Ron Paul

[NorthSideSox72]

When I brought up her experience I stated exactly what I meant- her experience dealing with the pressures, the limelight, etc. She has real-world experience which allows her to understand what to expect when you are the leader of the free world. That, in and of itself, is valuable.

 

Talk about how other candidates have experience as Senators, and as Reps, but many of them can't run an effective Presidential campaign, let alone run the country.

 

I'm no Hilary supporter- I am an Obama supporter- but I don't think you can take away the very unique real-world experience that Hilary has.

 

And that is not even counting whatever involvement she had in policy-making. I know I can't prove that, so I won't buoy my argument with it. But to compare her to Barbara or Laura in regards to her involvement as First Lady is really not an accurate analogy.

What experience she does have is one of the reasons I dislike her as a candidate. She was not elected, yet she boasts proudly of having policy-discussion access (not just circumstantial) to the highest level people, not to mention saying she was privy to a lot of sensitive information, WITHOUT a security clearance of any kind.

 

[iamshack]

What experience she does have is one of the reasons I dislike her as a candidate. She was not elected, yet she boasts proudly of having policy-discussion access (not just circumstantial) to the highest level people, not to mention saying she was privy to a lot of sensitive information, WITHOUT a security clearance of any kind.

 

Yeah, that's certainly something that can go either way with voters. It turns me off too- I was never a Clinton supporter. But it's a card she has to play given her otherwise limited experience. And it's probably a safe card to play since her husband has come up smelling like roses because of the events which occurred after he left the White House.

 

I just worry about who or what I am really voting for with her. Not that I have ever particularly liked her. But who is really going to be running the show if she does get elected? What will Bill really be doing? Chasing interns around or dominating Hilary's policy determinations?

[Controlled Chaos]

Something to be said for Hilary's experience in the White House though, whether she was just First Lady or not.

 

She has real-world experience regarding the pressures, the heat of the spotlight, etc.

 

She has more experience than any of the other candidates, in some light.

Couldn't pass up posting this here.

 

Clinton/Favre analogy

 

In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming Sunday. Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move.

 

Does this sounds idiotic and unbelievable to you? Well, Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of democrats polled agreed. She has never run a City, County, or State. When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has 8 years in the white house, Dick Morris stated "so has the pastry chef."

 

 

[Pants Rowland]

Others have few years but higher level experience as Senators, or executive experience as Governors.

 

Please enlighten me as to how being a Senator is better experience than being a representative.

 

I recently learned that the Senate was modeled after the House of Lords while the House of Reps was more in line with the House of Commons. Senators were well-to-dos who did little to nothing until Jefferson split from the Federalists.

 

Things have obviously changed dramatically since then, but one thing that is certain is it is very difficult to be elected president of the U.S. if you served in the Senate. Frequently out of touch and overly compromising, the work and experience of the Senator is in no way shape or form any more senior or qualifying for higher office than that of a Rep.

 

That is why you frequently see former governors win the oval office. They have legitimate executive experience rather than faux leadership of a state such as that of a Senator. Further, Senators are so pressured to fall in line with party voting that they get in the habit of compromising their convictions. To me, that is forgivable and necessary to make the Senate work. With that said, while a forgivable and necessary evil, the compromising/patronizing mentality of a Senator is not the type of politician I want to be the Commander in Chief.

 

I agree that executive experience is a positive, but I also like the independent nature of a congressional rep. They typically vote their conviction and have a better perspective on taking care of their constituents than Senators do.

 

An interesting read to find more on how the Senate evolved is JFK's Profiles in Courage. The more you learn about the Senate, the more you realize it is very much an elitist body that is extremely difficult to enter and nearly as difficult to get ousted from.

Edited January 14, 2008 by Pants Rowland

[NorthSideSox72]

Please enlighten me as to how being a Senator is better experience than being a representative.

 

I recently learned that the Senate was modeled after the House of Lords while the House of Reps was more in line with the House of Commons. Senators were well-to-dos who did little to nothing until Jefferson split from the Federalists.

 

Things have obviously changed dramatically since then, but one thing that is certain is it is very difficult to be elected president of the U.S. if you served in the Senate. Frequently out of touch and overly compromising, the work and experience of the Senator is in no way shape or form any more senior or qualifying for higher office than that of a Rep.

 

That is why you frequently see former governors win the oval office. They have legitimate executive experience rather than faux leadership of a state such as that of a Senator. Further, Senators are so pressured to fall in line with party voting that they get in the habit of compromising their convictions. To me, that is forgivable and necessary to make the Senate work. With that said, while a forgivable and necessary evil, the compromising/patronizing mentality of a Senator is not the type of politician I want to be the Commander in Chief.

 

I agree that executive experience is a positive, but I also like the independent nature of a congressional rep. They typically vote their conviction and have a better perspective on taking care of their constituents than Senators do.

 

An interesting read to find more on how the Senate evolved is JFK's Profiles in Courage. The more you learn about the Senate, the more you realize it is very much an elitist body that is extremely difficult to enter and nearly as difficult to get ousted from.

You seem to have interpereted my statements as meaning I like the Senate. I don't. But its just reality that Senate seats are fewer, harder to get, and generally populated by more experienced people who have more direct interaction with the other branches of government. Its the senior body of the legislature. And while the Presidential candidates tend to illustrate their ability to stick to their guns, in reality, the Presidents who have been most successful have been the ones who knew how to compromise and work with the other party. That's what the Senate does well, and that makes them much better candidates for President than House Reps.

 

Still, all else being equal, I prefer executive leadership experience - like that which governors often bring to the table.

 

ETA: And to add, along the lines of books on the Senate, I recommend Master of the Senate - about LBJ.

 

[Pants Rowland]

This is a little better. And not to nitpick, but it is secession, not succession.

 

I'm not sure I agree with your economics argument. England and other European nations were very much straddling the fence on which side to take at the outset of the War. Had the Union simply allowed the Confederacy to secede, there is a very reasonable chance that the Confederacy's economy could have sustained itself on exports of cotton and other cash crops to Europe, at least for some period of decades. And had that occurred, no one can really speculate what the United States would be today...

 

Something to note is that in 1888, Brazil became the last nation to abolish slavery.

 

If the U.S. allowed the south the secede and form its own country, it would only have been a matter of time before they were forced to face the reality that their system was on the decline and they were destined to become a third world nation facing the same problems of Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and countless others that exhausted a one-dimensional economy based on agriculture and slavery.

 

I am under no illusion to believe that slavery did not exist legally throughout the world under other titles during this time (including sharecropping and the virtually enslavement of the continent of Africa through much of the 20th century). However, the trend in the civilized world has generally been in the opposite direction of institutionally sponsored slavery. Whether via a slave revolt or a gradual breakdown of the institution, slavery would have ended one way or another and the seceding states would have been forced to come to terms with reality on their own.

 

I have heard Dr. Paul's arguments against the civil war and they are fairly compelling. His stance is it would have been cheaper for the federal government to buy the freedom of all slaves rather than fight a long protracted war. Futher, the war and reconstruction deepened southern animosity against the north while simultaneously sowing (and fertilizing) the seeds for legislated segregation and discrimination.

[Pants Rowland]

You seem to have interpereted my statements as meaning I like the Senate. I don't. But its just reality that Senate seats are fewer, harder to get, and generally populated by more experienced people who have more direct interaction with the other branches of government. Its the senior body of the legislature. And while the Presidential candidates tend to illustrate their ability to stick to their guns, in reality, the Presidents who have been most successful have been the ones who knew how to compromise and work with the other party. That's what the Senate does well, and that makes them much better candidates for President than House Reps.

 

Still, all else being equal, I prefer executive leadership experience - like that which governors often bring to the table.

 

ETA: And to add, along the lines of books on the Senate, I recommend Master of the Senate - about LBJ.

 

I did not necessarily think you were pro-Senate. I see your point, but my take is being a Senator typically is a reflection of your lot in life and not necessarily of your qualifications. Compromise is great but I find the palm pressing and back patting in the Senate revolting at times. I like the independent nature of representatives although I do agree that the best options are typically former governors with track records to compare rather than voting records on every silly bill to come across their desks over the past 25 years. Thanks for the book tip.

Edited January 14, 2008 by Pants Rowland

[NorthSideSox72]

I did necessarily think you were pro-Senate. I see your point, but my take is being a Senator typically is a reflection of your lot in life and not necessarily of your qualifications. Compromise is great but I find the palm pressing and back patting in the Senate revolting at times. I like the independent nature of representatives although I do agree that the best options are typically former governors with track records to compare rather than voting records on every silly bill to come across their desks over the past 25 years. Thanks for the book tip.

I guess I see two different kinds of back-slapping. The congenial, business-like art of compromise across party lines is not only good, but its precisely what is missing (for the most part) from the current government, particularly our stubborn-as-chic executive. Then there is the back room, you fund my oil company and I'll see you at the country club kind of B.S. And that is revolting to me as well.

 

[Pants Rowland]

I guess I see two different kinds of back-slapping. The congenial, business-like art of compromise across party lines is not only good, but its precisely what is missing (for the most part) from the current government, particularly our stubborn-as-chic executive. Then there is the back room, you fund my oil company and I'll see you at the country club kind of B.S. And that is revolting to me as well.

 

100% agreement.

 

Despite hsi time exclusively in the House, I do find Paul to be well-informed. While I disagree with him on a few issues, his overall platform is compelling and does make you think about serious flaws in the system that we accept as normal but should be outraged over.

[NorthSideSox72]

100% agreement.

 

Despite hsi time exclusively in the House, I do find Paul to be well-informed. While I disagree with him on a few issues, his overall platform is compelling and does make you think about serious flaws in the system that we accept as normal but should be outraged over.

He makes some great points. And I gave him some serious thought for a while as a candidate - my posts in here could prove that. But upon further, deeper review, he seems to me to lack the leadership skills necessary to be President. I think if you had a more viable candidate who was serious about reducing government waste and scope, he'd be a good guy to have in your administration.

 

[southsider2k5]

Something to note is that in 1888, Brazil became the last nation to abolish slavery.

 

If the U.S. allowed the south the secede and form its own country, it would only have been a matter of time before they were forced to face the reality that their system was on the decline and they were destined to become a third world nation facing the same problems of Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and countless others that exhausted a one-dimensional economy based on agriculture and slavery.

 

I am under no illusion to believe that slavery did not exist legally throughout the world under other titles during this time (including sharecropping and the virtually enslavement of the continent of Africa through much of the 20th century). However, the trend in the civilized world has generally been in the opposite direction of institutionally sponsored slavery. Whether via a slave revolt or a gradual breakdown of the institution, slavery would have ended one way or another and the seceding states would have been forced to come to terms with reality on their own.

I have heard Dr. Paul's arguments against the civil war and they are fairly compelling. His stance is it would have been cheaper for the federal government to buy the freedom of all slaves rather than fight a long protracted war. Futher, the war and reconstruction deepened southern animosity against the north while simultaneously sowing (and fertilizing) the seeds for legislated segregation and discrimination.

 

So he wants to abolish social welfare, but it would have been OK to buy off our enemies (well the rebs anyway) who had enslaved an entire race of people? Buying off our enemies has been a part of our foreign policy failings for decades now. It usually leads to wars later, at a more expensive cost, in terms of dollars, and in lives. ( see WW II)

[Pants Rowland]

So he wants to abolish social welfare, but it would have been OK to buy off our enemies (well the rebs anyway) who had enslaved an entire race of people? Buying off our enemies has been a part of our foreign policy failings for decades now. It usually leads to wars later, at a more expensive cost, in terms of dollars, and in lives. ( see WW II)

 

I am not sure the appeasement of a foreign power leading up to WWII is really an apples to apples comparison. He was merely listing alternatives to the civil war and mentioned that this did work in other countries with sanctioned slavery. His point was the war inflicted deeper wounds that are still healing this very day. I also would not consider slave states our "enemies" since he was talking about prior to the civil war, when they were still very much part of the union.

 

Besides, let's not fool ourselves to think the slave-owning landed gentry of the south was any more or less evil in their treatment of mankind than the robber barons of the north who took control of this nation during the industrial revolution. The systematic attempts to monopolize industry and control the working population was as bad as, if not worse than the system of slavery itself. What's worse is many of these companies are still in existence today and continue to exploit the workers, if not here in the U.S., then abroad where they can obtain cheap labor without government regulation or unions to check their power.

