I wouldn't really call it austerity though because usually tax increases are part of austerity programs, where as Paul wants to lower taxes for everyone.
Thank you Judge Nap. I absolutely love your show. I thinks its awesome that every night of the week your on telling America the truth. Its time America stands up for their Constitution. People need to realize that Ron Paul is fighting for both Republicans and Democrats to be free to choose their party, religion. sexual preference and other personal things in their life. Its time the government gets out of the way of "We the People's" Constitution. And quit micro managing what isn't theirs.
Ah, a Ron Paul commercial. His foreign policy is so bad he is disqualified as a presidential candidate. He should either be our Treasury Secretary, or should be put out to pasture.
If Ron Paul is the nominee, I stay home on election day.
@KarlUshanka His foreign policy is so bad that it follows the Constitution and would save us lives and money. But then again, what if we had let Saddam Hussein get those weapons of mass destructions we were told he had? Oh wait that's right, that was a LIE like all the other LIES they tell us to trick us into supporting their wars.
@dubified89 I understand your comment. You Ron Paul people are this close to actually winning something, and you already know how it will turn out. After Iowa, he's toast. Love his consistency on the Constitution when it comes to domestic policy, but the guy is an idiot when trying to apply it to today's foreign threats. Go smoke your weed somewhere else.
@Meriadoc1234 Thanks for the link. I watched the first 5 minutes, and saw it for what it was: an effort to push Ron Paul's stupid foreign policy by using veterans as your moral foundation.
I served for 14 years and here is my opinion on vets and politics: the spread is roughly the same as the general population - Dems, Reps, and loons. The beauty of the military is it is truly representative of the people they defend.
@casualdissent The Ron Paul supporters should start giving some thought to who you'll support when Ron Paul fades out of the primaries. You're only left with Obama if your primary issue is legalizing pot. And if you really want to pull all the troops home and cripple our national security, Obama is again your only option.
The fact that he has had such an impact on the American culture will likely ensure the rise of his supporters rising up to fill that role when necessary, but in the mean time the obvious answer is Gary Johnson, although I admittedly don't know nearly as much about the man, his track record as governor (which Ron Paul lacks), business experience, and similar libertarian beliefs all mean that he's likely to be his de facto 'replacement' when Ron Paul's career is over.
We hear this quite a bit from anti-Ron Paul people. Check out this video -- it addresses his foreign policy and is nicely produced: /watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo
@asphyxiafeeling Since the banks created the money from mortgages out of nothing. why cannot ron paul call that illegal and absolve all home/business owners of all debt. Because the promissory note contract is unconstitutionally illegal. What will happen if all debt is absolved? Imagine, instant money to spend for everyone. And anytime anyone wants to borrow, they will have to borrow real money. 100% reserve banking allowed. No more money creation.
This is where I disagree with libertarians and this is where they are foolish. You should not cut military spending because for one thing it is very clearly stated in the constitution that you all claim to follow that this is basically the only thing the government should run. The military and military contractors are leaders in the world of innovation that including military and civilian advances. Now more than ever we need are a strong military. Such statements are both foolish and arrogant.
I'm beginning to wonder how long it will be before someone(s) press the judge to go back into public service.
As an anti-statist I've formed the opinion that the worst thing for my goals is an honest politician because they fool people into believing the state can ever be beneficial, but the fact is the state exists, and if people like the Judge & Ron Paul & Gary Johnson are available to lighten the burden of govt then...
@UtubeMyAccountName Thank you for throwing Gary Johnsons name in there as well. I'm glad people are also considering him a viable candidate for ending the overwhelming power/obtrusion of the state.
@TylersCool45 Of course not, do not be silly. War is not desirable in anyway, yet it is a part of reality. When we appease, we instantaneously encourage attack. We need a strong a robust defense. This is what virtually all conservative thinkers have agreed on from Locke all the way to Reagan. Virtually no conservative has endorsed Ron "Chamberlain" Paul's foriegn policy. Tell me, can you give me one conservative writer or thinker who has shared Paul's foriegn policy?
@willden15 You seem to be operating under a false premise
There is a big difference between Chamberlain's cowardice in the face of aggression, and Paul's advocacy of non-intervention.
...and as for thinkers who have shared Paul's foreign policy views, I believe you must be talking about modern times, because our very first & later our third presidents, as well as most of the others up to Woodrow Wilson (with some obvious exceptions 'Teddy Roosevelt') have all shared Paul's opinion.
