...think of Dr. Paul one way or the other as a prezinut candidate. I don't agree with everything he says, either. But:

Ron Paul may or may not be a viable presidential candidate, but the congressman is undeserving of the scorn he has received for trying to have a real discussion about geopolitical issues that affect every American. (thestreet.com, John DeFeo)

Like a truffle pig with asnomia, he will occasionally be right. But most of the time he's stark raving nutz.

And we've taken up ignoring the drowning baby in the bathwater because we don't like the bather.

Hardly.

I do not know many people on the left who have abandoned their opposition to some or all of the foreign conflicts that they are engaged in simply because Paul is also opposed. It is entirely possible to reach a conclusion that has the same functional outcome as something he believes while remaining confident that his route to the conclusion took several unnecessary detours through nutsville.

It's too bad that you stopped thinking when you see someone's name attached to an correct position, no matter how right he is.

Not quite. Rarely he's right. Usually he's completely nutz.

I have yet to find a single fault with his foreign policy. None.

I caught a bit of the faux football broadcast on Sunday, and they claimed their game was being shown to 175 US foreign bases. My jaw dropped: why in holy hell do we have 175 foreign bases?

It's wrong and it's disgusting and it needs corrected no matter who's idea it is to have them or get rid of them.

Even when he's right, he's nutz!

And maybe that's what's wrong with political discourse in this country right now.

Too many nutz?

I have no problem saying that both Dr. Paul and I agree that, for example, it was a bad idea to launch an attack on Iraq. That does not mean that I agree with how he got there. I do not. I think that an essentially isolationist foreign policy, in this day and age, is a lunatic idea. I think that rejecting any active role in the UN, and rejecting a commitment to act to support UN goals, is wrong, and would take us in exactly the wrong direction. I believe that we should try harder to respect international law, not ignore it entirely.

I have no problem saying that both Dr. Paul and I have substantial differences with many aspects of our anti-terrorism policies. That does not change the fact that suggesting that we return to policy of issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal is batshit insanity on many grounds. (Starting with being against international law for a century and a half.)

In short, I do not think that I disagree with Ron Paul because I've stopped thinking. (And I did not appreciate that personal attack.) I've read Ron Paul's positions with as open a mind as I can manage. That's why I think he's nuts - I've looked at and thought about his views.

And I think that 12 carrier battle groups and 850 foreign bases is obscene. So does Dr. Paul. It's a horrid misuse of resources and puts Americans in bad places for no reason. I've been in some of those bad places, I've been shot on 4 continents and deployed to six. It's asinine, a gross waste of humans and materials, and does nothing but make us a target.

If you keep doing the same thing and failing over and over again, it's a sign of insanity, not a well rounded mind.

Yes, but it makes a bunch of military contractors fabulously wealthy and keeps us safe and stuff. So, yay for the free markets?

It's actually a much higher number around 725 bases/installations.

If you will check the old thread about Sterngard Friegen's plan to eliminate the debt, you will see that there are a few things the lunatic Ron Paul and I agree about. For different reasons. Foreign military bases is one of them. But with an important difference.

Paul is an isolationist. Not me. I don't think we should be the world's policeman without being paid for it.

I also want us to pay for what we have decided we want or need, by saving money and raising taxes. Paul wants to stop spending on programs we want or need because he doesn't believe taxes -- in any amount -- are justified.

And he's the same hypocrite who would pack budget bills with lots of pork for his district, and then vote against the bills.

Did this crack pot ever actually practice medicine? Perhaps he was just as successful in that endeavor as Taitz is as a lawyer.

Unfettered "free markets", as Adam Smith told us, are a bad idea. Something the rabid reich-wing forgets when quoting him.

Humans over markets, every. single. time.