If Ron Paul was commander in chief instead of Obama right now...

The word "Blowback" might mean something else.




Learn something folks.

Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist. He is the only candidate that is. As long as we honor our constitution, our country will prevail. If we continue to shred the constitution, we may end up in a civil war. It was when we started (when I say we i mean the government) disregarding the constitution that things in this country really began to go south. We could trace this back to the early Bush Jr years, or some of us may even see it beginning with the assasination of JFK. Ron Paul will get my vote unless he boneheads it at the end, then I just wont vote. When given a choice between turd sandwich A and turd sandwich B, I'll just do without eating. Ron Paul has some good ideas, one of which is getting rid of the income tax. I have always felt that it was unconstitutional to have this tax anyway. So many young people don't even realize that this tax was created to fund a war that is long over. The government just didn't want to let go of all that money.
www.infoplease.com...

If RP was commander in chief we would be experiencing another era of peace and prosperity as we did from 1800-1900 when we had a constitutional government.

Originally posted by TheBlackestSheep
There might be less tension between the US and Russia, but there are hundreds of other aspiring dictators and superpowers just salivating at Paul's brand of 'American isolationism'.

Ron Paul is definitely the most qualified to tackle domestic issues, but he seems like a complete dunce when it comes to international politics. He doesn't seem to grasp the fact that unprecedented evil exists all over the world which has nothing to do with United States 'meddling', and that this evil, in its various forms, are in fact bent on destroying American, European, and Western civilization as a whole.

In my opinion, American isolation is not a solution to averting World War 3, but a QUEUE for starting it - as the the 'world police' are no longer on the beat, as it were.

Mark my words, with someone like Ron Paul in office, America's enemies would immediately try and provoke her into another war to call us hypocrites - exactly the way Islamists did but attacking the USS Cole and later the twin towers. (Not all conspiracies can be blamed on the US government. This one, in my opinion, literally comes from radical Islam.)

I'll still vote for Paul though if I think he has a chance of winning because domestic issues are just that important. Plus, the American military wouldn't listen to him anyways in time of war so America wouldn't be crippled (much).

edit on 13-12-2011 by TheBlackestSheep because: (no reason given)

Yes, and yes and yes.

Don't get me wrong - i AM a PACIFIST. War is never a solution, War sucks.

But there is no way that people simply deny that our world is full of nut-case leaders who would rage war and genocide if they could...especially in the middle-east.

And...whether you believe me or not...SOME of those nut-case leaders are *likely* not waging war simply because they KNOW that they would otherwise get "problems" with the Americans...

I am also for "let's pull out all our troops"..simply because the money you guys (Americans) spend is WAAYYY better spent on your domestic problems as opposed to wars in some desert - but whether this would actually bring more peace is a total different story - it could actually back-fire.

Originally posted by WarJohn
...would there be any tension between the U.S. of A. and Russia at this point in 2011?

Was a vote not for RP back then a vote for world war three?

Has the voters in the last election day for POTUS been pushed the red botton?

I think it might be too late to have RP as POTUS to avoid world war three now.

What do you all think?

What would he have done with the wars he would have been handed when took office?

Originally posted by TimeRift21
If RP was commander in chief we would be experiencing another era of peace and prosperity as we did from 1800-1900 when we had a constitutional government.

Why is that?
Can you please elaborate while taking into consideration the actual state of things at the time this would have been that Ron Paul took office.

I am actually genuinely quite curious.