ron paul Options

[brooklyneast05]

Speaking of extremists who target the U.S, Paul said, "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting."

i thought it was interesting. i've never looked at it from that perspective.

[*CowerPointyObjects*]

Let's keep discussing politics. I need to say that I think Romney seems like a complete douche, because I'm going to political science in about an hour, and I can't be too obnoxiously opinionated in there because a) I need a good grade, and b) there's no one in there who seems to care as much as me, and in effect, no one to even have a decent argument with if I thought I could get away with it.

But really, Romney seems so insincere. To begin with, I thought he looked so much like a politician that it was creepy, and I think that initial impression was fairly accurate. Creepy isn't exactly the right term anymore, but it's unnerving that people are voting for this guy. Kerry got shit for being a flip flopper, but Romney can't even keep his positions straight from one day to the next, and frankly I like his positions (which seem more sincere) that he thinks will prevent him from getting the nomination better than those he's technically running on. But if you read about speeches he made in New Hampshire and then watch the New Hampshire debates, it's like he was a completely different person. On television he seems like such an a-hole. I'm not even trying to be unbiased here obviously, but he takes on all these really conservative viewpoints and attacks his opponents that are essentially the same as his own, or that he used to have. It's hard even to say what his views are, though, because they contradict each other, and the more consistent and publicized ones don't seem to be sincere. Electing him would be essentially like it was electing Bush. I think he'd probably make a better president than Bush by merit of being more intelligent of him, but it'd be similar in the sense that one would vote for him under the impression that he would govern in a certain way, when in actuality that impression was completely misleading. While you never really know what you're going to get in a candidate, at least vote for someone with consistency. I don't want a president who's going to stand blindly by his or her views, but changes in opinion need to be justified to show that they're more genuine than to just try to fit a certain constituency.