If Ron Paul turns out to be a puppet I will probably stop voting.Paulites don't realize that even IF he were elected he would do as he was told, just as the others do.
I can't believe that though.
If Ron Paul turns out to be a puppet I will probably stop voting.Paulites don't realize that even IF he were elected he would do as he was told, just as the others do.
Personally,I'm inclined to agree with him on that topic. Personally, I don't give a rat's posterior about either the Israeli's or the "other Arabs that the rest of the Arab world wants nothing to do with."
That however doesn't really address my question of why the position of ending all foriegn aid only becomes a flashpoint when Israel is named. Why should it be okay to end foreign aid to Bolivia, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, Tibet, Lithuania, and Azerbaijan, but if you say "let's stop spending $3B per annum on Israel" people s**t the bed and start calling other people lunatics? That's the question I'm asking. I'm aware Dr Paul has said he would end fical and military aid to Israel, I'm asking why it's a bigger deal then say, ending foreign aid to Nigeria?
Edit: Also, the Iran thing is total and complete hogwash.
I don't think Paul would follow along the same executive path as past Presidents. However, I am realistic enough to realize that even if her were nominated and subsequently elected, he would get very little of his agenda completed. He would face an entirely hostile Congress, in both houses. The Democrats will hate him because he will try and gut their precious welfare state. The Republicans will hate him because he won't sign bills packed with moral majorist nonsense or continue to play ball with defense contractors.
He'd be a lame duck from January 20th.
I don’t think giving other countries cash monies is a good idea, but there are other ways foreign aid can benefit us. Cooperating on intelligence comes to mind
I disagree with this 100%. I would suggest a little research..
What is funny is that the Paulites don't realize that even IF he were elected he would do as he was told, just as the others do.
I see no issue with that particular topic either. However, if said cooperation only comes about because of an annual price tag, can the recipient nation really be considered an ally?
Re: Iranian nukes... If the US (the only nation to ever actually USE nuclear weapons) tells Iran or anyone else that they can't have nuclear weapons, what is that but "gun control" writ large? Dr. Paul is correct that it is not our place to control who is "allowed" to have one thing or another. We CAN, however, choose not to have dealings with one or another country at our own pleasure; by that I mean that our people should be able to choose individually with whom we do business. I might choose not to purchase something made in China, but to purchase extra things I don't actually need from, say, Israel... and if I want to buy a box of Cuban cigars, that should be my choice, not controlled and/or prevented by my government.
so...your saying we are still at war with NK
No, "we" are not. The UN and South Korea are still at war with the DPRK. The US never declared war on them. It was a UN police action.I don't think there is a reason to edit your post, I think the OP assumed those points of view were well known.
Also lets not forget, we are still at war with DPRK
Since when did Israel become the 51 State of the Union...Whoa - hold it. The president of Iran has said he would wipe Israel off the map. So we should sit back and allow him to build the weapon to do that?
Personally I see no reason you should not be sold a Firearm. Unless you do not have the Cash that is...The gun control analogy is absurd. If I walked into a gun store and said I wanted to blow my neighbor's head off, do you think they would sell me a gun?
And we are still waiting for you to quit pulling a Rambone with the OP...I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation of Dr. Paul's statements.
"thoughtful reasoning" and "Libertarianism" do not mix together.
Whoa - hold it. The president of Iran has said he would wipe Israel off the map. So we should sit back and allow him to build the weapon to do that?
The gun control analogy is absurd. If I walked into a gun store and said I wanted to blow my neighbor's head off, do you think they would sell me a gun?
I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation of Dr. Paul's statements.
I don't think Paul would follow along the same executive path as past Presidents. However, I am realistic enough to realize that even if her were nominated and subsequently elected, he would get very little of his agenda completed. He would face an entirely hostile Congress, in both houses. The Democrats will hate him because he will try and gut their precious welfare state. The Republicans will hate him because he won't sign bills packed with moral majorist nonsense or continue to play ball with defense contractors.
He'd be a lame duck from January 20th.
Although the OP doesn't seem to want to throw out any sources, this has been documented over and over. Ahmadinejad is hardly a benign leader.Bitter Clinger: Whoa - hold it. The president of Iran has said he would wipe Israel off the map. So we should sit back and allow him to build the weapon to do that?
WWIIIDefender: Could you have some quotes already. All your doing is throwing out grossly miss representative MSM statements.
The Fed is certainly a big problem, but there are many "most important issues".Besides the absolute most important issue is the federal researve.
Please cite your source for this intelligence. I don't believe they've been set back nearly that far in their nuclear program.Iran got crippled by the US/Isreal stuxnet virus anyways they won't have a weapon in 4 years.