ill informed, illogical, unpatriotic, immoral, easily duped, and therefore WRONG. You are a :

________________ 1. Conservative
2. Liberal
3.Democrat
4. Republican
5. Libertarian

The answers are completely interchangeable, pick any answer and get a bonus answer free. You are like dung beetles competing for a fresh pile of doggie do. This is going to smell the same when it is over, regardless of the outcome, and it ain't gonna be roses.....

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #29 on:** February 18, 2012, 05:00:37 AM »

Quote from: twoshooter on February 18, 2012, 04:52:34 AM

There is no debate here, there is only this statement:

My side is knowledgeable, informed, intelligent, logical, patriotic, moral, and RIGHT, while YOUR side is

ignorant, ill informed, illogical, unpatriotic, immoral, easily duped, and therefore WRONG. You are a :

________________ 1. Conservative
2. Liberal
3.Democrat
4. Republican
5. Libertarian

The answers are completely interchangeable, pick any answer and get a bonus answer free. You are like dung beetles competing for a fresh pile of doggie do. This is going to smell the same when it is over, regardless of the outcome, and it ain't gonna be roses.....

And this is pertinant to the questions I posed.....how?