So it's really annoying but beneficial to watch a Ron Paul video with an Obama add in the side-bar. It makes me think about why Ron Paul is a much better choice.
@j03y2fly Because I believe Ron Paul's record. President Obama has continued the same foreign policy of Bush, Clinton, etc. We continue to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan despite campaign promises from Obama. We continue to threaten Iran. Libya may have turned out well but we spent a lot of money we don't have. Our debt is staggering now after Bush and Obama. Obama has done nothing about repealing the Patriot Act and has continued government interference in the economy, which I believe doesn't help.
@appalachian122 Isn't Iran a terrorist supporting nation? If we were going to go to war with terrorists, wouldn't be going to war with Iran be the next best thing? Why would we allow a nation that supports terrorists to get a nuclear bomb?
Honestly I can't even compare the debt of the last Bush to Obama's debt - it just went up so astronomically fast the past four years.
Could you elaborate on how Clinton's foreign policy was bad (as I'm assuming you implied)?
@j03y2fly The new threats are strange. "war with terrorists" is a strange concept because they are not just one country and to do so we've had to violate the sovereignty of other nations. I'm saying we should keep an eye on Iran but we shouldn't be talking about preemptive war when they are not at any significant stage of developing a weapon and the talk of war probably makes it more likely they'll try to. As for Clinton, he continued presidential decisions on bombing countries without approval.
@j03y2fly Clinton bombed Iraq continuously after we had eliminated any potential threat, inciting more hatred toward us, etc. In short he continued the policy of a President deciding to commit acts of war without congressional approval. While he didn't get us bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't like the precedents he continued that are still used today.
@j03y2fly Iran has not acted against us directly. They are oppressive and questionable in what they do, but we have meddled in the country for years. The Shah, the Iran-Iraq war, etc. All the talk of war is more likely to push them to acquire nukes as a deterrent against U.S. aggression. We talk about war with them long before they even are close to acquiring a nuke. I say keep a close eye, but don't make it like Iraq and go to war when they have no WMDS.
@appalachian122 But Iran does openly support terrorists groups that are "at war" with America. It's nearly impossible to go to war with terrorists because they blend in with everyday civilians. However, if America was able to stop their funding from the theocratic government of Iran, wouldn't that increase our national defense? Even if we do attack Iran, they're a 3rd world country against us and will never be a direct threat, unless we allow them to build a nuke.
@j03y2fly If we do a preemptive strike against Iran now, it could very well harm our national security by turning even more people against us. We have to consider winning the "hearts and minds" aspect of this. I'm maintaining that it is premature and irresponsible to be discussing war with Iran long before they're close to building a nuclear weapon. If they do build one, the most I'd say is just take out the facilities or let Israel handle it. No nation building. No invasion.
@appalachian122 I just want to let you know that I've been on your side from the beginning, hence why I uploaded this video and that I'm such a huge Ron Paul supporter. I do find it fun however to take the other position to get their perceptive of the argument.
I'm assuming the counter-argument to your previous comment is that the Iran government already hates us. We're not going to win the hearts and minds of a theocratic, radical, terrorist supporting government. Why let them get that far?
@j03y2fly I understand. I was surprised, but it is a good way to have to think about our positions. We might not win the hearts and minds of their government, but we can try with the people. I think no matter how oppressed they are the people of Iran will have their say one day. I still think that discussing war is premature at this point. They are not currently a serious threat and we don't have the money to launch another war. In all honesty I think our debt is a bigger problem right now.
@appalachian122 Do you support bringing all of our troops home from places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, South Korea, and the other 900 military outposts in over 104 countries across the world?
@j03y2fly In many cases, yes. I can somewhat understand the strategy of keeping bases in the countries of allies so they can be jumping points if the troops are needed. That said, we've had troops in Korea for over 50 years. I think at the least we need a draw down of the number of troops we have deployed around the world. I think we should do that before the debt becomes too large and we have to pull back anyway.
Mine keeps saying error as well. Bull shit I bet I can play a Romney or Obama video... lets try
fiolds350 3 weeks ago
Tried watching this video and it's telling me an error occured. Hmmmph! Propaganda!
