Posted on 09/10/2007 5:07:04 PM PDT by yetidog
Edited on 09/11/2007 2:35:30 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
A good chance to see Ron outside the debate format. Not good.
******
Ron Paul and Bill O'Reilly video
I should have held my temper I reckon but the purge list was uncalled for.
LOL I have my own home, own land which I can survive off of, and a view of two mountain chains to go with it :>} Now as for KosKid? My posting beliefs have not changed one bit for the 8 years I've been here but then again I remember when FR was truly a site for Conservatives from ALL parties. I remember older posters, good ones, who posted great Conservative writings. Sheltonmac was such and many more who are gone. They weren't trolls there wasn't even any anger in their post. It was ideas or beliefs a majority of Freepers once held. So what changed? IMO a major influx in FR of GOP local, and state volunteers and paid workers about early 2000 when things started getting rough. BTW I lurked in here a year before sign on. A poster {mainly lurker} named fictitious a person who was like a brother to me showed me the site.
I just use the term Smirking Chimp to describe that clueless expression he has. I've never accused Bush of any personal addictions, draft dodging, etc. I do not like the mans politics or policies. I have not like them since the 2000 primaries. I think he is a cross between the Republicans LBJ and Jimmy Carter and every day in many ways Bush proves unfortunately for our nations future me right. Mexican Trucks on our hi-ways among the latest of his dirty deeds done dirt cheap. Well not dirt cheap for Americans due to rises in death tolls, insurance premiums, accidents, loss of jobs etc.
Now I want to remind everyone of this fact. Why cheer on a man who before this nation on TV in 2000 stated "Me and Mr Gore are not that far apart on most issues". Remember that? Or words very, very similar? I do and I voted Third Party. I did not vote for Gore or Gore Lite. Now how about you?
You know what the first sign of Rinoenablius is? Supporting a politican no matter how many wrongs against the nation and Constitution he has done in office. Now actually Caps is SHOUTING! Sometimes shouting on a keyboard is a good thing. It opens up the eyes to the blind.
You need to read the U.S. Constitution and actual text of political speaches instead of believing what Rush and Hannity tells you too. Try it sometime. It works. You also might want to read the writings of the founders. Ones like George Washington who warned of foreign entanglements. Your name is not cute. But you despise one of the persons who actually wants to do something about April 15 by limiting the size and largeness of government and voted so? You're a phoney Jack.
Agreed. But then again Ron Paul isn't like Mitt, John, Rudy, Fred, who were too chicken to face questions from Conservatives or the public except in protected by the MSM liberal media and RNC. Ron Paul does not shy away from discussing in depth hard issues. The sad part is Blow Hards like O'Rielly and Hannity will cut him off and never let him explain it in full then puts words in his mouth and say's well we're out of time the cowards they are.
An example of the top fours Too scared to be seen with or debate true conservatives is HERE . These people aren't fringe Conservatives they are what began the Conservative movement. Highly respected writers and activist.
Thanks.
“Only in the sense that he is a “contributor” to any web site or publication.”
I don’t think it’s quite that simple.
First of all, my error, Ron Paul is listed as a ‘columnist’ rather than a ‘contributor’ as I stated earlier. I believe this implies much more than a site that just happens to link to his speeches, etc.
Second, there is a special link, the “Ron Paul File” that takes you to several pages about Ron Paul, articles on Ron Paul, and some of Mr. Paul’s commentary. Once again this implies much more than a casual association.
Third, you will also find that Rep. Paul is also listed as a ‘columnist’ on antiwar.com site. You’ll also find a link to pages of Ron Paul’s own works.
Fourth, I know you dispute the allegation that Ron Paul is a ‘truther’ but it becomes more difficult to deny that allegation when Ron Paul freely associates with ‘truthers’. I don’t think any one can credibly deny that Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimondo fit that description. Then there is appearance on the radio program with that other ‘truther’. This is either carelessness or a defacto endorsement of the ‘truther’ viewpoint. Either reflects poorly upon the man.
Every single one of them huh?
I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find some foreign policy expert somewhere that denies the existence of "blowback". I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could still find an economist who is a communist, but the point remains. Like the superiority of free markets among economists, blowback is not a subject of controversy in foreign policy circles. Even the President has acknowledged it. Let me show you what I mean. Here are quotes from several sources:
Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina.It's hard for us in the west to comprehend the way these people think. The thought of foreign forces occupying our land is so alien to and the chances of it so remote that we don't even have to consider it, but mulling it over in your mind for five minutes is all it takes to make it obvious. Of course there's blowback. How could it be any other way?Paul Wolfowitz on the presence of American soldiers in Saudi Arabia
First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.
Bin Laden's 1998 fatwa
Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world.
The 9/11 Commission Report
Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export."
President Bush
Look, if you want to disagree with Congressman Paul on non-interventionism, fine. Maybe you think the benefits of certain interventions outweigh the costs. But when he talks about blowback, he's not some crazy person looking for an excuse to blame America; he's a serious man putting forth a serious argument about American policy. You owe it to yourself, to me and to every American that will be affected by the way you vote to consider that argument on its merits.
I’ve seen some “goose stepping,stubborn,stupid,simpletons” who pretend to be conservatives on this forum. most of that type are consumed by a frenzied hatred of Ron Paul and his limited government principles.
Those quotes are quite good. I think a lot of folks don’t grasp how provocative basing our troops in Saudi has been to Muslims everywhere. They don’t like infidels at all but they really hate them in close proximity to Mecca/Medina, their holy land. It was only because the Saudis felt so threatened when Saddam invaded Kuwait that we were ever allowed there to begin with.
