Nominate Ron Paul = Reelect Barrack Obama
- Thread starter 377OHMS
- Start date
Quote from Lucrum:
Out of curiosity you care to be more specific? In that case I'm surprised you spend so much time in this forum.Admittedly I haven't see him speak that much, but you seriously think he's a head case?
He compared Iran to post-war Russia and cited the fact that we didn't attack Russia when she developed the bomb and asked why then would we attack Iran. He seemed to make no distinction between a war ally and a country that has been killing US soldiers via proxy for years.
He proposed to eliminate the Federal Reserve Bank and has suggested that our gold reserves don't exist.
The combination of the shrillness of his answers, his shouting and the extreme views just looks like dementia to me. Kind of a bomb thrower in the rhetorical sense, not somebody I would trust with nuclear weapons.
Again, not trying to offend anyone but it is inevitable that these answers will do just that. Anyway, that is what I'm thinking.
OK, although by the time Russia had the bomb I don't think they were technically allies any more but point taken.
I've noticed more than a few here that also think the federal reserve is bad for the nation. Obviously you either disagree or think total elimination would be over kill.
I probably need to watch some more video of him.
Shit OHMS, if they're easily offended they shouldn't be here.
IOW if they can't take a joke, fuck'em.
I'm just looking for opinions on Paul from the handful of P&R regulars that have their feet on the ground and a brain in their head.
Thanks
People worry about "wasting their vote" on a third party person sometimes... then they realize that their vote for the main two parties as a waste anyhow, I mean what? I have a choice between the War On Poverty or the War on Drugs? It's like, "which hugely failed program do you want to vote for to waste trillions in tax dollars"...
Were I going to vote, and I'm not, but were I, it would be for Paul. He might bring an economic disaster but we'd retain our freedoms. The two main parties are nibbling at our freedoms continually... I'd rather be free and poor than "secure" and not free any day...
Were I going to vote, and I'm not, but were I, it would be for Paul. He might bring an economic disaster but we'd retain our freedoms. The two main parties are nibbling at our freedoms continually... I'd rather be free and poor than "secure" and not free any day...
I don't agree with Paul's comment about Iran. As a general rule, anybody who thinks you get 70 virgins if you blow yourself up shouldn't have nuclear weapons. I mean, just as a general rule.... 
I do agree with him about the Fed - debasing the dollar is not the road to prosperity.
I do agree with him about the Fed - debasing the dollar is not the road to prosperity.
Ron Paul scares me. I just watched the debate again and watched and listened to him carefully. He advocates for civil trials for terrorists and seems to want isolationism. He thinks we should not be involved in anything outside of our borders.
He said that our problem is that "we don't mind our own business" and cited our installation of the Shaw of Iran in 1953. He does impress me as a scholar, no doubt, but the shouting about our involvement in foreign wars is disturbing. Does he think that after 9/11 we should simply have stayed home and done nothing? I kept thinking as he was speaking that his policies are almost leftist. I'm not clear why he isn't a democrat.
I'll stop calling him a nut though. He is right about getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Would he allow Taiwan to be invaded by China? Would he allow North Korea to shell or attack South Korea? Would he allow China to appropriate international waters off Vietnam? Would he allow Israel to be attacked, perhaps overrun? Would he tolerate Syrian hegemony over Lebanon? Would he allow the Turks to slaughter the Kurds? Would he allow the Turks to slaughter the Cypriot Greeks? His words suggest that he would.
I would have to vote against him. I couldn't just stay home.