News Ron Paul's Candidacy - Should You Vote For Him?

[DavidSnider]

All this "government is bad, government is bad, government is bad" rhetoric suggests something to me: anarchism.

If government is bad, then it should not be trusted to command military and police forces. People would then defend themselves, instead of being lazy about their self-defense and begging the government to defend them with the help of other people's money.

Then, of course, there's states' rights. Some states' rights' advocates seem to love statism when it's the states doing it. If the Federal Government is so evil, then why not dissolve it outright and create 50+ separate nations? Like what happened to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia.

That seems to me like a recipe for economic and political weakness. Would these new nations become dominated by meddlesome foreign powers? Would they end up undoing much of their disunion by forming some regional blocs?

Returning to Ron Paul, he is very willing to be very statist about at least one issue. Abortion. Santorum, Paul Compete To Prove Pro-Life Credentials | Fox News

So much for less government. He hasn't exactly had a position of "I don't want the Federal Government to take sides about abortion. That's why I want to leave it to the states. If that leads to abortion tourism, then that's just too bad."

Ron Paul isn't an Anti-Government anarchist. He has stated many times that he thinks one of the few legitimate roles of government is to protect personal liberty by force. This is not in contrast to his views on abortion either because he believes that an unborn child has human rights.

It's fine to disagree with him, but at least disagree on his actual positions rather than a caricature of him.

 

[Evo]

If Ron Paul doesn't win the election, it'll give me more reason to move to Norway.

You realize that Norway completely supports all of it's people, more than the US?

They have guaranteed pensions, socialized medicine. Didn't know this? The pay for everything even burial. And it's citizens pay very high taxes for this.



http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2010-2011/europe/norway.html

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If Ron Paul doesn't win the election, it'll give me more reason to move to Norway.

I'll help you pack.

 

[Woopy]

You realize that Norway completely supports all of it's people, more than the US?

They have guaranteed pensions, socialized medicine. Didn't know this? The pay for everything even burial. And it's citizens pay very high taxes for this.



http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2010-2011/europe/norway.html

You disregarded a portion of my post. I know how it runs, and if that is the will of the people, then let it be. Ron Paul is an isolationist and wouldn't try and interrupt other countries' governments.

Norway works because it has a small population and a huge plot of oil so it can provide these services to its people. Just look at the GDP per capita.

 

[Evo]

You disregarded a portion of my post. I know how it runs, and if that is the will of the people, then let it be. Ron Paul is an isolationist and wouldn't try and interrupt other countries' governments.

Norway works because it has a small population and a huge plot of oil so it can provide these services to its people. Just look at the GDP per capita.

Look at the taxes for the social benefits.

I thought you didn't want the government taking care of you, now you want that. Why would Ron Paul have any say in Norway's government? What on Earth are you going on about? You think the US is trying to change the way Norway's government runs things?

 

[D H]

I'm not rich, and I may never be. That doesn't mean other people shouldn't be able to be rich.

Nobody has said that. You're making a slippery slope argument.

It's fine that you're rich. Just don't buy my government.

Turbo never said he was rich. He said he maxed out on Social Security tax. There's a big difference between maxing out on Social Security tax ($106,800 for 2011) and being rich -- even by left wing standards of "rich".

 

[turbo]

Turbo never said he was rich. He said he maxed out on Social Security tax. There's a big difference between maxing out on Social Security tax ($106,800 for 2011) and being rich -- even by left wing standards of "rich".

True. My wife and I live within our means. Maxing out on SS contributions for a few decades does not mean that we are "rich". Staying debt-free and living within our means has left us comfortable. We never spent money on vacations and "luxury" goods.

Very few of the vociferous anti-tax people on the right can claim that, IMO. Even without my wife's income, I was in the top 2% of earners for many years, and we socked away money. If the US gov't had increased the marginal rates for income tax, it wouldn't have fazed me a bit. The anti-tax nuts hollering about apocryphal predictions are bomb-tossers. Ron Paul is out on the margins, once you get into sections of the electorate that actually produce wealth and earn decent livings. We deserve better in our candidates.

 

[Woopy]

Nobody has said that. You're making a slippery slope argument.


Turbo never said he was rich. He said he maxed out on Social Security tax. There's a big difference between maxing out on Social Security tax ($106,800 for 2011) and being rich -- even by left wing standards of "rich".

It wasn't directed at turbo, it was directed more or less as a general statement for the billionaires of the world.

To go to Evo's argument, I'm talking about that unconstitutional war known as the invasion of iraq which was caused by apparently us wanting to change the government of another country as well as the ''WMDs"

And I don't want freebies when I'm in a country that has libertarian upbringings. The government was supposed to be small...the fed would of been set up at the beginning if it was intended there be a national bank. Maybe the Norweigan people want socialism? Let Norway determine Norway, Iraq determine Iraq, and the USA be the USA without imposing USA on Iraq or Norway. Maybe I just like the climate of Norway and that's why I want to live there?

The government in the USA turned into something that it was never meant to be by the founders.There is a very specific document that clearly lays out what the federal government can and cannot do, and yet it is just ignored.

Ron paul is a strict constitutionalist, I don't see why people would not be? If you support candidates such as Obama and Bush, you are undermining one of the most important documents in the country.

 

[turbo]

Ron paul is a strict constitutionalist, I don't see why people would not be? If you support candidates such as Obama and Bush, you are undermining one of the most important documents in the country.

It might be a good idea if you could support that claim. Paul is a Federalist, not a Libertarian, IMO. He would repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because those impinged on the "rights" of southern states to suppress the rights of minorities to have access to voting and public access to public amenities. His newsletters are out there for all to see. He is not fit to be a candidate for the Presidency.

 

[Evo]

It wasn't directed at turbo, it was directed more or less as a general statement for the billionaires of the world.

Oh please. I paid the maximum for the last 20+ years, I'm not rich.

To go to Evo's argument, I'm talking about that unconstitutional war known as the invasion of iraq which was caused by apparently us wanting to change the government of another country as well as the ''WMDs"

Ok, that is a blatant falsification of what was being discussed. We were discussing Norway's social programs.

 

[Woopy]

He would repeal the act because it impinged on the business's rights to choose who they want to serve. Why should the government tell you that you must serve every customer if you are a private enterprise?

You are eluding that he is racist, when it is so painstakingly obvious that he isn't. How could someone who is a major supporter (I mean his entire campaign is based on this) of individual civil liberties. Racism is a form of collectivism, and he is not a collectivist.

 

[Dotini]

Paul's top tier finish in Iowa guarantees that more open discussion of non-interventionist foreign policy and "Austrian" economics will henceforth feature prominently among Republican candidates, supporters, media punditry and even progressives like Rachel Maddow. He has won a major consciousness breakthrough (victory) for Americans, as we obviously cannot have liberty, peace or prosperity as long as we are broke and fighting. These are the major issues of our times, and now everybody knows it.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Evo]

Paul's top tier finish in Iowa guarantees that more open discussion of non-interventionist foreign policy and "Austrian" economics will henceforth feature prominently among Republican candidates, supporters, media punditry and even progressives like Rachel Maddow. He has won a major consciousness breakthrough (victory) for Americans, as we obviously cannot have liberty, peace or prosperity as long as we are broke and fighting. These are the major issues of our times, and now everybody knows it.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

He lost, even though he stacked the caucus with his supporters, which are mostly "independants".

Read here, he's gone, which may not be so good, IMO. If the GOP chose Paul. analysts are saying it would be a landslide for Obama. It appears (from the mews) will be seeinhg Paul going down the tubes.

Santorum is scary, he has the Evangelist vote.

Many of Paul's voters identified themselves as independents, which may prove problematic for the libertarian-leaning congressman as the nomination calendar moves ahead to contests that are open only to Republican voters.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...es-fierce-battle-conservatives-065415792.html

 

[lpetrich]

Ron Paul isn't an Anti-Government anarchist. He has stated many times that he thinks one of the few legitimate roles of government is to protect personal liberty by force. This is not in contrast to his views on abortion either because he believes that an unborn child has human rights.

However, that can justify a heck of a lot of statism. What counts as "liberties"? It's not as self-evident as it might seem.

Furthermore, one can use a lot of anti-welfare-state and anti-statism rhetoric against even a minimal night-watchman state. One can argue that government protection is a form of welfare for those who are too lazy to protect themselves, for those who want to be protected with other people's money and other people's lives. One can argue that individuals are much better at protecting themselves than governments are. One can argue that private-sector protection is much better than government protection. Private-sector protection like vigilante posses and volunteer militias and hired guards and mercenaries. One can argue that government protection has crowded out potentially-superior private-sector protection initiatives. One can argue that government protection makes creates dependency by making people dependent on government. Etc.

Back to Ron Paul, he certainly scored an impressive performance in Iowa, only a little behind Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, the neck-and-neck front runners. But in 2008, he did much better in the caucuses than in the primaries proper, and what happened then is likely to happen this year. So the big test will be how well he does in New Hampshire.

 

[turbo]

Paul won't fly in NH. It should be a Romney blow-out with Santorum a distant second. Even with Gingrich as his wingman attacking Romney, Santorum won't fare well in NH. Just my opinion, but I think it's well-founded. New Hampshire voters tend to be conservatives, but they are not evangelicals, like you might find in the South and the heartland.

 

[turbo]

If Paul has enough money to stay in it (think Cato/Koch brothers, etc) he will end up being a spoiler that will squander a GOP majority in the House. The "coattail" idea is simplistic, but the truth is that if your party is not enthused about the people at the top of the ticket, they might not flock to the polls, losing votes for your party-mates down-ticket.

 

[mheslep]

If Paul has enough money to stay in it (think Cato/Koch brothers, etc) ...

Please show where Paul gets a significant share of his money from Cato/Koch, if any.

 

[mheslep]

I get the impression that Paul thinks the needy can be taken care of by religious and secular charitable organizations, and state and local governments. But, afaik, history doesn't support that position. ...

Have you spent any time investigating the history?

 

[turbo]

Please show where Paul gets a significant share of his money from Cato/Koch, if any.

Thanks to Citizens United, that cannot be done, and I think you know it. He's the closest thing to a Libertarian that they have, so where do you think they will spend their money or steer their donors? Our elections are now dirtier and less-transparent than ever, and will continue to subvert the will of the citizens until CU is overturned.

 

[mheslep]

People have paid fortunes in Social Security and Medicare taxes, they are then entitiled to receive money back when they can no longer work.

Yep, but they are not entitled to receive several times what they paid in.

 

[mheslep]

Thanks to Citizens United, that cannot be done, and I think you know it.

CU has nothing to do with notification. I think you should retract what you invented and stated as fact.

Our elections are now dirtier and less-transparent than ever, and will continue to subvert the will of the citizens until CU is overturned.

What do you care, with Obama's billion dollar campaign fund and not a word about it? Not a word about his blowing to pieces his public financing pledge in 2008.

 

[turbo]

Yep, but they are not entitled to receive several times what they paid in.

Have you heard of compound interest and inflation? I started paying into SS in the early 60's. If I could only get dollar-for-dollar benefits without interest and inflation being considered, I'd be pretty ticked. That's not what I paid in for.

 

[turbo]

CU has nothing to do with notification. I think you should retract what you invented and stated as fact.

The fact is that CU allows corporate entities to make unlimited ad-buys without ever having to disclose the identities of the donors. I won't retract fact. And please stop calling me a liar.

 

[mheslep]

Have you heard of compound interest and inflation? I started paying into SS in the early 60's. If I could only get dollar-for-dollar benefits without interest and inflation being considered, I'd be pretty ticked. That's not what I paid in for.

I'm referring mainly to Medicare, the 3:1 to 5:1 payout has been discussed in other threads.
http://www.urban.org/uploadedPDF/310667_Straight36.pdf Figure 2.

 

[mheslep]

The fact is that CU allows corporate entities to make unlimited ad-buys without ever having to disclose the identities of the donors. I won't retract fact. And please stop calling me a liar.

You stated:

If Paul has enough money to stay in it (think Cato/Koch brothers, etc) ...

without caveat or an IMO. I'm not interested in tangents about CU. Its very simple. You either i) know Cato/Koch fund Paul via a source, or ii) have an opinion that they do and stated it here as fact. Which?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Have you heard of compound interest and inflation? I started paying into SS in the early 60's. If I could only get dollar-for-dollar benefits without interest and inflation being considered, I'd be pretty ticked. That's not what I paid in for.

Private pensions pay interest, but they do not pay for inflation. Yet people buy them without getting ticked at them.

 

[ginru]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...es-fierce-battle-conservatives-065415792.html

Wow it's almost like Daily Show deja vu. #1 and #2 pictured prominently while #4 and #5 get video spots. Well, at least Ron Paul got a few lukewarm sentences and a link to a silly article about a twitter joke down at the bottom.

BTW, here's a Q&A article on him. http://news.yahoo.com/q-ron-paul-iowas-third-place-finisher-081000162.html

In it, Paul says:

"I'm super-confident in the message. Of course, I know my own shortcomings in the way I deliver messages, but I think it's the message that makes America great.
What do you mean by shortcomings?
I never use notes. I'm spontaneous and I'm more effective that way. And sometimes they'll say, 'Well, he sort of jumps around.' And I say, well I should jump around. But I survive it all. The message always come through. Today we talked to the high school kids, and it's the same message when I talk to the retired people."

-----------------------------------------------------------
I like that he's honest about what I see as a key weakness. He doesn't deliver the message well enough in playing the campaign game. Romney comes off as polished, well-groomed and well-coached with what I'd assume is a top-notch staff. Paul comes off as a jumpy loon in comparison (though more genuine as well). Perhaps he just needs the right consultant or adviser to give him that needed balance of polished electability with his honest conviction. It seems like much of politics is down to packaged marketing.

 

[Char. Limit]

You stated:
without caveat or an IMO. I'm not interested in tangents about CU. Its very simple. You either i) know Cato/Koch fund Paul via a source, or ii) have an opinion that they do and stated it here as fact. Which?

I don't see how that's fact. If I stated something like this:

If mheslep has enough support to stay in it (think Evo, Micromass, etc.)

That's not stating that you are receiving support from those two users. That simply says "think about people like that". Of course, in this case, I just pulled random names out of my "last people remembered" list.

 

[turbo]

Private pensions pay interest, but they do not pay for inflation. Yet people buy them without getting ticked at them.

Private pension-plans EARN interest, if they are invested properly. Determined-benefit plans (my wife and I each have one from previous employers) have to buy financial instruments. Such pensions are designed to provide adequate benefits to the beneficiaries (yes, even with projected inflation rolled in) but they are not designed to deal with criminal behavior on the part of the banks issuing the "investments" that are supposed to keep the funds healthy.

 

[Tosh5457]

Yes Ron Paul has many radical ideas which I don't agree with, but it's funny how people think that the other candidates are more moderate. Continuing with the same foreign policy and with the gigantic military spending, for example, in my opinion is a radical idea, and the other republican candidates support this.

The policies on drugs are also ridiculous, and they mean a lot of unnecessary government spending.

And the debt is just monstrous, any serious candidate should now be talking on how to reduce the debt.

Ron Paul addresses these problems, and the other candidates just don't seem to care. Yes he has many radical ideas, but don't forget that a president can't pass anything he wants, so I think he'd do more good than bad as a president (unlike the others, who will definitely do more bad than good).

What I don't get is why so many people say Ron Paul isn't a real candidate, and that he never will the elections so the media shouldn't mention him. First of all that isn't democratic at all, every candidate should be respected independent on how he's running and his ideas. And second, then why does the media pay attention to Bachman and Gingrich? Ron Paul has more chances than them, so why doesn't the media pay more attention to Ron Paul than them? Hypocrisy at its finest...

 

[mheslep]

Paul humor.

http://global.nationalreview.com/images/cartoon_010212_A.jpg

 

[Evo]

Paul humor.

http://global.nationalreview.com/images/cartoon_010212_A.jpg

LOl.

 

[ThomasT]

... What I don't get is why so many people say Ron Paul isn't a real candidate ...

I think it's at least partly (mostly?) because that's the image that the mainstream corporate media is promulgating. Just imagine the problems that a Ron Paul with the power of the presidency might cause for the status quo.

This is not to say that I would vote for Ron Paul. I wouldn't. But I don't think he's the least desirable GOP candidate (in GOP field wrt which, imho, all candidates are undesirable for one reason or another).

 

[Evo]

I think it's at least partly (mostly?) because that's the image that the mainstream corporate media is promulgating. Just imagine the problems that a Ron Paul with the power of the presidency might cause for the status quo.

This is not to say that I would vote for Ron Paul. I wouldn't. But I don't think he's the least desirable GOP candidate (in GOP field wrt which, imho, all candidates are undesirable for one reason or another).

Only Santorum is scarier. IMO. But, yeah, even the republicans don't like the line up, 58% polled don't want any of them.

 

[turbo]

I don't know a single Republican who has a "favorite" out of that batch of lukewarm dishwater. It's pretty sad. This country has a pretend "two-party" system in which the top officials in both parties are beholden to the wealthy/big businesses. The GOP has tossed in the towel for 2012, IMO. Not a good thing.

 

[ThomasT]

Only Santorum is scarier. IMO.

I agree that Santorum is worse. And so, apparently, do most Americans ... at least for the time being.

