To Ron Paul or Not To Ron Paul…
by Lee
That seems to be the question these days. Take a look at this post over at Snarky Bastards, in which the author—not a Ron Paul fan—admits that when asked about the war, the only Republican candidate who gives the right answer is Paul himself. Here’s his summation.
Note to all candidates: I would rather be exposed to a slightly greater risk of death by terrorist attack than have a president who ignores the constitution at his convenience. Checks and balances are designed to make our government inefficient, clunky, and slow to act. It’s supposed to be that way. I like it that way.
That is EXACTLY how I feel about all this. Every time I think about some dickhead undermining the blessed Constitution and using as an excuse the need to “ptorect Amurka from terrists” my skin just crawls.
You wouldn’t put up with this shit if a Democrat were doing it, so why give the GOP a pass?
Comments
Two more:
“Ron Paul: The Sugar In Our Kool-Aid” (Too real again?)
“Honk For Ron Paul If You’re Not Wearing a Straitjacket”
Alright, I’ll play:
“Ron Paul, the other white meat”
“Vote Ron Paul, anybody with two first names can’t be bad”
“Vote Paul, a texan is a precious thing to waste”
“Ron Paul, no barbeque left behind”
Sounds like Ron Paul’s got it all figured out.
Let’s not eliminate the state sponsors of terrorism, not fight jihadis in other countries, not do anything that may make fanatics not like us, not monitor the phone calls of terrorists in our country, not interrogate them, or anything else.
I guess if the whole country shuts its eyes and wishes REALLY hard, we can just make Islamic terrorism disappear!
Seriously, Thrill, you sound retarded.
1. Should we invade every country that is a state sponsor of terror? We’d have to invade most of Northern Africa, all of the Middle East, and parts of Asia. Or do we just pick and choose which countries to invade based on how we feel that morning?
2. Is invading a country the only way to exert pressure on it, to get it to bend to your will? I’ll give you two examples: Libya and South Africa. Decades of political isolation on the international stage forced both countries to change their ways. Note: We invaded neither of them. There’s a big fucking difference between sending fighter-bombers over a country to hit specific targets than there is invading and occupying a country. Iraq has shown that this is an utterly worthless way of protecting Amurka from terrists, by the simple fact that it’s become the “Remember the Maine!” of the Islamic world.
3. There WAS and IS a system in place to monitor phone calls in our country on national security grounds. It’s called FISA. Bush could have used it. If it was deficient he could have gone to Congress and asked them to change it. Or he could have asked Congress to create a whole new system. No matter how it is done, IT MUST BE ACCORDING TO THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION. The issue has never been the eavesdropping, it’s been the warrantless, unsupervised, unchecked eavesdropping by the executive branch. Remember that whole “checks and balances” thing that our entire system of government is built on? When the executive can kidnap people at will, render them to foreign countries to be tortured for years, lock them up in secret prisons, and spy on them, tell me, who the fuck is checking and balancing that behavior?
4. Yes, that’s right, we all want to shut our eyes and make ISlamic terrorism disappear. That’s exactly what I want. Right, Thrill. Have you ever heard of the logical fallacy Reductio ad Absurdum?
Reductio ad absurdum … is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.
When you can actually make a real argument that all we want to do is “wish” away Islamic terrorism then feel free to post it.
Should we invade every country that is a state sponsor of terror?
1. Invade? Not always necessary. Bombings, assassination, and other activities should not be ruled out. Of course, those things may make people “not like us” and Ron Paul isn’t having any of it.
2. It appears that the surveillance program is kosher with the Presidency and Congress. It’s not going anywhere. No point in arguing about it today.
3. Ron Paul has no plan for fighting Islamic Terrorism. He wants to withdraw from the world and hide behind our borders out of fear that we might make people mad who want to kill us anyway.
His whole plan for preventing terrorism appears to rely on private security and simply arresting terrorists AFTER they attack us.
This isn’t any different than “wishing it away” and I’m sorry if it’s hard for you to face. The guy is in complete denial about what we’re up against.
Richtaylor, is it close to dinnertime there?
Richtaylor, is it close to dinnertime there?
A little early, but I was think of going to Joe’s Waffle House, their motto “We are endorsing Ron Paul, we know a waffler when we see one”. :)
Not bad, sir, not bad!
Maybe you could go to Taco Bell: “Run for the (Kuwaiti) border”.
This is the guy to take Reagan’s throne? I really don’t think so. Ron Paul believes in retreat and surrender and so does Harry Reid. If you wouldn’t tolerate that from Harry Reid, why would you give Ron Paul a pass?
Voting for Ron Paul is nothing more than a wasted vote.
Ron Paul isn’t Reagan Lee, not even close.
1. Invade? Not always necessary. Bombings, assassination, and other activities should not be ruled out.
Dude, you are an asshole, plain and simple.
Ron Paul isn’t Reagan Lee, not even close.
When did I ever say that Ron Paul is Reagan’s heir? I never said such a thing. What I *did* say was that Reagan’s view of conservatism was a hell of a lot closer to Ron Paul than any of the Christian fundamentalist “protect Amurka from terrists” types who think that the best way to ensure our safety is to wipe their asses with the Constitution.
1.
Invade? Not always necessary. Bombings, assassination, and other activities should not be ruled out.
How can you get people to take torture seriously when you have the mindset expressed above?
I know. Assassinations? I don’t agree that we should engage in assassinations.
Assassinations and CIA coups, the foundation for America’s future!
Funny how Thrill completely ignored the content of both my and Lee’s posts and just started spouting off about how much he hates Ron Paul. Funny.
Voting for Ron Paul is nothing more than a wasted vote.
I’d rather piss away my vote on the candidate I actually think will do the best job than on whoever te GOP runs against the Dems. I’m fucking sick of voting for people because “the other guy will be worse.” The only way to get the GOP to change their ways is to not vote for them. Let them feel the bitter sting of electoral loss on a massive scale. Hopefully they’ll lick their wounds, figure out where they went wrong, and some new blood will come in to take the party in a better direction.
If not , fuck ‘em. Let them die.
2. It appears that the surveillance program is kosher with the Presidency and Congress. It’s not going anywhere. No point in arguing about it today.
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. You literally just said “The Democrats are okay with it, so it’s cool. It’s got bipartisan support.”
Those are the two most evil words in the American political lexicon. Anything that has the support of both parties will almost always, ALWAYS be a horrible piece of legislation.
I agree with you entirely Lee. While I don’t think Paul is nearly as much of a long shot as he used to be… I don’t think hes a wasted vote by any means. Worse case scenario is that Paul has proven that a bunch of freedom loving Americans still exist as well as wake up a whole lot more while showcasing the disregard the rest of the candidates have for the Constitution. There is no “lesser of two evils” any longer. There are bad candidates and a good candidate. There are candidates who disregard the constitution and he who strictly adheres to it.
Worrying about Hillary winning over Giuliani or any of the other clowns is simply dumbed down to who is more aesthetically pleasing… which is probably the worst beauty pageant in history. Its simply different flavors of shit.
The difference between Ron Paul and Reagan is Ron Paul actually would reduce spending, not just talk about it.
Assassinations? I don’t agree that we should engage in assassinations.
I applaud you for your sense of what’s proper, GripeBoy. However, compared to the disatrous costs of invasion (Iraq), the destitution brought on by decades of sanctions (Cuba, Iraq again), the collateral damage of high-altitude airstrikes (Afghanistan, Serbia), and such; assassination of government officials in state sponsors of terrorism and other rogue regimes is a more expedient and even humanitarian choice.
Lee claims that “political isolation” brought about effective changes in those countries. South Africa? Sure, but they weren’t really a threat to anyone but their own black population. Libya? Lee is glossing over the fact that Reagan had Libya bombed in 1986. The airstrikes destroyed Ghaddafi’s house and nearly killed him. That’s right: My advocacy for assassination and bombing has a precedent in President Reagan’s Administration. What do you think of that?
Don’t forget that the first shot of the Iraq War was our attempt to bomb Saddam in one of his suspected hideoouts. How much better would it have been if we had gotten him right up front? How much misery would have been avoided if Castro had been taken out? What about if Saddam had been blasted the first time he violated the cease fire? The second? The third? The tenth?
I have yet to see a good argument against what I have proposed. Is it better to kill thousands of common soldiers and reduce a population to poverty with more conventional means or is it preferable to assassinate a handful of officials to effect changes in a rogue nation’s policy?
Assassinations and CIA coups, the foundation for America’s future!
John Cross pointed out the other day that this isn’t 1780. Back then, it was unimaginable that a pissant country like Afghanistan could hurt us in any way. Now look at what 19 motivated jihadis can do with support from even a hellhole like that. If coups and “black ops” work are what it takes we will have to do it.
Funny how Thrill completely ignored the content of both my and Lee’s posts and just started spouting off about how much he hates Ron Paul. Funny.
I didn’t see your post. In any case, what’s really funny are parasitic commenters who only try to engage me when I am already responding to four other commenters at once on one thread. You’re like a flea on a doberman that jumps off to take a nip.
Dude, you are an asshole, plain and simple.
Shut your cock holster. Dude.
Welcome to Thunderdome.
Ron Paul believes in retreat and surrender
Not true. He believes in accually declairing a war before you fight it.
Bombings, assassination, and other activities should not be ruled out. Of course, those things may make people “not like us” and Ron Paul isn’t having any of it.
He won’t assassinate or bomb and you think this is a bad thing???
Voting for Ron Paul is nothing more than a wasted vote.
How exactly is that a wasted vote? This is a primary. Just whom do you think he’ll take votes from? Sorry, but the ‘wasted vote’ argument is for the general election, not the primary.
I didn’t see your post.
I wrote the post Lee linked to that started this thread.
I’d rather piss away my vote on the candidate I actually think will do the best job than on whoever te GOP runs against the Dems. I’m fucking sick of voting for people because “the other guy will be worse.” The only way to get the GOP to change their ways is to not vote for them. Let them feel the bitter sting of electoral loss on a massive scale. Hopefully they’ll lick their wounds, figure out where they went wrong, and some new blood will come in to take the party in a better direction.
Interestingly James Dobson said these exact same words (birds of a feather?). The other day WVR gave us a heads up on the Hannity show (I don’t watch Hannity, but with Dobson and Coulter on the bill, it sounded like fun). Anyway, He spouted off the same rigidity is his leanings (He did not give RTLC credit, maybe he should have).
Lee, you sound like an idealistic 18 year old anticipating his first election. Politics has always been an exercise in compromise, from the first election on. I don’t know about you, but for me there has never been a candidate that parroted my beliefs on everything, and this election is no different, all have blemishes.It is a simple process of deciding which one of these “losers” is more apt to promote MY agenda.
In the primary you have more latitude because there are more choices, but when the election rolls around, you gotta participate, or maybe start blogging about cooking or gardening instead.
Worse case scenario is that Paul has proven that a bunch of freedom loving Americans still exist as well as wake up a whole lot more while showcasing the disregard the rest of the candidates have for the Constitution.
Worse case scenario is that Dobson has proven that a bunch of freedom loving Americans still exist as well as wake up a whole lot more while showcasing the disregard the rest of the candidates have for moral values.
There, I fixed it for you.
I don’t know about you, but for me there has never been a candidate that parroted my beliefs on everything, and this election is no different, all have blemishes.It is a simple process of deciding which one of these “losers” is more apt to promote MY agenda.
I absolutely agree 100%. The problem is that I see no dramatic difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. I’ve been saying that for years. Both of them want massive, expansive government. Both of them want to intrude into my personal life in intimate ways, whether it be in the bedroom or in my bank account or health insurance. Neither have any interest whatsoever in actually following the Constitution.
I used to the GOP was better. Now I don’t. It’s as simple as that. By pandering to the religious fundamentalists they’ve painted themselves into a corner. They fucked themselves, and now they’re going to have to bleed for a while. When they get their shit together, and get back to a more Goldwater/Reagan-type of conservatism then I’ll vote for them again. But for now, they get nothing from me. No money, not even a vote.
Like I said, fuck them. I hope they die.
Worse case scenario is that Dobson has proven that a bunch of freedom loving Americans still exist as well as wake up a whole lot more while showcasing the disregard the rest of the candidates have for moral values.
As I haver said a thousand times, if the GOP wants to become the party of big government Christian fundamentalists that is their right. It is also my right to refuse to vote for them. When Hillary is president, the GOP will have to decide whether pursuing the intrusive big government agenda they’ve been following for the last few years is the right course to take. They can adapt or die, but I doubt they’ll adapt, since religious fundamentalists don’t believe in that sort of evolutionary concept.
so they’ll die. And hopefully something better will rise from the ashes. But until that happens, I absolutely refuse to vote for any of the current worthless GOP candidates except Ron Paul. I might consider voting GOP with Ron Paul as VP. But if they think that I’m going to sit by and watch them piss all over the Constitution in the name of “protecting Amurka from terrists” then they’re sadly mistaken.
Right now the GOP is as much an enemy of my liberty as the Democrats have ever been. If you want to see the US turn out like socialist Europe, keep voting for one of the two major parties. Eventually nanny will take care of us all. Whether it’s healthcare or morality, both parties seem to think that nanny knows best.
Fuck both of them.
Libya? Lee is glossing over the fact that Reagan had Libya bombed in 1986. The airstrikes destroyed Ghaddafi’s house and nearly killed him.
Strange. I actually mentioned the bombings in my comment, yet somehow I’m “glossing over” them.
Did Libya capitulate in 1986? No, it was almost 20 years later. Libya cooled their rhetoric after the bombing, since one of Ghaddafi’s children was killed in the raid. But they were still sponsoring terror, financing the jihad as well as training IRA terror squads.
What killed Libya was the fact that they were isolated on the world stage, with all kinds of economic sanctions against them, and they were hurting. Iran is hurting as well, with Ahmadinejad’s popularity in Iran even lower than Bush’s is here. And why? Because US sanctions are putting major hurt on the people, with 1970’s style gas shortages and other hardships.
If the US had iron-clad proof of Iran having the specific capacity to build a nuclear weapon then I would be perfectly fine with the decision to take out their reactors. But we need to tread carefully there. While the Iranian people are generally pro-US, they are also a proud people from an ancient culture, and that doesn’t translate into “Please bomb my country.” Bombing Iran should be the option of last resort.
The USSR had missiles for years and never used them. North Korea has had nuclear missiles and never used them. I doubt that the first thing Iran is going to do is pop off a nuke, considering that the first thing we’d do in retaliation is turn their country into the world’s largest sheet of glass.
I used to the GOP was better. Now I don’t
Your frustration resonates with me but I think you are making this more difficult than it needs to be. I break this down into idealogue vs. pragmatist, and you can throw out the party affiliations.
Again, the process is simple. You choose the issues that are important to you, for me they are:
1) Who is going to devote all his waking hours to killing terrorists?
2) Who will take the least amount of money out of my pocket?
Yes, there are ancillary issues like deficit reduction, shrinking government, promoting our best interests on the world stage, yadda yadda yadda.
Then you cast your net over the entire lot, Republicans and Democrats (Hell, if Nader wants to climb out from under his rock, I’ll listen to him), and decide who is going to promote YOUR agenda. Afterall, you have a vision of what this country should look like, work towards that end.
I absolutely refuse to vote for any of the current worthless GOP candidates except Ron Paul.
Whats wrong with Rudy? I understand Dobson not voting for him, but what about you?
The difference between Ron Paul and Reagan is Ron Paul actually would reduce spending, not just talk about it.
Bullshit. Do honestly think that after 70 years of a welfare state being in place that any President is going to be able to reduce spending? Even if Paul presented a bare-bones budget, Congress is the branch that authorizes spending, and there is no way in hell a Congress run by Democrats is going to do that. There’s no way in hell Congress in general is going to do that. The idea that Paul would be able to reduce spending is as absurd as the notion that 20 million illegal aliens can be deported. Just look at the tempest in a teapot the Democrats are creating over Bush’s SCHIP veto. Even though the bill would have covered families nowhere near the poverty line, Bush got crucified for the veto and the democrats resorted to hiding behind a grade-schooler to drum up sympathy for the piece of shit bill. What makes you think Paul is going to have smoother sailing?
Take off the rose-colored glasses.
1) Who is going to devote all his waking hours to killing terrorists?
2) Who will take the least amount of money out of my pocket?
Utterly incompatible concepts.
Do you think GWoT is free? What’s funding it?
Utterly incompatible concepts.
Not at all. I said “least, not “no”, You don’t see a difference?
Do you think GWoT is free? What’s funding it?
No, its not free and I am willing to fund it. Thats why with the proper parameters and triggers I am willing to discuss this WOT surtax that everybody is running from.
But the idea of “low taxation” blankets many diffferent concepts. Keeping the Bush tax cuts in place, keeping healthcare unsocialized, fighting earmarks, keeping capital gains and dividend revenue at its current rate, these all fall under that blanket.
Noone said Paul would have smooth sailing, of course he won’t because Congress collectively acts just as unconstitutionally as all the other candidates want to. I expect the veto to be used in all its glory if he becomes President and for good reason, Congress can’t do its job. They’re debating on how far and how much they should do this or that and they haven’t even looked to see if the constitution allows them that right. In the case of the government, I prefer gridlock to expansion and reduction to both.
Utterly incompatible concepts.Not at all. I said “least, not “no”, You don’t see a difference?
“No” or “least” it still doesn’t even come close to adding up. Do you think that it’s somehow possible to spend every waking hour killing terrorists AND minimize taxes? Without taking the budget deficit to even more ludicrous levels?
The one who will take the least money out of your pocket is the one who doesn’t invade countries, occupy them and remain stuck in quagmires, and who doesn’t spend it all on big government socialist stuff.
You know - a libertarian.
1) Who is going to devote all his waking hours to killing terrorists?
I hate to point this out yet again, but as we have seen over the past 5 years, “killing” terrorists is often not the best way to solve the problem, since every time you kill one two more will step up to take his place.
2) Who will take the least amount of money out of my pocket?
Let’s see. The Democrats want to spend billions, and they want to raise taxes to do it. The Republicans want to spend billions, and they want to do it bu raising the national debt, which will unfortunately require a massive tax increase. Of course, Bush will be long gone when that happens, he’s leaving that big fat turd for whoever follows him.
Then you cast your net over the entire lot, Republicans and Democrats (Hell, if Nader wants to climb out from under his rock, I’ll listen to him), and decide who is going to promote YOUR agenda.
That’s the problem. Neither party promotes my agenda.
Whats wrong with Rudy? I understand Dobson not voting for him, but what about you?
Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot to like about Rudy, but he’s got an authoritarian streak in him that would make Bush look like a piker. Rudy would take the Constitutional asswiping that Bush implemented and build upon it, seizing more and more power for the executive simply because it would make his job easier if he could avoid that whole checks and balances inconvenience.
1) Who is going to devote all his waking hours to killing terrorists?
How about we change that to “eliminate” terrorists? Simply killing them without any plan to stop their creation is not proving to be cost effective.
I expect the veto to be used in all its glory if he becomes President and for good reason, Congress can’t do its job.
A little OT, but I want to point out that the one candidate with a STELLAR record of vetoing bullshit social spending is Mitt Romney. Disagree all you want with his social stances or his foreign policy, but he’s pretty much got an unimpeachible (sp?) record on fiscal discipline.
Thrill, you are an ignorant fuck who thinks he’s got all the answers. Thunderdome..., no shit douchbag.
I hate to point this out yet again, but as we have seen over the past 5 years, “killing” terrorists is often not the best way to solve the problem,
OK, I’m open to any suggestions you have, but killing terrorists before they kill me is a propitious first step.
Let’s see. The Democrats want to spend billions, and they want to raise taxes to do it. The Republicans want to spend billions, and they want to do it bu raising the national debt, which will unfortunately require a massive tax increase. Of course, Bush will be long gone when that happens, he’s leaving that big fat turd for whoever follows him.
Actually, the deficit has been lowered and tax revenue has risen every year since the war started. Alot more needs to be done and I included government spending on my list.
How about we change that to “eliminate” terrorists?
Semantic contortions aside (you can take some tylenol for that) whatever term works for you is fine.
Thrill, you are an ignorant fuck who thinks he’s got all the answers. Thunderdome..., no shit douchbag.
Nice argument James R, well crafted and articulated with aplomb, I almost thought Daniel Webster had arisen.
Nice argument James R
For real. You want to take a shot at any of my arguments; go ahead, James. I’ll defend my positions against anybody.
You are a total fucking loser and I don’t intend to waste any more time responding to your infantile name calling unless you can do it in the context of making some kind of point germane to the issue under discussion. Try not to whine too much when I respond in kind, you gay fucking toilet-stall cowboy.
A little OT, but I want to point out that the one candidate with a STELLAR record of vetoing bullshit social spending is Mitt Romney. Disagree all you want with his social stances or his foreign policy, but he’s pretty much got an unimpeachible (sp?) record on fiscal discipline.
Considering the fact that Mitt’s an even bigger flip-flopper than John Kerry, I don’t believe a fucking word that comes out of the man’s mouth. He was a popular MA governor, and did a lot of good things, and he was a social moderate. Now he’s a firebreathing fundie douchebag, pandering to the “America is a Christian Nation” fundamentalist assholes.
He’s not running on his record, he’s running away from it. So why should I believe that his record is worth anything?
Thrill, you started it with your dismissive lame-ass attempts to belittle Ron Paul supporters. My short inarticulate bathroom stall responses are all you deserve. So you are a homophobe too eh? - Take a hike Mary.
OK, I’m open to any suggestions you have, but killing terrorists before they kill me is a propitious first step.
Okay, let’s examine this.
1. What is a terrorist? What standard has to be met before someone makes the transition from America-hating Muslim to “terrorist”?
2. Should the fact that someone is an Arab who screams “Death to America” make him worthy of death at our hands? We all have no problem sitting here talking about “killing terrorists,” does that make us terrorists, simply for calling on the death of another?
3. Every time we “kill a terrorist” there will inevitably be collateral damage. This will be picked up by the Arab news networks, who will gleefully show dead babies killed by American bombs. Or the actual terrorists will plant the bombs themselves, kill a shitload of innocents, and then blame it on America. It doesn’t matter that we might not have committed this specific act, we’ve shown ourselves to be in a war posture for the past five years, why the hell should anyone in the Arab world believe us when we say that we didn’t do it?
4. As I said earlier, these are ancient and proud civilizations, with a concept of honor similar to that of a Klingon. Honor is shared on a family basis, and lost in the same manner. So if we kill an innocent , whether intentionally or accidentally, the other members of that family are honor-bound to wage jihad on the US and restore honor to the family.
Like I said before, for every terrorist we kill two more will rise up to take his place. The real terrorists often pay unemployed revenge-seeking Arabs to shoot at soldiers or fire an RPG at a tank. So we kill the angry 18 year old who was avenging the death of his baby sister, and this is reported in the news as killing “a terrorist.” The 18 year old will be considered a blessed martyr by his community. Other unemployed 18 year olds will be intrigued by the honor of suffering the same fate—better to die fighting than live in dishonor. (You know, the same sort of logic that got us the American Revolution.) This is how the insurgency grows, a feeling of anger and a desire for revenge (like ours after 9/11). We promised them democracy and a better life, and we’ve turned their country into Beirut. Is it any wonder the insurgency has grown from foreign fighters to include local boys?
Thus “killing terrorists” is likely not the best course of action.
And I say this as someone who wholeheartedly believed in the Iraq War. Now that we’re five years in, and I see what a disaster it has become, I’m convinced that it was not a correct course of action. We went in there gung-ho, blind, with no plan for what to do when we got there. Had we developed a solid post-invasion plan I can’t say for sure that it would have succeeded, but we were doomed to failure doing what we did.
I’m all for killing terrorists, but invading Iraq did NOTHING towards that goal, and actually made the problem worse. I’m intellectually honest enough to admit that Iraq was a bad idea from the beginning.
I think this is a good topic. What does and does not define a “terrorist”? I would be curious to know what everybody thinks. Why not top-post this, Lee?
Ron Paul is a wasted vote in the general election. That’s what I meant. I’m sorry Lee for saying that you think Ron Paul is Reagan.
We need a Goldwater/Reagan Republican Party again, not this watered-down version we’re getting now. I don’t see any Republican that I could vote for, come election time.
Reagan had a plan for winning the Cold War. Bush never had a plan to win the war on terror. Reagan won the Cold War, while we’re still stuck in a war that will be never-ending. The Democrats could end the war by cutting funding for the war, but they won’t do that because more people could die, and that would be their fault. They’re playing politics. Pure and Simple. The liberal voters were lied to by the people they elected.
Lee, it sounds like you are in a contrarian mood. I have read right here you argue the other side of the coin many times, but thats OK, it good to have you back posting, it was getting a little boring around here.
1) The State Dept. lists 42 FTO’s, I will include these plus anybody who is a member of any organization that has as its goal the destruction of the US, or the radical following of the Koran that advocates the killing of infidels, or any person that embraces these beliefs regardless of affiliation.
