Monday, August 22, 2011

Re: Who Schooled Whom?

The Iranians have been battling invading armies for the last 2500
years. The Americans are only the latest in a long line of pushy
foreigners. For what possible reason would the Iranians like the
United States?

On Aug 17, 12:02 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why prey tell, do the Iranians have a reason to hate us?  Because we seized
> their assets when their government invaded a sovereign embassy, and because
> they held fifty-three Americans hostage?
>
> Again, Dr. Paul is wrong in his history if you are referencing our Nation's
> support for a coup, that toppled a corrupt government in Iran back in 1953.
> If we had the opportunity to do so again, I and every other American should
> support such an action.
>
> The Iranians have no reason to hate America, we have been one of their most
> benevolent benefactors!
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 2:54 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Iran is not the Soviet Union, it is a bunch of fanatics who hate
> > Western Civilization, and especially America
> > ---
> > they have a damn good reason to hate the US
>
> > treating them any differently from other muslim nations and attempting
> > to stop them from developing nukes is folly
>
> > RP's foreign policy is pro-American, not pro-Israel
> > choose sides carefully
>
> > On Aug 17, 1:41 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hello PlainOl!
>
> > > How about from the horse's mouth, on August 12th, at the Ames Iowa
> > debate,
> > > with regard to Iran, and a question from Chris Wallace,  who asked:
>
> > > *"Congressman Paul -- Congressman Paul, you say that President Obama is
> > not
> > > too soft on Iran, you say that he is too tough on Iran. I want to put up
> > > some of your statements. "Sanctions are not diplomacy," you say. "They
> > are a
> > > precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service
> > to
> > > free trade." As for Iran's nuclear ambitions, you wrote this: "One can
> > > understand why they might want to become nuclear capable, if only to
> > defend
> > > themselves and to be treated more respectfull"*
>
> > > *"Is that your policy towards Iran?"*
>
> > > **
> > > **
> > > Congressman Paul responded in part:
> > > * *
> > > **
>
> > > *"....Just think of the agitation and the worrying of a country that
> > might
> > > get a nuclear weapon some day. And just think of how many nuclear weapons
> > > surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The
> > Pakistanis
> > > are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these
> > > countries -- China has nuclear weapons. "*
> > > *
>
> > > "Why wouldn't it be natural that they might want a weapon? There'd be --
> > > internationally, they'd be given more respect. Why should we write people
> > > off? There was -- you know, in the '50s, we at least talked to them. At
> > > least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets.
> > > *
>
> > > *What's so terribly bad about this?"*
>
> > > Wallace followed up:
>
> > > *"Congressman Paul -- Congressman Paul, I want to just give you 15
> > seconds.
> > > I want to just make sure I understand. So your policy towards Iran is, if
> > > they want to develop a nuclear weapon, that's their right, no sanctions,
> > no
> > > effort to stop them?"*
>
> > > *PAUL: "No, I think that -- I think that thing -- that makes it much
> > worse.
> > > Why would that be so strange, if the Soviets and the Chinese have nuclear
> > > weapons? We tolerated the Soviets; we didn't attack them.
> > > And they were a much greater danger -- they were the greatest danger to
> > us
> > > in -- our whole history. You don't go to war against them."*
> > > **
> > > *========
> > > *
> > > **
> > > As stated, I have the utmost respect for Dr. Paul, and I think he is a
> > > brilliant individual, who has sound economic and fiscal polices that the
> > > Republican Party are now adopting.  Kudos to Paul, and the Tea Party for
> > > finally seeing the light!
>
> > > I do not agree with Dr. Paul's foreign policy, and I find it just
> > outright
> > > naive!  Iran is not the Soviet Union, it is a bunch of fanatics who hate
> > > Western Civilization, and especially America.  Dr. Paul doesn't see this
> > or
> > > realize this.
>
> > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 1:34 PM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > For Dr. Paul to advocate
> > > > Iran's nuclear capabilities is just flat out scary
>
> > > > ---
> > > > cite source
>
> > > > On Aug 17, 9:11 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I would agree that our foreign policy of, "Nation Building"  was
> > > > misguided
> > > > > and not in the best interests of the United States.  I would also
> > call
> > > > > "Nation Building"  a form of "Intervention".
>
> > > > > There is a distinction however, between "Intervention"  and
> > "Isolation".
> > > > > Dr. Paul espouses the latter, and that is just as misplaced as Nation
> > > > > Building.  In fact, It's far more dangerous.  For Dr. Paul to
> > advocate
> > > > > Iran's nuclear capabilities is just flat out scary.  A clear
> > indication
> > > > that
> > > > > Paul denies the reality of the world today.  Dr. Paul is a brilliant
> > guy,
> > > > > he is just flat out misplaced on what constitutes a danger to our
> > Nation.
>
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:22 AM, raymorphic <raymorp...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > "It didn't make Dr. Paul any more correct with regard to history,
> > or
> > > > > > his
> > > > > > foreign policy."
>
> > > > > > I'm not sure about the history part; what I refer to as sensible
> > was
> > > > > > the foreign policy solution.
>
> > > > > > America do not like interventionists foreign policies.
>
> > > > > > We couldn't run our country well, let alone running other people's
> > > > > > countries.
>
> > > > > > In addition, we're in no financial position to intervene.
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>
> > > > > > For options & help seehttp://
> > groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>
> > > > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > > --
>
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Who Schooled Whom?

