Did you watch the debate last night?

I think you're right about Ron Paul. I saw Paul on Fox News this afternoon, and he seems to believe we can simply be friendly, trade without prejudice, and smile and all our problems will go away. It was interesting to listen to him because I know that his supporters are almost like cult followers, so I wanted to see what he had to say. Wow. He's in fantasy land. Now he's a Republican? Isn't there some kind of psychological exam they have to pass?
I didn't watch the debate, but I'm going to try to find it online.

Anyone that has an understanding of history knows that Ron Paul is simply preaching a Libertarian philosophy, which has been how government has operated for almost the entirety of our existence as a nation.

Prior to WW2, the United States was not in a perpetual state of war with foreign nations, creating puppet governments in a worldwide corporate sponsored campaign, with CIA assassinations and spies, nor the number one provider of foreign aid around the globe. In fact, the US policy generally was of non-intervention avoiding alliances and war whenever possible with alternating policies of reciprocal trade agreements or high tariffs.

We didn't see a shift to large government authoritarian state until after WW2, and then ramped up further during the red scare and cold war as the American people gave up freedom for security in periods where fear was rife under the threat of socialism which was thought of as a cancer and the ever looming nuclear holocaust that could come at a moment's notice.

The idea that the status quo is necessary, morally sound, or even sustainable is clearly becoming more and more unpopular, which is why Obama's campaign of "Change" was so well received by the public... well, until they realized that heavy taxes, heavy spending, and escalating warfare was not change at all.

And while it is true that Ron Paul is challenged running on the Republican platform since he isn't mainstream enough beating the wardrum as mentioned, he clearly has a huge following and is considered the father of the Tea Party movement and in a Rasmussen poll was dead even with voters in a contest with Obama, back when Obama's approval rating was much higher than it is today. Unfortunately, if he doesn't win the Republican nomination, then that possibility is moot as American voters have made it clear that they will not "throw away their vote" for an independent.

By the way, it would be interesting to see how some here would react to George Washington if he were running today. Washington's leadership after all was defined more on setting limits for government power for the new government, such as declining to run for a third term which helped set a standard that became law. In fact, US military policy was not only that the military was to be used for self-defense of the nation (at the time primarily involved in the Indian War) but was funded on a volunteer basis by the states, and he made it clear the United States would not get involved in the French Revolution and advocated neutrality. Washington himself was not only an independent, but was also outspoken against political parties like the federalists and republicans that were forming.

Does anyone here think that Washington would approve of the government purchasing private enterprises because they are "too big to fail", owing fortunes to a competitor nation with deficit spending that has no hope of being repaid in the foreseeable future, creating entangling alliances with a large number of nations, creating legislation that favors outsourcing of jobs, and being in a constant state of warfare and interference with government's overseas? No?

So I would wager many here that say Ron Paul is "crazy", would likely say the same about the Founding Father's.

Uhm, the depression was caused primarily by the drought and the stock market crash, not that the response of tariffs was a good one. World War 2 was the product of too many nations entangling with one another in massive alliances, so that a spark between any one of them would trigger a, well, "world war" where instead of two you have fifteen nations fighting each other simultaneously.

That is excellent that you mention isolationism, as many have come to equate that with the idea that the US military should be used for defense of the nation and not in a perpetual state of war somewhere in the globe at all times as "isolation". That is NOT isolationism, and Ron Paul is a strong advocate and supporter of free trade and is even soft on the borders. A social butterfly isn't an isolationist because she doesn't point an AR15 at half the people she meets and pulls the trigger at anyone that looks at her funny.

And Thomas Jefferson insisted on remaining neutral in the escalating European war, and that is not to say that he didn't believe in the use of US military power in self-defense such as the constant pirate attacks on US shipping, anymore than Ron Paul would be. But that is a far cry from planning invasions and nation building around the globe.

BTW, seems like he got quite a bit of applause with hoots and hollars from the crowd:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76LFwMnq6bE

He's very likable. I don't agree with him, but he is likable.

No dispute there, but the Barbary pirates were just that, and were not just attacking the ships but taking millions of men and women as slaves and ransoming governments including the United States to the tune of a quarter of its revenue. The US was being victimized and a formal declaration of war was made, something we don't even see anymore.

Coming from a military family, I also am by no means a pacifist, and in fact am licensed to daily carry a 9mm myself along with a blade and am somewhat decently versed in self-defense. But I, and from what I have heard from Ron Paul, advocate the old "big stick" diplomacy. Speak softly, but carry a big stick, and you're not likely to ever have to go to war. IMO, warfare is something to be avoided, and when it cannot then it should also not be sold as something sanitary and acceptable as it is today with smartbombs/nation building etc, but true war where the object is to destroy the enemy as completely and expediently as possible to force a peace treaty and/or eliminate their capability to pose a threat and then be done with it. Iraq for example was sold as a tactical strike that would last a week or two, but then what did it turn into and at what cost. There are also no clear victory conditions that can be obtained in Afghanistan, begging the question of when if ever we can bring our troops home, especially when it seems politicians are poised to escalating conflict with Iran. I know several in the military that love their country and will do as ordered, but they signed up to protect the United States, not to occupy foreign nations overseas that they care nothing for.

No I didn't watch it. I will not be voting Republican no matter who the nominee is, because they've proven to me over the past couple of years that they don't care one whit about this country. I'm not happy with Obama these days either, but I don't guess we'll be given any other alternatives there either.

How so? He advocates closing foreign bases and bringing our troops home (part of his national defense vs irrational defense line), but hasn't made any push to close US bases or reduce military R&D, and polls show he's currently ranked highest among military voters at present who would be following such news closely. At present, the US forces are spread so thin, we really have no stick left to wield. BTW, as far as I know, he is also the only military veteran running.
Ron Paul has sponsored more bills than any other congressman as far as I know, and is very passionate about his beliefs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ed_by_Ron_Paul

You may not agree with his stance, since he's for small government, but surely you must agree that he cares a great deal. And surely its not for political expediency, as he has often been the sole Republican to vote against the party line.

I would at least watch it, as there is nothing worse than blind party loyalty at any cost IMO. Even if you don't like any of them, at the very least they may have an idea you agree with that you would like to show support for so your legislators at least adopt some favorable part.

I thought Ron Paul just became a Republican. I thought he ran on the Independent ballot previously.

Nope, he's been a Republican from 1976 to present for Congress, with the exception of when he became the Libertarian Party nominee for the 88 presidential election. That clearly didn't work and he complained that while he supported the Libertarian Party that there was no hope at present in this two-party system, so he made a bid for the Republican nomination in 08. Unlike Dubya, he's successfully run a business as well as his medical practice, has been very active with lots of experience in Congress heading various groups/delegations, and isn't in it for the money since he's for Congressional paycuts and has personally vowed publicly not to receive a pension from the US government.

Many believe that steering the country back to its roots with Libertarian ideals is loony, but at the very least Ron Paul very much believes in it and has voted consistently over the decades, first getting into politics after being fed up with the financial crisis in the 70s that the Austrian school of economics predicted and opposing the Vietnam war as overly expensive and fruitless.

What - no comments about Bachman being submissive to her husband?

Nothing, because I can't stand the current batch of Republicans and I won't reward them for their current tactics. My biggest gripe with Obama is his constant caving in to the Republican's tactics and not standing his ground.

I saw that this morning on one of the interviews of Bachman that they showed. Fox channel didn't mention it, but I noticed how NBC kept at it, then went on to interrogate her on her Christian beliefs.

My husband was cooking breakfast and yells in, so doesn't anyone care about the crisis and how she'd handle it, or is it all about God and how scary that is?

I have to say I like her. I don't push my religious beliefs on anyone since they are mine and not anyone elses, but I do respect someone who is not afraid to say that she believes and how important it is to her. Good for her.

I need more information in order to support anyone, but I did like what I heard from her this morning.
Like I have mentioned though, I do support who supports my basic values. It's how I sleep at night.

I didn't like Perry throwing his hat in when he did. He seems relatively interesting, but he somehow reminds me of John Edwards. I have no idea what it is about him. His timing was bad though, so nobody can hear his arguments until the next debate.

You may be right-his hair. I think it's his general demeanor as well. That's not a good thing.

The job creation may be enough to solidify his position, with people who don't look too closely.

Can you elaborate? What specifically did he not stand his ground on? On not wanting to increase the budget without even the vaguest promise of at least ATTEMPTING to reduce the crazy amount of deficit spending? I would think that even staunch Democrats would agree that the "blank check" Obama administration demands were nonsense.

On everything else, he did unfortunately stand his ground on. The trillions in deficit spending that even made Dubya of all people seem stingy, the government bailouts for big business and the banks that were the largest campaign contributors and of course the GM bailout to save the union, Obamacare, the huge increase in government employment at tax payers expense, and the block of gulf relief efforts and the 'permitorium' that has devastated the South?

You aren't paying attention to the issues that liberals have with Obama. He always tries to compromise at the expense of where he wants to stand ground. Biggest issue is that he won't push letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the ubber rich. He said he was going to do that numerous times and we're all still waiting. It's the fact that he won't stand ground that is giving him a lowered approval rating with liberals.

So he "didn't stand his ground" against Republicans when the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the Executive branch of government? Considering how much the Democrats rammed down our throats under closed sessions (remember those promises of transparency) in violent opposition to not only the Republican party (remember that veto of even preliminary review used) but Gallup polls of public opinion, it seems the administration was pretty fierce to me.

The way it seems to me is that this "not standing ground" is a last ditch effort to blame the Republican party for the woes of this administration to somehow still make this "all their fault".

"If only Obama weren't so nice to the Republicans... damn Republicans, if it weren't for them, we'd be in a utopia!"

You aren't listening to the liberal media. This is no last ditch effort. Liberals have been complaining about his need to compromise on all issues since he took office. DH has been ticked off with him a month after he took office.

What people don't realize about Obama is that he is one of the most moderate democrats that held this office in a long time. What people hear about him are the Fox Propaganda network's sound bytes. If you close your ears to that noise, you will see it.