Ron Paul Negatives

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
lol, what about the ants living in your home, and the cockroaches and crickets in the basement, or maybe the mice in the walls. They'll all be "emboldened" by your recent display of weakness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are the main insects or rodents a country should be concerned about. You need to focus on killing, imprisoning, or even barring from entry the house animals.

I'm sure you're well aware of our inability to defend our various borders from both illegal immigrants and whatever they bring with them (drugs, guns, worse).

[PokrLikeItsProse]

His negatives depend on what you care about.

Some people would see his pro-life stance and 0% rating from NARAL as a negative. Others would see his newsletter, which once stated that 95% of black men in Washington D.C. are criminal or semi-criminal as a negative.

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]
His negatives depend on what you care about.

Some people would see his pro-life stance and 0% rating from NARAL as a negative. Others would see his newsletter, which once stated that 95% of black men in Washington D.C. are criminal or semi-criminal as a negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, we discussed the pro-life thing and how his views on that would have no effect in office. Since, he is for less government intervention.


I've read about those racist remarks, and my understanding is that Ron Paul was furious when he found out somebody put it in his newsletter.

[JOHNY CA$H]

Sometimes he works too hard.

[clowntable]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His "non-interventionist" foreign policy is simplistic, naive, and was proven wrong about 1939.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with intervention is that it creates a never-ending cycle. Interventionists like to point to WWII as an example of a war that was made worse because we failed to intervene. What they fail to mention is that previous U.S. intervention was one of the primary causes of WWII.

The U.S. decision to get involved in WWI (the "war to end all wars" lol) was one of the main factors that contributed to the rise of Hitler, just like the current decision to invade Iraq is contributing to the growth of terrorism in the Middle East.

[Insert quote about those who don't learn from history]

[/ QUOTE ]
+1

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this--the main reason that Hitler rose to power is that there was no end to WWI but Germany was made responsible by the world and forced to pay for it. Even though Germany still had its territory intact, the French wanted to really punish Germany and economically, this was the catalyst which led to the rise of Hitler. Us entering the war had very little with the rise of Hitler.

If the Treaty of Versailles would have a little more even handed, this may have prevented WW II--so I blame the French. The French used German funds to pay for the Maginot Line (which worked really well, I might add [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]) and other reparations. This led to hyperinflation in Germany, growing dissatisfaction and eventually to the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. This can be paralleled to Afghanistan is some respects--I can expound on that if someone wants it.

As for the Middle East, I think you have to go to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and go from there. In many people's minds over there, they equate us with Israel and the killing that goes on. When the administration decided to take out Saddam, it strengthen the perception the US was anti-Arab and fueled the fires that were already there. It is really too complex to explain fully here, but the roots can be traced to 2 things: oil and Israel--and we are heavily involved in both.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, I'd kinda like to blame the French for all problems in the world because obviousely they are to be blamed for WW2 which of course led to the creation of Isreal which created all kinds of trouble in the middle east etc. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

I think it is almost impossible to explain any comlex historic event but if I'd want to look for a reason for WW2 I'd like to blame democracy. The "Weimarer Republik" was a horrible failure and let's not forget that Hitler was elected into office (interesting sidenote: most people do not know or never think about how an Austrian can be elected for any pubilc office in Germany).

Anyway it's extremely off topic.

While the following is off topic as well I'd be interested to know if strategic folks at the Democrats are involved in "pushing" Ron Paul because they think it's easier to defeat him because some of his stuff will sound rather "nut job" to the average voter.

[Copernicus]

"(interesting sidenote: most people do not know or never think about how an Austrian can be elected for any pubilc office in Germany)."

Apparently you dont know that Hitler wasn't elected.

[clowntable]

Let me rephrase that then. Hitler's party was elected which gave him the legitimation to be declared chancellor later.

The point is, Hitler was supported by 43% of the German people in an election so yeah, I still blame democracy.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me rephrase that then. Hitler's party was elected which gave him the legitimation to be declared chancellor later.

The point is, Hitler was supported by 43% of the German people in an election so yeah, I still blame democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

The number Ive seen is 37%, and given the economic conditions of Germany (where "any party but the current party" could have prevalied) that is far from an endorsement by the voters.

[clowntable]

I think the 44% were while he was already chancellor. I really should check my facts first [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
I stand corrected, thank you.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the 44% were while he was already chancellor. I really should check my facts first [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
I stand corrected, thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

The percentage isnt that critical. in this forum the anti-statists love to use the "election of Hitler" as an example of a "failure of democracy", without even knowing that he was never elected.