Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What are you talking about? Your view seems bizarre. The profile of a Ron Paul supporter is someone who cares about US citizen rights. Someone who also wants the next president to spend less time sending our troops to war and more time helping address domestic issues.
If that is the case, you are backing the wrong candidate. Ron Paul has no problem sending US troops to war. He just has a problem funding them once he sends them to war. Ron Paul is as anti-military as they come. Even Clinton understood the necessity of funding the military if you are going to send them to fight someplace. A concept Ron Paul hasn't quite grasped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbuszu
All that said it seems perceptible to me that there are currently four schools of thought about Ron Paul.
1) there's a large number of people who don't know who he is or what he stands for (due to a variety of reasons, foremost I'd say these folks are asleep at the wheel and don't do anything online, don't try to learn about the political candidates, perhaps they just don't care). These are the lunatic fringe because their votes will be cast based upon what their preacher, news anchor, radio talk show host, or friends tell them. These folks will spend minimal if any time researching the political candidates, heck they might not vote at all.
2) there's those who have learned what he stands for and like it - but they feel like he hasn't a shot at the presidency (a la Ross Pero or other 3rd party candidates in the past) even though he's technically a Republican. They just don't see him as a Republican who can garner majority support of his own party. They thus spend a lot of time trying to discourage others from supporting Ron Paul because they think it'll be a wasted vote. Perhaps they've voted for 3rd party candidates in the past and then they felt like they just aided the opposition by doing so.
3) there are those who have learned what he stands for and they feel very uncomfortable with the idea of letting free-markets run free... perhaps they know of several examples where corporations unfettered by government regulatory control have done bad things. These folks are probably also afraid of someone becoming president who might start cutting government programs. Lastly it makes these folks afraid to vote someone in who might stop actively policing the World with US military might.
4) lastly there are people who have learned what he stands for and they love it. They identify with his views and think he has a shot as long as word gets out about him. These folks aren't afraid to take a chance. Perhaps they also have looked at all the other political candidates and have come to the conclusion that none of them could well represent a patriotic US citizen.
LOL - all that said I might just be full of beans and have spent too much time analyzing this :-) Or...perhaps I'm a member of the lunatic fringe as you defined it.
You're missing a "School of Thought", the one that knows Ron Paul's voting record and the US Constitution and consider Ron Paul to be a true mental case who utterly despises the US military and is one of the biggest hypocrites in Congress today (but by no means the only one).
Ron Paul couldn't even get elected to Congress without claiming to be a Republican first. I have every confidence that he will get fewer than 1% of the popular vote in 2008, as every whacky Libertarian candidate has since the party was first formed. He is not someone to be taken seriously.
If that is the case, you are backing the wrong candidate. Ron Paul has no problem sending US troops to war. He just has a problem funding them once he sends them to war. Ron Paul is as anti-military as they come. Even Clinton understood the necessity of funding the military if you are going to send them to fight someplace. A concept Ron Paul hasn't quite grasped.
Where did you pick up this talking point? Sean Hannity?
Ron Paul supported going after the Taliban in Afghanistan. He voted against going to war in Iraq. He supported going after the people that were DIRECTLY responsible for helping the attacks on 9/11. He DOES NOT support nation building which is what our mission has turned into.
Wanting to use our military for something besides building mini-empires around the world is not what I would call anti-military.
I suppose Bush is "protecting" America from danger by maintaining long term massive military campaigns in the middle east while leaving our back door in Mexico wide open for 7 years straight with not even the slightest hint that he gives a rats ass about the flood of illegals coming in and the potential for criminals to move in, which they have in case you haven't been up to date on how much Mexican cartel activity is growing in the US.
But don't let that stop you from voting in another big government, big spending, no secure border, pro abortion, pro gun control, pro war mongering candidate that calls themself a republican.
Where did you pick up this talking point? Sean Hannity?
Ron Paul supported going after the Taliban in Afghanistan. He voted against going to war in Iraq. He supported going after the people that were DIRECTLY responsible for helping the attacks on 9/11. He DOES NOT support nation building which is what our mission has turned into.
Wanting to use our military for something besides building mini-empires around the world is not what I would call anti-military.
I suppose Bush is "protecting" America from danger by maintaining long term massive military campaigns in the middle east while leaving our back door in Mexico wide open for 7 years straight with not even the slightest hint that he gives a rats ass about the flood of illegals coming in and the potential for criminals to move in, which they have in case you haven't been up to date on how much Mexican cartel activity is growing in the US.
But don't let that stop you from voting in another big government, big spending, no secure border, pro abortion, pro gun control, pro war mongering candidate that calls themself a republican.
This is the kind of ignorant response I've come to expect from Ron Paul supporters. Ron Paul voted to send US troops to war on 09/18/2001. The Taliban and Afghanistan, even al Qaeda, were not mentioned in Public Law 104-40. Yet when it came time to fund that effort Ron Paul voted against the military, as he always does. Which in my mind is anti-military as it gets.
To vote to send our military into battle and then refuse to provide them with the equipment they need to achieve a victory is beyond irresponsible, it is reprehensible. Only someone who deliberately wants to see our military killed in large numbers would act so shamefully. Ron Paul supporters are either completely ignorant of this fact, or support Ron Paul's anti-military stance.
Glitch - I'm curious how would you have proposed a member of Congress provide a clear message and perhaps force the hand of Bush regarding wanting a decrease of military spending & activity in Iraq going forward?
I'm not saying that RP voted for or against anything in particular (anyone can look up the facts regarding that online) but I'm stumped... other than voting against spending increases for military actions you do not support what else can a member of Congress really do to make their point that they don't agree?
Last edited by belovenow; 11-28-2007 at 09:26 AM..
Yes Ron Paul voted against a moratorium on Internet tax, but in a later vote voted for it. He's never given a statement as to why he changed his vote, but I don't expect perfection.
Regarding his vote to authorize force, here's the text. You're right, it doesn't mention Afghanistan, it only presumes that the Commander in Chief will not exploit the power granted to capture the actual terrorists and not nationbuild.
"a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
Now why would we need massive amounts of funding for this? Don't deploy reserves, redeploy our global police force. Take a simple approach of finding the terrorists and forget establishing new governments and policing the countries after the battles are won.
Do we all agree with all of Ron Paul's stances? Heck no... but I've yet to hear about Glitch's prophetic candidate that has all of the answers and no flaws.
This is the kind of ignorant response I've come to expect from Ron Paul supporters. Ron Paul voted to send US troops to war on 09/18/2001. The Taliban and Afghanistan, even al Qaeda, were not mentioned in Public Law 104-40. Yet when it came time to fund that effort Ron Paul voted against the military, as he always does. Which in my mind is anti-military as it gets.
Get your facts in line. A vote against a spending bill isn't a vote against the military. You've been watching far too much Hannity junk. Who said he disapproved of providing for the military? Did he say that? It is possible to disagree with the amount. But you are too used to people giving Bush a blank check to drive our country into debt so deep that our grandkids will still be paying it off. Why should you question giving Bush one blank check after another.
Nevertheless, I'll leave you alone so you can go support your pro-war liberal Republican candidate of choice.
Glitch - I'm curious how would you have proposed a member of Congress provide a clear message and perhaps force the hand of Bush regarding wanting a decrease of military spending & activity in Iraq going forward?
I'm not saying that RP voted for or against anything in particular (anyone can look up the facts regarding that online) but I'm stumped... other than voting against spending increases for military actions you do not support what else can a member of Congress really do to make their point that they don't agree?
It isn't rocket science, if Ron Paul didn't agree with the war against terrorism he should have voted against it, but he didn't. He voted for the war, then he voted against funding the military.
If a rational human-being voted for taking military action then they are morally obligated to vote for funding that military action. The only reason someone would vote for taking military action and then vote against funding that military action would be to intentionally inflict as many casualties as possible upon the military.
Yes Ron Paul voted against a moratorium on Internet tax, but in a later vote voted for it. He's never given a statement as to why he changed his vote, but I don't expect perfection.
Regarding his vote to authorize force, here's the text. You're right, it doesn't mention Afghanistan, it only presumes that the Commander in Chief will not exploit the power granted to capture the actual terrorists and not nationbuild.
"a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
Now why would we need massive amounts of funding for this? Don't deploy reserves, redeploy our global police force. Take a simple approach of finding the terrorists and forget establishing new governments and policing the countries after the battles are won.
Do we all agree with all of Ron Paul's stances? Heck no... but I've yet to hear about Glitch's prophetic candidate that has all of the answers and no flaws.
It all depends on the type of action the Commander-In-Chief decides to take. As you can tell from the above law, it is pretty much carte blanche to do as the President pleases in order to prevent any future terrorist attacks.
When the Commander-In-Chief gives the military their objective(s) the military tells Congress how much it will cost to complete those tasks. It then becomes Congress' responsibility to fund the military in order for them to accomplish those objectives.
Unlike you and other Ron Paul supporters, I'm not going to presume to tell the military how much it will cost them to do their job. Would I have fought this war differently? Absolutely, but I am not the President. Ron Paul voted to give Bush authorization "to use all necessary and appropriate force" then refused to support the military with the funding they required. That is simply inexcusable.
It all depends on the type of action the Commander-In-Chief decides to take. As you can tell from the above law, it is pretty much carte blanche to do as the President pleases in order to prevent any future terrorist attacks.
When the Commander-In-Chief gives the military their objective(s) the military tells Congress how much it will cost to complete those tasks. It then becomes Congress' responsibility to fund the military in order for them to accomplish those objectives.
Unlike you and other Ron Paul supporters, I'm not going to presume to tell the military how much it will cost them to do their job. Would I have fought this war differently? Absolutely, but I am not the President. Ron Paul voted to give Bush authorization "to use all necessary and appropriate force" then refused to support the military with the funding they required. That is simply inexcusable.
I'll ask again... who is the answer... who is your prophetic candidate? Since they're not in any way flawed, we should all jump on their bandwagon.
Get your facts in line. A vote against a spending bill isn't a vote against the military. You've been watching far too much Hannity junk. Who said he disapproved of providing for the military? Did he say that? It is possible to disagree with the amount. But you are too used to people giving Bush a blank check to drive our country into debt so deep that our grandkids will still be paying it off. Why should you question giving Bush one blank check after another.
Nevertheless, I'll leave you alone so you can go support your pro-war liberal Republican candidate of choice.
My facts are verifiable and irrefutable. Ron Paul has voted against every military budget for the last decade while voting to send US troops to war.
Voting to send US troops to war and then voting against financially supporting the military while at war is a vote against the military no matter how you try to twist it. It can only be interpreted as someone who truly hates the military and wants to see them all dead. Why else would someone vote to send troops into battle and then refuse to provide them with the beans, bullets, and band-aids if not to see them dead?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
