Replies

My thoughts on the political philosophies of Madison, Hamilton (Who created the Federal Reserve Bank), Jefferson, Franklin and Washington in comparison to Ron Paul vs. George Bush, is that all of them would have been much closer to Bush on Middle East Policy than with Paul.

When Paul discusses domestic issues and fiscal policy he is, for the most part, pretty good. When he discusses American history and our foreign policy moves of the past 60 years, he is as poorly informed as Huckabee.

Paul doesn't understand Korea and the Korean War, he doesn't understand Vietnam and the Vietnam war, nor does he understand why Nixon was elected (hint, it was not to end the war, it was to win the war in Vietnam).

He understands nothing about the War Against the Global Islamic Jihad, nothing about Afghanistan, about Iraq, about Somalia, about Iran, about Israel...basically he lacks any grounding in foreign policy or the history of our involvement world wide. Had he been in office during the Cold war, we might all be fighting Soviets in a Red Dawn scenario with his sadly naive, Chamberlainesque attitude about foreign leaders and foreign policy.

Since the primary function of the government (by libertarian standards) is the protection of our rights to property and our sovereignty as a nation, he inability to grasp the patently obvious automatically disqualifies him for the Presidency.

None of his domestic agenda would ever be passed by congress and his foreign policies and protectionist atitudes would destroy our economy and our nation.

I won't even go into the damage he would do to our economy if he was, by some ironic twist of fate, able to return us to the "gold standard." Such an act would make the great depression look like a New Year's Eve Party.

The man is looney tunes-nutso-Daffy Duck "Woo-Hoo-Woo-Hoo" crazy...and therefore vewy vewy dangewous.

I can honestly say I would rather vote for Obama than for Paul. "Better the devil you know..." At least I could predict his actions.