FREDHEADS: Compare Fred Thompson to Ron Paul here

[jrich4rpaul]

With Fred out of the race, Fredheads need an alternative. And they are certainly welcome here.

Fred Thompson on the issues: http://fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx

Ron Paul on the issues: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues

The two share the same "smaller government" platform. Please take the time to get to know Ron Paul a little better.

[pacelli]

All Fredheads are welcome to join the Ron Paul community. We welcome you with opened arms!

[TER]

We know you want a better America and so do we.

[liberty_Forever]

Both Ron Paul supporters and Fred Thompson supporters are VERY pro-2nd Amendment.

[ddoggphx]

To be honest, I'm sad that Fred left the campaign. I was hoping he would have got more attention and that if Ron didn't make it, I'd have Fred as a backup candidate. He really is more of a small government kind of guy...I don't agree with him on a couple of issues.

I can't vote for McCain, Rudy or Huck. Doubtful I could ever vote for Mitt. Fred was my second choice.

I sure hope that Ron is Fred's fans' second choice. Based on their platforms, he should be.

[nodope0695]

Bump for freedom

[Lars]

Wellcome Fred supporters!

[Kludge]

Let's go, let's go. We need a universal Fred Thompson conversion email. I'll get started on one tonight if no one else volunteers.

[Gimme Some Truth]

The fact that I've never said anything negative about Fred Thompson shows that I see him as being closer to Ron Paul than he is to Rudy, Mitt , McCain and Huckabee.

Fred is a domestic conservative at heart. The problem he would have had tho is his foreign policy would have made it impossible to have a true conservative domestic policy.

I'd love to see "Fredheads" join us in the fight for true conservatism :)

[ddoggphx]

The fact that I've never said anything negative about Fred Thompson shows that I see him as being closer to Ron Paul than he is to Rudy, Mitt , McCain and Huckabee.

Fred is a domestic conservative at heart. The problem he would have had tho is his foreign policy would have made it impossible to have a true conservative domestic policy.

I'd love to see "Fredheads" join us in the fight for true conservatism :)

qft

[jemartinsen81]

I leaned back and forth between Thompson and Paul numerous times myself, before settling on Paul. I greatly respect Fred Thompson, and will be missing him in the presidential debates.

[jrich4rpaul]

Thompson did do a good job attacking Huckabee at the last debate.

But Ron Paul did win the debate overall :)

[deedles]

When did he drop out? Did I miss something?

[jemartinsen81]

When did he drop out? Did I miss something?

Hm actually, it hasn't been decided just yet.


As we have previously reported Fred Thomspon is in Tennessee visiting his 90 plus year old mother who is recovering from an illness

There will be no decisions today as Thompson mulls whether to carry on his bid for the presidency but he is expected to say something definitive tomorrow, probably first thing in the morning.

While no one in the campaign will be surprised if he withdraws they have no idea which way he will go and they do have some money if he should decide to continue.

[jrich4rpaul]

When did he drop out? Did I miss something?

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1200908019284070.xml&coll=2

[PaultheSaint]

His supporters should write him and try to sway him in to officially endorse Paul.

Welcome Fredheads :)

[PaultheSaint]

bump, anyone inviting these guys over here to have a look?

Who's our forum ambassador?:D

[newmedia4ron]

fred done official
start the recruiting

[fuzzybekool]

Fred was the most I liked after Ron Paul. We share alot of good ideas and we need to welcome all Fred Thompson supporters here.

[ARealConservative]

Fred Thompson is the only other candidate that even talks about returning power to the states.

Foreign Policy was the big difference, and considering Vietnam, Korea, and Now Iraq could of easily stumped for an actual declaration of war, Thompson's talk of obeying the constitution was likely just talk.

Not once did he question the authorization of force. If the GOP would of held out for an actual war resolution, the republicans would be in much better shape in this election.

[JustBcuz]

Fred was the most I liked after Ron Paul. We share alot of good ideas and we need to welcome all Fred Thompson supporters here.

Agreed. Fred was my '2nd choice' if you will.

I do hope everything turns out OK with his mother.

Welcome FredHeads! We here at RPF also love gun rights, smaller government, lower taxes, & most of all AMERICA!!

[Shink]

Scour Facebook and Myspace for FT groups.

[DXDoug]

Freds Out, now to tell my DAD!

haha the only one to vote for now is Ron Paul!!!

:D :D :D :D ;)

[JenaS62]

Yes Thompson was on my list of backup candidates as well. I liked that he was different.

[BeFranklin]

Could sent them letter signed by all the members that considered Fred their second candidate

[hawks4ronpaul]

There are multiple Thompson threads so I will repost this bit because this information might help to welcome Thompson supporters.

I will say this for Thompson: In the Fox debate without RP, Thompson actually dared to talk about reforming Social Security, and he actually mentioned reversing the huge mistake made decades ago that indexed the PRE-retirement "implicit rate of return" to wages rather than inflation (making SS unsustainable).

Not only was it an RP-like detail that cut to the heart of the entitlement problem, but the Fox moderator obviously had no idea what Thompson was talking about no matter how many times Thompson tried to re-explain it.


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

[hillertexas]

Let's go, let's go. We need a universal Fred Thompson conversion email. I'll get started on one tonight if no one else volunteers.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1041364#post1041364

[tamor]

Many think Thompson's voters will go to McCain -- maybe we should post the "vets against McCain" videos on their forums -- is this a good or bad idea?

[hawks4ronpaul]

Many think Thompson's voters will go to McCain -- maybe we should post the "vets against McCain" videos on their forums -- is this a good or bad idea?

Find any McCain attacks on Thompson.

[hillertexas]

With Fred soon to be out of the election, I think Fredheads need an alternative! And they are certainly welcome here.

Fred Thompson on the issues: http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx?View=OnTheIssues

Ron Paul on the issues: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues

The two share the same "smaller government" platform. Please take the time to get to know Ron Paul a little better.

Just in case they take down the Fred Thompson website, here is the text of "Fred Thompson on the issues"

National Security
The first responsibility of government is to protect the American people, the homeland, and our way of life. Today we face the urgent threat of radical Islamic terrorists. Al Qaeda is committed to attacking us here at home, and wants to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to kill millions. We must never give them that opportunity. We must defeat the terrorists abroad, and that begins in Iraq and Afghanistan—the central fronts in this global war. We must show the world we have the will to fight and win. A weakened America - or an America that appears weaker - will only encourage further attacks. We must persevere. As Commander-in-Chief, the president must ensure the United States has the means to achieve victory. Presidential leadership requires talking to the American people about these stakes, mapping out a clear vision for success, and devising a comprehensive strategy for achieving it. I am committed to:

A larger, more capable, and more modern military that can defeat terrorists, deter adversaries, and defend the U.S. and our interests.
A missile defense system that can protect the U.S. and our allies from long-range ballistic missiles.
An enhanced intelligence community, with robust human-intelligence capabilities, focused on terrorism and proliferation.
A robust approach to homeland security that will protect our nation from terrorists and WMD, regardless of where they come from.
A strengthened system of global alliances to better combat terrorists, proliferators, and traditional threats to our interests.
A judicial system that deals with the realities of terrorists and unlawful enemy combatants.

Federal Budget and Spending/Budgetary Reform
In a few short years—not a generation from now—a fiscal tsunami that could imperil our security and economic prosperity will hit our nation and place an unfair burden of debt on our children and grandchildren. The tens of trillions of dollars in debt that will be accumulated over the next few decades will do immense harm to our economy. This burden is now estimated at $170,000 per person and $440,000 per family. Time is running out to address this looming crisis. We need market-based approaches to reform that guarantee benefits for those who need them and embrace personal responsibility and cost-effectiveness without raising taxes. Given the scope and urgency of this problem, and the burden it will place on our children, reform is not only an economic necessity, it is a moral imperative that requires action now. I am committed to:

Opening the government’s fiscal books on this looming crisis for all to see and understand.
Working with individuals of all political persuasions to develop a comprehensive solution to the pending fiscal crisis.
Leading and making the hard choices necessary, to include cutting wasteful government spending, to safeguard our security, promote our prosperity, and protect our children and grandchildren from fiscal calamity.

Tax Reform
The U.S. tax code is broken and a burden on U.S. taxpayers and businesses, large and small. Today’s tax code is particularly hostile to savings and investment, and it shows. To make matters worse, its complexity is a drag on our productivity and economic growth. Moreover, taxpayers spend billions of dollars and untold hours each year filling out complicated tax returns, just so they can send more money to Washington, much of it for wasteful programs and the pet projects of special interests. We need lower taxes, and we need to let taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned dollars—they know best where and how to spend them. And we need to make the system simpler and fairer for all. To ensure America’s long term prosperity and economic security, I am committed to:

Fundamental tax reform built on the principles of simplicity, fairness, and growth.
A new tax code that gets the government out of our citizens’ pocketbooks, while enhancing U.S. competitiveness abroad.
Dissolution of the IRS as we know it.

Healthcare
Americans have the best healthcare in the world. Some, however, choose not be insured; others cannot afford it. Every American should be able to get health insurance coverage that is affordable, fully accessible, and portable. Coverage should meet their individual needs and put them in control. Those who propose a one-size-fits-all Washington-controlled program ignore the cost, inefficiency, and inadequate care that such a system offers. Access to affordable, portable health care can be made available for all Americans without imposing new mandates or raising taxes. Current government programs must also be streamlined and improved so that those who truly need help can get the health care they need. I am committed to a healthcare system that:

Realigns programs and creates a system around individual consumers and patients by providing more information and more opportunities to choose affordable health care options that best meet their needs and those of their families.
Improves the individual health of all Americans by shifting to a system that promotes cost-effective prevention, chronic-care management, and personal responsibility
Modernizes delivery and administration of care by encouraging the widespread use of clinical best practices, medical information technology, and other innovations.
Increases competition and consumer choice while streamlining regulations through free-market solutions that benefit individuals and reduce costs for employers.
Promotes and speeds medical research and life-sciences innovation.

Government Effectiveness
Our government is outdated, inefficient, and wasteful. It is often unable to perform even the most basic tasks our citizens expect. It is no longer enough just to want limited government; the American people deserve more effective government. Given today’s challenges, we cannot afford—and shouldn’t accept—anything less than a nimble, effective, and efficient government that is able to focus its resources on the important issues facing our country. It must be able act on behalf of the American people and our national interests in a timely manner. The key to competent government is strong, committed leadership from the top. The key to good government is good people who are well-managed and put the national interest first. I am committed to:

Attracting and rewarding the best Americans to serve in government and ensuring they have the authority and resources needed to get the job done.
Fixing government accounting so tax dollars are properly spent and the American people know exactly what they are being spent on.
Improving government performance by making agencies accountable for accomplishing their missions on time and within budget.
Ensuring information technology systems are secure and that they give our government the capacity and effectiveness to get the job done.

Building Strong Families
Strong families are the bedrock of our nation and our culture. They are built around the sanctity of life and the institution of marriage, which is the union of a man and a woman. To counter coarseness in today’s culture that oftentimes victimizes our children and undermines the traditional values parents want to instill, we must not only protect but strengthen the institutions of family and marriage. I am committed to:

Using the Presidency to encourage policies that promote a culture of life, strengthen the institution of marriage and traditional families, and advance freedom of religion.
Returning authority to the levels of government closest to families and communities—the states—and then protecting states from further intrusion by the federal government, the judiciary, and other states.
Combating the spread of obscenity over TV and other media by making sure parents can better exercise their responsibilities.

Immigration
The United States is a nation of immigrants. Throughout our history, legal immigrants have brought energy, ideas, strength, and diversity to our country, our economy, and our culture. This must continue. But in the post-9/11 world, immigration is more of a national security issue. A government that cannot secure its borders and determine who may enter and who may not, abrogates a fundamental responsibility. I am committed to:

Securing our borders and enforcing immigration laws. Amnesty is not an option and the toleration of “sanctuary cities” must end.
Reviewing our immigration laws and policies to ensure they advance our national interests.
Uniting Americans by welcoming legal immigrants willing to learn English, assimilate into our communities, and become productive citizens.

Education
A well-educated citizenry is vital to our security, our economy, and our democracy. Despite the tens of billions of dollars spent on education by Washington each year, and the hundreds of federal education programs now in place, our children are still falling behind, particularly in subjects crucial to the global economy in which we live. At a time when America is behind other developed countries in education excellence, the federal role in education is too intrusive and too bureaucratic, and has become part of the problem. State and local governments are closest to the parents, the kids, and the schools, and best situated to implement changes and innovations that best educate children. I am committed to:

Giving parents more choices in education and schools less bureaucracy.
Reviewing federal programs for cost-effectiveness, reducing federal mandates, returning education money to the states, and empowering parents by promoting voucher programs, charter schools, and other innovations that enhance education excellence through competition and choice.
Encouraging students and teachers to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math—fields that are crucial to our security, competitiveness, and prosperity.
Promoting transparency to assess performance, promote accountability, and share innovations in education at all levels.

Appointing Judges Faithful To Our Constitution
Activist judges across the country seem intent on legislating from the bench to promote a culture of abortion, redefine marriage, and undermine families—in effect re-shaping the values of our entire society without the consent of the people. We need judges who recognize their role in our democracy is to interpret, not make, the law. I am committed to:

Appointing strict constructionist judges who will interpret the law, not impose their views on us by legislating from the bench.

Energy Security
The energy challenges our nation faces today are real and significant. Our dependence on foreign sources of oil threatens our national security and puts our economic prosperity at risk. America must rise to the challenge and take the steps necessary to become more energy independent before this becomes a crisis. No one solution will solve the energy challenges we face; all ideas must be on the table. Greater energy security will enhance our ability to pursue our foreign policy and national security objectives. Increasing our energy independence and investing in alternative energy sources will also produce a healthier environment. And while we don’t know for certain how or why climate change is occurring, it makes sense to take reasonable steps to reduce CO2 emissions without harming our economy. Overall, I am committed to:

A balanced approach to energy security that increases domestic supplies, reduces demand for oil and gas, and promotes alternative fuels and other diverse energy sources.
Investing in renewable and alternative fuels to promote greater energy independence and a cleaner environment.
An energy policy that invests in the advanced technologies of tomorrow and places more emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency.
Conducting research and development into technologies that improve the environment, especially the reduction of CO2 emissions.

Second Amendment
I strongly support the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is touted as a major crime-control measure. But some of the places with the strictest gun-control laws also have high violent-crime rates. Disarming law-abiding citizens does not prevent crime. The answer to violent crime is smart, effective, and aggressive law enforcement. The real effect of these gun-control measures is to place onerous restrictions on law-abiding citizens who use firearms for such legal activities as self-defense, sport-shooting, hunting, and collecting. I am committed to:

Strictly enforcing existing laws and severely punishing violent criminals.
Protecting the rights individual Americans enjoy under the Second Amendment.

[jmdrake]

My neighbor is a Fred supporter. Months ago I gave him a liberty card and he had to admit that he agreed with "98 percent of what Ron Paul stands for." (The war was the 2 percent). That said, anyone who thinks they are going to win over Fred Thompson supporters with "welcome threads" on a Ron Paul forum is kidding himself. And if Fred Thompson was REALLY your second choice then great. But I'm not sure how anyone can call Mr. CFR on again off again lobbyist "small government". Hey, I'd like to see Giuliani drop out and I'd be happy to get his voters (haven't run into any yet) but I'm not going to say something positive about Rudy that I don't believe. Fred's record on gun control seems to be a positive. His feigned ignorance of the NAU doesn't give me the warm fuzzies.

Anyhow, this isn't something that's going to be accomplished on a web forum. If you know someone who's undecided, former Fred supporter or otherwise PLEASE DO NOT SEND THEM HERE! Send them to RonPaul2008.com to learn about the good doctor himself. This forum is for grassroots people so we can kick around ideas and then go out in the "real world" and DO something.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Cleaner44]

Most Fred Heads are real conservatives and not Neocons and once they take the time to read up on Ron Paul we will be stronger. A real conservative Republican like Ron Paul can beat the Democrats.

[SovereignMN]

Freds Out, now to tell my DAD!

haha the only one to vote for now is Ron Paul!!!

:D :D :D :D ;)

Already sent the invitation to my mom, dad and sister...who were all Fred Thompson supporters. Ron Paul will fight for their issues.

[MikeStanart]

Ack, i'm really going to miss Fred in the debates.

He really pointed out flaws in the other candidates.

I loved him for that!

[Elwar]

Ron Paul walks the walk of what Fred Thompson talked during his campaign.

[Mortikhi]

Sweet. I go to lunch and return to this juicy desert.

Thanks Fred. I'm going to rent The Hunt for Red October in your honor

[colin1]

"I'm a politician, which means I'm a liar and a cheat. When I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lollipops"...presidential aide from The Hunt for Red October :)

I agree, I think that if a lot of the genuine conservatives who were supporting Fred would take a long hard look at RP's record, he's would be their natural next choice

[DahuiHeeNalu]

I liked Fred to and as far as my views on a political quiz he was in my top 3 candidates although i was already sticking with Dr. Paul atleast i had back ups :) but i will do whatever it takes to get Dr. Paul in the White House! Welcome Fredheads much Aloha

[AlbemarleNC0003]

To be honest, I'm sad that Fred left the campaign. I was hoping he would have got more attention and that if Ron didn't make it, I'd have Fred as a backup candidate. He really is more of a small government kind of guy...I don't agree with him on a couple of issues.

Me too. My second choice is now "no choice".

[curtis119]

Darn, I was hoping for a Paul/Thompson ticket in November. Anyway.. Welcome Thomson supporters!

