NW hunter';
I thank you for trying to provide answers, and some of them sound positive..yet there are some that just raise more questions ! No surprise, since all politicians give evasive answers to one degree or another..they hate to give a flat "yea" or "nay". For that very reason, quoting what a politician has said at one time or another is not a good way of showing how he/she really believes, since much depends upon what audience they are talking to.
..But here are some natural followups;
1) < Conservatives favor a strong military > Saying one firms survey which claims the troops support him doesn't answer the question. His record of supporting the military in funding , encouragement etc would speak louder.
A better indicator would be how he Has voted; whether to give our troops all they need in this current conflict or not. Has he voted for complete funding for our fighting troops
so they will lack for nothing in this war on terror ?
2) < Conservatives favor a "defense of marriage act" > Apparently he doesn't want marriage defined as what it really should be..and favors places like Mass and Frisco to define it by their own "values"..in spite of the rule of "full faith & credit", which requires all states to honor such unions .Is he having trouble with the concept of "United" States ?
3) < Conservatives fight against abortion> Sounds like a fairly sound indicator ! ...but then, I read your answer to # 7..
4) < Home school choice > Again, sounds like a winner.
5) < Willing to fight the "war on terror > In the first half of this answer he sounds like a complete liberal ..almost as if he were saying, " It must be OUR fault..What did we do to make them so mad at us ?" "We must have been very mean to them !"
The second half of the answer unless he can provide a better plan for fighting the drug war, it sounds like an unconditional surrender to the drug culture.
6) < Isolationism..not cool > He says we should not "entangle' ourselves in foreign affairs..but we should carry out peace & commerce..not a bad idea in the 18th century, but a global power in a global market cannot help but to become "entangled" in one way or another; whether through the world bank, securing rights to strategic materials (e.g. oil), cooperative eploration of the seas & outer space or almost any phase or world trade.
He claims that we should not form "military alliances" or be "interventionist"
I did cite Pearl harbor, now let's look at the attack upon America on 9/11..and the likely nuclear/chemical or biological attack that experts admit is coming..not "if" but "when"...
Is he saying that after 9/11 we should not have formed alliances with other threatened nations ? Does he think we should have gone in all alone..or does he think that we should have let the terrorists attack, and keep on attacking..while we play "rope-a-dope ?
Does he mean that if NY , Chicago or La are hit ( either one, or all three) with a nuke, we should not form "alliances" or be "interventionist" ?
7) < Special privileges for "gays" > Here is a classic example of politicians disinformation..in answer #3 you used his claim to try to indicate that he was against abortion..yet in answer #7 he shows that as President he would let the places like the aforementioned Mass & Frisco have their own way with pre-born boys & girls ! ...And he makes the same double-speak with the defense of the institution of marriage... ..A bit slick, I would say, but then..most politicians are !
< War on terror will require increased funding for the CIA & FBI > You answer.."see #5"...and you have read the return questions I have to #5.. Gues that means RP thinks it is "our fault' that we were attacked on 9/11..so the Islamofacists don't require watching..
9) < Defense department funding > Your answer.. " Ron Paul would say..with the troops home, spending would go down."
..I say the spending probably would go down..until we are hit again ! Remember; most of the intelligence experts say.." It is not a matter of "if" but "when".. Any thinking person knows what kind of a diabolical enemy we are facing..if we jump into our homeland bed, and pull the comforter up over our head..that doesn't mean the "boogey man" will leave us alone !
If one or two of our major cities and people were hit by nukes, killing perhaps hundreds of thousands and making the cities uninhabitable..would our spending need to go up or down ?
Personally, I would expect a bit more mature thinking from a man that wishes to be president ! ...but that's just my opinion..
10) <Contraceptives for little kids..> "Paul would leave that to the parents"... A President with strong moral values does has revenue sharing to use in dealing with depraved school boards.
11)< Islamofacists won't quit, must be hunted down, does RP have the stomach for it ? > your answer says " let them take care of their own internal problems"..
NW; when they destroy blocks of our cities and come again to destroy more..that is not simply "THEIR INTERNAL PROBLEMS"
BTW: Don't feel bad, as I have often said, " There is no perfect candidate".
