Thread: For or against Ron Paul?

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by sturmruger

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by USPatriot

Originally Posted by Bren4824

The assasination of Pakistan's former Prime Mininster Bhutto by a suicide bomber today proves that Ron Paul's policy of "ignore them unless they come on our soil" will NOT work. And, he doesn't even want to put up a fence to prevent them from coming on our soil.

Now, the entire region there is of GREAT concern as Pakistan became one of the most Westernized, Democratic countries in the Middle East under her leadership. Not it could break out into civil war---as the Muslim extremists try to take it over. Also, Pakistan has nukes which could end up in the hands of terrorists!!

This is the MAIN reason that Tancredo said that he could not support Ron Paul.

Bren you are reeaally reaching here associating Dr. Paul with the mess in Pakistan.

We have a war monger (imo) in the White House now and that did not stop what is happening in Pakistan.

So stop with your attacks on Dr. Paul unless you have a ligitimate beef.This is becoming rediculous.

Some of you are the ones who are ridiculous. You completely ignore the "unrealistic" policies/plans of Ron Paul.

Plus, you lie!! I never said that Ron Paul was the blame for what happened in Pakistan. I said the situation in Pakistan proves that Ron Paul's policies/plans regarding international affairs, will NOT work---and will put the US and US citizens in danger.

This is one of the MAIN reasons that Tom Tancredo said that he could never support Ron Paul.

We are fighting a war in Iraq, who had nothing to do with 911. Now for those who agree with the war against the Taliban, in Afghanistan, then there may be an argumant that we should have invaded Pakistan to get Bin Laden (who has never been in Iraq)!

Since Bren thinks Pakistan is such a wonderful Democracy then why haven't they turned over Bin Laden to us? I'm in the camp if you think another country has a better democracy than the USA then move there.

India has Nukes and a very good intelligence agency and will keep Pakistan in check in fact the real Democracy in that region is India. This may very well help India. In case you didn't know, Bren, Pakistan was apart of India until the muslims invaded and converted or killed all the hindus and buddha in that region.

There are the lies again!!! I NEVER said that Pakistan had a BETTER democracy than the US. I said that the country is one of the better in the Middle East.

Pakistan has nukes!! You now have terrorists who are going to try to take over Pakistan and get their hands on the nukes.

Your statement "

I NEVER said that Pakistan had a BETTER democracy than the US. I said that the country is one of the better in the Middle East.

" is incorrect India has the best Democracy in that region with various religions and a true voting method. Pakistan has only one religion and, I haven't looked lately, I believe they are all of one sect (of the Muslim religion) so how can they really be a true Democracy? As far as I'm concerned they are a flawed Democracy since they destroyed the original religions in that region and only Muslims can vote.

Inside The Numbers: Would Reagan Vote for Ron Paul?

By Matt Towery
Southern Political Report
Copyright © 2007 Creators Syndicate

December 27, 2007 — On Christmas Day, I glanced at the memorabilia from my years in politics. The photos and notes from Newt Gingrich. Candid shots of me with the likes of Jimmy Carter and of the brilliant mastermind of his presidential victory, Hamilton Jordan. Next were shots of me posing with Bill Clinton and then with both President Bushes.

And oh yes, here was a young U.S. Senate aide Matt Towery with one Ronald Reagan.

Everyone knows there are plenty of people with photos of themselves with politicians. And there are loads of people who were close to Reagan. Many of them have both the credentials and the motives -- especially the motives -- to refute what I am about to write. Certainly my friends who still consider themselves respected experts and D.C. insiders would never dare write what follows. They would be cast off into the outer circles of the political establishment.

Personally, I could care less. So here goes.

Reagan was once an Iowan. He once broadcast University of Iowa football games, and he later was "discovered" by Hollywood when living in Des Moines.

It is my personal belief that if Reagan were alive and living in Iowa today, and he had to choose among the Republican presidential candidates, that he would likely choose the man the GOP establishment and national media have written off -- Congressman Ron Paul.

