Posted on 11/24/2007 6:32:46 PM PST by Lovebloggers
Paul says the biggest issue of the day is foreign policy "and a war we're not winning," but he says government spending is linked to the war -- and that spending is influencing the value of the dollar. "If the currency goes down, it's an indication that there's something very significantly wrong with the economy of that particular country and I think you're seeing that right now," Paul says. "If you look at many great nations and great empires, when they faltered their currency faltered. That's what they saw when the British pound lost prominence, the British Empire fell apart."
(Excerpt) Read more at radioiowa.com ...
“””As far as I know, no other leading candidate has discussed preserving our constitutional rights or shrinking the size of government.”””
You know both of Bill Clinton’s presidential platforms were promises of a middle class tax cut.
How did that work out for you?
You support a candidate based on his words. His inactions and inability to get anything accomplished in his ten terms in Congress mean nothing to you — nay, you actually defend him on that.
You want and support the pretty words candidate, which is political immaturity at its finest.
“His inactions and inability to get anything accomplished in his ten terms in Congress mean nothing to you...”
Perhaps you should examine his unpopular failing votes:
-Ron has never voted to raise taxes.
-Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
-Ron has never voted for the Iraq War.
-Ron has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
-Ron has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
-Ron has never voted to raise congressional pay.
-Ron has never taken a government-paid junket.
-Ron voted against the Patriot Act.
-Ron votes against regulating the Internet.
-Ron voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.
-Ron votes against the United Nations.
-Ron votes against the welfare state.
-Ron votes against reinstating a military draft.
-Ron votes to preserve the constitution.
-Ron votes to cut government spending.
-Ron votes to lower healthcare costs.
-Ron votes to end the war on drugs.
-Ron votes to protect civil liberties.
-Ron votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform.
-Ron votes to eliminate tax funded abortions and to overturn Roe v Wade.
-Ron votes to protect religious freedom.
Of course, I guess he could abandon these stances and author something like No Child Left Behind or the Patriot Act every year. Then he would be as accomplished at getting liberal legisation passed as Ted Kennedy, Arlen Spectre, Diane Feinstein & John McCain. I guess then he would be ‘your’ candidate.
No thanks.
Simple questions actually, which you are incapable of answering.
What piece of legislation has Paul sponsored that has passed?
Why do you think he will be able to accomplish anything on his platform as President?
John Kerry accomplished more in the same time period, and he didn’t even show up for work for two years or so.
*****Oh, BS. Ron Paul is on record as saying a few submarines can defend the United States. A ‘few submarines’ is not a strong defense.*****
Of course, those “few submarines” would have many nuclear weapons. Russia, China could possibly target our land based nuclear ICBM’s and perhaps wipe them out in a first strike, but they can not wipe out our nuclear subs.
The idea of a land invasion is a joke. What chance would an invasion armada have against laser guided bombs?
However, right now, China could cause a disaster to our economy by dumping their US dollars holdings. It would plunge the whole world into a depression, but they might figure they would come out on top in that situation.
We are in far greater economic peril than we are to any military threat.
Ron Paul is our only solution to our economic peril.
“Of course, those “few submarines” would have many nuclear weapons. Russia, China could possibly target our land based nuclear ICBM’s and perhaps wipe them out in a first strike, but they can not wipe out our nuclear subs. The idea of a land invasion is a joke. What chance would an invasion armada have against laser guided bombs?”
I see you disagree with RP that a ‘few submarines’ would be an adequate defense. Already you’ve added land based ICBMS and ‘laser bombs’. Of course, those ‘laser bombs’ don’t launch themselves so it looks like you want an air force too.
The problem with a ‘few submarines’ armed with nuclear weapons is that all you have is a sledge hammer. A sledge hammer is good for busting concrete but what if you want to crack a walnut? You have only one option with a ‘few submarines’ armed with nuclear weapons. Global thermonuclear war is not always the answer.
“We are in far greater economic peril than we are to any military threat.”
Do away with the US military and just see how much peril you find. Do you really think you can retreat to our coasts and the world will go away? Do you really think that a global trading country doesn’t have global interests?
I think you are taking his comment to literally. He doesn’t mean that we only need a few submarines to protect the country. However a few subs would be enough to prevent China or Russia from launching a pre-emptive strike.
****The problem with a ‘few submarines’ armed with nuclear weapons is that all you have is a sledge hammer. A sledge hammer is good for busting concrete but what if you want to crack a walnut? You have only one option with a ‘few submarines’ armed with nuclear weapons. Global thermonuclear war is not always the answer.****
Right, but you are acting like he would disband the rest of the armed forces. If you listen to the rest of his comments, you would see this is not the case. By having our forces concentrated in the US, we would be in a much better situation to launch a strike force if the situation demands it. Right now with troops all over the world, it is hard to keep the numbers the generals want in Iraq. Repeated deployments to Iraq, extended enlistments, etc. are not good for the troops morale.
“We are in far greater economic peril than we are to any military threat.”
*****Do away with the US military and just see how much peril you find. Do you really think you can retreat to our coasts and the world will go away? Do you really think that a global trading country doesn’t have global interests?*****
I don’t understand why you keep saying he would do away with the military when he has said no such thing.
It seems to me that it is the US that is doing the most to disrupt world trade. I don’t know of any other nations opting for trade sanctions to try to get other countries to bend to their will.
I don’t know of any other “country” that is taking armed steps to disrupt our trade. Modern day pirates are the most destructive thing to international shipping at the present time.
E.g. Chavez is the most outspoken leader against the US in the western hemisphere, but he is still selling oil to the US. However, he recently attacked us economically by trying to get OPEC to price oil in Euro’s.
“I think you are taking his comment to literally. He doesn’t mean that we only need a few submarines to protect the country. However a few subs would be enough to prevent China or Russia from launching a pre-emptive strike.”
No, I didn’t take him ‘too literally’. See the exact quotation below.
“Right, but you are acting like he would disband the rest of the armed forces. If you listen to the rest of his comments, you would see this is not the case.”
Well, actually, he said that the real war we should be fighting was on those who would undermine our liberties here at home. Then he threw in the comment about the few submarines. It’s quite clear that Ron Paul does not believe we face any foreign threat and that we have little or no need for a military.
Here’s the quotation: “There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today,” he said in the interview. “I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we’re acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapon.” Ron Paul in his interview with the Washington Post.
“It seems to me that it is the US that is doing the most to disrupt world trade. I don’t know of any other nations opting for trade sanctions to try to get other countries to bend to their will.”
Sounds like you’re trying to blame the US.
“I don’t know of any other “country” that is taking armed steps to disrupt our trade. Modern day pirates are the most destructive thing to international shipping at the present time.”
It’s a little too late to build a Navy after the war starts. Do you have any idea how long it takes to build a fleet and learn how to operate that fleet? We’re not talking two or three but 10 to 20 years.
Here’s the quotation: “There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today,” he said in the interview. “I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we’re acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapon.” Ron Paul in his interview with the Washington Post.******
Do you think there is any country in the world which could attack us without being wiped out within a short period of time? In the old days, we used to keep long range bombers in the air at all times. Now we probably have many armed, long range bombers that can be scrambled in less time than it would take an ICBM missile to reach us. Plus we have all our nuclear subs out there that no country can stop from launching their missiles. MAD, worked in the cold war and it is still working today.
***Sounds like you’re trying to blame the US.***
No, I am just stating a fact. What other country is using trade sanctions to try to obtain its political goals? While other countries support our trade sanctions, we are usually the country calling for them.
****It’s a little too late to build a Navy after the war starts. Do you have any idea how long it takes to build a fleet and learn how to operate that fleet? We’re not talking two or three but 10 to 20 years.****
Ron Paul has not said he would disband the military. He would only bring it home to defend this country. We have as many air craft carriers as Russia, China, France and England added together.
In his new ad on XMRadio, why does L.Ron refer to Republicans in the third person?
Why is the ad in all other respects so damn deceitful?
Reagan might have been right at the time, but now—after his death—L.Ron proves the premise is no longer true.
Your little stunt is inherently deceptive. Why is that?
I hope R.P. runs as an Independent on a Third Party Ticket. He’d pull more votes from the Dems than from the Pubbies.
Run Ron; run!!!
You think Libertarian Republicans will vote RP the way they voted for Perrot?
*******************
Perot wasn’t a proponent of legalizing drugs, free trade, and open borders.
“Ron Paul has not said he would disband the military. He would only bring it home to defend this country. We have as many air craft carriers as Russia, China, France and England added together.”
So you would prefer to fight any wars on our own territory?
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.