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

Skip to comments.

So you think Ron Paul is crazy? (2002 video shows him making stunningly accurate predictions)
American Thinker ^ | 01/09/2012 | Jason McNew

Posted on 01/09/2012 7:07:42 AM PST by SeekAndFind

Intellectually speaking, we live in fascinating, if dangerous, times. Given a larger view of history, it should be understood that nations, political systems, and currencies come and go on a fairly regular basis. Human freedom is an exception -- not the norm.

There are four core components necessary for the existence of an independent, sovereign nation: A system of laws (constitutional or otherwise,) geographical borders, a sound monetary system, and a defensive function.

Presently, the United States is failing (or trending toward failure) on the first three counts. Failure on two or more will lead to a failure of the fourth (national defense.) Capitalism notwithstanding, could it be that this is what Russia, China, and the emerging Islamic Caliphate want? Or what George Soros wants?

It is for this reason that I support Ron Paul for POTUS. Yes, detractors of Paul's foreign policy may have legitimate gripes -- in particular his seeming failure to understand that radical Islamists cannot be disincentivized in the same way that Soviet Communists could.

Here is a short, 2002 video of Ron Paul making a multitude of predictions in the areas of economics and geopolitics. Watch the entire thing before judging -- Paul's accuracy craves explanation.

http://youtu.be/zGDisyWkIBM ;

Could it be that Ron Paul is right about economics, the Constitution, and geopolitics, and that his detractors are the ones that have it wrong?

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2crazy4america; bloggers; crazypolicies; crazyronpaul; crazysolutions; ronpaul; spotthelooney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-197 last
To: monkeypants

Well obviously you didn’t watch the debate and saw/heard the one sentence remark from Ron Paul about his being drafted.


151 posted on 01/09/2012 1:39:57 PM PST by SkyDancer ("If You Want To Learn To Love Better, You Should Start With A Friend Who You Hate")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: A.Hun

“Government has always had a responsibility to maintain moral values that match those of the governed, maintaining a cohesive society. Now, it is always a struggle to make sure those laws do not go too far..”

Hey Hun - can you point out to me where the Constitution or Bill of Rights says this? Just curious...

I am worried that so many folks think that our Constitution is bad and should not be followed today because it implies that one hates all government power. Reality is that it was carefully considered as a way to “limit” federal government power. (..to make sure the government does not go too far maybe?)

Also, compliments on your great use of Alinsky tactics by first implying that the tactic is bad and only used by bad people and then employing the primary technique of ridicule blatantly...some might call that hypocrisy, but it was entertaining at least. LOL!!!


152 posted on 01/09/2012 1:47:51 PM PST by monkeypants (It's a Republic, if you can keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: TIElniff
Occam's Razor.

It has nothing to do with “establishment”, or DU plants or statist republicans etc.

It is far simpler, sane Conservatives don't want this nut anywhere around them or the Whitehouse.

153 posted on 01/09/2012 1:53:19 PM PST by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer
He knew that being in the Air National Guard would protect him from going to Vietnam.

He served and that's what matters, so far as what happened 40 years ago is an issue today.

BTW, dancer, do I take it from your spiel that you voted for the candidates who did go to Vietnam in 2000 and 2004 over the one who was in the Air National Guard at home?

154 posted on 01/09/2012 2:04:11 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

Huh?

Is that a nah, nah, boo, boo response, Dancer?

I did in fact watch it and I reviewed the transcript before I started this conversation. Maybe you should take a look at it yourself and revisit your position? After that, please re-read my comments. I stand by them.

If you want a more productive Paul bashing arena, maybe go cite some of the oddball candidates he has allegedly supported in the past - that’s harder to reconcile.

But, there is no doubt that he pwned Newt and holds the higher ground on this draft/military service/sending our youth to multiple wars topic. It is incongruous for a non-veteran (such as yourself, presumably) bashing a veteran (who responsibly served) over technical semantics about the precise definition of “drafted”.

OK - I’m done venting and feel better now. Have a nice day!


155 posted on 01/09/2012 2:06:10 PM PST by monkeypants (It's a Republic, if you can keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
WHEN ARE YOU PAULITARDS GONNA SOBER UP?

Doing the PAUL loves REAGAN bit?

Again?

Really?

REALLY?

Yeah.

Lets see how that worked out shall we?

Congressman Paul’s Letter...

As a lifelong Republican, it saddens me to have to write this letter. My parents believed in the Republican Party and its free enterprise philosophy, and that’s the way I was brought up. At age 21, in 1956, I cast my first vote for Ike and the entire Republican slate.

Because of frustration with the direction in which the country was going, I became a political activist and ran for the U.S. Congress in 1974. Even with Watergate, my loyalty, optimism, and hope for the future were tied to the Republican Party and its message of free enterprise, limited government, and balanced budgets.

Eventually I was elected to the U.S. Congress four times as a Republican. This permitted me a first-hand look at the interworkings of the U.S. Congress, seeing both the benefits and partisan frustrations that guide its shaky proceedings. I found that although representative government still exists, special interest control of the legislative process clearly presents a danger to our constitutional system of government.

In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagan’s program and was one of the four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his efforts.

Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O’Neill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed.

Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carter’s four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagan’s five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.

All republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit. But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats.

Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that “deficits don’t matter,” the debt presents a grave threat to our country. Thanks to the President and Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile effort to hold on to control of the Senate.

Instead of cutting some of the immeasurable waste in the Department of Defense, it has gotten worse, with the inevitable result that we are less secure today. Reagan’s foreign aid expenditures exceed Eisenhower’s, Kennedy’s, Johnson’s, Nixon’s, Ford’s, and Carter’s put together. Foreign intervention has exploded since 1980. Only an end to military welfare for foreign governments plus a curtailment of our unconstitutional commitments abroad will enable us really to defend ourselves and solve our financial problems.

Amidst the failure of the Gramm-Rudman gimmick, we hear the President and the Republican Party call for a balanced-budget amendment and a line-item veto. This is only a smokescreen. President Reagan, as governor of California, had a line-item veto and virtually never used it. As President he has failed to exercise his constitutional responsibility to veto spending. Instead, he has encouraged it.

Monetary policy has been disastrous as well. The five Reagan appointees to the Federal Reserve Board have advocated even faster monetary inflation than Chairman Volcker, and this is the fourth straight year of double-digit increases. The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over Keynesianism.

Candidate Reagan in 1980 correctly opposed draft registration. Yet when he had the chance to abolish it, he reneged, as he did on his pledge to abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, or to work against abortion.

Under the guise of attacking drug use and money laundering, the Republican Administration has systematically attacked personal and financial privacy. The effect has been to victimize innocent Americans who wish to conduct their private lives without government snooping. (Should people really be put on a suspected drug dealer list because they transfer $3,000 at one time?) Reagan’s urine testing of Americans without probable cause is a clear violation of our civil liberties, as are his proposals for extensive “lie detector” tests.

Under Reagan, the IRS has grown bigger, richer, more powerful, and more arrogant. In the words of the founders of our country, our government has “sent hither swarms” of tax gatherers “to harass our people and eat out their substance.” His officers jailed the innocent George Hansen, with the President refusing to pardon a great American whose only crime was to defend the Constitution. Reagan’s new tax “reform” gives even more power to the IRS. Far from making taxes fairer or simpler, it deceitfully raises more revenue for the government to waste.

Knowing this administration’s record, I wasn’t surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind.

I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy.

After years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government, I have reluctantly concluded that my efforts must be carried on outside the Republican Party. Republicans know that the Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health. Yet, in the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called them our own. The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government. It has become big government’s best friend.

If Ronald Reagan couldn’t or wouldn’t balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years.

I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing America’s direction.

I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.

156 posted on 01/09/2012 2:07:24 PM PST by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
There is nothing mainstream or conservative about globalism.

There is nothing conservative about going isolationist and removing us from the world community. Only paultards think we can do so.

For example Rick Perry was a democrat who changed parties but not his ideology. RINO, republican in name only, is a perfect description of the politician.

So, you went and saw where I posted something positive about Perry and wish to pick a fight. Sorry, no go. Typical alinsky/paultard tactic.

NWO— that term was first heard by the American people when G H W Bush uttered it as he signed away American sovereignty at the United Nations Rio Accord. Is that globalist as well?

That phrase came from this speech: Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the Persian Gulf Crisis and the Federal Budget Deficit

You wouldn't misrepresent something, would you?

Free traitor is an apt description for the corporatist fascists ruining our economy by forcing off shoring and outsourcing in industrial and business sectors.

Right out of a AFL/CIO playbook. We are the worlds third largest exporter. How many jobs do you think that creates?

These names were used way before this election cycle.

Now we know.....by paultards doing their best to submarine conservatives.

The lunacy is among the globalists who think that killing America off with interdependence, looting our economy to ‘raise all boats’ in their words, and destroying American culture with marxism and illegal immigration, can continue without very dire consequences for humanity.

Then quit helping Democrats, who are the marxists, support illegal immigrants, would give away our rights to the ICC. As far as global trade, it has "raised all boats", ours included.

You and your cohorts are deluded and I'm glad so many real conservatives have realized it.

157 posted on 01/09/2012 2:40:37 PM PST by A.Hun (Common sense is no longer common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

Hi Ejonesie,

Are you saying that we are unworthy if we are conservative but registered as Independent (as I have always been)? I did not realize that Free Republic was supposed to be Free Republican.

There is more in this letter in terms of stating facts that I agree with than disagree with. What specific item in this letter are you so upset about?

Here is the short summary of what Paul opposed in the letter: “unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy.”

Which points are wrong?


158 posted on 01/09/2012 2:43:08 PM PST by monkeypants (It's a Republic, if you can keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

I know, they just don’t get it. However, I think you hooked a live one.


159 posted on 01/09/2012 2:47:41 PM PST by reaganaut (If Romney is a conservative then I'm the frickin Angel Moroni.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

I know, they just don’t get it. However, I think you hooked a live one.


160 posted on 01/09/2012 2:47:55 PM PST by reaganaut (If Romney is a conservative then I'm the frickin Angel Moroni.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: monkeypants
I will be very clear and detailed so there is no misunderstanding.

I am saying, regardless of validity of anything else Paul may or may not support, if you support this whack job for President, a man who has no issues with a terrorist nation, a nation that has low earth orbiting capability I might add, gaining nuclear weapons capability, a man who supports traitors such as Manning, a man who has said it would have been better if Israel did not exists, a man who can't take responsibility for the racist writting in his own newsletters, etc. etc. etc. then you are no Conservative by FreeRepublic standards or any that I know of.

To put it succinctly, your boy has no problem with letting a bunch of nuts who want to kill my family, my child, have nuclear weapons. It has nothing to do with any party, but with sanity.

As far as the letter, understanding why those issues arose is one key to understanding why Paul is a nut.

Had any trips to the Soviet Union lately?

No?

Why is that...

161 posted on 01/09/2012 3:00:02 PM PST by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut
I hope not for long. I am hoping JRs silver hammer comes down upon the fools heads. They used to be entertaining but now are just stupid.
162 posted on 01/09/2012 3:03:24 PM PST by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

You are a funny guy.

I never said I was a Paul supporter, but in the current situation with multiple poor choices I encourage a healthy dialog and focus on specific issues and facts.

There are a lot of “if you’s” in your rant that are certainly presumptive. When you go off into “your boy who has no problem with a bunch of nuts killing my family..” it tells me that you would rather rant and scream than focus on issues and you may be challenged sticking to facts.

I personally don’t think the Republican party is serving us well regardless of whom you are supporting. That does not mean that I dislike all Republicans - I have rarely voted for other parties.

I proudly served this country and I’m a retired Naval Aviator - sorry, no trips to Russia or any current Communist countries (you probably missed the fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists). I happily carry a Glock 27 and have a CHP and I do support the Constitution as drafted.

What about you? What are your credentials as a self appointed judge? Who are you pushing and why? How are their positions different?

Thanks and have a nice day...


163 posted on 01/09/2012 3:21:26 PM PST by monkeypants (It's a Republic, if you can keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: A.Hun
removing us from the world community

You mean protecting our tax dollars from going to globalist institutions like the UN, the global banking cartels, foreign governments and such? You sound just like a global citizen.

So, you went and saw where I posted something positive about Perry

Wow, what an ego. I didn't see that at all. Perry condemned himself when he publicly stated after switching parties that he wasn't changing his ideology. He is the textbook definition of a RINO.

You wouldn't misrepresent something, would you?

I have stated Mr. Bush is a globalist, a fact, not a misrepresentation. He signed Agenda 21 at the Rio Accords, furthering his NWO agenda he alluded to in the address to the joint session of congress. And if you read the text of his address, you'll see he clearly states that the United States wasn't initiating the war in Iraq but "Clearly, no longer can a dictator count on East-West confrontation to stymie concerted United Nations action against aggression....A new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective—a new world order—

A new partnership of nations? Concerted United Nations effort? The man was committing treason, partnering us heavily with the corrupt communist founded United Nations.

Absolutely NO misrepresentation. Its there in his own words.

Then quit helping Democrats, who are the marxists, support illegal immigrants, would give away our rights to the ICC. As far as global trade, it has "raised all boats", ours included.

There is no difference between the democrats and the Globalist Occupied Party at this point. If democrats are marxists, and they change party affiliation to republican then hello!!!! Guess what has happened to the GOP! Two republican presidents have given our rights away to any number of internationalist organizations, you make me laugh with your ludicrous comments!

As for illegal immigration we had THREE republican presidents enabling it because they were GLOBALISTS. Starting with Reagan's amnesty and the nice incentive program for illegal alien health tourism called EMTALA not coincidentally in the same year.

The globalist agenda for "free trade" was to reduce wages in this country, destabilize the population with a culture war brought in by foreign nationals and cultural marxism. So the so called republican presidents supported illegal immigration big time. So much corruption in the Bush Administration for "free trade" helped to put us in our dire circumstances now. "free trade" has only made the globalists more wealthy it is destroying the American citizen and the American way of life.

You do not state any views that are conservative, but sound like a 'good' global citizen to me. America means nothing to you.
164 posted on 01/09/2012 3:55:17 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

According to the OP the topic is “So you think Ron Paul is crazy? (2002 video shows him making stunningly accurate predictions)”

Name one Pol that hasn’t flat out lied...


165 posted on 01/09/2012 3:57:13 PM PST by TV Dinners (Hope is not a Strategy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
What name would you give the people who are working to destroy United States sovereignty and independence?

Most people call them paulbots.
166 posted on 01/09/2012 4:06:05 PM PST by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: monkeypants
The fact is that he did serve and Newt did not - that was the point. Maybe he was not technically drafted, but the more important fact is that he served.

And the fact is Newt was NOT allowed to serve.
Cut and Run may have served, but could not even receive one promotion in the entire five years he was in the Air Force. What does that tell you about the surrender monkey?
I guess he was as effective in the Air Force as he is as a congressman.
167 posted on 01/09/2012 4:13:22 PM PST by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: John D

So all the presidents democrat and republican signing UN treaties for advancing global socialism, funding internationalist institutions like the WTO the world bank, allowing unchecked illegal immigration, and giving command of our troops to NATO are paulbots?


