Ads have been appearing on my blog seeking contributions to the "Ron Paul Money Bomb". The ads are not of my choosing, nor do I support Ron Paul. He is a candidate who holds extremely dangerous positions with regard to our foreign policy. He does not care if Iran gets nuclear weapons. He does not want to have any foreign bases for the military. If we get attacked again, he wants us to defend ourselves here at home rather than taking the fight to the enemy. He wants us to end all foreign alliances. Let me put that clearly: if China were to invade Japan, Paul would want the USA to remain neutral. If Russia were to invade and take over all of the now indepedent former parts of the old Soviet Union, Paul wants the USA to remain neutral. If Cuba were to attack Jamaica, Paul want the USA to remain neutral. If Iran were to invade Iraq,Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and take control of the world's oil supply, Paul wants the USA to stay neutral. He is pathological when it comes to the functions that government undertakes. Basically, if something was put in place at any time since 1900, Paul is against it. He is not someone who should even be considered for president in my opinion.
2 comments:
Stop spreading your bullshit, you have an anti Ron Paul bias. I have mentioned this to you before, but you clearly can not remain neutral on the subject of Ron Paul. Please try harder.
Stop misrepresenting him, if you want to know his policies then you need to ask him and then put his answers on this blog instead of pretending that you know what he wants.
It should be clear that Ron Paul's policy is that the Congress should make a declaration of war, before pursuing any overseas conflicts. He has not said anywhere that he would oppose helping the Japanese or the Jamaicans if they were attacked. He is against unilateral unprovoked meddling in other countries. An attack by China on Japan would be an act of war against the US allies and that would result in a vote in Congress to declare a war or not. I would hardly think that most of the Congress would not vote to help out middle eastern countries if they were attacked.
He is also not against having some bases overseas, just no need for having hundreds of them in every country around the world.
Get your facts straight and stop spreading lies and misrepresenting his policies.
This message is even coming from someone who would not vote for either Obama, Romney or Paul.
Shortbus -- You are right when you say I am not neutral about Ron Paul. He is dangerous. His views are a strange amalgm of isolationism and libertarianism. The problem is that for America to be isolationist in today's world just does not work. Or let me put it this way: if America is isolationist, we may find ourselves attacked anyway with much less capacity to defend ourselves. I think Paul's views represent a threat to the USA, so no, I will not remain "neutral".
Post a Comment