Bah! You can have your Miller.
(I will settle for an MGD on occassion, but only if hard up.)
Posted on 12/27/2007 2:33:22 PM PST by SeafoodGumbo
Ron Paul blames the assassination of Benazir Bhutto on the “interventionist”
policy of the United States, and says Al Qaeda is justified in being “annoyed” at us.
Bah! You can have your Miller.
(I will settle for an MGD on occassion, but only if hard up.)
So we cut off the support. What happens then? (Yes, we need to continue to support Musharraf).
No, we should not support the UN, and the UN should be disbanded (which is the sentiment of the majority of FR I believe).
I prefer to do both.
I'll laugh right now at every silly utterance made by either Ron Paul or his misguided supporters, then I will laugh to my heart's content after he crashes and burns in the primary.
I'm just a glutton for as much enjoyment as I can get.
Hmmm, where are the “modern times” terrorists coming from again? Well that would be Iran kids. Iran breeding terrorists, and looking for nuclear “power”, nice mix.
Does Ron Paul want to explain the tribal areas of Pakistan for the class? Letters of Marque take care of weeding out OBL from these areas? No problem right?
Well now, you established that Pakistan is a threat. Musharraf is our enemy, as is the Saudis.
So the question is, when are the bombers leaving?
My bad, Paul said he is “deathly afraid” that we will march over to Pakistan and start a war.
I am so confused as to what Paul’s foreign policy platform is then. I think he is also.
No he would have just waved the white flag and apologized ad nauseum to whichever country claimed they were wronged by us.
He said the assassination was America's fault because of our "policy". He is blaming American policy for the assassination. How else can these plain words be "really understood"?
Would you at least give us a primer on how we are supposed to parse his plain words to mean something different?
Given that Ron Paul's overall support is minuscule, it is very difficult to believe that any slice of the minuscule Ron Paul support constitutes "quite large".
Most Ron Paul support is hyperbolic.
Another standard lie from the Ron Paul supporters.
Sadly people eat this up
Is it possible that Ron Paul is saying exactly what he means?
Why do you find it necessary to analyze what he said? Can't his words stand up to plain meaning?
Your support of your own candidate doesn't even fall under the heading of "faint praise". You just step up and slam him by suggesting that everything he says needs to be "parsed" to determine it's true meaning.
Even his supporters are starting to implode.
“Given that Ron Paul’s overall support is minuscule...”
If that were really true, why would you waste so much time posting to these threads?
Figure of speech. I'm actually hanging out with my old friend John Daniels this evening.
LOL! I think you're right!
I know you did, but people reading the thread probably won't distinguish my words from yours since they're in the same font style.
You should always put what I said in italics or put quotes around it.
He said no such thing. Go back to school and learn comprehension.
So don’t attack the message, attack the font???
Dr. Paul leads all Republican candidates in fundraising for the 4Q.
The "message" has already been debunked. Lurkers and others who want to read the thread will have a difficult time trying to figure out if I said that if it's not typed differently.
That's all I'm saying. The FReeper in question has been a member here since 2000. He/she should know this already.
Do you fricking realize that Paul has raised $4.3 and $6.02 million dollars in one day totals, respectively?
Over 128,000 donors have donated to him in the 4Q alone. None of it in corporate, PAC, special-interest, or lobbyist money. His support is miniscule? Are you high or drunk?
Good point about the fence, and no, it's not a surprise that Derbyshire, who has a habit of supporting the wrong politicians, supports Ron Paul, who has a habit of supporting the wrong ideas.
However, it's not true that Derbyshire is particularly “loved” at National Review Online; neither his more-Darwinist-than-Darwin-Darwinism and vulgar version of Hume’s skepticism, nor his reductionist metaphysical materialism and positivist scientism, nor his foreign policy isolationism and economic nationalism are shared by anyone else who either writes for National Review or posts on NRO. In fact, as National Review’s token paleoconservative, Derbyshire’s it's actually his role to be a gadfly to the others precisely because his views are so different from the others.
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.