Ron Paul on the bailouts

[Isotopes 1]

Wouldn't it be nice to have a candidate that could think form themselves and actually understand the current crisis?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/pau...lout/index.html

[BLS 313]

Wouldn't it be nice to have a candidate that could think form themselves and actually understand the current crisis?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/pau...lout/index.html

 

Haven't you realized yet? Nobody cares.

[Isotopes 1]

Haven't you realized yet? Nobody cares.

 

I know. I wish people would actually listen to what he has to say before they just dismiss him as some crazy nut.

 

I have always been a Ron Paul fan but the more I learn about Obama and McCain, the more I like Ron Paul.

[BLS 313]

I know. I wish people would actually listen to what he has to say before they just dismiss him as some crazy nut.

 

I have always been a Ron Paul fan but the more I learn about Obama and McCain, the more I like Ron Paul.

 

Not everyone can be intelligent.

 

People here don't want to admit it, especially now since the choices we have for POTUS suck and have NO idea what to do to 'fix' the economic issue, but Ron Paul has been right all along and was our ONE shot at having someone with some freakin common-sense answers to this madness we are enduring.

 

Of course, no one here (sans GoColts) has admitted that they were wrong.

There are (were) users here to supported Paul, and maybe still do, but he's not going to win. We all know that.

 

The WORST thing we can do is bail these companies out. The sad reality is we HAVE to endure the fallout from this in order for the market to correct itself. Instead, the government again will intervene in an attempt to 'fix' the issue.

 

The issue will never be fixed...only postponed.

 

The government needs to get out of the banking and mortgage industry. Period.

But that will never happen because Wall Street will beg for help, and people are too stupid to vote for the guy who would've told Wall Street to pound sand.

[Brad GLuckman 518]

Of course, no one here (sans GoColts) has admitted that they were wrong.

There are (were) users here to supported Paul, and maybe still do, but he's not going to win. We all know that.

 

I am one of the guys who wrote off Paul as a crazy nutjob early in the primaries. But I ended up seeing the slanted view the media gave us of him, and I like what he stands for and I posted that here after one of the debates.

[BLS 313]

I am one of the guys who wrote off Paul as a crazy nutjob early in the primaries. But I ended up seeing the slanted view the media gave us of him, and I like what he stands for and I posted that here after one of the debates.

 

My bad.

[Strike 3,996]

BLS,

 

I like a lot of Ron Paul's positions. I think he's intelligent, speaks his mind, and is knowledgeable. However, his whacky foreign policy position makes it impossible for me to endorse him for President. Period. Too bad because most of his other positions seem well thought out and reasonable.

[BLS 313]

BLS,

 

I like a lot of Ron Paul's positions. I think he's intelligent, speaks his mind, and is knowledgeable. However, his whacky foreign policy position makes it impossible for me to endorse him for President. Period. Too bad because most of his other positions seem well thought out and reasonable.

 

Ok....I appreciate your candor and adult manner, so I can only afford you the same.

 

Why? Is his FP 'whacky'?

 

I beg of you...please don't say 'it's whacky...it'll never work. Not in this day and age...' etc.

GIve me REAL world reasons why..and I will objectively listen.

 

It's one of those issues of his that always teeters in my brain as well.

But I always end up coming back to his side.

 

I'm seriously curious why you don't think his foreign policy will work?

Again, please give me real world examples. Not assumptions.

 

Thanks.

[edjr 5,585]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qLefrvxbq8

 

 

[The Moz 69]

Exactly what I have been saying is the only true way to correct out problem! Throwing a trillion delays it nothing more. When in 20 years Housing doubles in price 4-5 X whiule Salary doubles maybe once -- theres a focking problem. Unless we lower housing costs to represent people salaries and COL -- bring things into balance like they were in the mid 80's we are focked. Sure everyone that owns a house loses a TON of value but if they sell it the one the would be buying would be lowered just as much. To poeple that have invested in real estate - theyre focked as they would never get close to what they paid for their properties. This will cause quite a hit intially but it's a hit we can bounce back from in afew years. We do a 1 trillion bailout and it fails - we are in a focking great depression or close to it.

