Not really accurate, I like Ron Paul and I'm a JBT.Interesting how so many gov't affiliated members of INGO (lawyers, cops, politicians, chickenhawks) like/want to bash Ron Paul. Is there a job security/boot stomper issue here?
Not really accurate, I like Ron Paul and I'm a JBT.
You have to choose to be one or the other...
Seems pretty clear to me that the Paulistas do not welcome rights abusers in their fold.
Not really accurate, I like Ron Paul and I'm a JBT.
I thought Politician was Synonymous for Active Supporters of Big Government...
Attempting to steer this back on track, why do you believe Ron Paul was so soft on Big Government? This is especially confusing to me because, as Mark Steyn says, Paul is one of the few pointing out that the USA is broke.
1. Baby steps, eat the elephant one bite at a time, unrealistic to assume it will all get done in one move?
2. This plan has the most political support in Congress?
3. This plan would cheese the fewest number of people off?
4. Some other motive?
If the USA is as broke as Paul repeatedly says, then why not more dramatic plans than this?
LOL. In his press conference he said "That's a start." He's gotta win over this party first, most of whom are themselves Big Government supporters.
And if Ron's plan is soft on Big Government, then join me in calling the rest of the candidates active supporters of Big Government.
Unfortunately, we lack the manpower and money to actually police the globe. Other nations have lined their pockets and built up their militaries while relying on us for protection instead of actually being partners with us (see Israel, the U.N., NATO) which is a net negative for us as a nation. Our military is to protect the U.S., that's it. It's also for our allies, too, but let me know when we get one of those.
Being able to project power is important: a few crucial foreign bases with a few other backups to form a solid backbone for support is fine so long as it is organized purely to serve our best interests. But we are not capable or responsible for preventing war across the globe.
Kirk, I'd have to rank this thread somewhere in your bottom 10. And I thoroughly enjoy most of your threads. This one just doesn't deliver.
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.
Wanting to cut $ 1 Trillion from the budget doesn't seem soft on big gov't to me.
But when the rest of the candidates offer up "That's a start" plans, they're just big government pawns and socialist-lite because it's not enough? Have to remember that one.
...
Nobody says we have to police the world. But I'd like you to tell me what an appropriate level of spending to keep us ready and capable to meet any foe that initiates aggression might be? So just how much cuts are acceptable beyond those eliminating waste and fraud?
Nobody says we have to police the world. But I'd like you to tell me what an appropriate level of spending to keep us ready and capable to meet any foe that initiates aggression might be? So just how much cuts are acceptable beyond those eliminating waste and fraud?
Most candidates have no real intention of actually reducing government size, no history of supporting limited government, and no real plan to reduce the budget. So, calling them socialist-lite is a very fair and accurate statement.
As for meeting any aggressive foe....there's no country that's possibly able to invade the US. It's essentially strategically impossible. The absolute best any country could possibly do is try to bomb us, and it wouldn't take much of a military presence to have bases where we could retaliate. I see no reason why we have a need to be able to invade any country in the world at a moment's notice.
Most candidates have no real intention of actually reducing government size, no history of supporting limited government, and no real plan to reduce the budget. So, calling them socialist-lite is a very fair and accurate statement.
Attempting to steer this back on track, why do you believe Ron Paul was so soft on Big Government?