Ron Paul for president

[Dharmaeye]

Ron is more pro-constitution that any other candidate and thus wants to throw out all the laws that are unconstitutional.
This would eliminate the BATF and make life worthwhile for future generations. The only country in the world where individual freedom is stronger than the government.

[Hazcat]

No thanks.  Don't need a truther, cut and run, lieing, moonbat who has stated that America brought 911 on itself and stated that the gov't investigation into 911 would be better now that the Dims were in charge, for a president.

[Boulderlaw]

Ron Paul's ideas are the ideas of the Republican Party and the Constitution - without exception.

The sad fact is that the altruistic neoconservative foreign policy on display in Iraq is far worse than the isolationist stance Paul takes. We should stay home from the sandbox until we find a leader willing to articulate a self-interested foreign policy that allows the U.S. to fight defensive wars without the delusional moral obligation to engage in nation building afterwards.

Our work is done in Iraq; the Iraqi people need to sort out their differences for themselves. Iran requires our attention.

[DonWorsham]

Ron Paul is speaking Saturday night at the Gun Rights Policy Conference in Cincinnati, Ohio (Fort Mitchell, KY actually).

If the opportunity presents itself, are there any questions you would like him to answer?

P.S.
I'm am supporting Fred Thompson.

[Hazcat]

Yeah, ask him why he asked for (and recieved) 400 million dollars worth of pork this year then disingenuously votes against it so he can say he's against pork.

Here's a link http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html

You can also ask Mr Blame America for 911 why he feels it was our plicy that caused them to attack us in light of the history of terrorist attacks on the US starting WELL before we "bombed them" (his words).

Here's another link. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

[Sponsor]

[Cogz]

Hazcat - I respectfully disagree.  Dr. Paul also wrote a bill that asked congress to follow the constitution and declare war if we were to invade Iraq and then voted no on his own bill.  Does that also mean that he is actually for the "police action" in Iraq?  If so I am appalled!

On the alleged 9/11 truther comment - nowhere does he claim to support the 9/11 truth movement.  He has stated in the past that it was our agencies ineptness that should be investigated, not some silly notion that our government had any active role in the plot.

As to your question to him in regards to why he believes our policy contributed to the motivations that led to the attack on 9/11, you can pick up a copy of the book "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson, or for continued reading check out any of the books on the "Educating Rudy" list on Amazon.com.

But to save you the time, I will list a few of our policies that provided those sick individuals motivation for the attacks:
1)  In 1953 our CIA installed the Shah of Iran covertly
2)  In 1951 we established permanent military training bases on Saudi land (Their holy land)
3)  During the cold war, we covertly supported Osama Bin-Ladin and arab forces in Afghanistan against the invading soviets.  Once the soviet threat was no longer a concern, we backed out and failed to support the Afghans.  (read: 'Charlie Wilson's war' for an inside account of this whole operation)
4)  During the 80's, we supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war (which you can argue was an attempt to fix the problems we created in Iran with our meddling in their internal issues)

These are just a few.  This is not "blame America first," this is looking honestly and objectively at the actions that transpired to get us to where we are today.  We got to this point partially through our meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.  Even if we pulled out tomorrow from Iraq and every other country we "occupy" it will take decades for the shock-waves of our meddling to dissipate.  However, continuing our foreign policy is just making matters worse - and severely impacting our financial situation.

I know I will never convince you - because you have already decided who you want to vote for and what issues are important to you.  I only hope that a big enough percentage of voters turn out for the primaries and disagree with you - because as much as I like Fred Thompson - I cannot agree with him on several issues that are VERY important to me.  (and the war is secondary but related to my more important issues)

[kimbertac2]

Mostly for Hazcat's benefit: Being someone who has spent several years in foreign countries, in the military and diplomatic corps... I fully understand and agree with RP.   What Ron Paul was talking about is Blow-back...   He didn't say we "deserved" 9-11. he didn't even say that specific actions caused 9-11. He said that a series of events , representative of our foreign policies and willingness to intervene... ie. emplace pupet leaders, commit murder and other atrocities mkased as suicides and unsolved misteries, or even to blame opposing factions in order to alter the outcome...  has fostered a hatred among many (specifically Islamic radicals)  that does nothing more than give them an excuse to attack us.  Now, I personally beleive that they would find an excuse to attack us anyway, but the "blowback" that Ron Paul is referring to is making a point about or interventionist foreign policies... which are in conflict with the constitution and Republican ideals.

We funded and encouraged the revolutionists  in Cuba then abandoned them in their hour of need. We supported Usam Bin Laden in the Afghan war.. and now he's our enemy. We Supported Suddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war and now he's our enemy( well, was our enemy). We placed the Shaw in charge of Iran by murdering his opponents, then gave him assylum when the country ousted him. There are even those who say the Gulf of Tonkin was a staged incident ( lord knows it never made sense to me).

This kind of dual sided intervension seems to be a huge part of our history...   and it shouldn't be. The Republican party was founded to preserve the republic and its ideals, part of which was not complete isolationism, but it was based on minding alot of our business. Ron Paul is right. our current foreign policy is bankrupting us. In truth this country is going down fast and he's the only one that truly gets it. I think Fred is great, I even have his bumper sticker is on my car and still  think he can win. But Ron is the only one that can can truly save the country from the path its on. And in the end will probably get my vote. I tried to play the game of voting for "who can win" and got surprized with Bush. Now its time to vote the truth and vote who I think is right.

[Hazcat]

Kimbertac2,

Here's is some reading for your benefit http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm and just to let you know I too have spent time overseas in the military.

I guess as far back as the Barbary Pirates (Muslims) it was or foreign policy that caused them to attack?

Also RP has now flat out stated that there is NO reason to ever go to war and that no one would dare attack us because we a re so powerful.  I guess he has missed a few things like the 1st WTC and the USS Cole, etc.

[OldNavy]

Until we have a constitutional amendment that states that no person can be elected president unless they receive more than fifty percent of the votes cast (popular or electoral--either one), the best that you can do is to vote against the worst alternative. Please write/call your congress critters on this topic!!!

In the meantime:

We may not agree who we prefer but, as gun owners, we should be able to agree on who we don't want.

We really have only two viable choices in a national election:  The Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate.  Which one are you going to vote AGAINST?

I didn't vote for George Bush.  I voted AGAINST Al Gore.

I believe, as it is presently constituted, the Democratic party is the avowed enemy of the Second Amendment (and to a large extent, the Constitution in general).  The Republican party is no great friend, but it IS currently the lesser threat.  I choose to vote against the Democratic candidate.  If you want to make a "statement", vote Republican and then write a letter to the editor.

Disclaimer:  My opinion is not warranted suitable for any person, living or dead, except myself.  Use with caution.

[Pathfinder]

I guess as far back as the Barbary Pirates (Muslims) it was or foreign policy that caused them to attack?

Actually, all, the Mooslims have been attacking anyone and everyone since they formed.

History shows us that long before the Barbary pirates, Mooslims were attacking eastern Europe - that's why Albania and Bosnia are so heavily Mooslim. There was a huge battle at the gates of Vienna in the 14th Century that the Mooslims lost mostly through disease attacks rather than western military might. Eastern Africa is predominantly Mooslim because of conquest, Central Asia as well.

In fact, you could make a very good argument that Islam is only advanced through military conquest. Their goal is a World Caliphate where everyone is Mooslim - or dead.