Posted on 08/13/2011 10:01:23 AM PDT by chatter4
Great video, well worth hearing. Ron Paul's remarks about Iran, followed by commentaries of Levin, Rush and Beck all in one place.
It struck my funny bone, I'm still LMAO....keep 'em coming!
However, you are not going to stop nations from getting nukes.
Churchill was right about the greatest threat to the world at that time -- Nazi Germany.
Paul is dead wrong (or at best hopelessly naive) about the greatest threat to the world in our time -- radical Islam.
(And incidentally, Churchill was right about Islam as well)
In the foreign policy sphere, Winston was always right and Paul is (almost) always wrong.
As opposed to pork loving career politicians like Paul?
In my best Van Jones impersonation, Ron Paul: "Give them the bomb"
Fox News ignores and pulls post debate poll that Ron Paul WINS (by a landslide)
http://networkedblogs.com/lzexz?a=share&ref=nf
I would not vote for Obama.
I don’t know where you get “most will”.
Also, Obama’s strongest base of support was college kids. Why is it suddenly bad that they’re considering Paul? Even though he’s pro-life?!
This seems very significant to me, how can you not see it?
How is he “straight up Libertarian”?
He is pro-life.
Levin, Limbaugh and Beck must have brought up a dozen points, at least, between them and not one of those points has been addressed. Must be a reason for that! LOL
Well said.
Being pro-Life is bringing nothing to the Repuclican party?
College kids willing to vote for a pro-Life candidate ... how is that worthless? That seems groundbreaking to me.
What points are those?
Fox News ignores and pulls post debate poll that Ron Paul WINS (by a landslide)
http://networkedblogs.com/lzexz?a=share&ref=nf
“I just might have to get good and drunk before I go vote this election.”
Are you the same poster who is getting drunk election day over on the NRO/Corner thread on Perry?
But seriously, Paul and Caine, they are non-starters. Paul’s views on foreign policy are nuts and Caine seems to know absolutely nothing about it.
And that is the one area that the President is responsible for. If there were no other countries we wouldn’t even need a pres, we could get by with some kind of national mayor.
Romney, Bachmann, Pawlenty, Santorum, love them or hate them, are all plausible candidates who have views (flexible though those might be in some cases) and who have given thought and effort to foreign policy as well as other issues.
This is America, where any little boy or girl can indeed grow up to be President. We are self-governing. We aren’t going to get a Washington or a Churchill or a Charlemagne every time.
But, we need to avoid the Carters of both parties.
We didn’t do that last time, we need to do a lot better in 2012. I honestly think any of the 4 I named would be better. Palin, Perry, many others would be better also.
Hey, at least none of them are communists!
Simple investment protocols dictate that it's best to bet on both. That is, invest in further inflation, deflation and police/military control.
I could give a fig about RP - he plays an important part in terms of providing a theatrical 'alternative'. I am confident that the existing GOP/Dem political process (of which you are either unwitting or fully cognizant) will guarantee me further investment returns.
Not if you have no will to do it. When your find your fields are full of weeds you can sit on the porch and whine about your bad luck or you can put on your man pants and start pulling weeds.
“The fact is the US can’t stop it-we are not omnipotent.”
That is true. Paul states that “we can’t invade every country that wants a bomb.” But no one is suggesting we do that. That has never been our policy, and never will be our policy.
But there is a middle ground between that and doing nothing, which is what he says we should do. There needs to be a strategy to stop or delay them, and there needs to be a strategy to contain the problem if they get the bomb. The idea that “It’s none of our business” is ridiculous.
I don’t think they can resolve the issue of what should be done in the context of a Presidential debate, or even during the campaign. Obama tried to make it an issue in 2008. He said that if we meet with the Iranians, the problem can be solved. That turned out to be wishful thinking. He’s now working on Plan B, which involves sabotage, diplomacy, and sanctions. The Russians just built a nuclear power plant for them. We need better cooperation from the Russians and Chinese in this process. I don’t think isolationism is the best policy. But I would not expect the candidates to lay out their plans. This is something that is going to require behind the scenes action, as well as adjustment on the fly. It’s nuts to rule out military action, though. That just shows Iran that you’re not serious about the problem.
That’s it? That’s all you’ve got is to ignore what they said? LMAO Even liberals can do better than that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.