Ron Paul touted his newsletters in 1995

Wow your wayback machine is super powerful.... America behaved about as libertarian in foreign policy as a nation could leading into WWI, isolationist to the point of a borderline Gulf of Tonkin like incident (dang Lusitania).

 

Actually, in the lead to WWI, Washington engaged in its usual MO of picking sides, provoking enmity, and stirring the populace into a frenzy, so that it could dive lustily into the bloodshed to aggrandize its own power and pelf. The Lusitania was not the main cause of entry. That was the Zimmerman telegram...or even more accurately, Wilson's lust for violence.

Had the US stayed out of that ridiculous war, all of the nonsense of ensuing century of violence may have been avoided, as the belligerents would have been forced to broker a mutually agreeable peace.

 

that claim is just another example of the nut case delusions held by ron paul's followers

 

still trolling I see?

 

While the politicians of the day may have favored a side in trade agreements and other policy, it is my understanding that the populace was pretty against entry into "European affairs", but you speak with certitude, who knew that you're that old.

Anywho back to Ron Paul. He's a racist.

 

i tell the truth, you should try it

 

Who cares what the populace was for? The politicians don't care what the populace is for and they make the rules. Wilson campaigned against going into war in 1916 and won...only to immediately start pushing us into war the split second he took the Oath of Office. Same with FDR in 1940 and, heck, Bush and Obama both.

Obama kills children.

 

America's military policy positions kill children throughout its entire history. Drone attacks started under Bush.

 

Yep. That's why I'd support Ron Paul over those barbarians even if he went around wearing a white sheet.

 

But his position of abandoning social welfare programs, and labor law would kill children, not just any children but American children, and those are worth at least 100 Pakistani children.

 

With this statement you have just revealed yourself to many times more racist than whoever wrote the newsletter articles was.

 

don't you mean, especially if he went around wearing a white sheet?

 

Just a commentary about the American psyche wasn't meant literally. Look at media coverage if you doubt my position... dang toddler dies in Florida and the nation is captivated with the trial of her stripper mom for nearly 5 years.... show me the pakistani child with any kind of media traction at all.

Personally I am a pacifist, a vegeterian... I let bugs outside my house opposed to killing them. I value all life, the 100:1 ratio about American children was a commentary of our society, not my actual opinion, every life is sacred in my eyes.

That said there's a little racist in everyone.... and he looks like Ron Paul

 

The fact that you did not refute my claim that Ron Paul's policy positions enacted would lead directly to the death of American children is interesting. Instead you choose to attack my American child/Pakistani child ratio and call me racist. Why do you hate American children?

 

He's not even campaigning to end welfare or even social security. Besides that, you have no proof that Americans would just allow people to starve if nanny didn't save them. They have the option to stay on the tit, so that's what they will do.

Progressive policies will lower the standard of living for all Americans, including the children. That's Obama's plan, like he said, we can't expect to eat what we want, drive our SUVs, and keep our houses at 72 degrees. He won't allow that. Has he "purged the white blood from his veins" yet?

 

Typical response from a utopian libertarian... just cause the government wont feed the needy doesn't mean charity wont.

There are also labor laws and when not in place children died many a horrid death in factories, mines, assembly lines, etc. To assume business will do the right thing cause the consumer will not buy from the bad actors is ignorant.

 

Which is just the problem. That's how they're only able to get away with doing it overseas...so far. Only Ron Paul of all the candidates is a true egalitarian in valuing the lives of foreigners on par with those of Americans. That way-thitht!

Nice try, but Ron Paul and I understand economics well enough to know that economic socialism, fascism, corporatism, and dirigisme lead to the impoverishment and potential death of people of all ages, while economic freedom is the font of all prosperity.

Let us take a gander at the American poverty rate and notice how its decline flat-lined just when LBJ, the Agent Orange Santa, imposed his Great Society of bread and circuses on the American people:



Isn't that remarkable?

