[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Don't get me wrong, dude, I'm very sympathetic to Libertarian viewpoints domestically. Heck, my ideal world would have me paying no taxes, sitting at home enjoying my family's company and my property without having to worry about a sheriff showing up to kick me out, all the while maintaining my nice collection of firearms, with which I can defend said property and family against any would-be cretins who would dare threaten them

Still, I cannot fathom why y'all can so easily support Paul despite his proposed foreign policy, which is a direct throwback to the isolationist 1930s. He's completely willing to pull our military forces out of Iraq and throw away the achievements that our troops have made there at heavy cost. Moreover, he is not willing to stand up to the mullahs and Red China, who most assuredly would not respect an isolationist America under a Paul administration. If he were elected president, then he would throw this country wide open to massive foreign attack, not to mention the continuing terrorist jihad that will probably go on for generations. How can you support that?

[padre35]

Interesting Virginia Ridgerunner, a couple of points:

The 30’s saw America slide into Nanny Statism, from the loss of Gold in our currency, to Social (in)Security the outright bans on firearms as well as taxes and licensing to own them.

As to Iraq, keep in mind the title and substance of the thread starter, Ron Paul leads in fundraising among those soldiers whoa re serving in Iraq, that has to say something, not neccessarily that theyu feel that our Cause is not worth it in Iraq, but perhaps the idealization of the Constitution may have something to do with it.

And can you honestly say that the ChiComs respect us now?

Massive foreign attack?

Did we suddenly decommission our nuclear submarines?

He won’t stand up to the Mullahs?

He did vote in favor fo the Invasion of Afghanistan..

For me, Ron Paul’s foreign policy is the least attractive portion of his campaign, I do like his mentioning of our Constitution, no other candidate this cycle mentions that Founding Document, when he brings it up during a debate, he is always the first one.

[publiusF27]

Still, I cannot fathom why y'all can so easily support Paul despite his proposed foreign policy, which is a direct throwback to the isolationist 1930s. He's completely willing to pull our military forces out of Iraq and throw away the achievements that our troops have made there at heavy cost. Moreover, he is not willing to stand up to the mullahs and Red China, who most assuredly would not respect an isolationist America under a Paul administration. If he were elected president, then he would throw this country wide open to massive foreign attack, not to mention the continuing terrorist jihad that will probably go on for generations. How can you support that?

I support Ron Paul despite some differences with him on foreign policy, and I guess the short answer to your question of how I can do that is: in desperation, trying to find someone who believes in a smaller, constitutionally limited federal government.

The other GOP candidate who seems to have spent more than a few seconds thinking about the subject of federalism is Fred Thompson. I will vote for Paul in the primary, and if Paul or Thompson is the nominee, I'll support either one in the election.