Ron Paul - A Surprising Republican

[KenH]

1) we have people publicly trying to create another Vietnam

2) We have people asking to bring our troops home as failures.

1) George W. Bush has already accomplished that. He should have brought our troops home as soon as the goals he set forth in March 2003 were accomplished.

2) How dare you claim that if our troops came home today that they would be failures! Our troops removed Saddam Hussein from power and set up a representative government for 26 million Iraqis - which is what we were told by President Bush were the goals back in March 2003. I have no doubt that they have accomplished far more on behalf of the Iraqi people than you have or ever will accomplish.

 

[saturneptune]

Ken,
I was off today and was listening to C-Span. They were covering the Conservative Caucus. The Congressman from Colorado talked, ( I wont even try and spell his name) and his ideas seemed pretty solid to me. Have you ever listened to him?

 

[KenH]

Tom Tancredo?

I like him a lot. He is not as good on the subject of limited, constitutional government as Ron Paul but Tancredo is definitely better than the vast majority of House members.

 

[saturneptune]

Tom Tancredo?

I like him a lot. He is not as good on the subject of limited, constitutional government as Ron Paul but Tancredo is definitely better than the vast majority of House members.

Yes, thats the name. Thanks for your comment.

 

[Pastor Larry]

politician sways with the flow of public opinion. By making the statement above proves that you are not familiar with Ron Paul. Just because an elected official advocates a position consistently that you disagree with doesn't make him "just another politician".

Fair enough.

I will agree with you on this because he has not declared that he is running for the office of president.

If he does declare he will be head and shoulders above any of the other declared candidates.

But can he be a serious candidate? I don’t know. I tend to doubt it. I think Paul's problem is that he cannot raise enough money to gain enough exposure. And I think he is too radical for mainstream acceptance. And that means he can't be a serious candidate unless he can overcome that.

1) George W. Bush has already accomplished that. He should have brought our troops home as soon as the goals he set forth in March 2003 were accomplished.

I think you are forgetting what the goals were. One of them was a stable Iraq. Unless we greatly disagree on what “stable” means, that hasn’t been accomplished. This will become another Vietnam only if our politicians start running the war like they are trying to do now.

2) How dare you claim that if our troops came home today that they would be failures! Our troops removed Saddam Hussein from power and set up a representative government for 26 million Iraqis - which is what we were told by President Bush were the goals back in March 2003. I have no doubt that they have accomplished far more on behalf of the Iraqi people than you have or ever will accomplish.

Again, I think you are not remembering what the goals were. It was not simply the removal of Hussein and setting up a government. It was a stable Iraq. Let me remind you what the President said:

And we will do all that is necessary -- by measured force or overwhelming force -- to achieve a stable Iraq.

Here is where you can remind yourself of what this is about and why current withdrawal would be less than success. This is from May 2004. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html

Read it and remember what this is about.




Iraq is not stable, and therefore, the goals have not been achieved.

 

[Petra-O IX]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Larry
1) we have people publicly trying to create another Vietnam

2) We have people asking to bring our troops home as failures

1) George W. Bush has already accomplished that. He should have brought our troops home as soon as the goals he set forth in March 2003 were accomplished.

2) How dare you claim that if our troops came home today that they would be failures! Our troops removed Saddam Hussein from power and set up a representative government for 26 million Iraqis - which is what we were told by President Bush were the goals back in March 2003. I have no doubt that they have accomplished far more on behalf of the Iraqi people than you have or ever will accomplish.

:applause: :applause: :thumbs:
Irregardless of what others feel about the War in Iraq, This in no way is anything like Viet Nam. Americans in huge,Huge numbers do support the troops and in no way do they see them as failures. The talking heads of so called conservative talk radio would have you believe this but they are not reliable when it comes down to the facts.These talking heads would not have a job if they did not fan the flames of Liberal Vs. Conservative.

 

[KenH]

But can he be a serious candidate? I don’t know. I tend to doubt it.

Okay. We simply have a different idea of what makes one a serious candidate. I imagine that the media of the day in 1776 considered our underfunded, ragtag revolutionary army to not be a serious army. And we both know how that turned out.

 

[KenH]

It was a stable Iraq.

Do you want our troops to choose sides in Iraq's civil war?

The Iranians are helping the Shiites. The Saudis are helping the Sunnis.

Which side do you want our troops to support?

If you aren't willing to choose a side, then there is no way for our troops to achieve a stable Iraq.

I am not willing to allow the fate of our troops to be in the hands of a bunch of folks at war with each other. The American people should decide when their troops come home, not the Iraqis.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Okay. We simply have a different idea of what makes one a serious candidate. I imagine that the media of the day in 1776 considered our underfunded, ragtag revolutionary army to not be a serious army. And we both know how that turned out.

