Ron Paul kills the deal
Ron Paul takes positions on foreign policy and immigration that are deal-killers. And in tonight’s debate, he killed the deal.
Ron Paul on foreign policy
On foreign policy, Ron Paul does not want the United States to “intervene” beyond US territory. He makes no secret of his wish to bring the troops home from all US bases in foreign lands. He even blames the US government for the deaths of 3,000 civilians on September 11, 2001. He does not say that the US government murdered those people in a false-flag attack. (Many of his followers do say that, but not Dr. Paul.) But he says something arguably worse: that the US government provoked that attack.
In the debate tonight (September 7) in the Reagan Library, he made the most tasteless remark yet along this line:
I was astonished! We are spending twenty billion dollars on air conditioning for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would take all that away, use ten billion to pay down the debt, and use the other ten toward FEMA and any other agency that we really need. And if you took that air conditioning away, those troops would come home very quickly, and I’d be happy with that.
Only Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (of Daily Kos fame) has made a more tasteless remark than that. The Kos actually called them “mercenaries” and, in obscene language, said that he did not care whether they lived or died. At least Dr. Paul didn’t say anything like that. But he can scarcely claim to support the troops after saying what he did say.
Ron Paul on immigration
On immigration, Ron Paul wants to “let them in.” Tonight he made that abundantly clear. Barack H. Obama once spoke of a fence with a moat with alligators. Ron Paul spoke of a fence with watchtowers and guards carrying machine guns. He blithely suggested that, if the economy were stronger, immigration would not be a worry.
Memo to Dr. Paul: competition for jobs isn’t the only worry. Someone might carry weapons of mass destruction across that border. He might also do well to consider a diplomatic predicament in which he might find himself. What if a swelling immigrant population demanded a plebiscite on the retro-cession of the American Southwest back to Mexico?
But even that was not the worst. The worst was when he said that those machine-gun-toting guards would serve, not to keep illegal immigrants out, but to pen American citizens in. In short, he actually compared a future United States of America to the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Ron Paul – an overview
On many other issues, Ron Paul says many good things. He would abolish the Federal Reserve and establish an objective standard-of-value for the nation’s money. He would repeal the health care reform bill, which is unconstitutional on its face. (Though whether he knows all the 15 reasons why it is unconstitutional, is less clear.) He would abolish all income taxes. And he has never accepted the defined-benefit Congressional pension.
Yet his campaign style is less than refined. He is attacking his fellow Texan, Governor Rick Perry, at an appallingly early stage in the campaign. As part of this, he made much of Perry’s earlier history as a Democrat and the manager of Al Gore’s 1988 primary campaign in Texas. But Ron Paul is clearly living in a glass house here. In his latest ad (see below), Paul says that he stood by Ronald Reagan. But in 1988 he broke with Reagan and ran for President himself—on the Libertarian Party ticket.
The foreign-policy critique
Several observers, among them David L. Bahnsen, criticize Ron Paul for his foreign-policy opinions. (“An agenda of anti-Americanism and military isolationism,” said Bahnsen last May.) Sadly, Bahnsen devoted most of his article to an irrelevant issue: Ron Paul’s association with Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. Jeffrey Lord at The American Spectator stayed on topic last month. Like Bahnsen, Lord decries Paul’s isolationism. But Lord complains further that Paul is trying to change the history of American conservative politics. Lord explained this further today: beginning in 1940, the American conservative movement argued about foreign intervention. The target in 1940 was Adolf Hitler; after the war, Josef Stalin became the target. The conservative movement’s leaders decided that allowing a Hitler, or a Stalin, to build an industrial base in conquered territories would be suicidal. Therefore, one does not wait for an egomaniacal or ideological emperor to lay siege to the home territory. Instead one tries to weaken or depose the emperor before he even gets close.
Adolf Hitler made the mistake of joining Japan in its war with America. The Soviet Union lasted for another forty years, until at last Ronald Reagan called it what it was and ran up the arms race. In so doing, Reagan tested the Soviet industrial base to failure. Ron Paul would not have done this. And today, Paul shows no understanding of Muslim history or doctrine. He does not know, and might not care, that the Qu’ran and Mein Kampf (“My Struggle”) share many ideas.
Ron Paul ally Tom Woods replied to Lord’s August article (see video below). In so doing, Woods showed another disturbing thing that Ron Paul and his cohorts often do: misrepresent history. To take the first example that Lord caught: Felix Morley, founder of Human Events, did advocate non-intervention. Ronald Reagan did read Human Events regularly. But Morley resigned from Human Events long before Reagan became a regular reader. By then, and certainly when Reagan was President, Human Events published many things that Morley would never have approved. So when Woods hints that Morley influenced Reagan, he is, frankly, lying.
Furthermore, Ron Paul and his followers have laid themselves open to a charge of anti-Semitism. Ron Paul specifically said, in April of 2004, that the 9/11 attacks occurred on account of:
oil, neo-conservative empire building, and our support for Israel over the Palestinians.
For “neo-conservative,” read “Jewish.” Everyone knows this.
Paul cagily avoided blowing this gaffe in the debate. In that he had help: neither of the two moderators asked a single question about Israel, or the 1949 Armistice Line, or the very real threat that war between Israel and Egypt might break out any time.
If the Republican Party nominates Ron Paul for President, he will win. A recent Gallup poll clearly showed that Obama would get less than 50 percent of the vote against Paul, Perry, Mitt Romney, or Michele Bachmann. That means that any of the four could beat Obama, and probably would.
If the country then gets a rude awakening (as it did on December 7, 1941, and again on September 11, 2001), at least Ron Paul’s fellow citizens could arm themselves. A President Paul would probably order the Sixth Fleet to stand well away from an Arab-Israeli combat zone. (He would not want the Israeli Air Force to strafe another American ship, as they did the USS Liberty, entirely by accident.) Under that circumstance, Israel might win, as it did in 1967 and 1973. But she might literally have only the Lord to thank for that. (See Ezekiel chh. 38-39.)
Still, the Republican Party would do well to nominate someone else. That someone else should then make Ron Paul his Secretary of the Treasury, so that he could prove his hard-money theories. Hopefully the next President could then concentrate on keeping America strong, at home and abroad.
- Ron Paul poll position
- Ron Paul against dependency
- Ron Paul Russia Today flap
- Ron Paul Target: Guilt by association?
- Ron Paul – isolationist
ARVE Error: need id and provider
[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B002EQA102, 0471679526, 044654146X, 0789209284, 0688123635, 0345461924, 0253349184, 1929354002, B00005S8KR, B000RPCJPC” /]
Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.
- Christianity Today
- Constitution 101
- Creation Corner
- Entertainment Today
- First Amendment
- Foundation of our Nation
- Guest Columns
- Human Interest
- Ignite the Pulpit
- Let's Talk
- Money matters
- Racial Issues
- Tea Party
- Trump elevator pitch
- World news
Constitution4 days ago
Marjorie, we hardly knew you
First Amendment2 days ago
The Alex Berenson Twitter Files
Constitution3 days ago
A strike has its limits
Executive1 day ago
The Obama Files
Entertainment Today3 days ago
Jamie Foxx – vaccine casualty
Legislative4 days ago
Debt ceiling bill passes
Legislative4 days ago
Schumer keeps Senate meeting
Executive2 days ago
FBI to hand over Biden docs
I loathe those that cannot support Israel. Dr. Paul is a good man and he does have the right approach on all things Federal. Pacifism, isolationism, throw our allies under the bus are not qualities that will unite the base. Some claim that he will trash his fellow Republicans, damaging the party in the process. I pray the only thing that gets damaged is Obama’s rule.
Throw our allies under the bus?
Let me ask you a very important and simple question:
Of all your friends in your life, apart from helping a friend out once in a great while when they were a little short, how many of your friends, are your friends, because you keep paying, and paying,and paying their way?
I’m sorry, but real true friendship does not involve money, (unless you are married) and last I checked, Israel was not one of the 50 states, and we are not a territory of Israel under their President.
I have no problem doing a business deal for trade, and I have no problem if individuals or churches want to send money at their discretion to support an individual, family, or ministry, all of those things are limited in scope and only involve VOLUNTARY BEHAVIOR.
What you are suggesting is that an Ally like Israel needs all her bills paid in US Dollars,which are taken by extortion from the taxpayers without regard to who might wish to contribute and who would not. You say that Israel’s Government with all her Nukes, is the same as Israel of the Bible and that we should support the Israeli Government with US Dollars because you confuse Biblical passages between the Israeli government and its people. Wrong.
How many of us have said here, we love our country but hate our government? It is the same over there. The Israeli government IS NOT SPIRITUAL ISRAEL, and it is not the same as the people of Israel.
Finally, and most importantly, If we STOP PAYING PEOPLE TO BE OUR FRIENDS, maybe we will learn who our real friends are, and the economic balance in the Middle East is still in Israel’s favor as we are currently paying other Middle Eastern enemies of Israel, more money- so as Ron Paul would do, we stop paying all of them- that is a net plus for Israel.
There is no flaw in the logic. It is simple economics, ie simple math.
How many know that when you are rich and famous, friends sort of come out of the woodwork, and when the money is gone, they tend to scatter, leaving your true friends and allies by your side. You should not want the company of the entourage, they are not your real friends, and any friend is not someone whose friendship you should have to continue to subsidize.
Close all the bases. Bring the troops home. Stop paying other countries. Worse, do not call any country who demands our money for their friendship, an Ally.
Ron Paul 2012
Donate : http://www.ronpaul2012.com
Ps. The Tea Party Express is NOT the Tea Party. Ron Paul was given great claps and responses until, almost on cue, Wolf Blitzer sicked Santorum on him to say Muslim’s hate us because we are rich and free. Remember Guiliani? Well, they came prepared tonight, the day after much of church-goers were just told yesterday to obey their local Police as heroes- so with State Worship fresh in their minds, The Reverend Santorum of the Republican Church, drank in every boo that was thrown at Ron- for what- for telling why we were attacked-the reasons Bin Laden gave. No matter, Jesus carries an M-16 this year, not a cross, according to the Republican Church. Ron will answer this of course, and remind those that were so quick to forget, that you know, if you really want to bring the troops home, there is only one military man on stage who has the support of the majority of all the troops, to do it- that is Ron Paul.
For your information, Jesus will come again, and when He does, He will come as a Field Marshal fighting a war of conquest. In the symbolism of the time that Paul of Tarsus and John the Revelator wrote, He will ride a horse and carry a broadsword. In today’s terminology He would indeed drive a Humvee and carry an M-16, or an AR-18.
And: funny you should mention Ron Paul getting caught with his pants down last night. I intend to treat just that incident this morning.
And about the police:
Romans 13:1-2, paraphrase. Look it up, preferably with a good Greek interlinear. The cops are your friends—or are you a robber, or a friend of robbers?
For the record, it’s not Ron Paul who is saying we should throw our allies under the bus. It’s the tax-and-spend military hawks who are claiming it. The basis of their claim is that if we stop paying for things we can no longer afford, it is the equivalent of throwing our allies under the bus. The meaning of this is that these same military hawks believe that the U.S. has a sacred duty to bankrupt itself for the benefit of the rest of the world, and that’s the REAL meaning of the phrase, “throw our allies under a bus”.
Ron Paul does support Israel — he wants to trade with them and give them full sovereignty in decision-making and not have to take orders from us about what to do in their own affairs. Israel is very capable of defending itself – we just need to get out of their way.
Ron Paul wants to bring all the troops home immediately and stop these ridiculous wars and intervention all over the world. That’s not called isolationism — it’s called non-intervention in other countries’ affairs, and that simply respects their sovereignty.
Ron Paul is the only one in the race who can say he stood for the same principles for 30+ years and never waivered core principles of small government, sound money, free market, and non-intervention around the world. He’s a true conservative, while others are just SAYING they are.
And Rick Perry assaulted Ron Paul in the commercial break of that debate. There are pictures showing Perry grabbing the Congressman’s arm and holding an index finger into his face. We don’t want that kind of menacing bully in the White House.
If you have a link to those pictures, then kindly supply it. If you’re going to make that kind of allegation in my comment space, you better have something to back that up, buddy.
Here is the link, Terry. The media isn’t too interested in distributing these, but they are official MSNBC pictures.
link to tennesseesonsofliberty.com
So… You personally still disapprove of Ron Paul… no surprise. When reading this article there is a strong flavor of you having always held these opinions, but wanting to march them out as something Ron Paul has done. Ron Paul’s plan for the border is to make immigrating exactly as easy as crossing the border. Tell me, if people knew they could get in legally would more of them cross through official checkpoints than out where no one can see them? Would having more of them cross through checkpoints where you can look for WMD’s make them more or less likely to slip through? As to returning the south west to mexico I’m sort of inclined to let California be their headache, but this isn’t a plank in the platform of real political parties because no one who moves to the US from Mexico wants to be back in Mexico, that’s why they moved out. Most of the hispanics in southern California don’t speak Spanish well enough to use it as a first language. You ought to try talking to some of them, you’ll learn a lot.
