Originally posted by Draenor While I have no doubt that US involvement in the middle east has exacerbated the problem, Islam is an inherently violent religion that has shown the world that it doesn't need much of an excuse to riot and blow stuff up. Pope makes some comments about Islam being violent? Prove him wrong by rioting! Cartoon depicting Muhammed? BURN DOWN BUILDINGS!! The point is...if we weren't in Israel, they would find another excuse to kill the infidel. If we didn't invade Iraq, they would find another reason to kill the infidel. Yes, those things exacerbate the problem, but they are not the sole cause of it, as Ron Paul's stance on the issue implicates to me.
I appreciate the honest reply. Islam used to be one of the most tolerant religions on earth, however. When the Ottoman's were expanding, they didn't take over other people's countries and kill them, or force them to convert like many empires of the day. They let Christians, Pagans, and a whole host of other religions retain their temples and practices, and live peacefully under Ottoman rule. This doesn't jive with the perceived intolerance that gets attributed to Islam today.
What we are seeing now is like a pressure cooker. Over the last century and a half, Britan, and then the US have intervened in the Middle East in such a way as to give little thought to people that actually live there. We have used our size, might, and global political influence to pursue our own self interest in the region. You can see evidence of this from the Sykes-Picot agreement that took place after the loss of the Ottomans during WWI, and in the history of the Anglo-Persian, and Anglo-Iranian Oil Company controversies. The latter of which resulted in the US overthrowing a democratically elected Iranian official, and replacing him with Reza Shah. What right do we have to forcefully overthrow another countries elected offical, and then turn around and talk about promoting global democracy?
Other events, like our cushy cushy relationship with Saudi Arabia, the supposed "protectors of Islam", and our complete ignorance of the Palestinian situation, have produced extremists. As with any extremist group, each has their own fundamental ideals, and often they use religion to rally support for their actions. This doesn't mean that an entire race, or religion is fundamentally "flawed", or inherently violent. What we see in Islamic terrorist groups is a reaction to perceived injustices, not an offensive against Western ideals.
While I have no doubt that US involvement in the middle east has exacerbated the problem, Islam is an inherently violent religion that has shown the world that it doesn't need much of an excuse to riot and blow stuff up. Pope makes some comments about Islam being violent? Prove him wrong by rioting! Cartoon depicting Muhammed? BURN DOWN BUILDINGS!!
The point is...if we weren't in Israel, they would find another excuse to kill the infidel. If we didn't invade Iraq, they would find another reason to kill the infidel.
Yes, those things exacerbate the problem, but they are not the sole cause of it, as Ron Paul's stance on the issue implicates to me.
Fine then I can call Europeans inherently violent because they riot over "football" games. Should we invade Europe? Should we invade every country that has violence for any reason or does it have to be religious?
There wouldn't be support for anyone trying to stretch some type of weak reason to kill the "infidel", like our freedoms, money, and women. Once America goes into Middle East and imposes our will THEN support goes through the roof to try and kill us, then they think "Wow he was right, US must DIE!".
How many Europeans do you see strapping bombs to their chests and blowing people up in the name of Allah? Your analogy fails.
I didn't know the IRA practiced terrorism in the name of Allah?
While I have no doubt that US involvement in the middle east has exacerbated the problem, Islam is an inherently violent religion that has shown the world that it doesn't need much of an excuse to riot and blow stuff up. Pope makes some comments about Islam being violent? Prove him wrong by rioting! Cartoon depicting Muhammed? BURN DOWN BUILDINGS!!
The point is...if we weren't in Israel, they would find another excuse to kill the infidel. If we didn't invade Iraq, they would find another reason to kill the infidel.
Yes, those things exacerbate the problem, but they are not the sole cause of it, as Ron Paul's stance on the issue implicates to me.
Fine then I can call Europeans inherently violent because they riot over "football" games. Should we invade Europe? Should we invade every country that has violence for any reason or does it have to be religious?
There wouldn't be support for anyone trying to stretch some type of weak reason to kill the "infidel", like our freedoms, money, and women. Once America goes into Middle East and imposes our will THEN support goes through the roof to try and kill us, then they think "Wow he was right, US must DIE!".
How many Europeans do you see strapping bombs to their chests and blowing people up in the name of Allah? Your analogy fails.
I didn't know the IRA practiced terrorism in the name of Allah? Did I say that Muslims are the only ones that blow themselves up in the name of a particular cause? No I did not. The fact that comparing Muslim terrorist to soccer hooligans is inane still stands.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
While I have no doubt that US involvement in the middle east has exacerbated the problem, Islam is an inherently violent religion that has shown the world that it doesn't need much of an excuse to riot and blow stuff up. Pope makes some comments about Islam being violent? Prove him wrong by rioting! Cartoon depicting Muhammed? BURN DOWN BUILDINGS!!
The point is...if we weren't in Israel, they would find another excuse to kill the infidel. If we didn't invade Iraq, they would find another reason to kill the infidel. Yes, those things exacerbate the problem, but they are not the sole cause of it, as Ron Paul's stance on the issue implicates to me.
I appreciate the honest reply. Islam used to be one of the most tolerant religions on earth, however. When the Ottoman's were expanding, they didn't take over other people's countries and kill them, or force them to convert like many empires of the day. They let Christians, Pagans, and a whole host of other religions retain their temples and practices, and live peacefully under Ottoman rule. This doesn't jive with the perceived intolerance that gets attributed to Islam today.
What we are seeing now is like a pressure cooker. Over the last century and a half, Britan, and then the US have intervened in the Middle East in such a way as to give little thought to people that actually live there. We have used our size, might, and global political influence to pursue our own self interest in the region. You can see evidence of this from the Sykes-Picot agreement that took place after the loss of the Ottomans during WWI, and in the history of the Anglo-Persian, and Anglo-Iranian Oil Company controversies. The latter of which resulted in the US overthrowing a democratically elected Iranian official, and replacing him with Reza Shah. What right do we have to forcefully overthrow another countries elected offical, and then turn around and talk about promoting global democracy?
Other events, like our cushy cushy relationship with Saudi Arabia, the supposed "protectors of Islam", and our complete ignorance of the Palestinian situation, have produced extremists. As with any extremist group, each has their own fundamental ideals, and often they use religion to rally support for their actions. This doesn't mean that an entire race, or religion is fundamentally "flawed", or inherently violent. What we see in Islamic terrorist groups is a reaction to perceived injustices, not an offensive against Western ideals.
All true...and the reason I can't support Ron Paul is because of how complicated the whole situation is. By Ron Paul saying "have you read why they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there" it tells me that he believes that a non interventionist policy is going to stop the attacks, and stop the violence. He makes it seem very cut and dry, when that couldn't be further from the truth. It's such a complex issue that for Ron Paul to stand up and say that we were attacked because we've been over there, it shows me that he doesn't quite grasp the situation. The Ron Paul fanboys like AlexAmore can defend him to the grave if they want...they can act like his personal spokesperson as much as they desire. Personally I don't see how they can defend him, saying that he "misspoke." If that were the case, and Ron Paul did misspeak, he would have corrected himself when given the opportunity, and he did not. Ron Paul meant what he said.
I'm not saying that I don't like any of Ron Paul's ideas. I think that a lot of what he says makes a lot of sense, and in some aspects I think he is easily the best candidate. I just have strong reservations about voting for him because of his views on foreign policy. There are many things about Ron Paul that I really like, such as his support for State's rights on issues like abortion and stem cell research. The problem is that Ron Paul is running for the presidency in a country where the constitution allows the greatest power to the president in the area of foreign policy. And I think his foriegn policy ideas are unrealistic in today's global political climate.
That's not to say that I have completely done away with the thought of voting for the man. As it stands I don't know who I'll be voting for...I could still be convinced that the good outweighs the bad, it's not as though I believe that voting for Ron Paul will cause Muslims to nuke our country or anything like that.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
While I have no doubt that US involvement in the middle east has exacerbated the problem, Islam is an inherently violent religion that has shown the world that it doesn't need much of an excuse to riot and blow stuff up. Pope makes some comments about Islam being violent? Prove him wrong by rioting! Cartoon depicting Muhammed? BURN DOWN BUILDINGS!!
The point is...if we weren't in Israel, they would find another excuse to kill the infidel. If we didn't invade Iraq, they would find another reason to kill the infidel.
Yes, those things exacerbate the problem, but they are not the sole cause of it, as Ron Paul's stance on the issue implicates to me.
Fine then I can call Europeans inherently violent because they riot over "football" games. Should we invade Europe? Should we invade every country that has violence for any reason or does it have to be religious?
There wouldn't be support for anyone trying to stretch some type of weak reason to kill the "infidel", like our freedoms, money, and women. Once America goes into Middle East and imposes our will THEN support goes through the roof to try and kill us, then they think "Wow he was right, US must DIE!".
How many Europeans do you see strapping bombs to their chests and blowing people up in the name of Allah? Your analogy fails.
I didn't know the IRA practiced terrorism in the name of Allah? Did I say that Muslims are the only ones that blow themselves up in the name of a particular cause? No I did not. The fact that comparing Muslim terrorist to soccer hooligans is inane still stands.
It just appeared to me that you were trying to correlate people blowing stuff up just with Muslims. They hold a strong majority on that claim, but not they're not the only ones that can claim that tactic. And I wouldn't call it an inherently violent religion. I just think it's been twisted by literalist "followers" of that religion. The same way literalist followers of Christianity can feel justified in destroying other peoples lives.
While I have no doubt that US involvement in the middle east has exacerbated the problem, Islam is an inherently violent religion that has shown the world that it doesn't need much of an excuse to riot and blow stuff up. Pope makes some comments about Islam being violent? Prove him wrong by rioting! Cartoon depicting Muhammed? BURN DOWN BUILDINGS!!
The point is...if we weren't in Israel, they would find another excuse to kill the infidel. If we didn't invade Iraq, they would find another reason to kill the infidel.
Yes, those things exacerbate the problem, but they are not the sole cause of it, as Ron Paul's stance on the issue implicates to me.
Fine then I can call Europeans inherently violent because they riot over "football" games. Should we invade Europe? Should we invade every country that has violence for any reason or does it have to be religious?
There wouldn't be support for anyone trying to stretch some type of weak reason to kill the "infidel", like our freedoms, money, and women. Once America goes into Middle East and imposes our will THEN support goes through the roof to try and kill us, then they think "Wow he was right, US must DIE!".
How many Europeans do you see strapping bombs to their chests and blowing people up in the name of Allah? Your analogy fails.
I didn't know the IRA practiced terrorism in the name of Allah? Did I say that Muslims are the only ones that blow themselves up in the name of a particular cause? No I did not. The fact that comparing Muslim terrorist to soccer hooligans is inane still stands.
It just appeared to me that you were trying to correlate people blowing stuff up just with Muslims. They hold a strong majority on that claim, but not they're not the only ones that can claim that tactic. And I wouldn't call it an inherently violent religion. I just think it's been twisted by literalist "followers" of that religion. The same way literalist followers of Christianity can feel justified in destroying other peoples lives.
I would never make a blanket statement like "only muslims kill people"
I know better than that.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
While I have no doubt that US involvement in the middle east has exacerbated the problem, Islam is an inherently violent religion that has shown the world that it doesn't need much of an excuse to riot and blow stuff up. Pope makes some comments about Islam being violent? Prove him wrong by rioting! Cartoon depicting Muhammed? BURN DOWN BUILDINGS!!
The point is...if we weren't in Israel, they would find another excuse to kill the infidel. If we didn't invade Iraq, they would find another reason to kill the infidel.
Yes, those things exacerbate the problem, but they are not the sole cause of it, as Ron Paul's stance on the issue implicates to me.
Fine then I can call Europeans inherently violent because they riot over "football" games. Should we invade Europe? Should we invade every country that has violence for any reason or does it have to be religious?
There wouldn't be support for anyone trying to stretch some type of weak reason to kill the "infidel", like our freedoms, money, and women. Once America goes into Middle East and imposes our will THEN support goes through the roof to try and kill us, then they think "Wow he was right, US must DIE!".
How many Europeans do you see strapping bombs to their chests and blowing people up in the name of Allah? Your analogy fails.
I didn't know the IRA practiced terrorism in the name of Allah? Did I say that Muslims are the only ones that blow themselves up in the name of a particular cause? No I did not. The fact that comparing Muslim terrorist to soccer hooligans is inane still stands.
It just appeared to me that you were trying to correlate people blowing stuff up just with Muslims. They hold a strong majority on that claim, but not they're not the only ones that can claim that tactic. And I wouldn't call it an inherently violent religion. I just think it's been twisted by literalist "followers" of that religion. The same way literalist followers of Christianity can feel justified in destroying other peoples lives.
I would never make a blanket statement like "only muslims kill people"
I know better than that.
You say you know better than that, but do you really?
I think instead of making a blanket statement, you should make a statement blanket. Like a great big blanket that you can spread out on the White House lawn and let American's come up and freely write their own remarks. Then you can hang it in a museum. I think it would give American's a chance to get things off their chests. You can say the statement blanket is meant to warm the hearts of America.
You say you know better than that, but do you really?
I think instead of making a blanket statement, you should make a statement blanket. Like a great big blanket that you can spread out on the White House lawn and let American's come up and freely write their own remarks. Then you can hang it in a museum. I think it would give American's a chance to get things off their chests. You can say the statement blanket is meant to warm the hearts of America.
The statement blanket. Go for it man!
I'll get right on that after I finish my Jump to Conclusions mat
no really, you should see it...it's a mat...and you JUMP to conclusions!
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
All true...and the reason I can't support Ron Paul is because of how complicated the whole situation is. By Ron Paul saying "have you read why they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there" it tells me that he believes that a non interventionist policy is going to stop the attacks, and stop the violence. He makes it seem very cut and dry, when that couldn't be further from the truth. It's such a complex issue that for Ron Paul to stand up and say that we were attacked because we've been over there, it shows me that he doesn't quite grasp the situation. The Ron Paul fanboys like AlexAmore can defend him to the grave if they want...they can act like his personal spokesperson as much as they desire. Personally I don't see how they can defend him, saying that he "misspoke." If that were the case, and Ron Paul did misspeak, he would have corrected himself when given the opportunity, and he did not. Ron Paul meant what he said. I'm not saying that I don't like any of Ron Paul's ideas. I think that a lot of what he says makes a lot of sense, and in some aspects I think he is easily the best candidate. I just have strong reservations about voting for him because of his views on foreign policy. There are many things about Ron Paul that I really like, such as his support for State's rights on issues like abortion and stem cell research. The problem is that Ron Paul is running for the presidency in a country where the constitution allows the greatest power to the president in the area of foreign policy. And I think his foriegn policy ideas are unrealistic in today's global political climate. That's not to say that I have completely done away with the thought of voting for the man. As it stands I don't know who I'll be voting for...I could still be convinced that the good outweighs the bad, it's not as though I believe that voting for Ron Paul will cause Muslims to nuke our country or anything like that.
This is your problem. You think Ron Paul's entire foreign policy is based on that one sentence. For one, he said more about foreign policy than that in the debate and you're ignoring it. If you really want to understand Ron's foreign policy then look in other sources like the many youtube videos of one on one interviews, and Ron's writings. He gets much more indepth and really speaks of the intricacies.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
All true...and the reason I can't support Ron Paul is because of how complicated the whole situation is. By Ron Paul saying "have you read why they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there" it tells me that he believes that a non interventionist policy is going to stop the attacks, and stop the violence. He makes it seem very cut and dry, when that couldn't be further from the truth. It's such a complex issue that for Ron Paul to stand up and say that we were attacked because we've been over there, it shows me that he doesn't quite grasp the situation. The Ron Paul fanboys like AlexAmore can defend him to the grave if they want...they can act like his personal spokesperson as much as they desire. Personally I don't see how they can defend him, saying that he "misspoke." If that were the case, and Ron Paul did misspeak, he would have corrected himself when given the opportunity, and he did not. Ron Paul meant what he said. I'm not saying that I don't like any of Ron Paul's ideas. I think that a lot of what he says makes a lot of sense, and in some aspects I think he is easily the best candidate. I just have strong reservations about voting for him because of his views on foreign policy. There are many things about Ron Paul that I really like, such as his support for State's rights on issues like abortion and stem cell research. The problem is that Ron Paul is running for the presidency in a country where the constitution allows the greatest power to the president in the area of foreign policy. And I think his foriegn policy ideas are unrealistic in today's global political climate. That's not to say that I have completely done away with the thought of voting for the man. As it stands I don't know who I'll be voting for...I could still be convinced that the good outweighs the bad, it's not as though I believe that voting for Ron Paul will cause Muslims to nuke our country or anything like that.
This is your problem. You think Ron Paul's entire foreign policy is based on that one sentence. For one, he said more about foreign policy than that in the debate and you're ignoring it. If you really want to understand Ron's foreign policy then look in other sources like the many youtube videos of one on one interviews, and Ron's writings. He gets much more indepth and really speaks of the intricacies.
You think I'm incredibly nieve don't you? Of course I don't believe that his entire foreign policy can be summed up from that one sentence. But that doesn't change that it was an extremely important sentence. I'm not ignoring anything, I've stated what I like and dislike about the man, you, on the other hand, are intent on waving around your Ron Paul flag at all costs.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Does Ron Paul hate gay people like the Republican's do?
No. He supports civil unions so you get the benefits (with him revamping the economy for the better, the benefits may be different than now). He is a Christian yet he doesn't let his faith get in the way of governing according to the Constitution, and that really appeals to me.
Issues like these will go back to the states though. He is a Jeffersonian so expect the state and local governments to be protecting the rights of Americans.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Can a Canadian become president of the US? I think I'd do a decent job, anyone want to help me start a political party? No...? Alright well what if I can get Maynard James Keenan as my vice president? I promise to keep all the presidential promises I make with the exception this one.
Does Ron Paul hate gay people like the Republican's do?
LOL
I hope you're not serious.
Yeah...those evil republicans and their gay hating ways...they're as bad as all those filthy democrats who say that they are Christians but secretely hate Christians.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
i had actually considered voting democrat up until today when they decided to pussy out and vote to continue the iraq war.
i will vote a straight libertarian ticket.
will consider ron paul as soon as i do enough research on him...which means my vote could go to the republican party. (as long as the candidate does not pander to the evangelicals and everything the christian right stands for.)
I think you will really like him freethinker. If you like the Constitution then you will like him. If you like candidates who don't even mention the Constitution in their speeches nor explain their interpretation of it then you won't like him.
Ron Paul has a youtube page with a ton of his speeches and tv appearances.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
I think you will really like him freethinker. If you like the Constitution then you will like him. If you like candidates who don't even mention the Constitution in their speeches nor explain their interpretation of it then you won't like him.
Ron Paul has a youtube page with a ton of his speeches and tv appearances.
against regulating the internet. wants to take less of your money than any polictician you will ever come across for legalization( rated 'A' by 'vote-hemp') and he wants to bring all the kids home from iraq immediatly so your servers will be fuller!
Here's a video of Dr. Paul and Dr. Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIAs Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda unit, taking that buffoon Giuliani out to the wood shed.
Here's a radio interview with Former CIA counter-terrorism officer Philip Giraldi...he says Giuliani is ignorant about terrorism and it's causes.
Ron Paul talks about internet privacy! He is a huge champion of nogovernment monitoring, regulation or tax on the internet.
Ron Paul also talks about what Draenor was talking about and that is how people generally supported the war at first and then later on began to disapprove of it. Make no mistake though, Ron never supported it.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
There was a heated discussion several weeks ago after Mr. Paul was interviewed on Bill Maher's show Real Time. Last night he was invited back. It seems as though he is the favorite republican candidate among this liberal audience. Just listen to their reaction.
There was a heated discussion several weeks ago after Mr. Paul was interviewed on Bill Maher's show Real Time. Last night he was invited back. It seems as though he is the favorite republican candidate among this liberal audience. Just listen to their reaction.
Comments
I appreciate the honest reply. Islam used to be one of the most tolerant religions on earth, however. When the Ottoman's were expanding, they didn't take over other people's countries and kill them, or force them to convert like many empires of the day. They let Christians, Pagans, and a whole host of other religions retain their temples and practices, and live peacefully under Ottoman rule. This doesn't jive with the perceived intolerance that gets attributed to Islam today.
What we are seeing now is like a pressure cooker. Over the last century and a half, Britan, and then the US have intervened in the Middle East in such a way as to give little thought to people that actually live there. We have used our size, might, and global political influence to pursue our own self interest in the region. You can see evidence of this from the Sykes-Picot agreement that took place after the loss of the Ottomans during WWI, and in the history of the Anglo-Persian, and Anglo-Iranian Oil Company controversies. The latter of which resulted in the US overthrowing a democratically elected Iranian official, and replacing him with Reza Shah. What right do we have to forcefully overthrow another countries elected offical, and then turn around and talk about promoting global democracy?
Other events, like our cushy cushy relationship with Saudi Arabia, the supposed "protectors of Islam", and our complete ignorance of the Palestinian situation, have produced extremists. As with any extremist group, each has their own fundamental ideals, and often they use religion to rally support for their actions. This doesn't mean that an entire race, or religion is fundamentally "flawed", or inherently violent. What we see in Islamic terrorist groups is a reaction to perceived injustices, not an offensive against Western ideals.
There wouldn't be support for anyone trying to stretch some type of weak reason to kill the "infidel", like our freedoms, money, and women. Once America goes into Middle East and imposes our will THEN support goes through the roof to try and kill us, then they think "Wow he was right, US must DIE!".
How many Europeans do you see strapping bombs to their chests and blowing people up in the name of Allah? Your analogy fails.
I didn't know the IRA practiced terrorism in the name of Allah?===============================
There wouldn't be support for anyone trying to stretch some type of weak reason to kill the "infidel", like our freedoms, money, and women. Once America goes into Middle East and imposes our will THEN support goes through the roof to try and kill us, then they think "Wow he was right, US must DIE!".
How many Europeans do you see strapping bombs to their chests and blowing people up in the name of Allah? Your analogy fails.
I didn't know the IRA practiced terrorism in the name of Allah? Did I say that Muslims are the only ones that blow themselves up in the name of a particular cause? No I did not. The fact that comparing Muslim terrorist to soccer hooligans is inane still stands.Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I appreciate the honest reply. Islam used to be one of the most tolerant religions on earth, however. When the Ottoman's were expanding, they didn't take over other people's countries and kill them, or force them to convert like many empires of the day. They let Christians, Pagans, and a whole host of other religions retain their temples and practices, and live peacefully under Ottoman rule. This doesn't jive with the perceived intolerance that gets attributed to Islam today.
