Can Ron Paul win?

[RACJ]

I think calling Obama “evil” is a bit strong even though I strongly disagree with most of what he does and says.

FT, I know of no one except radicals and/or terrorists such as Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky and Jeremiah Wright who served as mentors to the thinking of young Barack Obama. Do you? Did Obama have a normal person in his life whom he can point to as a friend? This guy is bizarre, and I have no idea how ordinary Americans can relate to him, except that he feeds on people's baser instincts of fear, greed and envy. :cool: Rob

 

[freethinker83]

feeds on people’s baser instincts of fear, greed and envy. Rob

How is that any different than many in the GOP who do their best to work up a panic over Iran?

 

[RACJ]

This statement is farther out in left (rather, right) field than the craziest thing Ron Paul has ever said. People are allowed to have legitimate differences without being called “evil” or described as hating his or her country or a being a “Marxists” (probably without much attention to what that really means).

That said: There’s no chance I’ll be voting for Obama - but I also won’t necessarily be voting for Gingrich or Romney or whomever the Republicans pick. Because, despite how much I dislike Obama, things can certainly get worse with another President.

Pax,
OA

 Ron Paul has said that he has no problem with Iran developing nuclear weapons, and that he supports legalization of heroin and cocaine. I've never said anything this bizarre. 
 Marxism teaches "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs." Obama doesn't believe this? He excepts himself, of course? He doesn't give a nickel to his own destitute brother in Kenya, yet Americans believe that he cares about THEM?  Things can and will become worse under a second Obama term. 
 Remember cash for clunkers, shutting down America's energy production, includibng the Gulf and coal mines, and now the gas pipelines? He used his "stimulus" package to pay failed corporations such as Solyndra for campaign bundling for him, and to make solvent exploding union pensions. His Fast and Furious gun-running scheme has led to drug gang carnage, including at least one dead border agent. Obamacare is about to deal a death blow to the greatest, though flawed, medical care system in the world. 
 The list of sordid, radical appointees is endless, but let's not forget his buzzing of New York's skyscrapers, not that New Yorkers would have any reason to be frightened of such a spectacle. Does this sound like contempt of ordinary Americans to you? 
 Another President could be worse? Clue me in, please! :hmmm: Cordially, Rob

 

[RACJ]

How is that any different than many in the GOP who do their best to work up a panic over Iran?

The Iranian ruler is Holocaust denier and an acolyte of Adolf Hitler. Many thought that alarm over Hitler was unwarranted as well. You can believe as you wish, but I find those people, such as Paul, who refuse to accept what someone says at face value, unqualified. Same as a guy who would ask Iran to please give back our drone. Not living in the real world, these folks, and they are scary as hell. :rolleyes: Rob

 

[bbarrick8383]

Ron Paul has said that he has no problem with Iran developing nuclear weapons, and that he supports legalization of heroin and cocaine.

He’s against the federal government having drug laws. There are many laws the states have that the federal government does not. There is no need to duplicate what the states can handle themselves.

As far as Iran, if they are looking to get a nuke, they will eventually get one. If they try and use one, they better hope they can get their prayers in before they are obliterated.

We will be at war with them regardless of whose elected. Unless they decide to go to war with another country, in that case they should feel lucky that it’s not their time to be fixed by America yet.

 

[bbarrick8383]

The Iranian ruler is Holocaust denier and an acolyte of Adolf Hitler. Many thought that alarm over Hitler was unwarranted as well. You can believe as you wish, but I find those people, such as Paul, who refuse to accept what someone says at face value, unqualified. Same as a guy who would ask Iran to please give back our drone. Not living in the real world, these folks, and they are scary as hell. Rob

People talk about him as if he has all the power in Iran. He’ s a loudmouth that get’s attention. Sanctions against Iran will lead to us sending military into Iran and destroying them as we did Iraq. As Dr. Paul said, even the Israeli defense minister said they are only doing what any other nation would do in their situation. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not Iran and Iran is not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There are also people living in that country who have to live under our sanctions. And they will be fed anti-American propaganda just as the Iraqis were.

