Real Hope & Change - Ron Paul 2012

  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #106
Our problem is that we have to vote for someone. Given the choice of the retards in the aristocratic, oligarchic, plutocratic, professional politicians that are a bunch of liars and thieves, which one do we choose?
IMHO, we need to press the reset button and purge the whole lot. :angry:
:eek: :eek: :eek:

The G.R.I.P (Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians) movement has never really caught on. Why I don't know.

Sometimes I shudder when Ron Paul says stuff that while intellectually honest makes him look like the Looney Tune he's often portrayed as. Ron Paul is the most intellectually honest of the bunch and with him in the drivers seat we won't go broke or at least not as fast. He also seems to be a bit more honest than the rest.

I don't know but I have to wonder if Ron Paul is the best we have to offer then what does that say for the future of the Republic?
 
The G.R.I.P (Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians) movement has never really caught on. Why I don't know.

Sometimes I shudder when Ron Paul says stuff that while intellectually honest makes him look like the Looney Tune he's often portrayed as. Ron Paul is the most intellectually honest of the bunch and with him in the drivers seat we won't go broke or at least not as fast. He also seems to be a bit more honest than the rest.

I don't know but I have to wonder if Ron Paul is the best we have to offer then what does that say for the future of the Republic?

None.
Purge the whole lot and their offspring, as nepotism stinks in our politics and political infrastructure.
People stopped demanding the end of lobbyists, because every swinging politician that they voted for promised lobby reform but 'did NOTHING' but enhance lobbyists and their hidden donations. :angry:

Alfred E. Newman would be a better choice... :angry:
 
GWB - Went before Congress went before Congress or did you miss the memo?
Reagan- Used Article 51 on the UN charter as cover and if you recall was a one time attack.

Bush senior did not get Congressional aproval for Panama just as Ronald Reagan did not get Congressional approval for Grenada. Or did you not get the memo?
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #109
Bush senior did not get Congressional aproval for Panama just as Ronald Reagan did not get Congressional approval for Grenada. Or did you not get the memo?

And ALL of them were wrong! The advice and Consent is a fundamental tenet of the COTUS and has been ignored since the US joined the UN.

We can't afford to maintain our empire around the world, It's time to bring everyone home.
 
Didn't Congress adopt a joint resolution called the War Powers Resolution in 1973 that addressed these issues?
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #111
Didn't Congress adopt a joint resolution called the War Powers Resolution in 1973 that addressed these issues?

Yes and most everyone hates the law. Advice and Consent of Congress is and I repeat a Fundamental Tenet of the COTUS. Let's see what Jefferson had to say.

"If there is one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest."

"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."


If Obama would read the works of the Founding Fathers the solutions of everyone of our problems. Take the Fed as Exhibit A.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent they conquered."
— Thomas Jefferson

Look where the Fed has taken us and you wonder how these powdered wigged old B*stards know so much. All that wisdom and not a laptop in sight
 
In a modern age where troops can be mobilized in days not weeks and where conflicts can be over in days and not weeks, quick action by government is a neccesity. I think thwn WPR is needed in this day and age where congress cannot or does not act with enough speed. It is limited enough in scope to effective IMO.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #113
In a modern age where troops can be mobilized in days not weeks and where conflicts can be over in days and not weeks, quick action by government is a neccesity. I think thwn WPR is needed in this day and age where congress cannot or does not act with enough speed. It is limited enough in scope to effective IMO.

Revisit post 103 and watch the video and ponder how things would be different if we adopted Jefferson's motto, "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."

If you don't have a ONE TRILLION Dollar per year Empire to maintain covering 700 facilities in 135 countries then you don't have people pissed off at you and you don't have to bomb several countries into the stone age. In many ways by our actions internationally WE created OBL. I can't help but wonder if we didn't have bases in Saudi Arabia if anyone would ever know the name bin Laden.
 
And if I had wings I could fly. Lets stick with the reality we are rather than tbe one we want.

No chit. Whats your point?
 
And if I had wings I could fly. Lets stick with the reality we are rather than tbe one we want.

No chit. Whats your point?
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #116
And if I had wings I could fly. Lets stick with the reality we are rather than tbe one we want.

No chit. Whats your point?

Actions have consequences. We see them now in the Middle East and in debt ridden EU nations. See the EU has already been through their Obama Care, printing press money and the costs of maintaining an empire. It's been or being found wanting in terms of fiscal stability from the USSR to Spain to Greece to Iceland and now it heads here due to our entanglements and alliances.

Imagine If.................................
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #117
House votes to extend Patriot Act.

Freedom & Liberty denied to the American Citizen once again. At least we know that ONE Presidential Candidate, Dr. Ron Paul voted no.
 
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."

I know Ron Paul appeals to the isolationist tendencies in some Americans. If he were to become President is he going to null and void treaties? Or just not honor them if they come into play?
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #119
I know Ron Paul appeals to the isoloationist tendancies in some Americnas. If he were to become Presidnet is he going to null and void treaties? Or just not honor them if they come into play?

That's a great question. I don't at this time have an answer. My guess would be minimal compliance with existing treaties. There are fully 166 Treaties in Place currently so the question would be which ones to get out of. If he attempted to end all foreign treaties he'd never get it done if he was President for 20 years. IMO, and I'm not sure exactly how you "Unratify" a treaty? Guess is with the advice and consent of Congress and that would be hard to do.

I would suggest that his policies are not isolationist but in keeping with Mr Jefferson's quote you provided. He doesn't want the US having it's current global empire of 700 bases in 135 countries. We're not talking the isolationists of the late 1930's who if they had held more sway might just have cost us the war.
 
Revisit post 103 and watch the video and ponder how things would be different if we adopted Jefferson's motto, "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."

If you don't have a ONE TRILLION Dollar per year Empire to maintain covering 700 facilities in 135 countries then you don't have people pissed off at you and you don't have to bomb several countries into the stone age. In many ways by our actions internationally WE created OBL. I can't help but wonder if we didn't have bases in Saudi Arabia if anyone would ever know the name bin Laden.

OBL and al queda/taliban loved us as we supplied them with arms to defeat the Russian horde in Afghanistan.
He 'won' when Russia pulled out and that gave him alot of clout. Yes, we absolutely created him.

Saddam was our buddy as we gave him arms to fight Iran. He got a little pissed off when we traded missiles for hostages (supplying both sides). He made a big error in invading Kuwait thinking no one would be willing to fight.
SA pissed themselves as they thought they might be next. SA wanted us there to beat back Irag from Kuwait.
After the war was over, they wanted us out.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top