His 10 terms in Congress give us a history of consistency that can be reviewed and dcoumented.
For us Republicans who believe in small-ov, the Constitution, and free-markets, that means something to us.
For those newer neo-con republicans who fled the Democrats in the 70s, they are more interested in someone who is more flexible to the whim of the day. Hardly something we would call conservative.
As for being afraid, being free and having liberty and the responsibility of yuourself is scary, which is why most Americans are more then happy to let the government run their lives.
It's easier to bitch about the system then to go it alone.
likwidshoe
· 1 year ago
Gene - Why would you look for a reason to hate someone? I know that was probably just a turn of phrase, but come on.
Cawdor - the guy is completely naive when it comes to dealing with the threat of Islam. That is the number one reason why many around here scoff at the guy.
Are you a Republican who believes in national defense? Not if you're for Ron Paul.
solo lawyer
· 1 year ago
Just so I understand...
Having 700+ military bases around the world; Having a military presence in the Muslim holy land; Spending 50%+ of our budget on maintaining our armed forces and war debt; Allying with terrorists and dictators when it supports our interests; and Going to war against countries that have no ability to attack us is good for our national defense?
Try this:
Close down our foreign military presence drastically; Bring the troops home to protect us at home; Cut our taxes in half or more by decreasing military and war spending to 10% or our budget; and Start spending money on protecting our borders from illegal immigrants and dangerous imported goods.
Is there no room for logic and reason in this country?
likwidshoe
· 1 year ago
Spending 50%+ of our budget on maintaining our armed forces and war debt
That's a laugh.
It's more like 19%. Welfare and other socialist programs take up nearly 70%.
Going to war against countries that have no ability to attack us is good for our national defense?
That's another laugh.
Bring the troops home to protect us at home
Naive. I'd rather have them at our enemy's door.
Cut our taxes in half or more by decreasing military and war spending to 10% or our budget
Where are you getting these figures at? The military only takes up 19% of the federal budget. If you want to cut costs, look to cutting the "New Deal" and "Great Society" programs.
Is there no room for logic and reason in this country?
We're not getting it from you, that's for sure.
George H
· 1 year ago
likewidshoe Have you even looked into his policies? Protecting our borders is increasing our national defense. Also how is he naive with the "threat" of Islam? What sounds realistic someone attacking you because you are occupying something of theres, or someone attacking you because you are a more "free" country then them and they envy that. Tell me what the more reasonable choice is.
likwidshoe
· 1 year ago
Protecting our borders is increasing our national defense.
There is more to national defense than just protecting the borders.
Also how is he naive with the "threat" of Islam?
He thinks we can just ignore it, pull back from the Middle East, and sit at home hoping that nothing happens.
What sounds realistic someone attacking you because you are occupying something of theres, or someone attacking you because you are a more "free" country then them and they envy that. Tell me what the more reasonable choice is.
4. Now we want to invade Iran? Where are their weapons? How will they attack us? What was their involvement in 9/11?
likwidshoe
· 1 year ago
If you think that we attacked Iraq to fight terrorists then you are mistaken.
Oh. Okay. Whatever. I'm not interested in hearing your conspiracy theory as to the Real Reason™ for the war.
1. According to Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Bush sought to invade Iraq almost immediately after taking office
So? I would hope so. We were pissing around with the country's dictator for nearly a decade longer than we should have.
2. 15 of the 19 hijackers involved in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Not Iraq. The Saudi's are much more culpable than Saddam.
Well thank you Mr. Obvious.
3. Saddam never had any weapons of mass destruction and even if he did, he had no means to use those nonexistent weapons to attach the US.
Who cares?
4. Now we want to invade Iran? Where are their weapons? How will they attack us? What was their involvement in 9/11?
1. Yes. 2. They don't have them, even as they've announced the other day that they're opening up a second nuclear facility. And all of the world's naive are buying it. 3. They're doing it already. What do you mean, how will? 4. None as far as I know, but that's not a question that has to be answered in the positive for the US to take action.
likwidshoe
· 1 year ago
Gene, as you think about Ron Paul, check out some of his supporters and their arguments.
We don't have to stop you, his supporters will do that.
solo lawyer
· 1 year ago
So it sounds to me like you favor war against any country that may now or at some time in the future have some weapons.
What a great life you must lead.
robert108
· 1 year ago
sl: With Iran, it's the intent to develop nuclear weapons coupled with an announced desire to destroy both Israel and the US, combined with a lust to dominate the region. Duh.
likwidshoe
· 1 year ago
solo lawyer gives a typically misleading lawyer answer, So it sounds to me like you favor war against any country that may now or at some time in the future have some weapons.
Wow. Go back to school and learn how to read.
What a great life you must lead.
You wouldn't know. You don't know me and you don't know my positions.
Thanks for making it personal.
2Hotel9
· 1 year ago
Ron Paul has been in Congress for 28 years. Please to provide the list of successful moves he has made to fix and or stop ANY of the things he continually screeches about.
As for bringing the troops home to protect us, the Constitution clearly states that our military can not operate WITHIN our borders, unless we are invaded. So it would appear that you advocate invading Mexico and Canada. Or declaring a State Of Emergency and instituting martial law over the citizens of America. That does not seem to libertarian or conservative, now does it?
2Hotel9
· 1 year ago
Oh, Gene, plenty of people feel exactly the same about William Jefferson Clinton.
The Whistler
· 1 year ago
[quote]Spending 50%+ of our budget on maintaining our armed forces and war debt; [/quote]
Providing for our defense is one of the few legitimate purposes of government.
On the other hand social spending has proved to be counterproductive to say the least.
robert108
· 1 year ago
[quote]What sounds realistic someone attacking you because you are occupying something of theres, or someone attacking you because you are a more "free" country then them and they envy that. Tell me what the more reasonable choice is.[/quote]
Radical Islam declared war on the non-Islamic world 1300 years ago. All the so-called "Islamic Holy Lands" once belonged to someone else, and the Islamics took them by force. "Conversion by the sword". Wake up!
Chief RZ
· 1 year ago
Whistler. I agree. "Provide for the common defense first". Wouldn't it be nice if communism and fascism were eliminated. Unfortunately, we live in a corrupt world where certain people do not [i]play nice[/i].
2Hotel9
· 1 year ago
It appears these Luap Nor supporters consider Marx and Engels and Lenin as our Founding Fathers, "to each according to his needs", "the Sword of The State should ensure the security of The State", "no individual shall place his welfare before that of The State".
Sorry, Comrades, I am not the property of the State. Nor are my child or wife.
Try again.
Gene
· 1 year ago
Thanks guys, I needed a dope slap. and LIQ, I meant hate in the best possible way. As in find a reason why not to like him very much.
I'm all better now.
Bike Bubba
· 1 year ago
Lik's first response is mine; I like a lot of what Dr. Paul stands for, but when he starts to claim that Islamists won't bother us if we don't bother them, I realize that apparently he's never heard of the Barbary Pirates, or Islam's 1400 year war on the rest of the world.
In my opinion, politics needs more radicals like him, except that it would be nice if they realized that radical Islam is not a phenomenon of the past few years, nor is it solely a response to our support of Israel.
brenarlo
· 1 year ago
likwidshoe,
Maybe people don't like to debate you because you're a dick. Grow up a little bit. Many people don't have 20 hours per day to attempt to be funny on a blog.
I have a problem with Paul's foreign policy a bit, too. I don't think we should withdraw from Iraq immediately, but there's no reason to have hundreds of military bases around the world when we have the technology and our troops have the skill to work lighter, quicker, and more lethal.
Both sides make a good argument. We can cut back on military bases and cut taxes... or we can reform entitlement programs and cut taxes. If you listen closely to Ron Paul, he is the ONLY candidate advocating both.
Someone asked what Paul has done to get his agenda through the House. It's tough to get conservative legislation through the House when Paul is one of about 5 conservative members of the House.
The problem Paul has is that some of his supporters are idiots. Some of them are "truthers," ultra-libertarian, or are just plain crazy. How does that diminish any of Paul's positions.
Just the other day, someone here posted about a columinst suggesting we eliminate the CIA and start some other intelligence gathering unit. People were praising the idea. The funny thing is that Ron Paul is the only candidate who is advocating just that. Had that person known that, I bet the post would've been named "Kook wants to eliminate spying."
Maybe people, like Proof, should actually watch Paul's appearance on Glenn Beck's show and listen to him actually talk instead of listening to the mainstream media's attempts to make him look foolish or his fringe supporters who believe 9/11 was an inside job.
But for people like likwidshoe, that's probably asking too much. I don't expect an honest thoughtful answer from him, but for conservatives still searching for a candidate, Paul has probably as good a chance as everyone's hero Fred Thompson.
By the way, a conservative wouldn't limit free speech by limiting political speech. Before the Thompson people jump down my throat, I understand that he's the most conservative of the group besides Paul and Tancredo, but you cannot deny that Paul is the actual conservative, whereas Thompson is the "21st century" conservative... the kind that see conservatism as cutting some tax here and there.
Conservatism is about individual liberty, which means drastic SPENDING cuts along with program reforms.
Open-minded people should give Paul another look. Read what he actually writes. Listen to what he says. He's certainly no kook and he's certainly not a fake conservative.
likwidshoe
· 1 year ago
brenarlo - whoa! Calm down and drop the assumptions.
It's okay though. People who endorse Ron Paul usually don't like me. Hell, they usually don't like anybody at this site. You're just another one. Angry and complaining.
likwidshoe
· 1 year ago
BTW Brett, what happened to your website? It was only last night that I noticed that it was no longer active and subsequently took it off of the blogroll.
Proof
· 1 year ago
[quote]The problem Paul has is that some of his supporters are idiots. Some of them are "truthers," ultra-libertarian, or are just plain crazy. How does that diminish any of Paul's positions. [/quote]They don't diminish his positions, they diminish [b][i]him[/i][/b] when he does not [b]distance himself[/b] from the wackiest of the pack in order not to offend them and secure their votes!
All Comments
His 10 terms in Congress give us a history of consistency that can be reviewed and dcoumented.
For us Republicans who believe in small-ov, the Constitution, and free-markets, that means something to us.
For those newer neo-con republicans who fled the Democrats in the 70s, they are more interested in someone who is more flexible to the whim of the day. Hardly something we would call conservative.
As for being afraid, being free and having liberty and the responsibility of yuourself is scary, which is why most Americans are more then happy to let the government run their lives.
It's easier to bitch about the system then to go it alone.
Cawdor - the guy is completely naive when it comes to dealing with the threat of Islam. That is the number one reason why many around here scoff at the guy.
Are you a Republican who believes in national defense? Not if you're for Ron Paul.
Having 700+ military bases around the world;
Having a military presence in the Muslim holy land;
Spending 50%+ of our budget on maintaining our armed forces and war debt;
Allying with terrorists and dictators when it supports our interests; and
Going to war against countries that have no ability to attack us is good for our national defense?
Try this:
Close down our foreign military presence drastically;
Bring the troops home to protect us at home;
Cut our taxes in half or more by decreasing military and war spending to 10% or our budget; and
Start spending money on protecting our borders from illegal immigrants and dangerous imported goods.
Is there no room for logic and reason in this country?
That's a laugh.
It's more like 19%. Welfare and other socialist programs take up nearly 70%.
Going to war against countries that have no ability to attack us is good for our national defense?
That's another laugh.
Bring the troops home to protect us at home
Naive. I'd rather have them at our enemy's door.
Cut our taxes in half or more by decreasing military and war spending to 10% or our budget
Where are you getting these figures at? The military only takes up 19% of the federal budget. If you want to cut costs, look to cutting the "New Deal" and "Great Society" programs.
Is there no room for logic and reason in this country?
We're not getting it from you, that's for sure.
Have you even looked into his policies?
Protecting our borders is increasing our national defense.
Also how is he naive with the "threat" of Islam?
What sounds realistic someone attacking you because you are occupying something of theres, or someone attacking you because you are a more "free" country then them and they envy that. Tell me what the more reasonable choice is.
There is more to national defense than just protecting the borders.
Also how is he naive with the "threat" of Islam?
He thinks we can just ignore it, pull back from the Middle East, and sit at home hoping that nothing happens.
What sounds realistic someone attacking you because you are occupying something of theres, or someone attacking you because you are a more "free" country then them and they envy that. Tell me what the more reasonable choice is.
What?
Speak English Doc.
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
Government figures show 21% of the budget is military spending but those figures do not include a lot of items.
If you think that we attacked Iraq to fight terrorists then you are mistaken.
1. According to Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Bush sought to invade Iraq almost immediately after taking office;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60min...
2. 15 of the 19 hijackers involved in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Not Iraq. The Saudi's are much more culpable than Saddam.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/23/saudi.fbi...
3. Saddam never had any weapons of mass destruction and even if he did, he had no means to use those nonexistent weapons to attach the US.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
4. Now we want to invade Iran? Where are their weapons? How will they attack us? What was their involvement in 9/11?
Oh. Okay. Whatever. I'm not interested in hearing your conspiracy theory as to the Real Reason™ for the war.
1. According to Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Bush sought to invade Iraq almost immediately after taking office
So? I would hope so. We were pissing around with the country's dictator for nearly a decade longer than we should have.
2. 15 of the 19 hijackers involved in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Not Iraq. The Saudi's are much more culpable than Saddam.
Well thank you Mr. Obvious.
3. Saddam never had any weapons of mass destruction and even if he did, he had no means to use those nonexistent weapons to attach the US.
Who cares?
4. Now we want to invade Iran? Where are their weapons? How will they attack us? What was their involvement in 9/11?
1. Yes. 2. They don't have them, even as they've announced the other day that they're opening up a second nuclear facility. And all of the world's naive are buying it. 3. They're doing it already. What do you mean, how will? 4. None as far as I know, but that's not a question that has to be answered in the positive for the US to take action.
We don't have to stop you, his supporters will do that.
What a great life you must lead.
Wow. Go back to school and learn how to read.
What a great life you must lead.
You wouldn't know. You don't know me and you don't know my positions.
Thanks for making it personal.
As for bringing the troops home to protect us, the Constitution clearly states that our military can not operate WITHIN our borders, unless we are invaded. So it would appear that you advocate invading Mexico and Canada. Or declaring a State Of Emergency and instituting martial law over the citizens of America. That does not seem to libertarian or conservative, now does it?
Providing for our defense is one of the few legitimate purposes of government.
On the other hand social spending has proved to be counterproductive to say the least.
Radical Islam declared war on the non-Islamic world 1300 years ago. All the so-called "Islamic Holy Lands" once belonged to someone else, and the Islamics took them by force. "Conversion by the sword". Wake up!
Sorry, Comrades, I am not the property of the State. Nor are my child or wife.
Try again.
I'm all better now.
In my opinion, politics needs more radicals like him, except that it would be nice if they realized that radical Islam is not a phenomenon of the past few years, nor is it solely a response to our support of Israel.
Maybe people don't like to debate you because you're a dick. Grow up a little bit. Many people don't have 20 hours per day to attempt to be funny on a blog.
I have a problem with Paul's foreign policy a bit, too. I don't think we should withdraw from Iraq immediately, but there's no reason to have hundreds of military bases around the world when we have the technology and our troops have the skill to work lighter, quicker, and more lethal.
Both sides make a good argument. We can cut back on military bases and cut taxes... or we can reform entitlement programs and cut taxes. If you listen closely to Ron Paul, he is the ONLY candidate advocating both.
Someone asked what Paul has done to get his agenda through the House. It's tough to get conservative legislation through the House when Paul is one of about 5 conservative members of the House.
The problem Paul has is that some of his supporters are idiots. Some of them are "truthers," ultra-libertarian, or are just plain crazy. How does that diminish any of Paul's positions.
Just the other day, someone here posted about a columinst suggesting we eliminate the CIA and start some other intelligence gathering unit. People were praising the idea. The funny thing is that Ron Paul is the only candidate who is advocating just that. Had that person known that, I bet the post would've been named "Kook wants to eliminate spying."
Maybe people, like Proof, should actually watch Paul's appearance on Glenn Beck's show and listen to him actually talk instead of listening to the mainstream media's attempts to make him look foolish or his fringe supporters who believe 9/11 was an inside job.
But for people like likwidshoe, that's probably asking too much. I don't expect an honest thoughtful answer from him, but for conservatives still searching for a candidate, Paul has probably as good a chance as everyone's hero Fred Thompson.
By the way, a conservative wouldn't limit free speech by limiting political speech. Before the Thompson people jump down my throat, I understand that he's the most conservative of the group besides Paul and Tancredo, but you cannot deny that Paul is the actual conservative, whereas Thompson is the "21st century" conservative... the kind that see conservatism as cutting some tax here and there.
Conservatism is about individual liberty, which means drastic SPENDING cuts along with program reforms.
Open-minded people should give Paul another look. Read what he actually writes. Listen to what he says. He's certainly no kook and he's certainly not a fake conservative.
It's okay though. People who endorse Ron Paul usually don't like me. Hell, they usually don't like anybody at this site. You're just another one. Angry and complaining.