Posted on 02/02/2008 3:04:58 PM PST by Cruising Speed
"There is far more realism in Paul’s analysis than can be found in those Republicans who believe that Washington’s policy of borrowing billions from China to pay for the occupation of a growing number of countries is desirable, much less sustainable."
(Excerpt) Read more at amconmag.com ...
Right. GW Bush apparently see no threat there either, like the ‘supporter’ in your example.
When was the last time there was any kind of lasting peace in the Mideast?
“I guess we shouldnt have given the Soviet Union a tough time!”
We gave them chances to “think about it”. We did not attack them or nuke them into oblivion because they were (still are) evil, and a threat to us.
Face it, every country in this world is scared to death of the United States. because we have the the military, and equipment to obliterate any enemy.
That said, we do not have to go around and pick fights, or bully other countries to conform to our liking.
“What other republicans are talking about the Constitution and restoring Constitutional government, btw?”
When did anyone?
Well gosh, I guess that is more important then getting nuked by islamo facists.
“We gave them chances to “think about it”. We did not attack them or nuke them into oblivion because they were (still are) evil, and a threat to us.
Face it, every country in this world is scared to death of the United States. because we have the the military, and equipment to obliterate any enemy.
That said, we do not have to go around and pick fights, or bully other countries to conform to our liking.”
We don’t!
Jeezus H! when did anyone say that?
Man.
Do you or do you not think that Muslim individuals are bound to get their hands on nukes and sneak them across the U.S. border like illegals and tons of drugs are sneaked in today?
Well let me tell you that 1. Muslims will get their hands on nukes sooner or later. 2. Muslim individuals will try to sneak nukes into the U.S. , across the border made porous by McCain and detonate those nukes in the U.S. , destroying the country.
Now knowing this wouldn’t it be smarter not to make Muslims angrier and give them excuses by having U.S. troops all over the world? Do you think that Muslims would have more of an excuse and or be angrier or drive Muslim youths to sneak nukes into the U.S. if (a). U.S. troops are all over the world killing Muslims and killing others or (b) U.S. troops are back in the U.S. and we are not bothering anyone?
What are you going to say when you see several U.S. cities under Mushroom clouds and our economy destroyed?
Well if our war is against Muslims, then we should declare that it is, and send missionaries to convert them. And why haven't the RINOs who claim to be so determined to protect us, closed the flippin' borders already?
Didn’t really have the right response. They should never have been the sitting ducks they were in the first place. I attribute that more to the brass than Reagan himself. Generals in charge of perimeter security etc. failed, not Reagan.
He probably felt pretty helpless cause those same generals didn’t have an adeuqte repsonse, and frankly Reagan was in the process of rebuilding a military he inherited from Cahtuh.
If you’ll remember he also bombed Qadaffi scared sh!tless and we heard little from him about the same time frame.
You picked one incident out of a global 8 year period.
What about Grenada, Panama, Libya and bringing down the entire Soviet Union by strengthening European forces?
“And why haven’t the RINOs who claim to be so determined to protect us, closed the flippin’ borders already?”
Yes Muslims should be converted to Christianity. That is one way to win this war against Islam. Why politicians don’t say it I guess is because they are wimps,liberals and idiots. Ann Coulter said it and she has more guts than they do.
I don’t know what Bush’s problem is . I know Marxists like McCain and Hillary want open borders so that they can import hundreds of millions 3rd world voters to vote for Democrats/Socialism/Marxism.
What example?
So we should just add to the chaos? That’s the solution?
BTW, when was the last time the US was actually running the show in the mideast...
What we have now is how GB and France split things up do we not?
You signed up 9 years ago, just to post that?!?!?!?
“Jeezus H! when did anyone say that?”
<<”Because sometimes those swamps need draining because the scum of humanity grow in them and threaten all of us.
Just the way it is.”>>
Your words, not mine.
That said, we do not have to go around and pick fights, or bully other countries to conform to our liking.
>>>>Oddly enough you failed to mention that the US has only intervened in cases where...well...those that go around and pick fights, or bully other countries to conform to THEIR liking.
What are you going to say when you see several U.S. cities under Mushroom clouds and our economy destroyed?
>>>>By coming home and pretending their desire is not to do exactly that and thus allowing them to obtain those nukes will only make it happen that much quicker!
By keeping them on the defensive on foreign soil BEFORE they get their hands on nukes gives us a chance!
And not all of these people are sad we’ve helped them to live better lives or are somehow bitter about that!
You are talking to a traditional Catholic. I think y'all should be Catholic and that Christ should be recognized as King of all nations. I think our Constitution should be amended to say so, that all laws conform to His Law, and that His Sacred Heart should be on our flag, but I'm not going to advocate war or force to convert people. Since Christendom will not be restored anytime soon, and people like Hitlary can be president I want the government to have as little say over my life as possible.
No. We should mind our own business and fix our our own dang problems of which we have many.
Actually he believes in a strong defense as mandated by the constitution, he just doesn’t believe in projection of power. Given that he would inherit Iraq I seriously doubt he would do anything to jeopardize the current mission.
As for the gold standard nonsense. He would never get it past Congress anyway.
That leaves:
A strong FisCon (more so than any other including Reagan).
Anti-nanny state, personal responsibility to the max.
Strong immigration stance (no illegals)
Strong 2nd amendment support.
Anti “free” health care (he was a Dr)
Pro-life
Would appoint pure Constitutionalists to the supreme court.
So other that his pure interpretation of the constitution on defense issues and his stance on the fed reserve, he is more conservative than every other candidate. Those issues are red herrings anyway because he would never make good on them.
The more I think about it the better he looks given the circumstances (if McLame gets the nomination and he runs as an independent).
“Your words, not mine.”
That is NOT picking fights.
You people sound exactly like anti-war liberals.
It is engaging those that would destroy us and taking the fight to them!
No attacks since 9-11 is NOT an accident.
You Ron Paul folks are not improving my opinion of the man if you guys are typical of his supporters.
We are engaged in a war with an idiology that would destroy us.
And your boy wants to run from the battle for the future of civilization and worry about arcane constitutional interpretation? !
We sure won’t somehow have less problems by leaving Iraq in a huge mess! And we won’t have less problems by simply miding our own business. It’s not that simple.
It would be wonderful if EVERYONE subscribed to that notion though...then by golly, I’d be right with you on that!
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.