Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

[Glenn]

Saw the Judge on the Daley show tonight. He made a great point. There is only one political party with a democratic wing and a republican wing. They have different ways to get there but ultimately we end up in the same place. A gigantic government that controls every aspect of our lives. He says Ron Paul is the only hope for the country. I have been on the fence about R.P. I really disagree with some of his foreign policy statements, but if we don't save this country, there will be no need for foreign policy. Go Ron Paul.

Glenn

[macville]

Saw the Judge on the Daley show tonight. He made a great point. There is only one political party with a democratic wing and a republican wing. They have different ways to get there but ultimately we end up in the same place. A gigantic government that controls every aspect of our lives. He says Ron Paul is the only hope for the country. I have been on the fence about R.P. I really disagree with some of his foreign policy statements, but if we don't save this country, there will be no need for foreign policy. Go Ron Paul.

What foreign policy statements do you disagree with? There were many that I was "told" were his view, but in reality were either totally fake, or taken out of context.

[RobertNashville]

Based on things he has said in debates and his history, it doesn't seem to me that RP understands and/or doesn't believe that the interests of the United States extends beyond its borders and that those interests sometimes necessitates that we extend our political, financial and military might to protect those interests. That said, this is pretty much moot anyway because barring something truly unexpected, Romney will almost certainly win South Carolina and likely Florida - if he does, it will all be over but the gnashing of teeth by RP's supporters (or the supporters of any other candidate).

Moving one, there is much more at stake in this election than the Presidency because ANY of the viable Republican candidates will be better for the country than Obummer...of more importance, in my opinion, is who we elect to the Senate and the House. Were RP the reincarnation of Jesus he would still be impotent unless we have enough conservatives in Congress to bring legislation to the President. Conversely, if Obummer wins a second term, we need strong conservatives in the Congress to stop his agenda. If we don't have that, then hold onto your hat (and your ass) because Obummer will take the gloves of and it will make the amount of legislation passed during his first two years look like nothing compared to what he'll try to get through in a second term.

Edited January 12, 2012 by RobertNashville

[kieefer]

This is about the best site I've found to dissect where the politicians stand; Ron Paul on the Issues

I'm going to remain optimistic all the way until I get to vote, anything can happen between now and then.

I fully agree that Hugo Hussein must go and Romy may be it but, I find myself more excited about who comes in 2nd than Romy after each primary.

Several surveys showing up here and this one is rather informative too; ★☞ SelectSmart.com 2012 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SELECTOR: Obama, Romney, Paul, Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, Perry, etc.

[Glenn]

What foreign policy statements do you disagree with? There were many that I was "told" were his view, but in reality were either totally fake, or taken out of context.

Based on things he has said in debates and his history, it doesn't seem to me that RP understands and/or doesn't believe that the interests of the United States extends beyond its borders and that those interests sometimes necessitates that we extend our political, financial and military might to protect those interests.

This

Robert said it well

When it comes to the general election I will vote for anyone except the Obamanation.

Glenn

[mav]

I keeping hearing this phrase, "We have to protect our national interests abroad." What exactly are these national interests?

Is it oil? Even though I don't really like Newt, he was correct when saying that we have enough resources in this country that we could literally crash the oil market if we started developing those resources.

Is it Israel? I think allowing Israel to make its own decisions without our interference would be much better for Israel.

Is it nation building and establishing democracies? Well... we have meddled in middle eastern affairs for decades and given away billions of dollars proping up foreign governments. In the end, what have we got to show for it? Not much, they still aren't our allies. Recently Afghanistan said they would side with Pakistan if war broke out between them and the USA. Gee, thanks Karzai. Just look at the countries that receive the most foreign aid from us and look at their UN voting record. 14 out of the 15 countries that received greater than $300 million (which they can't or won't pay back) vote less than 40% of the time in our favor during UN votes. Israel is the only exception.

Lets face it, we are broke, and our debt is increasing by a trillion a year. We cannot continue to be the world's police force, unless they want to pay us. Our only concerns at this time should be within our own borders. Our number one priority should be getting our own house in order. Just to point out, I am not suggesting isolationism. I am suggesting non-interventionism, and there is a difference.

[Guest FroggyOne2]

Romney will almost certainly win South Carolina and likely Florida - if he does, it will all be over

Sir, that is the wrong attitude to have, just remember, Ford and Reagan were not close in the primaries, in fact Ford won the first 6 in a row, Reagan didn't get any steam really till he won N.C... then in the convention, what killed Reagan's chances in that race is that, Reagan announced that if nominated he would ask liberal Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania to serve as his running mate. This action didn't help Ronnie one bit and he lost the nomination by a mere 117 votes.

So I think that SC is only a stepping stone, don't be so easy to give up when the race is still early.. I don't like glove man, the lizzard is a slick one, but i would love to see him in the debates with the "o" man, i do like some sanity.. but really, R-P young supporters are really there for one agenda if you think about it.. and to tell you the truth, he shouldn't even be in the primary, after all, he renounced is afflilation with the Grand Ole Party and became a liberaltariat, claiming to be a constitutionalist, when I believe he has about as much of the meaning of said document as the "o" man has.

[RobertNashville]

Sir, that is the wrong attitude to have, just remember, Ford and Reagan were not close in the primaries, in fact Ford won the first 6 in a row, Reagan didn't get any steam really till he won N.C... then in the convention, what killed Reagan's chances in that race is that, Reagan announced that if nominated he would ask liberal Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania to serve as his running mate. This action didn't help Ronnie one bit and he lost the nomination by a mere 117 votes.

So I think that SC is only a stepping stone, don't be so easy to give up when the race is still early.. I don't like glove man, the lizzard is a slick one, but i would love to see him in the debates with the "o" man, i do like some sanity.. but really, R-P young supporters are really there for one agenda if you think about it.. and to tell you the truth, he shouldn't even be in the primary, after all, he renounced is afflilation with the Grand Ole Party and became a liberaltariat, claiming to be a constitutionalist, when I believe he has about as much of the meaning of said document as the "o" man has.

No "attitude" involved...I"m not even a Romney supporter; I'm just stating my opinion based on experience and what has happened so far. Early primaries today mean far more than they did when RR was running nor was there a "Super Tuesday" to deal with then as there is now...barring a complete upset, this is Romney's race to lose and if he pulls of a sweep of the first four it's effectively (even if not officially/mathematically) over. Just my opinion of course.

[Guest FroggyOne2]

Just remember he is the Media's darling! Hence, makes me wary

[RobertNashville]

I keeping hearing this phrase, "We have to protect our national interests abroad." What exactly are these national interests?

Is it oil? Even though I don't really like Newt, he was correct when saying that we have enough resources in this country that we could literally crash the oil market if we started developing those resources.

Is it Israel? I think allowing Israel to make its own decisions without our interference would be much better for Israel.

Is it nation building and establishing democracies? Well... we have meddled in middle eastern affairs for decades and given away billions of dollars proping up foreign governments. In the end, what have we got to show for it? Not much, they still aren't our allies. Recently Afghanistan said they would side with Pakistan if war broke out between them and the USA. Gee, thanks Karzai. Just look at the countries that receive the most foreign aid from us and look at their UN voting record. 14 out of the 15 countries that received greater than $300 million (which they can't or won't pay back) vote less than 40% of the time in our favor during UN votes. Israel is the only exception.

Lets face it, we are broke, and our debt is increasing by a trillion a year. We cannot continue to be the world's police force, unless they want to pay us. Our only concerns at this time should be within our own borders. Our number one priority should be getting our own house in order. Just to point out, I am not suggesting isolationism. I am suggesting non-interventionism, and there is a difference.

I agree that we give out far too much money in foreign aid and often, to countries that hate us and will continue to hate us no matter how much money we give them. As to whether that foreign aid does anything positive for us at all is a matter of opinion - people who are in a much better position that you or I to know have different opinions on that. That said, we could stop all foreign aid tomorrow and forever and it will have absolutely zero impact on our deficit and debt problem because THAT problem is almost completely a problem of entitlement programs…in fact, I think if we did the math we would see that we could pretty much cut out all other spending entirely and our entitlement obligations would still burry us in debt; until we get control of THAT we will never have control.

Yeah…we probably could crash the world oil market if we develop the resources we have here…and if we started that today, we could probably do so in about 15-20 years from now…we should develop our own resources but I don’t think that’s the primary problem. Any significant interruption in flow of the world’s oil supply (such as closing down the Straits of Hormuz would have devastating economic effects on the entire world including the U.S. This isn’t the world of 100 years ago; whether we like or not we do now truly have a “world economy†and major economic events/events with economic impact that happen “there†WILL affect us here as well…we can do things to insulate ourselves somewhat but we can not avoid it. That is truly one of our “national interestsâ€. Sometimes, protecting our economy requires us to use our military and/or our economic might.

I agree that we don’t need to be doing “nation buildingâ€â€¦I agree that Israel should be (and I think is) free to do what it thinks are in its own best interests but Israel is a friend and an ally and how we treat our friends and allies says a LOT about us as a people…if they need our protection we should give it…period, if not for “national interests†then at least for moral ones.

Based on what he has said, RP would put us near isolation…he would wait until our enemies are on our shores before we would respond…we are long past the time when geography (mountain ranges and oceans, etc.) can protect us…we can’t snuggle up to Mad Macmood or other crazies and hope they’ll play nice.

Appeasement has never worked…hiding you head in the sand has never worked either…I think RP would have us doing a little of both…I think that’s dangerous.

[Guest FroggyOne2]

Just like the pipe line idea from Canada to south La, that just had my mind reeling.. wouldn't it be less expesive to just build a new refinery accross the border of Canada and just pipe it there?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yeah…we probably could crash the world oil market if we develop the resources we have here…and if we started that today, we could probably do so in about 15-20 years from now…we should develop our own resources but I don’t think that’s the primary problem.

Assuming that oil is as rare and as easily depleted as some people believe, then the idea of depleting all of Saudi Arabia and Canada's oil before tapping our own might make excellent strategic sense. OTOH if oil is not as rare and easy to deplete, then it would be foolish not to develop our own supply.

Domestic oil would not be developed overnight but maybe the biggest hurdles would be need, will, and "the way we do things" nowadays?

If international tension makes oil suddenly scarce, maybe I'm wrong but wouldn't be surprised if we discover that many of our long-capped "depleted" wells can pump a fair amount of oil?

If we were to build a dam as big as the Hoover dam today, with our much-improved technology, it might take twice the time and be more expensive in inflation-adjusted dollars? Just sayin, if need becomes strong enough to over-ride "the way things get done", then we could probably ramp up oil production a lot quicker?

Comes down to economics as long as national security doesn't begin to trump economics. We didn't build coal-to-liquids plants in the 1960's because gasoline was cheaper. It is the same reason we don't build coal-to-liquids plants today. If we REALLY needed the product, we could get it done, for a price.

If we get to a situation where we desperately need quick development but turn out too hide-bound to over-ride the red tape and get the job done-- Then maybe we would deserve to fade away into obscurity.

[Will Carry]

I like Ron Paul. I'll vote for him. Mitt Romney is a corporate ax man. Pink Slip Mitt. I don't trust him.

[greenego]

I watch the Judge almost every night on Freedom Watch, Fox Business. I saw Michael Scheuer ex cid agent give his reasons to support Ron Paul. If he is correct, RPs foreign policy may be the correct one.

[mav]

That said, we could stop all foreign aid tomorrow and forever and it will have absolutely zero impact on our deficit and debt problem because THAT problem is almost completely a problem of entitlement programs…in fact, I think if we did the math we would see that we could pretty much cut out all other spending entirely and our entitlement obligations would still burry us in debt; until we get control of THAT we will never have control.

Everybody knows that entitlements are the primary concern. However, to suggest that stopping all foreign aid, which I didn't suggest (yes, I know Paul does) will have "absolutely zero impact" just doesn't make any sense. Of course our foreign aid is very small, around 1 - 1.5% of yearly federal spending, but when you are broke every little bit matters.

Yeah…we probably could crash the world oil market if we develop the resources we have here…and if we started that today, we could probably do so in about 15-20 years from now…we should develop our own resources but I don’t think that’s the primary problem.

The problem I have here is that I have heard that the same excuse every election cycle since 2004, and nothing is ever done. Seriously, has "Drill here. Drill Now." becoming nothing more than a populist political bromide to be used by a Republican politician seeking (re)election only to have them say once they win, "Well, we could develop our own resources, but it would take 15-20 years."? I just can't accept that argument. I'm a 100% with Newt on this one. If the political will was present and it was made a national priority, the time frame could be shortened significantly.

Any significant interruption in flow of the world’s oil supply (such as closing down the Straits of Hormuz would have devastating economic effects on the entire world including the U.S. This isn’t the world of 100 years ago; whether we like or not we do now truly have a “world economy†and major economic events/events with economic impact that happen “there†WILL affect us here as well…we can do things to insulate ourselves somewhat but we can not avoid it. That is truly one of our “national interestsâ€. Sometimes, protecting our economy requires us to use our military and/or our economic might.

While I do not think the results would be devastating, it would certainly cause an irrational spike in oil prices. Nonetheless, I think this is more sabre rattling on the part of Iran. Iran is economically dependent on its export of oil through the Persian Gulf so a blockade by means of mining or sabotage (which is really the only way they could do it) really wouldn't be in their best interest. They would be crippling themselves even further, financially speaking. Iran would also have to worry about the punishing effects towards its number one trading partner, China. Iran knows that if they tried this, they would have the entire world down on them really quick.

For argument's sake, we will assume Paul is the President and Iran did close the Strait of Hormuz. This is one area in which I am somewhat in disagreement with Paul. Paul has stated that he will not use the military against Iran if they close the Strait of Hormuz because it is not an attack on the US. Yes, and no. No, it is not a direct attack on the US, but it is defintely an indirect attack IMHO. Paul did say however that he would refer the matter to Congress. This is where Congress will have to declare war. If war is declared, Paul, being the strict constitutionalist he is, will go to war against Iran.

I agree that we don’t need to be doing “nation buildingâ€â€¦I agree that Israel should be (and I think is) free to do what it thinks are in its own best interests but Israel is a friend and an ally and how we treat our friends and allies says a LOT about us as a people…if they need our protection we should give it…period, if not for “national interests†then at least for moral ones.

We interfere a lot more with Israel than what a lot of people might think. When they went into Lebanon, we defended them at first only to tell them that they need to keep their response proportional and to pull out a week or two later. Our government often criticizes Israel for their disproportionate retaliation against the Palestinians (I hate to use that word) and Hamas. Our government criticized Israel for settlement building and told them they have to stop. Our government tries to force a two-state solution upon Israel whether they want it or not (this was one of Bush's pet peeves). Under BHO, our government tells Israel they have to go back to the 68 borders, which is nuts considering it would really dampen Israel's defense capabilities.

As far as protecting our allies and such, I can respect that. A lot of people in this country feel the very same way. I somewhat feel that way, but I also think our founders had it right in believing that forming political alliances is too costly.

Based on what he has said, RP would put us near isolation…he would wait until our enemies are on our shores before we would respond…we are long past the time when geography (mountain ranges and oceans, etc.) can protect us…we can’t snuggle up to Mad Macmood or other crazies and hope they’ll play nice.

Appeasement has never worked…hiding you head in the sand has never worked either…I think RP would have us doing a little of both…I think that’s dangerous.

This is a total mischaracterization of Paul's foreign policy views. Paul does suggest non-interventionism as a foreign policy that is in our best interest, not isolationism. Paul is not an appeaser, he is not sticking his head in the sand, and he is not snuggling up to Ahmadinejad. If you did say that Paul's rigid adherence to the constitution is dangerous because Paul does not take into consideration that the world has changed, that is a totally legitimate, although debatable, charge.

Aside from all of that, the only reason I originally posted in this thread was the "gnashing of teeth" of Paul supporters comment. I know you don't like Paul, which is totally fine. He certainly doesn't appeal to a lot of people, and is a longshot to win the nomination. However, as I have said time and again in various threads, not all people who support Paul are Ronulans, Paulbots, or whatever they are called. There are some people on this forum who I consider to be very intelligent, and they have stated they will be voting (i.e. supporters) for Paul in the primary. I am one of those, minus the intelligence. If he wins, that is great. If not, I will be very (x10) reluctantly voting for the GOP nominee.

