Dear Ron Paul Supporters,

[JohnnyMack]

I get that the young, politically motivated, pseudo-intellectual college crowd (SicEm) has taken to this fellow. I realize that you think he's the political cats pajamas. He may end up being the greatest thing to happen to the political landscape in these here United States evar. But please, for the love of God stop with your stupid ****ing guerrilla campaign tactics. I'm sick and tired of seeing RON PAUL spray painted on public and private property. I'm sick of seeing his name scrawled in Krylon black on the sides of traffic light boxes at intersections. I'm sick of seeing RON PAUL stickers plastered all over the drive-thru signs at Starbucks (how Che Guevaran of you :rolleyes:). Hows about you try and not act like this is 1940's Argentina and show a little class. Your tactics don't make me curious about Ron Paul, they don't make me want to vote for Ron Paul, they make me wanna kick you in the skull.

Yes, I do know that I'm sounding more like Dean every day. Shove it.

[OUinFLA]

Yes, I do know that I'm sounding more like Dean every day. Shove it.

Unless you are willing to drop an operating chain saw on your leg, you're doomed to being a Dean-wannabe.

[bri]

I second that angry emotion called "anger".

[Rhino]

I get that the young, politically motivated, pseudo-intellectual college crowd (SicEm) has taken to this fellow. I thought SicEm was enamored with Fred Thompson's Lazy Failboat?

[Boarder]

From what I can tell, those sort of tactics would go against what Mr Paul stands for.

Never heard that one before...a movement doing things that the leader of the movement probably would not approve.

[bri]

Alanis would approve.

[Boarder]

dontcha think?

[bri]

It's like ten thousand cans of spray paint, when all you need is a bumper sticker.

[usmc-sooner]

I get that the young, politically motivated, pseudo-intellectual college crowd (SicEm) has taken to this fellow. I realize that you think he's the political cats pajamas. He may end up being the greatest thing to happen to the political landscape in these here United States evar. But please, for the love of God stop with your stupid ****ing guerrilla campaign tactics. I'm sick and tired of seeing RON PAUL spray painted on public and private property. I'm sick of seeing his name scrawled in Krylon black on the sides of traffic light boxes at intersections. I'm sick of seeing RON PAUL stickers plastered all over the drive-thru signs at Starbucks (how Che Guevaran of you :rolleyes:). Hows about you try and not act like this is 1940's Argentina and show a little class. Your tactics don't make me curious about Ron Paul, they don't make me want to vote for Ron Paul, they make me wanna kick you in the skull.

Yes, I do know that I'm sounding more like Dean every day. Shove it.

I agree

[SicEmBaylor]

I thought SicEm was enamored with Fred Thompson's Lazy Failboat?
Well, I'm both really. I think Fred Thompson brings a lot of Paul's love of Federalism in a (what I once thought was electable) package. He's proving to be as unelectable as Paul though with that inept campaign he's running...

Be that as it may, Fred Thompson may have my head but Ron Paul has my heart. He's the only one who I would trust, no question, with Federal power.

I do agree though that the stupid *** antics of spray painting crap with "Ron Paul" and flooding the net with Ron Paul "bombs" is highly ghey. I also know that none of you Paul haters have a thing to worry about because most, if not all, of those people aren't going to show up to the polls.

[bri]

I wish they would. It'd be easier to punch them.

[SicEmBaylor]

I wish they would. It'd be easier to punch them.
Well, I'll be there.

I'm not sure you want to tussle with me though bucko. ;)

[bri]

Good point. You might bleed Zima on my votin' shoes.

As long as you're not one of those mouth-breathers going all Turk 182! all over my fair city, you're fine. For once.

[Mixer!]

"tustle"?

[frankensooner]

I saw some banners that were hung on the signs over the road on Broadway Extension. That has to be dangerous for the idiot hanging it as well as the street department folks who have to remove it. Just plain stupid.

[picasso]

after the election Ron Paul will disappear like a fart in the wind.

fuzzy britches.

[bri]

Yeah, but the annoying grafitti will be with us forever, just like an ill-advised conflict or the Rolling Stones. :D

[FaninAma]

after the election Ron Paul will disappear like a fart in the wind.

fuzzy britches.

Matt,

Paul, or at least his message, will be around for a while. The only things that will make him go away is if the USD were to go back up and regain its previous reserve currency status, the US banking system somehow avoids the melt-down headed its way, if the US stock markets were to return to the salad days of the Clinton era and if the Iraqi's could somehow figure out how to handle their new found freedom without the aid of hundreds of billions in US support.

In other words, it's not going to happen.

