PDA

View Full Version : Elections I can't wait for the POTUS debate between Ron Paul and...


patteeu
08-18-2011, 09:56 AM
http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Picture-122.png

Why I May Run for President (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45373)
by John R. Bolton

Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations that “the first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force.” Today, failing to protect our national security inevitably endangers our economic prosperity by making us vulnerable to global adversaries.

It is clear that President Obama does not agree with Smith’s wisdom. Obama’s policies are jeopardizing not only our national security and economy, but our constitutional sovereignty too.

That is why I have been considering running for President. The Republican Party must nominate a leader who, unlike Obama, understands instinctively that America’s liberty, prosperity and national security are inextricably linked.

Sadly, last week’s debt-ceiling legislation, potentially resulting in catastrophic cuts to our defense budget, only reinforces my deep concerns. This may have been the best we could get, and it is far better than we feared. But the deal risks massive defense cutbacks, potentially pointing a dagger at the heart of our security and sovereignty.

We now face a minimum of $700 to 800 billion more in defense cuts, in addition to the $400 billion Obama has already imposed, with potentially catastrophic consequences. The joint committee established to fashion the second tranche of spending cuts (or tax increases) is not likely to protect us from massive defense cuts. The liberals will be working feverishly to put conservatives on the committee in an untenable position: a Hobson’s choice between tax increases and deep cuts in defense spending.

The debt-ceiling legislation’s trigger mechanism, with its grave risk of disproportionate cuts in defense spending, is potentially even more draconian. America’s national security is not just another wasteful government program, especially in perilous times like today. We are heavily involved in two major conflicts, the long-term global War on Terror and the critical effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Recent confirmation that Iran, on the verge of becoming a nuclear power, is materially aiding al-Qaeda only underlines the risk of massive U.S. defense cuts.

President Obama, unlike all his predecessors since Franklin Roosevelt, does not treat national security as his top priority. He does not see the world as threatening to U.S. interests. And he is comfortable with America’s “inevitable” decline in the world, rather than being determined to prevent it. Obama is our first post-American President. He fancies himself to be above mere “patriotism.” He is less an advocate for American interests than a “citizen of the world,” in his own phrase.

For two-and-a-half years, Americans have witnessed the devastating results of Obama’s “post-American” worldview. Russia has taken advantage of his naïve “reset” policy, while Iran and North Korea continue to aggressively pursue nuclear weapons. Staunch allies such as the Czech Republic, Poland and Japan question our resolve. Even France thinks he lacks leadership. China and the International Monetary Fund now openly cast doubt on the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. And Obama’s policy toward Libya has been an abject failure to date. He entered the conflict for the wrong reasons, failed to allow our military to accomplish its mission, invited Russia in to mediate, and now seems content to allow Muammar Gaddafi to remain in Libya. An Obama adviser called his approach “leading from behind.” Indeed it is, but it is not the American way.

Israel Victimized

No ally has been more victimized by Obama’s worldview than Israel. As our most anti-Israel President, bar none, Obama fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the security threats to Israel and the United States in the Middle East. Iran’s support for terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons goes unanswered. Radical groups around the region have been emboldened in the face of sustained incoherence in U.S. policy. In addition to Israel, Arab friends in the region, especially those producing oil and gas critical to the international economy, are shocked at the Obama administration’s treatment of close friends and its inability to comprehend, let alone defend, core American interests.

In addition, Obama is enamored of European-style schemes for global governance. He has naïvely called for a world in which America voluntarily gives up its nuclear weapons in hopes that our adversaries do so too. He yearns to join the International Criminal Court and risks subjecting America’s warriors to prosecutions and trial.Unable to achieve national gun-control legislation at home, he is seeking a backdoor route through an “arms trade treaty” now under negotiation at the United Nations. Despite his pro forma denials, Obama fundamentally does not believe in American exceptionalism, nor that American strength has ensured our peace and security since World War II.

Americans should understand that Obama’s international policies have a direct and profound impact on our economic prosperity. One obvious example is the devastating impact of another terrorist attack here at home, especially one with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Instability abroad has a profound impact on oil and gas supplies, and therefore the price we pay to fill up the family car with gasoline. Global supply chains vital to America’s jobs are threatened when our Navy is unable to protect U.S. shipping and vital sea lanes. Our failed border security policy allows the violence of drug cartels to spill across our borders and endanger our families. Obama’s existing cuts in our defense budget, and the ones surely coming under the debt-ceiling bill, will only magnify our inability to protect ourselves.

No GOP Candidate So Far

In 16 months, Americans will again go to the polls and vote for the person they believe can best lead our country. Beyond question, Obama’s economic policies have failed to renew the economy and are now a principal reason the recovery is stalled. His national security policies are even more dangerous. The American dream is under assault, and Obama is not fighting back. We need a real President in the Oval Office, someone who knows instinctively and by experience that, as Adam Smith said, “the first duty of the sovereign” is to protect and promote American sovereignty and national security. Otherwise, economic prosperity will count for little.

To date, in my view, no Republican candidate has persuasively argued that our economic recovery and long-term prosperity are completely intertwined with a strong national security posture. If no one else is prepared to make that case, I will.

|Zach|
08-18-2011, 10:00 AM
Hot air spewing Neo Con sells fear. Pat falls over himself to buy it up. Forever sucking the dick of any RINO he can find.

patteeu
08-18-2011, 10:01 AM
Hot air spewing Neo Con sells fear. Pat falls over himself to buy it up. Forever sucking the dick of any RINO he can find.

I'm confused by your conflation of the term RINO with the topic of this thread. Your moron is showing.

Jaric
08-18-2011, 10:05 AM
Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations that “the first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force.” Today, failing to protect our national security inevitably endangers our economic prosperity by making us vulnerable to global adversaries.
It's actually the other way around.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2011, 10:09 AM
Merchants of Fear see fear everywhere—skeer'dy cats.

patteeu
08-18-2011, 10:11 AM
It's actually the other way around.

That unjustified belief is a part of the problem. Bolton's campaign mission to educate the American public is a part of the solution.

Jaric
08-18-2011, 10:17 AM
That unjustified belief is a part of the problem. Bolton's campaign mission to educate the American public is a part of the solution.
Freedom bombs cost money Pat.

And no, his mission is to scare us into seeing the same boogey men that the rest of the NeoConservatives see everywhere.

go bowe
08-18-2011, 10:23 AM
Freedom bombs cost money Pat.

And no, his mission is to scare us into seeing the same boogey men that the rest of the NeoConservatives see everywhere.

no shit, those smart bombs and cruise missiles are freakin expensive...

Jaric
08-18-2011, 10:36 AM
Furthermore Pat, these endless wars we engage in represent a far greater threat to our national security.

Dave Lane
08-18-2011, 10:36 AM
Tard fight!

LMAO

chiefforlife
08-18-2011, 10:54 AM
I'll take Ron Paul.

Saul Good
08-18-2011, 11:01 AM
Hot air spewing Neo Con sells fear. Pat falls over himself to buy it up. Forever sucking the dick of any RINO he can find.

Lots of dumb in this post.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2011, 11:03 AM
Lots of dumb in this post.

Tell us why.

patteeu
08-18-2011, 11:14 AM
I'll take Ron Paul.

Neither of them has any chance to be elected so you'll be free to keep Hoping for Change. Let's hear it for President Double Dip's second term!

chiefforlife
08-18-2011, 11:19 AM
Neither of them has any chance to be elected so you'll be free to keep Hoping for Change. Let's hear it for President Double Dip's second term!

I am backing Ron Paul and hoping like hell he makes it, there isnt any other candidate that I like at all. I know you disagree but Obama is better than the other candidates besides Paul.

SNR
08-18-2011, 11:19 AM
Neither of them has any chance to be elected so you'll be free to keep Hoping for Change. Let's hear it for President Double Dip's second term!You seem frustrated lately.

The way things are going on this forum you might be calling in the liberals for backup help when it comes to foreign policy topics.

patteeu
08-18-2011, 11:23 AM
Freedom bombs cost money Pat.

So do disruptions to the oil supply, trade routes that are too dangerous to use, cyberattacks and being forced to shut down air travel for a few days at a time.

Furthermore Pat, these endless wars we engage in represent a far greater threat to our national security.

We aren't engaged in an endless war.

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2011, 11:25 AM
Just join the Democrat party already Pat it's clear the Republicans can't satisfy your needs for spending.

patteeu
08-18-2011, 11:28 AM
I am backing Ron Paul and hoping like hell he makes it, there isnt any other candidate that I like at all. I know you disagree but Obama is better than the other candidates besides Paul.

That's incomprehensible to me. I chided Taco John because he went from supporting Obama to supporting Ron Paul, but at least in his defense he barely knew Obama at the time and he was attracted to Obama's foreign policy ideas, which at the time were similar to Ron Paul's. Their domestic ideas couldn't be more different though. I can't think of a single good reason for a person to have Obama and Ron Paul as their first and second choices (in either order) in this race.

patteeu
08-18-2011, 11:32 AM
You seem frustrated lately.

The way things are going on this forum you might be calling in the liberals for backup help when it comes to foreign policy topics.

I'm not feeling frustrated.

Jaric
08-18-2011, 11:37 AM
So do disruptions to the oil supply, trade routes that are too dangerous to use, cyberattacks and being forced to shut down air travel for a few days at a time. Pat, without money, you can't have an army. It's really that simple. That is why economic security is the most vital aspect of our national security.

We aren't engaged in an endless war.Nonsense. When will the War on Terror be over Pat? When all the terrorists are gone? When's that going to happen? When are we leaving Iraq? When are we leaving Afghanistan? When are we leaving Libya?

Or better yet when was the last time America's armies were not engaged in some kind of conflict? Can you even remember? I sure can't.

Your foreign policy is unsustainable and a threat to our national security because it drains our economic resources.

chiefforlife
08-18-2011, 11:40 AM
That's incomprehensible to me. I chided Taco John because he went from supporting Obama to supporting Ron Paul, but at least in his defense he barely knew Obama at the time and he was attracted to Obama's foreign policy ideas, which at the time were similar to Ron Paul's. Their domestic ideas couldn't be more different though. I can't think of a single good reason for a person to have Obama and Ron Paul as their first and second choices (in either order) in this race.

I dont get to choose who the candidates are. My first choice would be Ron Paul, since there isnt really a second choice, I would rather let Obama have another term. I have learned that just voting for a change doesnt work.

patteeu
08-18-2011, 11:52 AM
Pat, without money, you can't have an army. It's really that simple. That is why economic security is the most vital aspect of our national security.

Nonsense. When will the War on Terror be over Pat? When all the terrorists are gone? When's that going to happen? When are we leaving Iraq? When are we leaving Afghanistan? When are we leaving Libya?

Or better yet when was the last time America's armies were not engaged in some kind of conflict? Can you even remember? I sure can't.

Your foreign policy is unsustainable and a threat to our national security because it drains our economic resources.

The war on terror will be over when the threat of anti-western Islamist extremism becomes a mere annoyance.

The war in Iraq was supposed to be a quagmire, until it wasn't anymore. We don't need to completely leave Iraq for the war to be over there. Our troops have to exist somewhere and we have to pay for them whether they live in a barracks outside of Baghdad or outside of Bakersfield. The Korean War has been over for half a century and WWII has been over even longer, but we still have troops in South Korea, Japan, and Europe. We should continuously be re-evaluating the need for these foreign deployments, but they clearly aren't unaffordable.

The costs of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are temporary. Spending this year on Iraq is only 35% (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf) of what it was at it's peak in 2008 and it is projected to continue to drop over the next couple of years as we withdraw most of our troops. The problems with our budget aren't the temporary costs of these wars, they're the ongoing, ever-increasing costs in the entitlement segment of our budget driven largely by healthcare expenses.

I've repeatedly explained why you're wrong when you say we can't afford the same strong military capability that we've maintained for the past 50 years so I don't think that explaining it again is going to help you understand. But I'll drop a pretty picture on you one more time for old time's sake. Notice the orange and red slices.

http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pgpf-willisms-4-09-federalspending68to08.gif

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2011, 11:59 AM
Patteeu you trollin dawg.

Jaric
08-18-2011, 12:04 PM
The war on terror will be over when the threat of anti-western Islamist extremism becomes a mere annoyance.

ROFL

No Pat, the war on terror will end when we run out of money. Which at the rate we're going might be fairly soon.

And like I told you the last time, the fact that we're spending too much on entitlements doesn't have anything to do with us spending too much on wars.

orange
08-18-2011, 12:06 PM
I can't wait for the POTUS debate between Ron Paul and...

.. the Walrus. I echo this sentiment x 11!!11!

Not for the same reason, though. Must See TV!

http://www.keepingupwithmom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/photo-crazystuff002.jpg

patteeu
08-18-2011, 12:08 PM
Patteeu you trollin dawg.

Don't you think it will be entertaining to see John Bolton square off against Ron Paul (assuming that they let Paul into the debate) on foreign policy issues? There's really no other Republican candidate with enough foreign policy experience to want to make it an issue this time around, so I think Bolton would be doing us all a service by bringing it up.

patteeu
08-18-2011, 12:10 PM
ROFL

No Pat, the war on terror will end when we run out of money. Which at the rate we're going might be fairly soon.

And like I told you the last time, the fact that we're spending too much on entitlements doesn't have anything to do with us spending too much on wars.

We're not spending too much on wars as long as that spending is temporary like war spending has always been. The fact that we're spending too much on entitlements (and the associated facts that demographics and runaway healthcare costs are only going to make it worse) has everything to do with our national debt rising to potentially dangerous levels.

orange
08-18-2011, 12:11 PM
I can't think of a single good reason for a person to have Obama and Ron Paul as their first and second choices (in either order) in this race.

Demilitarization is the best single-issue issue I could ever think of.

NaptownChief
08-18-2011, 12:16 PM
Obama is better than the other candidates besides Paul.


Better at what? In all seriousness I couldn't come up with 1 positive thing about him as POTUS. Wasn't a Bill Clinton fan but despite his negatives I could at least come up with some positives. If asked to come up with a positive on Obama I honestly would have to settle on something trival like he likes golf.

Jaric
08-18-2011, 12:18 PM
We're not spending too much on wars as long as that spending is temporary like war spending has always been. The fact that we're spending too much on entitlements (and the associated facts that demographics and runaway healthcare costs are only going to make it worse) has everything to do with our national debt rising to potentially dangerous levels.
lolwut?

Baby Lee
08-18-2011, 12:35 PM
I am backing Ron Paul and hoping like hell he makes it, there isnt any other candidate that I like at all. I know you disagree but Obama is better than the other candidates besides Paul.

I'm waiting 6-8 weeks to see if Guiliani announces.

Whether or not you think he has a chance, it'd be worth it to see if the tea party is serious about fiscal policy taking a back seat to social issues.

ChiefaRoo
08-18-2011, 12:49 PM
I'm not to worried about boogey men or war in general. I am worried about terrorists with fertilizer bombs mixed with some radioactive waste in an American city.

Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, China aren't going to mess with us because they know we'll lay a profound ass whipping upon them if they try to touch us anywhere.

In Pats defense he's never advocated endless war. I think many of you who have war fatigue (As I do) are all excited because it's a hot button that the pols know they can exploit. Look, have some faith in the military to wrap up the land wars we are in now and get most of our ground forces home. Just don't fall for the BS that we are going to magically balance our budget when we do because it's just a tactic to distract us from the real problem which is out of control Federal Govt. spending and intervention into our daily lives and high unemployment aggravated by a clueless President.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-18-2011, 12:52 PM
I'll take Ron Paul.

Absolutely!

Jaric
08-18-2011, 12:53 PM
I'm not to worried about boogey men or war in general. I am worried about terrorists with fertilizer bombs mixed with some radioactive waste in an American city.

Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, China aren't going to mess with us because they know we'll lay a profound ass whipping upon them if they try to touch us anywhere.

In Pats defense he's never advocated endless war. I think many of you who have war fatigue (As I do) are all excited because it's a hot button that the pols know they can exploit. Look, have some faith in the military to wrap up the land wars we are in now and get most of our ground forces home. Just don't fall for the BS that we are going to magically balance our budget when we do because it's just a tactic to distract us from the real problem which is out of control Federal Govt. spending and intervention into our daily lives and high unemployment aggravated by a clueless President.
I have never, and would never, make such a claim.

Military spending is a part of the problem, but by no means the only problem.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-18-2011, 12:53 PM
I'm not to worried about boogey men or war in general. I am worried about terrorists with fertilizer bombs mixed with some radioactive waste in an American city.

Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, China aren't going to mess with us because they know we'll lay a profound ass whipping upon them if they try to touch us anywhere.

In Pats defense he's never advocated endless war. I think many of you who have war fatigue (As I do) are all excited because it's a hot button that the pols know they can exploit. Look, have some faith in the military to wrap up the land wars we are in now and get most of our ground forces home. Just don't fall for the BS that we are going to magically balance our budget when we do because it's just a tactic to distract us from the real problem which is out of control Federal Govt. spending and intervention into our daily lives and high unemployment aggravated by a clueless President.

Take the Neocon out of this post and it's fairly accurate.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2011, 01:53 PM
I'm waiting 6-8 weeks to see if Guiliani announces.
Perry supported Rude-y the last time. Remember where NC Guiliani placed last time.

patteeu
08-18-2011, 02:05 PM
Demilitarization is the best single-issue issue I could ever think of.

I agree, but you'd have to have a lot of faith that Obama would actually live up to his dove talk after 4 years of breaking campaign promise after campaign promise.

patteeu
08-18-2011, 02:14 PM
I have never, and would never, make such a claim.

Military spending is a part of the problem, but by no means the only problem.

Military spending may end up suffering because of the problem, but it's not a significant part of the problem.

Jaric
08-18-2011, 02:20 PM
Military spending may end up suffering because of the problem, but it's not a significant part of the problem.

