Chicagoist: Ron Paul Is Right on the Money

Kevin Robinson

Sun, 23 Sep 2007 03:03:26 -0600

SAMiller: No, I wasn't looking for the word pacifist. Ron Paul isn't a pacifist. In fact, libertarian principals regarding the military are predicated on defense, not pacifism.

SAMiller

Sat, 22 Sep 2007 02:00:35 -0600

more defensive military role I think the word you are looking for is "pacifist."

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:31:14 -0600

8: Just pretend I don't exist.

the new guest number 2

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:25:14 -0600

#2, your comment would have been so much more thought out and well written if you were registered.

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:09:39 -0600

I can't vote for Ron Paul in the general election, for all the reasons posted by #2 and #4. But I sure as Hell can vote for RP to be the GOP nominee. With RP as the Repugnican, even Kucinich could win. Hillary would totally pwn his a$$. With RP as the GOP nominee, I think a lot of Repugnicans will stay home due to his anti war-on-[certain]-muslims position. Moveon.org can have a field day with RP's positions. I really don't care which Democrat gets the nomination, they're all good. The differences between them are only superficial. The best part of this plan is that even if the Repugnicans manage to steal the election again, we will have an end to the Iraq war. Of all the Repugnicans, I hate RP the least. C'mon everybody, let's register Repugnican and totally shoot them in the foot with their own gun. It's only for the primary and we can take a hot shower afterwards and then switch back. Those who can't stomach the idea of being a Repugnican, even for sabotage purposes, are welcome to stay and choose the nominee for our party. To tell you the truth, I've been kinda dreading the primary - because I can't really tell which one is better, they all look the same to me. We can at least make sure the dead vote goes to RP in the GOP primary, can't we?

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:53:55 -0600

3: Great comment. 4: That's why I like him. But I still won't vote for him.

Spook

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:23:01 -0600

"Dennis Kucinich's right-wing counterpart" This is why I don't like liberals

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:07:49 -0600

Guest: As a liberal, I completely understand your point about evolving case law...right to privacy being established undert the 14th amendment, that evolving into right to birth control, then right to choose etc. But I love a feisty guy who will stand up in Congress, vote against symbolic awards for leaders (aka Rosa Parks, the Pope) and demand a dialogue on why Congress wastes tax payer's time and money with resolutions like these. Ron Paul, in my estimation, is a non-apologist, non-conformist, non-rhetoritician (which is not a word). I like him SO much for these things. Shoot from the hip, old man.

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:56:02 -0600

Ron Paul is great. Assuming the Republican primary election is held among Democrats and Slashdot readers, he's set.

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:55:33 -0600

I admire Ron Paul [and Kucinich and Nader] for talking about issues that need to be talked about, issues that more mainstream candidates would prefer to ignore. Paul, et al, are in essence trying to make us think what kind of America we want in the 21st Century, and doing so with a depth not found in the Hillaries and Obamas and Thompsons out there. That said, I could never vote for Ron Paul, as his libertarian-heavy ideas, ironically, are hardly realistic for the country we are and will be for at least a few more generations. His brand of isolationism--he won't call it that, but that's what it is--for instance, was more or less outdated by 8 Dec 1941, and certainly by 15 Sept 1945. Like it or not, a more defensive military role is not realistic at this point--such a role would be even more ruinious than the utterly stupid Iraq War, as it would create more of a global power vacuum that countries such as China, Russia and India (and perhaps even the EU were they ever to get serious about military power) could exploit. America for better or worse is at the top of the mountain right now, and though we will slip downward eventually, I'd rather not aid the process. As well, I like us at the top more than I like the idea of the Chinese there, or some combination of China and Russia. Yes, Ron Paul does respect the actual Constitution more than his GOP colleagues--and most Dems as well, it appears--but he seems more comfortable moving backward to what American may or may not have been some 70 years ago rather than face the reality of what we are now. I respect the strict constitutionalists out there, but I also know that case law and history is not always on their sides. There are many credible arguments, for instance, for going beyond "strict constitutionalist" views. [To toss just a couple out there, the Lousiania Purchase is an interesting event to consider, as is the 20th-Century evolution of First Amendement case law.] Gee, did I contradict myself enough? That's what Ron Paul makes me do, I guess. I love that he brings up vital issues and asks important questions, but I just don't agree with most of his stances on those issues.

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:38:09 -0600

I consider myself very liberal and I really like the things Ron Paul has to say. Against Iraq/the Patriot Act etc. this guy is a strict constitutionalist. If it isn't in there, YOU CAN'T DO IT. As a republican candidate, I think he stands out for respecting the constitution, not, you know, trampling it.