Ron Paul Soft on Big Government???

[Denny347]

I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree. From the majority of your posts I have read, so long as they are truthful (and I see no reason to conclude they are not), you sir are what most officers should strive to be.

Why thank you.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Now that we've all accepted our roles as various subhuman archetypes, we can get back to what matters (.45 vs 9mm, glock vs 1911, OC vs CC, that guy who dresses up like a baby and collects disability, legalizing pot, ak vs ar, ron paul vs the devil, not talking about religion, 1500, don's guns sux, 5.56 was designed to wound not kill, etc, etc, ad infinitum).

Other than just calling names, does anyone have anything to say? The weather sucks today.

 

[Expat]

Now that we've all accepted our roles as various subhuman archetypes, we can get back to what matters (.45 vs 9mm, glock vs 1911, OC vs CC, that guy who dresses up like a baby and collects disability, legalizing pot, ak vs ar, ron paul vs the devil, not talking about religion, 1500, don's guns sux, 5.56 was designed to wound not kill, etc, etc, ad infinitum).

Other than just calling names, does anyone have anything to say? The weather sucks today.

Robocop was a pretty good movie. I thought the sequels were pretty weak though.

 

[rjstew317]

Robocop was a pretty good movie. I thought the sequels were pretty weak though.

I'll second that!

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Robocop was a pretty good movie. I thought the sequels were pretty weak though.

I actually walked out of the theater during one of the sequels. The original was pretty good though.

 

[RockofStrength]

I actually walked out of the theater during one of the sequels. The original was pretty good though.

I've never been to a move so bad I walked out. Wow.

 

[steveh_131]

Why thank you.

Don't let it go to your head, JBT.

Other than just calling names, does anyone have anything to say? The weather sucks today.

I said my piece. Think I'm done until someone responds.

Robocop was a pretty good movie. I thought the sequels were pretty weak though.

QFT

 

[level.eleven]

Robocop was a pretty good movie. I thought the sequels were pretty weak though.

I still use the phrase "I'd buy that for a dollar!"

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85cL1HisrNc[/ame]

 

[Bond 281]

Where do you buy your crystal ball? And why are you wasting such powerful gifts sitting around on INGO?

Crystal ball? Maybe you ought to open up a map sometime and see that any country that could remotely be a threat is on the other side of the world, and it's incredibly difficult to transport the massive amounts of troops it would take to mount a real attack. We have air and naval superiority over everyone, making an already difficult invasion essentially impossible.

 

[88GT]

Which actions?

Which candidate?

Which plans are you talking about, specifically? What other candidate has offered a plan for a balanced budget? A plan to actually cut a significant portion of the government rather than "Making it work FOR us"?

The details are irrelevant. They really are. Stay with me here. The point is that when any other candidate offers any plan that doesn't have the desired result in a single "fell swooping step," the Paulbots* start complaining and frothing at the mouth because it doesn't do enough, "it's a start" isn't insufficient, blah, blah, blah.

And yet when Paul himself says the same exact thing it's supposed to be a beacon of virtue and political integrity?

Good for the goose but not good for the gander is not a desirable trait in people, and it reflects poorly on a candidate if the majority of his supporters subscribe to that line of thinking.

The reason it's "not enough" is because I want to see someone putting government spending on the chopping block. More tax revenue isn't the answer.

No arguments, but that's not my point. I'm not debating the details of any specific plan. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of Paulbots* in letting their candidate get away with the "It's a start" argument for falling short while simultaneously refusing to allow the same consideration for other candidates' and plans. It might not be a big enough start, but if your standard is that it doesn't do enough, then Paul should be held equally accountable.

Eliminating waste and fraud is a great start. And I do consider most of our huge foreign deployments of troops to be waste. Continue the focus on national defense, missile defense, etc. I'm all for a strong military.

Fine, once again, I agree. But tell me where to draw the line where this much spending is sufficient and one dollar more puts us over the top. The idea that we can be ready with a minimum doesn't sit well with me.

The beginning of the article even pointed out that the title was a joke. I suppose I thought the answer to his question was glaringly obvious, but perhaps it's not to some people. So if it brings up some good discussion then perhaps it is a good thread after all.

The article is somewhat moot as far as I'm concerned. The issue I have is the hypocrisy exhibited by Paulbots.*

What other candidates are proposing cuts of this magnitude to government size and spending? What other candidates have voting records that show they're actually committed to these goals?

Let me repeat: it's not the details of the plan. I would prefer greater cuts, elimination of the IRS, income tax, etc as well. But it ain't gonna happen in one 4-year administration. I will take any step in the right direction that actually moves us forward. The best battle plan in the world is junk if it can never be implemented.

Paul's voting record is irrelevant. His integrity is not at issue. I do not understand why this is repeatedly brought up as if somehow never having changed his position is necessarily morally superior or will have a damn thing to do with getting what he wants achieved.

That's not a rhethorical question, I'd honestly like to know if there are other candidates I should consider. Because so far I haven't heard any of them propose much that is important to me.

At the risk of repeating myself, once again, an irrelevant issue as far as I'm concerned. In this particular argument, despite the best intentions to deflect, I am focusing solely on one issue: the disparate treatment of identical results. Discussion on the details of the plans has been done ad naseum in other threads. My position has been presented in those threads many times over.


*I don't use the term Paulbots disparagingly. It's simply easier and faster to type than most of the alternatives.

 

[88GT]

Crystal ball? Maybe you ought to open up a map sometime and see that any country that could remotely be a threat is on the other side of the world, and it's incredibly difficult to transport the massive amounts of troops it would take to mount a real attack. We have air and naval superiority over everyone, making an already difficult invasion essentially impossible.