Just to reiterate, Paul is a longshot to win the nomination, and even if people hate his foreign policy, they should be at least supporting Paul's domestic agenda (assuming they are conservative). His domestic agenda really is second to none. If Paul doesn't get the nomination, I hope he stays in the race up till the convention. I want the other candidates, especially the nominee, to realize how pissed the country is over the egregious federal spending and nanny-statism.

[RobertNashville]

Assuming that oil is as rare and as easily depleted as some people believe, then the idea of depleting all of Saudi Arabia and Canada's oil before tapping our own might make excellent strategic sense. OTOH if oil is not as rare and easy to deplete, then it would be foolish not to develop our own supply.

Domestic oil would not be developed overnight but maybe the biggest hurdles would be need, will, and "the way we do things" nowadays?

If international tension makes oil suddenly scarce, maybe I'm wrong but wouldn't be surprised if we discover that many of our long-capped "depleted" wells can pump a fair amount of oil?

If we were to build a dam as big as the Hoover dam today, with our much-improved technology, it might take twice the time and be more expensive in inflation-adjusted dollars? Just sayin, if need becomes strong enough to over-ride "the way things get done", then we could probably ramp up oil production a lot quicker?

Comes down to economics as long as national security doesn't begin to trump economics. We didn't build coal-to-liquids plants in the 1960's because gasoline was cheaper. It is the same reason we don't build coal-to-liquids plants today. If we REALLY needed the product, we could get it done, for a price.

If we get to a situation where we desperately need quick development but turn out too hide-bound to over-ride the red tape and get the job done-- Then maybe we would deserve to fade away into obscurity.

While it's true that there are many hurdles to drilling wells, building pipelines and building refineries today that didn't exist "back in the day"; those things do take a significant time to build...I'm sure that removing those hurdles would speed development time up but I"m not sure it would speed it up as much as we might like to think.

[Oh Shoot]

.... If Paul doesn't get the nomination, I hope he stays in the race up till the convention. I want the other candidates, especially the nominee, to realize how pissed the country is over the egregious federal spending and nanny-statism.

Certainly he won't get the nomination, but he will also almost certainly attend the convention with whatever delegates he has won. He has said that realistically he can't see himself in the White House and his main goal at this point is to be able to influence the GOP platform. He might well be able to get a plank or two in there that wouldn't be without his being able to hold his delegates hostage; might make Mitt have to promise a thing or three he wouldn't have otherwise done without the RP impetus.

- OS

[mav]

Certainly he won't get the nomination, but he will also almost certainly attend the convention with whatever delegates he has won. He has said that realistically he can't see himself in the White House and his main goal at this point is to be able to influence the GOP platform. He might well be able to get a plank or two in there that wouldn't be without his being able to hold his delegates hostage; might make Mitt have to promise a thing or three he wouldn't have otherwise done without the RP impetus.

- OS

I agree 99% and that is what I am banking on. However, I can't say he won't get the nomination because nothing is certain in this life. I won't elaborate on that statement because I don't want people to think I am morbid or wishing ill of any candidate, which I most certainly do not.

[Oh Shoot]

I agree 99% and that is what I am banking on. However, I can't say he won't get the nomination because nothing is certain in this life. I won't elaborate on that statement because I don't want people to think I am morbid or wishing ill of any candidate, which I most certainly do not.

Well, I'll say it .. should Mitt croak, at least after Super Tuesday, the GOP will likely have to wind up drafting someone at a brokered convention, even if it takes weeks. But it won't be RP, although in a situation like that, whoever had the second most delegates would have quite a more powerful hand in determining the nominee, and the official plank.

Probably a fiasco that would guarantee O the win, though.

It's actually quite scary that so much of our "democratic" process is dependent on the live of one man at any given time. All the more reason we should not be voting for President. Nor Senators, btw, the way the Constitution intended.

