Posted on 11/23/2011 9:34:55 AM PST by LSUfan
There are lots of reasons.
But here’s one. Ron Paul isn’t serious about the most basic requisite of a national government, which is defense.
Paul’s position just isn’t one reflective of serious leadership. The idea that the federal government doesn’t 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 can’t be found in the head of anybody who understands what it means to be president.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehayride.com ...
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 can’t 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
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 we’re 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 1800’s and those that would attack us are also. In today’s 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 ...
Placemark.
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.
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.