Who is trying to “understand Bin Laden”? Give me one example from America, just one. Otherwise that is the biggest and stupidest strawman I have ever seen.
You bore me.
JeffR
[/quote]
I think you know full well what I meant. No one is trying to “understand” Bin Laden in some touchy-feely left wing way. Ron Paul is simply saying we should take Al Qaeda at their word, because like every terrorist group since the beginning of time, they are a political group with political aims. This doesn’t mean we accept their aims, and it doesn’t mean we don’t have to destroy them, but it does mean we don’t just dismiss them as fanatics and spend no further thought on it, which is ignorant.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Turns out that Senator Vitter is Rudy Giuliani’s Southern Regional campaign manager. Rudy sure can pick 'em.
You know what they say, “birds of a feather flock together.”
Anyway, Rudy will have a hard time winning, even if he does get the nomination.
Large amounts of social conservatives will stay home giving the democrats the Presidency.
[/quote]
Mick,
I’d be lying if I said that that thought hadn’t crossed my mind. I also have to admit being somewhat angry at social Conservatives. The rigidity and almost pathological obsession with the abortion issue irritates me. It gives ammunition to guys like bradley.
However, we’ve discussed that there is another factor here that cannot be overstated: hillary rodham clinton.
She’s the ace in the hole. She’ll get Conservatives to the polls in droves.
Another factor that I think will come into play is guilt on the part of the Conservatives who sat out the 2006 election. I’ve read about some that are bemoaning their myopia.
Who is trying to “understand Bin Laden”? Give me one example from America, just one. Otherwise that is the biggest and stupidest strawman I have ever seen.
You bore me.
JeffR
I think you know full well what I meant. No one is trying to “understand” Bin Laden in some touchy-feely left wing way. Ron Paul is simply saying we should take Al Qaeda at their word, because like every terrorist group since the beginning of time, they are a political group with political aims. This doesn’t mean we accept their aims, and it doesn’t mean we don’t have to destroy them, but it does mean we don’t just dismiss them as fanatics and spend no further thought on it, which is ignorant.[/quote]
gdol,
I know exactly what you meant.
Further, you asked for an example and I gave it.
Next, there is a vast difference between making strategic changes BEHIND CLOSED DOORS and publicly using bin laden as a reason TO PULL OUT OF IRAQ.
Can you understand how that legitimizes terrorism?
Have you been reading the ron paul thread? There are rage against the machiners on this very board who think he’s a prophet.
Who is trying to “understand Bin Laden”? Give me one example from America, just one. Otherwise that is the biggest and stupidest strawman I have ever seen.
You bore me.
JeffR
I think you know full well what I meant. No one is trying to “understand” Bin Laden in some touchy-feely left wing way. Ron Paul is simply saying we should take Al Qaeda at their word, because like every terrorist group since the beginning of time, they are a political group with political aims. This doesn’t mean we accept their aims, and it doesn’t mean we don’t have to destroy them, but it does mean we don’t just dismiss them as fanatics and spend no further thought on it, which is ignorant.[/quote]
It all comes down to knowing your enemy, something which this government (and Rudy) has shown very little of.
The actual quote was:
“We are not supporting [Ron Paul] because we think he is popular or that he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning. We are supporting him because we want him to win and we think he is the only capable person currently in the race that can turn this country around and restore the freedoms we have lost to BIG GOVERNMENT in the last century.”
[quote]Ren wrote:
It all comes down to knowing your enemy, something which this government (and Rudy) has shown very little of.[/quote]
That is the difference between a reactionary and leader. Real leaders take the time to try and understand what is actually happening and not just run into a situation with guns blazing.
I don’t think most people want to understand what is going on or why. They just look for simple answers and solutions so they can get back to their big screen TVs and stuff their fat, happy faces (or whatever escape they deem necessary to keep the delusion alive)–this goes for the majority of Americans and not just the far leaning left or right.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ren wrote:
It all comes down to knowing your enemy, something which this government (and Rudy) has shown very little of.
That is the difference between a reactionary and leader. Real leaders take the time to try and understand what is actually happening and not just run into a situation with guns blazing.
I don’t think most people want to understand what is going on or why. They just look for simple answers and solutions so they can get back to their big screen TVs and stuff their fat, happy faces (or whatever escape they deem necessary to keep the delusion alive)–this goes for the majority of Americans and not just the far leaning left or right.[/quote]
lm,
You don’t think a precipitious withdrawl (as suggested by your hero, ron paul) is “reactionary?”
Your pal isn’t taking phased withdrawl. He isn’t taking the Iraqi’s into consideration.
He’s yanking the plug.
Sometimes I think you are a nice, little fellow, liftus.
You don’t think a precipitious withdrawl (as suggested by your hero, ron paul) is “reactionary?”
[/quote]
No. It is democratic. Many people feel it is time to leave as it would take 100 years or more to set out to accomplish these impossible goals that GWB, et al have engaged us in. The solution is simple: if you don’t piss on you’re neighbors tulips he won’t have cause to want you dead.
Who cares–that isn’t the American taxpayers problem. That is GWB’s and his crony, military-industrial-complex-supporting, neocon friends. They can pay for it because it sure hasn’t made us any safer. Besides this I don’t give financial support to bad policy. Let Blackhawk, or whatever mercenary company, patrol the streets and perform security guard duty–and it can be financed by capitalist investment in the free market with their money. The payoff: what it has always been, Iraqi Oil Money. Then we wouldn’t be stuck in this moral and ethical quagmire with our troops dying in vain–and they are dying in vain.