Thread: Lets look at the real world people ~ A rant and a question

Ron Paul is not perfect - by any means.

The fact is, we have been following the same policy for at least 50 years and look where we are today. We have basically had the same old, same old in there. The rhetoric is a little different, the scandals are different, but basically whatever big that was done, was all part of the agenda.

IF - IF we are going to change, we are going to have to acknowledge that the same old ones, will get us the same old results.

We are going to have to step out and take a chance and look at a different viewpoint.

Truly when I hear the mantra of 'blame America' or 'Cut and Run', 'finish the job', etc., etc., I can just visualize the powers that be grinning to themselves. They are thinking,'boy we have even got them repeating our spin, we can't loose.'

nntrixie wrote:

Truly when I hear the mantra of 'blame America' or 'Cut and Run', 'finish the job', etc., etc., I can just visualize the powers that be grinning to themselves.

Are you actually denying that Paul blamed the destruction of the WTC and loss of 5,000 American lives on American policy? That is exactly where the "blame America first" comes from. Furthermore, regarding Iraq, he does advocate for a "cut and run" policy. What else would you call tucking your tail between your legs in defeat and getting the hell out of town before the job is finished? Oops, that's right, it would be an immediate withdrawal.

The terminology accurately describes Paul's position on the destruction of the WTC and Iraq, regardless of how distasteful the terms may be to some.

Originally Posted by MW

nntrixie wrote:

Truly when I hear the mantra of 'blame America' or 'Cut and Run', 'finish the job', etc., etc., I can just visualize the powers that be grinning to themselves.

Are you actually denying that Paul blamed the destruction of the WTC and loss of 5,000 American lives on American policy? That is exactly where the "blame America first" comes from. Furthermore, regarding Iraq, he does advocate for a "cut and run" policy. What else would you call tucking your tail between your legs in defeat and getting the hell out of town before the job is finished? Oops, that's right, it would be an immediate withdrawal.

The terminology accurately describes Paul's position on the destruction of the WTC and Iraq, regardless of how distasteful the terms may be to some.

First, it was 3,000 not 5,000, and as I stated before Paul Wolfowitz, the CIA and the 9/11 Commission ALL AGREE on the root cause.

Second, the objectives outlined when we went into Iraq have all been accomplished. Hussein is gone along with his sons, WMD's are gone (IF they were ever there to begin with) and the Iraqi's held their first democratic election over a year ago.

With that said, how would you describe 'finish the job'?

Sosad, yeah, I heard this late last night about Tancredo. I have been so busy, of course, this week, and hardly have watched or kept up on the news.

I am sad that he decided to drop out of the race, but glad he is still in government. I like Hunter, he seems to me a no nonsense guy, like I said about Ron Paul, he seems to have a lot of good ideas about a Constitutional government, but yet for me, I have a hard time imagining my vote to him. So, maybe for me now it is Hunter.

MW Do you think our meddling over there for 50 years, putting tyrants in power, and helping to keep them there, fomenting revolution and strife, causing the death and destruction for 50 years has made them love us?

What would you do if any country had done that to us - just once?

Are you happy with Mexico just coming here making speeches and trying to influence our elections? Do you think that's right?

What if Mexico began pouring more money than they are into our elections and through manipulaton, even killing and bombing, they got some despot elected PResident. That person began rounding up all of us who disagreed with illegal immigration and began slaughtering us, killing our children and grandchildren, taking the property for themselves.

Would you want to play nice with Mexico ???

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to voice that opinion. My problem is when Americans continually use the buzz words and spin of this administration. If one disagrees with Ron Paul, that's fine. But I am bothered by the constant repeating of this administration's mantra.

Again, we see this administration actually encouraging and protecting the illegal invasion. WE see them giving in to almost every demand Mexico makes. WE see them allowing American lives and livelihood to be destroyed. WE see them selling out parts of this country, helping to outsource jobs, making trade deals that is destroying our country.

How can anyone still be a true believer in their policy in Iraq? How can one believe it is to 'make us safer' when they are letting millions of people come here illegally. We don't know who they are, where they are, why they are here, what they might be planning. Yet somehow we are blowing up Iraq 'to keep us safe'. That just doesn't make any sense. IT just doesn't.

Their policyt can't be so wrong, so destructive here at home and so right over there.

PineStrawGuys wrote:

First, it was 3,000 not 5,000,

You're right, my mistake. I hereby stand corrected.