Your question was a straw man because you set the conditions = Paul's policies must make us SAFER. No room for any other set of conditions. That's a straw man. A policy that does not make us less safe but also strengthens us domestically is sound policy.
So you're saying that his stated foreign policy wouldn't make us less safe. You don't think his desire to immediately withdraw all troops from the Middle East would increase the danger in the world?
You're avoid the question because you know the answer. In past you've even acknowledged the weakness of Paul's foreign policy, but now you're so heavily invested in demonstrating your "right", once again, you don't care how contorted your logic need be or how many times you'll need to contradict yourself.
The question was NOT a strawman. In fact, it was as fair a question as can be asked.
His foreign policy, in the world we currently live in, would make us less safe. The Islamic terrorists aren't a rational actor like the Soviet Union. The hostility and threats to the West aren't going to go away simply because we remove our presence from Iraq.
I'm not saying he's 100% wrong on all of his policies.
But he's significantly wrong on enough that swiftly applying his policies would put this country's security at jeopardy.
This is your opinion, and it is false.
No, that is what he said and it's I was absolutely accurate... That is in contrast to your opinions, where you project upon Paul everything you want to hear. You take the quotes I provide and attempt to give them alternative explanations or simply explain them away.
He did acknowledge that we cannot undo decades of aggression in one simple act of pulling out, but that it would take time. In the meantime, we have domestic issues to consider and repair, and we can protect ourselves by locking down our borders.
Let's just take this statement at look at what you said.
WE CAN PROTECT OURSELVES BY LOCKING DOWN OUR BORDERS.
That's what you just said, yet you argue that he isn't saying this. That is we retreat behind our borders, we'll be safe. Do you agree with that?
He is correct in saying that Al Qaeda does not have a navy or ballistic missiles. The only way they can hit us is through our immigration system or our open border.
Good, so we'll withdraw troops and "through the power of veto," Ron Paul will single handedly reorganize the Immigration process, build effective walls, quadruple the size of the border patrol. We'll also stop letting tourists into the country, we'll stop providing student visas to anyone. He'll also pull us out of the U.N. We'll close our embassey's overseas, since they are such soft targets. And countless other things that, along with a miracle, will make us secure, before the troops are all immediately withdrawn from around the world......
You'll have to explain how that'll all work in the real world.
Otherwise, I'd have attribute that to another one of Ron Paul's political philosophies that are nice in theory, but can't easily or realistically be applied to the real world.
It may not stop the spread of islamofascism, but neither will what we are doing now stop it.
So, you're argument is now to replace one policy, that you argue is failing, with another policy, you acknowledge won't work. And I would argue it will accelerate the spread of fundamentalist Islam.
I've never seen you mention that, so how could I have noted it? Therefore, I discount it as BS.
This important to me, how? You're a moron who clearly knows less about Ron Paul than anyone else here. You're a fanboy who projects your fantasies on the guys, despite the realities. I clearly know more about him than you, so maybe you should reconsider that.
But that's what Bush wants to do,
No it isn't. If that were the case, he'd launch an attack today.
I didn't say we shouldn't EVER attack facilities inside Iran, I just said it wasn't necessary immediately. But I don't have the classified data available to me to accurately assess their risk.
[and that's what the UN will be urging us to do, just like Iraq. [/quote]
The U.N. wanted us to invade Iraq and now they want us to attack Iran?
And you base that what?
We are clearly building toward a military action against Iran, when this is clearly Israel's business. But we have tied Israel's hands so she can't properly defend herself, and we've done this so that we don't anger our Saudi partners. So we're in bed with islamofascists and we also are in bed with their enemies, whom we then have to restrain while our partners actively support her destruction. This is corruption at the highest level and it's what Paul refers to when he says "entangling alliances."
And there are some parts of that statement that are accurate. But it's ridiculously over simplified. You can't just "unplug."
Doing so would be an economic and security nightmare for this country.
It's Paul applying a wonderful philosophy to an imperfect situation. We're clearly in a compromised situation. If Paul were to apply his policy as he states, it would be a disaster. As President, he could move a lot of the foreign policy agenda, but none of the domestic. So we'd be be weaker in terms of economics and security, but none of the domestic changes will be there to support the foreign agenda. With the failure, he'd be a one term President.
Note- I'm discussing this as though he were a viable candidate for the Presidency. He's not.
You have NOT made your case sufficiently here. This is just rhetoric.
You're opinion is irrelevant.
Wrong. He said he would not support a LOAN program. And this is once again anti-free market.
No, it was a guaranteed loan program. And I agree, that in principle that Paul is right.....
Wrong again. This bailout was the President's decision, and as President he can refuse to bail them out......
And you're talking about something different.
Paul said that the loan guarantees wouldn't be necessary because the Congress shouldn't be involved in energy, putting up the obstacles that jeopardize the investments that necessitate the loan guarantees.
And he's right. In principle.
But not in reality.
If we want energy independence, in this imperfect world, one where the government is already intruding and obstructionist, SOMETIMES you need to work within that system to get things done. Especially when you're going to radically change our foreign policy.
You are advocating situation ethics, which is morally reprehensible and is contrary to conservative thinking. Not only that, but your pessimism is really tiresome. If what you say is true, then it doesn't really matter who we elect, because the slide will continue regardless of anyone's efforts. That is pathetic thinking.
No, that's not what I've said at all.
Again, this is more empty rhetoric that you have failed to back up with any convincing argument.
Again, I don't care what you think about me. While I happen to know for a fact that few people here have anything positive to say about.
How very kind of you to tell me how to vote.
You can do what ever you want.
Perhaps you should join your fellow arrogant elites in the Hillary camp.
Please, explain to me how I resemble a Hillary supporter in someway, without resorting to your typical ad hominem, baseless personal attacks
I hear they like people who think others should tell people how to vote and how to live. Meanwhile, you go ahead and vote for your favorite liberal GOP candidate.
Thanks for telling me how to vote.
Now maybe you can rush out a attend the Ron Paul Pizza Party in a tent somewhere at a survivalist camp in Kentucky this afternoon.
The strongest candidate on the Republican side right now is one of the worst ones. How could this possibly be good for the country? A liberal like Rudy McHuckney would continue the slide that we've been enduring for 80+ years. To rip one of your phrases, the conservative movement will DIE if we continue electing people like this.
I don't know who Rudy McHuckney is, but I don't think all the candidates are alike. And I think most of them have very different characteristics and strengths. I'm not discouraged by the group of potential nominees.
>>>Just remember that after the election, even if "we" win, we lose.<<<
That's not true. But perhaps you should move to that shantyhome in the mountains and "wait for the revolution." Because civil discourse and political change really don't interest you.