 

Just the opposite. He would refuse to stop child butchery. This is the funny (in a sick sort of way) about pacifists. They only only claim not to commit the act themselves. But on the other hand, they won't step in to stop it either. You are as bad as any butchers on earth.

 

Oh how nobel. So they would have allowed small children and toddlers who wanted to come to the US asylum. Gee, if they only would have known how to make a plane and fly here.

You guys are the true butchers. Evil to the core, as you watch children get butchered (that is if we let you have your way). Thank God we did what we could in WWII. I'm just curious how you sleep at night.

 

What's remarkable is that the number in poverty is roughly the same now as it was in 1959 with a lot more people... with only 15 years of war on poverty and 30 years of war on the war on poverty.

I am dismissive because the "war on poverty" is not fought for the benefit of current generations, but it is fought for the benefit of future generations.

 

Warfare almost always causes more problems than it solves and is therefore a criminally reckless act. US military interventionism has never reduced violence. Yes, that includes WWII, where Uncle Sam just ended up-- after nuking and firebombing numerous cities to the ground--freeing Eastern Europe from Hitler to Stalin and China from Tojo to Chairman Mao. What a success! And, of course, this is AFTER you warmongers CREATED Hitler and Stalin in the catastrophe of War War I. At best, you were merely cleaning up your own mess.

And what does bombing children in Pakistan have to with stopping violence? Exactly how much "collateral damage" would have to be caused before it wouldn't no longer be worth "to get dah terr'ists!"? A hundred thousand people? A million? Ten million? How many people before the number is more than you think would be killed if you didn't?

At that sets aside the fact that that more children you bomb, the more terrorists you create. People respond to violence in kind.

What, we couldn't have sent planes and ships over their ourselves? There were ships that coming over here that your heroes turned away!

We did what we could to make the world safe for Stalin and Mao.

 

What you should notice is that both the number and the rate were falling before the War on Poverty and stopped afterward.

Because the past 30 years has seen such a monumental reduction in the size and stop of government, right? Never mind the vast explosion of federal spending, debt, employees, statutory legislation, number of agencies and departments, pages in the Federal Code...

Nope, disregard all that. Reagan made some truckers mad back in 1981 and since then it's been absolute laissez-faire all the way!!!

That's nice, but now it is the future generation and your war is as much of failure as the Drug War. How could not be? You can't create prosperity through force, only through production, which is precisely what you're NOT doing when you're going around pointing a gun at people telling them what they can and can't do with their own property.

 

Only one of those wars was fought with political capital spent on both sides of the political spectrum. Drugs.

 

Paul admitted to having discovered newsletters that had been written that were 'supposedly' endorsed by him, but he stated that he didn't and couldn't read every publication that was posted...he also states that upon learning what was written in some of them, 10 years after the fact mind you, he disavowed them...

He also states that any contributions that came in from them, he had no idea what those contributions were attached to..he gets alot of them...{so blaming him for something someone else tries to smear him with is just stupid imo.}

And that was the end of it for him..he didn't go to pieces, or fly off the handle defending himself..he understands that there are smear campaigns out there..and he understands that to defeat those who come against you, you ignore them and take the wind out of their sails...

Ron Paul just isn't going to give in to those who seek to discredit him..he said what he meant, and he dropped it...but of course all those who seek to keep the status quo going as it is will continue to dig up dirt, even if its not dirt that belongs to Ron Paul...

Why is it I wonder, that those who prefer another candidate always have more time to smear Ron Paul than to devote their energies to those whom they favor?

Panic much?

 

And of course we have the 'insistent' cnn reporters trying to make him angry, but he walks out on her...{I personally would've slapped the taste outta her mouth }

Like I said, he answered the question..several times...pretty soon you gotta walk out because they won't stop hounding until they can get you to slip and say something in frustration..

Bravo to Ron Paul!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zp6A-l-TwE"]Ron Paul Walks Out On Interview With CNN Media Whore - YouTube[/ame]