Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
My newest column (foreign policy)
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="3inSlugger" data-source="post: 1701168" data-attributes="member: 18508"><p>It is not about Ron Paul, it is about foreign policy. Paul just happens to be one of the few sane ones promoting a foreign policy that isn't aggressive. </p><p>Answer me this: why does Ron Paul have the most donations from active military? Twice what Obama has and three times what all the other GOP candidates combined have? It seems Obama and Paul, both who scaled down or want to scale down military involvement overseas are much more popular among active duty than the rest of hawkish GOP candidates. Explain that. </p><p>I've already heard many of you say you agree with Paul "except for his crazy foreign policy". You like this man for his consistent conservative ideals. You agree with his cutting spending and minimizing federal government. However, if the same man proposes scaling down overseas presence and conserving American lives and saving billions of dollars, not one of you can understand that. Is it really so important that we maintain bases in over 100 countries and spend more than the top 20 countries combined? </p><p>Several members here have already said we invade countries to save the people and liberate the country from tyrants. OK. Then where are we in Zimbabwe, Syria, Sudan, or Myanmar? It is not expedient that we invade those countries. Despite the human suffering and agony, we do nothing. </p><p>Hypocrisy!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="3inSlugger, post: 1701168, member: 18508"] It is not about Ron Paul, it is about foreign policy. Paul just happens to be one of the few sane ones promoting a foreign policy that isn't aggressive. Answer me this: why does Ron Paul have the most donations from active military? Twice what Obama has and three times what all the other GOP candidates combined have? It seems Obama and Paul, both who scaled down or want to scale down military involvement overseas are much more popular among active duty than the rest of hawkish GOP candidates. Explain that. I've already heard many of you say you agree with Paul "except for his crazy foreign policy". You like this man for his consistent conservative ideals. You agree with his cutting spending and minimizing federal government. However, if the same man proposes scaling down overseas presence and conserving American lives and saving billions of dollars, not one of you can understand that. Is it really so important that we maintain bases in over 100 countries and spend more than the top 20 countries combined? Several members here have already said we invade countries to save the people and liberate the country from tyrants. OK. Then where are we in Zimbabwe, Syria, Sudan, or Myanmar? It is not expedient that we invade those countries. Despite the human suffering and agony, we do nothing. Hypocrisy! [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
My newest column (foreign policy)
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom