Which of his policy positions are isolationist? You know the difference between isolationism and interventionism right? One is economic, the other geopolitically-and militaristically-centric. He definitely is not an isolationist.
Hardly. Today, we have nothing remotely similar to old Nazi Germany or even Soviet Russia. Nothing at all. What we have today is a ragtag group of militant groups engaging in gorilla warfare. This is definitely not a reason to send young Americans to die... especially considering most of their anti-American hatred is due to being overly interventionist. For instance, Iran. This video is brilliantly put together, and gives you everything you need to know to understand our relationship with Iran.That is where I disagree with Ron Paul drastically. His foreign policy reminds me very much of the foreign policy we had after World War I which very nearly allowed the Nazis to win World War II.
Intervening with military force is not always the right answer, neither is pulling all our forces back to within our borders and burying our heads in the sand, which seems to be Ron Paul's general theme.
This would never happen, just considering the Hippocratic Oath alone. The problem is people like you have lost faith in your ability to be a caring, compassionate human, partly because the government has been raping you financially so they can take on that role. Consider the possibility that if you didn't have an income tax, you might donate a huge % of that money to charity, which would in turn be used to create Non-for-Profit organizations to take care of the sick. I can show you several states that offer charity health care, and that's even in today's climate of apathy and being oppressed by a bloated central government. What part of libertarianism doesn't work, honestly? The part where you stop believing in humanity? But you'll shift that trust/faith to a central government? A bit convoluted, no?I see this site is no different when it comes to being infected with the Ron Paul disease.
My favorite part about every Ron Paul debate is when he is more or less asked "Do you ever think your ideas could actually work?", and he sits there for 10 seconds trying to come up with something to say because even he knows the answer is a blatant "no". Instead, he rambles on until the time is up about some free market ideal or how he would refuse an 8 year old emergency healthcare.
If by "support," you mean "support" = "pillaging the Middle East to protect Israel's life/existence and our oil interests." Sure.Ron Paul does not support Israel in whatever they say or do. So, he doesn't have a chance.
Hardly. Today, we have nothing remotely similar to old Nazi Germany or even Soviet Russia. Nothing at all. What we have today is a ragtag group of militant groups engaging in gorilla warfare. This is definitely not a reason to send young Americans to die... especially considering most of their anti-American hatred is due to being overly interventionist. For instance, Iran. This video is brilliantly put together, and gives you everything you need to know to understand our relationship with Iran.
Reasonable concern. However, tell me how this position fairs with you...That said, I don't see what it has to do with our response to the current situation with Iran. They are developing nuclear weapons, they hate us (with some reason), they fund and arm terrorists, and there leader believes that starting "armageddon" will bring back there messiah. Do you think any of that will change if we pull all our forces back from the world and just decide to ignore them?
Over time.* This is a very important caveat. Wouldn't you believe and have faith in a non-for-profit established using funds that aren't siphoned away from the free market to line the pockets of special interests and politicians? Just ask yourself this, why would government, which is made up of power-hungry lying politicians/lawyers/CEOs/etc, be more efficient at setting up a safety net than the general public armed with their own wealth (which would be preserved if it wasn't being inefficiently managed by a central government)? Why do you trust these people more than your neighbors? Or your city? Or your county? Or your state, even?I agree I like his views on the federal reserve and some other things, but he wants to do away with ALL safety nets. I think there needs to be some safety nets i.e social security, healthcare etc. He wants to get rid of them all, that's too extreme for me. I don't think people should abuse these programs and they do but overall they should be there.
Reasonable concern. However, tell me how this position fairs with you...
[youtube]ujl_sTPZPLY[/youtube]
This would never happen, just considering the Hippocratic Oath alone. The problem is people like you have lost faith in your ability to be a caring, compassionate human, partly because the government has been raping you financially so they can take on that role. Consider the possibility that if you didn't have an income tax, you might donate a huge % of that money to charity, which would in turn be used to create Non-for-Profit organizations to take care of the sick. I can show you several states that offer charity health care, and that's even in today's climate of apathy and being oppressed by a bloated central government. What part of libertarianism doesn't work, honestly? The part where you stop believing in humanity? But you'll shift that trust/faith to a central government? A bit convoluted, no?
Fuck that bring back Clintonlol No but seriously. You can not think of voting for the best and expect that person to change everything. When you vote you need to know you are voting for bad people and you need to select the one that will do the less damage to the country. It s like voting the best of the worst.
Is it me or Ron Paul seems more like a Democrat than a Republican? I mean he has progressive mentality, he s against war, increasing taxes for the rich....Everything that is against Republican mentality..