confused on ron paul's foreign policy

[CJ]

If he comes outright and says he supports another candidates, then yes I will. I don't see that happening. I will see it as the Republican party failing if ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, and doesn't endorse another candidate, and he gets a very large number of votes and we(repubs) lose this election. If he is truely what the people and not the media and establishment want, then I don't understand why they don't get behind him. Instead they would rather ignore him, black him out, and flat out discredit and belittle him. That just shows me how scared they are of him. All the blind Ron Paul followers realize that his campaign is more about an idea and less about the man himself. An idea is the most powerful thing there is. Most neysayers see a bunch of people following a crazy old man, rather it is an dedicated group of people who believe in an idea, the constitution and everything he stands for. Hell most people like newt cause he is a good talker/debater. That's just sad to me.

wtf? you will see it as the republican party failing if he doesn't get the nomination? He isn't even a damn republican?! He has said in multiple interviews that he is not a conservative, and he is not a republican - flat out. We don't get behind him because his foreign policy is childish and naive - end of story. That is it, foreign policy - if he had a proactive stance he would get nomination, he doesn't so he won't. He is left of Obama on foreign policy, completely unacceptable. How sad is it that Obama would be schooling Ron Paul on why we need to be proactive? All I hear from Ron Paul supporters is naivete and fairy tale hopes and dreams shit. "Oh, but he doesn't mean that." "Oh, the media is just against him, and the republicans, and anyone that disagrees." Maybe it's just because he's unrealistic. He gets the liberal vote for being anti-war, he gets the gay and lesbian vote for being pro gay marriage, he gets the pot smokers for the legalize vote... what do all of these have in common? None of them are Republicans, and none of them have ANYTHING in common, which is why his "movement" always falls apart, every single fucking time he runs. Yet, I still see all of you guys nut hugging the dude like it's going to suddenly happen on his 3rd attempt.

[matts5.0]

wtf? you will see it as the republican party failing if he doesn't get the nomination? He isn't even a damn republican?! He has said in multiple interviews that he is not a conservative, and he is not a republican - flat out. We don't get behind him because his foreign policy is childish and naive - end of story. That is it, foreign policy - if he had a proactive stance he would get nomination, he doesn't so he won't. He is left of Obama on foreign policy, completely unacceptable. How sad is it that Obama would be schooling Ron Paul on why we need to be proactive? All I hear from Ron Paul supporters is naivete and fairy tale hopes and dreams shit. "Oh, but he doesn't mean that." "Oh, the media is just against him, and the republicans, and anyone that disagrees." Maybe it's just because he's unrealistic. He gets the liberal vote for being anti-war, he gets the gay and lesbian vote for being pro gay marriage, he gets the pot smokers for the legalize vote... what do all of these have in common? None of them are Republicans, and none of them have ANYTHING in common, which is why his "movement" always falls apart, every single fucking time he runs. Yet, I still see all of you guys nut hugging the dude like it's going to suddenly happen on his 3rd attempt.

sorry for nut hugging the constitution. sorry for agreeing with most active duty military that we are over stepping our boundaries with all of our wars and foreign bases. also, wouldnt him drawing all of those votes from the hippies and pot smokers be somewhat of a good thing? would you be more apt to follow him if he picked some warhawk conservative for his vice president?

[Vertnut]

sorry for nut hugging the constitution. sorry for agreeing with most active duty military that we are over stepping our boundaries with all of our wars and foreign bases. also, wouldnt him drawing all of those votes from the hippies and pot smokers be somewhat of a good thing? would you be more apt to follow him if he picked some warhawk conservative for his vice president?

Interesting...if I were active duty in a volunteer force, I wouldn't want to be oversea's either. We have a VOLUNTEER armed forces. If there's anything at all they don't like about the policies, then get out or don't enlist.

The constitution is similar to the bible in that different people can have different interpretations. Just ask the supreme court. Just because RP has his interpretation, doesn't make it all right.

[CJ]

sorry for nut hugging the constitution. sorry for agreeing with most active duty military that we are over stepping our boundaries with all of our wars and foreign bases. also, wouldnt him drawing all of those votes from the hippies and pot smokers be somewhat of a good thing? would you be more apt to follow him if he picked some warhawk conservative for his vice president?

His foreign policy is unacceptable, a vice president wouldn't do shit. I never said anything about the constitution. I agree with Ron Paul on just about everything except his foreign policy, as does almost every conservative. Focus on what I'm saying - his foreign policy makes him unelectable, end of story.

[matts5.0]

His foreign policy is unacceptable, a vice president wouldn't do shit. I never said anything about the constitution. I agree with Ron Paul on just about everything except his foreign policy, as does almost every conservative. Focus on what I'm saying - his foreign policy makes him unelectable, end of story.

im not trying to say you dont agree with his economic and financial policies, you would be ignorant not to, he is a smart man on those matters. you have your opinion, and thats fine. i cant change your mind, so i wont try and challenge your intelligence on the issue any more. i have my opinions, and they tend to fall into the same spectrum as pauls. i guess we should all jump behind newt or romeny and continue on the same path we are on now. i bet it will work out great.

[CJ]

im not trying to say you dont agree with his economic and financial policies, you would be ignorant not to, he is a smart man on those matters. you have your opinion, and thats fine. i cant change your mind, so i wont try and challenge your intelligence on the issue any more. i have my opinions, and they tend to fall into the same spectrum as pauls. i guess we should all jump behind newt or romeny and continue on the same path we are on now. i bet it will work out great.

Never did I say I don't agree with his economic or financial policies. I agree with them. Again - The only thing I don't agree with is his foreign policy, just like every other conservative.

[matts5.0]

Never did I say I don't agree with his economic or financial policies. I agree with them. Again - The only thing I don't agree with is his foreign policy, just like every other conservative.

if you read what you quoted, thats pretty much what i said. where we differ is, you want to continue down the same path we are on via you saying his foreign policy is flawed and he wont win, where as i would like to go a different route, i would like Paul to win.

[CJ]

if you read what you quoted, thats pretty much what i said. where we differ is, you want to continue down the same path we are on via you saying his foreign policy is flawed and he wont win, where as i would like to go a different route, i would like Paul to win.

The United States was a relatively poor and economically weak country until World War II - which was the beginning of our change to a proactive foreign force. All of our power and prosperity can be derived from that policy. I could sit here for hours proving this, but I hope everyone reading this has a grasp of history to understand where I'm coming from. History has proven that Isolationism (which is what you are proposing) puts us at risk. There are 1102 sailors in Pearl Harbor that attest to the dangers of isolationism.

[stevo]

This is like watching idiots that claim they'll starve themselves rather than eat a chuck steak because they want prime rib.

Stevo

[matts5.0]

and honestly, i think his foreign policy is a tad bit too soft. i like a little pro-activity on the part of national defense, i completely disagree with our governments stance on being the world police. to me pauls views on all other issues out weigh his foreign policy stance. this country is in bad shape. we need some one who knows how to deal with our economy and can get us on the right track.

[matts5.0]

The United States was a relatively poor and economically weak country until World War II - which was the beginning of our change to a proactive foreign force. All of our power and prosperity can be derived from that policy. I could sit here for hours proving this, but I hope everyone reading this has a grasp of history to understand where I'm coming from. History has proven that Isolationism (which is what you are proposing) puts us at risk.

no doubt, we went and took whatever we wanted, we still do. it doesnt make it right.

[matts5.0]

This is like watching idiots that claim they'll starve themselves rather than eat a chuck steak because they want prime rib.

Stevo

i just find it hard to settle with the better of the two evils, thats why our country is in the hole its in.

[CJ]

no doubt, we went and took whatever we wanted, we still do. it doesnt make it right.

There is one and only one control when it comes to humanity. Survival of the fittest. It is the most basic element of nature and life as we know it. You name a political system, and I will relate it to Survival of the fittest, the closer it is, the better it works. Capitalism = survival of the fittest. Communism = failure. Making everyone happy will never work in this world. You are proposing a liberal utopia.

[matts5.0]

i would be all for someone like newt if he would do some of the things that paul wants to do, like taking down the fed and reducing government extensively and many of other pauls ideas. its too bad we cant design the perfect candidate in a lab somewhere that we could all agree on. I have said it before, but pauls good out weigh his bad drastically. the others, meh, same old shit.

[matts5.0]

There is one and only one control when it comes to humanity. Survival of the fittest. It is the most basic element of nature and life as we know it. You name a political system, and I will relate it to Survival of the fittest, the closer it is, the better it works. Capitalism = survival of the fittest. Communism = failure. Making everyone happy will never work in this world. You are proposing a liberal utopia.

i am all for capitalism, thats why i like paul.