Ron Paul to bow out ?

I don't think he believes in busing.
LOL!

 

I'm Paul's age. I'm about to celebrate my 12th anniversary of a serious heart attack [like there is anon-serious one]. After the HA I realized I wanted to stay around for many more years and so got into good shape. I had been strong and a good athlete all my life but didn't take the care I should have.
So I know what 50 felt like. and I know what 60 and a fairly recent HA felt like and I know what 70 and good shape and non smoking felt like.

PAUL IS TIRED. 76 is old! I hate to say that, I hate to admit that to myself, but the 70's DO NOT feel anything like the 60's and the 50's felt no different than teen age. When I do my annual stress test I put out high METS and my cardiologist says I'm his strongest patient. But I'm old and I know it.

I just took a 10 day cruise. Normally since they feed you every 20 minutes, I take the stairs rather than an elevator. Now if I'm going more than 3 decks up or down, its elevator time.

Paul is old and I am old. When he loses a few more primaries his body will stop cashing the checks his ego is writing.

 

Who do think will live longer? Newt is 68. Dr.Paul is 76.

 

Paul will probably live to an older age but Newt could still be alive when Paul passes.

Newt's brain is in his favor. His age is a handicap, same as Paul's.

 

My concern is with Paul's obvious crankiness and short temper because he's tired. If he's that irritable on the campaign trail because of his lack of stamina I can only imagine how difficult he'd be facing the day-to-day problems which a President must deal with.

The old goat roper should throw in the towel, admit that he's spinning his wheels and find a nice comfy Texas nursing home for his retirement.

 

Lol Paul has called out the other candidates on testing edurance. I wager he is in better shape that a lot posters here. All this is, is a bunch of woman around a knitting circle trying to demean the man.

 

When you are looking back on your 70th birthday, then make your wager. No doubt that Paul is in better shape than a lot of posters here. And he is a great deal more intelligent than a lot of posters here too. But he is RUNNING against younger, equally intelligent men. Not against any posters here. But he is over 70 as am I. 70+ people do get TIRED. WE hate it, but we do get tired. And a run for the presidency is the king of endurance rat races. This is harder on Paul than a Triathlon is on younger people. When you're looking back on your 70th birthday, you'll know that I was telling you the absolute truth.
And challenging the other candidates. He knows that they would never take him up on a challenge like that. There is no upside for them. Did you ever hear of False Bravado?

 

FYI. Ron Paul has 4 brothers, two older, two younger. All living. His father lived to age 92. His mother lived to age 93.

 

You keep comparing Dr. Paul to yourself. Have you made a point your whole life of keeping yourself fit? Do you ride a bike everyday? With no hands?

 

Rick Santorum operates on the basis of his religion ,not the Constitution, same with Sarah Palin.

I am not sure what your definition of "a real conservative" is but if fiscal conservatism, small government, less involvement of the government in the affairs of citizens, and respect for personal liberty and the persuit of happiness count ...

Santorum, Palin, and Bachman are not conservatives.

 

The "truth" is that it is far too expensive maintain our status as "world police". Continuing to pretend that this is not true will bankrupt us which in the not so long run will weaken us.

You alude to this but then you say you do not like Paul's foreign policy ?

You can not have your cake and eat it too. The list of military/economic empires that bankrupted themselves trying to maintain hegemony is long.

The world was a far more dangerous place in 1940 than today. Can you imagine someone pulling off Pearl Harbor or taking over most of Europe ?

There is no threat to the US equivalent to the threat that existed back then.

The total Military/Defense spending in 2000 was 300 Billion. Today if you include homeland security and other related expenses spending is "conservatively" greater than 900 Billion.

Were we not able to defend ourselves in 2000 ?

Our income dropped from 2.7 Trillion to 2.15 Trillion since 2008. After paying the interest in the debt we are left with 1.7 Trillion.

Our spending is running at roughly 3.5 Trillion so we borrow 1.35 Trillion to maintain current spending.

Paul is the only one that seems to understand that the only reason we can float this much debt is that the US is the world reserve currency. When we lose this status, and that time is not far off unless we take action in a big hurry, we will not be able to borrow this much and that is when the music stops.

Obama's plan to cut 2 Trillion over 10 years is a Joke. That only cuts 200 billion per year which does not even kick in for a couple of years.

A 500 billion annual deficit on an income of 2.1 Trillion is obscene. Cutting 200 Billion off of 1.35 is still a 1.15 T deficit which is outer space beyond obscene.

