I am by no means here to tell you which side of the political fence to sit. However, I will help others to be informed on the potential candidates and this was on Ron Paul’s web-sight today.
Draw your own conclusions.
Of course, he’s right!
Freedom allows us to be responsible for our own safety; in that regard, freedom ensures the best possible safety while trying to make people “more safe” can only result in less freedom.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Of course, he’s right!
Freedom allows us to be responsible for our own safety; in that regard, freedom ensures the best possible safety while trying to make people “more safe” can only result in less freedom.[/quote]
Oh get off it man. You know damn well that we can’t keep our freedoms. That is so…outdated. Besides since those bogeymen terrorists “hate us for our freedoms” (I always laugh when I hear mindless drones say that) we shouldn’t have any. That’s “kooky” and “nutty”. Remember, bombing, starving, sanctioning, occupying and torturing people never inspire attacks. We all know they enjoy it.
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
mindless drones[/quote]
You like saying this a lot. Yet, I haven’t seen you put forward a single disinterested, cool, and civil argument for your position.
The funny thing is you can’t even get my country right. But, I digress.
I do like Ron Paul’s stance on human life and abortion.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You like saying this a lot. Yet, I haven’t seen you put forward a single disinterested, cool, and civil argument for your position.
[/quote]
I could. Very easily. And in a way I am. I’m trying to get you to see the silliness of your argument through sarcasm. Logic and reason would not penetrate. You’ve had more thna enough time to figure it out. So what’s the point in trying to be “disinterested, cool, and civil”? If you haven’t figured it out by now you’re not going to.
I mean come on. They hate us for our freedoms? What, only since the US became a global empire?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The funny thing is you can’t even get my country right. But, I digress.
[/quote]
Of course not. Difficult to do since I’m not a mind reader genius. I was looking at where your location is below your avatar (it says Arizona, USA) and guessed. Since it isn’t your country just disregard that part of my post. Simple eh? But I digress.
Yes you’re pro-life. Except on foreign policy right? As long as a person wears a government uniform and calls it foreign policy it’s ok to kill right? Hopefully you don’t believe that.
From the article; “freedom is not defined by safety” - RON PAUL
By contrast; “Freedom would be meaningless without security in the home and in the streets.” - NELSON MANDELA
Also bear in mind; “When…the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free.” - EDWARD GIBBON
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Also bear in mind; “When…the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free.” - EDWARD GIBBON[/quote]
Estimado Sr. Gibbon, el Sr. Pablo nunca ha querido la libertad de la responsabilidad. De hecho, el estaria a favor de lo contrario.[/quote]
Ron Paul chupa la polla
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Also bear in mind; “When…the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free.” - EDWARD GIBBON[/quote]
Estimado Sr. Gibbon, el Sr. Pablo nunca ha querido la libertad de la responsabilidad. De hecho, el estaria a favor de lo contrario.[/quote]
.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Also bear in mind; “When…the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free.” - EDWARD GIBBON[/quote]
Estimado Sr. Gibbon, el Sr. Pablo nunca ha querido la libertad de la responsabilidad. De hecho, el estaria a favor de lo contrario.[/quote]
Ron Paul chupa la polla[/quote]
Pretty much the only one in Congress who does not.
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You like saying this a lot. Yet, I haven’t seen you put forward a single disinterested, cool, and civil argument for your position.
[/quote]
I could. Very easily. And in a way I am. I’m trying to get you to see the silliness of your argument through sarcasm. Logic and reason would not penetrate. You’ve had more thna enough time to figure it out. So what’s the point in trying to be “disinterested, cool, and civil”? If you haven’t figured it out by now you’re not going to.[/quote]
My logic and reason for making the statement is that just because someone isn’t as bad as someone else doesn’t make them not bad. It just means there is someone worse out there.
I could have used Spanish examples, but then people would have to do research. So, I just gave two major figures in history that everyone can agree on did some seriously bad stuff.
No, I’m Catholic. We have the Just War doctrine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War
No, it’s only right to kill in defense of one’s or another’s life.
I’m not completely anti-war because I believe in the Just War doctrine (so, I suppose I am Pro-life and Just War) but the Pope, my Bishop, and myself have yet to see a just war within my life time. I have protested the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, on top of the 140 or so countries that the United States has an active military presence in.
I agree with Ron Paul, should have just put a bounty on Osama bin Laden for $1 or $2 million and bounties on others involved. Would have been much cheaper and we wouldn’t have had people dying.
Four STRICT conditions of Just War:
[quote]* the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power as well as the precision of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
…I agree with Ron Paul, should have just put a bounty on Osama bin Laden for $1 or $2 million and bounties on others involved. Would have been much cheaper and we wouldn’t have had people dying.
[/quote]
- hiccup *
There was a $25 million bounty on Osie for a number of years and yet the US military STILL had to be the ones to take him out.
Next suggestion?[/quote]
Blame Clinton, didn’t say we should have reduced out intelligence agencies.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
…I agree with Ron Paul, should have just put a bounty on Osama bin Laden for $1 or $2 million and bounties on others involved. Would have been much cheaper and we wouldn’t have had people dying.
[/quote]
- hiccup *
There was a $25 million bounty on Osie for a number of years and yet the US military STILL had to be the ones to take him out.
Next suggestion?[/quote]
Blame Clinton, didn’t say we should have reduced out intelligence agencies.[/quote]
Beside the point. You said Ron said that a $1 - 2 million bounty woulda done the trick without military intervention when in reality a $25 million pot of gold hung out there and did NOT get the job done.[/quote]
Hmm, well I read the book five years. I don’t want to make Dr. Paul look bad, so I’ll check the book to see what his number is, but creating conflicts in two countries is a little bit much.
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
I was looking at where your location is below your avatar (it says Arizona, USA) and guessed.[/quote]
There is an interesting reason why I live here, actually. My grandmother, her brothers and sisters and cousins were moved by her father and uncles to America after the beginning of the Civil War with the Republicans in office in Spain.
My grandma tells the family once and awhile (in her best English) about how her father and uncles (on orders from their father) had started to go to the UK and America (they were merchants) to do family business and to stay out of the rest of Europe for several years before the Spanish Civil War. One day her father and two of her uncles were forced into the house and told to give up their guns or be shot.
While the Republicans were in the house they noticed two large religious paintings and crucifixes in every room of the house while they ransacked the house for weapons. They told her father and uncles that they’d be back tomorrow, they ended up moving to Britain that night for a little bit before moving to America. My grandmother’s uncle (married to her one aunt) lived next door and though he wasn’t particular religious, he was shot leaving seven children orphans and a wife widowed.
Don’t get confused, when I say Republicans they weren’t actual Republicans unless you considered Socialist, Communist, and Anarchists to be Republicans.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I see. So you’re claiming the USA “created the conflicts”?[/quote]
It takes two sides to create a conflict. Otherwise, not a conflict.