KenH's New Original Ron Paul for President Thread

[poncho]

He's saying that we've been meddling in other nations affairs for so long that our actions abroad cause "blowback". The same thing the "commision report" and our intell agencies have said.

If you mess around in your neighbors yard telling him how to live and destroying his things long enough your neighbor may just get upset and mess around in your yard and destroy things. It's like the bully on the block that goes around giving out bloody noses all the time yet is dumbfounded and surprised when someone has had enough and decides to give him one in return.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Maybe , but he didn't legitimize their reasoning nor did he say it was America's fault for 911 .... Whooops, there I go again repeating myself.

My question was not about whether Paul legitimized their reasoning. But it seems hard to say that "They did it because we were over there" and say, "But it's not our fault."

Paul may well be right, but he seems to be treading a pretty fine line there. I don't think saying "They did it because we were over there first" is legitimizing their reasoning. But it certainly seems hard to not call it blaming.

 

[Pastor Larry]

If you mess around in your neighbors yard telling him how to live and destroying his things long enough your neighbor may just get upset and mess around in your yard and destroy things. It's like the bully on the block that goes around giving out bloody noses all the time yet is dumbfounded and surprised when someone has had enough and decides to give him one in return.

So are you or Paul saying you think it is America's fault that we were attacked on 9/11?

 

[Petra-O IX]

My question was not about whether Paul legitimized their reasoning. But it seems hard to say that "They did it because we were over there" and say, "But it's not our fault."

Paul may well be right, but he seems to be treading a pretty fine line there. I don't think saying "They did it because we were over there first" is legitimizing their reasoning. But it certainly seems hard to not call it blaming.

Well maybe Ron Paul is a little to complicated for you to understand Pastor Larry, I think the trick is not to interpret what you would like Ron Paul to say but to actually distinguish what he has actually said.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Well maybe Ron Paul is a little to complicated for you to understand Pastor Larry,

I highly doubt that.

BTW, if you are going to try to make a smartaleck cut down of someone else's intelligence, then at least spell things right or use the right word, whichever the case may have been.

I think the trick is not to interpret what you would like Ron Paul to say but to actually distinguish what he has actually said/

That's what I am trying to do. That's why I am asking about what he said.

So feel free to offer an explanation: Do you think Paul is blaming America for 9/11? If not, then why does he seem to say if we hadn't been there, it would not have happened?

 

[Petra-O IX]

I highly doubt that.

That's what I am trying to do. That's why I am asking about what he said.

So feel free to offer an explanation: Do you think Paul is blaming America for 9/11? If not, then why does he seem to say if we hadn't been there, it would not have happened?

No Ron Paul is not blamming America.
I believe it is true that if we hadn't been over there 911 would not have happened. Why does this seem so complicated to you? I believe Poncho has explained this more than adequately enough.

 

[carpro]

Well maybe Ron Paul is a little to complicated for you to understand Pastor Larry, I think the trick is not to interpret what you would like Ron Paul to say but to actually distinguish what he has actually said.

:laugh:

Paul isn't hard to understand at all.

In his efforts to legitimize his own isolationist agenda, he has to lay the blame for 911 on the United States and our "interventionist" foreign policy.

Ergo: If we weren't "over there" , no one would have reason to attack us.

Solution: Let our fear of being attacked guide our foreign policy.
Disengage in the Middle East.

I believe Paul has seriously misjudged what motivates Al Qaeda and their suicidal jihadists.

 

[Pastor Larry]

No Ron Paul is not blamming America.

I assume you mean blaming. So then why does he say if we hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened? Isn't that, at least to some degree, blame?

It seems to me he is saying if we had done things differently, this wouldn't have happened. It seems legitimate to conclude that we must bear some of the blame for what happened. That doesn't legitimize their actions at all, IMO.

I believe it is true that if we hadn't been over there 911 would not have happened.

I tend to agree. But I am not sure why, in your thinking and Paul's, that isn't blame, at least to some degree.

Why does this seem so complicated to you?

Because Paul seems to be dodging the issue of blame. Why doesn't he simply say, "We have to accept some of the blame for our foreign policy decisions over the years"?

I believe Poncho has explained this more than adequately enough.

I read very little of what Poncho writes. His explanations of things have, in the past, been less than satisfactory so I quit reading his posts for the most part.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

New Paul TV ad here.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Paul inches closer to $20million goal.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Dr. No, R-Texas

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Former World Net Daily Commentary Editor Endorses Ron Paul here.