To begin with, there is little doubt that for at least foreign policy, Reagan was basically a non-interventionist. He bragged about the fact that the United States did not occupy foreign countries. He stressed in virtually every speech about the "Evil Empire" of the Soviet Union that they must be brought down, but not by use of force or war. When provoked by Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi, the Osama bin Laden of the 1980s, Reagan used strategic bombing next to the quarters in which al-Qaddafi was sleeping to bring the brash "terrorist" to his knees.

Even the vicious murder of more than 200 troops in Lebanon did not provoke invasion or war. Instead, Reagan removed U.S. presence there in order to cool down an ultra-hot situation.

Oh yes, we did invade Grenada. More a military exercise than a true battle.

As for domestic policy, again Reagan's philosophy seems closer to that of Paul's than any other Republican candidate today. Reagan constantly railed against big government. In speech after speech, he emphasized the need to adhere to the Constitution, and to respect the powers of the individual states. Sound familiar?

As for some of Dr. Paul's more far-fetched positions, they may be "out there," but it wasn't hard for me to find quotes from Reagan that reflected nearly the same sentiments. For example, Paul's concerns about a monetary system based on something closer and closer to worthless paper was similarly expressed by Reagan as early as 1964 when he stumped for Barry Goldwater for president.

In a speech that year, Reagan expressed concerns about America losing its monetary independence. And, eerily, he alluded to fears about foreign nations owning American currency.

As I try to remind my friends who were around in 1980, Reagan was considered by the mainstream Republican establishment to be as kooky as many label Paul as being.

Gerald Ford in 1980 was quoted in Time Magazine as saying that Reagan was "unelectable." It is no wonder that when Reagan challenged Ford some four years earlier for the GOP nomination, Paul was one of only a handful of sitting congressmen who supported Reagan's effort.

What Paul lacks is Reagan's movie-star looks, and the credibility that comes with having been governor of California. Even without those attributes, Paul has managed to become the first Republican candidate I've seen since 1980 that can draw huge crowds so devoted to their candidate that they seem almost cult-like in their zeal. Believe it or not, that's what we thought of the Reagan crowds that gathered early in his bid for president in 1980.

The fact is that Reagan tamed both his rhetoric and the implementation of his agenda to meet the realities of the presidency. My guess is that were Ron Paul to have such a chance, he would inevitably do the same.

I still believe that between the Republican Party's longing to appear "mainstream" and the national political media's fear of appearing to give in to "fringe elements," that Paul's quest for the nomination will fall far short in the end.

But as I have said before, Lord help both parties if he decides to run as a third-party candidate. They may not like what he might say, but he would darn sure say it.

As Reagan said once said when a debate moderator cut him short, "I paid for this microphone." Paul might just buy one of his own.

Matt Towery served as the chairman of former Speaker Newt Gingrich's political organization from 1992 until Gingrich left Congress. He is a former Georgia state representative, the author of several books and currently heads the polling and political information firm InsiderAdvantage. To find out more about Matthew Towery and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/ ... 27_99.aspx

Ron Paul is currently being interviewed on 98.3.

He did say that he would put troops and increased BP Agents on the border.

However, he still has not mentioned going after employers.

[quote=sturmruger]

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by sturmruger

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by USPatriot

Originally Posted by "Bren4824":vnmqd0nz

The assasination of Pakistan's former Prime Mininster Bhutto by a suicide bomber today proves that Ron Paul's policy of "ignore them unless they come on our soil" will NOT work. And, he doesn't even want to put up a fence to prevent them from coming on our soil.

Now, the entire region there is of GREAT concern as Pakistan became one of the most Westernized, Democratic countries in the Middle East under her leadership. Not it could break out into civil war---as the Muslim extremists try to take it over. Also, Pakistan has nukes which could end up in the hands of terrorists!!

This is the MAIN reason that Tancredo said that he could not support Ron Paul.

Bren you are reeaally reaching here associating Dr. Paul with the mess in Pakistan.

We have a war monger (imo) in the White House now and that did not stop what is happening in Pakistan.

So stop with your attacks on Dr. Paul unless you have a ligitimate beef.This is becoming rediculous.

Some of you are the ones who are ridiculous. You completely ignore the "unrealistic" policies/plans of Ron Paul.

Plus, you lie!! I never said that Ron Paul was the blame for what happened in Pakistan. I said the situation in Pakistan proves that Ron Paul's policies/plans regarding international affairs, will NOT work---and will put the US and US citizens in danger.

This is one of the MAIN reasons that Tom Tancredo said that he could never support Ron Paul.

We are fighting a war in Iraq, who had nothing to do with 911. Now for those who agree with the war against the Taliban, in Afghanistan, then there may be an argumant that we should have invaded Pakistan to get Bin Laden (who has never been in Iraq)!

Since Bren thinks Pakistan is such a wonderful Democracy then why haven't they turned over Bin Laden to us? I'm in the camp if you think another country has a better democracy than the USA then move there.

India has Nukes and a very good intelligence agency and will keep Pakistan in check in fact the real Democracy in that region is India. This may very well help India. In case you didn't know, Bren, Pakistan was apart of India until the muslims invaded and converted or killed all the hindus and buddha in that region.

There are the lies again!!! I NEVER said that Pakistan had a BETTER democracy than the US. I said that the country is one of the better in the Middle East.

Pakistan has nukes!! You now have terrorists who are going to try to take over Pakistan and get their hands on the nukes.

Your statement "

I NEVER said that Pakistan had a BETTER democracy than the US. I said that the country is one of the better in the Middle East.

" is incorrect India has the best Democracy in that region with various religions and a true voting method. Pakistan has only one religion and, I haven't looked lately, I believe they are all of one sect (of the Muslim religion) so how can they really be a true Democracy? As far as I'm concerned they are a flawed Democracy since they destroyed the original religions in that region and only Muslims can vote.[/quote:vnmqd0nz]

The majority of citizens from India are Hindus, not Muslim. I was referring to the Arab/Muslim countries.

[quote:1wfjhs9s]

Originally Posted by Bren4824

There are the lies again!!! I NEVER said that Pakistan had a BETTER democracy than the US. I said that the country is one of the better in the Middle East.

Pakistan has nukes!! You now have terrorists who are going to try to take over Pakistan and get their hands on the nukes.

Your statement "[quote:1wfjhs9s]I NEVER said that Pakistan had a BETTER democracy than the US. I said that the country is one of the better in the Middle East.

" is incorrect India has the best Democracy in that region with various religions and a true voting method. Pakistan has only one religion and, I haven't looked lately, I believe they are all of one sect (of the Muslim religion) so how can they really be a true Democracy? As far as I'm concerned they are a flawed Democracy since they destroyed the original religions in that region and only Muslims can vote.

[quote:1wfjhs9s]
The majority of citizens from India are Hindus, not Muslim. I was referring to the Arab/Muslim countries.

[/quote:1wfjhs9s][/quote:1wfjhs9s][/quote:1wfjhs9s]If we would have left the "Arab/Muslim" countries alone, namely Iran when Carter took out the Christian Shah, their would be more of a religious diversity now that the Muslims have gain power they are converting or destroying (as they always have) and becoming so called Muslim Democracies. Since we can not trust our corrupt leadership Ron Paul and his principles are the best leave these countries alone instead of promoting Muslim Nations under the guise of Democracy!

Originally Posted by sturmruger

[quote:1w8tcrtq]

Originally Posted by Bren4824

There are the lies again!!! I NEVER said that Pakistan had a BETTER democracy than the US. I said that the country is one of the better in the Middle East.

Pakistan has nukes!! You now have terrorists who are going to try to take over Pakistan and get their hands on the nukes.

Your statement "[quote:1w8tcrtq]I NEVER said that Pakistan had a BETTER democracy than the US. I said that the country is one of the better in the Middle East.

