Mayor Snorkum
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,631
- Reaction score
- 317
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
You think the Liberals' opposition to Iraq was because a Republican was in office?
I just don't think that a man who would be 76 on inauguration day is a good choice to be president.
That's definitely more valid than saying he's crazy or some other nonsense.
Your thoughts on it?
Mainly because he seems to be in favor of extreme free market principles, he seems to almost be a border line objectivist...
If the 2012 Election was today, and Ron Paul was the Republican candidate, would you vote him into office?
I just don't think that a man who would be 76 on inauguration day is a good choice to be president.
Not Objectivist, but Austrian.
If the 2012 Election was today, and Ron Paul was the Republican candidate, would you vote him into office?
Or........
Would you re-elect Barack Obama?
Who would you vote for and why?
.....coming from someone who willingly and knowingly elected a 143 day Senator with a 5 min career and a 5 second resume.
Shouldn't have said democrats but rather progressives.
Both parties are heavily representative of the early 20th century progressive movement.
Wilsonian war policy, both corporate and social welfare and a few others I'm not thinking of.
Tea Party members wants to keep the social programs costing us the most money.
our foriegn policy would suffer,
When I hear about how Extreme Ron Paul's positions are I have the desire to agree, but generally for different reasons. My issue with Paul, as I've said before, is that the man appears to have either little grasp, or little ability to articulate, pragmatism and realism. Whether he just doens't possess those traits OR he is horrible at explaining his views in such a way that you understand he does have them, I don't know. But i have a distinct feeling from him its one of the two.
On most other things I disagree with Paul, he strikes me as having limited intellect - nothing really wrong with that , as we all do...But a law-maker should be "more wise".I did discredit him. His comments where over the top hyperbole. Abortion is only murder if murder means something other than it does. Life does not begin at conception This is most debatable, I am one who believe that the human being does begin at conception, here I agree with Paul.. , at most it changes, so his "scientific" statement is not scientific. I understand his position, but his comments are factually inaccurate in the way they are stated, which you do not address.
Because change at this point of something that large and fundamental to the country would be incredibly destructive.
Ummm...because it was not primarily about property? Only libertarians would see equal rights legislation and think "ohm property".
The reason school prayer is a federal issue is because we have the first amendment. I would not think this would be hard to understand.
When I hear about how Extreme Ron Paul's positions are I have the desire to agree, but generally for different reasons. My issue with Paul, as I've said before, is that the man appears to have either little grasp, or little ability to articulate, pragmatism and realism. Whether he just doens't possess those traits OR he is horrible at explaining his views in such a way that you understand he does have them, I don't know. But i have a distinct feeling from him its one of the two.
For example, his defense policy. In a general sense, I agree with his defense policy. Lowering our man power abroad, limiting "world policing", stop nation building, use alternative means of dealing with terrorists, etc. However, its the extreme's he apparently wishes to go, and the expediency to get there, that is problematic to me. For example, I believe its ridiculous to think that instability in the world has no possible chance of affecting us in a negative way and at times acting as the "world police" may be in our countries interest. Our role and its use should be significantly reduced, but not something that is completely off the table. Similarly, with the advert of new technology, it is likely we could do away with a number of bases around the world in a strategic sense, allowing us to maintain capability to reasonably conduct operations if need be the world over while cutting many bases. However, it appears Paul would rather remove all of our foreign bases, significantly hurting our strategic power that aids in our defense of ourselves or allies. On both of these as well, it is not just the length that it appears Paul wishes to go but the seemingly speed, which by the way he talks indicates a 0 to 60 in 3 seconds type of situation. In both cases I think significant and expediant progress in drawing down of the actions would be necessary, while at the same time understanding to the effects of system shock need to be given.
Much of the same problems can be found in many of Paul's views that could give even a conservative pause, and I can easily see looking "extreme" to someone on the left. Perhaps Paul realizes or believes that you're not going to one day have a Department of Education and the next day its completely gone, or that one day you'll have dozens and dozens of military bases and the next month none. However, if he does believe this, he's HORRIBLE at articulating them in the common political arena that is viewed people who do not go out and independently significantly research him themselves.
Its that reason why, honestly...given how Presidential debates function...I believe Obama would trounce Paul. Not because Obama's ideas are better. But because, from all i've seen of him, Paul is absolutely incapable of explaining his positions and why they're important in a way that the average voter can listen to, understand, grasp, and agree with. His ability to connect, to simplify, and to communicate on a layman level rather than that of a political intellectual is lacking due to his lack of traditional political charisma.
Another poster put it well and I'll say it in a similar way. Ron Paul would trounce Barack Obama in an officially judged debate on some college campus in the ivy leagues. Barack Obama would trounce Ron Paul in a political debate where the judges are the voters viewing it.
True ??That is indeed one of the largest misconceptions. For sure, Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He's not saying withdraw from the world. We can still be friends, we can still have economic relations and trade. But what he wants to end is our incessant meddling with other countries and other people's affairs. It's not our job to fix the worlds problems, we have problems of our own and we should be working on those first and foremost. The rest of the world...well I guess they'll have to learn to take care of themselves.
True ??
The "rest of the world" has shown an obvious inability to take care of themselves..
Debatable or not ??
Should we try to improve the world in which me live ?
IMO, we do tend to overdo things.
No its not the job of the US tax payer to improve other nations. We shouldn't be meddling in the problems of other nations other than being directly attacked by another nation.
Well I guess you have the hyperbole and intellectual dishonesty tied up there. gg
Anyone who understands the history of US involvement in the Middle East could not help but fully support Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?