Go Ron Paul!

This chart isn't perfect, but it does give a good idea why the Democrats and Republicans both dislike or like Ron Paul depending on the issue.

Just to keep this from becoming an all-out trash Obama party, I searched and found a positive story about Obama and job creation....

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/anti-romney-protesters-say-theyre-paid-to-heckle

DeWitt, Mich. — The protesters popping up at Mitt Romney's rallies throughout Michigan Tuesday look like run-of-the-mill grassroots liberals — they wave signs about "the 99 percent," they chant about the Republican's greed, and they describe themselves as a loosely organized coalition of "concerned citizens." They're also getting paid, two of the protesters and an Obama campaign official told BuzzFeed.

Go Ron Paul!

This chart isn't perfect, but it does give a good idea why the Democrats and Republicans both dislike or like Ron Paul depending on the issue.

If it weren't for his crazy newsletters, associations with hate groups and willingness to let Iran have a nuclear bomb, I would be much more impressed.

If it weren't for his crazy newsletters, associations with hate groups and willingness to let Iran have a nuclear bomb, I would be much more impressed.

I tend to see his "termed" ( because he never described it that way) willingness to let Iran have a Nuke as part of a non-interventionist policy.

It in no way means he would not be willing to bomb them into oblivion if they actually threatened the US with a nuke....by actions not words.

Same tolerance given for decades to countries like Russia, China, N. Korea etc.

They already had nukes. Iran does not and hopefully never will.

They already had nukes. Iran does not and hopefully never will.

I'm not Ron Paul expert - and flying is free to correct me here - but I think with regards to foreign intervention he wants to wait for a smoking gun first, then take them out. Which can suck if the smoking gun is a nuclear one. He wants to let Israel defend itself but if attacked, he would help. There is no reason right now to help Israel because they don't need it at this point, they can take care of themselves. He believes in a more traditional "national defense" which is based at home, within our borders, ready to defend the country. Not an aggressive national defense that takes the fight to the "enemy" before any actual shooting starts.

I believe Ron Paul doesn't say, "let them fight amongst themselves and leave us out". It's more of a "don't get involved unless something actually happens and it affects our own national security in which case then we have just cause to get involved".

Like I said, I could be wrong about.

I believe you have it basically correct Koheesti

I am no RP expert either nor would I speak for him but,

In his book he does reference John Quincy Adam's farewell address

& quotes his "America Does Not Go abroad In search Of Monsters"

http://www.fff.org/comment/AdamsPolicy.asp

He does not agree with nukes for anyone but it is not our place to dictate.

We have of course every right to defense as does anyone else.

Also of course he would help defend our allies.

But in regards to Israel he is often misinterpreted as being anti semitic

because he has said he feels our help...as you said given at times when not really needed

is wrong on two counts....

1- We are in a crisis ourselves & charity begins at home

2- Our help at a time not needed has served to prolong & worsen the problem there.

He feels ...as I do that Israel would be more inclined to work harder for peace if it did not carry such a big

stick which we supply.

That is basically it...& not meant to be taken word for word nor as RP's words.

Sorry guys but I read the newsletters that he put out for 20 years with his name on them and claims that he never read.

I believe you have it basically correct Koheesti

I am no RP expert either nor would I speak for him but,

In his book he does reference John Quincy Adam's farewell address

& quotes his "America Does Not Go abroad In search Of Monsters"

http://www.fff.org/c...AdamsPolicy.asp

He does not agree with nukes for anyone but it is not our place to dictate.

We have of course every right to defense as does anyone else.

Also of course he would help defend our allies.

But in regards to Israel he is often misinterpreted as being anti semitic

because he has said he feels our help...as you said given at times when not really needed

is wrong on two counts....

1- We are in a crisis ourselves & charity begins at home

2- Our help at a time not needed has served to prolong & worsen the problem there.

He feels ...as I do that Israel would be more inclined to work harder for peace if it did not carry such a big

stick which we supply.

That is basically it...& not meant to be taken word for word nor as RP's words.

Traditionally I have been on the side that would be for stopping Iran from getting a nuke. I also used to think that we were the richest country in the world who could afford $100 billion here or there without breaking a sweat. Over the past few years my views have "evolved"

I don't agree 100% with all of Ron Paul's foreign policy. What we have to do is look at the candidates and see which one we share the most views on and their priority. I look at that Libertarian chart I posted above and if I circled each one of those support positions that I agree with, most area with the most circles would be the Libertarian area.

All that said, Ron Paul isn't running in November, Obama and Romney are. And if I draw circles around where they both stand on issues (their positions at the time of this writing - they are known to change), most circles fall under Romney.

Sorry guys but I read the newsletters that he put out for 20 years with his name on them and claims that he never read.

I couldn't care less. We have major problems now, today. I really do not care what some newsletter written 20 years ago by someone else with RP's name on top said. Seriously, it means jack squat.

Over the past few years my views have "evolved"

What we have to do is look at the candidates and see which one we share the most views on and their priority.

We have major problems now, today.

I agree with all the things I quoted above....

The fact that we have major problems today did not come solely out of any one president.

But it did in fact come out of the same old same old which is well funded/supported by both sides.

RP to me represented ...(oh how I hate this word after Obama butchered it)....but yes Change

RP can see where the problem began..has the knowledge & skills to & is willing to confront it.

Whether or not he would live to see the day he could go up against such power is a question we may never get answered

But I would have liked to see the attempt.

He wants to let Israel defend itself but if attacked, he would help.

Do you have link to anywhere he has said this? I can't find one. What I can find is him saying that Hamas should be able to bring weapons into the areas that they control.

About the newsletters, they were not put out by someone else.

He wants to let Israel defend itself but if attacked, he would help.

Do you have link to anywhere he has said this? I can't find one. What I can find is him saying that Hamas should be able to bring weapons into the areas that they control.

I can't find a link either. Just that they are a strong ally and IF they start something they shouldn't expect us to bail them out. Nothing about helping them but it can be inferred if they are an ally and are attacked. As for Hamas, I would guess that means it is none of our business, and that if Hamas wants to do that, they can, but they must deal with the consequences like anyone else. In this case that would be up to Israel, not the USA. Personally, I'd rather roll in the tanks and kill every last Hamas SOB but that's just me.

He also said this in an interview a few months back..

“We should be their friend and their trading partner,”

said Paul.

“They are a democracy and we share many values with them. But we should not be their master. We should not dictate where their borders will be nor should we have veto power over their foreign policy….

I say

[to Christian evangelicals who want foreign aid to Israel to continue]

that our aid in the region is out of balance and it is wrong. Foreign aid does not help Israel. It is a net disadvantage. I say to them that “the borrower is servant to the lender” and America should never be the master of Israel…we should stop interfering with them. We should not dictate what she can and cannot do. We should stop trying to buy her allegiance. And Israel should stop sacrificing their sovereignty as an independent state to us or anybody else, no matter how well-intentioned.”

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/high-tide-and-turn/2012/jan/29/ron-paul-and-israel-question/

About the newsletters, they were not put out by someone else.

Paul didn't write the articles in question but took full responsibility for them all the same.

I can't find a link either. Just that they are a strong ally and IF they start something they shouldn't expect us to bail them out.

It should be remembered that in the early 80's Ron Paul was one of the few in Congress that did not condemn Israel for attacking the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor and stood up for Israel’s right for sovereignty.

This is a good read & surprisingly or not from the Jewish Virtual Library

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/Paul2012.html

Another recent quote by RP that shows his consistency in Israel's sovereignty

It would not surprise those that have read his books.

"The real issue here is not what America wants, but what does Israel want," Paul told evangelical leaders, according to a transcript of the meeting obtained by Business Insider. "If Israel wants their capital to be Jerusalem, then the United States should honor that."

"How would we like it if some other nation said 'We decided to recognize New York City as your capital instead, so we will build our embassy there?'" he added.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-13/politics/31336407_1_israel-from-tel-aviv-evangelical-leaders-business-insider

The reason you can't find a link is because he never said it - or anything close. If you want to ignore all the wacky stuff that he has said over the years, that is up to you - he is never going to be president anyway - but I did a lot of research on Ron Paul at one time and at the very least he is no friend of Israel.

He wants to let Israel defend itself but if attacked, he would help.

Do you have link to anywhere he has said this? I can't find one. What I can find is him saying that Hamas should be able to bring weapons into the areas that they control.

I can't find a link either. Just that they are a strong ally and IF they start something they shouldn't expect us to bail them out. Nothing about helping them but it can be inferred if they are an ally and are attacked. As for Hamas, I would guess that means it is none of our business, and that if Hamas wants to do that, they can, but they must deal with the consequences like anyone else. In this case that would be up to Israel, not the USA. Personally, I'd rather roll in the tanks and kill every last Hamas SOB but that's just me.

He also said this in an interview a few months back..

“We should be their friend and their trading partner,”

said Paul.

“They are a democracy and we share many values with them. But we should not be their master. We should not dictate where their borders will be nor should we have veto power over their foreign policy….

I say

[to Christian evangelicals who want foreign aid to Israel to continue]

that our aid in the region is out of balance and it is wrong. Foreign aid does not help Israel. It is a net disadvantage. I say to them that “the borrower is servant to the lender” and America should never be the master of Israel…we should stop interfering with them. We should not dictate what she can and cannot do. We should stop trying to buy her allegiance. And Israel should stop sacrificing their sovereignty as an independent state to us or anybody else, no matter how well-intentioned.”

http://communities.w...srael-question/

About the newsletters, they were not put out by someone else.

Paul didn't write the articles in question but took full responsibility for them all the same.

No one knows if he wrote them or not - he initially defended them and later claimed that he did not write them - but he should take responsibility for them as he was the editor and publisher of the magazines.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/ron-paul-newsletter-iowa-caucus-republican

The reason you can't find a link is because he never said it - or anything close. If you want to ignore all the wacky stuff that he has said over the years, that is up to you - he is never going to be president anyway - but I did a lot of research on Ron Paul at one time and at the very least he is no friend of Israel.

Can you show me a link where Ronald Reagan, any of the Bush's or Romney has said they would help Israel if they were attacked? I won't ask for a link saying Obama would. It might be easier to find a link where Obama has agreed to join Hamas or Hezbollah though.

He wants to let Israel defend itself but if attacked, he would help.

As I am not the one who made this statement, so see no reason for providing a link. I do not think that it has any basis in reality at all. Saying that Ron Paul would help defend Israel under any circumstances is nothing but wishful thinking.

What has always made Ron Paul my choice was his willingness to defend

America from both within & without....FIRST

It is obvious that many Americans have other interests that they deem

more important but in the end I tend to think that type of requirements/thinking

will backfire. If America cannot help itself it will not be able to help anyone else.

Now is a time to help/repair itself first

I know what you think about Israel already, but my point is that claiming that Ron Paul would defend them if they were attacked is simply not true and should not be used as a way of softening his image.

I know what you think about Israel already, but my point is that claiming that Ron Paul would defend them if they were attacked is simply not true and should not be used as a way of softening his image.

If this is addressed at me?....I would say you think you know what I think

Truth is I do not think much about Israel at all.

If I had to summarize I would say I wish them no ill will &

hopefully they will sort their own problems as peacefully as possible.

I do think about America & how it is doing though.

I also see no need to soften RP's image. When thinking of

what/who would be helpful to America/Americans I saw RP

as the logical choice seeing as he was the only one equipped to deal

with the root problems that has brought America to her knees.

I do think that many underestimate the current crisis in America

& have myself made some major adjustments based on what I saw/know

I have been reading your posts for many years. I have a good idea what you think about Israel and other world issues.

I did not accuse you of trying to soften Ron Paul's stance on Israel. I'm sure that you do not think that he would defend Israel and have never pretended otherwise.

I have been reading your posts for many years. I have a good idea what you think about Israel and other world issues.

I did not accuse you of trying to soften Ron Paul's stance on Israel. I'm sure that you do not think that he would defend Israel and have never pretended otherwise.

Well I cannot change your comprehension of my posts so will not attempt it.

I will say my stance has been America 1st when it comes to spending lives & $$$

in that order. I also do not believe propping regimes like Egypt & others is beneficial to the US

& historically I think that is plain to see by the results they reaped

Yes I do not think RP would defend Israel unconditionally.

But I do believe as President he would defend Israel in a unprovoked attack.

The same can be said for any other ally.

Anyway........As I said I have made adjustments accordingly albeit not

as willingly as I would have liked. But it is what it is.

Off today to the mountains for a few days.

Don't think me rude if this is my last response for a few days.

Have a good day

Yes I do not think RP would defend Israel unconditionally.

But I do believe as President he would defend Israel in a unprovoked attack.

I think that he would consider any attack "provoked" from what he has said when they have been attacked in the past.

as an outsider my questions to any American are

-does it really matter whether a Kenyan Muslim or a Michigan Mormon is the president of the Greatest Nation on Earth™?

-do those in Wall Street, who (more or less) have the rest of the world by its balls, care a flying fart?

-what is the reason that 50% of American voting citizens are clever and 50% are stupid?

50-50?

Think again.

Obama opens up a HUGE LEAD:

Obama leads Romney 53 percent to 40 percent among likely voters

http://www.bloomberg...t-of-touch.html

The polls change from day to day and when voters become awre of the latest developments in the Fast and Furious scandal Obama will take a big hit and the lousy economy is not getting any better.

50-50?

Think again.

Obama opens up a HUGE LEAD:

Obama leads Romney 53 percent to 40 percent among likely voters

http://www.bloomberg...t-of-touch.html

Perhaps Bloomberg should rethink their polling methods.

_______________________________________________________

Team Obama shrugs off campaign criticism

By Richard McGregor in Washington

The Obama re-election team has dismissed weeks of criticism of campaign mishaps, saying it is successfully laying the foundation to portray Mitt Romney as someone whose economic policies would harm middle-class voters.

Campaign officials said in a briefing that polling had changed little in the key battleground states in recent weeks after an initial jump in support for Mr Romney once he secured the Republican nomination.

...and later in the article...

He said the campaign was not taking seriously a poll from Bloomberg released on Wednesday which showed Mr Obama with a double-digit lead on Mr Romney, by 53 points to 40. “Do we think we are 13 points ahead? No,” the official said.

Mr Obama’s campaign has been hit by a slowing economy that is producing fewer jobs than earlier in the year, and by its own unforced errors, notably the president’s statement that the private sector was “doing fine”.

http://www.ft.com/in...t#axzz3pttkwmYc

The Obama campaign would naturally minimize any reports that they are going to win in a landslide, because the name of the game is voter turnout, and if the public feels there is no reason to vote because it isn't close, that's dangerous. No I don't think Obama is going to win a landslide or by a margin of 13 percent. But I do think he will win, mostly because Romney is a very unappealing candidate and someone the American people will NEVER relate to.