Ron Paul on Face The Nation

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Erick

Master in the art of Gemütlichkeit
Jun 11, 2006
5,545
311
1,713
Yukon, Oklahoma:
#1
This Morning Ron Paul was on Face The Nation. To me he still seams to be a pretty good legislator, but I still have major questions regarding his foreign policy, or lack there of.

A couple of things that I remember from the interview:

He is all about personal liberty. That I like, especially that he is pro-life. I mention this because I don't consider aborting a baby a liberty.

His foreign policy is one big contradiction. To sum it up, he said that he does not like the fact that we reward Pakistan because the have nukes. He said that we should not reward countries because the have WMD. However, right before that he was asked if we should ever consider military action with Iran. He said no, never, and that we can live with a nuclear Iran, even a nuclear weapon Iran He also said right now we should lift all sanctions and start major trades with Iran. He said that we should be a friend to the global community, but wants to pull out of the U.N.

What I would like to know is since he is a pseudo-isolationist how does he propose to help stop crimes against humanity? (like Darfur)

If he is a against rewarding rouge countries with nukes, why does he want to start helping Iran now, and is not against them having a nuke?

Lastly, how does he expect to be globally accepted if he plans on pulling out of the UN? (Not that I am against that idea.)

Like I said, I like things about Paul, but then there are issues that we are opposite on. It boils down to him either pandering to the anti-military crowd, or being completely confused on foreign affairs.
 
Feb 3, 2007
1,115
0
0
Stillwater
#3
What is going on with this, dare I say, "cult" like following or Ron Paul? Driving home today, I saw a group of kids holding Ron Paul signs on the corner of Hall of Fame and Perkins. I am just wondering what the big deal is. I know the canidates for this election are sub-par, so mabye someone can enlighten me about this Ron Paul guy.
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,015
0
166
#4
This Morning Ron Paul was on Face The Nation. To me he still seams to be a pretty good legislator, but I still have major questions regarding his foreign policy, or lack there of.

A couple of things that I remember from the interview:

He is all about personal liberty. That I like, especially that he is pro-life. I mention this because I don't consider aborting a baby a liberty.

His foreign policy is one big contradiction. To sum it up, he said that he does not like the fact that we reward Pakistan because the have nukes. He said that we should not reward countries because the have WMD. However, right before that he was asked if we should ever consider military action with Iran. He said no, never, and that we can live with a nuclear Iran, even a nuclear weapon Iran He also said right now we should lift all sanctions and start major trades with Iran. He said that we should be a friend to the global community, but wants to pull out of the U.N.

What I would like to know is since he is a pseudo-isolationist how does he propose to help stop crimes against humanity? (like Darfur)

If he is a against rewarding rouge countries with nukes, why does he want to start helping Iran now, and is not against them having a nuke?

Lastly, how does he expect to be globally accepted if he plans on pulling out of the UN? (Not that I am against that idea.)

Like I said, I like things about Paul, but then there are issues that we are opposite on. It boils down to him either pandering to the anti-military crowd, or being completely confused on foreign affairs.
His foreign policy is not one big contradiction. Not even close. He said based on what we know now, he wouldn't advocate bombing them. Even if Iran was building a nuke (yes, singular), what kind of threat is that? It is no threat to us. They could potentially lob it at Israel, but Israel has plenty of Nukes (plural) and would have no problem handling Iran. Iran knows this, Israel knows this.

Iran is probably scared that they will be invaded / attacked just like Iraq was - all based on false pretense and cherry picked convenient "intelligence" (sweet misnomer by the way).

Paul is not an isolationist. He wants trade / travel / communication with all countries. He's specifically talking about Washington's policy to either subsidize something, or criminalize something - like there is no gray area. How about not doing either of those things? He finds major flaws with our situation w/ Pakistan. We just subsidized them with approximately $11 Billion when it propagated our interests. Well now we're mad at them because they have all these nukes, and are allegedly providing info onto terrorists. Well where in the hell did they get the money to do that? It's a major flaw in our foreign policy.

He also made an excellent point that our current policy is actually a neo-isolationism. Bombing countries, fighting undeclared wars, advocating pre-emptive bombing of 3rd world countries. That policy is making us zero friends internationally.

He panders to the anti-military crowd? What is that based on? He's very pro military, he just thinks our country is better served with our military protecting us on our home soil. I mean, if we are so freaked out about the terrorist boogeyman destroying our country, then why don't we do something to prevent another 11 million illegals across our borders?

He was in the Air Force himself, (was a flight surgeon in Nam) and he actually gets more donations from current and former servicemen than any other candidate out there. Paul is not anti-military AT ALL.
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,015
0
166
#6
What is going on with this, dare I say, "cult" like following or Ron Paul? Driving home today, I saw a group of kids holding Ron Paul signs on the corner of Hall of Fame and Perkins. I am just wondering what the big deal is. I know the canidates for this election are sub-par, so mabye someone can enlighten me about this Ron Paul guy.
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com
 

OStateMan

Banned
Banned
Feb 4, 2004
5,233
804
743
Vail, Colorado
#7
I like what Ron Paul has to say, too. It's honest, grounded in common sense, and seemingly free from the corporate strings that hold up so many of the front runners.

It's unfortunate that Ron Paul is not getting the national attention from the major networks, but then they are a part of the problem, not the solution.

Ron Paul makes too much sense to ever be elected by the voting American public, because the voting American public, for the most part are sheep easily influenced by bright, shiney objects, beads & trinkets.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,486
17,168
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#8
He panders to the anti-military crowd? What is that based on? He's very pro military, he just thinks our country is better served with our military protecting us on our home soil. I mean, if we are so freaked out about the terrorist boogeyman destroying our country, then why don't we do something to prevent another 11 million illegals across our borders?
This is the biggest part of what scares me. To believe we can simply bring all our troops home and only use them to defend our own soil is not only not smart, but not realistic either. Also, this line of thinking is isolationist regardless of what you may believe. Now he may not be a hardcore isolationist and he may refer to himself as a "non-interventionist" or whatever, but that doesn't change his spots. His foreign policy would be great in a utopia, but we all know the world is far from perfect.

Also, I don't think he is purposely pandering to the anti-military crowd. But by screaming that we should bring the troops home, that is exactly what he is doing.
 

Pokes28

Moderator
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 26, 2003
13,666
1,457
1,743
50
Carl Junction, MO
facebook.com
#9
The biggest thing that I like is that he's truly an "America First" candidate. He's not one that will advocate fighting other people's wars.

The one thing that we all know is that the United States pays over half the total money for the UN, "donates" nearly 2/3 of the forces, and has very little say in the command. That is not smart. The same numbers could be used for NATO and about any other treaty involvement that that US is a part of.

The one thing that excites me about Ron Paul is that he's a non-apologetic Libertarian. He has a long history of service and leadership for this country and yet he's lived his life and voted the same way that he believes and is campaigning. He's walked the walk.

If he can stay in the election long enough, I'll vote for him here in Missouri.

David Harrell - Pokes
dwh
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,486
17,168
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#10
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
What does this mean exactly? I googled 'lucrative cogressinal pension program' and this is what I found on one site:

"Under a law enacted in 1983, all members of Congress both contribute to and receive benefits from the Social Security system. Upon retirement, members receive either a combination of federal pension and Social Security benefits or Social Security alone, depending upon when their term of service started and how they configured their individual plan.

Members elected after 1983 pay into the Federal Employees Retirement System. Members elected before 1983 participate in the older Civil Service Retirement Program. In both cases, members of Congress contribute to the plans at a slightly higher rate than ordinary federal employees."


So since he was elected before 1983, he would participate in the Civil Service Retirement Program which sounds like a program that many federal employees participate in. I just can't seem to find antying about this lucrative congressional program that he's not participating in. Note: not saying it doesn't exist, I just need help finding information about it.
 

Erick

Master in the art of Gemütlichkeit
Jun 11, 2006
5,545
311
1,713
Yukon, Oklahoma:
#11
His foreign policy is not one big contradiction. Not even close. He said based on what we know now, he wouldn't advocate bombing them. Even if Iran was building a nuke (yes, singular), what kind of threat is that? It is no threat to us. They could potentially lob it at Israel, but Israel has plenty of Nukes (plural) and would have no problem handling Iran. Iran knows this, Israel knows this.

Iran is probably scared that they will be invaded / attacked just like Iraq was - all based on false pretense and cherry picked convenient "intelligence" (sweet misnomer by the way).
Based on what we know, like the national intelligence reports, or does the good doctor have his own source? This paragraph is what frightens me about Paul. Do you know the capability of a nuclear weapon? (singular) One bomb can destroy a city. (singular) That city would be the city of Jerusalem. The casualties would be around a half a million (plural) And yes, Israel would retaliate. Is that what you call good foreign policy? Instead of him wanting to stop that scenario, he wants to reward Iran by lifting sanctions.

If he will not stand up to a tyrant that has stated numerous times that his goal is to wipe Israel off the map, then what will he stand up for? People’s right to smoke pot? Until he gets a realistic idea of the evil going on around the world, my view is that he is unelectable.

Can you explain his stance on pulling out of the U.N.? How does he plan on making our nation the world’s buddies while doing this? Also, would he ever step in and aid in times of human crisis like in the Sudan, or is that considered fighting another countries war?
 

Aaron C.

AKA Shortbus
Jul 20, 2005
4,389
0
0
44
Edmond, OK
www.ultimatenurse.com
#12
What is going on with this, dare I say, "cult" like following or Ron Paul? Driving home today, I saw a group of kids holding Ron Paul signs on the corner of Hall of Fame and Perkins. I am just wondering what the big deal is. I know the canidates for this election are sub-par, so mabye someone can enlighten me about this Ron Paul guy.
People are sick and tired of scumbag politicians and while they may not agree with him on all of his policies, they know one thing for sure, he is an honest man that will make sure their liberties are not taken advantage of and that the constitution is upheld.

They know he won't bow to pressure from big business or political bullying from his constituents.

He only cares about the people and the constitution.

So they sacrifice the few disagreements they have with him on policy in favor of someone who they can respect who has integrity and is honest with them regardless of the backlash of his words.

------------------

I don't know what he'd say about Darfur, but honestly, what are we doing about it right now? NOTHING.

He'd probably say why don't we take care of our own country first.

I don't agree with Paul on quite a few things, but I am still a huge supporter based on principle alone and I will vote for him regardless of his chances because it's the right thing for our country win or lose...in my opinion.
 

Pokes28

Moderator
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 26, 2003
13,666
1,457
1,743
50
Carl Junction, MO
facebook.com
#13
Based on what we know, like the national intelligence reports, or does the good doctor have his own source? This paragraph is what frightens me about Paul. Do you know the capability of a nuclear weapon? (singular) One bomb can destroy a city. (singular) That city would be the city of Jerusalem. The casualties would be around a half a million (plural) And yes, Israel would retaliate. Is that what you call good foreign policy? Instead of him wanting to stop that scenario, he wants to reward Iran by lifting sanctions.

If he will not stand up to a tyrant that has stated numerous times that his goal is to wipe Israel off the map, then what will he stand up for? People’s right to smoke pot? Until he gets a realistic idea of the evil going on around the world, my view is that he is unelectable.

Can you explain his stance on pulling out of the U.N.? How does he plan on making our nation the world’s buddies while doing this? Also, would he ever step in and aid in times of human crisis like in the Sudan, or is that considered fighting another countries war?
He doesn't want to be buddies, he wants what is right for the USA. If that means opening up trade to other countries, then yes.

As for Iran bombing Israel, they may do so, but they wouldn't bomb Jerusalem. It is the Muslims third most holy city behind Mecca and Medina.

His stance on pulling out of the UN is what has been explained. Why should the US pay well over half the money and half to supply nearly 2/3rds the troops then have no say other than the Veto in how they are used? Most countries in the UN pay zero to be a part of it and have the same voting power as the US, they just don't have the veto power.

There is a difference between aid and war. Making sure that people can recover from famine or a tsunami is far different than stepping in the middle of a civil war. I'll put it like this: If Ron Paul were elected and all the things that he wanted done came to pass, then the dollar would be stronger, the taxes would be lower, and the country would be safer.

This is a very generous nation. No country in the history of the world has raised more money or donated more time and effort than we have as a nation. If the dollar was strong again, and there was more money in people's pockets, there would be even more donations for the less fortunate around the world.

David Harrell - Pokes
dwh
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#14
Sorry I'm just now responding but Suddenlink was being the POS that it is last night and I wasn't going to respond on my iPhone. It looks like someone has already replied, though. In respond to this:

Based on what we know, like the national intelligence reports, or does the good doctor have his own source? This paragraph is what frightens me about Paul. Do you know the capability of a nuclear weapon? (singular) One bomb can destroy a city. (singular) That city would be the city of Jerusalem. The casualties would be around a half a million (plural) And yes, Israel would retaliate. Is that what you call good foreign policy? Instead of him wanting to stop that scenario, he wants to reward Iran by lifting sanctions.
It isn't rewarding someone by lifting sanctions. It's not punishing them.

If he will not stand up to a tyrant that has stated numerous times that his goal is to wipe Israel off the map, then what will he stand up for? People’s right to smoke pot? Until he gets a realistic idea of the evil going on around the world, my view is that he is unelectable.
"Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian," remarked Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan and critic of American policy who has argued that the Iranian president was misquoted. "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse." Since Iran has not "attacked another country aggressively for over a century," he said in an e-mail exchange, "I smell the whiff of war propaganda."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/w...a2bd266224e880&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
 

Erick

Master in the art of Gemütlichkeit
Jun 11, 2006
5,545
311
1,713
Yukon, Oklahoma:
#15
Very well put Pokes 28, especially about the aid for non violent situations. That does clear up a lot of things. However, his lack of "preventative maintenance" still concerns me. Especially with Iran. Now is not the time to reward Iran, it is time to stop them from successfully making a bomb (singular) or bombs (plural). Even if they decide to bomb a different city in Israel, THEY ARE STILL NUKING A FRICKEN CITY! Tel Aviv is a beautiful place, it would be a shame to loose it. Am I wrong here, or is the loss of a city in a allied (or any) country a very bad thing?