168 posted on 01/09/2012 4:30:17 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

rhetorical question


169 posted on 01/09/2012 4:33:59 PM PST by Happy Rain ("If Mitt wins the Twit wins.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22
"I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy"

So you are defending these points knowing how the movie ended? Think 2008...

170 posted on 01/09/2012 4:38:53 PM PST by Afronaut (It's 1984)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

I understand that you will never let go of your conspiracy theories, no matter what facts rear their heads.

GHWB’s speech was no blueprint for some Bilderberger plot as Pat Robertson thought. You can read the speech.

Perry is a conservative politician. He’s not perfect, but he is nothing of the caricature paulbots have painted of him. People, including politicians, change.

It was curious to me that you picked him out of all the politicians running....why didn’t you use Newt or Santorum instead? I believe I was correct in your motive for using Perry, even though I cannot prove it.

Only Paulbots and Birchers can’t tell the difference between the GOP and the Democratic Party. They are the same ones that have stated here that there is no difference between GWB and Obama.

That makes them, and you, irrational.

You don’t understand free trade at all, apparently. The fact of the matter is that manufacturing has not left the US. We manufacture more goods now than at anytime in our history (down a little from the recession). That is an undeniable fact.

Manufacturing in the US has changed, but for a lot of reasons. There are far fewer people hired for the same amount of goods manufactured, but that doesn’t mean manufacturing has disappeared. Your entire argument is moot when you recognize that fact (which I’m sure you won’t).

Besides that, every trade agreement we have entered into the last thirty years has increased imports and exports for all parties involved. (Another one of those pesky facts).

Illegal immigration is a problem this nation has had for a very long time. There is no easy solution, no one can snap their fingers and send 12 million illegals home. No one can wave a wand and close our borders. I know it kills you, but GWB did more to rein in illegal immigration than anyone since Eisenhower. What has Obama done besides give them de facto amnesty?

Corruption in the Bush Administration? Ohhhh....HALLIBURTON!


171 posted on 01/09/2012 4:41:21 PM PST by A.Hun (Common sense is no longer common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Proud2BeRight
If that crackpot believes that releasing dope into the streets, destroying tens of millions of additional lives, families, neighborhoods and harming US productivity “promotes the general welfare” he is NUTS!

He's nuts? It is as if no one seems to think that crap isn't already there! Are you going to run out and become a toothless methhead just because it is legalized/decriminalized?

Me neither.

But at least my door will be less likely to be kicked in by someone with the wrong address on a warrant, my dog may live longer, and the Cartels to the south of the US (spread throughout as well) won't be able to send truckloads of money home under the radar (when the DEA isn't laundering it for them).

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, either--and the money involved rapidly corrupted parts of the enforcement agencies from bottom to top.

I don't use drugs, I hate them, they have, through the actions of others, cost me any chance to retire. I'll work until I can't or I die, whichever comes first--but the current setup isn't working, there is still a drug problem, and our Rights have been sacrificed on that altar wholesale for little good effect.

And the d@mned border still isn't secure! (Maybe someone's getting a cut?)

172 posted on 01/09/2012 4:45:40 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Legalize that crap and demand, supply and usage will increase dramatically. Todays user debris will be joined by tens of millions who have always been afraid of the consequences of getting arrested and have not had dope easily available.

Crime will rise as user losers commit even more to feed their new addictions. Traffic and other deaths and injuries will increase from more dope screwing up more people.

Your door may not get kicked in from the law but it might be from drugged up human debris needing more money to pay for that crap.


173 posted on 01/09/2012 5:09:37 PM PST by Proud2BeRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: A.Hun

You are the ONLY person to talk about conspiracy theory. You clearly must believe in it to have brought to the conversation so many times.

Here is GW Bush addressing congress. He is asking for money to fight a war that he CLEARLY states is a United Nations effort.

Perry is a TEXTBOOK RINO that’s why I picked him.

Oh yes I do understand ‘free trade’. It is the most corrupt disingenuous system every devised by globalist crooks. It’s not ‘free’. The US taxpayer and the American citizen are paying for it.

Finally, GW Bush doing something about illegal immigration? That’s to laugh. Illegal immigration grew faster during his administration than it did in the previous two.

Oh and thanks for reminding me, GW Bush grew the government faster that democrat bill clinton did, setting up all these globalist supporting institutions with US taxpayer dollars.

The corruption of GW Bush administration was aimed clearly at the United States Constitution.You bring up Halliburton not me. You’re the conspiracy theorist for sure!


174 posted on 01/09/2012 5:24:31 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: John D

Newt was not allowed to serve???

That’s a new one - LOL! Where do you get this stuff from? I had not heard that line of argument anywhere until now. Can you provide some support for that statement?

I don’t know how many promotions Paul got. But, from what I have read, he came in as a Captain (as is common for medical corps and jag) and was already up two ranks (skipping 2nd Lt and Lt) - it would not be surprising for him to stay at that level after a couple of years of active duty and a few years of reserves.

In the Navy, medical, legal and supply are all staff functions, not Line functions (which means that they can’t command a vessel basically. It is usually a good 6-8 years before advancing to O-4 as a Line officer (varies from time to time of course and needs of the service). But, you would not know that, right? If you had served you would.

