• 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.

What if they're lying to you about Ron Paul?

The "what if" style of the OP's video is really annoying. What if a massive asteroid hit Yellowstone National Park? What if Ron Paul is possessed by evil demons? What if Ron Paul is just another lying career politician who would start a nuclear war on a tantrum?

As the saying goes...
"If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts, what a merry Christmas we'd all have."

The flaw in his "what if?" speech is a common one for Ron Paul supporters, which he is. They assert because of all the awful things of government and the other politicians, therefore career politician Ron Paul must be good.
 
Caine said:
You mean the same ex-servicemen and women who will be un-employed under the current obama plan to scale back?
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think Ron Paul's neo-isolationism would keep a lot of ex-servicemen/women employed? Be honest with yourself. Do you?
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Do you honestly think Ron Paul's neo-isolationism would keep a lot of ex-servicemen/women employed? Be honest with yourself. Do you?
Click to expand...

Did I even mention it?
 
apdst said:
Lieng to use about what? Paul saying that we should let Iran close the Straits of Hormuz? Calling Bradley Manning a hero? Wanting to abolish the IRS and CIA?
Click to expand...

International trade causes war, not prevents it.

WW1, what dragged US into war with Germany? Uboats threatening international trade.

What was the first war in US History? Barbary Pirates interfering with international trade.

War of 1812? British Navy impressing US merchantment involved with international trade.

1850's Commodore Perry sailed into Japanese Harbor, forced international trade on the Iron-Age Japanese. 90 years later they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Why did we interfere when Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, starting this 20 year continuous middle eastern war? Oil and international trade.
 
Hatuey said:
Do you honestly think Ron Paul's neo-isolationism would keep a lot of ex-servicemen/women employed? Be honest with yourself. Do you?
Click to expand...

Ron Paul is a Free Trader, Free Traders are obsessed with expanding international trade. International trade causes war. Ron Paul has WW3 written all over his forehead.
 
Demon of Light said:
Of course, your source notes correctly that this is not neutral wording, but it also isn't wrong. A gold standard would take quite a bit of power away from the central bankers and political leaders since it would greatly limit their ability to control the money supply. Most people probably have little understanding about the particulars of our economic and political system.
Click to expand...

Actually a gold standard would strengthen the central bankers....of China. With this trade deficit China would own all of our gold in less than 6 months.
 
Demon of Light said:
If Ron Paul would be the "greatest friend multinational businesses ever had" why are they showering money on Romney and Obama while Paul is out in the cold?
Click to expand...

Because Romney and Obama actually have a chance of winning, and Ron Paul doesn't. Duh.
 
My question (no sarcasm) is where do you get the impression that Ron Paul would allow Iran to close the Straits Of Hormuz?

Were the Iranians to do so (and I doubt they will), and if America were directly affected (I'm not sure about that), then I'm guessing that we would escort any of our sips, or ships delivering critical goods to us and thus render a blockade meaningless. Were Iran to attack one of our ships, this would be an act of war. Then, as per our sadly neglected Constitution, CONGRESS could appropriately declare war and the CIC of the Armed Forces, the POTUS, would direct our Military to respond with an appropriate level of force.

As for Mr. Paul's other position on Iran, I feel he is correct for several reasons:
1) IMHO, we should make peace with them. We really scr**ed them over in the past. We should apologize and do as much business with them as possible. That's how we solved our fears of China and Russia.
2) While we don't need another nuclear nation, if they want to waste their resources on nuclear weapons, why should we care so much? Nuclear weapons are pretty much useless for aggression. Look at the countries that have them already. Do you ever see them used or even threatened to be used? The best example is Pakistan, a wacky Muslim nation.
3) Israel is one of the most militarily aggressive nations on earth. Kind of like America ;-). They have nuclear weapons and that's why Iran won't attack them. IMHO no country will ever use nuclear weapons because they know that their entire country will be turned into a sheet of glass.
4) Iranians are quite intelligent and their political system is fairly democratic. They are quite industrialized and have a lot to offer if they could stabilize. That IMHO should be our goal. Mr. Paul is the only candidate that seems to realize this.
 
specklebang said:
My question (no sarcasm) is where do you get the impression that Ron Paul would allow Iran to close the Straits Of Hormuz?

Were the Iranians to do so (and I doubt they will), and if America were directly affected (I'm not sure about that), then I'm guessing that we would escort any of our sips, or ships delivering critical goods to us and thus render a blockade meaningless. Were Iran to attack one of our ships, this would be an act of war. Then, as per our sadly neglected Constitution, CONGRESS could appropriately declare war and the CIC of the Armed Forces, the POTUS, would direct our Military to respond with an appropriate level of force.

As for Mr. Paul's other position on Iran, I feel he is correct for several reasons:
1) IMHO, we should make peace with them. We really scr**ed them over in the past. We should apologize and do as much business with them as possible. That's how we solved our fears of China and Russia.
2) While we don't need another nuclear nation, if they want to waste their resources on nuclear weapons, why should we care so much? Nuclear weapons are pretty much useless for aggression. Look at the countries that have them already. Do you ever see them used or even threatened to be used? The best example is Pakistan, a wacky Muslim nation.
3) Israel is one of the most militarily aggressive nations on earth. Kind of like America ;-). They have nuclear weapons and that's why Iran won't attack them. IMHO no country will ever use nuclear weapons because they know that their entire country will be turned into a sheet of glass.
4) Iranians are quite intelligent and their political system is fairly democratic. They are quite industrialized and have a lot to offer if they could stabilize. That IMHO should be our goal. Mr. Paul is the only candidate that seems to realize this.
Click to expand...

Just to make the point, closing the Straits of Hormuz would directly affect the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom