How about Ron Paul, after all?

With one after another Republican presidential candidates rising to the top, then flaming out, it is time to seriously consider Ron Paul.

He’s libertarian, but he’s also pro-life, a devout Christian by all accounts (raised Lutheran, no less,  in the ELCA, but now Baptist–from an LCMS point of view, is it better to be a liberal Lutheran or a conservative Baptist?).  Anyway, he is anti-war (conservatives now taking the lead in that department).  No one doubts his commitment to small government.  Yes, he believes in legalizing drugs and prostitution, but would you take that in return for what else he offers?

I know some of you are already Ron Paul fans.  (Feel free to state your case.)  Would the rest of you now consider him?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Kris

    He does not favor legalizing drugs and prostitution, he favors dropping federal laws against them and moving those laws to the states.

  • Kris

    He does not favor legalizing drugs and prostitution, he favors dropping federal laws against them and moving those laws to the states.

  • Eric Brown

    Kris makes a point I find to be important – Ron Paul is a big States Rights sort of fellow. If Texas wants to legalize X… let them legalize it. If Texas wants X illegal, that’s fine too. But you don’t need a federal doubling up on laws, nor do you need the federal government leaning on the states to enforce an artificial uniformity. Let Nevada be Nevada.

    Of course, I personally am not all that big on vice laws. I’m from Chicago – prohibition just made the gangsters rich. I’d rather tax vice than pretend that if I just pass the right laws everyone will be perfect and righteous. Of course, I’m also a Libertarian, so, go figure.

  • Eric Brown

    Kris makes a point I find to be important – Ron Paul is a big States Rights sort of fellow. If Texas wants to legalize X… let them legalize it. If Texas wants X illegal, that’s fine too. But you don’t need a federal doubling up on laws, nor do you need the federal government leaning on the states to enforce an artificial uniformity. Let Nevada be Nevada.

    Of course, I personally am not all that big on vice laws. I’m from Chicago – prohibition just made the gangsters rich. I’d rather tax vice than pretend that if I just pass the right laws everyone will be perfect and righteous. Of course, I’m also a Libertarian, so, go figure.

  • http://seeingbeauty.wordpress.com Noelle Elise

    Not yet. I understand his reasoning about the impossibility of forcing “morality” through law, but at the same time, I’m unsettled by the idea of the government not defending and aligning itself with morality. It be far better, for example, for law to uphold the institution of marriage than to be uninvolved.
    Also, for as much as I’ve heard his faith applauded, I’m not (yet) convinced he’s a believer.
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/octoberweb-only/ron-paul-church-abortion-narcotics-marriage.html

  • http://seeingbeauty.wordpress.com Noelle Elise

    Not yet. I understand his reasoning about the impossibility of forcing “morality” through law, but at the same time, I’m unsettled by the idea of the government not defending and aligning itself with morality. It be far better, for example, for law to uphold the institution of marriage than to be uninvolved.
    Also, for as much as I’ve heard his faith applauded, I’m not (yet) convinced he’s a believer.
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/octoberweb-only/ron-paul-church-abortion-narcotics-marriage.html

  • Joe

    Well there is also his understanding of economics:

  • Joe

    Well there is also his understanding of economics:

  • Richard

    Yes, I’d consider him. He appears to be the only consistent conservative in the race.

  • Richard

    Yes, I’d consider him. He appears to be the only consistent conservative in the race.

  • Larry Wilson

    The older I’ve gotten, the more cynical about politics I’ve gotten, and the more true Psalm 146:3 rings to me (it’s always been just as true; it’s just that I’m slow on the uptake). So whether it’s Ron Paul, or Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich, or Barack Obama — none of them can be the Messiah.

    As for Ron Paul’s foreign policy, I’ve given this a lot of thought. During the Bush administration (for whom I had voted both times), I became increasingly troubled by the messianic vision of America that we had been drawn into. David Frum was writing books like An End to Evil, and it was he and his ilk who had Bush’s ear. I gradually came to think that that I and the conservative Christian community had been subtly co-opted to serve as foot-soldiers for what was essentially an idolatrous quest. Little by little, we let our commitment to just (as opposed to unjust) warfare be whittled away. And we sacrificed a lot of our young people in pursuit of that idolatry. And that, it now strikes me, is what is truly naïve. It’s one thing to defend our own country and citizens; God delegates the power of the sword to civil government for exactly that purpose. But it’s another thing altogether to try to “save” the world, and to “democratize” nations, especially nations whose own worldviews are inimical to “democracy” (not to mention nations over which God has not given us authority). That seems to me to be the most naïve thing of all (to try to grow Protestant Reformation fruits from Islamic roots). Watching our foreign policy over many decades shows that our “brilliant” maneuvering (playing God) has kept producing more and even worse Frankenstein monsters. Just do a study of US policy toward Iraq and Iran over the last 75 years, and the effects it had. Why even Osama bin Laden used to be one of our heroes, one of our “freedom fighters”, one of the “majahideen” that the USA armed and trained in order to push back the USSR in Afghanistan.

    But what has especially and increasingly disconcerted me about US foreign policy is the devastating effect that it had on our Christian brothers and sisters throughout the middle east. To be so instrumental in causing so much destruction… well, I had to wonder, are we really “the good guys” after all? And if believers are the true Israel, the children of Abraham, who inherit that promise, “I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you” (as God insists they are in the book of Galatians [and other places]), then how long will God hold back his wrath against our hubris and pretended sovereignty? Or, could it be that the rise of homosexual activism, the economic turmoil, the rapid loss of freedoms, etc., is a sign that he is not holding back his wrath, at least not as much as he had been?

    And the bait that kept us biting was empty promises about “social conservatism” — stopping abortion and gay marriage and judicial activism and illegal immigration and the welfare society, etc. etc. etc. But if the corrupt Republican elites really meant even half of the things they promised in their platforms over the last 30 years, those things would not be anywhere near the problems that they are for us now. There were times when they had the power to effect at least some of those promises. But no, they kept lying to us in order to keep us voting for them. They kept making symbolic (but empty) gestures. And we’ve been as wise as doves and as innocent as serpents during the whole matter, so we’ve kept falling for it. If you want to be a cheerleader for the religious right, then here’s the cheer: “Give me a D! Give me a U! Give me an H! What’s it spell?” The Republican party elites regard us as “useful idiots”, and we haven’t been too big a disappointment to them yet.

  • Larry Wilson

    The older I’ve gotten, the more cynical about politics I’ve gotten, and the more true Psalm 146:3 rings to me (it’s always been just as true; it’s just that I’m slow on the uptake). So whether it’s Ron Paul, or Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich, or Barack Obama — none of them can be the Messiah.

    As for Ron Paul’s foreign policy, I’ve given this a lot of thought. During the Bush administration (for whom I had voted both times), I became increasingly troubled by the messianic vision of America that we had been drawn into. David Frum was writing books like An End to Evil, and it was he and his ilk who had Bush’s ear. I gradually came to think that that I and the conservative Christian community had been subtly co-opted to serve as foot-soldiers for what was essentially an idolatrous quest. Little by little, we let our commitment to just (as opposed to unjust) warfare be whittled away. And we sacrificed a lot of our young people in pursuit of that idolatry. And that, it now strikes me, is what is truly naïve. It’s one thing to defend our own country and citizens; God delegates the power of the sword to civil government for exactly that purpose. But it’s another thing altogether to try to “save” the world, and to “democratize” nations, especially nations whose own worldviews are inimical to “democracy” (not to mention nations over which God has not given us authority). That seems to me to be the most naïve thing of all (to try to grow Protestant Reformation fruits from Islamic roots). Watching our foreign policy over many decades shows that our “brilliant” maneuvering (playing God) has kept producing more and even worse Frankenstein monsters. Just do a study of US policy toward Iraq and Iran over the last 75 years, and the effects it had. Why even Osama bin Laden used to be one of our heroes, one of our “freedom fighters”, one of the “majahideen” that the USA armed and trained in order to push back the USSR in Afghanistan.

    But what has especially and increasingly disconcerted me about US foreign policy is the devastating effect that it had on our Christian brothers and sisters throughout the middle east. To be so instrumental in causing so much destruction… well, I had to wonder, are we really “the good guys” after all? And if believers are the true Israel, the children of Abraham, who inherit that promise, “I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you” (as God insists they are in the book of Galatians [and other places]), then how long will God hold back his wrath against our hubris and pretended sovereignty? Or, could it be that the rise of homosexual activism, the economic turmoil, the rapid loss of freedoms, etc., is a sign that he is not holding back his wrath, at least not as much as he had been?

    And the bait that kept us biting was empty promises about “social conservatism” — stopping abortion and gay marriage and judicial activism and illegal immigration and the welfare society, etc. etc. etc. But if the corrupt Republican elites really meant even half of the things they promised in their platforms over the last 30 years, those things would not be anywhere near the problems that they are for us now. There were times when they had the power to effect at least some of those promises. But no, they kept lying to us in order to keep us voting for them. They kept making symbolic (but empty) gestures. And we’ve been as wise as doves and as innocent as serpents during the whole matter, so we’ve kept falling for it. If you want to be a cheerleader for the religious right, then here’s the cheer: “Give me a D! Give me a U! Give me an H! What’s it spell?” The Republican party elites regard us as “useful idiots”, and we haven’t been too big a disappointment to them yet.

  • Larry Wilson

    Sorry for the rant. I intend the above to explain part of why I am supportive of Ron Paul, including his foreign policy.

  • Larry Wilson

    Sorry for the rant. I intend the above to explain part of why I am supportive of Ron Paul, including his foreign policy.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Great on domestic and Constitutional issues…abysmal on foreign policy issues.

    Another Hitler to rise up somewhere and R. Paul will stick his head in the sand.

    In short, his Presidency would be a very dangerous thing.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Great on domestic and Constitutional issues…abysmal on foreign policy issues.

    Another Hitler to rise up somewhere and R. Paul will stick his head in the sand.

    In short, his Presidency would be a very dangerous thing.

  • George

    I think it might not be wise to refer to Ron Paul as a “libertarian.” He is rather a true “conservative.” I say this because, though many of his policy perscriptions reflect what we now understand to be “libertarian” positions, the underlying philosophy which validates these positions is not an unrelenting belief in the power of “harm theory” as most JSM Libertarians might say, but a faith in the power for societal institutions such as churches, families, and voluntary institutions to “regulate” human life and bring about order. This is the idea of the “civil society,” the cornerstone of all historic conservative thought. As for his foreign policy, let us recall that a reserved foreign policy was a conservative idea long before it became a liberal one during the 70′s /80′s. It is no coincidence that nearly all of Americas major wars in modern eras were started by Democratic presidents (the value of these decisions can be argued separately). It was old E. Burke himself that regarded every states right to self determination to be essential to a free world, hence his support for American and Indian independence as a British Citizen.

    As they say around here, “not a sermon, just a thought.” ;)

    Also, I think Mr. Wilson above is very right. Many Christians now view it as equally essential to their religious identity to put up an American flag by their crucifix. Being Christian and being Patriotic is becoming quite conflated among conservative protestant circles especially. This truly is, at least to some extent, idolatry. Furthermore, such “belief” in a human institution is unchristian, for our trust must only be in God. This is not to say we should not, according to our vocation, have a loyalty and duty to our nation. It is only to say that our nation is just that, and not a second church.

  • George

    I think it might not be wise to refer to Ron Paul as a “libertarian.” He is rather a true “conservative.” I say this because, though many of his policy perscriptions reflect what we now understand to be “libertarian” positions, the underlying philosophy which validates these positions is not an unrelenting belief in the power of “harm theory” as most JSM Libertarians might say, but a faith in the power for societal institutions such as churches, families, and voluntary institutions to “regulate” human life and bring about order. This is the idea of the “civil society,” the cornerstone of all historic conservative thought. As for his foreign policy, let us recall that a reserved foreign policy was a conservative idea long before it became a liberal one during the 70′s /80′s. It is no coincidence that nearly all of Americas major wars in modern eras were started by Democratic presidents (the value of these decisions can be argued separately). It was old E. Burke himself that regarded every states right to self determination to be essential to a free world, hence his support for American and Indian independence as a British Citizen.

    As they say around here, “not a sermon, just a thought.” ;)

    Also, I think Mr. Wilson above is very right. Many Christians now view it as equally essential to their religious identity to put up an American flag by their crucifix. Being Christian and being Patriotic is becoming quite conflated among conservative protestant circles especially. This truly is, at least to some extent, idolatry. Furthermore, such “belief” in a human institution is unchristian, for our trust must only be in God. This is not to say we should not, according to our vocation, have a loyalty and duty to our nation. It is only to say that our nation is just that, and not a second church.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Definitely will (and have) considered him, but two big things trouble me. First, his foreign policy seems to assume that certain of our enemies are only responding because we’re interfering–but ignores the fact that there are others of the same religious view attacking their neighbors where the United States is not–places like Sudan, Nigeria, Thailand, and such. So I consider his foreign policy (like Obama’s, really) dangerously naive.

    I am also uneasy about some of the libertarian economic arguments; when they get to “legalize dope and hookers,” they ignore the reality that all too often, transactions for the same are not voluntary, but rather born of addiction for the dope and compulsion (e.g. pimps) for the hookers. We can probably clean up our laws in this regard, but I’m uneasy with this.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Definitely will (and have) considered him, but two big things trouble me. First, his foreign policy seems to assume that certain of our enemies are only responding because we’re interfering–but ignores the fact that there are others of the same religious view attacking their neighbors where the United States is not–places like Sudan, Nigeria, Thailand, and such. So I consider his foreign policy (like Obama’s, really) dangerously naive.

    I am also uneasy about some of the libertarian economic arguments; when they get to “legalize dope and hookers,” they ignore the reality that all too often, transactions for the same are not voluntary, but rather born of addiction for the dope and compulsion (e.g. pimps) for the hookers. We can probably clean up our laws in this regard, but I’m uneasy with this.

  • trotk

    Larry Wilson writes a profound argument (or at least description) for why Ron Paul’s foreign policy is superior to the other Republican candidates…

    And then Steve Martin says that Ron Paul is abysmal on foreign policy issues, claiming that he would hide from a Hitler.

    Steve, do you actually know what his foreign policy is? Can you make a coherent argument? The accusation that Ron Paul’s foreign policy is abysmal is empty-headed. It might be the most sane foreign policy offering that there is, because it seeks to not needlessly entangle America in the affairs of other nations, respecting their sovereignty and our limitations. This does not mean, however, that we wouldn’t defend an ally that was attacked, and thus your comparison to Chamberlain fails.

  • trotk

    Larry Wilson writes a profound argument (or at least description) for why Ron Paul’s foreign policy is superior to the other Republican candidates…

    And then Steve Martin says that Ron Paul is abysmal on foreign policy issues, claiming that he would hide from a Hitler.

    Steve, do you actually know what his foreign policy is? Can you make a coherent argument? The accusation that Ron Paul’s foreign policy is abysmal is empty-headed. It might be the most sane foreign policy offering that there is, because it seeks to not needlessly entangle America in the affairs of other nations, respecting their sovereignty and our limitations. This does not mean, however, that we wouldn’t defend an ally that was attacked, and thus your comparison to Chamberlain fails.

