Choose life has a dual purpose for Ron Paul in this post.
Keep terrorists on the run so we wont have to run from terrorists
All of these people are dead. We don't know what they would say about the current conflict. It is far too complex to simply take some quote by Washington and attribute it to the current situation. I do doubt, however, that any of them would want our country to commit suicide.
How about a word on RETREAT?
How about a word on CUT-N-RUN?
How about a word on RUNNING AWAY WITH YOUR TAIL BETWEEN YOUR LEGS?
How about a word on ABANDONING YOUR FRIENDS TO MASS MURDER?
Can whoever has the Ron Paul ping list ping them please? To you others, this is germane to what we were discussing on the “TV Ads” thread.
Excellently written piece
What a silly article. I thought all the founding fathers were dead.
It's the Jooooooooooooooooooos and neocons promoting the fluoridation our water supply to rob us of our precious bodily fluids....
The word “surrender” appropriately comes from the French language
Also by this guy:
End The Drug War: The Costs Outweigh The Benefits
see:
http://blog.flada.com/2007/01/27/end-the-drug-war-the-costs-outweigh-the-benefits/
As I said before:
The support Ron Paul because he wants to legalize drugs.
So this crackpo-o-blog channeled up the spirits of these past forefathers and asked them who they were supporting in 2008. Amaaaazing.
I seriously doubt they would support Ron “surrender” Paul
Paul has taken the principled stance that we should remove our troops from Iraq immediately. His position is supported by those of such greats as Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe.
If the above leaders had witnessed the murder of 800 plus Americans between 1972 and 9/11....and then witnessed the WTC collapse...they’d beat the livin hell out of Ron Paul on ‘general principal’ alone.
Sheesh.
What did we do in response to unrestricted submarine warfare from Germany? We went to war.
What did we do in response to Japan attacked our naval base in Pearl Harbor? We went to war.
What did we do in response to Islamic extremists flying aircraft into the World Trade Center? We went to war.
I’m all for going back to our isolationist policy again, but if somebody attacks us they will be damn sure we’ll fight back and win.
Actually, they would probably have had Ron Paul shot by firing squad for treason.
The Dems agree with him - lets surrender now.
I don't agree with them, so naturally, I won't be voting for Ronnie.
Choose life has a dual purpose for Ron Paul in this post.
Keep terrorists on the run so we wont have to run from terrorists
“The term “surrender” has become newspeak worthy of an Orwell novel.”
That’s rich coming from Paulistinians, who hang out with truthers, isolationists, and black helicopter watchers.
If we leave Iraq now, we will be surrendering to Al Qaeda as they will see us as weak AGAIN. Maybe you and Ron Paul have forgotten the fact (see 9/11 Commission Report) that Bin Laden and other jihadists bragged that the Beirut and Somalia retreats inspired them, but I haven't. IMHO, Ron Paul can GTH.
His comments are also the words of Cindy Sheehag.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Can’t remember another presidential candidate running his campaign in Palestine. He is doing well apparently in the polls with Hamas, Hezbollia, Syrians, and others who are our enemies. Maybe he will run for president in Palestine next. He might win.
All we need to do is look at history to see the multitude of examples of how isolationist and non-interventionist policies in the face of a growing threat have made matters far, far worse.
Where are all the great instances of where non-interventionism has caused growing problems to go away and brought lasting peace and prosperity?
If people want a real world example to open their eyes, I suggest they visit a relatively high crime area, blindfold themselves really well, and then handcuff themselves to a phone pole, and attach a sign to themselves saying "I want to be left alone". They should keep enough food and water on hand for a day or so, and have someone come and free them after that time passes.
The they can see how well non-interventionism works.
They can see if they are left alone.
They can see if no one bothers them.
They can see if no one steals their wallet or other possessions. Maybe even their food and water.
Maybe someone else will take pity on them and take steps to protect them, or bring them something to eat or drink once the stuff they had is stolen.
Maybe they can survive on the generosity of others after they have foolishly lost what they had and refused to adequately defend. You can't defend what is yours when you blindfold yourself and ignore what is happening around you.
Dr. Paul is a fool. He is a fool that refuses to learn from history and a fool that refuses to exercise common sense. He seems to believe that if we ignore problems and wish really hard for them to go away, they will disappear, or maybe someone else will deal with them so we won't have to do so. While our attempts at intervening have not always worked out well, usually due to a lack of will to follow through, failing to act has cost us dearly time and time again.