Anti-liberty socialist Ralph Nader attacks Rand

[Feeding the Abscess]

See I'm fine with that as a way of moving the ball forward. He's been trying over an over to get ANY bit of total spending decreased. Any decrease would be a win at this point as neither side wants to agree to even one penny less being spent.

It didn't move the ball forward. Less than half the GOP senate caucus voted for his budget, and zero democrats did.

 

[mad cow]

In August 2012, Nader suggested to vote for Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader

 

[TheGrinch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader

Ah, character assassination, the last refuge of ones who'd rather take the easy way out, rather than dispute what they said.

As I said earlier, I don't agree with the way he turned concerns into accusations, but Nader's reputation has nothing to do with the validity or lack thereof of what he said.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Keep in mind that Nader is the type that would not only bring our troops home, but would also greatly reduce our national defense.

As would Ron Paul. Because what counts as "national defense" these days has nothing to do with defending the United States of America.

 

[AuH20]

The second quote about restoring money to the military is in the context of sequester cuts which reduced personnel.

http://www.kentuckynewera.com/article_f668eafe-fee7-11e2-a0a0-001a4bcf887a.html

Keep in mind that Nader is the type that would not only bring our troops home, but would also greatly reduce our national defense. As a lifelong Jeffersonian myself, I have no issues with having a very strong, very large military force. I just don't support sending them all around the world on nation-building missions.

I think we should stop defending European interests which ties directly to these frightening outlays.

 

[AuH20]

Nader is very good friends with Pat Buchanan. He's not a hack.

 

[angelatc]

I generally like Nader, but he's overreacting. Rand hasn't even got legislation ratified by any congressional body. He's fighting tooth and nail with establishment in both parties and the media. Give him a break. Sheesh.

I hope you're right.

 

[erowe1]

..

 

[erowe1]

The second quote about restoring money to the military is in the context of sequester cuts which reduced personnel.

http://www.kentuckynewera.com/article_f668eafe-fee7-11e2-a0a0-001a4bcf887a.html

Keep in mind that Nader is the type that would not only bring our troops home, but would also greatly reduce our national defense. As a lifelong Jeffersonian myself, I have no issues with having a very strong, very large military force. I just don't support sending them all around the world on nation-building missions.

The Defense Department alone (not including all the military spending that's part of other departments' budgets) is spending $673 Billion in 2013, which is about 4.5% of the US GDP. 100 years ago, the entire federal budget was about 2% of GDP. If somebody is not for major military cuts, including major reductions in personnel, they're no Jeffersonian.

At least in this respect, Nader is a friend of liberty. And if Rand disagrees, then, at least in this respect, he is not one.

I mean, the sequester cuts are a good thing no matter where they are. Right?

 

[mad cow]

Ah, character assassination, the last refuge of ones who'd rather take the easy way out, rather than dispute what they said.

As I said earlier, I don't agree with the way he turned concerns into accusations, but Nader's reputation has nothing to do with the validity or lack thereof of what he said.

I don't assault his character at all.I do think he is a Statist-Socialist however,but with perhaps a nice character.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I don't assault his character at all.I do think he is a Statist-Socialist however,but with perhaps a nice character.

I do too! But he's not wrong in writing this article. Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

 

[Occam's Banana]

As a lifelong Jeffersonian myself, I have no issues with having a very strong, very large military force.

That's strange. Jefferson certainly did.
(Did you mean "Despite being" rather than "As" ?)

There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army.

I do not like the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for [...] protection against standing armies.

Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion].

There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war. [Found in a draft of the Virginia Constitution.]

 

[erowe1]

I don't assault his character at all.I do think he is a Statist-Socialist however,but with perhaps a nice character.

I don't know if this is about Nader or Rand. Whichever it is, I agree.

 

[mad cow]

I don't know if this is about Nader or Rand. Whichever it is, I agree.

It's about Nader.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

The Defense Department alone (not including all the military spending that's part of other departments' budgets) is spending $673 Billion in 2013, which is about 4.5% of the US GDP. 100 years ago, the entire federal budget was about 2% of GDP. If somebody is not for major military cuts, including major reductions in personnel, they're no Jeffersonian.

At least in this respect, Nader is a friend of liberty. And if Rand disagrees, then, at least in this respect, he is not one.

I mean, the sequester cuts are a good thing no matter where they are. Right?

You can reduce Defense Dept spending without cutting the number of troops, or employees. Remember Rand did call for a Pentagon Audit

 

[erowe1]

You can reduce Defense Dept spending without cutting the number of troops, or employees. Remember Rand did call for a Pentagon Audit

But you sure can't reduce it enough without cutting the number of troops and employees. What do you want the military to be, some kind of make-work program?

 

[TheGrinch]

I don't assault his character at all.I do think he is a Statist-Socialist however,but with perhaps a nice character.

My point is that this article and conversation has nothing to do with Nader. He is not the subject of the article.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

That's strange. Jefferson certainly did.
(Did you mean "Despite being" rather than "As" ?)

"I am for relying for internal defense on our militia solely till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace which may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy which, by its own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens and sink us under them." --Thomas Jefferson

There is a difference between having a standing army and having a large, strong military force. As the quote from Jefferson illustrates, optimally we would have a standing Navy to defend the coasts. And in this modern day, having an Air Force at the ready is also prudent - something that could not have been foreseen in Jefferson's days of course.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

But you sure can't reduce it enough without cutting the number of troops and employees. What do you want the military to be, some kind of make-work program?

Not at all. We should have a standing Navy & Air Force (as I stated above) and I would add an reserve as well since modern warfare weaponry requires far more training than in colonial days (i.e. not every Ton, Dick or Harry has the knowledge how to operate a tank)

But that is the ideal, and something we are very far away from. Not even a Ron Paul presidency would have achieved that goal. So from Rand's perspective, we should start by cutting wasteful spending in the military, prior to any reduction in personnel.

 

[compromise]

Nader is very good friends with Pat Buchanan. He's not a hack.

Pat Buchanan supports organized labor and tariffs. Rand does not.