Obama's Rejection Of Pastor Unfortunate

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Just because you need to be told what to think doesn't mean everyone does. I caught it before Giuliani reacted. Indeed Ron Paul blames US foreign policy for 9-11. He's said so repeatedly. Maybe you need a little lesson in comprehension?

But thanks for playing.

Who's taking the stupid pills now?

Here is the transcript from the debate (you ignored this before).

MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?

REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy.

Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.

Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.

And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don't end.

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

At no time did Ron Paul state we invited the attack. Vrai since you seem to have problems grasping this (or would rather be led by Giulliani about what someone stated). Ron Paul said we should learn the reasons from those that ATTACKED us. He was not justifying the attack itself.

Giulliani was the one that "claimed" that Ron Paul said we invited the attack, and you fell for it

[Sonsie]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Okay, well welcome to reality. Enjoy your stay.

Now you got the Paultards all stirred up, happy? Nothing kills a thread faster than the return of the Paulians.

.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Who's taking the stupid pills now?

That would be you, son. I don't need the freakin' transcript - I actually watched the debate.

[Hessian]

I follow what 2nd A is saying and in principle it has merit...BUT,
The day has passed when we use overwhelming force against an enemy.

Every military reaction except the Civil war and WWI has resulted in enormous guilt $$ paid after the peace is settled. We step SO lightly that brinkmanship is DEAD,...we don't even consider responding with enormous lethal force anymore.

Frankly,...the world knows this. we simply will never use nukes again. We prefer long painful drawn-out diplomacy, economic threats (yeah we really terrify our opponents there) and then some uber-costly military occupation.

So we build nukes we will never use, we train troops to be culturally sensative, and we have prolonged embarrassing trials for any soldier who may have offended our enemies........this is why that part of 2ndA's equation will never work.

[Marie]

Originally Posted by 2ndAmendment

But, in reality, it is not our business.

If they want to be a bunch of coke heads, let them fry their gourds. If they want to use opium until all they can do is drool, not our business.

.

The thing about the drugs though, is they arent the users we (USA) are. Its there number one cash crop and the money goes back to supporting terrorism against us and are allies.

We could fix the problem internally rather than going against the supply but that would require morals and Godly principals, but its a little late for that as you would be hard pressed to find them in our secular society.

[2ndAmendment (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Marie

The thing about the drugs though, is they arent the users we (USA) are. Its there number one cash crop and the money goes back to supporting terrorism against us and are allies.

We could fix the problem internally rather than going against the supply but that would require morals and Godly principals, but its a little late for that as you would be hard pressed to find them in our secular society.

Guess what. As much as all Christians would like this country to return to good morals and ethics, it is not going to happen. The only thing we can wait for now is the death knell for the U.S. of A. It will happen. It is only a matter of when.