Ron Paul Takes Second In Nevada

[brandondrury]

I'm sure this won't be on the conventional media outlets, but I just wanted everyone to know that Ron Paul took second in the Nevada primary. In my person opinion, this shoots down the "count win" argument immediately. So say that no one is voting for Ron Paul is ridiculous. I'm certainly voting for Ron Paul.

Brandon

[kyle barton]

i really like 70% of his ideas, until he gets into his "hide-out-in-America" mentality. the world is way too small for that kind of thinking now.

but the president has to be presidential. he has a little too much weasle-factor for me. does he really look or sound or behave like the future leader of the free world?

i'm pretty disappointed with my choices this year.

[brandondrury]

i really like 70% of his ideas, until he gets into his "hide-out-in-America" mentality

"Hide Out In America"? What are you talking about? This implies that if America isn't invading or attacking another country than America is somehow weak. I think it's the opposite. America's foreign policy since 1945 has been the dominated by pussies who need troops in 150 countries (which we ENTIRELY CAN NOT AFFORD!!) so we get the added luxury of security.

You are simply repeating the mistakes of Harry Truman. You think that pointing a gun in the face of your enemy makes you more secure. It does not. With every increase in nuclear capabilities, we've made ourselves less secure each and every time at the expense of billions of dollars. Most people aren't into the history thing as much as I am, so they will NEVER actually hear that we are repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

Maybe you have more money than you need, but I only personally know 2 people that have more money than they need. For the rest of us, let me give you a brief history lesson that you won't find in a high school text book.

This is quoted from Dwight Eisenhower himself, the man who beat Hitler. This was said in 1952 in his "The Chance For Peace" speech.

"This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, and the hopes of its children.....

The jet plane that roars over your head costs 3/4 of a million dollars. That is more money than a man...is going to make in a lifetime. What world can afford this sort of thing for long? We are in an armaments race. Where will it lead us? At worst, to atomic warfare. At best, to robbing every person and nation on earth of the fruits of their own toil.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brock school in more than thirty cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of sixty thousand population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of the threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

Most people assume we are the richest country in the world. I'm sure this is technically true. However, they don't realize that the way of life we have "enjoyed" for the last 40 something years has been because we've borrowed money from Britian, France, Germany, Japen, CHINA, and MEXICO!

This notion that we need to continue to police the world is technically possible. However, the way I see it, we need to go ahead and cough up the cash to pay for the extravagant lifestyle you as so many Americans are big on. U.S. National Debt Clock I personally don't have $30,000 to pay for bombs that were never used or troops that were never used.

At the moment, it appears that you owe $30,000. (If you have a wife and two kids your household owes $120,000!!)

This whole "World Police On A Credit Card" idea stemmed from the shock of being surprise attacked at Pearl Harbor. The idea was to make sure that never happened again by taking money away from schools, roads, social security, and all other things the government is supposed to take care of with our tax money. The problem with this thinking is that there was an ENORMOUS fleet in Pearl Habor in 1941 (while we were still isolationist in our thinking). We had a more dense concentration of military power there than probably anywhere in the World since. (Again, military power makes one less secure).

but the president has to be presidential. he has a little too much weasle-factor for me. does he really look or sound or behave like the future leader of the free world?

This is subjective. I get 0% of the "weasel factor". He's the only one that explains HOW he is going to achieve his goals. He says he's going to cut this and that. The othre candidates simply say "I want to do this" but with no real plan to do so. I think he sounds EXACTLY how a leader of the United States should sound.

i'm pretty disappointed with my choices this year.

Other than Ron Paul, I hear you loud and clear.

[kyle barton]

easy with all the assumptions bro.

i believe there are bad people in the world that want to do me and mine harm.

i believe ron paul would do next-to-nothing to confront them.

and i believe that offense wins championships, regardless of the cliches to the contrary.

[brandondrury]

easy with all the assumptions bro.

What assumptions?

i believe there are bad people in the world that want to do me and mine harm.

That's a popular standpoint. When I think about who is threatening me, I'm much more worried about people who live down the road. My girlfriend had here car broken into about a year ago. That cost us $500. In our Southeast Missouri area, there are usually about 3 reports of rape / child molestation in the paper each day. That stuff seriously worries me.

I can't imagine how an entire Army fights terrorism. I always kind of looked at terrorists as serial killers with slightly more motive. You don't fight serial killers with tanks and helicopters. It seems more logical to fight these terroritsts / serial killers with team from Silence of The Lambs than with the Army you would use to take Okinawa.

I still haven't ruled out the notion that invading countries causes terrorism. That idea is often ignored by the neo-conservative side, but I'd love to understand a real reason why the US playing god in X country doesn't cause resentment.

i believe ron paul would do next-to-nothing to confront them.

We can only speculate as to what he would really do. However, I think we simply make it clear. Set one foot on America soil and we start a real nuclear war. Done. I'm of the opinion that we should be pickier about the battles we fight and when we do fight, go for an all out offensive. (Eisenhower warned us about half-assing wars. He said that half-assed wars are unwinnable which has been demonstrated in Korea, Vietnam, and now in Irag. Of course, he also said that situations of guerilla warfar were unwinnable but that hasn't stopped us from trying.

i believe that offense wins championships, regardless of the cliches to the contrary.

I can't argue with your logic, but there is a big different between having a great quarterback and paying the mafia to break the legs of the team you are playing next Sunday. I think we've taken the second approach a little more than necessary.

Excessive offense is also ridiculous. There is a reason that they punt in the NFL.

History has shown that military strategists who have attempted the "no-punt" concept have not done well. If we ignore all the usual stigmas, Hitler used this strategy against the will practically every Nazi general possible. You can see how this turned out at Stalingrad.

In the end, I'm not military strategist, but I do have to say that I'm more scared of our economic situation than I am of terrorism or war on American soil. Inflation is out of control. China is buying up American resources like crazy because that our dollar is losing value each and ever day.

I think it's a very scary time economically for our country and if we can't get our finances together, some EXTREMELY bad things can happen in America that resemble our problems in 1865 a lot more than they resemble our problems in 2001.

That's how I see it anyway.

Brandon

[kyle barton]

i agree with nearly all that.

i vote based on these issues....
1. taxes - i don't want to pay 'em
2. rules - i want the government to give me as few as possible, and leave it up to the states whenever possible.
3. security - i want the government to do everything reasonable to protect my family and property.
4. supreme court nominees - do we really need more ruth ginsbergs on the court? i hope not.

which means that i'm pretty libertarian minded. i can sympathize with many of ron paul's talking points. i mostly differ with him on national security, and the fact that he just gives me a creep-out factor.

we always dealt with bullys on the playground by beating the crap out of them, not by giving them our lunch money and hoping they'd go away.

the tough guys running for president seem to fail in other areas for me. which is why i'm pretty disillusioned with this year's candidates.

dems - they're all out for me cause i'm a low tax, low government intrusion guy

huckabee - nice guy but seems to love taxes

mccain - he's a dem with a really good war resume. i wouldn't trust him with a supreme court nomination

paul - he's a libertarian that i WOULD trust with a supreme court pick, but not on national defense/offense

romney - he's seems like a big-government/big deficit republican like bush. but i would trust his administrative skills more than all the rest of the candiates.

giuliani - he's a tough guy, with probably good administration skills. he's probably my favorite, especially if i could get comfortable that he would only nominate constructionist supreme court justices.

thompson - seems too tired to be president

[brandondrury]

we always dealt with bullys on the playground by beating the crap out of them, not by giving them our lunch money and hoping they'd go away.

Agreed, but I've never read about Ron Paul doing this. There seems to be a fine line as to who the bully is.

taxes - i don't want to pay 'em

Of course, but how else are we going to pay to keep troops in well over 130 countries? Just toss it on the debt? (We can only do this so long before eventually cause our own economic collapse).

he just gives me a creep-out factor.

Can you put your finger on why? Just curious. It's not really an easy question to answer.

dems - they're all out for me cause i'm a low tax, low government intrusion guy

Agreed. The democrats are too socialist for my tastes.

giuliani - he's a tough guy, with probably good administration skills. he's probably my favorite, especially if i could get comfortable that he would only nominate constructionist supreme court justices.

My opinion of him stems back to the mafia books I've read where they always considered him a weasal that would do anything to get on the front page of the paper.

In regard to all non-Ron Paul nominees, I just can't see how this war in Irag has benefited me or anyone else living in this country. Oil isn't any cheaper. The debt is higher. The prices of amunition and metal have doubled in just one year. The only people that seem to have benefits are the war profiteers (who just happen to be in office).

I say we get out of Iraq just like we got out of Korea and Vietnam. LEAVE! For all I care, just tell the America people we won, come home, have the parade, and do the whole victory bit. I would be 100% content with that.

Brandon

[kyle barton]

i'd like to tell you why he bugs me, but i just can't put my finger on it exactly. it's just visceral. it's the high pitched shrieky voice (my perception). the frantic way he presents an argument just makes me think he's frantic in general, which is a quality i don't admire in the "boss". everyone (not me) loved bill clinton because he was cool. ron paul could learn a lot from bill clinton.

i remember that the iraq war was about eliminating a big stockpile of WMDs that the whole world believed was there, and the nut who had his finger on the trigger of those WMDs.

i think there was something compelling about an adventure to kill off a guy who had used gas on his own people, when we couldn't find the guy who had attacked us.

revisionist historians, and politicians of both persuasions seem to have forgotten that they all believed in Iraqi WMDs at the time. with maybe the exception of ron paul.

[brandondrury]

i'd like to tell you why he bugs me, but i just can't put my finger on it exactly. it's just visceral. it's the high pitched shrieky voice (my perception). the frantic way he presents an argument just makes me think he's frantic in general, which is a quality i don't admire in the "boss". everyone (not me) loved bill clinton because he was cool. ron paul could learn a lot from bill clinton.

If you get a bad vibe about a guy you have to go with your gut. Personally I don't see it. I do understand that Clinton was "cool" but that had a lot more to do with being more comfortable at lieing and that sort of thing.

i think there was something compelling about an adventure to kill off a guy who had used gas on his own people, when we couldn't find the guy who had attacked us.

That's an extremely expensive moral boost!

revisionist historians, and politicians of both persuasions seem to have forgotten that they all believed in Iraqi WMDs at the time

Agreed. So maybe the orginal war had it's debately merits. However, after those merits have been reduced to the point of non existance, what is the point in staying? How much money are we willing to spend on this?

Brandon

[kyle barton]

Originally Posted by brandondrury

I do understand that Clinton was "cool" but that had a lot more to do with being more comfortable at lieing and that sort of thing.

no argument from me