Ron Paul’s Novel Coalition Faces Its Major Moment in Iowa

Time ^ | December 27, 2011 | Adam Sorensen

[mylife]

Hawhoo!

[Designer]

"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.

[algernonpj]

... 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

[mylife]

Sorry if #36 was a copyright issue.

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

[Designer]

"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.

[mylife]

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.

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[trisham]

Well said!

[DoughtyOne]

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?

[momincombatboots]

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.

[mylife]

Oh, I don’t think he is trying to be disengaged.

I think Perry is wants a a clean slate.

Effa Obama deals.... Effa Carter deals.

Yall want to talk?, Let’s talk

[2111USMC]

As an Iowan, I wholeheartedly agree.

[DoughtyOne]

Thats it?  Yes, that was it.  I raised a number of important issues there.  I'm sorry none of them resonated with you.

LOL.  I don't mind if you laugh at my posts.  If you want an echo, you're addressing the wrong brick wall.

Look, I served, lost family members to war. With all due respect, it's your opinion that only people who have served or had a personal loss have a right to an opinion?  Our nation wouldn't exist if that was the hurdle that had to be met.

Save your lecture for someone who does not know the truth.  If you evidenced truth, I wouldn't be discussing this matter with you.  People have been fighting, dying, and losing important people to them since prior to the Revolutionary War.  As long as our Republic exists, that will continue.

So you think God has told you to vote for someone better?  Did I say that?  No.  I did say that God expected me to have enough common sense to vote for people with sound judgment.

What does better mean?  It means someone that will truly take the Constituion into account, not just demagogue the issue of the Constitution, touching on one Constitutionally solid issue, while letting other unconstituional matters that we spend five times as much money on, go unaddressed.  The guy is not shooting straight with you.

Does it mean someone who will spend other people’s money faster and harder, cause that’s what we are looking at. This is somplistic to the level of being juvenile.  Where have I stated that I backed the unfeterred expenditures of tax money for unconstituional matters?

Do not lecture me on the military, that might work for the gen pop.. but not on me.   I will continue to express my opinion, and if you so choose, you are free to think of it as a lecture.  I can't stop you.

None of your arguments convinced me of anything other than.. you type faster than I do.  You're not the only person reading this exchange.

So... damn the Constitution and Full speed ahead then! For now, you might like it.  Once again, this is a simplistic and unjustified comment.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you Trisham.

[DoughtyOne]

CJ Wolf, I have seen Ron address the military many times. I have not seen him focus on Welfare with anything approaching the same vigor. That’s what I was trying to express with my comments focused on “public”.

We spend roughly $500 billion on Welfare each year, and I’m not totally convinced there aren’t other ways of giving money and favors to some of our citizens.

Why does Ron go ape over the cost of the War on Terrorism, and remain fare more muted with something that equals near five times as much spending.

The comment associated with military spending generally accompanies a comment that we can’t afford to do this, or we’ll go broke if we continue this. Wouldn’t you think our welfare spending would cause five times more concern? It doesn’t. Why?

[trisham]

You’re quite welcome, friend.

[DoughtyOne]

It remains to be seen what happens, but I’m leaning heavily in that direction. All the cost, lives, injured, and for what, so Obama could make points with his base and fritter it all away.

[mas cerveza por favor]

Anyone who blames America for 9/11, should be thrown in a cell at Gitmo as a traitor.

And they say Ron Paul backers are loony. Did you always hold such contempt for the Constitution Mr. Psycho?

[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.

If he did, then I stand corrected as far as the initiation of the war efforts there goes.  It was my take that I had seen Ron call for our immediate withdrawel from both countries, and that we should not have entered either one of them.  He may have qualified that last part by saying something like, "Knowing what we know now..." or some such.  I ran a search on Google and believe most of this is confirmed on some of the reports that popped up.  Headlines seem to support that perception.  LINK

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.

He may have.  There are times when it's important to make a lot of noise and break things.  Taking much less intensive military measures would have telegraphed a sort of timid approach to someone who has attacked us.  No Saddam Hussein didn't attack us.  The fact is he was encouraging terrorism around the planet, and was on record for having supplied $25k to the families of terrorist attackers against Israel.  I think the U. S. thought it was time to clean up the region and included Iraq in the process.

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

I think it may in both.  While I wouldn't agree to it in every instance, in these two nations I think it was fitting.

Is the world better off today without Hussein and with a more stable nation not intent on invading it's neighbors?

Is that a bad thing?

Did we try to crush Islam in Iraq?  Did we try to set up a government that was going to abuse it's citizenry?  Did we Demand all of Iraq's assets, or personal wealth?

Am I wrong to think that our Founding Fathers would have seen Iraq as a threat to it's neighbors and to an extent the free nations of the world?  Do we have no obligation to take a stand against a pariah state like Iraq?  At what stage do we step in?  Should we wait until another nation is invaded?  Should we take action against a guy that openly says he will aid in any way he can, the terrorists against the West and Israel?

It's a debatable issue, at what point we do take action against other nations.  With a massive attack on our own soil, I think it alters the weight needed to pull the trigger.

Others will see it differently.

[DoughtyOne]

I would prefer him to talk about reductions and any requests for improved actions up front. I wouldn’t slap folks in the face, then start negotiations from there.