@UtubeMyAccountName I am not arguing interventionism versus non-intervetionism; I am arguing appeasement versus strength. Paul will not stand up to our enemies even when there is 100% chance of attack, as he proved with his non "answer" to the Fox News debate question on the subject. Also, how do you explain both the quasi-wars of Adams and Jefferson and the war of 1812 under Madison. None of those men tried to befriend their enemies.
@willden15 Again you confuse non-interventionism, with an unwillingness to fight.
You'll notice I skipped over Adams (though one my favorite FF's, not one of the better Presidents), and the war of 1812 much like the Revolution was provoked by Britain.
Also, Paul as a military veteran, has pretty much shown his willingness to fight & die. Let's see, how many of the other (conservative) candidates are veterans...?
...and where is this '100% chance of attack' coming from?
@UtubeMyAccountName It was a hypothetical posed to Paul in the last debate to which he would give no answer. Paul is unwilling to fight. You forgot Jefferson by the way who waged a quasi-war with no congressional approval. Lets us not forget though, we are on the same side, you would vote for the Republican over Obama if it was not Paul correct? I am not for nation building. I am for defense. I do not believe Paul will defend us. So now we are arguing about a candidate.
@willden15 I haven't seen the debate so I can't really comment, but I'm skeptical Paul would refuse to fight in the face of aggression.
I don't really see much difference between Obama & the rest of the Republican offerings. So while I don't want another term of Obama, I can't really see how anyone but Paul (like Goldwater) offers any true change, their histories are their to see.
...and not to make excuses, but Jefferson was full of contradictions between what he said & what he did.
@UtubeMyAccountName Well, Obama is a straight Alinksyite, none of the other candidates are so that is a big difference. Paul's foriegn policy does not follow the first five presidents. I am sure you would not support Washington's handling of the Shays Rebellion either. Also, Washington did not completely ignore the the war going on during his administration either. His issuance of the Jay Treaty insinuated an allegiance to Britain. So the founders and Paul are not the same.
@willden15 Shays rebellion is Art of Conf, not Constitution. Washington grew as a statesmen, let's not forget Jefferson didn't start out a non-interventionist either. Paul is a non-interventionist, as were most of our first 28 presidents, technical differences are to be expected.
Not to make excuses, but that treaty was Jay's baby. John Jay a prominent federalist (what's known today as a nationalist).
Obama is a nightmare, no one argues, but who besides Paul offers real difference?
@willden15 First off when did ROn Paul say get rid of the military? He simply said get out of foreign nations and not to imperalize- a conservative value. A strong defense is much different from the neo conservative values shared by republicans today. And yes i can tell you many but i will just tell you my favorite Thomas E Woods, but can you tell me who you think a modern conservative is? Ron Paul is the most conservative republican running for office.
@TylersCool45 No one is arguing for imperialism. That is a straw man. Did you know Paul voted to use military action against Afghanistan? I stand on the shoulder of Locke, Montesquieu, Burke, Churchill, Goldwater, Friedman, Sowell, Thatcher, Reagan and many others. None of whom believe in Paul's foreign policy. He will not attack Iran if the have Nukes and there was a 100% chance of attack. He stated as much in the last debate.
@willden15 I'm sure if anyone of those guys found You on their shoulders, they would swiftly knock you down and tell you to stop telling people that you speak for them.
I'm assuming that you've read Sowell's latest collum, where in it he listed the reasons to vote for Gingrich. You must remember that he is not endorsing Gingrich, but rather listing acheivments for a member of the Hoover institution, of which Sowell is a senior fellow.
@willden15 okay, let me just ask you; is your only problem with Paul his foreign policy?
...because that seems a very thin reason to oppose him, unless you want to be an empire. I can't really believe, you believe a veteran is afraid to fight, so there must be something else.
@UtubeMyAccountName I do not want to be an empire. I want us to have a man (or woman) in office who does not appease our enemies. If Paul is the nominee I will vote for him, but i would rather not. We need someone with strong foreign policy. A Burke, Churchill, Thatcher, oir Reagan. Not a Chamberlain.
@ffrank345 I am not speaking for them! I am telling you the positions that they took and since they openly wrote their positions, I am certain they would have no problem with me quoting them (or paraphrasing). Other than that I do not know what your point is.
@willden15 Of course not, i thought u were avocating for Neo Cons. I don't understand how you can think friedman and sowells views are very different from Ron Paul's. Ron PAul is not a pacifist like you are stating he believes in the non agression principle, do you honestly think he would not defend the USA if we were attacked, please... you already proved he would when he wanted to go after those responsible for 911. He just doesnt want to "spread democracy" like many others.
@TylersCool45 I understand that. Gingrich has not advocated to spread democracy, Bachmann and Santorum have not advocated to spread democracy. Virtually no one is arguing to spread democracy to Iran. Paul, stated that both wars were illegal, yet he voted for one. Paul would not answer that question in a debate saying yes i will attack Iran if they were going to attack us. Furthermore, Sowell is not a Paul guy, read A Conflict of Visions, Paul is unconstrained with foreign policy.
@willden15 No what i meant was that i thought u were a neo conservative so i did not straw man you. The people you listed are clear conservative, but i cant see how Ron Paul is any different.
@TylersCool45 Which of those had the same foreign policy positions as Paul? That is the difference. Paul does not share their foreign policy; his policy is similar to McGovern's or Chamberlain's.
@willden15 Sowells and Friedman's is whose im most familar with. Friedman has said the only war he would have supported in the 20th century is war with Japan, he did not support the iraq war, and Sowells is more or less the same. Friedman considered himself a non interventionist, as does Ron Paul,I will say once again Ron beleivs in the Non Agression Principle, which is to not attack unless under threat of attack or attack itself, he only beleives in self defense, not nation building
@TylersCool45 Tyler, I feel as though you are not listening to me. Have you Read Sowell's A Conflict of Visions. He talks about this in that book. He believes it is very unconstrained to be an appeaser. As for Friedman I have read two of his books and never got that out of either of them.I have never heard Friedman talk much about foriegn policy, only as it relates to economics (i.e Trade Sanctions). Ron Paul would not even say he would fight back if attacked in the last debate,
@willden15 Russell Kirk was a giant of conservative thought and he did not believe in a interventionist foreign policy. Even William F. Buckley did not care for the over reach of George W. Bush's foreign policy. There historically has been a strong non-interventionist foreign policy strain in the the republican party and in conservatism. Reagan himself was not much of an interventionist, dont believe me ask Pat Buchanan who worked for Reagan.
@WSOR4025 You did not read this conversation. Buckley, Goldwater, Kirk, and the rest would have not problem covertly destroying a nuke in Iran. Reagan did it in Iraq, covertly. None of those men would blame America when we were attacked. In fact, Buckley had that debate with Chomsky. None of those men would have a problem attacking another country if their sights were aimed at us. Ron Paul's foreign policy is blame America first and befriend our enemies. It is to the left of Obama.
@WSOR4025 Plus there is a difference between non-interventionism and appeasement; you don't seem to know that difference. Read Conscience of a Conservative. Read Buckley's works, watch and read Reagan and read about his presidency.
That's right. Ron Paul is the ONLY ONE. You can't deal with the welfare programs but at least you can cut the military-industrial-complex. Once we are friends with China and Iran because RP will not provoke them you need far less than the navy at the beginning of WW1.
Better to cut the military with the help of anti-American leftist and then just let the auto-pilot welfare programs grow.
At least RP is only for good federal subsidies like "alternative fuels".
This is where I disagree with libertarians and this is where they are foolish. You should not cut military spending because for one thing it is very clearly stated in the constitution that you all claim to follow that this is basically the only thing the government should run. The military and military contractors are leaders in the world of innovation that including military and civilian advances. Now more than ever we need are a strong military. Such statements are both foolish and arrogant.
@xHippieHunter Libertarians, such as Ron Paul, want to cut military spending but not defense spending. There is a very subtle but big difference! I would not leave my country undefended but I would like to see less military action!
@RFoxUK Sure I don't want these pointless wars but did you not watch the video? He was stating that the planes we have are useless? Are you kidding me? They want to go deeper into Military or defense spending, they are both the same. This is complete word play. He speaks about the pentagon they would do both of your so called military spending and defense spending. This is simply false and not to mention this whole notion that we spend that most on military than the rest of the world is false.
@RFoxUK Ron Paul would not answer a hypothetical question about attacking Iran in the Fox debate. The hypothetical question involved defense, not military police action. Paul essentially said he would not attack Iran if we were 100% certain they had nukes and they were going to attack us. That is not conservative, that is a Chamberlain foriegn policy.
@Joe11Blue No actually it was. I have seen it. Paul tried to change the scenario and say what he perceived to be reality, but it was a hypothetical. Now, I know Paul's word is your gospel and I know he is the omnipotent in your eyes, but it would do you good to listen to other people. Trust me, Paul is not the end all be all.
@willden15 Uhh, I just watched it again. You are still wrong.
It's nice that you can create these fantasies in your mind about what others are doing and saying, but you really should keep it to yourself. You are causing others to have irrational fears of people they do not know that live 10K miles away. Trust you over my own mind? Yeah how about you go fuck yourself instead?
Ron Paul is about extreme austerity, which doesn't work, since millions of people depend on govt and built there savings around it. We should balance the budget through spending cuts, but we shouldn't decrease govt spending by 80%, which Ron Paul wants to do. Create a stable economy first by balancing the budget, and then initiate reforms that give states more control over what happens in their state.
We can go back to pre 1930's level of govt spending, but to do it overnight is irresponsible.
80% decreased spending will not happen in 1, 4, nor in 8 years maybe. The plan is to gradually transition from a depending society to a less depending one.
What you're saying is an exaggeration and want nothing but strike fear in the hearts of the distracted ones.
@asperin Yes, because I am the overlord of propaganda lol.
Ron Paul wants to eliminate how many govt departments? A good chunk. No more spending on medicare (he said it's unconstitutional). Medicare alone takes up 1/4th of the U.S. budget. Defense takes up 20% and he wants to draw that down to what, 5%. Discretionary spending (earmarks) make up about 19%, I'm pretty sure he's against earmarks. The budget is only 3.5 trillion, he want to cut 1 trillion in one year, whats that tell you?
@RangerMcFriendlie Obviously the concept of that video went way over your head. Quarters do not represent interest bearing debt (neither does the 2 dollar bill) as the rest of our money does. So you are going to discredit someone based on a 15 minute video that you didn't understand in the least bit? Please tell me how you think we should go about paying off this debt (which is based in fraud).
@slumberingsam I've seen his money masters video to know he is full of it. He said once Rome left gold and silver they liberated themselves from the rich's control on money, coined a bunch of money (with lead), and prospered. That is completely false. Rome had huge inflationary problems that eventually began to destroy the people's wealth, but to your question.
It's really simple. Pay back what we borrowed? Going back to a 2004 budget for example (oh no, the horror!)
Even when americans even have jobs, you still can't make enough to keep up with inflation & medical cost produced by you know who. Get the debt down would allow funding for cuts in all types of cost to us.
Greek austerity is bad, America austerity is GOOD
hadith04 1 month ago
Well said Judge. Well said.
jimbo525SE 2 months ago
I wouldn't really call it austerity though because usually tax increases are part of austerity programs, where as Paul wants to lower taxes for everyone.
dubified89 2 months ago
Thank you Judge Nap. I absolutely love your show. I thinks its awesome that every night of the week your on telling America the truth. Its time America stands up for their Constitution. People need to realize that Ron Paul is fighting for both Republicans and Democrats to be free to choose their party, religion. sexual preference and other personal things in their life. Its time the government gets out of the way of "We the People's" Constitution. And quit micro managing what isn't theirs.
cableguy841 2 months ago
The only one?
What about Garry?
MultiFortunatus 2 months ago
Ah, a Ron Paul commercial. His foreign policy is so bad he is disqualified as a presidential candidate. He should either be our Treasury Secretary, or should be put out to pasture.
If Ron Paul is the nominee, I stay home on election day.
KarlUshanka 2 months ago
@KarlUshanka His foreign policy is so bad that it follows the Constitution and would save us lives and money. But then again, what if we had let Saddam Hussein get those weapons of mass destructions we were told he had? Oh wait that's right, that was a LIE like all the other LIES they tell us to trick us into supporting their wars.
dubified89 2 months ago
@dubified89 I understand your comment. You Ron Paul people are this close to actually winning something, and you already know how it will turn out. After Iowa, he's toast. Love his consistency on the Constitution when it comes to domestic policy, but the guy is an idiot when trying to apply it to today's foreign threats. Go smoke your weed somewhere else.
KarlUshanka 2 months ago
@KarlUshanka If you haven't seen this video already, you should watch it.
watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo
Or search, You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy.
Meriadoc1234 1 month ago
@Meriadoc1234 Thanks for the link. I watched the first 5 minutes, and saw it for what it was: an effort to push Ron Paul's stupid foreign policy by using veterans as your moral foundation.
I served for 14 years and here is my opinion on vets and politics: the spread is roughly the same as the general population - Dems, Reps, and loons. The beauty of the military is it is truly representative of the people they defend.
I'll give you credit - you're on offense on this.
KarlUshanka 1 month ago
@KarlUshanka
>"If Ron Paul is the nominee, I stay home on election day."
He'd win without you.
casualdissent 1 month ago
@casualdissent The Ron Paul supporters should start giving some thought to who you'll support when Ron Paul fades out of the primaries. You're only left with Obama if your primary issue is legalizing pot. And if you really want to pull all the troops home and cripple our national security, Obama is again your only option.
