Cactusboy Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 An example of where RP gets it right. By Michael A. Memoli December 15, 2011, 7:40 p.m. Ron Paul did it again. The libertarian-minded Republican separated himself from the pack of candidates at tonight's debate by urging restraint in response to a possible Iranian nuclear threat, saying the U.S. can ill afford a repeat of its now-concluded war in Iraq. Paul said there was "no U.N. evidence" that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program, calling claims to the contrary "war propaganda." "To me the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact, and we will soon bomb Iran," he said. "We ought to really sit back and think, not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked. That's how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much." Paul said it "makes more sense" to directly engage with Iran diplomatically. And he even praised President Obama for "wisely backing off on sanctions" against Iran, which he called overreaching. "We have 12,000 diplomats in our services. We ought to use a little bit of diplomacy once in a while." Rick Santorum and then Michele Bachmann rebutted Paul. Santorum equated the leadership of Iran to Al Qaeda and said that the U.S. should be ready to strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. "We know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally, Israel, off the face fo the map," Bachmann said. "And they've stated they will use it against the United States of America. We would be fools and knaves to ignore their purpose and their plan." On a question about a U.S. drone now in the hands of the Iranians, Mitt Romney had a chance to again focus on a potential general election fight. He said Obama was showing timidity by simply asking Iran to return the drone. "A foreign policy based on 'pretty please'? You've got to be kidding me," he said. http://www.latimes.c...0,3158409.story Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted December 16, 2011 Author Share Posted December 16, 2011 more from the debate and Iran. Gaaaawd Bauchman is such a air/ditto head w/ no independent thinking skills. Talk about a dangerous person that should never be in power. Link to comment
Foppa Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 An airstrike is not a war. Link to comment
Comish Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 An example of where RP gets it right. By Michael A. Memoli December 15, 2011, 7:40 p.m. Ron Paul did it again. The libertarian-minded Republican separated himself from the pack of candidates at tonight's debate by urging restraint in response to a possible Iranian nuclear threat, saying the U.S. can ill afford a repeat of its now-concluded war in Iraq. Paul said there was "no U.N. evidence" that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program, calling claims to the contrary "war propaganda." "To me the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact, and we will soon bomb Iran," he said. "We ought to really sit back and think, not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked. That's how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much." Paul said it "makes more sense" to directly engage with Iran diplomatically. And he even praised President Obama for "wisely backing off on sanctions" against Iran, which he called overreaching. "We have 12,000 diplomats in our services. We ought to use a little bit of diplomacy once in a while." Rick Santorum and then Michele Bachmann rebutted Paul. Santorum equated the leadership of Iran to Al Qaeda and said that the U.S. should be ready to strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. "We know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally, Israel, off the face fo the map," Bachmann said. "And they've stated they will use it against the United States of America. We would be fools and knaves to ignore their purpose and their plan." On a question about a U.S. drone now in the hands of the Iranians, Mitt Romney had a chance to again focus on a potential general election fight. He said Obama was showing timidity by simply asking Iran to return the drone. "A foreign policy based on 'pretty please'? You've got to be kidding me," he said. http://www.latimes.c...0,3158409.story RP got it right.....??? Wow. I could see RP as Treasury Secretary or in some role on domestic fiscal policy, BUT as COMMANDER IN CHIEF.........?? Clueless...................... Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted December 16, 2011 Author Share Posted December 16, 2011 RP got it right.....??? Wow. I could see RP as Treasury Secretary or in some role on domestic fiscal policy, BUT as COMMANDER IN CHIEF.........?? Clueless...................... I didn't say he should be POTUS. I said he got it right in this/these videos. Keep your eye on the ball. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted December 16, 2011 Author Share Posted December 16, 2011 An airstrike is not a war. Pearl Harbor? Link to comment
Comish Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 RP got it right.....??? Wow. I could see RP as Treasury Secretary or in some role on domestic fiscal policy, BUT as COMMANDER IN CHIEF.........?? Clueless...................... I didn't say he should be POTUS. I said he got it right in this/these videos. Keep your eye on the ball. It was a debate among participants who want to be POTUS. You praised him for "getting it right". That suggests you favor his responses winning the debate, where the eventual prize is POTUS. I'm fine with my eyes. It's your occluded vision that needs correcting............I suggest Schlictimeyer and Schlictimeyer............... Link to comment
