Yeah - I'm old enough to remember it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Downey,_Jr. The best part about the clip is Dr. Paul telling that dude that the government should put him on a diet. That idea was purely unimaginable back then, but now is accepted by the nanny-statist left.
No, the best part about the clip is at 13:08 when Dr. Paul starts dancing to She's So Cold by the Rolling Stones.
sums up my impressions on the good ship lollipop: <object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/igQlbesF0zA?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/igQlbesF0zA?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object> wishin' he was a little less coo coo
Deckard, I have to come back to this post. Mainly because this post got me thinking about a few things. I have a question: how is what you're saying different than you supporting state-sponsored terrorism (by your own state in which you vote)? Also how does your justification of the world being a dangerous place not apply to other countries/people far more than it does to you? since you live in the country capable of killing people more efficiently than any other country in history, and the country which has caused one of the highest deathtolls in recent history and a country that is present in every corner of the world, not too far from any single country. I shudder to think you don't see the irony in saying the world is a dangerous place.
Ron Paul: Limbaugh Isn't Really Sorry http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/04/ron-paul-limbaugh-slut-apology_n_1319742.html
I don't support state sponsered terrorism. I support defending this country when it faces a clear and present danger, and I want others, whether they be countries, or terrorist organizations, to fear our retribution. If we are feared by our enemies, they are far less likely to attack our citizens and our national interest. So I want the United States to remain powerful. God knows, we've paid enough for the military power we have. I was against Bush Junior's invasion and occupation of Iraq, and said so here when it was still being debated, and Bush was still trying to sell it to the world with "facts" that were lies. I argued with some here who believed Saddam was still a threat worthy of killing and maiming tens of thousands of Iraqis over, ardently arguing against it. My opinion never changed. I very much supported the invasion of Afghanistan because they were aiding and abetting the organization behind 9/11. My main regret there, besides the death and injury of innocent civilians, which happens in war, as terrible as that may be, is that it took so long to decapitate AQ's leadership. Now, it is past time to leave. "Also how does your justification of the world being a dangerous place not apply to other countries/people far more than it does to you?" There is nothing to prevent other countries acting in what they see as their own best interest. As long as what they percieve as acting in their own interest doesn't conflict with the national interest of the United States, her friends and allies, then there is no problem. I hope they realize that this country considers other countries that commit mass murder of its own citizens in order to retain power to be skating on thin ice. At least I would hope that we would act to prevent such actions, so long as it doesn't damage the national interest of this country to do so. I much prefer diplomacy. We simply can't be the "world's policeman." That means that we have to pick and chose when and where to act, again driven by our national interest. Iran having atomic weapons is not in our national interest. My hope is that diplomacy will prevail. One of the worst scenarios I can imagine is Iran having atomic weapons, which will lead to others in the Middle East getting them. In that, I have no doubt at all. Eventually, in my opinion, one will go off, and not as a test. That is a crisis we need to prevent. Few things are more dangerous than the spread of atomic weapons, and we need to continue to try to contain the number of countries that have them. You are saying that the world is a dangerous place because of the United States. What you don't seem to realize is that we elect our government. Sometimes, the people make a bad choice, as they did in reelecting George Bush (the first election was a travesty, in my opinion, with Bush being "elected" by our Supreme Court). Sometimes, the people can be slow on the uptake, but they eventually figure out that a change is needed. Bad choice, or not, if our enemies consider us dangerous, I'm quite happy for them to do so. The only irony is that you seem to have a limited vision of what this country is.
Both sides of the American spectrum assume America is overdominant and, under that premise, will operate under that premise that we are either losing control over other countries (declining influence) or assuming too much control (world's policeman). If the Wikileaks debacle has shown us anything, it's that the US is pretty inept at persuading other heads of state let alone dictating them what to do. It's been like that for a while, but we operate better under that consensus than Dub****'s "my diplomacy is no diplomacy" style of foreign relations. Sure, we have the "...or else" trump cards, and what the isolationists don't realize or care is that it's those same post-WW2 NGOs that empower the US with influence beyond the military. If we really do pull out, there will be ****loads of arms sales that the US/China/Russia will capitalize upon. Naval trade could be destabilized, and border conflicts magnified. We can't just mobilize from deserted bases and put out a fire 10,000 miles away...but if it's 10k miles away, who gives a **** right? It's not like the world is becoming smaller from the internet and interconnected with cheap goods from China and the rest of the developing world. We can spend billions on cheap new iPad 10s and use it to shut down the Department of Education. Wait, what? Your "if...thus" premise is flawed. You mean, "no one" with wealth, means to relocate, or without any connections to the community will live in that area without insurance.
LOL, you know the world is messed up when even liberals are pro-military/pro-war. Ah, the baby boomer generation, you guys can't die off soon enough.
........Care to tell me what in his statement was so pro-war? And don't worry. There will always be those, like me, who are interested in protecting and defending what is best for this nation.
Then why are you here? This part of the bbs is supposedly about debate and discussion. Is your only purpose to come here throw out little quips about issues and other posters, but then not engage in discussion about it?
I imagine that it would be a good reason to vote for Obama. Will you be voting for him this time around?
In the world, there are: roughly 250 countries; and roughly 200 American bases Here's an exercise. If you wanted to deem someone to have invaded the rest of the world, how many bases would they have to have roughly? How far is that from 200? Is that what you call defending your nation? That is just an atrocious line of thinking IMO. In fact, its looking very much like this "defensive" strategy is the exact thing which is CAUSING security problems for your nation. One thing the anti-US middle East crazies have in common is that they want you out of here, and that if you can be here (ME) to defend yourself, then they can attempt to get there (US) to defend themselves. That's their ideology. Those are the only people attempting to attack the American homeland, yet you are saying maintaining this policy is necessary to defend against it? Crazy stuff. Costing you a heck load of $$$. You have tried you way since World Wars, non-stop all day everyday attacking someone who is predicted to attack you. These are people, they have lives and dreams like you do. They didn't choose to be born into poverty or a crazy dictatorship. What would you have them do? They protest the US-supported guy, they die. They don't, then they go to war and they die. Is this what it takes to defend your nation? Agree to disagree. There must be a more peaceful way for all.
Interview with CNBC this morning... <object id="cnbcplayer" height="380" width="400" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0" > <param name="type" value="application/x-shockwave-flash"/> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"/> <param name="quality" value="best"/> <param name="scale" value="noscale" /> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"/> <param name="bgcolor" value="#000000"/> <param name="salign" value="lt"/> <param name="flashVars" value="startTime=000"/> <param name="flashVars" value="endTime=000"/> <param name="movie" value="http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/3000077713/code/cnbcplayershare" /> <embed name="cnbcplayer" PLUGINSPAGE="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" height="380" width="400" quality="best" wmode="transparent" scale="noscale" salign="lt" src="http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/3000077713/code/cnbcplayershare" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" /></object>
