imported post
deepdiver wrote:
expvideo wrote:
deepdiver wrote:
Ford Truck wrote:
Looks like I don't have anyone to vote for this time.
You and millions of other constitutional conservatives.
I share your "
" and will add an :X
Is Ron Paul invisible? You all avoid him like he has herpes or something.
I agree with Ron Paul on many domestic issues, but I find his foreign policy insane. It is not a matter of agreeing with his concept, but rather his interpretations. I also find his conspiratorial ideas to be ludicrous.
Many of his ideas could be implemented eventually, but to immediately implement certain changes, without giving the market time to build infrastructure that has been ignored, destroyed or prohibited at this point would be irresponsible at best, suicidal at worst. If he advocated his ideas as an eventuality after certain groundwork is laid, ie he had a plan rather than just idealized actions, he would be much more palatable. We did not suddenly arrive at the point we find ourselves, but rather it was a progression. We cannot just throw out the current system without destroying much of what exists. It must be dismanteled over time, piece by piece with time given between steps to let the economy, international realities, industry and the citizens adjust to the changes. It has taken 90 years of "progression" to get this screwed up. It will take at least a generation to fully fix it. So while I generally agree with much of his vision, I see him more as a dreamer than an executive with an implementatoin plan.
I recall a Glenn Beck interview in which he explained this a bit. He plans to transition into a limited government. He's not stupid enough to think he could just sign a bill that instantly shrinks government. Unfortunately, his plans for the country tend to be too complex to sum up in soundbites, and as a result, the media and supporters of other candidates create soundbites for him. The "anarchist" and "isolationist" descriptions come to mind.
The problem, really, is that Americans (specifically Republicans) cannot reconcile their belief in freedom for themselves with allowing freedom for those with which they do not agree. Freedom is fine when it involves gun ownership and taxes; it's not fine when it involves activites considered immoral to "good" Christians, like homosexuality and drug use. Freedom for me, but not for you. So, then, problem lies within where to draw this squiggly line between fascism and freedom on each individual topic. We have the bar set very high on the freedom scale when it comes to personal choices like responsible gun ownership, in the middle for free speech (it only applies if the speech is "moral"), and lowest for sexual acts. The line changes based on who you ask when it comes to things like "security"... white Americans shouldn't be hassled (unless they look like a "drug dealer"), but Arabs (er, "terrorist types") should be hassled because their people are responsible for 9/11. The economic spectrum is screwier still. I'm not saying that the Democrats are any more consistant, but they don't really apply to the interests of this forum, because currently only Republicans have picked up the torch in supporting gun owners' rights. Yet, even that is not guarenteed; there is no logical basis for this position within the GOP's platform, and I can see RKBA as one of the first issues to be thrown overboard in order to progress other agendas. Look no further than 9/11 to see how readily the GOP will slaughter long-held ideals (such as small government) in order to promote a more popular agenda.
To bring it all back to the OP, it's a bit of a shame that Fred is out, as I could have lived with him as the Republican delegate for those who are too afraid of themselves to support a more strictly constitutional candidate like Ron Paul. It is ironic, though, that someone who echos the ideals of our Founding Fathers is decried as an anarchist...
