Ron Paul: Clinton didn't cut defense enough

The Ron Paul Survival Report | May 15, 1993 | Ron Paul

[LSUfan]

Ron Paul Survival Report

May 15, 1993

Volume IX Number 5

Page 6

Defense Cuts?

In spite of all the rhetoric minimal cuts will be made in the military budget. The "savings" are gained by cutting back on proposed increases. For 1994 Clinton has asked for $278 billion. That's only $2 billion less than Bush had requested. Over the next five years, Clinton has proposed an additional $12 billion more than Bush had asked fior. And that doesn't mean that it will happen. Essentially Clinton's proposals will maintain military spending at Cold War levels over the next five years, to exceed $1.3 trillion. In the past it was thought that liberals were less interventionist overseas because they represented the anti-war movement in the 1960s. However, most of this anti-war movement was motivated by not wanting to fight communism, not principled anti-interventionism. Today the liberals and the Democrats are much more interventionist than the Republicans and the conservatives. This policy of intenventionism overseas, with the absence of a Soviet menace, encourages the building of a coalition between the Old Right and libertarians in presenting the constitutional case for "minding our own business."

[A CA Guy]

I have had enough of him.

Time to bow out and go home.

[Anti-Bubba182]

"...Time to bow out and go home."

Or beam up to the mother ship.

[HeartlandOfAmerica]

So, ummmm.

In what way is this guy a conservative? Or even a Republican?

Oh. Maybe I have the wrong party. He's a Dem?

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

In the past it was thought that liberals were less interventionist overseas because they represented the anti-war movement in the 1960s. However, most of this anti-war movement was motivated by not wanting to fight communism, not principled anti-interventionism. Today the liberals and the Democrats are much more interventionist than the Republicans and the conservatives. This policy of intenventionism overseas, with the absence of a Soviet menace, encourages the building of a coalition between the Old Right and libertarians in presenting the constitutional case for "minding our own business.

Worth repeating.

[AlaskaErik]

One of the few constitutional mandates is the defense of the nation. And this idiot wants to eviscerate our military. He can go to hell as far as I’m concerned. His 15 minutes of fame...over. Time for him to stick his head back into the sand.

[bmwcyle]

Ron Paul and his supporters are Liberals.

[Triggerhippie]

If half of the waste, fraud and abuse that takes place in the government (including the military and post office) were brought to a halt there would probably be no need for a budget cut ever...

[UncleDick]

Ron Paul and his supporters are Liberals.

Classical liberals, yes, in the fine tradition of Locke, Jefferson, and Jackson. As opposed to today's highly illiberal Republican and Democratic parties. We could use a few more liberals, in my opinion.

[purpleraine]

Does anyone know if there will be any Ron Paul threads today?

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Apparently, as Ron Paul supporters, we’re all liberals. Capital-L Liberals to boot, though I wasn’t aware we had a national Liberal party in the U.S.

[mnehring]

Bump

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Looks like there will be plenty, due to LSUfan’s anti-Paul spamming.

[Allegra]

Does anyone know if there will be any Ron Paul threads today?

Not sure. I'll moonbat-ping you if I see one.

[Paperdoll]

The Paul spammers are just sour grapes because Paul isn’t listed on FR polls anymore. The brats will do anything to capture attention!

[purpleraine]

Sooooo, that will be after dark? LOL!

[princess leah]

We’re fighting against Islamic Faciscm and this guy is blathering on about how Clinton didn’t cut enough of our defenses? He’s not credible. Let’s vote him off NOW!

[freekitty]

Apparently he cut the defense enough. We got 9-ll.

[UncleDick]

The Paul spammers are just sour grapes because Paul isn’t listed on FR polls anymore.

It isn't the Paul supporters who are spamming FR with Paul threads today.

[Pawtucket Patriot]

Did 9/11 happen because we didn’t spend enough? Or did it happen because resources were poorly allocated (i.e. Humint, techint)?

[Allegra]

Sooooo, that will be after dark? LOL!

It's waaaay after dark here. It's late night. When all the moonbats start waking up.

I've drawn moonbat-watch tonight. ;-)

[ECM]

Yeah, same here. Up till now he was an amusing diversion (sort of like a clown at a circus) now he’s ceased being funny or even sane.

[ShandaLear]

Let him run as a third-party candidate. He’ll finish Hillary. LOL!

[freekitty]

Haven’t the slighest; but Clinton cut the budget for the military.

[Paperdoll]

>It isn’t the Paul supporters who are spamming FR with Paul threads today.<

Oh really? Then who is it and why? Brats will settle for adverse attention rather than none.

