Why ron paul should not be president

[layoutshooter]

Do you know what an embedded link looks like on EO ?


Mine are just fine - tend to your own.

(BTW, is it my imagination - or does your statement above sound "personal" ? )

I have a LOT of problems reading anymore. My right eye (dominate eye) is swollen shut most of the time. If things are not perfect I can't see it to read it. The original surgery did not work and I need a second. If I can ever get an appointment.

Turn about is fare play!

 

[RLENT]

Pilgrim,

Yeah ..... uh-huh:

Poll Shows a Shift in Opinion on Iraq War

Poll: Fading Support For Iraq War

Gallup Poll: Iraq War A "Mistake," Says 58 % Of US Public

Poll Shows Most Americans Oppose War in Afghanistan

 

[RLENT]

I have a LOT of problems reading anymore. My right eye (dominate eye) is swollen shut most of the time. If things are not perfect I can't see it to read it. The original surgery did not work and I need a second. If I can ever get an appointment.

Wow .... I hope you are able to get it handled.

A friend of mine just had a corneal transplant about a month ago .... says it's like night and day .... huge improvement ..... and they won't do the final stuff (laser) on it for about a year.

Turn about is fare play!

Sure enough

 

[layoutshooter]

Wow .... I hope you are able to get it handled.

A friend of mine just had a corneal transplant about a month ago .... says it's like night and day .... huge improvement ..... and they won't do the final stuff (laser) on it for about a year.


Sure enough

Thanks. It is not the eye itself, it is the eyelid and tissue surrounding the eye. It is due to a "misuse" of a contraindicated treatment for a minor illness when I was in the army. They are taking care of it but the VA is SLOW. It may not get taken care of for another 6 months or so.

Glad to hear your friend got "fixed up".

As to your polls, they mean nothing. The same people who respond to those polls voted for Obama in THAT poll. We all know how right they were that time.

 

[greg334]

All am I saying is that Mr. Paul, like Chamberlain, has a very "child like" view of the world. I was not commenting on his views, or Mr. Taft's, of the Constitution.

You know layout, the funny thing is that when people bring up Chamberlain, they don't understand 99% of what the "peace in our times" meant and how it was the right thing to do at that time.

Without the knowledge of what was going on, why Chamberlain was a target soon after that or the reasoning behind it, it is about the same thing as saying "we should have done something with Hitler" - dumb.

Hindsight is a great thing to have but having a grasp on history is better.

As far as Paul is concern, I think if someone sits down and listens or read what he says in full context and does it objectively, maybe they will see something else other than the isolationist tag.

 

[layoutshooter]

You know layout, the funny thing is that when people bring up Chamberlain, they don't understand 99% of what the "peace in our times" meant and how it was the right thing to do at that time.

Without the knowledge of what was going on, why Chamberlain was a target soon after that or the reasoning behind it, it is about the same thing as saying "we should have done something with Hitler" - dumb.

Hindsight is a great thing to have but having a grasp on history is better.

As far as Paul is concern, I think if someone sits down and listens or read what he says in full context and does it objectively, maybe they will see something else other than the isolationist tag.

"Appeasement" never works at any level.

I don't believe that Paul has a grasp on many things.

I also don't understand why SO many people take a negative opinion of a political candidate as a personal attack. Makes not sense.

 

[davekc]

Here is another poll done yesteday since it is mention. This one is from Fox.
Fox News Poll: GOP Presidential Race | Fox News

Have to admit, the Looney Tunes is pretty funny. Hadn't seen that one.

 

[greg334]

"Appeasement" never works at any level.

So why do we do it all the time?

We Appease Mexico, we have yet shut down the border.

We Appease The EU, we have yet demanded they straighten up their mess.

So do you actually understand why Chamberlain was actually successful at that moment or are you guessing at a reason why?

"
I don't believe that Paul has a grasp on many things.

Actually I think he has more of a grasp on a lot more things than all the others combined.

On his middle east policy, he sees the same failure I do. He, unlike many here and other places, knows the same thing - Iran and other countries are involved in Afghanistan and we still don't see where our mistakes are. The funny thing is, Iran isn't doing mean things to hurt us, they are building things for Afghanis.

"
I also don't understand why SO many people take a negative opinion of a political candidate as a personal attack. Makes not sense.

Because it is a personal thing - selecting someone to believe in. If you don't understand, look at how defensive people are over Obama, there is a link between many of his supporters and Obama - be it skin color or political ideology.

