2012 Republican ticket? Ron Paul and Mitt Romney

Post a reply

In an effort to prevent automatic submissions, we require that you enter both of the words displayed into the text field underneath.
:pray: :sleep: :D :alien51: :) :mrgreen: :wink: :love: :obsessed: :| :( :twisted: :evil: :scary: :o :dunno: :? 8-) :hmmm: :shock: :flop: :top: :x :P :oops: :cry: :?: :idea: :arrow: :!: :nails: :look: :rtft: :roll: :ohno: :hell: :vomit: :lol: :think: :headscratch: :clapper: :bang; :censored: :badair: :help: :owned: :nope: :nwo: :geek: :ugeek: :robot: :alien: :mrcool: :ghost: :sunny: :peep: :yell: :banana: :dancing: :hugging: :bullshit: :cheers: :shooting: :hiho:
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is OFF
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review

Expand view Topic review: 2012 Republican ticket? Ron Paul and Mitt Romney

Re: 2012 Republican ticket? Ron Paul and Mitt Romney

Post by Svaha » Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:19 am

So Santorum is also into conspiracy, that makes him a terrorist suspect. :lol:

All diversions to stop Ron Paul, but even if he 'made' it, even if he becomes the next president, my guess is that it would be too late.
Now European countries are plundered, money / property / gold stolen from the people, democracy is dying there.
This is the effect of the transfer of the huge American debt to the world.
This will strike back to America soon, revealing the true value of the dollar (3 cents) and bringing incredible austerity measures.

Greece should have chosen to go default a long time ago, as should other countries do, and return to the gold standard, get rid of the big central banks.
On the other hand, the plan to form this nwo (governed by a small group) won't work either, there are way to many people already who have nothing to loose anymore.
And then there is the topping of the cake, the approaching singularity that can't be escaped.

Upload to Disclose.tv

Upload to Disclose.tv

Re: 2012 Republican ticket? Ron Paul and Mitt Romney

Post by Seahawk » Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:51 am

Abdul, there are some important differences between isolationism, and Paul's vision of foreign relations.


the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

Calling Dr. Paul an isolationist comes from simply not understanding the significant differences between isolationism and non-interventionism, mainly, with the issue of trade.

Isolationism is the doctrine of completely isolating our country from the affairs of other nations, and focusing exclusively on the growth of our own country. Non-interventionism on the hand promotes trading with other nations, as a means to build good diplomatic relations, and for the betterment of all parties involved. Furthermore, it doesn’t rule out using military force as an option, but proponents feel that it should only be used as a last option, to come to the defense of an ally under attack, or more importantly, to defend our own country if under attack, or directly threatened by attack. Lastly, taking such military action as a last resort should only be done with the advice and support of the Congress. This policy is in sharp contrast to interventionism propagated by neoconservatives, which promotes upholding UN resolutions, overthrowing governments and replacing them ones of our own choosing, and other actions not related to our own direct security. In short, it promotes our country “policing the word”, which puts a hardship on the American people with the draining of resources and more importantly the loss of life, not to mention goes directly against the ideas of freedom of liberty. It’s hypocritical.

Ron Paul is not an isolationist, but a non-interventionist.

Is Ron Paul an Isolationist as Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum Claim?

Both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have accused Ron Paul of being an isolationist. Is that really the case? Ironically, I propose that Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum are the isolationists.

However, before one can make a case for or debate anything, there must be an agreement on terms and an understanding of what isolationist means.

The best place to start is a compelling article written by Sheldon Richman on the Future of Freedom Foundation website.

Opposing Imperialism Is Not Isolationism

I am going to take liberty and post Richman's Opposing Imperialism Is Not Isolationism in entirety. If he objects, I will condense it down. Here goes.

When pundits and rival politicians call Ron Paul an “isolationist,” they mislead the American people — and they know it.

They know it? How could they not: Ron Paul is for unilateral, unconditional free trade. He believes any American should be perfectly free to buy from or sell to any person in the world. In that sense — the laissez-faire sense — he favors globalization, which, applied consistently, would require a worldwide free market. He’s such a strong advocate of free trade that he objects to the world’s governments, led by the U.S. government, setting up international bureaucracies, such as the World Trade Organization, to manage trade. He thinks trade should be a totally private matter. That’s a solid classical-liberal, or libertarian, position.

So why is Paul repeatedly called an isolationist?

Apparently in today’s political world, being an isolationist means opposing the U.S. government’s policing the rest of the world through invasion, occupation, and war — that is, militarism. The word “isolationist” has always suggested a fear of foreigners, and no doubt those who apply the word to Paul want to cash in on that sense. So we are left with the daffy conclusion that Ron Paul is a xenophobic, head-in-the-sand isolationist precisely because he prefers peaceful trade with foreigners rather than invasion, occupation, and demolition of their countries.

If that’s what it means to be an isolationist, count me as one too.

It’s easy to understand why this inappropriate label is stuck on Paul. Establishment conservatives and progressives are terrified by him and desperately want him to go away. They’re terrified because he has done the worst thing imaginable: he has held up a mirror and reminded them of what they are.
He has shown establishment conservatives and even so-called Republican moderates (such as Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman) that they are, and long have been, apologists for empire and therefore betrayers of the republican (small-r) ideals they say they embrace. When Paul condemns past, present, and future aggressive wars (such as the one being planned for Iran); when he calls for closing America’s 900 military installations in over 40 countries and removing America's troops from 130 countries; when he advocates an end to all economic and military aid to foreign governments (including Israel’s); and when he opposes wholesale violation of the Bill of Rights (see the PATRIOT Act and the National Defense Authorization Act), he is saying to his Republican rivals, You have helped destroy individual liberty by shamefully supporting the U.S. global empire, which brutalizes foreign populations, fosters an exploitative military-industrial complex, violates civil liberties, and burdens the American people with obscene debt, taxation, and Federal Reserve monetary manipulation.

That charge must be hard to take from a fellow Republican. So his rivals strike back in the way they know best: they smear Paul. The thought of a staunch antiwar, pro-Bill of Rights candidate running against Barack Obama scares the daylights out of them, because they know only one way to run against a Democrat: accuse him of being an appeaser and a socialist.

This is absurd, however, because Obama is neither. He has steadfastly carried on the empire’s program of global militarism and corporatism. If you doubt it, look at his foreign-policy record and the long list of Wall Street people who advise him and give him money.

Which brings us to the progressives. If you think establishment conservatives are scared of Ron Paul, imagine how Obama and his supporters must feel. Can you imagine their having to run against a staunch antiwar, pro-Bill of Rights opponent? This is the same Obama who has maintained Guantanamo, launched more deadly drone attacks than George W. Bush, signed into law the authority to detain individuals indefinitely without charge or trial, claimed he may kill even American citizens without due process, cracked down harshly on whistle-blowers, protected torturers from legal consequences, invoked state secrets to quash lawsuits by torture victims, and on and on.
Most progressives live in a fantasy world where they are champions of peace, tolerance, and the rule of law, when in fact they support — and refuse to criticize — a man who has mimicked George W. Bush in virtually every way.

How can they tolerate a man — Ron Paul — who reminds them of that?

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Visit his blog Free Association at http://www.sheldonrichman.com. Send him email.

Is Ron Paul an Isolationist?

I was going to title my post "Is Ron Paul an Isolationist?" but after perusing the Future of Freedom Foundation website that I just discovered this evening, I noticed that title was already taken.

Here are snips from The Future of Freedom article Is Ron Paul an Isolationist? written by Laurence Vance.

Speaking in South Carolina just before Christmas, Newt Gingrich “sharply criticized Mr. Paul for what he said were his isolationist views on foreign policy.”

While stumping in Iowa the week before the Iowa caucuses, Rick Santorum “urged Republicans to carefully study Mr. Paul’s isolationist foreign policy views.”

Tune in to the leading conservative talk-show hosts or read the comments posted by their followers on right-wing websites and you will hear and see Ron Paul regularly described as an isolationist.

Okay, so what would an isolationist America look like? What if the United States really retreated from the world stage, avoided engagement with the rest of the world, and actually did isolate itself from every other country?

Under a real foreign policy of isolationism, the United States would refuse to participate in the Olympics, refuse to make treaties, refuse to issue visas, refuse to allow foreign goods to be imported, refuse to allow U.S. goods to be exported, refuse to allow foreign students to study at American universities, refuse to allow American students to study at foreign universities, refuse to allow foreign investment, refuse to extradite criminals, refuse to exchange diplomats, refuse to allow cultural exchanges, refuse to participate in disaster-relief efforts, refuse to allow travel abroad, refuse to engage in diplomacy, refuse to deliver mail to or receive mail from foreign countries, refuse to allow emigration, and refuse to allow immigration.

Here is Rick Santorum on Ron Paul’s “dangerous” foreign policy: “One thing he can do as commander in chief is he can pull all our troops home. He can shut down our bases in Germany. He can shut down the bases in Japan. He can pull our fleets back.” According to Santorum and his fellow conservative and Republican warmongers Gingrich, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, and the Weekly Standard, Ron Paul is an isolationist, not because he wants America to be isolated from the rest of the world, but because he wants to terminate the empire, stop fighting foreign wars, close the foreign military bases, cut the bloated military budget, end foreign aid, halt all offense spending, bring all the troops home, limit the military to the actual defense of the United States, and stop being the policeman of the world.

A noninterventionist foreign policy is a policy of peace, commerce, travel, cultural exchange, diplomacy, neutrality, and free trade.

A noninterventionist foreign policy means no preemptive strikes, invasions, occupations, bombings, threats, sanctions, embargoes, foreign aid, assassinations, imperialism, meddling, bullying, regime changes, nation building, entangling alliances, spreading democracy, NATO-like commitments, peacekeeping operations, forcibly opening markets, policing the world, and no foreign military bases.

It is a sad day for America and Americans when not supporting an aggressive, belligerent, interventionist, and meddling foreign policy means that you are an isolationist.

Is Ron Paul isolationist?

Is France isolationist because its navy doesn’t patrol our coasts? Is Canada isolationist because it doesn’t have military bases below the 49th parallel? Is Germany isolationist because it doesn’t have tens of thousands of troops stationed in the United States? Is Brazil isolationist because it doesn’t kill Americans with drone strikes? Is Russia isolationist because it doesn’t build military bases in scores of countries? Is Moldova isolationist because it doesn’t send its soldiers to fight foreign wars? Was Ronald Reagan an isolationist because he pulled U.S. troops out of Lebanon?

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. It is practical, sane, moral, just, and right. It is the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers — and Ron Paul.

Laurence M. Vance is a policy advisor for the Future of Freedom Foundation and the author of The Revolution That Wasn’t. Visit his website: http://www.vancepublications.com. Send him email.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot. ... -newt.html

Re: 2012 Republican ticket? Ron Paul and Mitt Romney

Post by Abdul14 » Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:15 am


Re: 2012 Republican ticket? Ron Paul and Mitt Romney

Post by Jet17 » Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:38 am

Wow, you didn't even read it, which probably explains why you are such a re-retard.

They aren't ABC foreign policy experts, they aren't even affiliated with the media:


Re: 2012 Republican ticket? Ron Paul and Mitt Romney

Post by Abdul14 » Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:33 am

lol@ the experts of ABC news

not too long ago ABC had this tv special where they went out of their way to promote islam as the following

ABC News Promotes Muslims as America's First Line of Defense

Upload to Disclose.tv

ABC's Islam Deception--Part One: Raisins or Virgins in Paradise?

Upload to Disclose.tv

ABC's Islam Deception--Part Two: Were Adam and Eve Created Equally from Dust?

Upload to Disclose.tv

ABC's Islam Deception--Part Three: Are Men and Women Equal in Islam?

Upload to Disclose.tv

ABC's Islam Deception--Part Four: Muhammad and Religious Tolerance

Upload to Disclose.tv

Re: 2012 Republican ticket? Ron Paul and Mitt Romney

Post by domdabears » Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:15 am

abdul14, you just want the US to do your dirty work for you. That's the only reason you don't like Ron Paul.

You'd have to be a moron to not realize that's what you're getting at.

Sucks to be Jew.

I mean *you.

Re: 2012 Republican ticket? Ron Paul and Mitt Romney

Post by Jet17 » Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:11 am

abdul14 wrote:Why Wrong Paul Is Ron about Islam, Foreign Policy, and War


Foreign Policy Experts Agree With Ron Paul’s Controversial Foreign Policy
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... gn-policy/


Re: 2012 Republican ticket? Ron Paul and Mitt Romney

Post by Abdul14 » Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:03 am

Why Wrong Paul Is Ron about Islam, Foreign Policy, and War

There is one fundamental element that is absolutely necessary for an isolationist foreign policy. Isolation. Isolationism without physical isolation is as much good as belligerence without an army to back it up.

American isolationism might have been feasible during WW1 when its neighbors were either friendly or no threat, there was no danger from the Pacific and a fleet crossing the Atlantic seemed unlikely. Though it wasn’t so unlikely even then.

As far back as 1897 and long before any American involvement in Europe, Operational Plan Three called for shelling New York and seizing parts of Virginia, as a staging base for attacks on Washington and Baltimore. Plans were drawn up in Germany for the occupation of Boston and Philadelphia.

Vice-Admiral August Thomsen wrote, “At the moment every thinking German officer is occupied with the consequences of a belligerent conflict between Germany and the United States of America.”