What we are seeing now is like a pressure cooker. Over the last century and a half, Britan, and then the US have intervened in the Middle East in such a way as to give little thought to people that actually live there. We have used our size, might, and global political influence to pursue our own self interest in the region. You can see evidence of this from the Sykes-Picot agreement that took place after the loss of the Ottomans during WWI, and in the history of the Anglo-Persian, and Anglo-Iranian Oil Company controversies. The latter of which resulted in the US overthrowing a democratically elected Iranian official, and replacing him with Reza Shah. What right do we have to forcefully overthrow another countries elected offical, and then turn around and talk about promoting global democracy?
Other events, like our cushy cushy relationship with Saudi Arabia, the supposed "protectors of Islam", and our complete ignorance of the Palestinian situation, have produced extremists. As with any extremist group, each has their own fundamental ideals, and often they use religion to rally support for their actions. This doesn't mean that an entire race, or religion is fundamentally "flawed", or inherently violent. What we see in Islamic terrorist groups is a reaction to perceived injustices, not an offensive against Western ideals.
All true...and the reason I can't support Ron Paul is because of how complicated the whole situation is. By Ron Paul saying "have you read why they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there" it tells me that he believes that a non interventionist policy is going to stop the attacks, and stop the violence. He makes it seem very cut and dry, when that couldn't be further from the truth. It's such a complex issue that for Ron Paul to stand up and say that we were attacked because we've been over there, it shows me that he doesn't quite grasp the situation. The Ron Paul fanboys like AlexAmore can defend him to the grave if they want...they can act like his personal spokesperson as much as they desire. Personally I don't see how they can defend him, saying that he "misspoke." If that were the case, and Ron Paul did misspeak, he would have corrected himself when given the opportunity, and he did not. Ron Paul meant what he said.
I'm not saying that I don't like any of Ron Paul's ideas. I think that a lot of what he says makes a lot of sense, and in some aspects I think he is easily the best candidate. I just have strong reservations about voting for him because of his views on foreign policy. There are many things about Ron Paul that I really like, such as his support for State's rights on issues like abortion and stem cell research. The problem is that Ron Paul is running for the presidency in a country where the constitution allows the greatest power to the president in the area of foreign policy. And I think his foriegn policy ideas are unrealistic in today's global political climate.
That's not to say that I have completely done away with the thought of voting for the man. As it stands I don't know who I'll be voting for...I could still be convinced that the good outweighs the bad, it's not as though I believe that voting for Ron Paul will cause Muslims to nuke our country or anything like that.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
There wouldn't be support for anyone trying to stretch some type of weak reason to kill the "infidel", like our freedoms, money, and women. Once America goes into Middle East and imposes our will THEN support goes through the roof to try and kill us, then they think "Wow he was right, US must DIE!".
How many Europeans do you see strapping bombs to their chests and blowing people up in the name of Allah? Your analogy fails.
I didn't know the IRA practiced terrorism in the name of Allah? Did I say that Muslims are the only ones that blow themselves up in the name of a particular cause? No I did not. The fact that comparing Muslim terrorist to soccer hooligans is inane still stands.It just appeared to me that you were trying to correlate people blowing stuff up just with Muslims. They hold a strong majority on that claim, but not they're not the only ones that can claim that tactic. And I wouldn't call it an inherently violent religion. I just think it's been twisted by literalist "followers" of that religion. The same way literalist followers of Christianity can feel justified in destroying other peoples lives.
===============================
There wouldn't be support for anyone trying to stretch some type of weak reason to kill the "infidel", like our freedoms, money, and women. Once America goes into Middle East and imposes our will THEN support goes through the roof to try and kill us, then they think "Wow he was right, US must DIE!".
How many Europeans do you see strapping bombs to their chests and blowing people up in the name of Allah? Your analogy fails.
