Posted on 12/03/2007 8:05:44 PM PST by jdm
Courtesy Ping
The term "military-industril complex" has been 99.999999999% the province of paranoid blame-America moonbats for at least the last 30 years. Ron Paul is not only one of those paranoid blame-America moonbats, he has specifically aided the enemy in wartime. No parsing on your part is going to change those things.
Really? You may want to talk to the US Shrimp Farming Industry before you proclaim that.
What worked for a mostly agrarian republic in the age of wooden ships and currently work for nations like Switzerland is not applicable to this nation in this era. While we must pick our stands well (unlike the Clinton Administration's involvement in ex-Yugoslavia), and when we fight, we must have a plan for victory (a serious flaw in the Bush Administration's pre-Petraeus handling of Iraq), the United States cannot be a neutral power due to our very size and the malevolent nature of our rivals, from the Nazis and the Japanese through the Communists, to the Muslim jihadists, the Russians and the Chinese today. I suspect that George Washington and Thomas jefferson would agree if they were around today, rather than two centuries ago.
And if you think the media isn't biased, then the maroon here definitely isn't Paul.
No, linking such disparate entities as water-boarders, The Fed, the Vestigial Media, etc. in a sentence that implies he is being persecuted by them is paranoid.
While each of those entities exist, Ron Paul is as significant as a bump on a Gnats butt to any of them.
Ron Paul, how about admitting that you are just as delusional about Radical Islam as Neville Chamberlain was about Herr Hitler in 1938!?
Chamberlain thought that Hitler was "acting out" because of the poor treatment Germany had received from the Allies after WWI. He thought he could appease Hitler by making overtures and concessions to Germany and Italy. The result was Anschluss, Lebensraum and Blitzkrieg.
Ron Paul thinks Radical Islam is "acting out" because of the poor treatment Arabia has received from the United States and its Allies after WWII and The Gulf War. The Result of a Ron Paul Administration would be just as horrendous as was Chamberlain's government.
"anti-American enough for a blame America first coward like cut and run."
Use your noodle. You are making "America" synonymous with foreign policy. The implication there is that ANY foreign policy that America goes by is automatically right. By that "logic", anyone who criticized Clinton's foreign policy was "blaming America first", since to you, evidently, America is synonymous with foreign policy. Can a foreign policy EVER be wrong or immoral? Can a foreign policy ever go against our constitution or principles that we are supposed to believe in?
If the answer is yes, then stop with the moronic and deceptive use of phrases like "Blame America" and recognize that disagreeing with a foreign policy is not anti-American because a particular foreign policy is not synonymous with America. In fact, if the foreign policy itself is unconstitutional and bad for America, then what would be anti-American is cheering for it. Btw, this was discussed here as well: Click
Sadly, you may be right. But let's hope they surprise us.
He never said they were colluding. He said they were all opposed to him. That means that each group or institution is, for its own reasons, opposed to his candidacy. As I stated in my previous post, there are logical reasons for each one. There’s no conspiracy, and he’s not claiming there is one. He’s simply saying that there’s a lot of negative, powerful forces that don’t want him to win.
Therefore, if I simply disregard those assertions, the remainder of your screed is selected (cherry-picked) quotes that happen to support your opinions.
By the way, why is Ron Paul, a Libertarian, running on the Republican ticket?
Right, they oppose him independently, the administration and nation having already been hijacked by the neocons.
And But every good American is applauding us, and daring to hope for a better future. isn't a slap at those not applauding him as non-American.
Anybody who wants to cut off the money to supply our troops who are in harms way what they need to survive and win the WOT is anti-American. Cut and run and his democratic allies are anti-American.
Cut and run said it was the United States that was to blame for 9/11 because we did not do enough to appease his terrorist buddies. Is that not blaming America first. He never blames the terrorists, only America.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=K02
..and this is just for the 08 election cycle.. it doesn’t really go into his history.
No, he said that an intervenionist foreign policy has consequences. Please answer with a yes or no, does a foreign policy EVER have negative consequences? It is the Bush/Clinton foreign policy he disagrees with, not America. Once again, you are trying to make America synonymous with a particular foreign policy - that is either dishonest or ignorant.
Dunno where you get that from my post. I was referrering to Paul's blaming America for terrorism.
Didn't Ronnie at one time say he wouldn't run third party? Not sure of that. But that wouldn't make any difference anyway. Maybe he'll run with Kucinich as his Veep. (What a pair!)
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.