Top 10 reasonst NOT to vote for Ron Paul

[Jumby]

duplicate

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Jumby: Now that is a truly tough question. Honestly, I don’t that know that I have truly worked through those years. Not trying to be evasive, but I can see both sides of the issue, and there is not a clear cut black versus white take on things.

Let me give you an example. Danny Ortega and the Sandinistas deposed Tacho Somoza, resident dictator of Nicaragua, in 1979. Somoza was inarguably a bad guy. Ortega, however, comes to power and immediately reneges on his promise of free elections (which didn’t take place for 11 years). He militarizes Nicaragua to the point where they have a larger standing army than Mexico, a country six times larger. He brings in Soviet and Cuban military advisors and sets about “exporting” revolution to the rest of Central America. So while Somoza was bad, Ortega was worse and wound up being kicked out of office the first time he allowed free elections (in 1990).

The US has brought the necessary capital and technological capability to help these countries develop their resources, but we have done so at a great price to the people of those countries. We have supported some pretty unsavory individuals and governments, and have sacrificed a lot of our soul in the process. However, I do believe the other side is/was worse, and left with a choice between someone like Castro or someone like Batista, I would choose Batista.

I’m a capitalist, too, and I agree with Bismarck’s dictum, “Whoever wishes to retain their respect for either laws or sausages should refrain from watching either being made”. Paraphrasing that slightly I would opine that paying too much close attention to the maintenance of American power and hegemony (although I will stop short of the word “empire”) might make you a little queasy.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Jumby: Now that is a truly tough question. Honestly, I don’t that know that I have truly worked through those years. Not trying to be evasive, but I can see both sides of the issue, and there is not a clear cut black versus white take on things.

Let me give you an example. Danny Ortega and the Sandinistas deposed Tacho Somoza, resident dictator of Nicaragua, in 1979. Somoza was inarguably a bad guy. Ortega, however, comes to power and immediately reneges on his promise of free elections (which didn’t take place for 11 years). He militarizes Nicaragua to the point where they have a larger standing army than Mexico, a country six times larger. He brings in Soviet and Cuban military advisors and sets about “exporting” revolution to the rest of Central America. So while Somoza was bad, Ortega was worse and wound up being kicked out of office the first time he allowed free elections (in 1990).

The US has brought the necessary capital and technological capability to help these countries develop their resources, but we have done so at a great price to the people of those countries. We have supported some pretty unsavory individuals and governments, and have sacrificed a lot of our soul in the process. However, I do believe the other side is/was worse, and left with a choice between someone like Castro or someone like Batista, I would choose Batista.

I’m a capitalist, too, and I agree with Bismarck’s dictum, “Whoever wishes to retain their respect for either laws or sausages should refrain from watching either being made”. Paraphrasing that slightly I would opine that paying too much close attention to the maintenance of American power and hegemony (although I will stop short of the word “empire”) might make you a little queasy.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Jumby: Now that is a truly tough question. Honestly, I don’t that know that I have truly worked through those years. Not trying to be evasive, but I can see both sides of the issue, and there is not a clear cut black versus white take on things.

Let me give you an example. Danny Ortega and the Sandinistas deposed Tacho Somoza, resident dictator of Nicaragua, in 1979. Somoza was inarguably a bad guy. Ortega, however, comes to power and immediately reneges on his promise of free elections (which didn’t take place for 11 years). He militarizes Nicaragua to the point where they have a larger standing army than Mexico, a country six times larger. He brings in Soviet and Cuban military advisors and sets about “exporting” revolution to the rest of Central America. So while Somoza was bad, Ortega was worse and wound up being kicked out of office the first time he allowed free elections (in 1990).

The US has brought the necessary capital and technological capability to help these countries develop their resources, but we have done so at a great price to the people of those countries. We have supported some pretty unsavory individuals and governments, and have sacrificed a lot of our soul in the process. However, I do believe the other side is/was worse, and left with a choice between someone like Castro or someone like Batista, I would choose Batista.

I’m a capitalist, too, and I agree with Bismarck’s dictum, “Whoever wishes to retain their respect for either laws or sausages should refrain from watching either being made”. Paraphrasing that slightly I would opine that paying too much close attention to the maintenance of American power and hegemony (although I will stop short of the word “empire”) might make you a little queasy.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Jumby: Now that is a truly tough question. Honestly, I don’t that know that I have truly worked through those years. Not trying to be evasive, but I can see both sides of the issue, and there is not a clear cut black versus white take on things.

Let me give you an example. Danny Ortega and the Sandinistas deposed Tacho Somoza, resident dictator of Nicaragua, in 1979. Somoza was inarguably a bad guy. Ortega, however, comes to power and immediately reneges on his promise of free elections (which didn’t take place for 11 years). He militarizes Nicaragua to the point where they have a larger standing army than Mexico, a country six times larger. He brings in Soviet and Cuban military advisors and sets about “exporting” revolution to the rest of Central America. So while Somoza was bad, Ortega was worse and wound up being kicked out of office the first time he allowed free elections (in 1990).

