Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
When Ron Paul says "Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity", do you really think he's just blowing smoke? I think he'd be far more willing to meet with leaders we've intimidated, alienated, or attempted to overthrow than any other President we've seen in recent history.
Why/how do you "not see Ron Paul going to Iran, the middle East, or the Koreas with peace plans"? This is strongly implied in every word he speaks on foreign policy. That is, unless by "peace plan" you mean a list of demands they must meet to avoid our cluster bombing of their cities. But you're right about him not going to the UN. I think he'd be more inclined to deal with other countries directly. We need to reconsider what we cede to the UN in order to preserve our representative form of gov't.
One thing that's overlooked about Paul's foreign policy is that if a super-majority of Congress is compelled, they can engage in nearly any foreign interventions they see fit. I'd prefer that such extraneous matters be required to hurdle more than just 51%. Paul would provide the checks & balances that have been missing, and Congress would be a check on him. We need to get out of the mindset that the Prez is the supreme leader. His policies shouldn't carry any more weight than the will of the Congress, and there's no better issue to be gridlocked than going to unprovoked, preemptive war.
Allow me to jump in here. I believe Ron Paul would not actively engage in forgien relations outside of the friendship and trade routine. I do not see Ron Paul going to the UN summit and talk peace. I do not see Ron Paul going to Iran, the middle East, or the Koreas with peace plans.
It goes to show that when you tell a lie enough times, it becomes the truth. The media has labeled Paul an "isolationist" incessantly for the last 4 years, and it's stuck in the heads of the sheeple who don't miss an opportunity to bleat it as if it was an original thought. Four legs good, two legs baaad.
Non-interventionism vs Isolationism: www.youtu.be/X1i2GyZB8Rs
I've found that the people who use the term "isolationism" regarding Paul do so while defending imperialism, an -ism that has failed over and over and over and over again throughout history. If you're worried about the world "passing us by", you sure are overlooking the most obvious & likely culprit — insolvency. Please elaborate on "taking part in what can make us a better nation" and explain which activities beyond our borders can improve our nation besides friendship and trade, as Paul would prescribe.
And where can I find the proof of your "truth" that Ron is only paving the way for Rand? Are you suggesting Ron wouldn't hold the office if he won? How could he be doing Rand any favors by promoting such flawed, isolationist principles?
Ron Paul is an isolationist and that would not only tarnish the U.S. as a world leader, but it would be a horrendous policy to let the rest of the world pass us by without helping or taking part in what can make us a better nation. Regardless, the truth is that Ron Paul's main interest is in planting the seed and cultivate the minds of the electorate for his son who will more than likely make a run for the White House in the future.
The endorsement being from a pastor doesn't hold any value for me either, but it shows that an evangelical pastor can make a reasoned case for Paul. He obviously took the time to think about it and wade through the BS that's pumped into the collective consciousness. His case would still hold water had it been from Joe Blow.
Second, the Rev did lied about a one thing.How can he assume Obama isn't Chirstian enough when he is married only to one woman and rising hios two kids? This is why I have deep his dislike and distrust of MegaChurches.
Bs SpotterThe Pastor’s endorsement has no worth as far I am concern.
What's a pastor's endorsement worth?