Posted on 05/16/2007 6:19:46 PM PDT by magellan
This is vanity, but this is also a moment of clarity for me about Ron Paul. Comments welcome.
libertarians (small "l"), believe in individual responsibility. When Ron Paul (R, TX) says U.S. foreign policy is the cause for terrorists (individuals acting as a group for a common cause) to attack us, he violates a very basic libertarian tenant: Individual Responsibility.
Ron Paul uses the same logic liberals use when they say poverty causes crime.
Ron Paul revealed himself last night. He is NO libertarian.
“How many threads did the McCainiacs start in 2000 and again in 2006? Or, how many threads did the “Perot-istas” start in ‘92?”
Interesting you mention Perot. I think that’s exactly what’s going to happen this year. Guliuni or Romney win the nomination and staunch pro-lifers/NRA types will go to a 3rd party to vote for Paul...Iraq be damned. Hitlery/Obamanation becomes president.
That’s what we’ll get for nominating a liberal. Sorry, kind of got off the Ron Paul talk.
My point is, we could at least nominate a conservative.
All he’s saying is that US foreign policy is often counterproductive and that our 50+ year support of dictators in the area and hurtful meddlings has contributed to some of the amosity against the United States.
I don’t see what is so revelational about it...
ron paul on 9/11:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul174.html
(I don’t agree with all of what he says in there, but there are some good things, providing some background for his thoughts on this.)
Your comparison is excellent.
That's a perfectly fine opinion to have. But it defies libertarian philosophy which says the individual is responsible for the decisions he or she makes.
Read post #4, by M203M4. He explains it better than me.
Read post #4 by M203M4, and you will see your Cadillac example is exactly like the red text example M203M4 provides.
Wow, that was impressive. Didn’t mention or touch on any point except that a number of muslims are barbaric. Which I did not deny in any way and agree that many are AND I said we should protect ourselves from them.
So you don’t like your neighbor or his extreamist dog though they haven’t come across to your property, but just in case you should start shooting at them. Now your suprised when he lobs a moltoff cocktail and burns down your tree house and you say “see he is a terrorist he burned down my tree house” obviously oblivious that the rest of the neighborhood has been watching you shoot at him.
Obviously the problem is you have managed to miss 8000 years of world history. Sure glad our founding fathers finally decided not to tolerate that crap...and if China, Russia, or any other group were to try the same crap here on American soil that we are doing there I would be shooting off some IEDs and sniper attacking them until I died or they left.
By the way, maybe if we stuck to things such as the Treaty of Tripoli, we would be a bit better off, and if they do attack us UNPROVOKED then we wipe the floor with them.
We have another retard moral equivalator on FR.
I’ll presume that you are referencing my post. And as you have ultimately reduced to name calling and clearly using words/ideas that you don’t comprehend. A moral equivalator is one who sees that there is no moral difference in the stance and/or tactics between 2 or more parties engaged in a conflict.
No such statement has been made. I have stated that the US Government is acting out of its Constitutional limitations and has been by manipulating and attempting to direct aspects of the middle east for its own purposes and thus is wrong and should expect with high probability the “boomerang effect” as stated by the CIA and the 9/11 report.
The “government actions” that most on FR seem to be protecting with such sanctity and calling names when these policies are challenged is listed as a major cause by the same “government”.
Thus I have said that just like a pit bull may likely attack you anyway, when you throw rocks at it, you can count on it. We pushed, they pushed back not just a Newtonian law and a biblical law “reap what you sow”, but the findings of the government itself. Why is it thus such a hard concept for Freepers to grasp?
FRED THOMPSON FOR PRESIDENT!!
All others need NOT apply.
Because you are using semantics as cover for JUSTIFICATION. Yes, we made alliances with tyrants - we were fighting the Cold War for goodness sake.
This common thread, this common nature of these barbarians is the key to the nature of our attack. They perceived America, the great satin, as weak. Under the Clinton Administration, we became easy pickings. 9-11 was like a wolf pack's first strike. It was the first step of a strategy. Like a wolf pack, they select a weak point in their prey and one wolf makes the first test strike. The rest watch to see how the prey reacts. For this reason, I believe that 9-11 was the first of a strategy for subduing America. They will seek any weakness on our part and use it for our defeat. The use of human weakness is how they have achieved control over human beings for thousands of years. With the rise of the information age, their reign over human beings is being threatened. America represents the ultimate conquest. With America subdued, the strategy they use will achieve the world.
Who put an embargo on Saddam and the Iraqis - US
The UN and most of the world.
Who gave Saddam his WMD’s - US (right out of Florida)
That was a breach of US law. On the other hand, France and the USR were quite open.
Who installed the Iran leadership - US
Are you on drugs or in need of anti-psychotics?
We did not install the Shia Islamists in Iran. They attacked us.
Who’s lackey was Osama - US CIA
Who put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan - US
Ignorance and leftists propoganda. Actually, it was the Islamists ISI.
You believe every leftists lie about the US but ignore Islamist theology.
Look up Quisling.
“Thus I have said that just like a pit bull may likely attack you anyway, when you throw rocks at it, you can count on it. We pushed, they pushed back not just a Newtonian law and a biblical law “reap what you sow”, but the findings of the government itself. Why is it thus such a hard concept for Freepers to grasp?”
I would further extend that analogy. Imagine that your neighbor has a pit bull that has attacked and bitten you. Incinerating the house of the guy two houses down is probably not a good strategy or a way to get your neighbors to like you. In fact, it will probably piss them off and turn them against you. Why do 90% of Iraqis want the US out? Maybe the same reason we’d want the Chinese out under similar circumstances? The doomsday prophets on Vietnam were wrong as well. We trade with them now.
The hornets nest analogy is also apt.
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.