  • Lou G.

    If Paul gets the nomination and the presidential race becomes Paul vs. Obama, I’ll definitely vote for him.
    In the primaries though, not likely.

  • Lou G.

    If Paul gets the nomination and the presidential race becomes Paul vs. Obama, I’ll definitely vote for him.
    In the primaries though, not likely.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “from an LCMS point of view, is it better to be a liberal Lutheran or a conservative Baptist?”

    Conservative Baptist.

    They at least have the Bible. They may not be correct in their interpretation, but they believe in its infallibility.

    ELCA does not have the Bible. They do not believe what is clearly written on the pages.

    http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/cfw00006.htm

    “THESIS VII

    Communions calling themselves Christian but not accepting God’s Word as God’s Word and therefore denying the Triune God, according to God’s Word are no churches but synagogues of Satan and temples of idols.”

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “from an LCMS point of view, is it better to be a liberal Lutheran or a conservative Baptist?”

    Conservative Baptist.

    They at least have the Bible. They may not be correct in their interpretation, but they believe in its infallibility.

    ELCA does not have the Bible. They do not believe what is clearly written on the pages.

    http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/cfw00006.htm

    “THESIS VII

    Communions calling themselves Christian but not accepting God’s Word as God’s Word and therefore denying the Triune God, according to God’s Word are no churches but synagogues of Satan and temples of idols.”

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    trotk,

    I have heard R. Paul speak of foreign affairs a few times.

    He’s very naive. If it had been up to him, he wouldn’t have gotten us entangled in the “foreign war” (WWII) probably until it was too late. As it was, a great many world leaders had that sort of mindset back then, also, and it cost lives in the scores of millions.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    trotk,

    I have heard R. Paul speak of foreign affairs a few times.

    He’s very naive. If it had been up to him, he wouldn’t have gotten us entangled in the “foreign war” (WWII) probably until it was too late. As it was, a great many world leaders had that sort of mindset back then, also, and it cost lives in the scores of millions.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    A real leader rallies the troops, builds coalitions, influences his advarsaries, and gets things done.

    Ron Paul has been in Congress almost 30 years. What has he accomplished there?

    Surely in all that time a man of Presidential qualities would have many, if not at least some major accomplishments.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    A real leader rallies the troops, builds coalitions, influences his advarsaries, and gets things done.

    Ron Paul has been in Congress almost 30 years. What has he accomplished there?

    Surely in all that time a man of Presidential qualities would have many, if not at least some major accomplishments.

  • Norman Teigen

    Nice work, Larry Wilson. You are looking beyond the horizon and I applaud you for your comment here.

    I continue to be befuddled by my Christian brothers and sisters who link conservative religious faith with conservative politics. Reading suggestion for all: Moliere’s “Tartuffe the Hypocrite.”

  • Norman Teigen

    Nice work, Larry Wilson. You are looking beyond the horizon and I applaud you for your comment here.

    I continue to be befuddled by my Christian brothers and sisters who link conservative religious faith with conservative politics. Reading suggestion for all: Moliere’s “Tartuffe the Hypocrite.”

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    “I continue to be befuddled by my Christian brothers and sisters who link conservative religious faith with conservative politics.”

    I do not. Two Kingdoms doctrine. I didn’t hear anyone here linking this political discussion with Jesus.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    “I continue to be befuddled by my Christian brothers and sisters who link conservative religious faith with conservative politics.”

    I do not. Two Kingdoms doctrine. I didn’t hear anyone here linking this political discussion with Jesus.

  • SKPeterson

    Bubba @ 10 – I understand those sentiments.

    In regards to foreign policy, Paul does not believe that every nation responding with hostility to the United States is some sort of angel that will behave if we only saw the true goodness that was in their hearts. He also doesn’t hold to the equally naive view that they hate us for our freedoms. The world is still a big messy place full of hornets nests, so maybe we shouldn’t continually go around poking big sticks into them and complaining about being stung – the hornets will be nasty enough on their own, but they’re easier to control and deal with if you haven’t knocked the nest from the branch so to speak.

    As to legalization of drugs and prostitution, Paul advocates that those are state and local issues which should de-federalized. Prostitution already is to a large extent, but drugs should be as well.
    Now, if women (or men, too) are being forced to engage in prostitution then you are dealing with a criminal act on the part of the pimp. If forcing someone to become or remain addicted as a means of control, that too would be a criminal offense.

  • SKPeterson

    Bubba @ 10 – I understand those sentiments.

    In regards to foreign policy, Paul does not believe that every nation responding with hostility to the United States is some sort of angel that will behave if we only saw the true goodness that was in their hearts. He also doesn’t hold to the equally naive view that they hate us for our freedoms. The world is still a big messy place full of hornets nests, so maybe we shouldn’t continually go around poking big sticks into them and complaining about being stung – the hornets will be nasty enough on their own, but they’re easier to control and deal with if you haven’t knocked the nest from the branch so to speak.

    As to legalization of drugs and prostitution, Paul advocates that those are state and local issues which should de-federalized. Prostitution already is to a large extent, but drugs should be as well.
    Now, if women (or men, too) are being forced to engage in prostitution then you are dealing with a criminal act on the part of the pimp. If forcing someone to become or remain addicted as a means of control, that too would be a criminal offense.

  • so

    Folks need to watch the John Stossel interview with Ron Paul from the ’2008′ election, easily available on YouTube. He has the opportunity to fully explain his views. Most folks are only hearing the media spin. Also, read The Thousand Year War in the Mideast by Richard J. Maybury for a good understanding of US- Mideast relations. We have done many things in the name of policing the world that have angered many countries. Michael Scheuer, former CIA agent explains this well here:

    We have had the same “of, by and for the politicians” type of leadership for as long as my 50+ years can remember and look where we are politically and economically. It is definitely time for a real change and only Ron Paul offers this.

  • so

    Folks need to watch the John Stossel interview with Ron Paul from the ’2008′ election, easily available on YouTube. He has the opportunity to fully explain his views. Most folks are only hearing the media spin. Also, read The Thousand Year War in the Mideast by Richard J. Maybury for a good understanding of US- Mideast relations. We have done many things in the name of policing the world that have angered many countries. Michael Scheuer, former CIA agent explains this well here:

    We have had the same “of, by and for the politicians” type of leadership for as long as my 50+ years can remember and look where we are politically and economically. It is definitely time for a real change and only Ron Paul offers this.

  • Jerry

    …there are far more Arab Christians than Jewish Christians…someone (anyone remember) remarked the LCMS is split between deciding if its Baptist or Methodist

  • Jerry

    …there are far more Arab Christians than Jewish Christians…someone (anyone remember) remarked the LCMS is split between deciding if its Baptist or Methodist

  • Eric

    @Steve your view of Paul’s foreign policy does not square with reality. He voted, for example, to attack Afganistan and, if you know anything about Paul’s voting record, he does not vote for things he does not fully support. He most certainly would meet any real threat with overwhelming force. What he would not do is manufacture threats and give us a state of perpetual war, death, and destruction which is what the other republican candidates are offering and what Obama offers as well.

  • Eric

    @Steve your view of Paul’s foreign policy does not square with reality. He voted, for example, to attack Afganistan and, if you know anything about Paul’s voting record, he does not vote for things he does not fully support. He most certainly would meet any real threat with overwhelming force. What he would not do is manufacture threats and give us a state of perpetual war, death, and destruction which is what the other republican candidates are offering and what Obama offers as well.

  • SO

    Ron Paul is correct on foreign policy. Watch this interview with former CIA agent Michael Scheuer:

    You can also read The Thousand Year War in the Mideast by Richard J. Maybury.

  • SO

    Ron Paul is correct on foreign policy. Watch this interview with former CIA agent Michael Scheuer:

    You can also read The Thousand Year War in the Mideast by Richard J. Maybury.

  • Tom

    Ron Paul strikes me as the only guy who is consistently consistent. His policies, like them or not, would flow from a long-held and unwavering, cohesive political world-view. I just don’t see that from ANY other candidate.

    On domestic issues, small government, state’s rights, etc, I almost completely agree with him. I’m not even troubled by letting the states decide on drugs and prostitution (though, I would still have the federal government recognize traditional marriage only).

    RP’s foreign policy is an entirely different matter. I think if we lived 100 years ago, I would be on board with him. But the world has changed. We can’t afford to be isolationist. Weapons of mass destruction are too dangerous, especially nukes. We can’t just sit back and wait for Iran to build one and use it on us. The rules of just war have been changed by modern technology, I am afraid, and sometimes a preemptive strike is necessary. RP doesn’t seem to get this. (I still think we were justified in going into Iraq, though we could have handled it much better)

    That said, can we pull back some? Probably. I’m not nearly versed enough in how these general principles are played out with all our military bases and troops and technologies spread across the globe. Perhaps we interfere too much. I’d be willing to talk about that.

    At this point, I am teetering on the edge of the RP precipice. Still not quite convinced. I am really quite torn.

    One argument that has pushed me that way is, “it we don’t get our domestic side (economy) in order, we can’t pay for all this military might anyway”. But then counter to that I hear, “If we can’t protect ourselves, what good is it going to do to shrink government? We won’t be here to enjoy the domestic policies.”

    I wonder, if RP is elected, how much can he “get away with”? Domestically, I hope, a lot. Abroad, I hope, not too much.

  • Tom

    Ron Paul strikes me as the only guy who is consistently consistent. His policies, like them or not, would flow from a long-held and unwavering, cohesive political world-view. I just don’t see that from ANY other candidate.

    On domestic issues, small government, state’s rights, etc, I almost completely agree with him. I’m not even troubled by letting the states decide on drugs and prostitution (though, I would still have the federal government recognize traditional marriage only).

    RP’s foreign policy is an entirely different matter. I think if we lived 100 years ago, I would be on board with him. But the world has changed. We can’t afford to be isolationist. Weapons of mass destruction are too dangerous, especially nukes. We can’t just sit back and wait for Iran to build one and use it on us. The rules of just war have been changed by modern technology, I am afraid, and sometimes a preemptive strike is necessary. RP doesn’t seem to get this. (I still think we were justified in going into Iraq, though we could have handled it much better)

    That said, can we pull back some? Probably. I’m not nearly versed enough in how these general principles are played out with all our military bases and troops and technologies spread across the globe. Perhaps we interfere too much. I’d be willing to talk about that.

    At this point, I am teetering on the edge of the RP precipice. Still not quite convinced. I am really quite torn.

    One argument that has pushed me that way is, “it we don’t get our domestic side (economy) in order, we can’t pay for all this military might anyway”. But then counter to that I hear, “If we can’t protect ourselves, what good is it going to do to shrink government? We won’t be here to enjoy the domestic policies.”

    I wonder, if RP is elected, how much can he “get away with”? Domestically, I hope, a lot. Abroad, I hope, not too much.

  • Eric

    @tom There is simply no reason to believe that the Iranian leaders are suicidal. If they did build and use a nuke, they would die and their nation would cease to exist. What would you have us do? Start dropping bombs now? We could, but a lot of people would die and it just might cause the kind of attack you are afraid of…but that would be ok, because it was going to happen anyway? Paul is correct, meet a real threat with overwhelming force rather then theoretical threat with meek force that will only provoke escalation. It is very worrisome that the other candidates and Obama are only interested in the kind of force and threats that provoke escalation.

  • Eric

    @tom There is simply no reason to believe that the Iranian leaders are suicidal. If they did build and use a nuke, they would die and their nation would cease to exist. What would you have us do? Start dropping bombs now? We could, but a lot of people would die and it just might cause the kind of attack you are afraid of…but that would be ok, because it was going to happen anyway? Paul is correct, meet a real threat with overwhelming force rather then theoretical threat with meek force that will only provoke escalation. It is very worrisome that the other candidates and Obama are only interested in the kind of force and threats that provoke escalation.

  • Tom

    Eric, I am not so sure about the Mullahs and Islamic fundamentalists being suicidal or not! 9-11 taught us some hard lessons about that. I don’t know what the answer is – maybe it is to bomb their nuke facilities. I wonder if we’re not already covertly working on this problem in some way – the captured drone, the exploded buildings, the computer viruses…. but I wonder (ok, I fear) just how much or little a RP presidency would put us at risk by pulling back. Maybe I’m all wrong and if we retreat to fortess America, everyone will leave us alone. I’m just not convinced.

  • Tom

    Eric, I am not so sure about the Mullahs and Islamic fundamentalists being suicidal or not! 9-11 taught us some hard lessons about that. I don’t know what the answer is – maybe it is to bomb their nuke facilities. I wonder if we’re not already covertly working on this problem in some way – the captured drone, the exploded buildings, the computer viruses…. but I wonder (ok, I fear) just how much or little a RP presidency would put us at risk by pulling back. Maybe I’m all wrong and if we retreat to fortess America, everyone will leave us alone. I’m just not convinced.

  • DJ

    Ron Paul is not the ideal candidate, but for the time being he is the most in tune with present needs. We need a president that is willing to start stripping away much of past legislation that has and is killing our country. He would serve a good purpose for the times if we could get him a truly conservative congress, not the pseudo big government conservatives we have too many of now.

    I wouldn’t want to follow his mantra completely for the long term. We truly need a president who is hardcore fiscally, but also understands that the traditional family is the foundation to our greatness. Anything that compromises the traditional family legislatively is never good.

  • DJ

    Ron Paul is not the ideal candidate, but for the time being he is the most in tune with present needs. We need a president that is willing to start stripping away much of past legislation that has and is killing our country. He would serve a good purpose for the times if we could get him a truly conservative congress, not the pseudo big government conservatives we have too many of now.

    I wouldn’t want to follow his mantra completely for the long term. We truly need a president who is hardcore fiscally, but also understands that the traditional family is the foundation to our greatness. Anything that compromises the traditional family legislatively is never good.

  • Tom

    I guess I WANT to be convinced on RP’s foreign policy. So fire away. But I’m not there yet.

  • Tom

    I guess I WANT to be convinced on RP’s foreign policy. So fire away. But I’m not there yet.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 24

    Paul is correct, meet a real threat with overwhelming force rather then theoretical threat with meek force that will only provoke escalation. It is very worrisome that the other candidates and Obama are only interested in the kind of force and threats that provoke escalation.

    Yup

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 24

    Paul is correct, meet a real threat with overwhelming force rather then theoretical threat with meek force that will only provoke escalation. It is very worrisome that the other candidates and Obama are only interested in the kind of force and threats that provoke escalation.

    Yup

  • http://quiacreeds.blogspot.com/ David Oberdieck

    I dropped Ron Paul from any serious consideration when he said we should offer Iran friendship. That statement was totally out of touch with reality — as if the Iranian’s want friendship with the great Satan.

  • http://quiacreeds.blogspot.com/ David Oberdieck

    I dropped Ron Paul from any serious consideration when he said we should offer Iran friendship. That statement was totally out of touch with reality — as if the Iranian’s want friendship with the great Satan.

  • michael henry

    With all due respect, if we insist on playing celebrity politician of the week for POTUS, why not Lindsay Lohan next week and Paris Hilton the week after that?

