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 ...
DEBT LIMIT - A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY
Is this the video you had in mind? It's not bad.
Oh.
Like 'W'?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What you said!
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.