Posted on 12/21/2007 6:43:53 PM PST by OCCASparky
A quote from Ron Paul's speech at Politics and Eggs breakfast airing on C-Span now (actual comments aired appx 9:25 pm EST):
"A president has a responsibility to, uh, you know, retaliate against an attack. I don't think there's been a good example of a need to do that throughout our whole history."
I may have too much time to think but something dawned on me this morning about the Ron Paul “Revolutiuon”. He doesn’t and never has wanted the GOP nomination. This whole exercise has been to build a grassroots movement within the GOP for a 3rd party run. I have no doubt once Super Tuesday is over he will drop out to form whatever 3rd party run he had planned all along. This came to my mind when stories acme out that the Paul campaign was taking money from a George Soros org. If he really cared about conservative causes why take money from a known socialist unless all you want is the $$$$ for your 3rd party run. Sadly, a 3rd party run by RP may very well results in a RAT victory(not the Beast I don’t think she can win).
HAHAHAHAHAHA. The man never disappoints!
I don't understand your code.
Lol. What I’m trying to say (and probably not very well)is that, just like in physics, every action has a reaction. So when we station troops in another country, or do whatever (heck, even eat pig), someone is going to have a problem with it. They will react in some way, big or small. I am not attempting to justify 9-11 in any way shape or form. But what I am asking is whether having troops stationed in Saudi Arabia is worth the reaction. That is what most Paul supporters are trying to ask, I believe (I will admit, some ask this poorly).
In essence, is having all these troops station overseas, in Germany, Saudi Arabia, Kosovo, and wherever, worth the reaction? Germans probably don’t care much, they might just dislike US airmen. Saudis, on the other had, might want to blow up American servicemen. Is their reaction correct? No, but the question we have to ask ourselves is whether or not having troops over there is worth it. Personally, I don’t think it is. We can project power quite nicely from the oceans and the air. Sunnis would much rather fight Shiites than Americans (we fight back better). We don’t need to needle them by stationing troops in their holy lands. How would we, as Americans react to a foreign army in Baltimore? Not well, I’m sure.
Yeah, they were just asking to negotiate at Fort Sumter with heavy guns.
"Ideology, politics and journalism, which luxuriate in failure, are impotent in the face of hope and joy."How so very true. They just could not bring themselves to recognize success in the war in Iraq. They would rather recognize a strong man who murders his country's way to "stability". Disgusting.
You know, I didn’t really live through the Cold War, but looking back, I have to wonder, what the hell were we scared of? In hindsight, it’s almost silly. Its like Chuck Liddell being scared of the guy that invented Tae-Bo.
*****About 5:00 minutes in, responding to question from audience. Verbatim as it’s posted on the top of this thread.******
People have neglected to mention that he was responding to a question of the US making the first strike.
You sir, have the patience of a saint.
I suppose I prefer to think you're merely engaging in a laughably malicious libel of an honorable man rather than to think that I'm on a forum of morons.
Oooh. That's a good philosophical question. You should start a thread with that question in "general/chat". I on the other hand think that I would prefer to be with morons rather than the malicious. Stupid doesn't disturb me nearly as much as evil does. Unfortunately I think that they are not mutually exclusive, we may be dealing with malicious morons.
Why are their lands always "holy lands", and ours, like Baltimore, are not?
Cordially,
this is from post 222, another Paul Supporter, George W. Bush. Take your question up with him, and it may do him well to consider the type of thinking that his well-reasoned but spurious arguments lead to.
"Ron Paul is and always was one of the leading advocates for Reagan's Star Wars programs. Under many scenarios for those space weapons' use, he was supporting the concept that during nuclear war with the Soviets, a president would necessarily have to take the country to war unilaterally because half the world would be laid waste before you could call more than half a dozen congressmen. "
ok...will try to do that this weekend
Well, mainly because they view Saudi Arabia as the holy lands, while we view Baltimore as a sh**hole. While we don’t view it their way, some dumb peasant in Syria sees us as purposely trying to piss him off. Why do we need all those troops there? Let them deal with their own crap. We don’t need to be there anymore.
I’m not trying to make excuses for them, but we dont need all these troops stationed in everyone’s backyard to make the play nice. Let’s stop playing Team America: World Police. The game isn’t that much fun, and Arabs get really mad when they lose at it.
Oh my. Feel better now George? Here is the Clintonista spin we all have been waiting for. Time and time again Paul opens his mouth, inserts foot, and then his supporters race to break down his utterances by inserting language he never said to try to explain it all.
Of course he is wrong, as you are also. Revisionism through the eyes of the isolationist is so predictable, and just annoying to address, which is most likely the reason why no one is responding to your post here (except for the ignorant ones with the Ron Paul pom poms).
The outrageous statement made by Dr. Insane is baffling on the face of it, and certainly lays credence to the statement the man is dangerous to our nation as he is a sitting member of Congress with voting authority. God forbid the man ever rises to the level of presidency.
FDR certainly did act against Japan before securing a formal Declaration of War from Congress. His securement of the formal declaration was done to remove the limitations imposed on him by the Lend Lease Act, and the Neutrality Act before that. The country at the time of the attack was that of isolationism necessitating the formal Declaration. Were we at war? certainly as our country was brutally attacked. We responded immediately in kind, and went about the task of building up our military and resources to fight this war.
We never would have won the war or obtained our military objectives without the assistance of our allies. For that reason we needed the formal Declaration of War.
In times of emergency the President as CIC does not require the blessing of Congress to defend our Nation. Perhaps you don’t believe that Pearl Harbor was an emergency, but you of course would be wrong. As would the Congressman you support.
In recent history Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are two good examples of a “need to do that.”
I am going to go one further here and state that Paul statements are just another testament that the man totally buys into the conspiracy theories surrounding both Pearl Harbor and 9/11. You all keep throwing layers and layers of lipstick on this pig, but he is a pig, and his squeals give him away every damn time.
I’m not sure if I’m following you (sorry, in the middle of an all nighter).
I share a lot of views with the Libertarians, but I can't get onboard with that view of national defense and open borders.
Don’t waste your time, niki.
I don't think us Paultards seen the interview and are waiting for the official transcript, rather than believing the FReeper knee-jerk spin.
We got other things to do this morning, you know like celebrate Christmas and seeing long-lost relatives and friends, instead of going crazy over a presidential candidate that you guys aren't going to vote for anyway.
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.