Replies

It is ok to be a Paul supporter here as long as you don’t make to much noise.

I've not been a Paul supporter. I've wanted to support Palin since I first heard her speak the day McCain introduced her. But I have some questions to anyone here who would be willing to coolly answer them.

First a statement: from what I've learned, Ron Paul is first one who supports the Constitution as it was written. He has developed, sponsored and convinced many of a number of opinions regarding our fiscal house and how to get it in order. He has a voting record unparalleled in terms of supporting the Constitution. He is Pro-Life, and as a physician, understands the problems confronting the health system and knows how to solve them. He served in the armed services. He appeals to all kinds of political forces.

So my first question is, why aren't we Freepers supporting him? I understand his foreign policy seems a bit odd. But even George Washington cautioned against getting involved with foreign wars. Some think he's anti-mililtary, but he's not. His record shows that he's anti-waste in military spending and military use.

Question 2: If Freepers can consider supporting Romney, how can we not consider supporting Dr. Paul?

I hope someone will answer these questions without putting me down as a flake. I'm not. I simply don't understand what seems to me to be a lack of logic in the thrust and content of this thread. Thanks.

I understand his foreign policy seems a bit odd. But even George Washington cautioned against getting involved with foreign wars.

This appeal to GW in supporting isolationist foreign policy is flawed, but it's all over the internet; many folks don't see the flaw. The world today is extremely different from GW's world in terms of military power. In GW's time, America was a tiny backwater nation. It was not a superpower. Nowadays, America is the preeminent superpower, but other nations certainly have much more military ability than nations did in GW's day. Weapons today can reach across oceans in a matter of hours, starting with the initial attack planning to impact. IN GW's day, military planners had the leisure of seeing enemies approach across oceans for months. Military technology today requires engineering and manufacturing capabilities that must be exercised to be maintained, and if the exercise is abandoned for a year or two, a nations' military can become fundamentally behind their competitor nations and have an enormously difficult time catching up for decades, during which time they will be completely vulnerable to forces with superior technology. Technology in GW's day simply did not progress so rapidly, and the cost of falling behind was nowhere near as great. Wars are no longer solely fought by hand.

The old "GW said we should be isolationist so we should be sticking to that 200 years later" is simplistically comparing apples and oranges, and GW would without a doubt be the first one to remind folks that we live in a different world than 1789 America. We should have the same principles, of course, where timeless principles are concerned. But realizing that there are new requirements on the military in it's duty to defend America when there are ICBM's pointed at her should not be too much a stretch of the imagination for anyone with a modicum of common sense.

The primary geopolitical difference, IMHO, is that America is the leader of the free world. Great Britain was the leading military superpower of GW's day.

Consequently, if America decides to stand down from her force projection around the world (Paul seeks to close U.S. bases around the world), such measures would degrade our capabilities so much that the proposal is somewhere between ludicrous and treasonous. One cannot simply snap one's fingers and deploy a carrier task force halfway around the world without logistical support; having the worldwide presence that we do has become essential to our national security. Only those who seek to degrade our military to put it on a par with our most significan competitors, or fools, would suggest massive force reductions. History teaches us that force reductions and weakness always cause wars instead of preventing them.

This is why Ron Paul's view is seen as a fringe view when it comes to foreign policy. Of course, some military support him, but this would be expected given the political correctness of our society during the current and recent wars. I know that it would be very troubling to me if I was soldiering under the current thinking, where we're being warm and friendly to the same enemies we're fighting, and we refuse to even admit that our enemies hate us and we can't even correctly identify who "the enemy" actually is.

Waiting in the wings is the world-wide new left/communist intelligentsia, which envisions their domination of the world, and has Western and even American universities and media as their base of operations. The dark night that is totalitarian repression is still at the helm of communist nations; they never "lost" or went anywhere. Statists would love to have America simply withdraw it's military ambitions and simply become a satellite nation for vacations for their own elites, complete with it's own communist/statist "vichy" government which would bow to statist control. Many wealthy elites of America espouse the ideas of socialism and statism, undoubtedly reasoning that through statist government corruption they would retain their wealth.

“So my first question is, why aren’t we Freepers supporting him? I understand his foreign policy seems a bit odd. But even George Washington cautioned against getting involved with foreign wars. Some think he’s anti-mililtary, but he’s not. His record shows that he’s anti-waste in military spending and military use.”

Mr. Paul wants to close down all our military bases around the world. He wants homosexuals to serve openly in the military. He wants a defense-only, Swiss-type foreign policy. He supports the rights of states to do such things as legalize every drug, including the hard drugs such as heroin. He blames the U.S. for pushing Muslims into 9/11. He rejects political support of Israel. He is a proud member of a party that supports legalized prostitution, all forms of legalized gambling, and any and all types of public porn. This results in such marvels as him declaring Bradley Manning a “patriot.”

I’d rather have Obama. At least Obama has to keep up some appearance of sanity.