Ron Paul

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Twodogs

Man, we could sure use Ronnie today.

I disagree. I think we needed him in the 80's as he took and swung the pendulum back to the right. Today that same pendulum needs to be swung back to the left. We will never be in the middle as we should be so we at least need to keep it rocking and not let it fall over by a radical swing to either side.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I disagree. I think we needed him in the 80's as he took and swung the pendulum back to the right. Today that same pendulum needs to be swung back to the left. We will never be in the middle as we should be so we at least need to keep it rocking and not let it fall over by a radical swing to either side.

Well, it's swinging to the left, all right. Hope it reaches the the limit of it's arc pretty quick.

Chas

[merrylander]

I respectfully disagree about needing him and Reaganomics, trickle down to me was more like being pi**ed on.

[neophyte]

As one who doesn't suffer buffoons, hypocrites, and pandering phonies well, I couldn't bring myself to expose myself to last nights GOP debate for the duration. Fortuitously, I peeked in just as the question of foreign policy, and our illegal war du jour with Iran came up. In my eyes, Ron Paul distinguished himself as the only one present with even a remote grasp of reality in regards to this topic. Kudos for not only having cogent thoughts and ideas on the matter, but also for having the balls to speak out for sanity. Well done.

[Bigerik]

I have a lot of respect for the man. I don't agree with everything he says, but at least he stands for something. And we will know where the buck stops.

[finnbow]

As a person who takes a liking to all sorts of eccentrics, I kinda like him too. But, he's far too flaky for the office he's seeking.

[piece-itpete]

I'm with you Finn.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

It's his flakiness that I admire. That, and the fact that he has the balls to question his own vile, pernicious, obssessed and deranged party.

Dave

[neophyte]

It both surprised and delighted me to hear the truth being spoken at that gathering about our "foreign policy", gunboat diplomacy being a far more accurate descriptive term for it.I can now take one of this group seriously. I am certain he hasn't the chance of a fart in a whirlwind of being elected POTUS, flaky or not. He spoke up against the wars of adventure that continue to plague this country, and will continue to until the fanatic militarism that infected our government 70+ years ago loses its grip on our country and minds. Any wisp of hope he may have had vanished when he said what he did. He sure gained my respect.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by neophyte

It both surprised and delighted me to hear the truth being spoken at that gathering about our "foreign policy", gunboat diplomacy being a far more accurate descriptive term for it.I can now take one of this group seriously. I am certain he hasn't the chance of a fart in a whirlwind of being elected POTUS, flaky or not. He spoke up against the wars of adventure that continue to plague this country, and will continue to until the fanatic militarism that infected our government 70+ years ago loses its grip on our country and minds. Any wisp of hope he may have had vanished when he said what he said. He sure gained my respect.

Though he wasn't as outspoken about our overseas military adventurism as Paul, Huntsmann's response to the foreign policy questions was along the line of "we need to focus on rebuilding our country's economic might again, as economic might will translate to a strong, influential foreign policy." He also seemed to dis the GOP's first inclination toward gunboat diplomacy, but in a more nuanced, thoughtful manner. Accordingly, he stands no chance with the GOP faithful.