Scathing ad released by Ron Paul about Gingrich:
But am I alone here in asking why no one is going after Romney? Bachmann gets hot, the media and her competitors hack away. Perry gets hot, and they hack away. Cain gets hot….bam! Now we’re on to Gingrich but who the hell is hacking away at Romney? Mighty curious.
As for the ad itself, it’s definitely information people should mull over before pulling the lever for Newt but I’m with Ace’s rant here (always long winded but well worth the read)
….our choices suck:
…We don’t have a Pure Conservative in the race. (Possibly the unelectable Bachmann, but only because she’s only been in office since shortly before the outbreak of the Tea Party, and really has never been asked to do anything except play to the Tea Party. And, meanwhile, she and her husband’s clinics scooped up all the federal and state money they could.)
I guess I don’t have a point except to say I really don’t think it is useful or true to debate these guys in terms of “The True Conservative I Can Get Behind.”
None of them are that. None. So the Quest for the Pure True Conservative can and should end, and we should stop talking about such nonsense and start talking, seriously, about the imperfect candidates we have.
Gingrich would be an okay imperfect candidate. So, I guess, would Romney.
But this idea that someone here must be a True Conservative, because, gosh, someonemust be, is just plain wrong.
Ok, I’m not completely with Ace here since I don’t think Romney is an okay imperfect candidate. If it’s Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I’m probably sitting home since it isn’t a choice. Romney is OLite, plain and simple. And don’t even bring up Ron Paul because I would rather get punched in the testicles than vote for that nutcase.
So where does that leave us?
Screwed.
I wouldn’t say that we are screwed. What I think is going on here is that those of us on the right, specifically the Conservatives are beginning to buy into the MSM’s narrative that this year’s GOP field is weak.
With the exception of Huntsman and Ron Paul, ANY of them would be a damn site better than what we have in the Oval Office now. Yes, Romney is a RINO and he is desperately trying on his conservative costume, but with a majority in the House and in the Senate he could be contained. Romney with a Democrat majority is a scary prospect, but with a Republican majority in both houses, then Romney begins to look less dangerous.
As for the ad, it is like 99% of all political ads – misleading. Newt has explained his positions on AGW, the individual mandate and his so-called lobbying for Fannie/Freddie. Just consider the source of the ad and it can be viewed in a different light. This is from the same Congressman who rails about pork spending, proudly claiming that he has never voted for it. Then he stuffs pork into bills he knows will pass, but he can safely vote against.
I got into a back and forth with a Paul Bearer about this and they were angry that I thought it was disingenuous for him to do that. They kept saying that it was what a Representative is supposed to do, bring money home to his constituents. Then when I said WHAT he was doing wasn’t the problem it was HOW he brags about NOT doing it. I simply asked them, “So it doesn’t bother you that the candidate you support doesn’t have enough integrity to just be honest about what he does regarding pork?”
The bottom line is that we need to stop buying into what the left is doing and saying. They are doing what they always do, try to control the narrative and it is up to us to stop them. They (the left) tried to do the same thing with Reagan. Hell just weeks before the election, Time had all but written Reagan off as unelectable and not able to appeal to the independents. We all know how that went and we have to beat them at their own game again.
Ron Paul took so many little snippits out of context, where does one start?
Never mind.
Paul wants to rail about hypocrisy, then he needs to address his own.
As @anticsrocks: noted:
Paul famously rails against pork, lines up tons of it for his district, then votes against it ONLY when he is sure it will pass without his vote.
You can run a tiny district, one/435th of the USA, that way; but NOT the whole country!
But Curt is correct.
Where are the Romney hit ads?
The DNC has created them.
“punched in the testicles” made me smile
A) Too boring
B) The media don’t need to as the republican supporters are doing enough to run him down (Romneycare etc)
C) It’s one big pinko conspiracy?
Is there such a thing as a pure conservative – especially if none of the current candidates are considered pure?
Amazing how in US politics candidates in the same party spend so many months negatively campaigning, highlighting weaknesses in their ‘rivals’ etc – kinda of doing the job for the opposition party.
We are letting the drive by media narrow down our choices just like they did in 2008!
Cain 2012.
The fact that Obama and Repub. establishment are using character assassination against Cain makes me like Cain more!
Cain 2012.
@Bruce:
We must not let them take away a good option because it is not a perfect option.
“The enemy of the good is the perfect,” was once said by a military expert.
True in war and also true in politics.
Not one of our candidates is perfect.
Months ago a poll of Republican likely voters and of TEA party attendees showed an interesting trend:
90% of all TEA party attendees said they would vote for whichever person got the Republican nomination (in order to get Obama out).
But only 80% of registered and past-voting Republicans made that promise!
When did we stop considering qualifications for the president of the United States, the greatest nation, the most charitable nation. This stopped with the election of Obama, idiot in chief. The one individual who knows the inter-workings of government to achieve change is Newt. Who has a vision for the future of our great nation and can articulate a direction for our county. Romney is fluff. From my perspective Newt has the most experience and is most qualified for the position of president of the United States.
I’ve found the Ronulans to be just as cult-like as the obama drones. In a lot of ways they are like liberals. The only real difference I’ve found between them is that they want almost no government at all.
It is pretty strange that no one (besides the DNC) has taken a similar shot at Romney. But I think it’s kind of early for negative ads to make sense. Even the DNC, IMO, is pissing away money by doing so, since the nomination is still a long way off. For the Republican candidates, it’s still a crowded enough race that it makes a lot more sense to toot your own horn than to tear down someone else – even if you succeed, you don’t know that you’ll be the one picking up those votes. For that reason I hope that Paul doesn’t actually spend money running this ad, at least not at this point in time (possibly after Iowa it would make sense). Thing is, it may be somewhat personal between him and Gingrich. Gingrich came down to Texas to campaign against Paul’s re-election in 1996. I expect Paul hasn’t forgotten.
Ace makes a good point. It ultimately comes down to what compromise(s) we’re willing to accept in a candidate, and especially just how much we’re willing to sacrifice for electability.
@NanG: ‘Paul wants to rail about hypocrisy, then he needs to address his own.’
That’s not exactly how it works. If Newt’s best defense is that Paul is also imperfect, that’s not much of a defense (tu quoque is generally pretty weak, even considered a fallacy). Further, while bringing up Paul’s earmark habit is an effective way of trolling his supporters – they react badly to any suggestion that Paul is less than perfect – it’s just not a very damaging accusation to the general public. You could also accuse Paul of flip-flopping on immigration and the death penalty over the course of his career. A long time ago, 1970s I think, he supported the death penalty; now he doesn’t. In the 1980s he was pro-illegal-immigration (with caveats); now he isn’t. Thing is though, he can give pretty good explanations of why he changed his mind.
Newt, of course, can also offer some explanations of his change of positions. It comes down to credibility: do I think that he actually re-thought things, or do I think that he’s taking whatever stands he thinks will help him win? And what does that tell me about what he’ll do if elected?
My dislike of Gingrich is probably almost as intense as Curt’s loathing for Paul, so of course I don’t believe him. But obviously a lot of people do.
@bbartlog:
Fair comment, bbartlog.
I didn’t mean exactly what I said….that Paul should address his own hypocrisy.
What I meant was that Paul’s hypocrisy would immediately come up in the minds of anyone viewing Paul’s ad against Gingrich.
It is simply the way our minds work.
I’m no fan of using fallacious rhetoric any more than you are.
But, if you are aware of Paul’s record, just seeing his ad makes you – MAKES you – think of Paul’s own hypocritical record.
That was why I concluded about Paul’s hypocrisy:
@Hard Right:
That’s funny, I’ve noticed just the opposite, the anti-Paul posters are the first to resort to grade school name calling, pretty much like the liberals do, then there’s the old “they’re all anarchists” line if they don’t want social con imposed statism. The only difference between the social cons and the neo socs is the “vision” of utopia they want to use the federal government to enforce.
Frankly, “hypocrisy” doesn’t concern me, what concerns me is that people are willing to give Newt a pass on supporting TARP, supporting the forced mandate on insurance, supporting gorebull warming, and supporting amnesty (I guess his plan to execute those with 2 oz of pot made up for all of that). Yet everybody calls Paul “crazy” and pretty much the only thing I’ve seen sited as proof is his opinion about why the islamofacists attacked us.
I completely agree, the fact that we had troops in the middle east was not the reason for the attacks, but it certainly helped the enemy’s recruiting of people and resources. To say that swimming in a crocodile infested river did contribute to getting your but bit by a crock. . . is a crock.
While his reasoning is flawed, naive, and overly simple, so is the reasoning of those who say they attacked because their “jealous” of our way of life etc., etc. No war was ever fought by a force in which each individual was fighting for the same reason (IMHO). Some of the muzzis fight us because we’re there, some because they are jealous, some because of their mythology, some to make a buck, some to avenge a real or perceived slight.
But, overall, the visceral, negative responses I see to Paul, the one guy who (hypocritically or not) has at least been consistent in calling for smaller, Constitutional government is disheartening. He could not in the span of a century bring enough pork to his district to equal the damage done by the policies Newt has at least tacitly supported.
Interesting.
IIRC, Newt didn’t support TARP. As far a Ron Paul supporters, they are every bit as delusional as obama supporters. I’ve dealt with too many of them to buy your claims about what they supposedly stand for.
RP is a fiscal phony.
He does not understand how the world works or how to protect America.
Those two items alone disqualify him. Don’t get me started on his anti-semitism…
I am not wild about Newt nor do I give him a pass as you assert, but if the choice is him or obama, Newt wins my vote.
@Hard Right:
That’s not what he told Stephy:
” STEPHANOPOULOS: “Speaker Gingrich, there’s also, I think, a recognition, at least in some of the polls I’ve seen, that something has to be done.”
SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH: “Sure, look, something has to be done. … I suspect were I still in Congress, in the end George [Will] is right, and I probably would end up voting reluctantly yes, because I think when you’re given no choice …”
So how is Paul a fiscal “phoney”? Just curious.
Frankly none of the prospects thrill me. Knowing what I know now I’d be really happy to draft Allen West, but I’ve seriously never understood why people hate Ron Paul so much.
As a Ron Paul supporter I have received what I believe to be more than my fair share derisive comments. I support Dr. Paul because he seems to espouse the same goals as I do, smaller government and a return to the Constitutional principals that made us the ideal other nations aspired to emulate. I left the Republican Party after Reagan’s first term because I was very unhappy with several of his decisions while in office. Since then I have come to realize that the Framers of our Constitution got it right and anything that differed from their original intentions only served to benefit a select minority of our population as opposed to the citizenry as a whole. I am a strict Constitutionalist and if the Constitution authorizes “it” then I will support “it”. If not then “it” falls under the authority of the States or the Individual. I am no “Paul Bearer” and I am more than willing to debate any so called “conservative” on this issue and I won’t need to call anyone a “drone” a “puppet” or whatever the equivalent of a “Ronulan” is . And if you can clearly and concisely make a persuasive argument you won’t even have to punch me in the testicles to bring me around. I am open to reason, how about y’all?
Now I looked at all the “legitimate” candidates, Romney, Perry, Gingrich, Cain and in my opinion they all are flawed. Yes Ron Paul has succeeded in bringing some “pork” to his district AND maintained a perfect voting record on Constitutional issues. But you know what nobody is perfect and for him to have remained as clean as he has in that cesspool on the Potomac for over 20 years is a remarkable achievement in its own right. So ask yourselves this question “Do I oppose Ron Paul for President because I disagree with his position or because what he proposes is unconstitutional?” I can support and work with someone I disagree with but I don’t believe I can do either with someone who doesn’t care to follow the Rule of Law. In my opinion, if who ever was in charge would at least abide by the Constitution we might be able to start digging our way out of this mess.
Republicans are good people (mostly), Republican leadership is not made up of the same “good people”.
To hades with the Republican Party. Newt = Clinton = Bush = Obama.
@Poppa_T:
Not a chance in hell we get out of this one alive.
