Skip to comments.
RON PAUL ON DEFENSE SPENDING
The Ron Paul Survival Report
| October 15, 1993
| Ron Paul
Posted on 11/09/2007 11:40:58 AM PST by LSUfan
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
1
posted on
11/09/2007 11:40:58 AM PST
by
LSUfan
To: LSUfan
Ok, enough with the Ron Paul bashing...it’s almost like we’re making fun of the mentally ill.
To: LSUfan
In a way, on this one, Paul DOES have a point. There is a lot of military spending that’s nothing more than home-district pork for certain Congresscritters. Defense spending should be judged on what’s needed for the overall defense of the interests of the United States, but a lot of times, it really does end up being corporate welfare, or vote-buying.
}:-)4
3
posted on
11/09/2007 11:50:05 AM PST
by
Moose4
(Ron Paul is like a beautiful plate of food ruined by a cow patty.)
To: LSUfan
4
posted on
11/09/2007 11:53:56 AM PST
by
mnehring
(I am free not to support Ron Paul... Wow, I feel special...)
To: LSUfan
Paul is absolutely right. Pork barrel spending is just as big a problem in the defense budget as it is in the domestic budget. Unfortunately, Republicans tend to give Congress carte blanche as long as it is nicely (perhaps deceivingly) labeled as "national defense."
5
posted on
11/09/2007 11:57:49 AM PST
by
UncleDick
(Ron Paul '08)
To: LSUfan
Perry also said some type of protection of these industries is necessary to preserve jobsYou just can't turn on major ship manufacturing in an emergency. Either we continue to build ships, major capitol ships, or we don't. If the Chi-coms build them then we HAVE to build them. So yes, to the non-stretegic thinker it may appear to be a waste. If you know history, it is the smartest thing we can do as a nation. Don't ask Ron, ask the Chicoms if it is good idea to stop making major investments in infrastructure to support major military hardware and see what kind of answer you get. While you're at it, ask the Japanese the same question.
To: LSUfan
I can tel that Ron Paul is going to be this elections Ross Perot.
Diminutive Texans that have the “Napolean Complex” and are hell bent in forcing a Clinton upon us.
Do you think Hillary is paying him?
7
posted on
11/09/2007 12:43:22 PM PST
by
JerseyDvl
(If You Support America - Thank a Soldier; If You Support Al-Qaeda - Thank a Democrat!)
To: JerseyDvl
There are a lot of things that Ron Paul can be called, but I don’t think “diminutive” is one of them. I think he’s pretty close to being 6 feet tall.
8
posted on
11/09/2007 12:54:24 PM PST
by
basil
(Support the Second Amendment--buy another gun today!)
To: basil
Really?!? He looks like such a shrimp and acts like a weasel so I just consider him a small man.
I couldn’t find the info on the web so I’ll have to take your word for it.
9
posted on
11/09/2007 1:22:05 PM PST
by
JerseyDvl
(If You Support America - Thank a Soldier; If You Support Al-Qaeda - Thank a Democrat!)
To: LSUfan
Increasingly, the military looks much like a huge public works project.
Ain't it the truth! A good portion of the stuff being built the military doesn't even request.
10
posted on
11/09/2007 4:21:42 PM PST
by
traviskicks
(http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
To: LSUfan
Interesting that none of your links are valid.
11
posted on
11/09/2007 4:24:36 PM PST
by
mgstarr
("Some of us drink because we're not poets." Arthur (1981))
To: Moose4
Gee, didn’t Ike warn us about that same thing?
12
posted on
11/09/2007 4:25:26 PM PST
by
fortheDeclaration
(We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)
To: mgstarr
"
Interesting that none of your links are valid." But is it in any way surprising?
13
posted on
11/09/2007 4:26:29 PM PST
by
editor-surveyor
(Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
To: editor-surveyor
Actually no it isn’t.
Sad but predictable.
14
posted on
11/09/2007 4:28:09 PM PST
by
mgstarr
("Some of us drink because we're not poets." Arthur (1981))
To: mgstarr
Wrong. I have hard copies of these newsletters. They aren’t online, so there was no web site to link to. Paul has refused to open his own archives of the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Political Report when asked by reporters. Now we know why.
15
posted on
11/09/2007 4:29:50 PM PST
by
LSUfan
To: LSUfan
No offense but I’m not just taking your word or your paraphrase for it.
Someone once told me to “Trust but verify”.
16
posted on
11/09/2007 4:32:48 PM PST
by
mgstarr
("Some of us drink because we're not poets." Arthur (1981))
To: Moose4; ejonesie22; lormand
home-district pork for certain Congresscritters Something Paul knows well. I believe his excuse is, better in the home district than in Washington.
17
posted on
11/09/2007 4:53:21 PM PST
by
mnehring
(I am free not to support Ron Paul... Wow, I feel special...)
To: LSUfan
He refused to release his old newsletters, sounds like a Hilldog trick.
18
posted on
11/09/2007 4:54:04 PM PST
by
mnehring
(I am free not to support Ron Paul... Wow, I feel special...)
To: LSUfan
No controversy here, even Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex.
19
posted on
11/10/2007 4:42:05 AM PST
by
rob777
(Personal Responsibility is the Price of Freedom)
To: traviskicks
“Ain’t it the truth! A good portion of the stuff being built the military doesn’t even request.”
Those are ‘earmarks’. At least the military doesn’t ‘request’ them unlike Ron Paul who does request earmarks for his district.
20
posted on
11/10/2007 6:02:13 AM PST
by
DugwayDuke
(Ron Paul isn't mentioned in the Constitution either.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson