Ron Paul?

[Machjo]

YouTube - Ron Paul Slams WTC Mosque Protesters!

I don't agree with Ron Paul on all fronts. But I will say that he truly is a man of sound character. Whether you agree with him or not, you know he's saying exactly what he sincerely believes with no concern for whether it wins him votes or not.

I rarely applaud Republicans, but I must say I'd probably vote Paul over Obama almost any day.

 

[Highball]

I have followed Congressman Paul's activities and his political path for several years. I don't always agree with him either but he does seem to take an approach to issues taking into consideration the whole issue. His common sense approch with some issues has impressed me.

 

[Machjo]

I was surprised about a year ago to find even many young Democrats are turning to Paul. But then again, maybe I shouldn't be.

The main thing I like about Paul is that he's consistent. When he says he'll reduce government, he means it. he doesn't mean he'll cut back on what Republicans don't like while maintaining large government expenditures on Republican pet projects. He'll meas no sacred cows and he'd cut or reduce spending on things Republicans don't like as well as things Democrats don't like. He's also a strict constitutionalist, which reassures us that he won't support Guantanamo-style detention centres.

One point about him that would concern me is his desire to cut taxes so quickly when the government faces so much debt. If he'd promise to look at gradual tax reductions only after the national debt were paid off, I'd like him even more than I do now. His current stance would be to scrap the IRS as soon as he could. To me that would be a little too quick and sudden when you consider the US debt burden at the moment. But even with that flaw, I still prefer him to most US politicians.

As for his desire to withdraw from the UN, even that I find palatable when you consider he'd withdraw from NATO, SEATO, NORAD, and ANZUS too. A more than worthy trade off. Consider too that this would still not stop the existence of UN Associations at the grassroots.

Though he may be somewhat isolationist at the diplomatic level, he's very much in favour of free trade and open borders to all countries. So in spite of his many flaws, he has even more pluses going for him even compared to Obama. He certainly would be able to reduce government spending like no other current US politician can, be he Democrat or Republican. He's a consistent constitutionalist and in favour of maximum freedom and open borders. He makes even Democrats look bad. So no, I should not be surprised that even some young Democrats had voted Ron Paul last US Federal election.

As per usual, Ron Paul cotinues to surprise us with his extreme constitutionalist view of the whole Wikileaks issue:

YouTube - Ron Paul on Julian Assange

Meet Ron Paul, the Ueber-Constitutionalist:

 

[Bar Sinister]

I don't have a problem with Paul. He seems a good deal more honest than the average US politician. My only problem with him is that his economic position is overly simplistic. So far as his foreign policy ideas are concerned I think his position is well thought out.

 

[Skatchie]

I think he wants to scrap more than just the IRS, lol. He wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve. His economic policies aren't too simplistic either. You're just fooled by the games the elites play right now, the solution is actually to make it simpler. Paul has actually accurately predicted this mess we are in right now, a decade ago, and he had the right reasons why it was going to happen. He is a very accurate economic analyst.

 

[Machjo]

Another thing that concerns me with Paul is that he goes too far when it comes to regulation.

But yet again, if the alternative is subsidizing big business and the Patriot Act, then I guess excessive deregulation is still preferable. In some respects, we could view Paul as a kind of reset button. Too few laws isn't good, but then again, the wrong laws is even worse. Between those two options, too few laws is preferable. And I think that's the appeal of Ron Paul among those who see that the alternative is worse. If the alternative is worse, then we might as well press the reset button, remove all unnecessary laws, and start from scratch.

 

[Bar Sinister]

I think he wants to scrap more than just the IRS, lol. He wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve. His economic policies aren't too simplistic either. You're just fooled by the games the elites play right now, the solution is actually to make it simpler. Paul has actually accurately predicted this mess we are in right now, a decade ago, and he had the right reasons why it was going to happen. He is a very accurate economic analyst.

Actually I was referring to his throw the baby out with the bathwater social policies. There are simply too many government agencies he seems to want scrapped simply because he doesn't like government. To me is seems more of a knee-jerk sort of conservatism rather than a plan that has been well thought out. However, I do appreciate the fact that you at least know where he stands unlike some of the weather vane politicians who change direction with every political poll.

 

[gopher]

I strongly agree with Paul in his position on foreign policy - isolationism is and always has been the best course since it is consistent with the ideals of our Founding Fathers and works best for our economy. However, Paul is not entirely consistent on the issue of earmarks - while condemning them in principle he has taken billions in handouts. This has proven to be quite an embarrassment for him.

 

[Machjo]

Actually I was referring to his throw the baby out with the bathwater social policies. There are simply too many government agencies he seems to want scrapped simply because he doesn't like government. To me is seems more of a knee-jerk sort of conservatism rather than a plan that has been well thought out. However, I do appreciate the fact that you at least know where he stands unlike some of the weather vane politicians who change direction with every political poll.

I have the same sentiment. And again, if it's a choice between one who'd have too little government and one who'd have big government of the wrong kind, then what's the better of the two options?