Posted on 08/29/2007 4:59:22 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
I also don’t need a article to tell me that his 1930s stance on American defense is going to very possibly get me, my wife and my unborn son killed by nut jobs with access to technology and the will to use it. No damned border patrol is going to stop a missile, and there is now way to completely keep out someone bent on our demise.
For God's sake there has been more talk about Iran wanting to fill the void if we pull out. Yeah that's a damned Jim Freaking Dandy of an idea. Them there missile tests and reactors of theirs could use the extra room...
Paul maybe the second coming of the Conservative messiah (not) but his isolationist approach to defense in an age of missiles, jets and crazy people just plan sucks. No, it is deadly. Period, end of sentence no arguments.
You can post a thousand Paul threads a day and it will not alter the facts or change the minds of anyone with sense.
However it is damned entertaining as hell...
Ah I see. We should just ignore fact and logic, cling with desperation to emotion whimsy because a politicans happens to mouth certain slogans and dogmas that validate our personal emotion based political position?
No thanks. Anyone who has been around politicans ought to know better. You don’t listen to what they say, you watch what they DO.
Paul is a fraud.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, pal. The so-called War on Terror is, like the so-called War on Drugs and the so-called War on Poverty that preceded it, is not winnable.
If you believe it is, I suggest you offer your solution to the eventual Republican Presidential nominee in a sealed envelope to be opened once the campaign kicks off next Labor Day -- because he's going to need one heck of a boost to overcome Hillary's lead by that time. (And, as you probably know, Hillary is also a fan of the WOT and any other policy that strengthens the executive branch she hopes to step into.)
It would, but it won't happen.
In most peoples mind the war is the top issue. That's a loser if you're searching for support. As I've noted on occasion, all the R candidates are essentia)lly pro-war, with the one exception.
There is some support on the right, and more the "right"(that's the right we'd prefer weren't characterized that way) for the anti-war position.
But attacking the Dems (or the "right") on non-war issues is a loser for Paul supporters, that's all they have to offer. And they have the choice of accepting the one issue, likely transitory, support, or rejecting it and falling in the polls from/to, well better not to go into that.
Slogans and dogmas?
You haven't been listening to some of the other candidates running, have you?
Sound bites are not in Ron Paul's repertoire. Slogans are not promises, either. Most of us can tell the difference.
Paul is a fraud.
Great that you can see through it, Johnnie. Who, then, is the real conservative you've determined that Dr. Paul isn't?
Thanks. Duh, I guess I was just too stupid to understand it all, pal. I’ll try to pay more attention to you and get this sawdust out of my head. What was I thinking?
Usually I bring this up when Paul supporters rant about the unconstitutional income tax, but a 70% budget reduction works too.
You support the income tax, I understand that.
Do you support social security? Tax and benefits, Paul supporters give me different answers on that issue.
For what is essentially junior high analysis, wikipedia will suffice.
Show me your 70% reduction, and yes, throwing grandma off the train is fine.
For Paul supporters, explain your support for the unconstitutional income tax, social security too if you're opposed.
Ron Paul's supporters bring new meaning to sophmoric.
blockquote>
Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2006 are $2.2 trillion. This expected income is broken down by the following sources:
The President's budget for 2006 totals $2.6 trillion. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:
And yes, I acknowledge RP votes NO,NO, NO on all kinds of stuff.
Will you acknowledge his votes are, well, irrelevant.
Three or four a day is enough for entertainment, I'll even add one once in a while.
Change minds, this might be the wrong venue.
Human Events interviewed Ron Paul earlier this month...here are some excerpts:
HE: You don’t think we should work with enemies of their regime to see that it’s overthrown — to his regime?
RP: No, I do not. To me, if you overthrow a regime it’s an act of war, and it backfires on us. It has never served us well over the last 100 years. It’s sort of like what we did with 1953 by installing the Shah. We worked with the regime, we worked the British then, and we’re still suffering the consequences…
HE: You’re saying overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953 and putting in the Shah led to the hostage-taking and 9/11?
RP: Absolutely.
HE: In other words, the militant fundamentalist regime took revenge on us for overthrowing the secular left-of-center regime in ’53?
RP: There is always some militant-violent-jihadist looking to rally that faction, but they have to have incentives. The incentive is when we impose our will on them and we get involved in their internal politics. Besides, it contradicts everything the Founders theorized, and there’s no constitutional authority for us to march around the world undermining different governments.
