AFboard - View Single Post - Suave One/MidLife --

LanT · 02-25-2008, 12:55 PM

I think Mick Wright put it best in his blog when he said, "Ron Paul is one of only a few members of Congress who always votes according to his principles, and truly believes in Constitutional limits on the power of government. On spending, on taxes, on freedom from an overbearing government, he’s great. I also agree for the most part with his take on foreign aid, and in always putting America first.

Where I disagree with Ron Paul, in domestic terms, is in his inability to compromise or rally anyone to his side to get anything accomplished. He’s a go-it-alone, all-or-nothing kind of guy. It’s admirable in a sense, but also unhelpful, to vote against every bill because it happens to fund a federal education plan, or because it contains a million dollar grant to Uganda. At a certain point, you have to vote on the best bill you can get; bills are never going to come out of Congress perfect. Because he will never bend, most of his votes are essentially meaningless and counter-productive.

On foreign policy and trade, I disagree totally with Ron Paul. He is an isolationist and is against free trade, while I believe that 9/11 calls for increased involvement (at least diplomatically) and more trade with other nations.

Some of Paul’s inability to bend spills over into defense and security issues, as well. He votes against bills that help Government detect and fight terrorism, arguing that they mean more government invasion of our privacy. A fair concern, to be sure, but ultimately unjustified in my view. For me, it reveals that Ron Paul has the right ideas but the wrong priorities, especially in our current fight against terrorism. I think his policies would make us less safe, more vulnerable, less able to detect and respond to terrorist groups.

I’ve read some of his articles and speeches, and he also seems to be a bit of a conspiracy nut. And so it doesn’t surprise me that the people supporting him most, at least around here, are the John Birchers, the folks who think 9/11 was an “inside job,” people who think everything they disagree with is “unconstitutional,” etc. These are folks I agree with 99%, but who consider me liberal.

No offense, though, if you like him. Because, like I said, he really does have some great qualities."

02-25-2008, 12:55 PM	#4 (permalink)
LanT On the AFBoard Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: NE Posts: 1,189 Rep Power: 12115	I think Mick Wright put it best in his blog when he said, "Ron Paul is one of only a few members of Congress who always votes according to his principles, and truly believes in Constitutional limits on the power of government. On spending, on taxes, on freedom from an overbearing government, he’s great. I also agree for the most part with his take on foreign aid, and in always putting America first. Where I disagree with Ron Paul, in domestic terms, is in his inability to compromise or rally anyone to his side to get anything accomplished. He’s a go-it-alone, all-or-nothing kind of guy. It’s admirable in a sense, but also unhelpful, to vote against every bill because it happens to fund a federal education plan, or because it contains a million dollar grant to Uganda. At a certain point, you have to vote on the best bill you can get; bills are never going to come out of Congress perfect. Because he will never bend, most of his votes are essentially meaningless and counter-productive. On foreign policy and trade, I disagree totally with Ron Paul. He is an isolationist and is against free trade, while I believe that 9/11 calls for increased involvement (at least diplomatically) and more trade with other nations. Some of Paul’s inability to bend spills over into defense and security issues, as well. He votes against bills that help Government detect and fight terrorism, arguing that they mean more government invasion of our privacy. A fair concern, to be sure, but ultimately unjustified in my view. For me, it reveals that Ron Paul has the right ideas but the wrong priorities, especially in our current fight against terrorism. I think his policies would make us less safe, more vulnerable, less able to detect and respond to terrorist groups. I’ve read some of his articles and speeches, and he also seems to be a bit of a conspiracy nut. And so it doesn’t surprise me that the people supporting him most, at least around here, are the John Birchers, the folks who think 9/11 was an “inside job,” people who think everything they disagree with is “unconstitutional,” etc. These are folks I agree with 99%, but who consider me liberal. No offense, though, if you like him. Because, like I said, he really does have some great qualities."