pmoney25;1045433 wrote:Thats all fine and dandy jhay, you obviously believe ron paul would let america be destroyed and without defense. You believe war is good and that invading countries and killing millions of citizens and a few terrorist is successful foreign policy.
You obviously believe that our military will survive without a sound economy. That spreading our defense around the world in other countries yards makes friends not enemies.
Those are good ideas, unfortunately history and logic do not agree.
You are obviously exaggerating my positions and are frequently prone, along with other Ron Paul supporters on this site, to hyperbole and misstating your opponents positions. I was merely stating that Congress, not GWBush (whom Dr. Paul compared to a monarch) authorized the endless wars that killed trillions of civilians and caused us to invade thousands of countries.
Cleveland Buck;1046174 wrote:The massive empires that span much of the globe have been few throughout history. The collapse of their money is what ended them all. That collapse almost always came from spreading themselves too thin militarily and/or territorially. From the Byzantines to Rome to Great Britain to the Soviet Union to the United States. We can't afford to have 900 bases in 130 countries and be at war in 5 different countries at a time and give foreign aid to buy the subordination of other countries to our will. We just can't do it anymore. We can do something about it now or find out the hard way.
Again, I have to question your priorities here. Just about every candidate has expressed concern over waste and corruption with the DOD budget, and the need to trim things back. The fact is defense spending consumes about 20% of the federal budget, when under JFK (when Ron Paul served) it was about 50%, and somehow we've survived and prospered for half a century since then. Why aren't entitlements (SS, Medicare) and the welfare state at the top of the list for you guys, when they consume close to half the budget and grow larger every day?
If you and Ron Paul didn't act like DOD spending took up 80% of the budget you might be taken more seriously. The reality is we can't afford anything right now- one year of no federal government spending and no military maybe would come close to erasing our debt. I agree with majorspark's assessment: "
We do have to compete in this world governed by the aggressive use of force. Economic and militarily. There are ways of doing this reasonable and constitutionally". If Ron Paul focused more on the "reasonable and constitutional" part, and less on calling GWBush a monarch and everyone who disagrees with him a war-mongering neo-con chickenhawk I would respect him a bit more.
Another thing I've noticed about Ron Paul and his attacks on other candidates. He and his campaign have smeared, slimed, attacked, and name-called every Republican candidate in the field: Santorum, Bachmann, Gingrich (especially), Perry, etc,
except one. Why no concerted attacks against Mitt Romney? Some have theorized that he's assuming Romney will be the nominee, and thus Paul can save the good stuff for his third-party candidacy. In any case it makes no sense why he spares Romney when he slings the mud.
