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

No need for sarcasm if you had done your homework you would know that Romney created thousands of jobs in his business life and he also saved the Olympics from going down the tubes. Now tell me how many jobs obama has created.

 

Doesn't he have something like 32 czars? There you go. The answer is 32.

 

Ron Paul has it both ways with his worshipers. You don't really care what he actually is, and actually does. You just believe everything he says, and worship the guy.

 

It does not matter if it is politics as usual in Washington D.C. Do you really think the GOP will take the Presidency AND both houses? I can actually see the GOP losing seats in the House.

I can see the Democrats puling the same stunt the Republicans pulled if they lose the Presidency. A Republican President will not get anything done because Presidents need the co-operation of Congress to achieve anything.

 

I'm telling you that you can't criticize him for being both an isolationist or for hypocritically not being an isolationist. You have to choose one or the other I'm afraid.

 

Wrong. Let's clarify this issue - again.

Ron Paul's RHETORIC is that of an Isolationist Ideology. But his voting record is erratic, and his "standards" seem to pretty much depend on what mood he's in. War in Iraq - BAD. War in Afghanistan - and all the civilian casualties - well, that's no big deal.

But he still touts this Isolationist Ideology, because his fan club isn't smart enough to see that it for what it is, and isn't smart enough to see that even Ron Paul doesn't believe what Ron Paul says.

 

Well, The War in Iraq was an unnecessary war fought on many, many false premisses. The War in Afghanistan was supposed to be fought to eliminate Al-Qiada's support mechanism there and find their leader. I would say it is not a highly hypocritical vote.

 

LOL! Almost forgot about his marxist czars. But wait, didn't Glen Beck expose the commie traitor Van Jones to the point of where he got dumped by the obama admin? So by the numbers that's only 31 socialist jobs he produced.

 

Seem to recall the Bush Admin creating some of those "Czars".

 

The fact is simple: Ron Paul waffles, yet claims not to.

 

His rhetoric is that of an Isolationists?? Really? Ok...let's examine the term Isolationist...

Isolationism: The policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, foreign trade, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

Never once has he stated he didn't wish to form alliances with anyone. He has stated several times he is for talking with other countries (diplomacy) and trading with other countries.

“An isolationist is a protectionist that builds walls around their country, they don’t like the trade, they don’t like to travel about the world, and they like to put sanctions on different countries. … And yet, the opposite is what we believe in, we believe Nixon did the right thing by opening up trade doors with China... So non-intervention is quite a bit different since what the founders advised was to get along with people, trade with people, and to practice diplomacy, rather than having this militancy of telling people what to do and how to run the world and building walls around our own country.”

He has also stated that he would defend our country and go to war if necessary (which means if diplomacy fails). We go there...we win...we come home. His plan for our nations defense would make our military stronger than it's ever been before.

You need to understand the difference between Isolationism and Non-Interventionism

 

Not really, there was handpicked evidence, evidence that our intelligence agencies even said was abysmal.

 

Hindsight.

Both Clintons believed it. Gore believed it. Bush believed it. Congress believed it. The UN believed it.


By the way, do you remember the shipment of 200+ metric tons of yellow cake uranium from Iraq to Canada? I don't suppose you do...

 

Okay, so therefore the argument is that he's not an isolation and therefore a hypocrite for claiming to be one. The problem is that he's never claimed to be on and indeed denied it. It's a label that is used entirely by his enemies to describe him. So how can he be a hypocrite for not adhering to a viewpoint to which he never claimed to adhere?

 

Hahahaha - wonderful obfuscation! You've learned well from your savior Ron! I applaud you in your artful use of double-speak!

 

So artful you don't bother to explain it, let alone present anything approaching an alternative position. Why bother to waste my life debating with a brick wall of duplicitous negativity?

 

I long-since explained - and repeatedly - how & why so many of RPs positions are absolute crap. If you won't read them the first 10 times, you won't read them the 11th time.

 

Why not add Santorum to the list from the get go and concentrate on attempting to get Romney elected?

 

No, the UN most certainly did not give the US unanimous support for their claims. And yes, I do believe all of those people you mentioned "believed" it, but Clinton and Gore came out against Bush's preemptive strikes on Iraq.

"As a preemptive action today, however well-justified, may come back with unwelcome consequences in the future....I don't care how precise your bombs and your weapons are, when you set them off, innocent people will die."
-Bill Clinton 2002

"President Bush now asserts that we will take pre-emptive action even if we take the threat we perceive is not imminent. If other nations assert the same right then the rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear – any nation that perceives circumstances that could eventually lead to an imminent threat would be justified under this approach in taking military action against another nation. An unspoken part of this new doctrine appears to be that we claim this right for ourselves – and only for ourselves. It is, in that sense, part of a broader strategy to replace ideas like deterrence and containment with what some in the administration “dominance.”
-Al Gore 2002

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

Well, seems that you follow propaganda pretty easily.

 

You're just reaching here, dude. You are trying to call Paul a hypocrite because of his "erratic" voting record? You've pointed out two cases, one where he supported force against Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden and another where he voted against the Iraq War. I'm not seeing ANY contradiction here. Paul had made it blatantly clear that he supported to go into Afghanistan ONLY to go after those who attacked us and not to nation build.

 

Hahaha - nice use of VERY carefully selected rhetoric!

EVERY one of those I mentioned believed there were WMDs in Iraq - and though the UN was not UNANIMOUS in their nut-less view of military action, the support was there. To say otherwise is a flat-out lie - or, in Ron Paul's campaign, a fact...

 

Uh...no it wasn't. The U.N. had REJECTED support of the Iraq war.

 

Dude, the Secretary General of the UN called the war an illegal war. Don't try to bull(*)(*)(*)(*) me with your false view of history. Really the only other superpower that did support the war was Britain and that was because Tony Blair was in the pocket of the United States.

 

But the UN was in Saddam's pocket.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

Educate yourself on the differences. But I suppose your next defense will be that wikipedia has been hijacked by the alleged "Ron Paul Propaganda Machine".