Who do you support for US President?

[ham]

Quote:Paul is an isolationist on foreign policy, or as he puts it, a "non-interventionist." Whatever you call it, this is a problem when the country is being attacked by foreign terrorists. There's a difference between "avoiding foreign entanglements" and protecting yourself.

You are right.
The Huns sunk the Lusitania with all those innocent civilians aboard...the bastards said it carried ammunition to France...I mean...a few years ago they disclosed it was true.
How many countries have the USA invaded?
Come on...

evil rugheads and their nasty god?
Does anyone remember the Soviets griping about it and the USA saying it was diversity and freedom fighting?
Why would you defend the privilege of those who bombed Iraq only to flee with money?
Because right or wrong it's your country?
Well, that's what a jihadist thinks like: after all, the Muslim brotherhood first (or what HE thinks Islam is anyways).
Even the jihadist thinks that he feels strong about right and wrong and got to fight for what's right...he took a stand because you hurt his friends and he can't let it slide...sounds familiar?
Meanwhile I introduce my all-time favorite...


You can't even THINK of measuring up to THIS.




HEE HAW!

[Virtual Bison]

(01-19-2012 05:08 AM)ham Wrote:  You are right.
The Huns sunk the Lusitania with all those innocent civilians aboard...the bastards said it carried ammunition to France...I mean...a few years ago they disclosed it was true.
How many countries have the USA invaded?
Come on...

evil rugheads and their nasty god?
Does anyone remember the Soviets griping about it and the USA saying it was diversity and freedom fighting?
Why would you defend the privilege of those who bombed Iraq only to flee with money?
Because right or wrong it's your country?
Well, that's what a jihadist thinks like: after all, the Muslim brotherhood first (or what HE thinks Islam is anyways).
Even the jihadist thinks that he feels strong about right and wrong and got to fight for what's right...he took a stand because you hurt his friends and he can't let it slide...sounds familiar?
Meanwhile I introduce my all-time favorite...

If you are saying what I think you are then I would have to say I agree. Too often the media serves up our villains and we are made to hate them. Saddam Hussein, Usama Bin Ladin, Omar Kadaffy, Manuel Norriega etc etc etc...

Yet does our media really tell us who created these monsters?

How many of us really know that the Taliban was financed by the CIA back when the Afghans were invaded by the Reds, or that Norriega was a puppet of the US who became expendable once he became a liability?

I will not give Obama a free pass on this, he is continuing the same wars that Reagan, Bush and later Clinton started. His is part of the same club.

Republican or Democrat, what difference does it make. The powers that be control it all. The golden rule: He who has the gold rules.

Incidentally, you can get a good idea of what a candidate stands for by who supports him or her and who hates them. Paul is unique in the fact that he has support from both tea party members and the 99% movement. And he has the scorn of all the big government liberals and big money conservatives.

[Armando Ramos]

(01-19-2012 03:32 AM)Virtual Bison Wrote:  I believe that he would undoubtedly support the cause of academic freedom, including the rights of non-traditional education institutions to exist.

Probably not one of the big issues in the election, but I agree he probably likes free markets in all industries, including education.

Where he gets off center is defense. I like the theoretical notion that if everyone was busy making money with trade and commerce there would be no need to have wars. Unfortunately there are these people who wear diapers on their heads who don't read Hayek and like to crash planes into buildings more than they like making money.

Why did Paul vote in favor of war in Afghanistan? Does he really believe in the Star Trek non-interference rule, or does he just go with the flow like all the other unprincipled pols? Or as Mark Levin asks:

Quote:Ron Paul voted to go to war in Afghanistan even though Congress did not pass a declaration of war.

Is Ron Paul...

○ Hypocritical

○ A Neo-con

○ Confused

http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp...spid=32364

[Virtual Bison]

Actually I found the perfect candidate: Stephen Colbert!

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakin...Comments=y

[Ben Johnson]

(01-21-2012 07:40 PM)Virtual Bison Wrote:  Actually I found the perfect candidate: Stephen Colbert!

Seriously - an asshole.

[Herbert Spencer]

(10-11-2011 12:49 PM)Virtual Bison Wrote:  Who will get your vote?

Interesting how quickly the political landscape can change. Your poll was topical when you posted it just over three months ago. You left off Newt and Santorum, you included Perry, Cain and Bachmann. If we get a brokered convention can Palin be ignored?

(10-12-2011 02:13 AM)WilliamW Wrote:  Paul is an isolationist on foreign policy, or as he puts it, a "non-interventionist." Whatever you call it, this is a problem when the country is being attacked by foreign terrorists. There's a difference between "avoiding foreign entanglements" and protecting yourself.

Thought of this thread when I read this today:

Quote:Mythbusting Isolationism
Ron Paul supporters have re-launched an old ad promoting the old idea of American isolationism. “We now are a nation known to start war,” Paul is quoted as saying. “We feel compelled because of our insecurity that we have to go over and attack these countries to maintain our empire.” The message here (and repeated elsewhere) is that Paul’s isolationism (or non-interventionism, as some people prefer to say) is aligned with the Founding Fathers and “what is truly American and truly constitutional.” This tired refrain is a gross misrepresentation of American history and dangerously misleading guidance to a nation that faces serious challenges at home and abroad.

The myth that our Founders were isolationists who sought to withdraw from the world and focus solely on the home front is tempting, considering the international fatigue and anxiety about America’s future. But labeling the Founders as isolationists is simply untrue, and perpetuating this myth about the Founders prevents America from facing today’s security challenges.

The Founders rejected modern approaches in American foreign policy—whether power politics, isolationism, or crusading internationalism. Instead, they designed a truly American foreign policy—fundamentally shaped by our principles but not ignorant of the place of necessity in international relations.

The classic statement of this is Washington’s Farewell Address, sometimes wrongly read as isolationist dogma. Yes, Washington rightly warns us against “the insidious wiles of foreign influence” and yes, Washington correctly states that in extending commercial relations we should have as little political connection with those nations as possible. But that’s common sense not isolationism. Washington explains the objective: “to gain time for our country to settle and mature its recent institutions, and to progress, without interruption, to that degree of strength and consistency, which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, command of its own fortunes.”

Washington distinguishes between the principle of sovereign independence and the specific policy prudence dictates we follow:

"If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall Counsel."

Rather than trap themselves in some absolute and permanent doctrine of non-intervention in the world, the Founders advocated a prudent and flexible policy aimed at achieving—and thereafter permanently maintaining—America's sovereign independence. Such a policy enables Americans to determine their own fate.

Necessity dictates that the United States must be ready to fight wars and use force to protect the nation and the American people. Hence Washington often liked to use the old Roman maxim: “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of promoting peace.” The Founders made sure they were prepared and were not reluctant to use force. How else can we choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall counsel?

National security is a challenge for all nations, but particularly for democratic political systems dedicated to the limitation of power. Maintaining security sometimes requires the use of force in ways that are more secretive and less open than democracy prefers. Likewise, national security sometimes requires restrictions and sacrifices that would be inimical to personal liberty were it not for significant threats to the nation. Indeed, even though massive government spending and constitutional overreach are on the chopping block, the core and undisputed constitutional responsibility of the United States government to provide for the common defense is not up for negotiation.

The solution to these dilemmas is not to deny the use of force or to make it so onerous as to be ineffective. America must be able and willing to defend its liberty. The solution, then, is a well-constructed constitution that focuses power on legitimate purposes and then divides that power so that it does not go unchecked.

At a time when we should be seriously thinking about our strategy and commitments anew in an increasingly dangerous world—doing so in the context of unlimited government spending and uncontrolled debt that threatens to force us in to national bankruptcy and undermine our very sovereign independence—we should be wary of claims, however tempting in the moment, that the naïve ideology of isolationism has a place in the pantheon of America’s principles.

[ham]

this man stood before the public and the tide of interventionism and rapacious nanny state...they called him a racist, destroyed the country he had created and thought they had the last laugh...not really...slavery? Come on! It was abolished in Brasil without any wars...why did yankees fail to support -and even boycott- the back to Africa program of the 1820-30s?
PFFT! Just tell me how many times the back to Africa program is mentioned in any of these inequality narratives...never...why? You tell me.

[Herbert Spencer]

Santorum weighs in on college, and he's right on point. Too bad he's a total washout on immigration and government spending. Somebody ought to introduce him to Ron Paul. Or one of the Ron Paul campus babes.

Quote:January 25, 2012 5:47 PM
Rick Santorum: Left uses college for "indoctrination"
By Brian Montopoli

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Wednesday that "the left" uses universities to indoctrinate young people for the purpose of "holding and maintaining power."

After saying "we've lost, unfortunately, our entertainment industry," Santorum told a Naples, Florida, audience that "we've lost our higher education, that was the first to go a long time ago."

"It's no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to college," said the former Pennsylvania senator. "The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America. And it is indoctrination. If it was the other way around, the ACLU would be out there making sure that there wasn't one penny of government dollars going to colleges and universities, right?"

He continued: "If they taught Judeo-Christian principles in those colleges and universities, they would be stripped of every dollar. If they teach radical secular ideology, they get all the government support that they can possibly give them. Because you know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it."

Santorum went on to encourage his audience not to "give money" to colleges and universities that he said are causing harm to the country.

"I'll bet you there are people in this room who give money to colleges and universities who are undermining the very principles of our country every single day by indoctrinating kids with left-wing ideology," he said. "And you continue to give to these colleges and universities. Let me have a suggestion: Stop it."

Santorum said at the same event that he is leaving the Florida campaign trail this weekend - ahead of the state's January 31 primary - to go home and retrieve his tax returns, so he can release them.

A new CNN/Time/ORC International poll showed Santorum at 11 percent in the Sunshine State, far behind rivals Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

[Virtual Bison]

(01-25-2012 04:31 AM)Herbert Spencer Wrote:  Interesting how quickly the political landscape can change. Your poll was topical when you posted it just over three months ago. You left off Newt and Santorum, you included Perry, Cain and Bachmann. If we get a brokered convention can Palin be ignored?

Probably because at the time this was originally posted neither Gingrich nor Santorum were factors.

Looks Newt is the blackhorse in this presidential race.

Though I like Paul a lot, I think his nontraditional style and especially his opposition to the military industrial complex (the same gang that Eisenhower warned us about) will mean that he will never get the nomination. The corporatist have their money on Romney and Gingrich is a close second. Also working against Paul is the fact that he opposes the Israel lobby and that is the kiss of death for any politician. Just ask Howard Dean.