One scarce knows where to begin to respond to your post. It’s such a target-rich environment. First, your “policeman to the world” comment: One question: where does the Constitution for the United States specifically authorize such activity by the Federal Government? (In your rush to read the Constitution and other founding documents, start with the Tenth Amendment.)
As to your derogatory comments about Dr. Paul, you’re entitled to your opinion, I suppose, but it would be lovely to have you express it in a less vitriolic fashion... and calling him part of the “Blame America First” crowd is pretty incendiary in many circles, for the primary reason that it is a LIE outright. It has NO basis in fact, as some basic research would reveal to you. Dr. Paul is about defending AMERICA, not about building “democracies” in third world cesspools like Iraq. Our troops should have been out of there the same day that Bush declared the mission accomplished.
And another homework assignment for you: Find the Constitutional authority for our (in your words) interventionist foreign policy. (Again, start your search with the Tenth Amendment.) Since it is essentially the same as “policeman to the world,” you’ll find the lack of such authority in the same place.
Our Constitutional Republic and its safety and well-being are much more important than anything else going on right now. Period. Because if we give up our liberty for the illusion of security, we condemn ourselves and our children and grandchildren to eons of darkness before mankind can climb back into the light of liberty... and I will NOT be a part of such a travesty as that. I want MY kids and grandkids to be even MORE free than I am. That is the most VITAL thing there is. No islamist can enslave free men and women, ever. They can only kill us. Only if we enslave ourselves in the name of security can these seventh century morons waltz in and take over our once-free nation. With the help of fifth columnists such as you who refuse to recognize what’s important and what is secondary at BEST.
Wow! It would seem one would have a hard time figuring out how to respond to your post. (Reading your post, I don’t expect civil discourse in the future - feel free to continue with your ad hominem attacks.)
For example, I conclude my post with an open-ended question regarding America’s status as world police; You take this to mean I’m the figurative dispatch - quite a large jump to say the least. I’m well aware of what the Tenth Amendment says, by the way, so you don’t need to say pretty much exactly the same thing twice.
Second, Paul has said over and over again that U.S. policy, not radical Islam, is to blame for terrorist attacks against us. As some research might reveal to you (homework: read Paul’s statements on his U.S. House of Representatives website) Paul does, in fact, repeatedly blame American policy. It’s the simple truth. Until Ron and the Paulbots acknowledge that there are bloodthirsy Muslims who want to kill us regardless of what we do (outside, presumably, of converting to Islam) I cannot take them seriously. (Paul is most certainly not about defending America when he plays the role of suicide-bomber apologist.)
Your last paragraph is great, though - especially with gems like “No islamist can enslave free men and women, ever. They can only kill us.” Ignore the fact that I said nothing at any point about the topic. I’m merely pointing to the fact that Paulbots seem to either ignore the Islamists or would rather let them kill us instead of us killing them. (Forgive me if your “thinking” was hard to follow.)