Ron Paul
Discuss.
Crazy or Brilliant?
Radical or Revolutionary?
Genius or Clueless?
Edit by [MOD]Rex --
Don't just go out and say. "He's stupid, he needs to rot in hell" type of responses. If you feel a certain way about this political figure, express why you feel that way. Rude posts will be infracted and deleted. If this thread goes out of control, it will need to be closed.
If another Moderator has an issue with this thread, please contact me on msn and we will discuss it. Or, if it is out of control, close it. You don't need to moderate every post, if it's going crazy, get rid of it. Let's treat this as a test to see if the community can actually handle such a discussion.
Thanks,
Rex.
Crazy or Brilliant?
Radical or Revolutionary?
Genius or Clueless?
Edit by [MOD]Rex --
Don't just go out and say. "He's stupid, he needs to rot in hell" type of responses. If you feel a certain way about this political figure, express why you feel that way. Rude posts will be infracted and deleted. If this thread goes out of control, it will need to be closed.
If another Moderator has an issue with this thread, please contact me on msn and we will discuss it. Or, if it is out of control, close it. You don't need to moderate every post, if it's going crazy, get rid of it. Let's treat this as a test to see if the community can actually handle such a discussion.
Thanks,
Rex.
Comments
-
Poweredinfo wrote: »Classical politician
giving you what you want to hear and luring you into his world of lies.
then once he gets what he wants you see something totally different.
they're all liars, don't be a fool, there is no honest politician, they're either long dead or too scared to run because they know the media will just twist everything they say and do. I think it is safe to say that we can add an honest politician to the extinction list on wikipedia. -
they're all liars, don't be a fool, there is no honest politician, they're either long dead or too scared to run because they know the media will just twist everything they say and do. I think it is safe to say that we can add an honest politician to the extinction list on wikipedia.
I long for the day when a politician that has the people at heart runs for presidency sadly it is best that I don't hold my breath because it is highly unlikely that this will happen within my life span as it seems. -
Poweredinfo wrote: »Classical politician
giving you what you want to hear and luring you into his world of lies.
then once he gets what he wants you see something totally different.
I don't know about that.
The guys been running since the 90's for President. No one has really taken him seriously until this election and the last because hes such a "Libertarian". While this isn't really to build his credibility, he wasn't a draft dodger like the other Repub candidates who all dodged by either, not going, or signing up instead of going into the draft. The man is also a docter so I guess that has something to do with how he views healthcare.
Personally, I adore his foreign policy and see it as sheer brilliance. His other claims of cutting certain departments and denying disaster aid does frighten me, but his foreign policy, for me, outweighs the lack of what you could say "sanity" in his domestic affairs. -
RawrJafrikan wrote: »I don't know about that.
The guys been running since the 90's for President. No one has really taken him seriously until this election and the last because hes such a "Libertarian". While this isn't really to build his credibility, he wasn't a draft dodger like the other Repub candidates who all dodged by either, not going, or signing up instead of going into the draft. The man is also a docter so I guess that has something to do with how he views healthcare.
Personally, I adore his foreign policy and see it as sheer brilliance. His other claims of cutting certain departments and denying disaster aid does frighten me, but his foreign policy, for me, outweighs the lack of what you could say "sanity" in his domestic affairs.
Don't allow one part of the whole to outshine it all
The whole package still exists
Allow me to draw up a quick analogy.
You have three scoops of ice cream
The top is bubbling with delicious sensuous taste
The bottom is filthy and filled with disease
Will you ignore the bottom and still see this ice cream as perfection?
I think this is one of those ''if it sounds to good to be true....it is'' moments.
once again I hope this topic is still alive in the morning as I am growing quite wearing and you can see it stretching out into my reply's in terms of content.
ha ha
almost time to call it a night. -
Poweredinfo wrote: »Don't allow one part of the whole to outshine it all
The whole package still exists
almost time to call it a night.
Well... most of the problems, in my opinions, come from America's failure to stop spending, and its eager attitude to go to other countries, enforce American law and culture onto whichever nation, and then expect a return of happiness from them. On top of that, to fund the military expenditures, they take money from other entitlements which further put the system on the brink of instability.
America doesn't need to have bases in 150+ countries. America has lost it's military prowness, it no longer can influence another country with the fear of invasion and America risks international public opinion if it does so.
Yes, there is that quote on quote diseased ice cream portion, but in this case, the disease is the cause of the cone. If you change the cone, then essentially, the disease's source should stop, and after time being, should default to clean ice cream. Of course, this analogy doesn't necessarily work, but you understand what I'm saying. -
I thought to my self.what does it take for a man to say he is able to lead 300+million people.
thinking about the courage it takes to announce running for presidency really took an impact on my current trace of thought.RawrJafrikan wrote: »Welunderstand what I'm saying.
I understand and can agree with some points here.
For now I am going to log off and hopefully I have helped in some way veer this topic into the correct direction.
Remember
~Information is power -
Jafrikan what's a good run down of both ron paul and newt gringrich's foreign policy changes.
Ron Paul=
Essentially a get away from other nations, stop nation building, and if its requires, do a "Vietnamization" approach. Put weapons and arms into a government that America considers to trust, and to have no long commitments of military intervention. He's coined the term "MAR" Mutually assured respect, as a tenant of his foreign policy.
Background on foreign policy (up to you to see if its credible or not):
-Served draft in Vietnam as pilot
-Foreign policy committee member on Senate previously
-Been here for a long time.
Newt Gingrich=
Famous for bringing back republican seats into House and Senate after a democratic majority. Newt, I honestly don't even know what is foreign policy is because he changes his stance every 2 years for election purposes.
most likley a continuance of the previous Bush Administration of strong American military might and active intervention. He hasn't stated any big things about foreign policy, often dodging the question like Mit Romney does with domestic matters. -
I have 2 big problems with Paul:
1) His ambiguous libertarian stance on abortion.
2) The fact that he is 70 something and has run in every presidential election since 1985.
Honestly, I like most of his views, and I absolutely hate both republican front runners.
So, I'm just hoping that Palin jumps in at the last second. -
Erwin_Rommel wrote: »I have 2 big problems with Paul:
1) His ambiguous libertarian stance on abortion.
2) The fact that he is 70 something and has run in every presidential election since 1985.
Honestly, I like most of his views, and I absolutely hate both republican front runners.
So, I'm just hoping that Palin jumps in at the last second.
How does my name "Gaycloak" get banned when this moron continues to post
OT:
I'm a staunch liberal, so in my eyes, Ron Paul is a ringding, but my favorite GOP candidate in the race. His general beliefs are a bit outlandish, but he's ballsy and is not afraid to say what he thinks, even if its against the party platform. Seems like a really intelligent, experienced, and interesting politician, and he also seems like a real man of integrity, which I think is clearly lacking in his Republican colleagues. He's more of a "maverick" than Sarah Palin ever was or claimed to be. Then again, the GOP 2012 presidential field itself is the biggest joke since the GOP 2012 presidential field. -
I come from a paradigm of a fiscal conservative yet social liberal view.
I like Ron Paul, however, I feel like giving Obama another term will prove himself. W. Bush was, well........not the greatest.
Obama knows something we don't know. George W. Bush "fought" terrorism and spent a bunch of national money against these terrorists. We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11.
Obama, was against Bush's spending against terrorism, however, the spending against terrorism hasn't decreased, but INCREASED in his term. Most people don't know this, but I feel like this statistic means, like I've said before, something we don't know.
Ron Paul has my respects, however, can he really carry out his executive wishes?
He wants to be an isolationist in some aspects. Hell to the U.N.! Well, should we? It's a great question. Should the United States be the "big brother" in the world? Some people say we are doing it wrong, for example, in the middle east.
However, I think that we DID our job as our big brother and we cannot tread on our past. Sure, we didn't handle the middle east as sophisticated as we could have, but let's take Korea for example. Some Koreans hate the United States for being involved. But hell, I rather have one half of Korea be saved and the other half condemed by dictatorship that oppresses the people!
Would an isolationist America work? I think not. -
Just wanted to point out that as a major minus to MAR: Iran-Iraq war, where we pumped money and guns into BOTH countries and we lost respect and had lowered or no diplomatic status on both of them in the 2 decades sinceRawrJafrikan wrote: »Ron Paul=
Essentially a get away from other nations, stop nation building, and if its requires, do a "Vietnamization" approach. Put weapons and arms into a government that America considers to trust, and to have no long commitments of military intervention. He's coined the term "MAR" Mutually assured respect, as a tenant of his foreign policy.
I come from a paradigm of a fiscal conservative yet social liberal view.
I like Ron Paul, however, I feel like giving Obama another term will prove himself. W. Bush was, well........not the greatest.
Obama knows something we don't know. George W. Bush "fought" terrorism and spent a bunch of national money against these terrorists. We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11.
Obama, was against Bush's spending against terrorism, however, the spending against terrorism hasn't decreased, but INCREASED in his term. Most people don't know this, but I feel like this statistic means, like I've said before, something we don't know.
Ron Paul has my respects, however, can he really carry out his executive wishes?
He wants to be an isolationist in some aspects. Hell to the U.N.! Well, should we? It's a great question. Should the United States be the "big brother" in the world? Some people say we are doing it wrong, for example, in the middle east.
However, I think that we DID our job as our big brother and we cannot tread on our past. Sure, we didn't handle the middle east as sophisticated as we could have, but let's take Korea for example. Some Koreans hate the United States for being involved. But hell, I rather have one half of Korea be saved and the other half condemed by dictatorship that oppresses the people!
Would an isolationist America work? I think not.
Pretty much sums up my ideals to at this point. My concern with Obama is the NDAA, but that's another topic, another day.