And, while not particularly desirable, imo, a Ron Paul presidency would at least be interesting. Whereas a, say, Mitt Romney presidency would be pretty boring, ie., just more of the same business as usual, imho.

 

[ThomasT]

I don't know a single Republican who has a "favorite" out of that batch of lukewarm dishwater. It's pretty sad. This country has a pretend "two-party" system in which the top officials in both parties are beholden to the wealthy/big businesses. The GOP has tossed in the towel for 2012, IMO. Not a good thing.

I basically agree with this assessment. It's "a good thing" only in the sense that Obama has established, imo, that he's not going to do any great harm ... but then he isn't really advocating, or making happen, changes that I think would significantly improve the lives of average Americans. (Of course, it can be argued that that's mostly due to the intransigence of the GOP dominated congress, which is a topic for another thread.)

 

[Evo]

The thing is that Ron Paul's isolationist ideas (not to mention just being plain idiotic) would cause so much hatred against the US, if any of his crazy ideas were to be implemented, it would be global suicide. Of course, it's because people that understand international politics realize this that he will never be taken seriously.

IMO.

 

[ThomasT]

The thing is that Ron Paul's isolationist ideas (not to mention just being plain idiotic) would cause so much hatred against the US, if any of his crazy ideas were to be implemented, it would be global suicide.

Well, that's an empirical question that can only be definitively answered if America was to implement Paul's isolationist ideas.

Of course, it's because people that understand international politics realize this that he will never be taken seriously.IMO.

But it could be argued that the people who are in positions to do anything about international politics are tools of the status quo. So, it's wrt that consideration that I would consider a Ron Paul presidency to be ... interesting.

 

[Tosh5457]

The thing is that Ron Paul's isolationist ideas (not to mention just being plain idiotic) would cause so much hatred against the US, if any of his crazy ideas were to be implemented, it would be global suicide. Of course, it's because people that understand international politics realize this that he will never be taken seriously.

IMO.

Yes, because USA's current foreign policy definitely doesn't cause hatred against the US. And the terrorists hate USA because they hate freedom, right? It's not because USA has been on the Middle East doing damage and building bases for a long time, and helping Israel?

The other republican candidates will just keep the same foreign policy going, and I don't see how that could be better than what Ron Paul says.

 

[MarcoD]

Yes, because USA's current foreign policy definitely doesn't cause hatred against the US. And the terrorists hate USA because they hate freedom, right? It's not because USA has been on the Middle East doing damage and building bases for a long time, and helping Israel?

Life is never that simple. For all we know, Europe could have been fascist or communist by now, Saddam could have taken over the Middle East and slaughtered half of it, and Israel might have gone down the drains decades ago.

I am not very happy with these wars either, but there are two sides to this coin.

 

[Tosh5457]

Life is never that simple. For all we know, Europe could have been fascist or communist by now, Saddam could have taken over the Middle East and slaughtered half of it, and Israel might have gone down the drains decades ago.

I am not very happy with these wars either, but there are two sides to this coin.

The reasons for USA going to war against Iraq weren't that noble, to prevent Saddam from taking over the Middle East. The fact that US could have or could have not prevent an eventual bigger evil isn't a reason to support a war, especially when there are darker reasons behind that war.

And you can't compare WWII to this... The Axis posed a threat to the Allies back then, and now do you really think Iraq poses a threat to USA? Not even to Israel, with the support they've been getting from US. But on the Israel issue, USA-Israel alliance is one-sided: USA has always helped Israel, but what has Israel done for US? That's not even an alliance, that's just a country that doesn't need aid receiving aid from another country. If it wasn't for the strong political power Israel has on Washington, they'd get nothing. If the corrupt politicians weren't influenced by the pro-Israel lobbies, they'd end the alliance with Israel and let Israel govern for itself.

 

[MarcoD]

The reasons for USA going to war against Iraq weren't that noble, to prevent Saddam from taking over the Middle East. The fact that US could have or could have not prevent an eventual bigger evil isn't a reason to support a war, especially when there are darker reasons behind that war.

And you can't compare WWII to this... The Axis posed a threat to the Allies back then, and now do you really think Iraq poses a threat to USA? Not even to Israel, with the support they've been getting from US. But on the Israel issue, USA-Israel alliance is one-sided: USA has always helped Israel, but what has Israel done for US? That's not even an alliance, that's just a country that doesn't need aid receiving aid from another country. If it wasn't for the strong political power Israel has on Washington, they'd get nothing. If the corrupt politicians weren't influenced by the pro-Israel lobbies, they'd end the alliance with Israel and let Israel govern for itself.

