HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » It's strange that Ron Pau...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 02:05 PM

It's strange that Ron Paul hasn't commented on President Obama's defense cuts.

Last edited Fri Jan 6, 2012, 02:54 PM - Edit history (2)

Isn't the claim that he's going to outflank Obama on the left with regard to the MIC?

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

Yet not a single word about the President's proposal to cut defense.

It's strange that Paul lambastes Obama for the recess appointments and is silent on the defense cuts.

Does Paul support them or does he believe these cuts don't go far enough?

Here's a perfect opportunity for Paul to stake out his position to the left of Presidnet Obama Obama as attributed by his supporters.




21 replies, 2002 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply It's strange that Ron Paul hasn't commented on President Obama's defense cuts. (Original post)
ProSense Jan 2012 OP
ProSense Jan 2012 #1
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #2
ProSense Jan 2012 #4
leveymg Jan 2012 #7
ProSense Jan 2012 #8
leveymg Jan 2012 #11
ProSense Jan 2012 #13
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #9
ProSense Jan 2012 #18
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #19
ProSense Jan 2012 #20
Ter Jan 2012 #12
ProSense Jan 2012 #14
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #15
msanthrope Jan 2012 #3
ProSense Jan 2012 #5
onehandle Jan 2012 #6
Rex Jan 2012 #10
ProSense Jan 2012 #21
emaxwell1313 Jan 2012 #16
ProSense Jan 2012 #17

Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 02:19 PM

1. Kick! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 02:25 PM

2. Because they are not sweeping defense cuts?

Remarks by the President on the Defense Strategic Review

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/05/remarks-president-defense-strategic-review
Here:
As we look beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and the end of long-term nation-building with large military footprints -- we’ll be able to ensure our security with smaller conventional ground forces.
...

And here:
"Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is this: It will still grow, because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership. In fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush administration. And I firmly believe, and I think the American people understand, that we can keep our military strong and our nation secure with a defense budget that continues to be larger than roughly the next 10 countries combined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 02:32 PM

4. Well,

"Because they are not sweeping defense cuts?"

...all the more reason why it's strange that he hasn't commented.

Regardless of characterization, has Paul commented on the defense cuts at all?

Don't you think it's strange that he lambastes Obama for the recess appointments and is silent on the defense cuts?

Does Paul support them or does he believe they're not "sweeping" enough?

Here's a perfect opportunity for him to stake out his position to the left of Obama as attributed by his supporters.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 02:46 PM

7. They aren't sweeping, and shouldn't be characterized that way. Not even in arguendo.

I think the title of your OP is another disingenuous straw man, and your response above another rhetorical dodge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 02:50 PM

8. Obviously,

"They aren't sweeping, and shouldn't be characterized that way. Not even in arguendo."

...I need to change the title so that this thread doesn't turn into a series of comments attempting to obfuscate.

It'll be edited so that you can focus on the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 03:01 PM

11. So "this thread doesn't turn into a series of comments attempting to obfuscate"? It isn't like most

of the rest of your work here, in that case. No need to edit. PS, We get your point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 03:06 PM

13. Oh

"So 'this thread doesn't turn into a series of comments attempting to obfuscate'? It isn't like most of the rest of your work here, in that case. No need to edit. PS, We get your point."

...I see the edit didn't work. Seriously, cheap psychology isn't effective.

Don't want to focus on the OP, fine. I'll discuss whatever you want to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 02:53 PM

9. Honestly, I don't follow his campaign. On a day to day basis, I learn

more about what Ron Paul is doing on the campaign trail from DUers than from any other source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 03:33 PM

18. I know

"On a day to day basis, I learn more about what Ron Paul is doing on the campaign trail from DUers than from any other source."

...one learns a lot around here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 03:34 PM

19. What Paul does on the campaign trail is not important to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #19)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 05:35 PM

20. OK n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 03:05 PM

12. Bingo

 

Paul would cut it 10 times more, and Dennis K. 20 times more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 03:07 PM

14. So

"Paul would cut it 10 times more, and Dennis K. 20 times more."

....he released a statement, or are you reading his mind?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 03:09 PM

15. I never claimed Paul would cut anything...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 02:28 PM

3. Katha Pollitt made a trenchant observation regarding Paul and his faux anti-military stance--


"If Ron Paul was interested in peace, he wouldn't be a Republican — that party has even more enthusiasm for the military-industrial complex than the Democrats. For decades the GOP has turned every election into a contest over who is more macho, more nationalistic, more willing to do exactly the things lefty Paul fans excoriate Obama for doing. Paul doesn't get re-elected in his Texas district because of boutique positions like thinking Osama bin Laden should have been arrested, not assassinated."

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/06/144783916/the-nation-progressive-man-crushes-on-ron-paul


Just how does Ron Paul get re-elected??? He brings home the bacon--requesting earmarks in bills that he know the Repukes have majorities on...so he can hypocritically ASK for money/earmarks/pork, but then deny he VOTED for them....


"This year Paul requested 65 earmarks, more than any other congressman in the Houston area, including money for the renovation of an old movie theater in Edna and wild shrimp marketing.

Paul's congressional district also has been among the top in Texas in receipt of federal assistance since 2000, receiving $31 billion from Washington, according to a study by the group OMB Watch. In the first nine months of the 2006 fiscal year, the district received $4 billion in federal aid.

His district, which hugs the Gulf Coast, and reaches into Brazoria County, receives a substantial amount of flood control aid.

Paul said that although he has requested earmarks, he did not vote for the final spending bills that include the special projects."

http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Ron-Paul-defends-seeking-funds-for-Texas-district-1534438.php



Ron Paul isn't going to say a damn thing to upset all the Houston-area defense contractors--not a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 02:34 PM

5. Exactly. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 02:43 PM

6. Ron Paul is a phony. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 02:55 PM

10. What can he say?

It supposedly goes along with what Ronny Paully holds dear and so all he could do is lie...which I am surprised he has not done yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 08:38 PM

21. To date, nothing. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 03:19 PM

16. I presume Ron Paul is a silent and enthusiastic supporter of it

 

He has always seemed to be an enthusiastic supporter of decreasing militarism and less restrictive measures for fighting terror, both at home-where he has been one of the few COngressman to argue that recent anti-terror measures seriously gut our liberties-and abroad. Paul is definitely on the exact same side as Obama on a lot of things. I think they even share apprehensions over the NDAA-which was given at least as much support if not more by conservatives than by liberals in COngress. Which is why when Obama was given that bill on December 15 he waited until December 31 to sign it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emaxwell1313 (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 03:23 PM

17. Please

"I presume Ron Paul is a silent and enthusiastic supporter of it"

...let me know if you come across a statement from Paul.


He has always seemed to be an enthusiastic supporter of decreasing militarism and less restrictive measures for fighting terror, both at home-where he has been one of the few COngressman to argue that recent anti-terror measures seriously gut our liberties-and abroad. Paul is definitely on the exact same side as Obama on a lot of things. I think they even share apprehensions over the NDAA-which was given at least as much support if not more by conservatives than by liberals in COngress. Which is why when Obama was given that bill on December 15 he waited until December 31 to sign it.


That's a new one.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread