Neonanocyborgasm
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,695
In the real world, he secures government earmarks for the shrimp farmers in his district.
I suppose that's inevitable. Such rigid positions are inevitably impossible to uphold for long.
In the real world, he secures government earmarks for the shrimp farmers in his district.
His foreign policy is what I love the most actually! I like how he goes to the source of our problems and not focus on the symptoms like others do.I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm actually starting to like Ron Paul a bit more politically. There are a few issues I disagree with him on, but like what the High Priest of the Church of the Painful Truth said: The more you hear Paul, the better he sounds.... Until you get to his foreign policy.
Influence to do what, and for whom? Are you better off as a result of the U.S. bombing Libya?Isolationism? Surely that would weak America's influence?
Nobody advocates that. Sounds like a strawman to me. I've done some research on Ron Paul's foreign policy views and I've learned that CIA veteran and terrorist hunter Michael Scheuer would likely be Paul's Secretary of State. I don't know about you, but I would feel MUCH safer with Michael Scheuer at the helm, instead of Hillary Clinton.The problem is that we're in the mess now, so we better do something about it. Hiding in a corner and pretending the problems we started don't exist isn't going to fix the problem.
I would never vote for Ron Paul, and consider him a kook, but you have to admire him for his consistency. He is a true libertarian in the strictness of his belief against state intervention in nearly all matters, public and private. That position is impossible to uphold in real world governance, but at least from the philosophical point of view, it's consistent.
Yesss, the evil Wall Street! Our feudal lordsss. Hiss! Instead of trying to set them up as a bogeyman and vilifying them, use economic reality: what power does "Wall Street" (by whom do you even mean?) have over the market? They are not the be all and end all of capital, and these Wall Street firms would still provide a market service so long as they remained competitive.
Actually, Ron Paul says we should leave Iraq and Afghanistan, even in the mess that they are in now. I am against that. I believe we should clean up that mess, as well as still be active in the Middle East in terms of keeping an eye on Iran.Nobody advocates that. Sounds like a strawman to me. I've done some research on Ron Paul's foreign policy views and I've learned that CIA veteran and terrorist hunter Michael Scheuer would likely be Paul's Secretary of State. I don't know about you, but I would feel MUCH safer with Michael Scheuer at the helm, instead of Hillary Clinton.
Why does the government have to do that? Private American citizens that think those things should be done can do it themselves.Actually, Ron Paul says we should leave Iraq and Afghanistan, even in the mess that they are in now. I am against that. I believe we should clean up that mess, as well as still be active in the Middle East in terms of keeping an eye on Iran.
Actually, Ron Paul says we should leave Iraq and Afghanistan, even in the mess that they are in now. I am against that. I believe we should clean up that mess, as well as still be active in the Middle East in terms of keeping an eye on Iran.
Look at what they do to us here, and you think they can fix things in a country where they aren't at all accountable to the people impacted by their decisions?Actually, Ron Paul says we should leave Iraq and Afghanistan, even in the mess that they are in now. I am against that. I believe we should clean up that mess, as well as still be active in the Middle East in terms of keeping an eye on Iran.
That's one of the best things that could happen to the world.Isolationism? Surely that would weak America's influence?
What I'm thinking is that first, we should send more troops in. (I know, I know, without naming names, I know posters are going to whine about that. But it has to be done to efficiently rid the area of terrorists, which is our primary problem.) Using those troops, we clean out the terrorists more effectively. That was basically the whole problem in the first place. We should have stuck to Afghanistan and left Iraq alone, thereby pouring all our resources into clearing out Afghanistan, rather than the skimping that we did. I know, sending in more troops isn't going to fix the problem right then and there, but it's the basic framework.I used to think that way about Afghanistan, but I'm more and more convinced that further commitment would be a typical case of the sunk cost fallacy and that we should cut our losses sooner rather than later.
Our military isn't really doing anything to us here.....The American military and military contractors. "Re"-building Afghanistan and Iraq.
If by "we", you mean private persons and entities hiring available private mercenaries, I agree. We have already poured way too many taxpayer dollars into this if you are claiming the mission remains unaccomplished.What I'm thinking is that first, we should send more troops in.
You might want to rethink that endeavor. Here's some sobering news from Michael Scheuer on "cleaning up our mess".Actually, Ron Paul says we should leave Iraq and Afghanistan, even in the mess that they are in now. I am against that. I believe we should clean up that mess, as well as still be active in the Middle East in terms of keeping an eye on Iran.