Your lips are moving, but I can't hear what you are saying.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#17
Your lips are moving, but I can't hear what you are saying.
No worries. You haven't gone deaf. That is simply a characteristic of a closed mind who has already accepted the propaganda they've been fed as fact and would believe nothing else short of God itself floating down from the Heavens above and waking you up by pissing in your face. :D
 

Erick

Master in the art of Gemütlichkeit
Jun 11, 2006
5,545
311
1,713
Yukon, Oklahoma:
#18
What Kaje? Are you trying to say something? Oh yes, the ignore button! Maybe I should disable it a bit so I can be informed by the great kaje!
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,015
0
166
#19
Based on what we know, like the national intelligence reports, or does the good doctor have his own source? This paragraph is what frightens me about Paul. Do you know the capability of a nuclear weapon? (singular) One bomb can destroy a city. (singular) That city would be the city of Jerusalem. The casualties would be around a half a million (plural) And yes, Israel would retaliate. Is that what you call good foreign policy? Instead of him wanting to stop that scenario, he wants to reward Iran by lifting sanctions.

If he will not stand up to a tyrant that has stated numerous times that his goal is to wipe Israel off the map, then what will he stand up for? People’s right to smoke pot? Until he gets a realistic idea of the evil going on around the world, my view is that he is unelectable.

Can you explain his stance on pulling out of the U.N.? How does he plan on making our nation the world’s buddies while doing this? Also, would he ever step in and aid in times of human crisis like in the Sudan, or is that considered fighting another countries war?
I put up an article on here that proved that Ahmadinejad's quote that our media ran with was completely wrong. It broke down word by word what he actually said. What he actually said was that he "wishes that the current Israeli regime could be erased from the sands of time". He doesn't want to "wipe them off the map" (and that couldn't happen anyway, Israel could take them no problem). Unfortunately, it was admitted by news outlets that he was misquoted, but it was a brief, hidden apology. And you still have people quoting a quote that never existed.

And yes, I do know the power of a nuke. As Paul clearly points out, The Soviets had 40,000 of them ready to go during the Cold War. We resolved that through diplomacy, not bombs.

We were lied to about Iraq having WMD's. Do you see the parallel that they are now doing with Iran? It's the exact same story. I'd say North Korea was acting w/ a lot more hostility when they were launching test missiles into the sea and almost hitting Japan. Doesn't that seem like a much more direct threat than someone in a 3rd world country talking about a nuke? Why don't we seem to care about that?

Iran wants nuclear energy to power their country so that they can export all of their oil - their country is very poor and they see this as their only alternative.
 

Poke4Christ

Federal Marshal
Aug 2, 2005
11,242
1,483
1,743
37
Edmond, OK
#20
His foreign policy is not one big contradiction. Not even close. He said based on what we know now, he wouldn't advocate bombing them. Even if Iran was building a nuke (yes, singular), what kind of threat is that? It is no threat to us. They could potentially lob it at Israel, but Israel has plenty of Nukes (plural) and would have no problem handling Iran. Iran knows this, Israel knows this.

Iran is probably scared that they will be invaded / attacked just like Iraq was - all based on false pretense and cherry picked convenient "intelligence" (sweet misnomer by the way).

Paul is not an isolationist. He wants trade / travel / communication with all countries. He's specifically talking about Washington's policy to either subsidize something, or criminalize something - like there is no gray area. How about not doing either of those things? He finds major flaws with our situation w/ Pakistan. We just subsidized them with approximately $11 Billion when it propagated our interests. Well now we're mad at them because they have all these nukes, and are allegedly providing info onto terrorists. Well where in the hell did they get the money to do that? It's a major flaw in our foreign policy.

He also made an excellent point that our current policy is actually a neo-isolationism. Bombing countries, fighting undeclared wars, advocating pre-emptive bombing of 3rd world countries. That policy is making us zero friends internationally.

He panders to the anti-military crowd? What is that based on? He's very pro military, he just thinks our country is better served with our military protecting us on our home soil. I mean, if we are so freaked out about the terrorist boogeyman destroying our country, then why don't we do something to prevent another 11 million illegals across our borders?

He was in the Air Force himself, (was a flight surgeon in Nam) and he actually gets more donations from current and former servicemen than any other candidate out there. Paul is not anti-military AT ALL.
Wow, this is one amazing post. Great summary. Very enlightening.