If you were/are a Ron Paul supporter, how do you feel about his comments that he wouldn't have ordered the Bin Laden raid?

[SnyderShrugged]

LOL "the past few weeks". How about the past few years?? The TP has been taken over...Spin it however you want to but when push comes to shove he's on the outside looking in.

And you somehow think that RP hasnt been at teaparty events all over the country in the past few years either?

The only one "spinning" is you here. You havent offerred an iota of proof to back up this claim that he was supposedly "kicked out".

It sounds like you have "kicked him out" alone on an island. If anything, RP has not participated in the local events where the failed neo-con approach to life is favored. I cant say I'd blame him. But bear this in mind, HE made the choice to to play with the tea-o-cons when they left the reservation of actual limited government, not the other way around.

Thanks for your OPINION, but thats all it is, and its off base at that.

---------- Post added May-15th-2011 at 01:51 PM ----------

I understand Ron's pov . He believes racial discrimination would have ended anyways, because of the free market.

I respectfully disagree.

It's definitely OK to disagree! But in your previous post, you inferred something much more sinister about his reasons for not supporting the entire CRA in full.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

It's definitely OK to disagree! But in your previous post, you inferred something much more sinister about his reasons for not supporting the entire CRA in full.

I wasn't saying that Ron/Rand are racist.

I just think that thier stance on the Civil Rights Act is misguided. :2cents:

[SnyderShrugged]

I wasn't saying that Ron/Rand are racist.

I just think that thier stance on the Civil Rights Act is misguided. :2cents:

I'm glad, but that really is a very different tone than when you said that the primary reason for not liking them is their opposition to the CRA and you called at least Rand Crazy, inferring he was crazy because of that position.

[Hubbs]

I wasn't saying that Ron (or Rand) is a racist.

I just think that his/thier stance on the Civil Rights Act is misguided. :2cents:

I actually agree, and I think that both need to truly consider how their policies could be rendered ineffective by deeply ingrained cultural institutions. I think the best solution for them would be to say that they would have supported a Constitutional amendment instead of just a bill that operates within the Constitution as it currently stands, as that would help to close the gap between their beliefs about the federal government and the reality of the 60's.

[SnyderShrugged]

I actually agree, and I think that both need to truly consider how their policies could be rendered ineffective by deeply ingrained cultural institutions. I think the best solution for them would be to say that they would have supported a Constitutional amendment instead of just a bill that operates within the Constitution as it currently stands, as that would help to close the gap between their beliefs about the federal government and the reality of the 60's.

That would be a great approach and one that I hope they adopt. Its way too easy for someone to hear "Paul wouldnt have voted for the CRa" and not understand what that statement means to them.

I also agree that they have done a poor job communicating it too.

[Mad Mike]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20062264-503544.html

Thoughts?

Ron Paul is a Moron.

Next.

[Hubbs]

Ron Paul is a Moron.

Next.

Always good to hear from you, Mike.

[Jumbo]

Always good to hear from you, Mike.

~~"Brevity is the essence of succinctness"~~

---THe Book of Jumbo

:pfft:

[SnyderShrugged]

Ron Paul is a Moron.

Next.

well then that must settle it!

[Burgold]

well then that must settle it!

Whaddayaknow? Who woulda thought that would be all it took to convince you?

[SnyderShrugged]

Whaddayaknow? Who woulda thought that would be all it took to convince you?

Its really tough to go against such rock solid evidence as mm often comes armed with. Its really cutting edge and well thought out.

[Spec138]

I realize this quote is from 11 pages ago but I wanted to say something about it.

I can understand his viewpoint from a pure philosophical point of view, but it is this very philosophy which probably would make him a terrible President. It may make him an effective Congressmen, but ideological inflexibility is not a good quality in a President. The world is rarely black and white.

I think most people look at RP and skip over the fact that Ron Paul doesn't have a stance on many issues, at least not at a federal level. What you may see as a strict inflexible ideology I see as RP giving every state the right to choose how they want to live so in that light I think RP is the least "black and white" politician there is. :2cents:

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ron Paul is a Moron.

Next.

Paul's entire argument is completely gutted by the fact that the US did work with Pakistan well ahead of the raid to discuss this very scenario....like 10 years before! So Ron, your whole respect the rule of law only works when you didn't actually have all the information that you needed to form an intelligent opinion on the matter.

But hey you're only trying to be President why should we care about whether or not you actually get your information straight before making an opinion. :whoknows:

[Hubbs]

I think most people look at RP and skip over the fact that Ron Paul doesn't have a stance on many issues, at least not at a federal level. What you may see as a strict inflexible ideology I see as RP giving every state the right to choose how they want to live so in that light I think RP is the least "black and white" politician there is. :2cents:

For clarification's sake, it's probably more accurate to say that his stance on many issues is that the states should be free to decide for themselves. It's not that he doesn't have a position. For example (I forget which thread I already posted this in, so if it was this one, forgive me), on the drug issue, he wouldn't try to force every state to legalize all drugs. He would end federal prohibition, and while I'm sure he would like to see most states follow suit, he'd be extremely opposed to using the federal government to tell them what their drug laws should be.

[Spec138]

For clarification's sake, it's probably more accurate to say that his stance on many issues is that the states should be free to decide for themselves. It's not that he doesn't have a position. For example (I forget which thread I already posted this in, so if it was this one, forgive me), on the drug issue, he wouldn't try to force every state to legalize all drugs. He would end federal prohibition, and while I'm sure he would like to see most states follow suit, he'd be extremely opposed to using the federal government to tell them what their drug laws should be.

Yeah that's what I was getting at, I'm generally as clear as mud though.

[SnyderShrugged]

Paul's entire argument is completely gutted by the fact that the US did work with Pakistan well ahead of the raid to discuss this very scenario....like 10 years before! So Ron, your whole respect the rule of law only works when you didn't actually have all the information that you needed to form an intelligent opinion on the matter.

But hey you're only trying to be President why should we care about whether or not you actually get your information straight before making an opinion. :whoknows:

If Pakistan were in the know well ahead of the raid, why did they just pass a resolution condemning the raid as unilateral the other day?

"Failure to end unilateral U.S. raids and drone attacks will force Pakistan to "to consider taking necessary steps, including withdrawal of (the) transit facility" used by the NATO's International Security Assistance Force, according to the resolution."

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/14/pakistan.bin.laden/?hpt=T2

[AsburySkinsFan]

If Pakistan were in the know well ahead of the raid, why did they just pass a resolution condemning the raid as unilateral the other day?

Because they are playing both sides, they depend on US $$$$ and yet they have to look strong to their citizens who have a very anti-US sentiment. It's a parlor game.

[SnyderShrugged]

Because they are playing both sides, they depend on US $$$$ and yet they have to look strong to their citizens who have a very anti-US sentiment. It's a parlor game.

Or....they are telling the truth and they werent aware of the raid at all and they passed a fairly big deal resolution that even threatens retaliation out of their anger over it. I would think that a nation would tread rather lightly saying they would retailiate if their sovereign territory is entered again without permission and not be an aspect of playing games. These are nuclear powers we are discussing here.

I think that only one of our hypotheses makes sense in the face of facts.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Or....they are telling the truth and they werent aware of the raid at all and they passed a fairly big deal resolution that even threatens retaliation out of their anger over it. I would think that a nation would tread rather lightly saying they would retailiate if their sovereign territory is entered again without permission and not be an aspect of playing games. These are nuclear powers we are discussing here.

I think that only one of our hypotheses makes sense in the face of facts.

You're right, and it makes a whole lot more sense knowing that the whole thing is a pseudo outrage with a wink and a nod, unless you're a Ron Paul supporter then I can see why your view might change.

[SnyderShrugged]

You're right, and it makes a whole lot more sense knowing that the whole thing is a pseudo outrage with a wink and a nod, unless you're a Ron Paul supporter then I can see why your view might change.

Got it. Your position is that a nuclear power is lying when they say they are upset that an armed raid occurred in their sovergn nation and the formal resolution that references force as a retaliation is smoke and mirrors and should be ignored because its all a grand shell game.

And folks say libertarians are conspiracy theorists.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Got it. Your position is that a nuclear power is lying when they say they are upset that an armed raid occurred in their sovergn nation and the formal resolution that references force as a retaliation is smoke and mirrors and should be ignored because its all a grand shell game.

So you don't think that Pakistan putting out a statement to appease a potentially violent minority population in their government is out of the realm of possibility? Especially considering that Bush had already worked out an agreement 10 years ago with Pakistan that the US could run this exact sort of mission to get bin Laden if they found them in Pakistan? Really? That's far fetched to you? Because, this is pretty much standard fare with governments that are playing both sides allowing us to run operations in return for $$$ and making all kinds of noise in response as a show of force to those they don't want to rise up in a coup.

And folks say libertarians are conspiracy theorists.

Sometimes there are conspiracies.

[Mad Mike]

While I still somewhat lean towards disagreeing, I am glad that i was able to hear the comments in context. He never said he wouldn't have killed bin Laden he said he wouldn't go in unconstitutionally in violation of international law. He wanted to do it constitutionally and tried, ten YEARS ago, see link: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-3076.

Mainly he said he would have simply brought him to justice a different way. In fact, he said specifically, that he would have approached it in the manner that we got KSM.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110512/pl_dailycaller/ronpaulsayshewouldnothaveorderedbinladenkill

Watch the dailycaller video for the whole conversation.

Again, I still kind of disagree with him, though its tough to fault his logic (but I'm pretty Machiavellian in hind-site at times)

It was a very obvious skewing of the quote by CBS

So the crazy uncle would have been OK with using mercenaries to kill bin Laden. Never mind the fact that mercenaries would not have the skill, technology, and capabilities of seal team six, nor have mercenaries been historically reliable, often turning on the people who hire them.

Then using mercenaries, he would have informed Pakistan, even though it is common knowledge that some elements of the Pakistani military and intelligence are working with the taliban and al Qaida.

So basically, he is saying that bin Laden would be running free right now in a new undisclosed location thanks to the ISI.

Ron Paul is a moron. Period. End of story. And regardless of the fact that you say you disagree with him, just as you say you are not an "objectivist" when Paul clearly is... you would still vote for this idiot.

:doh:

---------- Post added May-16th-2011 at 05:47 AM ----------

Hmmm, so you must support air marshalls and pilots being disarmed as well then correct? Please link to the last 5 cases where a firearm discharged inside of an airliner caused a crash, disaster, or even an injury.

Air marshals and pilots are trained professionals That's why you don't see guns being fired on planes. Imagine what would happen the next time a passenger freaks out on a plane and he has a gun.... or someone else has a gun and over-reacts.

Another classic Ron Paul moronic idea.

[Hubbs]

So the crazy uncle would have been OK with using mercenaries to kill bin Laden. Never mind the fact that mercenaries would not have the skill, technology, and capabilities of seal team six, nor have mercenaries been historically reliable, often turning on the people who hire them.

Then using mercenaries, he would have informed Pakistan, even though it is common knowledge that some elements of the Pakistani military and intelligence are working with the taliban and al Qaida.

So basically, he is saying that bin Laden would be running free right now in a new undisclosed location thanks to the ISI.

Ron Paul is a moron. Period. End of story. And regardless of the fact that you say you disagree with him, just as you say you are not an "objectivist" when Paul clearly is... you would still vote for this idiot.

:doh:

I know, damnit. It's almost like SS isn't using one single, incredibly unique scenario to analyze Ron Paul as an overall candidate. I swear, his intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

Air marshals and pilots are trained professionals That's why you don't see guns being fired on planes. Imagine what would happen the next time a passenger freaks out on a plane and he has a gun.... or someone else has a gun and over-reacts.

Another classic Ron Paul moronic idea.

Ah, another member of the Security Wouldn't Exist Without The TSA Club. I've heard that you can not only be the president, you can also be a member. So you've got that to, um, gun for.

[SnyderShrugged]

MadMike, I'm very open to discussing the merits or lack thereof about the various alternative approaches to the WOT. I think its a great discussion to have.

I was going to get snarky when I first read your post, but I'm not feeling well today so I'll just say that you are entitled to your opinion, as thats all it is.

personally, I think that the constitutionally sound and historically useful approach to using letters or Marque and reprisal to help fight the terrorists would work just fine. I also think that we have seen the potential in the simple fact that it utimately ended up being a small, well trained team of professionals that took Bin laden out.

I understand that you dont agree and thats OK. As Hubbs mentioned, this isnt exactly the overriding issue that I or anyone else would base their vote on in exclusivity.

[SnyderShrugged]

So you don't think that Pakistan putting out a statement to appease a potentially violent minority population in their government is out of the realm of possibility? Especially considering that Bush had already worked out an agreement 10 years ago with Pakistan that the US could run this exact sort of mission to get bin Laden if they found them in Pakistan? Really? That's far fetched to you? Because, this is pretty much standard fare with governments that are playing both sides allowing us to run operations in return for $$$ and making all kinds of noise in response as a show of force to those they don't want to rise up in a coup.

Sometimes there are conspiracies.

still think that Pakistan is faking outrage?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-17/pakistan-troops-clash-with-nato-helicopters-in-afghanistan-border-region.html