Beardless Gandalf for President!

...of Middle Earth, or whatever shire he lives in.

State your case and post quotes. There are 50 states. Why should Ron Paul rule them all?

1. He has been saying that the U.S. economy has been heading toward disaster for 30 years.

2. His former economic advisor, Peter Schiff, had claimed in 2006 that the U.S. economy was in dire shape, and was literally laughed at by other commentators and hosts. YouTube: Peter Schiff Was Right.

3. Unlike most politicians, and citizens for that matter, he actually has a defined and consistent philosophy.

4. He would end our wars and start bringing troops from across the globe home.

5. He understands that inflation is a form of insidious taxation in which the government and bankers have been plundering American wealth.

6. Trade with all; alliances with none.

7. He would end the War on Drugs, which disproportionately affects miniorities I might add.

8. No more bail outs for the rich.

9. He's against the USA PATRIOT Act.

10. He's against Americans being felt up by the TSA.

11. He's for internet freedom.

12. He would respect the system of federalism and state sovreignty (states, not being individuals, cannot have rights).

13. He's actually principled, and not corrupt. He's perhaps the only congress critter in Washington that I trust.

14. He's better than Palin, Romney, Gingrich, Huckabee, et al.

15. As a former gynecologist, he's had his fingers in more pussies than the rest of us could ever imagine.

Ron Paul's "What if?" speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s_IUwwGq-A




Peter Schiff Was Right (Both he and Ron Paul are of the Austrian school of economic thought):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

*Crickets*

In addition, from a Republican Party standpoint, if Ron Paul were to win the primary, the presidential debates would make President Obama look like the hypocrite and unprincipled corporate whore that he is. The health care abomination doesn't even help people; it simply forces more people to give the health insurance companies money (and creates crushing tax paperwork for small businesses, and provides for a federal usurpation of student loans. Seriously, if the government didn't subsidize education, tuition costs would be lower, and we wouldn't have so many people with degrees working at Starbucks.). In any case, Ron Paul had stated that in one respect, those who oppose it should not fret; the bankruptcy of America will force the healthcare bill to become null and void by de facto.

Anyway, on to some further points:

1. Obama opposed the wars, and gave his equivocational speech about removing combat troops. Ron Paul said that we marched in and can very well march out.

2. Obama likes killing people with drone aircraft. Ron Paul prefers diplomacy.

3. Obama, who admitted to using drugs, laughs and dodges the question when asked about legalizing them. Ron Paul advocates the ending of the War on Drugs.

4. Obama believes that "interstate commerce" can mean absolutely anything. Ron Paul believes that as an elected representative, he is bound to uphold his Oath of Office.

5. Obama believes that giving money to the bankers on behalf of the taxpayer is good (seriously, no cognitive dissonance for his supposedly "liberal" supporters yet? For fuck's sake, how is Obama remotely "liberal?"). Ron Paul does not.

6. Obama supports people laboring without compensation in order to provide money to the government. Ron Paul does not.

7. Obama believes that the CIA, propping up dictators, etc. is good, noble, and righteous. Ron Pual does not.

8. Obama supports cap and trade, which, in his own words, would necessarily raise energy costs for the consumer (which hurts the poor the most). Ron Paul does not.

9. Obama does not understand individual and economic liberty, and how they are both intertwined. Ron Paul does.

10. Obama is an arrogant snake-oil salesman who has no clearly defined philosophy of governance (like most Americans and people on this site). Ron Paul does have a clearly defined philosophy; so clear, in fact, that I can easily predict how he will vote on a bill based on his thirty year, consistent voting record.

11. Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich, Palin, etc. have never served in the military, yet are quick to rattle a saber in order to start new wars that we cannot afford financially or physically. Ron Paul had served in Vietnam, yet is not so quick to lead American troops into wars that the government has no intention of decisively winning.

12. Romneycare. In his defense, Romney does have nice hair and a killer smile...

13. Palin. I mean, really?

14. I tire of spelling out the reasons why I would say, "Fuck 'em all! Vote Ron Paul!"


Seriously though, for the champions of Obama, I ask this: how is he any different than the previous president, aside from a few aesthetic differences? Sure the healthcare bill is a significant difference, but other than that, what is there?

Hell, anyone is better than Palin or Bachmann.

Hell, anyone is better than Palin or Bachmann. Originally Posted by MsElena

They're not beardless Gandalfs, so of course they are not up to par. But I guarantee you this: I'm sure much worse will come along. All I have to do is turn on C-SPAN and immediately notice that a Harvard education is absolutely worthless.

Okay, you are knowledgeable about Ron Paul but I still remember his stand on foreign policy and his statement that 9/11 was our fault.


What would Paul do if we were struck by another terrorist attack originating from overseas?
What would Paul do if an unfriendly country or regime announced that we were on its target list and they were looking for some nukes?
What would Paul do if an organization attacked the US and then took refuge in a foreign country that refused to cooperate with him?

