Saturday, September 13, 2008
Why I'm writing in Ron Paul for president
Adherent of the Constitution? Check.
Small government? Check.
Non-involvement in foreign wars? Check.
Get rid of the Federal Reserve? A phony money-making operation that sucks taxpayer dollars out of our paychecks? Check.
No conscience-raising angst issues with me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
http://tinyurl.com/34jwe5
That's an extremely thought-provoking opinion you shared KT -- and I hope to (if I get the time, alas) comment there and argue point for point. (All except for Paul's position on the environment -- the poster and I share an opinion on that one) (I'll at least bookmark it so I can get back to it later)
I think it is completely awesome you found this for me -- someone who not only disagrees, but BACKS UP THEIR OPINION with sources, in this case, House bills.
This is what people NEED TO DO in order to get to the truth, rather than just sling our own opinions at someone and expect it to magically be the "truth."
So often nowadays people just say, Oh, well, I believe it, so it's true. Without BACKING UP their opinion with sources.
You know what? You rock. Because you shared this with me, I can take a critical look at my own worldview and change it if need be.
:)
I liked Paul for a number of reasons, but generally we depart on issues of foreign policy. Paul is not an isolationist, per say, but he is too isolationist for me. Do we need more Ron Paul's in Congress? Absolutely. In the White House? I don't think he'd be a bad President, but he's not the President I believe we need...not at the moment...
Erik, I do agree with you in principle. That is -- when our assistance is needed, and requested, and backed up with assurances that our help actually has a realistic chance to do some good, then, in limited cases, I support military actions on our part.
But I feel we should concentrate on our own affairs, for the most part. Wars are, besides tragic, expensive. With Iraq, for example, I feel it was not properly planned, and has wound up costing too much in lives lost and taxpayer dollars. I believe we did the right thing by helping the country move toward representative government -- and it could be argued that this could only be achieved through military force, and in this case I have no problem with that -- but there should have been more safeguards in place to prevent rushing in with such sloppy planning.
My guess is if the cause was just, Paul would okay intervening. After all, most Americans believe in lending a helping hand, even at risk of shedding blood, so he'd be overruled. But he'd make it damn hard to just rush in, willy-nilly. Result: MUCH less loss for us, and MUCH more self-preservation. The idea is let's put America first, for a change, and stop being the world's on-call policeman.
Post a Comment