 

These poeple are "supposed " to be financial geniuses yet all they want to do is throw at the problem as a " quick fix " NO QUICK FIX FOCKING WORKS LONG TERM!

[The Moz 69]

BLS,

 

I like a lot of Ron Paul's positions. I think he's intelligent, speaks his mind, and is knowledgeable. However, his whacky foreign policy position makes it impossible for me to endorse him for President. Period. Too bad because most of his other positions seem well thought out and reasonable.

 

 

Yeah - for the US to start worrying about ourselves more and stop getting involving in every focking world issue to come down the pike. Thats just focking whacky - your right.

[edjr 5,585]

Yeah - for the US to start worrying about ourselves more and stop getting involving in every focking world issue to come down the pike. Thats just focking whacky - your right.

 

[Strike 3,996]

Why? Is his FP 'whacky'?

 

RP belongs to the camp that, while they don't blame ourselves for 9/11, believe we bear some culpability for the terrorist attacks on that day. This is utter bullshit and I'm not going to keep reiterating why. He would minimize our bases around the world which I believe would put us at risk. We need to have military within striking range of those who would attack us. I'm all for not getting involved in other countries. I'd love it if we'd pull back and let the U.N. do it's focking job. I just think RP goes way too far in what he wants to do with minimizing the military abroad and I believe it puts us at risk. Maybe I've misinterpreted what I've heard him say so if you've got a link that clarifies exactly what he'd do foreign policy wise I'll read it but as it stands my understanding of it is unacceptable to me.

[edjr 5,585]

RP belongs to the camp that, while they don't blame ourselves for 9/11, believe we bear some culpability for the terrorist attacks on that day. This is utter bullshit and I'm not going to keep reiterating why. He would minimize our bases around the world which I believe would put us at risk. We need to have military within striking range of those who would attack us. I'm all for not getting involved in other countries. I'd love it if we'd pull back and let the U.N. do it's focking job. I just think RP goes way too far in what he wants to do with minimizing the military abroad and I believe it puts us at risk. Maybe I've misinterpreted what I've heard him say so if you've got a link that clarifies exactly what he'd do foreign policy wise I'll read it but as it stands my understanding of it is unacceptable to me.

 

Too many people like you, with your views on RP are the reason he had no shot at the Republican nomination. It frightens me that you are more concerned about how many troops we have all over the world and not concerned about the important things, like what is going on at home, in the USA.

 

and I don't mean YOU as a single person, I mean you as a whole that didn't give RP a chance. Not calling you out per se, just saying.

 

 

Now we have to pick between McCain and Obama

[BLS 313]

RP belongs to the camp that, while they don't blame ourselves for 9/11, believe we bear some culpability for the terrorist attacks on that day. This is utter bullshit and I'm not going to keep reiterating why. He would minimize our bases around the world which I believe would put us at risk. We need to have military within striking range of those who would attack us. I'm all for not getting involved in other countries. I'd love it if we'd pull back and let the U.N. do it's focking job. I just think RP goes way too far in what he wants to do with minimizing the military abroad and I believe it puts us at risk. Maybe I've misinterpreted what I've heard him say so if you've got a link that clarifies exactly what he'd do foreign policy wise I'll read it but as it stands my understanding of it is unacceptable to me.

 

Do you believe our Foreign Policy over the last 50+ years (especially in the middle east) has NO bearing, influence or provides no motivation for the terrorist attacks on 9/11?

[Strike 3,996]

Too many people like you, with your views on RP are the reason he had no shot at the Republican nomination. It frightens me that you are more concerned about how many troops we have all over the world and not concerned about the important things, like what is going on at home, in the USA.

 

and I don't mean YOU as a single person, I mean you as a whole that didn't give RP a chance. Not calling you out per se, just saying.