With all due respect, I don't believe you are giving sufficient consideration to all the possibilities. I'm not worried about a landed invasion of troops. But that is not the only threat we face.

 

[steveh_131]

No arguments, but that's not my point. I'm not debating the details of any specific plan. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of Paulbots* in letting their candidate get away with the "It's a start" argument for falling short while simultaneously refusing to allow the same consideration for other candidates' and plans. It might not be a big enough start, but if your standard is that it doesn't do enough, then Paul should be held equally accountable.

You keep saying this, but I don't agree with it. I honestly haven't heard any other candidates advocating any kind of real cuts to government size and spending. Please provide an example of this where I have dismissed it unfairly.

Fine, once again, I agree. But tell me where to draw the line where this much spending is sufficient and one dollar more puts us over the top. The idea that we can be ready with a minimum doesn't sit well with me.

I don't know the answer to that. If another candidate has a better plan I would be glad to hear it and consider it.

Paul's voting record is irrelevant. His integrity is not at issue. I do not understand why this is repeatedly brought up as if somehow never having changed his position is necessarily morally superior or will have a damn thing to do with getting what he wants achieved.

I don't agree that it doesn't matter. His history gives me solid evidence that his actions as president will mirror his campaign platform. What they claim to believe in is important, but even more important is what they will actually do once they take office.

At the risk of repeating myself, once again, an irrelevant issue as far as I'm concerned. In this particular argument, despite the best intentions to deflect, I am focusing solely on one issue: the disparate treatment of identical results. Discussion on the details of the plans has been done ad naseum in other threads. My position has been presented in those threads many times over.

Please provide a few links and we will discuss them. All I can think of is Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, which was a far different argument than it just "not being enough".

 

[rambone]

The details are irrelevant. They really are. Stay with me here. The point is that when any other candidate offers any plan that doesn't have the desired result in a single "fell swooping step," the Paulbots* start complaining and frothing at the mouth because it doesn't do enough, "it's a start" isn't insufficient, blah, blah, blah.

The details are relevant. Otherwise you are just making rhetorical statements that nobody can respond to. We Paul robots have been accused of being hypocrites, but nobody exactly knows how or why. We all feel the shame, but we are not exactly sure what we should feel bad about.

May I assume you are talking about Herman Cain? There haven't been that many specific plans laid forth by this crop of candidates. Did 9-9-9 not get a fair shake from the Paulbots?

 

[Bond 281]

With all due respect, I don't believe you are giving sufficient consideration to all the possibilities. I'm not worried about a landed invasion of troops. But that is not the only threat we face.

So what other threats from another country's military do you think we really face that require massive deployments of troops abroad?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So what other threats from another country[STRIKE]'s military[/STRIKE] do you think we really face that require massive deployments of troops abroad?

FTFY

Military is not necessary. The current situation in Afganistan requires it.

We forget that not so long ago the Taliban, and by fiat Al Queda, was the government of Afganistan. It wan't until we toppled the regime and sent it into the hills that a democratic government was established. If / when we leave Afganistan there is a strong possibility the Taliban will throw the country back into civil war.

 

[ViperJock]

If Ron Paul can just realize how important our military is, I might be able to vote for him. Walk softly and carry a great big stick in today's world will keep us free, like it or not. Abandoning military bases around the world sounds great, just close them down and bring everyone home.

But having these bases keeps the peace in parts of the world that are just waiting to erupt. Bases in Germany are jump off points to keeping the sleeping giant of Russia in it's place, as well as a stepping stone to that pillar of peace, the middle east (purple a given).

Same with bases in the Pacific. Guam helps keep south east Asia as well as China on notice that we mean business.

Sorry, too many times the world has relied (rightly or wrongly) on the USA to keep the peace. Paul's ideas could very be the match that lights the fuse to the true tin foil hat stuff.

I think he does realize how important the military is and he doesn't want to waste the valuable resource on stupidity. I am a supporter of the military in many ways and having nothing but respect you soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. That doesn't mean I think we need to bomb Libya. I cringed when a buddy told me his kid had been sent there. What if he dies in that mess? How pointless. Lets save the lives and efforts of the brave and patriotic for something that matters, its bad enough to lose fighting men and women in a really important fight.

In answer to Kirk's OP though, The article basically gives Paul's jumping off point. It doesn't say he wants the other wasteful government enshrined. He just hasn't got to them yet. One step at a time. If he said lets get rid of all this stuff too, people would start to marginalize him...

 

[Zoub]

Is Ron Paul selling out the American people and turns out to be just another politician? Discuss.

Is Ron Paul Going Soft on Big Government? « International Liberty

I gotta run, no time to read the thread, give me a CliffsNotes version in a post. Just post Yes or No, I will check back later.

If I had to guess, I would say Yes. He is an addict to power.

 

[Bond 281]

FTFY

Military is not necessary. The current situation in Afganistan requires it.

We forget that not so long ago the Taliban, and by fiat Al Queda, was the government of Afganistan. It wan't until we toppled the regime and sent it into the hills that a democratic government was established. If / when we leave Afganistan there is a strong possibility the Taliban will throw the country back into civil war.

I don't think another country's democracy is worth the cost of American lives and of bankrupting this country. I also think that the less we go abroad and occupy countries, the less we have to worry about pissing off people so much that they want to kill us.

 

[Expat]

I don't think another country's democracy is worth the cost of American lives and of bankrupting this country. I also think that the less we go abroad and occupy countries, the less we have to worry about pissing off people so much that they want to kill us.

Yeah, we were much beloved over there before we invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq.

 

[Bond 281]

Yeah, we were much beloved over there before we invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq.

Those invasions were only the latest in a long, long string of interference in the middle east.