51 comments

  1. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    As president, would he support arming the Swedes with tactical nuclear weapons so that they can reclaim all of Scandinavia. By the way, Saab makes some pretty nice multi-role jet aircraft.
    😉

  2. Erick says:

    He believes there is a movement afoot to create a North American Union — one country comprised of Canada, the US, and Mexico.

  3. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Erick, that would be awesome. Cheap labor from the Mexican Sector, natural resources from the Canadian Sector, and endless capital from the American Sector.

  4. IndyInjun says:

    If the subprime/CDO/CLO/deriviatives go into melt-down mode, with a$trillion or more in losses, who would he bail out:

    1. NY money center banks/investment bankers/Fannie Mae
    2. Depositors
    3. Defaulting home buyers
    4 None of the above

    Simplified, if there is a $trillion meltdown, WHAT would he suggest that US Treasury and the Fed DO?

  5. Chris says:

    Loyality – good point, I never thought of it that way. Problem is we’d probably become a trilingual country and while I don’t mind learning spanish, I’d move to idaho and build a bunker to take on the Feds before I’d learn French.

  6. rugby_fan says:

    His isolationism is about as horrible a policy as one could ask for.

    And I bet he is one more person who calls his “policy” “realism”.

  7. Icarus says:

    Can he tell the difference between Reynolds brand and store brands from Publix or Kroger for his aluminum foil?

  8. Jason Pye says:

    His isolationism is about as horrible a policy as one could ask for.

    It’s non-interventionism. Not isolationism.

    Trade with all, entangling alliances with none.

  9. IndyInjun says:

    I dunno. The enormous defense spending as a % of GDP that we incur in the defense of our trading competitors is a gigantic millstone around our merchants’ necks and concurrently is a subsidy for the competition.

    China is using currency manipulation as a reverse tariff against us, made possible by our borrowings to fund a pointless war.

    Why so few see these truths is beyond me.

    Try to even things up via tariffs and you get a howling wail from the free traders. Even Ron Paul won’t support that.

    Economics and the reality of our financial situation will eventually require reductions in military spending – unless, that is, you hawks are ready for a 15% surtax to PAY for these foreign entanglements.

  10. dcraigwhite says:

    Ron Paul, in an interview with race42008.com, said he does not believe that radical islam, in and of itself, is a threat to our country.

    That answer told me everything I need to know about Ron Paul. I like his principles, and the fact that he sticks to them, but in this case his shallow understanding of foriegn policy amazes me. I could never support someone with such a misguided and potentially deadly view for office.

  11. YourFutureLeader says:

    Shoulda asked him what he thinks about assault weapons and how he plans to vote on SCHIP

  12. IndyInjun says:

    Radical Islam is not that great a threat, except for our dependence on oil, which we can do something about.

    Bush stupidly and incompetently invaded Iran, interjecting us between two warring schisms of mad men. Yes, they are an even greater danger to each other. I say when mad enemies are more inclined to fight each other, rather than us, let them!

    The 9/11 hijackers were enabled by Saudi. Bush is lovie-dovie with them. OBL and company are under the protection of Pakistan (among a whole host of other direct transgressions against the USA) and we are paying them a $billion or two in aid.

    Dr. Paul’s position is constitutionally sound and makes a ton of common sense when compared to the current lunacy, even treachery, of the Bush Administration.

  13. Inside_Man says:

    YFL,

    He’d veto federal gun control legislation and veto SCHIP expansion or spending. Hell, he’d probably even veto the entire Federal budget.

    Erick,

    So what if he wants to eliminate whole cabinet departments? I can’t think of too many examples of the Federal Dep. of Education actually educating anyone, and it was not too long ago when Republicans campaigned on that same issue as part of the Contract with America. Homeland Security would be a good next step, then maybe the IRS, the elimination of which is also a mainstream issue. Why are these federal bureaucracies so near and dear to you? Surely you favor a robust federal system where states are allowed to provide the lion’s share of government services, being both more accountable to voters and more nimble and efficient in policy making?

  14. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Well said IndyInjun, although I do think we invades Iraq.

    Not enough pragmatism in foreign policy. Someone once said that pragmatism is the enemy of emotion.

    Well it’s also the enemy of idealogues and idealists.

  15. dcraigwhite says:

    IndyInjun,

    Saying that radical Islam is not a threat is like saying the sky is not blue. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. World Trade Center attacks, the Pentagon, USS Cole, Barracks in Lebanon, the list goes on. How many planes must be hijacked, trains bombed, and buildings demolished before you and Ron Paul realize that the threat is real?

    You can talk it away all you want, and wish that it wasn’t the case, but radical islam is the greatest threat facing our country today, to say otherwise is both irresponsible and unfounded.

  16. dorian says:

    I think dcraig is right. I am not a fan of the war. If I were president my middle east foreign policy would be to turn the whole place into a parking lot. One, it’d be real quick. Two, no soldiers would die. Three, it’d be way cheaper. And four, since these nut jobs are in such a rush to meet allah and their blessed, virgin wives, we’d be doing them a favor in hurrying that along. Which reminds me, how can they all go and marry virgins? Wouldn’t they run out at some point?

  17. IndyInjun says:

    Dorian – They will get their wish…..only one small detail…….the virgins are all male.

  18. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Dcraig, you didn’t seem to read Indy’s entire statement:
    “Radical Islam is not that great a threat, except for our dependence on oil, which we can do something about. ”

    If the Middle East was exporting bananas, we would have a presence there, and thus, Muslims would pay little attention to us. Probably still be killing each other though.

    Dorian, nice foreign policy, let’s crush anyone who get’s in our way. Ask an Apache, Souix, Navajo, etc how that worked out for them. After all, they were “savages” and they rejected Jesus Christ…. right?

  19. IndyInjun says:

    DCW – I would say that putting us in enslavement to the Chinese, our rivals for oil and resources in the near future , is a much greater threat.

    Radical Islam is ensconced in pockets in over a hundred countries and defies having armies to root them out.

    Pakistan actually met all of the criteria cited for going to war with Iraq, yet we are sending them your money.

    Does this sound like the main GOP position is really and truly conducting a war on terror, or is it just a war on Muslim countries that Bush does not like?

    I do believe than Ron Paul is serious enough and sane enough to refrain from making a prized possession out of Saddam’s pistol, as the vindictively immature Bush did.

    Real conservatives use their brains for more than a hat rack.

  20. Inside_Man says:

    Anyone who paid more than cursory attention to world politics and history would know that there is a reason for the USS Cole, embassy bombings, world trade center attacks, and barracks bombings. I’ll give you a hint: it’s NOT because we are “free”, have a democracy, and drive nice cars and live in nice houses. Envy of some far flung country’s nebulous wealth and happiness never motivated anyone to kill or die trying (and succeeding). Our policies as an imperial power have certain consequences, one of those being fostering a violent reaction against us.

    This is precisely what has occurred in the Middle East. OBL said as much in his 1996 “declaration of jihad against zionists and crusaders.” We have our own interests, to be sure, and we should pursue them, but only so long as they continue to serve our greater good and not our foolish desires.

    Why not try something different a leave them their desert wasteland? I’m sure our boys would prefer the greener fields of home.

  21. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Rugby, the would probably pay less attention to us and more attention to overthrowing the secular governments in the region, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Morrocco, Algeria…to name a few. And of course Isreal. They would still view us as an enemy simply because we aid and support these secular nations. I wish there was an easy answer, but I see and respect the point of your question.

  22. dorian says:

    Of course, we should just turn the other cheek. No matter how many of us they kill. After all, we deserve it, right? Our imperialist foreign policy is to blame. These savages always go along with peace treaties and cease fires. I think we should declare a “Hug a Muslim Terrorist” day”. Who wants to sing Kum-By-Ya?

  23. Demonbeck says:

    Did you ask him, “How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?”

    Oh, well, I guess the world may never know.

  24. dcraigwhite says:

    We were attacked by al Qaeda before we were in Afganistan. We were attacked by al Qaeda before we were in Iraq. Who’s to say that by leaving we’re absolving ourselves from potential conflict? That logic is absolutely unfounded.

    Dependence on Mid-East oil is a problem, but it’s a distinctly different problem then radical islamic terrorism. The two are not hand-in-hand.

    Loyalty, under your theories, we leave our allies, the secular governments in the region to fend for themselves. Is this responsible foriegn policy? At least at this point we have somewhat like-minded leaders in the region who cooperate with us against this threat.

    Indy, I would agree that our current “involvement” with the Chinese is sketch at best, but the Chinese aren’t bombing our buildings and killing innocent Americans at every chance they get. It’s a diplomatic dilemma, one that requires a new leader who will take a stronger stance towards China, specifically in the economic field.

    None of us want war, some of us, however, realize that in certain instances, war is necessary to maintain the freedoms of many as well as grant liberty to those under tyranny.

  25. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    DCraig, I never said abandon our allies. In fact I acknowledged that if we physically pulled out, we would still be a target due to our continued aid to such secular governments. Trust me, I’m a strong believer of the Nixon Doctrine.

