The people powering the Paul phenomenon

So the election of Ron Paul would promise a nuclear war in the middle east?

 

Ron Paul will not ever be elected president of these United States, cmg. I don't understand why you keep bringing it up like it was a possibility.

Only the Israelis have nuclear weapons. The Arabs aren't going to attack Israel as part of a full scale war in the forseeable future. Any statement that says that they are is just plum silly.

 

So the goal is not to elect Ron Paul but to put his ideas in place? And his ideas would cause a nuclear war in the middle east, because to the Arabs retreat is always seen as a sign of weakness? At any rate, it is Ron Paul's idea to just cut off all aid to Israel and just let them use their nukes if necessary--the US will do nothing?

If Ron Paul's ideas were in force would the USA apologize to Germany for unconstitutionally helping England during World War II? Would it be Ron Paul's idea to apologize to not only the nazi party but also to the fascist party and to Japan?

 

1) Ron Paul will not be elected president of these United States. Neither will Ron Paul's ideas be re-implemented in these United States - at least not for the forseeable future.

You don't need to worry about either possibility, cmg.

2) No.

3) No.

 

So, Poncho, to summarize, will Ron Paul apologize for unconstitutionally giving foreign aid to England during World War II?

 

That's a good one, poncho.

 

carpro wrote:
"It appears a number of young people that "back him" are actually liberals and wouldn't vote for him in an election against a democrat if you held a gun to their heads."

There is no doubt of the truth of the statement that some of Paul's most vocal young supporters are liberals. Even the OP source article cites at least two.

The part that is my opinion are that they wouldn't actually vote for Paul against a democrat.

I believe liberals are feigning support because they want either the weakest Republican nominee they can get or they want Paul to launch a third party bid and guarantee the election of a liberal democrat.

 

So it is really just personal power or something that should decide about the constitutionality of foreign aid. We give it to England, for example, and no one wants to say that it is wrong. We give it to Colombia, and everyone says let freedom die in Colombia because it is unconstitutional to give foreign aid. Is this decided upon race, religion, or just personal preference?

 

Well, you certainly are good at gotcha politics, Poncho. Let me ask you another question. Shouldn't the USA apologize to everyone else in the world for more than 35 years of abortion? Afterall, here the state has murdered their own citizens without any trial?

 

That is not true. I found the word "liberal" only one time in the article and in that instance it was referring to being a former liberal.

 

It is decided based on the legitimate security concerns of these United States.

 

No. The rest of the world engages in abortion, too.

 

OK, I read it, and re-read it, and I don't see foreign aid banned, help a brother out ?

 

If the U.S. constitution doesn't authorize the U.S. Congress to perform an action, then the U.S. Congress has no authority to perfrom such action.

 

That doesn't make any sense, to me. We needed foreign aid from several nations, to become a nation ourselves. Several nations, including Poland, BTW, fought alongside us in the Revolutionary War.

Does this mean even the great Teddy Roosevelt was wrong in going up the hills of San Juan ?

I don't see foreign aid banned, and I certainly cannot imagine our founders being able to do what they did without foreing aid coming in.

 

1) Yes, especially when the evidence is pretty clear that the explosion on the Maine was an accident.

2) I know. We will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

3) The French did so as they saw it in their national security interest to do. As I have said, I have no problem with foreign aid in that instance. I oppose foreign aid that nothing more than welfare.

 

Sorry you think so.

One, a supporter of Obama, another a supporter of Kerry before, I suppose, they had their epiphany.

You can't get much more liberal than that regardless of the writer's failure to actually use the word.

Goodness! What a leap to the ultra conservative Paul!!!

Color me suspicious.