Kokesh on why veterans support Ron Paul
Yesterday, while I was at the rally for Ron Paul, I infiltrated the “inner-circle” and found Adam Kokesh and, of course he recognized me. But, he was a little confused about how I found my way past security, but he forgets that I’m a charming little fucker. We shook hands and he said I was welcomed to the rally, which was gracious enough, I suppose. But I can’t help but wonder what he said after I left.
So I stayed at the party long enough to hear Adam Kokesh explain why Ron Paul is the choice of all of the troops he knows. He said Ron Paul is decisive, which, I’m sure he is, and that’s part of the problem. His decisions suck ass.
Kokesh said that Paul will only send the troops into combat with a “declaration of war” and only when our security is threatened. I guess he meant that George Bush didn’t have a declaration of war to fight in Iraq, but he did have the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002”. Ron Paul (and five other Republicans) joined the 126 Democrats who voted against it, so just because Paul voted against it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
And Paul voted for Bill Clinton’s Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which authorized the use of force to replace Saddam Hussein, so what was different in 2002 that wasn’t in 1998? Of course, the same could be asked of those 126 Democrats.
And I suppose that Paul won’t commit the military to a fight until an enemy has blockaded our seaports. By that time it’s probably too late to fight, so Paul can just go down in history as our last President. If crashing jets into our buildings isn’t a reason to respond to an enemy, I don’t know what would trigger a response.
It’s just that the Paulians are just so naive when it comes to national defense. It’s an almost child-like reaction based around the policy that “war is bad”. I agree, but there are times that it’s necessary. And putting our national security in the hands of a guy who claims that his national security experience stems from his military service, which was as an OB/GYN Air Force doctor in the 60s is immature, at the least. Especially from the same people who think that being a fighter pilot in the Texas National Guard is a joke.
As i estimated yesterday, the rally attracted less than a thousand people, and at the last count, more than half of them were not veterans, even fewer were actual combat veterans, which might explain why our resident trolls think Ron Paul is a good idea.
See, here’s the thing about Kokesh’s anti-war stance; he was trying to go back to Iraq before he got busted with an Iraqi pistol he’d smuggled back. After the legal dust cleared, he applied to go back to the war, but the Marines decided that he didn’t deserve that opportunity and a few months after that, he became anti-war. So you decide for yourselves if this is sour grapes.
Category: Ron Paul
I think the reason Ron Paul gets such a rabid following is he *somehow* manages to say things that attract the kookiest folks from the Left AND Right. Still seeing as he has yet to win a single primary you can bet he will not be the GOP nominee. Strangely enough it looks like Rick Santorum will win. Who’d have thought?
I’m interested to know what the red stars on the flag represent. Ok, I already have a good idea, but I’m just curious if anyone else has a thought on that.
Personally, I think it’s an abomination to our flag, but that’s just me, and if these “veterans” gave a shit about our country, as they claim, they would disgrace the flag like that.
My dad (Vietnam Vet, Navy) used to support Paul. I don’t know why, but he did. Recently, he got on the internet (a big deal with his conspiracy theory-like lifestyle) and started reading more about the little leprechaun. I’m not sure which story changed his mind, but he says the biggest was about Paul wanting to cut the American military forces to the lowest levels pretty much in history. But, hey, Ron Paul is a military vet, right?… Yeah…
If crashing jets into our buildings buildings isn’t a reason to respond to an enemy, I don’t know what would trigger a response.
Nothing will. When I was in HS back in the day, I heard the old, “I’ll only join if we’re attacked” bullshit. I pointed out to them if “we’re attacked” by the Soviets, it was pretty much too fucking late at that point.
Never heard much besides their mouths flopping open and closed like a landed carp at that point.
Of course, the Paultards will also tell you either 1–we deserved it, 2–we brought them down ourselves. Neither is a rational response, but then again, moRON’s supporters have never been revered for their rationality.
And as long as we’re on the subject, maybe a few Ronulans can come in between posts telling me to read a book and explain how exactly President Paul (gag) would ever shut down any of the shit he wants to have shut down when as head of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH, he has no such authority. And NO, telling me he’d veto spending bills won’t work–as we’ve seen, Obama dances around that issue just fine, what with not having had a budget for 3 years now and counting.
And as far as Kokesh goes, stop running for Congress, you fucking tool–and if you’re going to run, stick to your principles and run as a Libertarian, since you fit the GOP about as well as a fat dude in a thong–just not pretty.
Come to think of it, another question for the Paultards–why is it, after very publicly leaving the GOP in 1987 and burning his bridges in the process, did Paul come back and run for Congress as a Republican in 1994? You’d think that if he was so “principled”, as you fuckers claim, he would have STAYED a Libertarian, but hey, YMMV.
I can not support or vote for Paul, although I’m still not sure the alternatives at this point are much better. I’ll also go out on a limb here and state that not all Paul supporters are Kokesh clones or trolls, I know a vet who made the trip yesterday. He is a Iraq combat vet, USMC 0311, did his term of service honorably, ETS’d and is using the GI Bill.
The question was posed yesterday, are the Paul supporters mostly younger one term vets? I suspect this is true, but I wonder.
Radar–a lot of the “vets” I’ve seen supporting RuPaul aren’t vets at all. You’ll find more poseurs than actual vets among his little clique.
Of the veteran Paul supporters that I know, none are one-termers – one gave a limb for his country, two have TBI, and another served 12 years. I don’t understand it at all.
You guys are idiots, I am embarrassed to have served in the same uniform as you
@8 DUIDave, if you’re so embarrassment by us, why do you keep coming here? That’s not logical. Really, why?
Hey DUIDave, based on your previous statements I have a hard time thinking I would have been all that honored to serve with you. If we embarrass you so much why dont you go someplace else and play, preferably in traffic.
@9 I think I am going to leave.. I thought this was blog to support vets but came to find out it was just blame everything on Obama site.. Sad
Yeah, it’s time for you to move on, Dave. That’s the third time you’ve mischaracterized this blog in the last twenty-four hours. We haven’t even mentioned Obama since Sunday. So if you’re not going to read the posts before you open your ignorant yap, you really should go. Don’t slam the door on your way out.
Just don’t forget, Dave. In most states the 3rd DUI offense is usually a felony. I’d recommend against drinking and driving, but you seem to think it’s a career enhancer.
JL (OP): Kokesh said that Paul will only send the troops into combat with a “declaration of war” and only when our security is threatened. I guess he meant that George Bush didn’t have a declaration of war to fight in Iraq, but he did have the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002?. Ron Paul (and five other Republicans) joined the 126 Democrats who voted against it, so just because Paul voted against it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. EK: The AUMF wasn’t a declaration of war. It was Congress (legislative branch) abdicating — ceding to the President (executive branch) — its constitutional responsibilities. But don’t take my word for it. Henry Hyde says so, plain as day. On October 3, 2002, when the House Foreign Affairs Committee was debating the AUMF, Ron Paul called for a vote on a constitutional declaration of war against Iraq. Committee Chairman Henry Hyde rejected Rep. Paul’s motion with these words: “There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore.” Congress may no more cede to the President its constitutional responsibility to declare war — “We are saying to the President, use your judgment” — than the President may cede his constitutional responsibility to sign bills into law to the Supreme Court. The Framers laid out a tripartite government — and specifically withheld from the President the authority to declare war — for a reason. Congress declares war, and the President then prosecutes it. Thus the AUMF was a clear violation of the Framers’ intent. As one wag has put it, the Constitution has become the Queen Mum of American politics. Every now and then she gets… Read more »
JL (OP): And Paul voted for Bill Clinton’s Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which authorized the use of force to replace Saddam Hussein …
EK: Uh … nope. (Where’d you get that idea, John?)
Ron Paul’s debate arguments against the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
EK: a little link for you:
http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/ron-paul%E2%80%99s-reagan-revisionism/
The last line of his letter:
“I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.”
Principled conservative my dying ass. If he had any principles, he would have STAYED out of the GOP.
Interesting that you mistakenly/falsely claimed Ron Paul voted for the Iraqi Liberation Act.
But when you stated, “If crashing jets into our buildings isn’t a reason to respond to an enemy, I don’t know what would trigger a response,” you forgot to mention that Ron Paul voted for the AUMF against the perpetrators of 9/11.
Dave how do you think WE feel? Here’s a guy bragging about having DUIs which most sane and rational people wouldn’t. I suppose living in the state that has the 4th highest DUI caused death rate might color my perception of you as a giant steamy bag of horse shit, but then maybe that’s just me.
EK: like it or not, RP is not going to be even close to winning, and it really should bother you that the cooks from the Left like him just as much as the kooks on the right.
“His decisions suck ass.” Jonn that should have been the post’s title.
As to your point of the make up of the crowd, it is a “selective” group ain’t it? Both in membership and where they get their funds.
I concur with your other analysis of his positions. The opposition to him stems almost entirely from his policy stands, his cult is an added annoyance. Something his fans can’t accept.
Sparky,
Politics is about compromise. I can only assume that he thought returning to the GOP was a necessary compromise with the two party system, in order for him to have any kind of involvement whatsoever.
Given where the liberty movement seems to be today, I have no problem with his choice.
And besides, I’m a registered Republican — although the last GOP presidential candidate I voted for was Bush Sr.
In 1988, that’s for certain. Come 1992, I voted for Buchanan over Bush in the primary. But for the general, I don’t remember if I held my nose and voted for Bush vs. Clinton, or if I went third party or did a write-in. (I do know that I didn’t vote for Perot because of his anti-gun position.)
But I know for a fact that I haven’t vote for a GOP presidential nominee from 1996 on.
… FWIW.
Compromise my ass. That word isn’t in his dictionary or that of any of his followers.
Whore might be, though.
DB (18): EK: like it or not, RP is not going to be even close to winning,
EK: You may very well be right. But frankly, I’m not sweating it. “The event is in the hands of God.”
DB (18): … it really should bother you that the cooks from the Left like him just as much as the kooks on the right.
EK: Nope.
1. I reject your blanket condemnation of all (or even most) Paul supporters as “kooks.” (Or “cooks”!) 😉
2. I’m actually rather encouraged by his appeal to citizens across the “left-right” continuum. I think there’s some truth to be found all accross it.
F’rinstance, not very many of my “fellow righties” seem particularly concerned about our dwindling civil liberties.
Sparky (21): Compromise my ass. That word isn’t in his dictionary …
Frank: 😆 As if you’d know anything about a dictionary! That’s rich!
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I would like someone to explain the DESECRATION OF THE FLAG.
Dirty (24),
Dunno. You’d hafta ask Kokesh about that. (It’s his rally, and I’m pretty sure that’s him sitting in front of it.)
I don’t get all in an outrage when I see some idjit “desecrating” a US flag. (Although I don’t think that’s actually a flag up there — more of a stylized artist’s rendition made of vinyl and laced to some kinda frame.) Regardless, I think the ideals the flag represents are more than strong enough to stand up under that kind of foolishness. Also, to me the flag’s not a religious symbol.
Still, if I led a similar kind of rally, I’d like to think I was thoughtful enough to avoid something that might offend those who *are* more devoted to it.
I do often wonder about the pols who exploit the flag for its emotional & PR value among “we the people” while shamelessly ravaging the actual nation the flag stands for.
And we the people just sit by and watch.
IOW, I think *nation* desecration, not flag desecration, is really the more pressing matter.
EK: You know you’ve obviously never actually spoken to me. The People have ceded a lot of their autonomy to the Federal Government because they wanted security Not security from Terrorism but Financial security. Sadly they forgot that only the People can create wealth and maintain it. Not the Government.
Doc (26),
I don’t disagree with a word you said, after the “you’ve never actually spoken to me” part. Wouldja unpack that for me?