    Personally, I would have made a deal with Sadaam in which we’d lift the oil sanctions (maybe get some cheap oil too) and leave him in power if he provided assistance in ferreting out al-Qaida, Hezzbollah, Hamas in the region. After all, there was no such thing “al-Quaida in Iraq” before we invaded.

    And yes, you’re correct when you say we were attacked before we were in Afghanistan or in Iraq, but it goes back much further than that. Mosaddeq, corrupt Saudi families, supporting both sides during the Iran-Iraq war, Israel….they can go on and with the reasons, true or not, why they hate us. But as Inside Man pointed out, they don’t hate us because we’re a free or wealthy nation.

    As for China? Who knows? Your friends today could be your enemies tomorrow, and vice versa. Look at Japan, we never had a history of poor relations with Japan until the early 1930s. And even when they set out to go to war, they did it with much reluctance, especially the navy with its American-educated admirals who knew that they, and not the army, would bear the burden of any war with the US. But I digress. Good night folks. See ya in the AM.

  26. IndyInjun says:

    DCW – How do we PAY for this war and how will we MAN it? I keep asking, but if this is a life or death struggle with mortal enemies, doesn’t it behoove we patriots to send our flesh and blood and expend our life savings to protect this great land.

    The actions of the GOP leadership doomed the effort because they evidently don’t buy their own rhetoric about the grand necessity.

    This was the lesson of Vietnam, but Bush and Cheney had “other priorities’ and missed it.

    Why, too, is RON PAUL leading in fund raising among the military?

    As for your slighting of the China danger, you have not had your eye on the ball, the same thing that happened to our misguided POTUS.

    While he was off on a war of revenge to gain Saddam’s pistol as some childish sign of ascendancy, the Chinese have made long term strategic agreements for much of the commodities originating from the African and South American continents.

    While Bush was stupidly fondling Saddam’s pistol, the Chinese were THINKING STRATEGICALLY.

    The commodities they bought to fuel their economy will be denied to us, except at outrageous prices which we will have to pay in depreciated dollars due to the Bush financial madness.

    But then, the Chinamen learned the lessons of Sun Tsu, who taught “To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”

    We need a thinking president, like Ron Paul, not more of the current GOP idiocy.

  27. dorian says:

    Indy, you are right about the Chinese, and it proves my point. Rememeber WWII? The communists got them democratic types chasing the japanese across the county. Then, after the japanese had been defeated the communist army wiped them up. If japan had been hit harder, sooner in the war china would be democratic today.

  28. Donkey Kong says:

    Indy,

    I normally don’t mind your blathering, and normally I enjoy debating with you. But this, however, is absurd:

    “Economics and the reality of our financial situation will eventually require reductions in military spending.”

    As a friend pointed out on CNN a week and a half ago, CNN says the war has cost $567 billion. The 2005 Medicare Trustees Report places the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, which demands NEW tax revenues to cover, is $2.3 trillion over 10 years, FOUR TIMES the cost of the Iraq War. Bush’s massive medicare expansion and Congressional free spending is a MUCH bigger issue than the cost of the Iraq War.

    And by the way, that 2.3 trillion dollars of increased taxes is estimated to cost us 815,000 American jobs. Over the next 75 years, the unfunded liabilities of Medicare reaches 29.9 trillion dollars, or 2.7 million American jobs. Now, Indy, what’s the bigger issue here?

    Liberals try to become fiscally conservative by touting the cost of defense, but it just doesn’t work. When you get down to it, liberals are more concerned with helping folks that, good people as they may be, didn’t save enough to cover all the costs of retirement. They don’t understand that if we don’t first protect our people, they may not reach retirement in the first place.

  29. IndyInjun says:

    DK,

    The Medicare D monstrosity is usually the first spending that I rail against, as it is the closest thing I can find to a ‘litmus test’ of who is really a fiscal conservative.

    In this instance I like to use military spending to illustrate the chilling danger of having to fund a war by borrowing from your other adversaries, who just happen to pose a greater danger.

    Too, at least the medicare spending is on-budget, where the war is funded straight from borrowing, hence the legitimacy of my point.

  30. Donkey Kong says:

    Indy,

    Medicare doesn’t protect our people. Defense spending does. If you are concerned about our adversaries, you should also be concerned about defense spending. Borrowing from them is irrelevant if you don’t have a military capable of defending yourself from their attacks.

