Ron Paul on Larry King tonight..

2»

Comments

  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    jlew24asu wrote:
    reporters should be tough when asking questions. its annoying when you complain about your bf being hassled by big bad meany reporters.

    The other candidates do seem to get a rather different approach and treatment altogether, that is well documented and quite apparent.

    Strike one...thanks for coming out...please try again.

    hehe
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I am all for less involvement in the worlds affairs but ron paul essentially wants none

    and I'm not talking about your run of the mill oppressive regime. I am talking about the Taliban (or similar Islamic extremist group). these groups will happily support and host a group like el queda.

    ron paul's repsonse is to be friends with them, talk to them, its none of our business what they do yada yada. thats insane.

    That is where you are wrong. Ron Paul's stance is not to be friends with them. His stance is if they do not carry out any aggressive acts against us or another country by either themselves or a proxy then it is none of our business what they do within their borders. Ron Paul voted yes to authorize the invasion of Afghanistan because the Taliban aided and abetted Al Qaida.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    mammasan wrote:
    That is where you are wrong. Ron Paul's stance is not to be friends with them. His stance is if they do not carry out any aggressive acts against us or another country by either themselves or a proxy then it is none of our business what they do within their borders. Ron Paul voted yes to authorize the invasion of Afghanistan because the Taliban aided and abetted Al Qaida.

    He still would not support agression against the taliban if they attacked ANOTHER country.

    Our roll in NOT as "World Police"
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    He still would not support agression against the taliban if they attacked ANOTHER country.

    Our roll in NOT as "World Police"

    So you don't think that if say Iran was to all of a sudden attack Saudi Arabia and they asked for aid that Ron Paul wouldn't send military aid to help another country? I'm not saying that he would declare war on Iran but I do believe that he would definitely aid a nation that was being attacked by an aggressive state. Ron Paul believes in less foreign intervention not in complete isolation.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    mammasan wrote:
    So you don't think that if say Iran was to all of a sudden attack Saudi Arabia and they asked for aid that Ron Paul wouldn't send military aid to help another country? I'm not saying that he would declare war on Iran but I do believe that he would definitely aid a nation that was being attacked by an aggressive state.

    he has EXPLICITLY stated he would not.
    "Trade with all nations, entagling alliances with NONE."
    advice of the founders.

    HE WOULDN'T EVEN AID ISRAEL.

    !!!

    if you want a REALLY good precedent in american history, here is one, WORLD WAR TWO.
    Millions of dead jews.
    No US response.
    Several countries invaded.
    No US response.
    Japan ATTACKS AMERICA.
    US RESPONSE.

    :D
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    But it IS none of our business what they do, Jlew.
    What are you worried about?

    If we have infomation about immenent attacks, fuck yeah ... lets take some of em out.

    But if you are talking about "oppressive regimes", then WTF?
    I'm talking about Islamic extremists like the taliban and el queda. you know, the types who lilke to plan and carry out attacks on america. I am NOT talking about "oppressive regimes"



    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    BTW.
    it may help to clarify your gripe.
    You say "all for LESS involvement" but not "none" ...
    what do you think is appropriate here?
    Because all Ron Paul is saying is that we have no reason to leave troops in someone elses country based on simple fear that they may "do something".

    On that grounds, is it okay for Cuba to have an army stationed outside of New York, because the oppressive trade policy we have against Cuba is a threat to their national security, and they are worried we may actualy "do something"? How about Africa putting a whole batallion in the south, because they keep getting reports about some large state sponsored group called "The KKK" that has roots going back 100 years, that has been amassing arms and preaching hate for black people? Should Africa get to leave an army here because of some threat of "The KKK" attacking them?

    Seriously.
    WHAT do you think the taliban is going to pull over on us that sitting in the desert with guns and tanks and pissing off an entire country is going to cure?

    :()

    I am more on ron paul's side then this then not. but he comes across as someone that will ignore whats going on in the world because "its none of our business". I would rather have a president who pays attention to world affairs.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    he has EXPLICITLY stated he would not.
    "Trade with all nations, entagling alliances with NONE."
    advice of the founders.

    HE WOULDN'T EVEN AID ISRAEL.

    !!!

    if you want a REALLY good precedent in american history, here is one, WORLD WAR TWO.
    Millions of dead jews.
    No US response.
    Several countries invaded.
    No US response.
    Japan ATTACKS AMERICA.
    US RESPONSE.

    :D

    Even during WWII, prior to our involvment, we provided aid to the UK. We sold them oil, steel, supplies, ammunition. We even "lent them" destroyers and planes. You can provide aid to another country without getting intangled in their affairs.

