Posted on 09/26/2007 11:45:25 AM PDT by traviskicks
Well then, back to the orininal post I responded to that suggested the candidate does not take the WOT seriously...My point was is neither does this government or our leadership.
Otherwise, we would have real border security, without millions crossing in illegally from who knows where, along with tons of drugs, thousands of truck full of human cargo, and Lord only knows what else...All during wartime.
So we agree. The current Bush administration and any hypothetical Ron Paul administration would not do a good job of addressing the war on terror. Thanks.
Perfect response to this article ... I don’t fear Ron Paul - I simply and utterly disagree with his view of foreign policy and consider his view incredibly dangerous for our country and the world.
They are about the only two providing good, solid info, and I have read them. Most of the rest are too busy shooting off snide comments to bother with, and if you were being honest with yourself, you would admit it.
The reason you see ‘Fear the Fred’ and ‘FredPhobic’, etc. is because those in the know are tired of repeating the information over and over again to those that think they know something but are unknowingly clueless or incorrigible.
I am doing my homework on all of the candidates I consider acceptable. One thing I have learned about all of them is that the stuff posted about them is mostly crap, once you read the primary source material in context.
But that isn't the reason the same "Fear the Fred" chants are posted ad nauseum. The reason is because the posters of those shallow slogans are reactionary fans trying to shout down the opposing viewpoint of anyone who dares to criticize. They are no different in tactics than the sports fans who heckle the batters from behind home plate.
And it isn't just Thompson partisans who do this. Every camp on FR has, or have had, a similar goon squad. Rudy's all got bounced for behavior not too dissimilar.
Real, valid criticisms? I think not, I’ve seen them all and none of them are valid.
Every candidate has real, valid criticisms that can be laid out; none of them are perfect. The question becomes, are the flaws great enough to disqualify the candidate for support?
For example, it is a valid criticism of Thompson to point out his avid support of the unconstitutional "Campaign Finance Reform" laws, and that they were his major legislative accomplishment as a Senator. It is a valid criticism of Romney to point out his support of the federal "Assault Weapon Ban". It is a valid criticism of Hunter to point out his inability to gain voter support is an indication of his inability to do the same as a President or the GOP candidate. It is a valid criticism of Paul to point out that jet aircraft, ICBMs and terrorists don't stop at the Rio Grande, so dumping the CIA and FBI, even if they are flawed, might be stupid.
Hmmm, seems like the old standby non-argument - that opposition equates to being afraid; as in homophobic. Guess they’re calling people Paulophobes now.
It's been tried, marginal candidates run all the time. And lose.
And yammering about "abolishing the income tax" isn't a proposal without details about how the revenue will be replaced, and what cuts will be made.
I'll play though, Wikipedia is good enough for this exercise.
By eliminating the income tax without a replacement, you've just dropped federal revenues from $2.2 trillion to just over $1 trillion. You're going to continue Social Security and Medicare, you've got $122 billion left to run the government.
Scrapping SS and Medicare, you save $890 billion in expenses, but lose $818 billion in tax revenue. If Paul prefers that approach, he should be honest about throwing grandma off the train, he's got about $195 billion to run the government.
So tell me, how is President Paul going to run the government on $122 to $195 billion?
What goes, what does he keep.
BTW, I'm assuming we default on our debt, if Ron pays the interest, he's got nothing left to run the government.
Paul is a curmudgeon good for sound bites and nothing more. The classic empty suit.
==============
Total Receipts
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:
Reason to be scared>
Of a third party run?
So Paul is a liar--you're some supporter.
Hint, if your candidate states unequivocally he won't run third party, don't go around threatening he will, makes both the candidate and his supporters look like fools.
See post 167, needless to say not of Paul’s numbers remotely add up.
Won't be any, turn off the lights, send everyone home. If you remember Howard Ruff and "The Ruff Times" back in the 70s and 80s, he'll be vindicated.
Politicalmom was the originator of ‘Fear the Fred’. It is a rally phrase and not a snide comment.
And you mentioned only one thing about Fred Thompson that you say has a valid criticism.
No it is not a valid criticism to say he was an avid supporter of CFR. He was against the restrictions on advertising and he was proud to have raised the amount that ordinary voters can donate to their candidates (hard money). He is also proud to have taken down the direct soft money contributions. This has the effect of curtailing the bribing and buying of politicians. That is a good thing which cannot be validly criticized.
Here are his own comments in the press:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1901007/posts?page=178
And his legislation is having the effect of having Hillary Clinton’s fundraising behavior examined in court with a highly possible FEC investigation to follow. That is a good thing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1902749/posts
As I said I have seen all the criticisms of Fred Thompson and none of them are valid. The criticisms are frivolous and are expressed by people with an agenda.
The only thing that can be criticized about Fred Thompson’s legislation is that the government implemented it poorly and other members of the Senate voted on amendments that restricted advertising which the Supreme Court has since struck down. Fred Thompson was not responsible for any of that.
What else you got?
I think you have nothing.
I only see 4 issues even remotely covered by the Constitution. The rest was intended to be left up to the separate and sovereign states. And if you think only $38 billion was spent on foreign aid, I've got this great seaside property in Montana you might be interested in. The interest on debt would be erased as the budget goes in the same fashion. Rep. Paul has made it clear some of what he wants will take time. But through vetoes, it will force Congress to cut government just to overcome a veto.
Let's say he cuts 10% of 2 trillion the first two years. As I suggested as his message of liberty gets out, more challengers come to the forefront for Congressional seats that agree with his positions. As that group of elected officials grows (which will take continued campaign work for those of us that still believe in limited government), the budget will have to be cut even further to overcome a Paul veto.
Paul is a curmudgeon good for sound bites and nothing more. The classic empty suit.
And yet we still come down to slurs. Why? Perhaps because the idea of limited government isn't even your concern (which I highly believe is the case). Perhaps it's because Republicans are more concerned with remaining in power to advocate their big government programs instead of the other guy's. Maybe it's because you don't actually have an argument against 98% of his positions. Don't know, don't care. What I do know is that Rep. Paul has brought a lot of us back into the game that had given up on what's left of the Republic and were prepared to sit on the sidelines watching the slide down into the annals of history. He's also vitalized a group of young people (many hard conservatives ideologues) who believed the bunk their parents told them about changing the world.
You throw out $641 billion in what you and Paul consider remotely permissible expenditures, but you still don’t answer the question of how you’re going to pay for even the $641 billion on the $120 to $190 billion in revenue you have left after saving $211 in interest payments by defaulting on our debt.
Sorry, not only is Paul a curmudgeon good for sound bites and nothing more. The classic empty suit., he’s a highly irresponsible one.
Paul voted against finding the Iraqi’s guard units ‘terrorists’....(eyes rolling)
Guess its either ‘unconstitutional’ or will negatively impact the shrimp industry....
And we're all mighty thankful for that.
Good. Starve the government. Hmmmm...I seem to remember another President (one highly respected by conservatives) that advocated that. Can't pay for it, shut it down.
But this is the point. No other candidate has formulated a plan for most of what they advocate. Come to think of it, none of them have given specifics for what they'd cut let alone a plan for how they'd cut it. But only Rep. Paul should have a plan laid out for you. Gotcha. You know even if he laid out a plan tomorrow, you'd still have a problem with him. So why bother complaining about his supposed absence of a plan on how he plans to get rid of the behemoth on our backs?
Sorry, not only is Paul a curmudgeon good for sound bites and nothing more. The classic empty suit., he’s a highly irresponsible one.
Yes because a 'highly responsible' one would just give platitudes, maybe repeat a couple well rehearsed lines, and once in office continue to expand government. That about it?
Keep in mind that this post shouldn't be construed as me shilling for Paul, but you guys need to look at some reality here. Now I've attended Paul rallies and seen pics and videos of them, and these folks could easily have been your next door neighbors. Women with kids and babies in the audience. Funny, but I didn't see any 9/11 "Truthers", anti-war kooks, or anarchist anti-gov't types.
All your name-calling and cheesy photo-shops are apparently having no impact on the thousands of grassroots supporters who are enthusiastically supporting Paul. Paul has the GOP in a delicate situation. Should they keep marginalizing him, taunting him and his supporters, at the risk of his supporters staying home or writing in Paul's name in the general, thereby giving Hillary the election? Or do they at least adopt some of his views, like ending the Drug War and not committing to a long-term Mideast operation, and perhaps abolish the income tax and let Dr. Paul speak at the convention so those libertarian and swing voters will vote for the nominee? These are serious questions here, because I for one do not want Hillary to be President, and I'm sure in the Hell am not supporting some RINO who'll continue the quasi-socialist status-quo.
You have fallen for the lie that the Income tax actually pays for something useful.
Does the Income tax pay for roads? No, gas taxes do.
Does the Income tax pay for education? No, local levys and property taxes do.
Does the Income tax pay for Social Security? No, Social Security taxes do.
Does the Income tax pay for Medicare? No, Medicare taxes do.
Does the Income tax pay for defense? No, Corporate income taxes do.
What does the Income tax pay for?
Answer:
1) Interest on debt borrowing, largely from the non-federal money printer calling ifself the ‘Federal’ Reserve. This entity creates something it calls ‘money’ out of thin air and charges the federal government interest on it. The Constitution clearly gives the US government the power to create its own coin and notes, but instead the federal government ‘borrows’ from nothing and has taxpayers pay interest on this nothingness.
2) Waste. Is the Department of Education necessary? How about the Department of Housing and Urban Development? And so on ad infinitum.
The Income tax is a scam foisted on a small percentage of very wealthy Americans in 1913 at a max rate of 7%. The tax code was 14 pages long and with today’s printing fonts and format would fill 9 pages. It was allowed passage as a quid pro quo to the likes of financial barrons such as JP Morgan in return for a concession to manufacture money out of thin air. Why object to 7% income tax when you can create 80% new money from nothing based on your gold holdings? But the greed of bankers would not put up with even 7% maximum. Over the decades they shifted the income tax burden to the middle class and used it to vacuum dollars out of circulation while they manufactured federal reserve notes to put into circulation.
Ron Paul is aware of all that and more.
Is there a better way? You damn right there is. Start by federalizing the Federal Reserve and stop paying interest on nothingness immediately. Enact the FairTax which will abolish the IRS and move immediately to repeal the 16th Amendment.
I left out the hypothetical in your post and just left the facts as we know them.
I'm glad to see you agree, I was confident you would...
Even a blind man can see the Bush administration, Congress, the Senate, are not serious about this war on terror.
Otherwise, things would be very different, and our borders would not be chaotic crime zones and a national security bad dream.
And that was the point I was originally trying to make here in the beginning when I responded to a poster suggesting the candidate was not serious about the WOT, when in reality, neither is this current president of the United States.
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.