    You are quite the bear, I’m afraid. If only I knew who you were, I’d sic one of my gold broker friends on you. 😉

    I’m concerned about our economy too. Especially the savings rate. It seems we are so concerned about keeping up with the Jones’ that we want to keep up with their debt level too.

    The borrowing from our adversaries is an added risk that comes from a global economy. If our government issues debt, we run the risk of adversarial countries purchasing it. Its similar to buying the stock of your competitor on Wall Street to gain influence. It’s a dangerous game, but a global economy comes with great bonuses too.

    I think we agree, though, the big issue is for our government to stop spending so much $$. I’m not sure about your age, but it may coming out of your pocket in the future, and I know for certain it’ll be coming out of my pocket. Based on rhetoric, I think Rep. Broun knows this, and I know other GA Reps know it too. I just don’t see enough of them acting on it.

  31. joe says:

    “Why, too, is RON PAUL leading in fund raising among the military?”

    Many would point out that since Ron Paul is very anti Iraq war, his support among the military must be for that reason. I don’t think so. Every 2-6 years, everybody in the military gets to raise their right hand and swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. They take that oath seriously. So does Ron Paul.

  32. IndyInjun says:

    Nah, Gold is not the ticket, silver is.

    Sorry, but I am extremely skeptical of a global economy where the USA bears a crushing load of defense spending as a subsidy for its competititors, Japan, Korea, and Europe, while borrowing the money for it from China, who has furtively signed up vast resources In Africa and South America.

    The Chinese have always been strategic thinkers, with a deep respect for the lessons of history.

    Curiously they have a Muslim problem in western China and use a very simple solution – they exterminate them. They don’t let that stand in the way with trading with Iran, though.

    Ron Paul represents true Free Trade as he does not believe in subsidizing our competition.

    There is also very little doubt here that he would retaliate when the USA is directly attacked and the perps have a known address.

    We both know that we are going to have to pay for the financial excesses. You think later, which would make me happy. The trouble is that my review of the money supply stats makes me think even grizzled old Boomers will pay a hefty inflation tax – greater than ever seen here, as the money creation is greater than ever – and SOON.

  33. IndyInjun says:

    Joe,

    Your point coincides with my thinking. Ron Paul is not cavalier about either the Constitution or the use of force. I think the military has had a gut full of both, as have the rest of us with not nearly so much at stake.

  34. Donkey Kong says:

    “Sorry, but I am extremely skeptical of a global economy where the USA bears a crushing load of defense spending as a subsidy for its competititors, Japan, Korea, and Europe, while borrowing the money for it from China, who has furtively signed up vast resources In Africa and South America.”

    I completely agree. I think the U.S. should institute some kind of either punitive policy or non-interventionist policy with countries that fail to build a sufficient national defense. Either institute some kind of tariff (call it a “defense of global democracy tariff”), from which all revenue will go to our military, or devise some kind of policy that still allows us to fulfill our NATO obligation while taking a much less active role in the defense of other countries.

  35. Donkey Kong says:

    This way, we can tell countries: either you spend your money to build your military, or we’ll spend your money to build our military.

    If we are going to be defending other countries, we should be charging them for the cost. Yes, its in our interest to defend them, but it is MUCH more in their interest than ours.

  36. Inside_Man says:

    Indy,

    Mad props for quoting Master Sun. I think the larger point of this discussion is that there is a better way to deal with other nations (or groups), including our adversaries, than the current administrations’ “smoke ’em out and then….um” policy. The only thing we have to fear from the Chinese is our own sluggishness and lack of competitiveness. Their rising tide can float our boats as well. Next, why deal with Iraq like we have been? Let’s see if I can remember the reasons:

    1) Saddam was linked to 9/11? Nope
    2) Saddam had an active WMD program that posed a proximate threat to the US? Nope
    3) So Iraq can produce more oil? Nope
    4) They’ll welcome us as liberators and turn democratic overnight? Nope, looks like that one didn’t work out so well either. Did I miss any?

    There are proper responses to attacks and imminent threats to our national security. Entering a war without the will to win it and no defined terms for victory is NOT one of them. Bush has let our enemy define the terms of victory just like Hezbullah did to Israel last summer. Now, some authoritarian types might like the prospect of an open ended war against a shadowy enemy, because you could pretty much justify anything in the cause of defeating them, even though once you had gone that far it would never really be in your interest to actually defeat them, would it? An enlightened Republic, as our nation has been accused of being at times through our history, should eschew fool’s errands like exporting democracy through gun barrels. Why not be Reagan’s Shining City on a Hill rather than Bush’s Besieged Bunker Nation?

Comments are closed.