Americans fear Big Government

[vintagesmith]

In the past days, I'm thinking government is THE problem.

[Trimdingman]

Well, as long as the Goppers don't close the borders, American women will be able to enjoy their reproductive freedom of choice in Canada. One of the defining items of fascism is control over women's bodies, because God "wants" it that way.

 

Love for an unborn child is not political, it is a natural instinct. Fascists will kill whole ethnic populations if they do not agree with their dogma. Fascists are far left big government entities. The right is in favor of small government. The left is trying to twist the political spectrum to push their failed leaders like Hitler and Mussolini to the right. Fascists are far left from the perspective of a conservative. They are slightly to the right of full blown communists. Some scholars argue that the political spectrum is a circle. It isn't. How can less government become total government? It is a straight line from zero government on the right to total government on the left. Nazis and fascists and socialists are all big government, so they are far left of centre. If religion were a political entity, it would be on the extreme dangerous left. Lucky for us, it isn't; but some parts of the world are not so lucky and they are ruled by religion with an iron fist.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Trimdingman

[retro-man]

Fascists are far left big government entities. The right is in favor of small government. The left is trying to twist the political spectrum to push their failed leaders like Hitler and Mussolini to the right. Fascists are far left from the perspective of a conservative. They are slightly to the right of full blown communists. Some scholars argue that the political spectrum is a circle. It isn't. How can less government become total government? It is a straight line from zero government on the right to total government on the left. Nazis and fascists and socialists are all big government, so they are far left of centre.

Who's the one doing the "twisting"?

LINK

"Fascism is on the march today in America. Millionaires are marching to the tune. It will come in this country unless a strong defense is set up by all liberal and progressive forces... A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government, and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. Aboard ship a prominent executive of one of America's largest financial corporations told me point blank that if the progressive trend of the Roosevelt administration continued, he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism to America."

-former U.S. ambassador to Germany William Dodd in 1938

 

"I will list them: liberalism, democracy, socialism, free-masonry. (bolds mine) The organism of the West has been weakened, debilitated by these ideologies. Well, there is in existence only one movement existing at the present time which has the courage possessing the power of a great nation to be fundamentally, openly, ferociously anti-liberal, anti- democratic, anti-Freemason: Fascism." ~Oswald Spengler 1927

Quit trying to rewrite history.

 

By the way: Merry Christmas!

Edited December 24, 2011 by retro-man

[Trimdingman]

Who's the one doing the "twisting"?

LINK

 

 

 

Quit trying to rewrite history.

 

By the way: Merry Christmas!

 

 

Communism is total government. Fascism is nearly total government with government heavily controlling, taxing, and regulating industry. I agree with you. That is what we have now. It is just one small step away from Communism. Therefore, it is on the far left. Why is that so hard for people to see? Just because something is called "right-wing" doesn't make it so. Right wing is wild and wooly anarchy with no government. That is not Naziism or fascism with iron-fisted government control. That is not religion with mind control and indoctrination. "Religious right" is an oxymoron. They find safe haven on the right because they are not a threat to the right like they are to the left. They are like sparrows in a lion's den living off scraps, irrevelant and non-threatening and safe.

 

History is constantly being re-written. The search for truth is not pursued as vigorously as the search for explanations for paradoxes that pop up when the truth is distorted to fit political expediency. I like to play Sudoku. When I write a number in a box, but it doesn't fit because that number is already in that line, I realize that I made a mistake and have to backtrack to find it. Religion and political ideologies are doomed if they admit error. They are based on having all of the answers, so they cannot ever be wrong. They cover up their errors with complex convoluted orations, and demands of trust and faith. They tell you to be blind to what you think you see, and put your faith in them. The bulk of what people believe to-day is incorrect. They are emotionally unsatisfied, craving something to make their lives have sense or meaning. They are easy prey for unscrupulous vendors of the cult-drug. It could be a religion, union, political movement, or vaccuum cleaner that purifies the air, or someone that wants to destroy our civilization in the name of preventing climate change. Their nerves are raw, like after a devastating loss. There is a need to fill the vaccuum. You need to get real. Get outside of the box and inside your own mind. That is real. If your own mind isn't real, then nothing is.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Trimdingman

[retro-man]

Without caving on the terminology or the traditional definitions, I will grant you this much: the discussion about Fascism, what it means, and who is one, is irrelevant - and maybe even a deliberate distraction. Fascism contained some good elements, and some very bad ones. The same is true of Socialism. Maybe "corporatism" is a more useful term than Fascism. The narrow sliver of overlap where OWS and Tea Party agree is that our government is sold out to corporate interests. I understand and agree with your opposition to government in general insofar as its policies stifle true competitive freedom. That's as far as I go. I don't agree that corporations would do the right thing absent environmental, consumer safety, or anti-trust regulations (would that those were enforced) - or that people would be astute and diligent enough to enforce responsible corporate action through their consumer behavior. WalMart stands as a stark testament to the contrary.

[Trimdingman]

Without caving on the terminology or the traditional definitions, I will grant you this much: the discussion about Fascism, what it means, and who is one, is irrelevant - and maybe even a deliberate distraction. Fascism contained some good elements, and some very bad ones. The same is true of Socialism. Maybe "corporatism" is a more useful term than Fascism. The narrow sliver of overlap where OWS and Tea Party agree is that our government is sold out to corporate interests. I understand and agree with your opposition to government in general insofar as its policies stifle true competitive freedom. That's as far as I go. I don't agree that corporations would do the right thing absent environmental, consumer safety, or anti-trust regulations (would that those were enforced) - or that people would be astute and diligent enough to enforce responsible corporate action through their consumer behavior. WalMart stands as a stark testament to the contrary.

 

 

We have all of those "evils" now, even with government control over everything. It wouldn't be any easier for a dirty polluting industry to set up shop in your town without government than with it. It would probably be harder. I know that they tried to build a factory in my town in Nova Scotia; a town with high unemployment. The government was in favor of it because it would have provided tax revenue, but the people wouldn't have it, so it wasn't built. The government tried to run a motorcycle gang out of New Brunswick. They were unsuccessful. The people ran them out, though, and burned their clubhouse down. Government is a hindrance to getting things done that need doing.

 

Fascism is too rigid. Sooner or later it will go wrong, and there will be no going back. We need flexibility. We can only have flexibility with minimal government. Inflexible rules and laws are barriers to getting things done, or correcting wrongs. Central planning from afar is a recipe for disaster. Localities have to have more freedom to do what is best for their local region. They can be shut out of opportunities, or be forced to go against their customs or way of life. Nobody can say what is best for someone else.

 

Big corporations exist because government regulations styfle competition. Without government, there would be many small businesses, and no big businesses. Businesses would fail or succeed based on their quality and service, not by sucking up to the government. Nobody would dare to pollute a river where people swim or fish. They would be run out of town, strung up, or shot. Now, they have the protection of the police and corrupt government.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Trimdingman

[retro-man]

I'm not quite so sanguine about that. I'm old enough to remember the Cuyahoga River fire in 1969 (the last of many it had up till that time).

 

History now reveals the notorious fire as a messy midstream shift, a turning point in the story of the Cuyahoga. Because of the fire, legislators who had been talking about protecting the environment finally did something about it -- and industrialists who had been polluting the river since the Industrial Revolution had to change their ways.

"The fire was a bad thing, sure, but some good came out of it in the end," said Jane Goodman, a South Euclid councilwoman and spokeswoman for the river planning group. "Many people see this fire as being a catalyst for the federal Clean Water Act and other environmental laws.

"And those laws went a long way toward bringing the river back.".......

 

........ Life coming back

Just ask the fish. Or the scientists who count them.

When Ohio Environmental Protection Agency biologists in the mid-1980s first began counting fish in the middle to lower section of the Cuyahoga River -- the worst polluted section of the stream as it wound through Akron to Cleveland -- they would literally come back with fewer than 10 fish.

Not 10 fish species, but 10 fish -- and most of those were species like gizzard shad, which can survive in polluted water, but end up deformed or mutated. Results in subsequent years were continually better, but mostly in the upper reaches of the stream in rural Geauga and Portage counties.

But when the EPA crews went back last summer -- after hearing unexpectedly high unofficial counts from Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District officials who also tally aquatic life in the river -- they found 40 different fish species in the river, including steelhead trout, northern pike and other clean-water fish.

"It's been an absolutely amazing recovery," said Steve Tuckerman of the Ohio EPA's Twinsburg office, who made those first reports in 1984. "I wouldn't have believed that this section of the river would have this dramatic of a turnaround in my career, but it has."