I didn't know the IRA practiced terrorism in the name of Allah? Did I say that Muslims are the only ones that blow themselves up in the name of a particular cause? No I did not. The fact that comparing Muslim terrorist to soccer hooligans is inane still stands.It just appeared to me that you were trying to correlate people blowing stuff up just with Muslims. They hold a strong majority on that claim, but not they're not the only ones that can claim that tactic. And I wouldn't call it an inherently violent religion. I just think it's been twisted by literalist "followers" of that religion. The same way literalist followers of Christianity can feel justified in destroying other peoples lives.
I would never make a blanket statement like "only muslims kill people"
I know better than that.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
There wouldn't be support for anyone trying to stretch some type of weak reason to kill the "infidel", like our freedoms, money, and women. Once America goes into Middle East and imposes our will THEN support goes through the roof to try and kill us, then they think "Wow he was right, US must DIE!".
How many Europeans do you see strapping bombs to their chests and blowing people up in the name of Allah? Your analogy fails.
I didn't know the IRA practiced terrorism in the name of Allah? Did I say that Muslims are the only ones that blow themselves up in the name of a particular cause? No I did not. The fact that comparing Muslim terrorist to soccer hooligans is inane still stands.It just appeared to me that you were trying to correlate people blowing stuff up just with Muslims. They hold a strong majority on that claim, but not they're not the only ones that can claim that tactic. And I wouldn't call it an inherently violent religion. I just think it's been twisted by literalist "followers" of that religion. The same way literalist followers of Christianity can feel justified in destroying other peoples lives.
I would never make a blanket statement like "only muslims kill people"
I know better than that.
You say you know better than that, but do you really?I think instead of making a blanket statement, you should make a statement blanket. Like a great big blanket that you can spread out on the White House lawn and let American's come up and freely write their own remarks. Then you can hang it in a museum. I think it would give American's a chance to get things off their chests. You can say the statement blanket is meant to warm the hearts of America.
The statement blanket. Go for it man!
===============================
I'll get right on that after I finish my Jump to Conclusions mat
no really, you should see it...it's a mat...and you JUMP to conclusions!
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
You think I'm incredibly nieve don't you? Of course I don't believe that his entire foreign policy can be summed up from that one sentence. But that doesn't change that it was an extremely important sentence. I'm not ignoring anything, I've stated what I like and dislike about the man, you, on the other hand, are intent on waving around your Ron Paul flag at all costs.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
--------------------------------------
Issues like these will go back to the states though. He is a Jeffersonian so expect the state and local governments to be protecting the rights of Americans.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
LOL
I hope you're not serious.
Yeah...those evil republicans and their gay hating ways...they're as bad as all those filthy democrats who say that they are Christians but secretely hate Christians.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
i will vote a straight libertarian ticket.
will consider ron paul as soon as i do enough research on him...which means my vote could go to the republican party. (as long as the candidate does not pander to the evangelicals and everything the christian right stands for.)
==========================
Ron Paul has a youtube page with a ton of his speeches and tv appearances.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RonPaul2008dotcom
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
==========================
well hes a gamers best choice the way i see it
against regulating the internet.
wants to take less of your money than any polictician you will ever come across
for legalization( rated 'A' by 'vote-hemp')
and he wants to bring all the kids home from iraq immediatly so your servers will be fuller!
Here's a radio interview with Former CIA counter-terrorism officer Philip Giraldi...he says Giuliani is ignorant about terrorism and it's causes.
Rudy Giuliani is out of his depth...
Ron Paul talks about internet privacy! He is a huge champion of no government monitoring, regulation or tax on the internet.
Ron Paul also talks about what Draenor was talking about and that is how people generally supported the war at first and then later on began to disapprove of it. Make no mistake though, Ron never supported it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A45NG8tOCQ
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
fr those interested, he will be on bill mahr tonight . so will ben alllek
youtube.com/watch
I wish there were more republicans like this.
The most important part of reading is reading between the lines.
Not the Ben Afleck part.
--------------------------------------
