Ron Paul says scary things “It doesn’t matter if Iran gets the bomb.”
Otherwise he’s says a lot of other things that may sound kooky but are true.
I’d like to see a McCain foreign policy, Paul domestic policy love child run.
I’m going to put this out there, however.
Isn’t the Standard Model regarding foreign wars–that the President can do any sort of military action with only limited input from Congress–pretty much as obviously unconstitutional as the former Standard Model of the 2nd Amendment, which claimed that only the National Guard had the right to firearms? Do you honestly think that the Founders gave Congress the right to declare war, but intended the President to have the right to wage undeclared wars?
Yes, Paul is a raving loony on issues like Israel and Islam. But this issue really bugs me, and we need to face the Constitutional issue head on.
My issue is that when I look at the other candidates I see just another version of Obama and Bush. Ron Paul is the one that doesn’t fit in the set. Can you imagine the consternation it would cause the bureaucracy if he was elected president?
In the end it is not the elected officials that need to be feared but the unelected bureaucrats. I think electing Paul as the president would force a showdown between the people and the bureaucracy.
I read Paul’s book. Garden variety libertarianism. It’s been eye opening, however, watching the statist lites use the same attacks and tools that the full on statists have been using on the lites.
The best that I can say for Ron Paul is that he is paving the way for Rand Paul.
George wrote:
“Can you imagine the consternation it would cause the bureaucracy if he was elected president? ”
I cannot. They would love it. They wouldn’t have to worry about a Prez interfering with them because the “Establishment” – which includes Dems and GOP – would work together to neuter him. Neither side would want to support him with the exception of some of the more conservative, and the Dems who wanted to thwart a military incursion somewhere.
Paul would be used when convenient, rolled most of the time, then shoved in the corner and forgotten.
An Iranian bomb would not be a threat to the USA. The Iranians lack the ability to deliver a warhead to anyone but their immediate neighbors. In the scheme of the middle east and southern asia it could potentially be stabilizing for them and us. A Shia/Iranian bomb would be an enormous distractor for the Wahabbists whose attention and energies are focused largely on the US and Europe lately. Having a nuclear weapon also makes you a nuclear target and forces a certain civility on otherwise radical regimes who possess them.
“Having a nuclear weapon also makes you a nuclear target and forces a certain civility on otherwise radical regimes who possess them.”
I disagree. Having a nuclear weapon will not have any moderating effects on their current support of terrorism and the desire to exterminate Israel.
The advent of a pakistani bomb has been a stabilizing influence between India and Pakistan. The last fifteen years have been the most peaceful between India and Pakistan since the formation of the nation state of Pakistan. Iran has not been the major supporter of terrorism against US interests. Our allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have done far more to support terrorism against the US than Iran.
I have come to regard Paul as less objectionable than the rest of the Republican field. We certainly need a serious shake-up, not more soothing ‘business-as-usual’ platitudes.
As George said, Paul would take on the bureaucracy. As Gregg said, both establishment parties would do their best to neuter him. The result would be to show the American people the extent to which the permanent bureaucracy has become an unelected government unto itself, and the extent to which Congress has abdicated its responsibility to oversee that bureaucracy.
Another thing: I believe that Paul would win more votes among independents and disaffected Democrats than any of the other potential Republican candidates, and aren’t we always being told that it is the independents who decide elections?
Ron Paul says scary things “It doesn’t matter if Iran gets the bomb.”
Otherwise he’s says a lot of other things that may sound kooky but are true.
I’d like to see a McCain foreign policy, Paul domestic policy love child run.
I’m going to put this out there, however.
Isn’t the Standard Model regarding foreign wars–that the President can do any sort of military action with only limited input from Congress–pretty much as obviously unconstitutional as the former Standard Model of the 2nd Amendment, which claimed that only the National Guard had the right to firearms? Do you honestly think that the Founders gave Congress the right to declare war, but intended the President to have the right to wage undeclared wars?
Yes, Paul is a raving loony on issues like Israel and Islam. But this issue really bugs me, and we need to face the Constitutional issue head on.
My issue is that when I look at the other candidates I see just another version of Obama and Bush. Ron Paul is the one that doesn’t fit in the set. Can you imagine the consternation it would cause the bureaucracy if he was elected president?
In the end it is not the elected officials that need to be feared but the unelected bureaucrats. I think electing Paul as the president would force a showdown between the people and the bureaucracy.
I read Paul’s book. Garden variety libertarianism. It’s been eye opening, however, watching the statist lites use the same attacks and tools that the full on statists have been using on the lites.
The best that I can say for Ron Paul is that he is paving the way for Rand Paul.
George wrote:
“Can you imagine the consternation it would cause the bureaucracy if he was elected president? ”
I cannot. They would love it. They wouldn’t have to worry about a Prez interfering with them because the “Establishment” – which includes Dems and GOP – would work together to neuter him. Neither side would want to support him with the exception of some of the more conservative, and the Dems who wanted to thwart a military incursion somewhere.
Paul would be used when convenient, rolled most of the time, then shoved in the corner and forgotten.
An Iranian bomb would not be a threat to the USA. The Iranians lack the ability to deliver a warhead to anyone but their immediate neighbors. In the scheme of the middle east and southern asia it could potentially be stabilizing for them and us. A Shia/Iranian bomb would be an enormous distractor for the Wahabbists whose attention and energies are focused largely on the US and Europe lately. Having a nuclear weapon also makes you a nuclear target and forces a certain civility on otherwise radical regimes who possess them.
“Having a nuclear weapon also makes you a nuclear target and forces a certain civility on otherwise radical regimes who possess them.”
I disagree. Having a nuclear weapon will not have any moderating effects on their current support of terrorism and the desire to exterminate Israel.
The advent of a pakistani bomb has been a stabilizing influence between India and Pakistan. The last fifteen years have been the most peaceful between India and Pakistan since the formation of the nation state of Pakistan. Iran has not been the major supporter of terrorism against US interests. Our allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have done far more to support terrorism against the US than Iran.
I have come to regard Paul as less objectionable than the rest of the Republican field. We certainly need a serious shake-up, not more soothing ‘business-as-usual’ platitudes.
As George said, Paul would take on the bureaucracy. As Gregg said, both establishment parties would do their best to neuter him. The result would be to show the American people the extent to which the permanent bureaucracy has become an unelected government unto itself, and the extent to which Congress has abdicated its responsibility to oversee that bureaucracy.
Another thing: I believe that Paul would win more votes among independents and disaffected Democrats than any of the other potential Republican candidates, and aren’t we always being told that it is the independents who decide elections?