3,545 views
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
17 Comments
qruelI find his points of view refreshing, speaking truth to the people. Also, I haven't heard him attack any other candidate like gooliani and romknee.
does anyone remember his stance on America as a christian nation
HaricotVertIncredibly timely given that the Canadian Dollar just surpassed the American Dollar.
rbarI like his refreshing clear view, though I dont agree with him on many topics.
What I miss though on the sift is the other candidates. I dont actually live in the US so I have no idea who is who etc. Looking at the sift, you would think Ron Paul is the only candidate. Perhaps some good posts from Obama, Clinton, Cain, etc?
dr20says...Unfortunately the other major candidates don't have all that much to say except more of the same mainstream rhetoric. I get the feeling that everytime he speaks its an education lesson for the country. I'm guessing the reason Ron Paul is on here so much (and the reason I'm so interested in his campaign) is that he's addressing the fundamental and systemic issues that are facing this nation. Overextension in foreign policy, failure of the Federal Reserve to protect the value of US money and the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the extremely rich during boom bust cycles and the mechanism of inflation. Also, issues such as size of the US debt and the fact that at least 1/3 of our income tax goes to just servicing that debt. Things that have taken down a great many powerful nations before. I could be wrong but I don't think I've heard any major candidates talk about these issues. I don't agree with all his policies either and I think there is a role for government entities to manage the common good but those things I don't believe can be addressed until we deal with the systemic problems.
Over the last year it's been interesting to watch him speak out with more confidence and authority in these debates.
ElessarJDsays...I swear I want to punch Giuliani in the head everytime he uses 9/11 against Ron Paul or anyone else for that matter. It was horrible, no sane person would say otherwise, so quit trying to make it sound like people don't respect or acknowledge the travesty. IT'S A GIVEN!
And Ron Paul was right. We weren't attacked directly by an announced country. They were terrorists. There's no official government to declare war on... get that through your head Rudi.
RottyThis looks like an adult talking to a bunch of children.
qruelLOL. good one Rotty, I agree
Farhad2000People like Ron Paul give me hope.
Irishman"And Ron Paul was right. We weren't attacked directly by an announced country. They were terrorists. There's no official government to declare war on... get that through your head Rudi."
EXACTLY.
rottenseedBUT BUT BUT 9/11!!! BUT WHAT ABOUT 9/11?! REMEMBER WHEN 9/11 9/11??? THE 9/11 HAPPENED AND THEN 9/11!!!
lucky760What I wonder about Ron "Paulicy" is, if we knew there were terrorist training camps wherever in the Middle East and that they were training to infiltrate and attack America, we couldn't declare war on the nation containing the terrorists, so Ron wouldn't attack the terrorists. So that would mean his course of action would be to hope border security would be up to par and/or that we could discover and catch them on our soil before their strike?
Clearly I'm not as versed in Paul's views as many others here, but for those of you who are, please enlighten me. Obviously my example is a pretty specific one, but I'm just looking for a general bird's eye of his ideas.
Grimmlucky760 wrote:Not exactly...Ron Paul did vote for an supported going after the terrorists in Afghanistan. To make things simple we say "he voted against the war in Iraq" but the reality of it is he voted against handing over the decision to go to war with Iraq to the President. If we are going to go to war with a "country" then he believes that we need to "declare war" on that country the way it is outlined in the Constitution and that means Congress makes the decision to go to war and not the President. So if Ron Paul is president we will go to war with any country that congress declares war on.
What we have been doing in all the wars since WWII is to go against the Constitution and go to war with countries without declaring war. Voting to give the President the power to go to war lets Congress off the hook if things go bad. Look at all the Democrats that voted for it making all kinds of excuses now and putting the blame on Bush for taking us there and keeping us there.
lucky760Thanks for the reply Grimm. I'm totally picking up what you're putting down. I guess it's just that I am a little unsure of what exactly he is saying because he's asked about striking at specific targets within any country and says he won't without a declaration of war. To me that translates as his saying he would not attack anyone anywhere in a country with which we aren't currently at war. Isn't that what he's saying?
I guess what gums up the works, as usual, is that terrorists are generally stateless, so my question would be more accurately put: Does Ron Paul mean that he would never strike terrorist targets (who we know are plotting to attack us, so there is an imminent threat) ever unless we first declared war with whatever country they are geographically located in?
Grimmlucky760 wrote:It's easy to confuse the issue because that's exactly what the other candidates are trying to do. They are talking about attacking "strategic targets in Iran...nuclear facilities" and Paul correctly identifies that scenario as an attack on a country and not some "terrorists training camps" and says he would not act without Congresses approval in that scenerio. But the other candidates are throwing around "imminent attack" as their justification to side-step the Constitution in this situation.
It happens quickly but if you watch again you will see that he agrees that the President should act without the approval of Congress in a situation of "imminent attack" or "fleeting enemys". But Rudy, Mitt, and the gang want the President to be able to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran because if they don't in 5-10 years they might have the capability to make nuclear weapons. That does not require the snap judgment of the President under the guise of "eminent attack".
We did not declare war on Afghanistan when went after the terrorists there. So no he does not think we have to declare war on a country when protecting ourselves from terrorist groups independent of the country hiding in that country.
eric3579Sorry this video is *dead. You may have others that are dead on this play list.
http://www.videosift.com/playlists/eric3579/dead
siftbotThis published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.
siftbotAwarding Grimm with one star point for fixing this video's dead embed code.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.