Demure2358 2 months ago
All I can say is that if I gave Obama a chance, might as well give Ron a chance too.
gee10000 4 months ago 7
So it's really annoying but beneficial to watch a Ron Paul video with an Obama add in the side-bar. It makes me think about why Ron Paul is a much better choice.
appalachian122 5 months ago
@appalachian122 Tell me why
j03y2fly 5 months ago
@j03y2fly Because I believe Ron Paul's record. President Obama has continued the same foreign policy of Bush, Clinton, etc. We continue to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan despite campaign promises from Obama. We continue to threaten Iran. Libya may have turned out well but we spent a lot of money we don't have. Our debt is staggering now after Bush and Obama. Obama has done nothing about repealing the Patriot Act and has continued government interference in the economy, which I believe doesn't help.
appalachian122 5 months ago
@appalachian122 Isn't Iran a terrorist supporting nation? If we were going to go to war with terrorists, wouldn't be going to war with Iran be the next best thing? Why would we allow a nation that supports terrorists to get a nuclear bomb?
Honestly I can't even compare the debt of the last Bush to Obama's debt - it just went up so astronomically fast the past four years.
Could you elaborate on how Clinton's foreign policy was bad (as I'm assuming you implied)?
Other than that I agree.
j03y2fly 5 months ago
@j03y2fly The new threats are strange. "war with terrorists" is a strange concept because they are not just one country and to do so we've had to violate the sovereignty of other nations. I'm saying we should keep an eye on Iran but we shouldn't be talking about preemptive war when they are not at any significant stage of developing a weapon and the talk of war probably makes it more likely they'll try to. As for Clinton, he continued presidential decisions on bombing countries without approval.
appalachian122 5 months ago
@j03y2fly Clinton bombed Iraq continuously after we had eliminated any potential threat, inciting more hatred toward us, etc. In short he continued the policy of a President deciding to commit acts of war without congressional approval. While he didn't get us bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't like the precedents he continued that are still used today.
appalachian122 5 months ago
@appalachian122 Ah I see. Can you address my questions regarding Iran as well?
j03y2fly 5 months ago
@j03y2fly Iran has not acted against us directly. They are oppressive and questionable in what they do, but we have meddled in the country for years. The Shah, the Iran-Iraq war, etc. All the talk of war is more likely to push them to acquire nukes as a deterrent against U.S. aggression. We talk about war with them long before they even are close to acquiring a nuke. I say keep a close eye, but don't make it like Iraq and go to war when they have no WMDS.
appalachian122 5 months ago
@appalachian122 But Iran does openly support terrorists groups that are "at war" with America. It's nearly impossible to go to war with terrorists because they blend in with everyday civilians. However, if America was able to stop their funding from the theocratic government of Iran, wouldn't that increase our national defense? Even if we do attack Iran, they're a 3rd world country against us and will never be a direct threat, unless we allow them to build a nuke.
j03y2fly 5 months ago
@j03y2fly If we do a preemptive strike against Iran now, it could very well harm our national security by turning even more people against us. We have to consider winning the "hearts and minds" aspect of this. I'm maintaining that it is premature and irresponsible to be discussing war with Iran long before they're close to building a nuclear weapon. If they do build one, the most I'd say is just take out the facilities or let Israel handle it. No nation building. No invasion.
appalachian122 5 months ago
@appalachian122 I just want to let you know that I've been on your side from the beginning, hence why I uploaded this video and that I'm such a huge Ron Paul supporter. I do find it fun however to take the other position to get their perceptive of the argument.
I'm assuming the counter-argument to your previous comment is that the Iran government already hates us. We're not going to win the hearts and minds of a theocratic, radical, terrorist supporting government. Why let them get that far?
j03y2fly 5 months ago
@j03y2fly I understand. I was surprised, but it is a good way to have to think about our positions. We might not win the hearts and minds of their government, but we can try with the people. I think no matter how oppressed they are the people of Iran will have their say one day. I still think that discussing war is premature at this point. They are not currently a serious threat and we don't have the money to launch another war. In all honesty I think our debt is a bigger problem right now.
appalachian122 5 months ago
@appalachian122 Do you support bringing all of our troops home from places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, South Korea, and the other 900 military outposts in over 104 countries across the world?
j03y2fly 5 months ago
@j03y2fly In many cases, yes. I can somewhat understand the strategy of keeping bases in the countries of allies so they can be jumping points if the troops are needed. That said, we've had troops in Korea for over 50 years. I think at the least we need a draw down of the number of troops we have deployed around the world. I think we should do that before the debt becomes too large and we have to pull back anyway.
appalachian122 5 months ago
Thumbs downs are a result of Cognitive Dissonance.
chewbaca1989 5 months ago