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.
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.