Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why should he be crushed standing for not bankrupting America by running a global military empire, by interacting with our neighbors in economic and diplomatic ways rather than doing their regional security for them? Why should he be crushed for believing in actually defending AMERICA instead of policing the globe? What's wrong with the idea that other nations' citizens need to pay for their regional security rather than expecting American citizens to pay for it?
The Founders of this nation were all FOR establishing trade relationships and diplomatic relationships with other nations. They were just against the notion of America always jumping into foreign skirmishes, of the idea that somehow America has to lead or be out in front when it comes to overseas military entanglements. They were FOR America defending America, but rightly saw America believing it has to jump into all the world's skirmishes as a good way to bankrupt this nation.
So you tell me what's so horrible about a policy of trade and diplomatic relationships with foreign nations but not bankrupting this nation's finances by having US bases all around the globe just so our military can be everywhere at every time for every "just in case" scenario that happens to pop up anywhere around the globe? It's on thing to send the military to protect shipping lanes that are being threatened. It's another thing to send the military to be in all places at all times on the American taxpayer dime. ESPECIALLY when this nation is already burdened with outrageous levels of debt. What's so horrible about not wanting America to go the way of Rome or the way of the British Empire whose military reach and excesses ultimately led to the crumbling of that nation's power? ALL nations in history that have tried to maintain military empires have ultimately had their power crumbled, and it's because doing that is ridiculously EXPENSIVE. You act as if you have something against reasonable military levels and a platform of economic and diplomatic relationships and the idea of other nations not expecting America to do their regional security for them on the American taxpayer dime.
What do republicans always accuse democrats of, playing the race card. Obama and the liberal media would have Ron Paul look like the guy who started the KKK. We made mitt romney look like the devil, by the time obama would have been done with Ron Paul, he would be wishing he was only painted as a devil.
I am amazed you could even ask that question? Since Obama's name was even mentioned as a candidate the left has choose to play the race card and you ask about why we bring it up? Why to libs love to talk about the GOP party being "old white men" or all being racists? it works both ways...
Nope. It didn't work when the media tried to make it a story before.
What do you mean it didn't work. The bain capital stories and tax returns played a role in hurting mitt. If you put Ron Paul on the spotlight for everybody to see, the racist newsletters and the voting against the CRA would be enough damage by itself.
I am amazed you could even ask that question? Since Obama's name was even mentioned as a candidate the left has choose to play the race card and you ask about why we bring it up? Why to libs love to talk about the GOP party being "old white men" or all being racists? it works both ways...
what question are you talking about? I'm just making a point that Ron Paul leaves himself open to be attacked by democrats on a number of issues. By the time they are done, obama and the media would have ron Paul looking like the leader of the KKK.
The inability to discuss the issues is a result of the failed policies the deniers back. So instead make things up and throw mud to see if anything sticks.
Look around, who is winning now? Besides the 1 percent and the members in Congress. You're not winning. Unless you think high unemployment, low wages, and lack of company benefits is a good thing.
Next time, instead of falsely testifying for something else, get your own house in order first. It's always a good idea to have your own house in order using successful policies as it will add credence. I'm not saying you'll do that, since of course the policies you follow are proven failures, I'm just saying it's a good thing to do.
republicans and democrats don't have to do anything, its your party that is the 3rd party that only 0.1% of the country cares about. We know our weaknesses and strengths, its the libertarians that are delusional. Your platform is so easy to destroy and manipulate, and the fact you don't see that tells me that libertarians would get run over in a presidential election.
LMAO you didn't even watch the video YOU posted. What did he say that was off?
Was it this "The issue of leaving is the key to deciding if we live in a free society" ?????
This is like taking candy from a baby.
YES i did listen to the video...
To start succession is not a key issue. It is one that was already resolved...
republicans and democrats don't have to do anything, its your party that is the 3rd party that only 0.1% of the country cares about. We know our weaknesses and strengths, its the libertarians that are delusional.
Maybe you missed where Republican power brokers are claiming that the reason they lost was because they didn't run a MORE CONSERVATIVE candidate. There is plenty of delusion going around the Republican Party these days.
what question are you talking about? I'm just making a point that Ron Paul leaves himself open to be attacked by democrats on a number of issues. By the time they are done, obama and the media would have ron Paul looking like the leader of the KKK.
And if people were given an opportunity to hear Ron Paul's ideas on the economy and foreign policy in full rather than a just a soundbite specifically edited by the media to make him sound guano crazy they would realize that Obama is clueless on these issues.
RP couldn't even win the primary, how could he have beaten Obama?
For one, he was railroaded in the primary, pushed out of the way by Neo-con Republican leadership in favor of the handpicked candidate.
For another, much of Paul's appeal reaches outside the Republican party. Third-party voters, independents, and disenfranchised Democrats couldn't support him in the Republican primaries but may very well have gone for him on election day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
