Ron Paul Voted Against Rules Of Engagement That Protect Our Troops

Why dont you admit the real reason you wont vote for him is because you dont want your precious aid to Israel stopped, America can go bankrupt for all you care as long we have Israels back. You liberal chickenhawk POS.

Quote from 377OHMS:

blah blah blah all lies and nonsense.
More...
 
Quote from Max E. Pad:

No, you arent sorry, atleast you arent a fiscal conservative. Anyone who says they would vote for Obama, the biggest spender in history over Ron Paul the most fiscally conservative candidate in history, is not a fiscal conservative, sorry man. You would rather see massive spending and deficits, so long as money is going to Israel, then see a true fiscal conservative come into office and fix americas spending problem.
More...

I agree.
 
Quote from 377OHMS:

You're mixing and embellishing so much that it is difficult to respond but I'll give it a try.

First, I voted for McCain/Palin, with extreme reluctance I might add. I disliked McCain intensely and felt Palin was not qualified or appropriate.

Second, I do not like Obama's conduct of the war(s) or his troop ROE but note that he assigned a commander in Afghanistan that overturned the non-defensive ROE and put some good ROE in place (Gen. Petraeus). Some in congress evidently felt the need to interfere by legislating ROE. During the vote on that ROE-interfering legislation I noted that Ron Paul voted against it along with most of the democrats.

Third, my opposition to Ron Paul is not based soley on that ROE vote. It is a composite of all of his policies and a perception of that I developed during the debate and some reading up on him.

Fourth, I've never supported Barrack Obama but note that he is killing Islamists at a respectable rate despite his bad war policies and micro-management.

Finally, what I said was that I would vote for anyone instead of Ron Paul including Obama in the general election if necessary. I don't feel that he is a stable personality, don't like his war policies, don't like his isolationist policies and frankly think he is a nut, that is, crazy or demented and dangerous. Not someone I think should have access to nuclear weapons. I don't think he is a conservative by any measure and is likely just a divider of republicans like Ross Perot was.

Yes, I said I would vote for Obama in the General against Ron Paul if he was nominated. Obama is screwing up almost everything he touches but he isn't going to turn his back on the entire world and hide behind our borders, put us on the gold standard or abandon our allies. The captured bad-guys are still sitting in Guantanamo and we are still killing AQ anywhere we find them. Its just that I don't want to see Ron Paul in the Whitehouse and feel strongly about that. None of the current republican candidates are suitable except, in my opinion, Perry perhaps running with Rubio or maybe Christie who doesn't seem interested in running.

The clincher was the debate. Ron Paul was shrill, yelling and vocalizing extreme position after extreme position. We don't need extreme radical change, we need common sense budget reform (reducing government spending), common sense tax reform (reducing and leveling tax rates) and war policies that have an objective (and an end-game).

I know most on ET won't read more than the first two sentences of any post so I'm likely wasting my time explaining myself but you asked politely so I've tried to answer fully and politely.
More...

I read your entire post. I agree with Max's assessment. You are not a fiscal conservative. Your comment regarding "killing Islamists at a respectable rate" clearly defines what your interests are in, and why. You then go on to mention how "Ron Paul's other policies are so extreme" yet neglect to mention any specifics.

I think Max has you summed up rather nicely.
 
I'm afraid that I disagree and will vote against Ron Paul at every opportunity even if it means voting for the worst President in our history in the General Election.

I hadn't realized that you harbored such irrational views as they had not been evident in your previous posts.

Guess we'll all just vote for whomever we like and see what the outcome is.

As I said, I think a Perry/Rubio ticket could be a winner. Just what the country needs.

An insane old RINO is definitely unelectable. A conservative like me cannot support such a candidate under any circumstance. I'm sorry that you cannot discern the difference between a nut and a fiscal conservative.
 
Quote from 377OHMS:

we need common sense budget reform (reducing government spending), common sense tax reform (reducing and leveling tax rates) and war policies that have an objective (and an end-game).
More...

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for anything like that coming out of our two-party system...
 
Quote from 377OHMS:

I don't feel that he is a stable personality, don't like his war policies, don't like his isolationist policies and frankly think he is a nut, that is, crazy or demented and dangerous. Not someone I think should have access to nuclear weapons.
More...


Paul is the most peaceful presidential candidate .You have nerve saying you don't trust Paul when you are the warmonger who has admitted to supporting all the wars and the US being the world police.You don't trust Paul with nuclear weapons but I bet you would support a Nuclear World War 3 over Israel .
 
Quote from Eight:

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for anything like that coming out of our two-party system...
More...

Yeah, no kidding.

Boehner is as bad as Obama with a less than 1% reduction in federal spending achieved during the debt limit fight.

But I don't think that means we must embrace some unstable figure like Ron Paul. I've noticed that Christie has dramatically cut state spending in New Jersey but managed to preserve most of the assistance for the poor, the elderly and children. He has pissed off a lot of teachers though but they seem hopelessly addicted to the union wages and benefits they receive.

Clearly the days of fat pensions and non-means-tested entitlements is coming to an end. One huge step forward might be to means test for medicaid and social security and I'll bet those are the first two major reforms to entitlements that we see.

My thinking there is, if I've become wealthy by retirement age why should the goverment pay for my medical care using other people's tax money? If I've become wealthy by retirement age why should I receive social security? It makes sense to require some income qualification for those two programs and I've read that simply implementing that change would render both of those programs viable for our children and grandchildren if not in perpetuity.
 
Quote from 377OHMS:

Yeah, no kidding.

Boehner is as bad as Obama with a less than 1% reduction in federal spending achieved during the debt limit fight.

But I don't think that means we must embrace some unstable figure like Ron Paul. I've noticed that Christie has dramatically cut state spending in New Jersey but managed to preserve most of the assistance for the poor, the elderly and children. He has pissed off a lot of teachers though but they seem hopelessly addicted to the union wages and benefits they receive.

Clearly the days of fat pensions and non-means-tested entitlements is coming to an end. One huge step forward might be to means test for medicaid and social security and I'll bet those are the first two major reforms to entitlements that we see.

My thinking there is, if I've become wealthy by retirement age why should the goverment pay for my medical care using other people's tax money? If I've become wealthy by retirement age why should I receive social security? It makes sense to require some income qualification for those two programs and I've read that simply implementing that change would render both of those programs viable for our children and grandchildren if not in perpetuity.
More...

I did read your entire earlier post, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You seem pretty conservative on most matters, so I have trouble imagining how you feel Obama is preferable to any of the current republican candidates. It sounds like you feel he has demonstrated some degree of responsibilty, but freed of the need to run for reelection, I fear he would begin to cater to the hard left fringe. To me, he is far more dangerous than Paul or anyone else.Whatever else Ron Paul is, he is a patriotic american who will put this country's interests first. So will Perry, Bachmann and Romney. With Obama, I don't have that same confidence. He is likely to gravitate to the same kind of dopey revolutionary romanticism that seemed to motivate him to undermine Mubarak and khaddafi.

I also have to disagree about SS and medicare, at least for people who are close to getting them. They paid into the system their entire lives and now, because we have a leftwing president who managed to spend us into financial oblivion in two years, you want to break the promises we made? I agree that something has to be done with these programs on a long-range basis, but I am far from sure means-testing is the way to go. That transforms them from insurance to welfare.
 
Quote from 377OHMS:

Florida Republican Congressman John Mica offered the following morally clear Amendment (5/25/2011-H.AMDT.318 (A018) Amends H.R.1540):

"Amendment requires that the rules of engagement [ROE] allow any military service personnel assigned to duty in a designated hostile fire area to have rules of engagement that fully protect their right to proactively defend themselves from hostile actions."

The results?

143 out of 185 Democrats present -- 77% -- voted against this amendment; 217 out of 235 Republicans present -- 92% -- voted for it.

As for the two Republicans in Congress running who are Presidential candidates, Michele Bachmann voted for the amendment; Ron Paul voted *against* it.

Ron Paul hates our troops. It is undeniable.

Combined with his extreme isolationist policy he appears to most of us to be unqualified to lead our country. Even the lamestream media knows Paul is a nut and is ignoring him.

Everyone has one policy or two that Ron Paul states that they like but one or two policies is not what we elect. We elect a human being and *all* of their policies must be considered. This man is a hater and I would vote against him in the General Election if it comes to it.
More...

I'd still vote for him over Obama though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top