Printable View
Ron Paul is often mentioned as the only anti war candidate. Is this because Ron Paul is a man of peace or are his objections to being involved in war based primarily on fiscal reasons? For me, being anti war does not necessarily translate into being pro peace.
I can't speak for Ron, but here are my observations.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Ruhkukah:
1) His approach is common sense and the Golden Rule. Do unto your neighbors as you would have them do unto you. Doing what O'bomba and past presidents have done is asking for trouble. He thinks diplomacy is a worthy international policy. He thinks sanctions are bad international policy.
2) He is anti empire building. He thinks we should mind our own business and develop fruitful economic relations with other nations.
3) He doesn't think the USA should maintain thousands of military bases all over the world. He thinks countries we are currently protecting should protect themselves.
4) He is a Constitutionalist which in the case of war means that only Congress should be allowed to declare war. Our current congress is merely advised and informed after the fact, and are impotent to do their Constitutional duty. O'bomba takes his orders from the United Nations which is controlled by a few ruling elite globalists who want a one world government. Paul is not a globalist, he wants the integrity of the United States to be restored, and thinks we should pull out of the United Nations.
5) He is against all wars of aggression. He believes war is only to be used if we are attacked. And although he can't say it publicly while running for office, I don't believe he bought that phony 9/11 "attack" for a minute.
Our fiscal problems are directly tied to our arrogant militarism. Empire building, policing the world, and preparing us for near martial law at home are vastly more expensive than being prepared to defend against attack.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Ruhkukah:
I'll need further elucidation before this statement makes sense to me.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Ruhkukah:
Try looking at it this way.
In Plan A (what we've had for generations now), every president since Lincoln has been (with the exception, perhaps, of Warren Harding) a verified liar, a proven war monger, and a seeker of centralized power over the general population. This list includes Obama, Romney, Santorum and Gingrich.
For Plan B, we (finally) have the option of a verifiably honest, consistent, frugal and arguably wise, grandfatherly figure, who mainly wants to leave you alone, but is perfectly willing to be a friend and engage in friendly non-coercive trade when desirable.
Aren't you ready for Plan B yet? I am.
Going to see him at Zellerbach Hall in Berkeley Thursday night. Be interesting to see the crowd. In Chico last night, the crowd was 6,200.