What I don't agree with Ron Paul is that we should be drawing down the number of military forces present on the globe, whether it be bases, ships, or armed conflicts, etc; as well as his isolationism views... I believe that more than ever our policy should maintain a sense of involvement with other nation's affairs, not only do we receive diplomatic karma points as a result but trade flourishes as a classic response.
People say we're doing it wrong in the ME, well da hell with it. There's nobody else who's willing to pick up the problems, we helped create, and to allow their funds dwindle away to cultural/religious conflict. But then we somewhat get first dibs on their oil caches. I've lived in the ME for quite a while, and frankly, I guess the time is fast approaching where the US will be able to quietly exit, due to the ending conflicts in Iraq and Libya as well as the sudden Arab Spring that really tossed out a lot of foreign policy the US had with countries as the Arab nations scramble around to either eradicate the protest or to bow down and allow (example)more political freedom.
We got policies that I believe are somewhat outdated (Korea, Cuba, ME).
This was all about his foreign policy btw, I'm not too sure about his other stances on other issues. I'll look them up later and maybe post back here or not.
One thing I am glad for is that he's a Texan Congressman
(for obv reasons) -
Just wanted to point out that as a major minus to MAR: Iran-Iraq war, where we pumped money and guns into BOTH countries and we lost respect and had lowered or no diplomatic status on both of them in the 2 decades since
That's not MAR....
Mar is an unspoken agreement of respect among nations. Its a play on words from the MAD in which they're was no actual statements but it was well understood.
If anything, that's the complete opposite Or thats what I got from it. He's the only candidate that doesn't want to fund Isreal. IMHO a great plus. -
Obama, was against Bush's spending against terrorism, however, the spending against terrorism hasn't decreased, but INCREASED in his term. Most people don't know this, but I feel like this statistic means, like I've said before, something we don't know.
Ron Paul has my respects, however, can he really carry out his executive wishes?
He wants to be an isolationist in some aspects. Hell to the U.N.! Well, should we? It's a great question. Should the United States be the "big brother" in the world? Some people say we are doing it wrong, for example, in the middle east.
However, I think that we DID our job as our big brother and we cannot tread on our past. Sure, we didn't handle the middle east as sophisticated as we could have, but let's take Korea for example. Some Koreans hate the United States for being involved. But hell, I rather have one half of Korea be saved and the other half condemed by dictatorship that oppresses the people!
Would an isolationist America work? I think not.
No, an isolationist America can't really work. But that isn't to say that the US can't get out of people's business militarily.
And Yes, pretty much everyone knows that about Obama. He's one of the more interventionist of all the Democrats. -
We're a world power and have a large sway in the economic markets, isolation would be stupid, but yeah, we need to get out of other countries. Diplomacy and economic exchanges between other countries is good. Blowing money out our asses for nothing is terrible.
-
Lets hit a real problem
Inflation
The advice you usually get:Inflate the currency, They don't say debase the currency, They don't say devalue the currency They dont say cheat the people who are safe They say lower the interest rates
The real deception is when we distort the value of money we create money out of thin air we have no savings yet there's so called ''capital''
My question bore's down to this:How in the world can we expect to solve the problems of inflation that is the increase of supply money with more inflation
How can you as Americans sit down and watch your base money supply drastically rise without a proportional rise in goods/service's and think that everything's fine and then wonder why your in so much debt. -
looking at all the other candidates, i think ron paul is the only option.
worth finding out, whether or not he is just a hypocrit like all the other politicians.
he has been pretty constant in his views ever since. does anyone know, if he is still a supporter of the death penalty? i recently watched an interview, 1985 i think, where he stated that he is a supporter.
if he actually wins the election and refuses to be a glove puppet, it might end bad for him. -
I lol'd... :PErwin_Rommel wrote: »I have 2 big problems with Paul:
1) His ambiguous libertarian stance on abortion.
2) The fact that he is 70 something and has run in every presidential election since 1985.
Honestly, I like most of his views, and I absolutely hate both republican front runners.
So, I'm just hoping that Palin jumps in at the last second. -
Poweredinfo wrote: »How can you as Americans sit down and watch your base money supply drastically rise without a proportional rise in goods/service's and think that everything's fine and then wonder why your in so much debt?
American's are stupid, that's why.
![[MOD]Rex](https://z8games.akamaized.net/cfna/forum/customavatars/68/navatar_3617368.gif){kind=avatar}
![[Denxi]](https://forum.z8games.com/uploads/customavatars/0/navatar_2018000.gif){kind=avatar}
Categories
- All Categories
- Z8Games
- 1 Z8 Forum Discussion & Suggestions
- 15 Z8Games Announcements
- Rules & Conduct
- 2K CrossFire
- 588 CrossFire Announcements
- 587 Previous Announcements
- 2 Previous Patch Notes
- 159 Community
- 12 Modes
- 280 Suggestions
- 16 Clan Discussion and Recruitment
- 38 CF Competitive Forum
- CFCL
- 14 Looking for a Team?
- 540 CrossFire Support
- 64 Suggestion
- 12 CrossFire Guides
- 33 CrossFire Off Topic