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: 67624
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'); -
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S, *Ron Paul for President* (#0)
Nice smack down of the globalist warmonger neolib/con Santorum. Fact is that, Ron Paul is the only pro-American in the GOP debate.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
Wha...huh?
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
Even if true (not) the Red Chinese killed more Americans than those two groups combined (Korean War) and with the same communist regime in place we made it our leading importer and creditor. And the Red Chinese have nukes......
With the economy still in the dumper -- maybe permanently? -- and full-time jobs becoming as scarce as rain during a drought, huge percentages of Americans have had their (misplaced) faith in the American dream shaken, the upper-middle-class consumerist lifestyle is exposed as a mirage for anybody who plays by the rules. Capitalism and the America that embraced it as a way of life is now and forever more a failure. It does me good to know that the generation that voted in Reagan and his ideology will see their America die from that ideology before their very own eyes and knowing they had a hand in its destruction.
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.
I took it to mean that the sanctions and keeping Iran as an enemy is not a good policy - we engage Russia and China and they are nuclear armed regimes at times hostile to the USA. I would have also replied that like Israel or not it is not the 51st state and just because Israel is terrified of Iran does not mean America's foreign policy has to be linked to Israel's fears. When did Israel become this sacred cow in American politics? Especially amongst Republicans?
With the economy still in the dumper -- maybe permanently? -- and full-time jobs becoming as scarce as rain during a drought, huge percentages of Americans have had their (misplaced) faith in the American dream shaken, the upper-middle-class consumerist lifestyle is exposed as a mirage for anybody who plays by the rules. Capitalism and the America that embraced it as a way of life is now and forever more a failure. It does me good to know that the generation that voted in Reagan and his ideology will see their America die from that ideology before their very own eyes and knowing they had a hand in its destruction.
Who unloosened Ron Paul's straight jacket and allowed him to attend this debate?
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
Been a consistent message of his...
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
He seems to have missed the part where we haven't.
Dr. Paul was arguing against US sanctions..or at least Santorum thought he was. My question is whether Dr. Paul thinks the US has ANY role at all in global security?
just don't google Rick Santorum.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
Only when we are directly threatened or attacked.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
He's dead on balls wrong about Bin Lden though...
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
Agreed. With one caveat, had Paul's views been followed prior to 1991, we never would have been attacked by Bin Laden as we never would have gotten involved in Afghanistan or in restoring the Kuwaiti monarchy. I think he's overall right in his views, but it will require an adjustment period and we need to slowly disengage.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
What did Ron Paul actually say ... he said:
So Ron Paul's concept of 'global' security is... its every country for itself? What about our international treaty obligations, does the US withdraw?
Basically yes, only act when the U.S. is directly threatened versus the view that has us in over 130 countries. "beware of entangling alliances" goes back to our first President as i'm sure you know.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
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.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
Hey, war Would you do me a favor and pass on a comment from me to "go"? I am surprised, given the tone and tenor of his posts, to see him saying positive things about RP. I'd do it myself, but he has me on filter . . .
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?
Really? I believe go65 has stated he has voted for RP in the past.
Not only voted for him, but contributed to his 2008 presidential campaign. I donated to him before he raised his first $500k. I do think he's wrong about how to respond to the current economic conditions, but he was correct in flagging the need to reign the deficit "before" the 2008 crash. One of the biggest problems we have now is that we ran big deficits in the 2000's when the economy was growing and we should have been running surpluses. The net result is that we didn't have the financial flexibility to deal with the 2008 crisis that other countries had (e.g. Canada, Germany). I do think implementing Paul's approach "now" of massively cutting spending would send us into another depression. Dodge - i'm taking you off filter.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
Yes it will require an adjustment period. Any attempts at a phased withdrawal (slow disengagement) will fail, as our foreign policy has. Such attempts will just create more quagmires and boondoggles. Just pull them all out and deal with the adjustment period as required.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
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.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
It's remarkable that the two biggest foreign policy blunders ever committed in the history of our republic were initiated by the same gene pool over the same country.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
#18. To: war (#12) Hey, war Would you do me a favor and pass on a comment from me to "go"? I am surprised, given the tone and tenor of his posts, to see him saying positive things about RP. I'd do it myself, but he has me on filter . . . Get Outta Dodge! posted on 2011-08-12 11:13:59 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
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.
