Ron Paul (2010-2011)

[Cidersomerset]

Thanks Jackovesk ......Great interview....Steve

[jackovesk]

Foreign Policy Experts Agree With Ron Paul’s Controversial Foreign Policy



Ron Paul is often chided by his Republican opponents for his extreme views on American foreign policy. His calls for ending all foreign wars and shutting hundreds of military bases across the globe have drawn howls from his GOP rivals, who have labeled the moves irresponsible and naïve.

His campaign pledge of cutting all foreign aid and withdrawing U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization and the United Nations has been at odds with even the most conservative members of his own party.

Yet as voting day in Iowa and New Hampshire draws near, Paul, the Congressman from Texas, is finding support for his non-interventionist positions from a growing number of foreign policy experts.

“He’s attacking our rich lazy friends, why is that not more popular,” said Harvey Sapolsky, emeritus professor of public policy and organization at MIT. He backs Paul’s calls for reducing America’s military budget, arguing that much of it is used to defend wealthy nations’ security.

A huge, Cold War-era global presence — with hundreds of overseas military bases — isn’t necessary, now that the Soviet threat is over and the collapse of communism, Sapolsky said.

“It’s not in America’s interest,” said Sapolsky, who added that despite the drumbeat in the media over the fear of terrorism, America is the safest it has ever been in its history.

Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is also another foreign policy expert who agrees that the United States is extraordinarily secure due to its geography and nuclear weapons, and doesn’t need a huge global presence.

He also argued that the United States’ military is being used in overseas conflicts with little or no national interest, specifically pointing to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Preble gave Paul credit for being one of the few outspoken critics of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

For sure America’s attitudes toward the war has changed and popular opinion seems to be on his side.

It’s evident at most of his campaign stops, where Paul’s calls for the troops to return home are met with thunderous applause and the occasional standing ovation.

But not all of Paul’s foreign policy positions have gone over well.

Paul has often said that America encourages terror by stationing troops worldwide.

“That’s irresponsible,” former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum said. “A future president of the United State should not be parroting what Osama Bin Laden said on 9/11.”

Santorum, who is among Paul’s rivals for the GOP presidential nomination, challenged him at a recent debate, to explain his view that American overseas domination caused the Sept. 11 attacks.

Paul’s answer received a hostile response from the audience and even a few boos.

Paul’s view that a withdrawal of U.S. troops would decrease the incentive for terrorists to attack the United States got him into trouble with a Concord, N.H., voter earlier this year, who questioned his sanity.

“Anyone who thinks that is off their rocker,” she said.

“He’s easily dismissed as a crank,” said Sapolsky, who says Paul has good ideas but can be an inarticulate messenger.

Like most aspects of running a national political campaign, style often outweighs substance and both Sapolsky and Preble said that Paul is neither a great orator nor does he break down large global situations well.

But despite his shortcomings, Sapolsky does give Paul credit for speaking his mind.

“A lot of people won’t say come home,” Sapolsky said. “But Ron Paul does and that’s great.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...oreign-policy/

[jackovesk]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=UtGRHg3a8Iw

[Adam Greenland]

As much as I admire Ron Paul, he won't ever be elected.

And if he ever got close to being elected, he might simply be taken care of.

[jackovesk]

Posted by Adam Greenland (here)
As much as I admire Ron Paul, he won't ever be elected.

And if he ever got close to being elected, he might simply be taken care of.

Sorry Adam,

I just can't buy into your statement -

"As much as I admire Ron Paul, he won't ever be elected."

You may be in for an awful shock..? Plenty of Water is yet to flow under that election bridge..!

This time the American public is somewhat aware of the MSM 'Dirty Tricks'..!

Just as Ghandi's Day Came - So too will Ron Paul's...

Have a little faith, my friend...All is not lost yet..!

[Pamela]

Posted by Adam Greenland (here)
As much as I admire Ron Paul, he won't ever be elected.

And if he ever got close to being elected, he might simply be taken care of.

It is time we stop thinking negatively and put forth the effort to make things happen. Changing your thoughts can change your life.

[Moemers]

You know he's going to abolish Planned Parenthood right?

[risveglio]

Posted by Moemers (here)
You know he's going to abolish Planned Parenthood right?

Really? Now I am voting for him too.

[Maia Gabrial]

Planned Parenthood is the new name for the old Eugenics Program.... I'd do away with it, too.

[WhiteFeather]

Ron Paul Is My Vote, But if he makes it he will be controlled by the 47 layers above him.

[jackovesk]

Posted by Moemers (here)
You know he's going to abolish Planned Parenthood right?

...and 'END THE FED'..!

[risveglio]

Posted by Maia Gabrial (here)
Planned Parenthood is the new name for the old Eugenics Program.... I'd do away with it, too.

They also have a better record protecting pedophiles than the Church.

[Aryslan]

Posted by Pam (here)

Posted by Adam Greenland (here)
As much as I admire Ron Paul, he won't ever be elected.

And if he ever got close to being elected, he might simply be taken care of.

It is time we stop thinking negatively and put forth the effort to make things happen. Changing your thoughts can change your life.

Sorry, love and peace won't change the control grid the PTB have in place. Being realistic, and negative are two entirely different things; though the line can be thin, at times. Much as I'd love to see Dr. Paul become our next President, those that control the game wouldn't like it at all. I'm not saying true change cannot occur, simply that it's gotta go through a whole mess of people that are paid, or have vested interests in making sure it does not happen.

[VaughnB]

I want an end to the FED as well but R.Paul wants to end the healthcare program for all. I think we've seen it can work in CAnada, Japan, and so many other countries despite all the rhetoric.

I'm not for unbridled deregulation letting capitalism run rampant AGAIN. We need a serious mandate to end corruption and greed by the powerful corporate entities that have a strangled hold on our sovereignty. We need to serve subpoenas on all the officers of Goldman, Sachs for felony charges to defraud the American people.

I am encouraged by recent events of Obama beginning to have some backbone, finally realizing that he's has to standup to Republican monied interests, I fully support his use of executive power to aid students under a heavy debt burden, and ease lending restrictions for homeowners to refinance at lower rates.

I only hope that the President will resume his past promises, continue the good fight. I"m not saying he's perfect, no one is. Until OCW [the Occupy Movement] can establish some kind of third party, hold a public convention to address issues with media, will awareness and political powers begin to shift.

Just my opinion. There are a lot of good things I do like about Ron Paul too, to be honest. I really do support a nationalized form of medicine. I don't think healthcare should be an industry for profit, just look at the drug companies as a definitive example of corruption gone rampant.

[risveglio]

Posted by VaughnB (here)
I want an end to the FED as well but R.Paul wants to end the healthcare program for all. I think we've seen it can work in CAnada, Japan, and so many other countries despite all the rhetoric.

I'm not for unbridled deregulation letting capitalism run rampant AGAIN. We need a serious mandate to end corruption and greed by the powerful corporate entities that have a strangled hold on our sovereignty. We need to serve subpoenas on all the officers of Goldman, Sachs for felony charges to defraud the American people.

I am encouraged by recent events of Obama beginning to have some backbone, finally realizing that he's has to standup to Republican monied interests, I fully support his use of executive power to aid students under a heavy debt burden, and ease lending restrictions for homeowners to refinance at lower rates.

I only hope that the President will resume his past promises, continue the good fight. I"m not saying he's perfect, no one is. Until OCW [the Occupy Movement] can establish some kind of third party, hold a public convention to address issues with media, will awareness and political powers begin to shift.

Just my opinion. There are a lot of good things I do like about Ron Paul too, to be honest. I really do support a nationalized form of medicine. I don't think healthcare should be an industry for profit, just look at the drug companies as a definitive example of corruption gone rampant.

So I guess you are pro slavery Vaughn?

[Aryslan]

Elaborate please, risveglio. I read the whole post you refer to, and I cannot seem to figure out how VaughnB is being 'pro slavery'. Are you attempting to provoke a heated response, perhaps?

Edit: He even stated the whole thing was his opinion. Your comment was highly unnecessary, in my opinion.

[risveglio]

Posted by Aryslan (here)

Posted by Pam (here)

Posted by Adam Greenland (here)
As much as I admire Ron Paul, he won't ever be elected.

And if he ever got close to being elected, he might simply be taken care of.

It is time we stop thinking negatively and put forth the effort to make things happen. Changing your thoughts can change your life.

Sorry, love and peace won't change the control grid the PTB have in place. Being realistic, and negative are two entirely different things; though the line can be thin, at times. Much as I'd love to see Dr. Paul become our next President, those that control the game wouldn't like it at all. I'm not saying true change cannot occur, simply that it's gotta go through a whole mess of people that are paid, or have vested interests in making sure it does not happen.

If our elections are real, then Ron Paul has a legitimate shot that the MSM is not going to tell you about. Its not easy to find but you do searches by state, for some reason there is a large amount of people registering republican. I think this is a direct result of the Blue Republican group and most of these people making the switch specifically to vote for Dr Paul in the primary. If Dr Paul wins the primary, he will make Obama look like a fool in the debates and will probably win by a margin close to what Reagan did versus Carter.

[Aryslan]

Our elections aren't real. What in the world makes you think that? Remember the voting machine scandal of the Bush Jr. era? The buck didn't stop there, friend. At least as far as I can tell, with the research I've done, they'll put whoever they want in the seat of power. The last real president we had was Kennedy in my opinion.

Edit: Name me one aspect of American life that isn't controlled by a corporation, please.

[risveglio]

Posted by Aryslan (here)
Our elections aren't real. What in the world makes you think that? Remember the voting machine scandal of the Bush Jr. era? The buck didn't stop there, friend. At least as far as I can tell, with the research I've done, they'll put whoever they want in the seat of power. The last real president we had was Kennedy in my opinion.

Edit: Name me one aspect of American life that isn't controlled by a corporation, please.

That is why I started the paragraph with "If our elections are real ..."

[risveglio]

Posted by Aryslan (here)
Elaborate please, risveglio. I read the whole post you refer to, and I cannot seem to figure out how VaughnB is being 'pro slavery'. Are you attempting to provoke a heated response, perhaps?

Edit: He even stated the whole thing was his opinion. Your comment was highly unnecessary, in my opinion.

Nationalized medicine and/or Universal Health Care is a form of Slavery. Since healthcare requires a service of another person, forcing that person to provide the service at some cost that is not determined by the provider is slavery. The is why Dr. Paul's solution of getting the government, health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies out of the way is a much better solution than "Nationalized" Health Care. Put the Doctors and the Patients together with out all the BS that drives the price up while destroying the quality of health care.