Paul is the only candidate that offers a different plan of action from all the candidates on both sides of the political aisle. If the subprime mess and the economic pain that follows it goes down like I'm afraid it will, Paul's message will only gain in popularity.

We will see.

[picasso]

I agree, there will still be plenty of nuts out there who think 9/11 was an inside job.

and, those too cheap to go to a sign store.

[FaninAma]

I agree, there will still be plenty of nuts out there who think 9/11 was an inside job.

and, those too cheap to go to a sign store.

Painting with a pretty broad brush these days, aren't you? :D

Paul's message is different and he is going to attract some of the political fringe elements. I certainly don't think he stands for anything that would be considered unConstitutional or against civil liberties. In fact, I think he is the most pro-Constitution, pro-civil liberties candidate running.

[picasso]

yeah I'm kidding. I guess he's pretty conservative fiscally but that's pretty much where it stops right? I mean, no presence in the Middle East? That ain't too bright Jerry.

[SicEmBaylor]

yeah I'm kidding. I guess he's pretty conservative fiscally but that's pretty much where it stops right? I mean, no presence in the Middle East? That ain't too bright Jerry.

That used to be the conservative position. The divide on foreign policy isn't between liberal/conservative; it's between internationalists and isolationists.

[SicEmBaylor]

Whoaaaaa.

HOLD THE FREAKING PHONE!

How the hell did I miss Ron Paul's comments on Meet the Press about Lincoln? I mean seriously, how the hell did I miss that!?

That's it. He's my guy. I'm dead serious -- Thompson didn't defend the flag at the CNN-YouTube debate which seriously soured me and now I hear about Paul making this statement?

[Hamhock]

Whoaaaaa.

HOLD THE FREAKING PHONE!

How the hell did I miss Ron Paul's comments on Meet the Press about Lincoln? I mean seriously, how the hell did I miss that!?

That's it. He's my guy. I'm dead serious -- Thompson didn't defend the flag at the CNN-YouTube debate which seriously soured me and now I hear about Paul making this statement?


what was the statement?

[SicEmBaylor]

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/ron_paul_takes_on_repubs_from.html

[FaninAma]

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/ron_paul_takes_on_repubs_from.html

Brilliant!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWqGLVaITsk

[picasso]

That used to be the conservative position. The divide on foreign policy isn't between liberal/conservative; it's between internationalists and isolationists.
regardless of the label, I'll pass.

[crawfish]

I'm convinced that the mainstream candidates - Clinton, Obama, Huckabee, Guliani, all of 'em - will continue to allow the federal government to go into greater debt while whittling away our rights one by one. Paul is the ONLY one I've heard address the unconstitutionality of the Patriot act, so he's the one I'll support.

The shadow government won't let him win, tho. ;)

[Okla-homey]

Any candidate who seriously contends we should withdraw our troops from strategically significant regions overseas is an idiot. period.

Too bad he's the only guy beating the "fair tax" drum. I'm all for that myself, but the real estate, mortgage and residential constructiuon industry will spend whatever it takes to make sure anyone who favors it will not be elected. In case you're not up to speed on the issue, the fair tax plan does away with the mortgage interest deduction -- along with all the rest. It replaces our current multi-volume tax code with a national sales tax.

Kinda like why you can't buy high point beer in an Oklahoma grocery store. The Oklahoma liquor store industry spends millions in campaign contributions to make sure nobody in OKC will ever vote to change OUr law.

[bluedogok]

Paul reminds me of what a Republican used to be about. The others are not Republicans, they comprise the Neo-Con party and CON does not mean conservative. They are the bought and paid for party just like the ones on the "other side" of the aisle.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Bluedog; I don't remember the republicans ever being isolationists. The other party maybe, but not repubs. I believe that's why R Paul hasn't caught any traction within the republicans. They historically haven't been isolationists.

[GrapevineSooner]

Good point. You might bleed Zima on my votin' shoes.

As long as you're not one of those mouth-breathers going all Turk 182! all over my fair city, you're fine. For once.

Zimmerman flew and Tyler knew. ;)

[bluedogok]

Bluedog; I don't remember the republicans ever being isolationists. The other party maybe, but not repubs. I believe that's why R Paul hasn't caught any traction within the republicans. They historically haven't been isolationists.
Republicans were at once known as the party of small government as well, but they don't seem to follow that view much anymore. They were also known as the party of individual rights, but they have eroded them consistently as well even at a more rapid rate than the dims had done previously. What made the Republican party isn't what comprises the majority of the power in the party these days. I just don't see a big difference between what constitutes both parties anymore except for the rhetoric that is fed to the public which really doesn't apply much to what they do in the chambers anymore.

There is no "perfect" candidate but I don't feel the others offered up for the job have the interest of the populace as a concern, just use of the populace to get into office. They all have some questionable positions. I don't think he is electable, but if enough people vote maybe it will send a message that change needs to occur.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Republicans were at once known as the party of small government as well, but they don't seem to follow that view much anymore. They were also known as the party of individual rights, but they have eroded them consistently as well even at a more rapid rate than the dims had done previously. What made the Republican party isn't what comprises the majority of the power in the party these days. I just don't see a big difference between what constitutes both parties anymore except for the rhetoric that is fed to the public which really doesn't apply much to what they do in the chambers anymore.

There is no "perfect" candidate but I don't feel the others offered up for the job have the interest of the populace as a concern, just use of the populace to get into office. They all have some questionable positions. I don't think he is electable, but if enough people vote maybe it will send a message that change needs to occur.So, you're gonna do what, vote Paul in the Republican primary?

[Boarder]

So, you're gonna do what, vote Paul in the Republican primary?
If I was registered Republican, yes, I think I would.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If I was registered Republican, yes, I think I would.Re-register and do it. You can still vote for the avowed socialist in the general election, if you want.

[JohnnyMack]

I'm voting for Fred.

Anyone who says, "Russians don't take a dump without a plan, son." is my guy.

[bluedogok]

I will probably vote for Paul in the primary. Down here we have an open primary so you can vote in either but not both. I have never voted in a Democratic primary (or candidate in a general election) when I was a registered Oklahoma Republican or since I have moved down here.

[KaiserSooner]

I think we need a good philosophical libertarian like Ron Paul as a third party/independent candidate next November! :P


I don't remember the republicans ever being isolationists. The other party maybe, but not repubs. I believe that's why R Paul hasn't caught any traction within the republicans. They historically haven't been isolationists.

Oh son. Well, I shouldn't yell bloody murder here...you likely don't remember the GOP being an isolationist party because it largely hasn't been isolationist during your lifetime. It was, at one time, the party of high tarriffs & isolationism (ex: recall the League of Nations from your history book? The GOP killed that treaty in the Senate back in the day). Conservatives, and by default much of the Republican Party, were largely about isolationism until WW2.

[FaninAma]

Any candidate who seriously contends we should withdraw our troops from strategically significant regions overseas is an idiot. period.

Too bad he's the only guy beating the "fair tax" drum. I'm all for that myself, but the real estate, mortgage and residential constructiuon industry will spend whatever it takes to make sure anyone who favors it will not be elected. In case you're not up to speed on the issue, the fair tax plan does away with the mortgage interest deduction -- along with all the rest. It replaces our current multi-volume tax code with a national sales tax.

Kinda like why you can't buy high point beer in an Oklahoma grocery store. The Oklahoma liquor store industry spends millions in campaign contributions to make sure nobody in OKC will ever vote to change OUr law.

Why is he an idiot for wanting to withdraw troops from South Korea, Europe and Japan? Are those countries not capable of defending themselves? Why should the US subsidize their economies(the same economies that compete with us BTW) by heavily subsidizing their national defenses?

Are you really telling me that S. Korea can't defend themselves from N. Korea or Japan and Europe are too weak to provide for their own defense? Are you really trying to tell us that?

Or maybe you think we should be the world's policeman, spending the wealth and shedding the blood of our sons and daughters in perpetuity in order to defend the citizens of other countries who won't make the sacrifices to provide for their own defense.

I will concede a small point of maintaining a military presence in the Middle East but then the GOP and the Democrats turn around and do nothing to make this country less dependent on the oil that comes from the region thereby making it more likely that we will stay involved in that ****hole of a region.

Ron Paul or other independent thinkers will never get elected as long as Americans continue to refuse to identify the real economic and security interests of the country v. the interests of the powerful special interest groups. But I like the fact that he is picking up support and at least has a few more people looking critically at important issues.

[SicEmBaylor]

Bluedog; I don't remember the republicans ever being isolationists. The other party maybe, but not repubs. I believe that's why R Paul hasn't caught any traction within the republicans. They historically haven't been isolationists.

Rush my friend, the GOP was overwhelmingly isolationist until just after WWII. And then the only thing that really pushed them into internationalism was the threat of communism.

A variant of the idealistic Wilsonian foreign policy that Bush has pushed the GOP into accepting was long the hallmark of liberal not conservative foreign policy doctrine. "Mr. Republican" himself, Robert Taft, was a strong isolationist and represented the overwhelming sentiments of conservatism and the Republican Party.

[goingoneight]

Ron Paul once game me a heart.

Yeah... I'm kind of sick of hearing Ron Paul blabbering all day, too...

[SicEmBaylor]

Ron Paul once game me a heart.

Yeah... I'm kind of sick of hearing Ron Paul blabbering all day, too...

Aye, but I'm also sick of hearing about all of the mainstream candidates blabber about all the new and exciting ways they are going to bring about the downfall of the Republic.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Ron Paul reminds me of Barry Switzer. It's like he's always on truth serum - saying whatever he thinks whether it's prudent or not. But that's the nature of minor, fringe candidates.... kinda like Al Sharpton and Alan Keyes were.

If I were a Republican candidate, I don't think I'd be bashing Reagan or Lincoln.

[Okla-homey]

See my thoughts imbedded below.


Why is he an idiot for wanting to withdraw troops from South Korea, Europe and Japan? Are those countries not capable of defending themselves? The ROK, while it would put up a tough fight, would almost certainly be overcome by the PRK. Having us on the ground there is what has kept that war cold for the last fifty years. Japan OTOH has a small military because that is what we insisted on the wake of WWII. To this day, it is strictly a self-defence force incapable of power projection. Europe? You're kidding right?

Why should the US subsidize their economies(the same economies that compete with us BTW) by heavily subsidizing their national defenses? How is having US forces, and billions of tons of weapons systems and vast stockages of all nine classes of supply permanently forward deployed on comfortable and expansive bases with the permission of the host country a bad deal for the US? Can you please explain how that is ripping us off? See, nowadays, wars are 'come as you are" affairs. Gulf War I was very probably the last time we will have time for fast sealift (an oxymoron I might add) to close the vast supplies necessary for a US-style fight. One of the reasons we were ready to go pretty quickly after W pulled the trigger in Gulf War II is because, since 1991,we've had a great deal of hardware and supply in storage, and infrastructure already in place in the region, maintained by US personnel, with the permission of the host governments.

Are you really telling me that S. Korea can't defend themselves from N. Korea or Japan and Europe are too weak to provide for their own defense? Are you really trying to tell us that? You're missing the point. We're not there to defend those governments. That is a nice little side effect for them, but the main reason we are there is to protect US strategic interests. See, it works like this; we are a nation with a huge trade based economy. We don't make most of the stuff we use anymore. Wars are bad for business because they interrupt supply or make more expensive the stuff we have to have, whether its textiles, electronics, petroluem, more durable goods, whatever. Basically, the lifeblood of our way of life is based on trade with all the corners of the globe and wars tend to upset that system.

Or maybe you think we should be the world's policeman, spending the wealth and shedding the blood of our sons and daughters in perpetuity in order to defend the citizens of other countries who won't make the sacrifices to provide for their own defense. Again, I don't care much about defending other countries. What I care about is having US forces based in regions where they are poised to deter aggression or at least immediately influence a fight. We can no more afford to pull back behind our oceanic borders and let the chips fall where they may than any other empire in history. See, in the modern world, our interests are too inextricably linked to the economic and military fates of other nations and regions to be able to take an isolationist approach. As stated above, we need the stuff they have to sell us. Further, we need forces in place so they won't ever be bold enough to try to cut us off in the event an unfriendly regime rises to power among one of our client states. Frankly, the most glaring example of that is the fact we import too much petroleum. Domestic production is incapable of meeting our domestic demand. With Chinese and Indian demand growing exponentially each year, we must keep our swords bright and our forces deployed to make sure we have an uninterrupted supply of the black stuff which makes our economy run.

All of this reality is ignored by Mr. Paul, who clearly has no idea WTF he's babbling about. He just knows it resonates with passivists and certain other fringe elements of our population.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Rush my friend, the GOP was overwhelmingly isolationist until just after WWII. And then the only thing that really pushed them into internationalism was the threat of communism.

A variant of the idealistic Wilsonian foreign policy that Bush has pushed the GOP into accepting was long the hallmark of liberal not conservative foreign policy doctrine. "Mr. Republican" himself, Robert Taft, was a strong isolationist and represented the overwhelming sentiments of conservatism and the Republican Party.1)I know the entire country was more isolationist prior to the World Wars. I was speaking of my observation of the republican party vs the democrats, and I was born just after WWII. The only republican that comes to mind who has been isolationist is Pat Buchanan, and he's sorta out there, isn't he? 2)What specifically are you referring to that Bush "has pushed the GOP into accepting"?
I view Mr. Reagan, not Mr Taft, as "Mr Republican" himself?
BTW, Ron Paul is a fool for thinking we should immediately withdraw from Iraq, and I think you basically know that.

[JohnnyMack]

Again, I don't care much about defending other countries. What I care about is having US forces based in regions where they are poised to deter aggression or at least immediately influence a fight. We can no more afford to pull back behind our oceanic borders and let the chips fall where they may than any other empire in history. See, in the modern world, our interests are too inextricably linked to the economic and military fates of other nations and regions to be able to take an isolationist approach. As stated above, we need the stuff they have to sell us. Further, we need forces in place so they won't ever be bold enough to try to cut us off in the event an unfriendly regime rises to power among one of our client states. Frankly, the most glaring example of that is the fact we import too much petroleum. Domestic production is incapable of meeting our domestic demand. With Chinese and Indian demand growing exponentially each year, we must keep our swords bright and our forces deployed to make sure we have an uninterrupted supply of the black stuff which makes our economy run.

Nicely put. Our systemic failures have doomed us to this Sisyphean way of life.

[FaninAma]

Homey,

I respectfully disagree with almost every point you posted in response to my earlier post.

Suffice it to say that I agree strongly with Paul that this country can no longer afford to be the world's policeman. We're broke yet we continue to be the biggest debtor nation in the history of the world. We are mortgaging our childrens' futures for the benefit of the economies of Japan, S. Korea and Europe.

And why can't these countries defend themselves? They've got much larger economies of scale than the countries that threaten them. Why can't they spend more on defense?

Are you really trying to tell me that Europe couldn't outspend the former USSR? Japan couldn't come close to matching China in defense spending or at least spend enough to develop a legitimate deterrent to Chinese aggression? And it's ridiculous to think that the S. Korean government couldn't match the dirt poor economy of N. Korea in defense spending.

Maintaining a military large enough to deploy to all of the above regions of the world is costly and becoming costlier by the minute. That's why all of the countries of the world are content to sit back and let us do all of the heavy lifting for them while they spend their dollars on infrastructure and improving business at home. In fact, we are stretched so thin that when we do have to use our own military for our own benefit(see Iraq) we have to appropriate additonal funds to do so and we have to use sub-optimal levels of troops to do it because most of our military is scattered around the world defending other countries.

We maintain a huge military for one reason and one reason only....General Electric, Northrup, Raytheon, Martin-Marietta/Lockheed and other military contractors have some very effective lobbyists....just like the big oil companies do.

[crawfish]

Here is exactly the reason Paul supporters tend to go over the top in trying to promote their candidate:

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=211230

Honestly. Does Fred Thompson have any more of a chance than Paul? Why should he be included when Paul is not?

[Desert Sapper]

Ron Paul comes across in the Russert interviews (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/) as positively clueless. He tries to defend his ear-marking by stating that he 'didn't vote for them' and therefore isn't responsible for them and doesn't support the system. What kind of ignorant horse**** is that? That would be like me creating an internet gambling scheme, and then saying that I'm not responsible for what other people throw their money at. He as much as admitted that he was playing the system for his constituents, but tried to tell Russert that he was clueless. Wow.

About the only thing I agree with him on is this notion that a Presidential candidate's religion has nothing to do with his competence. The further we travel down that path, the closer we get to theocracy. I have seen theocracies. They aren't pretty. Coupled with fervent nationalism, and you have a breed of fascism. So, yes, in a way, we are drifting toward a 'soft fascism'.

Pulling away from the countries that we are currently deployed to would cause far more harm than good. We have economic, military, and political strategic interests in the countries we are currently deployed to. If you deny that, you aren't really paying much attention to where our affluence has been coming from recently (as in the last 60+ years). We built Japan and Germany to act as strategic and economic partners.

Korea has been a negotiating platform for more than 50 years. The one thing that might ignite a regional war in Asia would be pulling out of S. Korea. N. Korea is a threat to Chinese national interest, make no mistake. If we pull out, chances are that N. Korea would aggressively 'reunify' with the South. This would create a dangerous condition of an economically sound Korea owned and operated by a cunning and ruthless dictator. China would see this as a threat, and would likely move to aggressively 'defend' their interests by attacking Korea. Japan, in turn, would see this as a threat. Ultimately, we would find ourselves back in Asia, on somebody else's terms, fighting a very hot, very nasty war.

The EU has proven its unwillingness to deter aggression. The fear there is that not having a presence in Europe would cause us logistical problems should trouble break out in one of the hotspots of the former Eastern Bloc. We would be unable to respond quickly and effectively, which could possibly allow time for any of a number of third party actors to intervene. Should this happen, we could see trouble both militarily and economically in Europe, and possibly another World War.

I, for one, am not interested in any of those scenarios.

[Boarder]

Here is exactly the reason Paul supporters tend to go over the top in trying to promote their candidate:

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=211230

Honestly. Does Fred Thompson have any more of a chance than Paul? Why should he be included when Paul is not?
Sounds like they're skeered.

[FaninAma]

Ron Paul comes across in the Russert interviews (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/) as positively clueless. He tries to defend his ear-marking by stating that he 'didn't vote for them' and therefore isn't responsible for them and doesn't support the system. What kind of ignorant horse**** is that? That would be like me creating an internet gambling scheme, and then saying that I'm not responsible for what other people throw their money at. He as much as admitted that he was playing the system for his constituents, but tried to tell Russert that he was clueless. Wow.

About the only thing I agree with him on is this notion that a Presidential candidate's religion has nothing to do with his competence. The further we travel down that path, the closer we get to theocracy. I have seen theocracies. They aren't pretty. Coupled with fervent nationalism, and you have a breed of fascism. So, yes, in a way, we are drifting toward a 'soft fascism'.

Pulling away from the countries that we are currently deployed to would cause far more harm than good. We have economic, military, and political strategic interests in the countries we are currently deployed to. If you deny that, you aren't really paying much attention to where our affluence has been coming from recently (as in the last 60+ years). We built Japan and Germany to act as strategic and economic partners.

Korea has been a negotiating platform for more than 50 years. The one thing that might ignite a regional war in Asia would be pulling out of S. Korea. N. Korea is a threat to Chinese national interest, make no mistake. If we pull out, chances are that N. Korea would aggressively 'reunify' with the South. This would create a dangerous condition of an economically sound Korea owned and operated by a cunning and ruthless dictator. China would see this as a threat, and would likely move to aggressively 'defend' their interests by attacking Korea. Japan, in turn, would see this as a threat. Ultimately, we would find ourselves back in Asia, on somebody else's terms, fighting a very hot, very nasty war.

The EU has proven its unwillingness to deter aggression. The fear there is that not having a presence in Europe would cause us logistical problems should trouble break out in one of the hotspots of the former Eastern Bloc. We would be unable to respond quickly and effectively, which could possibly allow time for any of a number of third party actors to intervene. Should this happen, we could see trouble both militarily and economically in Europe, and possibly another World War.

I, for one, am not interested in any of those scenarios.

Sapper, how big is S. JKorea's economy compared to North Korea's? Why does the US hae to foot the bill for S. Korea's and Japan's defense when they have 2 of the 5 largest economies in the world? It does not make much sense. And how about Europe footingmore of the bill fo thier defense?

Just because these countries don't want to pay for their own defense doesn't mean the US should.

As far as the earmarks Paul is essentially saying he doesn't like them but he understands his role as a representative of his district. It is a bit hypocritical but he understands if he is to have any platform to try and change things he has to at least attemtp to keep his constituents happy and it is not wrong to try and bring home at least some of the money your district sends to Washington. Like he says, they'll spend it any way.

You can find whatever excuse you want to to not support him but it doesn't change the fact that he is thwe only candidate who has any fresh ideas and he is the only candidate who wants to wrest control of this country away from the special interest groups who dictate policy to the lackeys in the Republican and Democratic parties.

[Desert Sapper]

The point is that South Korea's economy is light years ahead of the North. But the North has spent almost all of their budget on their military. If we pull out, the South will fall to the North, the North will gain the economy that they lacked before, and will become dramatically more capable at that point.

It sounds very nice to make those countries provide for their own defence. We are attempting to do that very thing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Primarily because some very idealistic people think it is possible to make that happen in a very short period of time. It isn't. I guarantee that if we pull out, we lose all strategic capability in those regions. The events that I already mentioned are a tragic inevitability in that case.

It sounds great, but is pretty ****ty in practice.

I fear what he fears, that as our liberties slip away and we allow it to happen, as interested parties gain more and more power and control, we will reach a point where we are living in a fascist police state. That is scary. I just don't think he is bringing solutions. Just more of the same issues. I have yet to see a strong candidate from any party.

What we need is to de-Federalize the government (which he is a proponent of, but doesn't really outline a plan for), get rid of the Fed and the IRS (both ridiculous organizations that create a permanent state of indebtedness), and reinstitute the gold standard. We need solutions, not complaints. In my business, if you aren't a part of the solution (meaning either suggesting fixes or turning wrenches), you are part of the problem.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

get rid of the Fed and the IRS indebtedness

how do you get rid of the IRS?

[Mixer!]

