posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 09:05 PM
Originally posted by tHEpROGRESSIVE
I find your post to be degrading of me. I simply repeated what Ron Paul has said but somehow you are mad at me for what he said but you love him for
what he said. Maybe you do not really like him as much as you think.
If you found insult then I'm surprised. Nothing in my posts should be construed to be degrading. I simply said you seem confused (or you can use
mistaken) as to his position on things. You drew conclusions that are incorrect.
The problem with the programs going is that it means we are purely in a defensive mode. So we are only protected at the edge of our
I thought we were talking about domestic spending and social programs, but I can change gears. We are not only protected at the edge of our borders.
Our Navy is quite powerful, and one of it's prime missions is power projection, so that alone is hardly at the edge. Coupled with our arrangements
with our allies and we would have a stable platform with which to assault pretty much anyone we wanted.
Is defense such a bad thing? Every other nation on Earth seems required or content to have an almost 100% defensive posture.
His answer to Iran is let them have a nuke, because we have more nukes. So it seems his answer is let them get a nuke, then when they nuke us,
we will nuke them more so we win. But if millions of US citizens die in a nuke attack and tens of millions die in Iran then what kind of win is
This is mischaracterizing the position. The Soviet Union had close to as many nukes as we did and we didn't freak out. Why would we if Iran got
one? No one in the international community wants this, so we aren't really alone. All nuclear weapons are not created equal, and when developing
them there is a rather stiff curve. This is the importance of intelligence services.
Then add to it that he is going to eliminate programs that aid the elderly and poor without replacing them with anything.
Is that meaty enough for you?
We live in a nation run by the States for the large majority of our services. Would you support nationalizing the police or fire fighters or even
schools? Probably not since it would not improve quality but only increase cost. If anything, history tells us that quality would go down.
If this is true, why not let the state's decide what level of social support they wish to give? I could go into quite a lengthy discussion about
this if you want that pretty much closes the book on nationalizing these programs.
We have State and local governments for a reason, and they govern better because they know their particular states better than the federal
Again, because one says that the Federal Government should not do something does not mean they are saying no one should either. In this case it's
quite the opposite. The State's SHOULD cover these items.