[ejonesie22]

In general Ron Paul has the right ideas, ones I can respect, but in terms of International relations he is behind the curve. In overly simplified terms, the framers of the constitution never envisioned the world we have today, largely built by the US free enterprise system. Trying to reach back an close the door now is a bit too late. We built it, we have to deal with it, both politically, economically and militarily.

The sad thing is in taking those very strict stances he aligns himself with the looney left. His motives are entirely different, and are defensible in principal, but the result is the same.

[mkjessup]

Trying to reach back an close the door now is a bit too late. We built it, we have to deal with it, both politically, economically and militarily.

I'm not so sure. If a hypothetical President Ron Paul were to take the step of unilaterally withdrawing the United States from the U.N. (and while I may be corrected, he might well be able to do so by executive order, as much as he would probably prefer NOT to exercise power in that way), if the U.N. were suddenly expelled from our soil, and no longer able to count on one damn red cent in U.S. funding, it would reduce that criminal enterprise to nothing but a ranting and raving association in some Third World hellhole. It would put a major kabosh on the mad embrace of globalism and internationalism.

Oh it would be a tough row to hoe, no question but it isn't out of the realm of possibility.

[RckyRaCoCo]

The sad thing is in taking those very strict stances he aligns himself with the looney left.

The difference I see is that Paul's is an ideological difference based on his interpretation of the original intent of the Constitution, where as the looney left("living document") is purely political, based on hunger for power(repercussions be damned).

Unfortunately though, 2 sides of the same coin where the WOT is concerned.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The sad thing is in taking those very strict stances he aligns himself with the looney left.

The concurrence is exceedingly limited here. Two different worlds when it comes to repsect for human life and natural law.

[L,TOWM]

In overly simplified terms, the framers of the constitution never envisioned the world we have today, largely built by the US free enterprise system.

The thing that fascinates me about that statement is that the gungrabbers used the same argument in the mid '90's -- I actually had a gun grabber tell me "I have no problem with you guys keeping and bearing all the muskets you want, but Thomas Jefferson never imagined AK - 47's."

A rapidly emerging litmus test for me is that if some one needs to trot out a moonbat argument to explain why a particular candidate or policy position is a "bad thing", that probably means that there is some merit to it...

Thank you for confirming my support for Paul.