A Free Forum
For A Free People

Ron Paul	24% (903)
Sarah Palin	23% (845)
Bobby Jindal	12% (436)
Obama will be such a disaster, any Republican can sweep in on the anti-Democrat tide	10% (385)
Newt Gingrich	7% (270)
An as of yet unknown	6% (234)
Mitt Romney	4% (153)
No matter who it is, the GOP is done for	4% (153)
Mike Huckabee	3% (105)
Other	1% (53)
Tom Tancredo	1% (49)
Alan Keyes	1% (40)
Mark Sanford	1% (23)
Rudy Giuliani	0% (18)
Tim Pawlenty	0% (18)
Charlie Crist	0% (9)
Arnold Schwarzenegger	0% (7)

PLEASE NOTICE:
Posted by Mikaia (mbmonitor) on Nov 27, 2008 21:09

We have 10 visible forums to post to on the WND Polls Home page. We also have 12 more forums on the WND Forums Home page.

There is no reason to post on the forums that are not visible to the public. I will no longer approve of the posts that are not visible for discussion.

Please take advantage of the forums that are active.


Mikaia
mbmonitor@wnd.com
http://wnd.com

RE: RE: RE: Problems with Ron Paul
Posted by Lukea09 on Nov 27, 2008 14:46

Ron Paul was asked about abolishing the CIA and FBI during the Republican primaries. All he said was they create a lot of mischief. He didn't say he wanted to abolish them only that they needed to be toned down.

We got in WW2 because we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Ron Paul is not anti-war. He says it is the government's responsibility to defend the citizens when attacked, but the government has no authority to police the world. Not under the constitution and frankly we don't have the money to afford 750 bases across the world.

And of course there will always be people that don't like us, but you have to realize what motivates these people to come to America and commit terrorism. It is what we do in there countries bullying them around and such that causes them to do this. Didn't our founders get a little upset when another country was occupying the U.S back in the lat 1700s? Where they terrorists or nutjobs for getting mad at the British? What would we do today if China or Russia set up bases in our country like we do in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc.

Ron Paul would strengthen the border by putting troops on it. The DHS hasn't done anything to prevent illegals from coming here. In fact, illegal immigration has been worse since 9/11 and since the DHS was created.

Lastly, yes we do support Israel with weapons and money but guess what, we give 3 times as much aid to Muslim countries as we do Israel. So if you take all things into consideration we are actually aiding the people who hate Israel and want to attack it. If we cut off all aid to the middle east Israel would suffer some, but in the big picture they would be better off because the muslim countries surrounding them wouldn't have jack.

Where did Saddam get the weapons he used on the Kurds??? THE US

Who started Al Qaeda and funded them with money and weapons??? THE US

Who gave Pakistan $10 billion to look for Osama bin Laden??? THE US

Reply to: AFI
Okay well Ron Paul himself said that he would abolish the CIA and significantly reduce the FBI so unless he later came back and changed his position it really can’t be explained away. If Ron Paul did change his position on this I would love to see it. Also that still leaves the DHS that Ron Paul would abolish.

Okay to address the idea that our involvement in the world threatens us let me ask you this. According to that idea we should not have gotten involved in WWII or the Cold war. It also means that we should not peruse our national interests around the world. Yes supporting nations like Israel, and fighting Islamic terrorist in Africa is going to make Islamic extremist hate us, however that does not mean that we should not be over there. No matter what our policy is we have to realize that there will always be those who have problems with us. Also I think that by now we should know that appeasement does not work. So if people like Bin laden don’t like our policies and try to attack us we should not gust give in and pull out. Instead we should take the appropriate measures to protect our nation and have a foreign policy that will protect our interests abroad. Also I think it is important to point out that we live in a globalised world. Simply pulling out of the world is not an option.

You mentioned securing the border however Ron Paul would be abolishing the organization in charge of securing the border and fighting illegal immigration; the department of homeland security. We have made large strides in securing the border and fighting illegal immigration under the DHS. The number of border agents has been doubled, fencing is going up all over the border and internal security measures are much larger than they used to be. Also we already have National Guard troops on the border assisting the National Guard. Lastly yes we could do more but Ron Paul is not the only candidate who wants more secure borders.

Who provides weapons and other support to South Korea and Israel? Why the US, so what are they going to do once we withdraw our support. Why do you think we have so many troops in South Korea? I can guarantee you it is not because South Korea is easily capable of defending themselves. Out of all the countries mentioned Israel is probably the only one that could stand. But even that would be questionable for the long term. And of course we still have Taiwan and eastern European countries that would be open to attack from china and Russia.

