[illini43]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* You guys are wrong about Ron Paul.



[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was drive-by trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it wasn't, it was just a reaction to this recent trend on 2p2 exhibited in this forum and in avatars and such to elect someone to run a system he doesn't believe in to institute changes that couldn't possibly come to fruition and to exhibit a view of the rest of the world which is certainly better than that of the current administration, yet still fundamentally childish and feasible only in theory and rhetoric.

It's unfortunate that the current administration has fostered such a disdain that cynical ideas which have little place beyond philosophical ideas are garnering the kind of attention they are, but that's the case and its important not to marginalize the race by turning it into a referendum on ideas the truth of which has been established by history dozens of times over.

Ron Paul is well a spoken figurehead and motivator of a wing of the republican party that republicans have forgotten about and as such its great that he's running and raising money, but he isn't what you think he is, he isn't the answer, at most he's a very good question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was not drive-by trolling, I was seriously asking you to explain your viewpoint, and thank you for doing so.

Ron Paul is more of a libertarian nowadays than a Republican, as much as he says he isn't. He is a constitutionalist, and believes in many of the original values the founding fathers of the United States believed in.

If people believe that the changes he wants to institute cannot be done, and, as you say "couldn't possibly come to fruition," I do not have hope for the United States of America (KneeCo, if I remember correctly you are Canadian? please correct me if I am wrong).

If the US changes its foreign policy, all of the sudden more money starts appearing in the treasury and the rest of his proposed reforms snowball from there.

Is it really unrealistic to think that:

- With a focus on international trade and peaceful relations instead of an aggressive, militaristic foreign policy, the US could save hundreds of billions (maybe trillions) of dollars every eyar?

- With all of this extra money, the IRS is no longer needed to claim unneccesary taxes from the American people.

- Eliminate the need for a Dept. of Homeland Security. The whole purpose is to secure our interior from military threats from abroad. Maybe if we didn't play the role of world police, countries and radical terrorist cells wouldn't hate us so much [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I could go on and on, but I truly think that if we changed our foreign policy, many of the problems within our country could be addressed. Are these things too far-fetched to believe?

Ron Paul will most likely not win the Republican nomination in 2008, but his campaign should start a grass-roots revolution that slowly evolves from a bushfire into an inferno over the next decade or two which calls for individual rights, a smaller government, and more peaceful international relations. If believing in these things is unrealistic, then the world is going to be a [censored] place in 20 years.