One of the reasons I’m not worried too much about Iran and Ron Paul’s foreign policy is because I have all the faith in the world that the Israelis will do what they have to do to defend themselves.
If it is true as Fox News’ Megyn Kelly reported today that Israel may attack Iran as early as April, why should you be concerned that Ron Paul won’t in January 2013?
Even President Obama said during his state of the Union speech that no options were off the table when concerning Iran. So there you have a current president and the current Israeli government possibly attacking Iran.
His relevant remarks are below:
And we will safeguard America’s own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent. Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.
Although an attack may cripple the American economy if higher gas prices result, at least the nuclear program will be delayed for some time, right?
Can we then turn to the thing that matters most, ya know, the economy?
And can we then turn to the only candidate who has a credible plan and has outlined what he wants cut? And to the only person that will deliver a balanced budget in three years?
As FreedomWorks’ Julie Borowski writes in her column “Ron Paul’s Budget Plan is the Real Deal”:
As Cato Institute scholar Tad DeHaven says, “my reaction to the proposal can be summed up in one word: hallelujah.” His budget blueprint would set us in the right direction to restore a constitutionally limited government.
The “Plan to Restore America” would deliver a true balanced budget in year three of Dr. Paul’s presidency without raising taxes. He is the only presidential candidate that has revealed a balanced budget plan and it’s much bolder than plans introduced by other sitting congressmen. Unlike President Obama’s so-called spending cuts that just reduce expected spending increases, Ron Paul’s plan would cut real dollar spending.
And here is the important part:
Many Republicans just want to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic while it’s going down. Ron Paul offers real solutions to balance the budget in the near future instead of several decades down the road. [bold emphasis mine]
Our very own Senator Jim Demint, who I think is one of the most conservative men in both Houses of Congress, recently said that we should balance the budget over 10 years.
But who has time to wait for politicians?
Why wait ten years when we can do it in three?
I will certainly vote for Ron Paul if he is the Republican nominee, but not if he decides to run as a “3rd party” candidate.
The former outcome is unlikely; the latter, I hope, is something he will not do, as it will assure Obama’s victory.
Only if I get hit by a very large truck and suffer a concussion that gives me severe brain damage.
Nope… he won’t win the nomination, and I won’t vote for any third party candidate… getting rid of Obama and firing Harry Reid is TOO important… as is my grand children’s future. As usual I only read the headline and the author… not the actual article. I guess we’re stuck with this fellow till November or until Ron Paul dies which ever comes first.
If the convention is conducted by straw poll then Ron Paul may indeed get the nomination. Otherwise, I’ll just be voting for the Republican nominee.
Ron Paul was ridiculously ineffective as a legislator. In 23 years, he sponsored 620 bills. Only four were thought worthy of a vote. One passed. That bill was merely transferring some federal land to an historicakl society in Galveston, Tx. It is a huge leap to argue that someone so ineffective as a legislator would suddenly be effective as president. Besides his hatred of Jews, you have to contend with his love of terrorists, whom he claims would not attack us as long as we leave them alone. Tell that to England, Spain and France.
Also his repudiation of trade agreements is very dangerous on multiple grounds. First off, if you cancel GATT and NAFTA, what do you do with the displaced 2.5 million manufacturing workers who produce our exports? Secondly, read the history of the Great Depression and you will find that Hoover too, shared Paul’s isolationist viewpoints and made it impossible for many countries to sell their goods here. As a result, they defaulted on their loans, leaving US banks vulnerable to runs which set off massive selling of stock.
Returning to the gold standard. There are 147.3 million ounces of gold. At current prices that would be 257,775,000,000 dollars. Our money supply is 13.9 trillion. So exactly where do we get 8 billion ounces of gold from.
The problem with Paul voters is they like what he says with no regard as to whether any of it is even possible, let alone desirable.
First, Hoover has absolutely nothing in common with Ron Paul. Listen to Paul talk about Hoover… he’s not a fan. I’m not calling you disingenuous anymore, you are either a liar or are dumb. Hoover was an isolationist (If I have to explain the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism again, I’ll lose my mind; so I won’t): he doesn’t believe in free trade. He raised tariffs on virtually every nation, starting a trade war. FDR carried and even further increased these tariffs throughout the Great Depression. Speaking of the Great Depression, you don’t want to bring this up if you’re a Newt supporter because Newt LOVES FDR. He’s said a number of times that he, FDR, is the greatest president of the 20th Century.
Also, Newt is campaigning on a Gold Standard Commission. Interesting that you’re hero wants the economic ruin you preach…
TPANick
The use of insults is the last resort of an extremely weak mind. Secondly, since you are incapable of reading comprehension, let me type really really slow so perhaps it will get through to you. He wants to cancel GATT and NAFTA and has offered bills to do that in the past. (Just another example in a long tenure in the house as an utter failure) Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but no one is entitled to their own truth. The fact that you are so in love with a racist causes me to wonder about your motives for endorsing Paul.
The cancellation of GATT and NAFTA would restore the large tariff on foreign goods. (You aren’t very bright are you?) Exactly what did you say Paul’s lan was for the 2.5 million lost manufacturing jobs? Or all the jobs that would be lost in trucking, food and services for those employees? Only a fool would think an utter failure in the house would make a good president.
On the other hand, Newt has cut taxes. He did reform welfare. He did balance the budget 4 times. The only 4 times in the last 70 years. He cut spending in the house and did away with special funding for seperate caucuses.
Face it, there are not even mentally deficient fools to elect an idiot like that racist Ron Paul. And his lies about his newsletter proves he can’t be trusted. And even if you think he didn’t lie about that. (And it’s his word vs the word of all of his employees) then you would have to believe he is totally incompetant and unable to supervise a 4 page newsletter for which he made in excess of 1 million a year, but can run an entire country?
There is a good reason that audiences have laughed at that doddering old moron both in 2008 and 2012 (who can forget when that idiot tried to explain why roads were the reason we were so far in debt in 2008 and Buchanan openly laughed out loud in his face) Now that was a classic. He is destined to finish last again because he is a loser and that’s what losers do.
Of course, had Paul been president rather than FDR, there would be no United States anyway. He has said that we were wrong to intervene against Hitler. He didn’t consider the sinking of US merchant ships as provocation for war. Now, had we not gotten involved Europe and Russia as well as China would have all fallen to Hitler. Of course in the murky brain of Paul, Hitler would have never come here and attacked us.
Hitler declared war on us, that’s why we fought him, not to end the holocaust. And you can’t really speculate about what would’ve happened. Stalingrad essentially dicked Germany over in Russia. Sorry, violated my rules about arguing with idiots. Forgot that calling out your lies won’t change your ignorance.
TPANick
I may be an idiot but not even I am am lowlife scum that would vote for a racist like Ron Paul. Someone who revels in his antisemetism and looks forward to the new “Final Solution” CPAC got it right this time and voted him dead last, where he belongs. I may be dumb but thank God I am not a racist like you and Paul. Now go crawl back under your rock and contemplate the tragedy which is your life.