That would make the American Military a Mercenary unit for anyone who wants to pay...I guess that would make him mistaken or worse.?
Before I retired, I knew I was a professional SNCO performing a service for my country. I wasn't a merc for hire.
Posted on 11/12/2007 8:36:10 AM PST by Sue Bob
Well he believes the Constitution should be followed.
For example, those who want to start wars should have to convince Congress first - since only Congress has the legal power to declare war - instead of hiding behind the carte-blanche 2002 anti-terrorist powers.
And obviously that threatens some of the internationalists - you know, the people who are so quick to send US troops around the world, but never seem to have any relatives or kin involved in the fighting ....
He’s also drawing the majority of his support from the Code Pinko wing of the Democrats, Troofers, and anarchists by espousing a foreign policy that’s suicidal to this country. You don’t think those folks in anti-war parades with the Ron Paul signs right under the “IMPEACH BUSH” bumper stickers are following him for his stand on abolishing the Department of Education or returning to the gold standard, are you?
He’s got some great ideas, but he’s totally off the rails on foreign policy.
}:-)4
Just for comparison of actual accomplishments in congress:
Statistics: Duncan Hunter has sponsored 105 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 72 haven’t made it out of committee (Average)
and 10 were successfully enacted (Good, relative to peers).
Hunter has co-sponsored 894 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers).
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400191
Now take a look at Ron Paul, who claims many ‘accomplishments’
Statistics: Ronald Paul has sponsored 346 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 341 haven’t made it out of committee (Extremely Poor)
and 0 were successfully enacted .
Paul has co-sponsored 1876 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400311
What Idea?
Surrendering in Iraq faster than any Democrat would/could do. That is the one which keeps popping up when I hear him speak. Apparently, handing a loss to the USA will have far less a negative impact than just winning the thing.
Ron Paul may be mistaken, but he is neither treacherous nor a lunatic. He says we shouldn’t be policing the world at all. I say that at the very least we shouldn’t be policing the world at our own expense. If the rest of the world wants America to help defend them, let them pay us handsomely for the protection we give.
That would make the American Military a Mercenary unit for anyone who wants to pay...I guess that would make him mistaken or worse.?
Before I retired, I knew I was a professional SNCO performing a service for my country. I wasn't a merc for hire.
“American Military a Mercenary unit for anyone who wants to pay.”
Never. We always reserve the right to say no. No one suggests that we will agree to defend Iran, North Korea, or Syria for any price.
But for instance, why should the taxpayers of the USA pay forever for the defense of Japan and S. Korea? If they want us to defend them, let them pay the full cost. Otherwise, let’s bring our guys and gals home.
Our leaders have been so intoxicated with the prestige of world leadership, that they have been too willing to give the bill to the American taxpayers. That might have made sense in 1945, when the rest of the world was broke. But now it’s just stupid.
As for the “mercenary” word, I can only quote Milton Friedman’s reply to General Westmoreland: “I don’t like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries. If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher.”
There are many things that I like about Duncan Hunter. I attended the Texas Straw Poll and went up to him to thank him for his support of the Border Patrol Agents, Ramos and Compean. I would support him and Tancredo over any of the so-called frontrunners. He is very nice and gracious—and also very handsome and charismatic in person.
That said, I believe that Duncan Hunter is too big government oriented for me, and Ron Paul fits my philosophy much better. Regardless, I am very angry at the media for ignoring Duncan Hunter in the debates and in coverage. He is a much better man than Giuliani and Romney, in my opinion.
AuntB, would you please explain how to ping people on the list? Thank you.
Sue Bob: “ There are many things that I like about Duncan Hunter. I attended the Texas Straw Poll and went up to him to thank him for his support of the Border Patrol Agents, Ramos and Compean. I would support him and Tancredo over any of the so-called frontrunners. He is very nice and gracious—and also very handsome and charismatic in person.
That said, I believe that Duncan Hunter is too big government oriented for me, and Ron Paul fits my philosophy much better. Regardless, I am very angry at the media for ignoring Duncan Hunter in the debates and in coverage. He is a much better man than Giuliani and Romney, in my opinion.
AuntB, would you please explain how to ping people on the list? Thank you.”
_____________________
Do you mean the Duncan Hunter ping list? I think pissant and ultra sonic 007 are keepers of the list.
Here’s something you might consider.
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/
He’s the one we need
I got an email from a voter . He went to the rally and parade in Reno on Sunday last where Duncan Hunter was appearing.
Here is what he said:
“I went down and listened to him. Damn I wish he had a larger following. He’s the one we need.”
Yet, this person has not done one thing to encourage others to take a look at Duncan Hunter and still shows no support. It’s curious to me, since he is aware the media and GOP party heads have done all they could to shut out the most conservative candidate in America. They don’t want you to see Duncan Hunter. He surely realizes if we are to succeed in electing a man like Duncan Hunter, we, the people, have to get it done.
Hunter is the only candidate talking about the threat of China..... the only one who voted against Most favored Nations trade status for China. He is the only candidate who has the record and actions to actually secure our border. He is the only candidate who has refused to buckle under party pressure to vote their way. He stood against the Bush administration on China, the border, Dubai ports, the law of the sea UN treaty, to name a few.
“Damn! I wish he had a larger following! “ Well, wishing in one hand and doing nothing with the other will get us more of the same. Sitting back and waiting for everyone else to get the best candidate ‘a larger following’ will get you more of the same. We the people?
Like many of us, this voter is disgusted with government out of control and being run by anyone except ‘we the people’. So what do many of them do? The go to the extreme and push the extreme candidate without the record to back up his promises. Namely Ron Paul.
Ron Paul. The ‘small’ government guy. The ‘constitutional’ candidate.
His supporters insist he has incredible accomplishments. But none of them can tell you what they are, because as a congressman, he accomplished nothing except to co sponsor 1876 bills written by other congressmen. Small government?
This election , wouldn’t it be refreshing if we actually looked at the facts? If you want an ‘average’ do nothing congressman, Ron Paul is your man.
Just for comparison of actual accomplishments in congress:
Sponsored means he wrote or introduced the bill. Co sponsors sign on to other bills written by someone else.
Statistics: Duncan Hunter has sponsored 105 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 72 haven’t made it out of committee (Average)
and 10 were successfully enacted (Good, relative to peers).
Hunter has co-sponsored 894 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers).
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400191
Now take a look at Ron Paul, who claims many ‘accomplishments’ and would never vote for any frivolous, unconstitutional bill!
Statistics: Ronald Paul has sponsored 346 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 341 haven’t made it out of committee ( Extremely Poor) and 0 were successfully enacted .(Average, relative to peers).
Paul has co-sponsored 1876 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers)
NOTE: 1876 bills, written by other congress members. All ‘constitutional’ ? You decide.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400311
Duncan Hunter: “I don’t need consultants. I write my own speeches. I don’t need advice on having people testing the political wind to tell me what positions they think I should take. Most of the major positions I’ve already taken, and are there for better or worse. I know what I stand for... “
I meant, how do you ping in general? Or, how do you find the ping lists?
I believe that the reason Ron Paul’s bills do not make it to the floor is because his bills are designed to diminish the power of the federal government and that is not a popular stand with most politicians. In fact, I have never been one to measure the success of my politicians by the number of bills that they pass. To support someone because they get a lot of laws and bills passed seems like a counter-intuitive position for a small-government conservative to take. To me, a successful representative is one who fights to slow down the explosion of laws coming from D.C., for I know, as an attorney representing one of the most regulated professions in the U.S., that most of those laws represent more federal government intrusion into our lives—to our detriment.
I am an ardent pro-life activist and I am very proud of Ron Paul’s repeated introduction of the Sanctity of Life Bill which would declare the sanctity of life from conception and would strip jurisdiction from the federal courts on the abortion issue. This bill would take only a majority vote (unlike a constitutional amendment). This is the precise tactic advocated by Phyllis Schlafly in her book, The Supremacists.
Ron Paul introduces legislation to diminish the power of the federal government—not to enhance it. I admire him for this principled stance and it does not diminish him in my eyes if he cannot get his colleagues to join him in this effort. In fact, it serves only to further diminish them, in my opinion.
Look at the stats. Paul voted for 1000 more bills written by others than Duncan Hunter did. How is that promoting 'small goverment"? You've just made my point.
That would depend on the bills. I’d have to go look at what you are talking about.
I disagree.
For the record, I would vote for Ron Paul in a nanosecond over the beast. I still think he’s nuts regarding defense, but I trust him to wise up before I’d trust the beast to do anything virtuous. Plus, I do trust Paul to support gun rights, which is definitely worth something.
That said, he has less chance of being nominated than my favorite, Hunter, and most of his “supporters” will indeed vote dem since that is where most of them came from.
Phyllis Schlafly’s views on defense are much closer to Duncan Hunter’s. If you’re going to back a longshot, why not support one who is right on ALL the important issues?
Never mind. You answered in #29. I still disagree with you but you articulated it well.
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.