Thread: Ron Paul on the Issues

Ron Paul's Poll Numbers Surge In Iowa

Ron Paul or Republican Party

RON PAUL VS the NEW WORLD ORDER

Ron Paul's Explanation of NDAA (U.S. Citizen Indefinite Military Detention)

A Better Idea For National Defense

December 27, 2011 by Robert Ringer

UPI

War is big business.

If there’s one thing that bothers me this time of the year, it’s seeing ex-servicemen in wheelchairs or sporting titanium arms and legs on television. If peaceful, rational humanoids from another galaxy landed in the United States, I have to believe they would be appalled. I can just hear them asking, “Who sent all these healthy young men and women off to be maimed and killed?” And, “Did the people who sent them lead the charge into battle?”

Many people argue that having the lives of thousands of young adults destroyed — or lost — is the price of preserving our freedom. During World War II, when America was a very different Nation, most people had no trouble buying into that proposition. But in today’s corrupt, semi-socialist America, the biggest threat to our freedom comes not from abroad, but from the criminal class in Washington — and, unfortunately, no one is talking about invading the Nation’s capital.

It’s time to skip the political-correctness silliness and face up to reality: Most wars are transfer-of-wealth scams — transferring money from you and me to the companies that build the planes, tanks, bombs, uniforms, drones, etc. that politicians say they need to protect us. The military-industrial complex has been dominant in all advanced civilizations throughout history, and it’s never been in better health than it is today.

We’re talking very big business here. It’s so big that those who benefit the most from it are willing to have people killed in order to keep the war assembly lines moving ahead at full speed.

As a third-generation tyrant (Kim Jong Un, a.k.a. “Chublet II”) steps to the fore in North Korea, one can’t helping thinking about the infamous Korean War that ended without victory in 1953 — even though victory was in the palm of General Douglas MacArthur’s hand.

Or the infamous Vietnam War that ended in defeat in 1975 — even though the United States could have won that war years earlier had it been willing to use overwhelming force.

Or the infamous Gulf War that ended, curiously, with Saddam Hussein still in power in 1992.

If you want to be ahead of the curve, you can add the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War to the above list as well. Bet the farm on this one: The Iraq story is going to have a very unhappy ending. The only question is whether the country will be overwhelmed by civil war or by an Iran takeover.

As to Afghanistan, it will end the same way that all Afghan wars end — meaning never. Its latest attackers — the Americans — will go back home with their tails between their legs, just as the Russians did before them. And the Afghans will continue to do what they have always done — fight.

It’s not possible to win a war against Afghanistan, because it’s not a real country. It’s a down-and-dirty suburb of the moon, filled with tribesmen who get up every morning, put on their skirts, and do what they have been doing for thousands of years — fight anyone who is willing to enter the ring with them. If there are no takers, they are happy to fight each other.

I don’t doubt the courage or patriotism of the young Americans for whom wheelchairs or prosthetics are now a way of life. They acted in good faith and did what they thought was right. They believed they were being patriotic and defending our freedom.

But it makes me angry that their lives have been shattered because corrupt men and women in Washington got them to believe they were fighting for a noble cause. They were not. That will become obvious to all in the coming years as we watch events unfold in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, along the way, $1 trillion got transferred from the pockets of taxpayers into the coffers of the military-industrial complex.

With drones, bunker busters and, in a pinch, nuclear weapons, war should by now be passé. It isn’t necessary to risk the lives of young men and women in far-off lands. If I were a hawk (which I most definitely am not), I would free the North Korean people in about 17 minutes — without harming any young Americans. Iran might take a week — just long enough to turn things over to the pro-Western youths in that country whom Barack Obama was so pleased to see crushed.

But, as I said, I’m not a hawk, so I wouldn’t take either of the above actions. I’m just your average libertarian-centered conservative who is tired of war … tired of seeing young people’s lives shattered … tired of seeing American taxpayers forced to hand over their money to politicians so they can pursue never-ending overseas military adventures.

That said, let me make it clear that I’m a big advocate of having a strong national defense. My message to rogue nations would be simple: Mess with us and yesterday will always be remembered as the best day of your life. And, yes, we use nukes if that’s what it takes to make you behave.

Imagine all the lives and money that could have been saved had we hit the Tora Bora mountain range with a string of nuclear bombs in 2001. No U.S. casualties, no trillion dollars wasted, no decade of political posturing. And, best of all, from Russia to China, from North Korea to Iran, the rest of the world would live in fear of what might happen to them if they messed with the Great Satan. How much more comforting it is to be feared rather than liked.

The holiday season is a good time to reflect on how nice it would be if young Americans didn’t lose any more arms or legs and taxpayers would not have to fund a military-industrial complex with such a voracious appetite.

Strong national defense: Yes! Unwarranted wars and wars that we’re not serious about winning: No!

–Robert Ringer

http://www.personalliberty.com/conse...-defense/?eiid=

Attack Dogs Unleashed on Ron Paul

Mike Shedlock
Dec 28, 2011

Attack dogs have finally been unleashed on Ron Paul. Those barking dogs caused Andrew Sullivan to Re-Think The Paul Endorsement

Time Magazine even launched a headline Paul Walks Away

No Need to Rethink Endorsement

There is no need to rethink endorsements. Here is the deal: Ron Paul did not say the things attributed to him. He denies them, disavows them, and most importantly, his voting record proves it!

Can anyone honestly tell me why things Ron Paul did NOT say over twenty years ago should be news today?

Paul Missed Best Tactic

How many times does he have to deny he wrote those things? Still, Ron Paul did not handle the CNN setup in the best possible manner.

This is what Paul said to CNN.

“Why don’t you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN and what I’ve said for 20 something years. 22 years ago? I didn’t write them, I disavow them."

That answer was perfectly fine, as far as it went. Then Paul walked out. It was a missed opportunity.

Proposed Follow-Up

Rather than walking out, Paul should have followed up with ...

"I'm not here to discuss imaginary topics or things I never said. Now, do you want to discuss my position on the economy, on the Fed, and on spending, or is your only point to this interview to discuss things I did not say 20 years ago and have explained to CNN countless times?"

That would have smashed the ball down CNN interviewer Gloria Borger's throat, right where it belonged.

OK. Admittedly, Ron Paul did not respond in the perfect manner. So Ron Paul is human. Who isn't?

Is a transgression 22 years ago of something Ron Paul never said, and whose track record in congress proves it, any reason to drop support of Ron Paul?

In favor of who? Flip-flopper Newt Gingrich? Mitt Romney, the man that practically wrote the Obama Health-Care legislation? The Mitt Romney who wants to starts a trade war with China? Another Republican candidate that has no chance of winning?

If case you are a misguided Mitt Romney fan please consider President Obama and Mitt Romney are Nearly One and the Same!

Anyone "rethinking" their Ron Paul endorsement based on things Paul never said is not thinking clearly.

Attack Dog Plus Side

Here's the plus side to the attack dogs: Ron Paul is now considered a serious candidate or the attack dogs would not have been unleashed on things he never said 22 years ago.

Interestingly, The State Column reports Ron Paul still holds a lead in Iowa.

Thus, a majority of voters have decided that 22-year-old never-made statements are irrelevant, even if some misguided souls can't.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

http://finance.townhall.com/columnis...aul/page/full/

$4,769,587.14 Contributed So Far TOWARDS FREEDOM!!!!!

https://secure.ronpaul2012.com/?sr=29-1226

Why did NumbersUSA give Paul an 'F' on illegal immigration? At this point that's all I give a rats ass about! All the rest that crap can be fixed as we go!