He reminds me a little of Ralph Nader in that both of them are very principled men. They are not the kind of people guilty of vacillation like Gingrich or Romney. However, because he is principled likely he has
no more chance of becoming president than Nader or Ross Perot.
However, if he goes much farther he may also greatly affect the discussion, so I'm all for him going as far as he can. Because in actually caring what happens to this nation he has demonstrated that by thinking like the founding fathers thought that he actually gets it. For they were mostly all Libertarians too in their thinking.
He is an economic conservative. In other words he is saying we must balance our books by ending foreign aid to all countries and by bringing ALL the troops home from foreign countries. From a purely economic point of view he is right. But from a pragmatic point of view of where it is quite possible but that we may have to go to war against Pakistan, or Iran or 20 or 50 years from now, China, I'm not sure how all this works out. So, what should we do if we are broke? We should do as Ron Paul says if we don't want to become a Banana Republic with no middle class at all within the next 10 years or so.
So, how is all this going to turn out? I would say if people continue to be greedy the way they have been without seriously looking at Iran and Pakistan and China then "Banana Republic here we come!"
Top 10 Posts This Month
- The ultra-lethal drones of the future | New York Post 2014 article
- reprint of: Drones very small to large
- I had never heard before of the Rakoczy Mansion in Transylvania
- The Art of War - Wikipedia: Sun Tzu
- Natural Gas futures jump to 2 week high over more heat
- more on the Planet Savers and Elohar: the girl in the forest
- Dow Drops 2,997.10 today: Record Drop!
- GPS Satellites were invented when magnetic North and South moved to fast for useful navigation
- See Which States and Cities Have Told Residents to Stay at Home
- The Latest: Investors unsure how virus will impact profits