  • michael henry

    With all due respect, if we insist on playing celebrity politician of the week for POTUS, why not Lindsay Lohan next week and Paris Hilton the week after that?

  • Eric

    @tom there is a big difference between the kind of people who attacked on 9/11 and the methods they used and the political leaders of Iran deciding to use a Nuke. Failing to recognize this difference will certainly result in disaster.

    Paul is not an isolationist. He die not advocate “fortress America.” However, unlike the other candidates, he is also not adventurous with the military and does not believe we should interfere in the internal affairs of other nations.

  • Eric

    @tom there is a big difference between the kind of people who attacked on 9/11 and the methods they used and the political leaders of Iran deciding to use a Nuke. Failing to recognize this difference will certainly result in disaster.

    Paul is not an isolationist. He die not advocate “fortress America.” However, unlike the other candidates, he is also not adventurous with the military and does not believe we should interfere in the internal affairs of other nations.

  • Tom

    So tell me more about what a RP foreign policy WOULD look like. If not isolationist, then, what? I guess I’ve heard a quite a bit of what he thinks we’ve done wrong, but not as much of what we should be doing. Did he really say befriend Iran? That seems pretty out-there to me.

    I understand Iran is not synonymous with Al Qaeda, but the lesson of 9-11 is a good one anyway – be ready for sneak attacks by our enemies. Much like Pearl Harbor, I fear that Iran could cause all sorts of trouble with nukes. What if the Japanese had a nuke in 1942?

    Well, I’m getting a little off topic. What would a RP foreign policy look like?

  • Tom

    So tell me more about what a RP foreign policy WOULD look like. If not isolationist, then, what? I guess I’ve heard a quite a bit of what he thinks we’ve done wrong, but not as much of what we should be doing. Did he really say befriend Iran? That seems pretty out-there to me.

    I understand Iran is not synonymous with Al Qaeda, but the lesson of 9-11 is a good one anyway – be ready for sneak attacks by our enemies. Much like Pearl Harbor, I fear that Iran could cause all sorts of trouble with nukes. What if the Japanese had a nuke in 1942?

    Well, I’m getting a little off topic. What would a RP foreign policy look like?

  • Sam

    What Ron Paul means when he says “you can’t legislate morality” is that you can’t force people to be good people or act morally. That, of course, is true. However, I disagree with the idea that you “can’t legislate morality.” In, fact you can’t not legislate morality. This article explains it well. I suggest you read the whole thing, but here’s the first paragraph. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/11/1792

    “’You can’t legislate morality’ has become a common turn of phrase. The truth, however, is that every law and regulation that is proposed, passed, and enforced has inherent in it some idea of the good that it seeks to promote or preserve. Indeed, no governing authority can in any way be understood to be morally neutral. Those who think such a chimerical understanding is possible could hardly be more wrong. For, in fact, the opposite is true: You cannot not legislate morality.”

    Ron Paul, like all candidates, has some good and bad.

    First, the good. He is the only major candidate who actually understands how we got into this economic mess. He is also the only major candidate who has held a complete and coherent political philosophy (albeit one I disagree with) for his entire political career. He doesn’t just repeat the sound bites and talking points of the GOP establishment.

    Now, for the bad. As a Burkean Conservative, I disagree with libertarian* political philosophy for many reasons. Libertarianism advocates for maximum human freedom. “You have a right to do whatever you want so long as you respect everyone else’s right to whatever they want.” The problem with this is that freedom cannot exist in a moral vacuum. When the moral fabric of a society decays, so does the culture.

    Also, his foreign policy is flawed. He thinks that the only reason terrorists hate us, and hence attack us, is because we are messing with them; and, he argues, if we left them alone and only defended the physical borders of the U.S., they would leave us alone. He doesn’t understand that Islam (though not necessarily individual muslims) is inherently warlike. That’s not to say I am a George Bush when is comes to foreign policy. I don’t think that we should try to export democracy around the globe. I generally agree with the Just War Doctrine, first articulated by St. Augustine.

    I’m only 16 so I can’t vote, but I would support him against Obama, though not in the Republican primary (note: I’m still undecided).

    *Richard @ 5 and George @ 9: Ron Paul is not a conservative, he’s libertarian.

  • Sam

    What Ron Paul means when he says “you can’t legislate morality” is that you can’t force people to be good people or act morally. That, of course, is true. However, I disagree with the idea that you “can’t legislate morality.” In, fact you can’t not legislate morality. This article explains it well. I suggest you read the whole thing, but here’s the first paragraph. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/11/1792

    “’You can’t legislate morality’ has become a common turn of phrase. The truth, however, is that every law and regulation that is proposed, passed, and enforced has inherent in it some idea of the good that it seeks to promote or preserve. Indeed, no governing authority can in any way be understood to be morally neutral. Those who think such a chimerical understanding is possible could hardly be more wrong. For, in fact, the opposite is true: You cannot not legislate morality.”

    Ron Paul, like all candidates, has some good and bad.

    First, the good. He is the only major candidate who actually understands how we got into this economic mess. He is also the only major candidate who has held a complete and coherent political philosophy (albeit one I disagree with) for his entire political career. He doesn’t just repeat the sound bites and talking points of the GOP establishment.

    Now, for the bad. As a Burkean Conservative, I disagree with libertarian* political philosophy for many reasons. Libertarianism advocates for maximum human freedom. “You have a right to do whatever you want so long as you respect everyone else’s right to whatever they want.” The problem with this is that freedom cannot exist in a moral vacuum. When the moral fabric of a society decays, so does the culture.

    Also, his foreign policy is flawed. He thinks that the only reason terrorists hate us, and hence attack us, is because we are messing with them; and, he argues, if we left them alone and only defended the physical borders of the U.S., they would leave us alone. He doesn’t understand that Islam (though not necessarily individual muslims) is inherently warlike. That’s not to say I am a George Bush when is comes to foreign policy. I don’t think that we should try to export democracy around the globe. I generally agree with the Just War Doctrine, first articulated by St. Augustine.

    I’m only 16 so I can’t vote, but I would support him against Obama, though not in the Republican primary (note: I’m still undecided).

    *Richard @ 5 and George @ 9: Ron Paul is not a conservative, he’s libertarian.

  • Eric

    @tom What would Paul’s foreign policy look like? I would suggest visiting his campaign website and reading it. Unlike the other candidates, one really can trust what he has to say because what he says is how he has acted. Others have posted good interviews with him that are worth listening to.

  • Eric

    @tom What would Paul’s foreign policy look like? I would suggest visiting his campaign website and reading it. Unlike the other candidates, one really can trust what he has to say because what he says is how he has acted. Others have posted good interviews with him that are worth listening to.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Some of you say RP’s foreign policy is ‘naive’ or ‘abysmal.’

    But none of you wants to talk about 130+ military bases the US has on foreign soil. In your opinion, is this what it takes to maintain a ‘sound’ foreign policy? Do we really need to police the world and become involved in every brushfire conflict in remote corners of the globe to ensure our safety and security? ( I found out yesterday that China has a long standing policy against establishing military bases on foreign soil.) What about the cost in dollars and human lives?
    RP receives more money from US service men and women than any other political candidate. Why do you think that is?

    I think the idea that we need to be meddling in in other countries’ business or there will be a war is a lie perpetrated by those who benefit most from military build up and war.

    David Oberdieck @29 We all want’ peace’ until someone starts talking like that to our enemies, then we prefer the path to war, like we are on with Iran right now. Your comment also sounds vaguely xenophobic.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Some of you say RP’s foreign policy is ‘naive’ or ‘abysmal.’

    But none of you wants to talk about 130+ military bases the US has on foreign soil. In your opinion, is this what it takes to maintain a ‘sound’ foreign policy? Do we really need to police the world and become involved in every brushfire conflict in remote corners of the globe to ensure our safety and security? ( I found out yesterday that China has a long standing policy against establishing military bases on foreign soil.) What about the cost in dollars and human lives?
    RP receives more money from US service men and women than any other political candidate. Why do you think that is?

    I think the idea that we need to be meddling in in other countries’ business or there will be a war is a lie perpetrated by those who benefit most from military build up and war.

    David Oberdieck @29 We all want’ peace’ until someone starts talking like that to our enemies, then we prefer the path to war, like we are on with Iran right now. Your comment also sounds vaguely xenophobic.

  • http://gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    If I could wave a majic wand and make Paul president, I’d do it. But I don’t think that he could win the general election.

  • http://gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    If I could wave a majic wand and make Paul president, I’d do it. But I don’t think that he could win the general election.

  • SKPeterson

    David @ 29 – So Reagan’s friendship and affinity for the Russian people was just so plain stupid, right? I mean what good ever came of that?

    Tom @ 32 – Here’s Paul on his foreign policy stance: http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul786.html

    Added bonus, Rush Limbaugh says Paul’s foreign policy is nutty, so it must be right.

  • SKPeterson

    David @ 29 – So Reagan’s friendship and affinity for the Russian people was just so plain stupid, right? I mean what good ever came of that?

    Tom @ 32 – Here’s Paul on his foreign policy stance: http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul786.html

    Added bonus, Rush Limbaugh says Paul’s foreign policy is nutty, so it must be right.

  • Larry Wilson

    Tom @ 32,

    Thanks for asking. For the record, “isolationism” is the pejorative label coined by those seeking to discredit those who would favor a position like Ron Paul’s. It’s a term I also used before I started having second and third thoughts. “Non-interventionism” is the term Paul himself uses. A good place to start might be:

    Ron Paul on national defense — http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/

    and Ron Paul on Israel — http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/ron-paul-on-israel-let-my-people-go/

  • Larry Wilson

    Tom @ 32,

    Thanks for asking. For the record, “isolationism” is the pejorative label coined by those seeking to discredit those who would favor a position like Ron Paul’s. It’s a term I also used before I started having second and third thoughts. “Non-interventionism” is the term Paul himself uses. A good place to start might be:

    Ron Paul on national defense — http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/

    and Ron Paul on Israel — http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/ron-paul-on-israel-let-my-people-go/

  • DonS

    As I’ve said all along, anybody but Obama. There is nothing worse for the future of our nation and the economic survival of our children than four more years of Obama. Between his kneejerk obsession with government spending, his anti-growth tax policies, his willingness to shut down industry and price energy above the means of the average American, and the horrific anti-Constitutional judges he likes to appoint, we must avoid this outcome at all costs.

    Ron Paul’s domestic policies, in the main, are fine with me. I’m sure this is probably the best opportunity for him to transform from perennial gadfly to serious candidate, and it will remain to be seen whether he can soften his foreign policy rhetoric a bit to be acceptable to average Americans who are uncomfortable with the extreme nature of his disengagement policies. The idea of retrenching from the role of world policeman is the right one, but he needs to assure Americans that he is not going to gut the military — that he recognizes the importance of providing adequately for the national defense and recognizes the contributions and heroism of our men and women in the services. I’m not sure he’s suited to being a mainstream candidate because of this issue.

    He’s also old. Way old. 77 years old. If the spotlight focuses on him, this will be more of an issue.

    If he is the Republican candidate in the general election, I will vote for him. Enough said.

  • DonS

    As I’ve said all along, anybody but Obama. There is nothing worse for the future of our nation and the economic survival of our children than four more years of Obama. Between his kneejerk obsession with government spending, his anti-growth tax policies, his willingness to shut down industry and price energy above the means of the average American, and the horrific anti-Constitutional judges he likes to appoint, we must avoid this outcome at all costs.

    Ron Paul’s domestic policies, in the main, are fine with me. I’m sure this is probably the best opportunity for him to transform from perennial gadfly to serious candidate, and it will remain to be seen whether he can soften his foreign policy rhetoric a bit to be acceptable to average Americans who are uncomfortable with the extreme nature of his disengagement policies. The idea of retrenching from the role of world policeman is the right one, but he needs to assure Americans that he is not going to gut the military — that he recognizes the importance of providing adequately for the national defense and recognizes the contributions and heroism of our men and women in the services. I’m not sure he’s suited to being a mainstream candidate because of this issue.

    He’s also old. Way old. 77 years old. If the spotlight focuses on him, this will be more of an issue.

    If he is the Republican candidate in the general election, I will vote for him. Enough said.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    “from an LCMS point of view, is it better to be a liberal Lutheran or a conservative Baptist?”

    sg answers: “Conservative Baptist.

    They at least have the Bible. They may not be correct in their interpretation, but they believe in its infallibility.

    ELCA does not have the Bible. They do not believe what is clearly written on the pages.

    http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/cfw00006.htm

    Thanks for that link. First time reading it. As the cliche goes, Walther must be rolling in his grave at what the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has become.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    “from an LCMS point of view, is it better to be a liberal Lutheran or a conservative Baptist?”

    sg answers: “Conservative Baptist.

    They at least have the Bible. They may not be correct in their interpretation, but they believe in its infallibility.

    ELCA does not have the Bible. They do not believe what is clearly written on the pages.

    http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/cfw00006.htm

    Thanks for that link. First time reading it. As the cliche goes, Walther must be rolling in his grave at what the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has become.

  • SKPeterson

    Sam @ 33 – Paul is the closest thing to a Burkean conservative you will find in this election. He is, properly, a classical liberal. In fact, Burke was one of the few British MP’s who advocated that Britain grant greater autonomy, and eventually independence, to the American colonies – a foreign policy that called for peace, free trade and mutual respect which is in line with Paul’s. Finally, I offer you this tidbit from Jack Kerwick:

    Lest we fall for this nonsense, we should recall two things. First, Paul’s “libertarianism” is much more compatible with the classical conservative tradition of which Edmund Burke is “the patron saint” than is the neoconservatism of Paul’s Republican critics. Secondly, and more importantly, for present purposes, Paul isn’t first and foremost a libertarian, as far as governing is concerned; he is, simply, a constitutionalist. All of the positions for which Paul argues are rooted in his reading of the United States Constitution.

    Paul’s views are also amenable to those of 20th Century British political philosopher Michael Oakeshott.

  • SKPeterson

    Sam @ 33 – Paul is the closest thing to a Burkean conservative you will find in this election. He is, properly, a classical liberal. In fact, Burke was one of the few British MP’s who advocated that Britain grant greater autonomy, and eventually independence, to the American colonies – a foreign policy that called for peace, free trade and mutual respect which is in line with Paul’s. Finally, I offer you this tidbit from Jack Kerwick:

    Lest we fall for this nonsense, we should recall two things. First, Paul’s “libertarianism” is much more compatible with the classical conservative tradition of which Edmund Burke is “the patron saint” than is the neoconservatism of Paul’s Republican critics. Secondly, and more importantly, for present purposes, Paul isn’t first and foremost a libertarian, as far as governing is concerned; he is, simply, a constitutionalist. All of the positions for which Paul argues are rooted in his reading of the United States Constitution.

    Paul’s views are also amenable to those of 20th Century British political philosopher Michael Oakeshott.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Americans have to0 many business interests abroad (not the least of which is oil) for us to just withdraw from the world. We need a foreign policy that recognizes that. I don’ know if we can trust Ron Paul to be up to that task. Still, I’d be willing to give RP a chance at the prezzyship.

    On another not: there sems to be something wrong with the RSS feed for this bog. New posts aren’t showing up in my “live book marks.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Americans have to0 many business interests abroad (not the least of which is oil) for us to just withdraw from the world. We need a foreign policy that recognizes that. I don’ know if we can trust Ron Paul to be up to that task. Still, I’d be willing to give RP a chance at the prezzyship.

    On another not: there sems to be something wrong with the RSS feed for this bog. New posts aren’t showing up in my “live book marks.”

  • Patrick Kyle

    ‘Americans have to0 many business interests abroad (not the least of which is oil) for us to just withdraw from the world. We need a foreign policy that recognizes that. ‘

    So let’s back up our corporations with a military presence to ensure that we get our way no matter what. We can see how that has benefited us so far, with astronomical government deficits (that will never be balanced) and corporations run riot, looting the substance of the US citizenry, all the while placing themselves above the law with our government’s help and collusion.

  • Patrick Kyle

    ‘Americans have to0 many business interests abroad (not the least of which is oil) for us to just withdraw from the world. We need a foreign policy that recognizes that. ‘

    So let’s back up our corporations with a military presence to ensure that we get our way no matter what. We can see how that has benefited us so far, with astronomical government deficits (that will never be balanced) and corporations run riot, looting the substance of the US citizenry, all the while placing themselves above the law with our government’s help and collusion.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Americans have to0 many business interests abroad (not the least of which is oil) for us to just withdraw from the world.”

    Well if we deported the illegals and their kids, and halted immigration, our demand for energy would decrease and we could get by on what we import from Canada. But what is there in that for Wall Street? Seriously, no one really is interested in changing ideology to solve problems. We will just keep sending our young folks to die (and kill) so we can have ‘economic growth’ which is what we really worship here in the USA.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Americans have to0 many business interests abroad (not the least of which is oil) for us to just withdraw from the world.”

    Well if we deported the illegals and their kids, and halted immigration, our demand for energy would decrease and we could get by on what we import from Canada. But what is there in that for Wall Street? Seriously, no one really is interested in changing ideology to solve problems. We will just keep sending our young folks to die (and kill) so we can have ‘economic growth’ which is what we really worship here in the USA.

  • SO

    “A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” Thomas Jefferson, 1801

    “Not a place on earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them.” Thomas Paine, 1776

    The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.” George Washington, 1776

    Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. He believes in the opinions of the Founding Fathers including being on friendly terms with other nations, lending aid when within our economic power to do so, ( and we are not in that position currently) and trading with them. He is not for policing the world. We get in-between too many national issues, and when you side with one country you will anger another. Richard J. Maybury gives a long list of situations we have gotten involved with over the years, and how they have resulted in many of our present day national woes; this can be found in his book, The Thousand Year War in the Mideast. He has written others as well. He explains how to listen for the word “interests” when government wants to get involved in national issues. Rarely is it for the good of the American citizen or those of the country they are claiming to assist. It is always for the benefit of their own POWER.
    Concerning the legislation of morality-it can not be done.
    History tells us that there are two basic fundamental laws:
    Do all you have agreed to do- the basis of contract law and
    do not encroach on other persons or their property-the basis of criminal and tort law.
    We can not tell every person how to run their individual lives unless they break one of the above two laws. Too often people want others to follow their set of values, but we loose freedom when we do that. Our government is approaching an ideology that wants to tell us how to live our lives. Ron Paul is against that. He is a Christian, a family man, pro-life. He however recognizes that we should live under the Constitution; we are not a theocracy. That constitution allows individuals the right to choose how to live as long as they do not break one of the two fundamental laws. Abortion by-the-way, encroaches on the life of another person whether you go by the Bible or science.

  • SO

    “A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” Thomas Jefferson, 1801

    “Not a place on earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them.” Thomas Paine, 1776

    The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.” George Washington, 1776

    Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. He believes in the opinions of the Founding Fathers including being on friendly terms with other nations, lending aid when within our economic power to do so, ( and we are not in that position currently) and trading with them. He is not for policing the world. We get in-between too many national issues, and when you side with one country you will anger another. Richard J. Maybury gives a long list of situations we have gotten involved with over the years, and how they have resulted in many of our present day national woes; this can be found in his book, The Thousand Year War in the Mideast. He has written others as well. He explains how to listen for the word “interests” when government wants to get involved in national issues. Rarely is it for the good of the American citizen or those of the country they are claiming to assist. It is always for the benefit of their own POWER.
    Concerning the legislation of morality-it can not be done.
    History tells us that there are two basic fundamental laws:
    Do all you have agreed to do- the basis of contract law and
    do not encroach on other persons or their property-the basis of criminal and tort law.
    We can not tell every person how to run their individual lives unless they break one of the above two laws. Too often people want others to follow their set of values, but we loose freedom when we do that. Our government is approaching an ideology that wants to tell us how to live our lives. Ron Paul is against that. He is a Christian, a family man, pro-life. He however recognizes that we should live under the Constitution; we are not a theocracy. That constitution allows individuals the right to choose how to live as long as they do not break one of the two fundamental laws. Abortion by-the-way, encroaches on the life of another person whether you go by the Bible or science.

  • Jonathan

    It’s ironic that the same people who think Obama is arrogant and professorial are now big fans of Gingrich, who is even more so. And fat.

  • Jonathan

    It’s ironic that the same people who think Obama is arrogant and professorial are now big fans of Gingrich, who is even more so. And fat.

  • Craig

    “from an LCMS point of view, is it better to be a liberal Lutheran or a conservative Baptist?”

    liberal Lutheran no doubt. A convervative Baptist may have the Bible but they don’t have Jesus. No absolution, No Body No Blood, no “for you”

  • Craig

    “from an LCMS point of view, is it better to be a liberal Lutheran or a conservative Baptist?”

    liberal Lutheran no doubt. A convervative Baptist may have the Bible but they don’t have Jesus. No absolution, No Body No Blood, no “for you”

  • Grace

    Ron Paul
    “Legalizing prostitution is about protecting liberty.” (May 2011)

    In some cases children have been forced into prostitution. No one wants to think about that, anymore than they want to think about all the children who have been abused, molested and made to perform sexually.

    _____Dr. Veith wrote: “Yes, he believes in legalizing drugs and prostitution, but would you take that in return for what else he offers?”

    What kind of return is that? A man makes clear he wants prostitution legalized. It’s not only an immoral act, it carries with it endless disease. Nevada legalized prostitution, .. it’s nothing but a flashy dump.

    _____Kris @ 1 wrote: “He does not favor legalizing drugs and prostitution, he favors dropping federal laws against them and moving those laws to the states.”

    “Prostitution” legalized, is nothing less than showing favor. That would increase job opportunities? What would you tell your children or loved ones if they decided to become the town prostitute, joining themselves with anyone who would pay the price? Their lives ruined! Remember there are male AND female prostitutes.

    If you stand for legalization, don’t be surprised folks if many of your loved ones decide to join the dump!

  • Grace

    Ron Paul
    “Legalizing prostitution is about protecting liberty.” (May 2011)

    In some cases children have been forced into prostitution. No one wants to think about that, anymore than they want to think about all the children who have been abused, molested and made to perform sexually.

    _____Dr. Veith wrote: “Yes, he believes in legalizing drugs and prostitution, but would you take that in return for what else he offers?”

    What kind of return is that? A man makes clear he wants prostitution legalized. It’s not only an immoral act, it carries with it endless disease. Nevada legalized prostitution, .. it’s nothing but a flashy dump.

    _____Kris @ 1 wrote: “He does not favor legalizing drugs and prostitution, he favors dropping federal laws against them and moving those laws to the states.”

    “Prostitution” legalized, is nothing less than showing favor. That would increase job opportunities? What would you tell your children or loved ones if they decided to become the town prostitute, joining themselves with anyone who would pay the price? Their lives ruined! Remember there are male AND female prostitutes.

    If you stand for legalization, don’t be surprised folks if many of your loved ones decide to join the dump!

  • Patrick Kyle

    Here is RP’s take on Gingrich. If even half of it is true, we are foolish to vote for Newt.

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=199056

  • Patrick Kyle

    Here is RP’s take on Gingrich. If even half of it is true, we are foolish to vote for Newt.

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=199056

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Kyle and sg: I wasn’t referring to military intervention to “protect” certain corporate interests. Our business interests abroad are much, much greater than just those that some imagine we use the military to protect. We need a candidate with strong foreign relations capabilities (using diplomacy, for example) to maintain those business relations that are important to our economy. “Send in the military” is too lazy, and not a good way to win the favor of the nations (although, sending in the military has to be an option when it is necessary for our national security).

    I just wonder if Ron Paul is up to the foreign relations challenge.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Kyle and sg: I wasn’t referring to military intervention to “protect” certain corporate interests. Our business interests abroad are much, much greater than just those that some imagine we use the military to protect. We need a candidate with strong foreign relations capabilities (using diplomacy, for example) to maintain those business relations that are important to our economy. “Send in the military” is too lazy, and not a good way to win the favor of the nations (although, sending in the military has to be an option when it is necessary for our national security).

    I just wonder if Ron Paul is up to the foreign relations challenge.

  • SKPeterson

    Grace – You’ve made a complete leap of logic (i.e. you’re not consistent) in your response to Kris.

    Children forced into prostitution would still be under the protection of the law, legalization notwithstanding.

    “If you stand for legalization, don’t be surprised folks if many of your loved ones decide to join the dump!” So, you’re basically saying that the only reason you don’t kill people on a regular basis is because murder has been made illegal by the state. No adherence to the Biblical standards, conventional morality, or desire for social cohesion for Grace. Only the brute threat of force and violence will constrain you from your sociopathic desires? Because, you know, if it’s legal, everyone will do it.

  • SKPeterson

    Grace – You’ve made a complete leap of logic (i.e. you’re not consistent) in your response to Kris.

    Children forced into prostitution would still be under the protection of the law, legalization notwithstanding.

    “If you stand for legalization, don’t be surprised folks if many of your loved ones decide to join the dump!” So, you’re basically saying that the only reason you don’t kill people on a regular basis is because murder has been made illegal by the state. No adherence to the Biblical standards, conventional morality, or desire for social cohesion for Grace. Only the brute threat of force and violence will constrain you from your sociopathic desires? Because, you know, if it’s legal, everyone will do it.

  • Larry Wilson

    Grace @48, may suggest that we all take a strong dose of Prov. 18:13? Does Ron Paul want to legalize prostitution? No. Instead, he supports decriminalizing prostitution at the *federal* level. He points to the 10th Amendment — “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” He wants the USA to follow its own Constitution by having the States, not the Federal Government, deal with this question. So, what he is advocating is decentralization. He is not advocating the national legalization of prostitution; he is advocating taking this subject from the Federal Court system in order to empower the States to deal with it.

    Now, you may disagree with that, and you may have good reasons, but as Christians, shouldn’t we really try to avoid misrepresenting people and views we disagree with?

  • Larry Wilson

    Grace @48, may suggest that we all take a strong dose of Prov. 18:13? Does Ron Paul want to legalize prostitution? No. Instead, he supports decriminalizing prostitution at the *federal* level. He points to the 10th Amendment — “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” He wants the USA to follow its own Constitution by having the States, not the Federal Government, deal with this question. So, what he is advocating is decentralization. He is not advocating the national legalization of prostitution; he is advocating taking this subject from the Federal Court system in order to empower the States to deal with it.

    Now, you may disagree with that, and you may have good reasons, but as Christians, shouldn’t we really try to avoid misrepresenting people and views we disagree with?

  • Grace

    Larry 52

    YOU WROTE: “Does Ron Paul want to legalize prostitution? No. Instead, he supports decriminalizing prostitution at the *federal* level.”

    It’s the same thing – the end of ” decriminalizing” is “legalize” — twisting the words won’t change the end result which is ‘prostitution legalized.

    If it’s legal, then don’t be surprised when you see a so called store in your local mall as a ‘shop of prostitution – all tied up in a neat package for men or women.

    Hey it’s all legal, so don’t complain when you see who visits the ‘shop OR those who work there. After all, jobs are scarce, and it’s a legal occupation, for males or females.

  • Grace

    Larry 52

    YOU WROTE: “Does Ron Paul want to legalize prostitution? No. Instead, he supports decriminalizing prostitution at the *federal* level.”

    It’s the same thing – the end of ” decriminalizing” is “legalize” — twisting the words won’t change the end result which is ‘prostitution legalized.

    If it’s legal, then don’t be surprised when you see a so called store in your local mall as a ‘shop of prostitution – all tied up in a neat package for men or women.

    Hey it’s all legal, so don’t complain when you see who visits the ‘shop OR those who work there. After all, jobs are scarce, and it’s a legal occupation, for males or females.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Note: As a non-American, I find RP’s view on foreign policy something I can support, his view on federal spending not bad, but his view on monetary policy (divorced from balancing budgets, which is a good thing) downright weird. Thus, as a Canadian (to be), I still hold out for Huntsman…. but please not Gingrich. Although he is possibly better than Perrybachmanncain – but worse than Romney.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Note: As a non-American, I find RP’s view on foreign policy something I can support, his view on federal spending not bad, but his view on monetary policy (divorced from balancing budgets, which is a good thing) downright weird. Thus, as a Canadian (to be), I still hold out for Huntsman…. but please not Gingrich. Although he is possibly better than Perrybachmanncain – but worse than Romney.

  • Grace

    Larry 52

    YOU WROTE: “Now, you may disagree with that, and you may have good reasons, but as Christians, shouldn’t we really try to avoid misrepresenting people and views we disagree with?

    I’m not avoiding calling prostitution what it is, nor am I going to misrepresent its evils, who it hurts, who benefits from it (pimps) and those who don’t give a damn about the people that are involved, or the lives who are ruined.

    We have watched drugs ruin the youth of this country, we see the wrecks which abortion has claimed on the lives of those who aborted their infants, the staggering deaths of infants –

    And now you would support a man who is in favor of Legalizing prostitution? – what kind of morals does a man like that have?

    We as Christian Believers are to stand for righteousness. Prostitution is vile and sinful! WAKE UP, pray and ask God if he would have you vote for such a man.

  • Grace

    Larry 52

    YOU WROTE: “Now, you may disagree with that, and you may have good reasons, but as Christians, shouldn’t we really try to avoid misrepresenting people and views we disagree with?

    I’m not avoiding calling prostitution what it is, nor am I going to misrepresent its evils, who it hurts, who benefits from it (pimps) and those who don’t give a damn about the people that are involved, or the lives who are ruined.

    We have watched drugs ruin the youth of this country, we see the wrecks which abortion has claimed on the lives of those who aborted their infants, the staggering deaths of infants –

    And now you would support a man who is in favor of Legalizing prostitution? – what kind of morals does a man like that have?

    We as Christian Believers are to stand for righteousness. Prostitution is vile and sinful! WAKE UP, pray and ask God if he would have you vote for such a man.

  • SKPeterson

    Klasie – What do you have issues with vis-a-vis monetary policy? It’s simply a commodity-based monetary policy. Probably gold and silver initially, but open to other interpretations. We can’t exactly argue that the aberration/innovation of a fully fiat currency over the past 40 years has been a resounding success. Time for a change.

  • SKPeterson

    Klasie – What do you have issues with vis-a-vis monetary policy? It’s simply a commodity-based monetary policy. Probably gold and silver initially, but open to other interpretations. We can’t exactly argue that the aberration/innovation of a fully fiat currency over the past 40 years has been a resounding success. Time for a change.

  • WebMonk

    Hey all y’all, before you get in yet another argument with Grace over her nuttiness, remember – this is Grace. She’ll declare RP supports us pimping our daughters out and there’s nothing you or anyone else can do to change her mind. In her mind there’s no difference between the federal government allowing states to make their own laws about prostitution, and suddenly having prostitution become the job of choice for millions of women across the country along with all of us cheering them on.

    You’re yelling in the wind. Don’t go hoarse.

  • WebMonk

    Hey all y’all, before you get in yet another argument with Grace over her nuttiness, remember – this is Grace. She’ll declare RP supports us pimping our daughters out and there’s nothing you or anyone else can do to change her mind. In her mind there’s no difference between the federal government allowing states to make their own laws about prostitution, and suddenly having prostitution become the job of choice for millions of women across the country along with all of us cheering them on.

    You’re yelling in the wind. Don’t go hoarse.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    SKP – whenever I see the words “fiat currency”, my brain goes, “beware, crank ahead..” :)

    Simply put, turning back the clock is not possible. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the currency of the last 40 years, whiat is wrong is how things have been managed, and how budgets have been (or rather, have not been) maintained. A Gold-based currency is no insurance against economic disaster. As a matter of fact, if the US had followed simple accounting principles since 1970, instead of bowing, against Eisenhower’s advice, to the military-industrial complex, as well as developed a bloated bureaucracy etc etc (we have been through this before), things would be so much better. Monetary policy (ie gold reserves vs currency reserves etc etc) ain’t got anything on it. That is why I say that I think Paul is right on the balanced budgets and decreased military spending thing etc – because that is where the problem lies. But that is where he agrees most with Huntsman.

    Look, I do respect him generally, he is an honourable man, although wrong on this account.

    But here’s the thing: A US preseident is strong outwardly, but weak inwardly. Paul wouldn’t get a thing through Congress. Huntsman might. Maybe vote pragmatically?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    SKP – whenever I see the words “fiat currency”, my brain goes, “beware, crank ahead..” :)

    Simply put, turning back the clock is not possible. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the currency of the last 40 years, whiat is wrong is how things have been managed, and how budgets have been (or rather, have not been) maintained. A Gold-based currency is no insurance against economic disaster. As a matter of fact, if the US had followed simple accounting principles since 1970, instead of bowing, against Eisenhower’s advice, to the military-industrial complex, as well as developed a bloated bureaucracy etc etc (we have been through this before), things would be so much better. Monetary policy (ie gold reserves vs currency reserves etc etc) ain’t got anything on it. That is why I say that I think Paul is right on the balanced budgets and decreased military spending thing etc – because that is where the problem lies. But that is where he agrees most with Huntsman.

    Look, I do respect him generally, he is an honourable man, although wrong on this account.

    But here’s the thing: A US preseident is strong outwardly, but weak inwardly. Paul wouldn’t get a thing through Congress. Huntsman might. Maybe vote pragmatically?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    WM @ 57: The poster girl for Donning-Kruger!!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    WM @ 57: The poster girl for Donning-Kruger!!

  • Grace

    KK @A 59

    You might consider yourself, regarding the Justin Kruger and David Dunning test. It’s always a hoot, when someone brings it to the table, it has all the earmarks of, — I’m sure you get the idea, at least I HOPE so – as you’ve been there before. LOL

  • Grace

    KK @A 59

    You might consider yourself, regarding the Justin Kruger and David Dunning test. It’s always a hoot, when someone brings it to the table, it has all the earmarks of, — I’m sure you get the idea, at least I HOPE so – as you’ve been there before. LOL

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Well, Grace is against Ron Paul, so he must be a good candidate.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Well, Grace is against Ron Paul, so he must be a good candidate.

  • Grace

    Webmonk @57

    Isolationism will not strengthen America. In its web are those like Ron Paul, who pander to people like you, and others who want laws lifted, that prohibit them from using drugs legally to harm themselves. — Through a man like Ron Paul, sitting in the Oval Office would offer the ‘wide way’ the one that leads to destruction.

  • Grace

    Webmonk @57

    Isolationism will not strengthen America. In its web are those like Ron Paul, who pander to people like you, and others who want laws lifted, that prohibit them from using drugs legally to harm themselves. — Through a man like Ron Paul, sitting in the Oval Office would offer the ‘wide way’ the one that leads to destruction.

  • Grace

    Dr. Luther in the 21st Century @ 61

    “Well, Grace is against Ron Paul, so he must be a good candidate.”

    That’s just as ignorant as one saying:
    “many Lutherans are against the ELCA and homosexuality, so that must be a good church and a great homosexual pastor”

  • Grace

    Dr. Luther in the 21st Century @ 61

    “Well, Grace is against Ron Paul, so he must be a good candidate.”

    That’s just as ignorant as one saying:
    “many Lutherans are against the ELCA and homosexuality, so that must be a good church and a great homosexual pastor”

  • Patrick Kyle

    Grace,

    You said, ‘We have watched drugs ruin the youth of this country’

    Despite drugs being illegal and violations punished with draconian sentences.
    If all that is stopping someone from a life of prostitution is federal law written somewhere, they probably won’t be discouraged from acting on their impulse for long.

    Federal law is no substitute for good parenting and the exercise of wisdom and self restraint.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Grace,

    You said, ‘We have watched drugs ruin the youth of this country’

    Despite drugs being illegal and violations punished with draconian sentences.
    If all that is stopping someone from a life of prostitution is federal law written somewhere, they probably won’t be discouraged from acting on their impulse for long.

    Federal law is no substitute for good parenting and the exercise of wisdom and self restraint.

  • Eric

    @klasie actually, a credible argument can be made that a return to a gold standard is not only practical, but even inevitable as it continues to become clear that fiat currency is just not workable…the temptations for abuse are simply to strong. I might suggest listening to this Cato podcast…quite interesting and only 6 minutes. http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/road-back-gold

    You are correct that a gold standard does not guarantee economic stability, but economies have arguably been more unstable since it was abandoned.

  • Eric

    @klasie actually, a credible argument can be made that a return to a gold standard is not only practical, but even inevitable as it continues to become clear that fiat currency is just not workable…the temptations for abuse are simply to strong. I might suggest listening to this Cato podcast…quite interesting and only 6 minutes. http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/road-back-gold

    You are correct that a gold standard does not guarantee economic stability, but economies have arguably been more unstable since it was abandoned.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Cato?!?! What, I might become infected with the Au bug! ;)

    Eric, although I have not listened to that broadcast yet (I’ll see if I can find a moment), I have yet to be convinced of anything Austrian.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Cato?!?! What, I might become infected with the Au bug! ;)

    Eric, although I have not listened to that broadcast yet (I’ll see if I can find a moment), I have yet to be convinced of anything Austrian.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @63 Not so much ignorance as something else…

    I have made it known for a long time, I like Ron Paul.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @63 Not so much ignorance as something else…

    I have made it known for a long time, I like Ron Paul.

  • Sam

    SKP @ 41 — “Paul is the closest thing to a Burkean conservative you will find in this election. He is, properly, a classical liberal. In fact, Burke was one of the few British MP’s who advocated that Britain grant greater autonomy, and eventually independence, to the American colonies – a foreign policy that called for peace, free trade and mutual respect which is in line with Paul’s. ”

    Pherhaps. However, I don’t support candidates on policy grounds alone. There are other factors as well, which I didn’t mention in my previous comment.

    One them is, electability. Can they beat Barack Obama? The answer is probably “No” for most, if not all of them. So the question then becomes: “Who is most likely to beat Obama?” It’s not Hunstman, Santorum, or Bachmann, certainly. Gingrich’s campaign (like the man himself) is too unorganized. Ron Paul has an amazing ground game going in Iowa, but that is because of his small, dedicated following; he couldn’t do that at a national level (notice he’s good at winning state straw polls, but always does poorly in national polls). Perry and Romney, on the other hand, have the kind of money and resources it would take to put up a fight against Obama.

    So I’m divided. On one hand, I want a principled leader who is committed to cutting big government. On the other hand, I don’t want ideological purity to get in the way of the more practical “Ultimate Goal”: beating Barack Obama. :)

    Another factor is, image. What kind of image would this person project as president? Strength or weakness? Confidence or uncertainty? Image matters. Jimmy Carter was seen as a weak president, someone who could easily be pushed and shoved around. That is why he failed to rescue the hostages from Iran. They weren’t released until January 20, 1981; the day Reagan was elected. Reagan projected and image of strength.

  • Sam

    SKP @ 41 — “Paul is the closest thing to a Burkean conservative you will find in this election. He is, properly, a classical liberal. In fact, Burke was one of the few British MP’s who advocated that Britain grant greater autonomy, and eventually independence, to the American colonies – a foreign policy that called for peace, free trade and mutual respect which is in line with Paul’s. ”

    Pherhaps. However, I don’t support candidates on policy grounds alone. There are other factors as well, which I didn’t mention in my previous comment.

    One them is, electability. Can they beat Barack Obama? The answer is probably “No” for most, if not all of them. So the question then becomes: “Who is most likely to beat Obama?” It’s not Hunstman, Santorum, or Bachmann, certainly. Gingrich’s campaign (like the man himself) is too unorganized. Ron Paul has an amazing ground game going in Iowa, but that is because of his small, dedicated following; he couldn’t do that at a national level (notice he’s good at winning state straw polls, but always does poorly in national polls). Perry and Romney, on the other hand, have the kind of money and resources it would take to put up a fight against Obama.

    So I’m divided. On one hand, I want a principled leader who is committed to cutting big government. On the other hand, I don’t want ideological purity to get in the way of the more practical “Ultimate Goal”: beating Barack Obama. :)

    Another factor is, image. What kind of image would this person project as president? Strength or weakness? Confidence or uncertainty? Image matters. Jimmy Carter was seen as a weak president, someone who could easily be pushed and shoved around. That is why he failed to rescue the hostages from Iran. They weren’t released until January 20, 1981; the day Reagan was elected. Reagan projected and image of strength.

  • Grace

    Patrick Kyle @ 64

    “If all that is stopping someone from a life of prostitution is federal law written somewhere, they probably won’t be discouraged from acting on their impulse for long.

    Federal law is no substitute for good parenting and the exercise of wisdom and self restraint.”

    Not all kids have good parents, who guide them and nurture their lives with love, discipline and most of all to know Christ as their Savior. There are more disfunctional families now, then when I was growing up. They need rules, even if they are tough ones, because they have none at home.

    I was blessed to have wonderful Christian parents. My life was so different from most of the kids I grew up with. Many of them came from broken homes, alcohol abuse, beatings, and sexual abuse – of which I wasn’t, for the most part aware. As I touched base with many after high school (reunions, etc) I was shocked at what I heard. Many of their lives were the worst.

    If drugs and prostitution, and all the other evils kids are prevy to today, had been available then, as LEGAL, I cannot imagine what would have happened to them. I weep as I recall the private conversations of adult women who went through the worst, in their lives, sharing their sorrows.

    Patrick, that is the reason I speak out against legalization of drugs, abortion and prostitution – Abused children have no self worth, they are easy prey for those who have no morals, but exploit them for their own purposes.

  • Grace

    Patrick Kyle @ 64

    “If all that is stopping someone from a life of prostitution is federal law written somewhere, they probably won’t be discouraged from acting on their impulse for long.

    Federal law is no substitute for good parenting and the exercise of wisdom and self restraint.”

    Not all kids have good parents, who guide them and nurture their lives with love, discipline and most of all to know Christ as their Savior. There are more disfunctional families now, then when I was growing up. They need rules, even if they are tough ones, because they have none at home.

    I was blessed to have wonderful Christian parents. My life was so different from most of the kids I grew up with. Many of them came from broken homes, alcohol abuse, beatings, and sexual abuse – of which I wasn’t, for the most part aware. As I touched base with many after high school (reunions, etc) I was shocked at what I heard. Many of their lives were the worst.

    If drugs and prostitution, and all the other evils kids are prevy to today, had been available then, as LEGAL, I cannot imagine what would have happened to them. I weep as I recall the private conversations of adult women who went through the worst, in their lives, sharing their sorrows.

    Patrick, that is the reason I speak out against legalization of drugs, abortion and prostitution – Abused children have no self worth, they are easy prey for those who have no morals, but exploit them for their own purposes.

  • The Jones

    The one thing that holds me back from support of Ron Paul is his belief that if we do nothing foreign-policy-wise in the world, that the world will continue to have open seas for trade and travel, that other nations will be conciliatory to us, and that all the bad things that have happened towards the United States is the result of “blowback” and nefarious designs on others’ part.

    If he could fix that, and realize that the world is not naturally a good and peaceful place, then he would be quite the candidate for me, indeed! It’s just that the stakes are so high on that question.

  • The Jones

    The one thing that holds me back from support of Ron Paul is his belief that if we do nothing foreign-policy-wise in the world, that the world will continue to have open seas for trade and travel, that other nations will be conciliatory to us, and that all the bad things that have happened towards the United States is the result of “blowback” and nefarious designs on others’ part.

    If he could fix that, and realize that the world is not naturally a good and peaceful place, then he would be quite the candidate for me, indeed! It’s just that the stakes are so high on that question.

  • SKPeterson

    Uhhh, I’m not following the isolationism (it’s actually non-interventionism, but why worry about accuracy) = drug-besotted prostitution highway to Hell argument.

    Unless …

    In our country, elections are legal. As a result, we are constantly under assault by whores, pimps, hustlers and addicts wondering our streets, accosting our people and demanding our constant vigilance.
    Yet in this election who are the whores and who are the pimps? And where is all the money coming from? It’s certainly not gold. ;)

    So in the interest of morality, I make the following proposition:

    Stop all elections in the United States! If not for clean streets, pure airwaves, and amber waves of grain, do it for the children.

  • SKPeterson

    Uhhh, I’m not following the isolationism (it’s actually non-interventionism, but why worry about accuracy) = drug-besotted prostitution highway to Hell argument.

    Unless …

    In our country, elections are legal. As a result, we are constantly under assault by whores, pimps, hustlers and addicts wondering our streets, accosting our people and demanding our constant vigilance.
    Yet in this election who are the whores and who are the pimps? And where is all the money coming from? It’s certainly not gold. ;)

    So in the interest of morality, I make the following proposition:

    Stop all elections in the United States! If not for clean streets, pure airwaves, and amber waves of grain, do it for the children.

  • SKPeterson

    Wondering as they wander, out under the stars. Perfect for this time of year.

  • SKPeterson

    Wondering as they wander, out under the stars. Perfect for this time of year.

  • Richard


    I’m having a hard time seeing the anti-Christian candidate (the “wide way leading to destruction”) which Grace depicts Paul as. I do rejoice with you, Grace, in the Christian upbringing you had. Praise God for that.

  • Richard


    I’m having a hard time seeing the anti-Christian candidate (the “wide way leading to destruction”) which Grace depicts Paul as. I do rejoice with you, Grace, in the Christian upbringing you had. Praise God for that.