National sales tax or a flat tax, I suspect. :pop:

[Scott D]

how do you get rid of the IRS?

eliminating the IRS would save taxpayers far more than any military cutbacks or any of the other supposedly 'random' budget cuts.

[Okla-homey]

We maintain a huge military for one reason and one reason only....General Electric, Northrup, Raytheon, Martin-Marietta/Lockheed and other military contractors have some very effective lobbyists....just like the big oil companies do.

All owned by shareholders. Who also happen to be the US people. What's good for them is good for America.

[FaninAma]

All owned by shareholders. Who also happen to be the US people. What's good for them is good for America.

Is that a quote attributable to General Bull Moose from Lil' Abner?

Yes I am sure all the giant multi-national corporations have what is best for US citizens at heart. :D

[KaiserSooner]

Scary, but I might have to spek Fan, for I agree with him more than I do anyone else ;)

[Okla-homey]

Dear folks who oppose US overseas involvement because it smacks too much of helping out multi-national corporate behemoths and or "Big <insert product>" while endangering the lives of US servicemembers and costing a great deal of money.

Please, just stop it. It's kinda silly in that such critques are absurdly idealistic, and frankly ignore practical realities. The above mentioned criticisms have been leveled, at least since Jefferson sent a squadron of ships and a Marine task force to sort out the Tripolitan pirates in 1805. See kids, the pirates were making the sea lanes unsafe for trade in the southern Med. That was bad for some US companies.

Let's review a few more examples, mmkay?

Remember reading about Commodore Perry sailing into Tokyo Bay with a US task force in 1854. He informed the shogunate Japan was now "open for business" with US companies and they had had better like it or suffer a beat down.

Heck, we've even sent in the Marines to South and Central American nations (a/k/a "banana republics) several times in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to protect the interests and investments of American fruit and raw material importers (and their shareholders.) Guatamala, Honduras, Venezuala, etc.

Ditto the Spanish American War in 1898. We needed coaling stations for the fleet and overseas corporate and military bases in Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam and the Phillippines.

How about a reasonably contemporary example, other than the obvious Gulf War I? Remember the Panama invasion? We had to keep that canal open. Otherwise, American shipping and additional transportation costs to hundreds of US companies and folks who bought goods originating Asia would have increased substantially.

The same old chestnut is trotted out and reroasted by anti-war/anti-capitalist "activists" everytime we get involved in an overseas military imbroglio.

Additionally, I humbly submit a reminder of one absolutely incontrovertible historical fact. The United States is the world's first common market. The Constitution was ultimately agreed to by the various states almost solely because it facilitates and eliminated barriers to international and interstate trade. IOW, because it was deemed good for business. Among other things to encourage American mercantilism, it set-up a system in which the states and the people therein would contribute funds to maintain the "military-industrial complex" in order to defend or assert US economic rights wherever they are imperiled or denied on this spinning orb we call Earth.

In short, since the earliest days of the republic, we have traded "blood for oil," or bananas, or tea, or coffee, or rubber, or fishing rights, etc., etc., etc.
It's "The American Way" for crying out loud.

[Desert Sapper]

how do you get rid of the IRS?

The Internal Revenue Service and the idea of a national 'income tax' should never have been brought into play. However, the 16th Amendment( anti-constitutional as it may be) is the 'legal basis' for such a tax. We are now all suffering the consequences. Reestablishing the level of taxation where it was from 1936-1939 (4% for the 1st bracket and 79% for the top bracket) would make me happier. But I think the whole thing just needs to go away.

A national sales tax would be contrary to the purpose of a sales tax (that being, to tax non-stakeholders of a community). A better idea would be an international sales tax on all of our export items. Nearly everybody we trade with taxes their export items to us. But we do not tax what we sell to other countries. In other words, we rob ourselves. We need to play by the same rules as everybody else. Tax our exports.

The reason I say that the Fed needs to go away, is because it is the most UNCONSTITUTIONAL invention on the planet. It goes against one of the primary reasons for our Declaration of Independence from England (that being the Bank of England sucking our money away and keeping us enslaved to the King). The Fed is a semi-private corporation that was created in response to big-bank lobbies from JP Morgan and John D. Rockefeller. It is a huge scheme that began, ostensibly with the passing of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.

According to Rep Charles Lindbergh, Sr. in 1913, 'The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill…The banks have been granted the special privilege of distributing the money, and they charge as much as they wish…This is the strangest, most dangerous advantage ever placed in the hands of a special privilege class by any Government that ever existed. The system is private...There should be no legal tender other than that issued by the government…The People are the Government. Therefore the Government should, as the Constitution provides, regulate the value of money.'

I tend to agree with him. I think we should go back to backing our currency with the gold standard, and ONLY the Federal, non-private corporation, government should be issuing legal tender. ONLY Congress should regulate the value of money. Not bankers.

[crawfish]

Dear folks who oppose US overseas involvement because it smacks too much of helping out multi-national corporate behemoths and or "Big <insert product>" while endangering the lives of US servicemembers and costing a great deal of money.

Please, just stop it. It's kinda silly in that such critques are absurdly idealistic, and frankly ignore practical realities. The above mentioned criticisms have been leveled, at least since Jefferson sent a squadron of ships and a Marine task force to sort out the Tripolitan pirates in 1805. See kids, the pirates were making the sea lanes unsafe for trade in the southern Med. That was bad for some US companies.

Let's review a few more examples, mmkay?

Remember reading about Commodore Perry sailing into Tokyo Bay with a US task force in 1854. He informed the shogunate Japan was now "open for business" with US companies and they had had better like it or suffer a beat down.

Heck, we've even sent in the Marines to South and Central American nations (a/k/a "banana republics) several times in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to protect the interests and investments of American fruit and raw material importers (and their shareholders.) Guatamala, Honduras, Venezuala, etc.

Ditto the Spanish American War in 1898. We needed coaling stations for the fleet and overseas corporate and military bases in Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam and the Phillippines.

How about a reasonably contemporary example, other than the obvious Gulf War I? Remember the Panama invasion? We had to keep that canal open. Otherwise, American shipping and additional transportation costs to hundreds of US companies and folks who bought goods originating Asia would have increased substantially.

The same old chestnut is trotted out and reroasted by anti-war/anti-capitalist "activists" everytime we get involved in an overseas military imbroglio.

Additionally, I humbly submit a reminder of one absolutely incontrovertible historical fact. The United States is the world's first common market. The Constitution was ultimately agreed to by the various states almost solely because it facilitates and eliminated barriers to international and interstate trade. IOW, because it was deemed good for business. Among other things to encourage American mercantilism, it set-up a system in which the states and the people therein would contribute funds to maintain the "military-industrial complex" in order to defend or assert US economic rights wherever they are imperiled or denied on this spinning orb we call Earth.

In short, since the earliest days of the republic, we have traded "blood for oil," or bananas, or tea, or coffee, or rubber, or fishing rights, etc., etc., etc.
It's "The American Way" for crying out loud.

While I agree with a lot of this on principle, it seems that the entire thing has gotten out of whack. It's a good thing to invest in business when it pays off for all Americans...but I'm not convinced that it does anymore. Executive salaries are going through the roof at the same time middle- and lower-class salaries are stagnating. Greed may have gotten us to the top, but now it's sucking the life out of the average Americans.

I don't agree with Paul on the extremes but I do agree with him in principle. We spend too much money overseas policing the world. We have spent far too much money on this manufactured war without reaping any benefits. In fact, the war seems to be driven by the companies that are profiting most from it.

I'm all for a strong national defense. I, like Paul, am not an isolationist. But our primary methods should be trade and diplomacy, NOT war.

[Okla-homey]

I'm all for a strong national defense. I, like Paul, am not an isolationist. But our primary methods should be trade and diplomacy, NOT war.

Tell you what. You come up with some diplomatic solution to this Islamic militancy problem and I'm with you. In the meantime, back in the here and now, we gotta kill these bastages so they don't succeed in interrupting the flow of the black stuff which is the life blood of our way of life. At least for the next fifty years or so.

Either that, or we pull out, let the whole region degrade into an even more gigantic festering mess, and we all start paying around $15.00 bucks a gallon for unleaded.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Tell you what. You come up with some diplomatic solution to this Islamic militancy problem and I'm with you. In the meantime, back in the here and now, we gotta kill these bastages so they don't succeed in interrupting the flow of the black stuff which is the life blood of our way of life. At least for the next fifty years or so.

Either that, or we pull out, let the whole region degrade into an even more gigantic festering mess, and we all start paying around $15.00 bucks a gallon for unleaded.Dude, the only reason we are paying so much now is the greed of Bush and Chaney. They attacked and captured Iraq's oil so they could raise the price, and have all that newly extortioned money go to their buddies at Halliburton, Phillip Morris, FoxNews and Walmart. The Bushies will be paid off royally by big business and the Saudi Arabian royal family once there is a new USAmerican administration. I think they have rigged some more tall office buildings in the USA for quick burning if they are double crossed by their friends in the military-industrial complex..so, vote Ron Paul!