Is Ron Paul a racist?

[TrumanB]

Interesting.

Biden would be a great choice. As you said he's qualified and experienced and he was one of the only guys who was right about Iraq from the begining (Ron Paul and Obama being the others).

I'm a little confused how you could also be considering McCain, whose position on Iraq has made him look a little silly. His "surge is working" stance has been comical considering that no political progress has occurred nor did it ever have a chance.

I don't like him for his absurd foreign policy positions and the way he embarassed himself pandering to GWB in 2000.

Well, let's be real clear here. Although Biden initially pushed for Bush to exhaust all diplomacy channels before going to war, in the end, he also voted for the resolution supporting the war, just like McCain. And McCain has been highly critical of the Bush administration's misguided intelligence and poor planning of the post war Iraq.

As far as the surge, it appears that we have made military gains. But, the political side appears to have made little ground. That is on the Iraqis. I would give them an "internal" deadline to get their **** together and then come up with a timetable to start withdrawing our forces (on our own terms). I actually agreed with Biden's proposal last year on creating the 3 regions for the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis. But, we are probably too far down the road to actually make that happen now.

I don't agree with all of McCain's or Biden's policies. But after 8 years of buffoonery, I'll take competence over ideology.

[JohnLockesGhost]

A good AP write-up of Paul's appearance on MTP.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071223/D8TNC3EG0.html

[Zguy28]

Because it does not matter if he rambles or communicates poorly if he consistently has the correct answer.

THAT'S the point. It's having the answer. Not looking, or sounding, the part.

No, its all of it.

After what I saw today, no way I'm voting for him. I watched about ten minutes of it and that was enough. I was thinking to myself this guy is about to jump up and start yelling at Russert "why are you attacking me!" or something. He was very defensive, overly defensive IMHO.

Russert was straight up and quoted him. Paul's answer was some rambling incoherent mess. I'm sorry, I think he has a lot of good general ideas, but his methods for accomplishing them is out there and his communication skills are not something I want dealing with hardcore guys like Putin.

[PeterMP]

You should read some Frederic Bastiat. You are committing the fallacy of the Broken Window.

http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

Long term you MIGHT be right, but there is no doubt that short term that massive cuts in military spending will have negative economic affects (and I don't have to quote somebody from the 1800's to back it up). Just read any of the reports from previous base closing. Here's one example:

http://www.calinst.org/defense/base1a.htm

To talk about greatly reducing military spending across the board w/o discussing the likely economic affects (short term and long term) is ignorant.

[PeterMP]

1. China won't allow North Korea to invade the south because China does not want anymore North Korean refugees. China wants stability on their left flank.

2. Should North and South Korea unite and the US withdraws we would still have a presence in the region in Japan (definitely) and Australia (if needed).

3. The only reason the most of the North Korean military is parked near the DMZ is because most of the South Korean military and Americans are parked near the DMZ.

4. North Korea does not have the resources to launch a major campaign against the south even if the Americans withdraw. They have a lot of manpower but their arsenal is the equivalent of 1960's cuba.

I know leaving Korea sounds pie in the sky but if you really study the situation it is not as crazy as it sounds at first glance.

I'm going to concede your points are correct for the sake of arguemnt. Fine, then let's sit down w/ the S. Koreans and plan a reasonable schedule with draw and do it.

If you had a friend that was ill so you were staying in his house to help out (but it was inconvient for you for whatever reason). You wouldn't get up an announce one day, "I'm leaving tomorrow.". No, if he was truly a friend, when you felt like he was well enough to take care of everything himself, you'd go and have a conversation with about where things stood, and his feelings for your need to stay.

What Paul is proposing is immediate and unilateral withdraw (beyond that he has also said he would immediatley bring the Navy home (do you think we can really mantain troops in other places w/o an internationally active Navy and even if we do what is the value of it)). If we have fullfilled our function in Korea, I don't have a big problem bringing the troops home, but I think Paul's approached is wrong.

[PeterMP]

I was reading about Fred Thompson's platform on his website, and noticed one thing: He wants to dissolve the IRS!

Gee, I guess he is a loon, too, right, since he wants to dissolve a government agency?

One thing folks forget about Ron Paul: He believes in the Presidency as a position that's limited by checks and balances. Sure, he talks about some of his philosophical ideals (smaller government, less international entanglements, etc...), but really, as President, he wouldn't have the sweeping powers to do everything he discusses, because that one of his criticisms of the current Presidency - powers that overstep the position.

The individual income tax can be eliminated in any number of ways that would be revenue neutral. The problem is that Paul wants to get rid of it and replace it w/ nothing. I'd actually get rid of it and make up the difference by raising the coperate income tax. This could be done over a number of years.

What Paul fails to address is he's how is he going to get rid of over 50% of the federal goverments income and pay off the debt (which he thinks is very important, and I agree).

[JohnLockesGhost]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements

Hey sweet! Todd Wade likes Ron Paul too.

[JosephGibbs]

I'm a little confused how you could also be considering McCain, whose position on Iraq has made him look a little silly. His "surge is working" stance has been comical considering that no political progress has occurred nor did it ever have a chance.

.

Says who? By most accounts the surge is working tremendously. The progression of a different political course is dependant upon the Iraqis not us. I don't know why you keep blaming that on the United States. Security is a different matter, that is our main objective and was the reason for the surge which is working.

[Baculus]

Show me where I said anything about "looks". His thoughts were unorganized and he tended to ramble in his answers. I would expect a 10 term congressman to conduct himself better than that. Anyways, besides the poor communication skills, 75% of his ideas are straight up crazy. I have more of an issue with that than his inability to put a coherent thought together.

75% of his ideas are straight up crazy? That's a bit much.

The problem is that I hear this "crazy" word thrown out by folks who HAVEN'T EVEN READ HIS PLATFORM. I would venture to guess that most of the folks on this thread, who have been critical of Paul, haven't even bothered to read his stances on various positions.

Agree - disagree...it's your choice. But at least make an attempt to research where he stands, as opposed to being intellectually lazy.

I assume you do not support libertarian or more traditional conservative ideas, correct? Because that is a huge part of his platform. I guess positions such as 2nd amendment rights, upholding individual and private property rights, attempting to resolve the immigration issue, pushing for a balanced budget, ending the War on Drugs, etc., are just crazy, right? (Well, to some folks, I guess these positions may be crazy, so I may be wrong - you may be anti-gun and anti-drug, for all I know....)

Again - have you even, for once, bothered to look at his platform? If so, what is so crazy about supporting the 2nd amendment? What is so crazy about the idea of a smaller government with a more efficient budget?

Here is his website - why don't you actually do some reading?

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Anyway, he didn't ramble THAT bad - hyperbole much?

[Sarge]

Again, what's crazy, or just plain incompetant, is his foreign policy

And legalizing drugs and prostitution

No thanks

And isn't it strange that even his most regular and ardent supporters on this site have very little to say in this particular thread?

Perhaps because instead of going to Pauls site and reading about how great and cool he is, and how everyone "cool" is voting for him, they got to see him up close and personal for a change.

And it wasn't very pretty

[Baculus]

The individual income tax can be eliminated in any number of ways that would be revenue neutral. The problem is that Paul wants to get rid of it and replace it w/ nothing. I'd actually get rid of it and make up the difference by raising the coperate income tax. This could be done over a number of years.

What Paul fails to address is he's how is he going to get rid of over 50% of the federal goverments income and pay off the debt (which he thinks is very important, and I agree).

If we reduced government spending to around 1995 levels, we could drastically reduce income taxes. The problem is that the government has increased its spending so quickly, that it has outpaced our ability to reduce it so easily, and that is going to be a challenge, for sure.

No one ever said it was going to be easy. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, does it, or have a philosophical change?

Obviously some programs will have to be cut, and that is something that will have to be cut.

Also, Ron Paul HAS made some proposals for getting rid of chunks of federal government income, but they proposals have been spelled out more so in articles he has written on sites such as lewrockwell.com. For good or bad, one sometimes has to do some research to further understand Paul's positions.

[Baculus]

Again, what's crazy, or just plain incompetant, is his foreign policy

And legalizing drugs and prostitution

No thanks

And isn't it strange that even his most regular and ardent supporters on this site have very little to say in this particular thread?

Perhaps because instead of going ot Pauls site and reading, they got to see him up close and personal.

And it wasn't very pretty

I think it is crazy to have an overly activist foreign policy. It reduces our ability to react to hotspots around the world if we are busy in too many places. Also, there is a point where something has to give with our spending policies: We just can't continue to have this level of military activism and expect to avoid having budgetary problems. That is, unless we become a Spartan-like state, where the military are the #1 primary concern, and citizens are here to serve the State.

Also, an activist foreign policy has often landed us in trouble, when we have supported the wrong folks, or been on the wrong end up military coups. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, where our attempts to stop events have often created them.

We shouldn't be an isolationist nation, but there has to be a balance and common sense to where we decide to become involved in the affairs of others.

If someone isn't harming anyone by their drug use, especially marijuana, then so be it - that is their business, not yours nor mine. And prostitution has been legal in Nevada for years - that state tends to see far fewer problems compared to places where prostitution is illegal.

[CMonster]

No, its all of it.