 

[layoutshooter]

Chamberlain was hoping that Hitler would stop after he/Germany would not drag Europe into another World War. They were hoping that he would stop his aggression after he regained territory that he believed was "German".

IF I remember correctly his "Foreign Secretary" at the time did not agree with that idea.

We continue to "appease" because we never learn.

 

[greg334]

Chamberlain was hoping that Hitler would stop after he/Germany would not drag Europe into another World War. They were hoping that he would stop his aggression after he regained territory that he believed was "German".

IF I remember correctly his "Foreign Secretary" at the time did not agree with that idea.

We continue to "appease" because we never learn.

Well you are partially right, the problem is that no one seems to remember enough of the times with the fear that Germany would force England into a war over the need for expanding into the Sudetenland. England wasn't ready to fight, even when they declared war in September, they were far from ready.

Yes even today, the question on everyone's mind is should we tie our foreign aid to civil rights for gays in other countries. Paul would seem to favor ending foreign aid and rightfully so when we have these demands tied to them.

 

[layoutshooter]

Well you are partially right, the problem is that no one seems to remember enough of the times with the fear that Germany would force England into a war over the need for expanding into the Sudetenland. England wasn't ready to fight, even when they declared war in September, they were far from ready.

Yes even today, the question on everyone's mind is should we tie our foreign aid to civil rights for gays in other countries. Paul would seem to favor ending foreign aid and rightfully so when we have these demands tied to them.

ANY time a country is "weak" they are far more open to attack or being forced into action, as England was. Hitler was well aware that England and the U.S were not prepared. Stay strong, very strong, and it is far less likely that you will be tested. If England, and the U.S. had not been as weak as they were Hitler would not have gone into the Sudetenland. He would have not risked it if he thought he would get whopped.

I would be cutting foreign aid as well.

 

[greg334]

ANY time a country is "weak" they are far more open to attack or being forced into action, as England was.

All of Europe was weak, they were still reeling from the first war.

Hitler was well aware that England and the U.S were not prepared.

BUT see he didn't care about the US, he actually thought that once a war got started, England and the US would be on his side. Dumb I know but that came out after the war.

Stay strong, very strong, and it is far less likely that you will be tested.

True to a point. This is different times and we have a different world now, just being strong is not enough - ask the Chinese.

If England, and the U.S. had not been as weak as they were Hitler would not have gone into the Sudetenland. He would have not risked it if he thought he would get whopped.

Not exactly

See England was still an Empire and they were stretched. They still had a big issue with internal problems, and they had weaken to the point because of some of the problems. Not saying they were on the brink but close enough that there were worries.

The US wasn't going to get involved because of the last war and the losses we incurred. We were tired of most of the BS and had no will to fight in Europe so the isolationist movement was strong. BUT see here is the problem with your statement, Hitler was betting that England wouldn't do a thing, he knew that even in their weaken state, they would fight and would have beaten them. Even when he reoccupied the Ruhr valley, the French could have beaten the Germans without too much of a problem but the French appeased them by leaving.

I would be cutting foreign aid as well.

Than what's wrong with Paul's position - if we contract our forces back to the US, build up a proper defense while closing off the border, while cutting back on foreign aid and UN involvement - is he that far off base?

 

[RLENT]

Than what's wrong with Paul's position - if we contract our forces back to the US, build up a proper defense while closing off the border, while cutting back on foreign aid and UN involvement - is he that far off base?

Ohhh boy ..... this ought be real good ...... instead of merely posting pics and invoking Chamberlain labels, it will require an actual articulated explanation ....

....... or will it ?

I'm all verklempt at just the mere thought of the prospect of listening to the two of you have a protracted dialogue on the matter

Topic: "War on Terror" is Terror but is not a War. Discuss.

 

[layoutshooter]

"Than what's wrong with Paul's position - if we contract our forces back to the US, build up a proper defense while closing off the border, while cutting back on foreign aid and UN involvement - is he that far off base?"

I don't believe for one second that he would cut the "correct" foreign aid. I don't believe that he has any idea how to "build up the military for "today's world". I don't believe he has the leadership skills to "sell" his ideas nor the ability to pick the right staff to put his plans into motion.

I see a candidate with zero experience, zero leadership skills. I see a candidate who is "past his prime". No longer has the excitement for the job.

I agree with SOME Of his ideas, I just don't think that HE can pull it off.

 

[RLENT]

.
.
.
.

