This vet nailed it on the head

[Shawnmoore81 623]

This vet nailed it on the head. I'd put this in the political section but I haven't found that on the forum.

 

 

[raz-0 1,259]

I don't necessarily think Ron Paul is any better than the rest of them, but a big +1 to his analysis of the situation.

[Soju 153]

Ron Paul is leaps and bounds better than the others...

[Adam 6]

Wow.. well said and well spoken/thought out.

[SpacemanFry 51]

Well said indeed. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate (this or previous few elections) who doesn't piss all over the Constitution.

 

You know what's sad... John Steward has done more coverage of the NDAA than most media outlets. Says a lot about the apathy in this country with respect to our constitutional rights.

[Geek 4]

As a society we have been willing to sacrifice our rights in the quest for safety. Bad choice IMHO.

[Malsua 1,422]

He's just as impassioned by his vote for Ron Paul as he was about his vote for HOPE-N-CHANGE 4 years ago. For the same reasons too. Emotion.

 

While the patriot act, NDAA and other legislation are troubling, nothing is as dire as he suggests, nor is the USA "in an identical state as pre-Nazi Germany.". Age has a tendancy to temper the "Sky is falling" after you hear it every election. I'm going to guess this guy is 30 or under. If you were around during the 1980 election, the democrats would have had us believe that a vote for Reagan was a vote for nuclear annihilation. I was in my teens at the time, but I remember my super liberal civics teacher lamenting over and over that we were doomed. That Reagan was going to start hauling dissidents off in the night on some communist witch hunt. The common refrain in the class was "We know one name to send him!", followed by some laughs.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I love Ron Paul on his economic policy and his stance on the constitution. When you get to some of the rest of his policies, you're off into la-la land. His foreign policy is downright dangerous.

[axeman_g 128]

+1 to Malsua

 

Ron Paul is much to smart to think Isolationism and trade with our enemies will pacify them into loving us... at least I hope he is. Islamist will never be pacified as long as the USA exists. Read this qoute from the Quran "Allah is for the world." Remember that.

 

Reagan's 2nd term was my first election... you would have thought Mondale was taking on McCarthy/Satan/Krushev.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

I don't think we should totally close our boarders to trade but we sure as hell need to make things in the USA again. If he aims at 100% and gets 50% it's a huge win for the American worker

[SpacemanFry 51]

He's just as impassioned by his vote for Ron Paul as he was about his vote for HOPE-N-CHANGE 4 years ago. For the same reasons too. Emotion.

 

While the patriot act, NDAA and other legislation are troubling, nothing is as dire as he suggests, nor is the USA "in an identical state as pre-Nazi Germany.". Age has a tendancy to temper the "Sky is falling" after you hear it every election. I'm going to guess this guy is 30 or under. If you were around during the 1980 election, the democrats would have had us believe that a vote for Reagan was a vote for nuclear annihilation. I was in my teens at the time, but I remember my super liberal civics teacher lamenting over and over that we were doomed. That Reagan was going to start hauling dissidents off in the night on some communist witch hunt. The common refrain in the class was "We know one name to send him!", followed by some laughs.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I love Ron Paul on his economic policy and his stance on the constitution. When you get to some of the rest of his policies, you're off into la-la land. His foreign policy is downright dangerous.

 

Oh I agree with you completely. If he thinks things are identical to pre-Nazi Germany he needs to go read those history books again 'cause it's not even remotely like that. And I have no doubt that the more onerous provisions of the Patriot Act and NDAA will not stand the scrutiny of SCOTUS with regards to constitutionality, however it would really suck to be the US citizen caught in it while it's being fought.

 

And yes I wish Ron Paul's common sense with regards to economy and domestic issues were duplicated in his foreign policies and defense.... My hope is that a good showing by Ron Paul may influence other politicians that his sane ideas are worth pursuing (ie trimming gov, enforcing bill of rights and constitutional rights, gov butting out of people's personal lives, etc).

[gunnyr 17]

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I love Ron Paul on his economic policy and his stance on the constitution. When you get to some of the rest of his policies, you're off into la-la land. His foreign policy is downright dangerous.

 

Why is it that anyone who insists that Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy is dangerous seems to give a free pass to our current (and previous) foreign policies resulting in blowback? Contrary to popular neocon fairy tales, Muslims don't just wake up one day and decide to kill themselves and take out as many Americans as possible because our freedom is an affront to them.

 

Some things to consider:

1. Non-intervention is not isolationism.

2. A gold standard curtails reckless government spending, to include preemptive wars and endless bribing of governments more repressive than Joe Stalins.

3. We (as in US foreign policy of the 40's), gave birth to the Islamic theocracy currently running Iran. The revolution there was a direct result of our meddling in their affairs.

 

From where I'm standing, it's our current interventionist path that's dangerous, not Ron Paul's. By every logical metric I can think of (cost in dollars, lives, and loss of personal liberty) I would have to conclude that maybe we need to change course.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but personally, I'm voting for Ron Paul and only for Ron Paul.

[raz-0 1,259]

Oh I agree with you completely. If he thinks things are identical to pre-Nazi Germany he needs to go read those history books again 'cause it's not even remotely like that. And I have no doubt that the more onerous provisions of the Patriot Act and NDAA will not stand the scrutiny of SCOTUS with regards to constitutionality, however it would really suck to be the US citizen caught in it while it's being fought.

 

And yes I wish Ron Paul's common sense with regards to economy and domestic issues were duplicated in his foreign policies and defense.... My hope is that a good showing by Ron Paul may influence other politicians that his sane ideas are worth pursuing (ie trimming gov, enforcing bill of rights and constitutional rights, gov butting out of people's personal lives, etc).

 

First to the patriot act and NDAA. The patriot act is modeled largely on the RICO act. SCOTUS hasn't exactly done much to temper that giant turd, and they aren't likely to do much about the patriot act. NDAA expands the executive branch's powers, as has been the trend since at least Nixon, and probably before. By the very definition of the act, it excludes the judiciary. SCOTUS is reached via an appeal process, which is absent in the execution of NDAA. That is the very reason why it is so onerous.

 

Ron Paul has not only issues with his foreig policy and defense policy stances, but with his economic ideas about what will fix them. A gold standard fixes nothing. We had reserve banking with the gold standard. We also had serious issues with economic and population growth outstripping the supply of gold. If you simply tried to represent every individual on the planet with metallic gold, you'd already be reduced to a unit of gold that you could erase by simply handling any of the precious metal roughly. Also, we stand a precipice of disruptive technology in that arena. Lacking something like the Bretton Woods convention, we would be at the mercy of nations that could borrow and lend more easily. There are several nearby asteroids that could yield LOTS of precious metal. Like 20 billion tons of gold. If we moved to a gold standard, it would incentivize china to drag that stuff back here, and to either destabilize that gold standard, or to hold it hsotage. Nothing like the opportunity to easily dominate AND gain a huge technological upper hand while investing in the R&D to do it.

[NicePants 58]

First to the patriot act and NDAA. The patriot act is modeled largely on the RICO act. SCOTUS hasn't exactly done much to temper that giant turd, and they aren't likely to do much about the patriot act. NDAA expands the executive branch's powers, as has been the trend since at least Nixon, and probably before. By the very definition of the act, it excludes the judiciary. SCOTUS is reached via an appeal process, which is absent in the execution of NDAA. That is the very reason why it is so onerous.

 

Ron Paul has not only issues with his foreig policy and defense policy stances, but with his economic ideas about what will fix them. A gold standard fixes nothing. We had reserve banking with the gold standard. We also had serious issues with economic and population growth outstripping the supply of gold. If you simply tried to represent every individual on the planet with metallic gold, you'd already be reduced to a unit of gold that you could erase by simply handling any of the precious metal roughly. Also, we stand a precipice of disruptive technology in that arena. Lacking something like the Bretton Woods convention, we would be at the mercy of nations that could borrow and lend more easily. There are several nearby asteroids that could yield LOTS of precious metal. Like 20 billion tons of gold. If we moved to a gold standard, it would incentivize china to drag that stuff back here, and to either destabilize that gold standard, or to hold it hsotage. Nothing like the opportunity to easily dominate AND gain a huge technological upper hand while investing in the R&D to do it.

 

Are you implying that China has access to tractor beams with which they can pull speeding asteroids into the earth's orbit? Sounds like the gold standard is the least of our problems.

[tommy3rd 132]

Ron Paul has been saying the same stuff for the past 30 years, and people thought he was nuts. To this day, people somewhat portray him as someone whose ideas are in left field. Having said that, what does it tell you when 21% of Iowans voted for him and the two top candidates split the votes at 25% each? I think it shows that whatever this country was doing for the past few years or so is not working, and people are starting to look for change. The democratic and republican ways haven't fixed anything, so now people are looking for other solutions.