Posted on 04/14/2010 7:41:14 AM PDT by Woebama
Edited on 04/14/2010 3:31:35 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.
“Now I haven’t read all the posts yet, I’m at 50 and there are 70 now . . . but geez.”
Well, some of Paul’s positions have merit, but then he comes up with crap like:
“The real reasons of the 911 attack are either denied or ignored: oil, neo-conservative empire building, and our support for Israel over the Palestinians.” — 24 April 2004 (Blame America first)
“We don’t need any troops abroad—they don’t help our defense.” — Dec 2007 (Because isolationism worked so well for us in the runup to WWII)
“9/11 resulted from blasphemy of our bases in Saudi Arabia.” — Dec 2007 (After all, those misunderstood islamists don’t hate us for our freedom)
“Terrorists attack us for our actions abroad, not our freedom.” — Jun 2007 (Honest! They don’t hate us for freedom!)
“Israeli government & the neocons want US to bomb Iran.” — Dec 2007 (Yes, it’s that neocon-Jew connection again)
“If Iran invaded Israel, it’s up to Congress to declare war.” — Dec 2007 (Because THIS Congress will act SO expeditiously while Israel burns)
In summation, Ron Paul is a nutcase. I don’t want him anywhere near the WH.
Well, think of an America with an economy double it’s current size. Median household income at what 80,000? Lower taxes would still generate huge amounts of revenue to spend on the limited areas the Federal government is actually responsible for (defense primary among them). Technology would be much more advanced becuase spending on technology by corporations would be much greater. More money on air flights means more profits means more money for security devices in commercial aircraft . . . al queda never even gets in the cockpit. That sort of thinking. And if they mess with us, we are so rich and so strong we roll over them and make them flatter than a bug . . . even quicker and more powerfully than we do now.
________________________________________________________
Sorry Scott, but the neocons and the Israeli government do want the US to bomb Iran! Almost by definition.
---------------------------------------------------------
“If Iran invaded Israel, it’s up to Congress to declare war.” — Dec 2007 (Because THIS Congress will act SO expeditiously while Israel burns)
_________________________________________________________
The Constitution says the Congress is supposed to declare war. And overall I do think that Paul was wrong to make the statements when we were AT war already about what led up to the war . . . but he is also to a degree correct. If we were minding our own business then we would not be as big a target for them. It's just tough to say that sort of thing when war sentiments are aroused. __________________________________________________________ I think I'm going to become a Paul supporter just for the fun of arguing with people here at FR!
And if they mess with us, we are so rich and so strong we roll over them and make them flatter than a bug . . . even quicker and more powerfully than we do now.
Really?? What would have squashed them flatter than a bug - more troops in the area? Bigger bombs? Occupying??
Yes. When he said we were responsible for 9/11 he hurt all of us. My feelings are best summed up by our founders words.
Ron Paul and his antiwar moonbat spammers can kiss my ass!
108 posted on Monday, April 12, 2010 2:29:17 PM by Jim Robinson (JUST VOTE THEM OUT! teapartyexpress.org)
Is that clear?
Better tech, more troops, better reputation in the world because we are rich and free. Look at the big picture. Doubling our wealth as a nation say since we started nominating the liberal Republicans since 1990 (Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain), 20 years, would take 3.4% more growth a year. Crazy, huge numbers . . . except that they are not in a free economy. With double the economy what type of tech would our military have? What type of airport security etc. would we very casually be able to pay for?
Our domestic policy is much, much, much more important to our position in the world and our military power than our foreign policy, in my opinion.
Are you saying that al qaeda would love us if we had a better reputation in the world?? That the French would love us if we were richer?? Please back up these statements because right now they are just pure speculation.
I just watched that debate clip from the campaign last year since it was posted about and it is way overblown. I do think we’d be less hated around the world if we minded our own business more. My opinion, so I don’t react as strongly to Paul saying it as some do. I just think he was stupid saying it after the war was on and our civilians had been attacked . . .
I’m all for a strong military...on the Mexican Border....but not facilitating Ragheads oil drilling....
Respect our power if we were richer (and more powerful).
Yah, I hear you. I feel the same about international aid. Our people are losing their homes here in the USA and we are giving away their tax dollars (or borrowing money) to give it to other countries. It’s disgusting.
And, our military could have had all the tech in the world. None of it would have prevented al qaeda attacking us. Better airport screening would not have prevented al qaeda attacking us. They brought down 4 airliners with box cutters. If I recall correctly, they were prepositioned on the flights - how would high-tech screening have prevented it?
As pointed out to your welded shut mind repeatedly, our National Interests have NEVER been limited strictly to our own borders.
Like it or not the free flow of oil from the ME is a vital US economic interest. Anyone who does not understand that painful, unpleasant fact is too utterly moronic to be allowed vote, much less be President of the USA.
Should we be energy independent? Heck yes, but untill the moron clown posse in Congress, including Dr Paul, get their heads out of their collective asses and develop our own energy resources, we are stuck needing Arab oil.
Guys living in caves would respect our power? Compared to them we were infinitely more powerful. Could you please back up your speculation with facts on how al qaeda would have left us alone if we were “more powerful”. The fact that they could terrorize the most powerful nation in the world was their great talking point.
As far as backup goes I can’t really support it because we haven’t seen it historically in US history. I don’t see how a richer and more powerful US could not be safer though. Can you without some sort of wierd hypothetical scenario?
You are asking for facts about a future hypothetical — it makes no sense. The guys in caves is silly. Are you talking about Osama Bin Laden, the billionaire family fellow as a “guy in a cave.” Sloppy thinking.
But a guy like Paul would absolutely let us develop our own energy resources. So the need for mideast oil is to a degree artificial.
A locked resilient cockpit door would have stopped al queda from attacking us the way they did on 9/11. That simple. Better funding for CIA/FBI might have allowed for better communication and finding the terrorists before they struck. I trust that more money = more power when you come down to the brass tacks of defense (including civil defense).
So, if al quaeda is not in a cave, where are they? We are by far more rich and powerful than OBL and his crew (or are you arguing differently?) Our being richer and “more powerful” would not have prevented 9-11. Technology would not have prevented box cutters on planes, unless we were willing to fully screen every person who had access to the planes prior to flight - we had the capability in 2001 to prevent those coming onto planes. Technology was not the problem. We did not see the threat.
Your arguments make no sense.
We saw no need for a locked cockpit door prior to 9-11. Lack of wealth and technology had nothing to do with it. It was lack of perceived need for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.