- OS

Edited January 13, 2012 by OhShoot

[RobertNashville]

Everybody knows that entitlements are the primary concern. However, to suggest that stopping all foreign aid, which I didn't suggest (yes, I know Paul does) will have "absolutely zero impact" just doesn't make any sense. Of course our foreign aid is very small, around 1 - 1.5% of yearly federal spending, but when you are broke every little bit matters.

Getting rid of foreign aid is window dressing and politically expedient rhetoric - I'm not at all sure that we should but even if we should and even if we do, it's a meaningless gesture...it would be like the savings we get from filling our gasoline tank with "regular" instead or "premium" while we don't have the money to pay our rent or the car note.

The problem I have here is that I have heard that the same excuse every election cycle since 2004, and nothing is ever done. Seriously, has "Drill here. Drill Now." becoming nothing more than a populist political bromide to be used by a Republican politician seeking (re)election only to have them say once they win, "Well, we could develop our own resources, but it would take 15-20 years."? I just can't accept that argument. I'm a 100% with Newt on this one. If the political will was present and it was made a national priority, the time frame could be shortened significantly.

Whatever time it takes is whatever time it takes...as I already said; yes, we should develop our own resources and we need to stop the excuses (but that won't happen as long as Obummer is in office). If it takes 20 years or 10 years or whatever.

While I do not think the results would be devastating, it would certainly cause an irrational spike in oil prices. Nonetheless, I think this is more sabre rattling on the part of Iran. Iran is economically dependent on its export of oil through the Persian Gulf so a blockade by means of mining or sabotage (which is really the only way they could do it) really wouldn't be in their best interest. They would be crippling themselves even further, financially speaking. Iran would also have to worry about the punishing effects towards its number one trading partner, China. Iran knows that if they tried this, they would have the entire world down on them really quick.

I'm not an expert on navigable waters or specifically what it takes to make them unnavigable for an oil tanker but I've been in the straights and I don't think it would take very much to shut it down. I also don't think it would be an irrational spike...oil prices rising because someone somewhere thinks their might be a disruption is irrational but if you cut off 35% of the worlds oil flow and it will devastate the world economy.

We interfere a lot more with Israel than what a lot of people might think. When they went into Lebanon, we defended them at first only to tell them that they need to keep their response proportional and to pull out a week or two later. Our government often criticizes Israel for their disproportionate retaliation against the Palestinians (I hate to use that word) and Hamas. Our government criticized Israel for settlement building and told them they have to stop. Our government tries to force a two-state solution upon Israel whether they want it or not (this was one of Bush's pet peeves). Under BHO, our government tells Israel they have to go back to the 68 borders, which is nuts considering it would really dampen Israel's defense capabilities.

I'm not so worried about what we "tell" them; all I really care about is what we actually do. The best way to protect Israel is for Israel to protect itself and the second best way is if everyone who might attack Israel known that they will have to deal with us as well.

This is a total mischaracterization of Paul's foreign policy views. Paul does suggest non-interventionism as a foreign policy that is in our best interest, not isolationism. Paul is not an appeaser, he is not sticking his head in the sand, and he is not snuggling up to Ahmadinejad. If you did say that Paul's rigid adherence to the constitution is dangerous because Paul does not take into consideration that the world has changed, that is a totally legitimate, although debatable, charge.

My opinion is based on what I've heard him say...that isn't a mischaracterization; it's my opinion based on observation.

[hkgonra]

Judge Nap is great, the way I see the election is that we have 3 major problems and any one of them could take us down. We have our financial mess , THE FED , debt etc. Ron Paul understands these problems and is the only candidate that wants to fix them. We have the muslims, Santorum understands this problem and wants to fix it, we have the Marxists/Socialist one world government types, nobody running seems to understand this threat or wants to fix it.

[RobertNashville]

Judge Nap is great, the way I see the election is that we have 3 major problems and any one of them could take us down. We have our financial mess , THE FED , debt etc. Ron Paul understands these problems and is the only candidate that wants to fix them. We have the muslims, Santorum understands this problem and wants to fix it, we have the Marxists/Socialist one world government types, nobody running seems to understand this threat or wants to fix it.

I'm not sure it's that no one understand the Marxists/socialists issue...perhaps it's just that the candidates are mostly talking about what is (or at least what they believe) are the most important topics/issues to most people at the moment???