I think tonight's debate and the debates that have come before this should show how dangerous Ron Paul is. He preaches a foreign policy that is extremely similar to one we saw under Bill Clinton. Did he forget what happened as a result of that type of foreign policy? Did Ron Paul forget that 9/11 happened without the U.S. bringing it on itself?
Supporters of Ron Paul need to realize that the stuff Ron Paul preaches is extremely dangerous. It is quite interesting to listen to a congressman who preaches about limited government with a weak military. Don't get Mitt supporters wrong, we do support limited government, but to protect our limited government we need to be able to protect ourselves from foreign terrorists. RON PAUL DOES NOT WANT TO GO AFTER TERRORISTS AND WOULD RATHER BE A SITTING DUCK IN DC.
UPDATE: The FNC Phone Texting poll was won by Ron Paul. Yet again, his supporters have clogged a poll. Notice that they usually spam a poll that is conducted unscientifically. Also, notice that Ron Paul's scientific polling numbers do not equate to his online "cheating" success!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
Actually what Ron Paul is proposing is quite different than what Bill Clinton had going on. Bill Clinton was always using our military for some sort of BS that had nothing to do with our national security. I know that its difficult to think outside the box and realize that not every solution is a proactive solution.
Let those people solve their own problems. Let Europe provide for their own national defense.
As Rudy said, we can still speak softly and carry a big stick. I am still a Paul fan but after tonights debate I realized that I could support any Republican nominee, but truly believe that Ron Paul is the best choice for America and the best chance to beat Hillary.
What Ron Paul is proposing is that we do not fight terrorists. How is that not dangerous? Answer that!
No, Ron Paul is proposing that we stop CREATING terrorists, so that we don't have to fight. Duh.
How did we get terrorists if we were not invading countries at that time?
Wouldn't Ron Paul have agreed with Bill Clinton's non-intervention style? How many times was the U.S. attacked without a response during the Clinton years? TOOOOO MANY
How on earth can we defend ourselves when we're spending close to a billion dollars overseas? Ron Paul supports stopping giving Egypt 10 billion dollars a year, stopping giving Indonesia 1 billion dollars a year, etc. You people who want status quo foreign policy are insane. Ron Paul realizes this and he is the only one who would actually make us safer by stopping our spending overseas and actually boosting our DEFENSE spending.
hotchney coulis: those countries that you want to cut spending to are not the ones where terrorism is currently at its hottest while i will concede that there are terrorists in those nations
I thought 9/11 happened because of witches and homosexuals
Ron Paul would absolutely have retaliated against the terrorists. He has said earlier (and taken steps in Congress to do so) that he would have issued a "Letter of Marque and Reprisal" (a provision in the U.S. Constitution, that was once used to retaliate against high-seas pirates that did not belong to a particular nation on whom to declare war) and he would have placed a $1B-bounty for the capture of Osama Bin Laden, using the bait of money to capture Osama. When you consider the $500B the war has cost so far while allowing Osama to still be on the run, $1B would have been very reasonable.
Here, read this for more info: http://www.progress.org/fold232.htm
Oh please, Ron Paul has said time and time again that we should not fight them. He said that it would only drag the fight out longer. He said in a previous debate that he would not fight them as we are leaving Iraq even if they are shooting at us! RON PAUL SUCKS
Hear it from Ron Paul himself then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSP9NteApqI
Think of it this way. If you get stung by a tiny bee, kill it if you wish to feel avenged, but if you try to go after the other bees in a nearby nest, many of which have nothing to do with the first bee, then be prepared for some hurt.
That's what we did when we chose to let Bin Laden live and instead got sidetracked by Iraq.
Ron Paul voted FOR going to war in Afghanastan to defend ourselves and search for Bin Laden.
He is not anti-war.
He disagrees about our remaining in Iraq to continue our nation building.
"How did we get terrorists if we were not invading countries at that time?"
In the 1940s the British arbitrarily divided up lands in the middle east to create (a) the State of Israel, (b) what is known as the "Palestinian territories" today, and (c) what we know today as "Iraq".
In 1953 US policy makers ousted Mossadegh from Iran and installed the Shah, which led to the Iranian revolution and Khomeini's institution of a violent Islamic state.
The US (I am always referring to our policymakers when I use that term, not to Americans) then supported Saddam Hussein after he had taken over the Iraqi government via a coup d'etat. Supposedly the US supported him because he was a secularist.
http://www.ron-paul-business-directory.com/christian-scare.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFMdK0TWtks
Well it looks like Ron Paul got stung by a bunch of bees in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina, Florida, and the rest of the states. He leads no polls!
Ron Paul has placed in the top three spots in 17 out of 23 polls.
I guess these polls mean nothing to you unless Romney is winning it.
What's with the flip flop Romney?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFMdK0TWtks
What polls were those? Were those polls that his supporters were able to spam???? I think thats the case!
RON PAUL HAS NOT PLACED WELL IN THE ACTUAL POLLS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32IO7tX9Co0
These polls.
Where people had to go and physically vote.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/
Ron Poll even won one of the polls that Romney spent thousands on, to pay for his supporters to attend.
There's no spamming, Ron Paul is popular among the people.
Need you say more:
You mean this video?
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid271557392?bctid=1184432033
if ron paul has so much support, why isn't the actual scientific polling that is done showing it? show me some actual poll results!
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Rep-Pres-Primary.php
Paul has 2.4%, hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahha
http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Rep-Pres-Primary.php
Here's some Iowa numbers as well. Also this is from SCIENTIFIC Polling.
Romney, 27.5% to Ron Paul's 3.6% hmm, if I was a casual observer I would say that Ron Paul does not have that much support.
Oh please...what "scientific polling"?
Since when is Rassmussen "scientific polling"?
Romney has been touting how he won the last straw poll, but it isn't good enough for you when you see that Ron Paul has done well in many of them too.
You can't have it both ways.
Yet you Ron Paul guys still have not answered my question. Show me the scientific polling data where Ron Paul did well? Quit dodging and show me. I don't want nay of this internet crap I want the real stuff.
Virginia, there is no "scientific polling".
As matter of fact, pollsters have disclosures claiming that their polls are random and not scientific.
I've answered your questions, now answer mine...
How is Romney is principled man when he flop flops?
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid271557392?bctid=1184432033
How is Ron Paul not a flip flopper? Is he not a libertarian? Why is he running for President as a Republican?
I guess the people that donated over $5 million to Ron Paul in the last quarter were also spammers.
Nah, he has no support, nothing to see here children. go home.
Anon 11:48 pm, can't someone change there mind? is that so wrong? didn't Reagan change his mind as well? was he horrible? should we not have elected him because he changed his stances?
Funny how you refuse to answer the question about Romney's flip flop on abortion.
Truth hurts.
Another truth-
Ron Paul has received the most in military contributions than any other Republican candidate.
I've had my fun here, keep cheering for Romney, and if he wins, I hope he sends all your sorry asses to Iraq.
wow anon 11:54 thats pretty rude. lets keep the posts clean here guys. you never know what age people are that read this stuff.
The Real Romney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI
While I do not agree in Ron Paul's Foreign Policy because while the intent of our Founder's was clear, the circumstances in today's climate do not premit such "lazy" Foreign Policy initiatives. That being said, I would NOT equate Ron Pauls FP to that of Bill Clinton. The Liberal mantra of the past decade has been "Nation Building" which we saw in The Kosovo disaster, his deployment of US funds to Ethiopia and the bombing of Iraq consistenly in the late 1990's. While some might argue this was in response to his "scandals," it happened.
As well, Bill Clinton was/is a Globalist. His policies created the Globlization market, which, is in effect intervention by other means. As Capitalism took over nations such as China, Russia, and the Eastern Bloc, we saw more pro-democratic governments emerge, spreading the idea of liberty and creating Pro-US governments.
So, while Ron Paul's FP is archaic, it certainly does not compare to Bill Clintons.
Is anyone going to show me some scientific data or are you guys still trying to spam a poll really quick to show me?
Paul Got Stung: I guess the Paul people haven't finished cheating on the poll yet. Looks like you won't get to see the poll results until each person has vote 67323483 times.
Actual polls? LOL
You mean the ones were they don't even include him? Or do you mean the polls that only call old ladies on their land lines?
Face it, Romney will be lucky to place 3rd in any state's primary.
VirginiaforMitt08 - you can only vote once.
Nice try though. Time to realize your used car salesman candidate (what was up with his hair tonight) doesn't have any REAL support.
It is a shame Mitty has to buy his supporters.
Disinter: You can't buy pollsters.