 

[Dagwood]

My question was not about what I believe, but about what Paul says.

What you believe about the facts should influence whether or not you agree with Ron Paul.

I would submit that since Bin Laden said our presence in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim lands was a reason for attacking us, Ron Paul is only stating the obvious.

 

[Petra-O IX]

:laugh:

Paul isn't hard to understand at all.

In his efforts to legitimize his own isolationist agenda, he has to lay the blame for 911 on the United States and our "interventionist" foreign policy.

Ergo: If we weren't "over there" , no one would have reason to attack us.

Solution: Let our fear of being attacked guide our foreign policy.
Disengage in the Middle East.

I believe Paul has seriously misjudged what motivates Al Qaeda and their suicidal jihadists.

Ron Paul did not blame the U.S. for 911 and Carpro you have yet to prove that he has. Your wild assertions are not sufficient to rationalize that to be true.

 

[carpro]

Ron Paul did not blame the U.S. for 911 and Carpro you have yet to prove that he has. Your wild assertions are not sufficient to rationalize that to be true.

I don't have to prove it. Paul does it himself. If you wish to remain in denial, that's your privilege.

 

[Petra-O IX]

I assume you mean blaming. So then why does he say if we hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened? Isn't that, at least to some degree, blame?

No Because we didn't do the dirty deed of flying planes into buildings.

It seems to me he is saying if we had done things differently, this wouldn't have happened. It seems legitimate to conclude that we must bear some of the blame for what happened. That doesn't legitimize their actions at all, IMO.

If we had done things differently 911 would not have happened. It is not legitmate to conclude that we must bear some of the blame because we do not understand the rationale of what Islamic extremest like Bin Laden thinks.

I tend to agree. But I am not sure why, in your thinking and Paul's, that isn't blame, at least to some degree.

Nah!!! I'm not going to repeat myself. Look above for that answer.

Because Paul seems to be dodging the issue of blame. Why doesn't he simply say, "We have to accept some of the blame for our foreign policy decisions over the years"?

Because that would be you putting words in his mouth. It's not about blame it's about understanding why these crazy Islamic extremest think as they do.

I read very little of what Poncho writes. His explanations of things have, in the past, been less than satisfactory so I quit reading his posts for the most part.

I'm sorry you feel this way, though I don't know why you are so predjudiced against Poncho. Does Poncho frustrate you that much?

 

[Petra-O IX]

I don't have to prove it. Paul does it himself. If you wish to remain in denial, that's your privilege.

It's not that you don't have to prove it, it's because you can't prove it.:laugh: :laugh:

 

[Pastor Larry]

What you believe about the facts should influence whether or not you agree with Ron Paul.

Well, of course. But the point of my question was to find out what Ron Paul believes so I can determine whether or not I agree with him.

I would submit that since Bin Laden said our presence in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim lands was a reason for attacking us, Ron Paul is only stating the obvious.

That assumes that Bin Laden is telling the truth. There are still some who believe Bin Laden didn't have anything to do with it.

So the question is whether Ron Paul believes the facts or not.

 

[Pastor Larry]

No Because we didn't do the dirty deed of flying planes into buildings.

The question of blame is not about who did it, but rather about what was behind the decision making of those who did it.

If we had done things differently 911 would not have happened. It is not legitmate to conclude that we must bear some of the blame because we do not understand the rationale of what Islamic extremest like Bin Laden thinks.

I think this is the kind of parsing that is illegitimate.

Because that would be you putting words in his mouth. It's not about blame it's about understanding why these crazy Islamic extremest think as they do.

First, you missed the question. My question was, "Why doesn't Paul say ..." I was curious as to why he says it the way he does. You didn't answer that. Second, the "why" is about blame. In trying to find out why people think the way they do, we are looking for reasons why they do things. That is typically called blame.

I'm sorry you feel this way,

Don't be. I'm not.

though I don't know why you are so predjudiced against Poncho.

I'm not prejudiced against him.

Does Poncho frustrate you that much?

Nope. He doesn't frustrate me at all. I don't even think about him.

 

[saturneptune]

I really do not think Ron Paul should be of major concern to you Pastor Larry. No doubt, on the night of November 4th, we will all hear announced on every news outlet, "And Michigan's electoral votes are awarded to Hillary Clinton."