The Water Cooler
See other The Water Cooler Articles
Title: Ron Paul Rails Against Rick Santorum: ‘We Just Plain Don’t Mind Our Own Business!’
Source:
Mediaite.com
URL Source: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-ron- ... in-dont-mind-our-own-business/
Published: Aug 12, 2011
Author: Mediaite.com
Post Date: 2011-08-12 01:18:40 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 69200
Comments: 85
The debate began with the two most similar candidates– Minnesotans Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Rep. Michele Bachmann– pulling no punches in disparaging each other’s records. It wouldn’t take long for the two most different candidates to have at it, and the foreign policy conversation between. Rep. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum delivered just as much as the experience one among the Minnesotans.
Rep. Paul brought his vintage A-game to the debate on foreign policy tonight, attacking America’s foreign policy on Iran and arguing that they were entirely justified in wanting nuclear weapons. Arguing that the USSR had nuclear weapons and “they were the greatest danger in our history,” he concluded it made no sense to stop the Iranians, who were not a threat. Oh, and by the way, “that’s why we don’t have trade relations with Cuba,” he added as an aside. “It’s about time we start talking to Cuba and stop these wars that are 30-40 years old.”
At this, Santorum shot up, interrupting Herman Cain’s question to respond as the author of the anti-Iranian bill that riled up Rep. Paul so much. “Iran is not Iceland,” he argued, noting that “Iran has killed more American men and women in uniform than the Iraqis [sic] or Afghans have.” He also added that Iran “is at war with us,” which gave Rep. Paul a comeback opening. “We started it in 1953… we installed the Shah, and the blowback came in 1979… it’s been going on because we just plain don’t mind our own business,” he shouted, to cheers.
The segment via Fox News below:
if (70 > (Math.random() * 100)) bing_spawn('Ron Paul');
- Subscribe to *Tea Party On Parade*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S, *Ron Paul for President* (#0)
Nice smack down of the globalist warmonger neolib/con Santorum. Fact is that, Ron Paul is the only pro-American in the GOP debate.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
#2. To: Brian S (#0)
“Iran has killed more American men and women in uniform than the Iraqis [sic] or Afghans have.”
Wha...huh?
America...My Kind Of Place...
"I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..."
--GW Bush
"THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!"
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
#3. To: war, Brian S (#2)
“Iran has killed more American men and women in uniform than the Iraqis [sic] or Afghans have.”
Even if true (not) the Red Chinese killed more Americans than those two groups combined (Korean War) and with the same communist regime in place we made it our leading importer and creditor. And the Red Chinese have nukes......
With the economy still in the dumper -- maybe permanently? -- and full-time jobs becoming as scarce as rain during a drought, huge percentages of Americans have had their (misplaced) faith in the American dream shaken, the upper-middle-class consumerist lifestyle is exposed as a mirage for anybody who plays by the rules. Capitalism and the America that embraced it as a way of life is now and forever more a failure. It does me good to know that the generation that voted in Reagan and his ideology will see their America die from that ideology before their very own eyes and knowing they had a hand in its destruction.
#4. To: Brian S (#0)
Rep. Paul brought his vintage A-game to the debate on foreign policy tonight, attacking America’s foreign policy on Iran and arguing that they were entirely justified in wanting nuclear weapons.
This is a misrepresentation of what Dr. Paul actually said. He didn't say the Iranians were justified in wanting nuclear weapons, he said the US wasn't justified in stopping them. There is a big difference.
#5. To: Thunderbird (#4)
he said the US wasn't justified in stopping them. There is a big difference.
I took it to mean that the sanctions and keeping Iran as an enemy is not a good policy - we engage Russia and China and they are nuclear armed regimes at times hostile to the USA. I would have also replied that like Israel or not it is not the 51st state and just because Israel is terrified of Iran does not mean America's foreign policy has to be linked to Israel's fears. When did Israel become this sacred cow in American politics? Especially amongst Republicans?
With the economy still in the dumper -- maybe permanently? -- and full-time jobs becoming as scarce as rain during a drought, huge percentages of Americans have had their (misplaced) faith in the American dream shaken, the upper-middle-class consumerist lifestyle is exposed as a mirage for anybody who plays by the rules. Capitalism and the America that embraced it as a way of life is now and forever more a failure. It does me good to know that the generation that voted in Reagan and his ideology will see their America die from that ideology before their very own eyes and knowing they had a hand in its destruction.
#6. To: Brian S (#0)
Who unloosened Ron Paul's straight jacket and allowed him to attend this debate?
