- This topic has 6 voices and 38 replies.
-
Posts
-
His flakier ideas will keep him from getting wide support. I like his economics but the rest of his program is scary on an entirely different level than that of the liberals.
His flakier ideas will keep him from getting wide support. I like his economics but the rest of his program is scary on an entirely different level than that of the liberals.
What's scary about going back to the Constitution as it was originally written? What's scary about auditing the Federal Reserve? What's scary about reigning in our out of control foreign policies? What's scary about securing our borders? These are all Ron Paul ideas. I concede he's not the most charismatic or "presidential" looking fellow, but intellectually he is a giant compared to those who would run against him. He's also more morally credible than anyone I can think of.
He's extemely weak on foreign policy: He's against military assistance in HaitiHe's against sanctions and military force on IranHe's against the Iraq war and using the military in YemenHe's against the surge in Afghanistan He's against foreign aidHe's against Israel's right to defend herself.http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtmlThe scariest part is that he is unelectable. If he's the GOP candidate, expect 4 more years of Obama.
He's extemely weak on foreign policy: He's against military assistance in HaitiHe's against sanctions and military force on IranHe's against the Iraq war and using the military in YemenHe's against the surge in Afghanistan He's against foreign aidHe's against Israel's right to defend herself.http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtmlThe scariest part is that he is unelectable. If he's the GOP candidate, expect 4 more years of Obama.
I'm not a one issue guy, but I agree with everything on that list but the last one. I could live with this. Israel doesn't need our approval for anything. She has proven more than once she is capable of handling her own affairs without our help.We are broke as a nation and can no longer afford to be the great superpower.Haiti doesn't need to be occupied by our military. They need food, water, and money. The military is not suited or trained for this kind of mission. We are entering a very slippery slope telling this nation and that nation who can and who can't have nuclear weapons. We are the only nation to have used them in war. If anything, we are the hypocrites. If Iran has a nuke, and try to use it, we can take care of that when or if that happens. Same thing with North Korea. We are not the world's policeman.We need to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan now. We're broke, we are running around sovereign nations chasing boogie men that don't exist, and our government wants it this way so they can take freedoms away from us here at home. We damn sure shouldn't be expanding this ridiculous conflict to Yemen or Pakistan or God knows where else. It's pure madness now at this point. It can only lead to the fall of America or should I say Babylon the Great.Foreign aid is nice as a diplomatic tool, but when your economy is on the brink of financial Armageddon, and nations spit in your face the whole time they take your aid, what is the point?All I can say is if you could bring Thomas Jefferson and James Madison back from the grave to meet Ron Paul, they would probably find the man contemporary with their views and would cringe in disgust at the two political parties that dictate this nation. Flame war in 321......:)
He's extemely weak on foreign policy: He's against military assistance in HaitiHe's against sanctions and military force on IranHe's against the Iraq war and using the military in YemenHe's against the surge in Afghanistan He's against foreign aidHe's against Israel's right to defend herself.http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtmlThe scariest part is that he is unelectable. If he's the GOP candidate, expect 4 more years of Obama.
If I may interject...I am not terribly familiar with all of Ron Paul's ideas but do remember him speaking during his 2008 campaign. I thought it was odd that he wanted to close our foreign military bases...all of them, I think. I would be interested in hearing his rationale for this, and what the ramifications would be. As for the list above, while they are unorthodox, I wouldn't mind hearing why he thinks those things. I do think that America overextends herself by spending hundreds of billions on foreign projects, and I wouldn't mind revisiting such projects. So, he may have a point about severely cutting back on such foreign spending. What good is it to bankroll the world while America collapses? As for opposing "Israel's right to defend herself"....I would like to see the wording on his position on that one. I'm guessing there's more to his actual position. I would be very surprised to hear any politician say that a sovereign nation could not defend itself.
Donnie,You are wrong. If we don't exercise power who will? Power unused is power that is unneeded. If it were possible for America to disengage from the world and not suffer for it I would agree with you 100%. It was doable in 1789 because America was a small nation that was extremely undeveloped. The founding fathers would not recognize America because it is not the America they knew. I don't think waiting for Iran to nuke someone, maybe us in a terrorist attack, is a smart thing to do. Post WWII American policy has focused on keeping threats distant from American shores, an admirable choice if you ask me.Foreign policy did not get the American economy into the mess it is in social programs, low saving, excessive public and private debt, and stupid decisions by private interests and policy makers. The key to fixing the economy is at home not abroad. Individuals can start by making informed decisions about their personal debt burden.As I stated, I agree with much that Ron Paul has to say, but some of his positions are downright idiocy and dangerous to American interests. The first duty of an elected official is to take care of America both domestically and overseas. About 75% of the federal budget could be cut and the absolute essentials of government would still get done. Government should encourage growth by getting out of the way of business not increased regulation.I will not go there on Israel, I think I have made my opinion on that adequately known in other threads.
Flame war in 321......:)
😀-Haiti has no government, so how can civilians distribute aid without military (police) assistance? It is our MORAL OBLIGATION as a stable society to help others who are in need and are uncapable of doing it themselves. Seeing that foreing aid is no more than 4% of our GDP (while supporting our own lazy welfare abusers is over 20%) is ridiculous. That 4% sure gives us a huge payback as far as our standing in the world goes. -I'm sure the 3,000 people who died on 9-11 as well as all those being blown up by radical Muslim terrorists would disagree with the term "boogeyman"-We go where the terrorists are, we don't have to nation-build, but we are certainly capable of beating them. I'd rather have some candidate say "the heck with ROE, we'll make our own because that's the only way to win." Running away from a real threat, as Paul proposes, is going to bring another attack upon us and/or our interests and is only going to make more terrorists. If Reagan retaliated after the Marine barracks bombing, perhaps we wouldn't have this problem.-We're not a broke nation, we're still the most powerful nation in the world. What e can't afford is to NOT remain that way. The world needs us and the world needs capitalism.-If having nuclear weapons helps us maintain our hegemony, then so be it. If our nuclear weapons can deter Iran, then I'm all for that. If we're telling rogue nations they can't have them, then I'm all for that too.-I'd argue that our our financial problems are more the result of domestic issues (abuse of social programs, bad or unnecessary regulations, etc.) rather than foreign intervention.
As for opposing "Israel's right to defend herself"....I would like to see the wording on his position on that one. I'm guessing there's more to his actual position. I would be very surprised to hear any politician say that a sovereign nation could not defend itself.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/tx14_paul/Statement_on_Gaza.shtml
I thought it was odd that he wanted to close our foreign military bases...all of them, I think. I would be interested in hearing his rationale for this, and what the ramifications would be.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr0801a08h.htmRon Paul is an absolute loon and I cannot believe that CPAC would choose him. Cheney has a better chance of being elected than he does.
When I listen to Ron Paul speak I find myself totally unable to disagree with him. I guess I'm becoming a loon too. LOLOn a side note, I hope his son Rand becomes the next Senator from Kentucky. 🙂
As for opposing "Israel's right to defend herself"....I would like to see the wording on his position on that one. I'm guessing there's more to his actual position. I would be very surprised to hear any politician say that a sovereign nation could not defend itself.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/tx14_paul/Statement_on_Gaza.shtml
As I thought, that stance was not a blanket opposition to "Israel's right to defend herself". Rather, it seems to have been an opposition to U.S. declaration in support of retaliation in a particular instance, which is something different. See his last words of his statement for why he states as much:
Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country? I believe it would be better to focus on the security and survival of the United States, the Constitution of which my colleagues and I swore to defend just this week at the beginning of the 111th Congress. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.
I'm not sure whether or not I agree with him, but IMO I don't think he holds that Israel cannot defend itself.
Ron Paul is an absolute loon and I cannot believe that CPAC would choose him. Cheney has a better chance of being elected than he does.
I think you can relax, since Ron Paul will likely not be the nominee. He would be 77 in 2012. I don't know that the Republican Party would be easy with a candidate for POTUS who is that age. Not only because of voter demographics, but because it would be even harder for him to be re-elected to a second term.I'm guessing Romney will be the nominee, but it's still far to early to know for sure.
I think Romney could win. A Romney/Palin ticket would be unstoppable.
I don't think a moderate Morman and an embattled conservative woman has much of a chance. Obama is going to get a second term as long as the economy holds together and he follows through on his promise to pull the troops out of Iraq. But if the dollar collapses and he gets us embroiled in a conflict with Iran, he's out.
When he has to raise taxes to pay for health care, he'll be out then too. Palin is very popular. It will certainly be interesting :- watching the media during the election year(s) if she's chosen for any major role.I just think we need to keep our eye on 2010 for now. If there's no major change, we're screwed.