Dang, Curt… I’ve never seen a more effective potential for a three sentence post than you’ve demonstrated…
ala:
LOL
’tis a pity that, with this election, we didn’t have better choices bubbling to the surface. But I’ve long held that this election, and “inherited” situation (picking Obama’s fave phrase), scares the tar out of most. They know that reversing the detrimental trends put into place by the terrible trio… Obama-Pelosi-Reid… takes more time for yielding results than a single term will offer. Not to mention any POTUS will still be saddled with a big spending Congress, passing off “cuts” to future spending as genuine cuts. pffft
In that case, it’s NOT likely that any GOP member, let alone conservative, are going to find themselves popular with the nation for re’election in 2016. I’m guessing most pols, hoping for a good legacy and cushy future, don’t want the risk.
@Poppa_T, I doubt you’d get much argument from me on Paul’s fiscal and domestic policies. But, as usual, he’s too libertarian and isolationist in both trade/borders and foreign policy for me to swallow. But I’d pay the price of admission to see him as Treasury Sec’y. And God help the Fed Reserve Chair if he were.
@Hard Right:
That’s not what he told Stephanopoulos
STEPHANOPOULOS: “Speaker Gingrich, there’s also, I think, a recognition, at least in some of the polls I’ve seen, that something has to be done.”
SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH: “Sure, look, something has to be done. … I suspect were I still in Congress, in the end George [Will] is right, and I probably would end up voting reluctantly yes, because I think when you’re given no choice …”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJb2NfqwghY
Newt also voted for the 1987 Pro-Fairness Doctrine Bill, which passed both Houses, and Reagan promptly vetoed.
Newt co-sponsored HR 1078 Global warming Prevention Act
(there’s really too many bad votes to list)
When Ron Paul submitted HR1146 The American Sovereignty Restoration Act, an act to withdraw the US from the UN and kick the UN out of America back in 1997 (which he has resubmitted with every new Congress since), where was Newt? Busy looking into the ‘future’ at how great NAFTA is and the North American Union that would ensue? Now, all of a sudden, Newt is worried about the UN and Agenda 21? I don’t believe him.
Granted, Ron Paul is no ‘visionary’ and looks back to the founding principles rather than to a future where we all live under some kind of umbrella government system and national sovereignty is ceded, but given that choice, I’d rather look backwards than forward.
I truly appreciate everything Just Al said. I never liked or supported the unPatriot Act, either, and it has led to nothing but an erosion of our sovereign, individual rights.
I also know many people do not care that Newt is a CFR member, but I can’t shake that fact. I don’t trust anyone who’s CFR. Give me Bachmann, or even Paul, over Newt any day.
But more worrying for me is Donald Trump who said on Greta’s show: “If we choose the right person, I am all for it and I will be the happiest guy in the world and I intend to endorse somebody I believe. But if we don’t, if we choose somebody that’s not right, and if the economy continues to be bad, which I think it will because we have leadership that doesn’t know what’s it’s doing, I would certainly consider running as an Independent. Yes.”
Trump supposedly set aside $230million for his campaign. So if we don’t choose his candidate, he’ll run 3rd party running and Barry will be re-elected.
In some ways Trump is more dangerous than Ron Paul who said on Chris Wallace’s show that he ‘doesn’t feel like’ he wants to run on a 3rd party ticket. Any serious candidate would never admit to running 3rd party, so his supposed waffling is not only reasonable but correct. If you say you’ll run 3rd party, no one can take your bid as the Rep candidate seriously, yet the Hannity’ and Wallaces want some kind of assurance and that is extremely unfair. No one has asked Newt, Romney or Bachmann if they’d run 3rd party.
As for Curt’s post, maybe it’s time we actually defined what Conservative means this time around. Seems to me the meaning gets altered so much I’m having trouble understanding what people are actually looking for.
The reason no one is hacking at Romney is the same reason no one hacked at McCain. The media want a liberal for president. With Romney or McCain, they get that. They are trying to manipulate the Republican nomination to the least conservative candidate. They are trying to pull the same crap they did four years ago. Tear down the real conservatives to give the RINO smooth sailing.
The reason that noone has blasted Mitt, is, where does one begin? First, he’s not a conservative, he’s not a liberal- he is whatever you want him to be, and that makes him someone with no core convictions- a blank piece of paper, and that is someone who I do not want in the WH.
We already have a liar, one who tells us one thing, but does another- why would we want a white version of this?
At least with Newt, he could mop the room with Barry in a debate, and that I would like to see. Also, he does have some core convictions. As has been said, however, there is no perfect conservative, so we need to figure who is the best one for the job and get behind him.
@MataHarley:
Hi Mata, okay so your main concerns with Dr. Paul concern his foreign policy his trade policy and the border/immigration issue, correct?
Let’s just start with his foreign policy since I think that is where most folks tend to lose favor with RP as a candidate. Do you agree that George Washington was perhaps our greatest and wisest President? When was the last time you read his farewell address? There are several portions of it that pertain to this issue…these are but two of the portions that I feel are relevant to this issue…”
“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense, but in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.”
and
“Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest, but even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. ”
Do you think that America needs to be the Police Force for the world? If like me, you don’t, do you then agree that we do not need to have 700+ military bases in 100+ Nations around the world? Europe has been able to build its social infrastructure because it was able to rely on us to provide for its defensive needs. If we had not maintained such a powerful military presence there, they would have had to provide for themselves and would not have gotten into the fiscal mess they are currently in. This applies to Japan as well. RP is often referred to as an “isolationist” , that word is used incorrectly. Isolationism is the withdrawal of political AND economic ties to other Nations and RP has never advocated for that, what he proposes is “Neutrality” NOT “Isolationism” How can an advocate of “free trade” be an Isolationist?
@Hard Right:
Hard Right, how can you call RP supporters such as myself “delusional” when you fail to acknowledge Speaker Gingrich’s own positions? He DID support TARP, he DID support global warming legislation, TARP, etc…if anyone is “delusional” here it is not me.
@Poppa_T: I have a problem with RP’s attitude about the military. It is not his “no foreign misadventures” part I have trouble wit, but his lack of understanding about the rest of the world today, and the problems facing the US just because of who we are.
Face it, there are a lot of people who do not like us at all, and some of them have nukes- that is a scary proposition for anyone, and I do not have the confidence that RP understands that.
And just to clarify, I am a Texan, living in RP’S district, and he hasn’t been all that great- good, but not great.
@Poppa_T, being a former registered libertarian a couple of decades ago, let me assure you I do not have the time nor inclination for the lengthy debates favored by those of that political think. And I don’t say that to be unkind, mind you. It’s just that when it comes to never ending “debate”, libertarians can simply bore one to tears with their tenacity. So let me make this succinct, and it will be my only response to you INRE where I disagree with Paul.
I disagree with your premise that our foreign bases are merely to act as a “police force to the world”, and yes… I do support having foreign bases. In colonial days, our nation was protected by oceans, limiting the ability to attack the shores to the north and south. Today’s transport and weaponry render that illusion outdated.
Threats to this country originate in distant lands, and we’ve fought many wars off native soil. Ready bases to facilitate rapid deployment to guard the homeland is prudent. Paul is foolhardy to suggest otherwise.
Nor do you have the credentials as a seer to accurately predict what other nations may, or may not have done, with their own military build up in absence of US bases on foreign soil. You say this as if they were manned with huge battalions, adequate to serve the host nation at will. And, in fact, the US tends not to interfere with the host nation’s business, as most SOFAs dictate.
My fault for not being more clear with my statement: “he’s too libertarian and isolationist in both trade/borders and foreign policy for me to swallow.”
It would have been constructed more clearly had I said he’s too libertarian (in both trade/borders) and isolationst (in foreign policy) for me to swallow. Tho I had the pecking order correct in the descriptive adjectives (libertarian and isolationist) to the ensuing nouns (trade/borders and foreign policy), it was cumbersome to decipher. I apologize for that.
Again, succinctly, I am opposed to open borders for both economic and cultural/nationality reasons. Paul believes if we had a healthy economy, we’d need no immigration policy. We may agree on some points… i.e. I don’t believe that enforcement of immigration laws should be placed on the backs of employers, who are fined if they don’t elicit immigration status prior to employment. But I am still far apart from Paul’s border notions in general. I address the open borders issue because it is intrinsically linked to trade because of labor force.
I think free trade is a utopian dream because that would entail a like recipient commitment with the other trade nation. As is usual, it would be the US being the free trader, and the other nation placing their own protectionist limitations. The Paul free trade idea requires a “handshake” mentality to facilitate it. Sorry…. won’t work as long as man inhabits the planet. In writing, in writing, in writing. I also believe in sanctions as a type of economic warfare.
But I will agree that trade agreements could be better constructed than they are. Problem is, I’m likely to swing more protectionist than Paul is willing to go, just as this nation did (to our economic benefit) with our tariff systems in the early days.
There is simply nothing you can say that will win me over to Paul enough to support him for POTUS. But as I said, would love to see him as Treasury Secretary. We could all use some entertainment as he makes the Fed Chair dance.
Lastly, I surely hope you aren’t suggesting that Ron Paul is the new George Washington….. that may be appropriate in your mind. But for me, that’s a mighty stretch at best.
@Blake:
Alright Blake, I can understand that but let’s also remember that of the current candidates RP is the ONLY one with any military experience, also, those in the military have sent him more in campaign donations than all other republican candidates combined and more than Pres. Obama as well. Does that tell us anything about how the military perceives RP? For me at least it says that those currently serving do not share your lack of confidence in RP. In fact it tells me just the opposite, that those in the military feel that he understands exactly what needs to be done.
You also say that people around the world don’t like us “just because of who we are”. So let me ask you, why don’t they like us? Do you think it’s because they are jealous, envious? Why? Up until about 50 years ago everybody wanted to come to the good ol’ US of A because of our freedoms and or lifestyle, by that I mean that all were given the chance live their lives and a chance to build a better life for their posterity. That has changed over time, why? Has our lifestyle changed or has the way we deal with other nations changed?
I agree with RP in that it is the way our foreign policy has been implemented that has changed the way the world perceives us. We are no longer seen as a benevolent land of freedom that helps out other nations in need, but the new world hegemony that bends other nations to its will. I could be very wrong but I don’t think so. Frankly over those past 50 or so years we have enabled regime change in Nicaragua, Honduras, South Vietnam, Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and we are currently looking to do the same in Pakistan, Iran, and some other African Nations.
So I tend to agree with RP in that our policies have in fact brought about the changes in the way the world sees us. If other nations having nuclear capabilities scares you just remember that we can still turn the earth into a giant glass Christmas tree ornament many times over and all the other nations know that we have used it before and we can use them again. They don’t want to die either.
@Poppa_T:
Poppa, if you go back in other threads you can see my problems with Newt. He’s hardly my first or second choice. Let’s face it, our crop of candidates isn’t too good. However, supporting RP over Newt is insanity.
If you think RP can beat obama
If you think RP is anything like he claims to be
If you think he isn’t a hypocrite
If you think he’s right on foreign policy
If you think he wouldn’t be a disaster as president
Then yes, YOU ARE delusional.
@MataHarley:
I enjoy your posts and usually agree, but not when it comes to foreign bases. As you say, we’ve sent our military to fight many wars in far away lands. But, with the exception of Japan and Al Quida/Taliban, not one of those was fought because of a threat to the US.
And it’s hard to couch the current situation in Afghanistan as anything but a loose/loose. At this point our measure of “success” is to cement the power of a central government there that would openly side with the country that harbors our enemies against us if asked, a government that magnanimously “pardons” a rape victim if she agrees to marry her attacker.
Military isolationism was the best policy in 1912 and is a better policy today. Yes, modern weapons make those oceans less protection for us, but more so for our enemies. As it is we have kept troops in places like Germany and Korea to act as sacrificial “trip wires”, and in Japan, I assume to protect Taiwan from China (does anyone seriously think we’d get into a conventional shooting war to protect them?).
