Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paulís Novel Coalition Faces Its Major Moment in Iowa
Time ^ | December 27, 2011 | Adam Sorensen

Posted on 12/27/2011 11:35:45 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife

Go to any Ron Paul event and the audience is part of the tale. They’re younger, rowdier, more socially diverse than Republican rally regulars. Any one of them might have driven across the state to see Paul speak or be able to riff at length about Austrian economic theory. Any one of them also might be a Democrat or an independent, a fact that’s poised to play a big role in Paul’s story in 2012.

...The fact that roughly half of Paul’s primary supporters are Democrats or independents is probably an asset in selling his general election viability, which his fellow Republicans have frequently called into question. In a recent CNN survey that polled hypothetical head-to-heads between Obama and Paul, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich respectively, Paul tied Romney in performing best against the President in large part because he outperformed all the other GOP candidates among Democrats, independents, 18- to 34-year-olds and non-white voters....

(Excerpt) Read more at swampland.time.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bigot; isolationist; libertarian; nutballpaul; paultards; ronpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last
My take on a major chunk of Paul backers:

I believe a lot of Ron Paul’s support is cynical (follow the money). Young people "looking forward" to no jobs in the Obama depression, or working on degrees in areas where government money could fund a study, a program (their professors have sucked on this tit for decades) -- instead of being “wasted” to support the "evil" military and “misguided” war on drugs -- which also ties into what they've been taught in many institutions of higher education -- so many useless degrees and “green” thinkers believing that Ron Paul is the Rx for what ails the country. So they're leaving support for Barack “hope and change” Obama at the school house/no job market door and flocking to Ron Paul which has the sweetener of hurting those “evil-rich” conservatives who are destroying the planet and are ready to “bomb” the world.

The problem for them is -- they never will get the money; it always finds another home. With the debt and deficit ballooned out of sight, that money isn't heading in their direction. The naturally productive ones will eventually “grow up” and realize the truth about living in a safe, free market society but many will hang fast to the hope (libertarians for sure) that once the "war on drugs" and the "evil military complex” have their wings clipped, some of those trillions of “wasted” dollars will certainly flow to them. It won't and their lot will be worse. We have for too long been building “me-me-itis” generations, whose values and goals are nurtured and fanned by teachings of socialist professors spawned in the Sixties who have multiplied themselves with our youth.

So Ron Paul is their cup of tea. They’re only one step away from OWS (most likely have a foot in both camps already). If Ron Paul definitively said, "I will not run third Party," much of his support would evaporate today. Which is precisely why he has not ruled it out.

1 posted on 12/27/2011 11:35:49 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Many of Paul’s backers are actually RATS. Remember “Operation Chaos”?


2 posted on 12/27/2011 11:51:08 AM PST by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozzymandus

I do remember.


3 posted on 12/27/2011 11:57:01 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

When you get right down to it, even here there are more folks than I would like to admit, who think Paul’s thoughts on the military and foreign policy are exactly right.

Add in his comments on the federal reserve and spending, and they think he’s the perfect candidate.

While there are some things I agree with Paul on, his military and foreign policy alone would cause me to be unable to support him.

If this man were president, I think he would harm this nation on a level that would be roughly comparable to that of Obama.

He would thumb his nose at our allies, and embolden our enemies around the planet.


4 posted on 12/27/2011 11:58:46 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Santorum..., are you giving it some thought? I knew you would.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
.....He would thumb his nose at our allies, and embolden our enemies around the planet.

It would be Obama's 2nd term.

5 posted on 12/27/2011 12:03:42 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Shades of 2008, all over again.

It turned out that, despite the massive amount of press Paul got, he only got 10% Of REPUBLICAN Caucus voters, since most of his supporters were actually LaRouche DEMOCRATS, Registered Libertarians, and whimsical internet supporters who don’t vote in Iowa.


6 posted on 12/27/2011 12:04:31 PM PST by tcrlaf (Election 2012: THE RAPTURE OF THE DEMOCRATS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Paul will likely do exactly that. If he wins Iowa, (And he stands a strong chance of it.) he will start a third party effort.

This could be our best hope after all. Paul will draw more Obama Democrats or extremely Liberal Independents than he will Tea Party or Conservative/Republicans.

A Paul win in Iowa, will hurt Romney much more than it will Newt. Perry is still not even a remote possibility. The conservative electorate has reserved itself to that foregone conclusion. The National Average Polls don't lie, when they consistently say the same thing repeatedly.

7 posted on 12/27/2011 12:06:02 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

He does keep the Constitutional conversation alive. I agree with you a hundred percent. I am tired of forty attack RP threads though. Don’t we have anything else to talk about.. Besides, for all I know, his attackers could be department of useless government employees, Fed Reserve folks, goonion members. In other words, a lot of people fear running out of other people’s money.


8 posted on 12/27/2011 12:10:11 PM PST by momincombatboots (Back to West by G-d Virginia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

He does keep the Constitutional conversation alive. I agree with you a hundred percent. I am tired of forty attack RP threads though. Don’t we have anything else to talk about.. Besides, for all I know, his attackers could be department of useless government employees, Fed Reserve folks, goonion members. In other words, a lot of people fear running out of other people’s money.


9 posted on 12/27/2011 12:10:16 PM PST by momincombatboots (Back to West by G-d Virginia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

As far as the military goes, it would probably be far worse than Obama’s first administration.

His spending would be better, but at what cost to some programs we actually need to survive.


10 posted on 12/27/2011 12:11:29 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Santorum..., are you giving it some thought? I knew you would.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Paul’s foreign policy is almost suicidally bad. However, he’s the only candidate that gives a crap what the Constitution says about anything.


11 posted on 12/27/2011 12:14:02 PM PST by Sloth (If a tax break counts as "spending" then every time I don't rob a bank should be a "deposit.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
When you get right down to it, even here there are more folks than I would like to admit, who think Paul’s thoughts on the military and foreign policy are exactly right.

I'm not really sure what Ron Paul's position on the military is...We all know what the liberal media says about it...We know what the GOP says about it...I don't know that Ron Paul has ever really made it clear...

As I understand it, Paul's position is that of the Constitution...No foreign entanglements but a large and tough enough military to defend ourselves against any and all at any given time...

Is that your take on Paul's position???

12 posted on 12/27/2011 12:17:43 PM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
Paul is a dangerous IDIOT! Anyone who blames America for 9/11, should be thrown in a cell at Gitmo as a traitor.

Constitution? MY BACKSIDE! How is it in the Constitution that we weaken our National Defense, or blame that National Defense for us being attacked on our own soil with the killing of 2,800 innocent people!?

To compliment Paul on any aspect in that respect, is ludicrous.

13 posted on 12/27/2011 12:19:06 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

The problem in foreign policy is not fighting the fights, its in the United States government’s refusal in the post World War II-United Nations Era to win any of the wars America gets involved in.

The United States needs to fight its wars for the United States and win them, not fight them for the United Nations and “New World Order” like we are doing right now and drag them out with limited tactics and objectives.


14 posted on 12/27/2011 12:20:50 PM PST by Nextrush (President Sarah Palin sounds just right to me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

The fact that we have open primary’s in the lead states is an atrocity


15 posted on 12/27/2011 12:21:25 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

“Rinse Pubus” and the RNC have to go.


16 posted on 12/27/2011 12:24:10 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: momincombatboots

Thanks for the note of agreement. I like your Constitutional point. I agree. I will say that his supposed standing in Iowa, has a lot of people pulling out the long knives.

Ron’s ability to attract the wing-nut youth, has me wondering how many of those folks are hard core leftists whose professors have championed him.


17 posted on 12/27/2011 12:26:13 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Santorum..., are you giving it some thought? I knew you would.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Are you kidding me? Code Pink has a stronger National Defense stand than Paul does. Paul has made that abundantly clear in several exchanges from the debates.

Paul believes that Iran has every right to possess nukes. He actually hopes they get one. Paul hates Israel to the degree where he actually said that if he had been President in World War 2, he would have not have tried to stop the Holocaust.

Is this the kind candidate for “President” You want to support? I don't think that even Obama is that radical or stupid!

18 posted on 12/27/2011 12:27:05 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
This could be our best hope after all. Paul will draw more Obama Democrats or extremely Liberal Independents than he will Tea Party or Conservative/Republicans.

Why in the world would they vote for the guy cutting their social welfare safety net when they have the REAL deal in Obama. This is not a guessing game. This isn't "OUR" hope this is more HOPE for Obama's change. Because in the end Obama will make the "racist, bigot, nut" stick to Paul.

19 posted on 12/27/2011 12:37:42 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

If Paul can openly spout so much of his lunacy in public, what other insane stuff is he harboring in that spider filled brain of his????


20 posted on 12/27/2011 12:42:52 PM PST by FixitGuy (By their fruits shall ye know them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
You are failing to use the details from your own posted article. It points out the kind of support Paul has specifically.

These are radical, Code Pink anti-war, OWS protesting, dope smoking, Meth sucking miscreants, who believe that Paul will get the Government out of their Meth/dope pipes and let them live without the fear of war, or to threaten their potential draft status.

This is no “guessing game” either. the facts about who and what the Pauls supporters are, is on the record.

21 posted on 12/27/2011 12:48:57 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I am simply tired of this insanity. I get home everyday to relax by FR and all I see is forty RP name calling threads. I just ask myself why.. then I ask on the thread. Really? Don’t we have more important things to discuss than any one person’s sanity or lack thereof. I have faith in God, who would not allow the earth to drop out of the sky if he was elected. I have these same discussions with my dh who thinks Israel would immediately vaporize. I love Israel, but she is in G-ds hands. Just like my children and other loved ones, He is far more capable of caring for the world than any government.
That’s why I ask these vitriolic posters if they are afraid of running out of other people’s money or what? Do they work for the Fed, or the government? There must be something driving it.. cause we have more important things to discuss rather than pimp candidates. Sorry for the rant.


22 posted on 12/27/2011 12:49:10 PM PST by momincombatboots (Back to West by G-d Virginia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sloth

While I do think you’re on to something there, I still think Bachmann, Santorum, and perhaps even Cain have a reasoned view of it, and want to adhere to it.

Paul does get high marks there, but if you really think about it, his take on the military is not exactly sound since the Constitution does recognize the Military as one of the items justified for fed spending.

We supposedly spend a little over a trillion dollars on the War on Terrorism, and Paul savagely attacks that frequently. He says the nation can’t survive the war costs. Strangely he remains mute in the public arena on Welfare spending that is at least five times as large.

He may attack that too on the internet, but his passion is clearly the military, and something debatable that is 500% worse, he remains mute on in public.

One is constitutional. The other is not.


23 posted on 12/27/2011 12:52:17 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Santorum..., are you giving it some thought? I knew you would.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

I got some poll calls yesterday from Newt.

Normally I would not even listen to them, but I listened to Newtys canned message long enough to get a human being on the line,
Then I said “No Newt” and hung up


24 posted on 12/27/2011 12:53:29 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

“The fact that roughly half of Paul’s primary supporters are Democrats or independents is probably an asset in selling his general election viability, which his fellow Republicans have frequently called into question. “


Looks like a Paul 3rd party run would be neutralized as the young rebel against an economy without jobs, wars to fight and pay for, and a SS system which may not exist for them.


25 posted on 12/27/2011 12:55:21 PM PST by ex-snook ("above all things, truth beareth away the victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife

I expect they’re getting a lot of, “No Newt!”


26 posted on 12/27/2011 12:57:44 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Interesting aint it?

Newt canvasing Texas the day after Christmas.

Not one call, but two...


27 posted on 12/27/2011 12:59:55 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP

CW [Post #1] “............................So Ron Paul is their cup of tea. They’re only one step away from OWS (most likely have a foot in both camps already). If Ron Paul definitively said, “I will not run third Party,” much of his support would evaporate today. Which is precisely why he has not ruled it out.”


28 posted on 12/27/2011 1:00:12 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP

Paul’s their “cup of tea” until Obama pushes their well programmed LIBERAL indoctrination buttons.


29 posted on 12/27/2011 1:02:19 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
Paul believes that Iran has every right to possess nukes. He actually hopes they get one. Paul hates Israel to the degree where he actually said that if he had been President in World War 2, he would have not have tried to stop the Holocaust.

FDR said the same thing...Churchill said the same thing...None of our Presidents moved American troops to Darfur to save the millions who were slaughtered there...

Is this the kind candidate for “President” You want to support? I don't think that even Obama is that radical or stupid!

Are you kidding me? Code Pink has a stronger National Defense stand than Paul does. Paul has made that abundantly clear in several exchanges from the debates.

Exactly my point...Do you know Paul's position of our military and foreign policy, or am I supposed to make a decision based on your idea that Code Pink has a stronger National Defense???

30 posted on 12/27/2011 1:02:46 PM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mylife
Newt canvasing Texas the day after Christmas.

MONEY

He's in a world of money hurt.

31 posted on 12/27/2011 1:04:06 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

The entire thing struck me as “desperate”

Here’s a Newtkle....5c..


32 posted on 12/27/2011 1:07:55 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

I can only address what Ron has expressed in public.

1. He doesn’t think we should have entered Iraq or Afghanistan.
2. He doesn’t want our troops involved in over 100 nations around the planet.
3. He doesn’t want us to pay out foreign aid.

1. So Ron states that we should have a military strong enough to defend us, but gets upset when we use our military after an attack that took down the World Trade Center Twin Towers, one other building, and made another so unsound that we had to destroy it too. This attack accounted for an approximate 30% evaporation of Wall Street liquidity, the exact number of trillions I’m not sure. I believe the total property damage probably exceeded several trillion dollars too. If this trigger wasn’t sound enough, what trigger would it take for Ron to sign on to our using the military to make sure it didn’t happen again?

2. We have troops in many nations. When I first learned of it, I didn’t like it. Then I thought about what would happen if we pulled those troops out. We have those troops there to keep contact with these governments, and to help the citizens of those nations. If we don’t send our troops to do this, will another nation do it? Should we be prepared to allow China to follow in behind us and develop contacts in those nations in our absence?

3. We pay out a considerable amount of foreign policy aid. I’m not real thrilled about it. I am not convinced that ending it really pays off to the degree folks think. Some of that aid helps buy favorable policy decisions on behalf of us and our allies. If we didn’t pay it, in theory we could could find ourselves having to introduce troops to quell a hot spot. In short order that runs up tremendous costs. Military operations can also contribute to a negative impression of the U. S. too. Is foreign aid a constitutional premise? I don’t think so. If it is considered to be an off-shoot of our military expenditures, it might be seen differently. Is it better to pay out a billion or two here or there, or is it better to put 10,000 troops on the ground for six months? IMO, it is debatable.


33 posted on 12/27/2011 1:10:34 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Santorum..., are you giving it some thought? I knew you would.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Rick Perry says lets set foreign aid to zero and then state your case.


34 posted on 12/27/2011 1:13:33 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush

Three problems we had in Vietnam, were: 1: the high body count on our side, 2: the corrupt unstable government we were there to shore up, 3: not going in for the kill in the North.

1. We did get the body count right this time around. Even if you add in the injured troops, the count was much lower than in Vietnam.

2. In Iraq (and probably not Afghanistan) we set up a reasoned government and held free elections. The government was rather stable. I believe it needed more time to stabilize and move forward. Afghanistan is still problematic, and I’m not happy about the rules of engagement. It seems to me we need to be more assertive with the Afghanistan government. If we aren’t, the prognosis for long term stability is reduced significantly.

3. As for the third problem, I believe we have allowed Iran to game the system for political and military gain. We should have warned them early on. Then we should have taken punitive measures if it wouldn’t stay out. Training, arming, and sending in terrorists, should have garnered Iran some heavy penalties.

I am sensitive to your reference to the U. N. and globalist concessions we make in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. As it applies to Iran, I have a problem with it there too.

In Iraq, I think we did a rather admirable job. There were factional problems there. We kept the Sunnis and Shiites fairly well balanced. We kept the Kurds fairly satisfied.

I was not impressed with the inclusion of women in government, or their inclusion in the vote. It’s not that I have a problem with women voting, but Iraq was not the U. S., and it really wasn’t any of our business who voted there.

As for the U. N. and globalist demands, I’d tell them to go blank themselves if they even opened their yaps. I agree with you there.


35 posted on 12/27/2011 1:25:38 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Santorum..., are you giving it some thought? I knew you would.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: mylife
"Newt canvasing Texas the day after Christmas.

Not one call, but two..."

I got three in one day last week, and another today.

I pressed "2" each time.

38 posted on 12/27/2011 1:33:56 PM PST by Designer (Nit-pickin' and chagrinin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

“Strangely he remains mute in the public arena on Welfare spending that is at least five times as large.”

No, not really mute on welfare.

“The US Department of Health and Human Services should be abolished, leaving decision making on welfare and related matters at the state, local or personal level. All Americans have the right to keep the fruits of their labor to support themselves, their families and whatever charities they so choose, without interference from the federal government.”


39 posted on 12/27/2011 1:36:39 PM PST by CJ Wolf (OMG - Obama Must Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I think Iraq was a noble ambition.
We could have divided the middle east with freedom, from Turkey to the Persian gulf.

We basically had it done until Obama gave it away


40 posted on 12/27/2011 1:37:10 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Designer

Hawhoo!


41 posted on 12/27/2011 1:38:18 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"1. He doesn’t think we should have entered Iraq or Afghanistan."

Actually, he voted to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan, considering our intelligence indicated that bin Laden was there.

My opinion of RP is that he would have rather Congress issue a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, which would have been more in line with our Constitution when dealing with a single or small group of miscreants.

The conspiratorial view of nation-building in Afghanistan holds some credence.

42 posted on 12/27/2011 1:43:08 PM PST by Designer (Nit-pickin' and chagrinin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
... As I understand it, Paul's position is that of the Constitution...No foreign entanglements but a large and tough enough military to defend ourselves against any and all at any given time...

You are correct.

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
U.S. President Ronald Reagan

" ... We pump $40 billion a year into the Japanese economy by providing for essentially all of Japan’s defense. At the same time, Japan out competes us in the market, in effect subsidizing their exports, which then undermines our own domestic steel and auto industries. ..."

"Loyally standing by our ally Israel is in conflict with satisfying the Arab interests that are always represented by big business in each administration. We arm Jordan and Egypt, rescue the PLO (on two occasions), and guarantee that the American taxpayer will be funding both sides of any conflict in the Middle East. ..."

"Our official policy is currently is to be tough on communism, but at the same time promote lower-interests, allowing Red China to buy nuclear technology, F-16s and other military technology – all this by the strongest anti-Communist administration that we’ve had in decades ..."

"We subsidize Red China’s nuclear technology; at the same time, we allow Jane Fonda to ruin ours. ..."

"We continuously sacrifice ourselves to the world by assuming the role of world policeman, which precipitates international rises on a regular basis, all the while neglecting our own defenses. New planes go overseas while our Air National Guard is forced to use planes 20 years old ..."

Ron Paul, Congressional Record, 9/19/84
43 posted on 12/27/2011 1:44:40 PM PST by algernonpj (He who pays the piper . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

Sorry if #36 was a copyright issue.

I just thought it was a funny pic about the Newt Surge..


44 posted on 12/27/2011 1:45:44 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: mylife
"Hawhoo!"

I get so many of those "poll" calls, I just answer while leaving the room. Mrs. Designer doesn't take any of those calls.

45 posted on 12/27/2011 1:49:42 PM PST by Designer (Nit-pickin' and chagrinin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Designer

I don’t know why they call me, I never give them the time of day.

Honestly, I often wonder who the folks are that respond to polls.


46 posted on 12/27/2011 1:54:13 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: momincombatboots
I am simply tired of this insanity.

Okay, lets take a look.

I get home everyday to relax by FR and all I see is forty RP name calling threads. I just ask myself why.. then I ask on the thread.  Really?

I can only speak for myself, but when you raise a question here, you're actually doing it for others who don't post.  Along the same lines, when I respond, it's also for others who have seen other isolationists come and go.  Paul talks a good game about keeping our military strong at home, when we bring all our troops home.  There are unsaid ramifications of doing this though.

When we pull troops out of Germany, South Korea, and other places around the world, they become part of a large force at home on U. S. soil.  What would be the next thing that would happen if we had a large un-used body of military members on our soil?  Pretty soon Paul would be making the case that we didn't need that many military members in arms, prepared to go to war.  This would replicate throughout the military, as our Navy, our Airforce, our special services military members were whittled away.  Our preparedness would over time be destroyed.

Why have ten carrier groups around the world?  We could do with five.  /s  Why have a 280 ship Navy?  We could do with 100.  /s  Why have all those operational aircraft?  Why develop new aircraft?  Why spend so much on research and development?  We don't need to expand, we're already the number one player on the planet.  /s

We do these things so that we will have them when we must.  We simply cannot develop them after attack, or within six months once it beomes clear war is ahead.  We project so we don't fight in your neighborhood.  We project so our defences start on foreign soil, not our own.

Paul and others are upset that we have military operations here and there from time to time.  Only by having military operations here and there from time to time, do we keep our war making machine strong.  Only by having military operations like this, do we develop new tactics for effectively combating the enemy in deserts, rain forrests, rural, and metropolitan areas.

