Posted on 06/19/2009 10:24:56 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Oh well, you know how real libertarians don’t object to anti-Israel islamic/Communist “theocracies” when they’ve got dope to legalize.
Who says our government MUST be the world policeman?
Show me in the constitution that our government and or troops are to intervene in every ded-gum crisis worldwide.
Frankly, I'm a bit tired of working my butt off to pay for all these global handouts. We can't afford it.
Now, North Korea shoots a missile in the direction of U.S. territory.............the constitution allows for the DEFENCE of this nation. Go get’em and squash’em with all we have.
But can someone tell me....why the hell are we still in Iraq?
We went in with the intention of staying.
I think it's high time we bring our troops home to protect our freakin borders and our homeland.
These damn countries around the world love us all to death when their @sses are on the line, but shortly after...they want us gone.
Some appreciation huh?
Give all this globe trottin over to the blue helmets or the French.
Of course, he has no objections to the Iranian government "meddling" in people's liberties.
"Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas loon who often speaks out against his own country and is currently off his meds, cast the sole opposing vote."
A broken clock is right twice a day. So is Rue Paul.
He is Nucking Futz.
The Paulestinians will praise his brilliance.
Condemning the suppression of freedom is hardly interfering in the affairs of a foreign country.
I guess St. Pauli Girl couldn’t condemn the murder of thousands of freedom loving Chinese back in 1989 either...
I'm keeping an eye on this thread to find out to be perfectly honest.
Against?? Is he worried they’re stealing jobs from honest American mouths or what??
SEE why nobody’s going to convince me to vote for such a psychopath?
About 85% of the current posters on FR (that's why we should all hate Bush)
Yeap. As soon as I saw it was 1 vote against, I knew it would be him.
Ron Paul is right on this, not only for idealistic reasons, but also for practical ones.
We've got no dog in this fight, because Mir-Hossein Mousavi is, as one reporter described, "no Lech Walesa or Vaclav Havel, no Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi bent on destroying an evil regime. He is, and has been, a part of the Iranian regime throughout its 30-year history."
Anyone who thinks that even if Mousavi wins, Iran is going to change for the better, is fooling themselves. As a matter of fact, the US is better off with a complete loon like Ahmadinejad as "the face of Iran" to the world than we are with a well-spoken but cunning Mousavi. So why would we condemn Iran for the protests? Better we let them stew in their own juice and build up anger toward the whole regime on their own, than get involved and take sides. Our US condemnation only serves to unite Iranians against us and to make Mousavi look like "our guy", instead of letting them get angry enough to take on not just the throne, but the power behind it.
Once again, the moral high road is also the pragmatic one.
Even Keith Ellison didn't vote nay. He voted present. That is the position of neutrality here. A nay vote is tantamount to support for the Islamic Regime. Again, even Ellison knew that, that's why most people here are portraying Paul as a schmuck, and you what, they're right. I'm sure there was an opportunity to voice his opinion on the senate floor during debate, especially since he is the only one holding that view.
The fact that he doesn't have a meaningful grasp of what a nay vote here really means just shows...(how can I put this nicely)...that he's out of touch with the rest of us sentient beings.
The 'present' vote here is really a nay that the guy doesn't want on his record.
He didn’t have any objections to the Taliban “OCCASIONALLY” carpet bombing the homes of those who disagreed with them, either. IIRC, the war against the Taliban is “illegal” to Ronnie, despite the frequent use of precedent (Barbary Pirates) that I quoted over and over, hundreds of times...he and his followers genuinely think there is some special Form number something-or-other, complete with really impressive curly cues, that is titled “Official Declaration of War”. Such a thing doesn’t exist and never has, but what is fantasy to a Paulite??
Paul's argument that this resolution will lead to war is just as flawed as Zero's wanting to negotiate with ahmanutjob.
Because the only other alternative to socio-political change, is extermination. Common sense and dignity require that you try it in that order first. There are no other alternatives beside those two when you're dealing with a culture that demands submission or death.
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.