Ron Paul: Hope for America?

[Vladimir Lenin]

Ron Paul's campaign slogan is, Ron Paul: Hope for America.

Do you believe that Ron Paul is Hope for America?

I personally myself do because of his non-interventionist policy, abolishment of Government's wasteful spending, and he promotes a better policy then any other canidate.

So what do you think?

[hsimoorb]

His policies aren't realy as good as the media makes them out to be. His isolationism is popular, which is why he's getting the press. His hard-line conservatism though, would make him a pariah if he ever got the Republican nomination. We're talking about a guy who would be railing against the New Deal if it happened in his time. 'Cause you know, Americans are for freedom. Just not excersizing it through their governments

BTW, this thread is a duplicate. Why did I post here? Must be getting late....need sleep

[Caelius]

He's Barry Goldwater re-incarnated, just with a more liberal slant.

Nothing new. Aside from his slim to none chances of ever getting the Republican nomination.

[Irishmafia2020]

A libertarian Isolationist is a niche candidate one way or the other. I'd be more impressed if he ran as an independent....

[s.rwitt]

I personally myself do because of his non-interventionist policy

We have tryed isolationism before (WWI and WW2) and it didn't work. Now that we are the sole superpower and main target of terrorists, why would it work more now? Isolationism leads to staying out of wars until it's too late and it is dangerous.

[jankren]

Now that we are the sole superpower and main target of terrorists, why would it work more now?

Are you seriously thinking that the terrorists oppose USA SOLELY because it is the only Superpower in this world? If yes then I guess you are one of those people who cant stop saying crap like "They hate us because they hate our freedom."

[Sidmen]

Yeah, Isolationism did work... How many wars did we fight before we started getting involved in world politics? WW2 was a result of america exerting pressure on japan by cutting off its suppily of oil (which was the USA) and providing arms and money to britian (who they were fighting at the time). WW1 was the result of providing arms and money to britian, and wasn't realy started by germany (we declared war first).

[Justice and Mercy]

Hope?

Very, very slim.

The American people don't want freedom anymore, sadly.

That's precisely what he's offering.

[Sidmen]

Realy, please elaborate on exactly how hes offering freedom.

[Justice and Mercy]

Realy, please elaborate on exactly how hes offering freedom.

...

Have you not read ANYTHING about him?

Abolish the IRS, abolish the Federal Reserve, get rid of oppressive and wasteful government programs, etc.

He's a ****ing libertarian, it's pretty damned obvious he's offering freedom.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Ron Paul is the only candidate that seems to believe in the constitution. I call that offering freedom again.

[hsimoorb]

We have tryed isolationism before (WWI and WW2) and it didn't work.

WTF, we didn't try isolationism then. We fought friggin' both those wars! That's not isolationism!

[Rush Limbaugh]

WTF, we didn't try isolationism then. We fought friggin' both those wars! That's not isolationism!

O was thinking the same. Its kind of an oxymoron. If we had stayed Isolationist we wouldnt have fought.

[s.rwitt]

WTF, we didn't try isolationism then. We fought friggin' both those wars! That's not isolationism!

I'm talking about the periods leading up to the wars. The American people were fiercely against us getting involved in World War Two. We didn't do anything but sell weapons until Hitler was already too powerfull, as were the Japanese. If you don't know how isolationist the American public was back then, I suggest you read a book.

WW2 was a result of america exerting pressure on japan by cutting off its suppily of oil (which was the USA) and providing arms and money to britian (who they were fighting at the time).

No..... World War Two was the result of power hungry dictators in Germany, Italy, and Japan with a fetish for invading countries. If we had stepped in as soon as Japan invaded Manchuria or when Hitler invaded Poland there is no way the war would have reached the scale it did. However the American public made it clear that they wanted no part in other people's problems (Isolationism). Germany and Japan continued to get stronger and stronger while France fell, the Russians retreated, and the British were bombed. If Pearl Harbor hadn't happened and we continued to wait (which I doubt we would have but if we did) there's a good chance the war would have turned out differently.

[hsimoorb]

I'm talking about the periods leading up to the wars. The American people were fiercely against us getting involved in World War Two. We didn't do anything but sell weapons until Hitler was already too powerfull, as were the Japanese. If you don't know how isolationist the American public was back then, I suggest you read a book.

We don't get half credit. We fought the wars, thats the bottom line. Ask Japan how isolationist we were during the war. Look up Hibakusha...i'm not disagreeing that the public was origonaly against the war itself, just saying that isolationism isn't what we actualy practiced. As other posters have brought up already, we were selling arms and putting up embargos during both world wars. Hardly isolationism at it's finest.

No..... World War Two was the result of power hungry dictators in Germany, Italy, and Japan with a fetish for invading countries. If we had stepped in as soon as Japan invaded Manchuria or when Hitler invaded Poland there is no way the war would have reached the scale it did. However the American public made it clear that they wanted no part in other people's problems (Isolationism). Germany and Japan continued to get stronger and stronger while France fell, the Russians retreated, and the British were bombed. If Pearl Harbor hadn't happened and we continued to wait (which I doubt we would have but if we did) there's a good chance the war would have turned out differently.

I think he was talking about American involvement in the war, not the war itself was caused by our very non-isolationist policies before the war.

[The Knight 2100]

Isolationism would be one of the most idiotic policies the US could follow now. The fact is that America has too much economic prosperity and therefore too much of a stake in what goes on in the world for it to just resign itself to isolationism. Isolationism didn't work in World War I, it didn't work in World War II, it wouldn't have worked in the Cold War and it's not going to work now. If the US pursues an isolationist foreign policy the only thing that will happen is that it will weaken itself because it won't be able to respond to threats effectively. And in the world of today, with the threat of terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, America can't afford isolationism.

So no, Ron Paul does not mean hope for America. If anything, it's just the opposite.

[Snoopy]

I'm talking about the periods leading up to the wars. The American people were fiercely against us getting involved in World War Two. We didn't do anything but sell weapons until Hitler was already too powerfull, as were the Japanese. If you don't know how isolationist the American public was back then, I suggest you read a book.



No..... World War Two was the result of power hungry dictators in Germany, Italy, and Japan with a fetish for invading countries. If we had stepped in as soon as Japan invaded Manchuria or when Hitler invaded Poland there is no way the war would have reached the scale it did. However the American public made it clear that they wanted no part in other people's problems (Isolationism). Germany and Japan continued to get stronger and stronger while France fell, the Russians retreated, and the British were bombed. If Pearl Harbor hadn't happened and we continued to wait (which I doubt we would have but if we did) there's a good chance the war would have turned out differently.

Actually, had America stayed out, then communist Russia would take over most of Europe and Asia, unless Britain did something amazing. But on the other hand, the US would still be powerful.

Note: This answers the above question.

Russia had infinate people, winter, mud, and lots of land on its side. Germany would crumble, as would Japan.

[hsimoorb]

As far as I'm concerned, s.rwitt, you countered none of my arguments and just scrapped along with BS answers to everything I said. Please come back with something else than "your defending terrorism" and I'll continue the argument.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Actually, had America stayed out, then communist Russia would take over most of Europe and Asia, unless Britain did something amazing. But on the other hand, the US would still be powerful.

The US would yes. But there is no way of knowing that Russia could have beaten Germany nevermind all the Axis powers all on its own. In fact I doubt it.

Russia had infinate people, winter, mud, and lots of land on its side. Germany would crumble, as would Japan.

Actually, had America stayed out, then communist Russia would take over most of Europe and Asia, unless Britain did something amazing. But on the other hand, the US would still be powerful.

Not without allied help they wouldnt. Hitler might not have taken all of Russia but he could have taken a big chunk.

[s.rwitt]

just saying that isolationism isn't what we actualy practiced

I disagree, however let's say that you are right.

Now, hypothetically, we are true isolationists, selling no weapons or food to anyone. Britain, with no logistical support, falls to Hitler shortly after France, effectivly putting Western Europe and North Africa under German control. At the same time, the Japanese continue their onslaught in asia reaching Australia, Indonisia, and India. The Germans turn their full might onto the Russians, who are already retreating, and, with assistance from the not-so-busy Japanese, finish off the Russians.

Meanwhile, the US is sitting pretty in a false sense of security and content in the knowledge that we are not getting involved in anyone else's buisness. Now the Germans cross the Bering Straight and cross Alaska while the Japanese hit South America and advance north. Now, back home in the US, people start to worry and finaly, but only to save Alaska, we are ready to fight. But wait... The full might of the Axis are at our Northern and Southern boarders and we don't have a military ready. End of America.

Sounds pretty logical, yes?
Isolationism dosen't work.