Good lord...
That's a lie.
Ron Turd is a traitor.
..crickets..
Does Paul remember Zarqawi? Does he remember the $25 million dollar bounty that the US placed on his head? Does he remember the jets dropping two five-hundred pound bombs on Zarqawi?
We don’t drop bombs on the local sheik that doesn’t claim allegiance to bin Laden.
(rolling eyes)
My wife has yelled at me for 26 years for leaving the seat up. I don’t even hear it anymore... my brain filters it right out.
Likewise, the Paulites don’t hear any reason anymore.
“should not be”?????
How about:
“must not be” or even the more sussinct
“is not” ...an option
Everyone. The Ron Paul threads are a complete trip, some of the best fun on Free Republic, but I am wondering, are we only putting embers on the the so called Ron Paul fire.
In my opinion, Ron Paul is like an internet hoax, it stays alive the more you pass it along. Paul’s newest tactic is the signs and slogans ‘Google Ron Paul’.. Every time we have a 800 post debate thread with Paul supporters only puts Ron Paul higher in Google analytics.
We know that the Paul supporters won’t be swayed, and they know we won’t be swayed. We are repeating the same things over and over.. and all this is doing is giving this third tier candidate far more attention than he deserves.
Why not crickets whenever Paul pops up here? Look what happened to all the pro-Rudy threads, they died out because all they were fed was the sound of crickets.
Why not just stop feeding the fire? Let it burn out. That’s just my thought... I’m sure others have differing opinions.
|
Welcome to FR, how is it over at the HilaryCare War Room??
Pray for W and Our Troops
Take your term neocon and shove it...neocon is another word for antisemite, as Paul is....you are either conservative or not—I guess paleocons—not.
Pray tell, Mr. Paul, what freedom have we surrendered? And please be specific.
(crickets)
“Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character,...”
This guy speaks more harshly against his own countrymen than he does against the enemy who manifested 2 wars against us.
A common misconception (lie). We do not know that saddam had nothing to do with 911. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that he did have connections, including Czech intelligence that swears that mohammed (may pigs be upon him) atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. Just because the then incompetent CIA and the CYA 911 commission doesn't believe it says to me that the likelihood that it did happen is pretty strong.
This is a dumb straw-man. Those who claim we are in Iraq fighting "those who attacked us" are not referring to (a) the 19 people who hijacked the planes in 2001 (who are all dead), or (b) Saddam Hussein or anyone related to Saddam Hussein.
They are referring to jihadis, who wage terror warfare under the banner of Al Qaeda. Many such people are in Iraq right now. And Al Qaeda was the organization that attacked us on 9/11.
If Ron Paul were honest in this matter he'd at least characterize his opponents' argument accurately.
In any case, we have achieved the goals specified in the initial authorization. Saddam Hussein has been removed. An elected government is now in place in Iraq that meets with US approval. The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is our military presence. Why are we still over there?
"We" (a certain portion of our military) are over there so as to help safeguard the new government, (a) at its request and (b) as per UN mandate.
Conventional wisdom would dictate that when the "mission is accomplished", the victor goes home, and that is not considered a retreat.
Then why are "we" still in Japan, Germany, and South Korea? Same argument should apply right?
For that matter, why are "we" still in Afghanistan? By Ron Paul's own arguments, we should not be, and he should be publicly advocating for withdrawal from Afghanistan with as much energy as he does so for Iraq. Why doesn't he?
They voted for an end to the war in 2006.
No they didn't.
Americans are fiercely willing to defend themselves. However, we have no stomach for indiscriminate bombing in foreign lands
"Indiscriminate" bombing? Of whom is Ron Paul accusing this act? Oh that's right: the U.S. military. Congressman Ron Paul just accused his own military of indiscriminately bombing Iraq - which would be a war crime.
That is vile slander and if he had honor he would resign for saying such a thing.
our actual attackers either killed themselves on 9/11 or are still at large somewhere in a country that is neither Iraq nor Iran.
Which country then does Ron Paul propose to invade? This might be a convincing argument if one could have any confidence that Paul's idea here is to withdraw our military from Iraq so that they can go get our "actual attackers".
One doubts this though.
Defense of our homeland is one thing. Offensive tactics overseas are quite another.
Could have just as easily been said at the U.S. entry into World War II, when we invaded.... Morocco.
Worse yet, when our newly minted enemies find their way over here, where will our troops be to defend us?
"Troops" can't defend us at home from terror attacks in the first place, which is a big part of the reason we have to take an offensive stance against an enemy that relies on terror warfare.
I used to at least think highly of Ron Paul because, no matter whether I disagreed, he was principled. The problem is, he also seems to be a bit dumb.
I would guess that you’re losing more than you’re winning with these threads. Maybe that’s why the Mods are leaving them up.
This is conflating two separate things. One can be against various types of over-reaching of the federal government in the US and still in favor of an aggressive policy against the enemy in locations such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
In fact, I submit that failure to deal with the terrorism problem in the Middle East inevitably leads to more restrictions on freedom at home. If we get out of Iraq in disgrace and encourage the fanatics, who are in poor shape right now if Osama's video is any sign, then the result is virtually certain to be more attacks here. That leads to more clampdowns, more demands by the feds to have the right to violate our freedom.
I'm sympathetic to many of Ron Paul's positions. I want a minimalist federal government too. But giving up on the one function of the federal government that I support whole-heartedly, namely national defense, is not part of that bargain, and I think Paul is a fool to think his policies would lead to anything but a disaster for freedom.
OK, who put the Rosie O’Donnel post up? Who? Ron Paul? Oh. Easy mistake to make.
I am all for starting a “neo-con brigade”, with uniforms and identifying placards, to greet Mr. Paul at every public venue and remind him that “the neo cons are watching him”. It would be a hoot and I expect most any crowd would see the truth in the humor of it.