Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul on Glenn Beck Show

Posted on 07/30/2008 4:27:52 PM PDT by rightwinghour

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 241-245 next last
To: OHelix
I think the most likely answer is that they've been told by extremist religious leaders that harming us is a holy act and they will be blessed for it.

This actually has a long cultural history. The hassassin employed a technique of recruiting new, young members by starting in mosques, bringing in very young boys and keeping them on opiates, such as hashish through fervent religious teaching. When they felt they where ready, they would drug out the young boys and take them away to a city in the North Eastern Arabian mountains where they would meet the infamous 'old man in the mountain'. He showed them a ploy, a false heaven filled with young women (all kidnapped), fountains, fruit trees, etc, that they would 'gain' if they died for Islam, of course, in the name of the hassassin cause dejour. For a young boy from utter poverty living in Bedouin Arabian desert clans, this would seem like the ultimate paradise and they would gladly give their life.

Very little has changed. The 'old man in the mountain' has been replaced by Bin Ladin and various other Islamic cultists, but the result is the same. Fanatics with their cause take feeble minded individuals, dope them up with religious extremism (even if they don't use drugs any more), and give them a higher purpose.

Anyone who thinks it is because 'we are over there' is completely ignorant of the history. This has been going on centuries before there was a 'we', from Sunni against Shia to family against family. 'We' are nothing more than an archetype 'devil' that the wanna-be totalitarians use to retain control over their 'State' by giving people a common enemy to rally against, with a cause divine (sic) enough to give their life for.

141 posted on 07/31/2008 5:51:31 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: OHelix

test


142 posted on 07/31/2008 6:11:36 PM PDT by rightwinghour (http://rightwinghour.podbean.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus Reagan
Yea, I hear ya. Being an agnostic, I have the same problem with people who are absolutely convinced that there is a deity.

I think I would describe myself as someone who is absolutely convinced there is a deity. Although, I think I would say those words meaning "I have been fully persuaded", but you might hear those words and understand me to say "I have infallible knowledge".

143 posted on 07/31/2008 7:54:00 PM PDT by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

Now I feel like my reply was pretty inadequate. ;o)


144 posted on 07/31/2008 8:05:18 PM PDT by OHelix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick

“explain his dismal showing among thinking people”

“thinking” is not a word that describes people who voted for the presumptive R nominee, who will (probably & deservedly) lose in a landslide to a Marxist Democrat...as thinking conservatives abandon the top of the R ticket to vote for Baldwin, Barr or other non-socialist second party candidates.


145 posted on 07/31/2008 8:41:24 PM PDT by SecAmndmt (Arm yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: rightwinghour

“Yes, we have suicide bombers who want to harm us, but why do they want to harm us? Is it brought on by our past interventions, or do they hate us for our freedom and prosperity, such as we hear in the MSM?”

I am in partial agreement with you, but some Muslims really are crazy and murderous, even without foreign intervention. I’m far more concerned about the more moderate, secular Muslims, who might be pushed over the edge into radical Islam, because of a perception of foreign occupation resulting in the death of innocent persons. For that reason, I would have much preferred to see military action against very specific and limited terrorist targets, and not a full scale invasion.


146 posted on 07/31/2008 8:51:57 PM PDT by SecAmndmt (Arm yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: pissant

“Did Paul also flap his gums about his brilliant Pelosi-esque foreign policy prescriptions”

Pelosi is a non-interventionist? bwahahahahaha


147 posted on 07/31/2008 8:57:58 PM PDT by SecAmndmt (Arm yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus Reagan
"Your laissez-faire isolationist policy is so dangerous, but you can't even see it. After a while, when the dictators seize all the assets and give them to their friends, we all turn into Zimbabwe and it's oh-so-great economy."

All modern dictatorships exist by the grace of protection by the globalist cabal that hides behind the UN insanity. They could not exist without it. This is the direct result of your brand of foreign policy, not Ron Paul's. Without our funds and military, the globalists would expire, and that is exactly what Ron Paul has advocated for 30 years. Alqaida was born in the Balkans, and nurtured by Wesley Clark, at the urging of interventionist Bill Clinton, but with the full support of Newtie gingrich, and Trent Lott.

148 posted on 07/31/2008 9:10:03 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American History)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus Reagan; rightwinghour
"With your logic, we don't need a local police force anywhere in the USA because the people should defend themselves against criminals."

Is this your idea of analysis?

Police have never protected anyone, nor prevented a single murder. They come in after the fact, and establish symbolic power. If you wish to live, you have to be prepared to defend yourself by whatever means are available to you.

Your huffing and puffing provides no answer to anything; you haven't a reasonable understanding of current nor historic events.

149 posted on 07/31/2008 9:26:43 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American History)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: SecAmndmt; rightwinghour
"I am in partial agreement with you, but some Muslims really are crazy and murderous, even without foreign intervention"

You're getting close. Islam exists as the extention of Ishmael's unmitigated bitterness and hatred of Issac. This hatred is now directed at one primary goal: to stop God's plan. This means eliminating Israel, and the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no other motive for Islamic hatred and violence. It will exist whether we fight them or not. They will accept only total submission; that is what the word Islam means. Allah is Satan.

150 posted on 07/31/2008 9:34:44 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American History)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: SecAmndmt

I can see Paul in a headscarve and skirt BJ’ing Boy Assad just like Nancy did. He’s eager to talk and trade with them. It apparently does not bother the idiot that Syria is ranked 2nd or 3rd on the list of dangerous terrorist nations.


151 posted on 07/31/2008 10:23:11 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: rightwinghour
I don't advocate that we do anything the world's dictators want us to do. What I do advocate is a non interventionist foreign policy.

Buzzwords for the same thing buddy. You already admitted you don't think we should have gotten involved in europe in WWII, that's all anyone needs to know about you to draw the correct conclusions.
152 posted on 08/01/2008 7:10:03 AM PDT by messierhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: rightwinghour
How am I advocating surrender in Afghanistan?

By demanding we give up the fight. Paul does not support an all-out invasion, no holds barred, and he never has. He, like you, ignores all the damage we have done to al qaeda in the meantime and how disrupted we've kept them until now. You can't stop them just by killing one man, you have to kill all of them, or at least such a high percentage that the rest are incapable of creating a serious threat. He was against the afghanistan invasion before it started and he is still against it today. He is either a surrender-prone coward or he's a conspiracy nutjob who never really believed bin laden was behind 9/11.
153 posted on 08/01/2008 7:18:54 AM PDT by messierhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: djsherin
When an army pulls out of a country because it is losing (and we’re certainly not “losing” Iraq), it isn’t surrendering. Hitler didn’t surrender when he couldn’t take Stalingrad, but he did began to pull back because he couldn’t sustain the losses and the Russians began applying too much pressure.

I emphatically disagree with this entire statement. If you quit because you're losing you've surrendered. If you quit because your enemy is dead, you've already won before you "quit." Hitler effectively surrendered to the soviets. Stalingrad was the beginning of the end for him.
154 posted on 08/01/2008 7:23:46 AM PDT by messierhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: rightwinghour
Is it brought on by our past interventions, or do they hate us for our freedom and prosperity, such as we hear in the MSM? I don't think Ron Paul's foreign policy is naive, I just think that because it hasn't been used in over a hundred years it is hard to imagine how it could ever work.

They hate us because we are not radical muslims like them and will not stop until there is a global caliphate. Perhaps you think Paul's foreign policy is in line with all the founders, but in reality Paul would have been starkly opposed to Jefferson and Adam's solution to the islamic problem.
155 posted on 08/01/2008 7:33:49 AM PDT by messierhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: messierhunter
Buzzwords for the same thing buddy. You already admitted you don't think we should have gotten involved in europe in WWII, that's all anyone needs to know about you to draw the correct conclusions.

It is ignorant to say a non interventionist foreign policy is the same as doing what dictators tell us to do. I have said US involvement in WWII was avoidable, and it totally was. Your problem is not with me, it is with the Constitution, which is why I think someone should propose an amendment stating that our military should be used throughout the world without a declaration of war. That way, at least we'd have the Constitutional basis for doing what we have been doing for so many years.

156 posted on 08/01/2008 7:59:22 AM PDT by rightwinghour (http://rightwinghour.podbean.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: messierhunter

True, Hitler was finished, but surrendering would have meant he lost right there. He surrendered a bunch of troops that had been cut off, but he did not surrender. You can still “quit” while your enemy is alive and claim victory. For instance if Iran pissed us off enough and we bombed their airfields, military bases, and nuclear facilities, and then “quit” right there without finishing off the military or their leader, and then left, we would claim victory. At this point I don’t believe we’re fighting an army organized or strong enough to claim victory themselves. That said I think we should stay for around until the Iraqis can completely secure their own country and I understand where you’re coming from.


157 posted on 08/01/2008 8:08:33 AM PDT by djsherin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: messierhunter
They hate us because we are not radical muslims like them and will not stop until there is a global caliphate. Perhaps you think Paul's foreign policy is in line with all the founders, but in reality Paul would have been starkly opposed to Jefferson and Adam's solution to the islamic problem.

They hate everybody who isn't Muslim, but they don't attack everybody. Do you believe our interventions abroad have had no influence on why they attack us? I think Paul would have been fine with the way the Barbary Pirates were handled, since it was defensive in nature. They declared war on us, they captured and enslaved our citizens, and they were extorting money from us to pay for safe passage (appeasement). Jefferson formed the navy as a defense, and once they declared war on us, the feces of course hit the oscillator.

158 posted on 08/01/2008 8:51:33 AM PDT by rightwinghour (http://rightwinghour.podbean.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: pissant

“I can see Paul in a headscarve and skirt BJ’ing Boy Assad...”

TMI

And some of you Hunter supporters say that we RP supporters are “kooks” and “nutcases”...


159 posted on 08/01/2008 8:58:01 AM PDT by SecAmndmt (Arm yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: messierhunter
"but in reality Paul would have been starkly opposed to Jefferson and Adam's solution to the islamic problem."

Not so. He has openly praised Jefferson's actions thereto.

160 posted on 08/01/2008 10:14:34 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American History)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 241-245 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson