Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 10-24-2011, 07:03 PM
flo's Avatar
flo flo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 7,760
Default

Chris, did you hear Paul speak at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition last weekend? If I recall correctly, 6 of the hopefuls were there and it was a chance for all of them to speak at length. I though Ron Paul started out well but after a while he just started sounding slightly looney. Maybe it's just me, I know he has a demented but extremely loyal pack of followers.

(as Herman Cain says, that last bit was a joke!!!)
__________________
http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=339&dateline=13068036  43

Rejoice ever more. 1 Thessalonians 5:16
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-24-2011, 07:10 PM
flo's Avatar
flo flo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 7,760
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
So I am curious just how do you and dethbob think he has no understanding and please cite specifics not speculation.
How the world works and the Constitution are two different things. I believe many of Paul's views are admirable but naive. Some of his ideas would not translate to being an effective world leader and could ultimately be dangerous (as dethbob said). The first issue that comes to mind are his thoughts on US/Israeli foreign policy.

OK, 3 posts in a row, I'm bowing out now ;-)
__________________
http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=339&dateline=13068036  43

Rejoice ever more. 1 Thessalonians 5:16
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-24-2011, 07:24 PM
Dethbob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
So I am curious just how do you and dethbob think he has no understanding and please cite specifics not speculation.
Here's a good example:

"It was absolutely not necessary," Paul said of the May 1 CIA-led Navy SEALs raid.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...in-laden-raid/

"Paul said the United States should have gone after bin Laden the same way it went after Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, by working with the Pakistan government."

Does he really think Pakistan today is the same as Pakistan ten years ago? The best case scenario if he had been in a position to actually do what he says he would have done is that Bin Laden would be still alive, mocking our ineptitude from a new location. Worst case is that the SEAL team would have ended up getting beheaded on Al Jazeera. Iím not voting for that, thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-24-2011, 07:34 PM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flo View Post
Oh come on, Chris, globalist war monger? If anything, we have a globalist war monger now - the guy who has unleased more targeted drones to kill people than anyone ever could have imagined.

I know Paul understands the constitution, my point is that the longer he talks, the more unhinged he sounds.

Gingrich is a noted historian, I'd say he is at LEAST as well versed in his understanding of the founding fathers as Paul, if not much more so. Many (or all) of the others may know as much about the constitution and our founding fathers as well but unless they point it out in debates, as Paul does, how are we to judge? That's why I try not to make a sweeping generalization.
Yeah ever since Nixon we have had globalist war monegers.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-24-2011, 07:36 PM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flo View Post
Chris, did you hear Paul speak at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition last weekend? If I recall correctly, 6 of the hopefuls were there and it was a chance for all of them to speak at length. I though Ron Paul started out well but after a while he just started sounding slightly looney. Maybe it's just me, I know he has a demented but extremely loyal pack of followers.

(as Herman Cain says, that last bit was a joke!!!)
Nope I did not that is why I was asking why you all thought he did not understand. In case you had a clip or something specific I could see. Ron Paul is a libertarian and I personally would not ever vote for him but at of the GOP choices he is the only one who would follow the US Constitution 100% and for that I owuld rather see him than any of the others. But I personally would not vote for him.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-24-2011, 07:38 PM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flo View Post
How the world works and the Constitution are two different things. I believe many of Paul's views are admirable but naive. Some of his ideas would not translate to being an effective world leader and could ultimately be dangerous (as dethbob said). The first issue that comes to mind are his thoughts on US/Israeli foreign policy.

OK, 3 posts in a row, I'm bowing out now ;-)
See that scares me. What you just said weather you meant ot or not was screw the Constitution being involved in everyone elses (world's) business is better than following the Constitution. Sadly many think like that and this is why America is going down the proverbial crapper.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-24-2011, 07:44 PM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dethbob View Post
Here's a good example:

"It was absolutely not necessary," Paul said of the May 1 CIA-led Navy SEALs raid.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...in-laden-raid/

"Paul said the United States should have gone after bin Laden the same way it went after Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, by working with the Pakistan government."

Does he really think Pakistan today is the same as Pakistan ten years ago? The best case scenario if he had been in a position to actually do what he says he would have done is that Bin Laden would be still alive, mocking our ineptitude from a new location. Worst case is that the SEAL team would have ended up getting beheaded on Al Jazeera. Iím not voting for that, thanks.
Because that is what the Constitution of the USA dictates. By your logic a president should be free to ignore the Constitution as long as the end justifies the means. Worst case scenerio with Paul as the guy the seal teams stays in America guards the co