Hijexx wrote:

Decius wrote:

Well, I'm not sure I mind Ron Paul's response on this topic, but he is questionable to me for other reasons.

What are some of those reasons?

BTW I was wondering where you were going with your question in the other thread about the gold standard, didn't see a response back from you though.

I was trying to open that discussion but your reply didn't bait it so I held off. This is what I wrote on the subject in another forum:

I appreciate Ron Paul's principled stances on government spending, and I agree with his positions on Iraq and Civil Liberties, however I'm concerned that those positions are taken for different reasons then I would take them.

As for Civil Liberties, he doesn't seem to support them out of an interest in upholding the lessons of history, but rather out of a desire to return to the policies of the late 18th century. His comment on original intent in regard to foreign born presidents is a good example. The original intent of that rule related directly to the international political realities of that time, which simply don't exist today. (This is not to say I support a change in that rule, and I am a foreign born citizen, but just that I don't think "original intent" is a particularly rational reason for defending it.)

As for Iraq, his oposition doesn't seem to stem from the lack of justification, but from a general interest in withdrawing from the world that approaches nativism. On his campaign website he advocates withdrawl from nearly every major international treaty organization we're engaged with, excepting NATO, as if what goes on in the rest of the world isn't important here. He also argues that building a north/south freeway between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico would result in the end of American freedom and constitutional democracy. The idea that a strip of asphalt that facilitates the movement of goods between two of our largest trading parters would somehow upend the national sovereignty of this country is a leap of logic that is beyond my grasp, I'm afraid.

He also argues that we should put the U.S. back on the gold standard and get rid of the federal reserve bank. Surely you must concede that this is an extremely radical idea. I'd feel a bit less concerned about it if I'd read at least one wall street analyst advocate this at some point over the past couple of decades. If you're thinking they wouldn't do that because they're all part of the conspiracy I'll go ahead and rest my case.

RE: Republican Presidential Candiates on Torture