No American politician was thinking the same thing. America had not intervened in any European wars and had no interest in Germany. But that didn’t matter. The Kasier wanted to seize parts of the hemisphere and that meant breaking the dominant power in the region. America’s weak fleet made it seem like an easy target.

That is the most important part of the equation that isolationists fail to include in their calculations. Regardless of our foreign policy, we are still a target. Whatever our calculations are, potential enemies may have calculations entirely different from our own. They don’t just react to what we do, they have their own plans and agendas. Passivity isn’t a defense for the ostrich or for a nation.

In 1900 while America slept, German diplomats were scouting Cape Cod and Provincetown as support bases for an attack on Boston. And the Germans weren’t alone. In the early 20th century there were British plans for an assault on New England. But Germany’s failure to formulate an alliance with other European powers against the United States led to the abandonment of Operational Plan Three.

When Charles Lindbergh ridiculed the idea of a foreign attack on America, such an attack was less than a year away, but variations of it had been planned by European powers for a good deal longer than that. Terrorist attacks by foreign agents were a now forgotten reality during WW1, including the Black Tom explosion which severely damaged the Statue of Liberty, the Vanceboro bridge bombing, and in an early form of biological warfare a laboratory in Chevy Chase was working on anthrax and glanders cultures to be used on horses.

With the jet plane and the intercontinental ballistic missile, isolationism became completely unworkable without strong deterrence. Even if the United States had chosen to abandon Europe, it would still have needed massive nuclear missile stockpiles, a sizable fleet and military, and a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction just to pursue a policy of isolationism. And had the USSR managed to make even deeper inroads in South America, the United States would have been forced to either push it out or increase the size of its forces to compensate for the loss of a buffer zone against preemptive attacks.

It’s not impossible to have an isolationist foreign policy today, to cut any alliances with the rest of the world. But there’s a fundamental difference between a responsible and an irresponsible isolationist policy. A responsible isolationist policy recognizes that we have enemies who will act regardless of what we do and prepares against the possibility of war without actively seeking it out.

An irresponsible isolationist foreign policy however acts as if we have no enemies and that any talk that we have enemies is a conspiracy to bring us into a war. It accepts every bit of enemy propaganda as gospel and assumes that if we just “stop bothering them”, they’ll “stop bothering us”. It assumes that the enemy is entirely motivated by our actions, that any conflict we are in is the result of our foreign policy and that isolationism will avert any such conflicts.

This is the version of isolationism that you hear in the Republican debates from Ron Paul. It’s the version that Americans heard back in the 1930′s from Lindbergh. Rather than recognizing that a military buildup is an important deterrent to war, it attacks military buildups as provocative. It assumes that the only possible reason why we might be attacked are foreign entanglements and if we just tuck our heads in then there will be no conflict.

The absurdity of this approach when it comes to the current clash of civilizations with Islam is obvious enough. This isn’t a conflict that dates back from 1991 or 1948 or even the First Barbary War in 1805. It’s a war that predates the United States and modern day Europe. It is a conflict that goes back over a thousand years to the decline and fall of the eastern remains of the Roman Empire and the rise of Islam as a militant unification ideology to fill that void.

American foreign policy can’t turn back the clock on that history. It can affect events in the present day, but it can’t undo the roots of a conflict that it has inherited. American foreign policy had a good deal to do with the rise of Islamic states built on petrodollars, but isolationism is certainly not going to make them go away. Certainly not Ron Paul’s brand of isolationism which pretends that there is nothing wrong with Islam that can’t be fixed with an American isolationist foreign policy.

During the last debate, Ron Paul asked why they’re bombing us and not Sweden or Switzerland. The answer is very simple. You only bomb people who resist. Stockholm is 20 percent Muslim. Muslim terrorists operate out of Sweden, including a top Al-Qaeda leader, but they don’t need to attack a territory that they’re already on the way to ruling through natural demographics.

44 percent of Europe’s population is over 45. Under 34 percent is under 30. Meanwhile half of European Muslims are under 30. The math isn’t very hard to do. The only countries that need to be targeted by Muslim terrorists are those which have a high enough birth rate that demographics alone won’t do the trick.

The First World country with the highest birth rate is Israel. It’s also the country most targeted by Muslim terrorists. The First World country with the second highest birth rate is the United States. It is the country second most targeted by terrorists. The next major countries on the list are France and the UK. There’s a term for this sort of thing. It’s demographic suppression and political intimidation.

Back in the 19th century the Kasier hoped that shelling Manhattan and seizing a few cities would bring the United States to the negotiating table. Japan thought that bombing Pearl Harbor would accomplish the same thing. But while Tojo was wrong, the House of Saud was correct. September 11 brought the United States to the negotiating table with Islam. Muslims have been granted special privileges and their immigration rate has increased. That’s one path to an eventual demographic domination.

Islamic attacks against the United States may emerge from various micro-events, but the macro-event from which they originate is the shared history of the Western world and the ongoing conflict between the Muslim world and the West. Some isolationists may act as if the United States can break with European history through assertion alone. It cannot. Like it or not it shares a common history and a common culture. America derives from Europe, and whether Americans recognize it or not, the rest of the world does. To Islam, America is not an island, it is another outpost of an enemy civilization that must be subdued so that the way of Mohammed will triumph around the world.

Ron Paul type isolationists fail to distinguish between the proximate causes of war and the ultimate causes of war. A proximate cause of war may be a ship that has wandered into the wrong area which may have been caused by a trade dispute which may have been caused by debts which may have been caused by growing militarism and greed for land. But none of those are truly the ultimate cause of war. The ultimate cause of war is the incompatibility of two systems and two civilizations within the same space.

Technological development means that the old boundaries are all but gone. Immigration means that the enemy population is already here. The rise of Islam means that war is inevitable, all that remains are the details, which battle, on what terms and in what form, and the larger detail of who will win.

Rationalism isolationism accepts that war may be inevitable but chooses to meet it on our terms. Irrational isolationism, which often carries with it defeatist and treasonous overtones, accepts the enemy’s justifications for the conflicts and assumes that if we modify our behavior accordingly that there will be no need for war.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum,” was a rule that the old Romans knew. If you would have peace, prepare for war. The emblem of the Strategic Air Command was an olive branch and thunderbolt held in a mailed fist. Its motto was “Peace is Our Profession”. The SAC kept the peace through the threat of war. Only an isolationism that understands the meaning of that motto can be successful.


Re: 2012 Republican ticket? Ron Paul and Mitt Romney

Post by Rydher » Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:24 am

Got this today.


According to a just released Rasmussen poll, I lead Barack Obama in a head-to-head match-up.

More and more Americans realize my message of liberty, sound money, and free markets runs in clear contrast to Barack Obama's economy-wrecking, Constitution-shredding policies.

This poll also shows that fake conservatives Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich would be defeated in a general election because voters are fed up with politicians who sell out their principles for party loyalty.

The Republican Party can't nominate a candidate who will spend the entire fall campaign apologizing for their Big Government record if we want to defeat Barack Obama.

But in order to get this message out to the voters in the ten states that vote on Super Tuesday, I need your help right away.

Please make your most generous contribution to help my campaign fund our critical Get-Out-The Vote efforts for Super Tuesday, so my campaign can receive as many of the 400 delegates at stake that day as possible.

Click to donate

My consistent, conservative message is exactly what voters who want to replace Barack Obama are yearning for.

As each new flavor-of-the-week of the week emerges, voters take a close inspection of their record and discover that they are nothing more than establishment, status quo candidates.

Rick Santorum rose after Iowa and then immediately nose-dived because voters realized he voted to raise the debt ceiling five times, doubled the size of the Department of Education, supported the budget-busting Medicare Part D entitlement, and helped kill a National Right to Work law.

This is not the record of a conservative and will make him unelectable in a campaign against Barack Obama.

I have never voted for unbalanced budget or to raise the debt ceiling.

And every vote I cast is in accordance with the Constitution.

No one will ever accuse me of changing my positions or selling out my principles in backroom deals because I caved in to pressure to "be a team player."

None of my opponents can make this claim, they will all lose to Barack Obama if nominated. I am the candidate who can take him on and Restore Prosperity to America Now.

The stakes of this election are just too high to settle for another Big Government nominee who will spend the entire campaign backtracking on their record.

So please, click here to make your most generous contribution and help fund my campaign's Super Tuesday Push. Make sure we have every resource available to finish strong on March 6 and acquire every delegate possible.

I hope I can continue to count on your support.

For Liberty,

Ron Paul

P.S. Super Tuesday is just eight days away!

A new poll just released shows that I am the candidate who can take on and defeat Barack Obama.

Over 400 delegates are at stake in the ten states where voters go to the polls on March 6, and I need your support right away.

Click here to make your most generous contribution to fund our Get-Out-The-Vote programs and help my campaign finish strong.

No mention of the fake conservative Romney anywhere in the message? :think: