Rand Paul on Mitt Romney

I can understand that. There are many in the Liberty Movement willing to support Romney in order to get rid of Obama, even if it means putting off Libertarian legitimacy another decade. I'm not one of those. But I can accept Rand Paul's stand. At the very least, Rand Paul's endorsement ought to get Romney to call him back when Rand questions him on taking us to war needlessly.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...sen-rand-paul#

I can understand that. There are many in the Liberty Movement willing to support Romney in order to get rid of Obama, even if it means putting off Libertarian legitimacy another decade. I'm not one of those. But I can accept Rand Paul's stand. At the very least, Rand Paul's endorsement ought to get Romney to call him back when Rand questions him on taking us to war needlessly.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...sen-rand-paul# Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Hypothetically, would you still vote for the Libertarian presidential candidate if you knew that your vote would cause Obama to win?

Already answered that, Joe. If Kansas becomes a battleground state, I would seriously consider voting for Romney. However, if Kansas becomes a battleground state, the election is over and Obama is winning huge.

But, hypothetically, if it came down to my vote deciding the election, I would vote for Romney. And I'd make damn sure he knew it, and damn sure he listened to people like Ron and Rand Paul, and Gary Johnson, and other liberty minded people.

I have a lot of Libertarian views on limited government and personal freedom. However, I think the notion that we can essentially become isolationist militarily is unrealistic. The founders were big on avoiding foreign entanglements but that was a radically different world. These days, I don't think we have much choice but to be engaged militarily.

I think Ron Paul's belief, that Iran going nuclear is none of our business, is crazy.

Of course Iran wants a nuke. The US doesn't bother countries with a nuke. Pakistan is the biggest harborer of terrorists, but do we invade them? No. Because they have a nuke. Iran wants a nuke so we will leave them alone. They are smart enough to know that retaliation against them if they used it would be total. Nukes are a red herring in today's world. We are in more danger from a computer virus or an EMP than a nuke. And those would be much more destructive, and cheaper.

I truly think Iran is being governed by crazy religious zealots. I don't think their threats against Israel are just rhetoric. I believe that if they get a nuclear bomb, they will use it on Israel. The leadership in Iran are believers in the so called Twelth Imam or Mahdi. Their belief is that the Mahdi will return and restore the caliphate when the world is in total chaos. I think the leaders of Iran want to cause chaos in order to bring about the return of their version of a Messiah. They don't care if Israel retaliates with nukes, they welcome it.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...days-has-come/

Yes, but I think the Israelis can handle things themselves. I think they know exactly what is going on in Iran, they know where the nukes are being developed, and if we would leave them alone, they would take care of it themselves.

And remember, those religious zealots are the "masterminds" who talk others into dying for their cause. They aren't going to put their asses on the line. They don't want to get to Paradise any more than we want to get to Heaven.

I hope you're right. I'm not sure it's wise to call their bluff. As far as Israel being able to handle it, if Iran has gone underground with their facilities and they've got them spread out, I doubt Israel will have the capacity to do the job. It's going to take bunker busters and lots of planes, probably more that Israel has. Dealing with the problem by planting worms and assassinating scientists will slow them down, but it's not a long term solution.

I have a lot of Libertarian views on limited government and personal freedom. However, I think the notion that we can essentially become isolationist militarily is unrealistic. The founders were big on avoiding foreign entanglements but that was a radically different world. These days, I don't think we have much choice but to be engaged militarily.

I think Ron Paul's belief, that Iran going nuclear is none of our business, is crazy. Originally Posted by joe bloe

+1 Today, the Atlantic and the Pacific are not the formidable moats they were two hundred years ago.

I consider myself a Liberttarian and do not support military isolationst ideas.
What I do support is greatly reducing the places in which we are located. In addition if that government wants us to be there, they will ahve to pay for us to stay.
We have an obligation under the Constitution to provide for our national defense. This means that we have to protect our shiping routes and that means having some bases in strategic locations.

What we do not need to be is the police force for the rest of the world.
It will be very interesting to see how we react when China starts building their bases around the world to protect their interests? Will we view it as invasions or imperialism? What will we say when they want to have a base or two in the US so they can protect their interests here?"

I have a lot of Libertarian views on limited government and personal freedom. However, I think the notion that we can essentially become isolationist militarily is unrealistic. The founders were big on avoiding foreign entanglements but that was a radically different world. These days, I don't think we have much choice but to be engaged militarily.

I think Ron Paul's belief, that Iran going nuclear is none of our business, is crazy. Originally Posted by joe bloe

So like so many other right wing Tea Nuts , you want to pick and choose what part of the Constitution that you agree with.

where is that in the constitution? see where a latter day public school education can lead?

avoiding foreign entanglements was in washington's farewell address

where is that in the constitution? see what a latter day public school education can lead to?

avoiding foreign entanglements was in washington's farewell address Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

So our founders, who wrote the Constitution, wanted the United States not to engage in foreign entanglements. Yet you think that not such a good idea?

I will gladly debate what our founders meant in this regard.

Please bring your A game.

if you would address your remarks to things i say and points i may make, i'd gladly discuss things with you, but your exasperatingly exhausting habit of non-sequiturs and replying to made-up off the point "points" i never make, and not reading any point i might make, or at least not replying to them in any logical way, leaves me with no other option but to politely decline.

this most recent post of yours is but another in a long line of examples

What a great way to deflect a challenge! Congrats. Next if I am so hard to understand then quit quoting and responding to my posts. Problem solved!