After what I saw today, no way I'm voting for him. I watched about ten minutes of it and that was enough. I was thinking to myself this guy is about to jump up and start yelling at Russert "why are you attacking me!" or something. He was very defensive, overly defensive IMHO.

Russert was straight up and quoted him. Paul's answer was some rambling incoherent mess. I'm sorry, I think he has a lot of good general ideas, but his methods for accomplishing them is out there and his communication skills are not something I want dealing with hardcore guys like Putin.

You illustrate clearly why this country is in big big trouble.

You just admitted that you didn't bother to listen to everything he had to say, you just decided that you didn't think he was articulate enough and turned it off.

Let's think about a few things:

1) The President doesn't "deal" with Putin. That's the job of the Secretary of State. The President sets and guides the policy.

2) Most world leaders don't speak great English and have the help of translators. Most world leaders wouldn't even know if the president is or isn't articulate.

3) Putin, and the other world leaders, are MORE CONCERNED WITH THE ACTUAL POLICY. In case you didn't notice, Putin is laughing at us and our incompetence these days. He's actually using our current foreign policy against us. But, hey, you are probably going to vote for someone who wants to maintain the status quo but he'll sound good doing it.

If you were a wise man, you'd find out what Ron Paul's foreign policy is and then carefully think about how Putin would reach to that policy.

But you are more concerned with a 10 minute interview than the actual policy.

[CMonster]

Again, what's crazy, or just plain incompetant, is his foreign policy

And legalizing drugs and prostitution

No thanks

And isn't it strange that even his most regular and ardent supporters on this site have very little to say in this particular thread?

Perhaps because instead of going to Pauls site and reading about how great and cool he is, and how everyone "cool" is voting for him, they got to see him up close and personal for a change.

And it wasn't very pretty

With all due respect, you are free to disagree with Ron Paul's foreign policy, but if you think it's crazy then you are simply misinformed.

Please stop listening to Fox news and do some research. I can assure you that folks who are well informed about the Middle East know that Ron Paul's foreign policy is if not exactly right then certainly not "crazy".

Here's a video where that is confirmed by the head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x82oZOMwwCk&feature=related

If you really believe that "they hate us for our freedom" then you are part of the problem.

[CMonster]

Says who? By most accounts the surge is working tremendously. The progression of a different political course is dependant upon the Iraqis not us. I don't know why you keep blaming that on the United States. Security is a different matter, that is our main objective and was the reason for the surge which is working.

Wow.

"The surge is working". What does that mean?

That if we stick our military in the middle of a civil war in a war-ravaged 3rd world country that we can reduce violence?

That's super duper.

Now what does that have to do with the national security of the United States of America? nothing.

Out military has been stretched to the breaking point. Bin Laden is growing Al Qaeda and the Taliban is recovering where the rest of the terrorists are in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

There is no good reason for US forces to be in Iraq at this point. "the surge" is a bunch of BS.

[CMonster]

Again, what's crazy, or just plain incompetant, is his foreign policy

And legalizing drugs and prostitution

No thanks

And isn't it strange that even his most regular and ardent supporters on this site have very little to say in this particular thread?

Perhaps because instead of going to Pauls site and reading about how great and cool he is, and how everyone "cool" is voting for him, they got to see him up close and personal for a change.

And it wasn't very pretty

Oh and about "legalizing drugs and prostitution" being crazy.

The Constituition doesn't allow for the Federal Government to outlaw those things.

I guess Al Qaeda is going after the Netherlands next.... :doh:

[Sarge]

With all due respect, you are free to disagree with Ron Paul's foreign policy, but if you think it's crazy then you are simply misinformed.

Please stop listening to Fox news and do some research. I can assure you that folks who are well informed about the Middle East know that Ron Paul's foreign policy is if not exactly right then certainly not "crazy".

How's 22 years of military service, travel around the world, meeting/dealing with high ranking government officials of foreign countries, a BS in poli science and a masters in history for foreign policy experience?

His foreign policy is a joke

[rainmkr]

How's 22 years of military service, travel around the world, meeting/dealing with high ranking government officials of foreign countries, a BS in poli science and a masters in history for foreign policy experience?

His foreign policy is a joke

And you feel the current state of international relations are so good that a change isn't needed? I all down for REALPOLITIK but there is a lot of damage control that needs to be done since Bush took office. No, Clinton did't do anything great, he was almost a non performer and I think the 90s reaped the awards of Reagan's policies that Bush Sr didn't muck with while in office.

We will spend ourselves into the ground and become the next (collapsing) Soviet Empire if we are not careful.

[Mad Mike]

And you feel the current state of international relations are so good that a change isn't needed? I all down for REALPOLITIK but there is a lot of damage control that needs to be done since Bush took office. No, Clinton did't do anything great, he was almost a non performer and I think the 90s reaped the awards of Reagan's policies that Bush Sr didn't muck with while in office.

