paul supporter makes beck look like the rational one

2minkey

bootlicker
this is pretty funny.

does not reflect well on ron paul.

given that guilt by any association, even if one-way and imaginary, is grounds for immediate accusations of un-american views and loyalties to elsewhere by the local fauna.
 
That guy doesn't make Ron Paul look bad.
Ron Paul not denouncing those people makes Ron Paul look bad.
(and I like Ron Paul aside from that aspect mostly)
in fact enough to still vote for him over Romney
 
by how he defines who "our" is.

He's entitled to his opinion. Even if I don't agree with it.
 
he says it was the fault of the long-established US foreign policy. meekness seems so much better, doesn't it? shit, we shoulda sat WWII out.

really surprising that you're so tolerant of a yellowbelly, even if he says some things that appeal to your stranger conspiracy-ish suspicions.

oh, wait, it's not.
 
he says it was the fault of the long-established US foreign policy. meekness seems so much better, doesn't it? shit, we shoulda sat WWII out.

really surprising that you're so tolerant of a yellowbelly, even if he says some things that appeal to your stranger conspiracy-ish suspicions.

oh, wait, it's not.

Foreign Occupation Leads to More Terror

Why else were we attacked, minks? Because we a are free?

Ten years ago shocking and horrific acts of terrorism were carried out on US soil, taking over 3,000 innocent American lives. Without a doubt, this action demanded retaliation and retribution. However, much has been done in the name of protecting the American people from terrorism that has reduced our prosperity and liberty and even made us less safe. This is ironic and sad, considering that the oft-repeated line concerning the reasoning behind the attacks is that they hate us for who we are - a free, prosperous people - and that we must not under any circumstances allow the terrorists to win.

Though it is hard for many to believe, honest studies show that the real motivation behind the September 11 attacks and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life. Neither is it our religion, or our wealth. Rather, it is primarily occupation. If you were to imagine for a moment how you would feel if another country forcibly occupied the United States, had military bases and armed soldiers present in our hometowns, you might begin to understand why foreign occupation upsets people so much. Robert Pape has extensively researched this issue and goes in depth in his book "Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It". In fact, of 2,200 incidents of suicide attacks he has studied worldwide since 1980, 95% were in response to foreign occupation.

Pape notes that before our invasion of Iraq, only about 10% of suicide terrorism was aimed at Americans or American interests. Since, then however, not only is suicide terrorism greatly on the rise, but 91% of it is now directed at us.

Yes, the attacks of 9/11 deserved a response. But the manner in which we responded has allowed radicals in the Muslim world to advance a very threatening narrative about us and our motivation in occupying their lands. Osama bin Laden referred to us as "crusaders" with a religious agenda to convert Muslims, westernize their culture and take control of their resources. If we had targeted our response to only the thugs and criminals who attacked us, and refrained from invading countries that had nothing to do with it, this characterization would seem less plausible to the desperate and displaced. Blaming Islam alone is grossly misleading.

Instead, we chose a course of action that led to the further loss of 8,000 American lives, left 40,000 wounded and has hundreds of thousands seeking help at the Veterans Administration. We are three to four trillion dollars poorer. Our military is spread dangerously thin around the globe, at the expense of protection here at home. Not only that, but we have allowed our freedoms to be greatly threatened and undermined from within. The Patriot Act, warrantless searches and wiretapping, abuse of habeus corpus, useless and humiliating searches at airports are just a few examples of how we've allowed the terrorists to "win" by making our country less free.

Suicide terrorism did not exist in Iraq before we got there. Now it does. There are no known instances of Iranians committing suicide terrorism. If we invade and occupy Iran, expect that to change, too.

Sometimes it can be very uncomfortable to ask the right questions and face the truth. When a slick politician comes along and gives a much more soothing, self-congratulating version of events, it is very tempting to simply believe what we would like to hear. But listening to lies does not make us safer, even though it might make us feel better about ourselves.

The truth is that ending these misguided wars and occupations will make us safer, more prosperous and more free.

Source

CIA Bin Laden Chief Michael Scheuer: We were attacked because of our government
 
this is pretty funny.

does not reflect well on ron paul.

given that guilt by any association, even if one-way and imaginary, is grounds for immediate accusations of un-american views and loyalties to elsewhere by the local fauna.

I wouldn't be surprised if that guy was not really a Ron Paul supporter but just wanted to make Ron Paul supporters look bad. The recent ad against Jon Hunstman is likely as well.
 
Not if he's to be our Commander in Chief & President

That's just absurd. Paul would not be king. There are checks and balances. He would seek to get the proper authorization unlike Obama.

I could picture in 10 years, if Paul does not become president, you are in a "residential center" (concentration camp). The country is a police state with drones patroling and such, and the dollar has collapsed . America has lost it's soverignty. I wonder if you would still think his foreign policy was worth him not getting elected.

"I believe the banking instiutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies." - Thomas Jefferson
 
Yes, I think Ron Pauls foreign policy remarks indicate he could be a danger to the United States.

Is that clear enough?
 
ron paul is background noise

Actually it could be a good thing
if we became isolationist it could result in a noo-clear WWIII

Mebbe we could emerge on top like last time?
 
Why else were we attacked, minks? Because we a are free?

yes, that's it dude... ascribe totally naive ideas to someone who questions your christ...

you know if you actually read things other folks post here instead of just dumping worshipful nuggets to ron paul... nah, fuck it... you're only interested in spreading the childish gospel of your savior.

here's a question for you... what if anything that ron paul says or "stands for" do you not agree with? if you can't find anything of substance, you might wanna check yourself into a deprogramming facility.

might also want to examine your own apocalyptic thinking as well. kind of a pattern there similar to that which we see in many cults.
 
yes, that's it dude... ascribe totally naive ideas to someone who questions your christ...

you know if you actually read things other folks post here instead of just dumping worshipful nuggets to ron paul... nah, fuck it... you're only interested in spreading the childish gospel of your savior.

here's a question for you... what if anything that ron paul says or "stands for" do you not agree with? if you can't find anything of substance, you might wanna check yourself into a deprogramming facility.

might also want to examine your own apocalyptic thinking as well. kind of a pattern there similar to that which we see in many cults.

You do know that explanation that you call "naive" is the official one that is propagated, right?

The attacks against the U.S. is the result of blowback.
 
Re: ron paul is background noise

Actually it could be a good thing
if we became isolationist it could result in a noo-clear WWIII

Mebbe we could emerge on top like last time?

Did American Isolationism Cause Hitler to Come to Power?

No serious historian has been willing to make such a simplistic and senseless case in public. One of the most comprehensive histories of the Nazi era was written by William L. Shirer, a journalist assigned to Germany during the period when the Nazis came to power. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich covers 1,143 pages, the first 276 of which describe the multiple forces and events that led to the rise of Hitler. American isolationism is not once mentioned in that section of the book.

The next 594 pages describe the beginning of World War II up to the point at which Hitler declared war on the United States as a result of "Adolph Hitler’s reckless promise to Japan …." It was Japan’s attack of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 that brought the United States into World War II. Germany and Italy declared war on the United States four days later.

Following America’s disastrous foray into World War I, there were strong feelings in the United States about remaining outside of the European conflict. The newly formed America First Committee was the most visible and vocal example of that sentiment. Shirer dedicates a single paragraph to the role of American isolationism at the beginning of Chapter 25, "The Turn of the United States." He also mentions the role of Charles Lindbergh as the leading public isolationist in a footnote on Page 827. Otherwise, there are no references to American isolationism in this extensive work about this period.

So if William Shirer virtually dismissed the importance of American isolationism in causing World War II, what does he have to say about the real causes of the rise of Adolph Hitler and World War II? Shirer points out that a number of causes and events contributed, including:

  • Economic, political, social and cultural devastation following World War I (especially the Weimar hyperinflation from 1918–1923, the Wall Street-debt-financed boom of the late 1920s, and the Great Depression of the 1930s)
  • A disastrous peace treaty at Versailles, including reparations to the allied powers considered unjust by the German people
  • The bitter struggle between international socialism (the Communists) and national socialism (the Nazis)
  • Failure of other European nations to appropriately defend themselves
  • The "stab in the back" myth that anti-war Germans during World War I had given virtual aid and comfort to the enemy on the home front while the valiant solders fought to defend the Fatherland (the birth and growth of this myth is addressed extensively in Chapter 2, "Birth of the Nazi Party")
In Shirer’s opinion, the ‘stab in the back’ fallacy was a primary cause of the rise of Hitler: "Thus emerged for Hitler, as for so many Germans, a fanatical belief in the legend of the ‘stab in the back’ which, more than anything else, was to undermine the Weimar Republic and pave the way for Hitler’s ultimate triumph." (Page 31)

On January 30, 1933 Hitler was appointed chancellor of a coalition government in Germany. The America First Committee was formed September 4, 1940. Clearly, isolationism in the United States had nothing to do with Hitler’s rise to power.

The Difference between Isolationism and Non-Interventionism

In one sense, there was a shred of truth to McCain’s attack on "isolationism," which combines military non-intervention with economic self-reliance and protectionism. In June 1930, Herbert Hoover signed into law the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act over the objections of 1,028 prominent economists. From 1929 to 1933, an increasingly autarkic German economy saw imports and exports plunge 66% and 61% respectively, while GDP was cut in half. Clearly, the politics of economic isolationism in both the U.S. and Germany helped pave the way for Hitler’s arrival in 1933.

According to Wikipedia, isolationism is "not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries." Ron Paul falls solidly into the non-interventionist camp, yet McCain failed to make this distinction.

Source

Ron Paul is not even close to being an Isolationist. Isolationists have to have both of the following policies:

  1. Protectionism – No trade or friendship with other nations.
  2. Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial differences (self-defense).
Ron Paul is the opposite of a Protectionist and would open up free trade with every country in the world. That is far from isolationism. It is the same foreign policy of peace and prosperity that Thomas Jefferson wisely suggested; “Commerce with all nations -- entangling alliances with none."

The proper term for people like Jefferson and Paul is “non-interventionist”.

Source
 
You do know that explanation that you call "naive" is the official one that is propagated, right?

well they do hate our freedom to run amok wherever we see a commercial interest.

but seriously, i don't care if that notion has been propagated... that certainly has been part of the message from the oval office a few times, but who the fuck was ever stupid enough to believe that shit?

look if you want to set up toy soldiers and knock them down, respond to someone stupider.
 
ron paul is a nutball
and so are his supporters

so what else is new?

Is he going to run as a 3rd party candidate?
cuz he sure as heck isn't going to win the Republican nomination
 
Back
Top