Ron paul, the only hope for America.

 

-----signature-----

Its inevitable that this viewpoint would emerge. You'd have us going back to giant world wars, or huge conflicts between nations simply because you (we as a people) forgot how bad it could be. It does make sense, world stability is in America's best interest. We don't have those bases there because we're altruistic, our economic might is directly related to and intertwined with our military presence throughout the world.

It might help if you actually thought once about it instead of parroting your saviors taking points.

 

-----signature-----

we're going to bankrupt and destroy ourselves playing world police. at some point we can't just ignore our completely unsustainable policies anymore. our quality of life is stagnating so that we can allow everyone else's to increase.

 

-----signature-----

I am really up in the air as to whom to vote for. I know I don't like where we are headed. The more I hear of Paul the more I lean towards him just for something different, but who knows. It's still too early.

 

-----signature-----

We're in a recession. That's the worst time to radically change policies that would upend the world stability. Or do you think we'd be better off as isolationists while ignoring the fact that we live in a global economy?

Our policies generate American wealth. Our "stagnation" is the world catching up to our giant economic lead. When your in first place, change would only see you to second.

 

-----signature-----

I could vote for Ron Paul if he change his position on murdering jews. I don't think we should.

 

-----signature-----

Wut wut?

So what if Ron Paul wants to murder jews? Isnt that what most people in the world want to do?

 

-----signature-----

i don't buy this line of thinking. when we're not in a recession, everyone is too fat and comfortable to change anything. the deficit keeps piling up, the underlying structural problems with our economy get ignored, and once a recession rolls back around, everyone's like wtf.

there's seldom a benefit to waiting until later to fix something that's broken now. i seem to remember the compelling reason for keeping bush around in 2004 was because we were at war and didn't want too much change in a time of crisis.

 

-----signature-----

Change should be gradual. If we want to remove our bases around the world, then lets do it one at a time. Lets take ten years to draw down our non-vital posts and examine the impact on us and the world. Lets re-examine our vital spots and see if we can't tweak or remove them. To just remove all our posts carte blanche would be disastrous. You think the blow back we have now is bad?

I remember the counter-point to Bush being elected during the war. It was the accusation that he started the war specifically so he would get reelected. My issue with Kerry during all this was his "we broke it, now we need to enlist others to help fix it, even though I'm against the war myself." Doesn't seem like a very effective strategy.

The GOP is facing the same problem the dems had in 04. No viable candidate. That goes double for Ron Paul. Its a shame too, because he has some great ideas, but the horrible ones fall mostly under the executive branch purview so there wouldn't been many checks or balances. The good ideas would probably be stopped by congress.

 

-----signature-----