Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
First, he doesn't have the support from the base of the republican party.
Second, he doesn't appeal to independents.
Wrong.
Ron Paul beats Obama among Independents
Third, he is attack material. Let sick people die, get rid of CIA, DHS, FBI, INS etc. Just makes him look nuts.
He never said we should let sick people die.
Ron Pauls answer to Wolf Blitzers question, transcribed precisely, was No.
As to Republicans who would vote for Obama over Ron Paul, they are called unrepentant neo-cons, and chances are they care more for Israeli security than US domestic prosperity.
I am a Constitutionalists and obviously I know more about history of conservatism and history then you. I blame people like you for continually voting for whoever Mark Levin and Sean Hannity tell you, I blame people like you for not thinking outside the mind state of Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.
The founders preached a non-interventionist foreign policy; trade with nations but entangling alliances with none. Why don't you read Tafts purpose for a foreign policy, RR's memoirs, or GWB in 2000.
Wake up.
Do you think that we need ALL the bases established overseas or that a small fraction of bases could accomplish the same goal?.
You would have to look at each one individually and assess the particular situation there. Could be we need more, or maybe we could consolidate some, but I don't think "a small fraction" is anywhere near realistic.
The the thing about the Paullette's, is that they seem to think we're still living in the 1700's, where Paul's foreign policy would have worked fine....It's a far different world out there these days. Our interests abroad are far greater. The whole dynamic of the world has changed these last 240 plus years.it is more than one country attacking another.....an attack like that would cause other Latin American countries to jump in on either side..had Venezuela invaded Panama and Colombia would have responded against him and his croonies...his croonies are obligated to jump in and help him...the Central American countries with the exception of Nicaragua would have lined up against Chavez and then Mexico would jump in and you would have an entire Latin American war on your hands right in your back yard..and refugees from all of those countries in the US. You do realize that Chavez has a military agreement with South American countries in his ALBA agreements right?
So you think we need to spend 1.3 trillion dollars a year to maintain an empire so if one country decides to attack another we can dedicate more tax dollars and the lives of our soldiers to protect another nation??
Here is a CLUE
Were broke, weve been printing money for the last ten years to try and keep our heads above water, but now all that money we printed is pulling us down. Any increase the interest rate will immeadiatly bankrupt the government.
With regards to Chavez and all that nonsense, if your going to come in with off the wall bat-shit theory's then provide a link for where your getting your facts.
I live in Honduras that is where I get my facts. You think that his ALBA agreements are off the wall theories? Where in the hell have you been? This is why fools should not get involved in politics....especially when they are clueless as to why we do not want to pull out our bases from everywhere.
but since you continue to have your head in the sand....
Chavez wants military alliance against US - Geopolitical Monitor
US Politics | AMERICAblog News: Hugo Chavez suggests invading Honduras after coup
perhaps you are the only person who did not know about the unrest that happened on June 29, 2009 and that is why you are unqualified to determine what is needed and Ron Paul is even more disqualified than you are.
Paul could also be attacked from the left, because just as many of his stances are abhorrent to liberals as to conservatives (they're just different ones). That's really his problem. Most people in the U.S. are either liberal or conservative or some form of moderate. Libertarianism is a philosophy that appeals to very few, mostly those who are so strongly thinking types that an intellectual theory can override their common sense. (Libertarians share this trait with Marxists, in my observation.)
[ If you don't think we can exist with a small fraction, you have not looked at the actual situation then. .
I am a Constitutionalists and obviously I know more about history of conservatism and history then you. I blame people like you for continually voting for whoever Mark Levin and Sean Hannity tell you, I blame people like you for not thinking outside the mind state of Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.
The founders preached a non-interventionist foreign policy; trade with nations but entangling alliances with none. Why don't you read Tafts purpose for a foreign policy, RR's memoirs, or GWB in 2000.
Wake up.
Vote for whomever you want. That's your choice, right, and responsibility.
But a piece of free advice, humble yourself. Regardless who you vote for, pride and haughtiness will destroy you and those around you unless you become humble.
[ If you don't think we can exist with a small fraction, you have not looked at the actual situation then. .
If I don't agree with you, I have not looked at the actual situation? That's a pretty stupid thing to say.
I am a Constitutionalists and obviously I know more about history of conservatism and history then you. I blame people like you for continually voting for whoever Mark Levin and Sean Hannity tell you, I blame people like you for not thinking outside the mind state of Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.
The founders preached a non-interventionist foreign policy; trade with nations but entangling alliances with none. Why don't you read Tafts purpose for a foreign policy, RR's memoirs, or GWB in 2000.
Wake up.
Vote for whomever you want. That's your choice, right, and responsibility.
But a piece of free advice, humble yourself. Regardless who you vote for, pride and haughtiness will destroy you and those around you unless you become humble.
Is that what they're calling listening to Hannity and O'Reilly these days: An exercise in humility?
I could see why you'd call it that, though.
Liberals care principally about the ends and are entirely too dismissive about the means. Libertarians recognize that the means are the ends; namely, responsible and limited government.
If your ends are "responsible and limited government," then perhaps you can say the means are the ends. But if your ends are the liberty and well-being of the common man, then those are obviously not the same, and there will be times when limited government doesn't serve that end at all.
The ends of liberalism have always been the liberty and well-being of the common man. Limited government has been, at times, a means to that end. At other times, big government has been a means to the same end. That isn't true for libertarians, because limited government is itself the end they value, and not a means to some other end, as it is for both liberals and conservatives.
Paul has very limited potential appeal, because most people are somewhere on the liberal-to-conservative scale, concerned with their class interests and other practicalities, not with the size and scope of government as a theoretical principle. That's why just about everyone agrees with something or other that Paul says (because just about everyone thinks the government is doing something it shouldn't), but hardly anyone agrees with everything he says (because hardly anyone agrees that the government should be pared back across the board).
When I made the observation that libertarians and Marxists share that characteristic of putting theory ahead of fact, I was speaking from personal experience of both. The specific ideas of libertarians and Marxists are very different, to be sure, but they both put those ideas ahead of any practical considerations and have a hard time seeing and accepting how small their constituency really is.
We need as many as are practically required to fulfill their function of meeting our obligations to our allies, guaranteeing the stability and open trade routes upon which we depend for our economic interests and to prevent regional conflagrations that would prove much more costly than playing the role that only US power can play in the world today.
The ends of liberalism have always been the liberty and well-being of the common man. .
We need as many as are practically required to fulfill their function of meeting our obligations to our allies, guaranteeing the stability and open trade routes upon which we depend for our economic interests and to prevent regional conflagrations that would prove much more costly than playing the role that only US power can play in the world today.
That's a nice non-answer. .
Unkotare, this thread has opened my eyes to the fact that I shouldn't take your content-empty, rude, and childish responses to me personally. That seems to be the way you treat everyone.
Congratulations. Now shut the fuck up.
Unkotare, this thread has opened my eyes to the fact that I shouldn't take your content-empty, rude, and childish responses to me personally. That seems to be the way you treat everyone.