![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Michael83 on September 18, 2007, at 1:14:40
I've never voted for anyone or anything because I've always felt I've never had a candidate for me. For me, it was always, "who was going to do the least amount of damage?"
Ron Paul changed that. I agree with him on nearly every issue.
This is Ron Paul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
It's like a custom candidate was created just for me. WOW. He's unlike other GOP candidates or Democrat candidates.
Posted by Sigismund on September 18, 2007, at 18:05:32
In reply to Ron Paul, a once in a lifetime candidate., posted by Michael83 on September 18, 2007, at 1:14:40
So, is that what libertarianism is then?
Posted by Michael83 on September 18, 2007, at 23:19:34
In reply to Re: Ron Paul, a once in a lifetime candidate. » Michael83, posted by Sigismund on September 18, 2007, at 18:05:32
Absolutely! It makes Libertarians like myself feel good that such a Libertarian candidate is getting so much attention.
Posted by Sigismund on September 19, 2007, at 0:12:37
In reply to Re: Ron Paul, a once in a lifetime candidate. » Sigismund, posted by Michael83 on September 18, 2007, at 23:19:34
Well, he's consistent.
It would mean the whole web of alliances and blocks existing since WWII would have to go, troops in 123 countries (or whatever the right number is).
But what about the oil? I mean, ever since (who?) Jimmy Carter?, FDR?...the US has seen the middle east as vital to its security.
So trade without alliances? I'm just trying to imagine what that might involve and how it might pan out.
Posted by Michael83 on September 19, 2007, at 16:23:03
In reply to Re: Ron Paul, a once in a lifetime candidate. » Michael83, posted by Sigismund on September 19, 2007, at 0:12:37
It would be a serious wake up call for many other nations (those that did alliance with us and those that didn't).
But it would prevent any country/organization in the future of trying to blame us or use our support for a country as a justification for attacking us. When the US does something, everyone notices it. For every country we alliance with, their enemies become our enemies. This is the major problem.
But moreso, it was the purpose of our country to live without alliances and let countries figure out their own problems.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." --Thomas Jefferson
Posted by Sigismund on September 19, 2007, at 17:30:14
In reply to Re: Ron Paul, a once in a lifetime candidate. » Sigismund, posted by Michael83 on September 19, 2007, at 16:23:03
>It would be a serious wake up call for many other nations
Like around here!
I can just imagine.
What would happen to our insurance?I was at a writers festival and a Vietnamese Australian (born there) said with some feeling,
'What is the matter with this f*cking country?'
no doubt feeling that if Vietnam could fight off the Chinese, the French and the US and its allies, then surely Australia could manage minimal independence in foreign policy.We don't have much of a rightwing libertarian tradition. It's perhaps more something one finds around the left.
Posted by Michael83 on October 1, 2007, at 20:31:33
In reply to Ron Paul, a once in a lifetime candidate., posted by Michael83 on September 18, 2007, at 1:14:40
This could be a trailer for an action movie:
Posted by Sigismund on October 17, 2007, at 16:42:21
In reply to Ron Paul the CHAMPION!!!!!!, posted by Michael83 on October 1, 2007, at 20:31:33
Maybe he's talking about this sort of stuff.....
"Lockheed Martin, whose former vice president chaired the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which loudly agitated for the invasion, received $25 billion in US government contracts in 2005 alone. Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman noted the sum 'exceeded the GDP of 103 countries including Iceland, Jordon and Costa Rica...[and] was larger than the combined budgets of the Dept of the Interior, the Small Business Administration, and the entire legislative branch of government."
Naomi Klein, Harpers.Or is this more reason to privatise the military?
One loses track.
Posted by caraher on October 18, 2007, at 8:37:55
In reply to The Price of Freedom » Michael83, posted by Sigismund on October 17, 2007, at 16:42:21
Since the US already hires mercenaries to protect diplomats (traditionally the job of the Marine Corps) it's clear that privatization of the military is already well underway.
I'm not really a fan, but the one thing I do like about Ron Paul is his idealistic notion that the US Constitution does matter and that Congress alone, and not a "unitary executive," has the right to commit the nation to war. I'm not sure how that plays out if one allows the government to hire private armies (does Blackwater need a declaration of war to fight?).
Posted by Michael83 on November 8, 2007, at 2:27:02
In reply to Ron Paul, a once in a lifetime candidate., posted by Michael83 on September 18, 2007, at 1:14:40
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.