I’m not sure such characterizations are helpful. They prefer to make it personal but it’s not in our interest to be baited by them. I don’t give them the much satisfaction.
I honestly don't believe its possible to undo this very weird correlation.
Read post 326
Ron Paul wants it done in a Constitutional manner. There is Letters or Marque and or Reprisal which allow for dealing with ones like Saddam and Bin Ladden. If used correctly they are quite effective and much, much, cheaper in cost of U.S. human life and tax dollars.
We started into this mess by helping to put the Shah of Iran in power. That was bad enough as it was none of our business to start with. He wasn't a saint and generated a hatred toward him in Iran. In the mean time we made a major blunder thinking that Islamic Nations or Arabic states were stable when history says otherwise. We armed Iran to the teeth in the 1960's up till the overthrow. These were not low tech guns etc. I'm talking about what was our state of the art Navy Fighters namely the F-14 Tomcat. Much of it's systems are classified information. See a problem?
Well then came the increase in state sponsored terrorism. Many Republicans like to blame this solely on Carter and ignore the real issue created by Gerald Ford who made Letters of Marque and Reprisal and impossibility against the likes of Adi Amin, Qaddafi, Arafat, Saddam. etc and they knew it.
The Shah was overthrown and our military was not in condition to stop it. But that again was not just a Carter issue as the military was quite broken when Carter took over. There was major resentment by the Iranian Revolutionist against the United States. I'm not saying it was right what I am saying is our dealing with the Shah fueled their hatred of us. That is cause and effect. Not blaming but understanding.
Then came the Iran/Iraq war who's side were we on? We quietly supported Saddam who was also a thug inside his own nation. We supported Bin Laden as well while Russia went broke chasing him through those mountains. Then there was our State Departments coddling of such trash as Arafat until the day he died. All tolled we added up quite a lot of resentment by both friends of one and enemies of another over there.
Our best policy would have been to stay out of their internal affairs long long ago as they were not a threat until we allowed them to become such by removing fear of death of heads of state.
Reagan in his first term realized there was no dealing with them. He learned by watching for example Israel as they in a matter of minutes destroyed Saddams nuclear program. Again had we simply stayed out of Israels way how many problems do you think we would have in the M.E. today? I say very few. Our own State Department is a curse to us in it's appeasement policies. Our real Neville Chamberlain's are the ones working there who have been following the exact same policy since 1989 and before 1981 as well. There is no real policy difference between the Johnson State Department, Nixon State Department, Ford State Department, Carter State Department, Bush Sr State Department, Clinton State Department, or W's for that matter. Same mistakes, same results, repeated year after year.
Only one person right now is saying hey wait a minute I see a pattern in all this. His name is Ron Paul. We can not end Islam. The tribes are as old as Ishmael and Esau and so is the jealousy toward Israel {Isaac and Jacob}.
Now we can either continue on the course or quietly pull back and fortify our own national security which means truly securing our borders etc, or we can fight Islam for generations. They M.E. will always be in turmoil. The sooner we realize it and stop trying to resolve THEIR fights for them the sooner we stop becoming a target. When threats to our security pop up like the one building up to our south quietly take them out. No posturing, suttle warnings, and stealth action via Letters of Marque.
BTW we make no friends pandering to the Sauds either. And some friends they are huh? Most of the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia. None were from Iraq. Who was and actually is our biggest threat then? The sooner we become energy dependent the sooner no more Saudi deals. But Bush isn't even pushing that hard now is he? Why not? He should have the GOP making drilling ANWR a number one priority as well as off the coast of Florida. We need refineries ASAP as well. What is the focus instead? Iraq. It just makes no sense.
No Ron Paul is no Chamberlain but his ideas are a threat to those who have less than honorable intentions for our nations future in both parties. I would feel secure with Paul as CIC of the armed forces because he would have them watching over the United States of America with a domestic force unseen since Reagan. He would secure our borders. That right there is how we will be attacked again and Bush is the one practicing appeasement at the expense of our national security in our very own back yard. That concerns me a lot more than any M.E. issues. We can stop them before they get here. We can kick out threats already here. But none of even that will get done because NOBODY is trying. That too is appeasement. None dare call it that unless a DEM is in charge. Islam has never been a religion of peace. NEVER!
Yes. They've got oil and they're trying to get nuclear weapons. Israel and Pakistan already have them. Some of these countries support terrorism...the same brand of terrorism that attacked America on September 11, 2001.
Anyone who doesn't give a rat's ass about the Middle East really doesn't need to pretend to give a rat's ass about The United States Of America. Find a sandbox, stick your head in and breathe deep.
...our troops mission in Iraq...
“Just what do you believe our troops “mission” is in Iraq?
And is their “mission” to be an endless one?”
How many troops have you asked that question to?
Answer
Our Troops need to give Iraq an honest starting point.
We need to get rid of a group of people called "Al Qaeda" that Saddam's intelligence helped to train at three separate foreign terrorist training camps including Salman Pak.
We know that KSM and Ramzi Yousef had connections with the Bulach organization. The Bulach family has a lot to do with the foreign insurgency right now in Pakistan and Iraq. KSM was introduced to Iraqi intelligence by the Bulach which was essentially where the invitation for Al Qaeda to come into Iraq started. Zawahiri met with Saddam in 1998.
Our troops know that Al Qaeda's #1 goal is to destabilize Iraq and use this region as a staging ground for global jihadists. We know that the Bulach joined with Al Qaeda becoming a branch of that organization. We could learn more about them but the idiot left wing liberals at the NY times convinced Congress to shut down the Docex project.
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.