I thought NetRunner and I had a great discussion about pretty much the same thing RP is saying, and you can read about it here: http://politics.videosift.com/talk/Republican-Hypocrisy-Lives-Larry-Craig-still-kicking

I've not seen Obama state that we need to give more support to Georgia. In fact, the charge was made that Obama's response wasn't forceful enough because, as Lieberman put it, it had a "moral ambiguity" as far as placing blame on either country (since Georgia isn't blameless).

I've also seen a lot of statements from the Obama campaign that "there's only one President", referring to a tradition of, well, not trying to undermine the President's authority in the midst of a crisis.

To the larger charge of their policy being the same, I think that's inaccurate -- they're similar in their view that America has a role to play on the world stage, and that our national interests involve places like Georgia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.

The way they choose to deal with those challenges differs wildly.

Grampy McSame John McCain wants to forego diplomacy, and move straight into the military response phase with all of those guys (except Pakistan, oddly). Obama thinks diplomacy is in order, with military action being a last resort, not a first resort.

McCain believes in the right of the United States to act with total disregard of the international community, Obama seeks to work within the International community first, while reserving the right for unilateralism as a last resort.

It's true that both have a huge difference from Ron Paul's policy of total non-intervention, but I'm not sold on the concept that America should try to change instantly from it's current level of involvement to Switzerland in one go.

Obama moves us several steps towards Switzerland, McCain moves us closer to a Roman Empire model.

Much as I wish Ron Paul, or Bob Barr, or Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney had a shot at winning, they do not. Either Obama or McCain will be our 44th President.

If you believe in what Paul has to say about foreign policy, Obama's your guy.

RoPaul is so low in the depths of naivety and foolishness the light on his hardhat can't be seen with the naked eye.

A Ron Paul America would sit on its hands while Russia and China gobble up the rest of the world. Only with the USA alone with the wolves right outside the door would he think the USA would have the right to defend itself, if then.

The world is too dangerous for Paul's warped "logic". Contrary to his beliefs, the USA did not make the world a dangerous place. It was on fire from the beginning.

Ron Paul whines too much.
However, his policies definitely distinguish him from Obama and McCain. He actually explains the logic behind his stance on a given issue rather than exciting emotions with hollow talk of hope and change and progress. We need to hold the other candidates accountable for this same type of discussion. The debates would have more meaning and we could actually make a change by who we elect.

One thing you can't say about Ron Paul is that he's insincere.

^In fairness, Ron Paul has not been put under the scrutiny or pressure applied to a presidential nominee and has the benefit of speaking from a protective bubble without any fear of reprisal.

While I do wish Obama's fp were more progressive, Ron Paul fails to mention approach. Obama believes in negotiation. In the debates he said he would meet with foreign leaders without making them jump through hoops and that he would do his best to resolve differences with good old fashioned communication (what a radical concept). I do believe that even if Obama's FP were word for word identical to McCain's - which they are most definitely not - his approach would be effective in diffusing situations before they have a chance to escalate. He is also been more verbally even handed in when it comes to your major US whipping boys (Iran and Palestinians).

McCain on the other hand - who seems to have learned the wrong lessons from his time as a POW - likes to joke about bombing and torturing people during his press conferences. Contrast? A little bit.

There is a RP video floating around somewhere where he make this same point and actually gives up a hesitant preference for Obama. Lemme see if I can find it.

Here it is: http://www.videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-Prefers-Obama-to-McCain


Don't put the cart ahead of the horse, blankfist. Let's kick McCain's ass to the curb first. If the Obama administration starts beating war drums, you and I will go protest them together.

^It's interesting to see that there is someone qm hates more than Obama.

^deebub, All politicians avoid topics they are weak on. Obama is vague on FP because he knows it is more conservative than his supporters are comfortable with. Do you know Ron Paul's stance on a woman's right of choice, evolutionary science or healthcare? He avoids these topics because they are more conservative than his supporters are comfortable with.


>> ^deedub81:
[Ron Paul] actually explains the logic behind his stance on a given issue rather than exciting emotions with hollow talk of hope and change and progress. We need to hold the other candidates accountable for this same type of discussion.

Politics is gay.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
If the Obama administration starts beating war drums, you and I will go protest them together. Feel free to cut and paste that sentence and hold me to it.


I'll make the same commitment with one exception: I'll support use of limited military action in direct pursuit of Osama bin Laden. Anything other than that, and I'll join in protest.

^I will hold you two guys to that. Because I believe he will most likely invade Pakistan. I also believe his "diplomacy" will be a photo-op where you'll see him waving and smiling and being all chummy with [insert middle eastern president here]. But, I really do believe his idea of diplomacy will simply be a showier version of McCain's: an ultimatum. Where McCain will be itchier to go to war, I do think Obama will be a bit more reserved, and therefore he has the edge over McCain, however.

It really is like picking between a douchebag and a turd. I've decided to vote for neither and vote Libertarian this year. You may now downvote my comment, DFT.

^ Two things: first, I disagree with your prediction about Obama's diplomacy (and I'll leave it at that).

Second, do you think he would invade Pakistan for purposes of regime change, or simply follow through with his now-famous debate comment: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will." (substituting in whoever becomes President of Pakistan now)

I'd protest the former, and reluctantly support the latter.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Do you know Ron Paul's stance on a woman's right of choice, evolutionary science or healthcare?



Ron Paul on health care: http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/

Ron Paul on women's right of choice (or if we drop the noble euphemism, Ron Paul on abortion): http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

Ron Paul on evolutionary science: http://www.shanktified.com/archives/ron-paul-campaign-on-evolution/

And now a word from the Peanut gallery:

I don't agree with RP's personal perspective on evolution, with me being an atheist and all. I'm not, however, hiring a Dean for my school, so his religious beliefs or scientific perspectives are of little value to me, especially knowing he is willing to go against what he personally believes is moral or right so to honor the strict letter of the Constitution. In other words, he may be a religious man, but he's not going to overstep the separation of church and state, and so on.

As for abortion, I personally like that we have Roe v. Wade, but I also agree with Ron Paul that the Federal Government should have no jurisdiction over regulating what is considered murder. Why is that fair? I think putting it to the states is fair, even if I'm pro-abortion (I hate those silly euphemisms: pro-choice and pro-life).

As for health care, I'm not a big fan of my money being taken from me by force (and so much of it!) and redistributed wherever the government sees fit. This goes for unjustified wars as much as it goes to a socialized health care plan. I don't think it's fair for people who never intend on having children to pay into socialized education, either. That aside, there's a strong argument that federal government restrictions and regulations in health care has driven the price to where it is now.

^ At the risk of really skewing us off on a tangent, do you agree with RP on immigration (no amnesty, and "whatever it takes" to physically secure the border)?

Where are you (and RP) on cutting barriers to free trade, bearing in mind human rights violations in other countries like China?

I believe in securing our borders. That does not mean I'm racist and I hate immigrants. And I certainly do not think unsecured borders will allow Al Qaeda to sneak into this country. I believe in immigration! I don't like illegals gaming the system because they can and because we allow them, and I certainly am against having to pay for others... period.

China is a different monster altogether. Apples and oranges. Their constitution isn't the same as ours nor is their Republic. That aside, I think we should trade with all countries. I don't see a need for Nafta or Cafta or a WTO. Why do we care so much about regulating trade if there wasn't money or political advantage to gain. Look at the silly embargo we placed on cuba. What right do we have to do that?!

Realize that Obama and MCcain are the same. Puppets for the corporation.

Those all important detention camps that are going up all over the united states, can and will be used to house american citizens.

First the immigrants, then the liberals, then the moderates, then the non supportive citizens against government overpower.

One president is not going to make a difference, these things have been going on since Eisenhower.

WWII Interment camps:
Amache (Granada), Colorado
Gila River, Arizona
Heart Mountain, Wyoming
Jerome, Arkansas
Manzanar, California
Minidoka, Idaho
Poston (aka Colorado River), Arizona
Rohwer, Arkansas
Tule Lake, California

http://www.rense.com/general17/statebystate.htm List of modern "temporary detainment" camps.

Money runs the show here people, it keeps the non active masses hypnotized by TV and Violent Video games from ever finding out the truth. Which no politician will ever give you.

Read a bit of Jeremy Scahill. Alex jones is not crazy for no reason, he is crazy because the government puts in policies that are good, and then fails to police them once they violate the constitution.

Every person immigrant or not is afforded the right to Habeas Corpus. If Obama can put a stop to that I would like to see him do it.

El Blanco Fisto,

If you sign up for an individual health care plan, it will cost a certain amount. If you sign up with your spouse, it will cost less per person because it is less likely that the two of you have an expensive medical emergency at the same time. Whole family? Even less. All of the employees at your work place? Even less. Increase the size to an entire country and that's the best deal you are going to get.

We already pay more than any other country (per person) with our current healthcare system and we get little for that money - our system is ranked very low in comparison with other countries.

A single-payer system would offer care to more people for less money by cutting out the useless red tape and corruption of insurance companies/HMOs and by sharing the risk of catastrophic medical needs.

I agree about taxes, but don't think there is any question that health should be a function of the government. Should people who don't drive be exempt from paying for roads? Should people who live in areas with low fire risk be exempt from paying for Fire Fighters? Health should be a basic human right. No one should have to die or live in pain for the crime of being poor.


As for health care, I'm not a big fan of my money being taken from me by force (and so much of it!) and redistributed wherever the government sees fit. This goes for unjustified wars as much as it goes to a socialized health care plan. I don't think it's fair for people who never intend on having children to pay into socialized education, either. That aside, there's a strong argument that federal government restrictions and regulations in health care has driven the price to where it is now.

>> ^blankfist:
China is a different monster altogether. Apples and oranges. Their constitution isn't the same as ours nor is their Republic. That aside, I think we should trade with all countries. I don't see a need for Nafta or Cafta or a WTO. Why do we care so much about regulating trade if there wasn't money or political advantage to gain. Look at the silly embargo we placed on cuba. What right do we have to do that?!


I probably wasn't clear in my question. Given that China is a totally different animal than the US, without safety regulations, labor laws, or a minimum wage, do you think that Americans should "compete" with that directly?

If so, how do we compete? Build our own sweatshops?

Ron Paul and Glenn Beck share many of the same philosophies.

Ron Paul and Rush Limbaugh are closer on issues than McCain and Obama.