KarlUshanka 1 month ago
@KarlUshanka
The fact that he has had such an impact on the American culture will likely ensure the rise of his supporters rising up to fill that role when necessary, but in the mean time the obvious answer is Gary Johnson, although I admittedly don't know nearly as much about the man, his track record as governor (which Ron Paul lacks), business experience, and similar libertarian beliefs all mean that he's likely to be his de facto 'replacement' when Ron Paul's career is over.
casualdissent 1 month ago
Why does it seem it's the Judge and Stossel v. FNC?
amindbody 2 months ago
Yap, we can shrink the gov on our terms (now) are we can all shrink on reality's terms a little later. Great closer Judge!
reardenmedals 2 months ago
I hope Ron picks The Judge as his VP...
melodicdreamer72 2 months ago
@melodicdreamer72 I hope Paul does not get the chance to choose.
willden15 2 months ago
vote Ron Paul
supoaldb 2 months ago
@supoaldb No.
willden15 2 months ago
well well this is a good exposition...very good.
se7ensnakes 2 months ago
If only Ron Paul didn't have such a baffoonish foreign policy.
necrom666 2 months ago
@necrom666
We hear this quite a bit from anti-Ron Paul people. Check out this video -- it addresses his foreign policy and is nicely produced: /watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo
FilthyScumX 2 months ago
cruelty toward the power of politicians is mercy to the citizen.
fzqlcs 2 months ago 21
Swallow austerity for ourselves, or loot the thieves from Goldman Sachs // Fannie Mae // Freddie Mac // Government Officials who robbed our nation!!
asphyxiafeeling 2 months ago
@asphyxiafeeling Since the banks created the money from mortgages out of nothing. why cannot ron paul call that illegal and absolve all home/business owners of all debt. Because the promissory note contract is unconstitutionally illegal. What will happen if all debt is absolved? Imagine, instant money to spend for everyone. And anytime anyone wants to borrow, they will have to borrow real money. 100% reserve banking allowed. No more money creation.
se7ensnakes 2 months ago
It's called the non aggression principle.
dd00hli 2 months ago
Napolitano is is one of the few voices of reason in the incoherent mess of media politics.
krakatoa0mikel 2 months ago 2
Comment removed
willden15 2 months ago
I disagree Cain had a plan to seriously cut spending, but you hacks in the media defamed his character to the point where he backed out.
rockinandout 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is where I disagree with libertarians and this is where they are foolish. You should not cut military spending because for one thing it is very clearly stated in the constitution that you all claim to follow that this is basically the only thing the government should run. The military and military contractors are leaders in the world of innovation that including military and civilian advances. Now more than ever we need are a strong military. Such statements are both foolish and arrogant.
xHippieHunter 2 months ago
Ron Paul's the only one. There afew RINO's commenting here.
wellingtonian 2 months ago
The Judge does it again.
I'm beginning to wonder how long it will be before someone(s) press the judge to go back into public service.
As an anti-statist I've formed the opinion that the worst thing for my goals is an honest politician because they fool people into believing the state can ever be beneficial, but the fact is the state exists, and if people like the Judge & Ron Paul & Gary Johnson are available to lighten the burden of govt then...
UtubeMyAccountName 2 months ago 12
@UtubeMyAccountName "press the judge to go back into public service"
Do you mean as a judge, or as a politician?
casualdissent 1 month ago
@casualdissent I don't think a judge can simply un-retire (though I'm not sure), so I can only imagine it would be as a legislator or an executive.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 month ago
@UtubeMyAccountName Thank you for throwing Gary Johnsons name in there as well. I'm glad people are also considering him a viable candidate for ending the overwhelming power/obtrusion of the state.
critter505 1 week ago
I stopped right after he mentioned ron paul in a positive way.
girzwald3 2 months ago
@girzwald3 Ditto. I like to here about conservatives! Not about Paul. I love this channel, but i want a conservative to be president.
willden15 2 months ago
@willden15
do you not know what a conservative is? Do you need to want war to be conservative? Tell me.
TylersCool45 2 months ago
@TylersCool45 Of course not, do not be silly. War is not desirable in anyway, yet it is a part of reality. When we appease, we instantaneously encourage attack. We need a strong a robust defense. This is what virtually all conservative thinkers have agreed on from Locke all the way to Reagan. Virtually no conservative has endorsed Ron "Chamberlain" Paul's foriegn policy. Tell me, can you give me one conservative writer or thinker who has shared Paul's foriegn policy?
willden15 2 months ago
@willden15 You seem to be operating under a false premise
There is a big difference between Chamberlain's cowardice in the face of aggression, and Paul's advocacy of non-intervention.
...and as for thinkers who have shared Paul's foreign policy views, I believe you must be talking about modern times, because our very first & later our third presidents, as well as most of the others up to Woodrow Wilson (with some obvious exceptions 'Teddy Roosevelt') have all shared Paul's opinion.
UtubeMyAccountName 2 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName I am not arguing interventionism versus non-intervetionism; I am arguing appeasement versus strength. Paul will not stand up to our enemies even when there is 100% chance of attack, as he proved with his non "answer" to the Fox News debate question on the subject. Also, how do you explain both the quasi-wars of Adams and Jefferson and the war of 1812 under Madison. None of those men tried to befriend their enemies.
willden15 2 months ago
@willden15 Again you confuse non-interventionism, with an unwillingness to fight.
You'll notice I skipped over Adams (though one my favorite FF's, not one of the better Presidents), and the war of 1812 much like the Revolution was provoked by Britain.
Also, Paul as a military veteran, has pretty much shown his willingness to fight & die. Let's see, how many of the other (conservative) candidates are veterans...?
...and where is this '100% chance of attack' coming from?
UtubeMyAccountName 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UtubeMyAccountName It was a hypothetical posed to Paul in the last debate to which he would give no answer. Paul is unwilling to fight. You forgot Jefferson by the way who waged a quasi-war with no congressional approval. Lets us not forget though, we are on the same side, you would vote for the Republican over Obama if it was not Paul correct? I am not for nation building. I am for defense. I do not believe Paul will defend us. So now we are arguing about a candidate.
willden15 2 months ago
@willden15 I haven't seen the debate so I can't really comment, but I'm skeptical Paul would refuse to fight in the face of aggression.
I don't really see much difference between Obama & the rest of the Republican offerings. So while I don't want another term of Obama, I can't really see how anyone but Paul (like Goldwater) offers any true change, their histories are their to see.
...and not to make excuses, but Jefferson was full of contradictions between what he said & what he did.
UtubeMyAccountName 2 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName Well, Obama is a straight Alinksyite, none of the other candidates are so that is a big difference. Paul's foriegn policy does not follow the first five presidents. I am sure you would not support Washington's handling of the Shays Rebellion either. Also, Washington did not completely ignore the the war going on during his administration either. His issuance of the Jay Treaty insinuated an allegiance to Britain. So the founders and Paul are not the same.
willden15 2 months ago
@willden15 Shays rebellion is Art of Conf, not Constitution. Washington grew as a statesmen, let's not forget Jefferson didn't start out a non-interventionist either. Paul is a non-interventionist, as were most of our first 28 presidents, technical differences are to be expected.
Not to make excuses, but that treaty was Jay's baby. John Jay a prominent federalist (what's known today as a nationalist).
Obama is a nightmare, no one argues, but who besides Paul offers real difference?
UtubeMyAccountName 2 months ago
@willden15 First off when did ROn Paul say get rid of the military? He simply said get out of foreign nations and not to imperalize- a conservative value. A strong defense is much different from the neo conservative values shared by republicans today. And yes i can tell you many but i will just tell you my favorite Thomas E Woods, but can you tell me who you think a modern conservative is? Ron Paul is the most conservative republican running for office.
TylersCool45 2 months ago
@TylersCool45 No one is arguing for imperialism. That is a straw man. Did you know Paul voted to use military action against Afghanistan? I stand on the shoulder of Locke, Montesquieu, Burke, Churchill, Goldwater, Friedman, Sowell, Thatcher, Reagan and many others. None of whom believe in Paul's foreign policy. He will not attack Iran if the have Nukes and there was a 100% chance of attack. He stated as much in the last debate.
willden15 2 months ago
@willden15 I'm sure if anyone of those guys found You on their shoulders, they would swiftly knock you down and tell you to stop telling people that you speak for them.
I'm assuming that you've read Sowell's latest collum, where in it he listed the reasons to vote for Gingrich. You must remember that he is not endorsing Gingrich, but rather listing acheivments for a member of the Hoover institution, of which Sowell is a senior fellow.
ffrank345 2 months ago
@willden15 okay, let me just ask you; is your only problem with Paul his foreign policy?
...because that seems a very thin reason to oppose him, unless you want to be an empire. I can't really believe, you believe a veteran is afraid to fight, so there must be something else.
