Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
905 Tory





Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 267
Reputation: 79.4Reputation: 79.4
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:54 pm    Post subject: What's Everyone's View of Ron Paul? Reply with quote

I've followed Ron Paul for a little while now. I liked him in 2008 but found that he was too extreme. However, he has grown on me. He seems to be the most honest of all the current GOP candidates, he is very principled, and he has the most consistent voting record in the US Congress.

He is a self-identified libertarian and advocates for a truly free market approach to the economy. He also calls for the US to go back to the constitutional role of the federal government, thereby empowering the states to handles issues that they are better equipped to handle (education, healthcare, energy).

He isn't afraid to speak the truth on a number of issues (foreign policy, federal reserve, drug war, two party system, TSA, etc.). I am seriously leaning on cheering for him in the upcoming primaries as the other candidates aren't bringing forward enough of a change to current policy.
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1178
Reputation: 110.8
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I prefer Gary Johnson to Ron Paul.

However Mitt Romney appears to be the only one able to beat Obama.
TheMonitor1867





Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Posts: 54
Reputation: 32.5Reputation: 32.5Reputation: 32.5

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ron Paul is more principled than the rest of the field combined. Unlike Romney, Newt, Perry, et al, he actually believes in smaller government. We need a Ron Paul in Canadian politics (Bernier seems to have been silenced by his junior cabinet appointment).
centrifugal





Joined: 25 Jun 2007
Posts: 100
Reputation: 100.5

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have to disagree that Mitt Romney is the only one who stands a chance of beating Obama. Consider that Mitt does win the leadership of the Republican party and Ron Paul decides to become leader of Libertarians. This would split the republican vote and Obama would win anyway. Also keep in mind that even if Ron Paul does not run as leader of Libertarians the majority of his followers are now Libertarians anyway so it would still have an impact on republicans.

Ron Paul has started a grass roots movement, he has more donations from military than all other republican candidates combined. Also remember that no other american politician in history has ever raised more money in a single day than him. I personally can't vote for him because I am Canadian, but I do support him.

I believe if he wins leadership he will be the next president, and if he doesn't get leadership than Obama will be getting a 2nd term.
Edmund Onward James





Joined: 04 Jun 2009
Posts: 1317
Reputation: 55
votes: 2

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

From what I have read, and heard Ron Paul speak on YouTube pieces, he is an isolationist. Which doesn't work these days.

America is required to make sure their military is the best by a long shot. New technology. Ameirca isn't an Empire builder. Those days have gone, except for China.

Mitt Romney, so far looks like he might be the GOP candiate, but Perry, even Cain, might still be in the running. However, someone else could pop up in the stretch from now to January.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 589
Reputation: 91Reputation: 91
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

centrifugal wrote:
I have to disagree that Mitt Romney is the only one who stands a chance of beating Obama. Consider that Mitt does win the leadership of the Republican party and Ron Paul decides to become leader of Libertarians. This would split the republican vote and Obama would win anyway. Also keep in mind that even if Ron Paul does not run as leader of Libertarians the majority of his followers are now Libertarians anyway so it would still have an impact on republicans.


Ron Paul has a snowballs chance in hell of going anywhere. He doesnt have the cache to raise the dollars needed, and his major faux pas at the debate mires him near the bottom.

He is a perpetual Ross Perot, and he will divide the vote.

I like Mitt, for what I know that is, but he too I cannot see getting the nod, I dont believe America is ready for his type of religion.
905 Tory





Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 267
Reputation: 79.4Reputation: 79.4
votes: 2

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edmund Onward James wrote:
From what I have read, and heard Ron Paul speak on YouTube pieces, he is an isolationist. Which doesn't work these days.

America is required to make sure their military is the best by a long shot. New technology. Ameirca isn't an Empire builder. Those days have gone, except for China.

Mitt Romney, so far looks like he might be the GOP candiate, but Perry, even Cain, might still be in the running. However, someone else could pop up in the stretch from now to January.


I used to feel that way too. The thing is that there is no question that the US's foreign policy has contributed to its downfall in the past few years. They spent their country into a hole and they are far more at danger now than ever before with military bases in places they don't belong.

Don't get me wrong, a strong national defence should be one of the federal government's top priorities in any country. But defence doesn't necessarily mean adventure militarism that puts the country at risk in so many ways. It also doesn't mean having such an interventionist foreign policy that incites hatred.
centrifugal





Joined: 25 Jun 2007
Posts: 100
Reputation: 100.5

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edmund Onward James wrote:
From what I have read, and heard Ron Paul speak on YouTube pieces, he is an isolationist. Which doesn't work these days.

America is required to make sure their military is the best by a long shot. New technology. Ameirca isn't an Empire builder. Those days have gone, except for China.

Mitt Romney, so far looks like he might be the GOP candiate, but Perry, even Cain, might still be in the running. However, someone else could pop up in the stretch from now to January.


If anyone is empire building it is the USA, with more than five times the Military spending of China. Perhaps maybe more spending than all other countries combined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

The USA can blow up the world a thousand times over, and their current actions far exceed that of defence spending. The more we occupy other countries the more enemies we will create for ourselves. The 911 attacks happened because we we building on and occupying their holy land. We should have opened up to them with diplomacy.

Here is an interesting youtube video I watched a couple months ago. It is a bit dramatic but it does touch on some hard truths.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY
Edmund Onward James





Joined: 04 Jun 2009
Posts: 1317
Reputation: 55
votes: 2

PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

centrifugal wrote:
Edmund Onward James wrote:
From what I have read, and heard Ron Paul speak on YouTube pieces, he is an isolationist. Which doesn't work these days.

America is required to make sure their military is the best by a long shot. New technology. Ameirca isn't an Empire builder. Those days have gone, except for China.

Mitt Romney, so far looks like he might be the GOP candiate, but Perry, even Cain, might still be in the running. However, someone else could pop up in the stretch from now to January.


If anyone is empire building it is the USA, with more than five times the Military spending of China. Perhaps maybe more spending than all other countries combined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

The USA can blow up the world a thousand times over, and their current actions far exceed that of defence spending. The more we occupy other countries the more enemies we will create for ourselves. The 911 attacks happened because we we building on and occupying their holy land. We should have opened up to them with diplomacy.

Here is an interesting youtube video I watched a couple months ago. It is a bit dramatic but it does touch on some hard truths.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY


You must be kidding? Perhaps you will learn that's why you are able to make comments like you have, because America has an advanced military. That, by the way, nations plead for them to come to their rescue.


Last edited by Edmund Onward James on Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
centrifugal





Joined: 25 Jun 2007
Posts: 100
Reputation: 100.5

PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edmund Onward James wrote:
You must be kidding? Perhaps you will learn that's why you are able to make commetns like you have, because America has an advanced military. That, by the way, nations plead for them to come to their rescue.


Not exactly sure what you mean by the first half of your sentence.

First of all to the issue of foreign aid, the government does not have the right to spend tax payer money on other nations. Taking money from one country and essentially giving it to another whether it be through troops, food or whatever is theft. End the income tax and give the money back to the people, and if they feel so generous they will donate to a charity.At least this way the people are in control and not special interest groups.

By saying nations plead for USA to rescue them is generalization. We could look at Cuba where it's people love Castro, do you think they were beging for the USA to help? No. Or we could look at Vietnam.... Or we could look at Iraq. Oh and don't let me forget about Libya. None of these places begged for assistance and yet their we were ready to liberate. When Ron Paul doesn't get elected and we have war with Iran and Syria I will have another two examples for you.
Edmund Onward James





Joined: 04 Jun 2009
Posts: 1317
Reputation: 55
votes: 2

PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

centrifugal wrote:
Edmund Onward James wrote:
You must be kidding? Perhaps you will learn that's why you are able to make commetns like you have, because America has an advanced military. That, by the way, nations plead for them to come to their rescue.


Not exactly sure what you mean by the first half of your sentence.

First of all to the issue of foreign aid, the government does not have the right to spend tax payer money on other nations. Taking money from one country and essentially giving it to another whether it be through troops, food or whatever is theft. End the income tax and give the money back to the people, and if they feel so generous they will donate to a charity.At least this way the people are in control and not special interest groups.

By saying nations plead for USA to rescue them is generalization. We could look at Cuba where it's people love Castro, do you think they were beging for the USA to help? No. Or we could look at Vietnam.... Or we could look at Iraq. Oh and don't let me forget about Libya. None of these places begged for assistance and yet their we were ready to liberate. When Ron Paul doesn't get elected and we have war with Iran and Syria I will have another two examples for you.


Empire building isn't quite what you think. You probably mean Globalization.

America is wise to make sure their military and arsenals are far ahead of the possible enemies. Now they have also learned to fight a different type of battle with over-rated mujahedeen, al Qaeda, Taliban, who hide with civilians, and use women as suicide bombers.

Occupy other countries? Such as? America fights the enemies, and stays as long as necessary. If Obama wasn't such an appeaser and apologist the American army should stay longer where welcomed such as Afghanistan. This asymmetrical war has just begun if you are familiar with the Muslim worlds and jihadist attempts to rule.

Generalization? So you mention Cuba, a country where you think that the poeple love Castro? Yes, many people, where begging, but they didn't have the means to communicate enough or to escape.

The Iraqis were pleased that the Americans and allies removed Sad Sack.

Vietnamese, at least those who were reasonably educated, feared the communists, .

Since you brought up Cuba, why not Germany, Japan, and Korea where there still are bases. Why? Because the grandfathers, then the fathers had to pass away so the youth might learn a form of democracy. First you defeat the enemy, then help rebuild if they stop fighting.

I could go on, but you seem to be anti-military, anti-America, anti-Canadian soldiers and missions.

Perhaps you might start with these links about Canadian accomplishments. America's are as exceptional in many countries. And they contibute millions, acutlally billions and haven't sent bills, none that I know of.

CBC.ca | Cross Country Checkup | What lessons did Canada learn from its Afghanistan mission?
http://www.cbc.ca/checkup/main.....n-mission/

Terry Glavin | National Post
http://fullcomment.nationalpos.....tglavinnp/

http://afghanistan-canada-solidarity.org/
centrifugal





Joined: 25 Jun 2007
Posts: 100
Reputation: 100.5

PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edmund Onward James wrote:

Since you brought up Cuba, why not Germany, Japan, and Korea where there still are bases. Why? Because the grandfathers, then the fathers had to pass away so the youth might learn a form of democracy. First you defeat the enemy, then help rebuild if they stop fighting.

I could go on, but you seem to be anti-military, anti-America, anti-Canadian soldiers and missions.


Anti-military/Anti-American is are pretty subjective terms. I would like to see less soldiers dead, less war, and less collateral damage. Is sparing the lives of soldiers anti-american? If we have an enemy whether it be a head of state or a terrorist then they should be assassinated, not through the launch of a full scale war. We would be much safer with our soldiers at home.

To the issue of World War 2 we were fully justified to enter the war because of the attack on Pearl Harbour. That is as good as a formal declaration of war.

Iraq,Iran,Libya, Syria, Cuba, etc... Do not have the means to attack us. If we stopped bombing them and started talking to them maybe we could do some damage control. We take out the Libyan dictator and now we have muslim extremists running the country, we take out Saddam and now we have extremists running Iraq. Iraq has formally stated that if we go to war with Iran they will support Iran over us. Our enemies are growing not shrinking, and our response is to increase policing and start killing more people.