A serious candidate is one who can win. It has nothing to do with personal gravitas at all.

Do you want our troops to choose sides in Iraq's civil war?

The Iranians are helping the Shiites. The Saudis are helping the Sunnis.

Which side do you want our troops to support?

You go after people fomenting violence, whatever side they are on. I thought that would be self-evident.

 

[KenH]

1) A serious candidate is one who can win.

2) You go after people fomenting violence, whatever side they are on. I thought that would be self-evident.

1) Okay. Ron Paul certainly meets that definition.

2) Therefore, you want our troops to kill both the Sunnis and the Shiites. Then, if we follow your plan, our troops had best plant to be there for the next 500 years - or longer - or until no one will loan our government the money to keep them there.

I say we bring them home when the American people through their elected representatives say to bring them home. I don't think that the Iraqis should have a voice in the affairs of our government.

 

[poncho]

How about Israel and Mexico Ken, should they have a voice in the affairs of our government? Had to ask.

 

[Jack Matthews]

Yeah, let's just go ahead and install a military dictatorship and be done with it.

I think one of the major problems we're having in Iraq is our "installing" a government there of any kind. Any government we attempt to install isn't going to be a representative government for Iraq, because they do not want an "American installed" government.

 

[KenH]

How about Israel and Mexico Ken, should they have a voice in the affairs of our government?

No way, poncho.

 

[KenH]

I think one of the major problems we're having in Iraq is our "installing" a government there of any kind.

Yep. We had no business attempting to do so in the first place.

 

[Pastor Larry]

1) Okay. Ron Paul certainly meets that definition.

He's a candidate that can win? NOt at this point, Ken. Apart from the BB, Paul is a non-entity. I have yet to see hardly any news about him.

2) Therefore, you want our troops to kill both the Sunnis and the Shiites.

Yes, if they are the ones creating violence.

Then, if we follow your plan, our troops had best plant to be there for the next 500 years - or longer - or until no one will loan our government the money to keep them there.

Nope, not necessarily. Again, remember the goal: A stable Iraq with a government that can defend itself. we only need to be there until that happens.

I say we bring them home when the American people through their elected representatives say to bring them home.

Neither the people, nor the elected representatives are given that constitutional directive. Why do you want to violate the consitution, Ken?

I don't think that the Iraqis should have a voice in the affairs of our government.

Me either. That's not happening here so that's for another thread so as to keep this one on topic.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I think one of the major problems we're having in Iraq is our "installing" a government there of any kind. Any government we attempt to install isn't going to be a representative government for Iraq, because they do not want an "American installed" government.

I don't think we are installing a government. The government was elected by the people. All we are doing is trying to make it safe for the government to take control and train Iraqi soldiers. Let's not divert to side issues here, guys.

Remember, it took years in Japan and Germany and they didn' have the infighting and insurgency that is going on in Iraq.

 

[KenH]

1) Apart from the BB, Paul is a non-entity. I have yet to see hardly any news about him.

2) A stable Iraq with a government that can defend itself. we only need to be there until that happens.

1) You need to get around the Internet more. Go to Google's news tab and type in Ron Paul and you will have your eyes opened. Ron Paul is not a BB-only phenomenon. And the cause is growing so fast that if you want to hop on the train you're going to have to run very, very fast to catch it. And this is before he has even announced that he is running!

2) So how do our troops bring this about when both sides are engaged in a civil war? Your views on Iraq are unrealistic, Pastor Larry.

 

[KenH]

Neither the people, nor the elected representatives are given that constitutional directive.

I think you need to read the federal constitution. It gives the Congress the right to declare war, not the president. And the House is to represent the interests of the people and the Senate is to represent the interests of the states.

The president is not to be a dictator.

 

[KenH]

Remember, it took years in Japan and Germany and they didn' have the infighting and insurgency that is going on in Iraq.

Yes, there was not civil war in Japan or Germany. Also, both Japan and Germany had declared war on these United States. Iraq had not.

 

[church mouse guy]

According to an ABC/Washington Post poll--hardly GOP friendly--55% of Republicans say that Rudy Giuliani "Has the best chance of getting elected in November of 2008."

I can't imagine how Ron polls nationally. Does he even reach 1 percent? I think that Ron Paul should seek the Constitution Party nomination. I disagree with Ron Paul's idea of allowing some states to abort unborn children if they want. I think that the Declaration of Independence settled the issue on July 4, 1776, when it was written:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration.html