Posted on 08/28/2010 1:55:44 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Ron Paul has some surprising news for the Tea Party:
You’re being taken for a ride.
At least this is what many libertarians like Ron Paul believe when they see someone like Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin trying to lead the Tea Party at the “restoring honor” rally this weekend. In fact, Ron Paul believes, if you’re looking for real freedom, you should really go back to the core of the constitution and the bill of rights, which Beck and Palin do not fully endorse when you really look at their beliefs. Whether it be Palin’s support for starting more wars or Beck’s beliefs on paying the private Federal Reserve MORE interest on our money by means of a VAT tax.
Ron Paul believes in neither of the above.
Here was Ron Paul’s message to the Tea Party via The New York Times just the other day:
“As many frustrated Americans who have joined the Tea Party realize, we cannot stand against big government at home while supporting it abroad. We cannot talk about fiscal responsibility while spending trillions on occupying and bullying the rest of the world. We cannot talk about the budget deficit and spiraling domestic spending without looking at the costs of maintaining an American empire of more than 700 military bases in more than 120 foreign countries. We cannot pat ourselves on the back for cutting a few thousand dollars from a nature preserve or an inner-city swimming pool at home while turning a blind eye to a Pentagon budget that nearly equals those of the rest of the world combined.”
While the Tea Party will be out supporting Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin this weekend, you wonder how many of them will be in full support of more wars and paying more interest to a group of untouchable and unauditable private bankers otherwise known as the FED? This is precisely what Ron Paul is asking the American public to consider when looking at the Tea Party leaders and see if they really stand for what they believe in.
Ron Paul believes the Tea Party is not about “left” or “right” like a lot of political pundits make it out to be. It’s about the constitution, and limited government.
Just how gullible can one person be??? You actually believe paleoPaulie’s lies???
1) When we’re in wars, we definitely should kick ass in them. That’s my personal opinion.
I know that RP doesn’t want to spend all our money killing muslims, and I know that many here do, so I won’t mention his foreign policy too much. I will say that part of his foreign policy contains the idea that people in the middle east get mad at us when we bomb them or invade them or kill their leaders or overthrow their goverments. I know that’s a very controversial idea here. I happen to understand the idea. And honestly, I have trouble understanding exactly the opposite idea. Apparently, people in other countries are supposed to like the fact that we’re coming into their countries, killing their countrymen, killing their leaders, and changing their government. Personally, as an American, I would not like it if some other country invaded the US, hung Obama, and changed our government. But, not only is it ok that we do that to other countries, it is absurd to think that people who live in those countries might be upset about it. That is conventional wisdom here on FR.
2) You either vote for the spending or you don’t. Ron Paul votes no to spending. Earmarks are a sideshow.
3) Ron Paul is 100% Pro-Life. 100% against Roe v Wade. 0% from NARAL. The Sanctity of Life Act. Where are your RINOs on The Sanctity of Life Act?
4) Ron Paul is in favor of Limited Constitutional Government. In favor of huge cuts in Government. A much much smaller Federal Government. Too small, I guess, for you. I want a much smaller, much more limited Federal Government. That’s what Ron Paul is about, and that’s what Ron Paul has always been about. It’s not “fiscal conservatism”, it’s vastly Limited Constitutional Government. Defense is only a tiny bit of it. If Ron Paul had his way, many Federal Agencies would be abolished, but not Defense. He would be defending the borders, like Bush and especially Obama failed to adequately do.
Ron Paul was one of very few Republican Reps to support Ronald Reagan over Gerald Ford in 1976.
I don’t know why you need to mention Reagan here, though.
Ron Paul is a social conservative, believing in traditional conservative values.
He is against big goverment though, and prefers not to use big government methods.
One on one against a Dem, he would get an enthusiastic turnout from limited government conservatives (roughly the tea party). He has the best record on this, by far, of any of his probable opponents on the R side, and is vastly superior to Obama on this.
He would also get a very strong turnout from social conservatives. He would say “I am 100% against Roe v Wade” and that would take care of that against a Democrat who always would appoint judges who would uphold Roe v Wade.
And he would sign the Sanctity of Life Act. Those would be big victories for Pro-Life. Bigger victories than Reagan or either Bush got.
He would not do well with some “military conservatives”, especially the most vocal ones here. But maybe the “military” “conservatives” might want to take a breather from the endless wars. (As an aside, were “military” “conservatives” in favor of the various military actions under Clinton? I’m not sure that “military” “conservatives” will be all that fired up to go out and vote for the Republican candidate no matter who it is, because Obama is bringing plenty of the wars that they like so much. Maybe if there was a war shortage, a Republican might be needed to come in there and bring an exciting new war, and new enemies for us to hate, but with Obama, there is no war shortage, so “military” “conservatives” won’t be starving for a war, and won’t be fired up anyway.
I don’t see military conservatives voting for Obama, even though he’s bringing the war, because most military conservatives (except the neocons, who are Trotskyites) are also at least somewhat interested in keeping the growth of government somewhat in check, at least some of the time.
Earmarks are irrelevant.
He’s against spending.
He votes NO on spending.
Earmarks only specify where money goes.
Ron Paul does not want to spend that money.
Dems and RINOs are voting to spend that money.
Ron Paul is just making sure that his constituents aren’t getting more ripped off.
So you think your Palin is very sane by being open to the possibility of war with Russia? Do you think your Palin is sane when she says we are doing Gods work in Iraq? If so, point to Scripture where it says that.
