By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
osamanobama on 20 January 2012
Edit Thread
Marks said:
osamanobama said:
mrstickball said:
osamanobama said:
mrstickball said:
osamanobama said:

yeah if you like the idea of all  high priority terrorists, especially Osama bin laden being still alive. and if you like the idea of a Nuclear Iran.

if we could have Ron Paul without his foreign policy, he'd be great. 

his last debate really showed how clueless he was when it came to foreign policy.

i would much prefer, a Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, colonel allen west, or Scott Walker.


You mean............Gary Johnson?

As for the others you mentioned, none of them are going to reduce the size of government like Paul or Johnson would.

Gary johnson supports the mass murdering of unborn children. So no 

both Johnson and Paul would be great as like a treasurey secretary (or what ever posistion has a big role in JUST the economy.

Gary was one if the first governors to pass a partial birth abortion ban, and also signed legislation to require parental consent, FYI.


i guess, i was getting one of his policies with Ron Puals.

well is still dont support his view on drugs, pot i can understand, not others.

anyway im 100% against any form of killing an unborn child, regardless of the term, you are murdering a child no matter what age, so stopping partial birth abortion is hardly anything to be proud of. i cant see how anybody with any shred of inteligence can be for massacring a child as its being born. (for that matter murdering a child at any age).

Ron Paul is pro life so no issue there either. He's delivered like 4,000 babies or something as a doctor!

And as for his foreign policy its really smart if you look at it from the other side. The idea is if you leave other countries alone they'll leave you alone too, 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened if USA wasn't always meddling over there in Middle Eastern affairs and therfore Bin Laden wouldn't have had the label of a terrorist and it would be no issue that he's still alive. 

Also he's against foreign aid which I love. No more stealing money from Americans and sending it to African warlords so they can buy guns and kill their people. 

he may personal be against abortion, but he still believes it shouldnt be illegal/left up to states. 

i can not support someone who supports murder being legal.

as for the bolded. NO. he was is and has been a terrorist, in fact he's killed more of his own people. it doesnt matter what the US does, the terrorist dont need reasons, they create their own, it wouldnt matter to them, as terrorists arent logical. and that still doesnt defend the stupidity of if he were in charge, we would not have killed Osama, or other high value terrorists. they would still be at large, and still mass murdering. Iran would also be well on its way to be getting a nuclear weapon (even more so than right now) and he wouldnt do anything about it. Even though they want nothing more than the destruction of US and Israel, or any other infidels, even if it means killing millions of their own people.

the thing is you cant undo the past, whats done is done. Ron Paul cant change that. he has to live in the world we do today. and that means having a defense policy to fit that. Not one that will leave the US illprepared for any attack. one that would let all our enemies do as they please, wrecking havic, murdering millions.

 

for your last part. I agree