Is Ron Paul A Clear and Present Threat To War Correspondents?

We have yet another live mike mishap. While reporters were waiting to hear from President Obama on his reform of the military, a C-Span mike picked up on reporters saying “See this room? Two-thirds of us laid off when Ron Paul is president.” It is a far point. How can Paul claim to be serious about creating jobs when fewer wars mean fewer war correspondents? In the meantime, President Obama should be credited with taking an unpopular step in calling for a reexamination of our long-standing “two-war” strategy of maintaining an army ready to fight two conventional wars.

Here is the tape:

Obama’s reform of the military calls for stripping down the size based on his view that “the tide of war is receding.” It is a pretty daring move during an election year and would move our military beyond the Cold War assumptions to make it more efficient and tailored to current threats.

Source: NY Daily News

69 thoughts on “Is Ron Paul A Clear and Present Threat To War Correspondents?

  1. It’s a modernized and mature idea, and as you stated, quite bold in its timing. But it’s a smart way to help crunch spending a bit without sacrificing security. Ron Paul’s crackpot, isolationist dystopia would be as dangerous as it would be foolish.

  2. It is interesting to me that the military is always ready to fight the last war. They “need” the latest toys. The F-22 Raptor, for example, costs about $150 Million “flyaway cost” apiece. The entire run of 167 aircraft cost $66.7 Billion, which included R&D. How many dogfights are they going to get into with an F-22, when what they really need is a low and slow tank and bunker busting airplane with an performance envelope more similar to that of the P-47 and P-51 of WW-II? Last I heard, al Qaeda did not have any Mig-35 fighters.

    Strange, because the USAF got way more bang for the buck fighting a guerrilla and anti-tank war out of the A-10 Warthog, which costs about $12 million apiece. Compare that with the current LearJet 60 business aircraft which comes in at a little over $13.3 million apiece. Warthogs are just not sexy enough, I suppose.

    Here is one of the ‘outdated’ butt-ugly low and slow A-10s hard at work in Afghanistan. The straight green line visible in the video is the laser pointer showing the pilot where the sniper who is shooting at the US troops is hiding. The reaction of the US soldier taking the video is interesting, to say the least.

    Note: the bullets fly at three times the speed of sound, so you see the rounds impact before you hear the roar of the GAU-8/A Avenger “Gatling gun” of the A-10.

  3. From what I have read there is no cuts to Obamas buget. http://news.antiwar.com/2012/01/05/obama-spins-new-global-military-strategy-as-massive-change/

    I’m increasingly frustrated by this sites flag waving for this obvious slick talking Bush 2.0. I thought Mr. Turley was great during the Bush years making me a fan of this site. However since Obama’s election there is far less of a case being made for his draconian policies as there was for Bush’s.

  4. OS – don’t forget about the F35, even more expensive and a complete bust so far. Nobody in the world has anything close to previous generation of fighter craft but we are pissing away billions to replace the current unchallenged gen with the next.

    BTW – we fought two wars at the same time for the last 10 years even though we didn’t need to. I have personal knowledge that the Pentagon failed at this, resources that could have finished Afghanistan were not available because they were sent to the war of choice in Iraq. This was largely because the two wars prepared for were WWII instead of what we are actually facing.

  5. JT, Obama said he doesn’t believe in less war, he believes in a different kind of war–the war using robots and other technology. This is not a brave stance on his part.

    His donors are the makers of drones, space weapon and all manner of truly expensive robot warriors. This is propaganda aimed at people who do not realize that Obama actually said he was going to put MORE money into the Pentagon budget and who think he is the candidate of peace. Obama often generates headlines which are the exact opposite of reality. It is his stock and trade. (Just recently he was going to be a good guy and veto the NDAA. The devil is always in the details but it’s the headlines his supporters see and believe.)

    As to the reporters, it is appalling that they would be concerned about jobs at the expense of people not being killed/maimed/tortured, etc. But this seems to reflect current ethics–a complete lack of concern for others.

  6. “I’m increasingly frustrated by this sites flag waving for this obvious slick talking Bush 2.0. I thought Mr. Turley was great during the Bush years making me a fan of this site.”