Obama says the USA was not in Libya, well that is a lie. The USA wasn't in there under the American flag, but the american soldiers were there under NATO. It is just more political spin.
Edmund Onward James





Joined: 04 Jun 2009
Posts: 1317
Reputation: 55
votes: 2

PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

centrifugal wrote:
Edmund Onward James wrote:

Since you brought up Cuba, why not Germany, Japan, and Korea where there still are bases. Why? Because the grandfathers, then the fathers had to pass away so the youth might learn a form of democracy. First you defeat the enemy, then help rebuild if they stop fighting.

I could go on, but you seem to be anti-military, anti-America, anti-Canadian soldiers and missions.


Anti-military/Anti-American is are pretty subjective terms. I would like to see less soldiers dead, less war, and less collateral damage. Is sparing the lives of soldiers anti-american? If we have an enemy whether it be a head of state or a terrorist then they should be assassinated, not through the launch of a full scale war. We would be much safer with our soldiers at home.

To the issue of World War 2 we were fully justified to enter the war because of the attack on Pearl Harbour. That is as good as a formal declaration of war.

Iraq,Iran,Libya, Syria, Cuba, etc... Do not have the means to attack us. If we stopped bombing them and started talking to them maybe we could do some damage control. We take out the Libyan dictator and now we have muslim extremists running the country, we take out Saddam and now we have extremists running Iraq. Iraq has formally stated that if we go to war with Iran they will support Iran over us. Our enemies are growing not shrinking, and our response is to increase policing and start killing more people.

Obama says the USA was not in Libya, well that is a lie. The USA wasn't in there under the American flag, but the american soldiers were there under NATO. It is just more political spin.


I respect your views. However, better the soldiers were over there. The jihadists only respect power and victory. By defeating them, staying there much longer than the Russiians did in Afghanistan, they rightly fear America Forces. This makes the wiser ones think twice. I wouldn't worry about the jihadists as much as we should be concerned with Iran and Pakistan.

This war is considered to be WWIII by pundits and military and foreign affairs experts. Although it is asymmetrical. Yet the Obama regime changed the terms.

As far as the anointed one... probably a one term president... he has always been diabolical.
centrifugal





Joined: 25 Jun 2007
Posts: 100
Reputation: 100.5

PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I personally don't know how much they respect power and victory, but hopefully you are right. I do know that they are fighting what they consider a holy war, so in their eyes they are fighting for God. A brainwashed jihadist isn't going to put much value on their life or the life of others so I don't see how they can be intimidated.

To the issue of Pakistan/Iran and nuclear weapons I fully agree with your concerns. However, how can we have nukes ourselves and tell other countries they can't have them. It is a double standard. From what I understand Pakistan already has Nukes so it would be wise of us to operate through diplomatic channels only. They already feel threatened because of our military presence in the middle east. If we continue this pattern of intimidation eventually we are going to have a disaster on our hands.

I would be more concerned about North Korea getting a Nuke anyway. I don't think they have the knowledge or experience to maintain a safe nuclear program. South Korea is likely to suffer the most from any mistakes made by NK. Of course no one talks about war with North Korea because China may become involved.
Edmund Onward James





Joined: 04 Jun 2009
Posts: 1317
Reputation: 55
votes: 2

PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

centifugal... anyone with common sense will tell you that it is far better for a democracy to have such weapons than nations who wish to take over the world with Islam. And they are trying, every which way they can to implement sharia law, soft-sell, sucking-up, human rights, you name it.

The Muslim Brotherhoods can try their best to take over during elections but, frankly, those days might be gone that they rule to establish the new caliphate. The people have experienced something special. And Libyans had the support of NATO.

As I see it, there will be no nulcear war in your time. Even Russia and China do not want it there, too close. Should anybody try to release weapons for America they won't even leave the source.

I am pleased that Israel is rattling their sword, because I can assure you that the mullahs of Iran have soiled their robes.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


What's Everyone's View of Ron Paul?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB