TexasCHLforum.com

All good points brought up. I do believe Ron Paul takes our national security seriously, just as he does our Constitution. All he has ever asked for was a humble foreign policy (that which GW Bush campaigned for) and that Congress do its job before sending our young men and women off to fight. A President Paul, in my opinion, would not hesitate to use force to protect this nation. As the CinC, he is responsible for prosecuting such action... once Congress has authorized it... as directed... by the Constitution. Anything short of this is a waste of our servicemen and money.

G26ster,
"Obama or Romney" is hardly an inspiring choice for one who loves a Constitution which I swore to defend. No, I will certainly not stay home. I will choose, but there is a write in for a reason. I will vote my conscience. Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich will have a significant task convincing me otherwise. Frankly, I don't believe than can sway my view.

By the way, the same argument against Iran seems quite familiar. I swear, we heard the same in 2002 about WMD, hidden nuclear programs, and dirty bombs in the hands of a mad man with no accountability or checks preventing said weapons from ending up in the hands of terrorists. And while Hezbollah is by no means a friendly actor, they have not demonstrated a pension for international terrorism like Al Qaeda. In fact, Shia dominated Iran hates Al Qaeda. If Iran is such a destabilizing threat in the region, why does American foreign policy seek to tie Israel's hands and their ability to face what they consider to be a threat to their own sovereignty?

Look, I am all for helping those in need. But it has to be within our own means. Remember, we are going broke with this policy, propping up governments around the world. Why is China not acting the aggressor in the world? Because they are allowing us to weaken ourselves. We propped up Egypt under Mubarak. We propped up Pakistan under Musharraf (a military dictator who came to power in a military cue, overthrowing a democratically elected government, and developed a nuclear arsenal under our noses... and we're still propping them up). Benjamin Netanyahu (sp?) said it best when he lectured the US and the West, stating that Israel does not need the West's protection, for they can defend themselves. Attempting to limit a sovereign ally's ability to self determine is hardly a foreign policy I'd like to be live under if I were an Israeli (with friends like us...).

By the way, between the terrain, and the armed populous, I think the Swiss would do just fine in a defensive fight.

Those are my two cents. I am tired of generation after generation of progressively liberal, and more socialistic leaders, and I am finally drawing a line in the sand. Never have the words "Give me Liberty" rang truer than these times. I'll stand with the principles of my Constitution.

TAM and Matriculated,

Kook, crazy, etc. seem to come out in your basic arguments against Ron Paul. Let me ask a few very important questions to what I believe are individual liberty loving, Constitution respecting folks. Who is the greatest proponent of the individual, the free market, and the rights (all of them) guaranteed to us in the Constitution and Bill of Rights? That said, now, who signed into law the nation's strictest anti-gun legislation (I know the answer to this one, because I lived in said state for two years, where the state ban is still in effect)? Which candidates, as members of Congress, voted in favor of the Lautenberg Amendment (Clinton gun ban)? Now, which candidate has voted against every measure ever introduced that would limit an individual's right to keep and bear arms? This assumption that previously anti-gunners, if nominated as the Republican nominee, would all of a sudden become ardent defenders of the Constitution is a pipe dream which I cannot just lie into reality.

With regard to foreign policy, how's that hegemony/empire worked out for us lately? Lest we be reminded how every great nation has failed throughout history? It wasn't losses in battle. It was the collapse of their economy due to an unsustainable foreign policy. I would even argue that the ChiComs weren't one of those major nations until recently. China has risen based on a stronger debt to equity ratio than us (with a lot attributed to the fact that China is financing our foreign policy, which we seem to believe holds them at bay???).

Personally, the best thing we can do to maintain our position in the world is to act as a beacon of liberty for other nations to strive (not as a director of nations), and get our debt under control.

And this idea that a Paul presidency would be isolationist is preposterous. Does anyone consider Switzerland isolationist? No, of course not, they are a major business center, who does much trade with many nations. As far as the current CinC relinquishing our current position as the first to get involved (sorry, 'leader of the free world'), tell that to all my tax dollars being spent in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen, and soon to be Syria (and possibly Iran... do you see a trend here?). Why, exactly is it wrong to have an expectation that our Congress vote on a declaration of war before spending our precious resources (not just the money we are forced to borrow from China, but the lives of our young men and women who our Chickenhawk politicians are so willing to send into harm's way) on empire maintenance?

As someone who carried out the policies of a previous CinC (GW) over 38 months of direct combat over three separate deployments (losing my fair share of young Infantrymen, friends, and brothers in arms, and being wounded in the process, I am more adamant about a declaration of war than I ever was (and I've always been adamant about it). When Tagg Romney, or Santorum's 18 year old boy enlist in the Infantry, I'll consider rescinding the Chickenhawk label. Until then, I'll consider their hubris (without personal investment) a danger to our liberty. Gingrich cannot get out of the label. He's already declared he had 'better things to do' with his time than serve in the military.

The responses I read here and across the internet are so contradictory to my ideal of what I believe my party is supposed to stand for, I am not certain there will be a Republican candidate whom I can enthusiastically support, as I see no real difference in the either ever-increasingly statist party. A Republican party that dismisses the values of a Constitutionally limited federal government, the ideals of individual liberty, and restrained government spending (a truly free market economy) is not one which I can support any more simply because it isn't Socialism (because it moves closer and closer to that every day).

P.S. I can enlighten you all on Massachusetts gun laws if you want to get an idea about what Mitt Romney might be willing to support (hint: just about anything the Brady Campaign wants).

I find it interesting how the major arguments against Ron Paul are that he either never really had a chance or his foreign policy disqualifies him. Last I checked, he's the most Constitutionally sound candidate we've had in any of our lifetimes. How a strict Constitutionalist can have a disqualifying foreign policy is beyond me.