[ChickenHawk]

I kinda liked Fred but he sure was a disapointing candidate. I can't believe this thread made it this far with out the RPF equivent of Godwin's Law being brought up. Of course I'm talking about the CFR.;)

[trout007]

I'm screwed now because Fred was my backup plan. My second backup is taking my gold and guns and going into the mountains.

[Gadsdenfly]

There went the last GOP candidate I might have voted for besides Ron Paul. If RP does not make it I guess it's third party for me.

[riviera1992]

This has got to be the most insane idea coming out of Ron Paul supporters. There's a sea of undecided voters out there to go after. Why waste your time with other candidates’supporters.
Respect their choices and leave them alone. Like Ron Paul says “To each his own”.
Plus, with the stock markets crashing around the world, people will be coming to Dr Paul for answers. Many economists agree with his ideas and more will follow as the whole world economy worsten.

[GunnyFreedom]

This has got to be the most insane idea coming out of Ron Paul supporters. There's a sea of undecided voters out there to go after. Why waste your time with other candidates’supporters.
Respect their choices and leave them alone. Like Ron Paul says “To each his own”.
Plus, with the stock markets crashing around the world, people will be coming to Dr Paul for answers. Many economists agree with his ideas and more will follow as the whole world economy worsten.

um. Pay attention to current events dude!!

[internetsurfer]

This has got to be the most insane idea coming out of Ron Paul supporters. There's a sea of undecided voters out there to go after. Why waste your time with other candidates’supporters.
Respect their choices and leave them alone. Like Ron Paul says “To each his own”.
Plus, with the stock markets crashing around the world, people will be coming to Dr Paul for answers. Many economists agree with his ideas and more will follow as the whole world economy worsten.

Anybody have some good links to economic and tax experts that support RP's abolishment of the IRS and Fed?:confused:

[Gadsden Flag]

If any Fred supporters are actually reading this, my message is that RP and Fred are very similar on a lot of issues. I know a few people who joined my local RP group that used to be Fred supporters.


Now, also, please note that Ron Paul supporters are a very wide and diverse group--If you happen to observe behavior or attitudes which you don't agree with, don't worry. People won't think you are like them just because you support the same guy.

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

Fred was my second choice. Heck, I'd like him as a vice-president.

[statesman]

This is what one person said on one of the fred thompson forums... he had maybe 350 posts


"the only other conservative in the race is that Paul Ron guy, should I endorse him? Will he nuke Iran?"

[Ex Post Facto]

I agree, I wouldn't be opposed to Fred being VP. He was my second choice.

[N13]

Fred had some of the best one liners in the debates.

To Romney: "You are becomming a good actor."

[Tidewise]

At least Fred talked about my signature.

[VoteForRonPaul]

To be honest, I'm sad that Fred left the campaign. I was hoping he would have got more attention and that if Ron didn't make it, I'd have Fred as a backup candidate. He really is more of a small government kind of guy...I don't agree with him on a couple of issues.

Although I was expecting his dropping as many did, but I believe it was too early to do so. And I think he was going to build momentum with the time but that was his choice anyway.

[jrich4rpaul]

www.TaxHikeMike.com

Fred even said that Huckabee raises taxes like a liberal, and now the MSM is trying to say Huckabee is the alternative to Thompson!

Huckabee is anything BUT conservative. Let's make sure we spread this information.

Ron Paul is the only true conservative left.

[sacvaljc]

As a disappointed Fredhead, thanks for the warm reception.

Ron Paul was my second choice because I liked Fred's foreign policy better, but other than that, it was obvious from the start that there were only two candidates who understood the proper role of the US government. Now with Fred out, Ron Paul will be the only one who is right on Federalism, constitutional protections, and who agrees with Reagan that the most frightening phrase in the English language is, "I'm here from the government, and I'm here to help."

When you look at the other candidates, you also see that they have spent years (if not most of their lives) grooming themselves for the White House. Once again, Fred and Ron Paul stand out as the two who got into the race for the good of the country rather than for personal gain. Fred was slandered (and sabotaged in Iowa) by rumors he was "lazy" and had no "fire in his belly." Ron Paul has been subject to character assassination over his newsletters and who his friends and supporters are. At this point, I feel that if the establishment hates Ron Paul, that is another reason to support him.

So now I'm going to talk to my friends and family members who also supported Fred, and try to get them to switch to Ron Paul. Maybe we can help to tip California's 3rd or 5th districts.

[brandon]

As a disappointed Fredhead, thanks for the warm reception.

Ron Paul was my second choice because I liked Fred's foreign policy better, but other than that, it was obvious from the start that there were only two candidates who understood the proper role of the US government. Now with Fred out, Ron Paul will be the only one who is right on Federalism, constitutional protections, and who agrees with Reagan that the most frightening phrase in the English language is, "I'm here from the government, and I'm here to help."

When you look at the other candidates, you also see that they have spent years (if not most of their lives) grooming themselves for the White House. Once again, Fred and Ron Paul stand out as the two who got into the race for the good of the country rather than for personal gain. Fred was slandered (and sabotaged in Iowa) by rumors he was "lazy" and had no "fire in his belly." Ron Paul has been subject to character assassination over his newsletters and who his friends and supporters are. At this point, I feel that if the establishment hates Ron Paul, that is another reason to support him.

So now I'm going to talk to my friends and family members who also supported Fred, and try to get them to switch to Ron Paul. Maybe we can help to tip California's 3rd or 5th districts.

Hey welcome!

Fred was my 2nd choice, for all the reasons you listed. Now were down to only one conservative, lets try to keep him in the game.

[Carl Corey]

Many think Thompson's voters will go to McCain -- maybe we should post the "vets against McCain" videos on their forums -- is this a good or bad idea?
As it is there are enough ex-Thompson supporters spreading the message that Paul is a good 2nd choice. Going to a Thompson forum as a newbie to push Paul is just going to annoy people and will probably backfire.

[misericordia]

Welcome home, we're gonna need your help cleaning this government up.

[SPmachina033]

Fred was my second choice. The only thing I really didn't like about him was his stance on the war. But I still would have rather had Fred than any other Republican candidate besides Ron Paul. Atleast he is straightforward. It just sucks that our only hope is hated so much by the people who have the most power in getting him elected.

[limequat]

As a disappointed Fredhead, thanks for the warm reception.

Ron Paul was my second choice because I liked Fred's foreign policy better, but other than that, it was obvious from the start that there were only two candidates who understood the proper role of the US government. Now with Fred out, Ron Paul will be the only one who is right on Federalism, constitutional protections, and who agrees with Reagan that the most frightening phrase in the English language is, "I'm here from the government, and I'm here to help."

When you look at the other candidates, you also see that they have spent years (if not most of their lives) grooming themselves for the White House. Once again, Fred and Ron Paul stand out as the two who got into the race for the good of the country rather than for personal gain. Fred was slandered (and sabotaged in Iowa) by rumors he was "lazy" and had no "fire in his belly." Ron Paul has been subject to character assassination over his newsletters and who his friends and supporters are. At this point, I feel that if the establishment hates Ron Paul, that is another reason to support him.

So now I'm going to talk to my friends and family members who also supported Fred, and try to get them to switch to Ron Paul. Maybe we can help to tip California's 3rd or 5th districts.

Welcome! We all want the same thing. Minor disagreements about how to do it only cause disunity.

[Bruce4Ron]

I'll tell you one thing, his wife Jeri Thompson is a trophy! wooooo wee

[BrianB34]

I am a Fred refugee looking for a home. I do agree with the good Dr. on domestic policy in every case. And, I agree that we should not be nation building and never should have been in the business of doing so. I agree that we should bring our troops home from overseas.

I don't agree that we should just bail on Iraq. I don't know how we disengage without being seen as being weak by the Islamo-facists and inviting them to test their mettle here. What is Dr. Paul's plan? I haven't found much information on it except that we should bring the troops home.

What about intelligence? If we pull our entire global military presence back home(not an idea i'm opposed to), how are we going to know what the people that mean to do us harm are doing? And, it has to be intelligence that can be trusted.

The latest NIE is an example of an intelligence report that was riddled with agenda and not intelligence.

This is my only true problem with Dr. Paul's candidacy. I believe that we would be better served in kicking the UN out of NYC and turning that building into the best hospital on the planet for our Vets.

I believe that we should get back on the gold standard. I believe that the Federal Reserve is a vialoation of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 to be exact says, "The Congress shall have Power To. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;." The federal reserve is not a part of the government. It's a freakin' bank....of course I'm preaching to the choir here.

My major concern is how do we project strength in withdrawl. What are Dr. Paul's plans to speak softly and carry a big stick. Diplomacy cannot be the only option in all situations. And the only way to negotiate from a position of strength in all dealings is to know your opponents weaknesses, and that requires intelligence.

Enlighten me...please.

[GunnyFreedom]

I am a Fred refugee looking for a home. I do agree with the good Dr. on domestic policy in every case. And, I agree that we should not be nation building and never should have been in the business of doing so. I agree that we should bring our troops home from overseas.

I don't agree that we should just bail on Iraq. I don't know how we disengage without being seen as being weak by the Islamo-facists and inviting them to test their mettle here. What is Dr. Paul's plan? I haven't found much information on it except that we should bring the troops home.

What about intelligence? If we pull our entire global military presence back home(not an idea i'm opposed to), how are we going to know what the people that mean to do us harm are doing? And, it has to be intelligence that can be trusted.

The latest NIE is an example of an intelligence report that was riddled with agenda and not intelligence.

This is my only true problem with Dr. Paul's candidacy. I believe that we would be better served in kicking the UN out of NYC and turning that building into the best hospital on the planet for our Vets.

I believe that we should get back on the gold standard. I believe that the Federal Reserve is a vialoation of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 to be exact says, "The Congress shall have Power To. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;." The federal reserve is not a part of the government. It's a freakin' bank....of course I'm preaching to the choir here.

My major concern is how do we project strength in withdrawl. What are Dr. Paul's plans to speak softly and carry a big stick. Diplomacy cannot be the only option in all situations. And the only way to negotiate from a position of strength in all dealings is to know your opponents weaknesses, and that requires intelligence.

Enlighten me...please.

Well, first and foremost, to fight terrorists, you need a scalpel and not a broadsword. The scalpel solution was suggested shortly after 9/11 (by Dr Paul) in the issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The suggestion was not, of course, taken.

Therefore, today we have a situation before us where we are inside of Iraq and we should not have been in the first place. But, we are there.

The situation parallels Vietnam in more ways than one, and like in Vietnam, the most certain way to "lose" is to stay far too long. In Vietnam, we militarily won every battle we ever fought -- and decisively so. We literally crushed the VC and NVA in every engagement. But in doing so, we created the kind of resentment in which every time we killed 10 VC, we enraged 100 more non-actors to become VC in their stead. This same effect is only now starting to become a major factor in Iraq.

If we say, for the sake of argument, that Iraq was a just war, then the purpose now is to leave with the most victory possible. At this point in time, the longer we stay, the more enemies we create. I say, the next President should declare that victory occured when Saddam Hussein was tried and executed, and that we apologize but the last President overstayed his welcome and should have withdrawn then, but we will withdraw NOW, and claim the defeat, trial, and execution of Saddam as the primary goal of the action, and therefore leave in victory. It is a little bit of spin, but it is effective spin.

As for encouraging our enemies to test their mettle here in the US, well, I hate to tell you but they are already over here just waiting to be activated.

As a former US Marine, I sincerely believe that Dr. Paul's position will lead to the strongest national defense possible. You see, he does not want to reduce the size of the military, just bring them home, to defend us here. With the bulk of our armed forces attached to NORAD and domestic defence, our readiness will increase exponentially, as well will our equipment be properly repaired and made battle worthy again. Our forward bases should be Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico, not Korea, Japan, and Germany.

There will be a coming Islamic insurgency within the US. It is not aquestion of IF, but of WHEN. They are already over here, and we created the situation by giving them battle experience in Iraq, and then leaving our southern border wide open for them to cross. The question is, will we be ready for them when they start attacking us here at home?

If we continue deploying our National Guard troops on their 5th and 6th combat tours, then I am sad to say that no, we will not be ready when they start. But if we bring our entire set of armed forces back to the US, we will be MORE than ready. We will be re-opening domestic bases that have closed (in order to expand foreign bases or build new ones) and we will have a huge force in exquisite readiness right here at home.

Not to mention, if we bring the troops home from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc etc, we will be removing the major cause of motivation that makes them want to attack us in the first place. Oh, the ones who are already here will still assuredly attack, but as any soldier can tell you, 10 soldiers with motivation are worth 1000 without.

So, to recap -

1) declare that the capture, trial, and execution of Saddam Hussein was really the primary goal in Iraq, declare victory, apologize for overstaying our welcome, and come home. This is the closest thing to victory that can possibly wrought from Iraq.

2) Bring all the troops home from around the world, and place them in a domestic defense posture, in readiness forthe imported insurgency that is sure to come (their fighters are already here, there is no avoiding it at this point)

3) Remove our presence from Muslim "Holy Lands" thus removing the primary motivation for those fighters, making them easier to defeat when they do attack.

(and additionally)

4) Issue letters of Marque and Reprisal for Osama Bin Laden and his lieutenants. Call it a billion dollar bounty, with an additional $500 Million set aside for bribes, and give the potential claimants a Spec Ops platoon (with intell) to work together with. The quick capture, trial, and execution of Bin Laden (if he is still alive) will surely mitigate any claims of 'weakness.'

[Just Some Guy]

I don't agree that we should just bail on Iraq. I don't know how we disengage without being seen as being weak by the Islamo-facists and inviting them to test their mettle here. What is Dr. Paul's plan? I haven't found much information on it except that we should bring the troops home.


Right now appearing weak should probably be the least of our worries. I do not believe they will think we are weak for "pulling out." We are simple smart enough to realize we do not want to bankrupt ourselves. If appearing weak is that big of an issue, we can always declare victory then come home. Perhaps we could have a little victory ceremony on an aircraft carrier or something. There's no point in fighting a war we've already won.

Speaking of winning, here's some food for thought. They say we have to stay the course in Iraq until we win. But does anyone know what the winning conditions are? What would have to happen before Bush can say, "Hey, we just won!" If we capture Bin Laden, will he say we've won? What about the leader of Iraq, if we capture him, will we have won? What has to happen before we can say we've won the war in Iraq?

But I am getting side tracked. Ron Paul's plan is to find the root causes of terrorism. Starting a war is like treating the symptoms instead of the cause of the problem. He wants to use diplomacy to find out why others want to do harm to us. And use diplomacy to fix the problems.

Ron Paul wants to open trade with other countries. Note: we have never been to war with a country with a McDonald's. He wants to make friends with other countries. They won't attack us if they don't hate us.

The middle east is like putty. If you're trying to get a good grasp on it by squeezing too tight, it's going to ooze through your fingers and you're left with a mess. However, if you hold it gently, it's... well, it's like putty in your hands.

[Joe3113]

First I'd like to say welcome :)



I don't agree that we should just bail on Iraq. I don't know how we disengage without being seen as being weak by the Islamo-facists and inviting them to test their mettle here. What is Dr. Paul's plan? I haven't found much information on it except that we should bring the troops home.


You have got to understand that the reason they attack is because the United States occupies their land. If you understand that then you'll realise why they won't attack the US after the troops are removed from places like Saudi Arabia. This position is supported by the former head of the Bin-Laden unit at the CIA. Look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ohz0omUjIE

Ron's plan for getting out of Iraq is to responsibly remove each brigade, one at a time, over a period of months.




What about intelligence? If we pull our entire global military presence back home(not an idea i'm opposed to), how are we going to know what the people that mean to do us harm are doing? And, it has to be intelligence that can be trusted.


The majority of intelligence is gathered covertly, rather than via a military presence. Obviously covert presence in other countries cannot be discussed openly in the campaign. What we do know is that Ron is opposed using a covert presence to overthrow governments and interfere. If he did use it, it would be purely for information gathering.




The latest NIE is an example of an intelligence report that was riddled with agenda and not intelligence.


Ron has said he wants to clean out the CIA, FBI, NSA of their politicized cobwebs. He has even hinted at abolishing these organizations and transferring their power to military intelligence.



This is my only true problem with Dr. Paul's candidacy. I believe that we would be better served in kicking the UN out of NYC and turning that building into the best hospital on the planet for our Vets.


Ron Paul is very critical of the United Nations. In fact he doesn't even want the United States to be a member because the United Nations has agendas other than those of world peace. However, you have to understand that private property is something protected under the constitution. If the government had the power to interfere with private property it would eventually become tyrannical.



I believe that we should get back on the gold standard. I believe that the Federal Reserve is a vialoation of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 to be exact says, "The Congress shall have Power To. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;." The federal reserve is not a part of the government. It's a freakin' bank....of course I'm preaching to the choir here.


You sure are. The Federal Reserve is probably number 1 on our most hated list. Even for those of us who are not from the United States.



My major concern is how do we project strength in withdrawal. What are Dr. Paul's plans to speak softly and carry a big stick. Diplomacy cannot be the only option in all situations. And the only way to negotiate from a position of strength in all dealings is to know your opponents weaknesses, and that requires intelligence.


Ron Paul is no weakling. If the United States is attacked in any way, he will respond without hesitation, as long a war is declared and the process is handled is a constitutional manner. In fact, by bringing the troops home you can improve the defense of the United States itself and also protect the borders.

In terms of strength in withdrawal, I think the Islamic world know the power of the United States military. They know they could be taken out at any time the United States chooses.



Enlighten me...please.

Hope that helped :)

[GunnyFreedom]

And now a bit of history.

Did you know that America's first war was against Islamic Terrorists? Yes, the Barbary Pirates war was engaged by President Thomas Jefferson through the use of letters of Marque and Reprisal, faught primarily by the US Marine Corps ("...to the shores of Tripoli..." Look on a map where Tripoli is...) and is considered to be pretty much the only true decisive victory against Islmaic terror in world history.

And Dr. Paul's foreign policy is nearly a precise match for Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson so far has been the only man ever to defeat radical Islamic terror. At the onset of the Barbary Pirates War, he read a Koran from cover to cover to learn how to defeat them, and then he engaged in a kind of "Hit and Run" war that crushed them, and left their remnants nothing to shoot at, until they surrendered.

By engaging in the same kind of war, we can defeat radical Islamic terror again in our modern age. Only Dr Paul wants to use the same methods as did Thomas Jefferson when he defeated radical Islamic terror.

From day one of this conflict, I have constantly wondered why we did not pull from Thomas Jefferson's experiencein the Barbary Pirates War. Surely, that is precisely how to achieve victory in the Global War on Terror. Learn from the only guy in world history ever to defeat them. Makes sense, no?

[GunnyFreedom]

There's no point in fighting a war we've already won.


ding! ding! ding!

if you keep fighting a war you have already won, you turn it into a defeat. Imagine if we had continued to attack Germany after defeating Hitler! Yeah, we'd still be at war with Germany today if we had done that methinks.

[BrianB34]

I disagree with Curlz and Dr. Paul on the point that they will not attack us here if we remove our presence from their lands. Please don't read this as being combative. It's in my nature. I'm one for spirited debate. But, even Dr. Paul has stated on numerous occasions that 11 of the 19 9/11 attackers were Saudis. A lot of the insurgents in Iraq are Saudis. How do you reconcile that with the fact that our military no longer has any presence in Saudi Arabia?

I am certainly in agreement with you GunnyFreedom on them already being here, and it's not a question of "If" but a question of "When". Why my personal weapons cache is well maintained.

I agree that we should have pulled out as soon as Saddam was captured. But, there were a lot things we should have done, but didn't.

And, the spin may work on declaring victory. It worked for Saddam in the first gulf conflict.

I'll go back and read Dr. Paul's stances on energy. Short term and long term solutions.

[colin1]

Well, first and foremost, to fight terrorists, you need a scalpel and not a broadsword. The scalpel solution was suggested shortly after 9/11 (by Dr Paul) in the issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The suggestion was not, of course, taken.

Therefore, today we have a situation before us where we are inside of Iraq and we should not have been in the first place. But, we are there.

The situation parallels Vietnam in more ways than one, and like in Vietnam, the most certain way to "lose" is to stay far too long. In Vietnam, we militarily won every battle we ever fought -- and decisively so. We literally crushed the VC and NVA in every engagement. But in doing so, we created the kind of resentment in which every time we killed 10 VC, we enraged 100 more non-actors to become VC in their stead. This same effect is only now starting to become a major factor in Iraq.

If we say, for the sake of argument, that Iraq was a just war, then the purpose now is to leave with the most victory possible. At this point in time, the longer we stay, the more enemies we create. I say, the next President should declare that victory occured when Saddam Hussein was tried and executed, and that we apologize but the last President overstayed his welcome and should have withdrawn then, but we will withdraw NOW, and claim the defeat, trial, and execution of Saddam as the primary goal of the action, and therefore leave in victory. It is a little bit of spin, but it is effective spin.

As for encouraging our enemies to test their mettle here in the US, well, I hate to tell you but they are already over here just waiting to be activated.

As a former US Marine, I sincerely believe that Dr. Paul's position will lead to the strongest national defense possible. You see, he does not want to reduce the size of the military, just bring them home, to defend us here. With the bulk of our armed forces attached to NORAD and domestic defence, our readiness will increase exponentially, as well will our equipment be properly repaired and made battle worthy again. Our forward bases should be Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico, not Korea, Japan, and Germany.

There will be a coming Islamic insurgency within the US. It is not aquestion of IF, but of WHEN. They are already over here, and we created the situation by giving them battle experience in Iraq, and then leaving our southern border wide open for them to cross. The question is, will we be ready for them when they start attacking us here at home?

If we continue deploying our National Guard troops on their 5th and 6th combat tours, then I am sad to say that no, we will not be ready when they start. But if we bring our entire set of armed forces back to the US, we will be MORE than ready. We will be re-opening domestic bases that have closed (in order to expand foreign bases or build new ones) and we will have a huge force in exquisite readiness right here at home.

Not to mention, if we bring the troops home from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc etc, we will be removing the major cause of motivation that makes them want to attack us in the first place. Oh, the ones who are already here will still assuredly attack, but as any soldier can tell you, 10 soldiers with motivation are worth 1000 without.

So, to recap -

1) declare that the capture, trial, and execution of Saddam Hussein was really the primary goal in Iraq, declare victory, apologize for overstaying our welcome, and come home. This is the closest thing to victory that can possibly wrought from Iraq.

2) Bring all the troops home from around the world, and place them in a domestic defense posture, in readiness forthe imported insurgency that is sure to come (their fighters are already here, there is no avoiding it at this point)

3) Remove our presence from Muslim "Holy Lands" thus removing the primary motivation for those fighters, making them easier to defeat when they do attack.

(and additionally)

4) Issue letters of Marque and Reprisal for Osama Bin Laden and his lieutenants. Call it a billion dollar bounty, with an additional $500 Million set aside for bribes, and give the potential claimants a Spec Ops platoon (with intell) to work together with. The quick capture, trial, and execution of Bin Laden (if he is still alive) will surely mitigate any claims of 'weakness.'

I tip my hat to you gunny, that's one persuasive arugment you've made there!

[Joe3113]

I disagree with Curlz and Dr. Paul on the point that they will not attack us here if we remove our presence from their lands. Please don't read this as being combative. It's in my nature. I'm one for spirited debate.


We love debate here :) . I'm just saying that Michael Scheuer, the former head of the Bin-Laden unit in the CIA, has said that the reason they attack is because Americans occupy their land. I think he is a pretty reasonable source.



But, even Dr. Paul has stated on numerous occasions that 11 of the 19 9/11 attackers were Saudis. A lot of the insurgents in Iraq are Saudis. How do you reconcile that with the fact that our military no longer has any presence in Saudi Arabia?


It's not the occupation of specific countries that is the problem, it is occupying ANY muslim lands. A muslim in Saudi Arabia is still angry when Americans are occupying Iraq, because Iraq is a holy place for Muslims.




I'll go back and read Dr. Paul's stances on energy. Short term and long term solutions.

The free-market cures a lot of what ails the US.

[Bilgefisher]

Sorry for the double post.

[Bilgefisher]

BrainB34. First and foremost thank you for your intelligent discussions. I believe the 11 Saudi's of the 19 hijackers can be explained simply. While we don't have a presence in their home country, we do have a presence in what they consider the holy land. The Arabian Peninsula.

I'll be perfectly honest with you. I don't agree with Ron Paul stance on immediate withdrawal either. I think it can create an unseen power vacuum. That said, no man is perfect. Ron Paul has stated it would take months to fully get our troops back. Months works for me. The reason why I do support the withdrawal in this time frame is because of the financial burden placed on the US. If we keep up our current policy, we'll go broke. Plain and simple. The fall of most great nations is due to financial concerns not war.

I picked Ron Paul over other candidates on the war issue because I do believe we keep hitting a hornets nest with a stick. Were getting stung here. I was right with you until I heard a very strong statement. What would we do if they did that over here? If China or even Iran built a base in the Middle of the US with over 50,000 soldiers that not only lived on base but patrolled our streets. I tell ya, I would be fighting mad in the most literal sense of the saying.

For a break down.
-Bring the troops home from Iraq and 130 other countries with 700 bases. 50 years in Korea and Japan is a bit much.
-That significantly reduces Military costs while also bringing home over 500,000 soldiers (not including Iraq). Those soldiers will spend their money here providing an immediate economic stimulus to the country. This is US dollars spent here that our soldiers currently spend in other countries.
-The reduction in federal government programs that can be handled on the state level will also lower our spending.
-The reduction in spending allows for the reduction in taxes with the eventual removal of the IRS. All we need to do is reduce spending to pre-2000 levels.

Again Sir, I applaud you on researching the candidates before making your choice. Its not exactly easy going to another candidates board and striking a conversation that they may not agree with 100%. Have a good day.

[GunnyFreedom]

I disagree with Curlz and Dr. Paul on the point that they will not attack us here if we remove our presence from their lands. Please don't read this as being combative. It's in my nature. I'm one for spirited debate. But, even Dr. Paul has stated on numerous occasions that 11 of the 19 9/11 attackers were Saudis. A lot of the insurgents in Iraq are Saudis. How do you reconcile that with the fact that our military no longer has any presence in Saudi Arabia?

I am certainly in agreement with you GunnyFreedom on them already being here, and it's not a question of "If" but a question of "When". Why my personal weapons cache is well maintained.

I agree that we should have pulled out as soon as Saddam was captured. But, there were a lot things we should have done, but didn't.

And, the spin may work on declaring victory. It worked for Saddam in the first gulf conflict.

I'll go back and read Dr. Paul's stances on energy. Short term and long term solutions.

There is very, very little that I disagree with Dr. Paul on. I do not believe that he thinks if we pull all of our troops home, that there will be no further attacks, period. He has been talking about blowback from 1953 hitting us even today, and has stated time and again that the Middle East has a very long memory.

However, let's stipulate for the discussion that he does believe that if we bring all the troops home, the attacks will stop. What, then, is the end effect of the policy? The attacks may come, but then our troops are in the best possible place and condition of readiness to defend us.

I, for one, believe that the next round of terrorist attacks in the US will come from battle-hardened radical Islamic militants bent on bringing the Iraq insurgence to mainland USA. The best possible posture for our Armed Forces to combatthat threat, will be if they are allhere at our domestic bases, well rested, well trained, and with equipment at 100%.

So regardless of whether he would bring the troops home to defend us here, or he just wants to bring the troops home because he believes that the enemy will stop attacking us, the net effect of either motive will be to have our troops home, rested, and ready for the attacks here in the US which are sure to come.

If, like all the other Presidential candidates want, we remain overseas with 90% of our military, they will be too far away, very tired, and with broken equipment when the attacks start. We will have to bring them back here in "Panic Mode" which will be universally seen as a defeat for us.

Strategically, I believe our best course of action today, would be to bring all the troops home from around the world, lock down the borders, and train them to defeat an imported insurgency here on mainstreet America. Then when the inevitable attack comes, it will be swiftly and decisively defeated. Yes, that will mean the suspention of Posse Comitatus (which Bush has already suspended, by the way) but rather than permanently remove Posse Comitatus in case of "national emergency" as Bush has done, I believe President Paul would only temporarily suspend it, constitutionally, in order to defeat foreign combatants here in the US. And *not* to use the Military as a police-force against US Citizens, which is the crux of the current Bush plan.

I, too, am well stocked with ammo, and have maintained 98% efficiency against man-sized targets at 500 yards on iron sights through practice, practice, practice. I am even more motivated to do so, as I believe within 3 years we will be in a shooting war with Islamic terror within our own borders no matter who gets elected. The difference being with Dr Paul (no matter what his actual motivation is) will have the troops right where we need them, when we need them: here at home.

When the shooting starts inside the USA, I want Ft Bragg full, not empty. I want our Army and Marines HERE, not in Germany and Korea.

My only concern here, is we will need some kind of IFF to help the Military discern civilian combatants (on their side) from foreign combatants (against them).

Now, I also have concern in another direction. Specifically in regards to McCain, Giuliani, and Clinton. I believe that if any of those three get elected, we will become a fascist police state under martial law, inside of 3 years, as bad as it was under the height of fascist Germany. The draconian laws that have been put in place already under the Bush Administration are just waiting to be used, and those are the guys who would use the heck out of them. I also believe that with anti-war sentiment at 75% now, the only republican who can defeat a Democrat in the General, is Dr. Paul.

[BrianB34]

Thanks again for the responses.

I can live with a phased withdrawl of troops levels from all foreign bases. Removing our presence from the the DMZ is about 40 years overdue in my opinion. And, I'm thinking that our presence in the European Theater is unnecessary.

It is my hope that diplomacy will work. It is my fear that it will not, because I believe the fundamental differences in our views of governance will never be reconciled.

Curlz - "The free-market cures a lot of what ails the US."

As long as it's truly a free market. Amen and Amen.

[BrianB34]

There is very, very little that I disagree with Dr. Paul on. I do not believe that he thinks if we pull all of our troops home, that there will be no further attacks, period. He has been talking about blowback from 1953 hitting us even today, and has stated time and again that the Middle East has a very long memory.

However, let's stipulate for the discussion that he does believe that if we bring all the troops home, the attacks will stop. What, then, is the end effect of the policy? The attacks may come, but then our troops are in the best possible place and condition of readiness to defend us.

I, for one, believe that the next round of terrorist attacks in the US will come from battle-hardened radical Islamic militants bent on bringing the Iraq insurgence to mainland USA. The best possible posture for our Armed Forces to combatthat threat, will be if they are allhere at our domestic bases, well rested, well trained, and with equipment at 100%.

So regardless of whether he would bring the troops home to defend us here, or he just wants to bring the troops home because he believes that the enemy will stop attacking us, the net effect of either motive will be to have our troops home, rested, and ready for the attacks here in the US which are sure to come.

If, like all the other Presidential candidates want, we remain overseas with 90% of our military, they will be too far away, very tired, and with broken equipment when the attacks start. We will have to bring them back here in "Panic Mode" which will be universally seen as a defeat for us.

Strategically, I believe our best course of action today, would be to bring all the troops home from around the world, lock down the borders, and train them to defeat an imported insurgency here on mainstreet America. Then when the inevitable attack comes, it will be swiftly and decisively defeated. Yes, that will mean the suspention of Posse Comitatus (which Bush has already suspended, by the way) but rather than permanently remove Posse Comitatus in case of "national emergency" as Bush has done, I believe President Paul would only temporarily suspend it, constitutionally, in order to defeat foreign combatants here in the US. And *not* to use the Military as a police-force against US Citizens, which is the crux of the current Bush plan.

I, too, am well stocked with ammo, and have maintained 98% efficiency against man-sized targets at 500 yards on iron sights through practice, practice, practice. I am even more motivated to do so, as I believe within 3 years we will be in a shooting war with Islamic terror within our own borders no matter who gets elected. The difference being with Dr Paul (no matter what his actual motivation is) will have the troops right where we need them, when we need them: here at home.

When the shooting starts inside the USA, I want Ft Bragg full, not empty. I want our Army and Marines HERE, not in Germany and Korea.

My only concern here, is we will need some kind of IFF to help the Military discern civilian combatants (on their side) from foreign combatants (against them).

Now, I also have concern in another direction. Specifically in regards to McCain, Giuliani, and Clinton. I believe that if any of those three get elected, we will become a fascist police state under martial law, inside of 3 years, as bad as it was under the height of fascist Germany. The draconian laws that have been put in place already under the Bush Administration are just waiting to be used, and those are the guys who would use the heck out of them. I also believe that with anti-war sentiment at 75% now, the only republican who can defeat a Democrat in the General, is Dr. Paul.

One of the most well reasoned arguments for bringing the troops home that I've ever heard. Thank you very much.

[GunnyFreedom]

I tip my hat to you gunny, that's one persuasive arugment you've made there!

Aww shucks. It's no native brilliance, I can assure you. In the Marines, I was S-2 (that's intelligence to the uninitiated) and I used to brief Generals on this stuff, and kick scenarios around with my fellow Jarheads over coffee and mission briefings. My area of primary responsibility was North Korea, and I can assure you, that NK is the last place on the planet we would ever want to go to war. We'd rather go head to head with China or Russia than North Korea, and there are very good (many still classified) reasons behind that. Including the NK's propensity for tunneling. They could 'disappear' an entire Corps or Army in one spot, and 'reappear' them 200 miles away in 2-3 hours. They can launch a 747 and be at full speed in mid-air before they ever emerged from underground. NK has more underground space than above ground space, and they worship their leader as a god. Yeah, no good. NK bad.

[BrianB34]

I apologize for quoting your entire post Gunny. But that was a very well reasoned argument.

As for your last point about the 3 liberals, McCain, Guiliani and Clinton, I couldn't agree with you more. I think you can include Obama in that mix as well.

I fear what may happen if it comes to that.

The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

[GunnyFreedom]

One of the most well reasoned arguments for bringing the troops home that I've ever heard. Thank you very much.

Well, thanks. I honestly and sincerely appreciate your willingness the even discuss these matters objectively. Time and again I have run into McCain supporters who buy the propaganda and think anybody who supports Ron Paul is a hippy peace-nik who has wet dreams of being defeated by a foreign enemy. Clearly that is not the case.

We have among us Ron Paul supporters who are veterans and active members of the military, who support him from a posture of military strength, not weakness. It has become a favorite practice amongst the darlings of McCain and Giuliani to characterize any foreign policy other than their own as "surrender" when most of us veterans supporting Paul see his divergent foreign policy as one of 'the best way to fight back' or, one of strength.

Now, I'm no brighter than your average bear, but I can speak credibly to military tactics and strategies, simply because that's what I did in the Marines, and I have the experience on the taxpayers dime from when I was on active duty and studying these issues intently. I was S-2 (Intelligence) and I worked closely with S-3 (Operations) in the formulations of strategies, battle plans, and contingency plans. That's the only reason I can speak to these issues and not sound like a total fool. ;)

[GunnyFreedom]

I apologize for quoting your entire post Gunny. But that was a very well reasoned argument.

As for your last point about the 3 liberals, McCain, Guiliani and Clinton, I couldn't agree with you more. I think you can include Obama in that mix as well.

I fear what may happen if it comes to that.

The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Oh no worries at all. We do that all the time here on RPF. And thanks again.

I don't know what to make of Obama. He frightens me. The people who support him walk around daze-like and praise his desire to make "change" but can never actually specify what he wants to change, or how. I have yet to meet an Obama supporter that can actually speak to Obama's platform. They all talk about how "uplifting" he is etc etc. Something's rotten in Denmark if you ask me.

And Obama's unwillingness to 'take off the table' a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran is positively horrifying! I didn't include Obama in the fascist-police-state makers above, not because he is any less dangerous, but because I think his danger probably comes from a different direction. I just can't identify that direction as yet.

[Bilgefisher]

We have among us Ron Paul supporters who are veterans and active members of the military, who support him from a posture of military strength, not weakness. It has become a favorite practice amongst the darlings of McCain and Giuliani to characterize any foreign policy other than their own as "surrender" when most of us veterans supporting Paul see his divergent foreign policy as one of 'the best way to fight back' or, one of strength.


Its funny you mention that Gunny. My perspective comes from serving under the ocean on Trident Missile Sub.

I gotta ask, anyone else enjoying the heck out of this thread? Bloody brilliant discussions.

[GunnyFreedom]

Its funny you mention that Gunny. My perspective comes from serving under the ocean on Trident Missile Sub.

A fact that Hannity and the media will never admit to. They make more money of of fighting the war THIS way, so they denigrate Paul's plan because they will make less money, and to do so, they try to convince people that no military folk actually like Ron Paul's foreign policies.

My father was a GMM1, and worked very closely with the Polaris missile project in Goose Creek, SC.


I gotta ask, anyone else enjoying the heck out of this thread? Bloody brilliant discussions.

Definately! I believe the influx of Thompson supporters will help us to define our positions more clearly, and the debate/discussion surrounding that will make all of us stronger as a result.

[ShowMeLiberty]

One of the most well reasoned arguments for bringing the troops home that I've ever heard. Thank you very much.

I completely agree. GunnyFreedom, you ought to write it up for the OpEd pages!

I'd like to interject another very good benefit of bringing all our troops back home, if I may. It isn't mentioned often, but having all of our military personnel within US borders, filling military bases within the US, is going to be a MAJOR boost to the economies of the communities that host those bases.

There is a reason that most communities fought to keep their local military base when the closings were being decided. Military members and families spend a LOT of money in those communities. And there are LOTS of civilian jobs on large military bases.

We are in the early stages of some hard economic times right now. Bringing home the troops would be one form of "economic stimulus" that would REALLY WORK.

[Carl Corey]

I don't agree that we should just bail on Iraq. I don't know how we disengage without being seen as being weak by the Islamo-facists and inviting them to test their mettle here. What is Dr. Paul's plan? I haven't found much information on it except that we should bring the troops home.
They'll find a new nation to hate within 4 years of the USA pulling out. Once we pull out they'll be too busy fighting eachother anyways.

Also keep in mind we don't have the economic strength to support these wars either, that's the real sign of weakness, that the US can exhaust itself engaging war on two borderline 3rd world nations.



What about intelligence? If we pull our entire global military presence back home(not an idea i'm opposed to), how are we going to know what the people that mean to do us harm are doing? And, it has to be intelligence that can be trusted.
It'd be better to focus on domestic intelligence. If you look at Europe the real challenge is to slow down muslim immigration to the USA and assimilate the current muslim population, that's the real threat. Riots as seen in France are only 40 years away, and by then the problem will be too big to deal with.



My major concern is how do we project strength in withdrawl. What are Dr. Paul's plans to speak softly and carry a big stick. Diplomacy cannot be the only option in all situations. And the only way to negotiate from a position of strength in all dealings is to know your opponents weaknesses, and that requires intelligence.
The weakness of the USA is its dependence on oil, we've been crawling through the dirt for the most inane nations to keep their oil coming for the past 35 years.

Oil is the only thing the Middle East has to offer, and the only thing worth negotiating about. We don't need militairy strength for this, but alternative energy sources so we can boycot their export product if needed. True strength comes from independence, not the ability to pummel someone else.

[chucksheen]

Since this is a comparison thread:

Republican Voters Guide:
http://forums.hattiesburgamerican.com/viewtopic.php?t=15585

[BrianB34]

They'll find a new nation to hate within 4 years of the USA pulling out. Once we pull out they'll be too busy fighting eachother anyways.

A point that I'm willing to concede is that their tribal animosity will override their hatred for us when we remove ourselves from the sandbox. The problem I have is that states like Iran have stated their objective is the destruction of the US. To me that doesn't sound like someone that is going to stop gunning for us after we roll out.


Also keep in mind we don't have the economic strength to support these wars either, that's the real sign of weakness, that the US can exhaust itself engaging war on two borderline 3rd world nations.

On this point we do agree.



It'd be better to focus on domestic intelligence. If you look at Europe the real challenge is to slow down muslim immigration to the USA and assimilate the current muslim population, that's the real threat. Riots as seen in France are only 40 years away, and by then the problem will be too big to deal with.

Unless and until the 2nd amendment is truly overridden, I do not believe that we will see riots such as were seen in France. Too many patriots like GunnyFreedom around to allow that to happen. The right to peaceful assemble ends at the first rock through a windshield.



The weakness of the USA is its dependence on oil, we've been crawling through the dirt for the most inane nations to keep their oil coming for the past 35 years.

Oil is the only thing the Middle East has to offer, and the only thing worth negotiating about. We don't need militairy strength for this, but alternative energy sources so we can boycot their export product if needed. True strength comes from independence, not the ability to pummel someone else.

While I do agree with you that true strength is derived from independence, alternative energy sources are not going to appear in the short term. The infrastructure required for delivery of any kind of alternative energy besides Nuclear Power just does not exist, and Nuclear Power plants do not get built in couple of months. True viable alternative energy is 7-10 years away. What is the short term plan to limit our dependence on foreign oil markets? Btw...The number 1 importer of Oil into the US is Canada. Number 2 is Mexico. I'm don't want to talk about the NAU at this time, because I live in Oklahoma, and the threat of the NAFTA Superhighway is a very real thing. But, the point I'm trying to make is that we do not import most of our oil from the OPEC nations. The problem is, is that the OPEC nations control the majority of the production for the rest of the world, and that sets the futures.

[BrianB34]

Well, thanks. I honestly and sincerely appreciate your willingness the even discuss these matters objectively. Time and again I have run into McCain supporters who buy the propaganda and think anybody who supports Ron Paul is a hippy peace-nik who has wet dreams of being defeated by a foreign enemy. Clearly that is not the case.

I will admit that I at one time fell into that category(not as a McCain supporter ACK!!! The man absolutely terrifies me from a Constitutional viewpoint, but on the hippy peace-nik view). And, I'll admit that it was a failure on my part not to do better due diligence concerning the matter. That's why I'm here.

As far as the discussion, we can disagree and disagree vehemently on anything, and we may even think the other guys a loon for not seeing our point of view, but that doesn't mean we can discuss it rationally, and treat each other with respect and dignity. How, I have always viewed debate anyway.

Thank you for your service.

Uhhh rah

Semper Fi

I wasn't in the Corps but I was raised by one that served in the Corps

[TreeOfLiberty]

This was the name that I picked as a user name, but I couldn't wait for the moderators to vet me before I started posting so I came up with the other as a quick work around.

Thank you all for sharing your views and answering my questions. I will continue my research on Dr. Paul. I look forward to continuing our discussions.

[ShowMeLiberty]

This was the name that I picked as a user name, but I couldn't wait for the moderators to vet me before I started posting so I came up with the other as a quick work around.

Thank you all for sharing your views and answering my questions. I will continue my research on Dr. Paul. I look forward to continuing our discussions.

Welcome! So glad you decided to join us. We need all the intelligent, well-informed voters we can find. :)

[zmyrick19]

I believe the major thing we must do is curb oil consumption. The tax breaks Dr. Paul advocates for small businesses would allow many more businesses to spring up in rural areas. This would help limit alot of the driving we as Americans do. I know hundreds of people that drive 100+ miles every day just to go to work in a major city.

Feel free to brainstorm other ways Dr. Paul's economic ideals would help lower foreign oil dependency.

[IndieRocker79]

My major concern is how do we project strength in withdrawl. What are Dr. Paul's plans to speak softly and carry a big stick. Diplomacy cannot be the only option in all situations. And the only way to negotiate from a position of strength in all dealings is to know your opponents weaknesses, and that requires intelligence.

Well, Brian, to answer that question I would have to say that how can we project strength in scattering our forces all over the world? Diplomacy with idle threats of military intervention which we cannot support will never work very well either. Play the numbers game, because I'm sure places like Iran are. If Iran were to attack our forces today, do you feel we have the economic ability to fund a large war in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan and maintain our strong numbers in UN and NATO operations around the world? And if we DID have the economic ability, where do we get the troop levels and supply levels necessary for such an endeavor?

The only way to negotiate from a position of strength is to have the ability to back up our threats that if our liberties are oppressed from an outside nation, we will be there to stomp them down. We can't support the foreign policy we have today and still be able to make said threats from a standpoint that any nation would believe. We are more vulnerable at home today than we ever were in 2001. It's time to acknowledge this and stop intervening militaristically in every single matter in which we can, but rather use a diplomatic approach whenever possible.

Strength comes in setting a good example for the rest of the world. I think strength also comes from admitting our mistakes. I feel we could pull off this withdrawl from a very strong stance and garner many more allies than enemies from such a new foreign policy.

[Carl Corey]

The problem I have is that states like Iran have stated their objective is the destruction of the US. To me that doesn't sound like someone that is going to stop gunning for us after we roll out.
I think Iran only wants the destruction of Israel though I guess some people spin that for obvious reasons, Israel can take care of itself though.


The infrastructure required for delivery of any kind of alternative energy besides Nuclear Power just does not exist, and Nuclear Power plants do not get built in couple of months. True viable alternative energy is 7-10 years away. What is the short term plan to limit our dependence on foreign oil markets?
Yes, this worries me too. We don't have as many nuclear plants as we should, we don't reprocess spend fuel which is just plain stupid. Wind energy is promoted even though it's not a viable alternative energy source.

Ron Paul doesn't oppose nuclear energy, but other than that there doesn't seem to be a plan. Not even the experts have the answer though, so besides funding the construction of nuclear plants and dams there is little that can be done, unless funding for some major research is provided. Giuliani seems the best candidate to me when it comes to this issue.

[TreeOfLiberty]

I believe the major thing we must do is curb oil consumption. The tax breaks Dr. Paul advocates for small businesses would allow many more businesses to spring up in rural areas. This would help limit alot of the driving we as Americans do. I know hundreds of people that drive 100+ miles every day just to go to work in a major city.

Feel free to brainstorm other ways Dr. Paul's economic ideals would help lower foreign oil dependency.


My understanding of our consumption of oil has less to do with our driving habits and more to do with our consumption habits. We refine more oil for use in other industry than just fuel to use in our vehicles. Fossil fuels power our industry. We have too large reserves that would supplant anything that we import from the middle east if we would allow them to be tapped.

I agree that truly free market solutions will bring about viable alternate engery solutions. Wind and Solar are not viable. Neither is grain ethanol. It takes more energy to produce ehtanol for fuel than the fuel produces. Makes very little sense to me to go down that route considering the impact it is having on food prices. Cellulosic ethanol has some promise...but I'm sold that it's the answer. It just doesn't have the lower heating value required to deliver the energy required.

Coal gasification and liquification has promise if we would remove the regulations.

Short term, there is no way we get off oil. But starting your SUV every morning isn't causing our problems.

[RonPaulalways]

The problem I have is that states like Iran have stated their objective is the destruction of the US. To me that doesn't sound like someone that is going to stop gunning for us after we roll out.

It's not Iran we need to worry about. The only reason there is some heated rhetoric coming out of Iran once in a while is because of the US's support for Israel, and Israel's possession of over 200 nuclear bombs.

Iran will under go a revolution and become a pure republic within 5 years of the US ending the sanctions and taking an even handed approach in the middle east.

[Fyretrohl]

My understanding of Dr Paul's position on how to loosen up our dependence on foreign oil is to allow the states to decide to do with their resources. IE: Free Utah to go after its clean coal. Free Alaska, Florida, or other states to choose to open up their oil fields. We are dependent on other countries, because, people want to refuse to allow us to use our own resources.

[dblee]

I didn't include Obama in the fascist-police-state makers above, not because he is any less dangerous, but because I think his danger probably comes from a different direction. I just can't identify that direction as yet.

Communist-police state.

[Gammerus]

My understanding of Dr Paul's position on how to loosen up our dependence on foreign oil is to allow the states to decide to do with their resources. IE: Free Utah to go after its clean coal. Free Alaska, Florida, or other states to choose to open up their oil fields. We are dependent on other countries, because, people want to refuse to allow us to use our own resources.

Then maybe we could finally work on solar energy in Arizona. We only have three things in Arizona: Cactus, Citrus, and Sun. It is about time the desert sun was good for something other than skin cancer.

[Goldwater Conservative]

The problem I have is that states like Iran have stated their objective is the destruction of the US. To me that doesn't sound like someone that is going to stop gunning for us after we roll out.

No, that's what Ahmadinejad has said about Israel. And he's a powerless figurehead. Look at the population in Iran, 2/3 of them are under the age of 30. Many of those are generally sympathetic to or even fans of much of Western culture. They only rally behind Ahmadinejad, who they otherwise mock for being the idiot he is, because we keep rattling the saber. They are a fraction of the threat the Soviets were, and we should conduct our foreign policy accordingly. Speak softly (and don't meddle) but carry a big stick.

[crackyflipside]

I used to be a Fred Thompson supporter for a while, mostly for his very traditional conservative views of spending, but found Ron Paul to be a bit more in line with my views of conservatism.

[yongrel]

Gunny's posts in this thread are incredible.

I hope you don't mind Gunny, but I emailed your words to about 200 folks.

[mosquitobite]

Gunny's posts in this thread are incredible.

I hope you don't mind Gunny, but I emailed your words to about 200 folks.

Same here. I emailed my dad and said "if this guy can't convince you, well I guess I will finally give up." :D

[Anonymous_Coward]

Fellow RP supporters ( and former FT ), I skimmed a little through the topic, and some of you just said Iran talked about destroying Israel.

And you people, even after all the media spins and lies, believe it. Please be so kind to point me to where Iran's leader made such statement. (don't worry, you will find more ammo to support Ron's view of complete withdrawal from Iraq).

[givmeliberty]

I just got on the forum, but I noticed your request for sources on Iran's statement on destroying Israel. Actually, you could just google this and find a whole page of sources confirming this....
Here are just a few.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/10/e15e03d6-1013-440f-bdcf-e61d727624ed.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/opinion/31wed1.html

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1619481.htm

[Anonymous_Coward]

Thanks for your responde. And I did google. The only time he said that was in the first link you posted. The other links just refer that one as far I know. The third link however mentions that multiple times Iran called for the destruction of Israel, yet I only find one.

If you can find another source apart from that speech, i would appreciate it ( I will continue googling ).
In the mean time, what do you think about what wikipedia states about the translation of the speech? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_pa ge_of_time.22_translation

Here are a few quotes:
"One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising. The inflammatory 'wiped off the map' quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy. "


"According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[13]

Norouzi's translation is identical.[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse.""

Even, Iran's regime denied the initial translation.
If you truly believe that Ahmadinejad means to completely annihilate Israel and have other quotes please correct wikipedia or provide links that made their own translation, and not quote the flawed original one.

[Carl Corey]

Well, like Ron Paul said, Iran attacking Israel is as likely as Iran trying to invade Mars, or something of that order.

Somehow I'm not surprised that Iran never actually called for the destruction of Israel.

It's however no big secret that there are sentiments in that direction. Everyone with a bit of historical knowledge knows about the six day war, which Israel won with ease without needing any foreign assistance.

Leaves one to wonder what exactly the purpose is of US involvement in the Middle East.

[Pete]

As a long-time conservative Republican, I'd like to welcome "Paul-curious" Thompson supporters and to say what a great thread this has been so far.

The main points of difference between Fred's and Ron's platforms have been foreign policy and monetary policy. I stuck at Ron's foreign policy at first, but altered my assessment of risks and appropriate actions for reasons that have been well-discussed by other posters. Fred did not particularly address monetary policy one way or the other, but it forms the basis of Ron's campaign.

To most people, taking on the Federal Reserve seems about as urgent as battling the National Park Service, but the operations of the Fed are at the root of profligate spending, our industrial decline, and the inability of most Americans to save and invest. For an explanation of the issues, I encourage everyone who is new to the campaign to view this film, 'FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution':

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329002339531

I promise you that once you gain an understanding of the monetary issue, you will see that Ron's campaign has a vast dimension that is not being picked up by most of the public at this time. Paul supporters joke about "taking the red pill", and this is the reason why.

Pete

[Pharoah]

Yes, the whole "wipe Israel off the map" spin was something that was never actually said. It's probably yet another meme we have to thank Frank Luntz for... I posted about this previously, but either no-one remembers or no-one believes me. C'est la vie.

[Charles Wilson]

Yes, the whole "wipe Israel off the map" spin was something that was never actually said. It's probably yet another meme we have to thank Frank Luntz for... I posted about this previously, but either no-one remembers or no-one believes me. C'est la vie.


You make a good point. Israel has between 200 and 300 nukes, the leaders of Iran would have to be insane to attack Israel. I do not think any world leader believes that the leaders of Iran are insane -- only the Republican warmongering neocons are trying to make that argument and they do so for political purposes.

[GunnyFreedom]

Hey, by all means, if my arguments can help bring people to RP, or even just to awaken someone to the Strict Constitutionalist and libertarian position on these issues, then use em up!

[Ivash]

Edit: How on earth did I even get on this link? It is several years old!

Anyways, the fact that we didn't have a shooting war (and the fact that no shooting war is likely) proved my argument, which was that a shooting war in America with Islam ignored logic.