0 votes

The Paul campaign needs to think of some really convincing talking points for the foreign policy debate

I really hope they invest some significant time and brainpower in this.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"Why should an American

"Why should an American suffer for the benefit of a stranger in a foreign land?"

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

Receives Most Active Troop Support

I'm glad that Ron Paul is modest and doesn't gloat, I mean that's one of the qualities about him that allowed us all to listen and trust him as he started a revolution!

But I would love to see it happen...just once would be enough for it spread like wildfire...I'd love to see a debate where:

Ron Paul stands there with no worries and just a confident smile as the rest of the candidates on stage start to attack him with the generic Iran/Iraq/Someone-will-make-a-nuclear-bomb arguments, he turns to answer them but pauses for a few seconds before responding until the suspense becomes unbearable and then, in a calm and collected tone of voice he asks all of the candidates:

"Who would know, better than the active duty military members, whether or not we should end the wars and come home or not?"

None of the candidates know how to respond, Ron Paul stands there silently waiting. As soon as one of candidates begin their argument, Ron Paul raises his voice and continues with his point.

"So, in 2008, when I was the only advocate for ending the wars, why did I receive more of their donations than all the other candidates combined?"

Now the candidates really know how to respond. But as soon as one of the candidates try to spin the issue, they are again cut off by Ron Paul as he drives the point home even further.

"AND, why in the 3rd quarter of 2011, did I receive over twice as much in donations than ALL of you on this stage COMBINED? ...AND(emphasis) almost twice as much the current Commander in Chief?"

"Now you can try to spin those facts however you want to, but inside you know the troops want to come home. And out there the troops know I'm the only one up here that's going to do it for them"

after the applause dies down a little...

"And just make my point a little more clear: Does anyone else up here besides me have three branches of the military in the list of their top three campaign contributors?.....and no Mitt, different branches of banks don't count!"

Think of how much Americans honor and respect the people that serve their country, if they found out that the military not only takes Ron Paul seriously but also trusts him more than the other candiates from both 2008 and today their media-provided "blinders" would be removed and they could at least consider his views without negative pretense.

And another ... Germany,

And another ... Germany, Italy, and Japan spend a mere 2-3% of their owne GDP on defense yet the american taxpayer pays for a combined 80,000 of our troops stationed since WW2 in these countries. If we TRULY believe in conservative ideas such as self government and self reliance then we would transition these countries to be self sufficent. It would be better for the countries themselves, the American taxpayer, and making the world safe for democracy in the long run.

The ONLY way we can save THIS country...

is if we stop trying to save the rest of the world!!!

i got some ... We've had

i got some ... We've had 30,000 troops in S Korea since RP was in high school, yet N korea can't even feed their own people without international aid and S korea has 54 TIMES the GDP of N Korea. ...S Koreans can build washing machines, cars, TV's, and computers but just not nuclear weapons???

A History Timeline

Simple. First, we did this, then they did that, so we did this, then they did that.

He's the only one on the stage who can do it.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

It's simple

They attack us because we overthrow their governments, bomb innocent civilians, and occupy their territories.

If we stop keeping troops over there, they lose recruiting power.

On top of that, we're broke and can't afford it. If we're going to stop "terrorists", we're going to have to do it here at home if we want to live within our means.

If you can't convince a neocon that we're broke, then you're never going to convince them.