  • Booklover

    My husband’s words: “His foreign policy scares the crap out of me.”

  • Booklover

    My husband’s words: “His foreign policy scares the crap out of me.”

  • Joe

    If you are concerned about what Ron Paul thinks about foreign policy read any one of his many books where he explains what he thinks and why. During the last campaign cycle he put out a book called Revolution. Short chapters that give a very good overview of what he thinks. Recently he released Liberty Defined – 50 essays on essential topics.

    I read Revolution and found it to be a great way to get to understand what Ron Paul is actually advocating. I used to be among those who thought his foreign policy was crazy. After reading Revolution – I understand it better and am not scared by it. I don’t agree with it in every respect but I have yet to me a candidate whose foreign policy matches mine in every respect.

    It is very possible that Ron Paul will win Iowa, what that means for the nomination is not knowable. If you care about who the nominee is going to be read one of these books and at least make an informed decision.

  • Joe

    If you are concerned about what Ron Paul thinks about foreign policy read any one of his many books where he explains what he thinks and why. During the last campaign cycle he put out a book called Revolution. Short chapters that give a very good overview of what he thinks. Recently he released Liberty Defined – 50 essays on essential topics.

    I read Revolution and found it to be a great way to get to understand what Ron Paul is actually advocating. I used to be among those who thought his foreign policy was crazy. After reading Revolution – I understand it better and am not scared by it. I don’t agree with it in every respect but I have yet to me a candidate whose foreign policy matches mine in every respect.

    It is very possible that Ron Paul will win Iowa, what that means for the nomination is not knowable. If you care about who the nominee is going to be read one of these books and at least make an informed decision.

  • Larry Wilson

    Thanks, all, for this helpful interaction.

    One final comment re foreign policy, check out http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/08/ron-pauls-reaganesque-foreign-policy/

    As for judicial activism, if he became President, Ron Paul would be highly likely to nominate only strict constitutionalists. He would be highly likely to make war against judicial activism — both of the left and of the right. It’s not him that you would have to worry about on that count, it’s his fellow Republicans, not to mention the Democrats. As for homosexual marriage and the drug war and similar issues that make “social conservatives” tick, well, I think you could expect a President Ron Paul to say that they are not issues that the federal government has a constitutional right to be involved in, and try to kick them down to the states. He is a baptized, professing Christian, he is happily married to one wife over many decades, he is pro-life. But he sees trying to tackle these things on the federal level for the most part to be at the same time unconstitutional and counterproductive. And my own observations over many decades seem to bear that out.

    I support Ron Paul for the Republican nomination, not so much because I think he can win — the whole Republican establishment is against him (and they fight dirty; perhaps not as dirty as the liberals do, but really dirty nonetheless) — but because I think he may play the role that Barry Goldwater played — at least I hope this — and pave the way for the rise of another “Ronald Reagan.” The Republican establishment was dead-set against Goldwater and Reagan too. I remember hearing the very same kind of vile stuff that is now said about Ron Paul and his supporters being said (by Republicans) about Ronald Reagan and his supporters as he ran against Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination for 1976, and later as he ran against George H.W. Bush for the Republican nomination for 1980. But “the conservative movement” snowballed, and, in spite of opposition from “Rockefeller Republicans”, Reagan was able to take the helm. It started, though, with Barry Goldwater. If it wasn’t for Goldwater and his supporters, Reagan would never have gotten into a position to get any traction. It is my hope a similar movement is starting with Ron Paul. But if we keep taking the bait I mention above @6, the next “Reagan” (if God is pleased to raise up such a person), will never be in the position to get any traction.

    By the bye, the Republican elites now keep saying that Reagan was not as conservative as I and others claim. In fact, however, his core principles were not all that dissimilar from Ron Paul’s, but in order to get things through congress, many compromises have to be made, and they were. The Republican elites point to those compromises and claim that those end results represent the true Reagan. And I respond that the cattle on our farm leave a much cleaner, much less malodorous residue than claims like that. If Reagan had started with those compromises as his principles, then he never would have accomplished the things he did with the constant pull and pressure (from both Democrats and Republicans) to go further left.

    That, however, does highlight my main reservation about Ron Paul. Politics does involve compromise. Is Paul too inflexible to be effective like Reagan was? I do wonder. Even Reagan, however, let us down. Many promises were made about stopping abortion, etc., but when push came to shove the protocol was always, “We’ve got to fix the economy first. Then we’ll get to those other things.” And guess what? The economy is never fixed, and so we never do get around to those other things! But we wise-as-doves (especially empty-headed doves to boot) Christians kept swallowing the bait anyway, hook, line, and sinker — and don’t imagine that the Republican elites haven’t noticed.

    Well, that sparks a thought about a second reservation I have with Ron Paul. Reagan was a great communicator. He honed his skills (as well as his political philosophy) not only as an actor, but even more especially during his years working with GE. In any case, when Democrats and Republicans in congress would team up to do “business as usual” and frustrate Reagan’s agenda, Reagan was very good at doing an end run around them and appealing directly to the public. He could make his case pithily and persuasively to the common man, and the citizenry would put pressure on their congressmen (who would give in because — above all else — they wanted to be re-elected), and in this way Reagan got many of this proposals through. Like Reagan, Ron Paul has a well-considered, principled political philosophy. But unlike Reagan, he is not a great communicator. He can’t seem to cut to the pith of the matter, so that he can persuade the common man.

    But again, in my playbook, I hope that Ron Paul is playing the role of another Barry Goldwater, and I hope that the Lord is raising up someone else to play the role of another Ronald Reagan. But for that to happen, we need to stop playing the role of “useful idiots.”

  • Larry Wilson

    Thanks, all, for this helpful interaction.

    One final comment re foreign policy, check out http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/08/ron-pauls-reaganesque-foreign-policy/

    As for judicial activism, if he became President, Ron Paul would be highly likely to nominate only strict constitutionalists. He would be highly likely to make war against judicial activism — both of the left and of the right. It’s not him that you would have to worry about on that count, it’s his fellow Republicans, not to mention the Democrats. As for homosexual marriage and the drug war and similar issues that make “social conservatives” tick, well, I think you could expect a President Ron Paul to say that they are not issues that the federal government has a constitutional right to be involved in, and try to kick them down to the states. He is a baptized, professing Christian, he is happily married to one wife over many decades, he is pro-life. But he sees trying to tackle these things on the federal level for the most part to be at the same time unconstitutional and counterproductive. And my own observations over many decades seem to bear that out.

    I support Ron Paul for the Republican nomination, not so much because I think he can win — the whole Republican establishment is against him (and they fight dirty; perhaps not as dirty as the liberals do, but really dirty nonetheless) — but because I think he may play the role that Barry Goldwater played — at least I hope this — and pave the way for the rise of another “Ronald Reagan.” The Republican establishment was dead-set against Goldwater and Reagan too. I remember hearing the very same kind of vile stuff that is now said about Ron Paul and his supporters being said (by Republicans) about Ronald Reagan and his supporters as he ran against Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination for 1976, and later as he ran against George H.W. Bush for the Republican nomination for 1980. But “the conservative movement” snowballed, and, in spite of opposition from “Rockefeller Republicans”, Reagan was able to take the helm. It started, though, with Barry Goldwater. If it wasn’t for Goldwater and his supporters, Reagan would never have gotten into a position to get any traction. It is my hope a similar movement is starting with Ron Paul. But if we keep taking the bait I mention above @6, the next “Reagan” (if God is pleased to raise up such a person), will never be in the position to get any traction.

    By the bye, the Republican elites now keep saying that Reagan was not as conservative as I and others claim. In fact, however, his core principles were not all that dissimilar from Ron Paul’s, but in order to get things through congress, many compromises have to be made, and they were. The Republican elites point to those compromises and claim that those end results represent the true Reagan. And I respond that the cattle on our farm leave a much cleaner, much less malodorous residue than claims like that. If Reagan had started with those compromises as his principles, then he never would have accomplished the things he did with the constant pull and pressure (from both Democrats and Republicans) to go further left.

    That, however, does highlight my main reservation about Ron Paul. Politics does involve compromise. Is Paul too inflexible to be effective like Reagan was? I do wonder. Even Reagan, however, let us down. Many promises were made about stopping abortion, etc., but when push came to shove the protocol was always, “We’ve got to fix the economy first. Then we’ll get to those other things.” And guess what? The economy is never fixed, and so we never do get around to those other things! But we wise-as-doves (especially empty-headed doves to boot) Christians kept swallowing the bait anyway, hook, line, and sinker — and don’t imagine that the Republican elites haven’t noticed.

    Well, that sparks a thought about a second reservation I have with Ron Paul. Reagan was a great communicator. He honed his skills (as well as his political philosophy) not only as an actor, but even more especially during his years working with GE. In any case, when Democrats and Republicans in congress would team up to do “business as usual” and frustrate Reagan’s agenda, Reagan was very good at doing an end run around them and appealing directly to the public. He could make his case pithily and persuasively to the common man, and the citizenry would put pressure on their congressmen (who would give in because — above all else — they wanted to be re-elected), and in this way Reagan got many of this proposals through. Like Reagan, Ron Paul has a well-considered, principled political philosophy. But unlike Reagan, he is not a great communicator. He can’t seem to cut to the pith of the matter, so that he can persuade the common man.

    But again, in my playbook, I hope that Ron Paul is playing the role of another Barry Goldwater, and I hope that the Lord is raising up someone else to play the role of another Ronald Reagan. But for that to happen, we need to stop playing the role of “useful idiots.”

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Never trust a guy with two first names! :D

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Never trust a guy with two first names! :D

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Seventy-six comments and no mention of Ayn Rand?

    I have a hard time seeing any compatibility between Randian Libertarianism (survival of the fittest) and Christianity. I’ve said this here before: Libertarianism is just Liberation Theology of the Right. Instead of salvation of society coming through socialism, it would come through unfettered capitalism.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Seventy-six comments and no mention of Ayn Rand?

    I have a hard time seeing any compatibility between Randian Libertarianism (survival of the fittest) and Christianity. I’ve said this here before: Libertarianism is just Liberation Theology of the Right. Instead of salvation of society coming through socialism, it would come through unfettered capitalism.

  • Rich Shipe

    A great way to drive traffic to your website is to talk about Ron Paul. His supporters are relentless!

    @George #9 I don’t buy it. He’s a libertarian in everything I’ve ever seen. Can you give some evidence to support your claim?

    I can’t support him because of his libertarianism. I consider that a very significant change from our western traditions that have made our society and systems so great. It would not be a minor tweak but a significant change. He’s said on more than one occasion this election cycle that he has not expectation of winning and his main agenda is furthering his ideas. No thanks. 95% of his policy would be great but that 5% is like the spoiled egg in the omelet. No thanks.

  • Rich Shipe

    A great way to drive traffic to your website is to talk about Ron Paul. His supporters are relentless!

    @George #9 I don’t buy it. He’s a libertarian in everything I’ve ever seen. Can you give some evidence to support your claim?

    I can’t support him because of his libertarianism. I consider that a very significant change from our western traditions that have made our society and systems so great. It would not be a minor tweak but a significant change. He’s said on more than one occasion this election cycle that he has not expectation of winning and his main agenda is furthering his ideas. No thanks. 95% of his policy would be great but that 5% is like the spoiled egg in the omelet. No thanks.

  • Rich Shipe

    Great point, Kevin.

  • Rich Shipe

    Great point, Kevin.

  • Eric

    @rich Actually, Rich, his libertarianism is a return to the western traditions that have made our society and systems so great. Things have diverged so far from those traditions that most people don’t even recognize what they were anymore. Go back and read some John Locke, etc. and then compare to what Ron Paul has to say…they match up pretty well and have nothing to do with what you are calling ‘western traditions’.

    @booklover Those who say that Ron Paul’s foreign policy scares the crap out of them generally don’t have a clue what his foreign policy is and/or are getting their information from those who are threatened by what Ron Paul’s ideas would represent – a genuine reduction in their personal power and ability to control.

  • Eric

    @rich Actually, Rich, his libertarianism is a return to the western traditions that have made our society and systems so great. Things have diverged so far from those traditions that most people don’t even recognize what they were anymore. Go back and read some John Locke, etc. and then compare to what Ron Paul has to say…they match up pretty well and have nothing to do with what you are calling ‘western traditions’.

    @booklover Those who say that Ron Paul’s foreign policy scares the crap out of them generally don’t have a clue what his foreign policy is and/or are getting their information from those who are threatened by what Ron Paul’s ideas would represent – a genuine reduction in their personal power and ability to control.

  • Tom Hering

    “… the next ‘Reagan’ (if God is pleased to raise up such a person) … I hope that the Lord is raising up someone else to play the role of another Ronald Reagan.” – @ 76.

    Sorry, LW, but that sort of politics + religion = wackadoodle. Big time.

  • Tom Hering

    “… the next ‘Reagan’ (if God is pleased to raise up such a person) … I hope that the Lord is raising up someone else to play the role of another Ronald Reagan.” – @ 76.

    Sorry, LW, but that sort of politics + religion = wackadoodle. Big time.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Good point, Kevin, although one should maybe distinguish between various “degrees” of libertarianism – and should probably give the same courtesy to those on the left. But reading libertarians, even some here, it is difficult not to come away with the impression that if you only had the right system, paradise will decend. Sound familiar? Extreme Austrians, Laissez-faire capitalists, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists all hold to what I call a pelagian anthropology, namely a belief that free , unfettered, unencumbered man will be the greatest, best man. That is nonsense.

    Not to detract from the other good things in RP’s agenda though, as previously mentioned. But the heart of the ideology is wrong. Not that Newt is any better – if he has a heart at all…

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Good point, Kevin, although one should maybe distinguish between various “degrees” of libertarianism – and should probably give the same courtesy to those on the left. But reading libertarians, even some here, it is difficult not to come away with the impression that if you only had the right system, paradise will decend. Sound familiar? Extreme Austrians, Laissez-faire capitalists, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists all hold to what I call a pelagian anthropology, namely a belief that free , unfettered, unencumbered man will be the greatest, best man. That is nonsense.

    Not to detract from the other good things in RP’s agenda though, as previously mentioned. But the heart of the ideology is wrong. Not that Newt is any better – if he has a heart at all…

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Oh yes, and I agree with Tom at #81.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Oh yes, and I agree with Tom at #81.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Klasie:

    I agree: don’t lump all libertarians together and don’t lump all liberation theologians together. I have learned much from my leftist liberation theology friends, and agree with many things said by libertarians such as Ron Paul. And I also agree: “But the heart of the ideology is wrong.”

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    Klasie:

    I agree: don’t lump all libertarians together and don’t lump all liberation theologians together. I have learned much from my leftist liberation theology friends, and agree with many things said by libertarians such as Ron Paul. And I also agree: “But the heart of the ideology is wrong.”

  • F.Scottie

    I don’t think he is anti-war, but he is against intervening in the affairs of other countries and nation-building. Plus, he always preaches that because we are woefully under debt, we cannot afford to be at war in three different countries!

  • F.Scottie

    I don’t think he is anti-war, but he is against intervening in the affairs of other countries and nation-building. Plus, he always preaches that because we are woefully under debt, we cannot afford to be at war in three different countries!

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Larry Wilson, #52

    Grace @48, may suggest that we all take a strong dose of Prov. 18:13?
    ———————–
    Maybe add a daily dose of Prozac and take away a little “700 Club” might do the trick, although I doubt it. :)

    Btw, Larry, your posts on this thread are phenomenally written. I thank you for them!

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Larry Wilson, #52

    Grace @48, may suggest that we all take a strong dose of Prov. 18:13?
    ———————–
    Maybe add a daily dose of Prozac and take away a little “700 Club” might do the trick, although I doubt it. :)

    Btw, Larry, your posts on this thread are phenomenally written. I thank you for them!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Based on this thread, it occurs to me that most people who reject (or, more typically, are frightened by) Paul’s foreign policy ideas are those who are also most likely to mischaracterize it.

    I mean, seriously, Steve Martin (@8)?!

    Another Hitler to rise up somewhere and R. Paul will stick his head in the sand.

    That’s just outright slander. Or ignorance. Take your pick. … But at least you’re not alone in that tactic?

    I guess it’s easier to slap the label “isolationist” on the man and turn your brain off for the rest of the election than it is to, I don’t know, spend a minute or two reading his campaign website?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Based on this thread, it occurs to me that most people who reject (or, more typically, are frightened by) Paul’s foreign policy ideas are those who are also most likely to mischaracterize it.

    I mean, seriously, Steve Martin (@8)?!

    Another Hitler to rise up somewhere and R. Paul will stick his head in the sand.

    That’s just outright slander. Or ignorance. Take your pick. … But at least you’re not alone in that tactic?

    I guess it’s easier to slap the label “isolationist” on the man and turn your brain off for the rest of the election than it is to, I don’t know, spend a minute or two reading his campaign website?

  • JunkerGeorg

    I’ll vouch for Ron Paul off the cuff. What has particularly peturbed me is the misrepresentation of his views by the MSM (including, if not especially, Faux News). Since I’m short on time, I’ll save the eloquence, and just cop a Cain/Bachmann simpleton style of 9-9-9 rhetoric here…

    –On social issues, Ron Paul is indeed what I would call, for lack of better terms, a “libertarian social conservative”, that is, Constitutional on all such matters, which entails States rights/jurisdiction, and the restriction of Federal level government from getting involved, in line with Amendments like the 10th. This is in contrast to what I would call “authoritarian social conservatism”.

    There is perhaps a religious parallel, although not definitive. “Authoritarian conservativism” reminds me of both Calvinism and Arminian-laced Protestantism in general, with its belief that the teaching and knowledge of the Law can bring about fruits of righteousness. (But oh what the heck, we might as well throw in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as well, although I won’t get into it here.) In contrast, “Libertarian Social Conservatism” is in some ways (not all ways, but some) more in line with Confessional Lutheranism in the sense that only the Gospel (in the narrow sense) can bring about such fruits. Hence, it is no surprise to me that American Evangelicalism gravitates towards candidates like Perry and Gingrich who have no problem bypassing congress in using direct “executive orders” to impose their moral views upon the populace if need be. No matter how good the moral good is, you can’t force it down people’s throats anymore than you can force representative republics down the throat of the Middle East. Ron Paul despises such an authoritarianism, as does the Constitution. As I do. (This is perhaps why I don’t get along with Evangelicals too well, being as I used to be a Baptist before turning to the supposed “dark side” of Confessional Lutheranism, which, to a typical Evangelical, does appear kooky, truly un-American, and downright spiritually offensive.)

    –On foreign policy issues…Ron Paul is a NON-INTERVENTIONIST…. He is NOT an isolationist, as if we should stick our head in the sand and not pay attention to the rest of the world. Pundits like Mark Levin and Sean Vanity Hannity love to spout incorrectly that he is a McGovernite isolationist and our Republican masses eat it up. It is simply unfair and untrue. While we don’t stick our heads in the sand, we do stand on the sidelines and first COLLECTIVELY (via Congress as a “representative republic”) determine whether or not our country is at direct risk if we do not get into the battle, or whether it is a jumbled up tangled mess which doesn’t directly affect us and which might lead to us becoming irreparably tangled up in the mess as well. Hence, it is realistic, not idealistic.

    The Wilsonian view of forcing Democracy down the throats of all nations because we know what’s best for them, which is behind much of this playing the “World’s Policeman” (in addition to the heresy of Pre-Millenial Dispensationalism in the case of some Israel-firster “Christian” politicians/pundits), is what Ron Paul is opposed to. Like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, he advocates setting an example for all nations in the hopes that maybe one day they might emulate our Constitutional Republic. Granted, we have to get that Constitutional Republic back again, since we’ve gradually lost much of it—which Ron Paul also sees as well.

    –Israel CAN take care of itself. Israel is not “poor and defenseless”. Israel has over 300 nuclear missiles that we’re aware of (which is more than both Pakistan and India have combined), not to mention a full military/air force/navy. If a lower level “figurehead” official like loud-mouth President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran threatens Israel, the true leadership of Iran which runs the country, headed by Ayatollah Khamenei, who has been Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic since 1989, is not so stupid as to allow the country to be immediately annihilated, which would happen immediately by way of Israel, not to mention the US Navy’s 5th fleet.` Is Iran really thinking of bombing Israel just to get annihilated themselves in retaliation? This is what almost every single war loving Republican Presidential candidate seems to be worried about; poor, poor, defenseless Israel. Could not Israel attack Iran anytime if it wanted to? Is Iran really a threat to the US at this point that Gingrich wishes us to believe. No doubt, they’re building missile bunker silos deep in the ground as we speak, so I can see where Gingrich and others want to move now. But still, they would be annihilated nevertheless.

    Secondly, Ron Paul makes a good argument on how dictating Israel’s affairs (because they are our largest annual subsidy in foreign aid), is doing no favors to Israel. Let them determine their own path. They’re certainly have the capacity. Our policy toward Israel is hurting rather than helping them.

    …so again, Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, meaning, we will monitor the rest of the world as much as possible, especially through trade, but we will ABIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION (!) and remain on the sidelines when it best serves American interests or rather, doesn’t hurt America’s interests in other ways (i.e., 15 trillion dollar debt and counting, partially due to 900 military bases around the world and perpetual wars without a clear objective/outcome/resolution)and not enter into situations without congressional approval, or bypass congress by doing actions under the cover of the UN (65% of which is the US to begin with).

    Provided we ourselves are not directly threatened, we also will be very careful before entering situations that are already a mess to begin with, ala Washington/Jeffersonian wisdom of “not getting caught up in foreign entanglements” lest we get ourselves irreparably tangled up in the mess ourselves, without a clear sense of how to get out of it, e.g., 10 years and counting in Afghanistan, with a Pakistan next door which is increasingly ticked off with us for our drones/special ops in their country without their approval. (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” What? Would it be alright for Russia or China to fly their drones in our country to take out who knows how many terrorists are in our country through the open southern border? What? It’s ok for the US to do it to others but not them to us? Why? Because we the USA are somehow intrisically “exceptional” to everyone else??)

    For sure, Ron Paul accepts “American Exceptionalism” if we mean on the basis of the Constitution itself (and I’d add it used to be exceptional for having a free-market capitalism and a sound currency before the Federal Reserve and various similar failed attempts at central banking/fiat currency throughout US history.) But what New World Order Globalists like Gingrich and Romney think is that we are somehow intrinsically exceptional on moral grounds more than anyone else, “manifest destiny” and all, on a national and now global scale. What arrogance! And we wonder why the rest of the world hates us? No doubt, it is in some cases “who we are”. But to suggest that “what we do” has nothing to do with it, well, Mr. Hannity, you are the kook! This is not only arrogant, it is deluded, blind, and ultimately dangerous to our national security, something which Ron Paul is very focused on, since the Constitution demands it.

    In fact, there is no more pro-National Defense candidate than Ron Paul. (Note: I didn’t say this foreign nation-building pre-emptive strike perpetual war neo-con Bushy doctrine silliness, a strategy which is indeed a National “Offense” in more ways than one, as we are going broke partially because of it.) Ron Paul, in following the Constitution, is an ardent supporter of National DEFENSE. This is precisely why he opposes all of this unconstitutional pre-emptive, perpetual warfare that has been going on for so long.
    Defense wins championships, and we are not the anomalies that the 99′ “Greatest Show on Turf” St. Louis Rams were or perhaps the team which I literally own, the Green Bay Packers, may prove to be this year! (Ok, I own one share of stock.) That has rarely proven to work in football and never in nations. If we keep playing Rome, we will eventually fall like Rome did.
    But hey, please at least listen to this well-respected “conservative” outsider looking in, namely, Daniel Hannan of England:
    Recent interview he had with Sean Hannity:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZA0-9_8DIA
    (at 0:40 and following)

    Recent Interview with Neil Cavuto:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZX8D7grPDg
    (at 1:15 following)

  • JunkerGeorg

    I’ll vouch for Ron Paul off the cuff. What has particularly peturbed me is the misrepresentation of his views by the MSM (including, if not especially, Faux News). Since I’m short on time, I’ll save the eloquence, and just cop a Cain/Bachmann simpleton style of 9-9-9 rhetoric here…

    –On social issues, Ron Paul is indeed what I would call, for lack of better terms, a “libertarian social conservative”, that is, Constitutional on all such matters, which entails States rights/jurisdiction, and the restriction of Federal level government from getting involved, in line with Amendments like the 10th. This is in contrast to what I would call “authoritarian social conservatism”.

    There is perhaps a religious parallel, although not definitive. “Authoritarian conservativism” reminds me of both Calvinism and Arminian-laced Protestantism in general, with its belief that the teaching and knowledge of the Law can bring about fruits of righteousness. (But oh what the heck, we might as well throw in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as well, although I won’t get into it here.) In contrast, “Libertarian Social Conservatism” is in some ways (not all ways, but some) more in line with Confessional Lutheranism in the sense that only the Gospel (in the narrow sense) can bring about such fruits. Hence, it is no surprise to me that American Evangelicalism gravitates towards candidates like Perry and Gingrich who have no problem bypassing congress in using direct “executive orders” to impose their moral views upon the populace if need be. No matter how good the moral good is, you can’t force it down people’s throats anymore than you can force representative republics down the throat of the Middle East. Ron Paul despises such an authoritarianism, as does the Constitution. As I do. (This is perhaps why I don’t get along with Evangelicals too well, being as I used to be a Baptist before turning to the supposed “dark side” of Confessional Lutheranism, which, to a typical Evangelical, does appear kooky, truly un-American, and downright spiritually offensive.)

    –On foreign policy issues…Ron Paul is a NON-INTERVENTIONIST…. He is NOT an isolationist, as if we should stick our head in the sand and not pay attention to the rest of the world. Pundits like Mark Levin and Sean Vanity Hannity love to spout incorrectly that he is a McGovernite isolationist and our Republican masses eat it up. It is simply unfair and untrue. While we don’t stick our heads in the sand, we do stand on the sidelines and first COLLECTIVELY (via Congress as a “representative republic”) determine whether or not our country is at direct risk if we do not get into the battle, or whether it is a jumbled up tangled mess which doesn’t directly affect us and which might lead to us becoming irreparably tangled up in the mess as well. Hence, it is realistic, not idealistic.

    The Wilsonian view of forcing Democracy down the throats of all nations because we know what’s best for them, which is behind much of this playing the “World’s Policeman” (in addition to the heresy of Pre-Millenial Dispensationalism in the case of some Israel-firster “Christian” politicians/pundits), is what Ron Paul is opposed to. Like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, he advocates setting an example for all nations in the hopes that maybe one day they might emulate our Constitutional Republic. Granted, we have to get that Constitutional Republic back again, since we’ve gradually lost much of it—which Ron Paul also sees as well.

    –Israel CAN take care of itself. Israel is not “poor and defenseless”. Israel has over 300 nuclear missiles that we’re aware of (which is more than both Pakistan and India have combined), not to mention a full military/air force/navy. If a lower level “figurehead” official like loud-mouth President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran threatens Israel, the true leadership of Iran which runs the country, headed by Ayatollah Khamenei, who has been Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic since 1989, is not so stupid as to allow the country to be immediately annihilated, which would happen immediately by way of Israel, not to mention the US Navy’s 5th fleet.` Is Iran really thinking of bombing Israel just to get annihilated themselves in retaliation? This is what almost every single war loving Republican Presidential candidate seems to be worried about; poor, poor, defenseless Israel. Could not Israel attack Iran anytime if it wanted to? Is Iran really a threat to the US at this point that Gingrich wishes us to believe. No doubt, they’re building missile bunker silos deep in the ground as we speak, so I can see where Gingrich and others want to move now. But still, they would be annihilated nevertheless.

    Secondly, Ron Paul makes a good argument on how dictating Israel’s affairs (because they are our largest annual subsidy in foreign aid), is doing no favors to Israel. Let them determine their own path. They’re certainly have the capacity. Our policy toward Israel is hurting rather than helping them.

    …so again, Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, meaning, we will monitor the rest of the world as much as possible, especially through trade, but we will ABIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION (!) and remain on the sidelines when it best serves American interests or rather, doesn’t hurt America’s interests in other ways (i.e., 15 trillion dollar debt and counting, partially due to 900 military bases around the world and perpetual wars without a clear objective/outcome/resolution)and not enter into situations without congressional approval, or bypass congress by doing actions under the cover of the UN (65% of which is the US to begin with).

    Provided we ourselves are not directly threatened, we also will be very careful before entering situations that are already a mess to begin with, ala Washington/Jeffersonian wisdom of “not getting caught up in foreign entanglements” lest we get ourselves irreparably tangled up in the mess ourselves, without a clear sense of how to get out of it, e.g., 10 years and counting in Afghanistan, with a Pakistan next door which is increasingly ticked off with us for our drones/special ops in their country without their approval. (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” What? Would it be alright for Russia or China to fly their drones in our country to take out who knows how many terrorists are in our country through the open southern border? What? It’s ok for the US to do it to others but not them to us? Why? Because we the USA are somehow intrisically “exceptional” to everyone else??)

    For sure, Ron Paul accepts “American Exceptionalism” if we mean on the basis of the Constitution itself (and I’d add it used to be exceptional for having a free-market capitalism and a sound currency before the Federal Reserve and various similar failed attempts at central banking/fiat currency throughout US history.) But what New World Order Globalists like Gingrich and Romney think is that we are somehow intrinsically exceptional on moral grounds more than anyone else, “manifest destiny” and all, on a national and now global scale. What arrogance! And we wonder why the rest of the world hates us? No doubt, it is in some cases “who we are”. But to suggest that “what we do” has nothing to do with it, well, Mr. Hannity, you are the kook! This is not only arrogant, it is deluded, blind, and ultimately dangerous to our national security, something which Ron Paul is very focused on, since the Constitution demands it.

    In fact, there is no more pro-National Defense candidate than Ron Paul. (Note: I didn’t say this foreign nation-building pre-emptive strike perpetual war neo-con Bushy doctrine silliness, a strategy which is indeed a National “Offense” in more ways than one, as we are going broke partially because of it.) Ron Paul, in following the Constitution, is an ardent supporter of National DEFENSE. This is precisely why he opposes all of this unconstitutional pre-emptive, perpetual warfare that has been going on for so long.
    Defense wins championships, and we are not the anomalies that the 99′ “Greatest Show on Turf” St. Louis Rams were or perhaps the team which I literally own, the Green Bay Packers, may prove to be this year! (Ok, I own one share of stock.) That has rarely proven to work in football and never in nations. If we keep playing Rome, we will eventually fall like Rome did.
    But hey, please at least listen to this well-respected “conservative” outsider looking in, namely, Daniel Hannan of England:
    Recent interview he had with Sean Hannity:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZA0-9_8DIA
    (at 0:40 and following)

    Recent Interview with Neil Cavuto:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZX8D7grPDg
    (at 1:15 following)

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 86

    YOU POST @ 86

    Grace @48, may suggest that we all take a strong dose of Prov. 18:13?
    ———————–
    Maybe add a daily dose of Prozac and take away a little “700 Club” might do the trick, although I doubt it.”

    I did not suggest a strong dose of Prov. 19:13? ……. as you post.

    If in any way, shape or form Prozac was/is to apply to me, you are wrong – Insinuating drugs, such as Prozac, to be consumed by me, at any time, will not be tolerated.

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 86

    YOU POST @ 86

    Grace @48, may suggest that we all take a strong dose of Prov. 18:13?
    ———————–
    Maybe add a daily dose of Prozac and take away a little “700 Club” might do the trick, although I doubt it.”

    I did not suggest a strong dose of Prov. 19:13? ……. as you post.

    If in any way, shape or form Prozac was/is to apply to me, you are wrong – Insinuating drugs, such as Prozac, to be consumed by me, at any time, will not be tolerated.

  • JunkerGeorg

    Ok, how about Zoloft then?

  • JunkerGeorg

    Ok, how about Zoloft then?

  • trotk

    Grace, was the slip from Proverbs 18:13 to 19:13 intentional?

  • trotk

    Grace, was the slip from Proverbs 18:13 to 19:13 intentional?

  • SO

    JunkerGeorg December 14, 2011 at 1:44 am said, “If we keep playing Rome, we will eventually fall like Rome did.”
    Have you ever read, Ancient Rome: How it Affects You Today, by Richard J. Maybury? Great post on Ron Paul by the way. I wish people would listen to the candidate and read his own writings, instead of simply listening to, and reading the media spin.

  • SO

    JunkerGeorg December 14, 2011 at 1:44 am said, “If we keep playing Rome, we will eventually fall like Rome did.”
    Have you ever read, Ancient Rome: How it Affects You Today, by Richard J. Maybury? Great post on Ron Paul by the way. I wish people would listen to the candidate and read his own writings, instead of simply listening to, and reading the media spin.

  • WebMonk

    Point of humor, at least to me:

    JunkerGeorg @ 88 prefaced his post that he was going to “just cop a Cain/Bachmann simpleton style of 9-9-9 rhetoric here…”

    He, a supporter of Ron Paul, then proceeded to completely failed to dumb his post down to Cain/Bachmann/media level of discussion. Instead of a quickie, simpleton, small words, buzzword-heavy, short sentences style of post, he gave a fairly in-depth look at some of Ron Paul’s positions.

    It just tweaked my easily-amused irony sensor.

    Unfortunately, I don’t think RP has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the nomination. Which is a pity. I was hoping to go on a legalized drug binge while selling my daughter into prostitution and ignoring Hitler until he marches me into a gas chamber.

  • WebMonk

    Point of humor, at least to me:

    JunkerGeorg @ 88 prefaced his post that he was going to “just cop a Cain/Bachmann simpleton style of 9-9-9 rhetoric here…”

    He, a supporter of Ron Paul, then proceeded to completely failed to dumb his post down to Cain/Bachmann/media level of discussion. Instead of a quickie, simpleton, small words, buzzword-heavy, short sentences style of post, he gave a fairly in-depth look at some of Ron Paul’s positions.

    It just tweaked my easily-amused irony sensor.

    Unfortunately, I don’t think RP has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the nomination. Which is a pity. I was hoping to go on a legalized drug binge while selling my daughter into prostitution and ignoring Hitler until he marches me into a gas chamber.

  • http://quiacreeds.blogspot.com/ David Oberdieck

    #37 —
    Reagan could call the USSR the “evil empire.” When there was someone to work with he took the opportunity.

    Of course we should work with Iran when there is an opportunity, but just offering friendship in the current context does not fit with reality — the hatred of the US by the current regime.

  • http://quiacreeds.blogspot.com/ David Oberdieck

    #37 —
    Reagan could call the USSR the “evil empire.” When there was someone to work with he took the opportunity.

    Of course we should work with Iran when there is an opportunity, but just offering friendship in the current context does not fit with reality — the hatred of the US by the current regime.

  • JunkerGeorg

    @WebMonk, #93

    I was hoping to go on a legalized drug binge while selling my daughter into prostitution and ignoring Hitler until he marches me into a gas chamber.
    ————

    You too?! ;)

    As for my supposed failure to dumb down my post, well, in comparison with the brilliant thoughts crafted in graceful prose in some posts on this thread and others, most notably by Larry Wilson and SKPeterson, my post might as well be a term paper written by “Jeff Spicoli”. :)

  • JunkerGeorg

    @WebMonk, #93

    I was hoping to go on a legalized drug binge while selling my daughter into prostitution and ignoring Hitler until he marches me into a gas chamber.
    ————

    You too?! ;)

    As for my supposed failure to dumb down my post, well, in comparison with the brilliant thoughts crafted in graceful prose in some posts on this thread and others, most notably by Larry Wilson and SKPeterson, my post might as well be a term paper written by “Jeff Spicoli”. :)

  • Lou G.

    “ignoring Hitler until he marches me into a gas chamber”
    After last night’s debate, I’m not so sure that this statement is such a lark. Paul denies that Iran is a threat, that they are anywhere near developing a nuclear weapon and that they have only acted in self-defense. He passionately believes that we have already over reacted to Iran. Bachmann put him in his place and exposed him for his ignorance in matters of Foreign Policy.

  • Lou G.

    “ignoring Hitler until he marches me into a gas chamber”
    After last night’s debate, I’m not so sure that this statement is such a lark. Paul denies that Iran is a threat, that they are anywhere near developing a nuclear weapon and that they have only acted in self-defense. He passionately believes that we have already over reacted to Iran. Bachmann put him in his place and exposed him for his ignorance in matters of Foreign Policy.

  • Eric

    @Lou Well, Iran is not a real threat, just a theoretical one, but people like Bachmann could easily turn them into a real threat and seem dead set on taking us down that path. They are not likely close to developing a nuclear weapon … and if you think they are, recall that all of the intelligence agencies around the world thought that Iraq has massive amounts of WMDs among a whole host of other falsehoods intended to provide reasons for going to war (this is nothing new…been going on for centuries). As for them acting in self-defense, considering that people on this blog want to start dropping bombs now, just imagine what they people who actually can want…there is far more truth to that belief that many would like to admit. Instead of Bachmann putting Paul in his place, she actually exposed her own ignorance.

  • Eric

    @Lou Well, Iran is not a real threat, just a theoretical one, but people like Bachmann could easily turn them into a real threat and seem dead set on taking us down that path. They are not likely close to developing a nuclear weapon … and if you think they are, recall that all of the intelligence agencies around the world thought that Iraq has massive amounts of WMDs among a whole host of other falsehoods intended to provide reasons for going to war (this is nothing new…been going on for centuries). As for them acting in self-defense, considering that people on this blog want to start dropping bombs now, just imagine what they people who actually can want…there is far more truth to that belief that many would like to admit. Instead of Bachmann putting Paul in his place, she actually exposed her own ignorance.

  • Lou G.

    Eric, you sound just like Ron Paul (whether that is a good thing or bad thing when it comes to foreign policy, of course, is a matter of debate). But all either of us are doing right now is making assertions. Unfortunately, I’m not in a place right now to be able to look into all the research. One thing I will say, however, is that in our church we have several Muslim converts who are political refugees from Iran. If I go by their testimony, there is much to be concerned about. Of course, they do not have knowledge of nuclear weapons and such. But they do offer a compelling picture of why we must not take the military goals of the men in power in Iran lightly. Any way.. Gotta run for now.

  • Lou G.

    Eric, you sound just like Ron Paul (whether that is a good thing or bad thing when it comes to foreign policy, of course, is a matter of debate). But all either of us are doing right now is making assertions. Unfortunately, I’m not in a place right now to be able to look into all the research. One thing I will say, however, is that in our church we have several Muslim converts who are political refugees from Iran. If I go by their testimony, there is much to be concerned about. Of course, they do not have knowledge of nuclear weapons and such. But they do offer a compelling picture of why we must not take the military goals of the men in power in Iran lightly. Any way.. Gotta run for now.

  • Rich Shipe

    Eric @ 81, So can you show us where in any of our nation’s founding documents or the writing of the Founders ideas/principles unique to libertarianism? Libertarians say it starts with the idea that you own your body. Did a single founder say that? Can you imagine a founder saying that your “right” to be a prostitute is just as important as your right to religion or speech? Or how about a founder even saying that someone has a right to be a prostitute? In contrast you can find libertarian statements among the writings of the French Revolution.

    We can find Founders who wrote against the inconsistencies of the legality of slavery. But did they write about the inconsistency of the criminalization of [fill in the blank crime libertarians want legalized]?

  • Rich Shipe

    Eric @ 81, So can you show us where in any of our nation’s founding documents or the writing of the Founders ideas/principles unique to libertarianism? Libertarians say it starts with the idea that you own your body. Did a single founder say that? Can you imagine a founder saying that your “right” to be a prostitute is just as important as your right to religion or speech? Or how about a founder even saying that someone has a right to be a prostitute? In contrast you can find libertarian statements among the writings of the French Revolution.

    We can find Founders who wrote against the inconsistencies of the legality of slavery. But did they write about the inconsistency of the criminalization of [fill in the blank crime libertarians want legalized]?

  • SO

    Jeremiah 17: 9-10 says that the heart of man is deceitful above all things and is desperately wicked; who can know it? I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
    Perhaps we might just be reaping what we sow in terms of foreign policy.
    Why do so many think this verse does not include Americans? We think everyone else is the enemy. We divide the world into the good guys and bad guys, when actually “no one is good, no not one”. The US government does a lot of things for power and US interests. I again suggest an easy read by Richard J. Maybury called The Thousand Year War in the Mideast: How it Affects You Today. He gives a huge list of things we have done to get ourselves involved in wars in order to maintain control of various areas to benefit the US.
    On another note, once again Ron Paul spoke like a true statesman in the last debate on 12-15. He speaks the facts, something rhetoric lovers can’t seem to digest.

  • SO

    Jeremiah 17: 9-10 says that the heart of man is deceitful above all things and is desperately wicked; who can know it? I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
    Perhaps we might just be reaping what we sow in terms of foreign policy.
    Why do so many think this verse does not include Americans? We think everyone else is the enemy. We divide the world into the good guys and bad guys, when actually “no one is good, no not one”. The US government does a lot of things for power and US interests. I again suggest an easy read by Richard J. Maybury called The Thousand Year War in the Mideast: How it Affects You Today. He gives a huge list of things we have done to get ourselves involved in wars in order to maintain control of various areas to benefit the US.
    On another note, once again Ron Paul spoke like a true statesman in the last debate on 12-15. He speaks the facts, something rhetoric lovers can’t seem to digest.

  • Eric

    @Lou regardless of what research you do or who you listen to Iran can only remain a theoretical threat until it becomes a real one. What Paul proposes is to make sure we are not in any way responsible for turning them into a real threat so when and if we need to respond we can do so with proper justification for using overwhelming force…and I am talking about the kind of force we used against Japan to end WWII….not necessarily using Nukes, but seeing no need to leave behind a viable nation.

  • Eric

    @Lou regardless of what research you do or who you listen to Iran can only remain a theoretical threat until it becomes a real one. What Paul proposes is to make sure we are not in any way responsible for turning them into a real threat so when and if we need to respond we can do so with proper justification for using overwhelming force…and I am talking about the kind of force we used against Japan to end WWII….not necessarily using Nukes, but seeing no need to leave behind a viable nation.

  • SO

    Rich Shipe
    Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson that speaks of personal freedom.
    A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which [shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry] and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.
    Libertarians believe in the two fundamental laws: Do all you have agreed to do (the basis of contract law) and do not encroach on another person or their property. (the basis of criminal law and tort law) Richard J Maybury has a host of easy reads about economics, justice, history, politics… based on the non-statist viewpoint, something hard to find these days.

  • SO

    Rich Shipe
    Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson that speaks of personal freedom.
    A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which [shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry] and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.
    Libertarians believe in the two fundamental laws: Do all you have agreed to do (the basis of contract law) and do not encroach on another person or their property. (the basis of criminal law and tort law) Richard J Maybury has a host of easy reads about economics, justice, history, politics… based on the non-statist viewpoint, something hard to find these days.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Lou@97,

    “After last night’s debate, I’m not so sure that this statement is such a lark. Paul denies that Iran is a threat, that they are anywhere near developing a nuclear weapon and that they have only acted in self-defense. He passionately believes that we have already over reacted to Iran”

    We have been down this road before. Remember the WMD’s in Iraq (that turned out not to exist) that were the reason behind our pre-emptive war there? RP wants no part of that foolishness, and wishes to be sure we have a solid reason and have exhausted every alternative before he declares a war. Bachmann was grandstanding and warmongering.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Lou@97,

    “After last night’s debate, I’m not so sure that this statement is such a lark. Paul denies that Iran is a threat, that they are anywhere near developing a nuclear weapon and that they have only acted in self-defense. He passionately believes that we have already over reacted to Iran”

    We have been down this road before. Remember the WMD’s in Iraq (that turned out not to exist) that were the reason behind our pre-emptive war there? RP wants no part of that foolishness, and wishes to be sure we have a solid reason and have exhausted every alternative before he declares a war. Bachmann was grandstanding and warmongering.

  • Lou G.

    Eric @102 – that’s a fair way of stating it. BTW did you see Paul on Leno? He looked so much better and was given a much fairer hearing in terms of letting him fully state his positions. The audience was going wild — in support of him. If you have a chance to catch it, I’m sure you’ll like it a lot.

    Patrick @104 – apples and oranges.

  • Lou G.

    Eric @102 – that’s a fair way of stating it. BTW did you see Paul on Leno? He looked so much better and was given a much fairer hearing in terms of letting him fully state his positions. The audience was going wild — in support of him. If you have a chance to catch it, I’m sure you’ll like it a lot.

    Patrick @104 – apples and oranges.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Lou, In what way? That we had more evidence of saddam’s WMDs, and the fact that he used them against Iran? That Saddam’s rhetoric was as bad or worse than anything coming out of Iran?

  • Patrick Kyle

    Lou, In what way? That we had more evidence of saddam’s WMDs, and the fact that he used them against Iran? That Saddam’s rhetoric was as bad or worse than anything coming out of Iran?