*findthumb

A different thumbnail image for this video could not be found for findthumb request by lucky760.

this man must win

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

He knows his history. I'd like to hear GWB talking about the Versailles treaty off the cuff.

If RP is still in it when the primaries get to PA, I'll walk down the street and hit a check-box on a diebold machine, not that that sounds empowering, but I might as well try.

Oh dag, you crack me up! GWB speaking extemporaneously about history!! LOL.

He knows what to do because he feels it in his gut! History schmistory!

I'm not an American, born and raised in Alberta, Canada. But Ron Paul winning Presidency would make the world a better place.

I can't vote in the Primary's so I'll vote for this sift instead.

I'm a Canadian, but Ron Paul makes me wish I was American.

I'm no expert in history, but to claim that if the US wasnt involved in WW1, WW2 wouldnt have happened, sounds a bit of a stretch to me. I wont claim the opposite either, since it would be impossible to predict any outcome.

But say the US never got involved, and Hitler came to power anyway, and he successfully conquered most of Europe, exterminated as many Jews and other minorites he possibly could, and so on. If he had basically established his 3rd reich in all its morbid glory, and the Japanese empire's equally absurd goals were reached, would Ron Paul still be the same non-interventionist?

He seems like bit of a black and white kind of guy here, foreign policy isnt always that simple* There is such a thing as a growing threat. Iraq really wasnt one, in terms of clear and present danger to US citizens, but Hitler on the other hand, was on the verge of becoming what he wanted to become, "lucky" for us, he wasted 4,5 million soldiers on the sovjet union( who payed that price with 11 million soldiers and 12 million civilians..) Clearly, looking at these numbers, "non-intervention" can only go so far.

*The same goes for the practically tax-free fend-for-yourself-nation domestic policy. Back in 1776 that was the best they could come up with, because in the promised land, you didnt have to give the pope half your income, and you didnt have to suck up to kings or churches and shit like that, you could make your own damn luck. dig for gold and build your own future, it was a dream come true for the fed up European. But time goes by, and soon enough those gold-diggers become families, wealthy familes. and Companies, and empires. The Rockefellers, The Kennedys, The Bushes, and all the rest and if you happen to be born into any of these families, Good for you. If, on the other hand you are born in a poor family, and you require a wheelchair to get around.. Are we suddenly Social Darwinists now ? I'm not. I feel we should take care of our fellow humans, build healthcare and educational systems, Give people rights, you know. And in Europe, we've done just that, sure we pay higher taxes, but we have a system that provides a safety net to some degree, and a sense of fairness, for the less fortunate of us. Its not all "work hard and you'll make it". Chance, luck and timing plays a role in practically every business adventure. And even if it didnt, do we only want people with business-skills?

Ron Paul is certainly smarter and more honest than most candidates, past or present, but I sometimes think he's a bit blinded by this whole constitution-dream-world.

BRM - I don't think that was the point he was making - that if the US had not gotten involved in WW1, WW2 would not have happened. What he said was that US involvement in WW2 would have been hard to avoid, that is, I think he believes that this was a war effort he would have supported given the situation at the time. However he goes on to say (correctly I believe) that WW2 was a continuation of the first world war - Hitler was spawned by the severity and resultant resentment of the Treaty of Versailles. He does state that we could have stayed out of WW1.

Further, RP espouses a philosophy of nonintervention and strict adherence to the constitution, but that does not mean that the US could not intervene in a cause that the people felt was justified. Congress would simply have to stake their claim, take responsibility for it and declare war. Going to war because the king, er, the occupant of the oval office says so doesn't sound very American to me.

As for the social issues, I believe RP is not opposed to STATES taking the lead on these issues. He has consistently said that the federal government should not dictate these things from top down. In fact, his position is, the more complex and thorny an issue is, the more it should be addressed and handled at at the local level. That would mean that states would have different solutions to similar problems and we would essentially be "running the experiment" in parallell, not in series. That way, the results from different parts of the country could be evaluated and used to modify current state systems to come up with the best solution to that region's issues.

I may be reading more (or worse, something mistaken) into what his positions are, but I don't think what I'm saying and he is expressing are mutually exclusive.