GOP Primary debate

Suprisingly, I found myself, once again, agreeing in theory with many of Ron Paul points. Unfortunately, I don't think the Republican Party has room for visionaries such as he. I saw no personal charisma in any of the other candidates, I don't think the Republican candidate for President will come from that pool.

According to the panel in the post-interview, Cain won the hearts at the debate, overwhelmingly.

Suprisingly, I found myself, once again, agreeing in theory with many of Ron Paul points. Unfortunately, I don't think the Republican Party has room for visionaries such as he. I saw no personal charisma in any of the other candidates, I don't think the Republican candidate for President will come from that pool.

Ron Paul's worldview/ideology is consistent but impractical.
If we could snap our fingers & instantly achieve the naive "system of government" envisioned by Paul, the end result would probably be closer to Hell than to Heaven.

Ron Paul's worldview/ideology is consistent but impractical.
If we could snap our fingers & instantly achieve the naive "system of government" envisioned by Paul, the end result would probably be closer to Hell than to Heaven.

Maybe what I actually appreciate about Ron Paul IS consistency.

Ron Paul's worldview/ideology is consistent but impractical.
If we could snap our fingers & instantly achieve the naive "system of government" envisioned by Paul, the end result would probably be closer to Hell than to Heaven.

I disagree. The first hundred and fifty years of this country were quite prosperous for many. Only in the last 70 or so have we seen the growth of the systems Paul would love to phase out. In looking at our current unemployment rate, manufacturing sector, and budget situation, the last 70 years haven't exactly brought us major gains in prosperity or stability. I can see how someone who is entirely dependent on government might see the first 150 years as hell, but the rest of us would probably get a long just fine (or even better) in Paul's vision of how things should be.

CNN poll Obama Vs Paul...Paul has the best chance of beating him if the elections were held today. Hmmm

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...oll-ron-paul-stands-best-chance-against-obama

I disagree. The first hundred and fifty years of this country were quite prosperous for many. Only in the last 70 or so have we seen the growth of the systems Paul would love to phase out. In looking at our current unemployment rate, manufacturing sector, and budget situation, the last 70 years haven't exactly brought us major gains in prosperity or stability. I can see how someone who is entirely dependent on government might see the first 150 years as hell, but the rest of us would probably get a long just fine (or even better) in Paul's vision of how things should be.

As I understand Paul's philosophy, "The Government" should address only national defense, the monetary system and relations w/ other governments. That is, he'd eliminate all government departments except Defense, Treasury & State. He thinks The Government has no role in the environment, work safety, education, agriculture,...maybe even commerce. This is what I call an ivory tower, naive & impractical philosophy.

I agree w/ many of Paul's libertarian ideas, especially keeping The Govt out of folks' bedrooms, women's wombs, Iraq & Afghanistan. I too, am against The "Patriot" Act.

I think that Libertarianism doesn't properly consider that we humans are not only individuals, but we're also social animals & we live in society & we must have adequate societal rules. There's no question, however, that our current societal rules/laws can be improved.

As I understand Paul's philosophy, "The Government" should address only national defense, the monetary system and relations w/ other governments. That is, he'd eliminate all government departments except Defense, Treasury & State. He thinks The Government has no role in the environment, work safety, education, agriculture,...maybe even commerce. This is what I call an ivory tower, naive & impractical philosophy.

I agree w/ many of Paul's libertarian ideas, especially keeping The Govt out of folks' bedrooms, women's wombs, Iraq & Afghanistan. I too, am against The "Patriot" Act.

I think that Libertarianism doesn't properly consider that we humans are not only individuals, but we're also social animals & we live in society & we must have adequate societal rules. There's no question, however, that our current societal rules/laws can be improved.

Generalizations, but yes, he feels the FEDERAL government does not have a role in many of the areas it currently meddles in.

Why do some automatically assume that singular/centralized solutions are better? These systems tend to squash individual freedom and innovation. Also the larger these systems become, the less they are capable of addressing the needs of the group they serve. Which isn't to say centralized doesn't work in all cases, but a lot of folks seem to make the mistake of assuming these system always work better despite ample evidence to the contrary.

I hear a lot about Ron Paul and domestic issues, but what about foreign policy. I know that he's very anti-war, but as president he would be stuck with having to deal with military engagements. I have to ask how well he would deal with being commander in chief. I have no opinion about this at the moment. I will however step out on a limb and state that he's never going to be president. He's too smitten with whacko conspiracy theories for one thing. Sorry, but I have to put him in the whacko category along with Palin and Trump.

Obama was anti-war too, at least in his stump speech presentations while he was running, but he after thinking for 16 hours about whether or not to take out Bin Laden he finally made the call to do so.

Ron Paul is not "wacko" he is a patriot who has the cojones to say what he believes instead of spouting soundbites which contain what pollsters say people want to hear. Obama, Romney, Pawlenty etc all fit that description. I may not agree with everything Paul says but I like the fact he has the guts to say it. If the election were today I would vote for him over the rest.

The problem with Ron Paul's run for President that I see is that real money behind politricks will never put money into Ron Paul's campaign for President, and that is what he needs to win. They won't do it, because with Ron Paul in office, their businesses would no longer benefit from wasteful gov't spending.

Obama was anti-war too, at least in his stump speech presentations while he was running, but he after thinking for 16 hours about whether or not to take out Bin Laden he finally made the call to do so.

Is this going to be the Republican talking point? I mean really, really, is this BS the best you can come up with?
I guess you feel it would have been in Americas best interest to follow the genius military tactics of his predecessor and raid the house next door.

poppy, I was just saying that the Nobel Peace Prize winner pitched a campaign that he was anti-war, but that didn't stop him from making the right call to kill Bin Laden. I'd guess that Ron Paul would have done the same, if given the opportunity. Lucifer Sam questioned it, so I gave an example of a similar anit-war, Peace Prize winner who was able to "pull the trigger."

Obama was anti-war too, at least in his stump speech presentations while he was running, but he after thinking for 16 hours about whether or not to take out Bin Laden he finally made the call to do so.

Your words are politricks taken to an extreme.

poppy, I was just saying that the Nobel Peace Prize winner pitched a campaign that he was anti-war, but that didn't stop him from making the right call to kill Bin Laden. I'd guess that Ron Paul would have done the same, if given the opportunity. Lucifer Sam questioned it, so I gave an example of a similar anit-war, Peace Prize winner who was able to "pull the trigger."

Could there be the slight chance that an operation like this could actually aid in bringing the war to an earlier close?

Could there be the slight chance that an operation like this could actually aid in bringing the war to an earlier close?

The President could end the Afghan war with his signature. There's nothing except his own unwillingness preventing him from doing it.

Could there be the slight chance that an operation like this could actually aid in bringing the war to an earlier close?

I doubt it, but it doesn't pertain to this thread. I brought up Obama's anti-war position, using his call for Bin Laden's assassination to show that even the anti-war Ron Paul could still come through when needed, as did Obama.