• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ron Paul's stand on Israel is popular...with Netanyahu!

joko104 said:
///What do you think the costs of 40,000 troops in Germany, 28,000 in S. Korea etc is? But Ron Paul supporters - like Ron Paul himself - fixate ONLY on Israel to complain and rage about.

Is there any Ron Paul supporter that can prove me wrong on this? Can any point to any message they have posted prior to now bitterly or significantly complaining of foreign military aid to Germany, Japan, S. Korea, Kuwait?
Click to expand...

only Israel is full of Jews.
 
Ikari said:
No I don't, I'm going off of what you said. You said many of Paul's supporters (I didn't even ask you to prove the statistics to demonstrate "many", which would also be a valid question) are anti-Semite. So I took that as a starting point. Some dude who doesn't like Jews, he supports Ron Paul; you are making massive assumption and supposition into then stating that that guy's views are then adopted by Ron Paul.

I'll ask again, will you quit dodging?
Click to expand...

I'll answer it. Because those supporters are parroting Ron Paul, who by his decades long unique fixation on the nation of Israel in terms of military aid combined with his decades long claims of worldwide and USA Jewish conspiracies has attracted the anti-Jew whites. If a person solicites, recruits and builds his campaign around certain prejudices it thus obviously attaches to the candidate himself.

The same is true for white supremacists. Paul's decades long attacks against MLK holiday, voting rights act, civil rights act, the grossly bigoted newsletter in his name that while he claimed he didn't author he also never disavowed back when published and raising money for him, made him the darling of Stormfronters - for which he gladly accepts political contributions.

If a candidate solicites support and funds from those of bigotries, those bigotries attach to the candidate.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
I'll answer it. Because those supporters are parroting Ron Paul, who by his decades long unique fixation on the nation of Israel in terms of military aid combined with his decades long claims of worldwide and USA Jewish conspiracies has attracted the anti-Jew whites. If a person solicites, recruits and builds his campaign around certain prejudices it thus obviously attaches to the candidate himself.
Click to expand...

Is it? Ron Paul's idealism here isn't limited to Israel, it's his basic take on foreign funding. It's not defunding JUST Israeli military efforts, but defunding all foreign military efforts.

Now, the other assumption you're making besides misrepresenting Paul's philosophy is that he's specifically soliciting, recruiting, and building his campaign around the prejudices. Perhaps you can point to Paul's actual political platform and philosophy to demonstrate this? I don't think you can, as it doesn't actually exist. So what you have instead is that perhaps some anti-Semites support Ron Paul because he does want to defund Israel. But Paul's platform is to defund everyone the same way, not just Israel. Now just because a piece of his platform draws support for some racists, does that mean the full of the platform is racist?
 
Redress said:
I did not say credibility, I said integrity. Paul is maybe, almost 50 % republican at best. Or in other words, he isn't a republican, but uses the party for his own attempts to get and keep power.
Click to expand...

I don't see how it makes him dishonest. He has always been upfront about his positions. The two main parties in this country are supposed to be diverse. Otherwise only a few people would be represented.
 
joko104 said:
What do you think the costs of 40,000 troops in Germany, 28,000 in S. Korea etc is? But Ron Paul supporters - like Ron Paul himself - fixate ONLY on Israel to complain and rage about.
Click to expand...

These are all covered when Ron Paul and his supporters routinely state that we need to bring ALL our troops home.
 
Redress said:
This is something I have always questioned. Why is Paul a republican? He does not agree with republican issues for the most part, so why is he part of their party?
Click to expand...

You answered it yourself

Redress said:
So you are saying it is essentially a marriage of convenience? It's not a good match, but it gives him more than being a third party candidate would?
Click to expand...

The country primarily functions as a 2 party system. Ron Paul falls far more in line with one of those parties than the others. While he is more extreme on many issues than the majority of the Republican Party is, his views generally match up closer in line with theirs then with Democrats. The Republican Party enables him a soapbox in which he can preech his principles and views on the issues as he see's fit without being so far outside the party that he simply isn't welcome in it. It is not a violation of principle unless being a Republican would actively REQUIRE him to not push his principles, which it does not.
 
joko104 said:
I bumped this because in both 2008 and again in 2012, any and all Ron Paul supporters who join in the anti-military support for Israel will have never posted any messages focusing on any country BUT Israel for foreign aid.
Click to expand...

The world doesn't revolve around Israel, get over yourself already! No country should get a dime of US money, Americans deserve our money more then any foreign country does. You pro-financial aid people must think that foreigners needs supercede the needs of Americans.

What do you think the costs of 40,000 troops in Germany, 28,000 in S. Korea etc is? But Ron Paul supporters - like Ron Paul himself - fixate ONLY on Israel to complain and rage about.
Click to expand...

That's not true at all.

Is there any Ron Paul supporter that can prove me wrong on this? Can any point to any message they have posted prior to now bitterly or significantly complaining of foreign military aid to Germany, Japan, S. Korea, Kuwait?
Click to expand...

Watch at least the first 5 minutes of that video I posted. Paul sounds off on US troop placement everywhere. And here, Paul talks about other countries:
 
I understand that Ron Paul is for absolute total military, economic and political isolation. Each person can decide whether they agree or not. Personally, I see that as both a belief in ammorality and cowardice. Just my opinion of it.

Rather, my point is simple. It is Israel that Ron Paul and his supporters focus upon - 100 times over - than Germany, S. Korea and Japan, nor is there any truthful denying that Paul and many of his supporters go on to fixate on claims of vast conspiracies by Jews and Israel in relation to the USA government, banks etc.
 
Last edited:
The Prophet said:
Well he does. Republicans don't nation build, or take away your freedoms, neo cons do. The Republicans should absolutely love Ron Paul, but sadly, the neo conservatives have usurped the party. The "neo" movement is the only game in town, liberal and conservative are the two factions. They choose different paths to get us to the final destination, but it's the same place. A Ron Paul Presidency would severely undercut the elites' global plans, and set them back 50 years. Ron Paul has been consistent for 30 years; he proved he cannot be bought, and the globalist elites are panic stricken.
Click to expand...

 
joko104 said:
I understand that Ron Paul is for absolute total military, economic and political isolation. Each person can decide whether they agree or not. Personally, I see that as both a belief in ammorality and cowardice. Just my opinion of it.

Rather, my point is simple. It is Israel that Ron Paul and his supporters focus upon - 100 times over - than Germany, S. Korea and Japan, nor is there any truthful denying that Paul and many of his supporters go on to fixate on claims of vast conspiracies by Jews and Israel in relation to the USA government, banks etc.
Click to expand...

How is Ron Paul for economic and political isolationism? That's the point. He advises diplomacy and trade over that of military interventionism. It would be good to at least be able to acknowledge this much.

As to the rest of your post - source your claims or stfu.
 
Benjamin Parish said:
How is Ron Paul for economic and political isolationism? That's the point. He advises diplomacy and trade over that of military interventionism. It would be good to at least be able to acknowledge this much.

As to the rest of your post - source your claims or stfu.
Click to expand...

It's a little hard to do diplomacy when you take away the carrots and sticks.
 
Every forum that I go to there seems to be a vast number of demagogues.. either i'm hitting all of the wrong places, or this is just the way of the world.

Leaning the way of the world.
 
The Prophet said:
You're attempt at any type of humor falls flat on it's face and for sure is duly noted.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but Conservatives speaking about humor is sort of like Wilt Chamberlain speaking about celibacy.
 
Benjamin Parish said:
How is Ron Paul for economic and political isolationism? That's the point. He advises diplomacy and trade over that of military interventionism. It would be good to at least be able to acknowledge this much.

As to the rest of your post - source your claims or stfu.
Click to expand...

I did provide links previously. But some Ron Paul followers don't read except what is in agreement with them.

I understand, Ron Paul shares the view that if we are really extra supper nice to other countries then they will be nice to us too, the kiss-ass method of diplomacy and trade. A foreign policy that no country, group, organization or individual should ever trust nor fear the USA no matter what happens and no matter what they do is cowardly and naive. His view of how to deal with terrorists is through diplomacy and trade - assuring them that they are 100% safe no matter what they do.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
I did provide links previously. But like some Ron Paul followers you don't read except what is in agreement with you.
Click to expand...

..or it could be that I did not read this entire thread. Feel free to point me to them.. or you can just be an asshole about it.

Whatever makes you feel better.

I understand, Ron Paul shares the view that if we are really extra supper nice to other countries then they will be nice to us too, the kiss-ass method of diplomacy and trade.
Click to expand...

Lol. No. Giving everyone aid and spending all of our money on our military to Nation build their lands is the ass kissing position. We advocate some grown-up sh!t. Feel free to jump on board at any time. We are constantly growing and taking all comers. ; )

A foreign policy that no country, group, organization or individual should ever trust nor fear the USA no matter what happens and no matter what they do is cowardly and naive.
Click to expand...

Why should they fear us for dumbass reasons? I'd rather be respected. It's not cowardice. It's logical and some grow folk sh!t.

His view of how to deal with terrorists is through diplomacy and trade - assuring them that they are 100% safe no matter what they do.
Click to expand...

Lol. Are you just a demagogue? Do you have any knowledge of history? Are you educated on foreign policy, at all?
 
Last edited:
It is total denial of history to believe the USA became the wealthiest nation on earth by military isolationism and non-intervention in the politics of other countries.

The talk of Paul is SOOOO naive! We don't GIVE foreign aid. We BUY the governments of other countries and otherwise buy support for our benefit. The stick is our military. The carrot is our money. Do what we want voluntarily - or sell out to us and share a tiny bit of our wealth - or die. That is what made the USA the wealthiest and most powerful country on earth. Being the combination of the nicest and most destruction force on earth. Others can pick which USA they want to deal with.

Every wealthy empire in known world history was built this way.

The attitude of Ron Paul is like some naive old hippie when it comes to foreign policy and the unending world history of warfare.
 
Last edited:
Kadaffi had declared he was going to take a larger share of royalty of the oil owned in Libya by Western oil companies - oil won in WWI and then fought over in North Africa in WWII.

The response of the Western countries that own Libya oil? France. The USA. Britian. We destroyed Kadaffi. Now we will deal with the new "government" - that government having no military left.

If our foreign policy was solely humanitarian, we'd be militarily involved in Africa. But Africa has nothing we want or need.

GROW UP! Like it or not. Face reality at least for what it is. Nothing comes for free. Not even freedom.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
It is total denial of history to believe the USA became the wealthiest nation on earth by military isolationism and non-intervention in the politics of other countries.

The talk of Paul is SOOOO naive! We don't GIVE foreign aid. We BUY the governments of other countries and otherwise buy support for our benefit. The stick is our military. The carrot is our money. Do what we want voluntarily - or sell out to us and share a tiny bit of our wealth - or die. That is what made the USA the wealthiest and most powerful country on earth. Being the combination of the nicest and most destruction force on earth. Others can pick which USA they want to deal with.

Every wealthy empire in known world history was built this way.

The attitude of Ron Paul is like some naive old hippie when it comes to foreign policy and the unending world history of warfare.
Click to expand...

This is specifically for you, bud. It seems that you are lost in some alternate reality or some sh!t

Ron Paul 2012: Why He is Right on Foreign Policy

Ron Paul's 2012 presidential aspirations are hurt by his foreign policy stance. Or so say the polls.

The truth, however, is that foreign policy is one of Paul's strongest points.

Paul is a non-interventionist. He wants to bring troops home from Iraq, Afghanistan and from all over the world. He wants the U.S. to stop policing the world, mind its own business and spend less money on defense.

This is in sharp contrast to the current state of U.S. foreign policy, which has the U.S. spending nearly five percent of its GDP on the military each year and stationing troops in over 150 countries (including heavy presences in friendly countries like Japan).

Ron Paul 2012: Why He is Right on Foreign Policy - International Business Times
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have no idea why you think that blog for Paul is persuasive.

The first wealth to the USA came through foreign trade, but then threatened for lack of a navy and military. When that was addressed was the first time the USA became both wealthy and secure. Next, through military buildup and selective war, we claimed Central and South America was our domain. The history of wealth of the USA is a history of mini-wars, financed and supported foreign revolutions, and other foreign interventions.

Ron Paul thinks all we have just came for free and his is a denial and distortion of history.

The USA became the wealthiest (for all Americans) because the USA won WWII. The only close rival was the USSR. We financially broke the USSR largely through a military spending contest. Shut down military production, dramatically reduce the size of the military, and close all foreign military bases and the time before the USA would go into a severe depression would be measured in weeks.

China has undertaken increasing military build up because they have grown to an status that they want more empire building ability in relation to the USA. Anywhere the USA withdraws from will be a vacuum filled by rivals. The world is not a nice place. Its about power.
 
Lol. When did international Business Times become a blog?

China is doing it economically.. we are doing it militarily.

We are doomed to collapse if we continue this course. We can stand to cut some military.

Have you even ever taken a look at 'RON PAUL "PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA"*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee'?

We'd still be spending 500 billion a year on military. 5 times more than the next closes - China.
 
Benjamin Parish said:
Lol. When did international Business Times become a blog?

China is doing it economically.. we are doing it militarily.

We are doomed to collapse if we continue this course. We can stand to cut some military.

Have you even ever taken a look at 'RON PAUL "PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA"*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee'?

We'd still be spending 500 billion a year on military. 5 times more than the next closes - China.
Click to expand...

China is very open to American immigrants. If you like how things are for the average Chinese, maybe you should move there.

BTW, the size of the Chinese military is 60% larger than the USA. They just don't pay anywhere near as much. They also don't do much in the way of protection for soldiers nor benefits. Or for all citizens for that matter.

I don't agree with Paul's idea that we all should live like the Chinese do. That is your point, isn't it? That the average America should have the standard of living of the average Chinese?

At least you admit that you want American soldiers to be downgraded in the equipment, pay, and benefits that the Chinese provides to their soldiers.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
China is very open to American immigrants. If you like how things are for the average Chinese, maybe you should move there.
Click to expand...

No. I dont like how it is in China. It is some fascist sh!t over there. But their presence around the world is diplomacy and trade and ours is militarily with a bad economy. i mean, add that sh!t up, dude.

BTW, the size of the Chinese military is 60% larger than the USA. They just don't pay anywhere near as much.
Click to expand...

They just have more people. It is hardly relevant to our technology and capability.

I don't agree with Paul's idea that we all should live like the Chinese do. That is your point, isn't it? That the average America should have the standard of living of the average Chinese?
Click to expand...

Neither do I. I don't advocate fascism. There you go demagoguing again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom