speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

I know of no one reliable source you can go to. In fact, if you did, you would just be a sheep of a different color.

These days, my strategy is to take a little in here and there and try to read between the lines. Any news with an opinion woven in is going to be BS on some level, but that doesn't mean that you may not learn something about a candidate from his enemies effort to discredit them. So, I try to listen to a little from each and not too much from any one source.

I also am skeptical of everything I hear no matter the source.

When I listen to the candidates directly (with my BS filter on maximum) I only listen to actual plans and specifics. I ignore all hyperbole and pandering. Most of the time, that means nothing they say was of any use.

I also ask: Who benefits from what this guy is selling. Typically I found it is a rich contributor and not me.

I am against anyone who takes away my rights. I am for anyone who protects my interests.

That is how I do it.

sc300

all im seeing from you guy is that picture of the guy to right with his eyes and ears closed..

ya are saying that ya are voting for who ever is running against OBAMA..but don't even know who he is or what he has to say

HOW IRONIC!!!!!!!!!


im not an Obama supporter, but he will destroy most of the current candidates in a debate..They all sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!

03Sssnake

iTrader: (20)

Uhhhh, No irony. The GOP candidates may stink, but they still smell better than comrade Obama. We already know the bang up job Obama has done this term, sure as hell not pulling the lever for him to try another 4 years. As for debates, Newt and Romney would destroy Obama in a debate. While I am not a fan of Newt, they are both forthright and effective in articulating their beliefs. Obama is lost without his damn teleprompter.

SuperSam

iTrader: (7)

Politics and religion...public forum= fail!!!

Jake_the_Snake

iTrader: (5)

here are some white papers i tracked down for each of the candidates, courtesy of club for growth. seems to be pretty straight forward

Gingrich- http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepa...sec=137&id=903
Romney-http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=905
Paul- http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepa...sec=137&id=921
Santorum- http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepa...sec=137&id=902

texada

iTrader: (3)

If these canidates are all the Republican Party has to offer then they are in bad shape. All I keep hearing is what Obama hasn't done. However, i haven't heard not one canidates plan for our country. I cant wait to see how Obama embarrass them when they debate. Obama will win by a landslide just like he did his first term without all the redneck southern states.

Jake_the_Snake

iTrader: (5)

in an era in which weapons of mass destruction, nuclear and otherwise, are so common throughout the world, a policy of non-interventionism is outright dangerous. fact of the matter is, the existence of an entity with such a preponderance of power has made the world a much more stable and i daresay, safe, place. if we were to all of a sudden abandon that position of power ( and thus responsibility) someone else would take it, most likely china. i would rather not have to worry about that, and all that goes with it.

sure its expensive, but that's the price we pay for living in such a small, globalized world. failure to intervene in certain situations could yield disastrous consequences. for example, if the united states did not intervene in world war 2, much of the world would be speaking german. in like manner, if france did not intervene in 1778, the whole idea of american interventionism would be a non-issue.

winters97gt

Great Ron Paul Video. I'll vote for him.

This one tops them all in my opinion. Take a couple minutes and watch it all the way through. I hope people wake up and stop drinking the coolaid. BTW, my family is a military one, with my brother as a Navy Special Ops(SWCC).

Hope more people get the message.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

dr_whigham

iTrader: (49)

I'll vote for Newt. I believe he's the only one who can actually shut the "Hype Factor" down in a debate.

No Hope

None of them have a chance against Obama. The republican party has decayed into a pile of mindless dogmatic Automatons that haven't had an original idea since Ronald Reagan left the white house. Thank god the Gipper past on before he had to see all that he worked for turned to ****.

Always remember what the Far Left and the Far Right have in common. They are both idiots.

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

I have seen no evidence that our interventions have done any more good than harm.

Looking at the pattern of our "interventions" post WWII, it is very easy to see that our "interventions" have been motivated by self interest(mostly financial) and not benevolence.

Now, we are broke and slowly losing our role as "the" world leader. It is time to stop believing our own hype and start making intelligent policy. If we don't, we might soon be referred to as that "once great nation".

ElkySS

iTrader: (6)

didnt stop obama from shutting down the shuttle program.

Jake_the_Snake

iTrader: (5)

yes i'll agree that most of the post ww2 interventions were motivated by self interest, though they were not financially motivated but rather politically motivated. foreign policy of that time was based on the balance of power theory, which posits that states will attempt to preserve themselves by either bandwagonning or balancing. that is, either siding with the state whos most likely to win, or siding with a state so as to balance the coalitions. balance brings about peace and stability, because states are much less likely to attack each other if they are evenly matched. MAD is a prime example of this. now if you take this school of thought and apply it to the cold war, the interventions make more sense. the policy of containment, for example, was designed to prevent the spread of communism and thereby preserve the balance by attempting to keep would-be soviet allies out of power. in like manner, the united states attempted to tip the scales in its favor by intervening in its own hemisphere in latin america. it all makes perfect sense if you think about it.

thing is, the cold war is over and world politics have changed. so too has american interventionism, which has shifted towards humanitarianism. take, for example kuwait, somalia and kosovo. then you have iraq and afghanistan, which had legitimate national security concerns. whether the missions there are over is debatable, but what isn't is the fact that the intervention itself wasn't expensive. it was the nation building thereafter.

as for the present, i would rather keep up military spending, keep our bases, engage in very selective intervention and have the rest of the world believe that we will kick their *** if they go haywire than read in the newspaper that jerusalem, new delhi, and seoul have been nuked, russians have overrun the caucuses, and china is seeking revenge for the rape of nanking because ron paul doesn't want to step on anybody's toes and violate their right to kill each other.

senicalj4579

iTrader: (41)

America is already gone. Ron Paul is the only one who stands for what the USA is all about but its to late. The central banks have already taken over. Only thing that will over turn this is a mass awakening of THE PEOPLE.
All you that really believe that nonsense about the foreign policy are just bobble headed **** tards. The 2 party dictatorship is feeding you bs sheep food and your eating it faster than you can say NEW WORLD ORDER.
Welcome to the death of the last free place on earth in exchange for false security. Fools.

Nwmembr19

iTrader: (21)

"Intervening" in WWII would actually be the kind of thing Ron Paul would be for. They attacked America and we retaliated, to defend our country. It wasnt something we had no business jumping into. He is for strengthening the borders of our country which would help deter and help prevent the likelyhood of something like that happening.
Policing other countries to protect ours will be worthless if we become bankrupt. It's also sad that people will just vote for whoever because they oppose another candidate. Voting for one ******** to prevent another ******** from getting into office doesnt seem like the best way to go about improving or making things better. I'd go with Ron Paul. I just like what he has to say, and he seems very honest, sincere, and like he actually has this country's best interest at heart, along with all the people in it.

rabiddog

iTrader: (1)

You know I dont think its going to be really hard to debate against Obama this time. The guy promised everything in the world last election and nothing he has done has helped. He doesn't have anything that he can say that wont be easily debunked by saying "you said that 4 year ago and you didn't get it done" or "it didn't work last time you did it why should we do it again". The only thing that he can really say is I passed Obamacare and hell everyone is trying to get rid of that.

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

No way. Kuwait.........Oil. Iraq.............Oil. Afghanistan..............was originally a response to 911. Now could legitimately be argued we are doing it for the right reasons.

Kosovo was a whole other story. For years everyone knew where Milosevic was, yet they left him there. There was a bunch more going on there than we know. Humanitarian issues may have been served by our actions, but I suspect that was more "cleanup" than anything.

Somalia seems to be on the level humanitarianism for as much as I know.

The real deal is most of our foreign policy is serving many other interests other than our security. Mostly what is called "making the world safe for commerce" or in plain language, serving corporate special interest. I am completely skeptical of anything they try to cover up with flag waving. It is typically bullshit.

Jake_the_Snake

iTrader: (5)

-Germany never attacked America prior to American involvement in Europe.
-Border control is not a uniquely Ron Paul issue.
-I agree that spending must be controlled, but national security must remain a priority.
-I also agree that voting blindly is not a good idea--that's how we got Obama

-What is it that you think I don't know about World War II?
-Apparently they don't attack Switzerland, because they like to bank there http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-e...ocuments/50264
-It's easy to say that non-intervention with a strong military works, because the rest of the world doesn't have to worry about intervening as the United States and/or the UN does it for them
-What other empire/country has become powerful enough to be "world police" ? Don't you dare say England...
-Kind of confused about the Chinese comment. The Chinese were incredibly isolationist until the Europeans came in and raped them for their resources. They pretty much sucked until the Mao came, and now I'd say they're doing pretty well for themselves. Perhaps you're thinking of the Mongol Empire?

-Why on earth would Saudi Arabia( the country who paid for over half the cost of the Gulf War) want to fight the Iraqis over oil?
-Where is all of this oil you say we're getting from Iraq? ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/pe...nt/import.html
http://205.254.135.7/countries/count...fm?fips=IZ#pet
-http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spiesfly/images/phot_1999_kosovograves.jpg this is why we were in Kosovo, not the overthrow of communist government or mineral deposits
- Though many corporations have undoubtedly benefited from various interventions and whatnot, I would like an example of how the United States government used the military for purely "corporate special interests"

Nwmembr19

iTrader: (21)

Japan did attack the US, which was an ally of Germany and Italy, the Axis Powers. They were on the same side so not sure how you can say that being attacked wasnt one of the main reasons we went to war. We were officially neutral before that point.

Also border control may not be uniquely Ron Paul, but using our current resources to do it, instead of spending more money, is. We still have military in a lot of places where it is no longer needed.

zero2sixT

iTrader: (4)

Iran is not the only example. Look at Libya and Egypt. We put Ghadaffi and Mubarak into power. Both are now going to an extreme islamic government.

Not to mention Iran aquired sensitive stealth technology due to interventionalism. Israel has 300 nukes. Let them handle Iran.

Iraq cost over four thousand American lives, and billions upon billions of borrowed dollars. It achieved absolutely nothing. The country is on the brink of civil war. They are selling their oil to the Chinese.

Afghanistan, another waste of American lives and money. Its going to end up like the Iraq scenario. I believe the only reason we are there is the mineral deposits in the mountains, that nobody is talking about anymore. Bush took care of Osama's threat when he froze all his bank accounts. Obama killed him for some positive light on his dismal track record. In the history of the presidency of the US, the people have held the president responsible for the economy. Even though Congress has the impact on jobs.

People want to keep the military bases open. Except the people in the military. Ron Paul has recieved more campaign contributions from the military than any ther candidate. That is including our President.

Close the military bases around the world. We still have the carriers, nuke subs, and the missile that can hit anywhere in the world inside an hour.

The isolationist arguement against Ron Paul is just as weak as the racist one.

I also don't believe the Chinese are that big of a threat. There is an extreme dissention throughout the population. Companies are pulling out of their country and coming back to America. They don't have copyright protections the US offers.

Also, Japan attacked the US because it cut off their resources.

End corporatism. End the interventionalism. Give power back to the States. Vote for Ron Paul.