Now we have to pick between McCain and Obama

 

Edjr,

 

I'm not particularly concerned with specific numbers but I do want a presence. RP would like to close a bunch of bases and I don't agree with that. I wouldn't mind us reducing our numbers and basically telling the U.N. to do it's focking job and find someone else to invade when they feel it's necessary instead of using the U.S. military as it's personal militia. However, I do believe a presence is necessary to protect our interests.

 

And this doesn't mean I'm not concerned with what is going on back at home. The two are not mutually exclusive. It frightens me that you would think they are.

[edjr 5,585]

Edjr,

 

I'm not particularly concerned with specific numbers but I do want a presence. RP would like to close a bunch of bases and I don't agree with that. I wouldn't mind us reducing our numbers and basically telling the U.N. to do it's focking job and find someone else to invade when they feel it's necessary instead of using the U.S. military as it's personal militia. However, I do believe a presence is necessary to protect our interests.

 

And this doesn't mean I'm not concerned with what is going on back at home. The two are not mutually exclusive. It frightens me that you would think they are.

 

 

All you ever comment on about RP is his foreign policy, you don't care about anything else. It's all you've ever said, was say he's a crazy loon.

 

Why would I think you care about anything else, when you never mention it? as it relates to RP?

[Strike 3,996]

Do you believe our Foreign Policy over the last 50+ years (especially in the middle east) has NO bearing, influence or provides no motivation for the terrorist attacks on 9/11?

 

I don't think it's relevant. First of all, I believe our presence in the Middle East is an excuse the radical islamists use when they attack, especially re: 9/11. They have attacked numerous western countries and I'm pretty sure not all of those have a huge presence in the middle east. Second, there will always be small radical sects. We even have them in the U.S. Those groups are not qualified or authorized to act against other countries. If they do it's as an independent entity and should not be given weight in foreign policy discussion. If radical muslims have a problem with our presence over there their beef should be with their own gov't, because that's who invited us in. IOW, I believe 9/11 would have happened anyways, I believe our presence in the Middle East is a net positive for our country, and I disregard radical sects when discussing foreign policy. So, it bothers me when someone espouses a view that we bear some level of responsibility for being attacked by such rogue groups and uses it as part of his foreign policy. If Saudi Arabia asks us to leave, we refuse, and they attack it would be one thing. Ron Paul used a flawed example numerous times in the debates. He said that if the Saudis (may have used other country) put a military base in the middle of Colorado we wouldn't stand for it. Well, that's just ludicrous because 1) we have a base there with their permission and 2) they would never have the opportunity to put a base here without our permission. The fact that he uses such a flawed example to support his view of the situation just shows me again that his foreign policy ideas are not acceptable to me.

[Strike 3,996]

All you ever comment on about RP is his foreign policy, you don't care about anything else. It's all you've ever said, was say he's a crazy loon.

 

Why would I think you care about anything else, when you never mention it? as it relates to RP?

 

There are certain things that are deal breakers. With Obama, it's his socialism and desire for wealth redistribution. With RP it's his foreign policy. If either was more moderate in their views on these issues I might consider them. But both of those are important policies and having such a radical view that is contrary to my own on an important policy will disqualify a candidate.

[MisanthropicAnthropoid 0]

Not everyone can be intelligent.

 

People here don't want to admit it, especially now since the choices we have for POTUS suck and have NO idea what to do to 'fix' the economic issue, but Ron Paul has been right all along and was our ONE shot at having someone with some freakin common-sense answers to this madness we are enduring.

 

Of course, no one here (sans GoColts) has admitted that they were wrong.

There are (were) users here to supported Paul, and maybe still do, but he's not going to win. We all know that.

 

I was against RP in the beginning (strictly for his foreign policy positions), but have come around to thinking I'd vote for him in a heartbeat if I had the chance. First of all, I agree with him on everything else: financial issues, moral issues, whatever. Second, the other candidates suck. Third, although I thought he might be unrealistically isolationist, he won me during an interview when the reported asked him when he would go to war as President. He said "when Congress tells me to." That is the perfect answer, and I doubt any other candidate would use it. Also, I do think minimizing foreign presence and focusing on defense would save a ton of money.

[Mrsteak21 0]

I don't think it's relevant. First of all, I believe our presence in the Middle East is an excuse the radical islamists use when they attack, especially re: 9/11. They have attacked numerous western countries and I'm pretty sure not all of those have a huge presence in the middle east. Second, there will always be small radical sects. We even have them in the U.S. Those groups are not qualified or authorized to act against other countries. If they do it's as an independent entity and should not be given weight in foreign policy discussion. If radical muslims have a problem with our presence over there their beef should be with their own gov't, because that's who invited us in. IOW, I believe 9/11 would have happened anyways, I believe our presence in the Middle East is a net positive for our country, and I disregard radical sects when discussing foreign policy. So, it bothers me when someone espouses a view that we bear some level of responsibility for being attacked by such rogue groups and uses it as part of his foreign policy. If Saudi Arabia asks us to leave, we refuse, and they attack it would be one thing. Ron Paul used a flawed example numerous times in the debates. He said that if the Saudis (may have used other country) put a military base in the middle of Colorado we wouldn't stand for it. Well, that's just ludicrous because 1) we have a base there with their permission and 2) they would never have the opportunity to put a base here without our permission. The fact that he uses such a flawed example to support his view of the situation just shows me again that his foreign policy ideas are not acceptable to me.

 

1) Osama himself said that he attacked the US because of our meddling in the Middle East

2) The US (WTC, embassies, troops, etc) get attacked all the time. Yes, Great Britian or France or somebody else gets hit with a bomb now and again. 90% of the countries attacked are allied with the US.

3) I cant believe you think our presence in the Middle East is a net positive - please explain that one.

4) Most countries dont give us permission to build a base in their country - we force them to by changing our trade policies with them. ALso, i dont think Iraq gave us permission to build 8 bases. We just started a war for no reason and starting building.

[supermike80 1,289]

I have said it before and I will say it again...

I think it's cute and adorable when you dumb focks discuss Ron Paul and how he will save the world.

 

It restores my faith in the simplicity of the human race.

 

 

I'm not focking kiddding--I think it's really cute.

[BLS 313]

I have said it before and I will say it again...

I think it's cute and adorable when you dumb focks discuss Ron Paul and how he will save the world.

 

It restores my faith in the simplicity of the human race.

 

 

I'm not focking kiddding--I think it's really cute.

 

 

Hey Look Everybody. It's D-Bag Mike and his idiotic statements follow close behind!

 

Hi Fuckface!!

[gocolts 300]

Hey Look Everybody. It's D-Bag Mike and his idiotic statements follow close behind!

 

Hi Fuckface!!

 

 

"I am with you on Ron Paul." - GoColts (4/14/08)

[jets24 6]

Do you believe our Foreign Policy over the last 50+ years (especially in the middle east) has NO bearing, influence or provides no motivation for the terrorist attacks on 9/11?

 

 

See BLS, total bullshat like that is why I will never see your side. Motivation for attacks that kill over 3,000 of innocent people? How could anybody have motivation for that? Stop making excuses for stuff like that and I may listen more clearly to RP. Until then, bye.

[BLS 313]

See BLS, total bullshat like that is why I will never see your side. Motivation for attacks that kill over 3,000 of innocent people? How could anybody have motivation for that? Stop making excuses for stuff like that and I may listen more clearly to RP. Until then, bye.

 

 

When did I become the official Ron Paul spokesman again?

 

If you don't like MY way of explaining things, then read the sh1t for yourself fuckhead.

[buffalobillsffl2003 0]

Cut off international ties across the bored and fix this POS country......no more foreignfuckingaid.........no more shekels to Jizzreal........let Jizzreal stand on its own twofuckingfeet...... pu$$ies.

 

Close the fuckingdoor and it will make Kim Jong ILL Supercuts look like an angel.

 

Washington DC should be surrounded the way Grant surrounded and cut off Richmond.