    Dave S,

    Are you serious? The posts on this site dealing with the Presidency have been overwhelmingly negative about Obama’s policies. Is this tunnel vision, or a failure to do any research?

  7. Frankly, I would crawl on broken glass to get to fly an A-10. You could not make me get into the cockpit of an F-35 at gunpoint. ’nuff said.

  8. Mike S., Obama and anyone that supports him even half – heartedly have been ripped apart here. I thought this site was part of the Ron Paul forum at times lol

  9. As they say, a decrease in the rate of increase . . .

    More air war. More sanitary, less US blood (though not less blood), less nasty visability on US teevee.

    Optics. Not less warfare. Just a different type.

    Almost begging the repubs and dem neolibs to engage in a shadow fight which can belligerantly be countered by the admin.

  10. BIG FAT YAWN —

    Obama’s Defense Cuts Fall Far Short of Budget Goals: “[T]he plan doesn’t meet the $650 billion in defense savings that will be part of the $1.3 trillion of federal spending cuts scheduled to start in 2013, under last year’s Budget Control Act.”

    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/01/06/Obamas-Defense-Cuts-Fall-Far-Short-of-Budget-Goals.aspx#page1

    So the spending slows a little — it’s still way damn too much. Military and military-related spending exceeds 50% of the federal budget (cannot tell if this is just discretionary spending or the whole enchilada):

    http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

    The premise is that spending can decrease with the Iraq/Afghanistan pull-out is not reality based. We know boys and their toys — if you build them, they will be used.

  11. “It is a pretty daring move during an election year and would move our military beyond the Cold War assumptions to make it more efficient and tailored to current threats.”

    Maybe we’ll finally get that peace dividend the politicians and armed forces have been careful to deny us for 20 years.

  12. “Strange, because the USAF got way more bang for the buck fighting a guerrilla and anti-tank war out of the A-10 Warthog, which costs about $12 million apiece.”

    Does the Air Force hate them because they are slow, or because they are cheap?

  13. Anon, I think it is all of the above. Also, it is the least sexy plane in the inventory. About as sleek as a set of car keys.

    When you need a mudfighter to put ordnance on a target less than fifty meters from your own guys, what good is a Mach 2 airplane? If I am a grunt on the ground, I would much rather be supported by slow and ugly than a fast mover going over at a substantial percentage of a Mach number.

  14. Oro Lee,

    From the WRL page:

    “The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don’t pay) by April 15, 2008, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget.”

    The source is the 2009 federal budget: There is an addition which is highlighted in red in the side bar which explains what’s included in each category.

    Interesting reading, e.g. our military budget is more than the next 15 countries combined and many of them are allies.

  15. “Interesting reading, e.g. our military budget is more than the next 15 countries combined and many of them are allies.” -bettykath

    And some seriously ugly stuff that’s going on domestically, but for now the lid is pretty firmly in place…

  16. Timely:

    http://www.salon.com/2012/01/06/michael_hastings_on_war_journalists/singleton/

    Excerpt:

    “Ordinarily, I would urge as many people as possible to buy the book of someone like Michael Hastings solely in order to support the kind of journalism he does: the more successful his book is, the more it bolsters this journalistic approach and the more of a repudiation it is to the power-serving reporters who attacked him. But this book is very worthwhile in its own right. The Afghanistan War is now more than ten years old with no end in sight, and this is one of the most eye-opening accounts provided yet about why it has dragged on, from one of the bravest and most intrepid journalists who has covered it.”

    ( http://www.amazon.com/Operators-Terrifying-Inside-Americas-Afghanistan/dp/0399159886/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325863637&sr=8-1 )

  17. “Obama and anyone that supports him even half – heartedly have been ripped apart here. I thought this site was part of the Ron Paul forum at times lol”

    SwM,

    Hush don’t you realize that we are talking about the WORST President we’ve EVER had. He can do nothing right. A communist, a fascist, a Kenyan, Muslim and a man whose civil liberties policies make Bush/Cheney
    look like Democrats. Even a announcement to cut back defense spending is denounced as not being good enough on the Left and appeasement on the Right. Hell hath no fury like a Progressive scorned, even if they have to screw the rest of us to gain satisfaction.