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?
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
Wassamatter, Dondero??? Still mad that Ron Paul fired you?
The two sides in America are people who work for a living versus people who vote for their living.
He has said it shouldn't scare us if they have them, so to me that means he sees nothing wrong with Iran having nukes. Hey, we accept a nuclear North Korea, why can't we accept a nuclear Iran?
Tagline for sale - inquire within
Yes, Republicans sent U.S. troops to their deaths to restore a monarchy and to install a pro-Iranian government in the country that had been Iran's biggest enemy.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
another brilliant move by that moron bush
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.
Not as naive as thinking that you can run the world.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
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?
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.
Pakistan has one already. And we seem to all be OK with North Korea having a nuke.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
if we can't keep North Korea from getting a nuke, what makes you think we can stop Iran?
Tagline for sale - inquire within
The KKK in 2012 If you can't face the truth... change your candidate. GrandIsland posted on 2011-08-12 11:27:54 ET An indication of just how crazy and desperate the neocon yukon/dondero statist cult is.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
Not only voted for him, but contributed to his 2008 presidential campaign. I donated to him before he raised his first $500k. I do think he's wrong about how to respond to the current economic conditions, but he was correct in flagging the need to reign the deficit "before" the 2008 crash. One of the biggest problems we have now is that we ran big deficits in the 2000's when the economy was growing and we should have been running surpluses. The net result is that we didn't have the financial flexibility to deal with the 2008 crisis that other countries had (e.g. Canada, Germany). I do think implementing Paul's approach "now" of massively cutting spending would send us into another depression. Everyone has a basic political philosophy. Of course, I can only judge yours by what I've seen you post - so I may be way off base. But I would never have imagined you would support RP's political philosophy of smaller, Constitutional government. I don't think, for instance, that RP would ever find himself supporting something like Obamacare - but I'm pretty sure you do. And if that's the case, that's a pretty big "except for." So I find this "revelation" interesting.
I didn't and still don't support Obamacare. As I've stated numerous times, I think the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and I think it's a terrible solution to the challenge of reigning in health care costs. I do however support a single-payer solution simply because it's the cheapest, most efficient means of providing health insurance to the nation's citizens. I'm not an ideologue, I support what works based on available evidence. I note that every country with a AAA rating has a national health insurance program. I note that countries with national health insurance systems pay less than we do and get better care with better metrics. I like a lot of what Ron Paul has to say with respect to foreign policy. I disagree with him a lot on domestic policy.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
No, I even support the right of crackpot warmongers such as yourself to have a nuke.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
And we seem to all be OK with North Korea having a nuke. So 10 to 20 more countries should have them?
Is this type of simplistic equivalence the basis of a foreign policy? I don't think so.
I caught some of Pills Limbaugh's first hour today on my drive to and from lunch. He unabashedly criticized Ron Paul and his kook wing of the Pubbie party and the media for giving Paul so much air time during the debate because it makes the Pubbie party look bad in Pills' opinion. He claims Romney won the debate hands down. I don't watch the political theatrical shows very often and I didn't bother with last night's FWIW. I've been a Ron Paul fan for years now, warts and all, and like you I contributed to his last presidential campaign. I even bought his book in 2008 which he autographed for me in a Louisville book store along with hundreds of others.
Let's look at history. The U.S. got nuclear weapons before anyone else. Did we go to war to try to stop the Soviet Union and China from getting them? No. Pakistan is an Islamic country with extremist elements in the military. Did we go to war to try to stop them from getting nuclear weapons? No. North Korea is the world's only hereditary communist dictatorship. It's run by nuts who starve their only people. Did we go to war to try to stop them from getting nuclear weapons? No. India is our pal now, but they were allied with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Did we go to war to try to stop them from getting nuclear weapons? No. But now, we are huffing and puffing because a backwards country that can't even refine their own gasoline might be trying to build a bomb. Even if they build a bomb, they don't have a delivery vehicle that could threaten us. And even if they manage to get such a delivery vehicle years down the road, they won't use it because they know that we'd incinerate their entire country if they did so. All of this is nothing more than political grandstanding.
All of this is nothing more than political grandstanding. All of this in nothing more than dancing to the tune that the bastard state, some of you people call israel, continues to play.
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
Who are we to say who can and can't have nuclear weapons?
Tagline for sale - inquire within
well said.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
All of this is nothing more than political grandstanding. No it isn't. The proximity of Iran to Israel is everything about the connection. That is all it is about.
I know.
As Ron Paul has repeatedly warned this international meddling has gotten America into a lot of trouble. It serves no serious national issue to us whether they intend to build nukes or as Iran claims, to build nuclear power generating facilities. America needs to get out of their business altogether.
Very interesting thread.
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?
Juan McInsane and John F'n Kerry? Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
If a country invades another country, they probably should be considered a rogue nation. Who has Iran invaded? No one. They were invaded by Iraq in 1980.
with our support.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
Limbaugh backed Romney in 2008 as well.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
I hate to say it, but Newt Gingrich won the debate. He was both calm, cool, and collected and also sharp as a tack. He adopted some of Ron Paul's position (audit the Fed) and also said that we need to completely rethink our involvement in the Middle East. Most importantly, he correctly characterized the new debt super committee as the dumbest idea that Washington has come up with in his lifetime. I don't think that he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination, but he was the only standout on the stage last night. I thought Pawlenty looked like an idiot and Huntsman looked nervous.
We have no right to say that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban can or can't have nuclear weapons?
The Taliban has the right to deny you, a rubber band & spit ball?
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
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...
'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.
The Taliban has the right to deny you, a rubber band & spit ball? Every once in awhile I see a comment by you that deserves to be rated as a ”classic” and the working on your limited mental capacity makes it no coincidence that this comment is superbly stupid and deserves a place near the top of the list as most idiotic use as a parallel to a situation.
It figures that, that would be way over your head. It's as easy for others to make absurd declarations as it is for the US. The question is, by what authority do you deny other countries weapons, some shuck & jive UN regulation? You won't find it in US law, or the Bible.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
The question is, by what authority do you deny other countries weapons, some shuck & jive UN regulation? You won't find it in US law, or the Bible. Do you say it is okay for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to have nuclear weapons?
The Taliban has the right to deny you, a rubber band & spit ball? They can do what ever the hell they want as long as they don't attack us. So yeah they can have a nuke if they want.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
Thank you for answering the question.
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?
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.
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?
So you think the U.S. should intervene in Sudan to stop the killing & starvation?
Tagline for sale - inquire within
A bit different - Al Qaeda, with Taliban support, attacked us. I have no problem destroying those who attack us. Iran hasn't attacked us.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
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?
On that we agree. If someone threatens the U.S., we should act. Iran isn't a threat to the U.S.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
You consider wrapping an undeclared premise inside an assumptive question as being 'honest'? Kiss my pucker.
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.
But for some reason Pakistan is not problematic. Hmmm...
their association with middle east terrorism is less than the Saudi's.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
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.
I'm not in favor of the Saudis acquiring nuclear weapons either, which is a likely scenerio if Iran acquires them first.
And if Persian, Shiite Iran gets nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey will certainly start their own nuclear weapons program. That's the real danger here, not some nonsense about Iran being a treat to us.
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."
Awwwww, poor thing. I've obviously hurt your feelings. You have my apologies.
The question assumes that the United States is going to war to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, which doesn't seem likely with this president. Whether this holds true for the next administration is an open question. However Ron Paul is also a critic of international sanctions against Iran which may be seen as an alternative to going to war. He seems to think its wrong to isolate and try and stop a belligerent like Iran from tipping the balance of power and escalating tensions in the region. On Iran policy at least there seems to be a growing nexus between the Ron Paul right and the Michael Moore left. Good luck with that.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#2. To: Brian S (#0)
“Iran has killed more American men and women in uniform than the Iraqis [sic] or Afghans have.”
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#3. To: war, Brian S (#2)
“Iran has killed more American men and women in uniform than the Iraqis [sic] or Afghans have.”
#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.
#5. To: Thunderbird (#4)
he said the US wasn't justified in stopping them. There is a big difference.
#6. To: Brian S (#0)
#7. To: Thunderbird (#4)
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#8. To: Thunderbird (#4)
...he said the US wasn't justified in stopping them...
#9. To: harrowup (#8)
#10. To: war (#7)
Been a consistent message of his...
#11. To: Thunderbird (#9)
My question is whether Dr. Paul thinks the US has ANY role at all in global security?
#12. To: go65 (#11)
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#13. To: war (#12)
(Edited)
He's dead on balls wrong about Bin Lden though...
#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.
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.
#15. To: go65 (#11)
Only when we are directly threatened or attacked.
#16. To: Thunderbird (#15)
So Ron Paul's concept of 'global' security is... its every country for itself?
#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.
#18. To: war (#12)
#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.
#20. To: Get Outta Dodge!, go65 (#18)
Would you do me a favor and pass on a comment from me to "go"? I am surprised, given the tone and tenor of his posts, to see him saying positive things about RP.
#21. To: mininggold, Get Outta Dodge! (#20)
Really? I believe go65 has stated he has voted for RP in the past.
#22. To: go65, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#13)
(Edited)
but it will require an adjustment period and we need to slowly disengage
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#23. To: Gatlin (#19)
The original point: Ron Paul say the Iranians are justified in wanting/having nuclear weapons?
#24. To: go65 (#13)
...or in restoring the Kuwaiti monarchy.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#25. To: Get Outta Dodge!, go65 (#18)
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#26. To: go65 (#23)
What he's said is that it is understandable that they would want nukes ...
#27. To: Gatlin, *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin* (#26)
He surely did NOT say that is is NOT okay for them to have them
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#28. To: no gnu taxes (#6)
Who unloosened Ron Paul's straight jacket and allowed him to attend this debate?
#29. To: Gatlin (#26)
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?
#30. To: war (#24)
It's remarkable that the two biggest foreign policy blunders ever committed in the history of our republic were initiated by the same gene pool over the same country.
#31. To: go65 (#30)
Yes, Republicans sent U.S. troops to their deaths to restore a monarchy and to install a pro-Iranian government in the country that had been Iran's biggest enemy.
#32. To: Gatlin (#19)
The original point: Ron Paul say the Iranians are justified in wanting/having nuclear weapons?
#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
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#34. To: hondo68 (#27)
... you'd like to deny others the tools to defend themselves, wouldn't you?
#35. To: hondo68, (#33)
Not as naive as thinking that you can run the world.
#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?
#37. 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.
#38. To: Capitalist Eric, *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin* (#28)
(Edited)
#25. To: Infowarrior (#24)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#39. To: go65, mininggold, war (#21)
Really? I believe go65 has stated he has voted for RP in the past.
#40. To: Get Outta Dodge! (#39)
But I would never have imagined you would support RP's political philosophy of smaller, Constitutional government. I don't think, for instance, that RP would ever find himself supporting something like Obamacare - but I'm pretty sure you do. And if that's the case, that's a pretty big "except for."
#41. To: Gatlin (#34)
like to deny MUSLIM FANATICS, who continue to kill people and themselves with their suicide bombs, a nuke bomb tool ... wouldn't you?
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#42. To: go65 (#36)
Pakistan has one already.
#43. To: go65 (#37)
if we can't keep North Korea from getting a nuke, what makes you think we can stop Iran?
#44. To: go65 (#40)
#45. To: Brian S (#0)
(Edited)
This small group of terrorists [Tea Party members] have made it impossible to spend any money. -- Mike Doyle (D-PA)
#46. To: jwpegler, (#45)
But now, we are huffing and puffing because a backwards country that can't even refine their own gasoline might be trying to build a bomb. Even if they build a bomb, they don't have a delivery vehicle that could threaten us. And even if they manage to get such a delivery vehicle years down the road, they won't use it because they know that we'd incinerate their entire country if they did so.
