>Yeah you are right. Ron Pauls are on par with the Founding Fathers while yours (and good many Republicans) is on par with liberal President Woodrow Wilson.
People love to make all sorts of claims not overly based on reality. When you say Founding Fathers, you might be prudent picking which one in particular since they (gasp) actually had differences of opinion. Hamilton, for example, was big on central banks. Is Paul more of a founding father than Hamilton?
How about we consider James Monroe? You know the Monroe Doctrine? He was a bigwig in the ratification of the constitution in Va. The Monroe Doctrine was in no way isolationist (and was also fairly delusional given the scarce power the country had at the time).
Then we have Jefferson. Do you consider the Louisianna purchase something Paul would have done? I doubt it since it spent a lot of federal money and expanded the borders a great deal. Heck, it also involved us in European politics to a degree.
John Adams was unquestionably a founder, but what about those Alien and Sedition Acts?
You might want to try learning a bit of actual history before you spout off about your savior.
As for claiming my views have anything in common with Wilson is nonsense. He was a progressive of the worst stripe.
>Yes Ron Paul is a real Radical just like the Founding Fathers.
I don’t know that he’s a radical. He’s just manifestly unrealistic. In the real world, where the sky is blue, you can’t sweep the fact that people outside the U.S. dislike us under the rug and forget about it.
Given that there are plenty of people out there who have a great desire to kill Americans which is not based on any rational cause, all you do by pulling within your borders is make their attacks have to hit us at home.
>He believes in Borders, language and Culture.
I find it very amusing that if you are claiming that Paul is all about individual freedom you also claim he wishes to push a single language and culture. You know, plenty of people would call such things mutually exclusive. While assimilation is probably a good idea, any government push for it is not exactly limited government.
Though again, I’ll simply say most of what Paul preaches domestically may sound well and nice but he wouldn’t be able implement a whit of it as president since the majority of what he talks about is in the Congressional purview. You know, we have this document called the Constitution which enumerates powers, and in case you are too unfamiliar with it, the president’s powers are generally more related to the foreign policy sphere.
Please don't lecture me on what you know. I'm not impressed at all. Moreover, you have made me not want to listen to a word you have to say. You have a debate skills of a sophomore in high school. Do me a favor and don't ever reply to me again. You are a WASTE of my time.