Ron Paul Wins Iowa GOP Debate; Is Right On Iran

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I consider him to be non-establishment, simply because of his views and the fact that he's spent the better part of his adult life trying to fight that establishment. But you touched on the main problem that I have with him: this coming Saturday he turns 76. He's used up his allotted three score and ten.
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
So, Ron Paul as part of the Establishment is fighting the Establishment from within the Establishment. Seems very Ron Paulish and futile.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Dr. Paul places 2nd in the Iowa Straw Poll, up from 5th the last time around, trailing Bachmann by only 152 votes (4671 votes to 4823 votes)

Best thing you can say about Bachmann's performance:

She barely beat Dr. Paul ..... and probably shelled out a lot more than Dr. Paul to do it .....

Aristotle,

Nice contention (re: Dr. Paul being part of the Establishment) - even if it is actually untrue ....

How anyone who is affectionately as "Dr. No" (in terms of his positions with regards to almost all of what "Establishment Washington" wants to do) could be considered part of that very Establishment is a real stretch ....

Of course, it's just terribly flawed logic .....

Perhaps you will enlighten us further with an expansion on the topic ?
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
So, Ron Paul as part of the Establishment is fighting the Establishment from within the Establishment. Seems very Ron Paulish and futile.
Actually, the thoughts above seem more "Aristotlish" (of the EO variety) than Paulish (which generally make sense) .... and yes, I agree: the above computation is fairly futile.

May wanna take a little more time and think it through a little better next time around ....
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
So, Ron Paul as part of the Establishment is fighting the Establishment from within the Establishment. Seems very Ron Paulish and futile.

Um ... seems to me that this is one of the ways things change. Ever read like Rules for Radicals or other similar writings?
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
In Barack Hussein Obama, we have a Socialist running as a Democrat. With Ron Paul, we have a Libertarian running as a Republican. If either man ran under his true colors neither of them would have ever gotten elected at all.

Libertarianism cannot get serious traction in the USA. Ron Paul, nice fellow, is enjoying a last hurrah and swan song as he fades into irrelevancy. Meanwhile, Obama is now widely understood to be an open advocate for Socialism. This is an imminent problem. Widespread Democratic support for a genuine Socialist should trouble every American voter.
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
Actually, the thoughts above seem more "Aristotlish" (of the EO variety) than Paulish (which generally make sense) .... and yes, I agree: the above computation is fairly futile.

May wanna take a little more time and think it through a little better next time around ....

Please refain from personal taunts. Surely, you have learned this lesson by now.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Won't win my vote.
lack any meaningful foreign afire policy.
The above, roughly translated (IMO):

"O-MI-GAWD ...... he is not a neocon .... and is against unqualified, unlimited, carte blanche support of Israel ....... Nooooooo ! ........"

You statement above is either based innocent ignorance, or a knowing and willful perversion of the facts: Dr. Paul has a quite meaningful foreign policy - one that largely mirrors that of the Founding Fathers of this country.

Educate yourself ... or get honest .... whichever is appropriate.

same as last time.
Yup - he's shown repeatedly that he is unwilling to compromise his principals.

worthless agenda. he can bury his head in the sand, but his tail still show.
Well, I guess we now fully understand your views of the Founding Fathers take on an appropriate foreign policy for this nation.

Couple of questions:

Are you a US citizen ?

Do you also hold dual citizenship with Israel ?

If the latter above is true, to which country do you actually owe your allegiance ...... if their interests are diametrically opposed, or in certain cases, mutually exclusive ?

we needs an president that can engage the international community, not one that is afraid of them.
True enough ..... allow me to qualify it further:

What this country needs for a president, is a person who can engage the international community .... not as some bully or petty tyrant, but through true leadership - as an equal, among nations.

Someone who isn't - out of fear - prone to "engage" his equals through domination, the use of force, intimidation, and rampant militarism - but through reasoned dialogue, mutual respect, and common interests.

As to the "afraid" aspect, I'll expand on that further, in very short order ....
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I think the fact of the matter is that Ron Paul cares more about his country than he's worried about the rest of the world.
Very well said indeed.

It's not about burying his head in the sand; it's about thumbing his nose at the notion of a one-world government, and the UN. Basically, getting out of policing the world.
The Founders seemed to recognize that in order to really be true to the ideals that this country represents - and to ensure our continued survival - that that is the way it must be.

Apparently, more recently, "others" seem to feel that they "know best" ..... I ask:

What have they actually done ?

Personally, I am dis-inclined to minimize or discount the wisdom possessed by those who were responsible for successfully bringing forth a nation, which had as it's purpose and goal, the rights, liberty, and freedom of the individual.

We just can't keep doing it forever.
Yup ..... and the fact that we've done it as much as we have may yet be the death knell for this country.

As was alluded to earlier, it's doubtful that anyone cares much for pounding nails into their skull .....

We may yet see the time come in our lifetimes where we need a true friend or friends to just make it, to survive as a nation ....

Given our past conduct, I am not terribly encouraged by the prospects ....
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
In Barack Hussein Obama, we have a Socialist running as a Democrat. With Ron Paul, we have a Libertarian running as a Republican. If either man ran under his true colors neither of them would have ever gotten elected at all.

Libertarianism cannot get serious traction in the USA. Ron Paul, nice fellow, is enjoying a last hurrah and swan song as he fades into irrelevancy. Meanwhile, Obama is now widely understood to be an open advocate for Socialism. This is an imminent problem. Widespread Democratic support for a genuine Socialist should trouble every American voter.

Yes it is true that Paul is a libertarian,but runs as a republican. He wouldn't have traction as a libertarian so that is why he is a republican. He wants to change the republican party from within.
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
The above, roughly translated (IMO):

"O-MI-GAWD ...... he is not a neocon .... and is against unqualified, unlimited, carte blanche support of Israel ....... Nooooooo ! ........"

You statement above is either based innocent ignorance, or a knowing and willful perversion of the facts: Dr. Paul has a quite meaningful foreign policy - one that largely mirrors that of the Founding Fathers of this country.

Educate yourself ... or get honest .... whichever is appropriate.


Yup - he's shown repeatedly that he is unwilling to compromise his principals.


Well, I guess we now fully understand your views of the Founding Fathers take on an appropriate foreign policy for this nation.

Couple of questions:

Are you a US citizen ?

Do you also hold dual citizenship with Israel ?

If the latter above is true, to which country do you actually owe your allegiance ...... if their interests are diametrically opposed, or in certain cases, mutually exclusive ?


True enough ..... allow me to qualify it further:

What this country needs for a president, is a person who can engage the international community .... not as some bully or petty tyrant, but through true leadership - as an equal, among nations.

Someone who isn't - out of fear - prone to "engage" his equals through domination, the use of force, intimidation, and rampant militarism - but through reasoned dialogue, mutual respect, and common interests.

As to the "afraid" aspect, I'll expand on that further, in very short order ....
Here is a blatant form of McCarthyism worthy of Old Joe, himself. This line of questioning was shamed out of public discourse more than 50 years ago. No EO member is required to prove his or her loyalty to anyone for any reason. This highly objectionable bullying tactic is used to silence opposing viewpoints. Dumpster-diving into one's ethnic or religious affiliation is beyond the pale. Did this slip by the censors unwittingly?
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Couple of questions:

Are you a US citizen ?

Do you also hold dual citizenship with Israel ?

If the latter above is true, to which country do you actually owe your allegiance ...... if their interests are diametrically opposed, or in certain cases, mutually exclusive ?


A few years ago I got asked the same question....and no one questioned it....I was pretty much told to sit down and shut up and too bad what I think..you are in America now...


Moose seems to be defending an American policy that favors his native land and since he brought it up it is fair game...as in made a statement....
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
The above, roughly translated (IMO):

"O-MI-GAWD ...... he is not a neocon .... and is against unqualified, unlimited, carte blanche support of Israel ....... Nooooooo ! ........"

You statement above is either based innocent ignorance, or a knowing and willful perversion of the facts: Dr. Paul has a quite meaningful foreign policy - one that largely mirrors that of the Founding Fathers of this country.

Educate yourself ... or get honest .... whichever is appropriate.


Yup - he's shown repeatedly that he is unwilling to compromise his principals.


Well, I guess we now fully understand your views of the Founding Fathers take on an appropriate foreign policy for this nation.

Couple of questions:

Are you a US citizen ?

Do you also hold dual citizenship with Israel ?

If the latter above is true, to which country do you actually owe your allegiance ...... if their interests are diametrically opposed, or in certain cases, mutually exclusive ?


True enough ..... allow me to qualify it further:

What this country needs for a president, is a person who can engage the international community .... not as some bully or petty tyrant, but through true leadership - as an equal, among nations.

Someone who isn't - out of fear - prone to "engage" his equals through domination, the use of force, intimidation, and rampant militarism - but through reasoned dialogue, mutual respect, and common interests.

As to the "afraid" aspect, I'll expand on that further, in very short order ....

A few years ago I got asked the same question....and no one questioned it....I was pretty much told to sit down and shut up and too bad what I think..you are in America now...


Moose seems to be defending an American policy that favors his native land and since he brought it up it is fair game...as in made a statement....
[/I]
Two wrongs don't make a right. Really bad call.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Moose seems to be defending an American policy that favors his native land and since he brought it up it is fair game...as in made a statement....I repeat...

Moose is an Israeli by birth...I am quite sure he doesn't want a president that is going to walk away from Israel....Moose has a definite interest in this from both sides of the fence....
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
Moose seems to be defending an American policy that favors his native land and since he brought it up it is fair game...as in made a statement....I repeat...

Moose is an Israeli by birth...I am quite sure he doesn't want a president that is going to walk away from Israel....Moose has a definite interest in this from both sides of the fence....

OVM... have you studied the practice of McCarthyism? Are you familiar with its historical roots? In other words, do you have a clue what you're talking about? Why would you deflect attention away from a transgressor, even to the point of making excuses?
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
OVM... have you studied the practice of McCarthyism? Are you familiar with its historical roots? In other words, do you have a clue what you're talking about? Why would you deflect attention away from a transgressor, even to the point of making excuses?

I haven't a clue what that is.....I've heard of it but haven't studied it...Good night...Nice talking with ya again...
 
Top