The Ron Paul Chronicles

[AK Forty Seven]

Quote from Ricter:

To me this defies understanding, unless it's not sincere and is actually an attempt to shed the Obama-no-matter-what label some around hear think you wear.

Not at all

I like Obama and think he is a good president and I will vote for him over Newt,Romney or Santorum

I like that Obama is ending the wars,but Obama took 3 years to end Iraq and is taking 4 to end Afghanistan,Paul would have ended them immediately

While Obama is less hawkish then the neo cons there is still the possibility he will go to war with Iran,Paul wont


Obama continued The patriot act,airport molestation,homeland security etc,Paul will end them


Obama continued corporate welfare/bailouts,Paul will never bail out corporations


Even with Iraq over Obama continues to spend 700 billion a year on defense,Paul will drastically reduce spending on the military industrial complex


Obama has continued the drug war.While I dont think Paul will legalize all drugs at the least I think he will try to legalize marijuana and fight to lesson the penalties of non violent drug offenses.Paul has said he would pardon all non violent drug offenders

These are some of the reasons I will vote for Paul over Obama

 

[rew]

Quote from Trader666:

Actually I put it up because I'm a Twilight Zone fan and thought it might start some interesting conversations.

But let me correct your bottom line:

Ron Paul: 0 chance of becoming president, Jon Huntsman: 0 chance.

My scores were for correctness, they were not the odds of winning the presidential election. Ron Paul has better than 0% chance of winning but the odds are indeed very low because most Americans aren't very bright.

 

[Trader666]

I know, I was giving you a hard time. But I still say the probability of Ron Paul becoming president is zero. Which technically means it almost surely won't happen, not that it's impossible

Quote from rew:

My scores were for correctness, they were not the odds of winning the presidential election. Ron Paul has better than 0% chance of winning but the odds are indeed very low because most Americans aren't very bright.

 

[Max E.]

If you were to leave the decision of whether or not to go to war up to the Generals, you can pretty much guarantee that you will always be at war. Those guys dont make a name for themselves by sitting on the sidelines, and they have all have aspirations to be the next George S. Patton.

Quote from Trader666:

I'm all for these to some extent but to the right extent, whatever that is. But I don't know and neither does Ron Paul. He's already said he'd overrule his generals. That would be his prerogative as commander-in-chief but he shouldn't do that unless he knows better and he does NOT. If he were wise he'd give guidance and ask them to come back and tell him how they recommend doing what he wants and the potential consequences although there will always be unforeseen ones. To keep them honest he could form a team of retired military who share his views whose job is to sharpshoot and ensure he gets both sides. That wouldn't go over well but it would go over better than summarily overruling commanders on the ground.

No one man on the planet has a clue which troops can be brought home and which countries it is in the best interests of the United States to "meddle" with politically, economically, or militarily without first getting the best objective input available... and even then it's only a best guess because there are so many variables and potential consequences.

 

[Trader666]

First of all, you might want to re-read what I wrote because I wasn't suggesting "we leave the decision of whether or not to go to war up to the generals."

Second, the general officer corps does need to be reformed because even one self-serving careerist is too many and there are a lot. But war is that last thing any decent general wants. And when there is one, some actually want to participate because they believe they can do the best job by accomplishing the mission while minimizing casualties. Not everyone's out to make a name for themselves and you can't indict them all like that.

Quote from Max E. Pad:

If you were to leave the decision of whether or not to go to war up to the Generals, you can pretty much guarantee that you will always be at war. Those guys dont make a name for themselves by sitting on the sidelines, and they have all have aspirations to be the next George S. Patton.

 

[Trader666]

What specific part are you referring to?

Quote from Optional:

The Constitution states clearly and eloquently how we should deal with situations like Iran. Everyone needs to pick it up and read it.

 

[AK Forty Seven]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

If you were to leave the decision of whether or not to go to war up to the Generals, you can pretty much guarantee that you will always be at war. Those guys dont make a name for themselves by sitting on the sidelines, and they have all have aspirations to be the next George S. Patton.

+ 1

MacArthur wanted to nuke China.The Generals wanted JFK to bomb Russian soldiers during the Cuban missile crisis.Scary to think what those Generals recommendations would have lead to