Replies

I hate to point this ou, but the world has change in the past 200+ years. I wish it were not what it is, but we have to have a strong military presence on the world stage. This is th only big issue I disagree with Rep Paul on, but it is a biggie.

Agreed, that's my point. Even though, President Jefferson did hdeal with the Barbary Pirates, but the world has changed from the time of George Washington. If we took the Founding Fathers and put them in today's world right away, I don't think they would fare so well at first although I'm sure they would learn the ropes, hopefully before someone puts the whammy on us. The Founding Fathers did have one luxury that we do not, they didn't have enemies that could be here and deliver nukes and God knows what else in 30 minutes or less (missiles) to a few hours at most (aircraft). If it wasn't for this, I could maybe support Ron Paul. We need to seek out like minded countries and be friends with them as we combat the War on Terror.

If it wasn't for this, I could maybe support Ron Paul.

It's because this is indicative of his entire mindset that I cannot support Ron Paul.

The beauty of his curmudgeonly approach to politics is that there is absolutely no danger of him ever having to apply the principles he stands for. He can posture and proclaim at his leisure, secure in the knowledge that he never has to deal with actually winning one of these battles.

It's one thing to stand firm for the Constitution when you don't have to follow up your stands with practical politics; it's quite another to actually try to follow through within a legal/legislative environment such as we now "enjoy".

And in that sense, he's even less effective than somebody like Tom Tancredo who gamely, if lamely and ineffectually, tries to build some modicum of concensus. Unlike Tancredo, Dr. Paul doesn't even seem interested in working with anybody else, even for show. But like Mr. Tancredo, one gets the sense that Dr. Paul's primary goal is to gain personal recognition by being a curmudgeon.

The ultimate question would be this: what would a president Ron Paul do, once he was checked for the n^th time on one of his principled stands? We'll never really know, of course, but I think he'd either end up as a lame duck within a year of his inauguration; or he'd "grow" in office, in order to get anything done at all.

well, with the barabry pirates, correct me if im wrong, i thought the navy went over there and wupped some butt, but then went home, i dont believe they ‘nation built’ or stayed for any length of time, did they?

paul did vote to go into afghanistan (with some regret he has said because of both the lack of a formal declaration of war and the nation building afterwards)