[writer33]

What say you ping list?

[SkyDancer]

Ron Paul is dangerous. Period. But then, he does invoke a period of humor when he’s called on.

[svcw]

Yes, he is dangerous.

[EBH]

There was a time when we were warned against foreign entanglements.

In that light Paul might have a reasonable leg to stand on. From the aspect of energy security it holds up pretty darn well.

If we endeavor to restore a truly independent nation...then foreign matters should as much as they do not affect domestic matters...should remain foreign.

We need not beholden to oil and euro or other entanglements.

[Caipirabob]

His huggy-kissey-face policy on Iran does nothing for me...

[Sudetenland]

Absolutely. But then, Ron Paul is dangerous to one’s sanity.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

The older I get, the more I agree that the USA shouldn’t be squandering
all its resources on being the policeman of the world. As one of the
Founders wrote, “avoid foreign entanglements.” To that extent, I agree
with Paul.

He is also the only one I am agreeing with on fiscal issues like the
destruction of the dollar by the Fed and banking system. Many of our
Founders worried about the same thing.

[stilloftyhenight]

There was a time when we were warned against foreign entanglements.
In that light Paul might have a reasonable leg to stand on.”

Yes. I believe we should work towards that goal. However, he loses me with his nutty defense positions and his total lack of reality as to just who our enemies are and how they desire to kill us. He is just dead wrong on those issues.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Yes - because he is not realistic about almost anything. In the debate, he just equated “welfare spending” with “warfare spending” in a very cynical comparison that is not based on reality and not squared with the document he claims to respect so very much: The Constitution.

He is not the quirky ole grampa who sticks to principles. He’s a politician in the worst sense of the word in so many ways.

Yes, they all are, but somehow folks give him a pass on this due to his quirkiness. They shouldn’t.

[Designer]

Our current foreign policy, in effect for the past 60 or so years, has cost this country about 437,782 military killed or wounded, several thousand civilians killed, untold billions or more spent, half the world hates us, and the globalists are thirsting for more.

Does anybody else see anything wrong with our current foreign policy?

[stevio]

At this point, I’m voting for Paul. But yes, his foreign policy is askew.

[rsobin]

It may well be dangerous. What could be more dangerous than allowing bureaucrats to arrest citizens on a whim ,with no rights?.....umm nothing,PERIOD. Bush would have signed it along with Newt and Mitt. Maybe a Ron Paul would tilt the balance in the correct direction on civil liberties. This is where the Republicans have dropped the ball.

[labusiness]

Why, exactly, is Ron Paul dangerous? I’m not a Ron Paul supporter, nor am I against him, but why all the sock puppetry? I see some really extreme positions against him her on FR and I’m not sure it has really been explained.

[Logical me]

Yes, his policy is the mark of a complete idiot.

[Proud2BeRight]

Every time I see Paul, the crazier he appears. Tonight was no exception. It is clear the dope smoking support has to be the main issue of his cult because nobody sober could support that kook.

[cva66snipe]

Perhaps a bigger question needs to be answered. How well has our foreign policy served us the past six decades? Even the past 20 years for that matter?

Congress would never take the foreign policy too the level Paul would desire. On the other hand he might get at least half of it done like cleaning up the State Department which would be a good thing.

Many issues we do make worse like sticking our nose into Israels business. If we let Israel be a lot of the M.E. thugs would be handled. As it stands today every time Israel tries to act in it's own defense in flies the Sec of State saying No No you can't do that.

It was Reagan who stood by and let Israel hit Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Sometimes the wise policy is too do nothing. Until we get our military rebuilt we can not afford much more.

[runninglips]

Under a not very strict interpretation of the Constitution, and limitation of Federal powers, we would not have to worry about ANY MAN attaining the seat of President. As it is, ANY MAN is a danger. Under that scenario, who would be most likely to live within the constraints of Supreme court and Congressional checks. Answer is, Ron Paul. If we want a truly limited, much smaller government, Ron Paul is the only one to entrust with this position.

[Reagan Man]

Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas would be destructive to America's future if implemented. If Ron Paul had his way the US would never have confronted the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. If Ron Paul had his way after 911, the Islamofascists would have had numerous opportunities to kill more innocent people. If Ron Paul had his way the Patriot Act, enhanced interrogation, FISA and the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay Cuba would have never existed. If Ron Paul had his way, ALL US troops serving throughout the world protecting American interests would have been called home in a major retreat from our international obligations.

Ron Paul's foreign policy agenda is based on appeasement and capitulation to America's enemies, and built on the fallacy of isolationism. Anyone who blames America and not the terrorists for 9-11, does not have all their marbles.

[luvbach1]

Some of Paul’s views are identical to those of America haters. And since I believe Paul does not hate America, it makes them all the more irrational.

[labusiness]

Sock Puppetry All! It seems like FR is now populted by the very class of person this site was to expose! (at tleast this thread).