    I didn’t like Bill Clinton, or his policies and I think Obama is a better President than Clinton. Since Reagan the problem has always been that not only are there no alternatives from the Republicans, but the Left demands
    total purity. What bugs me is that they know the media is controlled by the Right Wing and stacks the deck. The courts are 75% conservative based on the judgeship’s and congress is controlled by money o both ends. Yet these obstacles are forgotten when the opportunity arises to bash someone who hasn’t lived up to their lofty expectations.

    I really get the disappointment in Obama, but did people really expect he could have done much better with these odds stacked against him? Among the other problems that he had, which we knew before his election, was that Bush/Cheney had stocked places like the DOJ and DOD with party-line ringers who couldn’t be fired. I know bureaucracy from top to bottom ad I know what obstruction can be done by a Civil Servant. I did it in my career from the other side of the aisle, think Guiliani, Dinkins and Koch. People that head these Agencies have little to do with the day to day operations and it is amazing how much can be done before they get wise. This doesn’t justify many of the Obama miscues, but it puts them in a context many are aware of, but somehow expected him to magically overcome.

    To add one more thing to this mix, does nobody have suspicions as to the timing of the fiscal crisis occurring just before the poll-leading Obama was about to be elected? Talk about a handicap going in? In that vein really did all of us who wanted to see Bush/Cheney prosecuted really believe it had a chance of happening? Was Harding prosecuted for “Teapot Dome” and who prosecuted Nixon for the crimes only hinted at in the Watergate hearings? I’ve stated over and over again here that Obama has performed way below my expectations, but then so has every President in my lifetime after FDR and he died shortly after I was born. We live in a loosely structured Oligarchy, run by ever-changing coalitions among the 1%. That is the innate problem this country has always had.

    Knowing this I can be cynical and say politicians all stink, which is 95% true, or I can do what little I can to minimize the damage they do to the average person. Having been in the 60’s Movement and an activist in the most radical Union in the country in its time, I see this all from both sides of the coin. My commenting here is one thing I’m involved with, as is my phone calling, petition signing and use of my real name to make a statement where I personally stand. I also have voted in every election that I’ve been able to and no I never once threw my vote away on some minor party person to express my displeasure with the system. I do that openly and personally.

    It is obvious from my recent arguments about Paul with Tony C., that he is so committed to his tunnel-vision perspective of what’s important that he is even willing to have pain in the short run and a racist/bigot in the WH, who he assures us he trusts to do the right thing.People like Tony probably could ride out such a thing without too much pain, but I didn’t spend my whole damn life and career fighting for people who were getting screwed to sit back on the purity of my principles and tsk, tsk their pain, suffering and deaths, as being in the service of a higher cause.

    To be truthful though if Social Security, Medicare and my pension disappeared I might have to move in with my children, my not being the successful businessman Tony claims to be. I also know for a fact that without Medicare I would be dead and/or now impoverished by the cost of drugs needed to keep me alive. In my humble opinion there is a difference in the two admittedly corporate parties. Up until now that difference has helped many, many people. So all who claim empathy for the downtrodden as their rationale to hate Obama, I would suggest you really miss the logical consequences of your actions.

    If you want to change this country for the better and destroy the movement towards Feudal Corporatism I’m right there with you. That isn’t going to happen that quickly though even with the wonderful start made by OWS. To me the name of the game is buying time until we can become powerful enough to make our move to overthrow Corporate Rule. That doesn’t mean being silent in the face of evil being done, but it does mean staving off evils chance to make our future opposition moot.
    I’m sorry for this long rant SwM and everyone, but sometimes I see some people on my side recklessly disregarding the real consequences of their actions.

  18. I’m pretty sure NPR reported that Obama said the automatic sequestered cuts will also take place. Now THAT will mean some damn substanial cuts. I’m not counting ’til I see it, but still….

  19. Curious, those “automatic sequestered cuts” are about as guaranteed at this point as a ping pong ball.

    In any case, Obama noting even remote such possibility, you will recall, puts him at odds with his defense secretary. . .

    And we know how Congress loves that defense pork.

    But, too, simply because Congress appropriates doesn’t mean the executive branch has to ‘expend’. If there really is a will to cut defense.

  20. “I’m sorry for this long rant SwM and everyone, but sometimes I see some people on my side recklessly disregarding the real consequences of their actions.”

    Mike, I certainly feel and relate to the ardor of your position. But, I imagine there are some here with similar backgrounds who equally ardently don’t see it that way. Actually that’s become obvious ; ) Doesn’t make them dolts, of course, since no one actually knows.

    My own history goes back into the 60’s protest era, and working in the public sector with the ‘underclass’ most of my life. I am fond to note that the lessons of Vietnam have been shitcanned and dismissed IMO. All sorts of authorities, pundits, and wise guys telling me, yeah, but that was then, this is now. Like I say, no one knows, even among ‘men of good will”.

    Pardon my rant.

  21. “Doesn’t make them dolts, of course, since no one actually knows.”

    Don S.,

    Look at my language again, I didn’t call or imply they were dolts, though I admit I got vituperative in dealing with Tony. Gene H., for one disagrees with me on this and I respect his intelligence far too much to even imply that he is being unreasonable disagreeing with me. I understand the other side of this coin far too well and you can see that in some of my comments about Obama since his election. However, I strongly feel the way I do and I am usually passionate in my presentation of anything, even my wife thinks my passion goes overboard at times. :)

  22. “Sander’s constitutional amendment is a way to change things but it requires a vote by two-thirds of the house and senate and three quarters of the states.”

    SwM,

    Don’t blow this for me I have a blog written about it for tomorrow.:)

  23. Mike S and SwM,

    There’s a great piece in the NYTimes today:

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/newts-shop-of-horrors/?nl=opinion&emc=tya1

    “This is your democracy on meth — the post-Citizens United world. … Unlimited political filth by anonymous rich groups — this is John Roberts’s America.”

    It is one thing to intelligently discuss Obama’s presidency with Gene H but quite another to try and discuss it with the “Hate Obama” crowd.

    “Look at my language again, I didn’t call or imply they were dolts” (Mike S). Of course you didn’t but misrepresenting you is part of their game … a game they use on SwM every day. It’s democracy on meth.

  24. […] If gay voters want the government to stay out of their personal lifestyle choices, they should also want it to stay out of the choices of others. Liberty is not given by the government being involved, it is only taken. Mouse here for Related LinksUS election 2012: Rick Santorum claims same sex marriage is comparable to polygamyA Very Good Commercial From Ron PaulIA: NOM Attacks Ron Paul on Marriage Equality PositionReservist Who Endorsed Ron Paul In Uniform In Legal Hot Water, Has Three Felony Convictions, Including Burglary – With Video at Pat DollardIs Ron Paul A Clear and Present Threat To War Correspondents […]

  25. Yeah, “dolts” is a bad choice; mine not yours, Mike.

    FWIW, my wife thinks I’m over the top, too. But don’t get her started on Santorum or one of those clowns. : – O

  26. I have been a bystander for a while and am now wishing to complement all those brilliant post on this blog. It seems that we have a few on here that are cavier appetites with milk toast feelings.

    I have seen only a few poster attack directly. There are a few on here that attack indirectly and they know who they are. They are despised by the very people that they call friends. Though they remain on speaking terms in public, they are very much despised in private.

  27. Exactly! I’d rather be a sock puppet and be happy, knowing who I am, rather than trying to figure out what people really thought about me.

    It’s cold up here today.

  28. I’ll take a stab at this as well SWM….There are people that just don’t like other people for no articulable reason….Then there are folks that get to know someones inner character and then make the decision….Suffice it to say I am in the latter camp…. I have not nor do I intend to comment to you directly or indirectly again….I am not playing sockpuppet….If you are doing so in order to engender and endear sympathy….I would not be surprised….Leave me out of your drama….Thank you….and you know exactly what I am saying…..Good luck and riddance…

  29. Swarthmore and Mike S.
    I agree that being in favor of Obama’s reelection has been unpopular here on occasion, but I agree that most of the people who do not like or favor his reelection have been very polite and logical in their responses.. I do think that Ron Paul’s strongest point is the anti-war position, but there is not much beyond that is of interest to me.
    I also agree that even a slow down in the growth of the military budget is a good step. As long as the reductions aren’t in the programs that help the vets or supply the active duty military. Let’s cut a few generals and save some cash there.
    One more thing Demonic. I, for one do not despise anyone on this blog and I do not think any of the posters who have had differences would use the word despise to describe their opponents.

  30. SwM,

    Back to the subject at hand. If the Hate Obama people had someone they could promote then they would spend time praising and promoting that individual as Tony has done with Ron Paul. But all the other candidates are deeply flawed so the only course of action is hate Obama, hate Obama. This is fine for republicans (as opposed to democrats and independents) who, knowing none of their candidates stand a chance in hell of winning the Presidency, have turned all their efforts, once again, to state level elections. For them, hate Obama is a distraction that, hopefully, will impact favorably on their state contests.

  31. SwM,

    In my opinion Ron Paul is as deeply flawed as the others but given the nature of the other candidates, I wish Paul would get the nomination for the debates over racism, feminine issues, and homophobic leanings would be spectacular and revealing. Unlike Gerald Ford, I think the country is strong enough to handle the revelations that would ensue.

    However, Romney will get the nod and all the usual pablum will be regurgitated amidst much huffing and puffing and righteous indignation and Obama will win. So pay attention to the states and contribute what you can to the candidates there for the real battle is on those fronts.

  32. I received this from the Alan Grayson for Congress Campaign today. I think he is one of the few good guys in politics, who articulates the problems we face with candor and simplicity. I think people will find it interesting:

    “Dear Michael,

    I think that I figured out what happened in Iowa. Here’s what I think.

    Results of the Iowa Republican Caucus, Jan. 3: Romney 25%, Santorum 25%, Paul 21%.

    Reliable earlier polling results:

    Dec. 18: Paul 24%, Romney 18%, Perry 16%.
    Nov. 28: Gingrich 28%, Paul 13%, Romney 12%.
    Oct. 16: Cain 37%, Romney 27%, Paul 12%.
    Aug. 31: Perry 29%, Bachmann 18%, Romney 17%.
    July 11: Bachmann 29%, Romney 16%, Cain 8%.
    May 29: Romney 21%, Cain 15%, Gingrich 12%.

    So the lead went from Romney to Bachmann to Perry to Cain to Gingrich to Paul and back to Romney. That is waaaaaaaaay more complicated than Tinker to Evers to Chance. Seven leaders in seven months. And that doesn’t even count the boomlets for Donald Trump at the beginning, and Rick Santorum at the end.

    And it’s not as though we saw some kind of “character development” in these characters that would account for the change, as if the Iowa race were like some Stendhal novel, “The Red and the Redder.” The only change that I saw in any of them is that on November 28, when he was ahead in the polls, Newt Gingrich was a sour megalomaniac, and on January 3, when he came in fourth, Gingrich was a bitter megalomaniac. Sour, bitter, what’s the difference?

    Also, leaving Herman Cain aside, there were no extraordinary revelations about any of the Republican candidates that could possibly account for their rise and fall. For instance, I gently noted on December 15 that Newt Gingrich is “a philanderer; a corporate shill; a crass greedhead; an egomaniac; and a cranky, crabby, crotchety, caustic, cantankerous, choleric cus.” None of that was exactly news. I could have said the same thing about Newt Gingrich on December 15, 1995, and it wouldn’t have surprised anyone.

    I looked at those Iowa polling numbers again and again, and I asked myself what possible rational explanation there could be for them. And then I realized that there is no possible rational explanation. Only an irrational one.

    And it’s not the candidates. It’s their voters.

    Let’s see. Severe highs and lows. Violent mood swings. One day, a person thinks that someone is the messiah, and a week later, the devil. And did you see the audience during the Iowa Republican debates? Violent temper tantrums. Inexplicable angry outbursts.

    Hmmmmm. What does that sound like?

    It sounds like manic depression to me.

    All of those manic depressives, about a third of the vote, were forced to choose among Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Cain and Huntsman. But the only candidate whom they really could have related to would have been the late, great Thomas Eagleton. (George McGovern’s 1972 running mate for 18 days, until all that nasty stuff about electroshock therapy came out.)

    I don’t know why this would surprise anyone. Roughly 10% of the population of the United States is on anti-depressants. And only 4% of the population of Iowa actually voted in the 2012 Republican caucuses. Just who did you think those 4% were?

    So now I understand it. Romney won the paranoid vote, everyone who thinks that the brown people are trying to steal all their stuff. Why? Because no one is more white than Mitt Romney. As I said earlier today, it’s as though Romney is on a strict diet of sour cream and cottage cheese, small curds only.

    Perry and Bachmann split the schizophrenic vote, all the people who hear a voice in their head, and think that it’s God. Because Perry and Bachmann can listen to the radio whenever they want to, even when it’s turned off.

    Ron Paul got the obsessive-compulsive vote, the folks who think that America is like some kind of mechanical wind-up toy, and the Articles of the Constitution are the gears.

    And Santorum ended up with the manic-depressive vote. Maybe because they like the way that Santorum cries in public. Boehner was their second choice.

    By the way, I’m not the first person to notice this about the other side. Noted Nixon-hater Philip K. Dick actually wrote a novel about this in 1964, called “Clans of the Alphane Moon.” Except that Dick placed that story in outer space, not Iowa. Minor difference.

    Anyway, I’ll tell you one thing. If these are the kind of people who are choosing one of the two major-party candidates for President this year, then I’m voting for the other guy. I’m definitely voting for the other guy.

    Courage,

    Alan Grayson

    P.S. Our campaign for Congress raised an extraordinary $600,000 in the last quarter. But now it’s a whole new quarter, and we have to do it all over again. God, I hate that. Anyway, if you think that maybe, just maybe, you would like to support our campaign, then click here. Remember, whatever you may think of me, just think about what kind of people will be picking my opponent.”

  33. Mike S.,

    I liked the Grayson-Himes Pay for Performance Act and I really liked it when he called Linda Robertson a K-Street whore.

    Webster beat him fair and square but hopefully the voters have realized it was a mistake.

    He is someone Citizens United folk don’t like and I’m glad he’s trying again. I’ll contribute.

  34. Mike:

    was that a letter to you personally or was that a form letter? That was pretty interesting if it was a form letter. I think I am going to get on his list just to receive his letters.

  35. Blouise,

    Beside his viewpoint, I think he articulates the real concerns better than anyone around today. He does’t do it in Pol speak either and in that sense represents the path needed to be followed towards confronting the Right Wing over the top verbiage. The problem the people on the left have in debating the issues is that they are afraid to clearly articulate that this is a battle against rule by corporation. Grayson makes that the centerpiece of his ideas.

  36. Bron,

    It was a letter to supporters. You ought to check Grayson out I think there are some things you might agree with at least.

  37. Mike S.:

    Grayson was my Congressman until the family values people propped up Daniel Webster. Since Webster has been a Tea Party stooge, I’m hoping that Grayson can make a comeback this year. But it’s a difficult district.

  38. Mike:

    I am sure I would agree with him concerning social issues and lobbying/lobbyists and bailouts.

    More politicians ought to call government officials K St. whores and more Americans ought to withhold votes from politicians who are K St. whores.

    Who the hell do those assholes [politicians] think they are anyway? When I was a pimp (a minor pimp) they always were arrogant little f….ks until you put that honorarium in front of them. I always used to laugh at it being called an honorarium, honor my ass. There was nothing honorable about it, it was a quid pro quo.

  39. Ryan–“Ron Paul’s crackpot, isolationist dystopia would be as dangerous as it would be foolish.”

    “Crackpot” and “Isolationist” are nothing more than pejorative terms used to dismiss those that threaten the status quo. Perhaps you can actually come up with a rationale for why the US has to spend $1.3 trillion a year on the military/national security state, which BTW, didn’t prevent the attacks of 9/11.

  40. Demonic Methodith,

    There is no one I despise on this blog, that is such a virulent term. Do some annoy me, of course, but when they do I am open in my response. If I express liking someone, or respecting them, I do so because that is the way I truly feel. This isn’t Congress where colleagues talk to their hated enemies in terms like “My Dear Friend”. I don’t see how you could assume otherwise if you are familiar with this blog.

  41. ““Crackpot” and “Isolationist” are nothing more than pejorative terms used to dismiss those that threaten the status quo”

    Catullus,

    If you are an ally of the John Birch Society “crackpot” is descriptive, not pejorative. I’ll give you “Isolationist” though, that is incorrect and pejorative.
    Paul’s putative foreign policy beliefs have validity, however, I personally have doubts about how he would apply them once in office and surrounded by people clamoring for war, in one place or another. Being a Congressman allows one a certain freedom to criticize and pontificate. Being a President makes it far harder to adhere to ones personal beliefs. We haven’t had that kind of President or situation for many a year, if ever.

  42. Mike S–“If you are an ally of the John Birch Society “crackpot” is descriptive, not pejorative.”

    “To bring about less government, more responsibility, and — with God’s help — a better world by providing leadership, education, and organized volunteer action in accordance with moral and Constitutional principles.”

    http://www.jbs.org/about-jbs/core-principles

    One can see why Paul would be an ally of JBS and their core principles don’t seem to be any more “crackpot” than any other contemporary political organization.

  43. “One can see why Paul would be an ally of JBS and their core principles don’t seem to be any more “crackpot” than any other contemporary political organization.”

    Catullus,
    I know their history, perhaps you don’t, or perhaps you approve. In either event you are wrong about them. They are a bigoted groups dedicated to an oligarchy of the rich. In short an upper class KKK.

  44. 5thGradeChief: “Wow. We thought our group bickered. You adults take the cake.”

    ***
    If an adult told you that adults don’t bicker that adult is not a good source of information. LOL, As an adult there are hundreds of things, many of them very important and vital to oneself and the nation, to bicker about. Only the form changes. Doing it with facts, wit, insight and a good vocabulary gets you extra points. Pay attention in English and language class, what you learn there today will make you a good poster/bicker-er later. It’s fun. You’ll enjoy yourself.

  45. Mike–“They are a bigoted groups dedicated to an oligarchy of the rich.”

    If that is indeed true it is difficult to see exactly how the JBS is that different from the current Washington power structure because an “oligarchy of the rich” is precisely what the Republican and Democrats have created.
    And by the way, merely pointing out that Ron Paul and the JBS have some common ground on which to stand is in no way indicative of approval of the entire JBS agenda or their history.

  46. Catallus,
    When you agree to a speaking engagement as a Presidential candidate, you are buying into the group. It is indicative of their approval or Paul’s desire to get their approval and/or money.

  47. raff, my money is on “all of the above.”

    It is all about money, connections and votes. Grubbing for them wherever you can get them, even if the stench gets on you and you cannot get it off later. You can always count on the general voting public to either not pay attention, or if they do, to not understand or care. Besides, recall the SciFi Channel used to have a program they called, “Short Attention Span Theater?” That program was a reflection of our times.

  48. Raff–my bad, I should have been more clear in my reply to Mike’s comment re “. . .or perhaps you approve.”

    Edit this:

    “And by the way, merely pointing out that Ron Paul and the JBS have some common ground on which to stand is in no way indicative of approval of the entire JBS agenda or their history.”

    To this:

    “And by the way, merely pointing out that Ron Paul and the JBS have some common ground on which to stand is in no way indicative of MY approval of the entire JBS agenda or their history.”

    Your point about approval/money is obvious; otherwise the candidate and the group are wasting their time and money.

Comments are closed.