Thread: Time for Paul & Gingrich to STEP ASIDE.....

Originally Posted by Big George

I absolutely PROVED that Ron Paul is a bold-faced LIAR, regarding his Abortion Stance BS. I'm sorry you're too dense to understand how the law reads and works - which is why you're a Ron Paul nut.

His abortion stance is that it is an act of violence, which in all other cases is handled by the states.

His stance on foreign policy is that we are bankrupting the nation fighting no-win wars. Iraq was a failure and Afghanistan is a failure, extremists have taken over Libya.

The drug war has not worked, and has fueled a criminal black market. Does prohibition era ring a bell?

You should learn something.

Despite what some of Ron Paul's supporters and opponents believe, he is not anti-war. In fact, electing him may very well initiate a WWIII. Only difference is it would be declared and the goal would be clearcut, with victory in mind.

Originally Posted by NetworkCitizen

The drug war has not worked, and has fueled a criminal black market. Does prohibition era ring a bell?

Last call: the rise and fall of the Prohibition By Daniel Okrent is a good read on this.

Originally Posted by RiseAgainst

Despite what some of Ron Paul's supporters and opponents believe, he is not anti-war. In fact, electing him may very well initiate a WWIII. Only difference is it would be declared and the goal would be clearcut, with victory in mind.

I would like to hear your rationale on how he may initiate WW3.

Originally Posted by PoliticalRuckus

I would like to hear your rationale on how he may initiate WW3.

I didn't say he would initiate it, but it may be initiated. If, for instance, pulling the troops from the world has unintended consequences and America gets attacked we may reengage into the world arena, only this time it wouldn't be under the limitations of the UN, Paul doesn't recognize their authority over US laws.

Originally Posted by PoliticalRuckus

Last call: the rise and fall of the Prohibition By Daniel Okrent is a good read on this.

The sad part is that the War on Drugs makes the failure of the Prohibition on liquor seem like like like daisies and buttercups. It has resulted in violent deaths throughout north, central and south America that would dwarf any deaths as a result from actaul drug use.

Originally Posted by Big George

Wrong. Ron Paul is a lying double-talker. His "stance" on abortion? Complete and total cowardly BS. His "stance" on drugs? Double-speak.

How so? It is a state right to approve/disapprove those/

His "stance" on foreign policy? Absolutely insane.

What is so crazy about keeping our troops and their paychecks in the states?

His Congressional record? Virtually non-existent.

Its there. His record is one that says he is not part of the problem that has lead to $15 trillion in debt.

Originally Posted by RiseAgainst

I didn't say he would initiate it, but it may be initiated. If, for instance, pulling the troops from the world has unintended consequences and America gets attacked we may reengage into the world arena, only this time it wouldn't be under the limitations of the UN, Paul doesn't recognize their authority over US laws.

I didn't say he would either, I said "may" just as you did lol.
Let me ask you this, let's say Ron Paul pulls troops from all over the world, and uses the money saved from the DoD budget and puts it towards securing our borders etc, better homeland security and such.

For instance, 9/11 could have been "prevented" and 9/11 was reported on a tip to the FBI before it happened and it just got overlooked and put in a stack of other reports. Now if they FBI had a larger budget to investigate every "tip" they received, do you think we would be in this mess?
Strictly thinking on the history of 9/11, none of this conspiracy theory stuff.

Originally Posted by PoliticalRuckus

I didn't say he would either, I said "may" just as you did lol.
Let me ask you this, let's say Ron Paul pulls troops from all over the world, and uses the money saved from the DoD budget and puts it towards securing our borders etc, better homeland security and such.

For instance, 9/11 could have been "prevented" and 9/11 was reported on a tip to the FBI before it happened and it just got overlooked and put in a stack of other reports. Now if they FBI had a larger budget to investigate every "tip" they received, do you think we would be in this mess?
Strictly thinking on the history of 9/11, none of this conspiracy theory stuff.

I still reject the claim that Ron Paul would initiate WWIII. In order for him to get sucked into war the world would have to be in a state of war and we would have to have a reason to enter it. I don't know that I want the FBI to have a larger budget. That will have to be tested more.

Originally Posted by The12thMan

I hope the Army Times is an acceptable source.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/0...tions-020912w/

Using your source, Paul got donations from 1405 people in the US Military.

As of 09/2011, the US had 1,300,000 military personnel.

Paul got donations from 00.00108% of those personnel.
one tenth of a percent is STRONG SUPPORT in your opinion???????

The irrationality and fantasies of you people is amazing.