In response to:

The Economy Needs No Conductor

Philpy67 Wrote: Apr 18, 2012 10:13 AM
We have a candidate who has supported and defended liberty, limited gov't, the Constitution, and founding principles like a Pit Bull for 30 years in Ron Paul. He is dismissed by so-called "conservatives" because he opposes unConstitutional, damaging, and originally-progressive interventionism/world policing. For folks like Rush, Hannity, Prager, Medved, Hewitt, etc., a nanny state at home is unacceptable, but a nanny-to-the-world foreign policy is so important that we are willing to allow liberty and prosperity at home to be jeopardized. Anyone who claims to support liberty, limted gov't, the Constitution, and founding principles, but dismisses Ron Paul will have to accept responsibility for failing to choose the solution to the problem.
Cyndi75 Wrote: Apr 18, 2012 2:45 PM
Anyone who claims to support liberty, limited gov't, the Constitution, and founding principles, but dismisses Mitt Romney will have to accept responsibility for failing to choose the solution to the problem. Romney is for all those things.
Roberty Wrote: Apr 18, 2012 6:22 PM
Not based on his past actions.
Philpy67 Wrote: Apr 19, 2012 12:10 AM
Romneycare, support for bailouts, support for action v. global warming, no serious plan to downsize gov't or cut taxes, much less eliminate any departments or taxes.
Romney=Progressive lite.
Roberty Wrote: Apr 18, 2012 11:26 AM
My biggest issue with Ron Paul is that he is too mch of an isolationist. Next, he is not an inspiring leader. I wish that he could rally enough people to win the nomination because I would vote for him and not wonder which of the two evils is going to win.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Apr 18, 2012 12:14 PM
Two thoughts for Roberty:

Regarding the concept of an "inspiring leader," I DO NOT WANT an "inspiring leader" to be our president. I would much prefer a boring but efficient administrator who would question every dime in the budget, and follow the Constitution to the letter. "Inspiring leaders" are what get us into trouble.

Regarding "isolationism." That is what Ayn Rand termed an "anti-concept"--a word meant to cloud and confuse, rather than illuminate and define. Ron Paul does not want to "isolate" America from the rest of the world. Quite the opposite; he wants to ENGAGE the rest of the world in peaceful trade and commerce. He wants to AVOID "isolating" America from the rest of the world, by ENCOURAGING commerce, while avoiding wars.
Roberty Wrote: Apr 18, 2012 12:53 PM
One of the virtues of an inspiring leader is that he can rally the support to get things done even if they are painful. I also want an efficient administrator as you describe.
On the isolationism issue, maybe Congressman Dr. (or is it Dr. Congressman?) Paul neds a little better PR. Don't misunderstand, I have lots of respect for Ron Paul.
Cliff140 Wrote: Apr 18, 2012 12:56 PM

What's the difference between a non-interventionist and an isolationist?

We spend too much time waiting for orders -- and money -- from Washington.

The collapse of the housing bubble gave politicians a license to do what they wanted to do all along: spend. The usual checks on extravagance, weak as they are, were washed away. Budgets? We'll worry about that later. Inflation? We'll worry about that later.

As I point out in my brand new book, "No, We Can't: Why Government Fails -- and Individuals Succeed," a true free market doesn't require much. It's not like an orchestra in need of a conductor. What it needs is property rights, so...