Is Ron Paul really so crazy? (townhall)

Townhall.com ^ | 10/23/07 | Jason Wharton

[Sadecki]

Ron Paul

"He's Out of Iraq...and Out of his mind"

[the tongue]

“Ok I’ll bite.

Ron Paul considered.....

Ron Paul dismissed.”

Neil, you forgot the other part of your saying. “We nominate a socialist to continue down the happy path of socialism that the Republican Party is 50% responsible for creating. No problem.”
Go ahead, dispute it. I dare you. In fact, I double dog dare you.

[George W. Bush]

My point is that Paul is advocating the same policies he is slamming.

Well, not precisely. But I won't argue it.

And yes, we should send all the mercs out of Iraq (and yes the Blackwater boys are mercs).

But our efforts would collapse there without them. It is strange to let Blackwater bill us on a cost-plus basis and cherry-pick our most valuable veterans and then charge us $60,000-$180,000 per year for them. Generally, I think we should forbid U.S. citizens from fighting in mercenary units or serving as foreign police. Britain got into a lot of mischief over this decades back too.

Maybe we should just pay our troops better, recruit an adequate level of soldiers to meet our needs. If we stay in Iraq or plan to invade Iran (God forbid), we should have about 100,000 more soldiers. OTOH, if we bring our troops home from around the world, we could do just fine with our current levels of troops, maybe even a slight reduction in numbers.

We've spread ourselves too thin around the world. 700 bases is just ridiculous. We shouldn't be garrisoning the entire world and behaving like the old colonial empires.

[NCSteve]

Saddam came to power by coup, how did we install him?

We funded the authors of the coup and backed Hussein to replace the Soviet puppet it/he removed. Look it up.

[listenhillary]

Didn’t the former empires collect taxes or extract some sort of tribute from their “subjects”?

[Dead Corpse]

...stating that we got hit on 9-11 because of Iraq 10 years earlier, he went over the top.

At first, he didn't. In that first debate, he said formulating a foreign policy without examining why they hate us was stupid. I actually agree with that much.

It was when he started calling for a pullout, siding with Kookcinich, and pandering to the anti-war crowd that he lost me.

We didn't start this crap in the ME. We don't deserve to be struck out at by radicals in other countries just because we are trying to do business with their neighbors. We have a MORAL IMPERATIVE TO DEFEND OURSELVES.

If Dr. Paul doesn't agree with the above paragraph, then I have no further use for him no matter how laudable the rest of his stances are.

[SJackson]

Didn’t the former empires collect taxes or extract some sort of tribute from their “subjects”?

The Muslims for Ron Paul folk you quoted earlier get into that.

The only so-called clash between Jews and Muslims occurred in recent history when the West created it. Before that, we coexisted in peace. In fact, there was even a time when Muslims RULED OVER Jews and Christians. Under this rule the Jews were so well accepted in society that Jewish religious, cultural, and economic life blossomed. This time period has been coined the Golden Age for Jewish culture.

And the Jews and Christians paid the Jizyah (dhimmi tax), as they should today.

Makes you heartsick for the 9th century, doesn't it.

[rmlew]

The guy is ignorant and is running with leftist-agitprop and calling it conservatism .

[listenhillary]

“And the Jews and Christians paid the Jizyah (dhimmi tax), as they should today. “

I’d appreciate your explaination of this statement. You’re saying we should submit to the muslims?

[airborne]

Ron Paul is a 'crazy' magnet!

[George W. Bush]

Didn’t the former empires collect taxes or extract some sort of tribute from their “subjects”?

The means vary. The British forbid us to manufacture, one of the real causes of the American Revolution. They wanted us and their other colonies to be exporters of raw materials to them or others with them as the transport medium. Control of trade is very important.

The British were finding it somewhat unprofitable so they tried minor taxes like the tea tax and the Stamp Act. Resentment that we were being taxed without any members in England's Parliament is why we so hate "taxation without representation". I really really hate it. LOL. Anyway, the upshot was that we discovered that it was much much more expensive to pay to defend ourselves than the minor taxes the British tried to collect on stamps and tea. Of course, had we tolerated those first taxes, they would have escalated.

Control of trade, securing our resources (some of which happen to be unfairly located under Arab sands), control of markets (including labor markets), and emerging tech countries are the high-stakes chips in the current poker game. GATT and NATO and even the U.N. occasionally are just part of the mechanism.

A lot of people misunderstand how this works. The ordinary people in many countries resent this arrangement, often exploited by demagogues seeking to gain political power. But the elites in the various countries are generally supportive of this international order because it is in their personal interest to do so. And nature does abhor a vacuum. The British empire filled this role before we did, making the sea lanes safe, providing steady supplies of raw materials and manufactured goods and promoting the advance of science. When the old empires collapsed after WW II, we and the Soviets competed for influence. Then they fell apart and we are the last empire, never having planned to be one to begin with. Well, at least not as a national policy goal that our citizens embrace. It's the whole world policeman/nation-building thing along with being the engine of world trade.

