How about some Ron Paul love?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMfLo0fuQq0

The other candidates sure are quiet when he talks about monetary policy.

You redistribution-hungry democrats should take a listen as well - his point that printing new money leads to the rich getting richer and the poor and retired getting poorer is pretty sound. He is the ONLY candidate proposing to stop this problem!

With that, I posit that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that can get us out of the war in a reasonable timeframe, KEEP US OUT of new conflicts, reduce government spending/taxes, and move to reducing the rich-poor gap. Most importantly, he's the only one who will stand by the Constitution.

Feed the Ron Paul Revolution.

reduce the rich poor gap? What if that gap is in my rational self-interest?

:huh:

:icon_wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

reduce the rich poor gap? What if that gap is in my rational self-interest?

:huh:

:icon_wink:

---

Supporting an irrationally-devised system that changes favorites every 4 to 8 years is not in most people's rational self-interest. What we have is a system where one group gets favored economically when the republicans are in office, then gets punished when the democrats take office, who then pass favors to another group.

anyone who advocates isolationism of any sort and isn't willing to pull a pre-emptive strike and waits for the next bomb or shooting or plane crash to do anything, is not good for the country... I agree with his financial stances and some other things, but I can not support a candidate who seems to rather disband the military and invite invasion... the big talk the last few years has been terrorist - but countries are just as much a threat as they have been for centuries. It's just blatantly stupid to believe no country is a threat, even a rag tag group of 5...

there's a reason MAD works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

Supporting an irrationally-devised system that changes favorites every 4 to 8 years is not in most people's rational self-interest. What we have is a system where one group gets favored economically when the republicans are in office, then gets punished when the democrats take office, who then pass favors to another group.

---

So our system is set up specifically for the rational self-interests of Ralph Nader!!!

I'm just messin' with you. I like ALOT of what I've heard Ron Paul say. For those of us who are less evolved and would like to know a little about Pau's statement of faith, I found it online. He doesn't really say much about his personal faith, but he mentions a creator (which is not incompatible with even darwinian evolution) and speaks quite a bit about Augustinian just war and abortion.

http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm

I do think he would make an EXCELLENT vice president though, since the vice president advises the president on fiscal stuff, and as VP he could reign in the senate/house...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rus-La

anyone who advocates isolationism of any sort and isn't willing to pull a pre-emptive strike and waits for the next bomb or shooting or plane crash to do anything, is not good for the country... I agree with his financial stances and some other things, but I can not support a candidate who seems to rather disband the military and invite invasion... the big talk the last few years has been terrorist - but countries are just as much a threat as they have been for centuries. It's just blatantly stupid to believe no country is a threat, even a rag tag group of 5...

there's a reason MAD works.

---

Paul is not isolationist. He's non-interventionist when not directly related to our security. BIG difference.

Incidently, our military spending is way out of whack. Why? We spend more money in Korea, Iraq, etc. than we do defending our country at home. As a result, I'd say that we are probably NOT READY to defend our homeland if there is a legitimate attack (by Iran, let's say). FWIW, Ron Paul gets significantly more donations to his cause from individual military personnel than ANY other candidates -- I suggest you look a little more closely at his policies.

Ron Paul would NOT support disbanding the military. He would support getting it out of all conflict zones that we have no legitimate business (and particularly no congressional mandate) to be in.

I have read his stances/policies, have listened to all of his speeches now, and looked at his voting records... And I still say no.
Intervention is one of the best weapons the U.S. has. Getting rid of it completely would be a bad mistake. And I do relate being non-interventionist with being an isolationist - you end up doing nothing until something is done to you, which is a BAD thing...With America being what it is - you have to interevene everywhere just about. The U.S. military is in just about every single country in the world in one compacity or another - and every single one of them we have a stake in. And the U.S. is ready to defend against a conventional attack, though not an unconventional attack as strongly as we would like.

Cutting the military in half is effectively disbanding it.

Neutrality has been so bad for Switzerland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rus-La

Intervention is one of the best weapons the U.S. has.

---

Clearly supported by history.. :icon_wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rus-La

I do think he would make an EXCELLENT vice president though, since the vice president advises the president on fiscal stuff, and as VP he could reign in the senate/house...

---

Except for the radical shift in foreign policy should something happen to the President, which would probably be a bad time for such a shift to occur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Neutrality has been so bad for Switzerland.

---

It wouldn't do well for the United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

Clearly supported by history.. :icon_wink:

---

Yes, it is. (though not always successful)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9701Dawg

Except for the radical shift in foreign policy should something happen to the President, which would probably be a bad time for such a shift to occur.

---

True, but odds are, in today's world, if they are taking out the President, they'll be taking out the VP and many more at the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9701Dawg

Except for the radical shift in foreign policy should something happen to the President, which would probably be a bad time for such a shift to occur.

---

I'm pretty sure Paul would have no interest in being a VP to any of the goons that would be on the leading ticket (if not him).

From the Ron Paul campaign website...

"Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women. We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.
Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.
Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.
At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/wa...oreign-policy/

It's good to hear that Ron Paul is adopting the policies of Washington and Jefferson. The world sure hasn't changed much since their administrations.