:spock:

We're spending about as much on defense per year as we are for social security and Medicare/medicaid (not if you combine them)

Regardless, how you can try and claim that military spending isn't significant is baffling.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

patteeu
08-18-2011, 02:37 PM
:spock:

We're spending about as much on defense per year as we are for social security and Medicare/medicaid (not if you combine them)

Regardless, how you can try and claim that military spending isn't significant is baffling.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

We spend over twice as much on entitlements as we spend on national defense. We used to spend twice as much on defense.

Do you spend more on your monthly housing expense now than you did when you were in college (or just out of high school)? I assume that you're like most of us and the answer to this question is yes. I also assume that this increased cost of housing isn't an issue causing you to go bankrupt because you probably have a significantly improved income now. That's how the federal budget works too. Defense spending is less of a burden today on the federal budget than it was 20 or 40 years ago because national GDP (and tax revenues) have grown faster than defense spending has. The entitlements, by contrast, are growing far faster than GDP. That's what makes their costs unsustainable. Defense costs are as sustainable as your housing costs.

Jaric
08-18-2011, 02:57 PM
We spend over twice as much on entitlements as we spend on national defense. We used to spend twice as much on defense.
Half of which is Social Security. Which has it's own tax and would be solvent if we'd stop spending the money meant for SS on other things.

Not to say that SS does not have it's problems that need to be worked out. It certainly does.

You're acting as if I'm only saying defense is the issue. You should know by now that is not my position. Defense spending however, IS part of the problem. As is war spending. You may call that temporary spending, but the debt it leaves is not temporary and the spending is in fact very real.

To use your house analogy, if you find your household finances in disarray and you're looking to get out of the red and into the black, would you not look at ALL your expenditures and ways to reduce the cost of them?

Of course you would. And one of those household expeditures is a constant stream of endless unwinable wars that only serve to drain our resources. I honestly just do not understand how you cannot see that.

patteeu
08-18-2011, 03:14 PM
Half of which is Social Security. Which has it's own tax and would be solvent if we'd stop spending the money meant for SS on other things.

Not to say that SS does not have it's problems that need to be worked out. It certainly does.

Medicare and Medicaid are much worse problems because of the healthcare cost inflation issue. But even SS is growing at a much more rapid rate than defense spending. Deal with the actual problems (programs whose costs are rising faster than the economy can grow) before you try to start cutting corners on national security.

You're acting as if I'm only saying defense is the issue. You should know by now that is not my position. Defense spending however, IS part of the problem. As is war spending. You may call that temporary spending, but the debt it leaves is not temporary and the spending is in fact very real.

Debt is not permanent if your payments exceed the interest costs.

The difference between war spending and entitlement spending is the difference between a one time purchase on the credit card and a subscription with a rapidly escalating recurring cost on the credit card. Huge difference.

To use your house analogy, if you find your household finances in disarray and you're looking to get out of the red and into the black, would you not look at ALL your expenditures and ways to reduce the cost of them?

Of course you would. And one of those household expeditures is a constant stream of endless unwinable wars that only serve to drain our resources. I honestly just do not understand how you cannot see that.

If I need to start cutting my family budget, I'll start with the luxuries and the deferrable costs before I start cutting back on the necessities. I'm not going to get rid of my car (even though gas prices have gone up) before a put an end to netflix and the bells and whistles on my phone.

SNR
08-18-2011, 03:16 PM
Don't you think it will be entertaining to see John Bolton square off against Ron Paul (assuming that they let Paul into the debate) on foreign policy issues? There's really no other Republican candidate with enough foreign policy experience to want to make it an issue this time around, so I think Bolton would be doing us all a service by bringing it up.Paul's polling better than half the idiot blowhards on stage. Why wouldn't they let him on?

Cannibal
08-18-2011, 05:23 PM
I am backing Ron Paul and hoping like hell he makes it, there isnt any other candidate that I like at all. I know you disagree but Obama is better than the other candidates besides Paul.

Sorry, too many bible thumpers and warmongers in the Republican Party to nominate Ron Paul

Everything will stay the same whether Romney wins, or Obama wins. We are truly ****ed.

BillSelfsTrophycase
08-18-2011, 05:51 PM
It's amazing, even our resident lefties are begining to warm to Ron Paul


You wanted change, your guy failed...now try voting for real change


<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aJYq9dn8Ank" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BillSelfsTrophycase
08-18-2011, 05:55 PM
Anybody who pisses off both the left and the right equally must be doing something right

patteeu
08-18-2011, 05:59 PM
Paul's polling better than half the idiot blowhards on stage. Why wouldn't they let him on?

I don't have any idea. I hear many of his supporters whining about getting snubbed for such things so I assumed it was a possibility.

patteeu
08-18-2011, 06:00 PM
Anybody who pisses off both the left and the right equally must be doing something right

So you're a fan of the current president then?