Ron Paul Makes Sense

[Jokerman]

Good article about Ron Paul. Thanks to big media's efforts to marginalize him, most ppl think he's a kook. They've never met a truly principled man from either party so they don't know what to do with him.

http://www.newsmax.com/DougWead/ron-paul-debt-pakistan/2011/05/17/id/396632#

People who say that Ron Paul is too old to be president, that old people are forgetful, need to consider this.

He remembered his wedding vows. Not many presidential candidates can claim that. He's been married to the same woman for 51 years. Politicians try to convince us that private promises don't matter. A person's personal life is not relevant to their public duty. But if they lie to their wife and children what makes you so sure they are telling YOU the truth?

Ron Paul has always remembered to pay his taxes. It seems a good portion of President Barack Obama's Cabinet, including his own secretary of the Treasury can't claim that. Oh they say that they will make it all good now but what if they hadn't been named to the Cabinet? You mean there are thousands of people out there who just ignore the rules and get away with it? Only suckers like me pay taxes?

Ron Paul points out some very obvious, common-sense things that you can't get out of your head. For example, according to the Constitution, the U. S. Congress is supposed to write the legislation and debate it and spend the money, but the Federal Reserve actually spends more money than the U. S. Congress. Huh?

Ron Paul may be the oldest candidate but he seems to care more about the youth of this country than any of them. He is the only one who seems to remember that the young people will have to pay for the money we are now borrowing.

He is the only one who would stop the endless wars and bring our boys home. That 1 percent who are dying for the rest of us and seeing their marriages break up and their children bitter and their suicide rates spike.

He is the only one who points out the absurdities of our foreign policy. We give $ 3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her avowed enemies.

We invade Afghanistan because they are harboring Osama bin Laden. Our war results in the death of thousands of civilians and coalition soldiers. But when bin Laden crosses the border into Pakistan we give that country close to $12 billion in aid. I guess that was to pay for the food for bin Laden and his three wives. Not to mention, his cable bill, all the extra thumb drives and his porno movie downloads.

Even now, only Ron Paul is calling for us to stop this nonsense. As of today, we are still giving money to Pakistan. Ron Paul seems to be the only person in public life who remembers what our mother's taught us about the playground. If you have to pay money to your friends, then they aren't your friends.

Most of all, Ron Paul still remembers the U.S. Constitution and he knows it by heart. And believes in it. You can't say that about Barack Obama or any of the other Republican candidates. There are the candidates and then there is Ron Paul. He stands alone.

 

[EDouble]

Ron Paul has made good points but as much as people claim it he doesnt seem practical guy i dont know the practical definition of isolationist is but it seems like he just wants 2 have U.s. completely isolated

 

[S O F I]

Foreign policy is a complicated matter. There are answers to what the article deems "nonsense".

 

[Casey]

We give money and aid to Pakistan because they had a natural disaster that has affected the lives of 20 million people and left 1/5 of the entire country underwater. That has nothing to do with politics, it has nothing to do with Bin Laden, it's about helping people in need. That's it.

17 million acres of crop land have been destroyed by these floods. That will ultimately affect 70% of the population of the entire country.

Ron Paul's supporters want to talk about "paying money to your friends" and "paying Bin Laden's cable bill"? Fuck him and his idiot supporters then. People are suffering. Not corrupt government figures, not terrorists. Normal people who already suffer before these types of things due to living in a corrupt country in the first place. And are now literally struggling to survive.

There is literally NO reason to not be helping the people of Pakistan. Anyone who says there is can go fuck themselves.

 

[EDouble]

The people aint getting the check?

living in a corrupt country in the first place

 

[Pittsey]

We give money and aid to Pakistan because they had a natural disaster that has affected the lives of 20 million people and left 1/5 of the entire country underwater. That has nothing to do with politics, it has nothing to do with Bin Laden, it's about helping people in need. That's it.

17 million acres of crop land have been destroyed by these floods. That will ultimately affect 70% of the population of the entire country.

Ron Paul's supporters want to talk about "paying money to your friends" and "paying Bin Laden's cable bill"? Fuck him and his idiot supporters then. People are suffering. Not corrupt government figures, not terrorists. Normal people who already suffer before these types of things due to living in a corrupt country in the first place. And are now literally struggling to survive.

There is literally NO reason to not be helping the people of Pakistan. Anyone who says there is can go fuck themselves.

America has been giving Billions to Pakistan since the 2nd world war. It doesn't seem to have helped.

Like charity, the money hasn't helped those who need it.

 

[Ristol]

There is literally NO reason to not be helping the people of Pakistan. Anyone who says there is can go fuck themselves.

There's no way to know we're even helping them. That's how corrupt the government is there. That's the main reason we shouldn't help them: we can't.