#47. To: Gatlin (#42)
So 10 to 20 more countries should have them?
#48. To: jwpegler (#45)
All of this is nothing more than political grandstanding.
#49. To: jwpegler (#45)
But now, we are huffing and puffing because a backwards country that can't even refine their own gasoline might be trying to build a bomb. Even if they build a bomb, they don't have a delivery vehicle that could threaten us. And even if they manage to get such a delivery vehicle years down the road, they won't use it because they know that we'd incinerate their entire country if they did so.
#50. To: buckeroo (#49)
This small group of terrorists [Tea Party members] have made it impossible to spend any money. -- Mike Doyle (D-PA)
#51. To: jwpegler (#50)
#52. To: All (#51)
#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.
#54. To: We The People (#53)
(Edited)
And who decides which nations are 'rogue'? The UN? The US?
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#55. To: We The People (#53)
(Edited)
And who decides which nations are 'rogue'?
This small group of terrorists [Tea Party members] have made it impossible to spend any money. -- Mike Doyle (D-PA)
#56. To: jwpegler (#55)
They were invaded by Iraq in 1980.
#57. To: Fred Mertz (#44)
He claims Romney won the debate hands down.
#58. To: Fred Mertz (#44)
(Edited)
He claims Romney won the debate hands down.
This small group of terrorists [Tea Party members] have made it impossible to spend any money. -- Mike Doyle (D-PA)
#59. To: go65 (#47)
Who are we to say who can and can't have nuclear weapons?
#60. To: Gatlin, *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin* (#59)
(Edited)
We have no right to say that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban can or can't have nuclear weapons?
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#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?
#62. To: go65 (#47)
Who are we to say who can and can't have nuclear weapons?
#63. To: hondo68 (#60)
We have no right to say that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban can or can't have nuclear weapons?
#64. To: Gatlin (#63)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#65. To: All (#59)
(Edited)
#66. To: hondo68 (#64)
#67. To: Gatlin (#66)
(Edited)
Do you say it is okay for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to have nuclear weapons?
If you can't quote US law, your edict is no better than theirs.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#68. To: hondo68 (#67)
Do you say it is okay for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to have nuclear weapons?
--------------
The Taliban has the right to deny you, a rubber band & spit ball?
--------------
They can do what ever the hell they want as long as they don't attack us.
So yeah they (Al-Qaeda and the Taliban) can have a nuke if they want.
#69. To: Thunderbird (#61)
You believe we as a nation should decide which other nations get the weapons they want to defend themselves?
#70. To: We The People (#69)
#71. To: Thunderbird (#70)
(Edited)
#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.
#73. To: Gatlin (#59)
We have no right to say that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban can or can't have nuclear weapons?
#74. To: go65 (#72)
So you think the U.S. should intervene in Sudan to stop the killing & starvation?
#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.
#76. To: We The People (#71)
I find it immensely interesting that you view honest questions concerning your views as some sort of interrogation.
#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.
#78. To: Thunderbird (#77)
In Iran's case, their association with middle east terrorism makes their acquiring nuclear weapons capability especially problematic.
This small group of terrorists [Tea Party members] have made it impossible to spend any money. -- Mike Doyle (D-PA)
#79. To: Thunderbird (#77)
In Iran's case, their association with middle east terrorism makes their acquiring nuclear weapons capability especially problematic.
#80. To: jwpegler, hondo68 (#78)
But for some reason Pakistan is not problematic. Hmmm...
#81. To: go65 (#79)
their association with middle east terrorism is less than the Saudi's.
#82. To: go65 (#79)
their association with middle east terrorism is less than the Saudi's.
This small group of terrorists [Tea Party members] have made it impossible to spend any money. -- Mike Doyle (D-PA)
#83. To: Thunderbird (#80)
I never said Pakistan wasn't a problem.
This small group of terrorists [Tea Party members] have made it impossible to spend any money. -- Mike Doyle (D-PA)
#84. To: Thunderbird (#76)
Kiss my pucker.
#85. To: jwpegler (#83)
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?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]