Part of the problem is that the border is effectively unsecured. Never mind checkpoints; they’ll just swim across.
The reconquista movement is alive and well. The Democratic Party isn’t dumb enough to put that on their platform. They leave that to La Raza and MEChA. But that does not mean that they don’t play footsie with those people. (Though I wonder sometimes whether the Dems are having those guys on—why, if California tacked the word “Alta” ahead of its name and joined “Baja” in Mexico, then the Dems just kiss 40-odd electoral votes good-bye.)
And the most important consideration is that if the immigrants did want to get out of Mexico, then why do they vote for the party that would turn the whole country into Mexico del Norte?
All of the roads have checkpoint. Are you saying that even though under the Paul plan they would be given the right to enter if they weren’t hardened criminals that they would choose to cross dangerous rivers and/ or walk through miles of desert in order to reach America? If you weight the pros and cons of the modes of travel you’ll notice that it’s not the Paul plan but our current one that encourages covert entry into the country. Before we closed the border with Canada was there a huge problem with people spending days hiking in through the country side and crossing rivers instead of spending a few hours on a nice well maintained road and a couple of minutes at a checkpoint?
5 seconds of google-fu. You’re welcome. :)
link to freedom-won.net
fwiw, I think “assault” is overblown, but then that’s par for this course in this debate.
[…] Paul has got himself into trouble over his suggestion that if the US military stopped air con for its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, […]
Sorry, could not disagree with your entire article. Poorly researched and poorly written. About what you expect for a “journalist,” these days.
Ron Paul 2012
God Bless America!
Wow. Can you put anymore words in his mouth?
Yeah, well, hey—I’m just quoting him. Now if you want to allege that someone doctored the live streaming feed from MSNBC to TheRightScoop to my computer, then let’s see some evidence.
I ONLY vote for Ron Paul. The rest are big government, RINOs and fakes.
I thought that as conservatives we supported less government? The military is the direct arm of the federal government, so why should it be big? Having a big military “that is strong overseas” (and hence a big federal government) sounds very neoconservative to me, which is practically in the same category as liberals (link to conservapedia.com).
You conveniently forget that the military is one of the three legitimate and proper functions of government. (The other two are the police and the law courts.) And, coming as this does from an adherent of the side that wants to abolish the military and replace it with an Internal Security Force that will enforce The One’s will, I find your comment hypocritical in the extreme. I publish it only to illustrate absurdity by example.
I would hope that you would publish my comment regardless. This is your website, but to stifle dissent sounds like something that a deceitful liberal would do.
Maybe those were the jobs of government in the dark ages. But I live in the United States of America (as I assume you do). There are a number of duties of government, I suggest you read the Constitution. Namely Article II, Section 8.
In fact, the Constitution actually says very clearly that money raised for the military shall not be used for a period of longer than two years. Dr. Paul is right in declaring the troops should come home, as they have far exceeded this timetable.
I am not denying that we need a strong military, but we should not be involved in nation building.
As a separate topic though, you would create “Internal Security Force that will enforce The One’s will”? So you would turn us into the Christian version of Iran?
I never said that I would create such an internal security force. But I know who did declare that he wants such a force: the man now holding office as President, Barack Hussein Obama II.
Now about the “duties of the government”: First, that’s Article One, Section Eight. Not Article Two as you said. Article Two has only four sections, dealing respectively with Presidential elections, duties, succession, and impeachment.
So let’s have a look at Article I, Section 8. I see:
Interstate and international commerce, and tribal commerce.
Uniform bankruptcy code.
Money (coinage, not fiat currency, by the way) and weights-and-measures. (That’s the authority for United States Customary inches, feet, yards, pounds, slugs, etc.)
Punishment for counterfeiting, criminal activity on the high seas, and offenses against “the law of nations”
“Post offices and post roads.” Frankly, I would amend the Constitution to strike that. “If you like the United States Post Office, you are gonna LOVE nationalized whatever!”
Copyright and patent registration
Setting up lower courts.
Declaration of war, licensure of privateers and mercenaries, and “rules for capture.”
Raising armies. (Arguably the Air Force falls under that category.)
Building and maintaining a navy.
Setting laws and regulations for the government of the above. (The authority for the Uniform Code of Military Justice.)
Calling up the militia.
Organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, except that the States train the militia and recruit its officers.
Exclusive legislation over the Capital City district (Washington, DC) and all military, naval, and now air bases and “federal buildings.”
All laws necessary and proper to accomplish the above, and any other “Congress shall have power” amendments made in future.
Now, sir: suppose you tell me where in that section you see that the Congress shall have the power to build hospitals for the treatment of those persons other than veterans of the land, naval and air forces. Or the power to mandate that anyone buy, or refrain from buying, anything. Or to transfer wealth from one individual to the next—specific welfare, not general. And furthermore: “general welfare” means federal welfare, not “welfare” as Progressives now define the term.
Your statement is a naked assertion. At no point has Dr. Paul said tht he wants to disband the military and replace it with an “internal secuity force” rather he supports the just war theory.
Also while you rightfully stated that the military is one of three legitimate and propper fuctions of government, to then assume that foreign intervention escapades are the natural progression is just silly. One does not necessarily lead to the other.
Facts Mr. Terry are elemental, conjecture is not.
Dr. Paul himself has never said that. But the side that the commenter I was replying to originally has taken, has said that. Specifically, the man now holding office as President, Barack H. Obama, said:
Translation: Obama does not trust the military, and wants his own army to keep the people in line.
Of course Ron Paul would not advocate any such thing. Not if we can take him as his word.
You’re not the same man I was talking to originally, so what I said about “replacing the military” does not apply to you, or to Dr. Paul.
Where Dr. Paul and I differ—and the thing that kills the deal—is that he confidently, and naively, assumes that we have no external enemies bent on conquest for conquest’s sake. I have studied the fundamental documents of a certain quasi-religious political movement that openly declares that it is bent on conquest for conquest’s sake.
[…] Paul has got himself into trouble over his suggestion that if the US military stopped air con for its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, […]
This is one of the most biased pieces I have ever read. How can this site call itself conservative?
“he made the most tasteless remark yet along this line:”
WHY DON’T YOU JUST DIRECTLY QUOTE HIM?
DO YOU THINK SAYING “along this line” JUSTIFIES MAKING UP A QUOTE?
Go look at the video to find out what he actually said if you are interested. link to youtu.be
Since you failed to indicate what remark I was referring to, then maybe you did not notice that I did provide a direct quote, in blockquote form, for one of the remarks to which I objected.
What a ridiculous straw man this article sets uP! First off, is RomneyCare NOT a deal breaker? Is cap & trade not a dealbreaker for Gingrich, Romney, Pawlenty (ok, he’s gone), and Perry? Was support for TARP not a deal breaker for Cain, Bachmann, etc???? To equate a rhetoric stand that you disagree with to a dealbreaker displays a false sense of consideration to support the man in the first place.
There are many dealbreakers for ALL THESE CANDIDATES. Just because you are ignorant about the history of the US GOVT propping up brutal regmes, overthrowing legitimate governments, and enforcing civilian killing sanctions against OUR FORMER ALLIES doesn’t mean that Dr. Paul doesn’t have a point!
America has not been some unquestioned force for good around the world in the eyes of the rest of the world. Who has overthrown more government’s than the United States? Killed more innocent civilians? This doesn’t mean that Americans deserve to be killed, but it is a reason to be a bit more humble! And as for immigration, Paul will not allow easy citizenship (he’s suggested an 18 year waiting period), and most importantly WILL END MANDATED WELFARE PROGRAMS.
Of you pay any attention to the wonks/think tank-types, they ALL suggest that the next generation will pay NEW TAXES- in the form of the VAT or carbon tax. Will Mitt Romney or Rick Perry oppose this? I don’t trust them, and neither should you
Bad policy prescriptions by “the other guys” don’t excuse bad policy prescriptions by Ron Paul, or any other candidate. “Everybody has something wrong with him” is no defense, and never has been a defense in any court of law. Judge Andrew Napolitano could, I am sure, explain it to you.
That Ron Paul’s foreign and immigration policies would leave America vulnerable to attack, subversion, or sedition, is most unfortunate. Because Dr. Paul gets everything else right (or at least arguable) except that.
Sounds more like you’re just trying to come up with excuses, honestly.
Perhaps it’s not Paul who’s position is incorrect. Maybe what’s incorrect is your attachment to a paradigm which can not feasibly last.
You’re entitled to your opinion. I’m entitled to my own judgment as to whether it is valid or invalid, or whether it wins or loses.
You’re post simply asserted that value is subjective.
The question at hand here is whether that evaluation corroborates with reality.
Sooner or later we’ll find out.
Either you’re fearfulness is going to prevent this country from being undermined through violent invasion, or it’s going to (be one of the factors which) brings it to it’s knees.
I never said you weren’t “entitled to your judgement”. What I said was that perhaps you’ve got preferences which are affecting it.
Do you deny that certain people exist who are determined to destroy this country by violent invasion from without, or subversion within?
Have you read any authoritative English translations of the Qu’ran?
Why do you make the same mistake that the leftists made during the Cold War: blithely assuming that external enemies do not exist?
Have I a preference? Yes. Bank on it. I have a preference to secure this country from outside invasion. I have a preference to follow English common law, not Shari’a law. Perhaps you have a preference to live in a world where you can have the thrill of dating an Arab girl, and then standing in the middle of a road, twelve-gauge in hand, ready to blast her father to kingdom come as he tries to run you both down. I’d as soon grant her the objective protection of an enforceable, and enforced, law against murder.
“Do you deny that certain people exist who are determined to destroy this country by violent invasion from without, or subversion within?”
Of course not. But that doesn’t make your position correct by any means. I’d actually argue that it fosters more of this, as we can quite easily see how divided this country is internally.
If someone bombed your neighborhood would you want to retaliate?
What if they did flew an airplane into a building in your city?
“Have you read any authoritative English translations of the Qu’ran?”
No, I haven’t, and I doubt reading it is going to make me run under the covers at night and write letters to my congressman to protect me.
“Why do you make the same mistake that the leftists made during the Cold War: blithely assuming that external enemies do not exist?”
I don’t “assume external enemies do not exist”. I never stated that was the case, and just explicitly stated otherwise as an answer to the first question.
Aside from that… the USSR was a monstrous house built on sand. I don’t know if you realize this or not, but socialism doesn’t work. That’s the reason the USSR failed, and the only thing the US had to do was sit back and wait. The reason it doesn’t work is because it can’t economically calculate market prices, which are necessary to properly allocate resources.
We’re also making some very similar mistakes, with our socialized monetary system devaluing our currency and socialized military fighting in the “Graveyard of Empires”.
“Have I a preference…law against murder.”
I’d prefer a system of common law too, over legislative statues and executive orders.
I can’t say I’m going to wet the bed over Sharia law being violently imposed across the US.
I *am* pretty concerned about the way the government is madly spending though.
Your “Mad Max: Muslims” scenario is a pretty unconvincing emotional plea.
But I’m not really going to bother trying to convince you of anything, and don’t have much of a desire to try to here where you’re likely going to be inclined to be more defensive than in a private conversation.
It was just food for thought. Maybe it’s not Paul that’s wrong on this one… maybe the problem here is that you’re overestimating “Sharia Law”, and underestimating our financial issues as a threat to the security of the individuals who make up the United States.
You could very well be right, but I highly doubt it… and that’s when we come back full circle.
We’ll find out whether it’s you or Paul who is closer to the mark. Hopefully without consequences which will be too devastating.
For a minute back there, I thought this was leading to moral equivalency between Israelis and “Palestinians.” I still wonder whether you’re making that mistake. I urge you to read the other posts I have on this site, that set forth the clear claim that Israel has to all of the land.
As far as I’m concerned, Americans are all New Yorkers—and all Israelis, too. Israelis live with this sort of thing every single day.
It ill behooves anyone to assume, as you do, that just because “socialism doesn’t work” in the long term (we agree on that), necessarily means that it is utterly incapable of mounting a military offensive. Tell that to those who lost loved ones in the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Reagan broke the back of the USSR by challenging them to an arms race that they could not win. Yes, that cost money. But it was worth it. The USA did not “sit back and wait.” It armed, and heavily. And it took Grenada away from the Cubans. Whom do you think you’re talking to—some still-moist kid? I was born in 1957. Therefore I was alive at the time.
