Another example of why Ron Paul is a phony conservative

[ConHog]

Not everyone that opposes Republican nonsense is necessarily a Democrat or an Obama supporter, so that response doesn't work on me. I'll allow the Judge to explain it.

[youtube]kNRSs6LsGeI[/youtube]

I like the Judge, and even agree with a lot of what he says, including here actually. i think there are parts of the Patriot Act which are of questionable legality. But the notion that mean old Dubya did things other Presidents wouldn't do doesn't fly when Obama is using the same acts.

Who said Bush did things other Presidents didn't or wouldn't do? But just because everyone else does it doesn't mean its right. Bush should be condemned along with Obama.

I condemned Bush by not voting for him, twice, I intend to condemn Obama the same way.

 

[JimH52]

And Junior is about to be elected to the Senate from Kentucky. Is that scary or what?

 

[Dixie]

Ron Paul is no conservative. A libertarian believes in no government , is in effect an anarchist. Conservatives believe in government, albeit a small and limited one.

That's a broad brush you paint libertarians with, mah friend, a maneuver always guaranteed to be off the mark.

Well, those who claim they are libertarians but want some form of government are in fact not libertarians. Not my fault people have confused their political terms.

Suit yourself. Neither myopia nor ignorance is contagious.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And Junior is about to be elected to the Senate from Kentucky. Is that scary or what?

Not scary at all, we've got enough big government hacks in Washington. One Senator advocating limited government won't hurt anything.

 

[The Rabbi]

How many that have lived up to smaller limited government? Maybe two. Coolidge and Harding. The problem is that "real" conservatives keep electing "fake" conservatives to represent them, so you can see where the rest of us might get confused. You can also see where we might get confused when the supposed "real" conservatives support the actions of the "fake" conservatives that they elected when they enact big government policies, such as a militaristic foreign policy and privacy destroying, and unconstitutional, legislation like the Patriot Act.

Not sure what you are calling "militaristic foreign policy". If you mean a vigorous foreign policy that protects Americans from foreign threats and sees to our interests, I would call that pretty conservative.

A militaristic foreign policy is one where we have troops in over 130 countries, waging two wars, increasing violent rhetoric against Iran, bombing Pakistan which of course just creates more enemies thus making us less safe. I see nothing conservative about any of that.

We've bombed Pakistan? WHo knew. When will the Pakistanis retaliate?

I'd call that a vigorous foreign policy defending the U.S. Of course we could just play turtle, like the British. That has certainly made them a strong power.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Not sure what you are calling "militaristic foreign policy". If you mean a vigorous foreign policy that protects Americans from foreign threats and sees to our interests, I would call that pretty conservative.

A militaristic foreign policy is one where we have troops in over 130 countries, waging two wars, increasing violent rhetoric against Iran, bombing Pakistan which of course just creates more enemies thus making us less safe. I see nothing conservative about any of that.

We've bombed Pakistan? WHo knew. When will the Pakistanis retaliate?

I'd call that a vigorous foreign policy defending the U.S. Of course we could just play turtle, like the British. That has certainly made them a strong power.

President Obama 'orders Pakistan drone attacks' - Times Online

Who can say? But do you honestly think the people of Pakistan look at us as their heroes as we bomb them?

Right, because the British weren't apart of that "Coalition of the Willing" were they?

 

[The Rabbi]

A militaristic foreign policy is one where we have troops in over 130 countries, waging two wars, increasing violent rhetoric against Iran, bombing Pakistan which of course just creates more enemies thus making us less safe. I see nothing conservative about any of that.

We've bombed Pakistan? WHo knew. When will the Pakistanis retaliate?

I'd call that a vigorous foreign policy defending the U.S. Of course we could just play turtle, like the British. That has certainly made them a strong power.

President Obama 'orders Pakistan drone attacks' - Times Online

Who can say? But do you honestly think the people of Pakistan look at us as their heroes as we bomb them?

Right, because the British weren't apart of that "Coalition of the Willing" were they?

So attacks on the Pakistani Taliban now constitutes "bombing of Pakistan"? Cripes, you're worse than the liberals in your spin. You just out and out lie.
This is why Ron Paul and his wookiemen never get traction in the GOP and will remain the nutjobs of the right.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We've bombed Pakistan? WHo knew. When will the Pakistanis retaliate?

I'd call that a vigorous foreign policy defending the U.S. Of course we could just play turtle, like the British. That has certainly made them a strong power.

President Obama 'orders Pakistan drone attacks' - Times Online

Who can say? But do you honestly think the people of Pakistan look at us as their heroes as we bomb them?

Right, because the British weren't apart of that "Coalition of the Willing" were they?

So attacks on the Pakistani Taliban now constitutes "bombing of Pakistan"? Cripes, you're worse than the liberals in your spin. You just out and out lie.
This is why Ron Paul and his wookiemen never get traction in the GOP and will remain the nutjobs of the right.

Right. Because we know that no innocent civilians ever die when the U.S. bombs a country, no way no how.

 

[ConHog]

President Obama 'orders Pakistan drone attacks' - Times Online

Who can say? But do you honestly think the people of Pakistan look at us as their heroes as we bomb them?

Right, because the British weren't apart of that "Coalition of the Willing" were they?

So attacks on the Pakistani Taliban now constitutes "bombing of Pakistan"? Cripes, you're worse than the liberals in your spin. You just out and out lie.
This is why Ron Paul and his wookiemen never get traction in the GOP and will remain the nutjobs of the right.

Right. Because we know that no innocent civilians ever die when the U.S. bombs a country, no way no how.

As a member of the military do you have any idea how insulting it is when people say stupid things like this? The US military is more careful than any military in the history of the world about collateral damage, in fact we put our own soldiers in danger to protect civilians in a country we are fighting. I mean really, why insult us like that?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So attacks on the Pakistani Taliban now constitutes "bombing of Pakistan"? Cripes, you're worse than the liberals in your spin. You just out and out lie.
This is why Ron Paul and his wookiemen never get traction in the GOP and will remain the nutjobs of the right.

Right. Because we know that no innocent civilians ever die when the U.S. bombs a country, no way no how.

As a member of the military do you have any idea how insulting it is when people say stupid things like this? The US military is more careful than any military in the history of the world about collateral damage, in fact we put our own soldiers in danger to protect civilians in a country we are fighting. I mean really, why insult us like that?

The problem is that too many people think you're insulting the members of the armed forces whenever you criticize our foreign policy.

 

[ConHog]

Right. Because we know that no innocent civilians ever die when the U.S. bombs a country, no way no how.

As a member of the military do you have any idea how insulting it is when people say stupid things like this? The US military is more careful than any military in the history of the world about collateral damage, in fact we put our own soldiers in danger to protect civilians in a country we are fighting. I mean really, why insult us like that?

The problem is that too many people think you're insulting the members of the armed forces whenever you criticize our foreign policy.

Our foreign policy is not to target civilians, in fact just the opposite our ROE are quite strict to protect civilians, including letting a high profile target get away if going after him would endanger civilians.

So you're either A) criticizing a policy which doesn't exist or B) criticizing military members for not being careful with their fire. Either way you're wrong.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As a member of the military do you have any idea how insulting it is when people say stupid things like this? The US military is more careful than any military in the history of the world about collateral damage, in fact we put our own soldiers in danger to protect civilians in a country we are fighting. I mean really, why insult us like that?

The problem is that too many people think you're insulting the members of the armed forces whenever you criticize our foreign policy.

Our foreign policy is not to target civilians, in fact just the opposite our ROE are quite strict to protect civilians, including letting a high profile target get away if going after him would endanger civilians.

So you're either A) criticizing a policy which doesn't exist or B) criticizing military members for not being careful with their fire. Either way you're wrong.

The foreign policy that says it's our job to police the world certainly does exist, and that foreign policy leads to the death of innocent civilians no matter how careful any individual member of the military is.

 

[ConHog]

The problem is that too many people think you're insulting the members of the armed forces whenever you criticize our foreign policy.

Our foreign policy is not to target civilians, in fact just the opposite our ROE are quite strict to protect civilians, including letting a high profile target get away if going after him would endanger civilians.

So you're either A) criticizing a policy which doesn't exist or B) criticizing military members for not being careful with their fire. Either way you're wrong.

The foreign policy that says it's our job to police the world certainly does exist, and that foreign policy leads to the death of innocent civilians no matter how careful any individual member of the military is.

Yeah certainly the rest of the world doesn't look for us to police the world does it. By the way that policy has been in place since the Monroe Doctrine, so it is pretty much part of the fabric of who we are. I GUARANTEE you that if we brought all of our soldiers home the rest of the world would be bitching every time something happened in the world and we weren't there to fight the good fight.

Oh, and it isn't that individual soldiers are as careful as possible about minimizing civilian casualties, that is institutional policy. You can't blame the US when civilians get hurt because the Taliban hides among them. That's THEIR bad, not ours.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Our foreign policy is not to target civilians, in fact just the opposite our ROE are quite strict to protect civilians, including letting a high profile target get away if going after him would endanger civilians.

So you're either A) criticizing a policy which doesn't exist or B) criticizing military members for not being careful with their fire. Either way you're wrong.

The foreign policy that says it's our job to police the world certainly does exist, and that foreign policy leads to the death of innocent civilians no matter how careful any individual member of the military is.

Yeah certainly the rest of the world doesn't look for us to police the world does it. By the way that policy has been in place since the Monroe Doctrine, so it is pretty much part of the fabric of who we are. I GUARANTEE you that if we brought all of our soldiers home the rest of the world would be bitching every time something happened in the world and we weren't there to fight the good fight.

Oh, and it isn't that individual soldiers are as careful as possible about minimizing civilian casualties, that is institutional policy. You can't blame the US when civilians get hurt because the Taliban hides among them. That's THEIR bad, not ours.

What does it matter what the rest of the world looks for? The rest of the world can police the world themselves if that's what they want to do, but that isn't what the U.S. should be doing at all.

It doesn't matter if its institutional policy or just the conscience of one soldier. It's impossible to bomb countries and make it so that no innocent civilians are killed in the process. So the only thing to do is to change the policy that says it's ok for us to bomb any country we want.

 

[ConHog]

The foreign policy that says it's our job to police the world certainly does exist, and that foreign policy leads to the death of innocent civilians no matter how careful any individual member of the military is.

Yeah certainly the rest of the world doesn't look for us to police the world does it. By the way that policy has been in place since the Monroe Doctrine, so it is pretty much part of the fabric of who we are. I GUARANTEE you that if we brought all of our soldiers home the rest of the world would be bitching every time something happened in the world and we weren't there to fight the good fight.

Oh, and it isn't that individual soldiers are as careful as possible about minimizing civilian casualties, that is institutional policy. You can't blame the US when civilians get hurt because the Taliban hides among them. That's THEIR bad, not ours.

What does it matter what the rest of the world looks for? The rest of the world can police the world themselves if that's what they want to do, but that isn't what the U.S. should be doing at all.

It doesn't matter if its institutional policy or just the conscience of one soldier. It's impossible to bomb countries and make it so that no innocent civilians are killed in the process. So the only thing to do is to change the policy that says it's ok for us to bomb any country we want.

well now you're being fucking ridiculous. we shouldn't strike back at countries that sponsor attacks against us because an innocent might get hurt?

I've lost all interest in discussing this further with you, you're obviously not even bright enough to figure out that the nuts would be coming out of the wood works if they knew we wouldn't retaliate.

 

[Zona]

Ron Paul is not a conservative. He is a narco-libertarian. While there are some points of agreement between the two camps, there is a wide area of disagreement. This is one example.
Paul will never get traction in the GOP precisely because his foreign policy views resemble Jane Fonda more than Ronald Reagan.

And he is the tea bag party's boy. Thats just so cute.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah certainly the rest of the world doesn't look for us to police the world does it. By the way that policy has been in place since the Monroe Doctrine, so it is pretty much part of the fabric of who we are. I GUARANTEE you that if we brought all of our soldiers home the rest of the world would be bitching every time something happened in the world and we weren't there to fight the good fight.

Oh, and it isn't that individual soldiers are as careful as possible about minimizing civilian casualties, that is institutional policy. You can't blame the US when civilians get hurt because the Taliban hides among them. That's THEIR bad, not ours.

What does it matter what the rest of the world looks for? The rest of the world can police the world themselves if that's what they want to do, but that isn't what the U.S. should be doing at all.

It doesn't matter if its institutional policy or just the conscience of one soldier. It's impossible to bomb countries and make it so that no innocent civilians are killed in the process. So the only thing to do is to change the policy that says it's ok for us to bomb any country we want.

well now you're being fucking ridiculous. we shouldn't strike back at countries that sponsor attacks against us because an innocent might get hurt?

I've lost all interest in discussing this further with you, you're obviously not even bright enough to figure out that the nuts would be coming out of the wood works if they knew we wouldn't retaliate.

Well now you've hurt my feelings.

 

[The Rabbi]

So attacks on the Pakistani Taliban now constitutes "bombing of Pakistan"? Cripes, you're worse than the liberals in your spin. You just out and out lie.
This is why Ron Paul and his wookiemen never get traction in the GOP and will remain the nutjobs of the right.

Right. Because we know that no innocent civilians ever die when the U.S. bombs a country, no way no how.

As a member of the military do you have any idea how insulting it is when people say stupid things like this? The US military is more careful than any military in the history of the world about collateral damage, in fact we put our own soldiers in danger to protect civilians in a country we are fighting. I mean really, why insult us like that?

Narco libertarians tend to see the military as jack booted agents of oppression rather than the liberators that true conservatives believe they are.
Yet another difference. Let's hear the narco-libs talk about Washington and standing armies and all.

 

[Modbert]

Watching the Libertarians and the so called "True Conservatives" eat each other alive is hilarious. This battle for the Republican Party's soul has been going on for about 50 years. Now it's happening to the tea party.

 

[Oscar Wao]

I'm sorry but Israel is never my litmus test for conservatism.