TomL
01-05-2012, 06:31 PM
Intercourse between the mainstream media and their guest experts, including Republican mouthpieces, has produced the idea that Ron Paul is a dangerous candidate for President. Why is Ron Paul such a dangerous candidate? This question has been on my mind for some time, trying to figure out why Ron Paul is so dangerous.
Ron Paul wants the Federal Government to obey the Constitution. I see nothing so dangerous about that. After all, elected officials do take an oath of office to do just that.
Ron Paul wants to lower taxes, reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government, get us back on the gold standard, reign in, audit, or eliminate the the Federal Reserve. It sure would be nice to have a dollar that is actually worth something again. What is so dangerous about that?
Ron Paul wants to bring American soldiers back to America to protect America, which is their Constitutional purpose. He does not want to take this Country to war for frivolous or non-existent reasons, and if the necessity arises to go to war he would only do so with a Congressional Declaration of War. What is so dangerous about that.
Ron Paul's foreign policy is that we should treat other nations the way we want other nations to treat us. That is a foreign policy based on the Golden Rule, which should be accepted by conservative Christians. What is so dangerous about that?
Most attack Ron Paul's position on Iran. Ron Paul believes that Iran having nuclear weapons is no threat to the National Security. And why should it be? The United States has enough nuclear weapons to wipe Iran off the face of the earth. So I don't see how Iran having nuclear weapons is a threat to the United States.
Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry have all mentioned air strikes, risking the beginning of World War III. Both Russia and China has nuclear arsenals to rival our own, and they are both allies of Iran. So, if we attack Iran with no provocation we risk a third World War which more than likely will be nuclear World War. And these people claim that Ron Paul's foreign policy is dangerous!
I have not heard Mitt Romney make any dangerous comments about Iran. That's not to say he hasn't. I just didn't hear them if he did. Michelle Bachmann made some dangerous comments about Iran, but as she is out of the race, it's not all that important what she thinks, unless she is picked for Vice President, which is not likely. And as Jon Huntsman is, in the main, a diplomat, I doubt if he would start World War III. But I am not certain.
The choice is clear, if you don't want to risk World War III, you need to vote for Ron Paul for President.
Ron Paul wants the Federal Government to obey the Constitution. I see nothing so dangerous about that. After all, elected officials do take an oath of office to do just that.
Ron Paul wants to lower taxes, reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government, get us back on the gold standard, reign in, audit, or eliminate the the Federal Reserve. It sure would be nice to have a dollar that is actually worth something again. What is so dangerous about that?
Ron Paul wants to bring American soldiers back to America to protect America, which is their Constitutional purpose. He does not want to take this Country to war for frivolous or non-existent reasons, and if the necessity arises to go to war he would only do so with a Congressional Declaration of War. What is so dangerous about that.
Ron Paul's foreign policy is that we should treat other nations the way we want other nations to treat us. That is a foreign policy based on the Golden Rule, which should be accepted by conservative Christians. What is so dangerous about that?
Most attack Ron Paul's position on Iran. Ron Paul believes that Iran having nuclear weapons is no threat to the National Security. And why should it be? The United States has enough nuclear weapons to wipe Iran off the face of the earth. So I don't see how Iran having nuclear weapons is a threat to the United States.
Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry have all mentioned air strikes, risking the beginning of World War III. Both Russia and China has nuclear arsenals to rival our own, and they are both allies of Iran. So, if we attack Iran with no provocation we risk a third World War which more than likely will be nuclear World War. And these people claim that Ron Paul's foreign policy is dangerous!
I have not heard Mitt Romney make any dangerous comments about Iran. That's not to say he hasn't. I just didn't hear them if he did. Michelle Bachmann made some dangerous comments about Iran, but as she is out of the race, it's not all that important what she thinks, unless she is picked for Vice President, which is not likely. And as Jon Huntsman is, in the main, a diplomat, I doubt if he would start World War III. But I am not certain.
The choice is clear, if you don't want to risk World War III, you need to vote for Ron Paul for President.