..... it's not impossible .....

(the above text is a link - click it )​

.
.
.
.

 

[layoutshooter]

.
.
.
.

..... it's not impossible .....​

.
.
.
.

But highly unlikely. Paul is who he is, not right for the job.

 

[RLENT]

But highly unlikely. Paul is who he is, not right for the job.

lol ...... try clickin' on it there Chief .....

..... the content therein, is more of a reply to what you just said, than the words themselves actually are ....

 

[RLENT]

I don't believe for one second that he would cut the "correct" foreign aid.

Ahhh ... mmm .... the "correct" foreign aid ?

You mean you actually think some is .... correct ..... and some isn't ?

 

[greg334]

I don't believe for one second that he would cut the "correct" foreign aid. I don't believe that he has any idea how to "build up the military for "today's world". I don't believe he has the leadership skills to "sell" his ideas nor the ability to pick the right staff to put his plans into motion.

Cut the correct foreign aid?

How about all of it.

How about cutting the UN's funding down to a reasonable level?

How about getting out of NATO?

Do you have an idea how to build up the military in today's world?

Got to tell you listening to a bunch of generals a while back, they spoke of occupying a lot of places for the purpose of maintaining peace, it isn't their job to think like that and especially promoting the use of the military to be a peace keeper.

Our military has one purpose, to defend our country. It is not there to be a peace keeper, it is not there to hand out food - it is there to stop countries from harming us.

I feel that in many cases the US military can be built up and used for the purpose it was intended for, by contraction of the forces in most of the countries, like Germany and South Korea. He may not understand what it will take to do the job but I think he has the right idea - the US first, then the rest of the world.

Today's world?

I am puzzled by that.

I mean look around, we have south Africa and Ethiopia being two countries who have done something on that continent. We have all of Europe who has not only their own armed forces but a EU armed forces organization. The pacific has strong countries, SK and Japan are just two of many. This isn't the 1930's or 1960's, but the 21st century. So why are we doing the work that say Germany, France and England can do? Or South Korea?

Actually Layout, he has had a large following, I am not a fan of his to the point that I would vote blindly for him but I do see that he has the same ideologies I and others like me have. It may not fit the "conservative" mindset but then again the "conservative" mindset is not what people make it out as. The funny thing is the tea party (small government, returning to the constitution, debt reduction, etc.. ) is and always have been leaning towards the libertarian ideals, not the conservative ones. The conservatives seem to have hijacked those ideals for their own purpose and this is one reason people like Gingrich, Romney and a few others are the things we are all trying to get away from and may not win the election regardless what the polls say.

Leadership?

We have hardly any in this country. For God's sake we are holding up coaches and sports players are leaders when they should be put into context of their position in society, entertainers and not much of that.

I see a candidate with zero experience, zero leadership skills. I see a candidate who is "past his prime". No longer has the excitement for the job.

Name me one person on earth who hasn't been president have the experience to be president as president.

There is none.

Experience is something that can be a hindrance unless the person has little morals and ethics (obama may have that problem).

Enthusiasm?

Really?

Who cares.

I mean I want someone who does the job and leaves, not one that has so much contempt for the people, they stay and want to change the rules so they can stay some more.

I agree with SOME Of his ideas, I just don't think that HE can pull it off.

Well what are those ideas?

I would like to know to see if you are actually not a conservative.

 

[layoutshooter]

I can't look at that link there RLENT, at least not today. My connection is VERY bad.

Greg, who ever said I was a "conservative"?

This Nation is faced with MANY challenges. They are exciting. They provide great opportunity perhaps more opportunity than we have seen in more that 50 years.

Our current president has no clue how to handle opportunity. Everything is a "crisis". Everything is a "problem" for "government" to fix.

Wrong, ALL wrong.

It takes excitement to convey to the general masses just now lucky they are to be living in a time where there is such great opportunity.

In many ways I wish I was 20 again. There are SO many ways for a young person to make a major difference to the Country. Inventions are needed now more than ever. That leads to more ways to MAKE MONEY than we have seen for a long time.

The nay sayers need to go. We need vigor, excitement, vision. Mr. Paul is yesterday and dry toast. He cannot rally the people to fix what needs fixed. I don't believe that Mr. Paul has what it takes to convey that message. I don't believe that ANY of the candidates on the Republican side do and we KNOW that Obama does not believe that. Opportunity, real opportunity, undermines his position and chance to rule.