We have puppets to do the work for us:
Posted on 07/16/2007 8:31:51 PM PDT by JTN
You can if you want to, but I'm not. If they don't like it then let them delete it. This place is getting just too PC anyway. Don't know how much longer I will be able to stand reading the drivel. There are days when I think I've wandered on to DU from the sentiments expressed.
Maybe I said too much. I was concerned because we know the Paul-haters are ganging up to hit Abuse on anyone who says anything positive about Ron Paul. They’ve virtually come out and admitted it on several of our threads. And some of the bitter Juliebots are still here, trolling about to get most anyone they can banned from FR. Apparently, it’s lonely over there in WideAwake Hell.
Happens all the time - At least JR is not a Rudybot. Of all the Republican candidates il rudce is to me the one most indistinguishable from Hillary and Osama
You do realize you come off as talking down to people, do you not?
Back at ya! :>)
Well, your pic is still there so I was nannying you over nothing, it seems. I was concerned because of some of the comments I’ve read that those graphics are from Lefties in NYC who hated Rudi and that they shouldn’t be allowed on FR. But, maybe all those whiners I recall are those now-banned Juliebots!
and btw, I quoted your fearless leader word for word, verbatim. interpretation is in the eye of the beholder, but if you gathered 100 people randomly anywhere in this country, I guarantee that most would read his words and agree with me.
lastly, I'm very happy to be from GA and would never consider this 'occupied'. That's an insult.
then you obviously have never been to Norcross, Doraville, Dalton or any other foreign enclaves in GA
Since your posts seem to have quite a few insults in them, (tell me is it Christian to be snide about someone you disagree with? Are you friends with Laura Mallory?) I don't much care if you find my screen name to be insulting or not. But for all of you armchair/keyboard hawks who are so pro war, Dr Paul was a Viet Nam MD. so he just might know a little more about the consequnces of war than you do.
Mr. President, please add me to this ping list.
thankyouverymuch!
You'd have better luck getting Dracula to drink holy water.
I'm a raving fan of Paul's domestic agenda. I don't even begrudge him being opposed to the war per se. It's the reasoning behind some of it that is troubling as you pointed out.
He sounds like one of the "moderate" Arab speakers who when asked whether they support the terrorist's actions reply "we condemn terrorism BUT...America did _____"
Even Tony Blair who despite being a domestic Labour Party socialist understood that these loons will come up with any excuse to attack us. They hate us because we invaded Iraq? What was their excuse on 9-11? The Palestinian issue? The arabs hate the Palestinians. They don't even want them in their own country.
We have puppets to do the work for us:
Would you mind quoting my exact insults from each post?
If you are going to accuse anyone of anything on FR, you have to make it stick.
OK, you accused me. Let's see the insults, in quotes.
yea, that is true, but Ialso recall Clinton was at 3% in Iowa during the primaries I believe, so anythings possible. I read a really good blog post which compared Howard Dean to Ron Paul, I can’t seem to find it, but it had some graphs showing Dean had much much greater support than RP at this point. We’ll see what happens... :)
lol, funny about libertarians arguing with themselves, I think we do tend to do that a lot, quite a diverse group for being so ‘extreme’. :)
Yawn!! Somebody wake me when this little twit has some real point to make.
American intervention in the Middle East goes back a lot farther than that, and in fact there were many people that warned that continued interference was going to cause serious problems for America. For example
If you look at much of what Cato's foreign policy team wrote prior to 9/11, you could make the case that had U.S. policymakers paid more attention to actual "libertarian minimalist," "pre-9/11" thinking, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.Back in 1999, for example, Cato's director of defense policy studies at the time, Ivan Eland, wrote "Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?" In it, Eland laid out a litany of terrorist strikes against U.S. interests that were inspired by unnecessary U.S. interventions in foreign conflicts that posed little threat to our national security. Eland warned -- and bin Laden later confirmed -- that more recent U.S. interventions, in Kosovo, Somalia, and even Gulf War I, could soon provoke a catastrophic attack on the U.S. homeland.
Eland was even more prescient in his 1998 paper "Protecting the Homeland: The Best Defense is to Give No Offense." There, he wrote:
A study completed for the U.S. Department of Defense notes that historical data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and terrorist attacks against the United States. Attacks by terrorist groups could now be catastrophic for the American homeland. Terrorists can obtain the technology for weapons of mass terror and will have fewer qualms about using them to cause massive casualties. The assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs maintains that such catastrophic attacks are almost certain to occur. It will be extremely difficult to deter, prevent, detect, or mitigate them.
As a result, even the weakest terrorist group can cause massive destruction in the homeland of a superpower. Although the Cold War ended nearly a decade ago, U.S. foreign policy has remained on autopilot. The United States continues to intervene militarily in conflicts all over the globe that are irrelevant to American vital interests. To satisfy what should be the first priority of any security policy--protecting the homeland and its people--the United States should adopt a policy of military restraint. That policy entails intervening only as a last resort when truly vital interests are at stake. To paraphrase Anthony Zinni, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, the United States should avoid making enemies but should not be kind to those that arise.
And more Eland, from his 1999 paper "Tilting at Windmills:"
Once regarded as pinpricks by great powers, attacks by terrorist groups can now be catastrophic for the American homeland. Such weapons can cause tens of thousands or even millions of casualties. The DSB concluded that terrorists can now more rapidly obtain the technology for weapons of mass terror and have fewer qualms about using them to cause enormous casualties...
..the threat of a terrorist attacking the U.S. homeland with a weapon of mass destruction is now the greatest single threat to U.S. security.
That was written in 1999, well before the GOP had given chemical or biological terrorism a lick of real consideration.
In 2000, Eric R. Talyor warned that the U.S. homeland was woefully underprepared for a bio, nuclear, or chemical terrorist attack -- an issue no on in the GOP paid a lick of attention to until after 9/11.
And we can go back further. In the lead-up to the first Gulf War, Cato's Vice President for Foreign Policy Ted Galen Carpenter and adjunct scholar Christopher Layne wrote:
Arab grievances over Western colonialism are an open wound, and Islamic fundamentalism is superimposed upon Arab nationalism, creating an explosive political mixture. A longterm U.S. presence in the Middle East will simply fan the flames of Pan Arabism and weaken the American and Western position. It will make the United States a lightning rod for all the rage and frustration of that troubled region.
That was in 1990.
Bin Laden has made clear several times over that it is the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, the first Gulf War, the sanctions and no-fly zones imposed on Iraq, and our history of intervention in places like Somalia are what motivated him to plan, fund, and carry out the attacks of September 11. If that's true, Cato's "pre-9/11 thinking" was about as far as one could get from "unrealistic." On the contrary. It was tragically realistic.
“fearless leader” was the term used on the rocky & bullwikle show by a pair of clods - Natasha and Boris - to refer to their totalitarian boss. Implication is that RP is a totalitarian, and anyone who supports him is an idiot.
You are giving me WAY too much credit for being clever. Not only did I NOT think of that, but I'm not sure I EVER could have thought of that. Don't over analyze.
Now, shall I quote all of the very polite things I said to you in all of my posts?
"sir"..."sorry"..."respectfully"..."thanks for the civil exchange".
I find it interesting how many people call my (or others) Christianity into question because I can debate them effectively...without curse words, without insults.
I have (intentionally) insulted some mostly former FReepers from the Darwin Cult...just to see them self-implode and, in many instances, get themselves banned.
It was like tickling a blowfish...LOL!
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.