The US has brought the necessary capital and technological capability to help these countries develop their resources, but we have done so at a great price to the people of those countries. We have supported some pretty unsavory individuals and governments, and have sacrificed a lot of our soul in the process. However, I do believe the other side is/was worse, and left with a choice between someone like Castro or someone like Batista, I would choose Batista.

I’m a capitalist, too, and I agree with Bismarck’s dictum, “Whoever wishes to retain their respect for either laws or sausages should refrain from watching either being made”. Paraphrasing that slightly I would opine that paying too much close attention to the maintenance of American power and hegemony (although I will stop short of the word “empire”) might make you a little queasy.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Jumby: Now that is a truly tough question. Honestly, I don’t that know that I have truly worked through those years. Not trying to be evasive, but I can see both sides of the issue, and there is not a clear cut black versus white take on things.

Let me give you an example. Danny Ortega and the Sandinistas deposed Tacho Somoza, resident dictator of Nicaragua, in 1979. Somoza was inarguably a bad guy. Ortega, however, comes to power and immediately reneges on his promise of free elections (which didn’t take place for 11 years). He militarizes Nicaragua to the point where they have a larger standing army than Mexico, a country six times larger. He brings in Soviet and Cuban military advisors and sets about “exporting” revolution to the rest of Central America. So while Somoza was bad, Ortega was worse and wound up being kicked out of office the first time he allowed free elections (in 1990).

The US has brought the necessary capital and technological capability to help these countries develop their resources, but we have done so at a great price to the people of those countries. We have supported some pretty unsavory individuals and governments, and have sacrificed a lot of our soul in the process. However, I do believe the other side is/was worse, and left with a choice between someone like Castro or someone like Batista, I would choose Batista.

I’m a capitalist, too, and I agree with Bismarck’s dictum, “Whoever wishes to retain their respect for either laws or sausages should refrain from watching either being made”. Paraphrasing that slightly I would opine that paying too much close attention to the maintenance of American power and hegemony (although I will stop short of the word “empire”) might make you a little queasy.

[rankandfile]

I thought I’d update #9 with: “You like having only two options in order to get on an airplane: (1)a naked x-ray body scan, or (2)genital groping.”

[sdrealtor]

Love it when an old timer checks in out of the blue

[Jazzman]

You’ve got to hand it to Paul for tenacity, but he doesn’t strike me as being much more than an adjunct to the political process; padding out the numbers, and providing light relief from the mundane mainstream. He’s probably a nice guy, but has a worrying youth cult-like following that seems mesmerized by his quirky dogmatism. I couldn’t figure out why Sasha Baron Cohen set him up in a gay trap. Visually Hollywood might cast him as Mephistopheles. Is that unkind? I don’t know. Good luck to him. Any swipe at the status quo is healthy.

[svelte]

[quote=Jazzman]You’ve got to hand it to Paul for tenacity, but he doesn’t strike me as being much more than an adjunct to the political process; padding out the numbers, and providing light relief from the mundane mainstream…[/quote]

I think you just said he has been a nice side show but really isn’t Prez material. And I would agree.

I’ve said all along he’s another H. Ross Perot and I stand by that. Only I bet the Republicans are smart enough to stop him from running 3rd party, so he doesn’t do to the 2012 election what Perot did to the 1992 election.

[Anonymous]

[quote=svelte]Only I bet the Republicans are smart enough […][/quote]

These days, I’ll take the other side of any bet based on the Republicans being “smart enough…”

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=Navydoc]I wish people would stop making abortion a political issue. It’s not, and never should be political.

Folks on this board know I’m an OB/GYN, and I would wager to say, lurkers aside, that I’m probably the only person here that has actually performed the said procedure. I’ll say as an editorial that if you do this after 9 weeks gestation you are living in a state of denial that you are not destroying a human life, as it is clearly recognizable as a baby. I stopped doing elective abortions after being scarred emotionally from the 2nd trimester cases after a while. (I’ll also add that elective terminations are also illegal in goverment hospitals, so I don’t need to make the decision now)

With that said, you might think I was pro-life, but I’m not. This procedure, while, I personnally think it is abominable, MUST remain legal and safe. The public health consequences of restricting it are just too terrible. You only need to bury one 15 year old who has had an unsafe procedure and a resulting sepsis to convince you of that fact.

Ron Paul is a fellow OB/GYN, and I suspect his current view on the subject is quite similar to my own.[/quote]

Thank you for sharing this. It is not an easy thing to have talked about.

Utmost regards,

CE

[Author]

Posts