HE: And under President Reagan we built up our defenses., we built up all these anti-communist insurgencies in Afghanistan, in Nicaragua, we putting the Pershings into Western Europe, etc., etc. The point is: Would you have supported any of those of measures, on the grounds that you are… we shouldn’t have done any of this because it would be provoking, somehow, that which would come back and haunt us?
RP: I don’t think that policy has served us well. I think that…
RP: Saddam Hussein used to be our ally. Foreign intervention is doomed to fail.
HE: Congressman, though… But what I am not clear on, and forgive me for persevering, but what I’m not at all clear on… not at all, is what you would do, how you view this war. What is the war? Do we even have a war? And if we’re going to have a war, if we’re in one, how do you win it?
RP: Well, the war that we’re in — we’re in the middle of a civil war between the Sunni and the Shiites, and the Sunnis have two factions and the Shiites have two factions and they’ve been fighting for a thousand years. When Ronald Reagan discovered that in Lebanon, he said he would never leave. But he said, once he discovered the irrationality in the politics of the region, he said he knew that it was best to get out. And I like what Ronald Reagan said and I like that he left. No, we’re in the middle of a civil war, it’s a vicious civil war and we’ve stirred it up. They weren’t in the middle of this civil war, and we have given them all incentives. And now Iraq is filled with al-Qaeda. I would just come home. Because, we’re serving… We’re not our interests, and we’re going broke.
HE: I want to get into your feelings on — your views on Israel, which is what drives the Islamo-terrorists crazy, the existence of Israel. Would we just abandon Israel?
RP: No, I think we should treat them like everybody else. And, I think… I think our policies toward Israel are setting the stage for the destruction of Israel, because Israel has sold out their national sovereignty to us. If they feel as if their borders are infringed or if they want to move their borders, uh…
HE: But sir, we have mutual defense treaties with Britain, with France, with Japan. Are you saying that you would abrogate those treaties because you don’t believe they would –
But I know for a fact — I mean, I’ve read recently the treaty we have with Japan. If they are attacked, for example, by China, we have to go to war. Are you saying that’s not a valid obligation?
RP: I think that’s unconstitutional because you cannot declare war by a treaty. You cannot give the power to the treaty making people any more than you can give it to the President. Only Congress can declare war. How can we hide from that responsibility? If you want to do it that way, you have to change the Constitution and reject one of the main motives for our revolution: Taking out of the hands of the executive branch the authority to go to war at will.
HE: But that treaty was signed by the executive and ratified by Congress. Does that make it still invalid in your opinion?
RP: Absolutely. It wasn’t… Was it… I mean, we either declare war by the Congress or we don’t. That means the House has a say in it, and the people have a say in it. You can’t say a treaty… It was fully explained in the… discussion on the base of the Constitution that you can’t amend the Constitution through treaty; otherwise you could look to the UN. Oh well, we’ve signed the UN treaty? So the UN can put a tax on us and regulate our guns and regulate our drugs? How can you avoid that?
HE: But that treaty doesn’t say that - the UN treaty doesn’t say that they can do any of those things.
RP: Yeah, but we belong to the treaty - don’t we respond to the WTO? But we went and changed our [inaudible] Clause for the WTO.
HE: But you’re saying pre-emptive strike to protect America even is out of bounds? Or am I misunderstanding you?
RP: Because it’s something that doesn’t achieve anything, To have a preemptive strike against Iraq when they could not possibly have attacked us? What country would dare attack the United States? Where… Who’s going to invade us? Who’s going to send bombers over here? Who’s going to send missiles at us?
HE: So you don’t think we need to undertake any preemptive strike because no one is endangering us?
RP: We have to design a policy that doesn’t put troops on the holy land of the Muslims, that motivates them to raise up an al Qaeda that’s willing to sacrifice their lives. Men and women die — And all you have to do is go to Walter Reed and say, “Is this making any sense whatsoever? Are we going to win the war next year? Or five years?” It’s not going to happen.
HE: Would you project power anywhere in the world? The United States — in terms of navy …
RP: On our borders.
HE: And that’s it?
RP: Because nobody would touch us. No, I think our influence, our real power is to be… through influence and by setting good examples, set a modern standard for liberty, great prosperity, trade with people, talk with people and be willing to be strong so nobody messes with us. And, the world would be better off — we would be better off, and I think the world would be better off. There will be thugs around and there will be civil wars. They’ve been fighting over there for a thousand years and all we did over there is get in there and stir them up. It’s not going to end soon; it’s going to end with a bankruptcy. If we can’t get anywhere closer on dealing with the Constitution, and Jefferson, and the old Right, and the Republican position… We’ve got to think about it by dollars. How in the heavens are you going to pay for it?
*****************************************************************
Bottom line: I don’t particularly care what he thinks about homosexual marriage and so on. He is stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. Isolationism WILL NOT WORK. It didn’t work leading up to 9/11, and it won’t work afterwards.
Retreating into our own borders and turning our country into a fortress as you suggest will not work. It sounds nice, but what happened on 9/11 was only part of it. Have you forgotten the embassy bombings?
We live in a world where there are Americans and other westerners everywhere. Making CONUS into a fortress is not going to make them any safer.
He blames the USA for the Iran Hostage Crisis and 9/11. He says it in his own words. I am NOT taking it out of context. It is ASININE. In particular, his quote: “There is always some militant-violent-jihadist looking to rally that faction, but they have to have incentives. The incentive is when we impose our will on them and we get involved in their internal politics.”
Clue Phone for Dr. Paul:
It makes no difference what they say they did or didn’t do 9/11 for.
In my experience, if one reason doesn’t suit their purposes, or is invalidated, they simply choose another one.
They did it because of the American Occupation of Iraq. No?
They did it because of the American Occupation of Afghanistan. No?
They did it because of the sanctions against Iraq. No?
They did it because of the Clinton Missle Strikes in 1998. No?
They did it because of the American actions in Bosnia. No?
They did it because of the American presence in Kuwait. No?
They did it because of the American presence in Saudi Arabia. No?
They did it because of the First Gulf War. No?
They did it because of America’s support of Israel. No?
They did it because of America’s involvement in Lebanon. No?
They did it because of America’s support of the Shah of Iran. No?
They did it because of Western Colonialism. No?
They did it because they live in repressive, misogynistic poverty stricken societies, resent the fact they are stuck in the middle ages and have squandered any advantages they once held because they refuse to believe that non-islam has anything to offer them. They did it because they are consumed with self-loathing and insecurity. No?
Well, tomorrow is a new day. There has to be some excuse. Apologists like Ron Paul just make it easy for them to attain legitimacy. THAT is why he is not fit to occupy the Oval Office. He may be a fine Congressman. Good. Keep him there. We need people like him in Congress.
Interesting logic in that statement.
Even if I agreed with your premise, you don't always fight a war because you think you can win. Sometimes you fight because you have no other choice.
Now the war on poverty, the war on drugs, very well may not be winnable but the war on terror must be fought at very front, win, lose or draw. We have no other choice.
However, wars are fought between nations, not against inanimate objects or ideas or methods. As such, how can anyone of sound mind proclaim victory in, for example, the War on Poverty? When poverty is eliminated, 100%? Or when everyone is wealthy (even less likely)?
If you were to concentrate the government's efforts to eliminating poverty in, say, Appalachia (as was done in the 1960s, you'll recall), yes, it has a chance of succeeding with a few billion dollars of other people's money thrown at it. But what really improved the lot of West Virginia coal miners was not the WOP and federal injections of cash but, rather, the run-up in the price of coal as a result of the '70s energy crisis.
Likewise, if the feds concentrated on wiping out al-Qaeda instead of "terrorism," there's a chance they could succeed in our lifetimes. Terrorism worldwide, as the Bushies say, could take generations.
I'm not willing to make a bet on an event I won't be around to see, sorry.
As you can imagine, it is huge. And if I remember the allegation, Ron Paul voted against a section of this monster that involved placing National Guard soldiers on the border?
Don't let MNJohnnie know you are repeating a slogan, evad.
(See his post #302)
I'm not familiar with that.
How can Ron Paul vote against a section of a bill?
BTW, that wasn’t a challenge, it was simply advice as how to use Thomas. Links to searches don’t work, send people to the Thomas site armed with the bill number, titles work too
I downloaded the PDF version of the bill as it was enrolled and I have found nothing in it about the National Guard on the border.
Being on the losing side of a vote is not quite the same as losing a fortune in the stock market. Congress changes, attitudes change, and eventually lost causes become winning causes.
Case in point: airline deregulation. Nobody would have bet a nickel 40 years ago that the CAB would go out of existence. It happened, and a Democrat president even ushered it in (surprise, surprise!).
Did you want to respond to the content of my post..or was that it?
Is there anything more pathetic than party hacks saying that Ron Paul is not pro-life?
From
http://freedomsadvocate.com/blog/category/ronpaulitn/
Ron Paul’s campaign needs to better utilize the grassroots power. Here are 3 ways he can do it:
1) Grab FreeRepublic.com’s niche.
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.