2)No, but there are organizations that have pledged the pursuit of our destruction, on record declaring only 2 possible solutions being either total conversion to Islam and its tenets, or death.
3) This caricature ignores that progress made in Karbala, Mosal, and Anbar in aligning the locals with us and against Al-Qaeda. They understand who the true enemy is. And every terrorist killed is not just some perpheral player, a kid with a grudge because his goat got blown up, sometimes we get major players.
Thus “killing terrorists” is likely not the best course of action.
As the only weapon used in the WOT, I would agree with you, but rolling over and waiting for them to hit us again is not very effective. I’m all for killing the people that want to kill me and doing whatever it takes to prevent their ideology from spreading, thats why I asked for suggestions.
I’m all for killing terrorists, but invading Iraq did NOTHING towards that goal, and actually made the problem worse. I’m intellectually honest enough to admit that Iraq was a bad idea from the beginning.
Yeah, well, I’m sure the British probably said to themselves ,"Dang, we never should of tried to capture those supplies at Concord”.
1) The State Dept. lists 42 FTO’s, I will include these plus anybody who is a member of any organization that has as its goal the destruction of the US, or the radical following of the Koran that advocates the killing of infidels, or any person that embraces these beliefs regardless of affiliation.
But why the Koran only? There are plenty of people who preach hatred right here in this country: Fred Phelps, Mann Coulter, the American Nazi Party, the KKK, and so on. Not only is this speech tolerated, it is protected by law. So, why should an Arab who engages in exactly this sort of behavior in his own country be considered “a terrorist”?
Allow me to state for the record that I’m not simply playing devil’s advocate here. I think one of the big problems of the GWOT is an overly-broad definition of terrorist.
2)No, but there are organizations that have pledged the pursuit of our destruction, on record declaring only 2 possible solutions being either total conversion to Islam and its tenets, or death.
Think about this before answering: which do you fear more, another 9/11 style attack or the government using the fear of another 9/11 style attack to take away your constitutional rights and liberties? Because, frankly, I fear the latter a hell of a lot more than I fear the former.
How many times have people on this blog quoted Ben Franklin and his remark about liberty and safety? Usually it’s in response to some Democrat proposal to have the government intrude on our private lives to guarantee some sort of social outcome. But the exact dynamic is in play with the GWOT? I’m rather have 10 more 9/11’s and keep my constitutional liberties intact than turn into a police state just so some politician can stand there like a bad-ass and say he’s protecting Amurka from terrists.
3) This caricature ignores that progress made in Karbala, Mosal, and Anbar in aligning the locals with us and against Al-Qaeda. They understand who the true enemy is. And every terrorist killed is not just some perpheral player, a kid with a grudge because his goat got blown up, sometimes we get major players.
I have always been the first to point out the good and the progress we’ve made. But I also don’t ignore the bad stuff we’ve done. And unfortunately, when it comes to Iraq, I see very little progress and a whole lotta bad.
As the only weapon used in the WOT, I would agree with you, but rolling over and waiting for them to hit us again is not very effective. I’m all for killing the people that want to kill me and doing whatever it takes to prevent their ideology from spreading, thats why I asked for suggestions.
Like I said before, a combination of selective targets (missiles into camps, capture of high target individuals by black ops teams, economic sanctions, etc.) should all be tried and exhausted before we go whipping our dicks out again like we did with Iraq.
Lee, it sounds like you are in a contrarian mood. I have read right here you argue the other side of the coin many times, but thats OK, it good to have you back posting, it was getting a little boring around here.
Thanks for the compliment. And you’re right, I have argued the other side before, countless times. But I also can’t ignore what I see in front of me. I don’t trust A FUCKING WORD that anyone in this administration says. So much of what they have said has been unequivocally exposed as a lie that I have no reason to trust them ever again. If Bush told me the sky was blue I’d have to look outside and verify it, that’s how much I distrust them.
I started out as an enthusiastic supporter or Bush and the war. At first I defended their actions because I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. But as lie after lie after lie became revealed, I just can’t do it any more. I admit it, the entire Iraq War was a total mistake.
Considering the fact that Mitt’s an even bigger flip-flopper than John Kerry, I don’t believe a fucking word that comes out of the man’s mouth.
Having lived and worked in Massachusetts during his stint as governor, I know that this is obviously false to anyone who takes a detailed look at the history of his positions. But whatever…
He was a popular MA governor, and did a lot of good things
True.
and he was a social moderate.
He GOVERNED as a social moderate because that’s what the people of Massachusetts wanted. In other words, he represented the views of his constituents which was his job as governor. If that’s not what you expect an executive politician to do, then we have vastly different expectations.
Now he’s a firebreathing fundie douchebag, pandering to the “America is a Christian Nation” fundamentalist assholes.
No, what he’s doing is articulating his personal positions to America. He held these moral positions when he was elected governor of Massachusetts as well, which you would know if you bothered to dig a bit and not have a knee-jerk reaction to a few sound bites from the past 18 months.
Instead, you see him as a weirdo with magic underwear who says that abortion is wrong… except that he also says states should be allowed to decide on its legality. And a religious guy who says that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry… except that he also says states should be allowed to decide on its legality. And because he’s religious and you are not, and he follows a religion that you don’t understand except that it’s a sect of Christianity (and that makes you skittish recently), you dismiss him as a “firebreathing fundie douchebag”. Way to go!
He’s not running on his record, he’s running away from it. So why should I believe that his record is worth anything?
For that matter, why should any of us believe ANY FUCKING POLITICIAN. Most politicians articulate positions that are in some way contrary to their record. Like Ron Paul’s shrimp farm thing. He’s not running on [that part of] his record, he’s running away from it. So why should I believe that his record is[n’t] worth anything?
Bottom line, are you going to vote based or record or rhetoric? It sounds like you will vote on the later, despite the fact that one of the primary reasons you hate Bush is because you voted for him based on what he said he was going to do and he did something different, when his record as governor of Texas could have indicated his big-government proclivities. Don’t vote for Romney if his record or his religion bothers you, that’s fine. But watch out that you don’t fall into the Bush trap that many of us fell into in 2000 and 2004.
Next entry: This Things I Believe
Previous entry: A Message From Rick
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 8230
Total Logged in members: 4
Total guests: 47
Total anonymous users: 0
britishcress,
Hal_10000,
Manwhore,
Miguelito,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
How quickly they soured us on their ideology, huh?
(8 total, Last @ 08:58)
Mark_M: The average American is so fucking stupid I don’t give us much hope. I'll paraphrase a great line from Dennis Miller ..."The American people are so stupid...of course, I know better than them. But then again I DO have a bachelor's in communications from Tallahassee Junior College."
Tonight's speech by Obama on Iraq...
(30 total, Last @ 08:56)
Manwhore: It is striking to me that Alex is now the only real voice of conservative thinking on this blog. For the few who rebel against the idea are hit in the face with a Limbaugh smear. I think it was fucking hilarious that he handed all of you your asses;…
Quote Mining
(14 total, Last @ 08:04)
Dick Fitzwell: A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul--George Bernard Shaw Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.--Mark Twain A major source of objection to a…
How quickly they soured us on their ideology, huh?
(8 total, Last @ 07:34)
Seattle Outcast: Get that sand washed out yet muirgeo1?
The Discovery Gunman
(2 total, Last @ 07:33)
Seattle Outcast: Considering that this is exactly what I hear from your typical garden-variety libtard, I'm keeping my guard up around them in case they snap.
Last 30 Comments
Sounds like Ron Paul’s got it all figured out.
Let’s not eliminate the state sponsors of terrorism, not fight jihadis in other countries, not do anything that may make fanatics not like us, not monitor the phone calls of terrorists in our country, not interrogate them, or anything else.
I guess if the whole country shuts its eyes and wishes REALLY hard, we can just make Islamic terrorism disappear!
Here are some bumper sticker slogans for you Ron Paul fans:
“What Happens In Ron Paul’s Imagination Stays In Ours!”
“Vote for Ron Paul And Your Dreams Will Come True!” (Forget that one. It sounds like something crazy they would really say)
“What The Hell’s A Neville Chamberlain?”
“Ron Paul ‘08: Because Everybody Hates You, America”
“Eliminate Pork Spending! Except Wild Shrimp Marketing-It’s In The Constition. Seriously. It’s There, Ron Paul Said So.” (Too long?)
“Off My Meds And Off To The Ballot Box! Vote Paul!”
“Treaties, Schmeaties”
“911truth.org” (Had to use one real slogan)