Ron Paul, Elitist Pig - How the Chicken-Hawk Argument Stifles Intelligent Debate

Red State ^

[jpsb]

There has always been a special draft for medical doctors, the armed forces can not fight wars without doctors.

[running_dog_lackey]

“He volunteered. He lied about being drafted...”

And if he had stated, “I volunteered to serve my country” you would likely be calling him a liar because he was served with a draft notice.

[patlin]

So now pointing out the “lack” of something in an opponents record is “chicken hawking”? It’s like red state telling us that presidential eligibility is a “non-issue”. I’m sick of political bias news bloggers telling us how to think and vote based on their biased opinions and lack of respect for the US Constitution.

Facts are facts and when facts are no longer pertinent, then it’s lights out folks for the Decalration of Independence & the US Constitution, FOREVER!

[mnehring]

So now pointing out the “lack” of something in an ...It’s like red state telling us that presidential eligibility is a “non-issue”. I’m sick of political bias news bloggers telling us how to think...

I think you missed the point, they are calling out a political candidate (Paul) for doing exactly this. The author isn't doing it other than the tongue in cheek first paragraph. The author is basically agreeing with you.

[mkjessup]

Ahhh, that Ron Paul joker again. He is indeed the Man of the Year.

Unfortunately that year is 1901.

[patlin]

Thank you for the courtesy however, I did not misunderstand the author's point/biased opinion. What RP pointed out is no different than the govt hiring desk jockey to write laws for those of us in the long haul transportation industry. Just because someone walks around a base and hangs around military personnel & equipment, doesn't make them fit for command based on those personal encounters.

It reminds me of the laws/regulations we are fighting now. Just because some desk jockey rode in a semi from DC to Cleveland,Oh and then got on a plane back to DC, that desk jockey thinks they have the where with all to write laws as to when & how we operate.

The simple fact that Gingrich gets all defensive and never actually tells us exactly HOW & WHY he never served should be a BIG RED FLAG to all voters.

[Milton Miteybad]

Ahhh, that Ron Paul joker again. He is indeed the Man of the Year.

Unfortunately that year is 1901.

Given Dr. Paul's highly questionable foreign policy notions, I would have said "1801," considering it's clear that he's about the only living American (other than his supporters) who has not yet learned the crystal-clear lessons of the Barbary Wars.

[NKP_Vet]

Ron Paul served a couple of years on active duty, a couple in the Air National Guard. He was a flight surgeon. For anyone that doesn’t know what a flight surgeon is I will tell you. It’s a medical doctor that gives pilots their physicals and makes sure they are ready to fly an airplane.
Other than that they drink alot of coffee and play alot golf.

Ron Paul never served overseas, had a desk job, and was never in harm’s way.

His attack on Newt Gingrich was pathetic. If he had also let Romney have it for not serving in the military, maybe I wouldn’t be as hard on the old man as I am. Romney was worse than Gingrich. Having connections in the Morman Church got his weasel his deferment. For three long years Americans, less privileged than Mitt Romney, fought and died in Vietnam, while he was overseas pretending to be a “morman minister”, which is a joke. It burns me up that Ron Paul has became Romney’s biggest cheerleader and never says a disparaging word about him. Ron Paul was also never drafted in the Air Force. The Air Force has never had a draft. He was also never drafted into the Army. Now he might have thought he was going to get drafted in the Army and joined the Air Force. Technically, that would make Ron Paul a draft-dodger himself. He served from 63-65 in the Regular Air Force, then when Vietnam was building up, he joined the very safe Air Force National Guard. He knew he would never have to serve in Vietnam. I don’t like hypocrites and Paul is a hypocrite. An Audie Murphy he aint!

[mnehring]

He did tell us how and why. He wasn’t drafted. He was over the age that people were being drafted when the draft was run and he was married with kids. Paul lied that he applied for deferments. He didn’t need to, he was already exempt.

[jpsb]

If you like Newt I don't know why you bring up the issue of Vietnam, it clearly is not in Newt best interests.