carlfense Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 RP got it right.....??? Wow. I could see RP as Treasury Secretary or in some role on domestic fiscal policy, BUT as COMMANDER IN CHIEF.........?? Clueless...................... I didn't say he should be POTUS. I said he got it right in this/these videos. Keep your eye on the ball. It was a debate among participants who want to be POTUS. You praised him for "getting it right". That suggests you favor his responses winning the debate, where the eventual prize is POTUS. I'm fine with my eyes. It's your occluded vision that needs correcting............I suggest Schlictimeyer and Schlictimeyer............... "Strike against Iran: An example of where RP gets it right." His intent seems pretty clear to me. You are stretching it pretty thin on this one Comish. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted December 16, 2011 Author Share Posted December 16, 2011 It was a debate among participants who want to be POTUS. You praised him for "getting it right". That suggests you favor his responses winning the debate, where the eventual prize is POTUS. I'm fine with my eyes. It's your occluded vision that needs correcting............I suggest Schlictimeyer and Schlictimeyer............... Ok well now you know your assumption was wrong. Sorry, but I don't have time to waste on your desired irrelevant pissing match. Link to comment
Comish Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 RP got it right.....??? Wow. I could see RP as Treasury Secretary or in some role on domestic fiscal policy, BUT as COMMANDER IN CHIEF.........?? Clueless...................... I didn't say he should be POTUS. I said he got it right in this/these videos. Keep your eye on the ball. It was a debate among participants who want to be POTUS. You praised him for "getting it right". That suggests you favor his responses winning the debate, where the eventual prize is POTUS. I'm fine with my eyes. It's your occluded vision that needs correcting............I suggest Schlictimeyer and Schlictimeyer............... "Strike against Iran: An example of where RP gets it right." His intent seems pretty clear to me. You are stretching it pretty thin on this one Comish. Hey, just trying to help an old nemesis find a local ophthalmologist.............. Link to comment
carlfense Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 RP got it right.....??? Wow. I could see RP as Treasury Secretary or in some role on domestic fiscal policy, BUT as COMMANDER IN CHIEF.........?? Clueless...................... I didn't say he should be POTUS. I said he got it right in this/these videos. Keep your eye on the ball. It was a debate among participants who want to be POTUS. You praised him for "getting it right". That suggests you favor his responses winning the debate, where the eventual prize is POTUS. I'm fine with my eyes. It's your occluded vision that needs correcting............I suggest Schlictimeyer and Schlictimeyer............... "Strike against Iran: An example of where RP gets it right." His intent seems pretty clear to me. You are stretching it pretty thin on this one Comish. Hey, just trying to help an old nemesis find a local ophthalmologist.............. If that's the case I would definitely recommend someone other than Schlictimeyer. In fact . . . they would be pretty far down the list. Link to comment
HeyBurke Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 An airstrike is not a war. Pearl Harbor? There were submarines at Pearl Harbor, too. Link to comment
HSKR Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 I'm half tempted to see Ron Paul as POTUS just because he is so freaking out of the norm, especially when it comes to foreign policy. I think Obama is much more similar in foreign policy with the rest of the Republican candidates then Paul is but it is never going to happen. Link to comment
Roark Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 An example of where RP gets it right. By Michael A. Memoli December 15, 2011, 7:40 p.m. Ron Paul did it again. The libertarian-minded Republican separated himself from the pack of candidates at tonight's debate by urging restraint in response to a possible Iranian nuclear threat, saying the U.S. can ill afford a repeat of its now-concluded war in Iraq. Paul said there was "no U.N. evidence" that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program, calling claims to the contrary "war propaganda." "To me the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact, and we will soon bomb Iran," he said. "We ought to really sit back and think, not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked. That's how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much." Paul said it "makes more sense" to directly engage with Iran diplomatically. And he even praised President Obama for "wisely backing off on sanctions" against Iran, which he called overreaching. "We have 12,000 diplomats in our services. We ought to use a little bit of diplomacy once in a while." Rick Santorum and then Michele Bachmann rebutted Paul. Santorum equated the leadership of Iran to Al Qaeda and said that the U.S. should be ready to strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. "We know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally, Israel, off the face fo the map," Bachmann said. "And they've stated they will use it against the United States of America. We would be fools and knaves to ignore their purpose and their plan." On a question about a U.S. drone now in the hands of the Iranians, Mitt Romney had a chance to again focus on a potential general election fight. He said Obama was showing timidity by simply asking Iran to return the drone. "A foreign policy based on 'pretty please'? You've got to be kidding me," he said. http://www.latimes.c...0,3158409.story RP got it right.....??? Wow. I could see RP as Treasury Secretary or in some role on domestic fiscal policy, BUT as COMMANDER IN CHIEF.........?? Clueless...................... When attacking a candidate for being "clueless," it is best to include the reason(s) for your opinion to avoid looking like an imbecile. I'll preempt your response by assuming that you are critical of Dr. Paul's foreign policy of peace as it applies to the so-called War on Terror. There is no denying the fact that the continued presence of U.S. troops in the Muslim world is breeding anti-American sentiments that appeal to radical extremists. Dr. Paul is the only presidential candidate on the ballot (save the Libertarian nominee) who understands that a reduced American footprint around the globe will not only save American lives and billions of dollars, but is the only true path to long lasting peace and prosperity for the United States. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 An airstrike is not a war. It sure as hell isn't a gesture of peace. And America has a history of responding to airstrikes with all out war (ref: 12/07/1941 and 09/11/2001). And as far as we know the Saudis did not send any submarines to New York or to Washington on 9/11. Link to comment
Recommended Posts