• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Ron Paul ad against US wars

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ron Paul has some great ideas but the whole package of his policies is so cancerous he's unelectable. Despite that, To me, the number one thing he has going for him is his ideas are so radical, I can't see him as a big business puppet-head which would be refreshing at this point. I wish he would get elected.

Even with his bad policies.

Hopefully he could learn from them before they ruined everything.
 
outunderthestars said:
He doesn't believe in federal control over marriage, except in denying gay's the right to marry, or have their marriage recognized in other states.


"In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize legal marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage.

Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty". Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."

So apparently he believes in the Constitution until he disagree with it.

I'd also love to see what would happen when business and automakers would have to deal with 50 different fuel efficiency and emission standards. That totally makes sense to deal with on a state by state basis.
Click to expand...
And now I like him even less :P

He still seems like the best candidate America has to me, though I'm not that knowledgeable of US politics.
 
QFT

This is why I hate the whole support our troops or get shunned attitude of our country.

Invading other countries who haven't done shit here? Sorry not worth my respect.

If they were short small operations to get only AQ leaders like the operation that killed Bin Laden? Hell yes. Occupation? Fuck off with your courage bullshit. Nothing courageous about bullying people who have little recourse against you. This is coming from someone who has had two close friends die over seas.

If the scenario in the video was realistic/happened? I'd be the first "terrorist" setting up IEDs and potentially strapping one to my chest to give my country a shot at gaining freedom from our oppressors.


The ONLY reasons I voted for Obama in 2008 was that
A. A chance of wasting lives and tax money over seas.

B. He wasn't a religious nut job/religious nut job as his VP.

I disagree with Ron Paul on many things but unlike most candidates I can actually see where he is coming from on the things I disagree with him on unlike most politicians who seem downright mentally challenged or psychologically impaired.
 
JCX said:
It just talks about the theoretical base, not the reason for the theoretical base. We didn't just set up in Afghanistan because we just felt like it. Of course it wouldn't go over well here. My comment was directed to the style of it ( a series of rapid fire hypotheticals) more than it was toward the content.

Mostly though, I agree that the U.S. needs to reduce its global reach, especially in the Middle East, in order to improve our economy and our standing in the world.
Click to expand...

Even if hypothetically the US government bombed Beijing killing scores of people and the Chinese found it justified to occupy Texas, or Washington DC, and that occupation led or was followed by scores of dead Americans through collateral or otherwise, I have no doubt it would cause rise to an insurgency amongst the 300 odd million people in America. Especially with memories of the unpleasantness with England a while back fresh in the memory in some still.
 
If I were to go into another country and punch someone in the face, I would need very solid and unquestionable justification for doing so. This was never given to us when we entered the Iraq war. It was never justified, but because we are now and have been in this conflict it is seen as anti-american to be against it because you are therefore against the troops and for the insurgents. This is propaganda.
 
LuchaShaq said:
QFT

This is why I hate the whole support our troops or get shunned attitude of our country.
Click to expand...
I never understood how sending our soldiers to die in shitholes like Iraq and Afghanistan is supporting them.

Fucking newspeak, how does it work?
 
Chichikov said:
He lumps the wars with foreign military bases.
If he wants to withdraw from NATO, he can't justify it with the Chinese occupying Texas metaphor, which is by the way, a very good one to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

2 US soldiers were accused of raping teenagers in South Korea US-South Korea military alliance under pressure
Gates Drops Hard Line on Unpopular US Okinawa Base

I think there ARE definite parallels there and there will REMAIN these parallels. Generally I don't believe our military bases in foreign countries are popular at all and they're going to remain unpopular. the military base we used to have in Saudi Arabia was cited by Bin Laden as a major reason for his declaring war against us in the first place for that matter. Show me where the people generally like having us in their country.
 
outunderthestars said:
He doesn't believe in federal control over marriage, except in denying gay's the right to marry, or have their marriage recognized in other states.


"In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize legal marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage.

Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty". Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."

So apparently he believes in the Constitution until he disagree with it.

I'd also love to see what would happen when business and automakers would have to deal with 50 different fuel efficiency and emission standards. That totally makes sense to deal with on a state by state basis.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right on gay marriage he's not been good though in a practical sense it doesn't matter much (we've never had a pro-marriage equality president in office)

edit: damn, didn't meant to DP
 
Holepunch said:
Ron Paul has some great ideas but the whole package of his policies is so cancerous he's unelectable. Despite that, To me, the number one thing he has going for him is his ideas are so radical, I can't see him as a big business puppet-head which would be refreshing at this point. I wish he would get elected.

Even with his bad policies..
Click to expand...
Agree with this.
 
Gaborn said:
2 US soldiers were accused of raping teenagers in South Korea US-South Korea military alliance under pressure
Gates Drops Hard Line on Unpopular US Okinawa Base

I think there ARE definite parallels there and there will REMAIN these parallels. Generally I don't believe our military bases in foreign countries are popular at all and they're going to remain unpopular. the military base we used to have in Saudi Arabia was cited by Bin Laden as a major reason for his declaring war against us in the first place for that matter. Show me where the people generally like having us in their country.
Click to expand...


Israel? That's mostly due to the billions we give them to terrorize people and hide behind the shield of antisemitism when their actions are disgusting no matter what religion they/their victims were.
 
Raydeen said:
I think it's a case of letting the people of Afghanistan fight their own wars.

In England when we had brutal kings they were overthrown by the people.

In the US you kicked England out when you had enough of taxes.

If the Taliban are that brutal, well sorry, it's up to the Afghans to really against them and fight them. Not the west.
Click to expand...
All thanks to France.
 
LuchaShaq said:
Israel? That's mostly due to the billions we give them to terrorize people and hide behind the shield of antisemitism when their actions are disgusting no matter what religion they/their victims were.
Click to expand...

Yep. And it's worth noting that Paul has called for an end to ALL foreign aid, including to Israel.
 
I think the metaphor is missing the part where the Texas government sponsored an organization dedicated to the destruction of China/Russia and the deaths of its citizens and actually killed thousands of its citizens in an attack on one of its major landmarks.
 
The ad was good.


Ron Paul is occasionally right on the money with stuff like this....other times though...the other times are the reasons he's not getting in office.
 
It is unfathomably sad to me that our only anti-interventionist, anti-Patriot Act, pro-legalization candidate is considered unelectable.
 
Meus Renaissance said:
Even if hypothetically the US government bombed Beijing killing scores of people and the Chinese found it justified to occupy Texas, or Washington DC, and that occupation led or was followed by scores of dead Americans through collateral or otherwise, I have no doubt it would cause rise to an insurgency amongst the 300 odd million people in America. Especially with memories of the unpleasantness with England a while back fresh in the memory in some still.
Click to expand...

That's different than if, say, an American terrorist group was harbored by a government, not the government itself attacking. The example you used would be more appropriate if I supported the Iraq War, a conflict between governments, which I never have.

As I said earlier, of course Americans would not be please to be occupied. I do not get where you're getting that from. I feel like I'm arguing with someone I mostly agree with, which is strange.
 
Arguments against Paul because of his religious beliefs are unjustified considering ALL presidential candidates are religious... and his belief that evolution is just a theory although completely inaccurate and slightly offensive, does not correlate to Federal policy demanding creationism being taught in schools. It could allow for creationism to be taught within states, however what difference does that make in the big picture when the parents of said students probably are bat shit insane anyway and tell their kids not to believe in the "sciencey" stuff anyway. Paul has many beliefs I am against, but he is not authoritarian. He is for state policy because he believes it more accurately represents the people compared to the big business lobbied congress.
 
Karma Kramer said:
Arguments against Paul because of his religious beliefs are unjustified considering ALL presidential candidates are religious... and his belief that evolution is just a theory although completely inaccurate and slightly offensive, does not correlate to Federal policy demanding creationism being taught in schools. It could allow for creationism to be taught within states, however what difference does that make in the big picture when the parents of said students probably are bat shit insane anyway and tell their kids not to believe in the "sciencey" stuff anyway. Paul has many beliefs I am against, but he is not authoritarian. He is for state policy because he believes it more accurately represents the people compared to the big business lobbied congress.
Click to expand...

Yep, I disagree with Ron Paul on marriage, on abortion, and on immigration but that's sort of outweighed by my agreement with him on foreign policy, on the PATRIOT Act and related domestic overreach, and on the drug war. But hey, if you would rather support a President who as a senator voted for the FISA bill, who has allowed raids on legal medical marijuana dispensaries to continue and who opposes gay marriage AND who has never said a word against the PATRIOT Act or the TSA's groping of kids then by all means.
 
That was a pretty bad ad, regardless of where you stand on foreign war. All the moving text and angle changes made me want to vomit. And the yelling, good lord the yelling.
 
braves01 said:
I think the metaphor is missing the part where the Texas government sponsored an organization dedicated to the destruction of China/Russia and the deaths of its citizens and actually killed thousands of its citizens in an attack on one of its major landmarks.
Click to expand...

Because Iraq was totally involved in 9/11.

Anyway, I like the ad, it brings up a discussion that isn't talked about that often in the national media.
 
I hope that ad gets wide play because its message deserves it. And while I have plenty of disagreements with Rand Paul supporters I'm glad his voice and perspective is being heard.
 
Gaborn said:
2 US soldiers were accused of raping teenagers in South Korea US-South Korea military alliance under pressure
Gates Drops Hard Line on Unpopular US Okinawa Base

I think there ARE definite parallels there and there will REMAIN these parallels. Generally I don't believe our military bases in foreign countries are popular at all and they're going to remain unpopular. the military base we used to have in Saudi Arabia was cited by Bin Laden as a major reason for his declaring war against us in the first place for that matter. Show me where the people generally like having us in their country.
Click to expand...
Nobody gives a fuck about the US being here in the Netherlands with a military presence, they bring money and don't bother anyone, eh, fine. I personally have more of a problem with the interference of the US in domestic policies, which is entirely unrelated to any military presence here, or worse still, the US getting us to put money in that ridiculous missile defence shield.
 
