@ninjaguy1995 they boo him for saying lets apply the golden rule " don't do to others what you don't want done to you" Yet the cheer for him for saying bring our troops home get out of foreign war. Silly people.
Ron Paul is too principled for the modern Republican party, and that's his problem. Republicans always harp on Christian values, and then Ron Paul comes along and tries to apply Christian values and the Republican response is, "No, no, no! Christian values for the PLEBES only!"
The Golden Rule is only applicable to social situations; it has no place in international affairs. As much as I like Paul, he is dead wrong on this. You cannot simply trust that other nations will do onto you as you do onto them - Golden Rule- when there are millions of lives at risk. Responsible leaders have assurances and plans to insure the safety of those they lead, and trust will never be sufficient.
@CaseyEs Why not? So if another country doesn't trust us with nuclear weapons do they have the right to invade and bomb us. Or starve us with trade sanctions? The U.S. is the ONLY country on planet earth to date to use atomic weapons on other people, and we are worried about Iran? If anything the world should be worried about the U.S.
I watched another South Carolina Debate a few hours ago on CNN and they are obviously trying NOT to give Ron Paul as much air time as the others! They almost tried to pass him over on a question about child-birth until the crowd shouted at the commentator to let Ron Paul speak!
Biased Media scum!
Ron Paul 2012... and I'm not American! Have some decency America. Ron Paul is your ONLY hope.
Has anyone noticed the media is giving this minor Paul boo alot of coverage,,,the crowd really boo'd Romney when he said he would have signed the NDAA! He is Obama's other half!
When all of those people booed Ron Paul, I wish he would've said, "I shouldn't be hearing any booing right now, because everyone who's booing should be overseas fighting in a war if they love it so much". That would've been a serious "che che BOOM" moment.
The Revolution is alive and kicking ass... i only hope the hamburgereating fat and ignorant average USA citizen are following up... But sadly i think NOT... Because USA is a ignorant, stupid, fat lard.. publick... who only interest is more calories... and food for myselves... A sorry fat ugly nation of fat stupid assholes... too bad .. sooo sad...
what is Santorum even thinking, butting heads with Ron Paul on constitutional issues...at least Romney is smart enough to admit that he wouldn't win that battle.
--->> Ron Paul 2012 -- MONEY BOMB <<---- ronpaul2012 . com
Donate toward preserving the liberties which our government has grossly perverted since the founding of our nation. Help restore our rights and freedoms.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke
Ron Paul dominates...Again! He's our last chance people. If you don't try to convince everyone you know of why they should vote for Ron Paul, then you need to step it up. Stop being scared that people will judge you.
He didn't handle that "left of obama" question too good. Looks like they caught him off guard. I would have stated that my policies aren't about left and right, they are about what is morally right and follows the constitution.
@Xenomorphine They are to the average American. It should be constitutional or unconstitutional. Right or wrong. Liberty or tyranny. Left and right is a theater they project to convince you the two party establishments are different, when in reality they aren't.
@jneil2007 They're not mutually exclusive subjects. You can have a policy which is in line with the Constitution and still be either Left or Right. They're legitimate standards by which to measure political philosophies and have stood the test of time.
Doesn't mean you have to object to being Left or Right. It's just for identification purposes.
@Xenomorphine Give me some examples. I would say ron paul's policies are "right" or constitutional based. I don't believe anything "left" is legal. Democrats have most things wrong republicans have some things right. Ron Paul has it all right including Iran, but Fox says he is "left" of Obama on foreign policy. That's why I say left and right mean nothing to me. It's legal or illegal, right or wrong.
@jneil2007 Just check the basic definitions and apply them to his stuff. :)
The "Left of Obama" thing is in regards to 'anti-war' positions typically being a Left wing position. Although, technically, there are those on the Left who approve of intervention when the goal is to protect the liberty and human rights of those who cannot sufficiently defend themselves. They just don't get as much publicity.
As for Iran, couldn't disagree more on what he's said about it.
@Xenomorphine The definitions are bullshit. What parties were involved in getting us into every war? Democrats. WW1, 2, Korea, Vietnam. Bill Clinton was even an interventionist. This left right game is bullshit. You have the choice of establishment or anti establishment. Paul is the only one offering something positive.
@jneil2007 That has nothing to do with the base. The Democrat party BASE are typically 'anti-war' (and I put that in quotations, since leading lights in groups like International ANSWER typically don't mind certain foreign entities using war when it suits their political ideology).
Besides, interventionism is NOT a dirty word. It should be used a lot more effectively. When it's done by half-measures the effect is flawed.
@Xenomorphine Not really. Most democrats support intervention, just not Iraq. If they did they would have complained over Clintons interventions in Somalia and Kosovo. But speaking on interventions. Why are they good? It costs us money and lives. And think if we had internal problems. Would we want Russia or China coming in and sending their troops in our land to solve our political unrest? This is insanity.
@jneil2007 You might want to think back on how controversial amongst the base those decisions were. Perhaps you'll cast your mind back to all the 'anti-war' marches during the Yugoslavian crisis, led by Left-leaning organisations..
Yes, of course military action costs money (not always necessarily lives). If you're in favour of doing absolutely nothing and letting the world go by, you wind up with things like Nazi Germany getting to the stage it had.
@Xenomorphine What about China under chairman Mao's leadership. 60 million Chinese civilians killed by their government. Why didn't we intervene there? Why pick and choose who to police? Did it ever occur to you natural resources or just selling weapons and defense contracting is at stake?
@jneil2007 Just because you can't stop all genocidal atrocities doesn't mean to say you shouldn't try to stop some. Your local police can't stop all rapists and murderers, either - does that mean they should stop pouring resources into trying to apprehend those they can? Because that's where your logic takes you.
That's what being noble is. It's taking action where others would falter. The alternative is appeasement and cowardice - both literal and moral.
@Xenomorphine listen hear you are the reason we are going to get us a dictator killing some one affects other people smoking pot only efects him or she who is doing it are you god can you tell some other adult what to do just because because you dont like it and if it dose affect you could you plese let me know how
@Xenomorphine Taking care of your local community is different than going to war wouldn't you say? As far as money, lives, and resources go. We shouldn't go to war unless there is a threat to us. A real threat and not a made up one.
@jneil2007 It's not as if you're physically incapable of doing both, as history has repeatedly demonstrated. The problem is, Ron Paul seems to have a definition of someone being a 'threat' only after they've taken direct action upon your home soil, which is ludicrously superficial.
@Xenomorphine Not true. If China put their navy on the west coast Paul would consider that a threat. He just doesn't buy into the propoganda that we have to attack 3rd world countries with no military, just because they are a "threat." Aggressive war in not just for any reason.
@jneil2007 Actually, by the standards he's observed, he wouldn't. Not unless China actually made the first strike.
And I'm honestly unsure which mainstream politician has been advocating bombing any old third world country for the sake of it. Unless you're referring to a nuclear-armed Iran, which most certainly would be a threat to you and your allies.
@Xenomorphine Well you have observed wrong. Ron Paul says if they are an iminent threat, which has never happened in our history, he would act. All other threats or attacks on us goes to the Congress for a vote. Remember JFK and Kruchev talked when we both had nukes off each others borders? If we can be diplomatic then we sure can now with Iran. The religious twist appeals to evangelical christians though.
@jneil2007 Except that his standards for 'threat' are clearly not the same as those shared by seasoned military commanders. :)
You can talk with places like Russia and China. Those aren't nations which have the track record Iran does of supporting/arming/funding groups like Hezbullah to fight its proxy wars. Nor are they nations which glorify martyrdom and have been actively and openly calling for the 'Great Satan' (America) to be destroyed/subjugated.
@Xenomorphine Did you just tell me China and Russia did not fund proxy wars? Do you recall who supported North vietnam and north Korea? Russia and China were involved in those wars. Maybe we wouldn't be considered the "great satan" if we didn't intervene in their affairs. You know like overthrowing Irans duly elected leader Mossedeq in 1953 over his oil production changes. He denied BP a monopoly.
@jneil2007 No, I said they don't have the same track record as Iran's more extensive use of it. And yes, actually. Yes, you most surely WOULD still be considered that. Unilaterally pulling out of everywhere wouldn't prevent that. Just look at how HAMAS reacted to Israel pulling out of areas they administered - they didn't ease up. They didn't fire less missiles at them. They declared it a victory and used it to solidify their position - 'proof' that 'killing the Jews' is correct.
@Xenomorphine Ok that is for Israel to deal with, they aren't a 12 year old child. If we left all the bases and wars we are in we would be safer and richer. Who is going to get us over there? All the countries we are occupying have no militaries really, no air force or navy. How do you propose taking care of the elderly and the poor that were promised benefits by keeping this foreing policy? Do you advocate throwing them in the streets to keep occupying the globe?
@jneil2007 I was using the example of as a direct example of what would happen if the US did the same - which is what you're suggesting.
It seems you've forgotten why Afghanistan was gone into: To rid it of the Al Qaeda training camps. Get out of there and you can be sure they'll simply spring right back up, making all the sacrifice so far worthless. You can only do so when the central government is certified as capable of doing the job itself. You only seem to care about money...
@Xenomorphine Money matters because we shouldn't occupy a country and borrow billions of dollars every month to do it and damage our economy. The people want to attack us because we are over there to begin with. You are buying into the war propoganda. Let them have training camps what are they going to do to us if we leave, fly over here and bomb us? The president only had the authority to go after Osama bin Laden not nation build and stay there for a decade.
@jneil2007 Money matters, but not to the exclusion of common sense, let alone human compassion - which is what MAKES us human. Besides which, you weren't 'occupying' anywhere you weren't invited when you got hit on September 11th. Ron Paul wants to go to the opposite extreme and stab allies in the back, leaving them to their doom.
In case you missed 9/11, yes, that's exactly what Al Qaeda did: "Fly over" and bomb you.
Responsibility means you should help rebuild what was destroyed.
@Xenomorphine But if you are facing a currency crisis and hyperinflation, which is the worse type of depression, don't you think you are a lot less safe. I mean when people are going to be starving to death in THIS country. Those saudi arabians flew the planes into the buildings, but how is the whole muslim world guilty? And how are we going to solve this issue by excacerbating the very reason for suicide terrorism: intervention, occupation, sanctions, and bombings!!!
@jneil2007 Your logic is one of saying it's impossible to keep force projection capabilities if going through economic hardship. This is incorrect.
And who claimed "the entire Muslim world is guilty"? You're the only person I know who has. Bush certainly never did - the administration was ALWAYS going to pains to point this out.
@Xenomorphine As you probably already know Paul Wolfowitz admitted having bases in Mecca, an Islamic holy city, is one of the major reasons the Saudi men were motivated to commit suicide terrorism. We removed that base soon after. So the way it goes in our upside down planet, if Wolfowitz says it it's true it's ok and dandy, but if Ron Paul speaks the truth that is unacceptable!!!
@Xenomorphine Their Saudi government is corrupt and bought and paid for by our corrupt government. Doesn't mean THE SAUDI PEOPLE want it. If Obama agreed to have a Chinese bases in America would you be ok with it?
@jneil2007 I honestly don't think anyone would give a damn. You already have Russian personnel stationed on US soil, after all, for disarmament treaty verification. Haven't seen anyone protesting about that.
If you want other countries to hold referendums before hosting bases, oy... I don't even know where to start with that kind of logic. Do you want one don annually? Weekly? Daily? You can't apply it to the real world.
@Xenomorphine Hey that wouldn't surprise me. Our government has supposedly been recruiting foreigners to join the military. I read something about that. And I'm not applying it to the real world?? We have around 900 bases in 130 countries and you are telling me to apply this to the real world?! Please dude spare me the bs excuses. We have no reason to have bases all over the world, history shows that countries that do that destroy themselves financially. We need to bring ALL our troops home.
@jneil2007 By stating you have "no reason" to have bases all over the world means you don't understand the logistic of force projection. Nor do you comprehend the value of defence treaties with allies.
Do what you're hoping for and the US will earn itself a HUGE reputation for stabbing allies in the back who it promised to help protect. It'll mean places like Taiwan get invaded, brutalised and subjugated by China. Why would you want that on your conscience?
@Xenomorphine Because I don't believe in having allies but trade partnerships. I am aware that there will always be problems in the world. America can't solve them all. Most of the propaganda feeds into the good hearts of people like you who don't realize this is just to feed our war machine. The fact is that we sat idly by why Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and countless other governments murdered their own people. Is your conscience feeling it for not stopping all that? That's MILLIONS of people.
@jneil2007 And what do you think trade partners are, if not allies?
Yes. I do wish their subjugation of innocents could have at least been alleviated. Which is not, as you apparently interpret it, history telling you to bury your nation's head in the sand, but instead to work towards a position where such suffering in the future can be either dulled or avoided completely.
Your local police force can't stop all rapes and murders, either. Should they, therefore, ignore every instance?
@Xenomorphine Trade partners are just that trade partners. You will trade with them honestly and not pick sides when they fight. Simply because our young people, money, and resources should not be dedicated year after year to fighting wars. War is a tremendous blow to the spirit and economy of a country. We are still following the Wilsonian policy of "making the world safe for democracy." It's no coincidence we got the federal reserve under his admin. This is what gave birth to statism.
@jneil2007 Then you admit that if this was the 1940s, you'd basically be proposing open trade with the likes of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, no matter what. Since that's precisely what the logical conclusion is of what you are asking for.
Incidentally, doing so would have eventually left the US as little more than a satellite of the Axis, relying upon them.
@Xenomorphine We wouldn't be fighting these wars or accepting endless free lunches if we were DIRECTLY taxed for all of it. Most of the funding for it comes from the federal reserve which LOANS money to the government to accommodate deficit financing. The government would rather create a STEALTH tax (inflation) that own up to the cost of burdensome entitlements and wars. Both of which are immoral and draining our wealth away.
@jneil2007 So, build a better tax system and grow your economy. It doesn't have to affect the military and going back on strategic international treaty obligations.
@Xenomorphine I hate to burst your bubble but war and stretching yourself across the world is just as bad as welfare spending. Economically of course. Soldiers don't produce they destroy. The get paid to do nothing or destroy. That's why you only want to use them when you need to defend yourself. Not pretend we can change the world by force of arms.
@jneil2007 "Soldiers don't produce they destroy. The get paid to do nothing or destroy."
Yeah, except for all those hospitals, schools and roads they help to create and neighbourhoods they help to secure, until the host government is strong enough to do so for itself...
That you would try to make out the military is a purely destructive force speaks volumes.
@Xenomorphine Ok I forgot to mention that they do some good things at times, but with OUR TAX DOLLARS . But 98% of the time they are killing and destroying. All of our unfunded liabilities are bankrupt and you want to build roads in Afghanistan? We need to spend on our infrastructure as well. How about using our troops to secure our borders and help border control. How about we let our people opt out and use the slashed overseas money to wean people off of welfare. Get back to self reliance.
@jneil2007 No, if they were "killing and destroying" 98% of the time, you'd have next to no munitions left and millions of people dying per DAY. Most things the military do are frightfully mundane and have nothing to do with death or violence. That's a laughable stereotype believed only by people who watch ridiculously superficial movies like 'Starship Troopers'.
Your military can ALREADY secure your borders. Nothing's stopping it, except for legislation.
@Xenomorphine Ok than why don't they do it? Because the establishment politicians don't care about the borders. They are selling out to a world government scenario. We are going to end up like Europe sharing a currency with other countries on this current path. Your argument has not substance, you just quote random shit and say I watch starship troopers. How about looking at the facts like all the meddling our CIA and government does around the world and creating instability.
@jneil2007 Quite right. Your politicians SHOULD secure the borders better. Doing so would help to stop certain activities which funnel money out of your nation, too.
But you don't need every single overseas base closed and aircraft carrier scrapped to do so. You can easily do it with available resources.
@Xenomorphine Idk if you agree with anything on the founding fathers but they strongly opposed alliances and treaties that would keep the republic in constant war. We need to defend ourselves that's it. More and more people are joining me every day on that. Like I said counties who are always fighting somewhere usually have corrupted monetary systems or central banks to bankroll it by INFLATING. You don't understand economics or war profiteering at all.
@jneil2007 And since when are your interests restricted exclusively to to your soil? They're not. It's a global community now. A digital world.
As I've said, the policy of doing nothing but defending borders without force projection would have meant the Nazis and Imperial Japan would have won World War Two - and we all know Hitler was ONLY ever encouraged by a lack of intervention. This is not a lesson from history you can ignore.
@Xenomorphine They are not. Like I said I want to be more involved by trading and removing sanctions. Not bombing countries, starving them with sanctions, and bribing our puppet leaders across the globe. You pro globalist people always use the Hitler thing but it doesn't work in this case because Israel is stronger than the entire middle east. Iraq had no army or air force when we invaded them. Iran barely has any military themselves. Not even close enough to take over the world.
@jneil2007 Which means you'd happily allow Iran to get nuclear weapons and, true to form, indulge in their decades-long track record of handing them off to terrorist groups like Hezbullah to use on and destroy Israel, then blackmail Europe and undoubtedly try to smuggle several of into US borders (which can happen no matter how thoroughly policed). Or maybe just launch from Venezuela. All so they can destroy the 'Great Satan'.
Al Qaeda didn't need an air force or army, either.
@Xenomorphine One thing I would like to add is that we have had an international financial system for a long time in this world. America got involved in 1913 when we adopted the central bank that operates in secret. It is a private run for profit cartel. They have control of our money in secret, they can make LOANS TO ANYBODY THEY want including our enemies. Wars are financed by multiple sides and factions. American banks here were even CAUGHT laundering money for Hitler.
@jneil2007 Again, all of that is merely an argument for strengthening or merely enforcing present regulations. Not for surrendering to tyranny around the world.
@Xenomorphine Sanctions kill people. And you wander why people hate us. Your solution to say Saddams tyranny is to support sanctions that killed on record around 500,000 children alone in Iraq? This was under Clinton to through the U.N. And with Iran we started it by overthrowing their duly elected president Mossadeq and putting in a dictator, thus supporting tyranny. Your argument has no facts or credibility. Your bullshit is no good to me.
@jneil2007 No, dictatorships being stubborn and bloody-minded is what kills people (and yes, I know where you've got that somewhat discredited attributed figure from). Sanctions would work a lot better if the UN wasn't as corrupt as it is. Or targetted things like Iran's central bank (which is threatened, but apparently only takes place about six months from now - too late).
You've yet to propose an alternative to stop Iran getting the bomb.
@Xenomorphine I never said i wanted them to not get a bomb. They have the right to as a sovereign nation. If Israel feels they are threatened they should act. And yes that is the nature of a dictator, stubborn and selfish, lol why should we support them with our tax dollars?! If the UN is corrupt, which I agree, we shouldn't be in it. I don't like the idea of world government. Not wanting to go along with world gov. is not isolationism.
@jneil2007 You're forgetting that Iran's (rightly) labelled Israel as a 'one bomb nation'. Meaning all it takes is one nuclear blast and it's over. Iran is an EXISTENTIAL threat for them. They can't simply absorb a nuclear strike. There'd be nothing to hit back WITH. You're stance is that you should simply sit back and wait for it - and even then, not do anything. Mine is that all those deaths can be prevented, right now, at very little relative cost (both human and economic).
@Xenomorphine Do you recall the exact same lies and bullshit fed to us to get us to aggressively invade Iraq? Are you really buying into it again. And think about how they feel. We have them completely surrounded with military and our navy. And we wander why people might be annoyed or want to arm themselves!!! If Israel feels they are threatened they can attack Iran. What is so hard to understand about that? Is Israel a government run by 10 year old children.
@jneil2007@jneil2007 How about Iran stops funding, arming and training terrorist groups, first? Like responsible adults? And stops repeatedly calling for "DEATH TO AMERICA" and playing immature pranks like sending the US President messages of how the US is going to be subjugated by it in the future. Or at least stop funding all their 'kill the Jews' TV propaganda.
@Xenomorphine How about we stop bombing countries, occupying them, and propping up oppressive governments. If we stop doing all of the above you will see a new attitude towards this country. How about all these Christians stop calling for a nuclear pre emptive strike on the middle east. I hear that pretty often living in the south.
@jneil2007 They aren't in charge of the US. A militant theocracy sworn to destroy Israel and the US, however, is in charge of Iran. I'm not sure why you think letting a regime like that get ahold of nuclear weapons is a good idea. Especially when they've got a long track record of passing off weapons to third party terrorist groups.
@Xenomorphine Iran might not be so radical if we didn't overthrow their government in 1953 over oil interests. See why you don't mess in the internal affairs of others? We have a record of funding and supporting Saddam in the 80's and selling weapons to Iran to fund a right wing guerilla group known as the contras. Our shit stinks too btw.
@jneil2007 Because the ordinary people just love the militant theocracy which has since taken over? Don't be naive. The common Iranian citizen hates their government. The actions of other countries decades in the past is irrelevant to those who suffer under it.
By that logic, just because the British Empire helped the slave trade at one point, it shouldn't have been allowed to force it to an end at another.
@Xenomorphine I'm telling it how it is, you are the naive one by far. This didn't happen long ago don't give me that british empire bullshit. The hated Shah, that we installed, ruled his "theocracy" from 53 to 79. Then their Islamic republic took over. Then in the 80's we supported Saddam's aggressive invasion, now we have them surrounded and have trade sanctions on them. They should be petrified, not us.
@jneil2007 And all they have to do is stop trying to build nuclear weapons which they'll pass onto the very terrorist groups they've been arming, funding and training for decades. Then stop providing that very funding, arming and training to the same. That's all. Something REALLY easy. And, y'know... Stop constantly calling for "DEATH TO AMERICA", wanting the destruction of the US and Israel. Ending claims that the Holocaust never happened would be nice - but y'can't have everything.
@Xenomorphine So Ahmadinajad represents EVERYONE in Iran? I guess Obama represents everybody in the U.S. And you have to ask yourself, why would people call for "death to America?" Could it be our government and CIA killing, bombing, overthrowing governments, propping them up, sanctions that starve people? Every action has a REACTION. If you want to pretend that doing the very same things to solve the problem, that have caused the hatred towards us in the first place, there will be no peace.
@jneil2007 No, my entire point was that the Iranian people likely don't give a damn about what him or the 'Supreme Leader' want. But they aren't the ones in charge.
If Ron Paul wanted diplomacy to work, then it's laughable that he wants to not even allow for sanctions - the only way to give diplomacy any teeth. Nothing he suggests would prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons and handing them off to the likes of Hezbullah to use for terrorism.
@Xenomorphine Lord your mind has been warped by the propaganda machine. I guess we need soldiers in every country and a police man on every street corner so we can try to live in this fictional place where nothing bad happens.
@jneil2007 On the contrary. There's plenty of badness going on in the world. Always has been. Always will. But you deal with it by confronting the danger and defending friends in need - not leaving them out to dry and holding up hands in surrender.
@Xenomorphine Who am I surrendering to? And how is Israel incapable of self defense. They have nuclear weapons. The foreign policy you advocate is endless. It means our military has to be the police force of every arab country until we find stable governments we think are plausable. Where is the money to even accopmplish your objective? It's like Obama promising his health care reform and he doesn't have a dime for it.
@Xenomorphine Netanyahu said we can take care of ourselves. And one thing leads to another. Obama has bombed Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan. We have soldiers in Egypt, Libya, and Pakistan if i'm not mistaken. These wars are spreading rapidly. How is Israel going to get nuked? Do you think they can't bomb the sites if Iran acts as a threat? It's amazing how we had nukes in Turkey and Cuba and we didn't have an exchange, but we can't deal with a third world country?
@jneil2007 To deal with but one example on that list, Pakistan allows it. They can't be seen to take out the terrorist leaders themselves. You don't seriously think Predator drones could go through their airspace regularly without permission, do you? :)
Israel gets nuked in the same way as it's suffered from other attacks in the past. Someone puts a device in a vehicle and explodes it, like any other car bomb. You don't need missiles for that.
@Xenomorphine Evidently it does because this has been in the news and my step father actually agrees with it. So I'm not making it up. You are buying into this fear they instill in you as an excuse to go and make money overseas. Selling weapons, rebuilding, and natural resources are at stake. Tons of money to be made and you don't ever account for that. Our government should be treated like saints and unquestioned.
@jneil2007 Yes, it does - because it allows it. This is hardly a secret. It's apolitical move by the Pakistani government. Even Wikileaks produced a ton of documentation abotu this, as if further proof was required. We take out the Al Qaeda leaders they can't risk openly doing so.
@Xenomorphine Well I'll tell you something. If China overthrew our government, installed a pro Chinese puppet dictator, supported an invasion of Mexico into the U.S., had bases all around us, and put trade sanctions on us. I would be a terrorist too.
@jneil2007 And for what reason would the Chinese have to do anything of the kind? Anything to do with the numerous ceasefire terms Iraq broke? Their laughable history of obfuscating weapons inspections? Gassing hundreds of their own people? The analogy doesn't fit.
Interesting to see you saying you'd become someone who likes to murder innocent women and children, though... That's what terrorists do, after all. Or, y'know, sometimes just Jews - like Ron Paul's newsletters promoted.
@Xenomorphine I meant I'd be fighting them. I wouldn't stand for being bullied, and neither would you. I never read any newsletters like that. There was one claiming Israel was linked to the WTC bombing of 93. Too bad he was practicing medicine and didn't write it. You believe what you want to believe, that's what the media does to people. You are being brainwashed into supporting this tyrannical system and choosing candidates that will insure this tyranny remains.
@Xenomorphine So Iran is going to sneak a nuclear weapon into a car and blow up Israel? Where is your evidence for this? Do you just listen to Rush Limbaugh make up a new reason to start another war every day? This is the exact same war propaganda that got us into Iraq. Sorry I'm not buying it this time.
@jneil2007 The evidence is in the masses of history Iran has got with funding, training and supporting PRECISELY that kind of terrorist activity. Nuclear weapons would simply give them a far more cost effective killing device to achieve their repeatedly-stated desire to destroy the 'Little Satan' (and you can bet trying to destroy the 'Great Satan' - America - would be a far greater prize to them).
@Xenomorphine And I'll add I don't advocate eliminating the military in peacetime, just spending less on it and having the soldiers here where they belong. Not looking for monsters to destroy and natural resources to grab while feeding our military industry. There are profiteers at war you know. Big time profiteers.
@jneil2007 There you go again, calling the military "monsters to destroy", again... You're getting as bad as George Galloway.
There are also far more profiteers in the industry of corruption and subjugation. The acts of tyrants which the US military has vanquished. Just look at the UN/Iraq oil-for-food scandal.
@Xenomorphine I said bring our troops home instead of constantly looking for monsters to destroy, so Halliburton can have a good year. This whole foreign policy is corrupt. And they use the good hearts of people like you and our soldiers to do this disgusting shit. It's a disgrace.
@jneil2007 So, like I said, you'd much rather let the world go to hell, stab your international friends in the back and not give a damn about how many millions of innocents are abused by tyranny.
Let's instruct police to not prosecute rape, murder and child abuse, too. After all, it's only spending money on something you can't ever eradicate...
@Xenomorphine Paying police to protect our communities is far different because that is SOLVENTLY financed and is a needed service by government. Our current foreign policy is helping to drive our economy over the cliff and is very INSOLVENT. You refuse to accept the fact that under your proposed foreign policy we actually fund dictators and prop them up around the world. The facts show it. And tyranny still goes on and people are murdered in the millions like Mao's genocide of 60 MILLION.
@jneil2007 But I thought you said intervention shouldn't be pursued because not every instance of aggression can be curtailed? Now you seem to be saying your motivations for this are based purely on economic profit. After all, if police do so, there's no moral difference.
If you say tyranny should not be confronted, then you might as well say the same of murderers and rapists in your own community. Just because the other's the world stage makes no difference.