Believing that Iran can be dissuaded from developing nuclear weapons
is the real fantasy.

On Aug 17, 7:11 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would agree that our foreign policy of, "Nation Building"  was misguided
> and not in the best interests of the United States.  I would also call
> "Nation Building"  a form of "Intervention".
>
> There is a distinction however, between "Intervention"  and "Isolation".
> Dr. Paul espouses the latter, and that is just as misplaced as Nation
> Building.  In fact, It's far more dangerous.  For Dr. Paul to advocate
> Iran's nuclear capabilities is just flat out scary.  A clear indication that
> Paul denies the reality of the world today.  Dr. Paul is a brilliant guy,
> he is just flat out misplaced on what constitutes a danger to our Nation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:22 AM, raymorphic <raymorp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "It didn't make Dr. Paul any more correct with regard to history, or
> > his
> > foreign policy."
>
> > I'm not sure about the history part; what I refer to as sensible was
> > the foreign policy solution.
>
> > America do not like interventionists foreign policies.
>
> > We couldn't run our country well, let alone running other people's
> > countries.
>
> > In addition, we're in no financial position to intervene.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Who Schooled Whom?

Stability? How can anything be called stable when the dictator enjoys
the support of 1 percent of the population? Tops.


On Aug 16, 4:30 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I watched the debate, and I am familiar with contemporary history.
>
> Dr. Paul is incorrect, we were not at war with Iran when we supported a coup
> that installed the Shah of Iran in 1953.  The region was unstable then, as
> it is now, and for twenty-five years under the Shah there was stability in
> Iran, with a semi-Western style society that was friendly to our
> interests.
>
> I think Rick Santorum, as stated in another post, is a typical big
> government "Hamiltonian Federalist"  parading as a Republican.  The only
> difference between him and a socialist Democrat, is that Santorum would push
> his brand of moral compass on America under a federalist system, and Paul
> exposed that during the debate.
>
> It didn't make Dr. Paul any more correct with regard to history, or his
> foreign policy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:26 AM, raymorphic <raymorp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I've watched that debate segment.
>
> > If you're interested, you can watch it here.
>
> > Ron Paul at the FOX News 2011 Iowa State University GOP Presidential
> > Debate - August 11, 2011
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4v_tLEkeoo
>
> > To me, Ron Paul clearly made more sense.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: What Explains America's Achievements of the Last 150 Years?

"Perverted?"

Man, that takes me back.

I suppose ad hominem comments are a substitute for serious
conversations in some places. I prefer the more sober, respectful, and
thoughtful kinds of conversations.

On Aug 20, 8:28 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good evening Lxtelan,
>
> You have  an outright distorted revisonist view of history.  I'm sure you
> are very much for a continuation of more funding for the Department of
> Education, as well as your perverted view of revisionist history, and that
> it be mandated in all fifty States,  with testing and pop quizzes on
> "progressive"  slanted views such as yours.
> Thankfully,  most Americans have caught on to yours, and your brethren's
> loud, vocal, but nevertheless minority viewpoint and Anti-American push for
> "Nannny-State".   It just won't fly anymore.
>
> Have a great weekend.
>
> KeithInTampa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Ixtelan <drbuck...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > Wow. This one is turning up everywhere.
>
> > In the 19th century, the United States benefited from the theft of
> > other peoples' labor (slavery), took no care to preserve the air,
> > water, or forests, put women and children into sweatshops, and enjoyed
> > pacified neighbors on its northern and southern borders.
>
> > In the 20th century, the U.S. Air Force blasted the crap out of our
> > main economic competitors, Germany and Japan, and did precious little
> > to help our allies, Britain and the USSR, to recover. If you have the
> > only functioning industrial economy in the world, you can do pretty
> > good for yourself.
>
> > Today, our foreign competitors have recovered, sweatshops and slavery
> > have been abolished, and our natural resources are exhausted. Welcome
> > to the 21st century, unemployed America!
>
> > On Aug 18, 1:59 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > The Economic Foundation of FreedomWhat Explains America's Achievements of
> > the Last 150 Years?Howard Buffett
> > > September 2003 • Volume: 53 • Issue: 8 •
>
> >http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-economic-foundation-of-f...
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Is the Fed Treasonous?

States by themselves were incapable of putting down the southern
insurrection, waging world wars, fixing the Depression, or solving the
Civil Rights crisis.

Personally, I wish Mr. Lincoln would have let the south go. The United
States would do very nicely today without it.

On Aug 21, 11:56 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Is the Fed Treasonous?by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

> The original Constitution listed a very few enumerated powers of the federal government in Article 1, Section 8. All other powers were reserved for the people and the states under the Tenth Amendment, which Thomas Jefferson considered to be the cornerstone of the entire document. The creation of the Fed in 1913, along with the federal income tax in that same year, was one of the

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.