    Also many people did not know about the death camps prior to our involvment in the war. We knew that Jews, and other ethnic groups, where being percecuted but did not know the extent of the horrors being commited until Allied forces finally fought their way into occuped countries that contained concentration camps.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I'm talking about Islamic extremists like the taliban and el queda. you know, the types who lilke to plan and carry out attacks on america. I am NOT talking about "oppressive regimes"






    I am more on ron paul's side then this then not. but he comes across as someone that will ignore whats going on in the world because "its none of our business". I would rather have a president who pays attention to world affairs.

    Like i said, i understand your concern.
    I'm still asking you to state what you claim as "appropriate involvement", because i read that as "permanent OCCUPATION" in order to prevent UNKNOWN future attacks.

    You can't just sit in someone elses country and fight an amorphous enemy for years on end. :(

    Ron Paul isn't going to rule with his head up his ass. He just is not going to leave a bunch of troop out in the middle of someone elses country for years and years, on the hope that killing a few taliban memebers will stop a DECENTRALIZED, GLOBALY NETWORKED IDEOLOGY from operating.

    How long do you think we will have to stay in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and maybe Iran (and where next?) until this "war" is won?

    If you can't answer that question, we should not be there.
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    mammasan wrote:
    Even during WWII, prior to our involvment, we provided aid to the UK. We sold them oil, steel, supplies, ammunition. We even "lent them" destroyers and planes. You can provide aid to another country without getting intangled in their affairs.

    Exactly.
    "TRADE WITH ALL NATIONS!"
    ;)
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    Exactly.
    "TRADE WITH ALL NATIONS!"
    ;)

    Yes FDR called it trading with the UK, but in reality it was aid. The UK never paided a cent for any of the supplies.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    mammasan wrote:
    Yes FDR called it trading with the UK, but in reality it was aid. The UK never paided a cent for any of the supplies.

    point being it is NOT military involvement,
    although i'm not sure Ron would go for free aid either.
    Maybe. I think that is actualy a call for congress to make, anyhow.

    Either way, the point still stands.
    :D
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • Thecure
    Thecure Posts: 814
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Funny how that is eh? Do you know what the people that say that are called?

    ;)

    no i don't know what they are called? sorry, please explain to me.
    People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
    - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

    If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
    - Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    Thecure wrote:
    no i don't know what they are called? sorry, please explain to me.
    "paultards" is one of the "favorites".
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • Thecure
    Thecure Posts: 814
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    The other candidates do seem to get a rather different approach and treatment altogether, that is well documented and quite apparent.

    Strike one...thanks for coming out...please try again.

    hehe

    what are you talking about. they slamed McCain a couple of months ago also on his views. he doesn't get alot of attention (atleast, not as much as he should)

    if i was a ron paul supporter, i would like the fact that he is being talked abotu in the mass media. it means something is happenning.
    People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
    - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

    If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
    - Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Thecure wrote:
    what are you talking about. they slamed McCain a couple of months ago also on his views. he doesn't get alot of attention (atleast, not as much as he should)

    if i was a ron paul supporter, i would like the fact that he is being talked abotu in the mass media. it means something is happenning.

    It is great. It's just refreshing to see an interviewer actually take an interest approach instead of a grill and cook approach. Nobody does well when they are being attack interviewed. The media should not "attack" people. Let the guest talk, and let people make their own minds up whether or not the person is worth the time. I don't need ol Wolf Blitzy dealing me a slice straight from the get go. Sure... ask the tough questions but let the guy speak in full sentences without interruption for a bit.

    Blitzy like so many many others cut the guy off when he starts making legitimate talking points, and they change issues midstream. It's chaos interviewing/reporting and it's not productive.

    Fox is even worse. They did a bit on one word answers that was sheer lunacy reporting
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Thecure
    Thecure Posts: 814
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    It is great. It's just refreshing to see an interviewer actually take an interest approach instead of a grill and cook approach. Nobody does well when they are being attack interviewed. The media should not "attack" people. Let the guest talk, and let people make their own minds up whether or not the person is worth the time. I don't need ol Wolf Blitzy dealing me a slice straight from the get go. Sure... ask the tough questions but let the guy speak in full sentences without interruption for a bit.

    Blitzy like so many many others cut the guy off when he starts making legitimate talking points, and they change issues midstream. It's chaos interviewing/reporting and it's not productive.

    Fox is even worse. They did a bit on one word answers that was sheer lunacy reporting

    i think that problem iS that the media is trying to be hard now since a couple of years ago they were seen as not challenging enough.
    People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
    - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

    If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
    - Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Thecure wrote:
    i think that problem iS that the media is trying to be hard now since a couple of years ago they were seen as not challenging enough.

    That's quite possible. I suppose how long it persists is the deciding factor, and the media is beginning to soften after the initiation phase so to speak, so that does lend credibility to your observations.

    I'd agree with that.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")

Categories