 

LINK

[wescoent]

Government, in my view, suffers from diminishing returns as they relate to resources allocated in many cases.

 

Obviously, we need environmental laws. However, if we double the EPA's budget, will it result in twice as clean air and water? If we double our education spending, will our kids end up twice as smart?

[RangerM]

Government, in my view, suffers from diminishing returns as they relate to resources allocated in many cases.

 

Obviously, we need environmental laws. However, if we double the EPA's budget, will it result in twice as clean air and water?

The problem is environmental law comes from Washington. Environmental regulation comes from EPA. They aren't the same thing. The "law" is something that must be obeyed. The "regulation" is primarily focused with how you obey it.

 

Example: Right now there are two "laws" dealing with particulate emissions that the cement industry in this country will have to comply with in the next couple of years. However the "regulation" makes it impossible to comply with both of them at the same time. It's a no-win situation, and if they're serious about implementing these new laws/regulations, they WILL drive the cement industry out of the U.S. Is it such a stretch to believe that's what was wanted in the first place?

 

If we double our education spending, will our kids end up twice as smart?

Only if you assume you can make a horse drink by doubling the size of the lake.

Edited December 28, 2011 by RangerM

[grbeck]

Government, in my view, suffers from diminishing returns as they relate to resources allocated in many cases.

 

Obviously, we need environmental laws. However, if we double the EPA's budget, will it result in twice as clean air and water? If we double our education spending, will our kids end up twice as smart?

 

Bingo! Somebody gets it. After a certain point, more money does not result in better outcomes. And we are long past that point with most programs...we'd all be better off if the Democrats had a "Nixon goes to China" moment and admitted this, but doing so would gore the oxes of too many of their constituencies who live to suckle at the federal and state teat. And, as the current administration is proving, not all of them are welfare recipients, labor unions and bureaucrats. Democrats love big business, too.

[retro-man]

Bingo! Somebody gets it. After a certain point, more money does not result in better outcomes. And we are long past that point with most programs...we'd all be better off if the Democrats had a "Nixon goes to China" moment and admitted this, but doing so would gore the oxes of too many of their constituencies who live to suckle at the federal and state teat. And, as the current administration is proving, not all of them are welfare recipients, labor unions and bureaucrats. Democrats love big business, too.

Actually, I do agree with it (always have). What sets me off is yahoos who want to disband the EPA (and Social Security, Medicare, Public Schools, the Fire Department, Libraries, sell the Parks to miners and loggers, etc. etc.) then preach about "reason".

 

I don't think Nixon should have gone to China though. We're still paying dearly for that.

[wescoent]

Actually, I do agree with it (always have). What sets me off is yahoos who want to disband the EPA (and Social Security, Medicare, Public Schools, the Fire Department, Libraries, sell the Parks to miners and loggers, etc. etc.) then preach about "reason".

 

I don't think Nixon should have gone to China though. We're still paying dearly for that.

 

The entire thing boils down to demographics. We've promised too much to old people who don't have enough young people to support them. Everything else is just partisan noise.

 

The government has some things it is definitely bested suited to handle, and we need to prioritize what those things are, and how much money they need to meet our expectations as a country.

 

The American people and government need to severely roll back their war-focused mindset. When I say war, I don't mean with guns and killing. I mean, the idea that if we focus a massive amount of resources on a problem, it will go away. We need to work on getting the basic services right first, before we embark on grandiose adventures in fighting drugs, environmental issues, and so on.

 

Let people fight wars on their own time, on their own dimes.

[Imawhosure]

I would like to return to Ron Paul for a moment if I could.

 

Ron Paul should be UNELECTABLE.

 

It is not he is a liar, a bad man, a flip-flopper, or anything like that. In fact, his domestic monetary policies go further than even his conservative challengers for the nomination, and no matter what he wants would be moderated by congress as far as the budget goes, so he is all good there.

 

No, where Ron Paul falters badly is foreign policy. When I first heard his attitudes on this front, I refused to believe them without investigating them myself. We all know how misconceptions or downright lies of opponents turn candidates to instantly sour through no fault of their own. And so, I decided to actually look at Ron Paul closely and see what all the fuss was about.

