Replies

#####And what are his liberal views? Everything I’ve seen from Rep. Paul is based on conservative principle, some of it so long standing that even ‘conservatives’ have forgotten it was originally conservative principle#####

His foreign policy. I know the argument is that Washington warned against foreign entanglements, so it’s conservative to keep to ourselves. But that was in a time of ship transportation when vast oceans separated us from much of the world. Today we simply don’t have that luxury. I also don’t believe Paul would adequately defend our nation against domestic terror. He’d still be nitpicking over every wiretap while the terrorists would be driving their car bomb into the target zone.

I probably agree with Ron Paul on more issues than I disagree. It’s probably even a good thing to have a guy like him in Congress. But electing someone like him as president would tell the world that we’re back to pre-9/11 business as usual here in America. We’re just gonna sit here and wait to be attacked before we do anything.

There’s some Ron Paul support on my college campus. It’s more enthusiastic than anything I’ve seen in years, though I don’t know how large it is. It could be more vocal than large. But there are Paul signs all over the place and his name has been chalked on sidewalks all over campus. My guess, though, is that it’s coming mostly from Cindy Sheehan anti-war types who don’t know that Paul wants to abolish the Department of Education (which I agree with). All they likely know is that he’s anti-war. Most of those kids will vote for Hillary if Paul doesn’t make it in the GOP primary. And they’ll vote Democrat for every other office on the ballot.

I know the argument is that Washington warned against foreign entanglements, so it’s conservative to keep to ourselves. But that was in a time of ship transportation when vast oceans separated us from much of the world. Today we simply don’t have that luxury.

We hear this argument a lot but it isn't as compelling historically as some folks think.

Our colonials and early Americans faced very hostile Indian nations who could attack us at any time and summoning help would take a long time. We also had hostile British on the continent and the French became, let's say, less friendly than they were when our Revolution was such a welcome and expensive distraction to their British enemy. We had a Spanish presence for a long time as well.

You are still far more likely to die of a lightning strike or a bathtub accident than you are from an act of terrorism.

I also don’t believe Paul would adequately defend our nation against domestic terror.

Are you kidding me? Paul has always been a strong supporter of the military. He supported Reagan's SDI and military buildups and more benefits for military veterans. He supports border security and ending handouts to illegals so they'll go home.

I guarantee you if, God forbid, this nation is ever attacked directly again and Paul is President, he'd immediately drop a dime on their asses and let the survivors rebuild their own country. He wouldn't have a finger jammed in his crotch wondering whether to go to the UN or the "international community." That's what Bush should have done on 09/12/2001, Middle Eastern capitals should have been in smoking ruins.