A socialist state cannot properly allocate goods or services. True enough. But it can jolly well build tanks and planes and ships and missiles. And even an NGO can coordinate four hijackings and fly airplanes into buildings. Or are you one of those “Truthers” who say that those nineteen hijackers were black-ops pilots? Or even that there were no planes? Gotcha there, before you ask. I watched the second plane hit. And I saw accidental footage of the first one hitting.
And I have heard of cases of Islamic honor killings on American soil. In one case in Arizona, a Muslim father ran his daughter down in broad daylight in a shopping-center parking lot. Why? Because she dared defy his orders to marry a man twenty-odd years her senior, back in the old country (of Iraq).
The consequences of the Ron Paul foreign policy will certainly include another 9./11. The only possible mitigating factor is his announced intention to allow all American citizens and lawful residents to arm themselves. But I seriously doubt that any private militia is up to the challenge of stopping another 9/11 before it happens.
I’ve already stated that I’m not going to try to convince you of anything here, so I’m not going to bother responding to your points.
I am going to address this:
‘Or are you one of those “Truthers” who say that those nineteen hijackers were black-ops pilots? Or even that there were no planes? Gotcha there, before you ask. I watched the second plane hit. And I saw accidental footage of the first one hitting.’
No, I’m not a “truther”, so you didn’t “get me”.
But apparently you like to distort the truth and accuse people of something they have no relation to, as well as opine on personal experiences which aren’t even relevant in this circumstance, in an attempt to make yourself and your opinions seem more relevant and socially dominant.
You should try being honest, start with yourself.
I am honest. Are you willing to be? And why are my personal experiences any less relevant than, say, yours? Those personal experiences constitute direct evidence, the same as the testimony of a witness who says, “I saw what he did; I know who he is.”
In fact, the only “personal experience” I recall recounting in this comment space is my watching the second plane hit the tower. The only reason that that might be irrelevant is if the second plane didn’t exist. Hence my speculation that you’re a “Truther.”
Understand this: I already know that Ron Paul’s campaign has attracted more than its share of the “Truthers,” probably more, even, than the campaign of Barack Obama. Now there’s a campaign that would expect to attract Truthers. How Obama must have disappointed them all!
You have just dropped a big hint that, even had I been an eyewitness to either or both planes hitting the WTC towers, you would dismiss my testimony as irrelevant. Why, unless you’re trying to prove that there were no planes? The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.
Understand one more thing: I reply in order to correct the record. The only reason that your comment remains is that only with your own keystrokes can I convict you of subtle Trutherism and overall naivete about external enemies and what to do about them. But I do not permit error to stay unchallenged in this comment space.
You’re experience was irrelevant because I’m not a truther.
I don’t even know why you’re still going on about it. That whole part of the conversation was and still is irrelevant.
You simply tried to paint me in a negative light by associating me with something you object to.
“You have just dropped a big hint that, even had I been an eyewitness to either or both planes hitting the WTC towers, you would dismiss my testimony as irrelevant.”
You testimony is irrelevant because I wouldn’t disagree with you that a plane hit. I’m dismissing it because the only reason you even brought it up was as a retort to a strawman you built up and accused me of holding as a position. And I responded to make it clear that that wasn’t a position I held, but a falsehood that you were simply implying (or “speculating” as you put it) that I held.
Pardon me if I don’t really have the desire to spend more time on this conversation when you’re constantly conflating things and “correcting” your own speculated “records”.
I am “going on about it” as you put it, because your remarks make zero sense in any context other than your doubting the official version of the events of September 11, 2001.
All right. So you admit that two planes hit the World Trade Center. I’ll even stipulate that you realize that a third plane hit the Pentagon, and a fourth plane crashed in an open field near Shanksville, PA. The next question is:
Who did it?
If Arabs did it, then that is an act of war, and we should treat it as such. But you want to destroy the political ability even to declare war, much less wage it. What sense does that make? Zero.
Now either the Arabs did it, or the Israelis did it, or our own government did it. Which is it?
[…] Ron Paul kills the deal […]
[…] Ron Paul kills the deal […]
Thank you for this site, it is very helpful.