If we wish to remain the top dog on the planet, we have to take a bite out of the occasional burgler once in a while.

One nation or anther will be the global hegemon.  Either we will exhert our wold view around the world, or another up and coming nation will do it.  The question we have to ask ourselves is, do we think there is another nation out there that would play as even-handedly as we do?  Would China?  Would Russia?  Would the expanding body of Islam?

Prior to World Wars I and II, we became isolationist.  We were basically caught off-guard by global conflict twice.  It was bad enough in the age when far away places made it remote that we would be involved quickly in a conflict.  Today we live in a world that is much smaller.  Expeditionary forces can be moved around the planet in a matter of days, with enough equipment to mount a serious conflict.  We simply cannot afford to let a guy like Ron Paul eviscerate us when this is the reality in which we live.  To do so would be national suicide.

This is why you see a lot of folks jump in to criticize Ron Paul when it looks like some people would be misguided enough to take a chance on him.

Don’t we have more important things to discuss than any one person’s sanity or lack thereof.

Survival is the number one priority.  There is nothing more important.

I have faith in God, who would not allow the earth to drop out of the sky if he was elected.

Sorry to have to do this, but this little example is called for yet again.

A man is stranded on a desert island.  He prays to God for deliverance.  Within short succession, a helicopter, a large boat, and a submarine bring people to the island to offer rescue.  Each time the stranded man says, "I have prayed to God for deliverance, and it would show a lack of faith to leave with you."  God will provide."  In time, the man dies and goes to heaven.  At the gate he confronts God.  "I prayed to You and You didn't rescue me."  God looks him in the face and responds, "I sent you a helicopter, a large boat, and a submarine to take you off the island.  You refused my rescue."

God has given us the power to remain strong and defend ourselves.  It would be wrong for us to refuse to do so.

There are better men than Ron Paul out there.  I don't want God saying to me, "I gave you better people, and you voted for him.  Don't blame me."

I have these same discussions with my dh who thinks Israel would immediately vaporize.  I love Israel, but she is in G-ds hands. Just like my children and other loved ones, He is far more capable of caring for the world than any government.

So you wouldn't defend your children and other loved ones, if they were put in danger?  Of course you would.  We as a nation, must exhert the same effort on behalf of our nation, and even other nations that depend on the U. S. to keep things on an even keel around the planet.  It's in our and their best interest as long as it is done rationally.

That’s why I ask these vitriolic posters if they are afraid of running out of other people’s money or what?

We should get our spending under control.  We should not cut Constitutionally sound budget items and let other items we are spending five times as much money on that aren't Constitutionally sound to continue.

Do they work for the Fed, or the government?

Well, the problem is what Ron always addresses first when he talks about cutting.  War on Iraq, cost of about $1.25 trillion over ten years, cut it now.  Welfare, cost of about $5 trillion over ten years, no mention.  I don't have a problem with going after the Fed.  At this point I am not convinced it needs to cease to exist.  There are valid arguments for it and over time I might change my thoughts on it.

There must be something driving it.. cause we have more important things to discuss rather than pimp candidates.

I would think that after Obama, you would understand that the wrong pimp candidate could severely damage our nation.  In some very important ways, Ron Paul would be worse than Obama.
Sorry for the rant.

47 posted on 12/27/2011 2:14:19 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Santorum..., are you giving it some thought? I knew you would.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Well said!


48 posted on 12/27/2011 2:18:40 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mylife

I disagree with Rick. I do understand why many agree with him.

Let me ask you this. If foreign aid buys us relative peace from Egypt, would it be good for the world or even the U. S. if we withdrew it, and either China, Russia, or the Arab League swooped in to provide the same amount?

Would we like to see either of those interests get their goals furthered in Egypt?


49 posted on 12/27/2011 2:21:04 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Santorum..., are you giving it some thought? I knew you would.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Thats it? LOL. Look, I served, lost family members to war. Save your lecture for someone who does not know the truth. So you think God has told you to vote for someone better? What does better mean? Does it mean someone who will spend other people’s money faster and harder, cause that’s what we are looking at. Do not lecture me on the military, that might work for the gen pop.. but not on me. None of your arguments convinced me of anything other than.. you type faster than I do. So... damn the Constitution and Full speed ahead then! For now, you might like it.


50 posted on 12/27/2011 2:23:17 PM PST by momincombatboots (Back to West by G-d Virginia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson