Ron Paul - our next John McCain only worse

Let me guess, you like Ron Paul, hate Reagan and think Iranian nukes would be a great thing.

 

Does that mean that anyone who acknowledges the 1941 oil embargo's role in Japan conducting Pearl Harbor is also saying that WWII is the US's fault and is an America-hating Leftist?

By 88, Reagan had proven to be a deficit-loving, pro-big government Leftist, so why wouldn't a Libertarian want to distance themselve from him?

 

When has Iran ever used WMD's?

 

Sure, we can be critical of ourselves. But then there's the Ron Paul, Noam Chomsky Reverend Wright extreme where we're always asking ourselves, what did we do the cause them to do that evil? The only people ever responsible is us. This is backward thinking. We're not a perfect nation, but such a nation doesn't exist. And we certainly have done more good in the world the most of not all nations. The problem with these is they blame american first.

 

I'm just glad you guys are being honest about your hatred of Reagan. People just don't know this about RP and his supporters.

 

Why wouldn't I hate Reagan? He was a massive deficit spender and he doubled the size of government, creating several new unConstitutional agencies.

Iranian nukes are a horrible thing. Any country getting nukes is horrible, but Iran is no more likely to use them than any other country. They've had WMD's for decades and have never used them, not even when Iraq used them first.

 

By today's standard, Reagan was a leftist. You should hate him too.

 

Just say it loud and say it proud. And stop pretending Ron Paul is like Reagan. He hated Reagan.

 

He hated Reagan in 1988. Would you support someone who massively increased the debt, increased the size of government, and (*)(*)(*)(*) on the Constitution?

You hate Obama, yet you love Reagan when he did the same crap. Hypocrit?

 

And you conversely should love Obama. He apologizes for the evils of your country, he's allowing Iran to have Nukes. He even sat 20 years in an american hating church. He should be your foreign policy dream come true.

 

Let me be perfectly clear to you, I may like some of RP's policies, but that doesn't mean I'm a RP supporter. I'm not even American.

Your quoted statement doesn't say anything about it being 'good' for Iran to have nukes, he is merely stating he see's their attempts to get it as natural considering all their neighbors have it.

And the Ad Hominom 'Moron' comment doesn't belong in a reasoned debate, which I should have realized I wouldn't get from you when you brought out the 'anti-semite' card and then pulled it back as quick as you put it out.

 

Ron Paul does not hate Reagan, he actually said he rates his presidency as B- and rates the man as A+. He disagreed with Reagan interventionism and deficit spending. However later in life when Reagan admitted that the US should not have intervened in Beirut Paul said he found a lot of respect for admitting that.

I'll see if I can find the interview.

 

Also, a historical note you may or may not be aware of. American interventionist policy is the reason that a hostile regime exists in Iran in the first place. And they refrained from using WMD's on their neighbors during the Iraq war despite the Iraqi's feeling free to use them.

 

He raised troop levels, furthered trade killing sanctions, and started another (*)(*)(*)(*) war. Please....

 

Charismatic was voted in last time and look where it got us. I'd rather have uncharismatic and knowledgeable, thank you....also, as far as debating Obama, I would LOVE to see Ron Paul debate Obama WITHOUT a teleprompter.

 

This once again reflect complete ignorance of the facts. The United States was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks and Ron Paul has never claimed that it was.

The 9/11 attacks were criminal acts committed by a small group of Islamic fundamentalists lead by KSM and planned in Germany. The United States government is not responsible for the actions of a few extremist criminals.

What Ron Paul has correctly pointed out, and which has been confirmed by the National Intelligence Estimate, is that a primary reason for terrorist acts by Islamic fundamentalist groups is US interventionism in the the Middle East. Had the US not been involved in the Gulf War and creation of US military bases in Saudi Arabia, had the US not continued offensive military operations infringing upon the sovereignty of Iraq from bases in Saudi Arabia throughout the 1990's, and if the US did not support tyrannical acts being committed by the Israeli government then the terrorist WTC attack in 1993, the African embassy bombings in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole and the attacks of 9/11 would not have occurred.

This isn't even speculative because Osama bin Ladin in his statements provided these very reasons for the al Qaeda attacks against the United States. The reason for the terrorist attacks was openly provided by the person believed to be responsible for them.

So it isn't, nor has Ron Paul implied, that the United States was responsible for the terrorist act but Ron Paul has correctly stated that those attacks would not have happened were it not for US interventionism.

Perhaps if some actually reviewed the facts and actually listened to what Ron Paul states they might be able to provide fact based arguments.

 

"allowing Iran to have Nukes"?

Iran is (probably) building nukes. We have literally NOTHING to do with it. Iran is no more likely to use nukes than they are chemical or biological weapons, which they have had for decades and haven't used.

 

Sorry, but it seems you're ignorant of what Paul said in the 08 primary debate, and his exchange with Rudy. Rudy gave him a chance to retract his claim that it was our fault, and Paul refused. Now you can say he misspoke, but don't say he never said it.

 

And according to Paul, this is a good thing. Let's just be clear.

 

No, he has made it very clear he does not want Iran to have nukes. What he has said is that he understands why they would want one and that we do not have the legal authority to stop them.

 

Quote Ron Paul where Iran having nukes is a "good thing" or admit that you are lying.

 

He's more fiscally conservative than any other Republican on that board, and probably more than any Republican in history. McCain said he wanted to cut government, then went off and voted for the $787 billion bailout. McCain was a typical hypocritical Republican -- didn't really want to conserve money. Ron Paul has been elected into Congress 12 times. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never voted for a tax increase. He has a perfectly fiscal conservative record, following each and every word he says. He's the only politician who isn't full of hypocritical propaganda and smooth-talking lies.

 

I've already quoted it twice on this thread. Go back and read.

 

Notice how this RP supporter ignores the OP and all the issues with RP's foreign policy. He's basically admitting I'm right.

 

NOWHERE have you shown that RP thinks that Iranian nukes are "a good thing".

You are lying and are being deliberately intellectually dishonest.

I expect nothing less from a Neo-con.