Democrats are Leaving Party to Vote Ron Paul

[The Rabbi]

Who was the reason those jihadists were in power and had money?

If you break a serial killer out of jail, drive him to a school and hand him an AK-47, would it be fair to put blame on you for what he did with it or would only the serial killer deserve blame?

Because the Saudi government supported them and because we withdrew from the region after the Soviets left. Remind me why that justifies killing 3,000 civilians.

I see, now you're denying basic history.

We supported Osama and his pals, you know that but you partisans have to change history in order to remain partisans. Truth be damned. Your hero Reagan supported Osama (dont' worry Carter did too), and it'd be hard to speak the truth and say "My hero supported the terrorist who killed thousands of americans." Better to just lie and live in a fantasy world.

It wasn't justified. What Osama and his pals did was terribly immoral, no one denies that. It's your other heros like Hannity who tell you what others think, rather than listening to what they say, and you go with that.

But it was also horribly immoral to support monsters like Osama, like we did in Iraq, like we're doing in Libya, but you want that policy to remain in place despite it having bit us in the ass for decades.

So your answer is that US policy caused 9/11? Is that your final answer?

 

[Paulie]

Because the Saudi government supported them and because we withdrew from the region after the Soviets left. Remind me why that justifies killing 3,000 civilians.

I see, now you're denying basic history.

We supported Osama and his pals, you know that but you partisans have to change history in order to remain partisans. Truth be damned. Your hero Reagan supported Osama (dont' worry Carter did too), and it'd be hard to speak the truth and say "My hero supported the terrorist who killed thousands of americans." Better to just lie and live in a fantasy world.

It wasn't justified. What Osama and his pals did was terribly immoral, no one denies that. It's your other heros like Hannity who tell you what others think, rather than listening to what they say, and you go with that.

But it was also horribly immoral to support monsters like Osama, like we did in Iraq, like we're doing in Libya, but you want that policy to remain in place despite it having bit us in the ass for decades.

So your answer is that US policy caused 9/11? Is that your final answer?

CAUSED? That's impossible to say.

I don't see how it's even debatable though, that our foreign policy has stirred hatred and emboldened new enemies over the years.

We pick favorites, befriend dictators and then remove them when they don't play ball anymore, and when we do those things we kill a lot of people. You don't think that creates hatred and enemies?

 

[The Rabbi]

I see, now you're denying basic history.

We supported Osama and his pals, you know that but you partisans have to change history in order to remain partisans. Truth be damned. Your hero Reagan supported Osama (dont' worry Carter did too), and it'd be hard to speak the truth and say "My hero supported the terrorist who killed thousands of americans." Better to just lie and live in a fantasy world.

It wasn't justified. What Osama and his pals did was terribly immoral, no one denies that. It's your other heros like Hannity who tell you what others think, rather than listening to what they say, and you go with that.

But it was also horribly immoral to support monsters like Osama, like we did in Iraq, like we're doing in Libya, but you want that policy to remain in place despite it having bit us in the ass for decades.

So your answer is that US policy caused 9/11? Is that your final answer?

CAUSED? That's impossible to say.

I don't see how it's even debatable though, that our foreign policy has stirred hatred and emboldened new enemies over the years.

We pick favorites, befriend dictators and then remove them when they don't play ball anymore, and when we do those things we kill a lot of people. You don't think that creates hatred and enemies?

So how do you explain terrorist violence in Spain, Holland, and Britain?

 

[LibertyForAll]

Justified is the wrong word.
Caused is the wrong word.

Provoked is the right word.

U.S. Foreign policy provoked the radical fundamentalist muslims to attack us and you can deny that all you want but if we had stayed at home and minded our own business then we would have been fine.

If I walked up to Mike Tyson and insulted his religion or made fun of his tattoo on his face or called him a pussy then I would be provoking him to attack me and I would say that most people would say that was true. If you think not then you are in denial.

 

[Paulie]

So your answer is that US policy caused 9/11? Is that your final answer?

CAUSED? That's impossible to say.

I don't see how it's even debatable though, that our foreign policy has stirred hatred and emboldened new enemies over the years.

We pick favorites, befriend dictators and then remove them when they don't play ball anymore, and when we do those things we kill a lot of people. You don't think that creates hatred and enemies?

So how do you explain terrorist violence in Spain, Holland, and Britain?

US allies that are easier to strike against then the US itself, to still send a message? They don't have to cross an ocean to hit targets there. And those countries, especially Britain, have been actively involved in joint US military operations for a long time.

I don't see them attacking Switzerland.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Because the Saudi government supported them and because we withdrew from the region after the Soviets left. Remind me why that justifies killing 3,000 civilians.

I see, now you're denying basic history.

We supported Osama and his pals, you know that but you partisans have to change history in order to remain partisans. Truth be damned. Your hero Reagan supported Osama (dont' worry Carter did too), and it'd be hard to speak the truth and say "My hero supported the terrorist who killed thousands of americans." Better to just lie and live in a fantasy world.

It wasn't justified. What Osama and his pals did was terribly immoral, no one denies that. It's your other heros like Hannity who tell you what others think, rather than listening to what they say, and you go with that.

But it was also horribly immoral to support monsters like Osama, like we did in Iraq, like we're doing in Libya, but you want that policy to remain in place despite it having bit us in the ass for decades.

So your answer is that US policy caused 9/11? Is that your final answer?

No, you can't simplify it that much.

Was it a significant contributing factor? Yes.

 

[The Rabbi]

I see, now you're denying basic history.

We supported Osama and his pals, you know that but you partisans have to change history in order to remain partisans. Truth be damned. Your hero Reagan supported Osama (dont' worry Carter did too), and it'd be hard to speak the truth and say "My hero supported the terrorist who killed thousands of americans." Better to just lie and live in a fantasy world.

It wasn't justified. What Osama and his pals did was terribly immoral, no one denies that. It's your other heros like Hannity who tell you what others think, rather than listening to what they say, and you go with that.

But it was also horribly immoral to support monsters like Osama, like we did in Iraq, like we're doing in Libya, but you want that policy to remain in place despite it having bit us in the ass for decades.

So your answer is that US policy caused 9/11? Is that your final answer?

No, you can't simplify it that much.

Was it a significant contributing factor? Yes.

If US policy had been different, would 9/11 still have happened?

 

[The Rabbi]

Justified is the wrong word.
Caused is the wrong word.

Provoked is the right word.

U.S. Foreign policy provoked the radical fundamentalist muslims to attack us and you can deny that all you want but if we had stayed at home and minded our own business then we would have been fine.

If I walked up to Mike Tyson and insulted his religion or made fun of his tattoo on his face or called him a pussy then I would be provoking him to attack me and I would say that most people would say that was true. If you think not then you are in denial.

Given that the existence of a free open society is provoking to radical Muslims, your theory is just downright stupid.

 

[Dr.Drock]

So your answer is that US policy caused 9/11? Is that your final answer?

No, you can't simplify it that much.

Was it a significant contributing factor? Yes.

If US policy had been different, would 9/11 still have happened?

If we didn't support Osama, give him money and implant a terrorist harboring gov't in Afghanistan would 9/11 still happen?

Hard to answer with a black and white yes or no, but I think the chances would be far lower.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, you can't simplify it that much.

Was it a significant contributing factor? Yes.

If US policy had been different, would 9/11 still have happened?

If we didn't support Osama, give him money and implant a terrorist harboring gov't in Afghanistan would 9/11 still happen?

Hard to answer with a black and white yes or no, but I think the chances would be far lower.

OK, so US policy is to blame, ultimately. Right? Because if we had a different policy, like letting the Soviets control Europe and Central Asia, then Muslims wouldn't be mad at us. Right?

 

[Dr.Drock]

If US policy had been different, would 9/11 still have happened?

If we didn't support Osama, give him money and implant a terrorist harboring gov't in Afghanistan would 9/11 still happen?

Hard to answer with a black and white yes or no, but I think the chances would be far lower.

OK, so US policy is to blame, ultimately. Right? Because if we had a different policy, like letting the Soviets control Europe and Central Asia, then Muslims wouldn't be mad at us. Right?

US policy is partially to blame, because if we had a different policy Osama may not have had so much money, support and weapons.

Soviets control Europe and Asia lol.

I thought dozens of muslims were involved in 9/11, not billions.

Is there ANY fearmongering you don't buy into?

 

[IndependntLogic]

So did he provide solutions?

PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA

SYNOPSIS:
America is the greatest nation in human history. Our respect for individual liberty, free markets, and limited constitutional government produced the strongest, most prosperous country in the world. But, we have drifted far from our founding principles, and America is in crisis. Ron Paul’s “Restore America” plan slams on the brakes and puts America on a return to constitutional government. It is bold but achievable. Through the bully pulpit of the presidency, the power of the Veto, and, most importantly, the united voice of freedom-loving Americans, we can implement fundamental reforms.


DELIVERS A TRUE BALANCED BUDGET IN YEAR THREE OF DR. PAUL’S PRESIDENCY:

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who doesn’t just talk about balancing the budget, but who has a full plan to get it done.


SPENDING:

Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and

1. returning responsibility for security to private property owners,

abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels.


ENTITLEMENTS:

Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently relying on the programs.


CUTTING GOVERNMENT WASTE:

Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce, slashes Congressional pay and perks, and curbs excessive federal travel. To stand with the American People, President Paul will take a salary of $39,336, approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.


TAXES:

Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making America competitive in the global market. Allows American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg.


REGULATION:

Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and 2. Sarbanes-Oxley. Mandates REINS-style requirements for thorough congressional review and authorization before implementing any new regulations issued by bureaucrats. President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order.


MONETARY POLICY:

Conducts a full audit of the Federal Reserve and implements competing currency legislation to
strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.


CONCLUSION:

Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a plan to cut spending and truly balance the budget. This is the only plan that will deliver what America needs in these difficult times: Major regulatory relief, large spending cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget.

more in detail: RON PAUL "PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA"*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

But in those original you tube vids supplied to us in here, that was years BEFORE 2012. Remember, him calling so many things.

I will ask again, did he supply resolutions to problems he said were coming BACK THEN? If not, why only supply us with future problems, and no solutions then?

What does he mean by #1 in bold above? Do we need to buy guns and stand a post outside our house?

#2. So then the next time Enron happens, we can have a repeat performance and no executive will ever be held liable for the corporate crimes? Peachy.

 

[The Rabbi]

If we didn't support Osama, give him money and implant a terrorist harboring gov't in Afghanistan would 9/11 still happen?

Hard to answer with a black and white yes or no, but I think the chances would be far lower.

OK, so US policy is to blame, ultimately. Right? Because if we had a different policy, like letting the Soviets control Europe and Central Asia, then Muslims wouldn't be mad at us. Right?

US policy is partially to blame, because if we had a different policy Osama may not have had so much money, support and weapons.

Soviets control Europe and Asia lol.

I thought dozens of muslims were involved in 9/11, not billions.

Is there ANY fearmongering you don't buy into?

So Osama was the sole perpetrator of 9/11? Is this your final answer?
Radical Muslim terrorism is not limited to bin Laden.
And you don't think the Soviets were interested in controlling Europe and Asia? Really?

This debate is exactly like the old Cold War debate when Leftists blamed US policy for Soviet expansion. Their argument was the US moves provoked the Soviets into supporting and fomenting communist revolution.
Of course that was bunk too.

 

[Dr.Drock]

OK, so US policy is to blame, ultimately. Right? Because if we had a different policy, like letting the Soviets control Europe and Central Asia, then Muslims wouldn't be mad at us. Right?

US policy is partially to blame, because if we had a different policy Osama may not have had so much money, support and weapons.

Soviets control Europe and Asia lol.

I thought dozens of muslims were involved in 9/11, not billions.

Is there ANY fearmongering you don't buy into?

So Osama was the sole perpetrator of 9/11? Is this your final answer?
Radical Muslim terrorism is not limited to bin Laden.
And you don't think the Soviets were interested in controlling Europe and Asia? Really?

This debate is exactly like the old Cold War debate when Leftists blamed US policy for Soviet expansion. Their argument was the US moves provoked the Soviets into supporting and fomenting communist revolution.
Of course that was bunk too.

No Osama wasn't the sole perp

You're the one speaking in these widespread categories blaming muslims in general for 9/11.

Yes the Soviets were interested in controlling europe and asia, does that equal it was possible for them the control those areas? Hell no.

Well I'll wait for this to be "bunked." Because so far our interventionalism has bit us in the ass for decades, I expect history to repeat itself. I can't agree with a foreign policy that in recent decades has supported and empowered Osama/Saddam/Al Qaeda in Libya/King Abdullah/"President" Mubarak/Nouri Al-Maliki. It's shocking so many people want that stuff to continue, kudos to the 2 status quo parties and the media for duping most everyone.

 

[The Rabbi]

US policy is partially to blame, because if we had a different policy Osama may not have had so much money, support and weapons.

Soviets control Europe and Asia lol.

I thought dozens of muslims were involved in 9/11, not billions.

Is there ANY fearmongering you don't buy into?

So Osama was the sole perpetrator of 9/11? Is this your final answer?
Radical Muslim terrorism is not limited to bin Laden.
And you don't think the Soviets were interested in controlling Europe and Asia? Really?

This debate is exactly like the old Cold War debate when Leftists blamed US policy for Soviet expansion. Their argument was the US moves provoked the Soviets into supporting and fomenting communist revolution.
Of course that was bunk too.

No Osama wasn't the sole perp

You're the one speaking in these widespread categories blaming muslims in general for 9/11.

Yes the Soviets were interested in controlling europe and asia, does that equal it was possible for them the control those areas? Hell no.

Well I'll wait for this to be "bunked." Because so far our interventionalism has bit us in the ass for decades, I expect history to repeat itself. I can't agree with a foreign policy that in recent decades has supported and empowered Osama/Saddam/Al Qaeda in Libya/King Abdullah/"President" Mubarak/Nouri Al-Maliki. It's shocking so many people want that stuff to continue, kudos to the 2 status quo parties and the media for duping most everyone.

You dont recognize the difference between "Muslims" and radical Islamic terrorists? Really?
So the Soviets did not control the Eastern bloc?
You support an isolationist policy that allows idi Amin, Pol Pot etc to come to power?

 

[Dr.Drock]

So Osama was the sole perpetrator of 9/11? Is this your final answer?
Radical Muslim terrorism is not limited to bin Laden.
And you don't think the Soviets were interested in controlling Europe and Asia? Really?

This debate is exactly like the old Cold War debate when Leftists blamed US policy for Soviet expansion. Their argument was the US moves provoked the Soviets into supporting and fomenting communist revolution.
Of course that was bunk too.

No Osama wasn't the sole perp

You're the one speaking in these widespread categories blaming muslims in general for 9/11.

Yes the Soviets were interested in controlling europe and asia, does that equal it was possible for them the control those areas? Hell no.

Well I'll wait for this to be "bunked." Because so far our interventionalism has bit us in the ass for decades, I expect history to repeat itself. I can't agree with a foreign policy that in recent decades has supported and empowered Osama/Saddam/Al Qaeda in Libya/King Abdullah/"President" Mubarak/Nouri Al-Maliki. It's shocking so many people want that stuff to continue, kudos to the 2 status quo parties and the media for duping most everyone.

You dont recognize the difference between "Muslims" and radical Islamic terrorists? Really?
So the Soviets did not control the Eastern bloc?
You support an isolationist policy that allows idi Amin, Pol Pot etc to come to power?

I support a policy of defending the U.S., if Idi Amin and Pol Pot aren't a threat to the U.S. than not a single U.S. taxpayer dollar and not a single life of U.S. soldier should be wasted in removing them.

I don't trust the morality of U.S. politicians in making the moral choices of who should lead other countries and who we shoudl support, hence why I listed the monsters we support/have supported with our interventionist foreign policy.

You disagree and have unwavering faith in U.S. bureacrats and politicians, why? Who knows.

 

[The Rabbi]

No Osama wasn't the sole perp

You're the one speaking in these widespread categories blaming muslims in general for 9/11.

Yes the Soviets were interested in controlling europe and asia, does that equal it was possible for them the control those areas? Hell no.

Well I'll wait for this to be "bunked." Because so far our interventionalism has bit us in the ass for decades, I expect history to repeat itself. I can't agree with a foreign policy that in recent decades has supported and empowered Osama/Saddam/Al Qaeda in Libya/King Abdullah/"President" Mubarak/Nouri Al-Maliki. It's shocking so many people want that stuff to continue, kudos to the 2 status quo parties and the media for duping most everyone.

