Yes, but when it comes to Paul I am deadly serious. Why you may ask? Well let me respond to another of your statements:
What about you? What are your credentials as a self appointed judge? Who are you pushing and why? How are their positions different?
The only credential I need is that of American Citizen, father and husband. Protecting my family outranks all other concerns. From that I can judge and support how I see fit those who best serve that purpose and those who pose a threat as well. Paul is most definitely the latter and I have little patience with those who support or defend in at any level be it in passing or full on Paulistinian mode...
I never said I was a Paul supporter, but in the current situation with multiple poor choices I encourage a healthy dialog and focus on specific issues and facts.
There are a lot of “if you’s” in your rant that are certainly presumptive. When you go off into “your boy who has no problem with a bunch of nuts killing my family..” it tells me that you would rather rant and scream than focus on issues and you may be challenged sticking to facts.
My "rant" holds, I have no issue with facts, if you have even been casually reading Paul articles on FR you see more than ample evidence of his support of Iran etc.
You want to focus on debatable issues fine. Paul has points on domestic issues I can agree with. But not with him as the messenger. His idiocy pollutes anything substantive he could provide. Find and support or argue for another champion for those ideas that are valid.
As for the rest of Paul's "positions", there is no debate, no issue to "discus", it is simple yes or no. Does one support Terrorist or not with their words and actions. Paul does, mainly in words for now. I fear for his actions if he ever had a position of power.
I proudly served this country and I’m a retired Naval Aviator - sorry, no trips to Russia or any current Communist countries (you probably missed the fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists).
Thank you for your service, as for the Soviet Union, that was my point, it no longer exists due to Reagan's efforts that Paul took issue with.
Have a nice day as well.
OK - so what I get out of this is that you are passionate about your family and America - that’s good, me too.
You can agree with some of his domestic policy points - OK, me too. Most of it in fact.
Some serious and intelligent folks like Mish Shedlock and Judge Napolitano are speaking out for Paul - why is that? They are not loons, extremists or unreasonable people. I have followed Shedlock’s economic newsletter for years and he is a very smart (and conservative) guy.
The common thread against Paul seems to be the implication that he supports terrorists (small t). Is that a stretch from his opinion that Iran does not pose a real and present danger to us? Is there something like the Ayers/Obama connection that I’m missing? If so, that would be very helpful to know and understand. Otherwise, I think it’s healthy to have a very vigorous debate and be extremely reluctant to send our troops into battle as casually as we do lately. But, Congress should do their job there.
I thought that hitting the thugs in Afghanistan and dismantling their Taliban network of support was the right thing to do after 9/11. Paul also voted in favor of doing so (with reservations and commentary to that effect). But, we need to wrap it up and stop playing buddies with Pakistan - they are not our friends... We got Bin Laden (who had become irrelevant) and most of the other Al Quaeda leadership, so let’s stop sending my friends over there to get killed (too many in this category, mostly Seals).
He has made some statements that are not pro-Israel. I personally believe that we need to support Israel defensively. I have not heard him say anything anti-Israel but he does ramble a bit when he “thinks out loud” too often. I agree with Newt that Palestine is a made up concept and there should be no foundation of support for the PLO, Hamas or any other similar organization; can you point me to where Paul goes too far in the debate there? That would be important. If he is just saying “let’s mind our own business unless we are directly threatened” that’s a debate point, but not a make me foam at the mouth point.
From what I have learned so far, Paul is pro military and for a strong US national defense. He has stated that if we have cause to go to war then Congress should declare war and we should fight with everything we have until we win and then leave. That is what our Constitution provides for - is there another more palatable candidate who takes that position? Why didn’t we declare war on Iraq?
Do we need bases in 140+ countries (I don’t think so personally). Can we have a strong defense without staying in these countries forever - sure we can! The foundation of a strong defense is energy independence and a healthy domestic economy(which also derives from energy independence...) based upon a balanced budget - all of which is achievable in 5 years or less if we commit to that. I believe that is his view too.
I think that his detailed budget makes a lot of sense - have you looked at it? http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/ He proposes to keep defense expenditures at roughly 2008 levels of more than 500 billion and to continue to take care of our military families and veterans. There is plenty of money in his budget to provide for that... He just proposes to end war funding (Iraq, Afghanistan and prospectively, Iran) and end foreign aid (since it is unconstitutional). Congress can override some of the foreign aid if they feel strongly about it.
Continued out of control deficit spending is a HUGE threat to our country and our families - particularly our children. Who else has a detailed and published plan like his? I think that a republican majority congress could pass all of what he proposes and would result in a very healthy booming economy and a budget surplus. That’s pretty appealing! He is not proposing anything overly idealistic and it is going to take someone with the gumption to FORCE even a republican majority to defund or eliminate the 5 agencies he proposes to get rid of. Neither Romney or Santorum will do that. Who knows what Gingrich would do..(seriously)
He is a strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment - power in the hands of the people. That’s not typical of a potential tyrant.
I agree that he has indicated support for some nutballs like Kucinich, Nader and Sheehan - that seems politically naive and I have not dug into the rationale for it. But, it does make me very wary and wonder why he would say that even if he had a logical reason to do so.
In any event, I’m really just looking for facts before ruling anyone in or out. I liked Perry (on the surface/pre-vetting) before the debates started - I thought he was going to kick butt - but he blew it.
Who else is there with a strong pro-Constitutional track record and a balanced budget? That is a HUGE issue for me and trumps most other issues. Not Gingrich, Romney or Santorum certainly...they would just continue the mess we have in Washington - business as usual.. more crony capitalism..
You would be helping people make a good decision by sticking to facts and not just declaring anyone who asks about Paul to be a deranged nut. That just turns intelligent folks off and causes them to dismiss your commentary. It just sounds like what the press and libs did to Palin, Cain and others and a lot of patriots will just lump you in that category.
Have a nice day.