[Pants Rowland]

He makes some great points. And I gave him some serious thought for a while as a candidate - my posts in here could prove that. But upon further, deeper review, he seems to me to lack the leadership skills necessary to be President. I think if you had a more viable candidate who was serious about reducing government waste and scope, he'd be a good guy to have in your administration.

 

May I ask who you will support, assuming you get the chance come primary day? Just curious.

[iamshack]

Something to note is that in 1888, Brazil became the last nation to abolish slavery.

 

If the U.S. allowed the south the secede and form its own country, it would only have been a matter of time before they were forced to face the reality that their system was on the decline and they were destined to become a third world nation facing the same problems of Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and countless others that exhausted a one-dimensional economy based on agriculture and slavery.

 

I am under no illusion to believe that slavery did not exist legally throughout the world under other titles during this time (including sharecropping and the virtually enslavement of the continent of Africa through much of the 20th century). However, the trend in the civilized world has generally been in the opposite direction of institutionally sponsored slavery. Whether via a slave revolt or a gradual breakdown of the institution, slavery would have ended one way or another and the seceding states would have been forced to come to terms with reality on their own.

 

I have heard Dr. Paul's arguments against the civil war and they are fairly compelling. His stance is it would have been cheaper for the federal government to buy the freedom of all slaves rather than fight a long protracted war. Futher, the war and reconstruction deepened southern animosity against the north while simultaneously sowing (and fertilizing) the seeds for legislated segregation and discrimination.

 

Perhaps the largest reason that slavery met such a quick formal decline is because of it ending in the last "civilized" nation in 1863. Had the South been allowed to secede without opposition, there is a very reasonable chance that slavery would have continued to exist for far longer than it did. In the mid-19th century, the US Southern economy was very much a leader in exports of cotton (and other cash crops). Had England and other European nations had the option to continue importing cotton from slave plantations at then-market prices there is no telling how things would have turned out.

 

There is no doubt that slavery became an inefficient and antiquated economic system, but that had more to do with technological advances in farming machinery than anything else. However, looking back and stating that this would have happened "eventually" and that it would have been cheaper for the Union to "purchase" the freedom of slaves is hindsight vision, and not even part of the argument- notwithstanding the fact that to suggest the Union could have purchased slavery out of existence is absolutely inaccurate bs.

 

Taking into account the actual history, and not using the benefit of hindsight, the reality of the situation is that all compromises and options other than war were exhausted. The issue was a ticking time bomb and reached the point where there was nothing left to do but fight. No one thought the war would last as long as it did, but in the end, it was probably the only course of events that could have occurred that would have both kept the country together and ended the formal institution of slavery.

 

 

[Pants Rowland]

Perhaps the largest reason that slavery met such a quick formal decline is because of it ending in the last "civilized" nation in 1863.

 

You may be right, but in 1863, I am no so sure that the U.S. was that much more civilized than many of our new world neighbors. There were some very educated, slave-owning nobles all over latin america who operated their nations in a fashion similar to the south. Like you said, we have the benefit of hindsight but really can never know how things would have played out.

 

 

 

[iamshack]

You may be right, but in 1863, I am no so sure that the U.S. was that much more civilized than many of our new world neighbors. There were some very educated, slave-owning nobles all over latin america who operated their nations in a fashion similar to the south. Like you said, we have the benefit of hindsight but really can never know how things would have played out.

 

The US was an absolute monster in the New World by 1863 compared to Mexico and their Latin American neighbors.

 

Anyways, in my view, Paul's 20/20 revisionist ideas really don't point out anything worthwhile.

 

One could argue, with great accuracy, that the US would have won its freedom from England "eventually" without having to fight the Revolutionary War as well. Does Paul argue that?

[NorthSideSox72]

The US was an absolute monster in the New World by 1863 compared to Mexico and their Latin American neighbors.

That isn't really true. They were not anything like a "monster" in any sphere at that point in time.

 

[iamshack]

That isn't really true. They were not anything like a "monster" in any sphere at that point in time.

 

Compared to Mexico and other Latin American nations? They absolutely were a monster. They were a monster in the region from the moment the Louisiana Purchase was made.

[NorthSideSox72]

May I ask who you will support, assuming you get the chance come primary day? Just curious.

Well, my guy was Richardson. He's a social democrat but has a history of balancing budgets and encouraging business growth, and has an OK record on the environment (not great though). Combined with an impressive background ranging from SecEnergy to US Congressman to Governor of a growing, diverse and culturally torn state, I thought he was the best candidate available. But he proved unable to survive in the era of TV. At this point, I'd prefer Obama or McCain. I'll probably vote for either of them if they make it. If they both make it, probably Obama.

 

And you?

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Compared to Mexico and other Latin American nations? They absolutely were a monster. They were a monster in the region from the moment the Louisiana Purchase was made.

No. In fact, look at the history of the period from said purchase through to about 1890-ish. They were growing quickly INTO a power during that period, but were not the overwhelming "monster" in the region until nearly the turn of the 20th century.

 

[iamshack]

No. In fact, look at the history of the period from said purchase through to about 1890-ish. They were growing quickly INTO a power during that period, but were not the overwhelming "monster" in the region until nearly the turn of the 20th century.

 

Yes. By the 1860's the United States was the overwhelming power in the region. The reason the US did not emerge as a World SuperPower until after WWI was because of a general policy of isolationism. However, in the region, Manifest Destiny was the prevailing philosophy and was used as justification for expansion throughout North America, including the Oregon Territory, the Texas Annexation, and the territory ceded from Mexico after the Mexican-American War in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The fact that much of this land was simply "taken" is a reflection of US power in the mid-19th century.

 

The US became a world power during and following the Industrial Revolution, and cemented that power after entering and ending WWI.

 

In the mid-19th century, Mexico and nearly all of Latin America was in turmoil, still seeking to recover from centuries of European Imperialism, and to be more blunt, European looting. None of the other countries in the region had any business challenging US Policy at the time.

[Pants Rowland]

Well, my guy was Richardson. He's a social democrat but has a history of balancing budgets and encouraging business growth, and has an OK record on the environment (not great though). Combined with an impressive background ranging from SecEnergy to US Congressman to Governor of a growing, diverse and culturally torn state, I thought he was the best candidate available. But he proved unable to survive in the era of TV. At this point, I'd prefer Obama or McCain. I'll probably vote for either of them if they make it. If they both make it, probably Obama.

 

And you?

 

I do like Paul quite a bit, although I diverge from him greatly on immigration, abortion and gun control stances so I am still undecided.

 

I am with you on Richardson. He and Biden were probably the most qualified to do the job. Unfortunately, he looked awful on TV physically. That doesn't matter to me personally but it impacts the electorate. I think he also hurt himself in the debates by using them as a forum to say everything on his mind rather than calmly answering questions. Ron Paul does it too much as well.

 

I loved McCain in 2000 and shake my head at what he has become since then. I wish he had accepted the Reform Party's invitation and run against Gore and Bush as a third party candidate. I think he could have won, or at least kept Dubyah out of office. Now he seems like a sad case with the pandering and toeing the party line

 

In short, I am getting to the "none of the above" feeling on this election.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Yes. By the 1860's the United States was the overwhelming power in the region. The reason the US did not emerge as a World SuperPower until after WWI was because of a general policy of isolationism. However, in the region, Manifest Destiny was the prevailing philosophy and was used as justification for expansion throughout North America, including the Oregon Territory, the Texas Annexation, and the territory ceded from Mexico after the Mexican-American War in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The fact that much of this land was simply "taken" is a reflection of US power in the mid-19th century.

 

The US became a world power during and following the Industrial Revolution, and cemented that power after entering and ending WWI.

 

In the mid-19th century, Mexico and nearly all of Latin America was in turmoil, still seeking to recover from centuries of European Imperialism, and to be more blunt, European looting. None of the other countries in the region had any business challenging US Policy at the time.

I simply disagree with you here. Mexico in particular and some of the other Spanish-backed countries in North and Central America still gave the US a run for their money militarily and economically. At the time of the Louisiana Purchase, the European powers in the region were taken aback, and realized the US was going to be a player in the game, most certainly. But they weren't what I would call the superpower in the region until, give or take, just before the turn of the 20th Century.

 

The expansion you mention did not occur because those powers were cowering before American superiority. Quite the contrary. In some cases (Oregon is a good example), it was simply a matter of "hey, its a pain in our asses - if you want it, take it". The Louisiana Purchase was more or less a way for a European power to get money for something they couldn't control. The various wars in Texas and the west with Mexico were bloody messes and in many cases, they US had plenty of struggles to get it done. Heck, even the last contiguous land deal, the Gadsden Purchase, was purely about a railroad and was a money deal to Mexico.

 

[iamshack]

I simply disagree with you here. Mexico in particular and some of the other Spanish-backed countries in North and Central America still gave the US a run for their money militarily and economically. At the time of the Louisiana Purchase, the European powers in the region were taken aback, and realized the US was going to be a player in the game, most certainly. But they weren't what I would call the superpower in the region until, give or take, just before the turn of the 20th Century.

 

The expansion you mention did not occur because those powers were cowering before American superiority. Quite the contrary. In some cases (Oregon is a good example), it was simply a matter of "hey, its a pain in our asses - if you want it, take it". The Louisiana Purchase was more or less a way for a European power to get money for something they couldn't control. The various wars in Texas and the west with Mexico were bloody messes and in many cases, they US had plenty of struggles to get it done. Heck, even the last contiguous land deal, the Gadsden Purchase, was purely about a railroad and was a money deal to Mexico.

 

First of all, there is absolutely no way one could argue that Mexico and "some of the other Spanish-backed countries" gave the US a run for their money in anything. Mexico and nearly all of the economies of other nations in Latin and Central America were in absolute shambles because of the enormous amounts of gold, silver, and copper taken from them by the Spaniards over a period of three centuries. Bankrupt with no credit, these countries were often forced to sell their most valuable industries for next to nothing to US/English/German interests in exchange for cash to pay the operating expenses of their governments. There were some extremely short-lived success stories, such as Chile (rebuilt its economy through the exportation of copper- one of the few sources of wealth NOT stolen from the region yet), Peru (exporting "guapo"- bird s*** high in nitrogen), but for the vast majority of the 19th and 20th centuries Mexico and other Latin American nations have been in a depressing cycle of absolute poverty, followed by brief periods of what I suppose one could call "wealth" through the monetization of their natural resources, followed quickly by corruption, then political upheaval, revolution, and on and on and on.

 

Secondly, never did I claim that all land expansion was the result of American might (the Louisiana Purchase was offered because Napolean found himself in a real spot, financially), but the fact that the US was able to expand so quickly is absolutely a testament to its influence in the region. The Mexican-American war is just one example of another of the region's "major" players attempting to resist the will of the US at the time and getting absolutely slaughtered for it.

 

I think you are trying to argue that because the US was not the world power it was to become at the turn of the 20th Century that it somehow was not the "only" real power in the region in the mid-19th Century. I don't believe there is any possible way in which to accurately advocate such a position. The evidence is stacked and stacked against the notion that Mexico or some "other," yet undetermined, power could seriously challenge the US militarily or economically at the time.

Edited January 15, 2008 by iamshack

[southsider2k5]

I am not sure the appeasement of a foreign power leading up to WWII is really an apples to apples comparison. He was merely listing alternatives to the civil war and mentioned that this did work in other countries with sanctioned slavery. His point was the war inflicted deeper wounds that are still healing this very day. I also would not consider slave states our "enemies" since he was talking about prior to the civil war, when they were still very much part of the union.

 

Besides, let's not fool ourselves to think the slave-owning landed gentry of the south was any more or less evil in their treatment of mankind than the robber barons of the north who took control of this nation during the industrial revolution. The systematic attempts to monopolize industry and control the working population was as bad as, if not worse than the system of slavery itself. What's worse is many of these companies are still in existence today and continue to exploit the workers, if not here in the U.S., then abroad where they can obtain cheap labor without government regulation or unions to check their power.

 

How can you not call it appeasement? You just told that it would have been better to payoff the slave owners, versus fighting the civil war. So what happened in 20 years when they had burned through that money as well? Bribing someone to NOT do something is exactly how we have been operating in foreign policy for years, and supposedly what Paul is against. Think about it, how is sending money to Eygpt to be Israel's friend, much different than sending money to the south to free slaves? In the end, we are rewarding people for doing something that they shouldn't be doing in the first place.