Ron Paul

I believe that proper understanding of Ron Paul's full plan and explanation makes more sense than you give him credit for. He has full support of the military for his plans and believes that festering where we don't belong is bad business. I believe that the loss of life is a very big price to pay, and to lose them for reasons that aren't very clear isn't a good idea. Our attack on Iraq is case in point; how many lives were lost based upon incorrect assumption of weapons of mass destruction. As a military member and as an American, I believe that the first line of defense should be diplomatic. I also agree that any defense strategy of war should be truly declared instead of this 'policing action' we seem to continually be in.

We lost a lot in Pearl Harbor; there were some valuable lessons learned. The worst part is not taking the initial threat seriously or that it would be followed through. You need to rethink your position a bit and see what is REALLY being said in full, not just sound bites. There is no plan by Ron Paul to leave the 7 seas "unprotected" but there is a plan to pull out of foreign nations where we don't really belong.

We were forced to leave Okinawa Japan (a rather disgaceful set of events by our service members). And that sort of representation does more harm than good.

I ask what good are we doing in S Korea? Really? are we accomplishing anything? Besides, if China decides to invade, we won't be able to stop them. Especially with our current configuartion of dependency on China (picture being at war with the supplier of goods... won't take long to figure out how that will work).

We can go into the pros and cons of legalizing drugs. Basically the real need is for good education about drugs and the mentality to change. If there wasn't a demand for illegal drugs/usage, we wouldn't need to have them illegal; nor would we have to continually battle their availability. If you look at the amount of money spent on the supposed war on drugs and the armament that has gone into it, you would realize that the future isn't changing for the better. The drug problem has only increased as our attempts to decrease availability continues to increase.

As for Nuclear weapons, can you justify our having them? If you can do that, the same is true for any other nation wanting to have them. I personanlly dont think anyone needs them. Much has changed since you and I were in the service. The military is almost non existant compared to civilian contractors. With drone and surveilance technologies, there is definitely a change due. There is a big rethinking of the military happening, it will definitely change much in the next 3-10 years, regardless of who is president.

Should we even mention the Federal Reserve? There is a real problem and Ron Paul has been the only one to begin to address it. Without a standard backing, it is difficult to associate value. Not having the Federal Reserve as part of the federal government poses even more problems...

None of the other candidates seem to offer any solutions and greatly exagerate what they can accomplish. As I listen to their constant blaming, I realize that they are also the cause of the current state of the Union.

Libertarian is what Ron Paul represents and not in sheeps clothing. His message has remained the same and his support has continued to grow over the years.

Have you read much about Davy Crocket? Interesting read on his political view and how his re-election turned by 1 voter saying he wouldn't vote for him again if his life depended on it. The conversation that took place changed Davy's mind and he won re-election based upon new found constitutional values revealed by the 1 voter. We seem to have lost many of those values and rights as well.

I need to rephrase "full support" to "exceptionally larger military financial support as compared to the other campaigners" because it is not quite the same as you have pointed out. Thank you. I did a Google search on Ron Paul military support and received numerous sites showing the data.

As far as fighting battles on 'their' territory, the theory sounds good. Problem is, we tend to provoke and cause more problems by being there than not. Having witnessed the ways in which we (United States) has maintained covert operations of intelligence, counter intelligence, counter counter intelligence, and disinformation in other countries; is it no wonder we have so many enemies? We really don't need to have such operations in progress which create individuals like Osama Bin Laden and Sadam Hussein, both whom we have assisted into power.

Anytime someone is killed, remnants of family are left behind that cause anger/retalliation. Also, the fact that our military has to train forces to HATE another in order to accomplish killing/fighting has ramifications later, after the problem is 'resolved'. Once the hatred is instilled at that level, it is very difficult to remove it and keep society working in a non prejudicial manner. We have a problem in the US as our forces return, to get them to recognize all people as equals again. This is a side effect of war (which we are NOT currently in as it has not been declared). Looking at the missions we have and our wanting to police the world, we have overstepped our bounds many times and caused ourselves more harm than good.

As for Ron Paul's libertarian party status and being in the republican party, I believe you can see as well that his ideas flow through multiple party beliefs. Currently, the GOP is having a difficult time figuring out their party direction/priorities which is an excellent opportunity to form them. Ron Paul is part of that formation, much like the Tea Party has done. Many people have switch party affiliation, not because of being loyal to a party so much as how their belief fits within a boundary of a party. While we are forced to declare party affiliation to run for office, we often find we overlap into other parties. Some people are strictly a party affiliates, often because of unfounded reasons, but I can't say which is correct reasoning of why someone should belong to a particular party.

My comment of Davy Crocket was significant for today as we re-evaluate what we as a people believe and hold true for how our government should be. A definition which is redefined slightly every single election. I can't prove it to be accurate or tale, but either way the story has merit for comparison of our government and our expectations of government.

As for Paul meeting Rick Perry, I do find it interesting that they hadn't met. Maybe there wasn't an occassion or reason to. Many representatives within government do not meet the other representatives unless they are working together on matters or have something that draws them together.

pertaining to the subject, yet off a bit is a question i have for you. mostly it pertains to war and the way others are treated, both enemy and comradere. We have the incidents of US forces a few years back with the torturing of prisoners problem that made international tensions as it did not follow Geneva Convention standards (nor our own military's); we have the recent video incident of Marines urinating on dead bodies of suspected Taliban; we also have the not quite as recent suicide of a soldier tormented by peers to the point of suicide. It may be said to be that these are isolated bad incidents of poor personal judgement. I tend to disagree in part; moreso I believe that it is only part of a larger set of problems/provocation. The impact the recent urination incident and the other 'continual small incidents of minor reporting' while we are negotiating diplomatic resolutions with the leaders doesn't seem to be making peaceful resolutions very possible.

What are your feelings on that? should the entire US be represented by the individuals who are stationed/serving at these locations? Do we really need forces in these locations? What positive effects and results should we expect to gain by being there?

I think my personal view isn't shared by a huge majority. I also believe that my values are set differently from the majority as I have come to develop my own based upon life and what i have experienced and witnessed/learned. I do see that many other people are becoming 'awakend' (bad term but can't find a better one at this moment to express it) to reassessing their beliefs/views/opinions. We have a lot more information available and maybe it is only my getting older that I am getting a differing view.

More people are getting tired of the politics and being lied to by those who represent us and by companies who want to achieve certain goals but cannot without public support. Abuse of power and positions is something that needs to change.

Thank you in advance for your response and views.

Yes, I am comfortable with the age. It would be better if it were lower, but our supreme court justices have remained in place with age and seem to have served well (just for comparison). I also agree with you about the ability to have a civil discourse type discussion with our own opinions without being downed for having an opinion that may differ. It is a great freedom we have to be able to have these types of discussions.

I agree with you concerning the YouTube posting person who released it. We'll have to wait and see the outcome for authenticity.

Our military is supposed to be held to a higher standard, even if the enemy doesn't uphold their standards. I think that is where the initial problem lies and the problem builds from there.

Ron Paul is a pretty healthy person. I believe he rides his bike everyday. Plus all this campaigning has to take alot out of a person but he continues on. Hats off to him. He also delivered over 4000 babies. That was his job but I have to say that that is a very noble thing to me. Just on that alone seems to be more then what the other candidates have accomplished. Ron has been in the senate for years and his voting record is pretty straight and true on the issues of what america stands for and should stand for. He also took time off to vote against sopa during his campaign. He also lives in a very modest home. He seems very down to earth and alot like the 99 pecent that live here in america. Not like the top 1 percent filthy rich people who continue to milk the american people for everything they have or will have. As far as defending our countries borders. What borders? Mexico? Canada? America is in everybodies back yards. Its time we minded our own business and concentrated on our own people for a while. We shouldnt have to police the entire world. The president alone should not be able to make a descision to go to war on his own. Which is what has been going on lately.

Hey Don ,how would you like to be told that you cant work at a certain job because you are to old or because you belong to a certain politcal group or because your too white or not white enough. If a person is qualified then they are qualified period in my opinion.

As for Romney, you don't have a problem with him being representative of the 1% or his means of obtaining wealth? I think taking away more jobs than were created or setting up companies to fail is a pretty bad thing for a record to run on. Funny how Romney contends that he has created jobs with his venture capital company Bain, yet the majority of jobs that were created were after Bain had sold the company.

The irony of politics... John McCain published a set of reasons (200 page report) a few years back when he was a contender, of reasons not to vote for Romney. This year he is a supporter!

The laws for discrimination (including age) are pretty weak. Too bad that if one is qualiffied and capable of a job that they are eliminated due to age.

I'm getting into the bracket for age discrimination and finding a job will be very difficult if I should need to change. Luckily I have work and am gainfully employed. People age differently, some take care of themselves while others do not. How many presidents have had heart work done while they have been president? Just because they are young, doesn't mean they are healthy.

Which brings us into the health care debate... new topic for another blog!