Are you retarded? Romney has the support to win multiple primaries, in fact, I don't think Paul does so why don't you just give up!
disinter why don't you crawl out of a cave and realize that we are in 2007. Ron Paul's Archaic FP would not fly anywhere in today's world. Shouldn't you be out making signs for Ron Paul right now?
"You can't buy pollsters."
Are you kidding me? You REALLY believe that? You are so naive I would guess you were 10 years old.
No wonder you support Mittsy.
For the record, Romney paid Voter/Consumer Research $99,000.
I know you are slow, but that would be a pollster.
disinter and ron paul rocks, when they paid that money to a pollster it was not put in to the RCP Averages. you guys are the 10 years olds. The stuff that is published is not bought and paid for by anyone. If so, I guess Rudy bought all the national polls while Romney bough the one's in Iowa, NH, MI, Nevada, etc.
I would think that just seeing how many people are commenting here, would show that Ron Paul supporters are everywhere and not just voting in online polls...you can see this at the huge turnout at his meetups (when he is not even visiting) and his huge turnout at events when he is coming through. Venues have had to be moved and seating has been removed to allow standing room only in huge hotel convention centers, to accommodate the huge numbers of very active Ron Paul supporters.
Ron Paul, True Flip Flopper, October 21, 2007 11:50 PM: How is Ron Paul a Flip Flopper? Changing your party is not a flip flop…Dems and Republicans do it all of the time. And since the Dems and Republicans do not have a strong party line anymore, then why not be one of them and make it what you want? He has been voted in as a Republican for years, and his voting record is stellar, there is no other that holds on to the constitution more and has voted more consistently than Ron Paul. Flip Flopper, I think not.
FIrst off- Bush refused to go after Bin Laden until AFTER 9/11 - until then, he was NOT WANTED by the US. Check with the FBI if you don't believe me.
Secondly - Clinton BOMBED 5 countries, including IRAQ!
Ron Paul would certainly not follow Clintons example of blowing up third-world countries and stirring up hornets nests.
Ron Paul WOULD secure this country. Ron Paul has the only plan to protect this country militarily. He wants to curtail our militarys' destruction through attrition and dilution, AND he wants to militirize our borders and bring our hardware home to protect our country.
Ron Paul's plan is the ONLY plan that would increase our national defense.
You have been neo-conned my friend.
SHOWMETHEDATA-
You want to talk about a 'scientific' poll?
The straw polls can be considered to be empirical because they are not based on sampling models. They are OPEN to people that wish to choose their leader.
What that means is that straw polls are mini elections. Ron Paul SLAMS the rest of the pack when a real vote is put up.
I have been to straw polls to vote. They look like Ron Paul rallies because his supporters are the only ones to show any visible signs of support in most polls.
So- lets recap. Ramusen and Gallup = selecting pools based on an arbitrary model - asking pointed questions and often excluding names from the list...
Straw poll = genuine and transparent election based on a true sample of the population - voters who actually care and show up.
I noticed this blog doesn't get more than zero or 1 comment on threads. This thread on Ron Paul has 50.
Must be all those spam bots. [sarcasm off]
Ok, I have read through a lot of these comments by RP people, and you are misguided in many facts.
1. Ron Paul is not going to able to defend this country if he scales back our miliary. I agree the plan that our Founding Father's laid is not being followed, by they NEVER envisioned us becoming a Superpower. Because of that, we have strategic interests that need protection.
2. No matter what we do, we will be creating terrorists. They hate the West, no questions, end of debate.
3. We did not get "sidetracked" in Iraq. Removing Saddam from power was in the long run the right decision for the US. It was going to happen eventually, it might has well have been now.
4. I give a "shit" about 9/11. It is horrible that someone would actually post that they do not care about a day of horror in American history. We were attacked, we ARE in a state of war, and we will win this war, even if it takes decades.
I believe that if China invaded us and took Bush out and occupied our country, a lot of us would become terrorists. Me, myself, I am a bit nationalist in that I love my country, but more importantly, my form of Republican government. Ron Paul is simply trying to uphold that. If we become a superpower and lose that, what good is it to be a superpower without freedom. And for all of you "war on terror" supporters out there, how can you have a legitimate war on terror without closing the borders? Get your facts straight and realize giving up our freedom is what the supposed terrorists wanted, since Lord Bush said that "they" hated our freedom. So why is he taking it away? Let's get it back and piss them off.
Post a Comment