RE: Problems with Ron Paul
Posted by Noamster on Nov 27, 2008 09:48

Dr Paul is against the CIA overthrowing foreign governments, assassinations, training death squads, etc..., but he is for intelligence gathering.

Dr Paul is against the FBI illegally wire tapping and carrying out political vendettas against law abiding Americans like Dr Martin Luther King, but he is for the law enforcement role of the FBI.

Reply to: AFI
Okay Ron Paul supporters.
Please answer these questions about Ron Paul’s positions on National security and Foreign policy.

Ron Paul wants to abolish the CIA, DHS, and significantly reduce the FBI. He also opposes virtually all of our national security initiatives. How is this policy good for America during a war on terror? And don’t give the “we can’t afford it” arguments because I think we all know that there are plenty of other wasteful programs that we could cut. We don’t need to abolish all of our national security organizations to have a good fiscal policy.

Ron Paul also thinks that we should withdraw our support from our allies. Basically if Taiwan, Israel, South Korea, or any other of our allies was attacked Ron Paul does not think we should get involved. Now currently the promise of US intervention is what is keeping china from attacking Taiwan, North Korea from attacking South Korea, Russia from attacking eastern European countries. We don’t actually have to intervene it is the promise of intervention that is protecting those countries. With that said why would we want to remove our support from those countries? Should we let our allies around the world fall to their aggressive neighbors?

RE: RE: Problems with Ron Paul
Posted by AFI on Nov 26, 2008 13:10

Okay well Ron Paul himself said that he would abolish the CIA and significantly reduce the FBI so unless he later came back and changed his position it really can’t be explained away. If Ron Paul did change his position on this I would love to see it. Also that still leaves the DHS that Ron Paul would abolish.

Okay to address the idea that our involvement in the world threatens us let me ask you this. According to that idea we should not have gotten involved in WWII or the Cold war. It also means that we should not peruse our national interests around the world. Yes supporting nations like Israel, and fighting Islamic terrorist in Africa is going to make Islamic extremist hate us, however that does not mean that we should not be over there. No matter what our policy is we have to realize that there will always be those who have problems with us. Also I think that by now we should know that appeasement does not work. So if people like Bin laden don’t like our policies and try to attack us we should not gust give in and pull out. Instead we should take the appropriate measures to protect our nation and have a foreign policy that will protect our interests abroad. Also I think it is important to point out that we live in a globalised world. Simply pulling out of the world is not an option.

You mentioned securing the border however Ron Paul would be abolishing the organization in charge of securing the border and fighting illegal immigration; the department of homeland security. We have made large strides in securing the border and fighting illegal immigration under the DHS. The number of border agents has been doubled, fencing is going up all over the border and internal security measures are much larger than they used to be. Also we already have National Guard troops on the border assisting the National Guard. Lastly yes we could do more but Ron Paul is not the only candidate who wants more secure borders.

Who provides weapons and other support to South Korea and Israel? Why the US, so what are they going to do once we withdraw our support. Why do you think we have so many troops in South Korea? I can guarantee you it is not because South Korea is easily capable of defending themselves. Out of all the countries mentioned Israel is probably the only one that could stand. But even that would be questionable for the long term. And of course we still have Taiwan and eastern European countries that would be open to attack from china and Russia.

Reply to: Lukea09
Ron Paul would not abolish the CIA or FBI. He would keep these agencies but he would be in close contact with the CIA director so that the CIA isn't starting trouble around the world like they did in Iran in 1953, in Iran like they are doing now, or like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded in 1979.

Ron Paul's security initiatives are actually the best out of all our politicians. He wants to withdrawal from the middle east because that is what's causing all the animosity towards us. Troops in Saudia Arabia, bombing Iraq for all those years, messing with Iran. That's what caused 9/11 according to the CIA and the 9/11 commission.

Paul would bring most of our troops home and put them on our borders to stop terrorists and illegal immigrants from entering the country.

And South Korea is wealthier than North Korea and has more weapons. You don't have to worry about N.K. invading them. Same thing with Israel. If Iran, Pakistan and Syria invaded Israel, Israel would blow them to bits with all the weapons they have. So let them try.

RE: Problems with Ron Paul
Posted by Lukea09 on Nov 26, 2008 11:45

Ron Paul would not abolish the CIA or FBI. He would keep these agencies but he would be in close contact with the CIA director so that the CIA isn't starting trouble around the world like they did in Iran in 1953, in Iran like they are doing now, or like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded in 1979.

