2008 Woodie Awards
Dr. Ron Paul's diagnosis for the destruction of America
Derek Dobachesky
Issue date: 12/6/07 Section: Soap Box
Recently, I received an invitation on Facebook to join the cause "Ron Paul: Hope for America" from a friend of my brother's from my old high school.
This irked me on several levels. First of all, I completely resent being invited to applications. Every time I receive one, I immediately block that group from contacting me ever again. In addition, my brother's friend clearly does not understand my political views at all. I list my views in my profile for a reason - and they are not libertarian.
On an entire host of issues, Paul's libertarian positions would spell disaster for this country of ours.
First of all, on foreign policy, the one area that attracts more support for Paul than any other, Ron Paul labels his views as "non-interventionist" and calls for an immediate withdrawal of all of our troops from Iraq. He also supports cutting off all foreign aid and withdrawing from the United Nations and NATO.
I would describe his philosophy on foreign policy as waiting until the fox is in the chicken coop; he will not do anything to protect America until it's already too late and we've been attacked. While it's admirable that he calls for Congress to explicitly authorize all wars and for our country to abstain from many foreign entanglements, his plan for peace does not recognize that peace must be actively built and secured. It does not spring from nonchalant neglect of all foreign affairs.
Withdrawal from the UN is precisely the wrong direction to go for peace. If peace is to be created, it will be through establishing a system of international law, where the reckless abuse of human rights and the wanton waging of aggressive wars are met with a strong international response of sanctions of one form or another, as is the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
On economic issues, Ron Paul is even worse. The doctor from Texas supports outright elimination of the U.S. Department of Education. According to the Department of Education's Web site, it "[provides] more than $80 billion a year in grants, loans and work-study assistance." Without that aid, many college students - especially those from low-income families - would suffer from a lack of opportunity to receive a quality education.
This irked me on several levels. First of all, I completely resent being invited to applications. Every time I receive one, I immediately block that group from contacting me ever again. In addition, my brother's friend clearly does not understand my political views at all. I list my views in my profile for a reason - and they are not libertarian.
On an entire host of issues, Paul's libertarian positions would spell disaster for this country of ours.
First of all, on foreign policy, the one area that attracts more support for Paul than any other, Ron Paul labels his views as "non-interventionist" and calls for an immediate withdrawal of all of our troops from Iraq. He also supports cutting off all foreign aid and withdrawing from the United Nations and NATO.
I would describe his philosophy on foreign policy as waiting until the fox is in the chicken coop; he will not do anything to protect America until it's already too late and we've been attacked. While it's admirable that he calls for Congress to explicitly authorize all wars and for our country to abstain from many foreign entanglements, his plan for peace does not recognize that peace must be actively built and secured. It does not spring from nonchalant neglect of all foreign affairs.
Withdrawal from the UN is precisely the wrong direction to go for peace. If peace is to be created, it will be through establishing a system of international law, where the reckless abuse of human rights and the wanton waging of aggressive wars are met with a strong international response of sanctions of one form or another, as is the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
On economic issues, Ron Paul is even worse. The doctor from Texas supports outright elimination of the U.S. Department of Education. According to the Department of Education's Web site, it "[provides] more than $80 billion a year in grants, loans and work-study assistance." Without that aid, many college students - especially those from low-income families - would suffer from a lack of opportunity to receive a quality education.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 19
brian kuszmar
posted 12/06/07 @ 6:48 PM EST
Derek, where did you get your (mis)information on Ron Paul? FOX news or the RedState forums? ;')
Want to no more about Ron Paul, don't trust Derek (especially!) or me, Google Ron Paul, read all you want about him and make up your own mind. (Continued…)
gus
posted 12/06/07 @ 7:14 PM EST
Paul is not insisting on privatized education. He just things that adding a federal agency only increases costs and does not add benefit. State public schools are fine the way they are. (Continued…)
rhys
posted 12/06/07 @ 7:15 PM EST
I would defy anyone to give me one example of the UN actually stopping a war or limiting the harmful effects of a military conflict.
If you eliminated the Department of Education, you wouldn't have privatization. (Continued…)
Craig
posted 12/06/07 @ 7:19 PM EST
Well, let's see....
The other candidates support endless wars, multi-hundred-billion-dollar annual deficits, multi-trillion-dollar federal budgets, continued government spying on its own citizens, unsustainable pyramid schemes with tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities for medical care and retirement, and paper money printed out of thin air to destroy the value of whatever savings we can manage after the tax man takes his share. (Continued…)
InfamousOne
posted 12/06/07 @ 7:30 PM EST
Derek - who then would watch over the UN in your perfect world? You have concentrated all of the power into the hands of a small minority with no checks on thier power. (Continued…)
Consumer
posted 12/06/07 @ 8:26 PM EST
Wow Derek,
your comments could not be farther from the truth. Please let someone sit you down to educate you on how far off base you are and I pray that you see the light. (Continued…)
Leanne
posted 12/06/07 @ 8:35 PM EST
The individual states would be able to use the money towards education instead of sending it away to support a money sucking federal beauracracy. As for the U. (Continued…)
AK
posted 12/06/07 @ 8:45 PM EST
I protest the publication of this smear piece!
The writer seems to have picked his information out of other misleading articles and did not bother to read the candidate's official positions. (Continued…)
lnardozi
Louis Nardozi Chesapeake VA
posted 12/06/07 @ 9:48 PM EST
I can't believe what I see here sometimes. The DofE gives out 80 billion in grants, eh? WELL, WHAT'S THEIR BUDGET? It was 88 billion. If they REALLY gave out 80 billion, which I SERIOUSLY doubt - where's the other 8 billion? That's right America you can make the DofE AT LEAST 10% more efficient by giving te money to the states to sqander directly. (Continued…)
Jeffrey Shakoor
posted 12/06/07 @ 10:37 PM EST
To be young and naive again. Why did they attack us Derek? Why did 19 guys with $4 worth of weapons attack us? Because of our foreign policy. You think we're on a pathway to peace? Do you watch the news? This year alone we've spoken out against, Syria, North Korea, Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan, Russia, China and for a brief time I had to call my french fries, freedom fries. (Continued…)
Post a Comment