What the hell is Ron Paul talking about?

[ProSense]

<...>

In the last 10 years, the wars that have gone on have added $4 trillion of debt. And I don’t think we have been one bit safer for it. I think we have been less safe because of all the money that we have spent overseas. So this is the issue now. It is -- it is an issue that I think is crucial. Jim mentioned in the introduction that, you know, so often they say that if we tell people that we think we should spend less in the military, they say, “Oh, that means you want to cut defense.” No, if you cut the military industrial complex, you cut war profiteering, but you don’t take one penny out of national defense.

(APPLAUSE)

And besides -- besides, we’re flat-out broke. Fortunately, we did not have to fight the Soviets. The Soviets brought themselves down for economic reasons. Do you know that they were so foolish and thought themselves so bold that they could pursue their world empire that they invaded Afghanistan?

(BOOING)

(LAUGHTER)

But we will come home, but if we do it now, calmly and deliberately, we can save our economy here at home, because there are a lot of people who are suffering here at home.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/ron-paul-new-hampshire-primary-night-speech-text/2012/01/10/gIQACW2WpP_blog.html

There is that backtracking on defense cuts and leaving Afghanistan. Also, did he forget that he voted for the Afghanistan war, which wasn't an invasion?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100277632


Ron Paul will balance the budget "without cutting from...national defense"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002138632

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Do you think that $4 trillion+ in wars has made us safer?

Disclaimer: I think Ron Paul is a dangerous nut.

[ProSense]

2. Well,

"Do you think that $4 trillion+ in wars has made us safer?"

...no.

Ron Paul will balance the budget "without cutting from...national defense"

Do you think the lunatic Ron Paul actually cares?

[MannyGoldstein]

3. I think he cares

And I think he's correct on this specific issue.

But I think he is, all told, a dangerous nut.

[ProSense]

5. So

"And I think he's correct on this specific issue. "

...you think he's correct to declare that he isn't going to cut the defense budget, not by a "penny"?

[MannyGoldstein]

8. You're misquoting Paul

Which is odd, since there are so many *actual* Paul quotes you could win on.

[ProSense]

11. Ah

"You're misquoting Paul"

...bullshit!

they say, “Oh, that means you want to cut defense.” No, if you cut the military industrial complex, you cut war profiteering, but you don’t take one penny out of national defense.

"We will balance the budget by year three without cutting from...our national defense"

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Please confirm: 100% of money spent on the military contributes to our defense

For example, their is zero waste.

[ProSense]

18. So

". Please confirm: 100% of money spent on the military contributes to our defense

For example, their is zero waste."


...all this time he's been talking about simply cutting waste?

How is it that he can justify only cutting military waste, but eliminating the Education, Energy, Housing, Commerce and Interior departments?

No wonder he hasn't said a word about President Obama's proposal to cut defense. Paul is full of shit!

Paul was quick to chime in on the recess appointments: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002124972

[MannyGoldstein]

21. If you can't answer my simple question in public, then

I suspect that you're unimpressed with your answer. No need to continue a one-sided discussion, have a good night.

[ProSense]

24. Nice

If you can't answer my simple question in public, then

I suspect that you're unimpressed with your answer. No need to continue a one-sided discussion, have a good night.

...attempt at a dodge. Let's try again:


You: "Please confirm: 100% of money spent on the military contributes to our defense

For example, their is zero waste."

There is plenty of waste. So all this time he's been talking about simply cutting waste?

How is it that he can justify only cutting military waste, but eliminating the Education, Energy, Housing, Commerce and Interior departments?

No wonder he hasn't said a word about President Obama's proposal to cut defense. Paul is full of shit!

Paul was quick to chime in on the recess appointments: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002124972

[dsc]

50. You know this

but I will type it for you anyway. In Ron Paul's world view national defense means defending the nation and pretty much nothing else. So in his view even massive cuts in the military aren't cuts in national defense. As long as we could defend against a literal invasion of our nation in his view that is all that is needed. Hence he would cut a lot of money from the military.

[joshcryer]

6. He's lying on "this specific issue." Damn liar, and everyone who trusted him is looking...

...more and more embarrassed as Ron Paul's views aren't really what we want.

[REP]

47. Of course he cares. He cares about Ron Paul. And he cares a lot about Ron Paul.

[DJ13]

4. Ron Paul will balance the budget "without cutting from...national defense"

I think the quotes in the OP makes it clear he differentiates between national defense and the wasteful spending propping up the MIC.

That would mean he feels cutting the wasteful spending wouldnt impact the actual defense of the country.

[ProSense]

9. No

"I think the quotes in the OP makes it clear he differentiates between national defense and the wasteful spending propping up the MIC."

...he hasn't been railing against "wasteful spending," he has been attacking the MIC. He's pushing propaganda.

[DJ13]

10. he has been attacking the MIC. He's pushing propaganda.

So being against the MIC is propaganda as far as you're concerned?

[ProSense]

12. Hmmm?

"he has been attacking the MIC. He's pushing propaganda.

So being against the MIC is propaganda as far as you're concerned?"

Giving the impression that he's going to make huge cuts to defense when he has no intention to do so is propaganda. It's lying.

[girl gone mad]

37. Woah.

Now you are supporting the MIC?

Unbelievable what passes for "liberal" these days.

[joshcryer]

13. I agree with you that's being read wrong, but "calmly and deliberately" is definitely a shift.

Ron Paul not even a year ago was saying he'd be out of Afghanistan "within weeks." This is a major policy shift.

[ProSense]

20. Wrong?

How so?

When has Paul ever mentioned that he only plans to cut profiteering (or waste) and not a "penny" from defense?

[joshcryer]

25. He ties it to overseas spending in the very speech you link.

[ProSense]

27. And

"He ties it to overseas spending in the very speech you link."

...he also shifts his position on Afghanistan in the speech.

[joshcryer]

29. Yes, so 1 for Paul, 1 for you. Should've left it at the Afghanistan policy shift.

You know the Paul touters will just pick apart that bit and conveniently forget the shift in Afghanistan policy.

Paul would reduce the military budget, simply by leaving Afghanistan, which he'll deliberately and calmly consider.

[ProSense]

32. Huh?

Yes, so 1 for Paul, 1 for you. Should've left it at the Afghanistan policy shift.

You know the Paul touters will just pick apart that bit and conveniently forget the shift in Afghanistan policy.

Paul would reduce the military budget, simply by leaving Afghanistan, which he'll deliberately and calmly consider.

How is "simply by leaving Afghanistan, which he'll deliberately and calmly consider" cutting the defense budget?

Obama says he's doing the same thing. In fact, he pulled out 10,000 troops in December.

Now, there is that matter of the $1 trillion in defense cuts the President proposed juxtaposed against Paul's statement that he doesn't plan to cut from defense, not even a "penny."

[joshcryer]

33. True, but they won't read it that way. He's "getting out of Afghanistan!"

From Ron Paul's view Afghanistan, military bases around the world, targeted killing are not part of our "national defense." That's what he means when he says he won't even take a penny from national defense. Don't double down here on the "penny" statement. Let it go, stick to the Afghanistan policy shift, point out that he's not leaving Afghanistan "within weeks" and that ultimately nothing will change.

In any event, Ron Paul is going to shift to the center as we go into South Carolina and it's going to be hilarious seeing people look like tools for having pushed Ron Paul's ideology on other progressives.

[ProSense]

35. Well,

From Ron Paul's view Afghanistan, military bases around the world, targeted killing are not part of our "national defense." That's what he means when he says he won't even take a penny from national defense. Don't double down here on the "penny" statement.

...Ron Paul can't have it both ways. He's a Republican candidate. If he's going to go around attacking the MIC, he can't make statements saying he isn't going to cut a "penny" from defense.

His Florida newsletter makes his statement even more dubious: "We will balance the budget by year three without cutting from...our national defense"

[joshcryer]

36. It's mish mashed rhetoric. Some can read it the way you do. They're lied to.

But his die hard fans know what he means by that (and others who are familiar with that fascist ideology because knowing the enemy is the best thing you can do).

[ProSense]

38. True

"It's mish mashed rhetoric. Some can read it the way you do. They're lied to.

But his die hard fans know what he means by that (and others who are familiar with that fascist ideology because knowing the enemy is the best thing you can do)."

His "die hard fans" aren't going to be convinced that his views are twisted, but no one here is a "die hard fan."

No one is calling out Paul to those who aren't going to abandon him. There is no reason he shouldn't be called on hypocrisy and dubious statements like all the other Republican candidates.

[Skip Intro]

16. Yes, but you're not playing the game...

We're supposed to take things out of context and let personal bias outweigh logic and reason, don't you know?

Get with the program, will ya?

[joshcryer]

19. Or we can judge things piece by piece and agree and disagree on what parts...

...we agree or disagree with! Amazing concept!

[baldguy]

7. It's **RON PAUL**. He's made a career of not making sense.

[Motown_Johnny]

14. I think the point he is trying to make (poorly)

in the quote you placed in bold ...

"they say, “Oh, that means you want to cut defense.” No, if you cut the military industrial complex, you cut war profiteering, but you don’t take one penny out of national defense"


...is that national defense is not attacking Iraq or Iran or any other country.


So you can cut the MIC spending without taking money out of national defense.

[SixthSense]

17. it's simple

wars of aggression and global military empire hasn't a damn thing to do with actually defending the country

wish Obama or some other Democrat would come out and push for the same thing

this is the kind of reason why despite some of the extreme stands he takes, Ron Paul is a very conflicting character to Democrats

if I'm left with the choice of a guy who will keep us out of war with Iran and not only free but give a full pardon to all my friends who have been unjustly arrested and imprisoned over bullshit drug charges, vs. Obama who will do neither... that's going to be one hell of a decision to make

[Canuckistanian]

22. Good luck getting the contractors out of the military, Paul

You'll be run out of town on a rail if you even HINT at getting rid of contractors.

[FarLeftFist]

23. Why would anyone believe a career politician?!

[Luminous Animal]

26. Does that include Obama?

[FarLeftFist]

34. Obama will be retired before he is.

[ProSense]

28. Because

"Why would anyone believe a career politician?!"

...evidently, RW progandists are truthtellers.

[Major Hogwash]

30. That's a doozy of a post, right there!!

Paul thinks he is the GOP's messiah, that he can walk on water and take back all of the stoopid shit he has spewed over the years.

He's a moran, plain and simple.

[Major Hogwash]

31. Ron Paul doesn't even have any endorsements.

Not even from newspapers.

Old man Bush and even McCain endorsed Mitt.

It's all over for Paul, even if he "stays in it to win it".

[JackRiddler]

42. Wow, Bush and McCain endorsed Romney, so...

that means he's better than someone who has "no endorsements"?

Some logic there!

[slipslidingaway]

39. MIC

one word in the subject line is so very tiring Pro!

[ProSense]

40. .

[Rincewind]

41. Monkey pancakes. n/t

[BootinUp]

44. I would love to know

the origination of that phrase.

[joshcryer]

45. EarlG posted it in an image, can't find an earlier variant:

[JackRiddler]

43. We get it, we get it: You prefer Romney.

Also, the statement you're mocking in the OP is pretty straightforward -- the money blown on the military-industrial complex generally does nothing for actual defense of the nation -- so your OP is only highlighting your (intentional?) lack of reading comprehension.

[jmowreader]

46. I'm confused here

He's going to cut the MIC without cutting "national defense."

There are, basically, three places you can spend money on the military.

The first is personnel costs--salaries and whatnot.

The second is base support--electricity, water, food and other things necessary to run the nation's multitude of military installations. Even if you were to take every troop out of every overseas installation--in some cases (read: Korea) that would be a very bad idea, in others (read: Europe) it would be all right--you've still got to feed the troops and heat their water.

All other spending falls into the broad category of the military-industrial complex because you've got to get the things the military uses to do its job from somewhere. Yeah, you could quit buying from...oh, Boeing...and shift your spending to another company that could make the things you need...but when you do the new company becomes part of the MIC. (If you did that, though, things would get expensive: another company COULD make, oh say Humvees, but they'd have to set up a production line for them and production lines cost real money.)

Without spending money at the Great and All Powerful MIC you wind up with well-fed, well-paid troops running around in vehicles that are falling apart due to lack of repair parts, no ammunition, no medical supplies, outdated equipment and, eventually, what Reagan termed the "hollow army."

You're right: what the hell IS Ron Paul talking about?

And Ron: I know you're reading. Google "Romania Decree 770" to see exactly what "supporting the right to life" entails. Let's make it real simple: you can be pro-choice or you can be a communist because turning America into a communist country is the only way you're going to prevent women from getting abortions.

[ProSense]

52. He's a truthteller n/t

[MilesColtrane]

48. He followed those statements with a 20 minute...

rendition of "The Old Grey Mare Ain't What She Used to Be".

[Prometheus Bound]

49. I don't see what the confusion is.

I understand he want to close down a hundred and some bases and spend money defending America instead of spending money on bases all over the world and bombing people and shit. He's saying it would cost a lot less to defend America that way and America woud be safer.

I just read headlines and I got it.

[JackRiddler]

54. The only way you wouldn't get it is if you didn't want to get it.

[madokie]

51. A squirrel could go up one leg and down the other

and find three nuts on that cretin

[JackRiddler]

53. It's telling that you choose this point of attack.

Clearly, you don't support cutting the military (unless it's a pretend-cut of future projections, in which the military budget doesn't actually go down) and you do support keeping the global US empire.

Here you even claim you don't understand the elementary point of why $4 trillion for wars and war profiteering had nothing to do with "national defense."

You are illustrating that some liberals are not antiwar. Some liberals hate Paul not only because of his support among racists or his economic libertarianism, but also because he is (unfortunately!) the only presidential candidate espousing an antiwar position.

This is a challenge for (some) liberals, at a time when not an "R" but a "D" incumbent is playing the role of commander-in-chief and justifying the continued dominance of empire and the MIC.

[ProSense]

55. Hmmm?

It's telling that you choose this point of attack.

Clearly, you don't support cutting the military (unless it's a pretend-cut of future projections, in which the military budget doesn't actually go down) and you do support keeping the global US empire.

Here you even claim you don't understand the elementary point of why $4 trillion for wars and war profiteering had nothing to do with "national defense."

You are illustrating that some liberals are not antiwar. Some liberals hate Paul not only because of his support among racists or his economic libertarianism, but also because he is (unfortunately!) the only presidential candidate espousing an antiwar position.

This is a challenge for (some) liberals, at a time when not an "R" but a "D" incumbent is playing the role of commander-in-chief and justifying the continued dominance of empire and the MIC.

Leave Ron Paul alone! He's a Republican (see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002149315 ). It's OK to attack him for bullshit comments.

Ron Paul:

they say, “Oh, that means you want to cut defense.” No, if you cut the military industrial complex, you cut war profiteering, but you don’t take one penny out of national defense.

"We will balance the budget by year three without cutting from...our national defense"

He can't have it both ways. He's a Republican candidate. If he's going to go around attacking the MIC, he can't make statements saying he isn't going to cut a "penny" from defense.

Also, he's clearly shifting his position on Afghanistan. In fact, leaving "calmly and deliberately" puts him to the right of Obama, who has already pulled out 10,000 troops in December.

Remember this is a war Ron Paul voted for.

Now, there is that matter of the $1 trillion in defense cuts the President proposed juxtaposed against Paul's statement that he doesn't plan to cut from defense, not even a "penny."

How does Paul justify not cutting a "penny" from national defense, but eliminating the Education, Energy, Housing, Commerce and Interior departments?

No wonder he hasn't said a word about President Obama's proposal to cut defense. Paul is full of shit!

Thus far, he has commented on the President's recess appointments: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002124972

Maybe Paul is still preparing a response to the defense proposal.

[JackRiddler]

56. Muh-huh?

A repetition of your false reading from the OP, completely untouched by the many on this thread who corrected you, is not a response. Military spending is not "national defense." Your sophistry once again shows, especially in the pretense that you are now against the war in Afghanistan. Oh, really?

[ProSense]

57. There

A repetition of your false reading from the OP, completely untouched by the many on this thread who corrected you, is not a response. Military spending is not "national defense." Your sophistry once again shows, especially in the pretense that you are now against the war in Afghanistan. Oh, really?

...was no "false reading."

Ron Paul, Republican (see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002149315 ), in his own words:

they say, “Oh, that means you want to cut defense.” No, if you cut the military industrial complex, you cut war profiteering, but you don’t take one penny out of national defense.

But we will come home, but if we do it now, calmly and deliberately, we can save our economy here at home, because there are a lot of people who are suffering here at home.

"We will balance the budget by year three without cutting from...our national defense"

Leave Ron Paul alone!

Still, care to show where Paul has proposed cutting $1 trillion from defense?

[JackRiddler]

60. What you really want to "leave alone" is the military industrial complex.

"Still, care to show where Paul has proposed cutting $1 trillion from defense?"

Why are you still propagating the falsehood that Obama has proposed "cutting" $1 trillion from the military budget? It's not a cut if the spending levels remain the same as before - as Obama insisted, in his own words: defense spending will remain higher than in 2008. Seeing as Obama himself wisely chooses to be more factual about what he is doing, why do you think your injection of Orwellian rhetoric helps him? (Wait, are you using self-parody to undermine the PRESIDENT?)

To spare you some response time: Yes! We can! Re-paste the same faulty text forever!

[Blue_Tires]

58. Funny how he mentions the Soviets spending themselves to oblivion

in Afghanistan...Didn't we funnel untold billions there to fight them covertly? Wasn't Paul still in congress when all this was going on??

[ProSense]

59. Excellent point, and

see the photo of Paul with the President responsible.