• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Paul will win Iowa

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
:D

It's been fun to watch Texas Congressman Ron Paul this year. He comes across as a nervous little fellow at times, but he has some truly good ideas and some really off-the-wall ideas too. He was virtually ignored by everyone for months, but lately seems to be the candidate that everyone is now watching.

The Daily Caller reported Paul was the topic of conversation by all the talking heads on Sunday's installment of "This Week." Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan even went so far as to say Paul can give President Barack Obama a run for the money. I'm not so sure about that.

Paul definitely has a loyal set of supporters -- there's no question about that. Articles that praise Ron Paul receive mass praise from his supporters too. But, be the least bit critical of the retiring congressman and masses of negative comments pour in too. It would be laughable if we weren't discussing the future of our country.

That's one thing I really like about Paul and his supporters: They get it. They understand the United States is facing serious challenges and it's going to take more than a good sound bite to cure the nation's ills. They understand that the deficit is out of control. They know that a radical new approach is needed in Washington if we are going to avoid a financial collapse on a scale that this country has never seen before.

What they don't get, however, is it takes more than just a good idea to win the nomination. And, without the nomination, there is no chance of winning the White House. Paul has to begin winning over mainstream Republicans to secure the nomination. He will win Iowa -- his supporters know how to work the caucus system. That will generate enormous momentum for Paul as he heads to the New Hampshire primaries. Primaries, however, are a different political animal. He's going to have to appeal to the masses and get them to the polls.

I definitely was not following Paul this year, but I can say he has won my curiosity. He is a viable alternative to the GOP pack that seems to be saying what Americans want to hear and not what they need to hear. His ideas may be a bit radical at times, but he's got a foundation to work from in crafting new alternatives to governing. I like that.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
maybe oldtimer will cross over and vote republican so he can vote for this guy? :D

Opining on the Republican field, Ron Paul says they all "just represent the status quo."

"Yeah, I think it's because it's more of the status quo. I think all the other Republican candidates just represent the status quo," Paul told CNBC. "More of the same. No change in the foreign policy. No change in the federal reserve. No cut in spending. I'm the one that's offering a trillion dollars in cuts because I believe the government is so big and so out of control that you have to have real cuts. But all this other talk about cuts, whether it's Romney or anybody else, the cuts in proposed increases, that's why the American people don't believe that they have a solution."
"We just keep doing exactly what we've been doing for the 40 years. Spending excessively, running up debt, printing up money, and manipulating interest rates. And we're up against the wall now, it doesn't work anymore. Lowering interest rates is essentially impossible. That's what they're desperately trying to do today. But, you know, when our interest rates to the banks are down to zero, What are they going to do? Used to be that Congress would just spend more money and that would help. How can they spend more money when there's no more money in the Treasury. So, no, Romney and the rest aren't offering anything new," he said.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is demonstrating an appalling ignorance on the Iranian nuclear issue and the threat it poses to world security. In fact, several times during the recent GOP debates he blamed the animosity against the U.S. in the Middle East on America's foreign policy.

Paul recently argued on "Fox News Sunday" that sanctions should be removed altogether to get Iran to act differently and that the U.S. response to Iran's nuclear pursuit was an "overreaction." He added that Iran does not pose a threat to either the U.S. or the region.

The congressman from Texas insists that a better art of persuasion would be to offer friendship, the way the U.S. approached the Soviets and Chinese in the 1970s and 1980s.

So Paul not only has shown that he has no understanding of the murderous radicals who rule Iran but has a dangerous lapse of memory. President Obama at first tried to do exactly what Paul argues now should be done -- and failed miserably.

When Obama took office in 2009, he immediately changed the U.S. approach toward Iran, believing that the mullahs would only change behavior if a kinder, gentler approach were implemented. His appeasement of the mullahs started when he sent his video message on the occasion of the Iranian New Year in 2009, stating his desire for friendship with the Iranian leaders. That was followed by a letter to the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in which he reiterated that America did not intend to interfere in Iran's internal matters and that it respected the sovereignty of the Islamic state and that he desired better relations between the two countries.

Obama not only legitimized the brutal regime in Iran but he also then turned his back on the Iranian people, who had taken to the streets by the millions after the fraudulent elections of 2009, demanding an end to the thugocracy. Obama was promised by the Iranian leaders that they were ready to negotiate over the nuclear issue, and so the Iranian people's desire for regime change did not become of interest to Obama. After all, he believed he was close to a historical point in reaching an agreement with the Islamic regime of Iran.

The leaders of Iran, as they have done for over three decades, fooled the Obama administration, extending negotiations until they had brutally suppressed the uprising in Iran, during which thousands were imprisoned, tortured, raped and even executed. Then they announced that the U.S. proposal on the table that they had indicated was acceptable was now unacceptable.

The radicals went further by stating that "America can't do a damn thing" and announced that they had now enriched uranium to 20 percent, a significant milestone toward weaponization.

However, it is not only the Obama administration that has been fooled by the mullahs. President Carter and his national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, began America's misguided policy toward radical Islam, Carter by calling Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini "a man of God" and Brzezinski with his plan to help Islamic militants confront the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, that policy of negotiation and hope for a moderate leader in Iran who would open the doors to the West continued under President Reagan.

Many in the Reagan administration were jubilant by the prospect of better relations with Iran. U.S. officials began holding clandestine meetings with the Iranians. Requests from the Iranian side were fulfilled, with many shipments of arms sent to Iran, but in the end U.S. officials realized that they had been duped.

This shortsightedness continued with President George H.W. Bush, who ignored the Iranian terrorist activities in his secret negotiations with Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the Iranian president at the time, who had promised better relations. That effort also failed, just as President Clinton (who looked the other way at Iran's involvement in the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia) failed in negotiating with Mohammad Khatami, the next Iranian president, with another promise of cooperation, all the while secretly buying parts for Iran's nuclear project.

During this misguided era, the radicals in Iran not only committed the most heinous crimes against their own people, violating every principle of human rights, but also engaged America on several fronts, accurately concluding that their actions would diminish the U.S. presence in the region and strengthen theirs.

As Iran closes in on getting the bomb, it is of utmost importance to once and for all realize the very ideology that drives their actions. We must acknowledge their progress with their missile program and the threat they pose not only to the region but to the world.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards have been publicly cheering Ron Paul's statements, for they know that this complicity is needed for them to push on with the conquest of Islam worldwide.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/ron_paul_ignores_irans_treachery.html#ixzz1fEsehadM

Can the world take a chance that Ron Paul knows what he is talking about when it comes to Iran considering their past actions?
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
Something that struck me today, are all these embassy officials moving out for a reason????
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
good point Tam-
one thing I do believe though, hopefully Ron Paul knows allot more of what is really going on in world affairs than we do. Hopefully a U.S. Representative has better sources than c-span or CNN, or Fox.

How can a man who makes so much sense in all the other areas be so wrong on this one thing? I'm just not buying it.
There is allot of money to be made in wars- and politics- and I think there are some who use both to their advantage.

I will not hold this one issue against Ron Paul- especially when there is no better alternative. One thing about Ron Paul we do know that he will support, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.

oh and he is not the follower of a cult! :wink: :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Lonecowboy said:
good point Tam-
one thing I do believe though, hopefully Ron Paul knows allot more of what is really going on in world affairs than we do. Hopefully a U.S. Representative has better sources than c-span or CNN, or Fox.

How can a man who makes so much sense in all the other areas be so wrong on this one thing? I'm just not buying it.
There is allot of money to be made in wars- and politics- and I think there are some who use both to their advantage.

I will not hold this one issue against Ron Paul- especially when there is no better alternative. One thing about Ron Paul we do know that he will support, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.

oh and he is not the follower of a cult! :wink: :roll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDvaTqLlZlA&feature=related

Notice his comment about the CIA telling him that Iran is not working on a nuke?

Please explain this if the CIA is telling Mr.Paul that Iran in not working on a NUKE.

Diplomats, experts say Iran close to having nuclear arms
By Oren Dorell, USA TODAYUpdated 11/8/2011
There's time for stricter sanctions to get Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program, but the Islamic republic is much closer to such weapons than previously believed and a military strike may be necessary, foreign policy experts say.

"With each time we have used sanctions, they've had more impact, but ultimately if Iran wants to pay the cost, it can get nuclear weapons," says Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The question is, can we raise the cost enough?"

Western diplomats and nuclear experts who reviewed intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program say Iran has continued work on nuclear weapons with the help of foreign scientists, despite sanctions organized by the Obama administration, a report in The Washington Post said.

The U.S. State Department has said repeatedly that the Obama administration's policy is to stiffen enforcement of existing sanctions imposed on Iran to have it comply with United Nations nuclear non-proliferation agreements.

Israel officially has said it supports sanctions but it has acted militarily in the past to stop an enemy's nuclear program, such as in Iraq. Israel has also recently tested long-range missiles that can penetrate hardened underground targets.

The sanctions in place focus mostly on individuals in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and blocking Iranian access to nuclear materials and technology.

A report due out this week by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency is likely to show that Iran is closer than ever to a workable nuclear weapon, Cordesman said. The report will say that Iran received technological assistance from a Russian scientist and a higher level of assistance from North Korea, Cordesman said.

For the U.S. and Israel, "a military strike is going to be the last resort," says Michael Singh, managing director of the Washington Institute for Middle East Policy and ex-director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council.

Tougher sanctions on the central bank of Iran or its oil exports could come first, "but whether those would be enough to convince the Iranian regime to abandon its weapons program is uncertain," Singh said.

"As Iran gets closer to having a nuclear device, your options are use military means … or deploy an improved defense," Cordesman says.

Singh agrees. Israel, Gulf states and others "will be looking for the United States to be making a credible threat of military force against Iran," he said. "They see that as making the Iranians to seriously think about what they're doing."


On one hand you have Ron Paul claiming the CIA told him Iran has no nukes and on the other hand you have countries around the globe trying to stop them from getting and GOD FORBID USING THEM. I think I'm going to play it safe and believe all these other high level EXPERTS know more than Ron Paul about what Iran has and is willing to do with them considering Iran's past behavior which is plainly spelled out in the article I posted.

BTW this one issue you are willing to give Paul a pass on could result in millions of deaths, is it worth it to look the other way? Ron Paul needs to realize that there are people out there that would think nothing of ridding the world of the likes of him and IRAN IS FULL OF THEM JUST LOOKING FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Lonecowboy said:
so who do you support Tam?



I think too many have become accustomed to the President "calling the shots", instead of allowing the House to speak for the people.....and having the President sign the bill......

IMO, Ron Paul, out of anybody would speak for the people, if directed to do so, while following the Constitution. but he would still rely on Congress to declare war, or any military expenditure......


Separation of Powers is a great thing, if the voters, Congress/House and the President respect those powers.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
hypocritexposer said:
Lonecowboy said:
so who do you support Tam?



I think too many have become accustomed to the President "calling the shots", instead of allowing the House to speak for the people.....and having the President sign the bill......

IMO, Ron Paul, out of anybody would speak for the people, if directed to do so, while following the Constitution. but he would still rely on Congress to declare war, or any military expenditure......


Separation of Powers is a great thing, if the voters, Congress/House and the President respect those powers.

Your right Hypo! I should have asked:
So, which big-government, anti-constitutional, liberty destroying, Republican candidate for President do YOU support then?
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
388394_2580756114688_1127971822_32864247_1959305883_n.jpg
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
It really is too bad that Paul Ryan is not running.....at this point the US needs a Conservative "financial wizard" that respects the constitution, not a career politician
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Lonecowboy said:
so who do you support Tam?

I have not picked any ONE yet. There are things I like about some and things I don't like. I believe one major responsibility of the Federal Government is to Protect the citizens from terrorists foreign and domestic. I sure don't want to see a person that has a head in sand approach to foreign threats elected to be the Commander and Chief. If there is a threat like many world experts believe IRAN is I want to know the person elected has the brains to do something about it. I'm not as sure as you seem to be that Ron Paul is the person to have leading the US when there are terrorists looking for a chance to strike again. Besides that he seems to be a bit of an isolationist and like it or not we ALL live in a global world that rely heavily on each other.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Tam said:
Lonecowboy said:
so who do you support Tam?

