Ron Paul Fundraising pulls in over 2.6 M today alone

[frankie_the_yankee]

They have attempted to kill Jews and Christians for centurys. The hatetred for the United States is not only because we we have served as protectorates for Israel, but because we are perceived as a Christian country with Christian values. Its not that they dislike us or disaprove, They hate us and want us gone.

Because we are the big dog. They don't rage against Lichtenstein because they know that when the time comes they can wipe them all out in 2 seconds.

We present them with a much bigger problem.

Bottom line: Their "civilization" is murderous and evil. There is no equivalence with ours. They want to kill us and we want to live.

Paul advocates hunkering down behind our borders. This is just Libertarian cant morphed into suicidal nonsense.

[Liberty]

They have attempted to kill Jews and Christians for centurys. The hatetred for the United States is not only because we we have served as protectorates for Israel, but because we are perceived as a Christian country with Christian values. Its not that they dislike us or disaprove, They hate us and want us gone.

Because we are the big dog. They don't rage against Lichtenstein because they know that when the time comes they can wipe them all out in 2 seconds.

We present them with a much bigger problem.

Bottom line: Their "civilization" is murderous and evil. There is no equivalence with ours. They want to kill us and we want to live.

Paul advocates hunkering down behind our borders. This is just Libertarian cant morphed into suicidal nonsense.

I don't have any conflict with My Libertarian values and wanting to defend the American People. It is one of the few duties that our government is charged with.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I don't have any conflict with My Libertarian values and wanting to defend the American People. It is one of the few duties that our government is charged with.

Everybody wants to protect/defend the American people. The conflict is over how best to accomplish that.

[Will938]

Having lived and worked there for a few months, before we were involved with the Gulf Wars I learned the hate runs deep and the people there make no qualms about their belief in Holy Jihad. Their mission as a people is to destroy and eliminate those who do not share their beliefs in their profet Mohammad. They have attempted to kill Jews and Christians for centurys. The hatered for the United States. Is not only because we we have served as protectorates for Israel, but because we are perceived as a Christian country with Christian values. Its not that they dislike us or disaprove, They hate us and want us gone.

One of the reasons that our presence during the 1st Gulf war ticked off Al Quada so much was that a Christian presence on their Holy land was thought to foul that land. Very few Saudis, Bin Laden included, like the Iraqi's it is their very hate toward us and our Christianity that drives them up a wall. They hate us not because we have chosen to defend ourselves but because of our Jewish/Christian beliefs.

Its very difficult for us to understand the depth of their hate for us, because most of have been raised to believe that there is good in all men. While as individiduals there are many fine people over there, but collectively as a group we need to understand that they want to eliminate us and our society.

I think my point is that they can't eliminate us nor are the vast majority trying. You can't go around killing people simply because they hate us, intensely. So why push the envelope? By all means if we catch a foreign government in the act then we open a can, if we catch an individual or group then we tell the government to take care of it or we will; as we did in Afghanistan.

[Will938]

Bottom line: Their "civilization" is murderous and evil. There is no equivalence with ours. They want to kill us and we want to live.

Paul advocates hunkering down behind our borders. This is just Libertarian cant morphed into suicidal nonsense.

So what then do we do? I agree that their group is filled with fundamentalists who have an intense hatred for us, but we can't kill them all. There is infact a majority who will never do us any harm whatsoever.

Suicidal nonsense huh. What exactly have we accomplished in the war on terror? Al-Q and the Taliban are still around and infact still functioning just fine. We spent a bunch of money for this, lost a lot of lives, lost credibility, and we infuriated this region of fundamentalists that already thought we were the worst thing since Israel. Inspired more people to join their ranks. So dispite our whole sale slaughtering of them we are pretty much where we started less all those things I described. You laugh at hunkering down behind the borders, but what are the downsides of that? We get international support, we still have a better chance of stopping 9/11 style attacks that we don't even defend against today, we save money, lives, credibility, etc. And most importantly we don't feed their cause. Nothing we do over there is reasonably going to stop an individual from coming here to do us harm. There are many things we can do here however, which we aren't, that could stop this.

[Liberty]

Having lived and worked there for a few months, before we were involved with the Gulf Wars I learned the hate runs deep and the people there make no qualms about their belief in Holy Jihad. Their mission as a people is to destroy and eliminate those who do not share their beliefs in their profet Mohammad. They have attempted to kill Jews and Christians for centurys. The hatered for the United States. Is not only because we we have served as protectorates for Israel, but because we are perceived as a Christian country with Christian values. Its not that they dislike us or disaprove, They hate us and want us gone.

One of the reasons that our presence during the 1st Gulf war ticked off Al Quada so much was that a Christian presence on their Holy land was thought to foul that land. Very few Saudis, Bin Laden included, like the Iraqi's it is their very hate toward us and our Christianity that drives them up a wall. They hate us not because we have chosen to defend ourselves but because of our Jewish/Christian beliefs.

Its very difficult for us to understand the depth of their hate for us, because most of have been raised to believe that there is good in all men. While as individiduals there are many fine people over there, but collectively as a group we need to understand that they want to eliminate us and our society.

I think my point is that they can't eliminate us nor are the vast majority trying. You can't go around killing people simply because they hate us, intensely. So why push the envelope? By all means if we catch a foreign government in the act then we open a can, if we catch an individual or group then we tell the government to take care of it or we will; as we did in Afghanistan.

After WWII we set up bases in Japan and Germany and made sure we set up compatible governments. Same thing in Korea. It worked then and it can still work today. We need to be planning to stay there for a good while, and set up permanent bases. A show of overwhelming force is the surest path to peace. (see cold war) Those guys if ever given a chance to recover will attack us again on our own home turf. If we ever pull completely out those people will revert to the same condition they were before. Our Soldiers would have died for nothing. Marshall understood Truman understood Mac Arthur understood, Todays Americans have forgot, we want our wars bloodless short and quick. It would be nice.


That being said, I think we are winning this thing. Seehere
`nuff said.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Bottom line: Their "civilization" is murderous and evil. There is no equivalence with ours. They want to kill us and we want to live.

Paul advocates hunkering down behind our borders. This is just Libertarian cant morphed into suicidal nonsense.

So what then do we do? I agree that their group is filled with fundamentalists who have an intense hatred for us, but we can't kill them all. There is infact a majority who will never do us any harm whatsoever.

Go on offense and keep them back on their heels. Kill as many of the BG's as possible. Kill as many of the BG's as necessary.

Suicidal nonsense huh. What exactly have we accomplished in the war on terror?

No attacks here since 9/11. You think that is just luck or an accident?

Al-Q and the Taliban are still around and infact still functioning just fine.

Not fine enough to have attacked us in the last 6 years.

...and we infuriated this region of fundamentalists that already thought we were the worst thing since Israel.

So what exactly have we lost there? You say yourself that they already hated us. So they hate us a little more now? So what?

Inspired more people to join their ranks.

How many will be inspired to join their ranks if we pull out of Iraq in abject retreat?

You don't get any free claim on delving into their minds.

So dispite our whole sale slaughtering of them we are pretty much where we started less all those things I described.

I'd say we are 6 years down the road with no further attacks.

You laugh at hunkering down behind the borders, but what are the downsides of that?

Oh, how about giving them the time and space to regroup and launch even bigger attacks against us?

You stay on defense and wait for the next attack and it's a good bet that it will come eventually.

We get international support,..

Worthless.

we still have a better chance of stopping 9/11 style attacks that we don't even defend against today, ..

Prove it.

....we save money, lives, credibility, etc. And most importantly we don't feed their cause. Nothing we do over there is reasonably going to stop an individual from coming here to do us harm. There are many things we can do here however, which we aren't, that could stop this.

We weren't attacked by "an individual" on 9/11. That's the Clinton/Obama/Democrat "terrorists are criminals" world view. The jihadists have declared war upon us. That is a very different matter. And some would say that we need to do things BOTH over here AND over there to protect against future attacks.

My problem with Paul is that he is too much focused on defense, and not enough on offense. I just think that is bad policy, and it is why he will not get my support.

[stroo]

See Politics: Who Cares by Peirce Lewis, Casey McCracken, and Roger Hunt (American Demographics, October 1994, vol. 16, no. 10) p. 23: Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper middle class (29% earning over $50,000 annually).

KBCraig,

The stats you cited above actually show that probably Perot took more votes from Bush than from Clinton. Only 20% of Perot's votes came from liberals while 27% of Perot's votes came from conservatives. The moderates probably would have split between Clinton and Bush. So that leads to the conclusion that Perot took more votes from Bush than from Clinton.

[Will938]

Go on offense and keep them back on their heels. Kill as many of the BG's as possible. Kill as many of the BG's as necessary.

That job will never, ever end. We can't possibly kill them all without blanketing a few continents with nuclear weapons. And also, how do you keep individuals on their heels? All it takes is one upset individual to walk across the border and unleash havoc.

No attacks here since 9/11. You think that is just luck or an accident?

I attribute it to my magic rock, we haven't seen any attacks since I picked it up. But seriously, you think with tens of millions of people entering this country illegally we can somehow stop them from coming over?

Not fine enough to have attacked us in the last 6 years.

Fine enough to infiltrate Iraq and kill a large number of us. Fine enough to put up a formitable resistance to the greatest military in history.

So what exactly have we lost there? You say yourself that they already hated us. So they hate us a little more now? So what?

I might hate my neighbor, that doesn't mean I'm going to burn his house down. Now if he takes a sledgehammer to my car it might change my mind. You should be terrified of motivated individuals who we push to the point of being willing to trade their lives for ours.

How many will be inspired to join their ranks if we pull out of Iraq in abject retreat?

Less than were inspired if we had done nothing at all.

I'd say we are 6 years down the road with no further attacks.

You can quote this all you want, but it is logically flawed. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Oh, how about giving them the time and space to regroup and launch even bigger attacks against us?

You stay on defense and wait for the next attack and it's a good bet that it will come eventually.

They don't have that now? We somehow have them cornered? We can't even go across the pakistan border to finish what we started. They have all the time, money, recruits, and know how to hurt us dearly and they constantly do it abroad.

You ignore defense and you get another 9/11. You can stay on offense and take a person here and there, but it isn't an army that we're fighting. It only takes one individual. There will be another attack, period. There have already been attempts; just as there were before 9/11.

Worthless.

I'll remember that the next time we're denied use of someone's airspace or we look around and see no allies to relieve pressure.

Prove it.

? If we thoroughly screen those coming into the country and all cargo, then we'll be less likely to have dedicated individuals be able to come here and do us harm. You can topple an organization, but not its ideals or all its members.

We weren't attacked by "an individual" on 9/11. That's the Clinton/Obama/Democrat "terrorists are criminals" world view. The jihadists have declared war upon us. That is a very different matter. And some would say that we need to do things BOTH over here AND over there to protect against future attacks.

My problem with Paul is that he is too much focused on defense, and not enough on offense. I just think that is bad policy, and it is why he will not get my support.

We were attacked by people acting as individuals; they do not disappear if their group goes under. Explain how fighting them over there will stop recruits like these from coming here to do us harm. No one has been able to explain that; lets say we demolish Al-Q, do their believers stop believing? No, they'll find another way to get at us; even more aggravated then they were before. I know the thought process, we kill them there so we don't fight them here. But we can't possibly kill ideas or beliefs, so what then? We fight them there and end up fighting here anyway since we have no control.

I think the exact opposite about all other candidates. Offense can only do so much; it can't stop someone who lays low and mild mannered until the time comes.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Go on offense and keep them back on their heels. Kill as many of the BG's as possible. Kill as many of the BG's as necessary.

That job will never, ever end. We can't possibly.....(flawed logic, non-sequitors, and the clutching of thin reeds and straws deleted for brevity.)

I think that basically sums it up.

[KBCraig]

KBCraig,

The stats you cited above actually show that probably Perot took more votes from Bush than from Clinton. Only 20% of Perot's votes came from liberals while 27% of Perot's votes came from conservatives. The moderates probably would have split between Clinton and Bush. So that leads to the conclusion that Perot took more votes from Bush than from Clinton.

The important figure is that 53% of Perot voters were self-described moderates.

I've never met a "self-described moderate" who, when pressed to take a position on various issues, didn't turn out to be a liberal who just didn't want to admit it.

Yes, 27% of Perot supporters were conservative, which means that 73% weren't conservative, and more likely to vote for Clinton.

[seamusTX]

There's another point against the "Perot gave Clinton the Presidency" argument:

Here are the total numbers of votes cast in presidential elections:

1988: 91.6 million
1992: 104.4 million
1996: 96.2 million

IOW, almost 13 million more people voted in 1992 than in 1988, and 8 million fewer voted in 1996.

Could it be that Mr. Perot brought out voters in 1992 who had never registered or ceased to vote, who voted for him? I have always thought this was the case, but I've never seen a good analysis to prove it.

By 1996, Mr. Perot's reputation was rather tarnished, IMHO, and he interrupted his campaign.

BTW, any analysis of this sort is incomplete unless it looks at electoral votes, not the popular-vote totals. A vote cast in a small-population state like Wyoming or North Dakota has far more electoral value than in a large-population state.

- Jim

[Lodge2004]

How many will be inspired to join their ranks if we pull out of Iraq in abject retreat?

Less than were inspired if we had done nothing at all.

So I guess you believe our withdrawl from Somalia did not inspire the terrorist? That's not what OBL and his buddies have been saying for years. According to many, it was a highpoint that proved we could be directly confronted and ultimately led to 9/11.

I prefer that we listen to what they have to say and then act accordingly. They hate us for what we are, not anything we have done. Their "reasons" are merely anecdotes they use to justify their hatred. You cannot reason with someone who hates you because you exist.

Pulling out of the fight and barricading ourselves behind fences would be like announcing to the world that we are wounded and scared.

[Will938]

Go on offense and keep them back on their heels. Kill as many of the BG's as possible. Kill as many of the BG's as necessary.

That job will never, ever end. We can't possibly.....(flawed logic, non-sequitors, and the clutching of thin reeds and straws deleted for brevity.)

I think that basically sums it up.

Go on and explain why any of this logic is flawed. Ironic considering your 6 years of safety statement. You yourself said that the whole region is filled with people who want us gone. You then go on to say that we should stay on the offensive, which gives them a reason to act on their hatred instead of think about it. And currently appears to be heading that direction if you pay attention to what the CIA is telling us.

I'm sorry this upsets you so much, but you've yet to explain why any of this is wrong. Whereas I can easily point to issues with our neoconservative strategy and real examples or reasons of why I'm right.

You can't explain how an offensive in the middle east protects our border, customs, or develops the internal police work that would actually of affected 9/11. I'll concede that it certainly throws a wrench into their operations, but it absolutely doesn't come even close to stopping them as they gain more funds, recruits, and safe havens due to an increased hatred of us.

And we have had other attempts in this country since 9/11, they were all stopped by citizens, the stupidity of the persons involved, or good work from the FBI.

So what it comes down to is weighing the benefits/cons of being offensive or defensive.

On the offensive: Go after groups at their core, disrupt operations, strike at their leadership, remove areas of operation. But at the same time these groups get local sympathy and our strikes increase hatred for us. Which lends the opposition to more recruits, money, and land Costs money, lives, and our reputation.

On the defensive: Increased internal security helps prevent dangerous supplies and individuals from getting in, helps to prevent 9/11 like attacks, saves money, lives, and our reputation. On the down side we're not physically disrupting the opposition so they can bide their time without fear of being blown away at any moment.

Add to them if you wish because I'm sure I forgot something.

[frankie_the_yankee]

In case you missed it, The Maginot Line was a failure.