Ron Paul Vietnam Message to Chickenhawks: "I went"

[mk2ja]

For the sake of clarity - RP would support military action in response to a direct threat to the country. What was the direct threat posed by North Vietnam?

He has no more honesty or integrity than any other politician.

I think that the information posted by steveh_131 reveals that Ron Paul, like most of us, has learned more since he was in his 20s. His views have developed over the last 50 years.

Additionally, I'll note that the impression I have gotten from watching the GOP debates and reading other reports about the presidential race is that Ron Paul is the only candidate who is consistent in his words and actions from day to day and year to year and vote to vote. Every single other candidate had at least one instance of inconsistency either within a debate or between one debate and another or a debate and an article. (No, I didn't document them, unfortunately.)

I'm about to join the Marines (ship to OCS on 22 January), and Ron Paul is the only candidate that I trust to be responsible with the commitment I am making. Compound that with the fact that Ron Paul is also the most responsible with the powers of the federal government with respect to the rights of the individual, and I have arrived at the decision to support him for President.

Also, there is a record of his service. So we know he served. Why would he lie about being drafted? If he was trying to dishonestly brag about military service, he'd be better off claiming that he volunteered right off the bat.

Instead, he says

I actually have some personal experience about the military draft because I was in the middle of my medical training during the Cuban crisis. I was a resident for a hospital in 1962 when the crisis broke out. I got a note that said I would be drafted into the army as a buck private unless I wanted to volunteer, then I could be a doctor and I could be a captain. So guess what? I became a volunteer, and I kid about that, but it was rather serious. I was not too happy about going in, but it must not have bothered me too much, because I ended up staying in the Air National Guard afterwards. I think my attitude right now about foreign policy and foreign intervention and undeclared wars has changed a good bit, and I might not have been as complacent as I was back then. But unfortunately the military draft makes young people more vulnerable, because we are not as sophisticated as we might be in maybe our willingness to stand up and ask questions about just why are we so involved militarily around the world.

I am really curious about where you got that quote, though.

If you quote something, please remember to provide your source.

 

[mk2ja]

Let me know if it is a Good Read...

I've heard that it is, though I haven't read it myself, yet. Here's an example of what I've heard about it.

After reading the book, I came away with a completely different understanding of Ron Paul and his philosophy. I'm hoping my Tea Party compatriots, fellow conservatives, and all Americans will step outside their own comfort zones to do the same. It is vital that our nation seriously consider the important constitutional concepts and defense of liberty that Ron Paul espouses.

Source: Why a Tea Party conservative now supports Ron Paul… including his foreign policy. | Ron Paul 2012 | Peace . Gold . Liberty

 

[mk2ja]

Kinda sorta on the topic a little bit… I saw this video shared in another thread demonstrating the times that Romney has flipped and flopped on issues. I would be very surprised if such a case could be made for Ron Paul (without using creative videography, of course).

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vS9SF3vc-A[/ame]

 

[steveh_131]

How many persons were drafted in 62-62?!

Approx 200,000.
Don't you think they would have found that many Delinquents, Volunteers, and 1-A Draftees?!

Perhaps the "Doctor Draft" had something to do with it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1520604/pdf/califmed00245-0067.pdf

I am really curious about where you got that quote, though.

If you quote something, please remember to provide your source.

Whoops, thought I included that.

Ron Paul On The Draft

 

[mk2ja]

Perhaps the "Doctor Draft" had something to do with it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1520604/pdf/califmed00245-0067.pdf

It even talks about the Air Force being a part of this. Seems to explain the concerns that Jeremy mentioned earlier.

Whoops, thought I included that.

Ron Paul On The Draft

No problem. Thanks!

 

[rambone]

Last I knew duty at Kelly Air Force Base was an Accompanied Tour. My memory might be just a tad bit fuzzy from all the Beers I used to drink down on the River Walk, but last time I remember San Antonio was definitely not a Jungle...

No kidding Jeremy. When you sign up, you don't know where you're going to be. Especially during the Vietnam War and following the Cuban Missile Crisis.

 

[KIRKVILLE55]

Ron Paul is the direction we need to go. He has predicted all the the events that happen in 2008 with the economy, back in his 1998 presidential run.

 

[rambone]

Ron Paul is the direction we need to go. He has predicted all the the events that happen in 2008 with the economy, back in his 1998 presidential run.

1988

 

[sepe]

No kidding Jeremy. When you sign up, you don't know where you're going to be. Especially during the Vietnam War and following the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I saw something earlier that said he wasn't just in Texas. Said he was in several countries; South Korea, Iran, Ethiopia, and Turkey (1963-1965). I'm not sure it is accurate but I've seen several places that say he was checking the ears, nose, and throats of service members while in Turkey.

 

[octalman]

Flip-Flop vs. Developing Views over time

I think that the information posted by steveh_131 reveals that Ron Paul, like most of us, has learned more since he was in his 20s. His views have developed over the last 50 years.

Additionally, I'll note that the impression I have gotten from watching the GOP debates and reading other reports about the presidential race is that Ron Paul is the only candidate who is consistent in his words and actions from day to day and year to year and vote to vote. Every single other candidate had at least one instance of inconsistency either within a debate or between one debate and another or a debate and an article. (No, I didn't document them, unfortunately.)

I'm about to join the Marines (ship to OCS on 22 January), and Ron Paul is the only candidate that I trust to be responsible with the commitment I am making. Compound that with the fact that Ron Paul is also the most responsible with the powers of the federal government with respect to the rights of the individual, and I have arrived at the decision to support him for President.

I am really curious about where you got that quote, though.

If you quote something, please remember to provide your source.

Where do you draw the line to define flip-flop versus views developing over time? How much time has to pass in order for a change of position to qualify as "developed"?

Ron Paul is consistent, but NOT electable. Many of his ideas have merit. However, the path to real change is through Congress, State, and local elections. Our Republic does not bestow ultimate power to change everything with the President, regardless of what the current "his highness" believes.

Ron Paul running as a Republican, or perish the thought, as an independent will guarantee an Obama victory. Do you want 4 more years of that?

Spend more of your time and energy paying attention to Congressional candidates, regardless of who you like as a Presidential Candidate.

Congratulations and Thanks for your choice to join the Marines.

 

[Phil502]

I like what Dr. Paul said, Newt shows his bs very clearly there.

 

[mk2ja]

Where do you draw the line to define flip-flop versus views developing over time? How much time has to pass in order for a change of position to qualify as "developed"?

Well, certainly when I watch a debate and catch a candidate uttering opposing things within a single debate, that is a clear attempt to play a politicians game of pleasing all and hoping nobody notices. As I mentioned in my earlier post,

I think that the information posted by steveh_131 reveals that Ron Paul, like most of us, has learned more since he was in his 20s. His views have developed over the last 50 years.

Additionally, I'll note that the impression I have gotten from watching the GOP debates and reading other reports about the presidential race is that Ron Paul is the only candidate who is consistent in his words and actions from day to day and year to year and vote to vote. Every single other candidate had at least one instance of inconsistency either within a debate or between one debate and another or a debate and an article. (No, I didn't document them, unfortunately.)

…I saw inconsistencies within a single debate as well as from one debate to another and between what a candidate said at a debate and what was said to a reporter for print. At the time that I noticed these things, I hadn't yet decided on a candidate to support (I was actually leaning towards Herman Cain initially). So as I saw these things, they helped me realize that Ron Paul was the one who deserved my support.

More to your point, though: I do not believe that a person who performed his duty by serving his country when called upon 50 years ago and opposes unconstitutional wars now can be or should be viewed in the same category as a person whose voting record and campaign speeches over the years demonstrate political flip-flopping. Comparing Paul's extensive voting record to the others' bears out his consistency, and it spans a larger time than many, if not all, of the other candidates [citation needed].

Ron Paul is consistent, but NOT electable. Many of his ideas have merit.

Ron Paul running as a Republican, or perish the thought, as an independent will guarantee an Obama victory. Do you want 4 more years of that?

Is anybody else getting sick of the "he isn't 'electable'" arguments? It always strikes me as the single stupidest reason to support or not support a candidate. We are a person's electability; we are the ones who elect a person by first deciding ourselves to vote for a person and then explaining to others why they should also decide to vote for the same person. This is a general principle, of course, applying to all levels of government.

A man with Ron Paul's qualifications — in summary, consistent support and defense of the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic — is exactly the kind of candidate that we should all be agreeing to support and then trying to convince others to support him, too. Especially when he is seeing the kind of success he saw in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Despite what the media has told me, Ron Paul appears to be electable.
Poll: Romney, Paul Tie Obama - Steven Shepard - NationalJournal.com

Obviously we don't want Obama in office for another term. However, I'd much rather have Ron Paul in office than any of the other candidates, Republican or Democrat. So, I have resolved that my efforts are best spent trying to convince like-minded folks, like you, to support him first. Let's make it clear to the RNC that we want a true conservative who actually supports and defends the Constitution as the party nominee. If the RNC ignores us and nominates another candidate, we will be faced with a completely different situation, but one which should be handled at that time —*after we've done the right thing in the current situation.

However, the path to real change is through Congress, State, and local elections. Our Republic does not bestow ultimate power to change everything with the President, regardless of what the current "his highness" believes.

Spend more of your time and energy paying attention to Congressional candidates, regardless of who you like as a Presidential Candidate.

We definitely need to pay attention to the elections at all levels, as you say. But certainly we can't claim that these are inherently more important than the presidential election. Look at what Obama has been able to do in spite of Congress: in particular, his "We Can't Wait" appointments and creations of new bureaucracies evidence the power that a President who does not support and defend the Constitution wields! By supporting Ron Paul for president, in addition to other similar candidates at all levels of government, we protect ourselves from witnessing further disregard of our country's very essence.

A "President Paul" would do the most good for the most people. All other candidates, at best, would only do less good than he would have done and likely would even do some bad.

You said that many of his ideas have merit; I go so far as to say that more of his ideas have more merit than any other candidates' ideas. So join me in supporting him! Let's push for a Ron Paul nomination now and worry about the full election when we get there. The facts are on our side, and together we can convince more people to vote for him, and magically, he will become ever more "electable."

Congratulations and Thanks for your choice to join the Marines.

Thank you. It is my honor.