Disaster aid to Pakistan can’t be tracked and isn’t ending up where it should. The ungodly sums the U.S. has dumped on Pakistan in the last decade have come with no strings attached, and have often ended up lining the pockets of corrupt ISI officials who, among other things, finance the Taliban/insurgency and actively plan terrorist attacks (see: Mumbai, 2008). The U.S. is paying to have its soldiers killed. Then there’s the Waziristan Accord, when (despite the fact that the main thing we pay Pakistan to do is fight terrorism), the Pakistani government decided to stop fighting the Taliban in tribal areas and simply let al-Qaeda flourish. Oh, and there’s the small matter of them harboring Osama bin Laden for five years. Without U.S. money, there is basically is no Pakistani economy, yet it’s one of the most anti-American countries on earth. The U.S. has put itself in an impossible position: fighting the Taliban while paying its fucking salary.

The U.S. can give money to Pakistan for any reason: fighting terrorism, rebuilding after a disaster, etc.: the Pakistani government simply takes the money and does whatever they want with it. A government that corrupt can’t be trusted to protect its citizens, much less our interests in the region. And the U.S. has no earthly idea where the money ends up. Until there's a government in Pakistan that can be trusted to do the right thing and protect its people, they shouldn't get another dime, for any reason.

 

[Jokerman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/world/asia/24military.html

 

[Casey]

America has been giving Billions to Pakistan since the 2nd world war.

I find that hard to believe since the 2nd World War ended in 1945 and Pakistan did not even exist as a country until Partition in 1947.



And whether or not all the money goes to the right place is debatable, but there are better ways of dealing with that than just stopping the aid altogether.

Clearly if it was as simple as "we give them money and because they are corrupt it funds terrorism and doesn't help the people who are suffering" etc etc then the US would have stopped giving the money a long time ago. Care to explain why they haven't?

 

[Ristol]

Clearly if it was as simple as "we give them money and because they are corrupt it funds terrorism and doesn't help the people who are suffering" etc etc then the US would have stopped giving the money a long time ago. Care to explain why they haven't?

You're right, it isn't simple. I can explain it at least partially: Pakistan is really important to the United States. If we can make allies of them (and God knows we're trying), then we have ourselves a powerful partner in the region. They have 100 nuclear warheads. To suddenly isolate them and strip all economic aid is a very dangerous idea. Worst case scenario: an Islamic fundamentalist group takes power there, and suddenly we're looking at al-Qaeda with nukes. Second worst case scenario, though: we continue funding Pakistan, they continue funneling money to terrorist groups anyway, and those groups stage another attack in India. At that point, short of Gandhi coming back from the dead, nothing could stop India from retaliating. And as everyone knows, India's got nukes too. It's a potentially terrifying situation, and there's no simple way to fix it.

The world could explode tomorrow for any number of reasons, but nobody would be surprised if the epicenter was Pakistan.

 

[Jokerman]

Keep in mind that Ron Paul is against foreign aid period, including to Israel.

We have to live within our means. That’s why I talk about foreign policy. We spend $1 trillion a year overseas. If you want to take care of people at home, you’ve got to cut someplace. But here we’re adding $700 billion to the budget, the national debt going up to $11.3 trillion.

Diplomacy via foreign aid transfer payments only makes us less safe at home and less trusted overseas, but the overriding reality is that we simply cannot afford to continue a policy of buying friends. We face an ongoing and potentially deepening recession at home, so how can we justify to the underemployed and unemployed in the United States the incredible cost of maintaining a global empire? Moral arguments aside, we must stop sending hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign governments when our own economy is in shambles.

Some may claim that this is isolationism. Nothing could be further from the truth. We should enthusiastically engage in trade, allow travel between countries, but we should stay out of their internal affairs. We are in fact more isolated from Egypt now than ever because the regime we propped up appears to be falling. We have isolated ourselves from the Egyptian people by propping up their government as we isolate ourselves from the Tunisians, Israelis, and other recipients of foreign aid. Their resentment of our interventionist foreign policy makes us less safe because we lose our authority to conduct meaningful diplomacy when unpopular regimes fall overseas. We also radicalize those who resented our support for past regimes.

Every dollar we send, even if it is for humanitarian purposes, frees up resources to make war and potentially prop up unpopular leaders. The factions and politics of the Middle East are irrational and dangerous. We play with fire when we meddle in their affairs, and we isolate ourselves diplomatically by making more enemies than friends.

 

[Pittsey]

I find that hard to believe since the 2nd World War ended in 1945 and Pakistan did not even exist as a country until Partition in 1947.

To me "after the second war", doesn't mean the next day.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/16/110516fa_fact_wright

Where did most of the money go? To their armed forces. Why? Because of the centuries long issues with India.

 

[Ristol]

To me "after the second war", doesn't mean the next day.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/16/110516fa_fact_wright

Where did most of the money go? To their armed forces. Why? Because of the centuries long issues with India.

My link. You know it. Give it back you colonizing Brit.

 

[Pittsey]

My link. You know it. Give it back you colonizing Brit.

As soon as I saw you had quoted me, I knew that's what you were going to say. lol

Does it fit? Yes. I will say... Thanks for the link.