Ron Paul: Let Iran go Nuclear

Holy Jimmy H. Christo, I want tickets to whatever fantasy land you live in. Seriously, can I buy them online? Sometimes you say things so astoundingly wrong that it literally blows my mind, and I have a hard time even responding. It's like standing outside with someone on a clear day and having them argue that the sky is green. I mean how do you argue with someone like that?

Rush...where to start with you? Let's start here: Bush's social agenda was passed well before the Democrats took power. The Democrats had absolutely N-0-T-H-I-N-G to do with NCLB, the faith based initiative, medicare prescription drug coverage, encouraging lenders to give housing loans to low-income/high risk applicants, etc. etc. etc. All of that happened with a Republican President and a Republican Congress.

I know that in your world you want so desperately for the Republicans to be these knights in shining white armor that stand up to the evil dark knights of the Democratic party, but the world does not work in terms that ridiculously simplistic. American politics is highly complex and you can't intelligently put the kinds of labels on different groups that you do and be anything close to factually correct.

I am truly begging you. BEGGING you to grow up, stop drinking the kool-aid, stop listening to talk radio, and start analyzing and evaluating things for yourself. You've got to man...you've got to stop making ridiculous *** statements like blaming Bush's social agenda on the Democratic takeover of Congress. Is your memory that short or does your fanatic devotion to partisan politics not allow for the truth to trump ideology?

It's highly doubtful Clinton would have anyway. And, actually, 90% of the CWA was passed into law and it was Clinton that signed that 90% into law.

[
Why? There have been a few, but I'm certainly no defender of the Democratic party. This isn't a Zero-sum game, Rush. It's not a situation where you're either on one side or the other. I think very very little of the Democratic Party but that's beside the point. You made the claim that there have been many Republicans who have fought for limited-government/individual liberty, and I pointed out that, yes, there have been but that none of them come to power. I then asked you to name exactly which former Republican Presidents, Speakers of the House, or majority leaders successfully reduced the size of government.

 

Of course. There are lots of people who have inexplicably been convinced otherwise, including the president.

 

I interpreted it as "Bush's big government actions were because he had a dem congress i.e. he compromised."

 

This pretty well sums it up. Before the democrats took over Bush had a very poor record of being a small government guy. Even though that's basically what he ran on in 2000.

 

The President's feelings about America, American power, and how American power should be projected are no shock. His father was a radical, his stepfather was a radical, and his mother was a radical. Not one of the parental influences in his life viewed America positively. Skepticism, and even rejection, of the narrative that says America has been a force for good in the world was his mother's milk growing up.

 

I didn't think it read that way, or I would have changed the wording. (Poor Sicem almost went over the cliff thinking what you did)

Bush was easily influenced by socil engineering thinking, and got enough backing from some misguided R's in congress to get it through. No doubt some democrats were influential with W, on some of his social programs. I don't remember those programs being introduce by any R's in congress, although he did get support from enough R's to get them passed. My point was that W was the culprit for doing RINO things, and that coupled with an effective enough assault against the R's by the MSM, resulted in the D's taking over congress in '06, and the Transformation got into high gear.

 

Sorry you misread, or I didn't clearly state my opinion. Put you through a lot of "stupid and/or crazy" card playing.

 

Sorry Homey, I hate to disagree with you but our foreign policy the past 60 years was mainly to fight the Reds from spreading. I don't remember seeing many military operations starting because "they fired on our cargo ships."

I know all of those CIA backed coups sure weren't about it.

How?

We pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. What's the worst that can happen? Afghanistan falls to the Taliban again. Iraq is overthrown and a Islamic theocracy, like the Muslim Brotherhood, takes it's place that could be worse than what Saddam was.

Our mission in Afghanistan was to get Bin Laden, we got him. Maybe we should've done our homework a little more than go rushing into Iraq guns blazing. In fact, we could've used the resources we used in Iraq in Afghanistan and got Bin Laden much sooner and be out of this whole mess.

What is Iran really going to do? They have a very large population of young people who don't want to die and enjoy Western culture even if it is "evil" to the conservative elders. The government election protest last year showed us that. I don't think their population is as crazy as their leaders and I think if the leaders go starting conflicts they won't have allot of public support.

Who are they going to attack? Israel? They'll be turned into a radioactive hole when it's all said and done and allot of their population doesn't want to be a radioactive hole. Israel is perfectly capable of dealing with Iran or any other threat in the area.

Even if Iran started to get rather crazy, I'm sure Saudi Arabia would step aside and let Israel handle it as Israel will be the first to do anything as they're afraid if Iran snaps, they'll be the first in the crosshairs.

Besides, if we're so worried about Iran, why isn't more being done with North Korea? They already have nuclear weapons and rockets that can really mess with shipping and economic trade as South Korea, Japan, and the other Four Asian Tigers are within range.


Also, nobody has answer the question I asked a couple pages back.

What did our foreign policy of military action in Vietnam get us that was worth the billion of dollars and over 50,000 American lives?

 

If Paul gets the nomination from the R's, betcha Homey will vote for him, as will I. Whatever negatives from any nuttiness he has are far surpassed by those of our Anti-American POTUS.

 

SicEm,
You really believe this????
You are the one who is denying reality.

There have been threads on here discussing the housing loan situation....going back to early 1990's and Bill Clinton. Blame Bush, blame Bush, blame Bush is in your head!

 

The republicans tried to stop it a little bit but not nearly enough as it kept going on for nearly 20 years.

 

True Dat! It's a bitch having the media against you all the time. Takes a VERY special(cough, Reagan,Palin) person to stand up against brutal frontal assaults by the MSM, that are constant and chronic.

 

This is what Ron Paul touched on in the debate schooling Santorum.

[youtube]VKoLG9VoAaU[/youtube]

 

Nonsense. Clinton was at fault well, but the difference here is that Clinton was a Democrat. You expect Democrats to act like Democrats. I don't fault a Democrat for being a Democrat regardless of how vehemently I disagree with them.

I do blame a Republican for acting like a Democrat. More civil liberties were lost under Bush than Clinton. More money was spent under Bush than Clinton. The economy was better managed under Clinton than Bush. AND the size of government grew less under Clinton than under Bush.

Sure Clinton is to blame for more things than I could ever possibly list here, but he's a Democrat and so I expect it. I didn't expect it from a Republican that tried to pass himself off as a conservative. That's what irks me.

There are LOTS of people out there bashing Obama, Democrats, Liberalism, etc. This website proves that point in spades. There are a hell of a lot fewer out there making sure that conservatives actually act like conservatives which is far far more important. Why so important? Because the masses in the so-called "conservative" movement know very little about political ideology, philosophy, or the origins of political thought. They have a sense for what they believe and they allow the rest of it to be filled in by people who are, purportedly, leaders of the "conservative" movement. Unfortunately, the message they often carry to the masses is wrong and not the least bit conservative and therefore it improperly influences a great number of people into believing a false conservatism.

In either case, you're both still wrong. Once again it seems like both of you are a couple of Rip Van Winkles who have only been awake since the Democratic takeover in 2006. I have news for both of you: Almost the ENTIRE, let me say that again, almost the ENTIRE Bush domestic agenda was passed when he still had a Republican Congress. EVERYTHING, domestically, was a done deal by the time the Democrats took over in 2006.

Bush was not bamboozled by the Democrats into creating a progressive domestic social agenda and getting it passed by a Republican congress. Personally, I think Bush is a smart guy. Bush didn't just get "bad advice." Most of these programs were extensions of programs he himself created as Governor of Texas. Bush didn't just get a "few R's" to support him in Congress -- he had the entire leadership solidly behind him and making threats to virtually every Republican on the hill into supporting his progressive domestic agenda. In fact, that ****-ant corrupt sleaze ball, DeLay threatened half a dozen conservative members of Congress into supporting the bill or losing the financial support of the HRCC and even threatening them with primary opponents.

Let me say all this again so that hopefully you guys will get the message loud and clear: BUSH'S DOMESTIC AGENDA WAS A DONE DEAL/OVER AND DONE WITH BY THE TIME THE DEMOCRATS TOOK CONTROL OF CONGRESS!.

I'll hang up now.

 

****in' A!

 

Uh, don't lump me in with the "blame the dems" crowd. That's not what I was reiterating.

 

Pretty ****ed up, isn't it? Everyone see what happens when we meddle in the mid-east?

 

They might change. You probably can talk about what kind of change because if you seriously think God's Chosen People will cease to exist in the future you completely ignore the Bible and it's historical context. They have held on to that land there like Texans held onto the Alamo (supposedly).

I know the board posters who don't believe in God and religion will tear up and go all crazy about someone saying the Bible is a Historical Document but it does hold some significance in giving a timeline as far as the Jewish People are concerned as does Egypt. They have been around a long time. A real long time. It might be something you sit around dreaming will happen but Hitler and his bunch (whether you believe in the Holocaust or not) changed the Jewish People and the World for that matter and anyone that really thinks that bunch of cockroaches in the Middle East that stab each other in the back for new ear buds for their IPOD they have, are going to wipe the Jews off the face of the Earth or even make them leave Israel, will find Israel and the surrounding areas uninhabitable for at least a 100 years if not more and that makes anything you have to say about them disappearing or losing their grip on Israel really inconsequential as none of us will be here to see it.

Even Hitler on his best day really had no real way to get rid of the Jewish People, their Ideals or even their Faith.

I find it pretty silly to hear folks speculate about it when there has never even been anyone close to making such a thing happen.

 

that's one hell of a long sentence...

where was isreal prior to 1948?

 

And YOU are wrong again!
I have repeatedly mentioned no big love for the dumb things that Booosh did here!
It just gets rather old - your LW explaining away Obama and the Dems destructiveness. Put the housing bubble blame on all of them....not just Boosh.