Ron Paul

“Move down with Hugo and Fidel if you don't like having a choice, they both know about being pirates of the Caribbean.

The fed would pretty much run on auto -pilot instead of foreign that comes back as lobby money.”

“You will someday understand that the two major parties are the pirates that stole the country from the citizens and handed it out in pieces all over the world.

You will find the repubs are just as socialistic as the dems when you follow the Parade of handouts to the military complex, both domestic and foreign.
last edited: 11/28/07 7:28:39 AM”

“I know the two parties have become nothing but identical bookends of the same feed at the trough pigsty. We need another strong party to form, not a bunch of squabbling one issue parties.”

“Neo-conazis , how are you today?”

“This goes way back to page 2 of this thread, but I have to admit a dumb mistake. I referred to a Ron Paul's embrace of Daniel Boone's libertarian view of government spending, but - of course - I was confused. It was the other guy I used to pretend to be when I was a little kid running around in the woods: Davy Crockett.

Here's a link:

http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm”

“What is impressive about Ron Paul is the consistency of his principles. I disagree, but there is a clarity, honesty and consistency. You know what you are getting. Take this for example:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr040300.htm
http://paul4prez.blogspot.com/2007/09/ron-paul-and-davy-crockett.html”

“You know what you are getting

Indeed! We'd get a disasterous cutback in the military and a completely unrealistic foreign policy. No one who cares in the least about terrorism and foreign policy in general can realistically be in support of cut-n-run-n-defund Paul.

"We need to be friendly with everyone" - Ron Paul on how to defeat terrorism
last edited: 12/10/07 10:19:24 AM”

“*cough*soundbite*cough*”

“... and now for some context ...

McLean, Va.: Given your staunch opposition to U.S. intervention in the affairs of foreign countries, how would your administration actually implement such a vision vis a vis countries other than Iraq? Would you advocate ending foreign military aid to countries like Pakistan and Colombia? Would you end foreign aid to major recipients, such as Israel and Egypt? Would you stop sending money to Mexico to combat their drug gangs?

Rep. Ron Paul: Yes, those would be the goals. Most of that you could do as a president. My position would be no, stop all of that, treat everyone equally, be friendly with everyone, trade with everyone, no sanctions for anyone unless mandated by Congress. We need to be friendly with everyone -- when we opened up to China there were tremendous benefits. So yes, I would end the funding to all those countries -- I think the billions going down to Colombia is very detrimental -- and we should treat everyone equally.”

“It's true enough, Sarge. His own words damn him. Here I thought you had a pretty good grip on geopolitics, but you've proven me wrong!”

“Mutt, where is your quote from? Be specific.”

“Uh, yeah right! You said that quote represented how he'd treat terrorists. You either lied, or are just wrong.

Anybody can read the actual quote and see who doesn't have a grip between the two of us.

I encourage them openly.
last edited: 12/10/07 10:34:25 AM”

“He's an isolationist:

There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant policy of intervention around the world. They are unpredictable as to time and place. 9/11 was a consequence of our military presence on Muslim holy lands; the Ayatollah Khomeini's success in taking over the Iranian government in 1979 was a consequence of our CIA overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953. These connections are rarely recognized by the American people and never acknowledged by our government. We never seem to learn how dangerous interventionism is to us and to our security.
-- April 6, 2006”

“So you agree with that Sarge? If we just hadn't have been in the ME, 9/11 wouldn't have happened? The terrorists would be all kind and friendly with us?”

“He's an isolationist:

Um, no. He's a non-interventionalist. Don't you know the difference?

I just gave you a quote (which also disproved your first theory), which shows he clearly is NOT an isolationist.

You've been owned twice by 1 quote.

”

“LOL! In fact, your last quote he basically spelled out for you he's a non-interventionalist!

We never seem to learn how dangerous interventionism is to us and to our security.

Mutt, get a clue, then come back to the thread.”

“No, that's isolationism dressed up in fancy clothes. Kind of like IDiocy is dressed up Creationism.

So I take it you agree with him, that 9/11 is our fault.

Tells me a lot about your morals.”

“It is? So Mutt, you're telling me, and everyone reading this, that "isolationism" is the same as "non-interventionalism"?

Is that what you're saying? I just want to be clear about that.”

“So I take it you agree with him, that 9/11 is our fault.

Quote where he said that?”

“You mean in generic terms? We're talking about Ron's perspective, or at least I was.

So you still won't touch that quote, I see. LOL!”

“"9/11 was a consequence of our military presence on Muslim holy lands"”

“Congratulations, Sarge, you agree with Violin and Tilt and every other Anti-American Asswipe.”

“We're talking about Ron's perspective, or at least I was.

Ron Paul clearly indicated, in the quote you took a soundbite from (incidentally), that he is a non-interventionalist, but not an isolationalist.

So you still won't touch that quote.

Which quote?

"9/11 was a consequence of our military presence on Muslim holy lands"

That's a far cry from saying it was our fault. First off, he not only blamed the terrorists, but said if he were President, he'd go after them and kill them. Hardly the words of an isolationalist, and hardly the words of somebody who thinks we are to blame, not the terrorists. Secondly, he is right. Us being involved in politics over there IS what instigated them to take action. He didn't say we deserved to be attacked, he said that is what help to cause it.”

“Secondly, he is right. Us being involved in politics over there IS what instigated them to take action - Sarge

LOL! Okay, you've officially declared your libbie-ism. It's been hilarious watching you go from full support of the Iraq war and such to agreeing with Ron that we should cut-n-run in Iraq and defund the military and that 9/11 is our fault.

Goddam, two threads in which you've made a fool of yourself today. You're your own worst enemy! LMAO!”

“Ron Paul clearly indicated- - Sarge

Right, like you clearly indicate that IDiocy is not creationism. **guffaw**”

“Mutt, I realize it's much simpler for you to make this about me, rather than Ron Paul. Unfortunately, (or maybe fortunately), I have no interest in debating about me, so we'll just have to end this. I do like how I have proven without a shadow of a doubt that you took Paul's quotes out of context to spread your lies, and in retaliation, all you could do was name-call.”

“Hey, I'll concede the first quote was taken out of context. It provided a nice overview of his simplistic and utterly unrealistic foreign policy. In fact, it dovetails neatly with his assertion that 9/11 was our fault for being mean.

But the second quote is in context, as everyone but you can see. That you won't address it speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty.

This is about both Ron Paul and you. Ron Paul's a pie-in-the-sky ideological fool. You are making a huge fool of yourself.

I don't blame you for trying to change the subject by taking the highground. Knowing you, you have to try saving face in some manner, no matter how transparent. LOL.”

“Here is your 2nd quote:

There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant policy of intervention around the world. They are unpredictable as to time and place. 9/11 was a consequence of our military presence on Muslim holy lands; the Ayatollah Khomeini's success in taking over the Iranian government in 1979 was a consequence of our CIA overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953. These connections are rarely recognized by the American people and never acknowledged by our government. We never seem to learn how dangerous interventionism is to us and to our security.

Now, you are claiming (1), I didn't respond to this??? and (2), this proves he's an isolationalist?

Is that right?”

“So, noninterventionism is now libby? Next you'll be pushing Sarges' cart full IDeas.”

“I agree with that quote from Ron Paul with some qualifications. I'd say "9/11 was in part a consequence of our military presence in Muslim lands and our interventions in their affairs" I'd also say Khomenie's success was "in part a consequence of our CIA overthrowing a Mossagegh's democratically elected government in 1953 and our subsequent support of the Shah's dictatorship."

It's really silly to think our foreign interventions are disconnected from those results. Its very odd to see him painted as loony by so many for pointing out the cause and effect connections.

Whether we should have intervened in the ways we did is a separate issue from the existence of blow back. I say "no" to many of the interventions, and "yes" to some.

Sarge is right on the distinction between isolationism and interventionism. Its possible for example to be very active in multilateral cooperation and have a policy of strict non-intervention in other countries affairs, or a policy of never intervening in less invited by the recognized government of the territory involved.”

“So, noninterventionism is now libby? Next you'll be pushing Sarges' cart full IDeas.

Unprovoked personal attack aside, at least salebored got the first part of that right - Mutt, is that also what you're saying? That noninterventionalism is libbie? Please tell me you think it is (after you answer the other 2 from above).”

“Mutt, you should just call it a day and start fresh tomorrow. I've never seen anybody get owned in such a short amount of time as you have here today.
last edited: 12/10/07 11:35:44 AM”

“Mutt none of the things that Ron Paul is against prevented 9-11. We've supplied Trillions of dollars in foreign aid to other nations, played big brother and the world policeman. That aid has come in to form of our tax dollars and our own blood. What do we have to show for it, we are hated the world over more than ever. There is a big difference between total isolation and nonintervention. Ron Paul is for a strong defense and he is for a secure border. We cannot allow the next Hitler to rise to power but we also cannot invade every nation on the globe. That is a recipe for disaster. Eventually we will over extend our lines and we will end up like Rome or France. The terrorist will not have to come after us with bombs because they will have bankrupted us from within. Our military is war weary and our national treasure has been squandered. What is the end result? No WMD's ever found in Iraq, no Bin Ladin and a partiot act where we treat Americans as terrorist within our own country. The first time we strip searched an 80 year old grandmother in the airport, we started doing the bidding of the terrorist for them.”

“(font="sarcasm") Dang Muttonhead, you've gone from being disowned to owned. I'm impressed. (/font)”

“Hardly, Gramps. Ron Paul's foreign policy would have us pull all our troops home, defund the military. This is what he's said. This would turn the US into the Paper Tiger the Islamofascists are saying we are. Cutting and running in large part helped shape the islamofascist/terrorist movement. From Iran to Beirut to Somalia, these emboldened the terrorists and led to a series of terrorist attacks on the mainland and overseas assets. Ron Paul's isolationism is only going to make our enemies stronger. Terrorists and jihadists - and for that matter competing nation-state - would consider cut-n-run-n-defund a major victory. I don't know why Ronbots think the terrorists would leave us alone when they're busy attacking other people around the world who've had NO military involvement in the ME. It's lunacy usually reserved for moonbat liberals.

While I agree that our overseas basing could use restructuring, they are indispensible for projecting power, keeping sea lanes open, and protecting national interests that provide the foundation of the global economy, not to mention providing humanitarian aid. They also keep us fighting the enemy overseas. Ron Paul would have us fight them on our doorstep, if not on our mainland, being a modern day Chamberlain.

No, Ron Paul is a fecking loon. The only reason Ronbots adore him is that a lot of his other ideas are spot on. He has a cult of personality, and you can tell by his supporters here the type of person swayed by that kind of thing. But this one issue is a complete dealbreaker.”

“If Ron Paul is a fecking loon, it's not because of any of the ways in which you have mischaracterized him. You have clearly demonstrated you not only don't know what Ron Paul stands for, but you clearly don't know what an isolationalist is - which is the beef you have with him in the first place.

LOL - Mutt thinks isolationalists are liberals! LMAO!”

“The USA has 4.5% of the earths poplulation and you say Ron Paul is crazy, because of hisforeign policies? Let's think in some sanity of scale about our completely out of proportion world influence. Really , the truth won't hurt you when get you head out of your World Is Ours ass.”

“All you have to retort is that I'm not using a strict definition of isolationism. That's okay - I'll concede your point for the sake of argument. However, every point of fact I've brought up regarding his foreign policy you have pointedly and conveniently ignored. It's funny that you've done an ideological 180 and support us cutting and running from Iraq. You regularly provide examples of your intellectual inconsistencies, but rarely so blatantly.

And no, I'm calling people like you (and the people you agree with like Tilt and Violin) who hold the anti-American view that we were responsible for 9/11 rather than terrorists, liberals. Great company you keep there, Sarge.”

“All you have to retort is that I'm not using a strict definition of isolationism.

Ok, you go ahead and make up your own definition.

And, that wasn't my only retort. I also said that you mischaracterize him, and you don't know what he stands for.

However, every point of fact I've brought up regarding his foreign policy you have pointedly and conveniently ignored.

Name one foreign policy of his that I have ignored.

It's funny that you've done an ideological 180 and support us cutting and running from Iraq.

I have? Please provide one quote where I even so much as hinted at that.

And no, I'm calling people like you (and the people you agree with like Tilt and Violin) who hold the anti-American view that we were responsible for 9/11 rather than terrorists, liberals.

Again, please provide one quote where I said that we were responsible for 9/11. I can provide you with one where I said that Ron Paul did NOT say that from yesterday. Now it's your turn.”

“If you agree with Ron Paul, you agree with his idea of cutting and running in Iraq.

" 9/11 was a consequence of our military presence on Muslim holy lands" - Ron Paul

"Us being involved in politics over there IS what instigated them to take action" - Sarge

Both of you absolve the terrorists of responsibility for their actions and place it directly on us. But, other terrorist activity around the world completely contradicts your self-hatred.”

“And yet we ignore that even THE CAIR bunch leadership has stated as an objective to CREATE an ISLAMIC THEOCRACY in the United States.....

and you guys think the Fundamentalist Christians are bad.....”

“They are both bad. I would understand why their god guided them into our buildings and our god guided our rockets into their building, if, I had even an inkling of faith that any god exist.~god becomes the element of responsibility for these differences which cause misunderstanding and He, she or it doesn't even exist - how convenenient is that?”

“If you agree with Ron Paul, you agree with his idea of cutting and running in Iraq.

Who do you support Mutt?

Both of you absolve the terrorists of responsibility for their actions and place it directly on us.

Only if you completely ignore what we have both said. Ron Paul has stated that he is FOR KILLING the terrorists that attacked us.

Did you not know that? I've already told you that once before. How did you miss that?”

“10:28:21 fed countdown.”

“Sarge....any one tell Ron that the terroists who attacked us are all dead?”

“Sarge....any one tell Ron that the terroists who attacked us are all dead?

Ron said he would authorize war against the physical perps, and those that supported them (financially and otherwise).”

“bump, for Mutt.

Who do you support?”

“Sarge...given a choice...I support US...”

“I was asking Muttley, but thank you.”

“Back in the Jox there boys?”