| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Is Ron Paul blaming the victims? | |
| 2011-04-26 | |
| |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #15 He gets the economics, thus he's right where he should be: Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy, occasionally seen haranguing Bernanke on C-SPAN. I'd cheer wildly were he appointed SecTreas or Fed Chairman. Otherwise, yeah, what Turkeyneck and Fi said. Paul is also 75 years old. Right now. So 77 in Jan 2013, 81 by the 2016 elections. Adding to the electability problem, and the dementia problem too. |
| Posted by: RandomJD 2011-04-26 22:50 |
| #14 WHERE in Texas is this dippy-doodle from? Austin? ("Keep Austin wierd", the sign says.) |
| Posted by: Bobby 2011-04-26 22:31 |
| #13 There wasn't any occupation in 911. |
| Posted by: Tiny Groluque5440 2011-04-26 20:05 |
| #12 I want an asshole for president. Donald Trump. |
| Posted by: Fi 2011-04-26 15:30 |
| #11 Ron Paul is batshit insane. |
| Posted by: Gleling Turkeyneck8045 2011-04-26 13:51 |
| #10 Rand & Trump - GOP is a deader. Hope the Tea Parties put up someone worthwhile. |
| Posted by: Angiper Clunk6009 2011-04-26 13:50 |
| #9 #8 Ron Paul does have a point in that Western 'foreign intervention' and 'occupation' is an incoherent and in all likelihood pointless mess. EXTRANEOUS DATA REDACTED. ANALYST'S ASSESSMENT BELOW: Maybe his libertarianism is just a Sharia apologist's mask. Posted by: Vortigern Greque1922 2011-04-26 13:15 |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2011-04-26 13:23 |
| #8 Ron Paul does have a point in that Western 'foreign intervention' and 'occupation' is an incoherent and in all likelihood pointless mess. There's a 'War on Terror' against an unspecified enemy because naming the enemy would hurt the enemies feelings and we can't have that. There's the military occupation of enemy nations; overwhelming military strength is supposed to be used to impose change for the better. Any yet we've ending up subsidizing their disgusting and very very bad old ways while simultaneously signaling surrender even at home in the West. An American in the US has been arrested to preempt a Sharia violation in the future. A Danish citizen is being prosecuted for ideologically deviant speech made in Denmark, by moderate and pro-western Jordan. In the future any international travel will amount to a game of Russian Roulette for Westergaard. What I find strange about Paul's politics however is his deafening silence when it comes to the encroachment of civil liberties in the US at the behest of a foreign belief system. Did he support the free speech rights of Salman Rushdie, Molly Norris, Comedy Central and Yale Press etc? Did he defend Pastor Jones' 1st Amendment rights as he defended the Ground Zero Mosque? If not why not? Maybe his libertarianism is just a Sharia apologist's mask. |
| Posted by: Vortigern Greque1922 2011-04-26 13:15 |
| #7 wRONg PAUL. wrong then, wrong now. 0bama's Ross Perot. |
| Posted by: abu do you love 2011-04-26 12:51 |
| #6 I don't think he's blaming the victim any more than George Washington or Thomas Jefferson when they expressed non-interventionist views. The truth is, as we run out of money, we can choose a path toward non-intervention in the rest of the world's affairs, or we can simply wait until it is forced upon us by fiscal realities. Personally, I'm all for going after our enemies but leaving the nation building to others. |
| Posted by: AuburnTom 2011-04-26 11:06 |
| #5 To assert that "occupation" can result in adverse reactions is not "Blaming the Victims". Nor is it, as some often claim, providing justification for the sinister actions of islamists. Admit it or not there are repercussions to intervention in the affairs of other nations. It's not unfair to view Ron Paul's gravitation twoards isolationism in the face of global terrorism as naïveté. But to assume that an aggressive interventionist foreign policy won't result with some negative consequences is equal folly. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2011-04-26 10:37 |
| #4 disgraceful. In no way is US foreign policy anything at all to do with why Osama Bin Laden launched the 911 attacks. OBL himself said he attacked the US because the US is the strong horse. If you show the world you are stronger than the strong horse, they turn and follows you all those muslims watching him attack the symbols of western society... all those new recruits for his movement. Islamists don't just attack the US either, they attack schoolteachers in the southern Philippines, and Christians in Indonesia. Nothing to do with US foreign policy. Everything to do with a fascist, expansionist religion. BTW: Thank you to all who commented on the FEMA video, it was good to put in context. Didn't have time to check until now, comments now closed. I would still rather stay out of a place with a watchtower and a double barbed wire perimeter fence. |
| Posted by: anon1 2011-04-26 10:31 |
| #3 He's a perfect representative of the Libertarian Party (as opposed to actual libertarians), and will once again collect his 1-2% of the votes. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2011-04-26 10:02 |
| #2 Not a good way to launch your campaign, dipshit. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2011-04-26 09:11 |
| #1 I don't like that guy. Hope he does not run, reflects poorly on the party. Like Buchanan in the 90s. |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2011-04-26 08:46 |