1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Newt versus Paul: Round 2

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Ruiz, Dec 6, 2011.

  1. NiteShift

    NiteShift New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    People in US gangs have to be dealt with according to US civil law. Not so armed groups originating outside the US. Apples and oranges.


    I know all this. But you said, "You are assuming that people overseas are somehow different than they are here."

    There are cultural differences. Ideas about what is acceptable and fair play are different. I used to work with Middle-Easterners. They had very different attitudes which I won't get into here.

    More infowars nonsense.

    **
    I would like to see more of our troops brought home just like everyone else. I didn't even like being assigned to Germany back in the day! and I didn't like that my son was deployed to Iraq (twice).

    But in a situation like 9/11 we had to respond.
     
  2. Havensdad

    Havensdad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Armed groups"? What "armed groups"? Criminals with box cutters?

    And what ever happened to, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights.."

    Since when did the government take the place of God? Why do they get to take away, "inalienable rights?" So I guess if you have a family member come over from overseas, and the government decides they don't like the way they look, they can just lock them up, without due process, even though they are innocent right?

    The founders believed that these were rights that were given by our Creator, and were universal. I agree with them. No person should be imprisoned without due process. A "suspected" terrorist, is just that...a suspected criminal.


    You are comparing them to "nice" white collar and suburban folk. Apparently you have not been to parts of the U.S. that I have been to.

    That is the dumbest thing you have said. Is this what you do? When someone starts quoting history to you, you just stick your fingers in your ears and shout "conspiracy!" WE deposed the Iranian government. This is not "infowars nonsense" (I do NOT listen to kooky man Alex Jones). It is fact. WE installed, supported, and armed Saddam Hussein. This is also fact. We caused the problem of Iran (good grief man, pick up a history book! Have you never heard of the Iran contra affair?)

    It is sad, in the extreme, that so many people are brainwashed by political talking points, into dismissing historical fact.

    The 9/11 response was a train wreck. Dr. Paul voted to go after Bin Laden, but then know what happened (I only ask because you do not seem to know much history...)? Bush Jr. changed the plan, once again, occupying Afghanistan, and trying to nation build. We attacked Iraq, who had little if anything to do with 9/11, and ignored our good buddy Saudi Arabia, who had a GREAT deal to do with it. They got away scott-free.

    The troops need to come home. We are endangering their lives for nothing, and are only making things worse. Moreover, it is impossible to balance the budget, while they are overseas, since the overseas expenditures represent almost as much as the entire annual revenue of the Fed.
     
  3. glfredrick

    glfredrick New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    2
    At this juncture, both sides in this debate are "cherry picking" the historical record to support their positions.

    The entire affair is more complicated then either of you guys are making it, and the President has and had more information at his disposal than either of you are willing to admit. Same goes whether we are talking Obama, Bush, Clinton, or any other sitting President in the past 60 years.

    Truth is, we live in a world where evil men will and do work to manipulate world conditions to the point where they can effectively control the balance of power. The moment any (ANY) nation forgoes this process is the same minute that they begin to fall prey to those who are ongoing in the process.

    We do not live in a world where we are now "more civilized" than say the Roman Empire, the Persian Empire, or the German empire built by Hitler or the Communist empire built by Lenin and Stalin. The same issues are still at stake and the balance if power is always tenuous. That is why Paul cannot serve as President of the United States. He lives in a fairy tale land where there are no bad guys that can come here and get us. He is WRONG. Wish he were not wrong, but he is, and so badly so as to be a fatally flawed candidate.

    And, for the record, Obama is fatally flawed and never should have made the grade either. He is actually using the situation in the world to undermine American sovereignty and his foreign affairs ability is akin to two guys in a bar solving the world's problems, only he is actually informed and actually making the worst possible choices on purpose.
     
  4. Havensdad

    Havensdad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    And of course, you are lying on the man. He does not say there are "no bad guys." He says that killing innocent civilians overseas, and giving money and weapons to the enemies of our allies, does NOTHING to further our national defense. And he is 100 percent right. As long as the war mongers concentrate on nation building overseas, instead of defending our country, we will be in ever greater peril.

    Paul is spot on the money. We need to secure our borders, defend our nation, and quit playing God overseas. It is going to collapse our nation...it is putting us into astronomical debt. If people do not wake up, this country is going to be destroyed.
     
  5. mandym

    mandym New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is the hyperbolic rhetoric from RP supporters that discredits them.
     
  6. glfredrick

    glfredrick New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    2
    A question on a different tack....

    Suppose RP did get the nomination and actually win the election. What would he do with the Pentagon? Seems that therein reside all those "warmongers" that he is so ready to chastise. It also seems that we give too much credence to the whims of the President, who though being indeed the Commander in Chief, does nothing much on his own without the help of the Generals who run the war department.

    And, actually, within the Pentagon reside the greatest minds in military force and its application that have ever walked this earth. If they make war it is for a reason, that RP and others -- most often in liberal ranks -- distort during campaigning, but have to live with once elected to office. Just ask Obama... I'll bet his hair started turning gray with the first "official" confidential report. (And as an aside, I've watched multiple presidential elections and have witnessed the change in rhetoric once the potential nominee begins getting briefings from the NSA and others. It is almost amazing to see the change that the "real world" brings to these altruistic promsers of all that is good in the world bring the stumping phase of the campaign.
     
  7. Havensdad

    Havensdad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    He would be commander in chief. He would have the power to order the troops home immediately, and I have no doubt that he would do so. He has never, ever, went back on his word. He would tell the people in the Pentagon to get in line.

    As for the presidents: Those people do not change their mind because of some kind of mystical "intelligence" they receive. They don't, in fact, change their mind at all. Like Obama, who had an outrageously pro-war record in the Senate, they simply ignore what they promised once they get in power, cause they never planned to do it in the first place. They just had to SAY they were going to do it, because two thirds of the American population, including 36 percent of Conservatives in the last poll I saw, are AGAINST the wars. "For the people, by the people" indeed!
     
  8. Havensdad

    Havensdad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does "hyperbolic rhetoric" mean verifiable fact, to you? Because it is no secret, that in each of these case (Afghan, and Iraq), the mission was switched after we got involved, from pursuing the terrorists, to overthrowing governments, and installing puppets.
     
  9. glfredrick

    glfredrick New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    2
    So, you are saying that Obama's PROMISE (worded very intently and at every possible occasion) concerning the closing of GITMO was nothing more than campaign rhetoric that he never intended?

    And you wonder why some people are confused about your line of reasoning in this thread.
     
  10. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,982
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Unless we have treaties/legal aggrements to keep troops overseas?

    Because the war ended in a cease-fire, not a peace treaty, the two Koreas are still technically at war
     
  11. Havensdad

    Havensdad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Correct me if I am wrong, but even if war has been declared, the President is still ultimately responsible for troop movements. He could still bring the troops home, regardless of a war declaration.
     
  12. Havensdad

    Havensdad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    YES. He never intended ton close GITMO. Say what you will about my reasoning; it is based on his RECORD (what he actually did), rather than his rhetoric. Obama needed the Democrat base to support him.

    Why on EARTH do you folks believe what the politicians tell you? "Well, he said it, he must mean it." Good grief.
     
  13. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,982
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Liberal talk show host Stephanie Miller says the reason is that the Republicans will not authorize funds to ship the detainees to CONUS.

    Sounds reasonable to me :tongue3:
     
Loading...