Posted on 12/13/2011 2:43:30 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Your post #106 doesn’t make any sense.
But then, you’re a Paulbot, so I guess it’s to be expected.
Oh, and are you from Cincinnati?
Are you a Bengals fan?
‘Nuff said.
LOL - I don't know how bad it is, but you know the site owner is no fan of the Blame-America, Code Pink spam-monkey.
Ron Paul, the moron, still hasn’t figured out that the first tenet of libertarianism is private property. When your private property is attacked, you go kick ass against the attackers. Instead, Ron Paul sees no problem with forgiving the mullahs who attacked us.
Ron Paul is the most stupid, clueless moron to ever present himself as a libertarian.
Harry Brown underestood libertarianism. Ron Paul doesn’t.
11 years of compassionate wars is a costly disgrace, and eventually will leave the U.S. bankrupt and broke. Did ya notice were nearly there?
We don't want no stinking "presence".
If you're going to fight GD war, fight it to the point where their own people turn on them with total vengeance, send the GD brutal message and get the hell out. I can assure you this works. If not, level a few more cities, take out their GD food and water supplies to grab their attention a bit more. Send the message, don't f*** with us.
War is where compassion does not exist.
Ya don't sacrifice your own people while trying to be friendly and compassionate. It don't work.
And 11 years later, and you're honking your horn, accusing people of cutting and running?
Do you have any idea how asinine that sounds?
You apply that "Cut & Run" BS to one of the only candidates up there who actually served in the wartime military and who has more financial support from the active duty military than all the other Repub candidates combined. Doesn't that even give you pause to think twice about saying things like that?
Most of the biggest hawk neocons -- like Cheney and even Gingrich -- spent Vietnam hiding out behind college deferments and they are supposed to be the "brave heroes" because they send other people's kids off to die for American wars they'd never go serve in themselves?
I swear, we really have reached a place in time where "up" is supposed to be "down" and "wrong" is supposed to be "right"
Ron Paul is our only hope? If so, we’re doomed.
Sorry but RP has near zero chance. He has enthusiasm, yes, but it is the enthusiasm of one who appeals to a small but energetic minority group (in this case, libertarians) that feels otherwise left out of the political process. He is someone that they can rally around, he is their hero, but that alone won’t translate to a wider audience. In fact, it all but makes it impossible to do so. For he has his own little niche that he fits comfortably into and as such it extremely hard to break out of that niche without compromising his principles, which in turn would disillusion his erstwhile enthusiastic supporters. (Much like an alternative type band that tries to broaden their appeal but instead mostly just wind up ticking off their formerly highly devoted fan base).
RP may at the moment seem like a suddenly surging candidate but that is only because no one has bothered to try to take him out. But if somehow he did win the nomination, what then? The Obama team and their media mafia would have a field day against him. They would easily paint him as “too old, too right wing, too kooky” in no time at all.
In the end, he has no real chance to play anything other than a spoiler role at this point. That’s the reality of the situation as i see it.
“Agree.
But for his goofy isolationist foreign policy, he’d get my vote.”
The Founding Fathers warned future generations to avoid foreign entanglements. Paul is saying they were correct. The undeclared wars and foreign aid of the past 60 years have accomplished nothing except killing young Americans, draining the Treasury, and allowing Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Europe to get rich while the US taxpayer paid for their defense.
The Constitutional requirement for Congress to declare war before the President commits troops has been conveniently ignored beginning with the Korean War. Paul is first and foremost a believer in the letter of the Constitution — to commit troops overseas the President needs a declaration of war from Congress. His foreign policy is to have defensive armed forces to protect the homeland, not an offensive force constantly involved in policing the globe wherever the President in power decides he wants to deploy them and for whatever reason he wants to deploy them.
The problems this nation has at home are as severe as any time in its history. We are financially bankrupt and can no longer afford to commit troops merely on the desire of a President to make a country “democratic” or push out a ruler. If we continue this approach to the world, some day the Chinese may decide to effect regime change inside the United States or the Iranians may decide to fly drones over our cities.
Going back to founding principles, as Paul advocates, means limited government. This not only implies our government stays out of the lives of its citizens, it also means the government stays out of the affairs of other nations unless we are directly attacked. The requirement that Congress vote for war before the nation is committed to war ensures the nation has a sober debate about the consequences and ensures the President has the political and popular support to conduct the war until victory is achieved.
You bet. Good post.
Who doesn’t assume RP may do well in the Iowa? And who doesn’t also recognize its because of his and his rabib followers spending so much time and money in Iowa, but he’s a one shot cannon.
Same as with huckleberry, it will mean nothing in the scheme of things toward the nomination and will degrade Iowa’s caucuses stature in future Primaries.
Sure thing, for sure!
Perry is embarking on a 40-some city campaign in Iowa - he’s working his tail off - he’s the one to watch!
You’re all over the map here, equating different things. The reasons for the “endless foreign wars” stem from the fact that there are insane Muslim fanatics there who want to kill us and we decide to go there kill them first, which doesn’t seem like such a crazy idea to me. And when you talk about the the nonexistent WMD, you conveniently ignore the context of Bush’s decision, which was after 911, when we have an insane dictator who is playing cat and mouse with the UN inspectors, NEVER proved that he did NOT have WMD, and in fact, we know that he DID have them, since he used them on the Kurds. Plus the fact that every other country thought he had them. It’s convenient to rewrite history after the fact, but it was Saddam’s responsiblity to prove he did not have WMD - after 17 UN resolutions, which the corrupt Europeans were never about to enforce because of the Oil for Food program. So in that post-911 context, it made sense to depose a dangerous dictator who could funnel weapons to terrorist groups as well as make his own.
Guess what - the Millenials you talk about are American, are they not? Therefore they are just as vulnerable to terrorism as the rest of us. And many of them are proud to serve their country by killing those who would kill us. It’s not a waste to promote democracy.
As far as the border - I agree - we shouldnt be letting 11 million Mexicans and no doubt terrorists come in - which is why Conservatives want a president who will secure the border.
No, you are the ones living in the bubble world...thinking that if we mind our own business then everyone will leave us alone. We were minding our own business on 911. Anyone who would say, as Paul did recently, that Bush was happy about it, because it gave him an excuse to invade Iraq, is despicable.
I predict Perry will gain as the Tea Party folks realize that the Newt they have seen in debates is a phony, and the Newt who bashes Capitalism and worships FDR is the REAL Newt. Also, since they both favor amnesty for illegals in some form, Newt loses the tough-on-immigration advantage that Cain had.
No you are.
I've read the chain of exchange between you two, and Houston is absolutely correct here.
I think you’re right. Newt’s been pretty cocky, but I hear that he has very little organization in Iowa - same for Romney. Santorum, Bachmann, Paul & Perry have been working hard. Perry & Paul have the most money to spend, and I think it’s going to surprise a lot of people.
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.