Thread: If Ron Paul did have a chance, it died during the last debate.

Originally Posted by Brewskier

Really? All of those "Bush lied, people died" red-faced screaming liberals during W's Presidency loved the war, after all? Michael Moore's anti-Capitalism movie was made because he loved the bankers?

only when the Dems are in power, just like you pretend conservatives love big government and spending when you get in power.

Both are the same, only the tools don't realize it.

Oh, I didn't know that was such an exclusive term that it would have only come from the media.

that's 'cause your'e easy.

This whole thread has turned into a "why they hate us" thread. Ron Paul was merely saying that they don't hate us because we are free and our aggressiveness hasn't helped. The OP agrees that they don't hate us because we are free, correct?

Now I still think 9/11 was in fact caused by our aggression. It's not the sole reason, as the OP has stated, but I do think that is what put us on their top priority list. If the only factor in determining why 9/11 happened was because they are muslim and we are not, then 9/11 could have still happened when and how it did, but I doubt it. I really think our interventionism over there had some relevance in the matter. I really think that is what put us closer to the top of their list. Had we not interfered over there as much, I don't think 9/11 would have happened how and when it did. I also believe that this is all Ron Paul was trying to say. He only had 30 secs to do so, and this isn't something that can be explained fully in 30 secs.

Ron Paul won the California straw poll Saturday night with 45% of the ballots cast.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...ia-straw-poll/

Next debate this Thursday night on Fox.

September 22nd, 2011 9pm ET on Fox News – Submit Questions
Location: Orlando, FL
Sponsor: Fox News, Google and Florida Republican Party
Participants: TBD

Originally Posted by squidward

doubtful
.

So can we add conspiracy theorist and/or truther to your repertoire? Or are you just going to play this cute little game of dancing around what you really want to say?

Originally Posted by Brewskier

So can we add conspiracy theorist and/or truther to your repertoire? Or are you just going to play this cute little game of dancing around what you really want to say?

Hey ZM I thought I was your one and only... you didnt say there were others... I feel so cheap... LOL

Originally Posted by signcutter

Hey ZM I thought I was your one and only... you didnt say there were others... I feel so cheap... LOL

Yeah, don't worry, there are plenty of other Patriotic Americans who, for some reason, use jihadist logic to explain their positions.

Originally Posted by Jash2o2

Now I still think 9/11 was in fact caused by our aggression.

Well, it wasn't. It was caused by our economic and military prowess, as well as our avowed commitment to democracy and human rights. The US is seen as the greatest obstacle to Jihadist hegemony, which is why they are seeking to destroy us through whatever means possible, be they military, economic, social, political, cultural, propaganda, demographic, etc.

It's not the sole reason, as the OP has stated, but I do think that is what put us on their top priority list. If the only factor in determining why 9/11 happened was because they are muslim and we are not, then 9/11 could have still happened when and how it did, but I doubt it. I really think our interventionism over there had some relevance in the matter. I really think that is what put us closer to the top of their list. Had we not interfered over there as much, I don't think 9/11 would have happened how and when it did. I also believe that this is all Ron Paul was trying to say. He only had 30 secs to do so, and this isn't something that can be explained fully in 30 secs.

Our intervention in foreign countries was only relevant insofar as it reinforced the idea that the US is the greatest threat to Jihadist goals of conquest and religious hegemony. They attack us and Israel the most because we are the greatest threat to their agenda.

Originally Posted by signcutter

Hey ZM I thought I was your one and only... you didnt say there were others... I feel so cheap... LOL

Zionist monkey? You mean people who stick up for the only liberal democracy in the middle east?

Originally Posted by Ethereal

Well, it wasn't. It was caused by our economic and military prowess, as well as our avowed commitment to democracy and human rights. The US is seen as the greatest obstacle to Jihadist hegemony, which is why they are seeking to destroy us through whatever means possible, be they military, economic, social, political, cultural, propaganda, demographic, etc.

You took my statement out of it's context. Read my post again. I agree with you in that we are indeed an obstacle to the Jihadist hegemony, but by being as aggressive as we were we caused them to prioritize us as their greatest threat. Do you really think that our aggressiveness had no relevance in their minds as to determine who is the biggest threat? If it did have relevance in their minds, then it would also have to had relevance as to when and how 9/11 happened.

Originally Posted by Ethereal

Our intervention in foreign countries was only relevant insofar as it reinforced the idea that the US is the greatest threat to Jihadist goals of conquest and religious hegemony. They attack us and Israel the most because we are the greatest threat to their agenda.

That is exactly what I was saying. Our interventionism did indeed reinforce the idea that the US is a threat to their goals. If you believe that to be true then you cannot deny that it would also have to been a factor as to when and how 9/11 happened. I know I'm repeating myself a bit, so sue me.

Originally Posted by Brewskier

The wars aren't bankrupting us. Entitlement programs are. That doesn't even include what the costs of Obamacare are going to be. Nobody knows what it is going to cost, yet, which is one of the major reasons why no company wants to hire people in this environment.

Where are these "Islamic Holy Lands"? What makes them "Holy". They will call any piece of Islamic land "Holy" in order to justify their defensive jihad against us. Why should we agree that some stretch of ground that they call "Holy" is worthy of such respect? Would they give us the same amount of consideration?

So, according to your view about Islamic Holy Lands...should we build bases on churches then (for the record, I'm an atheist of Jewish descent if you need to know, but I still believe we should respect religious properties)? Who cares what your view about their religion is, building bases in countries 5,000+ miles away on religious lands will only earn us new enemies, do you know anything about diplomacy? Or are you one of those people who really believes America is king and we can do whatever we want without any consequences. Regardless of the fact that I believe Islam taken literally is just as barbaric as Christianity pre-American Revolution, it's still reasonable to respect the customs of different cultures, especially when we are GIVING AID to them, IMPORTING RESOURCES and TRADING with them. The fact is, our foreign policy model being that we are the equivalent of the town drunk is the very definition of insanity and is actually weakening our military might.

Also, you seem to refer to all Muslims as terrorist threats...since you seem to have the paranoid neo-con view that they can't be trusted and are all ticking time bombs, what do you suggest we do about it? As this entire strong backlash is about cultural differences, I'm going to assume it's something pretty unsavory.

I don't believe there are such things as Holy Lands, but still, I'm not gonna infringe on the rights of other countries to own and maintain their Holy Lands in their own boundaries, if anything, by respecting their individual rights to their property, it's helping promote some semblance of religious freedom in the ME.