You also joined a Service that does not use terms like "raison d'etre."
Yut Yut. Devil Dog. Oorah. Semper Fi. KILL!
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Ron Paul
- Thread starter flyerstud4
- Start date
Yut Yut. Devil Dog. Oorah. Semper Fi. KILL!
You also joined a Service that does not use terms like "raison d'etre."
Give him one!
Some things to think about (it should be noted I fully support Ron Paul, so this is somewhat biased but its all true):
1.) It was said earlier that Ron Paul would likely run as an independent. He wont, he has stated that fact several times.
2.) Ron Paul recieves more money from active duty military members than any other candidate in the current race.
3.) Paul's military spending cuts would come mostly as cutting programs which the defense contractors are pushing hard and bringing troops home from Europe and other places abroad. So programs like SWORDS might not make it in a Paul administration, and the last relics of the Cold War would finally be done away with. When asked what parts of the military he would likely keep he said "well I believe a strong Navy is important. it allows us to keep a small footprint"
4.) He is completely against a National ID Card
5.) No other candidate has a pro-gun reccord as strong as Ron Paul
6.) The 6.4 million dollars he raised on the 16th came from 54000 individuals. The fund raiser was completely supporter organized. The campaign had nothing to do with it.
1.) It was said earlier that Ron Paul would likely run as an independent. He wont, he has stated that fact several times.
2.) Ron Paul recieves more money from active duty military members than any other candidate in the current race.
3.) Paul's military spending cuts would come mostly as cutting programs which the defense contractors are pushing hard and bringing troops home from Europe and other places abroad. So programs like SWORDS might not make it in a Paul administration, and the last relics of the Cold War would finally be done away with. When asked what parts of the military he would likely keep he said "well I believe a strong Navy is important. it allows us to keep a small footprint"
4.) He is completely against a National ID Card
5.) No other candidate has a pro-gun reccord as strong as Ron Paul
6.) The 6.4 million dollars he raised on the 16th came from 54000 individuals. The fund raiser was completely supporter organized. The campaign had nothing to do with it.
This tidbit is just one of the many in this thread that indicates that you have no idea what you are talking about. No, you need no background in foreign affairs to be a flight surgeon. However, you conveniently seem to forget that he has served in Congress for more than 30 years, and its likely that he's picked some things up since then. In fact, he may have learned a thing or two as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. I don't know, just a thought.:sleep_125
Also, say what you want about joining the service to take the war overseas (and I'm paraphrasing here), but if you joined the military to see the world, you screwed up. The oath makes it pretty clear..."to support and defend the Constitution of the United States..." Getting a chance to see other places is a benefit...not a basis for choosing the appropriate course of our foreign policy.
Lastly, dicarding someones thoughts because they are "out there" is nothing more than intellectual laziness. You don't have to agree with him, but the least you could do is come up with a good reason.
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
It gave me Fred Thompson with a 100% match. Not sure I agree. Nothing against him, but I've looked at the campaign websites of all of the major candidates from both parties, and I feel like I'm leaning towards Ron Paul. Not sure yet. Practicality will have to weigh in eventually.
How on earth can anyone keep track of that? Do you have a link?
When it comes down to it, I can't vote for Ron Paul because of his non-interventionist foreign policy. I am an interventionist. I'm well aware that it's not our duty to prevent stuff like this (google image search for genocide) but the fact of the matter is that we can do something about it, and anyone who would publicly announce that they would turn their backs on these people does not get my vote.
That's BS. There are no wasted votes : "Even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
[threadjack]
Ahhh...Rush, greatest group (talent wise) of all time.
[/threadjack]
Here is the press release: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/5/ron-paul-receives-most-military-donations/
Keep in mind the figure comes from the Houston Cronicle, not the Paul Campaign.
This is the raw data from the FEC website.
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3/C00432914/A_EMPLOYER_C00432914.html
blur
A-pool
Agree 100%. Well said!
On the subject of foreign policy, I actually believe Ron Paul is the most qualified. Scoober laid out some good reasons, but he also managed to write something about it...http://www.amazon.com/Foreign-Polic...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198278733&sr=8-1.
I'm all for an overpowering military, but I don't think we should go around picking fights. I know most people don't want to hear it, but our actions do have consequences.
I wasn't the one who brought up his military experience - I just tempered it. Paul's military experience and McCain's, for example, are worlds apart. How much legislation has he passed in 30 years in congress?
Where do you get that I joined to "see places"? I'm not really hankering for a desert or mountain vacation - I'm not a big fan of Pensacola beach as it is. It's a job that has to be done and I'm here to do it. We're engaged in two major conflicts and numerous cooperative partnerships around the globe - engagements that are essential to protecting our interests. Ron Paul wants to disengage from Korea and Japan, in addition to Europe - not a wise thing considering the threat China and North Korea pose, and the resurgent Russia (speaking of Cold War relics).
Intellectual laziness? I've already pointed out several elements of his foreign policy that are extreme and dangerous:
- slashing military spending by 80%
- withdrawal from Europe, Korea, and Japan
- issuing letters of Marque and Reprisal on terrorists, legitimizing independent parties to pursue them around the world. We've already got a problem with establishing a unified effort in theater when contractors are responsible only for protecting their principal. Imagine the issues that would arise from independent contractors traipsing through foreign countries hunting for Bin Laden. Look at what happened to Jack Idema. It's absolutely nuts.
Are these not good reasons to question his stance?
flyerstud4
Registered User
