Thank you for making my point yet again.
Would you like to discuss an idea, or perhaps an event, or would you like to stay where you are most comfortable?
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 09/26/2009 2:18:01 PM PDT by GoldStandard
Isn’t that what all others do?
Again, why complain about spending then add to it yourself?
Thank you for making my point yet again.
Would you like to discuss an idea, or perhaps an event, or would you like to stay where you are most comfortable?
Paul agree with Obama? What are you smoking? Obama has FAILED to withdraw troops from Iraq. There are NOW 130K there, the same as when Obama took office. Moreover, Obama has INCREASED the number of troops in Afghanistan to a level HIGHER than the number ever proposed by Bush and McCain. Based on the facts, it seems that you agree more Obama than Paul does.
And the Bush/Obama policy of nation building and more and more troops in Afghanistan (which has not stopped a revived Taliban) since 2002 is working better because......?
>>> Noticing that savage tribesmen resent being bested by the White Western Gods isn’t “Blame America First”, it’s fundamental sociological and psychological fact. <<<
“Savage tribesmen”? LOL! To paraphrase Disraeli, when MY ancestors were brutal savages on an unknown island, the inhabitants of Afghanistan were highly civilized farmers, metalsmiths and traders of silk. Cut these folks some slack — 30 years that included a war with the Soviets, civil war and occupation by Al-Qaeda et al can make a mess of the social fabric.
>>> And just FYI, I think we should have gone nuclear in Afghanistan the first week of the war. <<<
As far as I can tell, I live in the USA, not Nazi Germany. The extermination of entire peoples is neither the official nor unofficial policy of MY country.
Perhaps you have missed the news of Obama undecided on whether or not to send more Troops to Afghanistan?
Let Afghanistan fall, likely Pakistan will follow from a resurrgent Taliban and Al Qaeda, giving them nukes!
Obama campaigned on withdrawing Troops from Iraq. Once in office, reality smacked him between the eyes.
Paul campaigned on withdrawing Troops too.
I don’t which is worse, devotees to Paul or Obama.
Neither are willing to see fault with either of your messiahs.
Neither has any sense of reality.
They are not men, they are Devo.
When "entire peoples" wish for, facilitate, and assist in genocide against your country, you should reconsider your perspective, and stop externalizing your sensitive nature.
Which world would be better? One where the Taliban ruled Earth, or one where Constitutional Republics kept Islam in check through fear until they withered and died?
Take a longer term perspective. All cultures are not equally valid or destined for longevity.
Ron Paul is not the president and never will be. But he's quite right about the fed and most domestic issues.
Anyone opposing his current efforts to audit the fed simply because he is nuts on foreign policy issues are letting unrelated differences of opinion obstruct a worthy cause which is being advocated by a guy who is equally worthy of considerable respect in this specific area.
He is one of 435 congressmen. He's not going to change our anti-terror policies by pushing to audit the fed.
Leiberman is generally right on war issues and is to be commended for that wisdom, but I would NOT vote for him either or support his liberal domestic policies.
Nobody is perfect (meaning agreeing with me) on all issues, so make use of valuable support on specific issues from anyone whose heart is in the specific noble fight - as is Paul's in the anti-fed fight.
He's already sent more after he took office. Bush and McCain had said that no more troops were needed back in 2008. The question he is deciding now is whether to send even more.
.... Obama campaigned on withdrawing Troops from Iraq. Once in office, reality smacked him between the eyes.
Hmmm...I keep hearing here that Iraqi democracy is vibrant and has the support of the people and that its army is capable. If so, why do they need 130K Americans to defend them?
A better explanation for keeping the 130K in Iraq is that Obama lied about withdrawing, just like nearly all other politicians. In any case, you now seem to admit that Obama's decision to keep 130K in Iraq shows him to be the polar opposite of Paul on this issue.
I know if I were President, I would never attack anyone until the congress had actually offically declared war, and I would warn them in advance that if they declared war I will use everything, EVERYTHING in our arsonal to win the war with the fewest casualties on our side and the maximum possible on their side in the shortest possible time for the least amount of money. So they should think REALLY hard before voting, because all bets are off once they declare war.
>>> They are not men, they are Devo. <<<
Actually, the Afghanis are men and women of my species. Homo sapiens sapiens. Members of that class of “men” that Mr. Jefferson wrote of in the phrase “all men are created equal.” They are not vermin to be exterminated.
>>> When “entire peoples” wish for, facilitate, and assist in genocide against your country, you should reconsider your perspective, and stop externalizing your sensitive nature. <<<
Al-Qaeda and its operatives were responsible. The vast majority of the several millions of men and women who lived in the basket-case of Afghanistan in 2001 were not.
Also, it should be obvious that even in the case of Al-Qaeda the object was to get he US to submit or surrender to their Islamic fantasy of “how the world should be.” The Islamonazis weren’t/aren’t talking about exterminating us. Moreover, the US gov’t hasn’t been — and still isn’t —talking about exterminating them.
>>> Which world would be better? One where the Taliban ruled Earth, or one where Constitutional Republics kept Islam in check through fear until they withered and died? <<<
The better world is the one in which the US gov’t doesn’t drop nukes in the attempt to exterminate a nation of people. Instead, they are more precise in their response to foreign attacks. Oddly enough, I find that I live in this better world. Fancy that.
>>> Take a longer term perspective. All cultures are not equally valid or destined for longevity. <<<
You’re begging the question as to whether or not the Afghanis are civilized. I am not God, and thus cannot forsee which cultures are destined for longevity and which are not. I have noticed, however, that nations that in recent times have attempted to exterminate a nation of people — e.g., the Nazis in relation to the Jews and the Slavs — tend to have a short lifespan. It would be inhumane and foolish to emulate the Nazis’ monstrous efforts.
Hi Dakota Red,
Would you please give me a lesson on “his idea on Letters of Marque and Reprisal”? I don’t know what that means and I am wondering where he said this. Thanks alot.
What’s the lie? He’s a nut.
Paul's anti-war stance is well known. He voted for the Afghanistan War resolution and voted against the Iraq War resolution. However, Paul quickly changed his tune on Afghanistan, voting against funding. Today he opposes both wars. In the 2007 GOP primary debates, Paul made it very clear that he blamed America for the 911 attacks, not the terrorists.
Bush had the authority from Congress to make war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
* The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001), one of two resolutions commonly known as "AUMF" (the other being "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"), was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.
* The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [1], Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution (i.e., a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.
So you're saying the Founding Fathers wouldn't have allowed the United States
to become the police force for the New World Order?
Most of the beanbags here don't even know what the Founders stood for.
They are useful idiots in the communist takeover of America, which is now as good as done.
Saying it doesn’t make it so.
Like I said, It’s hard to figure out who is worse, worshippers of Obama or worshippers of Ron Paul.
Both would let thousands of American be killed.
Both opposed the very law enforcement latitudes that just disrupted how many domestic terrorist attacks this week?
Just pitiful.
You’re a globalist.
It still remains in our constitution, but other coutnries outlawed them in the mid 1800's. To me they amount to hiring mercenaries, which is strictly forbidden by the Geneva Conventions, which he also complains must be strictly adhered to in dealing with detainees.
I went in to it a bit more in depth at my blog many months ago, The Incredible Naiveté of Dr. Ron Paul
Welcome to Free Republic. = )
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.