 

[freethinker83]

The Iranian ruler is Holocaust denier and an acolyte of Adolf Hitler. Many thought that alarm over Hitler was unwarranted as well. You can believe as you wish, but I find those people, such as Paul, who refuse to accept what someone says at face value, unqualified. Same as a guy who would ask Iran to please give back our drone. Not living in the real world, these folks, and they are scary as hell. Rob

As Paul said last night, “what were we doing flying a drone over them in the first place?”. We need to stop policing the world and Ron Paul is the only candidate on either side who seems to believe that.

If another country takes aggressive action towards the U.S. we have a justification to attack. If they attack an ally, the ally asks for our help, and the U.S. Congress makes a formal declaration of war, only then should we join any fight.

 

[freethinker83]

He’s against the federal government having drug laws. There are many laws the states have that the federal government does not. There is no need to duplicate what the states can handle themselves.

No one seems to remember the 10th Amendment…

 

[RACJ]

He’s against the federal government having drug laws. There are many laws the states have that the federal government does not. There is no need to duplicate what the states can handle themselves.

As far as Iran, if they are looking to get a nuke, they will eventually get one. If they try and use one, they better hope they can get their prayers in before they are obliterated.

We will be at war with them regardless of whose elected. Unless they decide to go to war with another country, in that case they should feel lucky that it’s not their time to be fixed by America yet.

The drug lords would have a field day wantonly evading and nullifying the 50 laws by crossing state lines regularly. Rob

 

[RACJ]

As Paul said last night, “what were we doing flying a drone over them in the first place?”. We need to stop policing the world and Ron Paul is the only candidate on either side who seems to believe that.

If another country takes aggressive action towards the U.S. we have a justification to attack. If they attack an ally, the ally asks for our help, and the U.S. Congress makes a formal declaration of war, only then should we join any fight.

9/11 happened in large part b/c of extremely poor intelligence. I make no apologies for the greatest nation on earth taking action to thwart KNOWN enemies, which will soon include the entire Middle East, thanks to Obama’s encouragement of the “democracy” movement there. Anyone who wasn’t aware that the radical Islamists would replace the former regimes was living in fantasy land. Or, actively supporting the extremists killers, one or the other. :coffeeread: Rob

 

[bbarrick8383]

The drug lords would have a field day wantonly evading and nullifying the 50 laws by crossing state lines regularly. Rob

Selling drugs in one state and moving to the next does not exempt you of the crimes you committed in the previous state. In fact, you could be prosecuted in both states I believe. If I’m not mistaken there was a rapper who was recently in prison in New York while facing charges in another state.

 

[scipio337]

People talk about him as if he has all the power in Iran. He’ s a loudmouth that get’s attention. Sanctions against Iran will lead to us sending military into Iran and destroying them as we did Iraq. As Dr. Paul said, even the Israeli defense minister said they are only doing what any other nation would do in their situation. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not Iran and Iran is not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There are also people living in that country who have to live under our sanctions. And they will be fed anti-American propaganda just as the Iraqis were.

Sanctions lead to invasions? Really? We’ve had sanctions on MANY nations. Iran. N. Korea. Libya. The list goes on. It RARELY leads to war, and in this case, is an attempt to PREVENT war.

Do a google search for “Ron Paul prison planet Iran”, and see how many hits you come up with. The Iranian invasion has been “imminent”…since around 2004, according to Pau.

Ehud Barack (who I assume is the defense minister is referring to) wasn’t for any military action (and I’m sure most people aren’t) but is FOR sanctions, certainly a far cry from Paul’s “if they want them, who is to say they can’t?” policy.

Again, there is a middle ground between Bush’s military adventurism, and Paul’s military isolationism.

 

[karaleigh]

I remember seeing Ron Paul on a special that was building houses for senior veterans. He certainly is a multi-faceted politician. I can’t see him winning a presidential race for sometime though. But, it’s always good for his state to be up front during elections.

 

[RACJ]

Selling drugs in one state and moving to the next does not exempt you of the crimes you committed in the previous state. In fact, you could be prosecuted in both states I believe. If I’m not mistaken there was a rapper who was recently in prison in New York while facing charges in another state.