" is incorrect India has the best Democracy in that region with various religions and a true voting method. Pakistan has only one religion and, I haven't looked lately, I believe they are all of one sect (of the Muslim religion) so how can they really be a true Democracy? As far as I'm concerned they are a flawed Democracy since they destroyed the original religions in that region and only Muslims can vote. [quote:1w8tcrtq]
[quote:1w8tcrtq]
The majority of citizens from India are Hindus, not Muslim. I was referring to the Arab/Muslim countries.

[/quote:1w8tcrtq][/quote:1w8tcrtq]If we would have left the "Arab/Muslim" countries alone, namely Iran when Carter took out the Christian Shah, their would be more of a religious diversity now that the Muslims have gain power they are converting or destroying (as they always have) and becoming so called Muslim Democracies. Since we can not trust our corrupt leadership Ron Paul and his principles are the best leave these countries alone instead of promoting Muslim Nations under the guise of Democracy![/quote:1w8tcrtq][/quote:1w8tcrtq]

Iranians are NOT Arabs, they are Persians!!!

And, whatever regarding the rest. Everyone can believe what they want.

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by sturmruger

[quote:190ng9hr]

Originally Posted by Bren4824

There are the lies again!!! I NEVER said that Pakistan had a BETTER democracy than the US. I said that the country is one of the better in the Middle East.

Pakistan has nukes!! You now have terrorists who are going to try to take over Pakistan and get their hands on the nukes.

Your statement "[quote:190ng9hr]I NEVER said that Pakistan had a BETTER democracy than the US. I said that the country is one of the better in the Middle East.

" is incorrect India has the best Democracy in that region with various religions and a true voting method. Pakistan has only one religion and, I haven't looked lately, I believe they are all of one sect (of the Muslim religion) so how can they really be a true Democracy? As far as I'm concerned they are a flawed Democracy since they destroyed the original religions in that region and only Muslims can vote. [quote:190ng9hr]
[quote:190ng9hr]
The majority of citizens from India are Hindus, not Muslim. I was referring to the Arab/Muslim countries.

[/quote:190ng9hr]If we would have left the "Arab/Muslim" countries alone, namely Iran when Carter took out the Christian Shah, their would be more of a religious diversity now that the Muslims have gain power they are converting or destroying (as they always have) and becoming so called Muslim Democracies. Since we can not trust our corrupt leadership Ron Paul and his principles are the best leave these countries alone instead of promoting Muslim Nations under the guise of Democracy![/quote:190ng9hr]

Iranians are NOT Arabs, they are Persians!!!

And, whatever regarding the rest. Everyone can believe what they want.[/quote:190ng9hr][/quote:190ng9hr]Iran is/has been taken over by the "Arabs", they're converting or taking over the "Persians" thanks to Carter's intervention. Same with Clinton interfering with the Serbian Christians and giving the Muslims (Arabs) Serbian land. Since we can trust our leadership Ron Paul's principles and Constitutional credibility is our only hope!

For the last couple thousand years or so Iran has been ruled by a Shah or a Mullah

It goes back and forth and will continue to do so

They are not Arabs , They are Persians , it might seem the same to some of you but I guarantee you it would offend the daylights out of one of them if you called than an Arab

Originally Posted by usanevada

For the last couple thousand years or so Iran has been ruled by a Shah or a Mullah

It goes back and forth and will continue to do so

They are not Arabs , They are Persians , it might seem the same to some of you but I guarantee you it would offend the daylights out of one of them if you called than an Arab

We had a discussion about this in another thread some time ago. Muslims like the Jews believe they are the only lineage chosen by Allah/God. So according to Muslims there is no way one is a true Muslim unless part of the lineage (Arabs, whether that is the true liniage is probably debatable), therefore whoever claims they're Muslim in Iran has to have some Arab lineage according to Muhammed. Like the Jewish belief anyone who converts to Islam can but will not go to the level in heaven they are promised by God/Allah.

Ok, I'll be captain obvious this time. What in the name of jose cuervo does any talk of pakistan, muslims, or jews have to do with the original topic thread. Would everyone kindly drop everything off topic and go back to what this original thread was about. Start a new thread about the recent events if you want to. Stop hijacking one thread to argue whatever is off topic from the original one. Please.