SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: skinowski who wrote (465325)1/16/2012 4:38:55 PM
From: Maurice Winn5 Recommendations  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 793926
 
I'm really not too worried at all, and quite like Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas.

I thought the invasion of Iraq was absurd based on the obviously [to me] ridiculous idea that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction ready to launch at New York in 40 minutes, or even be dropped from old aeroplanes over Israel. He obviously did not have them. But I thought if in the dog eat dog rules of Iraq, the USA/UN wanted to invade, that was okay by me [though unlikely to be rewarding]. Sure enough, they did and the result was pretty much identical to what I thought, and ranted here in SI, BEFORE the war began. So it was NOT Monday morning quarterbacking. People seem unable to admit that their ideas are bung and that somebody else had a better idea.

Same with the property bust. What were they thinking? Well, I know what they were thinking, but how they could be thinking it I don't know.

I suppose I should take a closer look at Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas. Is there any particular one you think its particularly bad so I could start with that? I know I agree with most of it. The Arabian Nights approach to foreign policy of entangling alliances for geopolitical power seems an atavistic way to run the planet and it's not as though the USA would be indefensible without forward bases all over the place. Heck, the USA can't even control the southern border but is fanatical about control of people from places like NZ arriving by airliner [so swarms of us don't bother - to the great cost of people dependent on tourists arriving in droves].

I think the reason is that airline passengers are captives and bureaucracy can be dressed up with "safety" so any amount of burden can be put on them and it's all grist for the bureaucratic mill.

I think you are right there, <They will continue doing the same thing, and when disaster strikes, they'll pretend to be saving the world - by managing the unraveling, by printing a new currency at the proper moment, etc. > Much of the electorate and probably most, will be in favour of such financial carnage [not through thinking about it, understanding it and deciding that's the best way to go, but through ignorance and voting for what seems like a good idea at the time - like they voted for borrowing loads more money to buy over priced houses]. But there's a chance that enough will be wanting to earn a living and not go through the mess that Argentina, Zimbabwe and so many others have done, that they'll vote to avoid that. I doubt Ron Paul would be giving umpty $billions to Wall Street so the Occupy Wall Street mobs should be voting for him in a big way. So should the Occupy Washington people.

Some people think Ron Paul's ideas on marijuana being illegal are worth mentioning. "Can't vote for him, he's in favour of dope". That's absurd and trivial. He is not in favour of dope. In the midst of financial carnage and umpty thousands of dead and maimed soldiers and $trillions down the gurgler, people want to take time to discuss dope and whether contraceptive laws should be fiddled with and whether homosexuals should be getting married.

Mqurice