THIS, friends, is how Ron Paul WINS the debates this weekend:

[wgadget]

He comes out AGAINST Obama's slashing of half a trillion dollars from the defense budget.

Ron Paul believes in STRONG DEFENSE, but has no qualms about CUTTING UNNECESSARY MILITARY EXPENDITURES.

Make the distinction. Do NOT come out on the side of OBAMA, in any case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsUlkUaJnE0

Scroll to 5:50.

[purepaloma]

This is going to be interesting for sure.

[wgadget]

Okay...WHY is it a bad thread?

I'm miffed.

[Captain Shays]

I wonder if Walter Jones would be considered as Ron's VP? I always liked that guy

[wgadget]

My point being this:

He will SAVE THE ECONOMY while he PRESERVES A STRONG DEFENSE.

How could anyone be against that, left or right?

Geez.

[ShaneEnochs]

Bad? What do you mean?

[wgadget]

Bad? What do you mean?

Someone one-star rated it, which means it's BAD. Er, excuse me...TERRIBLE.

[ShaneEnochs]

Someone one-star rated it, which means it's BAD. Er, excuse me...TERRIBLE.

Well I 5-starred it to offset that person's silliness.

[wgadget]

Thanks! I don't see what's so terrible. Still waiting for a response.

[Miss Annie]

I actually think it's a good idea. Most of the people I speak with suffer seriously from the fear bug. If Dr Paul could put it out there that he intends to keep our country strong without nation building - that would be great.
Another thing I am hearing alot of is people talking about how bringing the soldiers home would add to the unemployment rate. What is a good response for this?

[Dr.3D]

I doubt Ron will be able to set the agenda at the debate. All he can do is answer the questions he is asked.

[John F Kennedy III]

Well I 5-starred it to offset that person's silliness.

I did as well. Haters gonna hate.

[Dr.3D]

I actually think it's a good idea. Most of the people I speak with suffer seriously from the fear bug. If Dr Paul could put it out there that he intends to keep our country strong without nation building - that would be great.
Another thing I am hearing alot of is people talking about how bringing the soldiers home would add to the unemployment rate. What is a good response for this?

Did he say he would make them unemployed? I thought they would still be employed by the military.

[wgadget]

Put em to work at the borders? I believe, too, that Ron has spoken in the past about all the jobs that were created BECAUSE of the soldiers being home after World War II.

The point is, Ron should come out AGAINST cutting the DEFENSE, but he should come out FOR cutting the MILITARY SPENDING, as he spoke about in the video posted.

Most people watching the debates are probably thinking he and his supporters (us) are whooping it up because of Obama's latest decision, which we KNOW the neocons are totally against.

[John F Kennedy III]

I actually think it's a good idea. Most of the people I speak with suffer seriously from the fear bug. If Dr Paul could put it out there that he intends to keep our country strong without nation building - that would be great.
Another thing I am hearing alot of is people talking about how bringing the soldiers home would add to the unemployment rate. What is a good response for this?

Ask them why they don't support the troops.

[Miss Annie]

Did he say he would make them unemployed? I thought they would still be employed by the military.

Well that's what i thought too. But I have not been able to find a quote anywhere to back it up. If you happen across one somewhere, keep me in mind! :)
I have heard this more than once.

[Dr.3D]

Well that's what i thought too. But I have not been able to find a quote anywhere to back it up. If you happen across one somewhere, keep me in mind! :)
I have heard this more than once.

Well, I do remember Ron saying, and I paraphrase.... "having the troops spending their pay here at home would help the economy here instead of in the countries they are currently stationed in."

[Miss Annie]

Excellent responses! Thank you! I will put these on sticky notes so I am prepared!!!! :)

[georgiaboy]

I agree with your positioning on this.

[ghengis86]

I think Ron has said a few tines that our troops should be brought home so that they can protect our borders and not those in Afghanistan/Iraq. I've made this point with lots of GOPers (not necessarily neocons) and they always agree. It's a great lead in RP's foreign policy and makes them question the neocon wing if the party.

[wgadget]

correct?

And I agree with your positioning on this.

You are so right, georgiaboy. I went back and corrected it. Does anyone know over what timespan this covers? Is it over a 10-year period?

[ghengis86]

Well, I do remember Ron saying, and I paraphrase.... "having the troops spending their pay here at home would help the economy here instead of in the countries they are currently stationed in."

Yes he has, saying the troops would give a real stimulus to America's economy instead of Germany's, Japan's, South Korea, etc.

[freneticentropy]

I actually think it's a good idea. Most of the people I speak with suffer seriously from the fear bug. If Dr Paul could put it out there that he intends to keep our country strong without nation building - that would be great.
Another thing I am hearing alot of is people talking about how bringing the soldiers home would add to the unemployment rate. What is a good response for this?

Hi Annie. A really good reply to this is that most (keynesian) economists said the same thing during World War II. They claimed the US would go back into depression after the war and we'd have a major unemployment problem with the returning troops. What actually happened is that we had a post-war boom the likes of which the US hadn't seen in decades. War is bad for the economy and always has been. It's only good for the special interests that profit.

[ShaneEnochs]

Did he say he would make them unemployed? I thought they would still be employed by the military.

I think he DOES want to wind down the military a bit though. Remember him speaking about the end of World War II how there was a huge influx of unemployed people, but everything was fine because the economy got going again due to increased demand?

[wgadget]

I think he DOES want to wind down the military a bit though. Remember him speaking about the end of World War II how there was a huge influx of unemployed people, but everything was fine because the economy got going again due to increased demand?

Yes, the military, but not the defense. Big difference.

Does anyone know how neocons can promote a wasteful military budget?

[specsaregood]

Yes he has, saying the troops would give a real stimulus to America's economy instead of Germany's, Japan's, South Korea, etc.

IIRC, in the 90's over 50% of the US military bases INSIDE the US were closed down. destroyed a lot of small towns too.

[Deborah K]

I actually think it's a good idea. Most of the people I speak with suffer seriously from the fear bug. If Dr Paul could put it out there that he intends to keep our country strong without nation building - that would be great.
Another thing I am hearing alot of is people talking about how bringing the soldiers home would add to the unemployment rate. What is a good response for this?

Miss Annie, another thing too is that he is going to give manufacturing companies incentive to repatriate through deregulation and lower taxation, that will help restore the economy, along with a gold standard and once the economy becomes prosperous there will be plenty of jobs in the private sector and more incentive for entrepreneur types. The economy is going to suffer from a deep depression at best and a collapse at worst, even with a Paul Presidency, but at least with him we will have a very quick recovery like the one in 1920, that no one knows about because Harding led the country out of it by keeping taxation and spending low and reducing public debt - sounds like Dr. Paul, doesn't it? The whole depression lasted maybe a year and half at most. And when you ask most people about it today, almost no one knows of it.

[ShaneEnochs]

Yes, the military, but not the defense. Big difference.

Does anyone know how neocons can promote a wasteful military budget?

Are you correcting me or clarifying? Because I know the difference, which is why I said the military.

[wgadget]

Are you correcting me or clarifying? Because I know the difference, which is why I said the military.

Just clarifying. ;)