Ron Paul

He won't win the nomination, he won't even come close. But he's refreshing to listen to on a number of issues, particularly those regarding limited government.

But he does offer a glimmer of hope. Most people do seem to like what they hear from him. And that reinforces my ultimate idea, and hope, that the American people are still far more libertarian and in support of a smaller government, than the media would lead us to believe.

There is still hope. We aren't Europe.

Here he is on the "Colbert Report"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJbx5apuJHQ
 
I believe he argues for secure borders, he is against nafta and the wto and he is for a non-intervention government (mind our own business and stay out of the affairs of other foreign nations).

And we did provoke an attack on 9/11. We supported the Osoma bin ladin vs the Russians then turned our backs, we supported sadam in the 80s, then turned our backs, we support the Israelis and a corrupt Saudi government. If we weren't propping up groups to try to over throw other groups that we liked less at the time, we would not have made as many enemies in the middle east.

We could not start/support so many wars and cause so much death over there and think that there would not be any consequences. That is not saying that its ok to kill thousands of innocent civilians, just that they had their reasons for doing something.

Ron Paul supported going into Afghanistan to get the people responsible for that. Not because he says so now, just look at the voting records.
 
crab daddy said:
I believe he argues for secure borders, he is against nafta and the wto and he is for a non-intervention government (mind our own business and stay out of the affairs of other foreign nations).

And we did provoke an attack on 9/11. We supported the Osoma bin ladin vs the Russians then turned our backs, we supported sadam in the 80s, then turned our backs, we support the Israelis and a corrupt Saudi government. If we weren't propping up groups to try to over throw other groups that we liked less at the time, we would not have made as many enemies in the middle east.

We could not start/support so many wars and cause so much death over there and think that there would not be any consequences. That is not saying that its ok to kill thousands of innocent civilians, just that they had their reasons for doing something.

Ron Paul supported going into Afghanistan to get the people responsible for that. Not because he says so now, just look at the voting records.
Click to expand...

Your logic is flawed. You ignore terrorist attacks around the world, including Spain and Great Britain, and against Jordan and other Arab countries. How do you explain this? It is not our fault that terrorists want to kill us. It is false to blame the United States for the actions of others. Period.

Go read the Qur'an and get back to me when you learn that muslims in this century are commanded to be on a jihad against infidels (unbelievers). That includes you, by the way, Crabdaddy. That's right. YOU are on the list of infidels that must be beheaded. And they'll do it if they get a chance. What did you do to provoke this, hmm?

The greatest threat to the expansion of Islam is the United States of America because she promotes personal freedom and democracy. Get that factoid straight and then we'll talk some more.
 
Terrorist attacks around the world is not our (USA) problem. Attacks on us is. We should deal with those that attack us. That is not the case in Iraq, that was not the case when we put Sadam in power or when we supported Osoma Bin Laden.

We have the strongest military in the world and the best weapons. If someone attacks us, we should crush them. Running around the globe interfering with foreign governments and trying to force democracy on cave men is not a good policy. We should be irraticating Al-Qaeda.

Just because islamic radicals want to kill us all doesn't mean they have the means or ability.
 
crab daddy said:
Terrorist attacks around the world is not our (USA) problem. Attacks on us is. We should deal with those that attack us. That is not the case in Iraq, that was not the case when we put Sadam in power or when we supported Osoma Bin Laden.

We have the strongest military in the world and the best weapons. If someone attacks us, we should crush them. Running around the globe interfering with foreign governments and trying to force democracy on cave men is not a good policy. We should be irraticating Al-Qaeda.

Just because islamic radicals want to kill us all doesn't mean they have the means or ability.
Click to expand...

Don't look now, but we are eradicating Al-Qaeda. We are fighting them in Iraq. And we are winning. So what's your problem with that?

We have to deal with foreign governments in order to defeat a foe that will not meet us face to face on a military battlefront. The governments that support these terrorists must be pounded until they stop the flow of money and work with alacrity to drive them out of the country.
 
Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before we went in and have you seen the reports that say Al-Qaeda is back to where they were pre-911... it has been all over the news within the last couple weeks.

What does any of that have to do with Ron Pauls position on non-intervention?
 
Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before we went in
Click to expand...

That's the point; we "smoked em' out of their holes", as W. put it in his famous post-9/11 speech.
 
crab daddy said:
Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before we went in and have you seen the reports that say Al-Qaeda is back to where they were pre-911... it has been all over the news within the last couple weeks.
Click to expand...

There is more evidence to support a claim that Al Qaeda WAS in Iraq before the war than there is evidence to support YOUR claim. Look it up.


crab daddy said:
What does any of that have to do with Ron Pauls position on non-intervention?
Click to expand...

You tell me - you brought it up:

crab daddy said:
We have the strongest military in the world and the best weapons. If someone attacks us, we should crush them. Running around the globe interfering with foreign governments and trying to force democracy on cave men is not a good policy. We should be irraticating Al-Qaeda.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 185 (members: 0, guests: 185)
Back
Top