>> Non-sequitur.
No. It was a polite way of calling BS. I don’t believe for a second RP really would have asked for a war declaration, and that goes double for Iraq. I think the pirate thing would be much more his style.
>> We wouldn’t be at war with anyone. Radical Muslims here would be deported and our borders sealed under Paul
Yes. Thank you for helping to make my own case.
>> Muslims would be left in the Middle East to stew in their own fecal juices.
Our European allies be damned? American citizens unable to travel out of the US because they’re being kidnapped right and left as part of Ron’s Muslim Stew? Our economy disrupted right and left? And — no matter how “sealed” the border gets, an unaffected Al Queda free to multiply and grow powerful and rich AND PERPETRATE EVER MORE HORRIFIC 9-11s because our POTUS is a head-in-the-sand isolationist who won’t take care of the problem at the source?
No thank you.
You avoided the topic and produced a non-sequitur. You asked what Paul would have done after 9/11 and I gave you an answer. Withdrawing from Iraq wasn't even mentioned until YOU brought it up later.
Yes. Thank you for helping to make my own case.
Hey, you're welcome. Because I'm sure you support a long-term committment in Iraq that involves billions of dollars a year while our troops get hit with car bombs while fixing Baghdad's infrastructure and such. Meanwhile the borders remain wide open and Muslims are allowed to come here by the thousands and expect Americans to submit to their repugnant lifestyle.
Our European allies be damned? American citizens unable to travel out of the US because they’re being kidnapped right and left as part of Ron’s Muslim Stew? Our economy disrupted right and left? And — no matter how “sealed” the border gets, an unaffected Al Queda free to multiply and grow powerful and rich AND PERPETRATE EVER MORE HORRIFIC 9-11s because our POTUS is a head-in-the-sand isolationist who won’t take care of the problem at the source?
And you don't think Paul would respond? Give me a break.