[freekitty]

I see you are new as of today. Welcome

[mnehring]

[A CA Guy]

Fine, you get Ron Paul to run as the green party candidate and we’ll talk about that.
If he runs as any other type of third party candidate, he will help the Hildabeast!

[Pawtucket Patriot]

Thank you, thought I’d stop leering and start participating.

[freekitty]

Good for you and Welcome again.

[burzum]

Ron Paul and his supporters are Liberals.

This is the third thread in a row that you have spammed. Knock it off. If you can't tell the difference between a liberal and a libertarian then you need to leave Free Republic because you aren't smart enough to have a discussion in politics.

Let me put this bluntly: libertarianism is the political philosophy that founded the United States and the Republican Party. Even Reagan recognized that. A failure to understand the philosophy of libertarianism is a failure to understand the core tenets of the conservative philosophy. While modern conservatism has diverged from libertarianism, you could never call libertarians 'socialists' even by comparison. Big Government Compassionate Conservative President Bush is much closer to being a socialist than Ron Paul who has *gasp* actually recommended reducing the power and size of the federal government.

[ejonesie22]

Man if we had cut the military, we reall could have some of these...

[rideharddiefast]

Apparently he cut the defense enough. We got 9-ll.

Maybe that is what cut and run is talking about when he keeps preaching that it was our policies that caused 9/11. I thought he was saying that we just did not appease his terrorist buddies enough.

[ejonesie22]

Knock it off. If you can't tell the difference between a liberal and a libertarian then you need to leave Free Republic because you aren't smart enough to have a discussion in politics.

Man you Paul schmucks take the cake....

You back a guy who goes against the very words of the founder of FreeRepublic AND you have the audacity to tell some one to leave...

Damn, just damn...

[burzum]

And your post is another example of rabid anti Paul bias, schmuck.

[rideharddiefast]

Fine, you get Ron Paul to run as the green party candidate and we’ll talk about that. If he runs as any other type of third party candidate, he will help the Hildabeast!

How would him running 3rd party help Clinton? He would take the votes of the white flag wavers from her and no true Republican would ever vote for a blame America first terrorist appeaser like cut and run.
If he ran 3rd party it may not get the Republican candidate any more votes, but it would sure take some away from the anti-American candidate..

[joebuck]

He’s starting to sound like he’s in a Saturday Night Live skit making fun of himself.

[burzum]

Oh, and just in case you are confused (which is likely since you didn’t comprehend my first post), I stated that a libertarian is not a liberal. If you can’t comprehend that then you are not smart enough to discuss politics either.

It is interesting that your response did not even try to defend that point. Why is that? Because it makes modern compassionate conservatives look like socialists in comparison?

[darkwing104]

Its a case of "do unto others"...

[rintense]

Your tagline alone is why there is anti Paul bias here. Think about it.

[ejonesie22]

Riiight...

Try again, it’s not bias when it is backed by the truth....

He is an anti war surrender monkey...

[JerseyHighlander]

This was exactly the same position taken by many of the “class of ‘94” Republicans.

And until Paul and Barr and Gingrich called out Clinton on calling a ‘reduction in the rate of increase’ a ‘budget cut’, CNN and the media at the time were giving Clinton a boost.

[ejonesie22]

Oh quit, there was nothing to “comprehend” in your post.

Damn you Paulites are not only arrogant, but thick.

It is irrelevant where you began, it is where you have ended up...

“Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!”- Jim Robinson, Sept, 30, 2007

[burzum]

Well I am not going to vote for another President who ignores our economy and bloats the government. Ron Paul is the only one of the candidates who has actually recommended to reduce the size of the government below the year 2000 size. If the other candidates want to compete for my vote then they had better at least learn some more libertarian economic principles.

[ejonesie22]

Good luck with that. We’ll keep the Muslims off your back while you get it sorted...

[Iwo Jima]

So? And your point is?

Please post all pages of the article so that we can see what you are not telling us.

[freekitty]

I know. It’s hard to tell.

[LSUfan]

That is the entire article.

[burzum]

Apparently he cut the defense enough. We got 9-ll.

Are you kidding me? 9-11 did not happen due to a lack of military resources. We had 10 times the military resources we would have ever needed to stop those attacks. Instead we had such a bloated government that it was impossible for one part to talk to another. Even with a military that could have easily taken out the airliners in plenty of time, the information was never passed. If the government was smaller then coordination would have been easier before and during the attacks. The defense budget (which was more than 1/3rd of the defense budget of the entire world at the time) was more than enough to have combated the attacks.

[freekitty]

I agree with you on bloated government and our departments can’t talk to each other; but the military budget was cut.

I would like to see the departments moved around the country instead of being in one place. Too much concentrated power can not be good.

And I don’t know that our military would have been ready to do this epsecially after the Clintons and 8 years.