UtubeMyAccountName 2 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName I do not want to be an empire. I want us to have a man (or woman) in office who does not appease our enemies. If Paul is the nominee I will vote for him, but i would rather not. We need someone with strong foreign policy. A Burke, Churchill, Thatcher, oir Reagan. Not a Chamberlain.
willden15 2 months ago
@ffrank345 I am not speaking for them! I am telling you the positions that they took and since they openly wrote their positions, I am certain they would have no problem with me quoting them (or paraphrasing). Other than that I do not know what your point is.
willden15 2 months ago
@willden15 and lady
ffrank345 2 months ago
@willden15 Of course not, i thought u were avocating for Neo Cons. I don't understand how you can think friedman and sowells views are very different from Ron Paul's. Ron PAul is not a pacifist like you are stating he believes in the non agression principle, do you honestly think he would not defend the USA if we were attacked, please... you already proved he would when he wanted to go after those responsible for 911. He just doesnt want to "spread democracy" like many others.
TylersCool45 2 months ago
@TylersCool45 I understand that. Gingrich has not advocated to spread democracy, Bachmann and Santorum have not advocated to spread democracy. Virtually no one is arguing to spread democracy to Iran. Paul, stated that both wars were illegal, yet he voted for one. Paul would not answer that question in a debate saying yes i will attack Iran if they were going to attack us. Furthermore, Sowell is not a Paul guy, read A Conflict of Visions, Paul is unconstrained with foreign policy.
willden15 2 months ago
@TylersCool45 I am not a Neo-conservative! I hope a disagreement about a candidate will not lead us to attack each other.
willden15 2 months ago
@willden15 No what i meant was that i thought u were a neo conservative so i did not straw man you. The people you listed are clear conservative, but i cant see how Ron Paul is any different.
TylersCool45 2 months ago
@TylersCool45 Which of those had the same foreign policy positions as Paul? That is the difference. Paul does not share their foreign policy; his policy is similar to McGovern's or Chamberlain's.
willden15 2 months ago
@willden15 Sowells and Friedman's is whose im most familar with. Friedman has said the only war he would have supported in the 20th century is war with Japan, he did not support the iraq war, and Sowells is more or less the same. Friedman considered himself a non interventionist, as does Ron Paul,I will say once again Ron beleivs in the Non Agression Principle, which is to not attack unless under threat of attack or attack itself, he only beleives in self defense, not nation building
TylersCool45 2 months ago
@TylersCool45 Tyler, I feel as though you are not listening to me. Have you Read Sowell's A Conflict of Visions. He talks about this in that book. He believes it is very unconstrained to be an appeaser. As for Friedman I have read two of his books and never got that out of either of them.I have never heard Friedman talk much about foriegn policy, only as it relates to economics (i.e Trade Sanctions). Ron Paul would not even say he would fight back if attacked in the last debate,
willden15 2 months ago
@willden15 Russell Kirk was a giant of conservative thought and he did not believe in a interventionist foreign policy. Even William F. Buckley did not care for the over reach of George W. Bush's foreign policy. There historically has been a strong non-interventionist foreign policy strain in the the republican party and in conservatism. Reagan himself was not much of an interventionist, dont believe me ask Pat Buchanan who worked for Reagan.
WSOR4025 2 months ago
@WSOR4025 You did not read this conversation. Buckley, Goldwater, Kirk, and the rest would have not problem covertly destroying a nuke in Iran. Reagan did it in Iraq, covertly. None of those men would blame America when we were attacked. In fact, Buckley had that debate with Chomsky. None of those men would have a problem attacking another country if their sights were aimed at us. Ron Paul's foreign policy is blame America first and befriend our enemies. It is to the left of Obama.
willden15 2 months ago
@WSOR4025 Plus there is a difference between non-interventionism and appeasement; you don't seem to know that difference. Read Conscience of a Conservative. Read Buckley's works, watch and read Reagan and read about his presidency.
willden15 2 months ago
That's right. Ron Paul is the ONLY ONE. You can't deal with the welfare programs but at least you can cut the military-industrial-complex. Once we are friends with China and Iran because RP will not provoke them you need far less than the navy at the beginning of WW1.
Better to cut the military with the help of anti-American leftist and then just let the auto-pilot welfare programs grow.
At least RP is only for good federal subsidies like "alternative fuels".
Ron Paul or scorched earth 2012!
scepticsteve 2 months ago
@scepticsteve Ron Paul is not qualified to be President.
willden15 2 months ago
@willden15 Say who? You some random dipshit on the street?
Joe11Blue 2 months ago
This is where I disagree with libertarians and this is where they are foolish. You should not cut military spending because for one thing it is very clearly stated in the constitution that you all claim to follow that this is basically the only thing the government should run. The military and military contractors are leaders in the world of innovation that including military and civilian advances. Now more than ever we need are a strong military. Such statements are both foolish and arrogant.
xHippieHunter 2 months ago
@xHippieHunter Libertarians, such as Ron Paul, want to cut military spending but not defense spending. There is a very subtle but big difference! I would not leave my country undefended but I would like to see less military action!
RFoxUK 2 months ago
@RFoxUK Sure I don't want these pointless wars but did you not watch the video? He was stating that the planes we have are useless? Are you kidding me? They want to go deeper into Military or defense spending, they are both the same. This is complete word play. He speaks about the pentagon they would do both of your so called military spending and defense spending. This is simply false and not to mention this whole notion that we spend that most on military than the rest of the world is false.
xHippieHunter 2 months ago
@RFoxUK Ron Paul would not answer a hypothetical question about attacking Iran in the Fox debate. The hypothetical question involved defense, not military police action. Paul essentially said he would not attack Iran if we were 100% certain they had nukes and they were going to attack us. That is not conservative, that is a Chamberlain foriegn policy.
willden15 2 months ago
@willden15 That wasn't the scenario, and if you look this account actually has that exchange on it's home page.
Joe11Blue 2 months ago
@Joe11Blue No actually it was. I have seen it. Paul tried to change the scenario and say what he perceived to be reality, but it was a hypothetical. Now, I know Paul's word is your gospel and I know he is the omnipotent in your eyes, but it would do you good to listen to other people. Trust me, Paul is not the end all be all.
willden15 2 months ago
@willden15 Uhh, I just watched it again. You are still wrong.
It's nice that you can create these fantasies in your mind about what others are doing and saying, but you really should keep it to yourself. You are causing others to have irrational fears of people they do not know that live 10K miles away. Trust you over my own mind? Yeah how about you go fuck yourself instead?
Joe11Blue 2 months ago
Comment removed
xHippieHunter 2 months ago
Ron Paul is about extreme austerity, which doesn't work, since millions of people depend on govt and built there savings around it. We should balance the budget through spending cuts, but we shouldn't decrease govt spending by 80%, which Ron Paul wants to do. Create a stable economy first by balancing the budget, and then initiate reforms that give states more control over what happens in their state.
We can go back to pre 1930's level of govt spending, but to do it overnight is irresponsible.
groam6666 2 months ago
@groam6666
80% decreased spending will not happen in 1, 4, nor in 8 years maybe. The plan is to gradually transition from a depending society to a less depending one.
What you're saying is an exaggeration and want nothing but strike fear in the hearts of the distracted ones.
asperin 2 months ago
@asperin Yes, because I am the overlord of propaganda lol.
Ron Paul wants to eliminate how many govt departments? A good chunk. No more spending on medicare (he said it's unconstitutional). Medicare alone takes up 1/4th of the U.S. budget. Defense takes up 20% and he wants to draw that down to what, 5%. Discretionary spending (earmarks) make up about 19%, I'm pretty sure he's against earmarks. The budget is only 3.5 trillion, he want to cut 1 trillion in one year, whats that tell you?
groam6666 2 months ago
@groam6666
Well, in one year it's not even 1/3 of the budget. So "cutting the 80%" was an exaggeration after all.
asperin 2 months ago
No amount of austerity can solve our problem. We MUST reform out monetary system all together. YouTube "The Secret of Oz" by Mr. Bill Still.
slumberingsam 2 months ago
@slumberingsam
No, he's full of it.He said we can just pay the debt by making quarters.
RangerMcFriendlie 2 months ago
@RangerMcFriendlie Obviously the concept of that video went way over your head. Quarters do not represent interest bearing debt (neither does the 2 dollar bill) as the rest of our money does. So you are going to discredit someone based on a 15 minute video that you didn't understand in the least bit? Please tell me how you think we should go about paying off this debt (which is based in fraud).
slumberingsam 2 months ago
@slumberingsam I've seen his money masters video to know he is full of it. He said once Rome left gold and silver they liberated themselves from the rich's control on money, coined a bunch of money (with lead), and prospered. That is completely false. Rome had huge inflationary problems that eventually began to destroy the people's wealth, but to your question.
It's really simple. Pay back what we borrowed? Going back to a 2004 budget for example (oh no, the horror!)
RangerMcFriendlie 2 months ago
What is that song at the beginning of all these videos????
damonthemoney93 2 months ago
Even when americans even have jobs, you still can't make enough to keep up with inflation & medical cost produced by you know who. Get the debt down would allow funding for cuts in all types of cost to us.
shacklesman 2 months ago