I just recently, after watching all the candidates over the past few months, solidified my support for libertarian views. It appears the Republican party is bound to get another RINO into office and all you RINO-inistas are like little baby ducklings, falling in line where you are supposed to.
Which is what non-interventionism is. Using the military to protect national interests. Which ironically, is what Ron Paul supports…
Being libertarian does not mean pro choice.
I stand happily corrected.
Here, here, and thank you!
No that is not the way “isolationism” is used. I know of no one who mistakes isolating our military efforts to domestic defense only and shutting off all communication, trade, interaction with other countries.
I think he engenders such loyalty because he has a coherent philosophy that he consistently and passionately promotes. The other candidates have sound bytes, polling data, and have probably coordinated their clothing style to match the latest marketing strategies. It’s like comparing a human being to a set of mannequins.
So we should be fine with this money going to the executive?
Yeah, we never did anything to the Middle East before 9/11. That attack was completely unprovoked.
Both of those are nice places to live, if you are thinking of moving.
That’s not what would happen. You don’t think another congressman wouldn’t try to appropriate the same funds?
Please read the post and respond to what I said. Paul claims the terrorists come here to attack us because we ARE bombing them. Bombing them? As I said, he is channelling the Vietnam War or WWII. The US is clearly the main target for the Islamists although certainly other countries are ‘guilty’ of interfering in Middle East politics.Yeah, we never did anything to the Middle East before 9/11. That attack was completely unprovoked.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks
Terrorist attacks in Russia:
rt.com/politics/press/rossijskaya-gazeta/al-qaeda-russia-bin-laden/en/
Good luck finding foreign terrorist attacks in Sweden and Switzerland, though.
I’m absolutely speechless.Yeah, we never did anything to the Middle East before 9/11. That attack was completely unprovoked.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks
Terrorist attacks in Russia:
rt.com/politics/press/rossijskaya-gazeta/al-qaeda-russia-bin-laden/en/
Good luck finding foreign terrorist attacks in Sweden and Switzerland, though.
So, the US should be taking its foreign policy cues from a fringe Islamist group? Even if the base were closed, al Qaeda would have been upset for our economic support (READ: FREE TRADE) with the House of Saud. The Sauds are part of the “not Islamic enough for my taste” world, according to al Qaeda.
Sanctions can backfire and do more harm than good.
He’s never said it’s our fault.
Often times I try to look at unintended consequences in issues. It’s the biggest fault liberals have, it’s impossible for them to look at a situation with a very broad view of what will happen, what may happen and what you want to avoid from happening. It seems conservatives are generally good at what will happen and what may happen but it’s hard for them to see what they want to avoid. Liberals, the only thing they see is what they want to happen, beyond that nothing else matters.
Your “isolationist” definition did not include no communications or trade. Paul’s version of ‘non-intervention’ is another’s version of “isolationism.”
Please provide a direct quote.
Regarding what? There are several points above. Would you respond to the points before demanding I do research for you? I don’t know what area you dispute?
My intentions are not to necessarily dispute what you say, but to get the full context.
Heard him say it several times, recently. Maybe a quote from a previous debate or speech in response to a question about why Islamists are so focused on the United Sates.