Posted on 12/19/2007 11:36:37 AM PST by SJackson
Okay, let's take a furinstance.
Jefferson must have bothered the Muslim Barbary Pirates a lot by paying them ransom to release kidnapped Americans. So much so that the offended Muslims kidnapped more Americans and killed a few.
Now I realize that since 1544 America had been nosing into Muslim business in the Tripoli area and that justified the response of the kidnap, enslavement and murder of over one million Europeans and the seizing of American ships in 1784.
Again, American meddling in Algerian affairs, killing most everybody we could find, in 1815, caused the seizing of American ships in 1794. Funny how that works.
The final subjugation and occupation of Muslim Algeria by the French in 1830, was, of course the provocation for the implementation of the Muslim piracy and slave trading in 1544.
It happens to be part of reality that the principles we espouse are despised by some people. No need to be nice to them with our tax dollars. No need to police them. No need to set up democracy in their land.
But there is a whole lotta need to kill them.
while overestimating the strength of the enemy.
Any responsible person who studies the history of Islam (or communism) will see danger only in the opposite action.
(Attention FReepers, I am in and out of sarcasm here without tags (watch the dates), as I am fed up with this "It's a matter of leaving people alone when it is no business of ours to interfere in their affairs" crap, we've actually been doing that for most of our history and it gets Americans killed.)
Meanwhile the enemies of liberty do not only come as warmongers. Do you really think Ron Paul is an enemy of individual liberty and accountability? Do you think we cannot defend ourselves as a people without venturing into other lands to establish democracy?
I’d love to ask you a question, but I see the Mods already banned you.
Do you really think Ron Paul is an enemy of individual liberty and accountability?
No. Paul promotes the maximum individual liberty to the point of infringements upon the rights of other humans, no further. Paul requires personal responsibility for personal actions and directives given under color of law, with consideration for legitimate mental illness.
Do you think we cannot defend ourselves as a people without venturing into other lands to establish democracy?
Being as that was a trick question, I fixed it. NOW the answer is yes.
the enemies of liberty do not only come as warmongers.
Ah ha! Remember this?:
Ron Paul will not recognize that there are malevolent entities that have, from their creation, the purpose of misdirecting America's strength to subjugate the world under their vision of a proper society.
Immigrate, infiltrate, demonstrate, defy, demand and apply Sharia law. Accomplish subjugation without warmongering.
Do brush up on 1350 years of planning the subjugation of America even though we've only been around for about the last 230 odd.
Mind you, even Ron Paul acknowledges the necessity of venturing into other lands for purposes of self defense. Editing the question and answering as you did puts you in agreement with him and me.
As for your response regarding individual liberties, it leaves me wondering what is your substance of choice when it comes to alternate states of awareness.
How about you brush up on the fact that, by the grace of God, we are bigger and better than they are and are willing to defend our freedoms to the teeth? As if Ron Paul is interested in giving into sharia law as the predominant ruling force in the USA.
Then where does that fit in under the Constitutionally permitted scope of the Federal government?
}:-)4
Direct the question to Ron Paul, he's the one running, not me. Then direct the question: Who is responsible for this Sharia outbreak?, to yourself, as you have the answer.
Ron Paul acknowledges the necessity of venturing into other lands for purposes of self defense.
Sure he does. He will just wait until he's sure they are hostile. Take Iran for instance, he will remove sanctions until a plutonium bomb detonates in DC, then he will venture into Iran.
Editing the question and answering as you did puts you in agreement with him and me.
No, it prevented you from putting words in my mouth. I was always in agreement on venturing, just when. You and Paul would show up a day late and a million lives short. I'd wave to you as we pass, and you would find I left no democracy behind.
As for your response regarding individual liberties, it leaves me wondering what is your substance of choice when it comes to alternate states of awareness.
How kind of you.
You are well aware that Paul is a Libertarian in an elephant suit. Not that I have a distaste for Libertarian philosophy, I agree with a great deal of it, for those with the discipline to apply it. Paul has that discipline, and so do I. Paul, on his website, has written coded language for drug legalization, often a libertarian position. My assessment of Paul's philosophy on liberties is much more accurate than your insinuation that I must be a substance abuser to recognize Paul as a Libertarian. Both Dr Paul and I have the discipline to abstain from any substance abuse, and I do. You, sir, are projecting.
She also claims Osama and Bush are old friends.
Typical views of the Ron Paul, 9/11 truth supporters that are the masses behind his campaign activism.
One of the best commentaries I’ve seen in a long time on here showing the lunacy of the Paul foreign policy approach. Kudos on a well done post. The sarcasm is well placed and illustrates a great point.
I cannot ignore the necessity of defending the United States and American culture first and foremost because that same nation and culture has and will defend the Constitution and personal liberty in return.
I believe that cultural equivalence is a dangerous myth promoted by leftists and communists who believe that America is not culturally superior, and causes the worlds problems by trying to impose western values and societal systems on other nations.
I see overwhelming evidence that western free enterprise and capitalism makes people's lives better and raises their standard of living when applied, and socialism drives the same peoples rapidly toward poverty when it replaces free enterprise and capitalism.
I will support the candidate that opts for a judgemental fail safe approach to countering international terrorist or preparatory attacks upon the United States, not one that demands US Federal court rules of evidence to determine said terrorist's participation in an attack. It's Utopian policy that gets the innocents killed, and preemptive policy that gets the not-so-innocents killed.
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.