What does Ron Paul stand on/believe in?

[SMKR]

What are his stances? Looking for bullet points if possible

[UserX]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

[jw33]

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/

[SMKR]

So I still don't see the ruccus about his foreign policy?

[CJ]

So I still don't see the ruccus about his foreign policy?

Of course his website isn't going to give you the controversial aspects of it. Essentially he feels Iran is entitled to nuclear weapons. That's basically the center of the controversy.

[SMKR]

Hmmmm. That's a tough one. But not a deal breaker. I can see both sides.

[majorownage]

Of course his website isn't going to give you the controversial aspects of it. Essentially he feels Iran is entitled to nuclear weapons. That's basically the center of the controversy.

Has he said that?
You are over simplifying, and trying to make inflammatory statements to try and turn people off of him.

[CJ]

Has he said that?

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/ron-paul-iran-bomb/2011/08/11/id/407043

Paul said it is natural for Iran to want a bomb as it is surrounded by countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel which all have one and with China, the United States and Russia all involved in the region. He said the U.S. should not get involved in the country’s internal affairs.

Yes, he has said that. Yes, this is the controversial problem criticized. And yes, this is the information people need to know about the candidate you nut hug so violently.

[majorownage]

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/r...8/11/id/407043



Yes, he has said that. Yes, this is the controversial problem criticized. And yes, this is the information people need to know about the candidate you nut hug so violently.

His foreign policy is key for me. I wanted a candidate that didn't play Team America World Police. The reason the mid-east hates us is BECAUSE of all our retarded intervention. Watch my Laura Ingraham interview.

I started arguing about Iran policy with my right winger buddies during the 08 cycle and most thought I was bat-crazy for thinking that Iran should be left alone. (FYI I wasn't a Pauler back then.)

[Vertnut]

The original attack on the World Trade Center was in '93 and was totally unprovoked (Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, of al Qaeda, was the mastermind).

[CJ]

His foreign policy is key for me. I wanted a candidate that didn't play Team America World Police. The reason the mid-east hates us is BECAUSE of all our retarded intervention. Watch my Laura Ingraham interview.

I started arguing about Iran policy with my right winger buddies during the 08 cycle and most thought I was bat-crazy for thinking that Iran should be left alone. (FYI I wasn't a Pauler back then.)

I'm just answering the OP's question.

[CJ]

The original attack on the World Trade Center was in '93 and was totally unprovoked (Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, of al Qaeda, was the mastermind).

They blamed the US's abandonment of Afghanistan after the '79 Soviet War. That was Al Qaeda/Bin Laden's primary basis for aggression against the US. Once we came to their front yard and started kicking doors in, they created a whole list of reasons for political grandstanding, blaming us for all of their problems essentially. Now, they fear the freeing of the Islamic people. Their control is based on misinformation and an absence of education. They prey on the illiterate, and uneducated. Mullah's travel the desert like proverbial elixir salesman spreading ridiculous lies and fabricating history to help recruit suicide bombers.

[Vertnut]

They blamed the US's abandonment of Afghanistan after the '79 Soviet War. That was Al Qaeda/Bin Laden's primary basis for aggression against the US.

Yessir. I guess it's always something with those assholes. I guess my point was that we weren't "invading" or "bombing" them, which is what RP eludes too.

[jw33]

So I still don't see the ruccus about his foreign policy?

Ron Paul's foreign policy is the scapegoat that both parties use to scare everyone. Anyone with a dog in the fight now realizes that we are coming to the point when either the current policy is unsustainable or the unintended consequences (blowback) become too great. It is a very complicated scenario, but we are fooling ourselves if we fail to look at it from a different point of view.

A Paul president is the end of the gravy train for many. That is the problem no one is willing to admit.

[CJ]

Ron Paul's foreign policy is the scapegoat that both parties use to scare everyone. Anyone with a dog in the fight now realizes that we are coming to the point when either the current policy is unsustainable or the unintended consequences (blowback) become too great. It is a very complicated scenario, but we are fooling ourselves if we fail to look at it from a different point of view.

A Paul president is the end of the gravy train for many. That is the problem no one is willing to admit.

You might be right. But, as a conservative I can tell you if it wasn't for his stance on Iran, and he showed a willingness to proactively protect the US I would vote for him, as would most any conservative. I consider that a very important issue, not a scapegoat.