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

"Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded"

Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR!

British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames

"Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy

Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA

What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe.

"The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent"

CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino)

Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting!

POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25

2026 in Bible Prophecy

2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat

🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025

Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong

England is on the Brink of Civil War!

Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH

IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting

The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back

Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots

Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk

She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible

Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas

Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE

"Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’"

Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee

Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher

British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair

The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024

Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization.

The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom

Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR

DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK

Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with

What the fagots LGBTQ really means

I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience.

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson)

"Transcript: Mrs. Erika Kirk Delivers Public Address: ‘His Movement Will Go On’"

"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


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: 70597
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 # 80.

#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  


#23. To: Gatlin (#19)

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

What he's said is that it is understandable that they would want nukes, that there is no evidence they are working on nukes, and that he opposes sanctions on Iran.

go65  posted on  2011-08-12   11:26:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: go65 (#23)

What he's said is that it is understandable that they would want nukes ...

Yea, I read that ...

He surely did NOT say that is is NOT okay for them to have them, then did he mean that it's okay for them to have them?

I don't know ...

If I were to "guess" ... I would "guess" that he means that it is okay for them to have them. That is what I understood him to say ... I could be wrong.

OriginalGatlin  posted on  2011-08-12   11:38:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Gatlin, *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin* (#26)

He surely did NOT say that is is NOT okay for them to have them

Yeah, Ron Paul would not even interfere with YOUR ability to defend yourself. But being a neo-progressive statist liberal, you'd like to deny others the tools to defend themselves, wouldn't you?

Hondo68  posted on  2011-08-12   11:50:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: hondo68 (#27)

... you'd like to deny others the tools to defend themselves, wouldn't you?

Nope.

I would however like to deny MUSLIM FANATICS, who continue to kill people and themselves with their suicide bombs, a nuke bomb tool ... wouldn't you?

OriginalGatlin  posted on  2011-08-12   13:35:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Gatlin (#34)

I would however like to deny MUSLIM FANATICS, who continue to kill people and themselves with their suicide bombs, a nuke bomb tool ... wouldn't you?

Pakistan has one already.

And we seem to all be OK with North Korea having a nuke.

go65  posted on  2011-08-12   13:38:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: go65 (#36)

Pakistan has one already.

And we seem to all be OK with North Korea having a nuke.

So 10 to 20 more countries should have them?

OriginalGatlin  posted on  2011-08-12   14:07:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: Gatlin (#42)

So 10 to 20 more countries should have them?

Who are we to say who can and can't have nuclear weapons?

go65  posted on  2011-08-12   15:10:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: go65 (#47)

Who are we to say who can and can't have nuclear weapons?

'We' are a world leader and a nuclear superpower with an obligation not to destroy civilization or life on earth as we know it.

'We' also enjoy a lifestyle unparalleled in history, so count your blessings.

Thunderbird  posted on  2011-08-12   19:13:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: Thunderbird (#62)

'We' are a world leader and a nuclear superpower with an obligation not to destroy civilization or life on earth as we know it.

So you think the U.S. should intervene in Sudan to stop the killing & starvation?

go65  posted on  2011-08-13   10:49:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: go65 (#72)

So you think the U.S. should intervene in Sudan to stop the killing & starvation?

Do I think current starvation and killing in Sudan while deplorable is the equivalent of a nuclear explosion?...no.

However, if there were a group of terrorists (or even the government) in Sudan plotting such an event, the United States and its allies can and should intervene.

Any other leading questions?

Thunderbird  posted on  2011-08-13   11:45:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: Thunderbird (#74)

However, if there were a group of terrorists (or even the government) in Sudan plotting such an event, the United States and its allies can and should intervene.

On that we agree. If someone threatens the U.S., we should act.

Iran isn't a threat to the U.S.

go65  posted on  2011-08-13   13:55:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: go65 (#75)

On that we agree. If someone threatens the U.S., we should act. Iran isn't a threat to the U.S.

I didn't say a specific threat to the United States was necessary for intervention..only that a group or country was plotting to explode a nuclear device.

In Iran's case, their association with middle east terrorism makes their acquiring nuclear weapons capability especially problematic.

I'd say the probability of 'someone' taking out their reactor as quite high.

Thunderbird  posted on  2011-08-13   14:17:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: Thunderbird (#77)

In Iran's case, their association with middle east terrorism makes their acquiring nuclear weapons capability especially problematic.

But for some reason Pakistan is not problematic. Hmmm...

jwpegler  posted on  2011-08-13   14:21:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: jwpegler, hondo68 (#78)

But for some reason Pakistan is not problematic. Hmmm...

I never said Pakistan wasn't a problem.

Maybe you should address your 'concerns' to Hondo, who thinks its ok for any death cultist with a wad of cash to have a dirty bomb as long as they keep away from fly-over country.

Thunderbird  posted on  2011-08-13   15:43:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 80.

#83. To: Thunderbird (#80)

I never said Pakistan wasn't a problem.

Right, but did the U.S. government go to war to prevent Pakistan, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, or India from getting the bomb?

Ron Paul can be a very ineloquent speaker who is hard to follow, but this was the point that he was trying to get across. The neo-con war drums are beating against Iran right now. We can't all just panic and go into some hysteria and follow their beat.

We need to think through what really matters to our national security and how to best resolve the things that actually matter.

I agree with Newt Gingrich when he said: "I talked recently to General Abizad (ph) who is probably the most knowledgeable senior general who speaks fluent Arabic who said to me we have a bigger strategic deficit than our fiscal deficit. I think we need to rethink everything in the region."

jwpegler  posted on  2011-08-13 16:01:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 80.

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