Moving towards the positions that Ron Paul advocates would not entirely change this. But the role of world police and nation-builders would diminish considerably. Unless you're a person who believes we have to hold the world hostage at the point of a gun, it's worth considering whether we should consider changing our direction.

[George W. Bush]

And the Jews and Christians paid the Jizyah (dhimmi tax), as they should today.

Aha. So is your proposed dhimmi tax a flat tax and is it indexed to the rate of inflation?

I won't pay your dhimmi tax! LOL.

[listenhillary]

“And nature does abhor a vacuum.”

Has the vacuum ceased to exist? Or should we still be concerned with what fills that vacuum?

[George W. Bush]

Just because we bring our forces home doesn't mean we have to give up those bases. Most of them are on very long term leases.

Many of our policy goals would be easier to accomplish if we didn't have so many bases right in these people's faces.

Naturally, we should be an arsenal of democracy and should supply arms, training, technology and access to our markets to freedom-loving nations. And we should defund and expel the dictator-coddling United Nations.

[listenhillary]

I’m ready for a new asociation of countries that allow a decent level of freedom as a condition of membership. Free Nation Alliance to replace the United Nations?

[SJackson]

I’d appreciate your explaination of this statement. You’re saying we should submit to the muslims? No, you quoted earlier from http://muslimsvoteronpaul.com/. They seem to be implying that.

Note the beginning of their policy statement, my bold.

Just to make it clear in response to a load of e-mails I've received, Jews are our cousins and brothers in faith. Just because Israel is a terrorist state does not mean Muslims are anti-semetic for denouncing it as a corrupt US-backed Zionist entity. Zionists are not all Jewish by the way.

The only so-called clash between Jews and Muslims occurred in recent history when the West created it. Before that, we coexisted in peace. In fact, there was even a time when Muslims RULED OVER Jews and Christians. Under this rule the Jews were so well accepted in society that Jewish religious, cultural, and economic life blossomed. This time period has been coined the Golden Age for Jewish culture. Read more about it here.

Their ideal, 8th to 10th century Spain, was a time when Muslims ruled Christians and Jews, their inferiors, the jizya, of course, was universally applied.

Myself, if I were a politician, I'd reject this support.

[SJackson]

Aha. So is your proposed dhimmi tax a flat tax and is it indexed to the rate of inflation?...I won't pay your dhimmi tax! LOL.

Check with Muslims for Ron Paul, the 8th to 10th century, Muslim rule over Christians and Jews, is their ideal, not mind. Generally it was applied as a head tax, but I'm sure they'll be flexible.

Israel is a terrorist state, a corrupt US/Zionist creation. And not all Zionists are Jews, take that you warmongering right wing Christians.

And go, Ron, go.

Why should YOU vote for Ron Paul?

Assalaamu Alaikum Brothers and Sisters,

You can help by sharing and sending this note to all the Muslims you know as well as by registering as a Republican and voting for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries in your state. Here's why: Muslims have an unique window of opportunity for the 2008 election. There is a candidate running as a Republican that would work to completely cut off the funding to Israel, remove ALL US troops from Arab lands, and repeal the Patriot Act. He's a Republican with Libertarian views

[listenhillary]

I see where you are coming from. Sorry that I assumed it was your statement of belief.

[George W. Bush]

And not all Zionists are Jews, take that you warmongering right wing Christians.

Actually, I've assumed that those most eager for Israel to create a Greater Israel or to expel the Palis or bomb Iran are evangelical Christian Zionist types. Not American Jews who are, as always, a mixed lot on these questions. There are probably 3-5 times as many evangelical Zionists as there are hardcore neoconservative-type Jewish Zionists. Just my impression though.

As for the appeals to the Arab community and even to Muslims, I have no problem with it. Certainly, I wouldn't admit Muslims to this country and give them citizenship but they do have to vote for someone. Better a Republican, any Republican, than a Democrat.

[George W. Bush]

Did you guys catch this nugget:

---

St. Anselm College's Institute of Politics will release a new poll today, completed by SRBI Research in New York City, showing that Clinton and Romney hold solid leads in New Hampshire.

The survey of 1,514 likely primary voters has margins of error of 4.1 percent for Democrats, 4.5 percent for Republicans and 4.8 percent for undecided voters. It was conducted Oct. 15 to 21.

It shows Democrat Clinton leading Obama 42.6 to 21.5 percent, with John Edwards at 13.9 percent. Among Republicans, Romney leads Giuliani 32.4 to 21.8 percent, with John McCain at 15.2 percent and Ron Paul in fourth place at 7.4 percent.

The poll also shows that 40 percent of self-identified independents say they were still not sure if they would vote in the Democratic or Republican primary.

Union Leader - John DiStaso's Granite Status: Rudy just doesn't get it - Thursday, Oct. 25, 2007

---

Since NH is about 40% independents, that means that 16% of independents in the state haven't even decided which primary to vote in yet.