TexasCHLforum.com

G26ster wrote:

texasmusic wrote:
I think his policy would work if and only if we still maintained the threat of swift and violent retaliation if we are attacked. He needs to be prepared to leave a place looking like 1946 Germany (or 16th century Germany) if someone breaches our borders again.

On Stossel last week, Ron Paul was reminded of his CPAC speech, where he said we should just pay 10% to the gov't as tax, and then "opt out" of all gov't services. When asked about how one would opt out of national defense, he basically said the Second Amendment was "all we needed." So I guess the "swift and violent retaliation if we are attacked" you speak of must be all of us firing our 1911's and AR's into the air and hoping the rounds travel thousands of miles to reign death and destruction on our attackers? Who is going to pay for an Army, Navy and Air Force needed for a strong and deterring national defense? The man makes no sense in this area.

That's why I had that if in there. I don't know the guys full stance on everything so i'm probing the waters to find out. A national military needs to be kept up. 2A does not do enough to provide for the common defense I agree.


not sure if "probing the waters" is an actual phrase but it sounds cool so i'm coining it

SewTexas wrote:re: Ron Paul, I don't think he would be able to wage a war....look at some of his interviews around the last pres election regarding Afghanistan and the war on terror. He said on Fox the other night he would basically abandon Israel. that's why I only joke about voting for him.

I like his stands on our wars we have declared on nouns. War on drugs, war on terror. A nation in a perpetual state of war has a snowball's chance of having the freedom and liberty on which the USA is founded. We are fighting a few certain groups of people who have a habit of terrorizing people, who are extremely hard to find/identify , while being extremely careful not to kill, offend, or upset the people who are funding and housing them.

I also think if Israel, Turkey, Georgia, the Duchy of Grand Fenwick or Freedonia is having troubles, It's not in our government's job description to get in there and save them. If there is good reason to, it should be considered. We couldn't hang Great Brittan out to dry when Hitler was rampaging across Europe, but then again I don't think we would send them aid for going on 40 years now.

I think his policy would work if and only if we still maintained the threat of swift and violent retaliation if we are attacked. He needs to be prepared to leave a place looking like 1946 Germany (or 16th century Germany) if someone breaches our borders again.

Sorry for my long winded rant, I just think opposing the conflicts we get involved with currently and being willing to provide for defense are mutually exclusive.

The Annoyed Man wrote:The problem with Ron Paul is that he's a hypocrite. He rants about earmarks and pork, and then he brings home just as much as the next guy. Naturally his constituents like him and keep reelecting him. Just don't expect "outsiders" not to call a spade a spade when they see one.

Isn't that akin to disagreeing with the social security, but still expecting to get some of that money back since after all you did pay in even though you disagreed with the system. Seems to be one of the more pragmatic things he does.

Dave2 wrote:

SewTexas wrote:he's a nut-job, but he's our (Texas') nut-job. He's very, very insolationist.

He's quite adamant that he's non-interventionist, not isolationist.

The one thing that worry's me about him is, he needs to be able to wage on heck of a war if we need him to. If we are just going to step to the side of the global scene (which I believe we should) we should be prepared for whatever consequences that has. It may lead to peace because we stop funding both sides of every conflict, it may lead to a serious war because we took everybody off international welfare. I just think a president who is going to pull out of international affairs right now needs to realize that it might have unexpected consequences. He might think too much about the principle of the former and not the latter.

hirundo82 wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:If the Republicans can put up someone who is not insane I might be able to swallow a vote for a (R). i am losing patience with Obama on a daily basis he is not the Obama I voted for in 2008. With little chance of a strong primary challenger myself and (some) others on left may defect for a reasonable republican.

If the Republicans were to nominate a libertarian-leaning candidate (not Ron Paul) I think they would have a good chance of pulling in many from the civil liberties wing of the Democratic party. Concentrate on ending the wars in the Middle East, ending the drug war, reigning in the civil liberties abuses which have been propogated by both parties since 9/11.

Unfortunately, I don't think such a candidate has much of a chance in the Republican primaries.

What's wrong with Paul?

I ask because I know a little about him, but from what I hear him say, he has his head on straight.