[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Victor Davis Hanson to Newsmax: Kirk Slaying Crosses Rubicon"

Rest In Peace Charlie Kirk

Charlotte train murder: Graphic video captures random fatal stabbing of young Ukrainian refugee

Berlin in July 1945 - Probably the best restored film material you'll watch from that time!

Ok this is Funny

Walking Through 1980s Los Angeles: The City That Reinvented Cool

THE ZOMBIES OF AMERICA

THE OLDEST PHOTOS OF NEW YORK YOU'VE NEVER SEEN

John Rich – Calling Out P. Diddy, TVA Scandal, and Joel Osteen | SRS #232

Capablanca Teaches Us The ONLY Chess Opening You'll Ever Need

"How Bruce Springsteen Fooled America"

How ancient Rome was excavated in Italy in the 1920s. Unique rare videos and photos.

Reagan JOKE On The Homeless

The Deleted Wisdom (1776 Report)

Sicko Transfaggots video

The Englund Gambit Checkmate

20 Minutes Of Black DC Residents Supporting Trump's Federal Takeover!

"Virginia Public Schools Deserve This Reckoning"

"'Pack the Bags, We're Going on a Guilt Trip'—the Secret to the Democrats' Success"

"Washington, D.C., Is a Disgrace"

"Trump Orders New 'Highly Accurate' Census Excluding Illegals"

what a freakin' insane asylum

Sorry, CNN, We're Not Going to Stop Talking About the Russian Collusion Hoax

"No Autopsy Can Restore the Democratic Party’s Viability"

RIP Ozzy

"Trump floats 'restriction' for Commanders if they fail to ditch nickname in favor of Redskins return"

"Virginia Governor’s Race Heats Up As Republican Winsome Sears Does a Hard Reboot of Her Campaign"

"We Hate Communism!!"

"Mamdani and the Democratic Schism"

"The 2nd Impeachment: Trump’s Popularity Still Scares Them to Death"

"President Badass"

"Jasmine Crockett's Train Wreck Interview Was a Disaster"

"How Israel Used Spies, Smuggled Drones and AI to Stun and Hobble Iran"

There hasn’T been ... a single updaTe To This siTe --- since I joined.

"This Is Not What Authoritarianism Looks Like"

America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets

AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996]

Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment?

Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit

"The Addled Activist Mind"

"Don’t Stop with Harvard"

"Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?"

"Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF"

"'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal"

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Water Cooler
See other The Water Cooler Articles

Title: Ron Paul Rails Against Rick Santorum: ‘We Just Plain Don’t Mind Our Own Business!’
Source: Mediaite.com
URL Source: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-ron- ... in-dont-mind-our-own-business/
Published: Aug 12, 2011
Author: Mediaite.com
Post Date: 2011-08-12 01:18:40 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 70497
Comments: 85

The debate began with the two most similar candidates– Minnesotans Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Rep. Michele Bachmann– pulling no punches in disparaging each other’s records. It wouldn’t take long for the two most different candidates to have at it, and the foreign policy conversation between. Rep. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum delivered just as much as the experience one among the Minnesotans.

Rep. Paul brought his vintage A-game to the debate on foreign policy tonight, attacking America’s foreign policy on Iran and arguing that they were entirely justified in wanting nuclear weapons. Arguing that the USSR had nuclear weapons and “they were the greatest danger in our history,” he concluded it made no sense to stop the Iranians, who were not a threat. Oh, and by the way, “that’s why we don’t have trade relations with Cuba,” he added as an aside. “It’s about time we start talking to Cuba and stop these wars that are 30-40 years old.”

At this, Santorum shot up, interrupting Herman Cain’s question to respond as the author of the anti-Iranian bill that riled up Rep. Paul so much. “Iran is not Iceland,” he argued, noting that “Iran has killed more American men and women in uniform than the Iraqis [sic] or Afghans have.” He also added that Iran “is at war with us,” which gave Rep. Paul a comeback opening. “We started it in 1953… we installed the Shah, and the blowback came in 1979… it’s been going on because we just plain don’t mind our own business,” he shouted, to cheers.

The segment via Fox News below:

if (70 > (Math.random() * 100)) bing_spawn('Ron Paul');

- Subscribe to *Tea Party On Parade*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 70.

#4. To: Brian S (#0)

Rep. Paul brought his vintage A-game to the debate on foreign policy tonight, attacking America’s foreign policy on Iran and arguing that they were entirely justified in wanting nuclear weapons.

This is a misrepresentation of what Dr. Paul actually said. He didn't say the Iranians were justified in wanting nuclear weapons, he said the US wasn't justified in stopping them. There is a big difference.

Thunderbird  posted on  2011-08-12   9:19:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Thunderbird Brian S (#4)

This is a misrepresentation of what Dr. Paul actually said. He didn't say the Iranians were justified in wanting nuclear weapons, he said the US wasn't justified in stopping them. There is a big difference.

What did Ron Paul actually say ... he said:

Why would that be so strange if the Soviets and the Chinese had nuclear weapons, we tolerated the Soviets. We didn't attack them. And they were a much greater danger. They were the greatest danger to us in our whole history. But you don't go to war with them. Just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these countries ... why wouldn't it be natural if they might want a weapon? Internationally, they might be given more respect.

OriginalGatlin  posted on  2011-08-12   10:46:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Gatlin (#14)

Why would that be so strange if the Soviets and the Chinese had nuclear weapons, we tolerated the Soviets. We didn't attack them. And they were a much greater danger. They were the greatest danger to us in our whole history. But you don't go to war with them. Just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these countries ... why wouldn't it be natural if they might want a weapon? Internationally, they might be given more respect.

He's right - the idea that the Iranians would nuke Israel is pretty silly given the likely response, and the fact that winds would blow fallout back at them. There's no evidence that the Iranians are any more suicidal than the Soviets or North Koreans.

And a desire by the Iranians to want nukes is perfectly understandable given U.S. forces on both their borders while we leave North Korea and Pakistan alone.

go65  posted on  2011-08-12   11:07:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: go65. Brian S, Thunderbird (#17)

Why would that be so strange if the Soviets and the Chinese had nuclear weapons, we tolerated the Soviets. We didn't attack them. And they were a much greater danger. They were the greatest danger to us in our whole history. But you don't go to war with them. Just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these countries ... why wouldn't it be natural if they might want a weapon? Internationally, they might be given more respect.

He's right - the idea that the Iranians would nuke Israel is pretty silly given the likely response, and the fact that winds would blow fallout back at them. There's no evidence that the Iranians are any more suicidal than the Soviets or North Koreans.

And a desire by the Iranians to want nukes is perfectly understandable given U.S. forces on both their borders while we leave North Korea and Pakistan alone.

The original point: Ron Paul say the Iranians are justified in wanting/having nuclear weapons?

OriginalGatlin  posted on  2011-08-12   11:15:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Gatlin (#19)

The original point: Ron Paul say the Iranians are justified in wanting/having nuclear weapons?

I didn't watch the debate, so my only context is the video clip linked at the top of the thread. That clip doesn't show Ron Paul saying "Just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these countries ... why wouldn't it be natural if they might want a weapon? Internationally, they might be given more respect."

It does seem naive / irresponsible to think the world would be better off with no deterrent to nuclear proliferation, or that the United States itself would be safer.

Thunderbird  posted on  2011-08-12   13:02:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Thunderbird, *Neo-Lib Chickenhawk Wars* (#32)

It does seem naive / irresponsible to think the world would be better off with no deterrent to nuclear proliferation

Not as naive as thinking that you can run the world.

Hondo68  posted on  2011-08-12   13:21:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: hondo68, (#33)

Not as naive as thinking that you can run the world.

Only a fucking idiot would think you have to "rule the world" in order to keep a handful of rogue nations from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Thunderbird  posted on  2011-08-12   13:36:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: Thunderbird (#35)

Only a fucking idiot would think you have to "rule the world" in order to keep a handful of rogue nations from acquiring nuclear weapons.

You believe we as a nation should decide which other nations get the weapons they want to defend themselves?

And who decides which nations are 'rogue'? The UN? The US?

We The People  posted on  2011-08-12   16:16:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: We The People (#53)

You believe we as a nation should decide which other nations get the weapons they want to defend themselves?

And who decides which nations are 'rogue'? The UN? The US?

I know..its all so complicated. Not like reading a menu at all. Keep trying...

Thunderbird  posted on  2011-08-12   19:04:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: Thunderbird (#61)

You believe we as a nation should decide which other nations get the weapons they want to defend themselves?

And who decides which nations are 'rogue'? The UN? The US?

I know..its all so complicated.

It's really pretty simple.

You can either answer my honest questions like an adult, and help me to understand the reasoning for what seems to be an interventionist position on your part, or..

you can get all defensive, act like a teenage drama queen and keep throwing out meaningless prepubescent insults.

You believe we as a nation should decide which other nations get the weapons they want to defend themselves? Or do we allow the UN to decide who gets them?

We The People  posted on  2011-08-12   21:56:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: We The People (#69)

Your assumption that you can just show up and start an interrogation without offering an opinion of your own is grossly mistaken.

Either add some substance of your own to the debate or fuck off...I can't say it any plainer.

Thunderbird  posted on  2011-08-12   22:58:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 70.

#71. To: Thunderbird (#70) (Edited)

Thank you for confirming my suspicions that you'd opt for the second scenario.

As you wish I'll add some substance now...

I think you hold a leftist, interventionist stance on foreign policy, due to your statements/justifications above. But I could be wrong. Am I wrong? Since I don't know what your political views are, I can either assume or ask questions. That's why I asked.

I firmly believe we should mind our own business, unless there is absolute evidence that we are about to be attacked in some way.

fuck off.

LOL!

No, I will not fuck off. It's not in my nature to fuck off. Anyone who knows me knows that I absolutely will not fuck off. Of course, if you're afraid, unwilling or unable to discuss your views on foreign policy, you could always use the filter.

I find it immensely interesting that you view honest questions concerning your views as some sort of interrogation. Are you always this defensive, high strung and emotional when asked what your views are?

We The People  posted on  2011-08-12 23:12:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 70.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com