We will spend ourselves into the ground and become the next (collapsing) Soviet Empire if we are not careful.

So the answer is to withdraw from all forward bases. Shrink our military to a tiny fraction of its current size (given that Paul would do away with the taxes that pay for it), and withdraw all support from our allies.

RON PAUL IS A LOON. A MORON. AN IDIOT. A CRACKPOT. I'VE SEEN HAMSTERS SMARTER THAN HIM. :doh:

[Sarge]

So the answer is to withdraw from all forward bases. Shrink our military to a tiny fraction of its current size (given that Paul would do away with the taxes that pay for it), and withdraw all support from our allies.

RON PAUL IS A LOON. A MORON. AN IDIOT. A CRACKPOT. I'VE SEEN HAMSTERS SMARTER THAN HIM. :doh:

Don't be so mean to hamsters. They're our friends

[CMonster]

How's 22 years of military service, travel around the world, meeting/dealing with high ranking government officials of foreign countries, a BS in poli science and a masters in history for foreign policy experience?

His foreign policy is a joke

Great. So you'll have no problem EXPLAINING your position.

I mean, since you've studied political science you'll have no problem explaining why the foreign policy set forth by the FOUNDING FATHERS is "crazy" and why those that have spent their careers studying Al Quaeda are similarly "crazy".

Further, you can easily enlighten us as to what the high ranking government officials around the world think about the United States these days.

[CMonster]

So the answer is to withdraw from all forward bases. Shrink our military to a tiny fraction of its current size (given that Paul would do away with the taxes that pay for it), and withdraw all support from our allies.

RON PAUL IS A LOON. A MORON. AN IDIOT. A CRACKPOT. I'VE SEEN HAMSTERS SMARTER THAN HIM. :doh:

Really? He wants to withdraw all support from our allies?

Did you make that up completely?

And please explain who our "allies" are around the world. They all picked up and left Iraq already.

[mardi gras skin]

Just watched the interview. Wow. That was embarrassing. He whined about the 3rd party thing and his entitlements record. He just came across very defensive which doesn't jive with his strong language. If he's willing to call Reagan a failure and use the word "facism" when he sees a Huckabee commercial, you'd think he would put on his big boy pants before he goes on Meet the Press.

Basically, he comes across as if he can dish it out but he can't take it. Distasteful.

[Sarge]

Great. So you'll have no problem EXPLAINING your position.

I mean, since you've studied political science you'll have no problem explaining why the foreign policy set forth by the FOUNDING FATHERS is "crazy" and why those that have spent their careers studying Al Quaeda are similarly "crazy".

Further, you can easily enlighten us as to what the high ranking government officials around the world think about the United States these days.

Trust me. I would LOVE nothing more than to tell the world, "Bite me", "**** off" and have a great day. I would love to close the borders, become isolationist and depend on "us" for everything

I would love that

ANd back in the day of the founding fathers, when it took eight weeks by ship to get to England, we could get away with that if we had to do so. Although even then we imported almost everything refined from England

Hell, even George Washington himself went to great lenghts to get his clothes asnd home furnishings from England.

Unfortunately, it no longer takes weeks to get to England, so you comparing the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers to todays circumstances is a non- sequiter. Apples and Oranges.

It now takes hours to get to the other side of the world, and for the other side of the world to export their problems to us.

Also, if you haven't noticed, we are dependant on foreign oil. THere are seven stratigic oil "Chokepoints" in the world, and a few more minor ones. THose are the points where all of our oil goes through

http://lugar.senate.gov/energy/security/chokepoints.cfm

Notice where four of them are located?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that it is in our best interests to ensure that these points remmain clear of *******s who would like to see us go down.

Our reaction and response time is greatly increased if we have to go from America proper to the Middle East.

Until we are off foreign oil, that's just the way it has to be. Too bad Ron Paul can't figure that out

And if he can't get that figured out,how the hell is he supposed to run the country?

[Mad Mike]

Really? He wants to withdraw all support from our allies?

Did you make that up completely?

And please explain who our "allies" are around the world. They all picked up and left Iraq already.

No foreign aid. No military aid. What support would we be giving? A warm pat on the back? Israel would not exist without US aid they would have long since been driven under by Arab nations.

And don't give me any crap about the founding fathers. They had no consensus on foreign policy and the could not imagine the world as it now exists. This is reality. Leave your idealistic fantasy world at the door.

The problem with Afghanistan was not that we supported the resistance against the soviet union. It is the fact that when the soviets left and the Northern alliance asked for our help, we abandoned them to the Taliban and the radicals. Now Paul wants to do the same thing in Iraq? HE IS A MORON.