Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He's saying if we weren't over there, they wouldn't have wanted to attack us like they did. He is in no way justifying what happened.
I agree. I never bought into the whole "he's conding what happened on 9/11" crap. All though i don't know if i can agree that they never would of attacked.....i think the hatred of America/Israel in the middle-east is far deeper than just "we don't like that your people are over heer!" you know? I could be wrong though, but yeah, i know no Republican condones what happened on 9/11 or thinks we deserved it. But i also think we can't abandon ALL our military bases around the world........some? Yes! A good portion? Likely! I mean over the last few years i've found out that we're in places around in the world that make NO SENSE at all......it's a total waste of our money/time, and we're not getting jack s*** from it.
[LOL @ the title of this thread though.......wacky satire! ]
Ok you should me where in the constitution we have to defend europe that is their responsiblity. Defending someone and still being FRIENDS and not wasting money is different. Many terrorist want to kill themselves for many reasons but we serve no justice to our freedoms to give money to evil people in other parts of the world and build bases in other lands where middle eastern politics are not to the liking of the locals.
I think the idea was that it is less costly in dollars and human life to keep an eye on europe and have a peacekeeping presence than it would be to have to fight another WW there. I just think that there is not a danger of a ground force type of war there anymore.
I agree with scaling back our military in Europe and Japan, but not eliminating it. I can't see us abandoning Israel either. Don't we need to keep an eye on North Korea and Iran's nukes too?
And I don't prescribe to his idea when the Trade Center got bombed, we got what was coming to us.
Please provide a link where Ron Paul ever stated that!
When did the Republicans stand for what Pauls wants for the US, who were the leaders that proposed his same ideas and carried them out? If he were honest he wouldn't run a if he IS a Republican, correct? So, if by some fluke he got elected the Repubs would not support his ideas and the Dems sure wouldn't, so what would that make Paul? LAMEDUCK from day 1. Anyway, since you don't read my stuff, I guess I am wasting my time asking questions and bringing reality into the equation.
The GOP left Paul and other Constitutional Conservatives much like the DNC left Reagan and Goldwater and other "blue dog Democrats".
The GOP used to be the party of Constitutional Conservatism (Taft was the last), however, since Eisenhower, not so much.
Read it the way you want, but I think most would disagree wtih you. I take it as his justifying what happened. What about the attack on Pearl Harbor? What say you about that?\
Nita
Pearl Harbor... Didn't we sanction Japan with cutting off their oil supply? So they attacked us?
Here is the funny part... We go to the shoes of Normandy. It was almost a year after Pearl Harbor, that we started a Pacific offense.
I usually don't bother reading what you write because it's all uneducated but this time, I'll respond:
Anyone with half a brain knows that Paul is not really a Republican, he's actually a Libertarian. However, he runs on the Republican ticket because what he stands for is how Republicans USED TO be.
What we have now, calling themselves Republicans, is a joke.
Now shoo.
''Anyone with half a brain knows that Paul is not really a Republican, he's actually a Libertarian. However, he runs on the Republican ticket because what he stands for is how Republicans USED TO be.''
What an asinine False statement!
The Republican party has NEVER promoted legalizing drugs!! Never supported legalizing prostitution. NEVER!!
See, folks, you have to watch and listen 'very closely'...so as not to be 'taken for a ride' by some of these 'paulies!'
But, not to worry! A libertarian doesn't have 'half a brain's' chance of ever being the 'R' party nominee!
I usually don't bother reading what you write because it's all uneducated but this time, I'll respond:
Anyone with half a brain knows that Paul is not really a Republican, he's actually a Libertarian. However, he runs on the Republican ticket because what he stands for is how Republicans USED TO be.
What we have now, calling themselves Republicans, is a joke.
''Anyone with half a brain knows that Paul is not really a Republican, he's actually a Libertarian. However, he runs on the Republican ticket because what he stands for is how Republicans USED TO be.''
What an asinine False statement!
The Republican party has NEVER promoted legalizing drugs!! Never supported legalizing prostitution. NEVER!!
See, folks, you have to watch and listen 'very closely'...so as not to be 'taken for a ride' by some of these 'paulies!'
But, not to worry! A libertarian doesn't have 'half a brain's' chance of ever being the 'R' party nominee!
Oh my god, sometimes I wonder if you really even mean what you say or if you just throw crap against the wall and hope it sticks? Seriously, Ron Paul is NOT for drug legalization or the legalization of prostitution! Just stop, seriously, don't post on crap that you have no idea about. What Ron Paul supports, is what the GOP historically stood for, STATES RIGHTS. Drugs and prostitution are issues for the states to deal with! He simply supports the end of federal involvement in the matter!
"I believe the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism"- President Ronald Reagan, Republican.
See folks, you have to listen very closely so as not to be taken for a ride by some of these "quality guys."
boy you can say that again. I have been involved in politics for years and a Republican from a pretty much Republican background, if Paul stands for what the Republicans used to stand for, it must have been in the 17th or 18th century. You have it right when it comes to supporting him, if he got elected as well. He wouldn't get much accomplished as neither side would agree with him..
NIta
Or how about the 20th century? I suggest you and Casper pick up some history books and actually study the history of the Republican party. They are traditionally the party of limited government and non-interventionism. Your starting point would be Senator Robert Taft, whose nickname was "Mr. Republican." The ideas of interventionism abroad and robust government at home are liberal ideas that neoconservatives brought to the Republican party in the late 1980s. Even going all the way back into ancient history, George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a non-interventionist platform and harshly criticized the Clinton administration for an arrogant foreign policy.
My god, how much better America would be if George Bush would have governed the way he campaigned. You say you have been involved "for years" in politics, well that clip is only 11 years old surely you remember that don't you? It's simply astonishing to watch "conservatives" blast Ron Paul for a foreign policy George Bush won the Presidency on in 2000, and his "extreme" positions like abolishing the Department of Education which was a plank of the GOP platform as late as 1996. Learn your history folks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
]