Individual state laws would not make prosecution impossible, but it would often add many layers of difficulty. I hope that you vote for the GOP nominee if it isn't Ron Paul, just as I'd vote for HIM over Obama if he wins. I simply don't think that the doctor's prescriptions will do nearly enough to help the patient. :o Rob

 

[bbarrick8383]

Sanctions lead to invasions? Really? We’ve had sanctions on MANY nations. Iran. N. Korea. Libya. The list goes on. It RARELY leads to war, and in this case, is an attempt to PREVENT war.

Do a google search for “Ron Paul prison planet Iran”, and see how many hits you come up with. The Iranian invasion has been “imminent”…since around 2004, according to Pau.

Ehud Barack (who I assume is the defense minister is referring to) wasn’t for any military action (and I’m sure most people aren’t) but is FOR sanctions, certainly a far cry from Paul’s “if they want them, who is to say they can’t?” policy.

Again, there is a middle ground between Bush’s military adventurism, and Paul’s military isolationism.

Not always, but they can. Put it on Iran hard enough and you will be finding that we are creating more terrorists than we are killing.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Individual state laws would not make prosecution impossible, but it would often add many layers of difficulty. I hope that you vote for the GOP nominee if it isn’t Ron Paul, just as I’d vote for HIM over Obama if he wins. I simply don’t think that the doctor’s prescriptions will do nearly enough to help the patient. Rob

I’ll vote pro-life regardless, I may have come to the point to where I disagree with republicans on a number of things, but I at least have a backbone to stand up for the unborn unlike some others.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

I would not want to live through the disasterous political conditions leading up to the general that would be required for him to have a prayer of winning.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I would not want to live through the disasterous political conditions leading up to the general that would be required for him to have a prayer of winning.

Don’t worry, we are getting there.

Take your pick, Newt or Mitt.

They are conservative…or are they?

I dunno about you, but Bachmann sounded like she’s ready to bomb Iran right now.

The best person on the conservative list would be Santorum, but he may have to run a few more times and pay his Republican dues by flip flopping a few times.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

9/11 happened in large part b/c of extremely poor intelligence. I make no apologies for the greatest nation on earth taking action to thwart KNOWN enemies, which will soon include the entire Middle East, thanks to Obama’s encouragement of the “democracy” movement there. Anyone who wasn’t aware that the radical Islamists would replace the former regimes was living in fantasy land. Or, actively supporting the extremists killers, one or the other. :coffeeread: Rob

Then you should be equally critical of neo-cons like Paul Wolfowitz, GWB, and Cheney…and you should be scared to death of Gingrich and his concept of foreign policy through regime change.

But more to the point:

Art. 2(3) of the UN Charter “All Members hsall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”

Art. 2(4) of the UN Charter “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the PUrposes of the United Nations.”

That general rule has 2 exceptions:

Art. 42: “Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restroe international peace and security.”

or

Art. 51: “Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

That’s the basic rule under international law for the legal basis for the use of force against another nation. Here is what the U.S. Constitution say about war: “Congress shall have the Power to declare War …”

So, that’s our baseline under domestic law for declaring war.

So what was the basis for the use of force in: Panama, Grenada, Libya, Bosnia, Iraq, Pakistan, the military violation of Iran’s territory, Yemen, etc?

Would we go to war to protect Taiwan? What would be the basis for the use of force?

Would we go to war to in Iran over suspected nukes? What would be the basis for the use of force? (BTW, how does DPRK, which we know 100% to have nuclear weapons, differ from Iran? And which country is less predictable and more likely to start a war? Oops…).

And how does Libya differ from Syria (or any number of African countries that are engaged in civil war and slaughtering civilians)?

Riddle me this: Which candidate, from either party, has the greatest respect for the rule of law?

Did you know China has not gone to war since 1979? Can you even contemplate going 32 years in the United States without being at war?

Really, who is in favor of our current trend of resorting to military force as (almost) a first course of action? It’s absurd, it’s illegal, and it’s immoral. We continue to elect leaders that think the concept of Just War Theory is the punchline to a joke.

Pax,
OA

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Don’t worry, we are getting there.

Take your pick, Newt or Mitt.

They are conservative…or are they?

I dunno about you, but Bachmann sounded like she’s ready to bomb Iran right now.

The best person on the conservative list would be Santorum, but he may have to run a few more times and pay his Republican dues by flip flopping a few times.

If Newt wins the nomination, he might pick Bachman.

If Romney wins, I would say he’ll pick Santorum.