@Xenomorphine And is the world not already going to hell? Maybe if we tried peace and non intervention things would be better and less chaotic. Allies mean nothing to me, it's time for Korea, Germany, and Japan to pay for their own defense along with the rest of the world taking care of their own problems. I mean do you really want to fight china if they invade Taiwan? Get the hell out of here dude!
@jneil2007 You already try peace. But you also need leverage. This is what Ron Paul fails to understand:
"If the enemy is to be coerced, you must put him in a situation that is even more unpleasant than the sacrifice you call on him to make. The hardships of the situation must not be merely transient - at least not in appearance. Otherwise, the enemy would not give in, but would wait for things to improve."
-Clausewitz
And yes, defending allies according to signed treaties is just.
@refinedfriend If those troops were genuinely assisting ordinary citizens in a way the US military had become too small, obsolete and ineffective to be capable for doing for itself (not too unlike how Ron Paul's administration would make it, some would say), I don't think ordinary citizens would be motivated by ideological hatred enough to bite the hand which feeds them, no.
A better analogy would be British troops helping after a disaster. Don't think Americans would mind that.
@Xenomorphine If anything we'd have more troops at home, incorrect. The places where people are attacking us, we've been bombing them and have a history of militaristic intervention there. I wouldn't want to see any foreigners in my country, i wouldn't mind it "as" much if they were helping, but if they were being aggressive whatsoever or had a history of aggression, there is no way in hell i'd be okay with it, it's a different case with the russians here, isn't that more diplomatic anyways?
@refinedfriend But none of them capable of force projection. Ron Paul wants to eliminate that, remember. A purely defensive force, only. Unable to properly strike back, since he would have taken away force projection abilities under the guise of them being classed as 'military spending'.
And now your analogy breaks down, since you're handing out platitudes of "we've been bombing them" without context. Ask yourself WHY the Taliban and Al Qaeda are being bombed.
@Xenomorphine The people there have no idea why we're bombing anyone though! And we're for damn sure not just killing Taliban and Al Qaeda. Just cause our troops would be at home doesn't mean we'd remove all their transportation abilities, i don't get what you're saying there about their "force projection" abilities. And the Taliban and Al Qaeda can't get over here. The only way they could get in would be through Mexico, and if we block that with the extra troops we'd have, no problem.
@refinedfriend Are you under the erroneous impression that 'carpet bombing' is going on?
I didn't say transportation capabilities. Transports and escorts only have a certain range before they have to dock/land and refuel. Force projection means assets like aircraft carriers which allow you to literally project force.
Al Qaeda already DID get "over here" in September 12th, 2001. What makes you think today's any different?
@Xenomorphine No, but so many of the strikes we make end up killing innocents. I don't have a problem with aircraft carriers and having a strong navy, quite the contrary, the navy and air force is more important than our ground forces. I'm not entirely convinced that "9/11" was completely accomplished by Al Qaeda, they're dirt poor resistance fighters, but that's not necessarily why i believe that.
@refinedfrienda kidney patient operating from a cave in Afghanistan hijacked 3 airlines, outsmarted the entire Norad. not a single body of passengers, engine or seats or material were recovered from any site. not a single official was held responsible, questioned or taken to a court martial. they were all "unprepared". So let's all forget it, bomb, kill millions & invade all the countries with natural resources.
@Xenomorphine And what about George W Bush making the dept. of education bigger and prescription drug handouts? If you look throughout all the administrations since the 60's especially both parties endorse guns and butter. Endless welfare and warfare. Ron Paul endorses neither welfare or warfare but the opposite: peace and freedom.
@jneil2007 When did I proclaim Bush as a shining example of excellence?
Sorry to break it to you, but war will NEVER end. That's simply how the real world works. The only difference is whether you utilise military action at the right point to prevent far greater levels of death and misery or not. Ron Paul's isolationist stance fails the test of history.
Reading some of the headlines today I thought that perhaps Congressman Paul had had a weak debate performance... On the contrary I now realize he had a great performance (even with the piling on by "the media" and the other candidates. (Thanks to SaveOurSovereignty3 for compiling this)
@hailholyghost your truly an ignorant person! Would you agree that all white people are fucking rednecks, who have sex with their cousins??? There is a fallacy in your statement. Each person should be able to live free or racism. There is one race in this planet. its Called HUMAN RACE BITCH!
@lamarq87 So there's no such thing as a race? And you're calling ME ignorant?
The races are simply human subspecies. Each is adapted to different environments. Blacks, whites, Asians, etc. have been subjected to different evolutionary circumstances over the last 70,000 years. This results in marked differences in behavior, IQ, creativity, and physical differences, among many others.
It gives him the power to detain terror suspects and actual terrorists for any time he wants to, unless Paul is in favor of allowing dangerous or potentially dangerous to the US criminals to run around freely which we can assume he does after his reaction to Anwar Alaki's death
you are one ignorant motherfucker. i'll tell you what, go to the "front" lines in the middle east and get yourself killed. don't forget to bring your family with you. at least you can prove to be a patriot this way rather than an ignorant motherfucker on the internets.
He can't do that with his presidential powers given to him by the constitution. He has no control over the money needed to construct these defense structures. That's Congress's power. The NDAA already granted the military spending for all of these and more. Even more so, the indefinite detention clause actually works in favor of national security.
During the debate on January 16, 2012 Ron Paul stated that he was in favor of raising national defens. As everyone is aware, Ron Paul also voted against the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 because of it's "indefinite detention clause". Now why is he against the now law that allows him to construct these military bases he was talking about?
I hear a lot of cheering for the cuts in MILITARY vs defense spending, which is a promising sign. America's jingoism is one reason we're so caught up in debt through military spending, and it seems to me people in even socially conservative states like SC are waking up.
One chance, SC voters, that's all you get. All you get to prove to America and this fraudulent corrupt system that you can see through all the bullshit and make the right decision. They can't rig SC AS WELL...counting on you.
@Nos677 i believe that you have a future in politics , with a little grooming and few trips to the bohemian grove . you of course will have to sell your soul and become a closet homosexual or child molester so they have something to hold over you should you ever grow a spine . now drive this country into the ground whooo !!!!
I find it so infuriating that many Americans don't understand the Golden Rule. One would think that it is simple common sense even for the average moron that if you attack someone they will generally either hate your guts and seek your demise through alternative measures or just outright fight back. Outside of the US in other western nations we have our own problems but we look at an America which is broken and lost which has become a sick joke of itself; once the land of Liberty.
@ginjaninja1988 People understand it. It's just not applicable when trying to apply it to the reality of geopolitics (now or in the past). No nation of any real power/influence observes it. If you did, you'd be the only one who tried.
Much like his worrying lack of clarification on which military assets qualify as 'military spending' versus 'defence spending'...
Thanks for cutting this will subscribe if you plan on posting more videos like this. For the next video i would like to see some more of other canidates talking to paul.
like i really would have liked to see what Santorum was accusing Paul of
@cnhiggy They sound like people that want to be boo-ed. If I was there I would have struck up a conversation with them and then boo-ed when they spoke -- maybe that would teach them the golden rule.
@LastStandforLiberty They asked him like 4 real questions. He had to fight for some time and I'm glad he did. He's really getting more comfortable on that ridiculous stage and he sees that playing nice with Flock's News isn't going to get him anywhere.
Booing the golden rule = Epic Fail
micfranklin 1 week ago
How the fuck could you boo the golden rule
ninjaguy1995 1 month ago 5
@ninjaguy1995 they boo him for saying lets apply the golden rule " don't do to others what you don't want done to you" Yet the cheer for him for saying bring our troops home get out of foreign war. Silly people.
caddiePiece 1 month ago
south carolina makes me laugh
werdCanada 1 month ago
Why on earth did the audience boo the golden rule? They must hate Jesus.
kirstinharper 1 month ago
He says "uh" too much :/ He really needs to refine his speaking
refinedfriend 1 month ago
I fucking hate fox
MrCjb11baker 1 month ago
Ron Paul is too principled for the modern Republican party, and that's his problem. Republicans always harp on Christian values, and then Ron Paul comes along and tries to apply Christian values and the Republican response is, "No, no, no! Christian values for the PLEBES only!"
kkriegg 1 month ago
The Golden Rule is only applicable to social situations; it has no place in international affairs. As much as I like Paul, he is dead wrong on this. You cannot simply trust that other nations will do onto you as you do onto them - Golden Rule- when there are millions of lives at risk. Responsible leaders have assurances and plans to insure the safety of those they lead, and trust will never be sufficient.
CaseyEs 1 month ago
@CaseyEs Why not? So if another country doesn't trust us with nuclear weapons do they have the right to invade and bomb us. Or starve us with trade sanctions? The U.S. is the ONLY country on planet earth to date to use atomic weapons on other people, and we are worried about Iran? If anything the world should be worried about the U.S.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@CaseyEs And he doesn't...that is why we have a military....DERP.
jbpforum 1 month ago
Ron Paul 2012 !
onegin101 1 month ago
I watched another South Carolina Debate a few hours ago on CNN and they are obviously trying NOT to give Ron Paul as much air time as the others! They almost tried to pass him over on a question about child-birth until the crowd shouted at the commentator to let Ron Paul speak!
Biased Media scum!
Ron Paul 2012... and I'm not American! Have some decency America. Ron Paul is your ONLY hope.
Itsmeeman1 1 month ago
We must remove Zionist Jewish influence from our government. It the 900 lbs Ape in the room nobody want to talk about.
