Those cuts aren't cuts; Ron Paul on Barack Romney and Mitt Obama

[sailingaway]

http://media.nj.com/star-ledger/photo/10081840-large.jpg


Check at the 3-minute mark when Ron notes that neither party proposes cuts, just slightly smaller increases. Then listen as he explains how there's no difference between the parties. At the 10-minute mark he quotes someone who asks "Why don't we have a third party?"

"Why don't we have a second party?" Ron asks.

That's a good question to ask yourself going into the Tuesday debates.

Both candidates rely on the fact that the average citizen has no idea how the budget works. The "cuts" both propose are generally just reductions in increases. When you do the math, there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two.

The same holds on foreign policy. Neither Romney nor Obama endorse the traditional conservative position that Ron endorses. Both accept the liberal interventionist idea that the U.S. should be the policeman of the world. All they're arguing over is who would make the best chief of police.

And when it comes to Libya, you can expect a lot of finger-pointing. What you can't expect is a realistic perspective like this one from Pat Lang at the Sic Semper Tyrannis site:

more at link: http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2012/10/those_cuts_arent_cuts_ron_paul.html

[acptulsa]

But they are cuts if the value of the dollar shrinks--and when does the value of the dollar not shrink?

Yet when food costs aren't figured into Social Security inflation adjustments, those aren't cuts. Why not? Because the number of dollars doesn't go down, silly. Never mind that the value of those same dollars does go down.

Doubletalk is most often generated to cover up a double standard.

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2012/10/those_cuts_arent_cuts_ron_paul.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pQD6BN5KX0&feature=player_embedded

Check at the 3-minute mark when Ron notes that neither party proposes cuts, just slightly smaller increases. Then listen as he explains how there's no difference between the parties. At the 10-minute mark he quotes someone who asks "Why don't we have a third party?"

"Why don't we have a second party?" Ron asks.

That's a good question to ask yourself going into the Tuesday debates.

Both candidates rely on the fact that the average citizen has no idea how the budget works. The "cuts" both propose are generally just reductions in increases. When you do the math, there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two.

The same holds on foreign policy. Neither Romney nor Obama endorse the traditional conservative position that Ron endorses. Both accept the liberal interventionist idea that the U.S. should be the policeman of the world. All they're arguing over is who would make the best chief of police.

And when it comes to Libya, you can expect a lot of finger-pointing. What you can't expect is a realistic perspective like this one from Pat Lang at the Sic Semper Tyrannis site:

Diplomatic and intelligence work in "the field" as opposed to behind a desk in Washington is a risky business. The work in the field requires access to the local people. Some of the local people are always dangerous. The assumption should be made that they are dangerous. Nevertheless, it is always necessary to have access to the people in order to accomplish one's duty. There is not enough money available to fortify all diplomatic and intelligence posts even if it were a good idea to do so, and it is not for the reason stated here above.

Could the consulate in Benghazi have been made a more difficult target within the strictures of operational necessity? It probably could have been made more difficult for the assault force but not difficult enough to have repelled an attack like this by roughly a hundred determined men armed with small arms and RPG rockets.

Should the USMC security guard system be given the mission of defending our diplomatic premises? The present mission of these marines detailed to the State Department is to protect the classified information in these premises, not the premises themselves or the ambassador/consul. Such a change of mission would require a massive change of training for the marines involved and reinforcement to such a level that this would become a major mission, perhaps the major mission for the USMC.


in the 1980s I spent a lot of time in El Salvador. Our embassy there was a fortress. It was covered with iron grating so that rocket-propelled grenades could not penetrate.

That's the sort of thing you need to do if you want to mess around in the Third World. Neither of these guys wants to do it, but both want to mess around in the Mideast.
Ron feels otherwise. Watch the whole thing.