But since you insist in his own words

""Given everything I believe in, a large part of me thinks I should have gone over," Gingrich told Jane Mayer in 1985. "Part of the question I had to ask myself was what difference I would have made," adding that "there was a bigger battle in Congress than Vietnam." As Gingrich put it, "no one felt this was the battle-line on which freedom would live or die."

[mkjessup]

Well said FRiend and BRAVO.

Now if Ron Paul had volunteered to GO to Vietnam to provide his surgical skills for our wounded troops, that would be a different situation.

Your description however, more than suffices.

Thanks.

[patlin]

He did tell us how and why. He wasn’t drafted

He gave an emotionally defensive answer using a couple of reasons that were not backed by the facts of the law at the time. Period.

[SJackson]

Since it is the President is the Commander and Chief of the military, I agree with Paul in the case of the President, only. Our Presidents should have military experience. Had we respected that qualifing standard, we would not have the vapid anti-American Muslim in the White House who has mandated homosexuality on the military.

Would the founders ever have disagreed with you, they were big fans of civilian control of the military.

We'd rewrite our list of Presidents as

George Washington

John Adams

Thomas Jefferson

James Madison

James Monroe

John Quincy Adams

Andrew Jackson, finally, a true Democrat.

[SJackson]

If that's what Paul said, then I'll take him at his word. Just like I'll take Newt at his word when he says that he never asked for a deferment

I don't believe either of them, though people can forget. I had a college deferrment, 4 years. Obviously I "asked" for it, how else would my draft board know I was in college. Whether it was one "request" or four, I haven't a clue, but they knew when I was a senior and informed me early in the year the month I'd go 1A.

And despite the articles explanation that Paul wouldn't have been a prime draft candidate in the early 60s, I very seriously doubt Paul went through college and med school with a 1A classification. My guess he did the same thing Newt did, got a deferrment.

[SJackson]

He volunteered. He lied about being drafted just like he lied about Newt’s deferments.

Wish I had the links to some of the 2008 threads handy. I distinctly remember this issue coming up regarding both Giuliani and Paul. And Pauls supporters position was quite different, he stood up and volunteered. I recall attacks from some of the paultards because I volunteered only late in college, which they let me finish, when I knew I'd be drafted otherwise.

[SJackson]

What RP pointed out is no different than the govt hiring desk jockey to write laws for those of us in the long haul transportation industry. Just because someone walks around a base and hangs around military personnel & equipment, doesn't make them fit for command based on those personal encounters.

You mean LBJ's military experience didn't qualify him to task bombing missions from the White House?

[SJackson]

I would have said "1801," considering it's clear that he's about the only living American (other than his supporters) who has not yet learned the crystal-clear lessons of the Barbary Wars.

Don't forget the undeclared quasi-war with France which had just ended, and had led to the construction of our Navy and restablishment of the Marine Corps, our prime weapons against the Islamists. Some things never change

[SJackson]

Middle East and terrorism, occasional political and Jewish issues Ping List. High Volume

If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.

..................

[x]

The observation that sometimes leaders who haven't seen real combat are too quick to send troops to war is a valid one backed up by experience.

I wouldn't express it as "not having a right" to be president or to make policy choices as president, but the observation is worth making.

It doesn't shut anyone up, but it does raise the threshhold a little when we go to war, asking us to be sure that a leader who didn't serve or didn't see combat really understands what's involved.

The article writer goes too quickly to name-calling and is certainly perverse: when the country gears up to go to war there is so much pressure on those who might not agree that it's bizarre to argue that those who argue the negative are trying to "shut people up."

[patlin]

What I am saying is serving “IN” the military in NOT the same as HANGING AROUND the military with no 1st person stake in it. No one military personnel, enlisted or officer, has quote “personal” experience every single minute aspect of all military branches however, being an active duty member and actually serving under oath does lend to the ability of the person to effectively serve as the commander in chief of the military. That is just plain fact which has been proven time and time again.

And that is all I am saying, how can one possibly stand up and say they are ready to command a post that they have no 1st person knowledge of. A father's stories are not 1st person knowledge, that is what a court would call hearsay. And can we drop the ‘army brat’ already, it's doesn't help his public perception when he refers to himself as a ‘brat’ all the time.