Ron Paul 2012 Support.

I think it's just that: a designation. It's not an argument for or against anything. It's basically just namecalling, and it also assumes a level of knowledge about a person's bravery that is pretty ridiculous to speculate about in all but the most ridiculous of circumstances. It also ignores the possibility of one's willingness to serve being contingent on the action in question. The difference between conscientious objector and coward is largely a product of preexisting ideology.

But really, the main point is that it's useless for purposes of talking about the wisdom (or lack thereof) of a given war. There are cowards and brave men who cheer on every war, and it's not as if people would change their minds about Cheney's positions if he'd happened to have served, which makes it just another tool for partisan rousing.

Everything you say about Perry is suspect. But it's moot, because I don't think I've ever said he'd be a good president; just that I think he's right on many issues, and that that ought to matter more. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact that communication affects a president's effectiveness. The balance between the two is wildly out of whack, and I've said as much, but that doesn't mean I think pointing this out magically changes it, either.

Yup, no way to know. I'd expect him to be less confrontational partly because I think he thinks a lot about legacy and would have (presumably) learned a few lessons from past failings, but who knows. All I know is he's a smart, informed guy who likes to focus on policy, and I'd like to see the electorate reward that sort of thing from time to time, even if only with a temporary surge.

I disagree with this conclusion, but I don't want to hijack the thread. The question was for Paul supporters. Anyone can throw their two cents in, so I'm not trying to suggest you can't answer it anyway, but that was the intent.

Iran was fine until the CIA decided to oust the democratically elected Mossadeq because he made the unconscionable decision to restrict foreign ownership of oil in his country.

A dictator is much easier to control, and so the Shah was installed, the supression under that regime led to an overthrow by the Ayotalla Komemi folks.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

This exchange shows Ron Paul is not as prinipled as he claims.

He is a politican after all.

And actually worse in some ways because putting earmarks in a bill for his district than voting against it knowing it is going to pass anyway is being a blatant hypocrite. If he somehow became President, who wants to take bets he would find more ways to talk like a Libertarian and act like a typical opportunist politician?

&feature=related

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

C'mon now, Paul-people. When MrPink asked about WW2, three people jumped all over him in just 16 minutes. I asked how Paul's foreign policy responds (if it responds at all) to foreign atrocities over a week ago, and nobody's tried to answer.

I like Paul in plenty of ways, but this tendency of his supporters to dogpile and dismiss claims like this isn't exactly encouraging. It's a fair question to ask how a given ideology responds to a very simple foreign policy situation: so what's the answer? What does Paul say, and if you're not sure, what do each of you say?

Well...I am not the best guy for that, because whenever I talk about Paul in conversation, I make sure to mention that his Foreign Policy is an area where his hard line stances don't make quite as much sense, so I tend to kind of agree with you on that... That's the area where I disagree with Paul to some extent...

Also, the education stance of The Libertarian Party doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

Hence my lean to right when finance is concerned, and my lean to the left where education/police etc. is concerned.

__________________

Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.

the policy "everyone looks for his own ass" led by Ron Paul will plunging the world into World War III.

You don't have to worry about Ron Paul. He won't win any primaries and he is leaving Congress.

Regardless of Ron Paul the candidate, this is a great video:

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

I am just really forgetful on posts I want to respond to.

Look, what I was hinting at earlier is that it's difficult to speculate transferring his modern foreign policy to WWII. Who is to say that he would avoid fighting Nazi's after entering WWII legally against Japan? It's seems away from a point to me, but listen Chris, you describe it as isolationism and it's not. Paul is very clear that he will get involved with other nations if it is necessary. He even explains when it is necessary! It just happens that it is not necessary right now.



@ 1:35

Wolf Blitzer: Under what circumstances, Congressman Paul, if you were President, would you intervene outside the borders of the united states in some sort of crisis around the world?

Ron Paul: When Congress directs me to or in an act of war, if our national security was threatened and we went through the proper channels...


...and he explains that WWII would've been hard to avoid. Once again, not complete isolationism.

__________________
If I had a dollar for every existential crisis I've ever had, does money really even matter?

This is a stupid statement. Here's why: how the hell could pulling our 190 bases from foreign countries ruin anything? The Middle East is already screwed but that's been going on forever, no one else will start a world war, no one wants to, and the only violence that could ever happen in the near future are terrestrial riots because of governments becoming unbelievably insane, and you're probably part of the voters who don't see a problem with any of them. Ron Paul isn't Jesus but he's immeasurably better than most politicians.

That is so good to hear.

There's been a world war in the DRC for the last ten years actually...

coulda used some peacekeeping there... (i.e. both a counter-argument to absolute isolationism and a criticism of how the military has been used since Roosevelt)

Fiscal is right.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

Hystericsl nonense speaking in generalities ignoring the actual reality and distorting it. And containing some actual lies. A real good reason not to vote for Ron Paul.

I listened to those clips and what I heard is different than you.

First clip, I was opposed to Iraq also, but he was also opposed to Afghanistan and that is an absurd position to take. His comment about when he supported war was very evasive, when Congress declares war, as if Congress takes the initiative to authorize war separate from a request from the President. The real answer would have been under what circumstances would he ask Congress for a declaration of war. And he says he is for non interventionism, not isolationism, but never explained the difference, without defining terms it is difficult to understand his point.

And he again is very evasive about World War II, saying it would have been hard to avoid (which is very different saying it had to be fought) then turning it around saying it was a continuation of World War I and we should have stayed out of that. And is there really a direct connection to World War I when it comes to Japanese militaristic actions in the South Pacific? The first World War explains Hitler's Germany, not necessarily Japan.

&feature=relmfu

Relevant to this discussion...

http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/01/re...n-bars-ron-pau