Ann Coulter is not a U.S. policymaker nor a participant in the debate, and Congresswoman Bachmann said nothing of the sort, who was the person he was responding to. Paul said the phrase “1 million” and that was not taken out of context - that has a very specific meaning - he said it. He also made a remark that the Islamic terrorists haven’t targeted neutral or so-called “tolerant” countries like Sweden and Switzerland, which you can find very quickly is 100% false on a simple google search for terrorist activity in those countries. We could go on and on and on with things Congressman Paul has said that have no basis in reality or common sense. You don’t find making repeated statements that have no basis in reality a disqualifier?
You said "No one has proposed that [we declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and all Muslims are the same]'. It's insane to argue against a completely false straw man." I demonstrated that it wasn't false at all and had in fact been proposed. In the face of that refutation, you now backpedal and make the statement that, well, Bachmann never said that. I never said she did, but she sure hasn't disavowed Coulter and has made statements that sure sound like she's good with Coulter's comments. I don't necessarily disagree with Coulter, either, for that matter, but your "straw man" concept was patently absurd. Plenty of folks want the Qaaba nuked and Mecca sown with salt. I still think it's a legit response to Islamist terrorism. Paul appeals to my better nature in reminding me that perhaps we'd have the same attitude if our country had been messed with the way theirs has by the resident globaloneyists at Foggy Bottom.
"Paul said the phrase “1 million” and that was not taken out of context - that has a very specific meaning - he said it."
Right, my comment regarding his language being in the context of the debate being important is irrelevant--everything everyone says off the cuff should be taken 100% literally--yet the clear language of your statement ABOVE, that's something we should ignore. Gotcha.
"He also made a remark that the Islamic terrorists haven’t targeted neutral or so-called “tolerant” countries like Sweden and Switzerland, which you can find very quickly is 100% false on a simple google search for terrorist activity in those countries."
Oh, yeah, context is irrelevant again. His comment was that they don't target US because we're free and prosperous--"...Yeah, there are some radicals. But they don’t come here to kill us because we’re free and prosperous. Do they go to Switzerland and Sweden? That is absurd."
Imagine a Chinese warship parked off Key West, retaining the right to stop boats leaving the country. Imagine the Chinese flying drones across our borders. How would that go over? Yet we expect that Iran will just suck it up, and people like you pretend that it's silly to recognize they won't take our attitude forever, any more than we will take attitude from whatever country pushes us. The bombings at the WTC and attacks on the West are targeted at us because A) we're the biggest promoter for secularism in Islamist states, and that scares the crap out of the mullahs, and B) we keep letting our globocrats control our foreign policy and pummeling their chosen goons' enemies for them. That's how we got Khomeini, and that's how we'll end up with complete Islamist states in Egypt, Iraq, and probably Afghanistan again if we keep it up.
Switzerland, I note, wasn't mentioned in any google search as having been attacked, and the only mention of arrests for terror in Sweden don't even have names attached, only the supposition that Sweden arrested the 'terrorists' because Britain asked them to.
"We could go on and on and on with things Congressman Paul has said that have no basis in reality or common sense."
Yet somehow you haven't. Did Rush only have a couple for you to "quote" this week? (And I use "quote" because again, context is important, and I keep seeing these 'exposes' of Paul's opinions omitting the context of Paul's statements, which are usually far more indicative of constitutional conservatism than the position of the "quote"-er).
"You don’t find making repeated statements that have no basis in reality a disqualifier?"
If you're trying to convince me you can't be president, I guess I'll listen. But you haven't repeated yourself too much, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt right now.