Ron Paul Negatives

[The Truth]

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



[/ QUOTE ]

AS apposed to the "interventionist" policy that is is simplistic, naive, and was proven wrong about 1400 BC.

look again he voted for Afghanistan and has said repeatedly that if you are going to war "declare war, go to war and win it. but don't go to war for political reasons or to fight for the UN"

hes not an isolationist hes just against overstepping ourselves and causing international turmoil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I don't think "non-interventionist" means never get involved in anything going on with other nations ever no matter what. I think it is more of a good guideline that we dont cross without a good reason.

[AlexM]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no and no.

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't like his posistions regarding blowback and changing policy. My problem with it is this; he's basically saying "If we piss you off, and you blow us up, we need to change our policy." This is not inherently untrue, but it opens the door to people who we piss off believing that if they use terrorism, or attack the United States, they will get us to change our policies. I don't think the United States would benefit from such a weak appearence that would be set by that precident.

That's one negative I feel he has, just my posistion though, but its a big one for me. That's not to say I wouldn't like to see him elected, I'd like to just because I think it'd be really interesting to see what this policy would result in.

Edit: Also, his posiston on gay marriage/civil unions. And I'm not a big fan of his abortion stance either, for both of these I prefer Giuliani, try to lessen the amount of abortions by promoting adoption.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you completely on the gay marriage and abortion stances. I disagree with Ron Paul on both issues. However, since Ron Paul is against big government. He wouldn't vote to allow government to ban gay marriage or abortion. So, it ends up following my beliefs anyway. So, although he believes differently than me in his heart, he would vote in my favor. (somebody correct me if im wrong here, but I reviewed his past votes and the only anti abortion legilslation he voted for was the partial birth abortion law.) I think he said about abortion its up to the states to decide. Which I am fine with.


As to the blowback policy, I think you may actually agree with Dr. Paul. They asked him what his reaction to 9-11 would have been, and he said he would have gone after them. Them being osama bin laden and the people responsible. However, at the same time he would review his policy that lead up to 9-11 to see what caused it and if we were doing anything wrong. The people that commited the act would pay with their lives. He talked about how bush has given up on Osama. Osama is most likely in pakistan, pakistan gets nukes, so bush gives them money ::thumbs up::
Ron would have focused on osama.


Edit: That is, I agree with Ron on what the role of government should be, which makes points like gay marriage and abortion moot because we both believe it is not the federal governments responsibility to police these things.

[/ QUOTE ]


That's where he and I disagree (and now you and me). I don't think gay rights should be left up to the state to decide. To me, this is the same as leaving segregation up to each state to decide (Ok, I'll admit, I'm not sure if that's how segregation was decided in the end or not, but either way I think it's wrong, Brown V. Board of Ed. in 1954 was a Federal Supreme Court Case, no?) Gay's rights are a federal issue, just the same as segregation - this cannot be brought down to be just "marriage rights", it's a lot more than that, it's about racism and bigotry.

[LooseCaller]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

you are aware that by non-interventionist he doesnt mean pacifist, right? he's simply opposed to unnecessary nation building and intervention in conflicts that have no direct impact on our national security.

[Jeffiner99]

It's not giving in to the bees to stop poking a stick in their hive.

[Taso]

That's not what I was saying. I'll try to explain it using your analogy.

I'm walking around and I see a bee hive, I poke it with a stick, I get stung. So I say, "Okay, I won't poke your behive anymore, my bad." But then, the bull that's in the yard sees me and he goes "moo, moo" which, roughly translated, means, "I don't like him walking on my grass...The Bees didn't like what he was doing, and they stung him, so maybe if I charge him he'll stop walking on my grass." So it charges me, and after removing a horn from my bum, I say, "okay, I won't walk on your grass anymore." So I climb into a tree but then the falcon thats in the tree goes, "ka-kawww, ka-kawww" which, roughly translated means, "I don't like him in my tree, let me see if what the bull and the bee did will work for me." And it starts pecking my eyes out.

And I fall and die.


Does that make sense? I'm being serious here, I think it's a decent analogy.

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not what I was saying. I'll try to explain it using your analogy.

I'm walking around and I see a bee hive, I poke it with a stick, I get stung. So I say, "Okay, I won't poke your behive anymore, my bad." But then, the bull that's in the yard sees me and he goes "moo, moo" which, roughly translated, means, "I don't like him walking on my grass...The Bees didn't like what he was doing, and they stung him, so maybe if I charge him he'll stop walking on my grass." So it charges me, and after removing a horn from my bum, I say, "okay, I won't walk on your grass anymore." So I climb into a tree but then the falcon thats in the tree goes, "ka-kawww, ka-kawww" which, roughly translated means, "I don't like him in my tree, let me see if what the bull and the bee did will work for me." And it starts pecking my eyes out.

And I fall and die.


Does that make sense? I'm being serious here, I think it's a decent analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]



Man, this analogy is getting complex. Here is my go.

I am fine with poking the bee-hive with the stick. However, our policy should be to not poke the bee hive with a stick unless there is a an extremely strong reason for poking it.

Edit: But I certainly agree that our policy cannot be to universally back down to threats. We have to meet threats agressively like you say. We just shouldn't create trouble by getting involved in situations that have nothing to do with us.

[NeBlis]

I guess if there is a negative for me it is that hes the only one like him right now. Also I think that the no holds bared minarchy will get my vote but could be very bad for him if his opponents are smart (fortunately they are not)

i was talking about this problem in an earlier thread

my post on RPs hard core minarchy

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's not what I was saying. I'll try to explain it using your analogy.

I'm walking around and I see a bee hive, I poke it with a stick, I get stung. So I say, "Okay, I won't poke your behive anymore, my bad." But then, the bull that's in the yard sees me and he goes "moo, moo" which, roughly translated, means, "I don't like him walking on my grass...The Bees didn't like what he was doing, and they stung him, so maybe if I charge him he'll stop walking on my grass." So it charges me, and after removing a horn from my bum, I say, "okay, I won't walk on your grass anymore." So I climb into a tree but then the falcon thats in the tree goes, "ka-kawww, ka-kawww" which, roughly translated means, "I don't like him in my tree, let me see if what the bull and the bee did will work for me." And it starts pecking my eyes out.

And I fall and die.


Does that make sense? I'm being serious here, I think it's a decent analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]



Man, this analogy is getting complex. Here is my go.

I am fine with poking the bee-hive with the stick. However, our policy should be to not poke the bee hive with a stick unless there is a an extremely strong reason for poking it.

Edit: But I certainly agree that our policy cannot be to universally back down to threats. We have to meet threats agressively like you say. We just shouldn't create trouble by getting involved in situations that have nothing to do with us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do agree with that, but in a reserved sort of way. We've already poked the bee hive, and this is where my analogy comes into play - we need to stick around, get stung, and wait for the bees to chill out.

As far as other bee hives, yes, let's avoid them. But again, reserved about this. When you see the conditions the people in North Korea are living in, it's extremly sad, and hard to not want to get involved. Ron Paul talks about our involvment in Korea in the 1950's like it was a mistake, he says (paraphrasing), "look at Vietnam, they are unified and we are starting to invest in them." Yeah, but look at South Korea, it's doing extremly well, much better than Vietnam, and we already have a lot invested there. My point is, when do we get involved? Only when our security is at risk? The problem with that is it is basically what allowed WWII to become so huge - if the nations had gotten involved sooner, instead of just waiting until their security was threatened, it would have been over that much quicker. Also, how can we justify not getting involved if we see genocide occuring (not referring to WWII anymore, just in the future ie: Darfur)


By the way, NeBlis? Wheel of Time, or just coincidence?

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's not what I was saying. I'll try to explain it using your analogy.

I'm walking around and I see a bee hive, I poke it with a stick, I get stung. So I say, "Okay, I won't poke your behive anymore, my bad." But then, the bull that's in the yard sees me and he goes "moo, moo" which, roughly translated, means, "I don't like him walking on my grass...The Bees didn't like what he was doing, and they stung him, so maybe if I charge him he'll stop walking on my grass." So it charges me, and after removing a horn from my bum, I say, "okay, I won't walk on your grass anymore." So I climb into a tree but then the falcon thats in the tree goes, "ka-kawww, ka-kawww" which, roughly translated means, "I don't like him in my tree, let me see if what the bull and the bee did will work for me." And it starts pecking my eyes out.

And I fall and die.


Does that make sense? I'm being serious here, I think it's a decent analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]



Man, this analogy is getting complex. Here is my go.

I am fine with poking the bee-hive with the stick. However, our policy should be to not poke the bee hive with a stick unless there is a an extremely strong reason for poking it.

Edit: But I certainly agree that our policy cannot be to universally back down to threats. We have to meet threats agressively like you say. We just shouldn't create trouble by getting involved in situations that have nothing to do with us.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys are all wrong. Here's the proper analogy.

I'm walking the the street and pass an elderly lady. I steal her walker. After running 20 feet I throw it into a Victoria's Secret display window and punch myself in the crotch, then spit on a wandering kitten. Then I spot a beehive, which I promptly wipe my ass with. So, the bees are pretty pissed. Maybe 'crapped' is a more proper adjective. Anyway, I get like 178 stings on my ass but since I'm a masochist I get an erection. I'm so happy that I sprint, but I accidentally run into a parked car, erection first. That hurt like hell.

Will this happen to me again? Probably.

qed