Posted on 06/02/2007 8:14:35 PM PDT by JillValentine
“But Ron Paul isn’t proposing to “take away” anything.”
Except federal funding. You can ‘explain’ it all you want, the political commercials will tear him to pieces with ‘Ron Paul wants to take away your police, fire, etc.,”. It won’t be pretty and too many people won’t listen to the Constitutional arguments. They’ll just hear Ron Paul wants to take away your fire department.
And Dr. Paul is incorrect to say that.
If he was “right” then please do explain the WTC I bombing by Islamacists, It sounds to me like Dr. Paul has a preformed conclusion sized to fit his view that strictly US foreign policy is the reason for Jihaddy hatred.
Not true, and that is an asinine position that Dr. Paul is taking.
Pro-gun people have complained for years that those who would limit gun ownership care little for the facts, instead depending on emotional rhetoric to carry their arguments. Apparently, those who wish to engage in the character assassination of Dr. Paul do the same thing. In spite of all the speeches, statements and bills introduced by Dr. Paul they continue to listen only to what others who have also failed to research their arguments have to say about what “He” said.
Read what he has said about each and every one of these red herrings brought out in the original post. In her (his?) attempt to throw a gauntlet at the feet of the supporters of Ron Paul, JillValentine has merely splashed offal on her own feet. Nonetheless, in another thread, the gauntlet has been picked up, disinfected and deposited forcefully at the feet of its original owner.
Tennis anyone?
Well, I know this is hard to believe, but I never really thought we would all agree on anything—so how could I be disappointed! The odds are on my side.
Semper Fidelis
Dick G
~~~~~~~~~~
“Only by ignorant fools, something of which we seem to have plenty of around here of late.”
Most of the electorate are not Constitutional scholars. You can be right and still lose in a rout.
Ron Paul is the one most like Reagan in his ability to see issues and address them head on. You ask the ones I mentioned above and you get straight standard party line party generic answers. Ask Ron Paul and he will make his case for what he believes. You will have no doubt what he believes and where he stands on issues.
I can’t speak for Rep. Paul, but I believe his answers to those questions would be fairly close to mine, which are:
(1) In 2001 he voted to give the President the authority to use force, expecting it to be used in Afghanistan and wherever else necessary in order to track down Bin Laden & Co. and take them out. Bin Laden probably isn’t there anymore so who cares what the Taliban do in that country; we should be focused on punishing those who attacked America, not slapping around fundamentalist tribes. And Paul did not say “our policies brought about 9-11” - he said our policies contributed to the terrorists’ motive. There’s a difference.
(2) Do you drive each car you own 400 miles every day just because you can? How about we use what we need to defend America and dismantle or park the rest for use someday when we might need them.
(3) Iraq didn’t attack us and posed no threat. Saddam was not working in tandem with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda cited the suffering of the Iraqi people - women and children esp. - as a result (in his mind) of U.S. sanctions and military actions. He rallies sympathy for all Arab peoples who he believes have been made to suffer at our hands.
(4) Not the federal government’s business. The Constitution doesn’t authorize the regulation of litigation. Fred Thompson may talk about federalism, but Ron Paul lives it.
(5) See #4. It’s a concern for the states.
(6) You cannot have smaller government unless you reduce the amount of military spending. Should we spend 50% of our GDP on the military like North Korea? You first have to determine what is a reasonable level of spending, and then decide what to buy with it. “Supporting the troops” isn’t synonymous with handing out blank checks and racking up debt until we collapse in bankruptcy.
(7) By bringing home the thousands of troops stationed in every farflung corner of the globe (Europe - why??), and cutting unnecessary bloat and the costs that go with it, we can assign the military to the task of securing borders.
(8) See #1.
(9) Is this how you’d conduct your personal life? Discussion and exploring areas of agreement should be cast aside in favor of perpetual preaching to the choir? That doesn’t sound like a good strategy.
(10) I’ll let him answer this one for himself.
Yeah, pessimism is good - pessimists are never disappointed.
Deserves a bump
Have you written to Dr. Paul’s campaign for your answers?
Most of your questions are addressed directly to him, yet you seem to want second-hand answers.
Actually, they are back-handed insults disguised as questions, I think.
Actually, they are back-handed insults disguised as questions, I think.
You might be correct. Pathetic isn’t it?
He was a big supporter of the Mcain Feingold Campaginn Finance Bill. He headed the Senate Whitewater Hearings that went nowhere... all that said he can probably beat the Republican field because of his plain spoken semi-populist style presentation.
Thanks for posting those questions to Ron Paul, which are very appropriate.
Yes, Congressman Paul is an example of how even some Republicans can be flaky on foreign policy and defnese too. He was not always like that. I can remember back in the 1980s when he was a staunch supporter of a strong military defense for America, including a space-based missile defense system and other elements of SDI — which, alas, he no longer supports.
He is still very good on most domestic, “economic” issues but since then he has increasingly come under the influence of ideologically muddled Rothbotic “anarchist” perspectives which include a decidedly left-wing take on the U.S. influence in the world. Also, I think he may have absorbed a lot of the Blame-America-Always propaganda originating from the Far Left which has so permeated our media and our culture in general for so long.
It is very unfortunate that he chose to highlight his kooky foreign policy views in the GOP debates as they tend to discredit or distract from his other quite salutary positions. As much as I disagree with Ron Paul on his skewed interpretation of what caused the attacks of 9/11/01, I neverhteless would hate to see him lose his House seat. He generally scores very high on the Birch Society’s Consrevative Index.
I agree with you about Duncan Hunter. He is good. I support him. But I doubt he has much of a chance to get the nomination, unfortunately. I am impressed by some of the things I hear Fred Thompson SAYING. I want to find out more about him. But Duncan Hunter would be excellent.
I caught Paul’s act last night and thought he would have been at home posting on DU or being in the Democrat debate.
JillValentine, some of your questions are good questions. I’ll try my best to answer them and back them up.
1. AFGHANISTAN
Ron Paul has repeatedly said that he supported, and created legislation involving Letters of Marque and Reprisal to hunt down the perpetrators of 9/11. RP has indicated that if it is possible for our intelligence agencies to kill Osama or Al-Qaeda, they should do so. But he believes this is not possible, at least not without worse repercussions.
However, he is adamantly against nation building and us using neo-colonial tactics to further our agenda in other lands. He would pull the troops out of Afghanistan as well. You can read his statements about some of the original Afghanistan legislation here:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr052102c.htm
and here, about nation building in Afghanistan:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst052702.htm
Many people accuse RP of being extremely isolationist, but I don’t think that is true. He is very anti-interventionist. Others have compared the current situation to the beginnnings of World War 3, suggesting we should not wait so long to get involved, but I don’t think that is a fair comparison by any stretch.
2. NAVY/AIRCRAFT CARRIERS
I don’t have any references on exactly where he would put our navy, but I havn’t seen any indications that he would weaken our military. He has indicated that he would deploy US troops to the US borders to secure them from illegal immigrants. (this also addresses #7) Some of this would be true for the navy as well.
About the overall shrinking of the Military, I don’t think RP has ever indicated that he thinks we should have a small military as well as a small government. He seems to be a very intelligent and well read man, I cannot imagine him vastly decreasing our military might. If someone finds something indicating otherwise, post it.(also read #6 below)
3. BLAMING AMERICA
This one requires a little clarification. Ron Paul has said that the terrorists, including Al-Qaeda, hate us because of our policies in the middle east. During the debates he has an extremely limited speaking time to lay out complicated arguments- He clarified this issue when a major media interviewer tried to corner him on it. We have been bombing, and overall repressing large portions of the Middle East. Iraq is in the Middle East, and thereby has a connection to Al-Qaeda, who are very angry with us for our actions in the Middle East. That does not translate to making Iraq the best or even a valid target for a war.
You do have a point though. It is not fair to say there was “no connection” between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. However, the connections that we were led to believe were present didn’t exist. I think it is kind of a stretch to say that there is a connection with Iraq and then mince words with people saying there is no connection. There is no direct or signifigant connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. However, AQ were very angry at us for many of our actions in Iraq. Connection, but not a direct connection.
If you are trying to corner Ron Paul on his consistency on various issues, I think you will have a hard time. He is overall an extremely consistent politican.
4. FRIVOLOUS ANTI-GUN LAWSUITS
I wasn’t able to find anything on this particular issue. I also don’t know the details of this bill- There may have been something else that he found unconstitutional. However, RP himself is against frivolous lawsuits in general, explained here:
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2004/pr091604.htm
A good point, I would be open to more information about this, his vote, and his reasons for it. Again though, I think when you look at his overall consistency as a politican, he is very consistent.
5. PARENTAL NOTIFICATION
I don’t know anything about this one, honestly. Ron Paul is pro-life, however he is very much against pushing this belief on other people. He wants abortion issues decided by the individual states, as the constitution says it should. This probably factored in somehow with his decision, although I am not sure how. A good question.
6. SUPPORTING THE TROOPS
I don’t think this is a fair question. RP opposed the war. Denying it funding is another means of opposing the war. Technically, this war is not even constitutionally authorized- Congress can declare war and did not do so. The President cannot declare war, and did. You can hardly say that RP does not support the troops- He is a vietnam war veteran. Because he is attempting to stop the war and bring the troops home does not make him unpatriotic or mean he does not support the troops. He does not support the war. He voted against the war and its funding.
He talks about these issues here:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr032007.htm
and goes on to say:
“Democrats, dissatisfied with the way the war is being fought, gave the president all the money he asked for and more to keep fighting it, while demanding that he fight it in the manner they see fit.”
and
“We do no favor to the troops by micromanaging the war from Capitol Hill while continuing to fund it beyond the president’s request.”
Taken from:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst043007.htm
7. NATIONAL GUARD ON THE BORDER
The only defunding of the military that he has indicated he wants is to bring it back to pre-9/11 levels, which was still very high. Then he wants to redirect our military force to protection of our own borders. Currently NOTHING really protects our borders. His illegal immigration plans are more comprehensive than that, though.
“Second, we need to eliminate the two main magnets attracting illegal immigrants to illegally enter the country, the welfare magnet and the citizenship magnet.”
There’s more explanation to that, explained in:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst121905.htm
8. BLOOD ON WHOSE HANDS
What blood are you talking about? I’m sure RP could validly point out that we have a lot of blood on our hands for the many middle eastern people that have died because of sanctions, bombs, wars we helped create, fund, or supplied weapons for, etc. Note that I’m not talking about “the american people’s hands”, but rather the result of our government’s aggressive foreign policies.
RP places, and placed, the blame for the 9/11 attacks on the terrorists. Not Iraq. He repeatedly provided other viable options to hunt down and kill the terrorists. But not start nation-building wars.
All RP is saying, which you have taken offense to, is that the terrorists had reasons for what they did, and we caused most of that. That doesn’t make them justified. It doesn’t mean the blood is on our hands. It means that we need to examine the things we did to anger them AS WELL AS deal with them.
RP is also saying, rightly so, that the Iraq war and other actions in the middle east will have more blowback, not less. This is probably your worst question, it isn’t really valid or well thought out at all.
9. LIBERAL MOONBATS
I don’t think that any politican, anywhere, wants to refuse a broad spectrum of support like the democrats and lefies are providing. It is especially essential for him given the amount the media is ignoring him. What would possibly possess a debate moderator to NOT ask the only doctor on stage about health care? Especially considing he is one of only a handful(about 12) MD’s in congress now, including dentists.
Much of what RP supports has a very conservative basis, and he is correct in his statements that he is a conservative. He supports small government, pro-life, low taxes, no welfare, and small or no social programs. He’s just very logical and honest about all those beliefs, which I think is very attractive to the extreme left.
10. FOREIGN POLICY DIFFERENCES
I don’t know enough to answer this, but I also don’t see how its a relevant or valid question. Why compare his policies in one area to someone else? Are you saying they are good, bad, are you saying he is copying someone else? What is the point of the question?
It seems that some of your questions are intended solely to corner Ron Paul on his consistency. Ron Paul is extremely consistent, he practices what he preaches. It is very difficult, even impossible, to say that about any other candidate. Most of the other Republican and Democratic candidates spent a great deal of time clearly dodging questions.
I found this tidbit a few days ago that show just how consistent Ron Paul is in his beliefs:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr040300.htm
I haven’t seen Ron Paul flip-flop on any issues. I haven’t seen any evasive answers. He says what he means and means what he says. He votes and speaks according to his conscience and knowledge. He is extremely well read and informed about a tremendous number of issues. He is very good at debating and making strong arguments.
These are the things we need in a president.
Ron Paul for 2008
Conservative. Anti-War. Logical.
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.