Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What is wrong with that? Do you want IRAN having nuclear weapons? This is Chamberlain type passivism the free world cannot afford.
What is wrong with that? Do you want IRAN having nuclear weapons? This is Chamberlain type passivism the free world cannot afford.
Sanctions are an act of war, and we have no evidence that Iran is working on nuclear weapons. However, the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons bothers me about as much as anybody else having nuclear weapons.
What is wrong with that? Do you want IRAN having nuclear weapons? This is Chamberlain type passivism the free world cannot afford.
Sanctions are an act of war, and we have no evidence that Iran is working on nuclear weapons. However, the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons bothers me about as much as anybody else having nuclear weapons.
I've found the real trouble with Rand Paul, and it's not something that I was aware of before. He voted for sanctions against Iran.
Senate Roll Call #216 Details - OpenCongress
Now that is something tangible that lowers his standing with me considerably. I'm not sure how I missed it before.
What is wrong with that? Do you want IRAN having nuclear weapons? This is Chamberlain type passivism the free world cannot afford.
Sanctions are an act of war, and we have no evidence that Iran is working on nuclear weapons. However, the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons bothers me about as much as anybody else having nuclear weapons.
Mr. Kennedy. I do respect your skepticism, but this is the same denial that allowed Pearl Harbor, Adolf Hitler, and other 20th Century calamities to needlessly fester and and grow to the deaths of millions. I love and appreciate the Libertarian viewpoint domestically, but I get the impression it is a "duck and cover" when the going gets tough.
What is wrong with that? Do you want IRAN having nuclear weapons? This is Chamberlain type passivism the free world cannot afford.
Sanctions are an act of war, and we have no evidence that Iran is working on nuclear weapons. However, the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons bothers me about as much as anybody else having nuclear weapons.
Mr. Kennedy. I do respect your skepticism, but this is the same denial that allowed Pearl Harbor, Adolf Hitler, and other 20th Century calamities to needlessly fester and and grow to the deaths of millions. I love and appreciate the Libertarian viewpoint domestically, but I get the impression it is a "duck and cover" when the going gets tough.
Sanctions are an act of war, and we have no evidence that Iran is working on nuclear weapons. However, the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons bothers me about as much as anybody else having nuclear weapons.
Mr. Kennedy. I do respect your skepticism, but this is the same denial that allowed Pearl Harbor, Adolf Hitler, and other 20th Century calamities to needlessly fester and and grow to the deaths of millions. I love and appreciate the Libertarian viewpoint domestically, but I get the impression it is a "duck and cover" when the going gets tough.
John McCain made that same argument in a debate in the 2008 election cycle, and it was just as incorrect then. Noninterventionism was not responsible for Pearl Harbor, or the rise of Hitler. Sanctions by the U.S. against Japan led to the attack on Pearl Harbor, and U.S. involvement in World War I led to the Treaty of Versailles which led to the rise of Hitler.
I've found the real trouble with Rand Paul, and it's not something that I was aware of before. He voted for sanctions against Iran.
Senate Roll Call #216 Details - OpenCongress
Now that is something tangible that lowers his standing with me considerably. I'm not sure how I missed it before.
I had said that in the other thread about him endorsing Romney. It's definitely strange. But it's probably his only bad move politically.
I don't even agree with Ron on EVERYTHING, so I'm willing to give Rand a pass on random things I don't agree with him on.
If it gets much worse than that though, that's when I'll revisit my support for him.
Mr. Kennedy. I do respect your skepticism, but this is the same denial that allowed Pearl Harbor, Adolf Hitler, and other 20th Century calamities to needlessly fester and and grow to the deaths of millions. I love and appreciate the Libertarian viewpoint domestically, but I get the impression it is a "duck and cover" when the going gets tough.
John McCain made that same argument in a debate in the 2008 election cycle, and it was just as incorrect then. Noninterventionism was not responsible for Pearl Harbor, or the rise of Hitler. Sanctions by the U.S. against Japan led to the attack on Pearl Harbor, and U.S. involvement in World War I led to the Treaty of Versailles which led to the rise of Hitler.
Yes we should have just let the Kaiser win and torpedo all of our ships.
It is crap like this that turns most conservatives away from the narcos.
John McCain made that same argument in a debate in the 2008 election cycle, and it was just as incorrect then. Noninterventionism was not responsible for Pearl Harbor, or the rise of Hitler. Sanctions by the U.S. against Japan led to the attack on Pearl Harbor, and U.S. involvement in World War I led to the Treaty of Versailles which led to the rise of Hitler.
Yes we should have just let the Kaiser win and torpedo all of our ships.
It is crap like this that turns most conservatives away from the narcos.
You mean those ships that were traveling in a declared war zone?
Yes we should have just let the Kaiser win and torpedo all of our ships.
It is crap like this that turns most conservatives away from the narcos.
You mean those ships that were traveling in a declared war zone?
You're speaking about passenger ships under neutral flag in the Atlantic, right?
You mean those ships that were traveling in a declared war zone?
You're speaking about passenger ships under neutral flag in the Atlantic, right?
Were they flying those "neutral" flags underwater, by chance, where the submarines could see them? Regardless, if it were me, I'd assume that traveling in a declared war zone is pretty dumb, and I'd understand that I do so at my own risk.
You're speaking about passenger ships under neutral flag in the Atlantic, right?
Were they flying those "neutral" flags underwater, by chance, where the submarines could see them? Regardless, if it were me, I'd assume that traveling in a declared war zone is pretty dumb, and I'd understand that I do so at my own risk.
Why do narcos make excuses for the worst behavior in other nations? So 9/11, if it wasn't an inside job, was a justified action to combat American foreign policy. WW2 was our fault. The Lusitania was our fault. It is a blame the victim mentality, except if that victim happens to be from outside the US.
This is why the narcos nauseate every real conservative. They might as well be radical 60s leftists.
Were they flying those "neutral" flags underwater, by chance, where the submarines could see them? Regardless, if it were me, I'd assume that traveling in a declared war zone is pretty dumb, and I'd understand that I do so at my own risk.
Why do narcos make excuses for the worst behavior in other nations? So 9/11, if it wasn't an inside job, was a justified action to combat American foreign policy. WW2 was our fault. The Lusitania was our fault. It is a blame the victim mentality, except if that victim happens to be from outside the US.
This is why the narcos nauseate every real conservative. They might as well be radical 60s leftists.
Why do you make up straw men arguments? The world may never know.