Given the state of our logistical system today making the argument that overseas bases makes us safer is like saying Dunkirk was a brilliant plan by the British. Right now one of the two supply lines to our troops (my son among them) in Afghanistan is cut.
The best and surest way to insure the protection of the US is to re-establish the credibility of nuclear deterrence and to stop the foolishness that we punish those who attack us by building new schools for them.
Poppa is 100% correct, we’ve made our military not only into the worlds free “rentacop” organization but also “meals on wheels” and I’m personally tired of it. The military exists to do two things, kill people, and break things and we’d better grow up and admit it before it’s too late.
@ Poppa_T:
Ron Paul has a messaging problem. You can’t say that America is responsible for the 911 attacks. Even though he clarified this statement in one interview and said, not Americans, you and I are Americans, America is responsible. Sorry, we are America. We elect the idiots that create policy.
Our military is tired. We have been at war for over 10 years. I think Paul would bring everyone home quicker than anyone else, and I think the military is ready to come home.
I could vote for Paul though, because in the end he would just be president, no king. But I believe he could chip away at a lot of liberal establishments. But since he would be commander in chief, I would want to hear him say he would consult with the joint chiefs and his national security team before he started dismantling bases and forces.
I would like to bring up one thing about Washington’s farewell address. Washington was worried that the country was too new and too fragile to enter into any permanent alliances with anyone. He chose to stay neutral during the French Revolutionary Wars for the same reason. But America would not be the nation it is now without the French. Their Navy is what helped us win our independence. Do we not have some responsibility to help other nations do the same? Should we just say, we got ours, get your own?
@JustAl, no problem about disagreeing. Would be a very boring world indeed, were everyone in lockstep, don’t you think?
Just as I disagree with Poppa-T about his perspective of foreign bases, I disagree with yours. Most especially I disagree with your description of our military as being “to kill people and break things up”. That is an odd, and most certainly derisive, way to view the nation’s protectors and shield.
The presence of the bases is not about the foreign wars we have fought in the past, or whether they have been justified. (tho the existence of those wars likely enabled their presence to begin with…) They are there, with the expressed permission of the host nation, in order to facilitate a needed rapid deployment in the case of current or future threats. To remove them from all foreign soil creates a delay problem for rapid response that is crucial to success.
I can’t tell you how irritating it is to hear the typical “apologist” mentality that Paul constantly states. He tries to tone it down, saying it isn’t a “blame America” point of view, but in actuality… it is.
It comes down to this simplicity. If the host nation welcomes a US base presence, and we aren’t interfering or “policing” their nation with that base, why the heck should we care if the global Islamic jihad movement finds our foreign bases offensive? Apparently Ron Paul and those who assume this attitude seem to place great import on what the jihad movements think. I find that extremely bizarre.
I assure you, there is little we can do they would approve of except acquiescing to total conversion to Islam as a nation. I simply don’t care what they think or what they like. Screw them and their ‘tudes.
What I care is having the US in the advantageous poised position to act quickly, efficiently, and with the greatest cost effectiveness if military and intel action is needed to protect this nation. Our foreign presence provides just that. And if it’s welcomed by the host nation, why complain? I will also add that our foreign installations are instrumental in training the other nation states’ armies so that they are capable of defending themselves, if necessary, or functioning closer to the quality and standards of our US military in a united effort.
As for cost? There is little spending for the central government that I sanction as Constitutional. But when it comes to our military… and that includes the advantage of foreign bases… it’s spending I do support. Naturally, budgets can always be tweaked for obvious waste, but you get my point. I find our investment in military… both foreign and on domestic soil… Constitutional and necessary.
And if you wish to speak of cost, the expense in closing up shop and relocating facilities to our shores also requires great expense. Then, in the event they need to deploy to foreign lands, we’re racking up the bucks, trying to find a place to park them closer to the action. The entire suggestion is not only ludicrous for security and efficiency, it’s fiscally prohibitive.
I believe the spending for sundry entitlement programs, and far too many worthless agencies is expendable and out of their founding jurisdiction. So I’d trade dumping the majority of staff from the EPA, Dept of Ag, Education etal for savings to continue foreign bases in a heartbeat.
This may be a fine talking point for the Ron Paul campaign, but I really detest the deceit it advances when placing great import on this. First, it attempts to portray this as the active soldier when, in fact, it’s anyone who has one of the branches of military as their employer… i.e. can be administrators.
Shall we put this claim of supposed outpouring of love from the military for Paul into real perspective?
PolitiFace dealt with this back in July, and rated it as true. But just what are we talking here?
Because the “employer” is a requirement only for donations $200 or larger, let’s assume that every one of these donors gave only $200.
Ron Paul: $34,480 = 172.4 military employed donors
Obama: $19,849 = 99.245 military employed donors
Using minimal donations, we’re talking about a total of 271.6 individuals out of a military labor force (as of 2009) of 2.4 million.
Considering that this number is smaller since some donated more than $200, prancing around like a peacock, preening because Paul got possibly 73 (or less) more military employees to donate money than Obama did is a pathetic drop in the bucket.. This represents about 7/1000ths of the military personnel. Get serious.
Most certainly, such a small representation of the military is far from indicative of warrior support for either Ron Paul or Barack Obama.
I find it offensive that Paul continues to use this as a political football.
@Aqua:
My bad, you are absolutely correct about Gov. Perry’s service and I was wrong. Yes we did receive much needed assistance from King Louie XVI and from Spain as well. But their assistance wasn’t to help us so much as it was to hurt King George. Don’t forget that during the Civil war both England and France were sympathetic to the Confederacy and Tsar Alexander saved Abe Lincoln’s arse by dissuading both England and France from protecting their main source of cotton. The point being that all Nations act in their own self interest, not out of some altruistic reason. So no, I can not agree that we have a “responsibility to help other nations do the same”.
@MataHarley:
Hi again Mata, I appreciate your link to Politifact that confirms my statement, how about a more current number? Say 3rd quarter 2011 active military contributions. Maybe this new information will make the facts slightly less offensive to you. I will keep my posts brief as you have no time for lengthy discourse. Besides I gotta go pop a top and get my line wet, the flounders have been biting like crazy and the big specks are starting to move in. See y’all tomorrow.
@MataHarley:
I take severe exception to your use of the word derisive in what I said about the military.
I assume you missed the point that my son is currently in Afghanistan. One of my nephews is in in Kuwait and together with my other nephew’s service they are completing this family’s 6th and 7th combat tours during the current conflict. I stand by my statement as one of fact and pride. The military is not a police force, it is not a charity, it’s sole purpose is to annihilate our enemies so that other do not choose to become our enemy’s. To continue to abuse our military, to continue to waste their blood so the self righteous can strut around the globe acting like big shots, now THAT is derisive.
@Poppa_T, sure would love to know from what your links derive their numbers. Open Secrets has Paul at about $12 mil all totaled as of the end of Sept (3Q) Adding up the US Army, AF, Navy, Defense Dept, and US Govt industry categories only comes up to $79,400. So I’m confused where this $113K is documented.
And that Open Secrets figure actually more closely matches the graph provided by Ron Paul supporters.
If you go to the Ron Paul campaign contributions breakdown by employer, and go to the categories of Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard and National Guard, I’m still not seeing what is being presented. You’d have to start including DOD and other military employed to even come close to that number.
Also, the graphic some Paul supporter provided on a forum just adds to my irritation of playing this political football game. Certainly anyone currently on the branches’ payroll is “active duty”, so to speak. But the graphic deliberately depicts soldiers in the field. This stuff I really find offensive and sleazy campaign work.
But then, “sleaze” is the middle name to “political campaign” anyway.
So even with the unsourced amount of $113,000, we’re up to Paul talking about maybe 568 people (assuming minimum donations), and Obama at 343 donors. All out of an industry that employees 2.4 mil as of 2009.
Nope… still not impressed. And it doesn’t surprise me that out of the military employed (which includes family as well…) – and including all the GOP donations – the military support definitely doesn’t go to Obama.
The point remains… these numbers are not reflective of those serving on the battlefield, nor the vast majority of military. And it’s disingenuous of Paul to play that card as such.
@JustAl, arguing over whether you like the word “derisive”, or whether I like your description of our military, is counterproductive. But my suggestion is if you are so confident that your job description of our military doesn’t rub a few people wrong, try telling your son and nephews what you think their service is tantamount to. See how they take it. Truthfully, it’s only their reaction that counts. So give it a whirl and see how it flies…. If you said that to me as active duty service, I’d wonder just what you were saying about my personality… that I love to “kill” and “break things up”?
Me? I already know that the young military, and my nephews in the service, didn’t go in there to “kill” and “break things apart”. They went in to protect the nation and preserve our freedom. They also appreciated the education and travel opportunities, and the comraderie. Your job descriptions are but a small part of the many tasks they may be forced to do in order to accomplish the reason they are there.
@MataHarley:
They are the ones who told me what their job is, and your own graph of military campaign contributions reinforces it.
Good night.
Mata: the absolute number of donors from the military is small. Not surprising, since the number of people who donate to political campaigns generally is a tiny fraction of the population. But what reason do you have to assert that the donations are not representative of the military’s sentiment in general, besides your own opinion and your own image of what their beliefs should be?
The ‘killing people and breaking things’ is not original to JustAl (I think it comes from here: http://www.spectacle.org/298/wilmine.html, though it has gained currency since then). In the original you can see that the author was pointing out that committing to not use certain weapons, for humanitarian reasons, was simply at odds with military effectiveness. Since then other people have used the phrase to argue that humanitarian missions like nationbuilding and promoting democracy are not really something the military is suited to. As to whether it’s offensive, I expect context would matter.
‘They went in to protect the nation and preserve our freedom.’
But you would say that no matter where they were sent. You’re in a position where it would be impossible for you to say ‘this is a stupid mission and should be abandoned’, because the people sending them will always give that reason, and you have faith in them.
Good morning Mata, first off I must apologize to you. I purposely linked to that source showing military contributions because it wasn’t sourced. I knew that in order to shoot it down you would link to RP’s own site, which still shows that military contributions to RP have doubled between the second and third quarters. So, so far both of your examples concerning military contributions have confirmed exactly what I initially said concerning Ron Paul v. all other candidates. Yet you continue to deny the facts.
And no I was not in any way equating Dr. Paul to George Washington, I was equating their ideas. GW was the original action hero, at 6’4″ and 200+ pounds he was larger than life and his exploits and character made him THE epitome of what an American President should aspire to be. As Henry Lee said he was “first in War, first in Peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen” and in my opinion no other President has or will ever come close to filling Washington’s shoes.
Poppa-T, puleeze…. Such BS is tough to wade thru. I never “denied” that Ron Paul was getting more contributions from the military employed than the others. What I’ve tried to point out is real perspective… that you and your hero are highlighting anywhere from 200 to 500 contributors, and attempting to portray that as overwhelming “military support” out of the 2.4 million or so military employed. Or that this is or support from warriors in the field.
… so the talking points go. Heard too many callers on the talking head radio shows try to slide that one by a gullible listener. That is sleazy and dishonest campaigning, using our military as a political football.
Nor do I have any aversion to linking to Paul’s site. Or any other site. Have all the candidates’ sites in my bookmarks for references anyway. As I said, I have many things I like about Ron Paul. Foreign policy and trade/immigration/borders is not some of them. These are big ticket items to me, therefore he will never get my vote. Period.
Attack of the Paulbots!! Let’s see, Ron says he’ll keep them out of wars and a few hundred people/possible soldiers send him money. Then the paulbots say it’s proof the majority of the military supports ron and his childish foreign policy fantasy.
Yet these same people will laugh off polls with the same numer of respondants. This is especially so when the libs claim that the poll proves Conservatives are stupid, ignorant, hateful, and/or all of the above. Hypocritical much.
Like I said, paulbots are much like liberals. They have projected their fantasies onto a loony charlatan the same way the left did with obama.
@Hard Right: I call them Paul Bearers, HR. And you are right about the way they act. Now I know I am speaking in generalities, and not all Paul Bearers are so hyper-critical or hyper-sensitive, and a few are just plain jerks.
I belong to a conservative FB group and a couple of them on there get downright nasty and the things they say about any candidate who isn’t RP is akin to what the far left drones say about anyone who isn’t Obama. But if you try and point that out……………whew!
However, as I have shown on here (I hope, lol), I can give as good as I get and nearly always I can give better.
Curt - you stated at the end of your short article:
“…..Ok, I’m not completely with Ace here since I don’t think Romney is an okay imperfect candidate. If it’s Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I’m probably sitting home since it isn’t a choice. Romney is OLite, plain and simple. And don’t even bring up Ron Paul because I would rather get punched in the testicles than vote for that nutcase.
So where does that leave us?
Screwed.”
I think that you sum up the sentiment of many traditional Republican voters. I’m one of them. I always voted for the GOP candidate, because they were less liberal and the “lesser of the two evils.”
However, this 2012 time around, my motivation is different. Since both political parties have joined, to become CTDAS – “Conspiracy Theorists of Denial, Arrogance and Silence” over Obama’s non natural born citizen [bogus] “presidential” status, I will sit out the vote. I believe that other patriotic “birther” and constitutionally minded Americans will do the same. If America does not insist that its future [genuine] president be guided by our Constitution’s rule of law, it won’t matter anymore who occupies the White House. Our representative democracy will soon crumble.
And, to those who say that people like me had better vote for the GOP nominee, else Obama will have another 4 years, – I say to them, that if the GOP nominee cannot seriously (in the campaign) address Obama’s ineligibility to be legitimate US president, then I don’t care if Obama squeaks out a narrow victory, without my vote for the GOP nominee. Better to have our beloved America to die a quick death, at the hands of Obama, than a slow and painful one with disingenuous Republican presidents who turn a blind eye to the molestation of our US Constitution……
@anticsrocks:
You got that right and yes, I’ve noticed you can handle what comes your way. As for the Ronulans, I agree not all are bad. I do get very uncomfortable with those that act as if anyone is some savior or an all in one solution package. While I am reluctantly supporting Newt, it’s for lack of a better candidate.
I didn’t come up with the word delusional to describe the Ronulans by accident. During the last presidential primaries I saw several RP sites where they were posting to let everyone know a poll had come up for who people wanted to be the GOP presidential candidate. They were basically swarming the polls and where able, voting over and over for RP. Then I watched many of the same people who had notified the forum of the poll and/or admitted to placing multiple votes, excitedly say how much momentum RP was gaining. Why? Because of how many votes he got in the polls they bombed!
That is just scary. They essentially rig the poll, and then actually believe the results of the poll prove their candidate is doing well.
Then there is the anti-semitism/anti-Israel issue… And don’t get me started on how many RP supporters are 9/11 truthers…
@Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel: Tell me Pastor, if you think Obama (as do I and a great many Americans), is trying to steer the USA towards European socialism, then have you lived under socialist rule? Have you lived in a totalitarian society?
I mean when you said that you would rather America die a quick death rather than a slow one, what were you thinking?
How many people have died under even just socialistic rule, much less totalitarian rule? What are the living conditions? How are the people treated? You think that you have lost freedoms now – and we all have, don’t get me wrong – just give Obama another four years without the threat of re-election hanging over his head.
No offense, but have you even given actual thought to what you propose??
As for me, I love my country enough to fight for her – even if my candidate isn’t running in the general election. I cannot take arms up against the government, nor would I wish to at this point in time. No, the way that I fight for my country is to cast my vote for an orange juice can rather than Obama.
Why in God’s name would I want to give the SOB an easy victory?? Because my guy didn’t win in the primary? Pretty sad reason to stay home if you ask me.
Paulbots, Ronulans, Paulbearers? What are you people 7? Grade school name calling does not win debates or convince anyone to switch their position. Since Mr. Cain dropped out RP has now moved into the #2 spot in Iowa polls . So far Bachman, Perry, Cain and Romney have peaked and slid back in the Polls. Now it’s Gingrich’s turn to lead but his mouth will once again get him in trouble (remember his spat with Paul Ryan) the man has been on both sides of to many issues for anyone to honestly believe he has any integrity left. Meanwhile RP preaches the same message he has always preached, liberty, freedom, smaller government and follow the Constitution and he is steadily gaining support. If the Republican Jewish Coalition sticks by their guns and bans RP from Wednesdays debate it will only serve to bring even more people into our camp.
Y’all might as well cut your losses and come on over, welcome to the r3VOLution.
As I said, delusional.
I also notice you didn’t further address what Mata pointed out above. It’s pretty clear you are deeply invested in your RP fantasy and attempting to change your mind is a waste of time. Like liberals, you are impervious to facts.
all of you are telling me that RICK PERRY is being left behind , purposly to get all the other take the insults from all sides, and that he will be coming on top at the end to take the position of the PRESIDENT,
AS A DESERVING QUALIFIED BEST PERSON TO LEAD.
IT TOOK ME A WHILE ,TO COME TO THAT CONCLUSION, BECAUSE YOU ALL ARE SO MUCH SMARTER THAN I AM.
but I must admit, this was a great idea.
@Hard Right: What did Mata address HardRight? All she did was deny that Ron Paul appears to be the candidate most favored by the military. The sample number is to low? There is not enough contributions to any candidate to favor one over the other? Every link or graph she posted confirms that RP leads in military donations. The FACT is that those in the military have contributed more to RP than any other candidate. And all you can do is say “if, if, if, if, if” and “you’re delusional”. You have no facts to support your rhetoric and keep using cutesie names like “Ronulans” as if belittling makes any kind of a point. Come on at least post something with meat in it rather than this tofu you’re currently posting. Go check out the Military.com forum and scan the discussion boards, RP has his detractors there as well but there are still more posts supporting him than not. Check out the Military Times forum here. Do something other than simply post your assumptions.
You see… more distortions by the blind loyals. I did *not* deny that Ron Paul has more donations on record from those who list the military as their employer. What I emphatically deny is that donations from 200-500 individuals, which can be anyone who is employed by all branches, DOD or other military agencies – or their family members – constitutes “most favored by the military”. Nor is that any evidence that those donations came from active duty warriors in the battlefield, as the sly talking points (and the supporters) attempt to portray.
What that means is simply this… 200-500 people that are employed by military agencies donated to Ron Paul. Nothing more. Nothing less. That is only an indicator of who those individuals support.
200-500 people is not an indication of support by 2.4 million military employed personnel for any individual candidate.. And only the most desperate would attempt to claim otherwise. Personally, I find it a despicable campaign talking point. But then, not surprising from Ron Paul supporters.
Poppa_T
HI,
those WARS of many years without resolution to attain VICTORY, BUT STILL COVERED WITH BLOOD AND EXTREME VIOLENT MANY DEATHS AND LIFE CHANGING INJURIES FOR OTHERS
HAS CERTAINLY TOOK IT’S TOLL IN THE THOUGHTS OF THE MANY BRAVES MILITARIES,
I could understand their views for some of them, to lend a positive ear to a CANDIDATES, WHICH WANT TO BRING THEM BACK FROM HELL THAT PERSIST TO LINGER ON WITHOUT HOPE OF ENDING,
ESPECIALLY IF THEY WHERE CALL BACK MANY TIMES RAISING THE ODDS AGAINST THEM MORE AND MORE, SO, RON PAUL RESONATED WITH WORDS WHAT MANY OF THEM ARE THINKING,
THERE IS WHERE THE SUPPORT IS LOGICLY COMING FROM WITH REASON TOO,
THEY ALONE KNOW AND THINK OF THOUGHTS WE WOULD NOT HAVE AS CIVILIANS, AND THEIR FAMILY WOULD THINK
SAME AS THEM.
BYE
@Poppa_T:
You are the one that made assumptions and tried to claim that the majority of the military support RP. Mata exposed the BS you tried to push. It’s typical of RP cultists like yourself. You can’t face reality and try to bend reality to your beliefs when it should be the other way around. But yes, try to lecture others about integrity when you yourself are shown to be lacking. RP will be going nowhere except away with the money of the gullible.
@MataHarley:
The country has gone so far left not even Reagan could get elected. “Too extreme” they’d say.
@Hard Right:
Woah! Pot, meet the kettle.
The filter ate my post. Mata just pointed out your partisan dishonesty again. That is something I find is all too common in Ron Paul cultists. Ron doesn’t fit the fantasy they have created and they get upset with those of us who point it out.
@MataHarley:
Look Mata, the facts are the facts, now you and I may disagree on the relevance of those facts and that is fine. To me the fact that RP has received 10x the military donations of any other Republican candidate is a valid talking point. But I don’t just base my opinion that one fact, I also correspond with some of those I served with, I also participate on some forums dedicated to my old unit and to military veterans, and on those forums RP has the most support of any candidate.
Now you can argue that the amount of donations going to RP from the military is to small to be indicative of wide spread support, but I can argue the exact opposite based on the same information and I believe that my argument is more intellectually honest than yours is.
@MataHarley: ‘200-500 people is not an indication of support by 2.4 million military employed personnel for any individual candidate.. And only the most desperate would attempt to claim otherwise. Personally, I find it a despicable campaign talking point.‘
I don’t think anyone has said that this means all of the military somehow supports Ron Paul. I’m also not sure why you regard it as despicable to mention the military donations; obviously, when one of the lines of attack against Paul is that he’s some sort of antimilitary peacenik, this (along with his own service) offer some defense. If it also leads people to make associations and assumptions, that would make it, uh – pretty much like any other ad. ‘Factually correct’ is about as much as I would hope for from any ad, let alone a political one.
You still haven’t explained what evidence you have for these donors being a skewed sample of military political sentiment. Yes, of course it’s possible that there are only ten thousand RP supporters in the entire military, and it just happens that a disproportionate number of them donated. But what support is there for this proposal besides your own ideas about what people in the military think?
Poppa T most certainly did and if you think that 200-500 people is an accurate sample to say what the majority believes, then you are just another RP fanboy.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Hi there Bees, you know I ran across a couple of stories that show just how long we have been engaged in these undeclared, unconstitutional wars. These two Army Ranger’s were recently KIA, Sgt. First Class Kristoffer B. Domeij, 29, was killed on his 14th tour. Take a long hard look at that soldiers eyes and imagine what he had seen in his young life.
Staff Sgt. Jared Hagemann took his own life after 8 combat deployments. Can you imagine making 3 or 4 combat tours in those hell holes? Our young men are being asked to perpetually be at war! No servicemen in WWII, Vietnam, Korea not any previous war were asked to sacrifice so much of themselves. We are now losing more Soldiers and Marines to suicide than to combat. THIS INSANITY MUST STOP! There is only one candidate who has a chance to stop it.
Poppa T, you said:
Actually… no. It doesn’t tell us squat about how “the military” perceives Ron Paul. What it does tell us is that he has support from 200-500 individuals – unknown who and where they are, or what they do. Nothing more. You cannot tell me it is “intellectually honest” to apply that paintbrush to “the military” in general based on that.
I look at 200-500 individual donations and see it for what it is… 200-500 donations from supporters. I expand it no further than that with assumptions. So who is being “intellectually honest” here really?
I’m not sure why you think it’s me that is putting forth proposals about “what people in the military think”, bbart. Sorry to say but that accusation and act belongs to the Ron Paul supporters alone. And this is donations, not a “poll” or a “sample”.
I don’t know how many times I have to repeat the simple premise that 200-500 individuals donating to Ron Paul means nothing more, or less, that 200-500 military employed that support Ron Paul. Unlike you, Poppa T or other Ron Paul supporters, as I said I don’t expand that with assumptions.
Therefore there is no need for me to argue that 2.4 million military personnel, minus 200-500 or so, do or do not support Ron Paul. This is what I mean about wasting time, debating with libertarian types. They tenaciously wrap their minds around tangents, and argue abstracts endlessly.
In this case, I just find it dishonest to present these individual supporters as some sort of blanket endorsement from “the military” in general for your chosen candidate. That’s it… if you can’t decipher it as being anything more than that simple observation, I can’t help you.
This is an interesting statement, and one that… as a side bar.. came up in an older thread about the New Face of Libya. In the course of some debates there, I ran across a CRS study from Feb 2010 titled “American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics”. On pg 11 of that 30 pg study is a breakdown of active duty military causes of death between 1980 and 2008… including a category called “self-inflicted”. Probably a kinder word than suicide, but still translates tragically to the same.
The Dems have put forth that the military suicide statistics have been increasing. Yet if you look at the study, the suicide rate has not statistically varied much in absolute numbers (as opposed to a percentage of total active duty personnel) since 1980.
And if you want to argue that there are more dying of suicide than from hostile action, then it can also be said that for the years that had no military conflicts and hostile action deaths, that holds true for the same.
I agree that even a single loss of one of our military to suicide is heartbreaking. Yet annually, for those 28 years, the majority of the years see at least 200-285 soldiers take their own lives. The only years that were under 200 (ranging from 139 to 195, to be exact) were the years of 1995 thru 2002, and one more year in 2005. Considering that the years of 1995 thru 2002 had 22 deaths due to hostile action, it can also be argued that we also lost more soldiers to suicide than combat in those years too.
I don’t know what the stats are from 2008 to now. AfPAK has had a particularly high year of casualties for our forces and iCasualties puts US deaths this year at 402. They also have the US casualties published with date, name, rank and unit.
Unless the suicide rate has almost doubled from the historic norm, I doubt the statement that suicides pass hostile action deaths at this moment. But considering the history, the ratio of suicides to hostile combat deaths is a somewhat irrelevant argument to use, merely to protest the existence of an active US combat theater.
For in fact, if we are not at war at all, as we’ve been at times in the past, the same remains true… we are losing more to suicide than to combat.
Mata check these out, if you so desire…
http://www.congress.org/news/2011/01/24/more_troops_lost_to_suicide
http://iava.org/blog/understanding-why-end-military-suicide
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/army-suicides-set-record-in-july/2011/08/12/gIQAfbGlBJ_story.html
What can Ron Paul do to get the Iowa lead in four weeks?
With Cain’s decision to suspend his campaign — which he announced on Saturday — a reallocation of his supporters’ second-choice picks puts Gingrich ahead of the Iowa horse race with 28 percent; Paul and Romney are tied at 19 percent; and Perry lands at 10 percent. (The NBC-Marist polls were conducted before Cain suspended his campaign.)
Among all Republican respondents in Iowa, the breakdown is Gingrich with 25 percent, Romney at 18 percent and Paul at 16 percent.
Among Iowa Republicans identifying with the Tea Party — who make up about half of all likely caucus-goers — Gingrich leads Romney, 32 percent to 11 percent.
The Iowa NBC-Marist survey was conducted Nov. 27-29 of 2,896 registered voters (margin of error of plus-minus 1.8 percentage points) 916 Republicans (plus-minus 3.2 percentage points) and 425 likely GOP caucus-goers (plus-minus 4.8 percentage points.
Read the NBC News-Marist poll Iowa Annotated Questionnaire
See, as far as I can tell, Ron Paul has already played every card in his hand.
He has nothing new.
If a voter was not for him by now, why would one choose him in the coming weeks?
The Congress.org has an overall statistic of 381 suicides by active-duty personnel reported in 2009. That gives us one more year to add to the CRS study I linked. They didn’t give a figure for 2010, but said it was below 462. Both are an increase in suicides over 2008 and prior. Prior to these last two years, the highest on the CRS record was 285 in 1988.
But we here at FA, after the loss of Chris G, are very conscious of PTSD as one reason for suicides… altho I suspect not the only reason. As I said, it’s just a heartbreaking thing to see a warrior take his own life, for any reason.
But again, the argument you present doesn’t make sense as to relevance. If those lost to combat is zero in any given year (like 1992-95 and 1996 to 2000), and even a low rate of 150 are lost to suicide, the “losing more to suicide than combat” statement still remains true. So ending all combat is irrelevant to that ratio. The only improvement is we aren’t losing them both to suicide *and* combat.
So I’m baffled as to what point you want to make, and most especially how this is supposed to relate to wars of which you don’t approve? Obviously we’d all love zero combat deaths, and zero suicides. But I don’t see that happening either.
Oddly enough, what stunned me more than the history of suicides were the amount of active duty soldiers who were the victims of homicide. From 1980 to 1983, the numbers were 115 to 174. Thank heavens that murder of soldiers has gone down since that time. The lowest numbers are between 2003 and 2008, ranging from 43 to 52 annually. What nutcase runs around murdering soldiers?
How this tangent was arrived at I don’t even want to know.
But at the outset of the wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq, I took the opportunity to become pen pals with a soldier.
He was a local man, a Marine Sgt.
Later he was involved in the rescue of a female soldier, Jessica Lynch.
But later still, he came home on leave.
There was a big party.
An outdoor BBQ with many guests.
A gang banger came by and lifted his weapon over the fence, shooting it until it was empty.
Sgt Ung was among those shot.
He died.
More here:
http://khmer.cc/community/t.c?b=12&t=11425
That’s the kind of nutcase Mata.
Poppa_T
29 YEARS OLD AND 19 DEPLOYMENTS,
SOMETHING VERY WRONG IN THERE,
those SOLDIERS are CERTAINLY being used in a plan to exterminate them,
the MUSLIM WAY OF THEIR SUICIDE BOMBING BELT CARRIERS,
OBAMA LEAVE THE BORDERS OPEN, AND ILLEGALS ARE REPLACING THE MILITARY in this COUNTRY,
THOSE TRUE AMERICANS, THE BRAVEST, ARE CONDEMN TO SPEND THEIR LIFE AWAY FROM THEIR FAMILY, IN MULTIPLE RECALLS, WHICH OBVIOUSLY KILL THEM,
MOSTLY WITH EIDS, THAT IS HORRIBLE TO TREAT THE BRAVEST AMERICANS THIS WAY,
THOSE LANDS SHOULD BE BLASTS BEFORE THEY SET FOOT ON IT,
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE FROM THE FIRST TIME ONE EXPLODED,
and after all those years nothing has been done at this time
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THE GOVERNMENT, while SOLDIERS RETURN TO MEET THEIR ODDS, JUST THE FACT OF SO MANY SOLDIERS KILL THEMSELVES TELL OF WHAT THEY PREFER TO DIE FROM THEIR OWN WEAPON AFTER SEEING A BUDDY DIE FROM EID, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
PTSD, NOWAY, THEY ARE SANE AND BRIGHT AND AWARE OF WHAT IS WAITING UNDER THEIR FEET AND REFUSE THAT KIND OF DEATH,
THEIR TRAUMA MUST BE SO TERRIBLE SILENTLY DIGGING IN THEIR GUTS,
WHILE OBAMA WELCOME REPLACEMENT COMING IN THIS COUNTRY ILLEGALY FROM THE BORDERS.HE WANT TO GIVE THEM AMNESTY,
SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE TO SAVE THE BRAVES, IF THEY HAVE TO FIGHT THEY MUST BOMB THE GROUND ALL OVER BEFORE THEY ARE ALOUD TO MOVE, THE WHOLE LAND MUST BE DONE TO PROTECT THE TROOPS, THEY ARE THE TREASURES OF AMERICA,
OR THEY SHOULD COME BACK AT ONCE, THIS AFGHANISTAN IS NOT FOUGHT AS A WAR ANYMORE IT IS A MAJOR SLAUGHTER HOUSE, WHO IS PROTECTING THE PROTECTORS OF THIS NATION?
BLAST THE WHOLE LAND BY AIR OR ANYTHING TO OPEN THE GROUND BARE, TO SEE, AND SAVE THE BRAVES OF AMERICA,
It was a rhetorical question, Nan G. Obviously anyone who murders is a “nutcase”…. soldiers or civilians. In the specific you provided, it wasn’t necessarily targeting a soldier specifically, but certainly would fit into the “homicide” statistics.
As to how the subject was raised, it was the tangents INRE suicides vs combat deaths – a specter raised by Poppa T as, I guess, a reason to withdraw from all foreign bases and combat activity. Still don’t have a clue how that’s relevant. After all, if we’re discussing PTSD, ending the war immediately as of tomorrow does not instantly erase the stress and trauma already experienced by our warriors.
But since I’d already been down this road before in the New Face of Libya thread a while ago, I was again amazed how how high the homicide figures were for our military… especially during the Reagan years. As of 2008, they were pretty low.
But there is another overview that perhaps bears throwing out for fodder here. The suicide rates under the Bush years… again, long deployments, high stress and trauma, and vicious battlefields… were pretty much par for the historical course. From 2003 to 2008 they ranged from a low of 234 to a high of 289. Yet in 2009, according to Poppa T’s links, they jumped to 381.
Now that’s interesting… Iraq’s combat activity for US soldiers was winding down as they transferred the bulk of combat endeavors to the Iraqi soldiers. With the SOFA in place, and the Iraqis stepping up to the plate, those serving in Iraq could see the end in sight.
So that leaves Afghanistan. And the new POTUS was busy wanting to cut the military, and shifting soldiers from the Iraq theater to the Af/PAK theater.
So was the election, and subsequent half hearted “surge” by Obama (shorting troops for the mission) for Afghanistan, this disappointing for US soldiers, and the reason for the jump in suicides since Obama was elected? Or just a bizarre coincidence it happened with the change of CiC command?
All we can do is speculate. But dang… so suspicious being as they were very long grueling wars under Bush, yet the suicide rate did not jump significantly as compared to historic norms.
here I have a great idea, I must have stole it from another PRESIDENT past,
how about a warning to the enemies if one AMERICAN SOLDIER find an EID BURIED before stepping on it,
we will bomb 20milles around the eid, no matter who live there,
and if one soldier get hit, it will be 50 milles around the EID REGARDLESS OF WHO LIVES IN THAT CIRCLE,
HOW COME OBAMA DID NOT MADE THAT KIND OF DEAL WITH THE ENNEMIE HE WANT TO HAVE TALK WITH.
YOU CAN ADD MORE MILLES, AS YOU GO.
and calculate the soldiers who where previously hit and blast 5 milles around for each one to begin with
that would bring instant results, and remake the confidence of the soldiers telling them someone is there for them.
and get the AIR FORCE ON THE AIR TO BOMB IT
@Poppa_T: Ron Paul may do well in Iowa, lord knows a million plus dollars of ads ought to buy you something.
As for the names assigned to RP supporters, I would have to say that in the majority of the cases, at least in my experience, the RP supporters bring it on themselves.
You said:
Smaller government? Like when he stuffs pork into bills he knows will pass, but he can safely vote against so that he can brag about how he never votes for said pork?
You said:
So it would be the fault of the Jewish people? Does this mean that you don’t think his anti-semitism is wrong?
How about his support by racists?
Neo-Nazi Don Black contributed to RP’s campaign, and when the Lone Star Times confronted his campaign, asking if they intended to return the donations, they refused to return the donations.
RP also has employed racists in his campaigns:
Ron Paul is on record as being anti-semetic and pro-Hamas. From Ron Paul’s own website:
So, you see I have plenty of reasons why I do not care for Ron Paul. Nothing I wrote in this comment is untrue or even an exaggeration. If you want to attack me, go ahead but it won’t change the facts I have presented.
anticsrocks
hi,
I thought this might be interesting to know, a NEWS FLASH; BOND MARKET PRESSURES FOR.
GERMANY AND FRANCE ARE FACING A DOWNGRADE watch TO HAPPEN BETWEEN THE NEXT 90 DAYS,
ALSO FOR AUSTRIA LUXEMBOURG NEDERLAND AND FINLAND,
if some are buying in those market
it’s just came.
bye
Good Morning Mata, I think you missed the point of my post to bees, the point being that our service men and women are being stressed in ways not asked of previous generations. Now I may have been wrong concerning total suicides v. combat deaths but one of the salient points of the congress.org article was that the services don’t uniformly record suicides as it said “the Air Force and Marine Corps do not include any non-mobilized reservists in their posted numbers. What’s more, none of the services count suicides that occur among a class of reservists known as the Individual Ready Reserve” so some of those who commit suicide are not counted.
But more important is this and this the suicide rates have been climbing steadily and as my previous link to WaPo showed this past June set a new record, 32 deaths in one month!
The Congress.org article claims suicides have exceeded combat deaths for two years in a row that was my source but as they say “The reasons are complicated and the accounting uncertain — for instance, should returning soldiers who take their own lives after being mustered out be included?”once again if I was wrong I apologize, but the point of my comment was that a decade of war is more than enough. The suicide rate for the military has for the first time since Vietnam (and we know how that turned out) exceeded that of the civilian population and I think that the longer we remain at war the worse it will get. I don’t want to lose my nephew or any more friends to an unwinable war on terrorism, and I’m sure you don’t either.
@anticsrocks:
Hi antics, I’m sorry but I don’t agree as to the name calling. Saying that RP supporters “bring it on themselves” is kinda like saying “she was asking to get raped” or “he made me so mad I had to hit him” I don’t buy it, if you don’t have the self-discipline to control your remarks or actions at least man up and admit it, don’t blame it on someone else.
I thought I had already addressed the “pork” thing, but how do you assume that I blame the Jewish people for the actions of the Republican Jewish Coalition? I don’t blame Muslims for the acts of Al Quada, I don’t blame President Obama because the Black Panthers supported him and I don’t blame Ron Paul because some other hate group supports him. Where does this line of reasoning come from? As far as I can tell RP’s never asked us to take the money we send Israel and give it to Hamas instead, did he? No I think he said “let’s stay out of this mess” to paraphrase him. How you can take his position of neutrality and accuse him of being an anti-Semite flabbergasts me.
I really expected better of those on this site.
Maybe because RP refuses to condemn or even take a stand stand against the anti-semites and neo-nazis that support him. Plus, he seems to be something of a Truther himself. Then there were his news letters. Full of conspiracy theories, racism, and anti-semitism. He weakly tried to say he didn’t know what was being printed in it. What a crock. RP plays the gullible for fools and they seem to love him for it.
I don’t think I missed the point you were trying to make, Poppa T. But it’s possible. I see you linking the rise in the suicide rates (ironically since Obama took office) with wars that you either believe are unwinnable, or did not support… then using that as a reason to withdraw. As you now see, military suicides – whether at war or not – have a history.
While it’s true that when you expose young men and women to the horrors of war, a percentage of them will indeed become dangerously depressed. This doesn’t mean that some will become that way even if never exposed to combat.
But first, I really need to address your first statement about stress not demanded of other generations. Naturally one conjures up WWII as one example of that being false. Not to mention the high loss of lives of those generations that occurred. Now if that is more palatable because the duration was shorter, then you can consider Vietnam… which spanned 13 years from when Kennedy first sent in US troops in ’61, and the last did not leave until ’75.
Then there is Korea… only three years of combat, and yet falls 4th with the highest amount of combat deaths (leaving out our Civil War, of course) after WWII, WWI and Vietnam.
Unlike the World Wars, or Korea, our troops in Vietman did not face enemies with uniforms in all cases, and Charley was not easily identified. Add to that, our troops were not trained in jungle guerrilla warfare. This created a new kind of stress on the US military combat units, and those that serviced them. Yet the suicide rates of active duty military did not fluctuate measurably.
Now we have a new style of warfare that, like Vietnam, shares the difficulty of identifying the enemy, and takes place in “urban” (if you can call Afghan villages urban) settings. And of course, now we have the int’l community breathing down the necks of our military – not the enemy – for ROEs. I’d say that while stress is prolific in all wars, it is even more so since we no longer seem to fight a State and their military, and and all engagements are now a delicate tiptoe of political correct ways to wage war.
Sometimes you have to wonder if some consider wars (like Afghanistan) unwinnable merely because our hands constantly remain tied behind our backs, and we are subject to standards the enemy is not. I’m sure that it must frustrate the fighting troops, seeing situations where they are not allowed to act in a military responsive manner because of these rules.
So I disagree that this generation of warriors is subject to stress and combat not asked of previous generations. Different conditions and different rules, yes. But certainly the nation has put our military into equally stressful conditions prior to this.
As far as the suicide rate of military surpassing that of civilian. Not sure how one can get to this without truly manipulating numbers. And even tho we are dealing with inconsistent ways to document military deaths, it would seem that isn’t possible.
According to the source links in this compilation (most dated anywhere from 2004-2007), civilian suicides are the 11th leading cause of death, with about 30,000 deaths annually (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 2007). According to the National Mental Health Association (2006), there are 500,000 unsuccessful suicide attempts in the U.S. every year.
Needless to say, these numbers dwarf even the 381 documented suicides for the military in 2009, up almost 100 more than the highest recorded number in 1988. (And we weren’t engage in active combat theaters in 1988.)
However, if you want to view the statistics as raw and loosely defined percentages, then it can be said that military suicides have surpassed civilian as an “x” number per 100,000. This Examiner participant attempts that argument, by noting that a statistic of 10 out of 100,000 warriors committing suicide between 2001 and 2008 had jumped to 20 out 100,000 in 2009.
However she does not state the civilian statistics that is supposed to surpass. I argue that it would be difficult to call it an apples to apples comparison. For military, there are defined age groups of adults, and exposure to more stressful working conditions. For civilian, she is likely comparing to the entire population of the US. Not exactly a scientific measure and claim between like kind groups. So without that baseline, I’m not seeing that as a statement anyone can make definitively.
According to the same source I linked above, US military deaths by suicide ranks second as the leading cause of death, behind accidents. (i.e. car crashes, etc) According to the DOD in 2005, the reported average suicide rate was 11.4 per 100,000 (ranging from 8.9 for the Air Force to 13.7 for the Army).
While these are still heartbreakingly high for some of America’s finest, again I will have to say again that, up until 2009, suicide in our military isn’t unusual, nor were the statistics exceedingly out of the norm… whether we are in combat or not. So to use the suicide rates as a reason to protest wars you disagree with seems to be a less credible argument than simply saying… as is your right.. that you don’t like particular wars.
I would be most curious about is just why there was a notable increase beginning in 2009. First of all, Iraq was winding down after the success of the 2007 surge, and more combat duties were being transferred to the Iraqis.
Afghanistan, always problematic, and more so after NATO/ISAF took charge of the nation’s security in the summer of 2006, has had many long deployments since US troops entry in 2002. But the suicide rate during the Bush CiC years still remained within historical norms.
So why the jump?
Was it that they viewed this CiC as an ineffective leader? After all, he didn’t allow them to go forward significantly, since he was short changing them on troop/equipment requests. And simultaneously, he was advertising an end date. Certainly appears to be a waste of time and lives under these contradicting leadership policies.
Was it because he transferred them from Iraq, and then sent them to Afghanistan, while not providing the tools to win that Bush did in Iraq?
Or is it that the fiscal woes back home also gave them little hope of a fruitful life, post service terms?
There must be some reason for that jump. And it’s not necessarily related to long deployments that had already been going on.. nor the longest war on record… or stress and demands not asked of prior generations.
MATA, there also is the fact, of EIDS KILLINGS THE TROOPS IN A MOST ATROCIOUS MANNER KNOWN,
AND OBSERVED OFTEN BY TROOPS BEING RIGHT CLOSE TO THE ONE BEING EXPLODED ENDING IN MULTIPLE PARTS OF BODY SCATTERED AROUND RIGHT UNDER THEIR HORRIFIED EYES WHILE MOVING ON, IS ALSO BEING AWARE OF THE MINIMUM ATTENTION CENTERED TO FIND A WAY TO SOLVE THE INCREASING HAPPENING OF IT WITH MUSCLE ACTIONS TARGETING THE ENEMIES,
AND THE SAME SOLDIER HAVING NOT FORGOTTEN THE VISION OF THE HORROR, TAKE NOTE OF THE UNBALANCES FAVORING THE ENEMIES, AND THE SAME SOLDIER IS IN A MIND BOGLING THOUGHTS THAT HE IS AS THE BOTTOM OF THE PROTECTION LADDER ON 2 FRONTS, THE GOVERNMENT CIVILLIENS,
AS WELL AS THE INCAPACITATED MILITARIES LEADERSSHIP, BECAUSE OF THEIR OATH TO OBEY, TO NOT FIGHT FOR HIM TO COME BACK ALIVE AND ALL IN ONE PART TO HIS LOVING FAMILY AT THE END OF HIS WAR, WHICH
KEEP RECALLING HIM BACK AGAIN AND AGAIN WITH FINANCIAL GAINES PROMISES,
WHICH END IF HE DIE OVER A EID EXPLOSION;
ARE ALL THOSE RESPONSIBLE TO CONTINUE THIS WAR IN THE SAME ROE,
FORGETTING THE HUMAN FACTOR OF THE TROOPS THEY MUST LOOK AT AS A FIRST PROTECTIVE PRIORITY, ARE THEY FORGETTING THAT THOSE ARE NOT ROBOTS IN A VIDEO GAME MACHINE,,
BUT INTELLIGENT AND THINKING INDIVIDUALS AT THE SITE CLOSEST THAN ANYONE ELSE TO THE WAR THEY ARE FIGHTING WITH ALL THEIR MIGHT, AND YET DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO
BE HURT IN THEIR SOUL, AND ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EXPRESS PUBLICLY THEIR FEELING AND THEIR IDEAS ON HOW TO STOP THE CARNAGE EITHER WAY,
BY EXTERMINATING IT OR GET OUT OF THE WAY BEFORE THEY DIE
BYE
@Poppa_T: Okay, you don’t blame all Jews for a decision that Republican Jewish Coalition makes. Your comment was vague enough to give you wiggle room on this one.
Fine.
But you can deny Ron Paul’s racism if you choose. I don’t.
From Ron Paul’s official newsletter, circa 1992, emphasis mine:
As to his anti-semetic quote I attributed to him in my above post, you completely ignored the part where he opposed branding Hamas a terrorist organization. Let me educate you on Hamas.
From the Hamas charter, emphasis mine:
Ron Paul has refused to condemn Hamas, even going so far as to blame Israel for the existence of Hamas, much like he blames the United States for 9/11.
No, you can have Ron Paul, Poppa T.
You claim that RP is consistent. Well, the following are excerpts from an excellent piece on the inconsistencies of Ron Paul:
Hi there Mata and Hard Right, boy Ron Paul sure does scare you two to death doesn’t he. HR, I love your sources a hard line liberal and and devout Neo-Con Republican. Looking back on previous articles written by both your sources one can easily discern which way the wind blows with those two and frankly neither one of them is anyone you would take seriously if they didn’t happen to agree with you on Ron Paul. By the way I’m sure you know that “Semites” are not just Jews? While the term “Anti-Semite” is overwhelmingly used to refer to an Anti-Jewish attitude it can and has been used to accurately describe those that are anti-Arab. As for me I don’t hate anyone, I got no time to waste on that.
Mata, it is generally acknowledged that the Vietnam war lasted 10 years not 13, yes we had “advisers” there for much longer but the actual shooting war was just 10 years. Also you’re comparing apples and oranges because we also had the draft then as well. Most Soldiers and Marines in Vietnam were draftees and served just one year long Tour of Duty and became “short timers” once they hit that 180 day mark, though several did serve three or four at most. With the all volunteer force we currently have multiple Tour’s of Duty are the norm rather than the exception. I stand by my statement.
Ah there we go Poppa-T. When confronted with facts you are unable to refute, you just pretend they aren’t facts and attack the sources. Typical ronulan cultist. What scares me is how loony and easily led people like you are. As I said, you are very much like a liberal-unable to face reality. Good thing RP will be going nowhere.
I also like how you deliberately avoided the FACTS AnticsRocks presented to you. This is SOP for paultards. He is a phony and you are an unbalanced fool for following him.
@Poppa_T, you must be blinded by your devotion if you think you read any “fear” of Ron Paul in my comments above. I have merely stated that I think a guy who believes the nation only needs a few good submarines for protection, and wants to prosecute the global war against the Islamic jihad movements with mercenaries… er, “privateers”… is unfit to be CiC.
That’s my personal opinion, and doesn’t bring “fear” into the equation. Ron Paul is the GOPs equivalent to the Dem’s Dennis Kucinich… except not *quite* as far out there as Denny boy is.
This isn’t Ron Paul’s first dive at the Oval Office. It’s been a regular endeavor with him for quite some time. And he’ll get no farther than he is now. It’s always the same response …. good on fiscal, a loon on the rest. He’s not one to fear. He just simply is irrelevant. Just as is Trump, Huntsman and Santorum.
What I do fear is the fast track to Euro-socialism which, if anyone would pay attention, has been ahead of us in the fiscal toilet bowl. Everyone is all a’twitter that the US is still viewed as the place to invest. Not because we’re doing so good, but because compared to Europe, we look good. But there, in the future, go we. The tables will flip because the Euro nations will have balanced their budgets and implemented austerity, while the US goes merrily along, thinking we’re economically infallible.
And BTW, today’s deployments are much the same… differ from branch to branch, of course. But most regular deployments are four tours or less, and only more if the soldier re’ups or volunteers. Army is still the branch with the longest deployment, as it was in Vietnam.
Strange how Poppa T is silent on my #76 post…
@anticsrocks:
I read the comments from the comments section on that article and it was 100% loony RP supporters. NOT ONE gave any facts to refute the claims, they just attacked the author and claimed he must be for more wars, more spending, and against/afraid of freedom. That is, as you have no doubt seen another norm for ronulans. If you disagree with them about RP, then you are part of the “conspiracy” , “sheeple”, or “afraid”.
I’m sorry that was antics and not you HR that made that post. To the best of my knowledge all this racism stuff was debunked back in 07-08 but since you insist I’ll chase your red herring. First off RP denied ever having made that comment about MLK, I believe him. Not that it matters MLK was a skirt chasing communist, he was also a great man when it came to illustrating the racial inequities that existed here at the time. Everyone has their faults and everyone has their virtues as well. Next and more importantly, is he racist? I have read a couple of his books and a bunch of his press releases and those quotes you link to sound nothing like what I have read. I have also read one of Newt’s books and many of the writings of most of the other candidates, so I don’t fixate on RP. There was a comment on that article by Gregory Hilton you linked to Antics by a lady named Lynn she actually agreed with a lot of the story except the parts concerning abortion and racism, she claimed to have worked w/RP during 2006 and left him because she decided he was not the person he portrayed himself to be, but she did have this to say…
“…. On the racist issue, when he was a gynecologist in Lake Jackson he was the only gynecologist who would deliver babies born to interracial and black couples. There was a black man at one of Ron’s rallies who told the story of his white wife giving birth at home and having trouble with the birth. He took her to the hospital where they refused to see her and let her sit in the ER for hours because the gynecologists they called would not come in to help her. Finally the nurse suggested that the man call Ron, who came in and could not save the baby, but did save the wife. A racist man would not do that…”
Now do I believe that RP is the “be all and end all” when it comes to politicians? Of course not! He has been in politics for to long not to have stains on his soul but compared to Gingrich, Perry and Romney RP is a breath of fresh air and the only one I can support and I do think that he is the most honest and admirable men of the current field of candidates. This Nations number one problem is not terrorism or immigration or what Iran might do, it is our fiscal insolvency and a financial meltdown that is looming on the horizon. Most of the people here have admitted that fiscally Ron Paul makes the most sense. And in my opinion he is still the ONLY reasonable choice.
One last thing, it does not take any courage to speak disparagingly about someone hidden behind the anonymity of the net. I have been called a “fool” a “moron” and have been given other various labels. I work in South Louisiana at Port Fourchon (foo-shawn) and live in the woods outside of Natchitoches (Nak-a-tish) if you’re ever in my neck of the woods let me know, I’ll be happy to “educate” you on proper social etiquette then I’ll buy you beer and maybe take you hunting or fishing. So long.
Embellish much? What I, personally, said was that I agreed with many of his fiscal policies. I don’t agree with his trade or immigration policies. Then again, most of the GOP candidates have a somewhat acceptable or viable approach to fiscal issues.
You might want to point out here is just *who* said that Ron Paul “makes the most sense”, other than, perhaps, the three of you who support Ron Paul on this thread.
Poppa_T
HI
YOUR COMMENTS ARE VERY WELL RECEIVED, ALWAYS, and the proof is from the answers directed to your comment, as oppose to some of us not getting answers
you bring with you another dimension and it is interesting ,
as much as any other, and you touched many other good issues also very interesting to read by the thousands of FA readers also,
we are looking for more of it,
thank you
bye
@Poppa_T:
As to who wrote Ron Paul’s newsletters:
Ron Paul said
More here with links:
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter
The statements were penned under Paul’s name.
He admitted that.
He profited from them, mightily.
He can pretend otherwise, but he knew exactly what was being disseminated in his own name.
His followers might want to read the rest of the link to see Paul’s view of “stoned whites who need to be deloused.”
Small wonder the Republican Jewish banned him from a debate on Jewish issues this week, calling him “misguided” and “extreme”. LOL Oh yes, here’s the CBS version.
Then, of course, in July 2006, he was one of eight House members (the other seven being Dems) voting NO on HR 921 which condemned the attacks on Israel, and asserted their right to defend themselves. This despite the fact he continually parrots we should cut all Israel foreign aid, leave them alone since they can defend themselves. I guess he doesn’t believe they have the right to defend themselves.
Never much thought about Paul and his personal bias. Probably still won’t, but it ain’t looking good with the past behavior….
You think RP is the most honest and admirable of the candidates? Wow, delusional doesn’t begin to describe it. Despite presented facts to the contrary you stil pen something like that. Just wow. Like I said, Ronulans and liberals, very similar.
See, I reluctantly support Newt and I acknowledge his faults. You on the other hand, pretend they don’t exist so you can stroke your ego.
See, I’ve been round and round with Ronulans and there are two traits that are extremely common. One is narcissism. The other is inablitiy to face reality.
When they say someone is “afraid of freedom” what they really mean is that they think they are better/superior to that person. The same goes for those RP drones that call themselves the “true Conservatives”. While there is nothing wrong with liking yourself or being confident, I’ve found many of them have a very high opinion of themselves…without justification.
Also like liberals, they cannot face reality. It’s not a coincidence that many of them believe 9/11 “was an inside job”. Considering their belief we can pull the covers over our heads and hide from all the bad guys in the world, you see how this is so.
@MataHarley:
Ron Paul probably didn’t agree with this part of the the bill
Security Council 1559 is a UN resolution and we all know how Ron Paul feels about being dragged into UN led wars. He has NO PROBLEM with Israel defending herself and has stated so many times.
Lets deal with facts here and not spin.
I’m not sure what to laugh at more, just me 95. The fact that he doesn’t want to see a terrorist group dismantled that even the despicable UN sanctioned, or that he thinks any UN brokered sanctions lead to “war”. Let’s see… how many did Saddam defy, and they still didn’t get on board with OIF? 17, wasn’t it? If he wants to allow Israel to defend itself, was not a condemnation and a support of that a simple thing to do? Or did he think that Israel “deserved” the attack? Had nothing to do with the usual toothless UN sanctions. And only the blind supporter could come up with that one.
Let’s deal with facts here, just me 95. Ron Paul … the man who wants to be Commander in Chief… thinks we only need “a few good submarines” as a military.
We’re not talking ancient history here… that’s 2007.
So what about the global Islamic jihad movements? Ron Paul wants to outsource that task… to mercenaries. … oh wait, let’s use his PC language as “privateers”.
Thus the reason for yet another of his thousands of idiotic bills would never see the light of day in the chambers. We don’t outsource national security to mercenaries.
Speaking of ineffective, this guy couldn’t coax a thirsty burro to a water filled trough. Been in the House since the mid-90s, and what does he have to show after thousands of presented bills that no one wanted to support? One single piece of passed enacted legislation that mandates the GSA give a piece of land to the Galveston Historical Foundation.
Yeah.. this is a guy who could guide us thru these times. /sarc
You may be able to fool lovely Canadian ladies who don’t know better (and can’t vote), just me 95. But the rest of us have been around the block a few times with Dr. Paul. Good guy to have in the Congress. Beyond that, he needs to find something else to occupy his time besides trying to make a run for the WH. He is simply a one trick monkey on issues. Leave the fiscal realm, and he’s toast. And he deserves to be toast.
He’s an idiot on foreign policy. Which is why you Ron Paul supporters can’t pull anyone of substance in support of his perpetual campaigns for the WH. Maybe, after this year, he’ll finally give up.
@MataHarley:
There is no ‘if’ and there is no ‘allow’. I hope you would agree with me that Israel is a sovereign nation and decides for herself the ‘whens and ifs’ she will go to war. Israel doesn’t need Ron Paul’s or any American’s permission to do anything and she shouldn’t.
As to the resolution you refer to, I hate to have to link to this site, but here are Ron Paul’s reason’s for voting against it should you care to read them.
In the end, what good did that resolution do? Did it stop the aggression towards Israel? Are Hamas and Hezbollah weaker now because of that resolution? How have those sanctions worked out? Five years since that resolution passed and nothing has changed.
I don’t hear anyone ever mention that in 1981 Ron Paul voted against the rest of Congress who voted WITH the UN to condemn Israel for attacking the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor. He stood up for Israel’s right for sovereignty.
So in all those years Paul’s position hasn’t changed one bit: Israel is a sovereign nation who has the right to defend herself as she sees fit and has the right of self-determination.
As for war, Paul wants Congress to declare it. He said he will fight with all America’s might, win, then leave – no nation building. You seem to have a problem with that and, from what I’ve gathered from what you’ve written, prefer a president strike whoever whenever. How did Libya turn out with that policy?
As for bills he wrote and proposed that went nowhere, from where I sit he’s so far ahead of the curve most times the rest of Congress doesn’t understand their value. He even wrote H.J.Res.46 – Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States. But it seems everyone is depending on the ‘anchor baby’ vote, especially Newt when you consider his immigration policy.
Your ‘lovely Canadian ladies’ remark would fit better in the thread it was meant for. Are you really that angry with me that I pointed out CFR member Newt’s globalist tendencies? Would you prefer no one knew about them?
Mata, if you want a president who can commit pre-emptive strikes without any oversight, that’s your right; China has plenty of money to loan us for all these new wars. Also seems the majority of Republicans want the same thing. But I don’t like a president with that much power and feel we’ve lost the ‘checks and balances’ the Constitution placed on the 3 branches of government. I prefer to err on the cautioning tone set by the Constitution and not legislation written by a scared Congress.
And although your sarcasm and hostile attitude were unwarranted, they were expected. It’s just a pity you have to reduce yourself to name calling.
@just me 95: You said:
You talk about RP as if he is a near deity. I mean, come on. Re-read that sentence, Congress doesn’t understand the value of RP’s bills??
So he is so much smarter than the rest of the Congress that most of his bills are beyond their comprehension?
Look, root for RP all you want, but jeez guy, don’t light any candle at the alter of Paul…
@anticsrocks:
If that’s how you interpret that sentence it’s you who has the problem, not me. I aint Barry. I bow before no man.
Wow… talk about sentence interpretation problems….. My comment was a mimic of his own words, that always say Israel has a right to defender herself. Altho he is always quick to add that she should also take the consequences of doing so. He does so love that disclaimer. Ergo, IF he believes in the her sovereign right of defense, it should have been a no brainer to simply condemn the attack, and reiterate backing up his own repeated words.
But he didn’t.
That’s when you came up with the BS about “UN led wars” (that’s a good joke in itself…) and the reluctance to see a terrorist organization dismantled. Neither of those make a lick of sense.
Nor are they reasons that he opposed because, you see, I already read Dr. Paul’s horse puckey excuses on that bill as “we shouldn’t send strong messages”.
Ironically, you show the schizoid, and combative, nature of Ron Paul yourself when you, mention in 1981 Ron Paul decided to (again) buck the rest of the Congress and instead decided he did want to “send a strong message”.
What was the difference between the two that he was okay with “strong messages” for one, while using it as a cop out for the other? One required him to back up his own BS and lend support to Israel’s right to self defense, and the other was in opposition to Israel, backing the UN which he (and I) hates.
Seems that Dr. Paul, despite all his lip service, doesn’t like Israel… ergo why the Republican Jewish Coalition doesn’t want to see his face in their debates.
And I might add here that any POTUS that is afraid to “send strong messages” is, IMHO, unfit to be Commander in Chief.
As for what good the resolutions do? Red herring and a straw man. Frankly I think about 80% of what Congress does is a waste of taxpayers money… and most especially resolutions. However this does give the membership a chance to stand up and state on which side of the line in the sand they choose.
And Dr. Paul generally chooses to stand opposed to Israel in most, if not all, cases. This makes your statement that “So in all those years Paul’s position hasn’t changed one bit” correct, but not for the reasons you state. His consistent position is he simply doesn’t like Israel, thus reflected by his historic votes.
You know, if you plan on accusing people, it might be nice to know if they are guilty, just me 95. I’m all over this forum, loudly opposed to Libya. I’ve also been opposed to the meddling in the so called “Arab Spring” uprisings and having our POTUS publicly tell int’l leaders they should be stepping down.
I was even opposed to the invasion of Pakistan’s sovereignty, sans permission, to kill UBL… tho I didn’t mind him being dead. I was also appalled that this CiC chose to share mission details quickly after the fact that was not only unwise but alerted enemy associates and destroyed potential intel coups.
How embarrassing for you…. When you go rabbit hunting, you’d better make sure know what a rabbit looks like.
???
INRE Bees… it’s nothing to do with what you say or do not say about Newt. He’s pretty much an open book and most news is old news. My point was you may be able to pull the wool over Ms. Bees’ eyes about Ron Paul, because of her unfamiliarity with his past, but not those of us who’ve gone the mile with him.
I have to agree with anticsrocks that your comment about Dr. Paul’s legislation-to-nowhere being too advanced is a pretty pathetic defense. My guess is that Kucinich’s supporters feel the same about his stuff.
I’ve read thru much of the legislation he’s proposed over the years. It’s not like it isn’t easily available on various search sites. Your choice of the Constitutional amendment is one that makes the case for me. When Congress cannot come together on even enforcing current immigration laws, the chances of such an amendment getting thru a Constitutional convention is about the same as me ascending to the throne of England. It is, however, a great moment for Paul to showboat, pandering to his base. You might want to start comparing some of those bill introductions to election cycles, eh?
My point about Paul’s legislation-to-nowhere is that neither Kucinich or Paul have the capacity to lead and work with Congress because they are both simply too far out of the respective left/right spectrum on specific issues.
OMG.. you’re taking classes from Ivan on “how to be a victim” now? LOL First of all, you began the sarcasm by accusing me of “spin” when I simply pointed out Ron Paul’s 2006 vote on Israel, and linked to the vote page. That’s not spin.. that’s fact.
Spin is what you chose to do with all the Hezbollah and UN led war run around, when that wasn’t even the reason Paul, himself, said he objected. Apparently I knew why. You didn’t.
As to the hostile name calling…. perhaps you’ll go back and cut/paste exactly where I did that. I think you’ll find it in the comment marked “your imagination”. LOL
@MataHarley:
Your wish is my command.
I cannot and will not suppot any candidate who is pro:
Patriot Act
DHS and therefore the TSA
Military Commissions Act (in spite of its revisions)
National Defense Authorization Act
America is turning into a police state and I will vote for the only candidate who has always fought for Liberty.
When I look at Newt’s record, he seems to change with the wind.
In 2003 he wrote a very good article pointing out the problems of the Patriot Act.
In 2006 he said, “Either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people.”
Although Newt doesn’t say how he’ll do it and thinks we need a national discussion on the 1st Amendment, if we break up the terrorists capacity to use free speech, we will undoubtedly have some of our free speech broken up, too.
Now, during the CNN debate in November, Newt says he supports strengthening the Patriot Act.
I’m still waiting for Newt to denounce his association with the CFR and Alvin Toffler.
But I aint holdin’ my breath.
just me, “schizoid” is not a “hostile name calling”. It’s a description of a medical condition, of which Ron Paul is apparently suffering. You know, that he doesn’t want to send a “strong message”, unless he wants to send a “strong message” blasting Israel, but so “supports” Israel”?…. except when he’s not, of course.
And “combative” is an adjective that suits Ron Paul’s political style quite well. Nor were either directed at you. And you can scroll back and find I never used the terms “Ronulan” or “PaulBot” in this thread.
I cannot and will not support any one who has the foreign policy of Ron Paul. Period. So if I’m stuck between only having Romney, Newt or Ron Paul, Newt will get the vote. Romney, Huntsman and Ron Paul are all a “never” possibility for me.
Tom, as I pointed out, you brought it upon yourself by descending into such demeaning language first by describing conservatives, which includes a hefty number of people in this nation besides me, as “heartless, miserly and selfish”. I have never described lib/progs in any such generic fashion. However it seems that you want to consider “progressive” an insult. It then follows you’d likely be insulted with “socialist” or “Marxist” as well. Pick whichever one you want. They are descriptions of political leanings.
Anyone got a water cooler we can tiptoe around for Tom and just me?
Screwed! You said it so direct, and so well. I am so sick and damn tired of these pundits, and talking heads like hannity, coulter, laura, oriely all saying that same thing that the democrats are saying, “he/she is not electable!”
And the GOP puppets say the same thing whenever anyone gets else gets on a roll. Its so damn obivious that even liberals see it! I know because my liberal friends all like to rib me with it. The people I named plus more are just another extension of the GOP. Their job is to feed the sheep a steady diet of nothing but pure GOP BS. Anything to keep them from straying away and going over to a Non-Approved and or Non-Certified GOP Boy/Girl. Its enough to make me even think about voting for Ron paul if he runs! And trust me, that would be one of the hardest things I can ever imagine doing in my lifetime! After his remarks about the victims of the USS Cole, the embassy attacks, and 9/11. But then again that vote would be nothing more than showing the GOP my middle finger.
Gary G. Swenchonis
hi,
you know, you talk like you don’t
have any party to lean on, because you criticize all of them,
you are very smart and should not pay attention to those discrediting the CONSERVATIVES, and it’s true that no one can predict the future actions of the PRESIDENT,
BUT you sure should have an idea of any CANDIDATES at this times, even a fainted idea,
and to put them all in one box mark the same WHAT IF THEY DO THAT what they say now OR not , IS UNFAIR,
at least they have the guts to run and face the music, and for some which are most of them know the money is not there to match a ROMNEYS,
but if money is the first factor to beat OBAMA, look at his billions,
no THE PEOPLE will disregard those very expensive campaigns
and adds, and AMERICA WILL WIN this time.
AMERICA is now competing against the GLOBE,
AND BY GOD AND JESUS SHE WILL BE VICTORIOUS
and don’t anyone dare to suppress my last words
bye
@MataHarley:
Schitzoid: 1. Of, relating to, or having a personality disorder marked by extreme shyness, flat affect, reclusiveness, discomfort with others, and an inability to form close relationships.
2. (Psychology) Psychol denoting a personality disorder characterized by extreme shyness and oversensitivity to others
Or maybe you mean: 3. Informal Relating to or characterized by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements
I wouldn’t consider anyone willing to debate on stage in front of millions (TV) ‘shy’.
He has woken up millions of people to the errors of the Federal Reserve Bank and fiat currency, sounded the warnings of our loss of liberty through draconian legislation such as the unPatriot Act so I can’t say he’s had ‘flat affect’.
As for the ‘inability to form close relationships’ – he’s been married to the same woman for 54 years and they still hold hands.
He’s a Congressman and was a OB/GYN so he’s far from reclusive and can’t be uncomfortable around others.
And his position on Israel is consistant – Israel is a sovereign nation who does not need our money or our interference.
just me, have no clue where you derive your more narrow and inappropriate definitions. Perhaps it’s your misspelling… since “schizoid” is of or relating to schizophrenia.
Definition of SCHIZOID
: characterized by, resulting from, tending toward, or suggestive of schizophrenia
Examples of SCHIZOID
With his schizoid nature, you never know whether he will disagree or agree with you.
Definition of SCHIZOPHRENIA
1
: a psychotic disorder characterized by loss of contact with the environment, by noticeable deterioration in the level of functioning in everyday life, and by disintegration of personality expressed as disorder of feeling, thought (as delusions), perception (as hallucinations), and behavior —called also dementia praecox — compare paranoid schizophrenia
2
: contradictory or antagonistic qualities or attitudes <both parties … have exhibited schizophrenia over the desired outcome>
If you think schizophrenia is only confined to “shy”, then you truly need to expand your boundaries of language. Schizoid is quite appropriate for Ron Paul as an adjective. It’s adeptly proven so with his “we don’t want to send a strong message” vote in 2006, with his contradictory intent to “send a strong message vote” *against* Israel in the 80s.
Or, if you were prefer to take the other option, he hates Israel. And he will not vote to support them, but he will vote to condemn them.
I don’t need a history of Ron Paul from you.. Known about him – and his politics (both good and bad) – for years, and there is nothing you can impart that is enlightening.
Well, all I can say is…….
I GOT #100!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
anticsrocks
congratulation, you had to jump over MATA, to get it, you must have held your breath hoping for her to finish desperately ,
bye
@ Gary G. Swenchonis:
Hi Gary, I tend to get ticked off during the GOP primaries too. I have to tell you though, republicans have it bad compared to libs. We have no choice but to brutalize all of our primary candidates, because if they get the nomination without a good vetting, the LSM will destroy them. The libs need no brutal primary or vetting, the LSM will protect their candidate no matter what. Just look at Obama.
Ron Paul is holding his own, he’s just being vetted. My guy, Perry continues to disintegrate, although he did smack Romney around pretty good the other night. Newt has a lot of baggage, but he doesn’t seem to mind throwing it out there for everyone to go through. I thought he took care of Perry’s jab about cheating rather well.
I don’t know if Paul will make it to the finals, but if he does, I’ll vote for him over Obama in a New York minute. And if he doesn’t make it to the finals, I hope he supports the nominee and when that nominee wins, I hope he makes Paul Sec Treas. Could you imagine the collective cries of agony from the fed and the IRS when that announcement was made?
Aqua
hi,
I saw PERRY holding strong, even after that, what’s his name flake journalist surprised him with a flash on
him trying to remember the name of SOTOMYER JUDGE,,
PERRY took it like he can control his answers very well, saying that you cannot know all
the names of those people working there, he’s right, there is so many but it has no weight in leading skills, if AMERICANS could just get off the part of forgetting unimportant words, and names, they could focus on the best part of who he is as a leader, and his achivement there to see,
he is also very sincere, in what he want to do, and that is a lot for jobs creation, and the rest
there is a lot more positives to focus on. than stick on negatives, and look at the hair in the eyes,
and miss the good straw in front of it.
that flake journalist is out to hurt them, he did it to
MICHEL BACKMANN TOO,
FOX IS NOT GAINING ANYTHING GOOD WITH HIS STYLE
SNEAKY LIKE A SNAKE WITH MANY FLAKES SKIN
one could say PERRY FORGOT MY NAME BUT HE SURE GOT ME A JOB, AND EALY IN HIS PRESIDENCY,