SISwaffen 1 month ago
Wow the golden rule is not very well understood by the christian nation... We only use the Golden Rule when it suits US.
natdrip 1 month ago
ron paul is ripping those other guys.
NANDO218 1 month ago
This guy is the biggest hero of our time and it will not be realised until it's too late...
muscleprotein 1 month ago
The whole world is watching you!
Rise1982 1 month ago
Has anyone noticed the media is giving this minor Paul boo alot of coverage,,,the crowd really boo'd Romney when he said he would have signed the NDAA! He is Obama's other half!
4ccur4acy 1 month ago
13:11 I love the look on Paul's face here.
shawn3975 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul is way too smart to ever be voted in as President. (read) the American population is too blind to elect him.
Redlocokixx 1 month ago
When all of those people booed Ron Paul, I wish he would've said, "I shouldn't be hearing any booing right now, because everyone who's booing should be overseas fighting in a war if they love it so much". That would've been a serious "che che BOOM" moment.
pantera2012 1 month ago
The Revolution is alive and kicking ass... i only hope the hamburgereating fat and ignorant average USA citizen are following up... But sadly i think NOT... Because USA is a ignorant, stupid, fat lard.. publick... who only interest is more calories... and food for myselves... A sorry fat ugly nation of fat stupid assholes... too bad .. sooo sad...
einlea67 1 month ago
Comment removed
WallStwizkid 1 month ago
Ron Paul is the closest thing to the second coming of Christ, RON PAUL 2012
KingBillyNoSurrender 1 month ago
what is Santorum even thinking, butting heads with Ron Paul on constitutional issues...at least Romney is smart enough to admit that he wouldn't win that battle.
J2DAQWST 1 month ago
Ron Paul 2012
luiupr 1 month ago
Ron Paul is way too smart to ever be voted in as President. (read) the American population is too stupid to elect him.
milorosen 1 month ago 10
Amen Dr. Paul
Marcusdwolford 1 month ago
I <3 Ron Paul
SonnyBoy437 1 month ago
2 people must work for SOPA
griftcm 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
--->> Ron Paul 2012 -- MONEY BOMB <<---- ronpaul2012 . com
Donate toward preserving the liberties which our government has grossly perverted since the founding of our nation. Help restore our rights and freedoms.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke
Ron Paul 2012!
ronpaul2012hope 1 month ago
if you want the government to keep their hands out of your pants vote Ron Paul 2012
akbdj 1 month ago
Ron Paul dominates...Again! He's our last chance people. If you don't try to convince everyone you know of why they should vote for Ron Paul, then you need to step it up. Stop being scared that people will judge you.
whodey521 1 month ago
He didn't handle that "left of obama" question too good. Looks like they caught him off guard. I would have stated that my policies aren't about left and right, they are about what is morally right and follows the constitution.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 Policies are ALWAYS about Left and Right, even if only marginally. If someone said that, they'd rightly be accused of obfuscation.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine They are to the average American. It should be constitutional or unconstitutional. Right or wrong. Liberty or tyranny. Left and right is a theater they project to convince you the two party establishments are different, when in reality they aren't.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 They're not mutually exclusive subjects. You can have a policy which is in line with the Constitution and still be either Left or Right. They're legitimate standards by which to measure political philosophies and have stood the test of time.
Doesn't mean you have to object to being Left or Right. It's just for identification purposes.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Give me some examples. I would say ron paul's policies are "right" or constitutional based. I don't believe anything "left" is legal. Democrats have most things wrong republicans have some things right. Ron Paul has it all right including Iran, but Fox says he is "left" of Obama on foreign policy. That's why I say left and right mean nothing to me. It's legal or illegal, right or wrong.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 Just check the basic definitions and apply them to his stuff. :)
The "Left of Obama" thing is in regards to 'anti-war' positions typically being a Left wing position. Although, technically, there are those on the Left who approve of intervention when the goal is to protect the liberty and human rights of those who cannot sufficiently defend themselves. They just don't get as much publicity.
As for Iran, couldn't disagree more on what he's said about it.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine The definitions are bullshit. What parties were involved in getting us into every war? Democrats. WW1, 2, Korea, Vietnam. Bill Clinton was even an interventionist. This left right game is bullshit. You have the choice of establishment or anti establishment. Paul is the only one offering something positive.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 That has nothing to do with the base. The Democrat party BASE are typically 'anti-war' (and I put that in quotations, since leading lights in groups like International ANSWER typically don't mind certain foreign entities using war when it suits their political ideology).
Besides, interventionism is NOT a dirty word. It should be used a lot more effectively. When it's done by half-measures the effect is flawed.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Not really. Most democrats support intervention, just not Iraq. If they did they would have complained over Clintons interventions in Somalia and Kosovo. But speaking on interventions. Why are they good? It costs us money and lives. And think if we had internal problems. Would we want Russia or China coming in and sending their troops in our land to solve our political unrest? This is insanity.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 You might want to think back on how controversial amongst the base those decisions were. Perhaps you'll cast your mind back to all the 'anti-war' marches during the Yugoslavian crisis, led by Left-leaning organisations..
Yes, of course military action costs money (not always necessarily lives). If you're in favour of doing absolutely nothing and letting the world go by, you wind up with things like Nazi Germany getting to the stage it had.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine What about China under chairman Mao's leadership. 60 million Chinese civilians killed by their government. Why didn't we intervene there? Why pick and choose who to police? Did it ever occur to you natural resources or just selling weapons and defense contracting is at stake?
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 Just because you can't stop all genocidal atrocities doesn't mean to say you shouldn't try to stop some. Your local police can't stop all rapists and murderers, either - does that mean they should stop pouring resources into trying to apprehend those they can? Because that's where your logic takes you.
That's what being noble is. It's taking action where others would falter. The alternative is appeasement and cowardice - both literal and moral.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine listen hear you are the reason we are going to get us a dictator killing some one affects other people smoking pot only efects him or she who is doing it are you god can you tell some other adult what to do just because because you dont like it and if it dose affect you could you plese let me know how
jdblckennels1974 1 month ago
@jdblckennels1974 Can you please rephrase that with the use of commas and full stops?
I don't mean that sarcastically - your reply is genuinely difficult to read without them.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Taking care of your local community is different than going to war wouldn't you say? As far as money, lives, and resources go. We shouldn't go to war unless there is a threat to us. A real threat and not a made up one.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 It's not as if you're physically incapable of doing both, as history has repeatedly demonstrated. The problem is, Ron Paul seems to have a definition of someone being a 'threat' only after they've taken direct action upon your home soil, which is ludicrously superficial.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Not true. If China put their navy on the west coast Paul would consider that a threat. He just doesn't buy into the propoganda that we have to attack 3rd world countries with no military, just because they are a "threat." Aggressive war in not just for any reason.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 Actually, by the standards he's observed, he wouldn't. Not unless China actually made the first strike.
And I'm honestly unsure which mainstream politician has been advocating bombing any old third world country for the sake of it. Unless you're referring to a nuclear-armed Iran, which most certainly would be a threat to you and your allies.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Well you have observed wrong. Ron Paul says if they are an iminent threat, which has never happened in our history, he would act. All other threats or attacks on us goes to the Congress for a vote. Remember JFK and Kruchev talked when we both had nukes off each others borders? If we can be diplomatic then we sure can now with Iran. The religious twist appeals to evangelical christians though.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 Except that his standards for 'threat' are clearly not the same as those shared by seasoned military commanders. :)
You can talk with places like Russia and China. Those aren't nations which have the track record Iran does of supporting/arming/funding groups like Hezbullah to fight its proxy wars. Nor are they nations which glorify martyrdom and have been actively and openly calling for the 'Great Satan' (America) to be destroyed/subjugated.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Did you just tell me China and Russia did not fund proxy wars? Do you recall who supported North vietnam and north Korea? Russia and China were involved in those wars. Maybe we wouldn't be considered the "great satan" if we didn't intervene in their affairs. You know like overthrowing Irans duly elected leader Mossedeq in 1953 over his oil production changes. He denied BP a monopoly.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 No, I said they don't have the same track record as Iran's more extensive use of it. And yes, actually. Yes, you most surely WOULD still be considered that. Unilaterally pulling out of everywhere wouldn't prevent that. Just look at how HAMAS reacted to Israel pulling out of areas they administered - they didn't ease up. They didn't fire less missiles at them. They declared it a victory and used it to solidify their position - 'proof' that 'killing the Jews' is correct.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Ok that is for Israel to deal with, they aren't a 12 year old child. If we left all the bases and wars we are in we would be safer and richer. Who is going to get us over there? All the countries we are occupying have no militaries really, no air force or navy. How do you propose taking care of the elderly and the poor that were promised benefits by keeping this foreing policy? Do you advocate throwing them in the streets to keep occupying the globe?
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 I was using the example of as a direct example of what would happen if the US did the same - which is what you're suggesting.
It seems you've forgotten why Afghanistan was gone into: To rid it of the Al Qaeda training camps. Get out of there and you can be sure they'll simply spring right back up, making all the sacrifice so far worthless. You can only do so when the central government is certified as capable of doing the job itself. You only seem to care about money...
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Money matters because we shouldn't occupy a country and borrow billions of dollars every month to do it and damage our economy. The people want to attack us because we are over there to begin with. You are buying into the war propoganda. Let them have training camps what are they going to do to us if we leave, fly over here and bomb us? The president only had the authority to go after Osama bin Laden not nation build and stay there for a decade.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 Money matters, but not to the exclusion of common sense, let alone human compassion - which is what MAKES us human. Besides which, you weren't 'occupying' anywhere you weren't invited when you got hit on September 11th. Ron Paul wants to go to the opposite extreme and stab allies in the back, leaving them to their doom.
In case you missed 9/11, yes, that's exactly what Al Qaeda did: "Fly over" and bomb you.
Responsibility means you should help rebuild what was destroyed.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine But if you are facing a currency crisis and hyperinflation, which is the worse type of depression, don't you think you are a lot less safe. I mean when people are going to be starving to death in THIS country. Those saudi arabians flew the planes into the buildings, but how is the whole muslim world guilty? And how are we going to solve this issue by excacerbating the very reason for suicide terrorism: intervention, occupation, sanctions, and bombings!!!
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 Your logic is one of saying it's impossible to keep force projection capabilities if going through economic hardship. This is incorrect.
And who claimed "the entire Muslim world is guilty"? You're the only person I know who has. Bush certainly never did - the administration was ALWAYS going to pains to point this out.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine As you probably already know Paul Wolfowitz admitted having bases in Mecca, an Islamic holy city, is one of the major reasons the Saudi men were motivated to commit suicide terrorism. We removed that base soon after. So the way it goes in our upside down planet, if Wolfowitz says it it's true it's ok and dandy, but if Ron Paul speaks the truth that is unacceptable!!!
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 My friend, if Saudi Arabia didn't want US bases in its territory, THEY WOULD NOT BE THERE. Have no doubt about that.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Their Saudi government is corrupt and bought and paid for by our corrupt government. Doesn't mean THE SAUDI PEOPLE want it. If Obama agreed to have a Chinese bases in America would you be ok with it?
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 I honestly don't think anyone would give a damn. You already have Russian personnel stationed on US soil, after all, for disarmament treaty verification. Haven't seen anyone protesting about that.
If you want other countries to hold referendums before hosting bases, oy... I don't even know where to start with that kind of logic. Do you want one don annually? Weekly? Daily? You can't apply it to the real world.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Hey that wouldn't surprise me. Our government has supposedly been recruiting foreigners to join the military. I read something about that. And I'm not applying it to the real world?? We have around 900 bases in 130 countries and you are telling me to apply this to the real world?! Please dude spare me the bs excuses. We have no reason to have bases all over the world, history shows that countries that do that destroy themselves financially. We need to bring ALL our troops home.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 By stating you have "no reason" to have bases all over the world means you don't understand the logistic of force projection. Nor do you comprehend the value of defence treaties with allies.
Do what you're hoping for and the US will earn itself a HUGE reputation for stabbing allies in the back who it promised to help protect. It'll mean places like Taiwan get invaded, brutalised and subjugated by China. Why would you want that on your conscience?
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Because I don't believe in having allies but trade partnerships. I am aware that there will always be problems in the world. America can't solve them all. Most of the propaganda feeds into the good hearts of people like you who don't realize this is just to feed our war machine. The fact is that we sat idly by why Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and countless other governments murdered their own people. Is your conscience feeling it for not stopping all that? That's MILLIONS of people.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 And what do you think trade partners are, if not allies?
Yes. I do wish their subjugation of innocents could have at least been alleviated. Which is not, as you apparently interpret it, history telling you to bury your nation's head in the sand, but instead to work towards a position where such suffering in the future can be either dulled or avoided completely.
Your local police force can't stop all rapes and murders, either. Should they, therefore, ignore every instance?
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Trade partners are just that trade partners. You will trade with them honestly and not pick sides when they fight. Simply because our young people, money, and resources should not be dedicated year after year to fighting wars. War is a tremendous blow to the spirit and economy of a country. We are still following the Wilsonian policy of "making the world safe for democracy." It's no coincidence we got the federal reserve under his admin. This is what gave birth to statism.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 Then you admit that if this was the 1940s, you'd basically be proposing open trade with the likes of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, no matter what. Since that's precisely what the logical conclusion is of what you are asking for.
Incidentally, doing so would have eventually left the US as little more than a satellite of the Axis, relying upon them.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine We wouldn't be fighting these wars or accepting endless free lunches if we were DIRECTLY taxed for all of it. Most of the funding for it comes from the federal reserve which LOANS money to the government to accommodate deficit financing. The government would rather create a STEALTH tax (inflation) that own up to the cost of burdensome entitlements and wars. Both of which are immoral and draining our wealth away.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 So, build a better tax system and grow your economy. It doesn't have to affect the military and going back on strategic international treaty obligations.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine I hate to burst your bubble but war and stretching yourself across the world is just as bad as welfare spending. Economically of course. Soldiers don't produce they destroy. The get paid to do nothing or destroy. That's why you only want to use them when you need to defend yourself. Not pretend we can change the world by force of arms.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 "Soldiers don't produce they destroy. The get paid to do nothing or destroy."
Yeah, except for all those hospitals, schools and roads they help to create and neighbourhoods they help to secure, until the host government is strong enough to do so for itself...
That you would try to make out the military is a purely destructive force speaks volumes.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Ok I forgot to mention that they do some good things at times, but with OUR TAX DOLLARS . But 98% of the time they are killing and destroying. All of our unfunded liabilities are bankrupt and you want to build roads in Afghanistan? We need to spend on our infrastructure as well. How about using our troops to secure our borders and help border control. How about we let our people opt out and use the slashed overseas money to wean people off of welfare. Get back to self reliance.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 No, if they were "killing and destroying" 98% of the time, you'd have next to no munitions left and millions of people dying per DAY. Most things the military do are frightfully mundane and have nothing to do with death or violence. That's a laughable stereotype believed only by people who watch ridiculously superficial movies like 'Starship Troopers'.
Your military can ALREADY secure your borders. Nothing's stopping it, except for legislation.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Ok than why don't they do it? Because the establishment politicians don't care about the borders. They are selling out to a world government scenario. We are going to end up like Europe sharing a currency with other countries on this current path. Your argument has not substance, you just quote random shit and say I watch starship troopers. How about looking at the facts like all the meddling our CIA and government does around the world and creating instability.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 Quite right. Your politicians SHOULD secure the borders better. Doing so would help to stop certain activities which funnel money out of your nation, too.
But you don't need every single overseas base closed and aircraft carrier scrapped to do so. You can easily do it with available resources.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Idk if you agree with anything on the founding fathers but they strongly opposed alliances and treaties that would keep the republic in constant war. We need to defend ourselves that's it. More and more people are joining me every day on that. Like I said counties who are always fighting somewhere usually have corrupted monetary systems or central banks to bankroll it by INFLATING. You don't understand economics or war profiteering at all.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 And since when are your interests restricted exclusively to to your soil? They're not. It's a global community now. A digital world.
As I've said, the policy of doing nothing but defending borders without force projection would have meant the Nazis and Imperial Japan would have won World War Two - and we all know Hitler was ONLY ever encouraged by a lack of intervention. This is not a lesson from history you can ignore.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine They are not. Like I said I want to be more involved by trading and removing sanctions. Not bombing countries, starving them with sanctions, and bribing our puppet leaders across the globe. You pro globalist people always use the Hitler thing but it doesn't work in this case because Israel is stronger than the entire middle east. Iraq had no army or air force when we invaded them. Iran barely has any military themselves. Not even close enough to take over the world.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 Which means you'd happily allow Iran to get nuclear weapons and, true to form, indulge in their decades-long track record of handing them off to terrorist groups like Hezbullah to use on and destroy Israel, then blackmail Europe and undoubtedly try to smuggle several of into US borders (which can happen no matter how thoroughly policed). Or maybe just launch from Venezuela. All so they can destroy the 'Great Satan'.
Al Qaeda didn't need an air force or army, either.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine One thing I would like to add is that we have had an international financial system for a long time in this world. America got involved in 1913 when we adopted the central bank that operates in secret. It is a private run for profit cartel. They have control of our money in secret, they can make LOANS TO ANYBODY THEY want including our enemies. Wars are financed by multiple sides and factions. American banks here were even CAUGHT laundering money for Hitler.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 Again, all of that is merely an argument for strengthening or merely enforcing present regulations. Not for surrendering to tyranny around the world.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Sanctions kill people. And you wander why people hate us. Your solution to say Saddams tyranny is to support sanctions that killed on record around 500,000 children alone in Iraq? This was under Clinton to through the U.N. And with Iran we started it by overthrowing their duly elected president Mossadeq and putting in a dictator, thus supporting tyranny. Your argument has no facts or credibility. Your bullshit is no good to me.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 No, dictatorships being stubborn and bloody-minded is what kills people (and yes, I know where you've got that somewhat discredited attributed figure from). Sanctions would work a lot better if the UN wasn't as corrupt as it is. Or targetted things like Iran's central bank (which is threatened, but apparently only takes place about six months from now - too late).
You've yet to propose an alternative to stop Iran getting the bomb.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine I never said i wanted them to not get a bomb. They have the right to as a sovereign nation. If Israel feels they are threatened they should act. And yes that is the nature of a dictator, stubborn and selfish, lol why should we support them with our tax dollars?! If the UN is corrupt, which I agree, we shouldn't be in it. I don't like the idea of world government. Not wanting to go along with world gov. is not isolationism.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 You're forgetting that Iran's (rightly) labelled Israel as a 'one bomb nation'. Meaning all it takes is one nuclear blast and it's over. Iran is an EXISTENTIAL threat for them. They can't simply absorb a nuclear strike. There'd be nothing to hit back WITH. You're stance is that you should simply sit back and wait for it - and even then, not do anything. Mine is that all those deaths can be prevented, right now, at very little relative cost (both human and economic).
