Posted on 01/18/2012 5:18:06 AM PST by SJackson
He came across as a doddling old fool IMO. Shuffling along like Tim Conways character on Carol Burnett. Mumbling, fumbling idiot.
Ron Paul: Dangerously naive, cuckoo, and an intellect of magnificent desolation.
Yup. Another idiot whom I will never vote for if he gets the nomination.
Its amazing such a large group of Americans think like this guy, i.e. conservative on domestic/economic policy and nut cases on foreign policy.
He has no chance to get the nomination only to hang around to blackmail the party.
And the RNC should get a court order ASAP to make Ron Paul stop using 'republican' to describe himself to the people. And to bar him from all 'Republican debates', and keep his name off all Republican primary election ballots.
He's a nutty Libertarian and should be running in that party, not the GOP. And he can have all the Libertarian debates he wants -- with himself!
Also, if his son, the honorable Senator Rand Paul, really cared for his father he'd have him declared legally incompetent and have him put away in some nice Home that has MDs & Nurses on staff, and a LOT of medications on hand.
This has gotten to the point of beating a dead horse.
Most people that are NOT Paulbots and have some common sense already understand that Paul is a dangerous nutcase.
Ron Paul is the proverbial stopped clock, right twice a day.
As far as the Golden Rule goes, who is always first to offer assistance in times of disaster?
Let me be clear that we are not making naked pyramids or urinating on enemy, that would 10,000 times worse than My Lei. Many of our servicemen are Christians but they are not allowed to fulfill the Great Commission. They are not allowed to share their primitive gospel with anyone, because that would be more offensive than urinating on them.
Secular Humanism is doomed, it dead on it's feet. At worst, Ron Paul is right for the wrong reasons. Read Mark Steyn's "America Alone"
Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
OK. I’m trying to figure out the point if this article. The author condemns Ron Paul and lays out a historical argument against Islam. This article is completely and utterly irrational in its argument. If not in the argument definitely in its lack of a conclusion.
What are we to conclude from this article or what is the author proposing? He cites Jefferson’s and Adam’s dealings with Islam. OK, thanks. Then suggests that Ron Paul (ie. the reader) read the passages taken from the Koran. OK, thanks again. Then a reference from a leading Egyptian scholar from the 50’s and 60’s. OK.
The author offers all of these historically documented instances and the impossibilities of dealing with Islam and Muslims but proffers nothing on what all of this means with regard to foreign policy. Should we stay in Afghanistan and do what we’re doing? Is he proposing we do unto others what we think they are trying to do to us? Is the argument that Islam at its core and that every muslim is wanting and willing to wage war at any cost, at anytime and in anyplace? If that is indeed where his argument points us, what does he propose? Waging war on all muslims in every part of the world no matter the cost because that’s what he thinks they want and are trying to do to us. I just don’t get where he is going with this.
If he was serious about looking at this from a historical perspective then he wouldn’t be proposing taking it to the muslims, at this point he should be asking what the hell are we still doing in the muslim world trying to reform it?
We don’t live in the muslim world. If we were serious about stopping this stuff it’s really not that hard. We (our military) come home, the terrorists stay there. If we think so and so is sending terrorists here, then don’t let them on a plane to come here. What are they going to do row here? If someone from so and so country has business to conduct, then do it over the phone or internet. If you’re legitimate, sorry, until you and your country get your affairs in order, no entry. You’re losing money by not being able to come to the U.S., sorry. Effect change at home to earn the privilege of coming here. No one has an inherent right to travel here. We need to govern ourselves and let them govern themselves. If they CHOOSE to let extreme religious beliefs guide them, fine, but we choose to not have it affect us. If and when we are serious we can get serious really quickly. We just have to have the will to do it. Is it “fair?” No. Is it fair that some would choose perpetuate terror? No. Do we need to change course? Yes.
To be charitable, Klein is offering nothing more than hyperbole regarding the golden rule statement from Paul.
I wonder why Switzerland doesn’t get any terrorist attacks. After all, they’re infidels too.
Pretty much exactly what I was thinking, all these Paul threads are nothing but hyperbole bashing Paul without any suggestions of that our policy should be towards Islam.
Dr. Paul's foreign policy is the one for which Washington argued in his Farewell Address. Note, that the Washington argument was not based upon anything peculiar to his time or any other time. It was based upon psychological effects, both on us & others, from the attitudes that Dr. Paul tries to avoid. Consider the argument from a Washingtonian perspective, for once: Pseudo Pragmatism.
You will note that my argument does not name any candidates. My hope is to urge whomever is the Republican nominee against Obama, to avoid the sort of hysterical ranting which causes problems, as well as alienates potential supporters.
William Flax
William Flax
Dr. Paul's foreign policy is the one for which Washington argued in his Farewell Address. Note, that the Washington argument was not based upon anything peculiar to his time or any other time. It was based upon psychological effects, both on us & others, from the attitudes that Dr. Paul tries to avoid. Consider the argument from a Washingtonian perspective, for once: Pseudo Pragmatism.
The speech, written by Hamilton, was a response to the lunacy of the Jeffersonians who wanted to go to war for France. And it was followed by our Quasi war with France. It was also written during our early empire, as we consolidated control over our native subject peoples.
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.