• 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 in respect to founding fathers

Cromfel

New member
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
21
Reaction score
5
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ron Paul Zeitgeisted 2012 - Constitution and Money - YouTube

"A generous parent would have said, 'if there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace'." - Thomas Paine

This video contains insight on what Ron Paul is trying to explain to public. It is compilation of speeches, quotes and documentary explanations. This video tries to answer questions of people who are not fully aware of the background of things. He is using statements on constitution, founding fathers and monetary policy, namely creating money from thin air, without going into detials due nature of debates. So this video should help on understanding the context.

The "mainstream" politicians are only nourishing our tendency to stay in the comfort zone and maintain living in denial, ignoring reality is so tempting that its easy to listen what you want to hear. Truth in this case is not pretty and Ron Paul is trying to advocate for the truth without making it pretty. Hes trying to wake you up from your dream, as harsh as it sounds. That may sound scary, no, it WILL sound scary. Not because of Ron Paul but the sick world we live in.

No what will people do at the point of no return? When the cardhouse just has to collapse? its really frightening how far the ponzi scheme can go?
 


"There's nothing to fear from globalism, free trade, and a single worldwide currency," as long as us Anarcho-Capitalists are in charge calling the shots, says Ron Paul.

Oh no, I'm poking fun of their Lord and Savior Ron Paul again.
 
Last edited:


"There's nothing to fear from globalism, free trade, and a single worldwide currency," as long as us Anarcho-Capitalists are in charge calling the shots, says Ron Paul.

Oh no, I'm poking fun of their Lord and Savior Ron Paul again.


a single world wide currency? put the crack pipe down.
 
The founding fathers believed in a strong defense. Ron Paul believes in disarmament and surrender.....

You are incorrect.

The founding fathers were not the cowards we see in the neo-con party you subscribe to.

They understood that a truly free nation would be defended to its last breath by free people. Standing armies were something they had little regard for.
 
The founding fathers believed in a strong defense. Ron Paul believes in disarmament and surrender.....

Actually the country's national defense in its early years was a militia, and the prospect of a strong navy and a standing army was controversial at the time.
 
Actually the country's national defense in its early years was a militia, and the prospect of a strong navy and a standing army was controversial at the time.





Here is what im talking about. How can grown up people live with this?
 


Anyone ringing bell?

im Sorry, I dont live in US. I just dont understand how this can be happening in your country.
 
The founding fathers believed in a strong defense. Ron Paul believes in disarmament and surrender.....

Surrender? Do you have any idea how much money we're spending on the military these days?

military_spending_us_vs_world.gif


If we were to cut military spending down to 50% of what it is now, it'd still be as large as China and Europe COMBINED. And Paul doesn't intend on cutting anywhere near that much.

Dishonest, ignorant, or crazy. I'm not sure which it is.
 
Last edited:
Surrender? Do you have any idea how much money we're spending on the military these days?

military_spending_us_vs_world.gif


If we were to cut military spending down to 50% of what it is now, it'd still be as large as China and Europe COMBINED. And Paul doesn't intend on cutting anywhere near that much.

Dishonest, ignorant, or crazy. I'm not sure which it is.

I am a firm believer that having the strongest military in the world is the best way to not be invaded. Money well spent.
 
I am a firm believer that having the strongest military in the world is the best way to not be invaded. Money well spent.
I don't disagree. But six times as much as China? We're fifteen trillion dollars in debt and in absolutely no danger of invasion. Cutting military spending has to be on the table.
 
Last edited:
I am a firm believer that having the strongest military in the world is the best way to not be invaded. Money well spent.
Well, in the current situation, America itself is facing a sort of foreign policy crisis. You have a military-industrial complex, and a political discourse that seems to favor only increased interventionism.

Honestly, the best military strategy in my mind is one that uses diplomacy and free trade in the place of overt military force. I believe the military-industrial industry plays a large role in the development of America, but we've expanded 'national security' far beyond it's intent.

The founding fathers believed in a strong defense. Ron Paul believes in disarmament and surrender.....

He supports re-evaluating our foreign policy positions with nations abroad- to get to the core of the cause of 9/11, and with Iran and other nations around the world, from Cuba to Iran, that have attracted attention in the world.

He's far from an isolationist nor a defeatist- he believes, rather, that it is more beneficial to lead the world with free trade rather than sanction and military force, and to protect sovereignty rather than be the agent of military coercion and intervention in the world.
 
I don't disagree. But six times as much as China? We're fifteen trillion dollars in debt and in absolutely no danger of invasion. Cutting military spending has to be on the table.

Only way I am for cutting military spending is to bring troops home and close bases in Europe.
 
Maintaining bases in perfectly sovereign countries able to take care of their own decisions?

No. Closing them and bringing those bases back to US soil. That is money well spent. Because if the base is on US soil then the spending that goes to that base spills out into the communities around them. US communities. So it would stimulate the economies for a boatload of miles around that base. See Camp Lejune, NC where the city adjacent to it (Jacksonville, NC) wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the base being there.
 
Surrender? Do you have any idea how much money we're spending on the military these days?

military_spending_us_vs_world.gif


If we were to cut military spending down to 50% of what it is now, it'd still be as large as China and Europe COMBINED. And Paul doesn't intend on cutting anywhere near that much.

Dishonest, ignorant, or crazy. I'm not sure which it is.

You Paulbots do realize that even national defense was the largest budget item during the godly "founding father" ancient times ' of' old.

Why start an argument you are bound to lose? Is it because most people reject your true agenda?
 
Maintaining bases in perfectly sovereign countries able to take care of their own decisions?

Say it. C'mon Paulbots, Libertarians, Anarchists. SAY!! Admit it!

Say it, "I am an isolationist." SAY IT SAY IT SAY IT SAY IT!

YOU CAN'T SAY IT! You know why these Paulbot/Libertarian/Anarchists cannot say it, because Anarcho-capitalists are not Isolationists, they are interventionists. Whenever someone threatens their precious international trade they will slice their own children's necks.
 
You Paulbots do realize that even national defense was the largest budget item during the godly "founding father" ancient times ' of' old.

Strawman. Point out which "Paulbot" is suggesting national Defense shouldn't be our largest budget item?
 
Well it is now, so what are you complaining about?

That it could be cut while still remaining the largest budgetary item.

Let's say you have a person whose fat not because they eat unhealthy stuff but they just gourge themselves on giant cuts of steak, huge hamburgers, big honking chicken thighs, etc. They'll eat 3 courses worth of meat for every half course of starch and veggies they may have on their plate. So you tell them "Hey man, you need to eat less meat". You're not telling them to stop eating meat. You're not even telling them to eat less meat than everything else. You're saying like, cut it back to 2 servings every dinner instead of 3.

If you want to bitch about Paul fans be my guest. I do it at times too. But do it honestly. Most aren't arguing that defense should not be our largest spending item, just that it doesn't need to as big as it currently is in comparison.
 
If you want to bitch about Paul fans be my guest. I do it at times too. But do it honestly. Most aren't arguing that defense should not be our largest spending item, just that it doesn't need to as big as it currently is in comparison.

Most are arguing that defense is the largest budget item. How many Paulbot topics with federal budget pie charts do you want me to point you to? They will drag out a federal budget pie chart, and in the same breath say how "duh founding fathers wouldn't do this."

In fact sometimes those early budgets were nothing but military spending.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom