Ron Paul Has NEVER Argued for Cuts in Defense Spending

[Zatch]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ves/61294.html

Ron Has NEVER Argued for Cuts in Defense Spending
Posted by Walter Block on July 10, 2010 09:21 AM

In an otherwise very good effort, the author of this article commits a major howler. No, let me correct that: he is guilty of a gigantic, gargantuan, horrid even despicable error. The author, one Alexander Mooney, says that Ron Paul “has long argued for drastic cuts in defense spending.”

Ron has long argued for “drastic cuts in DEFENSE spending?” No, Ron has NEVER done that. Never in a million years has he come even CLOSE to saying anything of the sort. Rather, Congressman Paul has argued for drastic cuts in (rather, elimination of) OFFENSE spending. As far as I know, Ron might even agree to INCREASES in DEFENSE spending: buffing up the Coast Guard, as part and parcel of the process of pulling back to our own borders ALL our troops, and closing down our some 800 foreign military bases. No, this is precisely of what our ENEMIES accuse Dr. Paul. It is CRUCIAL that Ron NOT be linked with cuts in DEFENSE spending in any manner, shape or form.

The reason I am so exercised about all this (apart from my usual hysterical personality) is that Mooney does not appear to be an enemy of the Ron Paul movement but, rather, a friend, as can be seen by perusing the remainder of his article. But if even FRIENDS can make such appalling errors, there is little hope for Ron in 2012.

[dr. hfn]

This is a very good point that needs to be used when we target certain people.

[K466]

Great point. I will be sure to spread it in the campaign.

[Promontorium]

Just like every second thread. The campaign hasn't begun, and people are already plotting to be excruciatingly overbearing and nitpicky on anything regarding Ron Paul.

You god damn well know "defense" is Department of Defense, which oversees 4 of the 5 military branches. Defense spending = Department of Defense spending, even if it's offensive.

I'm not saying you shouldn't make the point. It would probably be taken as a wise comment. But to just blast the author like they called Ron Paul a neocon is just typical Ron Paul supporter OVERKILL.


I can nitpick too:

The Coast Guard is under the Department of Homeland Security, so that wouldn't be defense spending, it would be "Homeland" or "Security" spending.




And God Damnit if it won't be five more minutes before every Ron Paul supporter who doesn't bleed Ron Paul themed blood and eat Ron Paulios for breakfast will be $#@!ing banned from websites for being neocon trolls.

Have you learned nothing?

[LibertyEagle]

Actually, I think Block has made a very good point. Thank you for posting it, Zatch.

[gls]

Actually, I think Block has made a very good point. Thank you for posting it, Zatch.

I agree. Semantics matter. They've been playing that game for a long time and we need to as well if we want to win.