You put your thought’s together very well William, but with flawed logic.
“Well, if he’s wrong on national security, then the current administration is ten times as wrong”
Their fact based record says something different, post 9/11. The facts say that we are indeed safer on US soil since 9/11.
“with wide open borders, no security checks and open arms, while supposedly operating a war on terror.”
While I agree with closing our borders, I disagree with your premise. The fact is, if we do not confront this threat abroad, we will have to lock down on guns and increase the Patriot Act powers in order to confront them here. No getting around this reality...
“It is important to any nation. It must have been important to Stalin, Pol Pot,”
Here’s where your emotion driven illogical train really leaves the track. And right here is why conservative rightfully accuse Paul and his supporters of adopting leftist propaganda to promote their agenda.
To compare America or Bush to PolPot or Stalin is insane and that’s where the exchange ends.
This is exactly why RP has almost NO support from conservatives and so long as his campaign spews leftist drivel taken straight from the DNC campaign manual, he never will have.
We appear to be safer,
now. There are Islamic training camps,
we know about in several states. It's just a matter of time, in my opinion. And if another attack doesn't happen with open borders and tolerance of these compounds and enclaves, I'll be willing to question the danger to begin with.
As I mentioned, I not sure that the occupation of Iraq is about the war on terror at all.
Well, just fight in another country and leave our homes wide open. Yes, that makes sense, especially when the action was generated by the very attack on our soil to begin with.
To compare America or Bush to PolPot or Stalin is insane and that’s where the exchange ends.
You don't seem to get what I was saying. Let me try again.
Any miserable, oppressed country and the people thereof want to protect themselves and their country, especially the leadership wants to hold it together. It's not the protection that is the concern, that goes without saying, but the kind of country you're protecting.
I'm saying that if you chose a candidate on his dedication to "national security" and ignore the damage he will do to society and culture, you may not have the country you think you have to protect.
In my opinion, if any of the "front runners" are elected on "national security", they will just follow the socialist status quo right to a country neither you nor I will want to live in. It has been going apace, driven by both democrats and republicans, by the choices given to us by the entrenched parties.
Paul will never win the nomination because he will not play ball by the designated playbook.