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Do you recall the exact same lies and bullshit fed to us to get us to aggressively invade Iraq? Are you really buying into it again. And think about how they feel. We have them completely surrounded with military and our navy. And we wander why people might be annoyed or want to arm themselves!!! If Israel feels they are threatened they can attack Iran. What is so hard to understand about that? Is Israel a government run by 10 year old children.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 @jneil2007 How about Iran stops funding, arming and training terrorist groups, first? Like responsible adults? And stops repeatedly calling for "DEATH TO AMERICA" and playing immature pranks like sending the US President messages of how the US is going to be subjugated by it in the future. Or at least stop funding all their 'kill the Jews' TV propaganda.
There wouldn't be any reason TO confront them.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine How about we stop bombing countries, occupying them, and propping up oppressive governments. If we stop doing all of the above you will see a new attitude towards this country. How about all these Christians stop calling for a nuclear pre emptive strike on the middle east. I hear that pretty often living in the south.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 They aren't in charge of the US. A militant theocracy sworn to destroy Israel and the US, however, is in charge of Iran. I'm not sure why you think letting a regime like that get ahold of nuclear weapons is a good idea. Especially when they've got a long track record of passing off weapons to third party terrorist groups.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Iran might not be so radical if we didn't overthrow their government in 1953 over oil interests. See why you don't mess in the internal affairs of others? We have a record of funding and supporting Saddam in the 80's and selling weapons to Iran to fund a right wing guerilla group known as the contras. Our shit stinks too btw.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 Because the ordinary people just love the militant theocracy which has since taken over? Don't be naive. The common Iranian citizen hates their government. The actions of other countries decades in the past is irrelevant to those who suffer under it.
By that logic, just because the British Empire helped the slave trade at one point, it shouldn't have been allowed to force it to an end at another.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine I'm telling it how it is, you are the naive one by far. This didn't happen long ago don't give me that british empire bullshit. The hated Shah, that we installed, ruled his "theocracy" from 53 to 79. Then their Islamic republic took over. Then in the 80's we supported Saddam's aggressive invasion, now we have them surrounded and have trade sanctions on them. They should be petrified, not us.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 And all they have to do is stop trying to build nuclear weapons which they'll pass onto the very terrorist groups they've been arming, funding and training for decades. Then stop providing that very funding, arming and training to the same. That's all. Something REALLY easy. And, y'know... Stop constantly calling for "DEATH TO AMERICA", wanting the destruction of the US and Israel. Ending claims that the Holocaust never happened would be nice - but y'can't have everything.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine So Ahmadinajad represents EVERYONE in Iran? I guess Obama represents everybody in the U.S. And you have to ask yourself, why would people call for "death to America?" Could it be our government and CIA killing, bombing, overthrowing governments, propping them up, sanctions that starve people? Every action has a REACTION. If you want to pretend that doing the very same things to solve the problem, that have caused the hatred towards us in the first place, there will be no peace.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 No, my entire point was that the Iranian people likely don't give a damn about what him or the 'Supreme Leader' want. But they aren't the ones in charge.
If Ron Paul wanted diplomacy to work, then it's laughable that he wants to not even allow for sanctions - the only way to give diplomacy any teeth. Nothing he suggests would prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons and handing them off to the likes of Hezbullah to use for terrorism.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Lord your mind has been warped by the propaganda machine. I guess we need soldiers in every country and a police man on every street corner so we can try to live in this fictional place where nothing bad happens.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 On the contrary. There's plenty of badness going on in the world. Always has been. Always will. But you deal with it by confronting the danger and defending friends in need - not leaving them out to dry and holding up hands in surrender.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Who am I surrendering to? And how is Israel incapable of self defense. They have nuclear weapons. The foreign policy you advocate is endless. It means our military has to be the police force of every arab country until we find stable governments we think are plausable. Where is the money to even accopmplish your objective? It's like Obama promising his health care reform and he doesn't have a dime for it.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 Israel's not capable of self-defence if someone sets off one or two nuclear devices inside it. Do you realise how small it is?
I never advocated policing "every Arab country", either. Not unless they all somehow become as much of a threat as Iran, which is highly unlikely.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Netanyahu said we can take care of ourselves. And one thing leads to another. Obama has bombed Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan. We have soldiers in Egypt, Libya, and Pakistan if i'm not mistaken. These wars are spreading rapidly. How is Israel going to get nuked? Do you think they can't bomb the sites if Iran acts as a threat? It's amazing how we had nukes in Turkey and Cuba and we didn't have an exchange, but we can't deal with a third world country?
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 To deal with but one example on that list, Pakistan allows it. They can't be seen to take out the terrorist leaders themselves. You don't seriously think Predator drones could go through their airspace regularly without permission, do you? :)
Israel gets nuked in the same way as it's suffered from other attacks in the past. Someone puts a device in a vehicle and explodes it, like any other car bomb. You don't need missiles for that.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Evidently it does because this has been in the news and my step father actually agrees with it. So I'm not making it up. You are buying into this fear they instill in you as an excuse to go and make money overseas. Selling weapons, rebuilding, and natural resources are at stake. Tons of money to be made and you don't ever account for that. Our government should be treated like saints and unquestioned.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 Yes, it does - because it allows it. This is hardly a secret. It's apolitical move by the Pakistani government. Even Wikileaks produced a ton of documentation abotu this, as if further proof was required. We take out the Al Qaeda leaders they can't risk openly doing so.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Well I'll tell you something. If China overthrew our government, installed a pro Chinese puppet dictator, supported an invasion of Mexico into the U.S., had bases all around us, and put trade sanctions on us. I would be a terrorist too.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 And for what reason would the Chinese have to do anything of the kind? Anything to do with the numerous ceasefire terms Iraq broke? Their laughable history of obfuscating weapons inspections? Gassing hundreds of their own people? The analogy doesn't fit.
Interesting to see you saying you'd become someone who likes to murder innocent women and children, though... That's what terrorists do, after all. Or, y'know, sometimes just Jews - like Ron Paul's newsletters promoted.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine I meant I'd be fighting them. I wouldn't stand for being bullied, and neither would you. I never read any newsletters like that. There was one claiming Israel was linked to the WTC bombing of 93. Too bad he was practicing medicine and didn't write it. You believe what you want to believe, that's what the media does to people. You are being brainwashed into supporting this tyrannical system and choosing candidates that will insure this tyranny remains.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine So Iran is going to sneak a nuclear weapon into a car and blow up Israel? Where is your evidence for this? Do you just listen to Rush Limbaugh make up a new reason to start another war every day? This is the exact same war propaganda that got us into Iraq. Sorry I'm not buying it this time.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 The evidence is in the masses of history Iran has got with funding, training and supporting PRECISELY that kind of terrorist activity. Nuclear weapons would simply give them a far more cost effective killing device to achieve their repeatedly-stated desire to destroy the 'Little Satan' (and you can bet trying to destroy the 'Great Satan' - America - would be a far greater prize to them).
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine And I'll add I don't advocate eliminating the military in peacetime, just spending less on it and having the soldiers here where they belong. Not looking for monsters to destroy and natural resources to grab while feeding our military industry. There are profiteers at war you know. Big time profiteers.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 There you go again, calling the military "monsters to destroy", again... You're getting as bad as George Galloway.
There are also far more profiteers in the industry of corruption and subjugation. The acts of tyrants which the US military has vanquished. Just look at the UN/Iraq oil-for-food scandal.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine I said bring our troops home instead of constantly looking for monsters to destroy, so Halliburton can have a good year. This whole foreign policy is corrupt. And they use the good hearts of people like you and our soldiers to do this disgusting shit. It's a disgrace.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 So, like I said, you'd much rather let the world go to hell, stab your international friends in the back and not give a damn about how many millions of innocents are abused by tyranny.
Let's instruct police to not prosecute rape, murder and child abuse, too. After all, it's only spending money on something you can't ever eradicate...
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Paying police to protect our communities is far different because that is SOLVENTLY financed and is a needed service by government. Our current foreign policy is helping to drive our economy over the cliff and is very INSOLVENT. You refuse to accept the fact that under your proposed foreign policy we actually fund dictators and prop them up around the world. The facts show it. And tyranny still goes on and people are murdered in the millions like Mao's genocide of 60 MILLION.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 But I thought you said intervention shouldn't be pursued because not every instance of aggression can be curtailed? Now you seem to be saying your motivations for this are based purely on economic profit. After all, if police do so, there's no moral difference.
If you say tyranny should not be confronted, then you might as well say the same of murderers and rapists in your own community. Just because the other's the world stage makes no difference.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine And is the world not already going to hell? Maybe if we tried peace and non intervention things would be better and less chaotic. Allies mean nothing to me, it's time for Korea, Germany, and Japan to pay for their own defense along with the rest of the world taking care of their own problems. I mean do you really want to fight china if they invade Taiwan? Get the hell out of here dude!
jneil2007 1 month ago
Comment removed
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jneil2007 You already try peace. But you also need leverage. This is what Ron Paul fails to understand:
"If the enemy is to be coerced, you must put him in a situation that is even more unpleasant than the sacrifice you call on him to make. The hardships of the situation must not be merely transient - at least not in appearance. Otherwise, the enemy would not give in, but would wait for things to improve."
