ForumsWEPRRon Paul

18 4129
WallyOhio
offline
WallyOhio
153 posts
60

This guy is different from the rest of the Presidential field. Check his site(so you can comment inteligently) www.ronpaul2008.com

  • 18 Replies
Lennywins
offline
Lennywins
131 posts
40

How so? I looked at his site for a minute, but couldn't really tell why he was so different... I'd like to know what you meant.

Eshploded
offline
Eshploded
470 posts
60

My friend always says "Ron Paul 08'" to me. He knows I don't like politics! I quickly read about him, and he really seems like a good guy to be president.

WallyOhio
offline
WallyOhio
153 posts
60

this may belong in "the war in iraq" thread, but i took it from ron paul's site. makes so much sense.

" The United States invaded Iraq under false pretenses without a constitutionally-required declaration of war. Our Founders understood that how we go to war is as important as when we go to war, which is why they vested the power to declare war in the Legislative Branch. The resolution passed in Congress authorizing the president to use force in Iraq said nothing about the U.S. Constitution, but it mentioned the United Nations a dozen times. The United States should never go to war to enforce UN resolutions!

Our continued presence in Iraq is serving as a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda. A recent National Intelligence Estimate found that the U.S. presence in Iraq has had a ârejuvenatingâ effect on the terrorist group. Proponents of the surge say that we are achieving victory. However, even if the level of our troops being killed has declined, they are still being targeted and the Iraqi government is no closer to stability, meaning that the violence will continue.

While we keep our focus on Iraq indefinitely, bin Laden remains free to plot his next attack, and can continue to portray us as occupiers and recruit more volunteers to his cause. Shortly after 9/11, I voted for the authorization to go into Afghanistan because it told the president to do what he already had the authority to do: go after the ones who directly hit us. I was extremely disappointed that the mission there changed to one of nation-building.

Military experts, including Generals Barry McCaffrey and John Batiste, have sounded the warning that our military is stretched so thin because of Iraq and our other commitments that, as General Batiste put it recently, âour Army and Marine Corps are at a breaking point with little to show for it.â A weakened and over-committed military is a recipe for a national security disaster. Meanwhile, Washington continues to talk about how many other countries it could send troops to.

As if a national debt topping $9 trillion is not bad enough, each day this war is fought, deficit spending increases. To avoid raising taxes and the subsequent anger that would follow come election time, the federal government will continue to borrow money from countries like Saudi Arabia and China, making your children and grandchildrenâs futures dependent on the actions of other nations and selling out our national security to the highest bidder.

Make no mistake, as Congress spends more and more, there will be less and less to fund Social Security and Medicare, the programs Washington has made us dependent on, without a massive tax increase. Meanwhile, bin Laden proclaims that our falling dollar is a sign that al-Qaedaâs âbleed-until-bankruptcy planâ is working.

On my first day as commander-in-chief, I will direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our commanders on the ground to devise and execute a plan to immediately withdraw our troops in the safest manner possible.

Those who caution that leaving Iraq would be a disaster are the same ones who promised the conflict would be a âcake-walk.â It is impossible to tell how long we will have to stay and how many lives we will have to lose if we wait for political factions that have been at war for centuries to come together.

As long as we occupy Iraq, the violence against our troops will continue, and the Iraqi government will become more dependent on us. It is in the best interests of the Iraqi people that we return their country to them immediately. Indeed, violence has already gone down in the areas that are not as heavily occupied.

It is now time to bring our troops home. We must return our focus to finding bin Laden and making sure that we can be prepared for any future threats against our national security. "

from www.ronpaul2008.com

kirby1243
offline
kirby1243
142 posts
85

Ron Paul is not going to win, he's got the lowest percentage in the election...

WallyOhio
offline
WallyOhio
153 posts
60

thats only republicans voting...and he averaged 5-6% way better than perot or nader ever did!
i agree though, he's probably not going to win...but i'm voting for him in protest!!!

izapora
offline
izapora
117 posts
85

If Ron Paul doesn't become president i'm moving to iceland...no one else has even remotely near a decent platform, he is the only one that supports small government and with drawl from iraq.

plus he's one of the 3 republicans left, the race started out with 11...so there may be a chance after all

nqkoi1
offline
nqkoi1
384 posts
160

People always seem nice before elections.

Eshploded
offline
Eshploded
470 posts
60

Yeah, and after that they're like: "KILL BUSH!1!11 D:<" or "Bill Clinton is a rapist!!". It gets pretty annoying after some time, especially with Bill Clinton; he was a nice guy, after all!

WallyOhio
offline
WallyOhio
153 posts
60

Clinton was a good president...little bit of a scumbag, but that makes him more like the rest of us. Bush shouldn't be compared to Clinton...apples vs. pineapples or murder/thief/liar/semi-retarded vs. adulterer/liar/nice guy/Rhodes scholar...

TMNTWIGY
offline
TMNTWIGY
81 posts
40

Ya he wont win at all it will be hillery or obama I think that will smother the other candidates

ExoPolotics8
offline
ExoPolotics8
6 posts
40

Ron Paul gets the least time on TV, the least time to speak in debates and is sensored in the polls

Watch this [url]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YNWjRJr9VcM&feature=related[/url]

fergman
offline
fergman
145 posts
625

Is Ron Paul Republican? Because I thought that McCain won already. I didn't know that there was still a chance for someone else to win. I don't think that McCain should win the republican nomination, and this Ron Paul guy seems like a good candidate. I prefer him to McCain.

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,328 posts
16,380

He's a moron and his objections to Bush's presidency are fallacious. I don't agree with many of the decision Bush has made, but Paul should at least attack Bush with better arguments. It seems like he doesn't really know what he's talking about - there are no legitimate plans, just talk about "bad" and "good".

WallyOhio
offline
WallyOhio
153 posts
60

He's a doctor and long-time congressman...that hardly qualifies as a moron. Please expand on these fallacious attacks on Bush.

Heyman
offline
Heyman
5 posts
20

[sarcasam]hey hey, i'm sure lets just shut down the FBI, not a bad idea... They're bad detectives![/sacrcasm]

Showing 1-15 of 18