Ron Paul's security initiatives are actually the best out of all our politicians. He wants to withdrawal from the middle east because that is what's causing all the animosity towards us. Troops in Saudia Arabia, bombing Iraq for all those years, messing with Iran. That's what caused 9/11 according to the CIA and the 9/11 commission.

Paul would bring most of our troops home and put them on our borders to stop terrorists and illegal immigrants from entering the country.

And South Korea is wealthier than North Korea and has more weapons. You don't have to worry about N.K. invading them. Same thing with Israel. If Iran, Pakistan and Syria invaded Israel, Israel would blow them to bits with all the weapons they have. So let them try.

Reply to: AFI
Okay Ron Paul supporters.
Please answer these questions about Ron Paul’s positions on National security and Foreign policy.

Ron Paul wants to abolish the CIA, DHS, and significantly reduce the FBI. He also opposes virtually all of our national security initiatives. How is this policy good for America during a war on terror? And don’t give the “we can’t afford it” arguments because I think we all know that there are plenty of other wasteful programs that we could cut. We don’t need to abolish all of our national security organizations to have a good fiscal policy.

Ron Paul also thinks that we should withdraw our support from our allies. Basically if Taiwan, Israel, South Korea, or any other of our allies was attacked Ron Paul does not think we should get involved. Now currently the promise of US intervention is what is keeping china from attacking Taiwan, North Korea from attacking South Korea, Russia from attacking eastern European countries. We don’t actually have to intervene it is the promise of intervention that is protecting those countries. With that said why would we want to remove our support from those countries? Should we let our allies around the world fall to their aggressive neighbors?

Problems with Ron Paul
Posted by AFI on Nov 26, 2008 10:42

Okay Ron Paul supporters.
Please answer these questions about Ron Paul’s positions on National security and Foreign policy.

Ron Paul wants to abolish the CIA, DHS, and significantly reduce the FBI. He also opposes virtually all of our national security initiatives. How is this policy good for America during a war on terror? And don’t give the “we can’t afford it” arguments because I think we all know that there are plenty of other wasteful programs that we could cut. We don’t need to abolish all of our national security organizations to have a good fiscal policy.

Ron Paul also thinks that we should withdraw our support from our allies. Basically if Taiwan, Israel, South Korea, or any other of our allies was attacked Ron Paul does not think we should get involved. Now currently the promise of US intervention is what is keeping china from attacking Taiwan, North Korea from attacking South Korea, Russia from attacking eastern European countries. We don’t actually have to intervene it is the promise of intervention that is protecting those countries. With that said why would we want to remove our support from those countries? Should we let our allies around the world fall to their aggressive neighbors?

The People
Posted by Game Fan on Nov 25, 2008 09:55

The neocons are more about grabbing power and money than doing the right thing or representing the people. If Republicans can get back to representing the people than "the people" can be the most influential Republicans. And real conservatives realize that "the people", limited government, free speech and the Constitution are all on the same team. How else WOULD you save the party and the country? Leaving it to the Politicians?

The Force to be Reckoned With...
Posted by LaLaBella on Nov 25, 2008 08:29

Ron Paul IS the most influential Republican leader now and will continue to be - as well as the Campaign for Liberty growth.

While I am fine with Sarah Palin, she was nearly just handed the spotlight in the Republican Party and well, I have yet to see her reach out to the "disenfranchised" Ron Paul Republicans.

Those who are running for Republican office positions need to start making contact with us because we are growing exponentially and will begin to either make or break political careers...in line with the most important issues - conservation of the US Constitution AND OUR SOVEREIGNTY, (REALLY) ending needless wars, promoting a solid (AND REAL) standard of money, and REDUCING THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT.

TIME TO GET WITH THE REAL PROGRAM PEOPLE.

LOVE.

Palin & Steele 2012
Posted by artell on Nov 24, 2008 22:46

A realistic "dream team" is Gov. Sarah Palin and former Lt. Gov. Michael Steele.

Sarah Palin will be the 1st female president of the USA in 2012... if she asks us for our vote... we are just waiting to be asked.

Michael Steele will be the first black president in 2020 who is NOT a socialist, collectivist, progressive, liberal.

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

Lift Up Jesus Only and Jesus Will Lift You Up
See You At The Resurrection

Ron Paul
Posted by Nf7mate on Nov 24, 2008 20:43

Ron Paul is the strongest Republican leader now, and will likely keep that position until 2012. His Campaign For Liberty is growing and exerting influence.