 

I am not going to go through my discovery process here, but to say that with everything he has going for him on the economic front is totally laid waste for his Presidential bid by his foreign policy stand is an understatement at best. In his eyes, we should almost be isolationists; and that is not going to work in the world today........nor did it work after WWI, which is why we were very active after WWII.

 

Ron Pauls philosophy on foreign policy is very dangerous in the mid/long term. Were we to follow his lead, we would end up with a nuclear everybody, and most of those would be pointed at us.

 

I have always insisted that history teaches all things; therefore------->if sticking our head in the sand to avoid conflict across the globe was the way to go, 1. we would have avoided WWI. 2. If we would not have done lend lease to Britain which actually helped cause Pearl Harbor; Europe today would either be run by Nazis, or the communists. I wonder where that would leave us? 3. While the Arab spring has had just as many disappointments as successes, instead of having some countrys democratic, and Syria on the run, we would have a whole region that wants nothing more than to get rid of us, and much more actively pursuing the idea.

 

SOME people think that if we just withdraw our influence and military threat from the world stage, everyone will leave us alone, and we will just all go along like happy little clams in the ocean. What happens in the world should be no consequence to us, as long as they leave us alone; that is what they think.

 

So, I suppose under a Ron Paul Presidency, if someone attacked Canada, who cares? Mexico, big deal? Israel, not our part of the world! Britain, so what! Close the strait of Hormuz and ruin our economy, we aren't interested. Germany, bah. We just sit here and feel good about ourselves, right?

 

RON PAUL is UNELECTABLE if you have any sense, and his isolationist policy is soooo dangerous, I would vote for (cringe) Barack Obama if Paul was the republican nominee. Mr Paul is a very honest man who tells you exactly what he wants to do. That doesn't mean what he wants to do is correct, or safe for our country.

[fmccap]

I would like to return to Ron Paul for a moment if I could.

 

Ron Paul should be UNELECTABLE.

 

It is not he is a liar, a bad man, a flip-flopper, or anything like that. In fact, his domestic monetary policies go further than even his conservative challengers for the nomination, and no matter what he wants would be moderated by congress as far as the budget goes, so he is all good there.

 

No, where Ron Paul falters badly is foreign policy. When I first heard his attitudes on this front, I refused to believe them without investigating them myself. We all know how misconceptions or downright lies of opponents turn candidates to instantly sour through no fault of their own. And so, I decided to actually look at Ron Paul closely and see what all the fuss was about.

 

I am not going to go through my discovery process here, but to say that with everything he has going for him on the economic front is totally laid waste for his Presidential bid by his foreign policy stand is an understatement at best. In his eyes, we should almost be isolationists; and that is not going to work in the world today........nor did it work after WWI, which is why we were very active after WWII.

 

Ron Pauls philosophy on foreign policy is very dangerous in the mid/long term. Were we to follow his lead, we would end up with a nuclear everybody, and most of those would be pointed at us.

 

I have always insisted that history teaches all things; therefore------->if sticking our head in the sand to avoid conflict across the globe was the way to go, 1. we would have avoided WWI. 2. If we would not have done lend lease to Britain which actually helped cause Pearl Harbor; Europe today would either be run by Nazis, or the communists. I wonder where that would leave us? 3. While the Arab spring has had just as many disappointments as successes, instead of having some countrys democratic, and Syria on the run, we would have a whole region that wants nothing more than to get rid of us, and much more actively pursuing the idea.

 

SOME people think that if we just withdraw our influence and military threat from the world stage, everyone will leave us alone, and we will just all go along like happy little clams in the ocean. What happens in the world should be no consequence to us, as long as they leave us alone; that is what they think.

 

So, I suppose under a Ron Paul Presidency, if someone attacked Canada, who cares? Mexico, big deal? Israel, not our part of the world! Britain, so what! Close the strait of Hormuz and ruin our economy, we aren't interested. Germany, bah. We just sit here and feel good about ourselves, right?

 

RON PAUL is UNELECTABLE if you have any sense, and his isolationist policy is soooo dangerous, I would vote for (cringe) Barack Obama if Paul was the republican nominee. Mr Paul is a very honest man who tells you exactly what he wants to do. That doesn't mean what he wants to do is correct, or safe for our country.

 

I hate when people use "isolationist". That is just not true.

 

You need to look a little deeper. He just wants to stop the nonsense like we currently have, how is the Iraq debacle turning out, do you think it's good and was done right? He just says do it the right way(declaration of war by Congress) and then go and get the job done quickly and efficiently. We both know the US is capable of doing that anywhere in the world.