Man, motives are irrelevant. The end result of the Iraq war should have been, in human terms: "-1 massmurdering idiot intent on invading other countries." The end result is now obscured with the equation: "-100K Iraqis dead." So you can see what went wrong, in humane terms, in that war, the rest is irrelevant, and you can see all mistakes from there. Roughly, nobody cares about whether the guy was murdering people with WMDs or kitchen knifes -so the UN presentation was a cock-up,- everybody (now) cares about oil, or other, motives -which could have been avoided with some clear statements,- nobody knows whether US got out of Iraq too early, too late, or just in time, since the "-100K Iraqis" is an awful statistic.

The oil motives, the geographical motives, Israel, the strategic alliance motives, nobody really cares about it long term. The only thing people most people in the world will care about is the humane equation and why that conflict ended with that equation which will spring all mentioned other 'inhumane' motives. And it is all irrelevant, since the only thing which matters is the humane equation.

(Btw, the above is not meant as a critique on the US.)

 

[mheslep]

do you really think Iraq poses a threat to USA?

Who would have thought 20 guys in some commercial airplanes would have posed a threat to the US?

 

[turbo]

I am not very happy with these wars either, but there are two sides to this coin.

The nuts that promoted these wars are very fond of presenting false dichotomies. There is no international/foreign relations issue that has "two sides", and it's high time that somebody in the press mans up and explains that - loudly and over and over again. Politicians are professional liars, and if they can get enough of the public to get behind them, they can do tremendous damage with such simplistic claims.

 

[Tosh5457]

Man, motives are irrelevant. The end result of the Iraq war should have been, in human terms: "-1 massmurdering idiot intent on invading other countries." The end result is now obscured with the equation: "-100K Iraqis dead." So you can see what went wrong, in humane terms, in that war, the rest is irrelevant, and you can see all mistakes from there. Roughly, nobody cares about whether the guy was murdering people with WMDs or kitchen knifes -so the UN presentation was a cock-up,- everybody (now) cares about oil, or other, motives -which could have been avoided with some clear statements,- nobody knows whether US got out of Iraq too early, too late, or just in time, since the "-100K Iraqis" is an awful statistic.

The oil motives, the geographical motives, Israel, the strategic alliance motives, nobody really cares about it long term. The only thing people most people in the world will care about is the humane equation and why that conflict ended with that equation which will spring all mentioned other 'inhumane' motives. And it is all irrelevant, since the only thing which matters is the humane equation.

(Btw, the above is not meant as a critique on the US.)

Ok, you can argue that motives don't count, only the results do. But my initial point was that USA's foreign policy has been causing Middle East to hate them. It's fine that they went after Al-Qaeda, and that they caught Saddam, but why are they still in the Middle East in 2012? Even before the Golf War, USA was already making enemies in the Middle East, and decades later they're still there...

Who would have thought 20 guys in some commercial airplanes would have posed a threat to the US?

So just to make sure they don't get attacked again, US should stay on the Middle East forever?

USA's foreign policy is completely nuts. The military spending is monstrous, especially when US has so much debt. The question is not if US should cut on military spending or not, the question is how much they should cut. And to make those cuts the mentality about foreign policy has to change... USA are in NATO, they're allies with Europe... They don't need a fraction of the military they currently have.

 

[ThomasT]

Yes, because USA's current foreign policy definitely doesn't cause hatred against the US. And the terrorists hate USA because they hate freedom, right? It's not because USA has been on the Middle East doing damage and building bases for a long time, and helping Israel?

The other republican candidates will just keep the same foreign policy going, and I don't see how that could be better than what Ron Paul says.

Your sarcasm is noted and well taken, imo. But, imo, the best foreign policy will be something between Bush-Cheney and Ron Paul. Not that Paul's strict isolationist ideas would necessarily be implemented if he were to be elected, but the prospect of it is enough for me to not vote for him. No country can afford to be isolationist, except maybe Monaco as long as they keep the dice rolling.

 

[mathwonk]

does sarah palin have much chance to win the fields medal?

 

[chiro]

does sarah palin have much chance to win the fields medal?

You should have read her paper on "The topological implications of The bridge To Nowhere". If that doesn't win her a Fields medal, then I don't know what will.

 

[ThomasT]

Is my failure to understand the relevance of the last two posts to a "Ron Paul's candidacy" thread perhaps one reason why I will, presumably, never win a Fields Medal? Not that they weren't humorous.