Gaborn said:
2 US soldiers were accused of raping teenagers in South Korea US-South Korea military alliance under pressure
Gates Drops Hard Line on Unpopular US Okinawa Base

I think there ARE definite parallels there and there will REMAIN these parallels. Generally I don't believe our military bases in foreign countries are popular at all and they're going to remain unpopular. the military base we used to have in Saudi Arabia was cited by Bin Laden as a major reason for his declaring war against us in the first place for that matter. Show me where the people generally like having us in their country.
Click to expand...
This is not really the same, NATO bases were greatly supported by local population as were the bases in South Korea.
I do not know about Japan and it wouldn't surprise me if public support for those bases has dropped since they were erected (though IIRC, NATO bases still have favorable views in Europe), but during the cold war?

No, not really.

We should dismantle those bases because they serve no purpose, not because it violate German sovereignty or build Spanish insurgency.

Edit: and just so we're clear - I agree with him that we should greatly scale down our foreign military presence, I'm commenting on the quality of his argument against them.
 
NullPointer said:
I hope that ad gets wide play because its message deserves it. And while I have plenty of disagreements with Rand Paul supporters I'm glad his voice and perspective is being heard.
Click to expand...

Just for clarity's sake this is an ad supporting RON Paul, the Texas congressman. RAND Paul is his son, the Senator from Kentucky.
 
Why is he so hated by the Media? I have only seen some daily show rants and it seems like they are completley ignoring him. Did he offend anyone?

teruterubozu said:
I agree. Sounds very sophomoric and juvenile. "How would you like it if someone did that to you?" I find the ad patronizing.
Click to expand...
Yeah it is pretty juvenile but sometimes I think that there is no other way if you're talking to the masses.
 
JCX said:
That's different than if, say, an American terrorist group was harbored by a government, not the government itself attacking. The example you used would be more appropriate if I supported the Iraq War, a conflict between governments, which I never have.

As I said earlier, of course Americans would not be please to be occupied. I do not get where you're getting that from. I feel like I'm arguing with someone I mostly agree with, which is strange.
Click to expand...

I don't think it matters [extent the host nation was involved] - the locals, who were not involved, would never accept a similar military occupation. I chose the government metaphor as governments are more reflective of a nation than a single group of unelected people. I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or not. We're just clarifying our comments
 
Gaborn said:
Just for clarity's sake this is an ad supporting RON Paul, the Texas congressman. RAND Paul is his son, the Senator from Kentucky.
Click to expand...
Mixed up the spellings although I know the people well. Sorry - err, actually thanks for pointing that out ;P
 
You think state legislators wouldn't be bought? Lobbyists flock to where the power is. While that is currently Congress, it most definitely would change if more power is given to the states. A possible remedy would be to only allow public financing for all campaigns at the state level or higher, so candidate A and B have the same resources, and money spent fundraising can instead go to helping constituents.
 
Gaborn said:
Yep. And it's worth noting that Paul has called for an end to ALL foreign aid, including to Israel.
Click to expand...
I think that would be great, and I'm from Israel. Too bad that'll probably never happen.
 
Gaborn said:
Just for clarity's sake this is an ad supporting RON Paul, the Texas congressman. RAND Paul is his son, the Senator from Kentucky.
Click to expand...
no wonder he's so insane.
 
Kinyou said:
Why is he so hated by the Media? I have only seen some daily show rants and it seems like they are completley ignoring him. Did he offend anyone?
Click to expand...

The Republicans hate him because he doesn't toe the party line. He's the only anti-war Republican, he's for legalizing marijuana, etc.

Democrats hate him because he is a Republican who has more liberal views on many things than their own candidates, and yet is more economically conservative for their tastes.
 
JCX said:
You think state legislators wouldn't be bought? Lobbyists flock to where the power is. While that is currently Congress, it most definitely would change if more power is given to the states. A possible remedy would be to only allow public financing for all campaigns at the state level or higher, so candidate A and B have the same resources, and money spent fundraising can instead go to helping constituents.
Click to expand...

The difference is accountability. Currently both sides can continue to point fingers at one another and not get anything done, while still getting elected every term. If more responsibility lies on the states electorate they will more easily be able to hold their elected officials accountable for not following through on policy they campaigned for.
 
Meus Renaissance said:
I don't think it matters [extent the host nation was involved] - the locals, who were not involved, would never accept a similar military occupation. I chose the government metaphor as governments are more reflective of a nation than a single group of unelected people.
Click to expand...

But a single group of unelected people are the reason why the U.S. went into Afghanistan. I believe that in the future, wars between governments and non-state-actors will be much more common than wars between governments.

Either way, we agree that occupation sucks, unless it is preceded by a hashtag, in which is it good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Paul McCartney BANNED on Reddit
33
472
mopspear replied
  • Poll
Gartner strongly advises against using AI Browsers
News 
8
461
willothedog replied
Idea For AI TV Remote For Ad Blocking
11
253
ReBurn replied
Paul Kalkbrenner's new album The Essence
0
315
Sticks replied
New, bizarre ad for Chris Nolan’s The Odyssey
20
325
[Sigma] replied
Top Bottom