I have not picked any ONE yet. There are things I like about some and things I don't like. I believe one major responsibility of the Federal Government is to Protect the citizens from terrorists foreign and domestic. I sure don't want to see a person that has a head in sand approach to foreign threats elected to be the Commander and Chief. If there is a threat like many world experts believe IRAN is I want to know the person elected has the brains to do something about it. I'm not as sure as you seem to be that Ron Paul is the person to have leading the US when there are terrorists looking for a chance to strike again. Besides that he seems to be a bit of an isolationist and like it or not we ALL live in a global world that rely heavily on each other.



It doesn't really matter who the nominee is, the American voters are voting for OR against obama......


a vote for the Democrat candidate will mean more of the same from obama.....a vote against will mean HOPE and CHANGE........



Choose wisely........
 

cutterone

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
484
Reaction score
0
Location
Frankfort, Indiana
Here's what I dont get. Why of those who clearly will vote and promote the Democrat are sooo concerned in who the Repubs will nominate and are soooo concerned in vetting the the canidates when they do not intend to vote for a Repub???? Are you more concerned in picking the other sides nominee than your own?
 

jingo2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
907
Reaction score
0
cutterone said:
Here's what I dont get. Why of those who clearly will vote and promote the Democrat are sooo concerned in who the Repubs will nominate and are soooo concerned in vetting the the canidates when they do not intend to vote for a Repub???? Are you more concerned in picking the other sides nominee than your own?


You could say the same thing for all the Canadians here you want to stick their nose and give advice on OUR elections?


I've yet to see a thread here where any American has run their nose into Canadian politics.....
 

cutterone

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
484
Reaction score
0
Location
Frankfort, Indiana
Well I believe that all of us have a right to discuss, vet, approve or disaprove of any elected offical, and even those from an other country have to right to do the same as it can have an impact on their country but don't understand why those who clearly will not be voting for an oposing canidate feel it's their duty to vet them. If the pubs nominate a dud it should be to their favor so why so much interest? Guess it's because they are soo much smarter than the rest of us and must make our decisions. :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
cutterone said:
Here's what I dont get. Why of those who clearly will vote and promote the Democrat are sooo concerned in who the Repubs will nominate and are soooo concerned in vetting the the canidates when they do not intend to vote for a Repub???? Are you more concerned in picking the other sides nominee than your own?


Then there are the folks that will end up making the ultimate decision- the Independents (which make up about 30% of the voters)- don't have cult ties and are concerned about who will do whats best for the country- not who will do the best for the party...
 

cutterone

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
484
Reaction score
0
Location
Frankfort, Indiana
OT for you to say you are independant is like saying your only slightly pregnant! There are no true independants or there would not be parties. What this boils down to is you are either a conservative or a liberal. You are either for big government with lots of regualtions, a socialist ran state where ONLY the all knowing government can make all the decisions or you are for free markets, personal responsibilty, personal gain or loss, limited government as derived from the constitution. Just pick a side. I don't care which but if you pick liberal then you and other liberals have no say in who or what type of canidate the conservatives choose.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
cutterone said:
OT for you to say you are independant is like saying your only slightly pregnant! There are no true independants or there would not be parties. What this boils down to is you are either a conservative or a liberal. You are either for big government with lots of regualtions, a socialist ran state where ONLY the all knowing government can make all the decisions or you are for free markets, personal responsibilty, personal gain or loss, limited government as derived from the constitution. Just pick a side. I don't care which but if you pick liberal then you and other liberals have no say in who or what type of canidate the conservatives choose.

Well- you seem to think government is all just black and white- and one shoe fits all--- while there are many people that realize whats best for the country as a whole may not be that delineated- and lies more in a grey area....
Extremism- either way is very dangerous!!
 

Latest posts

Top