Skip to comments.Why Do I Have A Problem With Ron Paul?
Posted on 11/23/2011 9:34:55 AM PST by LSUfan
There are lots of reasons.
But heres one. Ron Paul isnt serious about the most basic requisite of a national government, which is defense.
Pauls position just isnt one reflective of serious leadership. The idea that the federal government doesnt have an obligation to PREVENT a Timothy McVeigh or a Mohammed Atta or a Major Hasan from doing evil to innocent Americans is one which cant be found in the head of anybody who understands what it means to be president.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehayride.com ...
With Ron Paul we could breathe easy and never know what hit us. LOL
The guy may be right on issues pertaining to the Dollar and the Fed, but he's a kook on damn' near everything else.
He wants us to hide in a hole and hope no one notices us.
For instance, yesterday the Department of Homeland Security warned us about frying a frozen Turkey. Really??? This is from an agency that has received Billions!
At the very same time this agency ignored the OWS shutting down ports in the West. They ignored OWS attempt to shut down wall street. They ignored that Terrorist in New York that was just recently caught. Keep in mind they ignore the borders of our nation while shaking down grandmothers, vets, Nuns and little babies
So in other words every time we want one of these agencies to go after the bad guys they end up targeting Americans. Reminds me of an old Benjamin Franklin quote,
“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Ron Paul’s foreign policy duplicates Europe’s denial of the NAZI threat in the 1930s.
Basically the TSA and Department of Homeland Security only target people that disagree with the Administration instead of going after the bad guys. Remember this is the Administration that does not like to associate Islam with Terrorist.
This is my main problem with Ron Paul. He seems to think that we live back in the 1800’s and those that would attack us are also. In today’s world, we best be ready for anything and plan accordingly. If we were attacked again, I’m afraid he would just want to study the situation and try and figure out what our country did wrong to foster an attack. Then he would try and work something out with the attackers. I want a President that would get totally pissed off and react accordingly. Ron Paul would never do this.
I agree Paul is weak on our security and he always looks like someone grabbed his crotch.
One other thing that Ron Paul doesn’t seem to get is the human race has been at war since the beginning of recorded history. Last I saw, there has only been seven years, since recorded history, when there hasn’t been a major conflict some place in the world. If our leaders don’t understand this, we can never be prepared for a conflict. Even the Romans knew that “During times of peace, always plan for war.” It’s sad, but that’s the way it is.
On the other hand, opening the door to “preventative” action, brings all kinds of unintended consequences, as bad or worse than those arising from isolationism.
The truth is, we need to be somewhere in between total isolation and total intervention. And we’re a lot closer to the interventionist side right now.
“Why Do I Have A Problem With Ron Paul?”
OTHER than the fact that he is fuggin nutz, and the MSM uses him to reinforce the “Conservatives are INSANE NUTJOBS” meme?
Good luck with that.
What you'll get, more than likely, is a president who will commit troops to involvement, and then tie their hands with rules of engagement. Both Obama and Bush have done this.
Exactly! I’m not sure when America was hired to police the world, but frankly the pay sucks. Seems like We The People pay for the US to do the job while other countries, secure in the knowledge of the mighty US military backing them, are free to ignore their own defense. When they then join in the America-bashing for doing their job for them, I get baffled.
Want us to help or not? When the dollars flow, they want us but if the flow begins to diminish to a trickle we become the Big Bad Wolf. And, Lord help the USA if we ask them for help!
We’re far too involved and interventionist now but how does a country logically move towards isolationism given the current world threats? Fight ‘em over there or fight ‘em over here? Easy answer to that but it does have costs associated with it.
Don’t forget the Paulbots.
I also don’t think that we ever truly were an Isolationist Republic.
One word: “Truther”
Someone should force current presidential candidates to read Sun Tsu’s “The Art of War”...
Because they all (even Bachmann) approach war(and immigration) as if they were somebodys grand mother.. and are afraid of being called “MEAN”.. or “heartless”..
Currently the Joint chiefs of Staff are a like a Granny coffee klach.. a military tribunal by the hosts of “The View”.. Military decisions made by “Old Women”..
What do they teach at West Point?.. “Cooking?”... and Crocheting?.. maybe “feminine hygiene?”
Prevention of Hasan and Atta wanna-be’s is easy. Do to Islam what Rome did to Carthage.
Islam is a cancer - radiation is the answer.
Way to totally misrepresent what Paul said. Paul's position, which he stated in the debate, was that the Patriot Act, the TSA, the DHS, and all this other police state crap is unnecessary to prevent terrorism. Law enforcement could easily stop terrorism if they wanted to before any of this was enacted.
The War on Terror is a fraud. If Bush or Obama were serious about preventing real terror they would have closed our borders instead of keeping them wide open to ten of millions of un-tracked and untraceable foreigners and they would have stopped legal immigration from Muslim countries. The Muslim terrorist boogieman is hyped up to trick gullible Americans into supporting Globalist military adventures abroad and a domestic police state.
The real reason for the Patriot Act, the DHS, and the TSA is to protect the FEDGOV and its anti-America Globalist Bankster masters from angry American citizens who will be beyond P.O.'ed when they realize the Banksters and FEDGOV have stolen their liberty, their wealth, and their futures.
I find it ironic that RP has more donations from active duty military that all the other candidates combined.
As a veteran of 11 years in the US military, I’m tired of national building, perpetual wars, and the killing and the maiming of our young.
Last nights debate clearly showed the influence of the neocons and the Israelis’ lobbyists on the Republican Party.
RPs foreign policy is widely misunderstood, misstated, and often intentionally is a complete lie.
Even if conservatives don’t agree with all of his libertarian views, RP is good for the GOP because he keeps them honest and moves the debate to the right.
For instance, does it give you any pause that Ron Paul's number one donations comes from military personal? Do you think the military is nuts too?
Good link thanks!
“Your fundamental job as the occupant of the White House is to insure domestic security. Without that, you cant insure anything else in the constitution.”
What happens if the domestic security apparatus tramples all over the constitution? Then you have neither security (from the gov’t, or folks like the underwear bomber and times square bomber, both of whom slipped through the security apparatus) nor liberty.
>So in other words every time we want one of these agencies to go after the bad guys they end up targeting Americans. Reminds me of an old Benjamin Franklin quote,<
the problem is not what these agencies are capable of .. the problem is who is directing them.
With the proper management they would be excellent at taking out the trash. Unfortunately the trash is exactly what the management is trying to protect
>Way to totally misrepresent what Paul said. Paul’s position, which he stated in the debate, was that the Patriot Act, the TSA, the DHS, and all this other police state crap is unnecessary to prevent terrorism. Law enforcement could easily stop terrorism if they wanted to before any of this was enacted. <
In that very article you pointed to it says:
~Wright, whose whistle-blowing was first reported by NewsMax.com over two months ago, urged the Bush administration and Congress to “consider removing terrorism investigative matters from the hands of the FBI. For reasons of consistency, reliability and national security, these responsibilities should be assigned to a new federal anti-terrorism agency.” ~
So they want another agency anyway.
As far as getting rid of the patriot act, there are quite a few things that have been said about it and though I do not full agree with it, I do not fully disagree with it either.
It has it uses - but to say that the “The Muslim terrorist boogieman is hyped up to trick gullible Americans into supporting Globalist military adventures abroad and a domestic police state. “ is pure hype and BS.
How many people have to die at the hands of terrorists dressed in muslim garb before Ron Paul supporters will admit that?
They have been at it for 1,600 years. How long do they haveto murder people before you are going to treat them as more than a passing fad to clean out a bank account?
I am tired of hearing Ron Paul and wealth = eachother.
A presidents job is to secure the nation in more than a financial respect. The man is clearly unable to recognize any threat from abroad that has existed since the beginning of Islam.
Hell, the United States was first introduced to Islam on October 11, 1784 when they took merchants hostage from the United States. Did we invade their lands back then? I don’t think so!
A little bit of history would serve to go a long way in learning about Islam= and it’s true threat to our way of life.
Hmm the idea that we “smoothe out the bumps” when it comes to wars and end up with all these little draining conflict as opposed to a really Huge Winner takes all wars every 20-30 years is kinda interesting as a side effect of the creation of the UN. Of course it is liek slowly draiing magma from a volcan, you can only drain away a small amount of pressure but eventually Krakatoa is gonna blow.
I think we are 40+ years overdue for a Major Winner Take all sorta war.
[ On the other hand, opening the door to preventative action, brings all kinds of unintended consequences, as bad or worse than those arising from isolationism.
The truth is, we need to be somewhere in between total isolation and total intervention. And were a lot closer to the interventionist side right now. ]
In a way the idea of pulling back, fortifying our defenses and our economy in preparation of the oncomming hordes so when they get to our gates we can obliterate them easily does have a certain appeal to it.
The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions....
That is why paramount to keep the government in check because of what happens when the power gets in the wrong hands.
“This is my main problem with Ron Paul. He seems to think that we live back in the 1800s and those that would attack us are also. In todays world, we best be ready for anything and plan accordingly.”
Well Said! One small nit to pick...even in the 1800’s we weren’t isolationist.
Ron really needs to read some history.
>The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions....
That is why paramount to keep the government in check because of what happens when the power gets in the wrong hands.<
Unfortunately ... the hands that these agencies are in now .. are not full of good intentions. They are in the hands of people who’s intentions are to fundamentally change America from the greatest country in the world and the freest ...
They never said to what though ...
With the foreign policy that we have had for over 50 years, and pretty much the same people running the show for all of that time, and no substantial changes occuring in our foreign policy in all of that time, we have had attacks both on our soil, and on our servicemen stationed overseas.
So how's that been working out so far?
Unlike the other candidates, Ron Paul is ethical.
I probably would not vote for him, but of all the candidates out there, when he tells you his position, he has thought it through and remained consistent in his political convictions.
He is a libertarian at heart. He probably opposes Fire Departments being paid for by government funds, because he sincerely believes that is an area off citizen responsibility, not governmental responsibility.
I would far rather discern between 20 different Ron Pauls for government office than the candidates posed between the Republican and Democratic parties. Too many of those candidates have corrupted their thinking far before they even entered politics.
I might not agree with his position, but I wish more candidates would base their politics upon consistent ethical rationale, than base their campaigns upon corrupt practice, thought, and influence.
2 statements he made are indicative of that thinking. He states the Taliban are not our enemies. I would likely find most of their positions and actions to be enemies of the Constitution of the US.
Secondly, he stated Iran is none of our business if Israel chose to attack Iran. A country whose leadership has avowed the destruction of Israel, continuously sought nuclear firepower, now has N Korean advisers, and still adamantly supports hostile Islamic positions to destroy Israel and the west, and is close to delivering nuclear weaponry, IMHO, is very much the business of the US.
Even if not directly attacked, the US still has negotiated agreements to defend Israel if she is attacked, so Iran is very much our business.
Honestly, I don’t see how we stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Sanctions? They don’t seem to be slowing them down any. Declare war? With two other major fronts, that’s not likely.
I want a President who’s policy is this:
“Okay, we can’t stop you from getting nuclear capability. However, should there be an attack on the U.S involving nuclear material and we find that the material came from you (Iran), you will have 72-hours to evacuate Tehran. After 72 hours the bombing will begin and Tehran will be reduced to the biggest piece of glass on the planet.
Please note, we only have to prove your involvement to our own satisfaction—not yours or the UN’s. Ours.”
Is that too much to ask for?
Therein lies the problem with Ron Paul's stance on Iran. He wants to wait for Iran to attack us before doing anything about the problem of Iran going nuclear.
Need I remind you that this approach is similar to Bill Clinton treating terrorism like a "crime" (first WTC bombing in 1993; OKC, USS Cole as examples) that ultimately led to the Sept. 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks which killed more than 3,000 in New York City, Washington DC and Shanksville, PA.
There is just no way in HELL a known terrorist sponsor state like Iran, who's already declared the United States of America an enemy target, and has also vowed to "wipe Israel from the map" should ever be allowed to get nuclear capabilities, period. Anyone who doesn't have their heads completely up their backsides would recognize that.