You dont recognize the difference between "Muslims" and radical Islamic terrorists? Really?
So the Soviets did not control the Eastern bloc?
You support an isolationist policy that allows idi Amin, Pol Pot etc to come to power?

I support a policy of defending the U.S., if Idi Amin and Pol Pot aren't a threat to the U.S. than not a single U.S. taxpayer dollar and not a single life of U.S. soldier should be wasted in removing them.

I don't trust the morality of U.S. politicians in making the moral choices of who should lead other countries and who we shoudl support, hence why I listed the monsters we support/have supported with our interventionist foreign policy.

You disagree and have unwavering faith in U.S. bureacrats and politicians, why? Who knows.

Hitler wasn't especially a threat to the US. Stalin wasn't especially a threat to the U.S. bin Laden wasn't a threat to the US until he was.
Do you oppose the choices made in those cases?

 

[Dr.Drock]

You dont recognize the difference between "Muslims" and radical Islamic terrorists? Really?
So the Soviets did not control the Eastern bloc?
You support an isolationist policy that allows idi Amin, Pol Pot etc to come to power?

I support a policy of defending the U.S., if Idi Amin and Pol Pot aren't a threat to the U.S. than not a single U.S. taxpayer dollar and not a single life of U.S. soldier should be wasted in removing them.

I don't trust the morality of U.S. politicians in making the moral choices of who should lead other countries and who we shoudl support, hence why I listed the monsters we support/have supported with our interventionist foreign policy.

You disagree and have unwavering faith in U.S. bureacrats and politicians, why? Who knows.

Hitler wasn't especially a threat to the US. Stalin wasn't especially a threat to the U.S. bin Laden wasn't a threat to the US until he was.
Do you oppose the choices made in those cases?

Germany was allied with Japan, who attacked us. No Stalin wasn't a threat, the Cold War was a sad waste for the United States.

Bin Laden, obviously, was a threat. I oppose the policy of supporting and propping up the Bin Laden types, you want that policy to continue.

 

[The Rabbi]

I support a policy of defending the U.S., if Idi Amin and Pol Pot aren't a threat to the U.S. than not a single U.S. taxpayer dollar and not a single life of U.S. soldier should be wasted in removing them.

I don't trust the morality of U.S. politicians in making the moral choices of who should lead other countries and who we shoudl support, hence why I listed the monsters we support/have supported with our interventionist foreign policy.

You disagree and have unwavering faith in U.S. bureacrats and politicians, why? Who knows.

Hitler wasn't especially a threat to the US. Stalin wasn't especially a threat to the U.S. bin Laden wasn't a threat to the US until he was.
Do you oppose the choices made in those cases?

Germany was allied with Japan, who attacked us. No Stalin wasn't a threat, the Cold War was a sad waste for the United States.

Bin Laden, obviously, was a threat. I oppose the policy of supporting and propping up the Bin Laden types, you want that policy to continue.

So was Italy. So what?
The Cold War was a waste? Tell that to millions of Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Ukrainians, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Romanians, etc etc that we liberated from socialist hell.
I want a policy that is engaged with the world, which is where our interests are. You want the US to go back to being a jerkwater third world country.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Hitler wasn't especially a threat to the US. Stalin wasn't especially a threat to the U.S. bin Laden wasn't a threat to the US until he was.
Do you oppose the choices made in those cases?

Germany was allied with Japan, who attacked us. No Stalin wasn't a threat, the Cold War was a sad waste for the United States.

Bin Laden, obviously, was a threat. I oppose the policy of supporting and propping up the Bin Laden types, you want that policy to continue.

So was Italy. So what?
The Cold War was a waste? Tell that to millions of Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Ukrainians, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Romanians, etc etc that we liberated from socialist hell.
I want a policy that is engaged with the world, which is where our interests are. You want the US to go back to being a jerkwater third world country.

LOL

Yes the reason why I want us to stop spending so much on a foreign policy we can't afford, that's killing the value of the dollar, is because I want a 3rd world country and the stance you advocate for makes us thrive economically.