Hope
10-14-2007, 02:28 PM
Someone brought up Ron Paul on a different forum, and even though two or three people have said, "Yeah, I think Ron Paul's pretty cool and I'll be voting for him!" it seems like I'm the only one willing to address the statements of those who are critical of Ron Paul. Someone just posted this, and I'm not sure if I should even try to argue with him or if I should just let it go.
What do you think? If you think I should respond, what chief counter points should I use? Obviously I'd say that Ron Paul is not an isolationist, but I get the feeling that to this person it's a matter of semantics. With other things, like his interpretation of the Second Amendment, I feel like I can't gain any ground because he is so convinced of his position. Any help here would be great.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a VERY delicate time in our nation's history and Ron Paul, however traditional he may be and how close he may hew to the letter of the Constitution, doesn't have the political savvy to handle he foreign policy of the most powerful economic and military engine on the planet. We need the U.N., which is certainly a flawed institution, to help us pick up the mess we made in Iraq...it's either them or Iran...anyone? Anyone?
I really appreciate that he wants to bring back pre-WWII conservativism, but let's remember that pre-WWII conservatism is what brought us into Depression and ugly oligarchy (say that 10 times fast) and Democratic values pulled us out, crazy spending and all. Though there will be a time for it, right now Traditional Conservatism is not compatible with our country's values as a collective and will further cripple us as we walk into the future.
I certainly agree with most of his libertarian views, but can we remember why we have the second ammendment?! It was to more easily create militia in times of domestic war and most importantly as leverage against a authoritarian regime using our own military to subjugate American citizens. This is why an assault weapon ban is anathema to the NRA. No one can say it out loud for some reason, but this is why why have the 2nd Ammendment more than anything. Certainly, it's nice to have a gun when you feel threatened by a rapist or a burglar, but it wasn't the original intent for the ammendment.
When it comes down to it, however much America may need Ron Paul from some perspectives, he is absolutely unelectable. He wants to completely disengage from the world and that will leave a vacuum which several world powers will be more than happy to fill, will continue to increase the exponential increase of the disparity between the haves and have nots. We need to elect a Democrat to find our place in the world again. Why? Even if you don't like the Dems, they are MUCH better with foreign policy and fight wars more effectively and HAVE CONTIGENCY PLANS. Not only that, they have historically been willing to weaken the presidency after autocrats or irresponsible leaders have held office. It will present a fresh face to the world, get BILL RICHARDSON in as secretary of state to smooth things over with our allies. WE NEED THE REST OF THE WORLD RIGHT NOW and to get rid off this stupid cowboy crap that is at the core of Bush's presidency! Shoot from the hip and YEEHAH!!! Bullcrap.
It may be a blow to our pride, but our country has been severely wounded by 9/11 and the Iraq war and we need to re-engage in world affairs so we can mold the future of our world, for our nation and all of humanity. We can't afford to have an isolationist worldview now. We got hurt. We made a series of dumb decisions out of fear. We need to apologize to the world by electing the other guy and showing we have humility. And anyone says we don't have to apologize, tell that to the 2-300,00 dead Iraqis, the nearly million wounded and maimed, not to mention the scores of thousands of wounded and killed American Soldiers. We can do a hell of a lot better, but we have to kick out the king and start over with a fresh perspective and cleaner hands.
What do you think? If you think I should respond, what chief counter points should I use? Obviously I'd say that Ron Paul is not an isolationist, but I get the feeling that to this person it's a matter of semantics. With other things, like his interpretation of the Second Amendment, I feel like I can't gain any ground because he is so convinced of his position. Any help here would be great.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a VERY delicate time in our nation's history and Ron Paul, however traditional he may be and how close he may hew to the letter of the Constitution, doesn't have the political savvy to handle he foreign policy of the most powerful economic and military engine on the planet. We need the U.N., which is certainly a flawed institution, to help us pick up the mess we made in Iraq...it's either them or Iran...anyone? Anyone?
I really appreciate that he wants to bring back pre-WWII conservativism, but let's remember that pre-WWII conservatism is what brought us into Depression and ugly oligarchy (say that 10 times fast) and Democratic values pulled us out, crazy spending and all. Though there will be a time for it, right now Traditional Conservatism is not compatible with our country's values as a collective and will further cripple us as we walk into the future.
I certainly agree with most of his libertarian views, but can we remember why we have the second ammendment?! It was to more easily create militia in times of domestic war and most importantly as leverage against a authoritarian regime using our own military to subjugate American citizens. This is why an assault weapon ban is anathema to the NRA. No one can say it out loud for some reason, but this is why why have the 2nd Ammendment more than anything. Certainly, it's nice to have a gun when you feel threatened by a rapist or a burglar, but it wasn't the original intent for the ammendment.
When it comes down to it, however much America may need Ron Paul from some perspectives, he is absolutely unelectable. He wants to completely disengage from the world and that will leave a vacuum which several world powers will be more than happy to fill, will continue to increase the exponential increase of the disparity between the haves and have nots. We need to elect a Democrat to find our place in the world again. Why? Even if you don't like the Dems, they are MUCH better with foreign policy and fight wars more effectively and HAVE CONTIGENCY PLANS. Not only that, they have historically been willing to weaken the presidency after autocrats or irresponsible leaders have held office. It will present a fresh face to the world, get BILL RICHARDSON in as secretary of state to smooth things over with our allies. WE NEED THE REST OF THE WORLD RIGHT NOW and to get rid off this stupid cowboy crap that is at the core of Bush's presidency! Shoot from the hip and YEEHAH!!! Bullcrap.
It may be a blow to our pride, but our country has been severely wounded by 9/11 and the Iraq war and we need to re-engage in world affairs so we can mold the future of our world, for our nation and all of humanity. We can't afford to have an isolationist worldview now. We got hurt. We made a series of dumb decisions out of fear. We need to apologize to the world by electing the other guy and showing we have humility. And anyone says we don't have to apologize, tell that to the 2-300,00 dead Iraqis, the nearly million wounded and maimed, not to mention the scores of thousands of wounded and killed American Soldiers. We can do a hell of a lot better, but we have to kick out the king and start over with a fresh perspective and cleaner hands.