-Clausewitz
And yes, defending allies according to signed treaties is just.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine Almost no one knows about the Russians here though, much different. If we saw the troops daily, it would be much different.
refinedfriend 1 month ago
@refinedfriend If those troops were genuinely assisting ordinary citizens in a way the US military had become too small, obsolete and ineffective to be capable for doing for itself (not too unlike how Ron Paul's administration would make it, some would say), I don't think ordinary citizens would be motivated by ideological hatred enough to bite the hand which feeds them, no.
A better analogy would be British troops helping after a disaster. Don't think Americans would mind that.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine If anything we'd have more troops at home, incorrect. The places where people are attacking us, we've been bombing them and have a history of militaristic intervention there. I wouldn't want to see any foreigners in my country, i wouldn't mind it "as" much if they were helping, but if they were being aggressive whatsoever or had a history of aggression, there is no way in hell i'd be okay with it, it's a different case with the russians here, isn't that more diplomatic anyways?
refinedfriend 1 month ago
@refinedfriend But none of them capable of force projection. Ron Paul wants to eliminate that, remember. A purely defensive force, only. Unable to properly strike back, since he would have taken away force projection abilities under the guise of them being classed as 'military spending'.
And now your analogy breaks down, since you're handing out platitudes of "we've been bombing them" without context. Ask yourself WHY the Taliban and Al Qaeda are being bombed.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine The people there have no idea why we're bombing anyone though! And we're for damn sure not just killing Taliban and Al Qaeda. Just cause our troops would be at home doesn't mean we'd remove all their transportation abilities, i don't get what you're saying there about their "force projection" abilities. And the Taliban and Al Qaeda can't get over here. The only way they could get in would be through Mexico, and if we block that with the extra troops we'd have, no problem.
refinedfriend 1 month ago
@refinedfriend Are you under the erroneous impression that 'carpet bombing' is going on?
I didn't say transportation capabilities. Transports and escorts only have a certain range before they have to dock/land and refuel. Force projection means assets like aircraft carriers which allow you to literally project force.
Al Qaeda already DID get "over here" in September 12th, 2001. What makes you think today's any different?
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@Xenomorphine No, but so many of the strikes we make end up killing innocents. I don't have a problem with aircraft carriers and having a strong navy, quite the contrary, the navy and air force is more important than our ground forces. I'm not entirely convinced that "9/11" was completely accomplished by Al Qaeda, they're dirt poor resistance fighters, but that's not necessarily why i believe that.
refinedfriend 1 month ago
@refinedfrienda kidney patient operating from a cave in Afghanistan hijacked 3 airlines, outsmarted the entire Norad. not a single body of passengers, engine or seats or material were recovered from any site. not a single official was held responsible, questioned or taken to a court martial. they were all "unprepared". So let's all forget it, bomb, kill millions & invade all the countries with natural resources.
nayanmalig 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from SaveOurSovereignty3
@nayanmalig exactly.
refinedfriend 3 weeks ago
@Xenomorphine And what about George W Bush making the dept. of education bigger and prescription drug handouts? If you look throughout all the administrations since the 60's especially both parties endorse guns and butter. Endless welfare and warfare. Ron Paul endorses neither welfare or warfare but the opposite: peace and freedom.
jneil2007 1 month ago
@jneil2007 When did I proclaim Bush as a shining example of excellence?
Sorry to break it to you, but war will NEVER end. That's simply how the real world works. The only difference is whether you utilise military action at the right point to prevent far greater levels of death and misery or not. Ron Paul's isolationist stance fails the test of history.
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
Reading some of the headlines today I thought that perhaps Congressman Paul had had a weak debate performance... On the contrary I now realize he had a great performance (even with the piling on by "the media" and the other candidates. (Thanks to SaveOurSovereignty3 for compiling this)
llaplue 1 month ago
That woman moderating reminds me of this bitch I went to school with.
jneil2007 1 month ago
EVERYONE WHO IS SUPPORTING RON NEEDS TO VOTE
coasterfreak456 1 month ago
Blacks are disproportionately affected by higher incarceration rates because they are naturally much more violent than whites or Asians.
Races exist. Quit this BS about them being discriminated against. You are responsible for the consequences of your own actions.
hailholyghost 1 month ago
@hailholyghost your truly an ignorant person! Would you agree that all white people are fucking rednecks, who have sex with their cousins??? There is a fallacy in your statement. Each person should be able to live free or racism. There is one race in this planet. its Called HUMAN RACE BITCH!
lamarq87 1 month ago
@lamarq87 So there's no such thing as a race? And you're calling ME ignorant?
The races are simply human subspecies. Each is adapted to different environments. Blacks, whites, Asians, etc. have been subjected to different evolutionary circumstances over the last 70,000 years. This results in marked differences in behavior, IQ, creativity, and physical differences, among many others.
Read "The Bell Curve" by R Herrnstein (1994).
/watch?v=raAvwOC-DZ4
hailholyghost 1 month ago
It gives him the power to detain terror suspects and actual terrorists for any time he wants to, unless Paul is in favor of allowing dangerous or potentially dangerous to the US criminals to run around freely which we can assume he does after his reaction to Anwar Alaki's death
chaoarecool 1 month ago
@chaoarecool
you are one ignorant motherfucker. i'll tell you what, go to the "front" lines in the middle east and get yourself killed. don't forget to bring your family with you. at least you can prove to be a patriot this way rather than an ignorant motherfucker on the internets.
ARGH28 1 month ago
He can't do that with his presidential powers given to him by the constitution. He has no control over the money needed to construct these defense structures. That's Congress's power. The NDAA already granted the military spending for all of these and more. Even more so, the indefinite detention clause actually works in favor of national security.
chaoarecool 1 month ago
During the debate on January 16, 2012 Ron Paul stated that he was in favor of raising national defens. As everyone is aware, Ron Paul also voted against the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 because of it's "indefinite detention clause". Now why is he against the now law that allows him to construct these military bases he was talking about?
chaoarecool 1 month ago
Rofl I LOVE how romney gets booed after saying yes xD
We can't let this prickmonger flip-flopping no one get elected please, PLEASE America, PLEASE don't elect romney...
Spjungen 1 month ago
I hear a lot of cheering for the cuts in MILITARY vs defense spending, which is a promising sign. America's jingoism is one reason we're so caught up in debt through military spending, and it seems to me people in even socially conservative states like SC are waking up.
One chance, SC voters, that's all you get. All you get to prove to America and this fraudulent corrupt system that you can see through all the bullshit and make the right decision. They can't rig SC AS WELL...counting on you.
Spjungen 1 month ago
BOOOOOO I SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH ENDLESS BOMBING OF OTHERS
BOOOOO IM A RETARD THAT ONLY HAS ONE-DIMENSIONAL THINKING
Nos677 1 month ago 3
@Nos677 i believe that you have a future in politics , with a little grooming and few trips to the bohemian grove . you of course will have to sell your soul and become a closet homosexual or child molester so they have something to hold over you should you ever grow a spine . now drive this country into the ground whooo !!!!
akbdj 1 month ago
I find it so infuriating that many Americans don't understand the Golden Rule. One would think that it is simple common sense even for the average moron that if you attack someone they will generally either hate your guts and seek your demise through alternative measures or just outright fight back. Outside of the US in other western nations we have our own problems but we look at an America which is broken and lost which has become a sick joke of itself; once the land of Liberty.
ginjaninja1988 1 month ago 32
@ginjaninja1988 People understand it. It's just not applicable when trying to apply it to the reality of geopolitics (now or in the past). No nation of any real power/influence observes it. If you did, you'd be the only one who tried.
Much like his worrying lack of clarification on which military assets qualify as 'military spending' versus 'defence spending'...
Xenomorphine 1 month ago
@ginjaninja1988 its a shame other countries see us like that but its just the truth. i want to move out. i hate my govt right now
NANDO218 1 month ago
Thanks for cutting this will subscribe if you plan on posting more videos like this. For the next video i would like to see some more of other canidates talking to paul.
like i really would have liked to see what Santorum was accusing Paul of
UotubePirate 1 month ago
Mitt is sucha tool. I love the Doctor in this debate he has so much more swagga and confidence this year then he did back in 2008
UotubePirate 1 month ago
Ron Paul is my hero
UotubePirate 1 month ago
What is it with middle aged americans wanting to send other people to die in wars?
xerbus9001 1 month ago
Seriously, if anyone doesn't see the validity of everything RP says ... they are total morons.
WhatsReallyGoingOnUS 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cnhiggy They sound like people that want to be boo-ed. If I was there I would have struck up a conversation with them and then boo-ed when they spoke -- maybe that would teach them the golden rule.
WhatsReallyGoingOnUS 1 month ago
Comment removed
WhatsReallyGoingOnUS 1 month ago
I like Ron Paul but he rambled quite a bit here.
LastStandforLiberty 1 month ago
@LastStandforLiberty They asked him like 4 real questions. He had to fight for some time and I'm glad he did. He's really getting more comfortable on that ridiculous stage and he sees that playing nice with Flock's News isn't going to get him anywhere.
BudWithBeats76 1 month ago
Everyone who boo'd should go sign up at the local recruiter's office. Go fight your own damn senseless wars without end.
LastStandforLiberty 1 month ago 14
@LastStandforLiberty and use your own money to fund those wars.
LastStandforLiberty 1 month ago