I have no idea what those people think they are accomplishing with their antics.

And I seriously doubt that Paul would sanction such behavior and I don’t think he is even aware of it.

I read your link, but I wasn’t able to find out specifically how he got those (fairly) high ratings from liberal organizations. I didn’t see any links to determine what they rated him on.

The funny thing about libertarians is that liberals will enthusiastically support them about some issues, and vehemently oppose them about other issues.

And the same goes for conservatives. But on different issues.

P.S.: I apologize for implying that you were lying earlier.

Rudersdorf:

So, RP supporters: let’s talk specifics. What’s he for? What’s he against? What’s he been right about? What’s he been wrong about?

From cordobes’ link above, here is Paul’s NPAT questionnaire from 1996:

http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=296#1830

(Presumably he figures that he already answered it once, and sees no need to keep answering it over and over again in subsequent elections.)

Also from cordobes’ link, here is Paul’s voting record in the House:

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

Enjoy!

Because you addressed me directly, I’ll go against my better judgement and respond to you; keep in mind that based on what I’ve read elsewhere on the web, your fellow Paul supporters are very much as Roger described them. Perhaps you can provide a corrective for that.

“I am all for allowing other people to make their own decisions. I was referring to something that Bostonian had written in a previous post regarding the ‘moral dilemma’ he was facing involving the ability of Iraqis to vote. His answer seems to be that of GWB, which is bomb your way to Democracy.”

Surely you don’t include the Iraqis in the “other people” category because they obviously had no ability to make their own decisions under Hussein. That was proven in the aftermath of Gulf War 1 when it was felt that the conditions were optimal for an uprising, which resulted in a number of good people being slaughtered. Surely you can agree that Hussein, a man who killed hundreds of thousands of his countrymen, invaded Kuwait and gave financial support to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, was a major destabilizing force in the Middle East. And that the country and world are better off with him gone. Before I go any further I’d like to see your response to that because there’s no point in carrying it to the next step lacking an accord on the elementary points.

Feel free to correct me on anything you think I’m in error on because I’m interested in having a flame-free discussion; if you give me some snotty response I’ll just go back to making fun of your ilk. I’m further interested in finding out what you thought of Bosnia and Kosovo, two actions about which I’m torn. And likewise Darfur.

Where did you get the insane notion that the U.S. put Hussein in power in Iraq? Is Ron Paul peedling that sort of nonsense, or did you invent the notion on your own?

You make a funny quip, and I guess it is ironic to you. However, I am all for allowing other people to make their own decisions. I was referring to something that Bostonian had written in a previous post regarding the ‘moral dilemma’ he was facing involving the ability of Iraqis to vote. His answer seems to be that of GWB, which is bomb your way to Democracy.

This is his quote “…quite as if there are no consequences to ignoring the battle.”

I wonder, Captain & Bostonian, what are the consequences to ignoring the battle? Or are you using the rationalization that Madeline Albright used when she thought it proper to sacrifice half a million civilians via sanctions to have an effect on one man. A man, that we placed into power in Iraq.

Is that what this war (or more accurately, non-war with guns and bombs) is all about? Fixing our mistakes in the region? How about not continuing to stick our noses into spots they dont belong. Kinda like not peeking into our neighbors window. We need to stop being the global Gladys Kravitz.

Unintentional ironists for Ron Paul

Yes, I am sure many Iraqi’s voted. Fantastic. Great, whoop de doo. I dont care about Iraqis voting, you know why? I am not an Iraqi!

I am concerned with the rate we spend money monkeying around in other peoples business, more often than not (ok, actually all the time) tying strings to those monies to make other sovereign nations do what we want them to do. See Saddam in the 80’s, for an example. Then, when we get tired of the, or, unintended consequences happen, we blow them up in the name of ‘liberating an oppressed people’.

And your holier than thou attitude of being the decider of what is right and wrong for others is very telling. I guess I should stop wasting my keystrokes on someone whose ability to comprehend stops with anything that disagrees with the officially mandated GOP talking points.

In the aftermath of the Iraq liberation, we have seem more successful Iraqi on Iraqi violence than successful attacks against American soldiers. The Sunnis and the Shiites hate each other. They hate each other as much as they hate our military presence. The House of Islam is not as united as some would have us believe, and we can use that in our efforts to fight against Islamism both at home and abroad.

Similar to how we used Saddaam against the Ayatollah, we can pit Sunnis against Shiites once more – just by reducing our own presence in Iraq! Morally it’s wrong, but the hatred between Shiites and Sunnis run far deeper than a few years of American peacekeepping could dampen. We might as well sit back and watch the (very bloody) show.

In the end, we would like the Sunnis to win that struggle, just like how we rooted for Saddaam to defeat Iran before. The Sunnis are usually obsessed with political and diplomatic power. Because of that, they are (in general) rational. Whereas, some Shiites are just downright INSANE and promote the idea of mutual destruction as a positive outcome. That’s why an Iran with nukes could be so dangerous.

As a final note:
The House of Islam and House of War is base on pan-Islamism, and the biggest proponent of pan-Islamism is one of our allies, Saudi Arabia. We’re going to have to deal with them if we want to defeat “the House of Islam.”