Those slick Democrates are up to their tricks again

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Tigeress
Thanks BSDAddict,

I did read it and was very impressed by it, both links in their entirety. Very impressed. I will start learning more about Ron. I think I might start with his voting record during his presence in Congress.

you're very welcome.    The voting record's an excellent place to start researching ANY candidate, I wish more people would look past what they say and consider what they do..  These might help, if you don't have them already...

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296  

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

Out of curiosity, does your call sign have anything to do with UNIX? ...as in Berkeley Software Distribution? I love UNIX and the fact that it is a most powerful operating system and that it is in the public domain thus is a freely distributed open source operating system appeals to me.

Without it there would probably not be an internet still. http://www.freebsd.org/

TIGERESS [/B]

yup, the "bsd" in my nick is a unix reference.  I've been bsdaddict online (my AIM handle too) for about 10 years now, starting when I got into unix.  nice catch!

[Gunslinger]

BS,

My biggest problem with RP isn't his stances or his voting records.  It's the fact that he courts the trufers.  Notice I didn't say he's a 911 truther, I'm saying he courts them by playing into their legitimacy.  

I also don't agree with his stance on the immediate withdrawl from Iraq.  Other than that I like alot of the things he has to say but those two are deal breakers for me.

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
BS,

My biggest problem with RP isn't his stances or his voting records.  It's the fact that he courts the trufers.  Notice I didn't say he's a 911 truther, I'm saying he courts them by playing into their legitimacy.  

I also don't agree with his stance on the immediate withdrawl from Iraq.  Other than that I like alot of the things he has to say but those two are deal breakers for me.

fair enough.  I agree that he does attract some fringe types, however, I wouldn't even go so far as to say he courts them.  More like he doesn't discount them, as everyone else does.  As to the war in Iraq, that is indeed a big issue to differ with him on.  The best arguments I could make to you is 1) we can't afford it, and 2) the US military does not exist to enforce UN sanctions.  RP says if we exhaust our diplomatic options and the American People (via congress) see the need for military action, we should declare war, get in, kick bellybutton and get out.  Basically, follow the constitution.  We have a limited number of troops and RP says we need them on OUR border, not occupying foreign countries.

Then there's my opinion that (prowar) Hillary vs. a (prowar) Republican = a Dem victory.  THAT got my Dad thinking.

Edit:  also, check out why he opposed the war in the first place, straight from the horses mouth.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLV7zDhKzDY

[Gunslinger]

like I said I don't agree with him on Iraq.  I do like what he is saying.

BUT,

He does not immediatly discount the 911 truthers out there and that to me is HUGE deal breaker. There Ideas of reality have been shot down and disproven time and again and yet they are still out there.

He even goes on air on a program that courts them and stirs the pot.   I"m looking for the link that I heard.

[bsdaddict]

not discounting does not equal agreeing with.  The only thing he agrees with them on is that a new investigation is warranted into the events LEADING UP TO 9/11, including a thorough examination of the role played by our foreign policy over the last 50 years.

[john9001]

Originally posted by bsdaddict
including a thorough examination of the role played by our foreign policy over the last 50 years.

i agree, lets start with the marshal plan to rebuild Europe and the rebuilding of japan, the Berlin airlift, the defense of south Korea, we can go on from there.

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by john9001
i agree, lets start with the marshal plan to rebuild Europe and the rebuilding of japan, the Berlin airlift, the defense of south Korea, we can go on from there.

more like beginning with Iran in 1953, when the CIA secretly engineered a coup to replace the democratically elected prime minister of Iran with the Shah, whose secret police proceeded to terrorize and torture the Iranian people (with the support of the U.S. government) for the next 25 years, ultimately leading to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the taking of the U.S. hostages.

[john9001]

<>

well, lets see what we got here, a pro communist leader that nationalized a british oil company and the british asked the US to help depose him.

so you put all the blame on US foreign policy?

[bsdaddict]

as you've pointed out, the events in '53 has it's own influences.  I'm just saying that, in discussing "the events LEADING UP TO 9/11, including a thorough examination of the role played by our foreign policy over the last 50 years" that the "marshal plan to rebuild Europe and the rebuilding of japan, the Berlin airlift, the defense of south Korea" aren't really pertinent to why some middle eastern religious nut-jobs would want to attack us on 9/11.

as to your question, US foreign policy is responsible for US involvement in Iran and the middle east from 1953 onward when we started meddling in their internal affairs.  Prior meddling by the British and the USSR aren't the result of US foreign policy.