What have any of the candidates other than Paul suggested we do to rectify the deficit which is problemo number 1 and far surpasses any other issues currently facing us.

 

to say that 1940 was more dangerous is only half correct. There was much more chaos, but the threat of terrorism and nuclear weapons far outweighs any blitzkreig a few tanks could pose against us. But thats the problem with Ron Paul's foreign policy. His thinking is much too backwards. The only reason why we haven't seen any major conflict around the world compared to WW2 is because we have so much of an overseas presence. As much of a financial burden it is to watch over our interests overseas, it has done a great deal of good to bringing order and stability to the world. Many countries depend on the presence of our bases to protect them from enemies. You think South Korea would be able to hold back North Korea's million man army on their own? What would Taiwan do without us to keep China in its place? You think the UN is going to solve the problems of the world and maintain order?

There is nothing wrong with giving carrots to your rivals and friends. But Paul's golden rule is much too naive. Its just not how the world works. This isn't 1900 where countries are divided by large oceans, vast deserts, or towering mountains. Technology has rapidly changed over the last 100 years in a way that borders are beginning to fade. Countries are closer today than they have ever been. We don't live in a world anymore where what happens on one side of the globe doesn't affect the other side. To think we can just go back to this way of living is absolutely backwards.

WW1 may have begun as a European problem, But it was clear that the conflict was expanding and its affects on the rest of the world were too great to ignore. But our decision to walk away after we won and return to a 19th century foreign policy was a huge mistake on our part. Our decision to leave Europe to its own devices and to pick up the pieces on their own is part of the reason why WW2 happened.

900 billion dollars is a lot of money. There is no arguing that. And there is always going to be fat that needs to be trimmed. But our economy is much larger than what we spend on defense and military spending. And what Paul proposes to scale back, is just way too much.

I would recommend you read "American Diplomacy" by George F. Kennan (don't worry, its a short read). He was architect of the Containment policy towards Soviet expansion. In it he argues why we can't live in the 19th century anymore and why should project our power overseas. Yet he does recognize that military industrial complex will become a burden for us even after the cold war. And that some day scaling back our military and even scaling back our presence overseas will be necessary. I however just don't see that happening today.

 

"Soon after his concepts had become US policy, Kennan began to criticize the foreign policies that he had seemingly helped launch. Subsequently, prior to the end of 1948, Kennan was confident the state of affairs in Western Europe had developed to the point where positive dialogue could commence with the Soviet Union. His proposals were discounted by the Truman administration and Kennan's influence was marginalized, particularly after Dean Acheson was appointed Secretary of State in 1949. Soon thereafter, U.S. Cold War strategy assumed a more assertive and militaristic quality, causing Kennan to lament over what he believed was as an aberration of his previous assessments."


"In 1950, Kennan left the Department of State, except for two brief ambassadorial stints in Moscow and Yugoslavia and became a leading realist critic of U.S. foreign policy. He continued to be a leading thinker in international affairs as a faculty member of the Institute for Advanced Study from 1956 until his death at age 101 in March 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan"

Can you say irony.

Was that a short enough read for you?

 

Ron Paul took some time out to take a trip back to Washington to fight for your rights. Opposing the NDAA act.

http://rt.com/usa/news/ron-paul-ndaa-detention-209/

 

Paul does not propose to scale back on the military. He proposes to bring them home because America is not going broke (IT IS BROKE, BUST OUT OF MONEY).

You vote Santorum, Obama, Gingrich and Romney and you will see your country disappear.

That is a fact!

 

First off - The threat of getting killed by terrorism is less than getting killed in a car accident so it is way overblown. Furthermore, the treat of terrorism was in part created by a misguided foreign policy which has directly supported terrorism and crimes against humanity on numerous occasions. Duarte - El Salvador, Suharto - Indonesia, and Israel.

A massive modern army does little to prevent the threat of terrorism in any case.

The threat of nuclear war is what has prevented conflicts between large military powers. It is this treat that has prevented major conflicts like WW2 not our presence oversea's. In relation to minor conflicts such as North Korea/South Korea I can see the point of having a base there but what of the other 700 bases ?

It is changing technology that is the problem. It is precisely the spread of technology that increases the cost of exporting power over time.

This is not a new phenominon. The British had the gatling gun. With one gunship they could pretty much take over an entire African nation equiped with spears and sticks. Historically however, the gatling gun proved to be a much better defensive weapon than offensive.

Eventually the African nation got the gatling gun. Instead of sending just one gunship you needed to send an entire armada to accomplish the job and you could expect to take heavy casualties and the cost to do the same job was orders of magnitude higher.

It is no different today. Aircraft carriers for example will soon become obsolete (if not already) due to advances in missile, torpedo, and drone technology.

China has developed stealth cruise missile's with a range of 4000 km. It was an ex B-2 engineer that sold them the technology prior to 2006. http://content.usatoday.com/communi...elping-china-develop-stealth-cruise-missile/1
China already has a large number of nuclear cruise missiles which are hard enough to detect and shoot down as it is without adding stealth capability.

Good luck defending that carrier in the future considering some of the best and brightest engineers and scientists are comming out of China and they have the money to support these relatively inexpensive programs.

The battlefield of today is "not" mililtary. It is economic. China and Russia realized that decades ago. The idea that global military hegemony is feasible, or even possible, in todays world is a pipe dream.

Our income is 2.15 Trillion. After interest paymens on our debt of 450 Billion that leaves 1.7 Trillion to spend. 900 Billion is almost half of this amount and as such is unsustainable.

If that is not troubling enough, consider that the interest payments on our debt are relatively low due to our ability to sell debt at low interest rates. Average interest on our debt is 2.5-3%.

If we lose world reserve currency status, and many experts are claiming this is inevitable if we do not make drastic spending cuts soon, the cost of borrowing will increase.

In a few years our debt will be 20 Trillion. If average financing costs were to rise to 5% our interest payments would then be 1 Trillion.

I would recommend you read "Blood in the Streets" and "The Great Reconing"
James Dale Davidson and Lord William Reec-Mogg. These books look at cycles in history in relation to the factors that underlie the rise and fall of empires.

In 1994 the Great Reconing predicts much of what is happening today. Not through use of any crystal ball, but because it is exactly the same as what happened in the past.

 

Interesting theory. I think Ron Paul wouldn't endorse anybody.
Romney choose Huckabee? Interesting, but it would be an ineffectual choice. Kind of an old news choice. I think he would go with a surprise like McCain did. Somebody the democrats don't have any real playbook for.

 

Elliptical, treadmill, stationary bike. Long walks, 11 years of football, Military 'special' training.

Clothes are hung in the closet, not on the equipment.

Paul could be in twice as good shape as I am,[he is not] and he would still be tired.

I lived an entire life having never been tired by any normal life challenges and my strength was never tested in normal life. I had gorilla like strength. Now that is no longer the case. Now I do get tired, now I find my strength inadequate to do some things that used to be done without notice.
NOBODY passes their 70th birthday without knowing that age has arrived. Not me, not Paul, not anybody.
There was too long a period in business when I wined and dined with customers too much. I was constantly on the road, all over the US, Europe, and the far east. But even then I did 50 full sit ups every day in the hotel room and 50 push ups. When the hotel had a fitness room, I used it but that was rare back then. EVERY day I would leave the hotel, turn right and walk 15 minutes. Cross the street and walk 30 minutes back past the hotel, Cross back to the hotel side and walk the 15 minutes back to the hotel. 1 hour walking everyday. That was my think time. I'd review the day, rerun the events in my head and see what I could do better, and plan for the following day.

Wait for the years to pass by! And you will learn. I have not said Paul can't handle the campaigning. Just that he is unlikely to continue after constant losses. Incentive and DRIVE are a large part of pushing through the pain and fatigue. Mounting defeats sap incentive and drive. At 76, reserves are minimal.

No matter what Paul is or is not, his fans cannot continue to avoid reality.

 

The questions were rhetorical since you had already answered them. I often ask questions I already know the answer to.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/02/paul-hits-the-bike-trail/

 

Mitt bots are having wet dreams of Ron dropping out LOL!!

keep dreaming!! lol the message is spreading!

 

Since you chose to quote a couple of paragraphs about the man from Wikipedia, I'm assuming you know very little about him. Otherwise, if you did or had read his book, you would have stopped yourself before you decided to expand on something I already said in very few words.

 

What I wanna know is, why is the media constantly ignoring him? Even during the SC debate on Thursday, they almost skipped him in a question and they kept keeping him out of the shot. They always panned in on the 3 stooges.

 

Ron Paul is the looser. Newt Gingrich is the people's choice.

 

Oh you mean the people of south Carolina. he has not won any other primary.

Ron Paul is a good man. But after seeing what kind of people are in SC during the first debate it doesn't suprise me they would pick someone who cheated on two wives probaly 3 and was the only house leader fined for corruption.