Okay, you are knowledgeable about Ron Paul but I still remember his stand on foreign policy and his statement that 9/11 was our fault. Originally Posted by john_galt

What did he really say? Let us discover together:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQrwKr_b4Lg
(Take note how Ghouliani doesn't really says anything of substance, but simply attempts to stir up the emotions of the audience with empty rhetoric.)

Ron Paul discusses foreign policy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00qUq...eature=related
One user's comment, which I had thought was on point: "The fact that Ron Paul's old-school conservative values are now considered 'libertarian' just proves how tyrannical both major parties have become."

Ron Paul discusses his conservative credentials, in response to being asked about his electability:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg9ko...eature=related

Ron Paul discusses entering Iraq before the invasion. He also discusses Just War Theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EywY...eature=related
One user's comment: "I feel so bad for Ron Paul's wife. He is always right." Hahahaha!

Finally, the foreign policy that Bush had ran on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc

What would Paul do if we were struck by another terrorist attack originating from overseas?
What would Paul do if an unfriendly country or regime announced that we were on its target list and they were looking for some nukes?
What would Paul do if an organization attacked the US and then took refuge in a foreign country that refused to cooperate with him? Originally Posted by john_galt

Ron Paul believes in a strong national defense, and his voting record shows that. Sure, he would support scaling back our outright excessive military "defense" budget, but we cannot sustain a "guns and butter" economy indefinitely. It's madness.

The best way to keep the U.S. safe is to not go stirring up shit. Believe it or not, I had once defended the wars, and had actually served in Iraq. It finally got to a point where I could no longer logically claim that our current occupation is in our best interests. If anything, I feel that the U.S. is less safe, and more vulnerable to attack. Also, the U.S. doesn't seem to want to win wars anymore (I wonder if that is by design...).

Lest someone throw around the term isolationist to describe Ron Paul, I'll go ahead and say that such a term in inaccurate. He is a non-interventionist. An isolationist is someone who stays inside their home with the doors locked and windows shuttered; a non-interventionist will leave his house to buy things and associate with others; an interventionist will murder his neighbor just because he purchased a bigger firearm.

None of this answers the questions. I am asking you, what do you think Paul would do given the three questions I posed. I don't want to heat that we are less likely to be put in that position with Paul because you know that is really crap. There are bad guys out there.
I will also pose a fourth question; what if an oppressed population is attempting to overthrow a tyrant and requests help from the United States. You can think Libya 2011, Venezuela 2012, or Mexico 2013.

None of this answers the questions. I am asking you, what do you think Paul would do given the three questions I posed. I don't want to heat that we are less likely to be put in that position with Paul because you know that is really crap. There are bad guys out there.
I will also pose a fourth question; what if an oppressed population is attempting to overthrow a tyrant and requests help from the United States. You can think Libya 2011, Venezuela 2012, or Mexico 2013. Originally Posted by john_galt

Forgive me; you ask fair and very important questions, but I had two issues that had prevented me from answering immediately, and I want to make sure that I give you the most accurate answer possible. While I'm generally knowledgeable on Ron Paul's stances, and his reponses to such situations, I wanted to consider the individual scenarios carefully (And yes, I'm aware what the "hypothetical" issues are referring to). My first issue, was that I had a dental appointment, and I had simply run out of time to extend my post. My second, and more pressing issue, is that for the sake of the utmost accuracy to my answers, I wish to conduct some research and confer with others who are more knowledgeable on Ron Paul's stance on such specific scenarios. From a purely political standpoint, Ron Paul's foreign policy is his Achilles Heel amongst Repbulicans, and I want to make sure that I do not mischaracterize any of Ron Paul's stances. I will answer you shortly.

First, I will need to address the issue of non-interventionism. I will not disagree that there are threats out there, and that we will always have to be prepared for the worst. However, I do not believe that it is accurate to imply that minding our own business won't make us safer. Obviously, if we are meddling in foreign affairs, there will be consequences.

Ron Paul believes that 9/11 was the result of blowback, and that are meddling in the Middle East, and its relation to 9/11, was a matter of cause and effect. Michael Scheuer agrees with Ron Paul, and is a person who was in a good position to make such an assessment.

From Wikipedia (Yes, I know Wikipedia isn't the best source, but I wanted to provide a brief description of Michael Scheurer):

Michael F. Scheuer

(born 1952[1]) is an American blogger, historian, foreign policy critic, and political analyst. He is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies. He was formerly an intelligence officer at the Central Intelligence Agency. In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station"), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.
Scheuer became a public figure after being outed as the anonymous author of the 2004 book Imperial Hubris, in which he criticized many of the United States' assumptions about Islamist insurgencies and particularly Osama bin Laden. He depicts bin Laden as a rational actor who is fighting to weaken the United States by weakening its economy, rather than merely combating and killing Americans. He challenges the common assumption that terrorism is the threat that the United States is facing in the modern era, arguing rather that Islamist insurgency (and not "terrorism")[2] is the core of the conflict between the U.S. and Islamist forces, who in places such as Kashmir, Xinjiang, and Chechnya are "struggling not just for independence but against institutionalized barbarism."[2][3] Osama bin Laden acknowledged the book in a 2007 statement, suggesting that it revealed "the reasons for your losing the war against us".[4][5]
In February 2009, Scheuer was terminated from his position as a senior fellow of The Jamestown Foundation. Scheuer has written that he was fired by the organization for stating that "the current state of the U.S.-Israel relationship undermined U.S. national security."[6]

Michael Scheurer (Ignore some of the editing; the video was anti-Giuliani propaganda, but I was looking for something fairly brief and which had included Michael Scheuer's comments on Islamic terrorism):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6pNuAq1zW4

A more in-depth analysis of Islamic terror by Michael Scheuer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ltUOkvTB10

In addition, after the debate, Ron Paul had given Giuliani a "reading assignment" which had included Scheuer's book, Imperial Hubris and even the 9/11 Commission Report.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhjfuBYw8Ko
Another version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZGHey7anhI

I think it's naive to assume that the U.S. can meddle in foreign affairs without any possible reaction whatsoever. If we did not attempt to police the world, we would be in a much safer and secure position. Obviously, such a foreign policy would not safeguard us from all threats, but it would reduce the vast majority of problems.

Ron Paul is not anti-military, nor is he against having a strong defense. Having a strong defense does not mean that we must engage in every conflict all of the time. He would use diplomacy first; war would be a last resort.

As for the Constitutional (i.e. legal) aspect of war, he believes that only Congress has the right to declare war. However, the President may mobilize the military in case of imminent attack, which neither Iran nor South Korea qualify at the moment. Take note of Romney's position on the Consitutionality of the President sending troops without Congressional approval, as dictated by the Constitution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibJfK1XfY8w

Ron Paul's view on the Iran situation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HD9n...eature=related
More in-depth analysis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YGiuF97fRE

The North Korean issue would be very simple. Withdraw all forces from South Korea and let the South Koreans pay for their own damned national defense. I would not be so willing to be so altruistic with the lives of our troops. As a former soldier, I would not wish to die for foreign interests, nor would I expect such of others. Also, perhaps we could stop sending foreign aide to the North Koreans?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysAfmHW35aU

As for terrorism, Ron Paul had immediately suggested a solution, before Bush had even invaded Afghanistan. Also, he had supported invading Afghanistan in order to get Osama bin Laden, but had opposed being in Afghanistan once the nation-building had begun.

Ron Paul had suggested using Letters of Marque and Reprisal in order to deal with the terrorist threat. Before making pirate jokes, consider that we are currently attempting to use conventional methods in order to combat asymmetric warfare. At the very least, should we not consider updating our arsenal of responses to potential threats (or, in this case, using an already Constitutionally-approved method)? He'd prefer precision strikes, as opposed to marching our armies into nations which may not even be responsible for terrorist attacks.

Ron Paul on Letters of Marque and Reprisal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSP9N...layer_embedded


"The New York Sun" on Ron Paul and Letters of Marque:
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/the-...uestion/87146/

No doubt Dr. Paul’s views have won him hosannas from some who oppose Israel for base reasons, but it is well to mark that the congressman is no friend of Osama bin Laden and his ilk. He is the leading advocate of using against Mr. Bin Laden one of the bedrock war powers of the Constitution, the letter of marque and reprisal. That constitutional instrument — which authorizes private parties to commit acts of war — was used against the Barbary Pirates. Letters of marque have issued only rarely since, but were advanced for use against terrorists back in the 1990s by the Jewish Forward.
Dr. Paul unsheathed the constitutional sword within days of Al Qaeda’s attacks on New York and Washington, introducing the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 to authorize private parties to go after Osama bin Laden. He has pressed continually since then for legislation authorizing the granting of such letters, delivering an eloquent exposition to anyone who will listen. Say what one will about that strategy, but after so many hundreds of billions of dollars of outlays on conventional war, letters of marque and reprisal seem less chimerical than when Dr. Paul first proposed them.

"Bush Rejects Taliban Offer to Surrender bin Laden"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...en-631436.html

After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush.

After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush.
The offer yesterday from Haji Abdul Kabir, the Taliban's deputy prime minister, to surrender Mr bin Laden if America would halt its bombing and provide evidence against the Saudi-born dissident was not new but it suggested the Taliban are increasingly weary of the air strikes, which have crippled much of their military and communications assets.

Philhelm, brilliant! As far as John's questions go, I am not certain what Ron Paul would do in those situations, but I do know what President Obama would do. President Obama would play golf, watch basketball, and find an exotic resort to visit. Then come home and throw a party for some rock stars and Hollywood celebrities. I think Ron Paul would pay more attention to the actual job of being President than our current President is.

Besides, Ron Paul, while being right on most issues, is on the edge of sanity. That is a good thing, because foreign countries couldn't be certain that he wouldn't respond aggressively to attacks. That's how Reagan solved the Iran hostage crisis. The Ayatollah thought, "That crazy bastard might really nuke us." Crazy goes a long way.