OTOH, how many patients did he see and how did that go? (seeing as that was his job, not commanding a tank, driving a boat, flying a U2). Do you have facts that he was a bad doctor and got bad fitness reports or are you just making crazy stuff up and conjecturing?

Is it wrong to just willingly serve and focus on doing a good job in your area of specialization until your commitment is up without ambitions of climbing the military career ladder?

Are all service members who did not stay in until retirement “ineffective”? (by the way, how many years did you serve and what rank did you achieve - are you willing to be judged by your own definition of success?)

Is he ineffective as a Congressman just because he keeps getting re-elected or is it because he votes his principles (which you disagree with apparently - like following the Constitution).

You know, I send quite a few like minded independent / conservative people to FR as a source of facts on the conservative side of the battle. The spittle-lipped, crazy eyed invective that has been erupting around here makes me re-think that.

Most of us are not Paul experts and have never really looked at him before now - we are just frustrated citizens trying to sort through factual positions and background of candidates without the liberal lies and spin.

The only reason we begin to look at him is because the field of candidates is not satisfying. If a sane and rational conservative just merely reads the entire positions page on the official Ron Paul website, there is nothing objectionable there from my perspective.

I’m not going to skip my own personal due diligence just because some goofball yells at me on FR. I’m also not intimidated with folks trying to shout me down - I’ve dealt with plenty of libs who live that way because they have nothing to fall back on fact wise.

This kind of insulting and ignorant rhetoric will just turn folks off. Why don’t you try to politely outline why you have such contempt for Paul (or anyone else) with links to facts like actual video of the candidate saying some of the looney things that are attributed to them (whomever they are). Otherwise, you just sound as foolish as the left. Surrender monkey? Point me to where he surrendered... “Cut and run” - that’s a new way to describe military service as a physician..

When you make a statement or claim that is provably false, or just exaggerated supposition (even if minor) then everything you say has to be questioned.

At this point I don’t have a candidate that I’m excited about. I would love to have a principled (but pragmatic) Reagan to rally behind, but so far I don’t see it...(in those whom are official candidates).

Try a different tack - tell me who you are for and why... Give some of the other folks a chance to play virtual whack-a-mole on your position..

There is a long path to the nomination - it’s going to go on for many months given the way it is structured. We could wind up in a brokered convention - who knows?

Venting is cathartic - I feel better now. Your post did not deserve this long a response, but I’d like my fellow FReepers to understand where I’m coming from.

Have a nice evening.


175 posted on 01/09/2012 5:25:50 PM PST by monkeypants (It's a Republic, if you can keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Proud2BeRight

Yeah...!! What he said!!!

Legalize guns and concealed carry and demand for guns, supply and usage will increase dramatically! Crime will go through the roof! Just imagine the dregs having weapons...

Oh, never mind - LOL!

At least we would all have guns to stop the crazed druggies who just filled their prescriptions for coke at Walmart and are breaking in our door to get a beer. Er, well, most of us already do.

Night all - retiring from this fun thread...


176 posted on 01/09/2012 5:33:22 PM PST by monkeypants (It's a Republic, if you can keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: monkeypants

Guns don’t fry the brains of their owners.


177 posted on 01/09/2012 5:42:45 PM PST by Proud2BeRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Proud2BeRight

Nope - I don’t leave home without mine. My point was that the left uses this same argument about guns and the facts are that crime goes down when gun ownership goes up.

I don’t like drugs or support their use, but alcohol can be just as damaging if abused (said while I enjoy a nice California Chardonnay...). I don’t think that decriminalizing (but still regulating) drugs would be catastrophic. I worry more about an increasing number of SWAT types who are looking for a purpose and make a mistake...

Why carry a gun? Because a policeman is too heavy.


178 posted on 01/09/2012 5:57:06 PM PST by monkeypants (It's a Republic, if you can keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Proud2BeRight

Nope - I don’t leave home without mine. My point was that the left uses this same argument about guns and the facts are that crime goes down when gun ownership goes up.

I don’t like drugs or support their use, but alcohol can be just as damaging if abused (said while I enjoy a nice California Chardonnay...).

I don’t think that decriminalizing (but still regulating) drugs would be catastrophic. I worry more about an increasing number of unionized SWAT types who are looking for a purpose and make a mistake...

Why carry a gun? Because a policeman is too heavy.


179 posted on 01/09/2012 5:59:06 PM PST by monkeypants (It's a Republic, if you can keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
He is asking for money to fight a war that he CLEARLY states is a United Nations effort.

Of course it was. THat doesn't mean it was some global conspiracy to rob us of our sovereignty. Dang. Are you now trying to say that NWO as you use it doesn't refer to a behind the scenes plot to do exactly that?

There are forces in the world that would love to see that, but it is far left libs that embrace them...not GHWB, GWB or 95% of other Republicans. The US has used treaties and coalitions since before there was a US.

Perry is a good, Christian, conservative man that is certainly no RINO. In fact, I find it hilarious that a Paulbot has the stones to call anyone a RINO.

THe US citizen's standard of living has risen because of free trade. We have access to more goods and food than at anytime in our history. Free trade has helped us become the most powerful economic engine in the history of the world. We are the world's largest mfg and the third largest exporter.

Illegal immigration grew faster during his administration than it did in the previous two.

Over half of all illegals were here before GWB took office. The influx was due to the housing boom in particular, not that GWB did anything to hamper immigration enforcement that was already in effect. As much as anything, for the first few years of his administration, I believe hunting down Al-Qaeda and jihadis in the US took precedence. Of course, the context of a Republican's actions doesn't mean anything to you.

GWB's government spending was about the same as Clinton's as a percentage of GDP. Go look it up. (Never mind, here's a chart)

Photobucket

You bring up Halliburton not me. You’re the conspiracy theorist for sure!

I brought up Halliburton because you are just as deluded as the average libtard with your corporatist, globalist "corruption". You can't show one instance of corruption because there was none.

Now, please go away. Most people aren't buying what you're selling anymore. Every single candidate we can possibly get elected reject your ideology. No matter how closely you hold RP's beliefs, they are not conservative in any sense, and only hand power to Democrats by splitting the Repub party.

180 posted on 01/09/2012 5:59:39 PM PST by A.Hun (Common sense is no longer common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Gennie; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; mkjessup; Gilbo_3; NFHale; ...
Here it is with the same link text you posted except this version is live.

DEBT LIMIT - A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY

Is this the video you had in mind? It's not bad.

181 posted on 01/09/2012 6:55:37 PM PST by sickoflibs (You MUST support the lesser of two RINOs or we all die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer
He knew that being in the Air National Guard would protect him from going to Vietnam.

Oh.

Like 'W'?

182 posted on 01/09/2012 7:01:02 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Yeah, like Dan Rather found out .... the hard way. You basically don’t know a thing about Bush in the TANG. Typical otherwise you wouldn’t have said that. I seriously suggest you research Bush’s military experience during Vietnam. He wasn’t just a flight surgeon in the AF in a safe area.


183 posted on 01/09/2012 7:25:56 PM PST by SkyDancer ("If You Want To Learn To Love Better, You Should Start With A Friend Who You Hate")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
I am sick of Alinsky tactics in every discussion. I want to know the issues, and the means to resolve them. Nowadays you can’t elect people based on their platform, because the platform is never discussed!

I agree!

It does this forum, this country, no service to ignore the issues and howl ad hominems ad infinitum.

I want a candidate who will:

First and foremost, regard the sanctity of life as paramount, and do what he can to reverse the effects of Roe V. Wade. (For those who don't recall, that left the issue to the states before Roe--a serious step in the right direction.)

Who will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Who will reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government to within those Constitutional constraints, with Original Intent, not the bastardization of the Constitution many people who have distorted it clause by clause try to point to. (esp. the 'interstate commerce clause')

By so doing, the regulatory shackles placed unnecssarily on the American economy will fall away, permitting the economy to mend itself.

I want someone who will relentlessly push for the repeal of Obamacare.

Will use our military to protect our interests, to fight those wars declared by Congress.

Will call for the expulsion of those who are here illegally.

Will pursue a regulatory climate which will enable the rebuilding of our mining, refining, and manufacturing industries.

Will ardently support the RKBA and push for the repeal of gun control laws. (Where do the rest stand on that and why haven't we heard anything about that?)

Who will do away with the theater of the TSA and other agencies which are politically hobbled when it comes to doing the job they are supposedly doing, but who routinely practice unconstitutional searches.

Who will simultaneously cut waste from procurement programs and make sure our troops have the best gear and training in the world, in case we do need to defend our homeland.

Who will push for reform of 'entitlements', including the reduction in welfare, eventual elimination of social security, medicaid, and medicare, but will remove the illegal aliens from those services.

There's more, but little enough gets discussed I think I can stop there.

184 posted on 01/09/2012 7:32:39 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Proud2BeRight
Your door may not get kicked in from the law but it might be from drugged up human debris needing more money to pay for that crap.

Maybe, but I can shoot them, and that will reduce the number of criminals a mite. With the underground profit motive gone, what makes you think the prices will stay so high, either?

So, considering all the social ills, law enforcement problems, and yes, even traffic deaths, do you think we should ban alcoholic beverages? After all, those bring all the social problems you mentioned.

That prohibition didn't work, this one hasn't, either, but it has been the excuse for an incredible assault on fourth, fifth, and 14th Amendment rights, not to mention the justification ofr militarizing our police and for 'turf wars' all over.

I don't think it would bring that many more new users just vying for the glorious and chic 'meth mouth' smile and complexion.

As for the other drugs, etc., we already have that mess, and while some 'closet' users might come out in the open, I don't anticipate a stampede of new users. Besides, with it legal, the whole 'renegade' effect goes away, and by virtue of that alone it would lose some of its appeal to youngsters. What makes you think it will escalate?

By the way, there is the consideration of taxing the drugs, the income from them, licensing, etc., and pulling revenue from all the currently untaxed billions of underground economy into the government coffers, too. At least that way some of the funds we are currently dishing out could be derived from the users themselves.

185 posted on 01/09/2012 8:42:40 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer
You basically don’t know a thing about Bush in the TANG

You haven't been paying attention the last twelve years here, then.

I brought that up because that is the same argument some used against Bush.

So Ron Paul wasn't a pilot, Bush wasn't a doctor. Different roles, but the doctors aren't usually the ones who get shot at, anyway.

Frankly, I think the National Guard argument is just as valid in either case--it isn't. Thanks for playing.

186 posted on 01/09/2012 8:55:49 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Right, as you leave following Ron Paul....

Photobucket

187 posted on 01/09/2012 9:14:51 PM PST by SkyDancer ("If You Want To Learn To Love Better, You Should Start With A Friend Who You Hate")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: A.Hun

I have never said anything about Ron Paul in my posts. You publish a screed based on some fantasy you have and then throw in the typical Alinsky bad mouth.

Everything you have said is made up, including Perry is a conservative. He is onboard the globalist express and he changed his party affiliation to drag down the republican party.

I must quote YOU, using YOUR language, as you are apparently the ‘libtard conspiracy theorist’— demonstrated by the crazy and unfounded allegations in your posts.


188 posted on 01/09/2012 9:23:27 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

What you said!


189 posted on 01/09/2012 9:25:54 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer
I'm not a Ron Paul follower, but fair is fair.

It's pretty easy to gig someone when you keep changing the standards.

Besides, you're the SkyDancer. I have my feet firmly on the ground.

190 posted on 01/09/2012 10:25:14 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: monkeypants
Newt was not allowed to serve??? That’s a new one - LOL!

Newt had a III A classification which made him ineligible for the draft.

. But, you would not know that, right? If you had served you would.


Wrong I did serve, like both my father (during WWII and Korea) and my son who served during Iraq) and came back with a piece of shrapnel in his neck that still can not be removed. The difference is I was able to receive four promotions in the four years I served.

Is it wrong to just willingly serve and focus on doing a good job in your area of specialization until your commitment is up without ambitions of climbing the military career ladder?


Not wrong, but it does show how incompetent the surrender monkey was in the military. If a person does a good jog, he will be promoted.
This just shows Cut and Run was as incompetent in the military as he is in congress,
191 posted on 01/10/2012 3:19:16 AM PST by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: John D

Sorry dude - 3A is a hardship deferment (family hardship, children). Paul could have gotten that too. Newt was eligible for the draft and he could have volunteered but he asked for a hardship deferment. Saying he was “not allowed to serve” is factually incorrect regardless of how you feel about Paul.

Plus, it’s a lot different moving from E-1 to E-4 as you likely did. That’s typical if you breathe and work hard. When I served it was 4 years to move from O-1 to O-3 regardless of how good you were. Then it was 3-4 years before promotion to O-4 (3 for me). Nobody moved from O-1 to O-4 in 4 years outside of battlefield promotions in combat back in WWII days.

But, thank you and your family for your service in any event. I do have great respect for anyone who serves honorably.


192 posted on 01/10/2012 6:38:45 AM PST by monkeypants (It's a Republic, if you can keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: monkeypants
You are a funny guy.

Yes, but when it comes to Paul I am deadly serious. Why you may ask? Well let me respond to another of your statements:

What about you? What are your credentials as a self appointed judge? Who are you pushing and why? How are their positions different?

The only credential I need is that of American Citizen, father and husband. Protecting my family outranks all other concerns. From that I can judge and support how I see fit those who best serve that purpose and those who pose a threat as well. Paul is most definitely the latter and I have little patience with those who support or defend in at any level be it in passing or full on Paulistinian mode...

I never said I was a Paul supporter, but in the current situation with multiple poor choices I encourage a healthy dialog and focus on specific issues and facts.

There are a lot of “if you’s” in your rant that are certainly presumptive. When you go off into “your boy who has no problem with a bunch of nuts killing my family..” it tells me that you would rather rant and scream than focus on issues and you may be challenged sticking to facts.

My "rant" holds, I have no issue with facts, if you have even been casually reading Paul articles on FR you see more than ample evidence of his support of Iran etc.

You want to focus on debatable issues fine. Paul has points on domestic issues I can agree with. But not with him as the messenger. His idiocy pollutes anything substantive he could provide. Find and support or argue for another champion for those ideas that are valid.

As for the rest of Paul's "positions", there is no debate, no issue to "discus", it is simple yes or no. Does one support Terrorist or not with their words and actions. Paul does, mainly in words for now. I fear for his actions if he ever had a position of power.

I proudly served this country and I’m a retired Naval Aviator - sorry, no trips to Russia or any current Communist countries (you probably missed the fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists).

Thank you for your service, as for the Soviet Union, that was my point, it no longer exists due to Reagan's efforts that Paul took issue with.

Have a nice day as well.

193 posted on 01/10/2012 8:02:32 AM PST by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Afronaut
The letter was written in 1987, not 2008.

Paulistinians use Reagan to paint Paul as a Conservative then argue he was right in a letter he wrote dismissing the President at the height of Reagan's success in defeating the most threatening enemy our nation ever had?

Really?

And folks wonder why we call the boy surrender monkey. If he had his way we wouldn't have terrorism to worry about, the Soviets would still be looming over us.

Freaking Brilliant...

194 posted on 01/10/2012 8:11:38 AM PST by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

OK - so what I get out of this is that you are passionate about your family and America - that’s good, me too.

You can agree with some of his domestic policy points - OK, me too. Most of it in fact.

Some serious and intelligent folks like Mish Shedlock and Judge Napolitano are speaking out for Paul - why is that? They are not loons, extremists or unreasonable people. I have followed Shedlock’s economic newsletter for years and he is a very smart (and conservative) guy.

The common thread against Paul seems to be the implication that he supports terrorists (small t). Is that a stretch from his opinion that Iran does not pose a real and present danger to us? Is there something like the Ayers/Obama connection that I’m missing? If so, that would be very helpful to know and understand. Otherwise, I think it’s healthy to have a very vigorous debate and be extremely reluctant to send our troops into battle as casually as we do lately. But, Congress should do their job there.

I thought that hitting the thugs in Afghanistan and dismantling their Taliban network of support was the right thing to do after 9/11. Paul also voted in favor of doing so (with reservations and commentary to that effect). But, we need to wrap it up and stop playing buddies with Pakistan - they are not our friends... We got Bin Laden (who had become irrelevant) and most of the other Al Quaeda leadership, so let’s stop sending my friends over there to get killed (too many in this category, mostly Seals).

He has made some statements that are not pro-Israel. I personally believe that we need to support Israel defensively. I have not heard him say anything anti-Israel but he does ramble a bit when he “thinks out loud” too often. I agree with Newt that Palestine is a made up concept and there should be no foundation of support for the PLO, Hamas or any other similar organization; can you point me to where Paul goes too far in the debate there? That would be important. If he is just saying “let’s mind our own business unless we are directly threatened” that’s a debate point, but not a make me foam at the mouth point.

From what I have learned so far, Paul is pro military and for a strong US national defense. He has stated that if we have cause to go to war then Congress should declare war and we should fight with everything we have until we win and then leave. That is what our Constitution provides for - is there another more palatable candidate who takes that position? Why didn’t we declare war on Iraq?

Do we need bases in 140+ countries (I don’t think so personally). Can we have a strong defense without staying in these countries forever - sure we can! The foundation of a strong defense is energy independence and a healthy domestic economy(which also derives from energy independence...) based upon a balanced budget - all of which is achievable in 5 years or less if we commit to that. I believe that is his view too.

I think that his detailed budget makes a lot of sense - have you looked at it? http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/ He proposes to keep defense expenditures at roughly 2008 levels of more than 500 billion and to continue to take care of our military families and veterans. There is plenty of money in his budget to provide for that... He just proposes to end war funding (Iraq, Afghanistan and prospectively, Iran) and end foreign aid (since it is unconstitutional). Congress can override some of the foreign aid if they feel strongly about it.

Continued out of control deficit spending is a HUGE threat to our country and our families - particularly our children. Who else has a detailed and published plan like his? I think that a republican majority congress could pass all of what he proposes and would result in a very healthy booming economy and a budget surplus. That’s pretty appealing! He is not proposing anything overly idealistic and it is going to take someone with the gumption to FORCE even a republican majority to defund or eliminate the 5 agencies he proposes to get rid of. Neither Romney or Santorum will do that. Who knows what Gingrich would do..(seriously)

He is a strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment - power in the hands of the people. That’s not typical of a potential tyrant.

I agree that he has indicated support for some nutballs like Kucinich, Nader and Sheehan - that seems politically naive and I have not dug into the rationale for it. But, it does make me very wary and wonder why he would say that even if he had a logical reason to do so.

In any event, I’m really just looking for facts before ruling anyone in or out. I liked Perry (on the surface/pre-vetting) before the debates started - I thought he was going to kick butt - but he blew it.

Who else is there with a strong pro-Constitutional track record and a balanced budget? That is a HUGE issue for me and trumps most other issues. Not Gingrich, Romney or Santorum certainly...they would just continue the mess we have in Washington - business as usual.. more crony capitalism..

You would be helping people make a good decision by sticking to facts and not just declaring anyone who asks about Paul to be a deranged nut. That just turns intelligent folks off and causes them to dismiss your commentary. It just sounds like what the press and libs did to Palin, Cain and others and a lot of patriots will just lump you in that category.

Have a nice day.


195 posted on 01/10/2012 9:19:42 AM PST by monkeypants (It's a Republic, if you can keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: monkeypants
Then it was 3-4 years before promotion to O-4 (3 for me).

But the surrender monkey was an O-3 for five years. The entire time he was in the Air Force he was not able to receive even one promotion.

I am just saying he was just as ineffective as an officer as he is a congressman.
196 posted on 01/10/2012 1:54:39 PM PST by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: John D

Well John,
I think you need to find a stronger argument and I’m sure that there are many...

I’ll close by saying that George Bush only made it to 2nd Lt (O-2), his father made it to Lt (O-3) even though he was awarded a DFC and Ronald Reagan only made it to Captain in the Army Air Force (also O-3). Does that mean that they were all ineffective as officers?

Have a nice day.


197 posted on 01/10/2012 2:24:05 PM PST by monkeypants (It's a Republic, if you can keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-197 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