i have some 'just wondering' questions.
like, what impact has having 150,000+ americans overseas where they can't spend their paychecks had on our economy?
and why is it up to us (america) to maintain a presence in all of these countries to ensure their democratic/wtfe process, when ours suffers? maybe we went to some of these places to effect a change, but why are we in maintenance mode?
we've maintained a larger-than-necessary presence in several countries which borders on occupation. why don't we just politely ask a few of the strategically placed nations if we can keep a fuel depot open there or resupply, but not man the things like we're planning ww3?
ron paul is for investing in our infrastructure again as it is falling incredibly out of date and is antiquated; not all of this is pouring concrete; there's a lot of technological advancement required to get us even close to some middle-class european infrastructure. why aren't more americans on board with ron paul and this home-centered improvement plan?
urgh. i think he makes great sense. america is due for a political revolution. a fine tuning. a serious disturbance of stagnant policy.
bring on the change. ron paul seems to be the most energetic advocate for change i've seen. obama is also an advocate for some serious change, but i'm not sure i'm a fan of his mostly-socialist approach. the world needs to take care of itself for awhile, and we need to take care of us.
and last, i love the presidential veto power. f- congress, they won't get crap past a president that doesn't want it to pass. there'll be compromise eventually...or at least an understanding. i wish everyone wouldn't be so quick to

about RP.
i'm ok with him not getting the nomination though; because one way or another, america's headed for serious change and ultimately a form of revolution. with him it'd be a little more guided than the complete falling apart that our country's been experiencing on our current self-destruct path.