GOP Nomination

Think about how much of the military's overseas involvement wouldn't be necessary if we fully, FULLY developed our own oil,gas, coal and nuclear power. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Did you read this article?

http://www.chron.com/business/articl...ng-2341390.php

The situation contains a cruel irony for American drivers: U.S. crude oil production has risen in the last two years, while domestic gasoline sales have fallen. And yet, gasoline prices remain stubbornly high.
The reason, analysts say, is that fuel is now part of a global market, flowing wherever prices are best.
"If the price in Europe is a dollar more per gallon, pre-tax, than what the United States is paying, and shipping is 50 cents, why in the world would I supply the United States?" said James Beck, lead analyst for the Energy Information Administration's weekly petroleum supply team.

The rest of the candidates and Obama are all the same. They are all big government, war pushing, liberty stealing puppets. Originally Posted by Texaspride74

of varying degrees. ya know, hot, warm, and cold.

I like a lot of Ron Paul's ideas especially when it comes to personal liberties. I think he is definitely the most constitutional conservative of all the candidates. His isolationist foreign policy will never get him elected in the 21 century. To say that Iran, or North Korea would not be a threat if we just left them alone is naive or uniformed. Considering how long he has been in DC I don't know which is better. Originally Posted by boardman

this needs to be corrected on the isolationist thing.

He is not isolationist. He is non-interventionist. there is a difference.

most of the candidates are interventionist supporters to varying degrees.

btw, I wouldn't mind if the U.S. returned to isolationist stance. We had a lot of respect as a result of that stance. we didn't go around interfering in other countries affairs. After WWII that changed, we started playing empire politics amidst the cold war, the kind of stuff that the British empire used to do that gave everyone heartburns.

My first choice would be Allen West
. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

HEAR HEAR!!!


You know there's difference between a bleeding heart that spends their own money to take care of others and a bleeding heart that expects the government to do it all with other people's money. I loathe the latter. But if you want to save the world with your own money and don't expect hand out after hand out, I don't care what party you are, I'm with you.

You know there's difference between a bleeding heart that spends their own money to take care of others and a bleeding heart that expects the government to do it all with other people's money. I loathe the latter. But if you want to save the world with your own money and don't expect hand out after hand out, I don't care what party you are, I'm with you. Originally Posted by LovingKayla

I couldn't agree more...that's as Loving a statement as I've erver heard!

Ron Paul is neither naive nor uninformed. He has studied foreign policy longer than Obama has been alive. If you haven't heard his "Imagine" speech, which has been posted on this board several times, you won't understand his position. It makes more sense than we've seen in 50 years. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Ron Paul says Iran has a right to have a nuclear bomb just like any other country.

Ahmadinejad has made it obvious that Iran will nuke Israel as soon as they get the bomb. We can't risk calling his bluff.

It's naive to think that allowing Iran to get a nuclear bomb is an acceptable course of action; it will lead to a world war. If Israel takes a nuclear hit they will respond with nukes, and then it's bound to escalate.

This is deva vu all over again. Last time it was Hitler. Churchill took him seriously; Chamberlain thought he was bluffing.

Ron Paul says Iran has a right to have a nuclear bomb just like any other country.

Ahmadinejad has made it obvious that Iran will nuke Israel as soon as they get the bomb. We can't risk calling his bluff.

It's naive to think that allowing Iran to get a nuclear bomb is an acceptable course of action; it will lead to a world war. If Israel takes a nuclear hit they will respond with nukes, and then it's bound to escalate.

This is deva vu all over again. Last time it was Hitler. Churchill took him seriously; Chamberlain thought he was bluffing. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Joe honestly if you believe Iran will nuke Isreal than I have some prime ocean front property to sell you

Also quote the source where Ahmandinejad said he will nuke Iran- if you do I will delete my account- here is an article that shows what he actually said and the translation: http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle16218.htm
After reading the article maybe you will stop believing everything you read and hear because a lot of it is false- especially from FAUX news.
Let's say he said what you falsely claim-
1) Israel has nukes- so Israel would be able to hit back harder.
2) In what city in Israel would Iran launch a Nuke? I make this statement because Israel is a very small nation- so anywhere a nuke would be dropped would have a huge spill over- even if that dropped one on Tel Aviv- it would kill scores of people(radiation) in Jerusleam and in neighboring nations like Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.
3) Israel still has a huge number of muslims- do you think Iran is going to develop a nuke that will just kill jews and spare muslims and Christians in that nation?
4) Finally a nuke dropped anywhere in Israel would likely damage some of the holiest shrines in Israel- do you think the muslim world will be happy if Iran drops a nuke and destroys Jerusleam which is the muslims 2nd holiest city? If that scenario happened- the muslim nations would wipe out Iran.
So again Joe you show your lack of intelligence and how easy it is for you to buy into propaganda. So again show me the article or source which proves that Ahmadinejad said he would nuke Israel if they got a weapon- show me the source and if it's accurate I will delete my account- oh just for the record to prove that yo are telling a Falsehood I will BET YOU $10,000!!!!

If Iran nuked Israel the retaliation by Israel would devastate them. It would be suicide and they know it so I do not think they would do it.

I would like to discuss it with Ron Paul but I think his foreign policy is don't fuck with us and we will not fuck with you. I like it for the most part but if ignorance and poverty are allowed to spread to a large enough group of people and tyrants are allowed to act within their own borders any way they want it has the potential to create risk for us. I am not certain that non intervention is always the right answer and I would like to know his thoughts on that.

One thing I definitely agree with him on is that the President must get Congressional approval for non emergency military action.

I would like to discuss it with Ron Paul but I think his foreign policy is don't fuck with us and we will not fuck with you. I like it for the most part but if ignorance and poverty are allowed to spread to a large enough group of people and tyrants are allowed to act within their own borders any way they want it has the potential to create risk for us.
. Originally Posted by Laz

You can not, not have risk in this world.

The question becomes, "What price do you pay?".

I prefer the risk of an early death to longevity of suppressed freedoms.

I realize others feel differently.

If Iran nuked Israel the retaliation by Israel would devastate them. It would be suicide and they know it so I do not think they would do it.

I would like to discuss it with Ron Paul but I think his foreign policy is don't fuck with us and we will not fuck with you. I like it for the most part but if ignorance and poverty are allowed to spread to a large enough group of people and tyrants are allowed to act within their own borders any way they want it has the potential to create risk for us. I am not certain that non intervention is always the right answer and I would like to know his thoughts on that.

One thing I definitely agree with him on is that the President must get Congressional approval for non emergency military action. Originally Posted by Laz

I think what Ron Paul had in mind was to end the interference in other countries affairs. I'm referring to the kind of bullshit we and along with Britain pulled on Iraq & Iran when we engineered a coup that that eliminated 2 democracies and resulted in 2 dictatorships lasting 40 years or more.

Ok, Iran was a western leaning democracy until we forced the Shah on them. The Shah was a despot, and when enough anti-American sentiment was reached, he was overthrown in favor of an anti-western regime. Since then we have armed their enemy, Iraq, in a ten year war, and we continue to threaten them with all kinds of peril if they don't do what we insist. No wonder they don't listen to us.

If we would drop our "world hall monitor" persona, and went to them with proposals, rather than threats, we might be able to rekindle their pro-western attitude. The Iranians want to be democratic and capitalist, but as long as the US maintains its arrogant attitude, any movement that direction will be quenched quickly.

Who are we to tell them that even though they have a nuclear enemy, we won't allow them to develop nuclear weapons? They know there will be hell to pay if they ever use them, and Israel can take care of herself. With the right diplomacy, we could have an ally in Iran, even with nukes, which would be better for us, Israel and the entire Middle East.

Ok, Iran was a western leaning democracy until we forced the Shah on them. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Mossadeq and the Tudeh Party were not so "western leaning". Nevertheless, President Harry S. Truman’s Secretary of State Dean Acheson wrote, “Never had so few lost so much so stupidly.” He was referring to Britain’s response to Iran’s nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1952.

I think Iran wants to become like the United States - free and prosperous. Most Iranians hold their religion with the same "It's nice so long as it doesn't bother me" attitude as most western Christians do. If we'd quit fucking with them, we'd have a pretty strong ally. As long as we keep fucking with them, they are going to continue to do things to piss us off. And they know we won't take any real action against them, at least with the current weak president. And any intelligent President will quit fucking with them. Our "help" to Israel in this matter is doing them and the region more harm than good.