That wasn't a comment directed at the Iraq war, or any war in particular. I think part of Ron Paul's problem is he doesn't see the difference between the war we have in Iraq and other middle eastern conflicts which might or might not require our intervention.
The problem with the other candidates is that they don't realize that the middle east has ALWAYS been in conflict. WE are not going to change that, no matter how many roadmaps we come up with. Our presence there only makes things WORSE, and then things like 9/11 happen, and we end up looking like jackasses.
We can either go on the offensive, kill a bunch of people, stir up the hornets nest, make more of them hate us and give them justification to attack us again; OR we could go on the defensive, keep them contained in their neck of the woods, watch our own backs, and let them kill each other.
Yes, I agree with you that the middle east is complex, BUT I think it's Paul that understands this and is looking at the big picture. The other candidates position is us=good, them=bad. Can't get any more black and white then that.
I think it's obvious running this particular war, with tax cuts on top of it, was a bad idea. I don't think the world is so black and white though that one mistake, no matter how large, determines how we should conduct our foreign relations in all cases.
But it's not one mistake. It's been a series of mistakes stretching back to the end of WWI. Granted, most of those early mistakes are the fault of Britian and France, but since then, our insatiable need for oil has not helped the people of the middle east, except for a few royals.
We can't change the past, but we certainly aren't learning from it.
Chances are if a country, like say Iran, were to acquire nuclear weapons, simply staying at home with our thumbs up our asses isn't going to prevent or deter them from firing them on American soil.
1. Without thinking from the perspective of an American, why shouldn't they be aloud to have a nuke? Isreal, India, and Pakastan have them. Why isn't Iran aloud to have one to protect themselves from foreign aggressors, ie; us?
2. Even if they did get one, they don't have a means of firing one at us. And if they ever do, we should have the means to intercept it.
3. What's going to prevent and deter them from firing one at us if they were capable, is the fact that we would ANNIHILATE them.
By you're logic Huckabee, who by far has the least resources, should have been out by Super Tuesday. Romney, who has the most money by far, ought to be the front runner. Guiliani, who has slightly more name recognition than the other candidates, ought not to be a footnote of a footnote by now. However, this doesn't change the fact that one candidate the media wrote off, Huckabee, came back and won 5 states on Super Tuesday, and could possibly do very well in the upcoming Louisiana and Kansas primary.
Huckabee has the religious right. The fact that the media wrote off Huckabee shows how stupid they are. Two left leaning republicans, and a mormon. NOBODY should be surprised by this.
[/font]
Actually, I was. That's kind of a key point me and Matt are making, that you consistently miss. People have their reasons for voting for Huckabee, and it's issues based, just as most of those polls claim issues and the candidate as a person factor most into their decision making. Fact is, most wrote off McCain early on in these primaries, almost giving him no time in debates, and devoting most of the air time to Guiliani, Thompson and Romney, all of whom are total wash outs.
Okay, and people can't vote over religious issues? So Mormon's wanted a mormon in office, I don't go around criticising mormon's for voting for those reasons. Just like a don't criticize wacko's for wanting another wacko in office. What I do criticize, however, is Ron Paul supporters blaiming everyone else for their candidate's downfall. Or maybe I should start saying "the media" is at fault for the Patriots losing the superbowl
The difference is that all those candidates have had debates where they've had good coverage and they've had bad coverage. Paul has not had good coverage IMO.
FACT: Ron Paul is fifth, count it, fifth in fund raising for his own party. He is eight in fundraising overall.
FACT: Ron Paul is dead last in vote count
FACT: Everyone KNOWS who Ron Paul is, he is the guy who takes extreme stances in all the debates and stays in the race long past the point where it is STATISTICALLY possible for him to make any ground whatsoever.
You don't base your logic on facts, sorry.
Fact number 3 isn't a fact. Few people know who Paul is, and a lot of them are misinformed. Extemity is a matter of opinion. I think banning gay marrage, believing in creationism, and illegal invasions and occupations are pretty extreme, but most of the candidates don't. And I don't think admitting that we some what made them want to attack us on 9/11 is an extreme view.
McCain and Huckabee started out as dark horse candidates behind the much more formitable and rich Guiliani and Romney. You completely ignore this to make a point, that, by all rights, made no sense to begin with. Sorry, the people who vote make up their own minds for their own reasons, and in this case the media, who was toting Guiliani as the preceived frontrunning way back in 2007, were completely and utterly wrong. They totally, I mean totally, wrote off McCain. They said he was too old, and if you were following the debates, you'd realize he got very little face time in the beginning. It was only after New Hampshire, and South Carolina that anyone started paying attention to him.
...Because he won Iowa, something no one though he would do.
Yeah, ummmm, no.
Are you even watching the election coverage
, like at all. He picked up 5 states yesterday, after THE MEDIA completely wrote him off in favor of Romney who JUST DROPPED OUT. Everyone thought Huckabee would win SC, he didn't. Now, after he was sidelined in the last debate, he comes back and carries the south.
For my reply to this block, read above.
No, he just wants "to leave it up to the states". Actually, come to think of it, that's basically his stance on everything: leave it up to the states. So he doesn't really say "I want to legalize this/that" just that everything is everyone else's decision.
I think certain decisions should be left up to the states...gay marriage being one of them.....I personally feel marriage should be between 2(two) consenting adults....and by adult I mean 18 yo none of that emancipated crap
A lot of laws are left up to the state, so I don't see how you guys are seeing this as a negitive.
That's nice and all, but we also have the Commerce clause, the equal protections clause and a number of ammendments to consider. The constitution is a living document, not a Bible, that's why we have an ammendment process and why we have judicial review. The Constitution was not created at a time when we had a need for NASA, an industrial sector the economy or even a modern education system. I was a political science major in college, went in a Republican and came out a Democrat. I probably understand more about this nations history than you do.
Ron Paul's solution to everything: go back to the way the founders did it...is that what you're saying. Sorry, won't happen. It must be nice to run a homogenious society, based in agriculture, where only white male land owners can vote and hold public office. Now, we don't have that luxury.
You seriously don't believe that he wants to take us back to the 1700s
?
Thankfully the founding fathers, I think, knew this and wrote a pretty vague document. "Life", "liberty" and the "pursuit" of happiness or even what a "right" is, is never clearly defined in the constitution. Sure, you can read Jefferson's letters and find out he had a pretty clear picture of what Government was supposed to be...but then again Jefferson also wanted an entirely new constitution and Government formed every twenty years...and we're still using the original.
The Founding Fathers wanted many things: they wanted an executive who never spoke before Congress. That reminded them too much of kings before parliament. They wanted a country with no standing armies, ever. They felt it gave the executive too much power, when militia's would suffice. They wanted blacks and women to be second class citizens, because they lacked the mental and physical capacities of men...although Jefferson slowly began to abandon that belief. They also wanted an executive who wasn't elected by the people, but rather appointed by Congress. Neither Washington, nor Adams, nor Jefferson were elected in any way similar to today's method. So I don't see how Ron Paul literalists seem to want a literally interpreted constitution in only some regards.
Saying people that support Paul are all constitution literalist is like saying all people who believe in Christ is a Bible literalist.
This may shock you, but just like every other person who supports a candidate, they don't ALL agree with EVERY aspect of their platform. I admit, some things I read about him and go
, like getting rid of the DOE. But, he most closely represents what my ideal America should be. And frankly, the DOE is hardly the envy of the worlds, and no other candidate offers a better solution, so why not give it a try?
And Paul isn't trying to take us back to 1700s, that's absurd to think. He wants the consititution to be more relevent than it's being treated now. Frankly, ALL candidates talk highly about the ideas of the founding fathers and the greatness of the constitution, but again, Paul is the only one honest enough to back that claim up. Other people just think of the constitution as an obstacle to get around.
You see the reason the powers of the Federal Government have been expanded IS because of the constitution being interpreted correctly in changing times. Yes, one could argue that certain adminstrations have abused this power, but I guess you could also argue states abuse their rights when they withhold blacks from attending school with white students. The commerce clause protects the Federal Government's right to regulate goods that are produced in one state but consumed by many, or another. Think about this in a modern era context.
Education: originally it was a commody consumed by one state. You probably, or at least in most cases, were educated in one state, grew up in that state, and held employment in that state. Now a days the likelyhood you will settle where you grew up is pretty slim, and it is in the best interest of the Government to make sure your rights are protected if you move from one state to another to ensure you can get the same quality education. Imagine if you move from one state to another, only to find they educated their residents completely differently. That would be pretty troublesome, wouldn't it?
Or perhaps another example. the environment. If you pollute does it affect just you? No, as we've planely seen it effects everyone. Not just in your state, but now as far north as the polar ice caps and as far south as Santa's workshop. The Government has a vested interest in making sure the pollution made by California doesn't effect the clear skies of Nevada, Colorado or Utah: all of which can potentially be affected.
Am I a proponent of big Government, I suppose a Ron Paul supporter would say I am. I like to think though I understand the world is slightly more complex than Ron Paul would make it. Property right's will not stop people from polluting, it will harbor it in fact. State's rights will not protect gay's, mexican's or minorities, it will create a country divided, as it did in the past. The Government's job, first and foremost, according to the Constitution you keep quoting is to protect both the rights of it's citizens, and protect our country from attack. If you think you can accomplish these things with strict constructionalism in today's era, with non interventionalist foreign policy, with low taxes (especially in the current economic climate) you're very much entitled to that belief.
That's a lot to digest, and sounds like an alarmist view point. No one is trying to get rid of the federal government. Giving more power to the states isn't going to result in legal segregation again. Property rights can help pollution in that if someones pollution affects my property, I can sue them for it. Besides, what's the government doing now and what are the other candidate going to do about it that is better? Education, you make it seem if I move from one state to the next, 1+1 might not equal 2. I guess we can use the Democrat method of fixing a problem; throw money at it.
The problem with Ron Paul is all his solutions are the same to me: turn back the clock. Want to fix education, get rid of the DOE and go back to the constitution. Want to fix terrorism, pull all our forces out of the middle east and pretend we never interviewed, we shouldn't be there in the first place. But guess what? we are. Ron Paul lives to criticize the world we are in, not fix it. You will NEVER GO BACK to the way the founding father's intended. It's not going to happen. It wasn't going to happen when Lincoln took office, and it sure as sh** ain't happening now.
No one is trying to turn back the clock. Paul is actually the only one trying to fix things by trying something new. Everyone else is just doing the same old thing with a slight twist.
And you really sound anti-constitution. Like we should scrap the whole thing and start again.
. But...no...no real connections yet, I'd say. I'm going to go back to school first, either for Public Policy or Law, probably law, as they say it's a better safety net. Maybe business as well, because there seems to be launchpads from the private sector, and let's just say I stand to inherit a business anyways. 