Palin falls into the Hagee camp of America actually paving the way for the second coming of Christ, do you think that's sane? Do you think Palin represents all Christians?
I said: “Ron Paul cannot resist letting us all remember just what a headcase he is. The guy is as loony as the day is long.”
You said: “How is that Howie? Please explain your genius assessment.
So you think your Palin is very sane by being open to the possibility of war with Russia? Do you think your Palin is sane when she says we are doing Gods work in Iraq? If so, point to Scripture where it says that.
Palin falls into the Hagee camp of America actually paving the way for the second coming of Christ, do you think that’s sane? Do you think Palin represents all Christians?”
Which planet are you calling from, troll?
I rest my case.
MORE WELFARE. MORE FICA. MORE MEDICARE! RAH! RAH! RAH!
Are you sure you're on the right website?
This from the man who called Biblical Fundamentalists "gaping primates" who believe "degraded nonsense."
Mencken is a hero to "palaeos" because his magazine became anti-Semitic (under Maguire) and eventually national socialist (under Carto). "Mencken" is a code word just like "international bankers."
Are you sure your in the right country?
Reagan actually DID things. Paul poses for holy pictures as though he would do the precise opposite of what he does and intends to do. He has a faux "constitutional" excuse for his every reflexive refusal to DO ANYTHING.
NO military conservative would ever vote for the paleotreasonboy if he were the only candidate available on the ballot. Comrade Obambam is to paleoPaulie's right because he is able to be bludgeoned into line to continue a war like Afghanistan. It has taken a while but the left is beginning to learn as El Run Pauilie never does that you can't play as a pacifist on the big stage in American politics.
The "neocons" are a group of FORMER Trotskyites, mostly in NYC and now octogenarians and nonogenarians if still alive, who turned sharply rightward when the Demonrat Party was seized by Stalinists under McGovern in 1972. That the paleobirdbrain set joins the Nation and the New Republic in conveniently misusing the term to apply to those of the New Right in the 1970s. It has been noticed that the term "neocon" is often misused by paleos when they would really like to explicitly bash Jewish people. Neocon becomes a convenient and safer term to attack and the paleos know (wink, wink) who they are talking about. Conveniently military conservatives favor Israel over her and our enemies. Oh, the humanity!!!!
PaleoPaulie would appoint judges who would sell the lighthouses to get away from socialism (besides, a lighthouse might spot enemy shipping). You can take to paleoPaulie's favorite bank the fact that he would appoint judges who would rfind every excuse in the playbook not to interfere with babykilling. And NO, it does not matter what the lying scum SAYS about the issue when he adamantly refuses to DO anything.
We need to mention Reagan to remind the paleoimbeciles of what actual conservatives look like. To the Paulistinians, "big government methods" means doing anything other than useless yak-yak.
No one need fear the paleotreasonguy going one on one for POTUS against any Demonrat. The GOP would have to be laid up by LSD in the water system for that to happen. Go back and check the performance of useless Paulie in POTUS primaries.
The Tea Party is a lot more complex than you give it credit for and has broader vision than mere cheapskatism. The conservative movement is a mansion of many rooms (to borrow an old phraseology).
I will answer your question about Kosovo. I don't think that Serbia or Kosovo is worth a single American life. They need to be ignored. If they cause us trouble, they need to be annihilated but they have not reached that point. I am also reflexively opposed to modern Demonrats running wars. Comrade O inherited Afghanistan from a far better man. He has already cut and run from Iraq making him a paleo on that war.
What are the provisions of this "Sanctity of Life Act?" It does not matter what Paulie SAYS. It matters what he would actually do: NOTHING. If the bill would save lives in any meaningful way, Mr. 10th Amendment will claim it is beyond federal jurisdiction. He thinks that the big problem with Roe vs. Wade is that it offends his tender sensibilities as to the constitution almighty (as he interprets it) and not that there are 50 million slaughtered babies. Like the Middle East, Paulie the Libertoonian figures that it is none of our bidness or at the very most: Tsk! Tsk!
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain: The Great OZ has spoken!!!
I keep seeing this thrown around. The numbers are only valid if you consider every embassy a "base". Unless people want to place embassy security in the hands of local contractors then shutting down a lot of those "bases" is not possible.
So what are the real numbers? If you throw in joint operations with other nations, academies, camps run by the National Guard, research facilities and the Pentagon we have approximately 156 location not 700. And it is 19 countries not 120. And that number includes the US, Puerto Rico and Guam.
Should we cut down on that number? Maybe. Although we have cut that down drastically from what those numbers were during the Cold War. Since 1988 we have closed over 350 bases.
But if you are going to argue for base closures please use the correct numbers.
We also have a lot of small bases scattered around that could easily be closed without jeopardizing our security, and in most cases the security of the host country.
No, not really. Most of those bases have been closed already. In fact, considering that we have states that lack any bases at all there is a strong argument to be made to many of them have been closed leaving our eggs in far too few baskets. Especially considering that we tend to cluster our bases. This leaves our military dangerously vulnerable to a crippling attack.
Hell, we had a LOT more real bases back in the olden days....
Frankly the clustered bases and Mega-bases worry both of us. While they may be more economical I don't think the security risk is worth it.
When Fort Ord was shut down in 1994 we lost the only ocean based training location for the US Army. There are other ocean based facilities but they are overbooked to say the least. Oh and the land is now a Superfund site, all those nasty lead bullets and UXOs you know. They just recently took 100 million from the US Army budget for that cleanup. But hey, the Smith Blue Butterfly now has a nature preserve. You just can't put a price on a trade like that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.