 

I think he gets more support and money from the military than all other candidates for a reason.

[wescoent]

Honestly, the worst part of Ron Paul's foreign policy position is trying to get the media to reasonably explain it.

 

He won't get elected president, but I'm sure we'll see a major de-emphasis on foreign policy and social issues from 2012-2016. Mitt's true passion lies in the economy, and he will have his hands full at home in getting things under control, and moreover, keeping a wild-eyed Republican Congress and Senate at bay.

[akirby]

Is it really possible to get one candidate who excels at both foreign policy and economics and everything else a President needs to do?

 

A CEO doesn't handle finances - that's the CFO's job. I understand there are cabinet positions but maybe we should replace the Vice President with multiple VPs - starting with Vice President and CFO who would be someone with a business/finance background who oversees the budget, etc.

 

It works for businesses, why not the federal government?

[vintagesmith]

I hate when people use "isolationist". That is just not true.

 

You need to look a little deeper. He just wants to stop the nonsense like we currently have, how is the Iraq debacle turning out, do you think it's good and was done right? He just says do it the right way(declaration of war by Congress) and then go and get the job done quickly and efficiently. We both know the US is capable of doing that anywhere in the world.

 

I think he gets more support and money from the military than all other candidates for a reason.

 

I second in motion to this,

 

Bush was the Nazi and Obama is ineffectual at any kind of Change he lied about. Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist and Non-Interventionist. HE IS OUR ONLY HOPE against the TSA, Endless Wars and Economic Disaster.

[fmccap]

Foreign Policy Experts Agree With Ron Paul’s Controversial Foreign Policy

[sprinter]

I would like to return to Ron Paul for a moment if I could.

 

Ron Paul should be UNELECTABLE.

 

It is not he is a liar, a bad man, a flip-flopper, or anything like that. In fact, his domestic monetary policies go further than even his conservative challengers for the nomination, and no matter what he wants would be moderated by congress as far as the budget goes, so he is all good there.

 

No, where Ron Paul falters badly is foreign policy. When I first heard his attitudes on this front, I refused to believe them without investigating them myself. We all know how misconceptions or downright lies of opponents turn candidates to instantly sour through no fault of their own. And so, I decided to actually look at Ron Paul closely and see what all the fuss was about.

 

I am not going to go through my discovery process here, but to say that with everything he has going for him on the economic front is totally laid waste for his Presidential bid by his foreign policy stand is an understatement at best. In his eyes, we should almost be isolationists; and that is not going to work in the world today........nor did it work after WWI, which is why we were very active after WWII.

 

Ron Pauls philosophy on foreign policy is very dangerous in the mid/long term. Were we to follow his lead, we would end up with a nuclear everybody, and most of those would be pointed at us.

 

I have always insisted that history teaches all things; therefore------->if sticking our head in the sand to avoid conflict across the globe was the way to go, 1. we would have avoided WWI. 2. If we would not have done lend lease to Britain which actually helped cause Pearl Harbor; Europe today would either be run by Nazis, or the communists. I wonder where that would leave us? 3. While the Arab spring has had just as many disappointments as successes, instead of having some countrys democratic, and Syria on the run, we would have a whole region that wants nothing more than to get rid of us, and much more actively pursuing the idea.

 

SOME people think that if we just withdraw our influence and military threat from the world stage, everyone will leave us alone, and we will just all go along like happy little clams in the ocean. What happens in the world should be no consequence to us, as long as they leave us alone; that is what they think.

 

So, I suppose under a Ron Paul Presidency, if someone attacked Canada, who cares? Mexico, big deal? Israel, not our part of the world! Britain, so what! Close the strait of Hormuz and ruin our economy, we aren't interested. Germany, bah. We just sit here and feel good about ourselves, right?

 

RON PAUL is UNELECTABLE if you have any sense, and his isolationist policy is soooo dangerous, I would vote for (cringe) Barack Obama if Paul was the republican nominee. Mr Paul is a very honest man who tells you exactly what he wants to do. That doesn't mean what he wants to do is correct, or safe for our country.

 

 

So why do they want us out? Surly it has nothing to do with our march toward world dominance. We go into a country under the guise of terrorism and send the country back into the Stone Age by destroying their industry and infrastructure. We then install a puppet government that bows to our every whim. Then off to the next country for more of the same. Speaking of history, it didn’t work for the Romans or the British Empire either.<br style="mso-special-character:line-break"> <br style="mso-special-character:line-break">

 

Israel is the problem in the Middle East. If your neighbor has nuclear weapons everyone one else wants them too. Murdering innocent Palestinians and bulldozing their homes down doesn’t get you the good neighbor award. As for attacking any county close to the USA, that would be a threat to our national security no different than missiles in Cuba. And the economy, it’s already in the $hitter. So lets just print a few more billion dollars and bomb the hell out of someone else.

 

You watch way too much FOX and it’s very obvious. Paul’s policy is not isolationism, you should put more effort in your research instead of listening to Hannity.

 

 

[Imawhosure]

So why do they want us out? Surly it has nothing to do with our march toward world dominance. We go into a country under the guise of terrorism and send the country back into the Stone Age by destroying their industry and infrastructure. We then install a puppet government that bows to our every whim. Then off to the next country for more of the same. Speaking of history, it didn’t work for the Romans or the British Empire either.<br style="mso-special-character:line-break"> <br style="mso-special-character:line-break">

 

Israel is the problem in the Middle East. If your neighbor has nuclear weapons everyone one else wants them too. Murdering innocent Palestinians and bulldozing their homes down doesn’t get you the good neighbor award. As for attacking any county close to the USA, that would be a threat to our national security no different than missiles in Cuba. And the economy, it’s already in the $hitter. So lets just print a few more billion dollars and bomb the hell out of someone else.

 

You watch way too much FOX and it’s very obvious. Paul’s policy is not isolationism, you should put more effort in your research instead of listening to Hannity.

 

 

I find such an attitude fascinating. Most conservatives would bring up all sorts of nonsense to disuade your debate points. On the other hand, I will bring up what Ron Paul has said personally.

 

Maybe you Ron Paul supporters should look it up, and not me because I have.

 

I am not taking what SOMEONE said about him. I am not taking what people have even SUGGESTED about his policys. I am putting forth what HE SAID.

 

Mr Cap has always put forward that we can NOT believe what everyone else says about our choice of candidates; and he is correct. To many times because there is no truth in political adds, the best candidate is pushed aside because his opponents have more money to lay waste to his campaign with false and misleading advertisement.

 

Doctor Paul believes in 1 type of foreign policy. His own words; not mine, I am point this out.

 

I have no problem with people believing in Dr Paul. I have no problem with them wanting to accept his vision on foreign policy. I am just pointing out what it is, no more, no less.

 

If these people feel like they have to defend it when it is spelled out, then it is obvious it is his weakest point, therefore if you are on the fence, you should delve into what HE said about his plans, not what someone else said about HIS plans.

 

After you hear his plans, you will feel like I do--------------->no need to save the US if the President allows the rest of the world to line up against us, or those who want to destroy us gain favor across the globe.

 

LETS DISCUSS THIS RON PAUL IDIOCY--------->Here we are with liberals wanting to constrict our economys life blood known as oil, and Ron Paul; through his policys, wants to allow Iran not only control the straits of Hormuz, but control a nuclear weapon, thus the Middle East. BRILLIANT, just brilliant.

 

He wants to withdraw our support from everything European as far as military support. Really? Why does anyone think Europe is relatively stable for the 1st time in 2 centuries! Were it not for the the United States and the UK, it would be a disaster.

 

I ask you this, after you look up what Ron Paul has said about his foreign policy model------------>IF RON PAUL would have been President when Hitler was in power, would America have gone to war? When you realize we would not have, and you understand the consequences of such in action, then you must realize that Ron Paul may be an upstanding citizen. a caring person, even a patriot with wrong ideas; but not the man we needed then, or now!

 

Ron Paul gets his support from both conservative people for his stance on the economy, and from liberals who are peacniks, along with those who want to weaken our involvement in the world. A very good recipe, as he is the one candidate who actually draws from both sides.

 

But for thinking people, he is UNELECTABLE unless our only idea is to be safe through our lives, and not worry about our children or grandchildren.

 

I believe that it is very sad Mr Cap and friends have been so shortsighted to throw our progeny aside. I admire all of them for the activism, and also the fact that they; unlike liberals, admit to what their candidate believes in. I also admire the fact that they want a solution for our economic woes. Ron Paul has a much larger handle on that solution than most of the republican candidates, although I think all of the candidates are playing politics to get elected.

 

It depends on what you see as the important thing(s) If you think that nothing is going to happen if we just say screw the world and leave us alone, then by all means, vote for Ron Paul as he has a pretty decent economic program.

 

If, on the other hand, you understand that for the most part, your country stabilizes the globe..........as much as stabilization is possible, then Ron Paul is UNELECTABLE.

 

I would urge all of you to just view what happened to the price of oil just a few days ago, when Iran threatened to shut down the Straits of Hormuz. Did you see the price of gasoline?

 

I do not like the fact that we are the worlds policeman. I do not like the fact we are the hammer that protects our continent. I do not like the fact that we are who the weak in Europe calls when poop hits the fan. I do not like the fact that Prime Ministers in the UK get thrown out because they know that if we don't stand together when needed, they might have to stand alone again, and for protection of their people, they stand with us. I do not like we protect Japan while not forcing them to pay us to protect them. I do not like we are at war anywhere. In fact, I don't think losing 1 of our soldiers is worth destroying 1000 of theirs.

 

On the the other hand, I love my children and grandchildren; and at this time, without these policys they will face much worse than I do. I would like to change some of the policys for the better, but to eliminate all of these policys would put them at serious risk.

 

Therefore, Ron Paul, no matter how much you like his economics, is totally UNELECTABLE if for nothing else, because we have to protect those who have no idea, and who can NOT vote! They are our children. Imagine a world where Iran, North Korea, China, and a host of others all have nuclear bombs with missiles to deliver them pointed at your children/granchildren. What would you say if you could prevent that? What would THEY say 15yrs from now, if they know you could have?

 

Ron Paul? No, not today, not tommorrow, not ever if his plan continues. I again will proclaim, I despise the man, but I would vote for Barack Obama before I vote for a man who would put ruin without hope upon my children.

 

Prosperity is a balance...............we prosper with policys and ideas that allow us to. But if we do not protect our prosperity, those with less who are jealous will take it from us. That is the way of business, that is the way of the world. The only thing that protects your country from those who would like to be where you are across the globe is your military. Go ahead and tell Castro or Putin you paid for your house so it is yours. After you tell them that, come back and tell me where you ended up living.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Imawhosure

[Trimdingman]

Before Obama was elected, what did he have to say about American foreign policy? What actually happened after he was elected? Not much changed from what was already in the works. The president does not dictate foreign policy.

[fmccap]

I ask you this, after you look up what Ron Paul has said about his foreign policy model------------>IF RON PAUL would have been President when Hitler was in power, would America have gone to war? When you realize we would not have, and you understand the consequences of such in action, then you must realize that Ron Paul may be an upstanding citizen. a caring person, even a patriot with wrong ideas; but not the man we needed then, or now!

 

Please provide what he said that has you come to this conclusion.

 

And one more thing I think is very important.............We Can't Afford It Anymore! We're broke!!!!!!

Edited December 31, 2011 by fmccap

[Imawhosure]

Ron Paul is now an afterthought. He has proved his mettle in Iowa, but also shown his weakness. He is now DOA, find another candidate, not everyone drinks koolaid in an effort to unearth a conservative. He is DOA, and all you supporters will just get Obama re-elected. Can we say BRILLIANT!

Edited January 6, 2012 by Imawhosure

[fmccap]

Ron Paul is now an afterthought. He has proved his mettle in Iowa, but also shown his weakness. He is now DOA, find another candidate, not everyone drinks koolaid in an effort to unearth a conservative. He is DOA, and all you supporters will just get Obama re-elected. Can we say BRILLIANT!

If you ask me, there is not much difference between the rest of them and Obama anyways.

[fmccap]

Ron Paul is now an afterthought. He has proved his mettle in Iowa, but also shown his weakness. He is now DOA, find another candidate, not everyone drinks koolaid in an effort to unearth a conservative. He is DOA, and all you supporters will just get Obama re-elected. Can we say BRILLIANT!

Please tell what makes him an afterthought? He did just as good as the rest(wasn't that far and probably better than you thought). Santorum won't go anywhere, temporary rise from the religious and media. He is just like Bachman, Perry, Cain and Newt.