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
#7. To: Thunderbird (#4)
Been a consistent message of his...
America...My Kind Of Place...
"I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..."
--GW Bush
"THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!"
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
#8. To: Thunderbird (#4)
...he said the US wasn't justified in stopping them...
He seems to have missed the part where we haven't.
#9. To: harrowup (#8)
Dr. Paul was arguing against US sanctions..or at least Santorum thought he was.
My question is whether Dr. Paul thinks the US has ANY role at all in global security?
#10. To: war (#7)
Been a consistent message of his...
just don't google Rick Santorum.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
#11. To: Thunderbird (#9)
My question is whether Dr. Paul thinks the US has ANY role at all in global security?
Only when we are directly threatened or attacked.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
#12. To: go65 (#11)
He's dead on balls wrong about Bin Lden though...
America...My Kind Of Place...
"I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..."
--GW Bush
"THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!"
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
#13. To: war (#12) (Edited)
He's dead on balls wrong about Bin Lden though...
Agreed. With one caveat, had Paul's views been followed prior to 1991, we never would have been attacked by Bin Laden as we never would have gotten involved in Afghanistan or in restoring the Kuwaiti monarchy.
I think he's overall right in his views, but it will require an adjustment period and we need to slowly disengage.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
#14. To: Thunderbird Brian S (#4)
This is a misrepresentation of what Dr. Paul actually said. He didn't say the Iranians were justified in wanting nuclear weapons, he said the US wasn't justified in stopping them. There is a big difference.
What did Ron Paul actually say ... he said:
Why would that be so strange if the Soviets and the Chinese had 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. But you don't go to war with them. 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 ... why wouldn't it be natural if they might want a weapon? Internationally, they might be given more respect.
#15. To: go65 (#11)
Only when we are directly threatened or attacked.
So Ron Paul's concept of 'global' security is... its every country for itself?
What about our international treaty obligations, does the US withdraw?
#16. To: Thunderbird (#15)
So Ron Paul's concept of 'global' security is... its every country for itself?
Basically yes, only act when the U.S. is directly threatened versus the view that has us in over 130 countries.
"beware of entangling alliances" goes back to our first President as i'm sure you know.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
#17. To: Gatlin (#14)
Why would that be so strange if the Soviets and the Chinese had 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. But you don't go to war with them. 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 ... why wouldn't it be natural if they might want a weapon? Internationally, they might be given more respect.
He's right - the idea that the Iranians would nuke Israel is pretty silly given the likely response, and the fact that winds would blow fallout back at them. There's no evidence that the Iranians are any more suicidal than the Soviets or North Koreans.
And a desire by the Iranians to want nukes is perfectly understandable given U.S. forces on both their borders while we leave North Korea and Pakistan alone.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
#18. To: war (#12)
Hey, war
Would you do me a favor and pass on a comment from me to "go"? I am surprised, given the tone and tenor of his posts, to see him saying positive things about RP.
I'd do it myself, but he has me on filter . . .
#19. To: go65. Brian S, Thunderbird (#17)
Why would that be so strange if the Soviets and the Chinese had 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. But you don't go to war with them. 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 ... why wouldn't it be natural if they might want a weapon? Internationally, they might be given more respect.He's right - the idea that the Iranians would nuke Israel is pretty silly given the likely response, and the fact that winds would blow fallout back at them. There's no evidence that the Iranians are any more suicidal than the Soviets or North Koreans.
And a desire by the Iranians to want nukes is perfectly understandable given U.S. forces on both their borders while we leave North Korea and Pakistan alone.
The original point: Ron Paul say the Iranians are justified in wanting/having nuclear weapons?
#20. To: Get Outta Dodge!, go65 (#18)
Would you do me a favor and pass on a comment from me to "go"? I am surprised, given the tone and tenor of his posts, to see him saying positive things about RP.
Really? I believe go65 has stated he has voted for RP in the past.
#21. To: mininggold, Get Outta Dodge! (#20)
Really? I believe go65 has stated he has voted for RP in the past.
Not only voted for him, but contributed to his 2008 presidential campaign. I donated to him before he raised his first $500k.
I do think he's wrong about how to respond to the current economic conditions, but he was correct in flagging the need to reign the deficit "before" the 2008 crash. One of the biggest problems we have now is that we ran big deficits in the 2000's when the economy was growing and we should have been running surpluses. The net result is that we didn't have the financial flexibility to deal with the 2008 crisis that other countries had (e.g. Canada, Germany).
I do think implementing Paul's approach "now" of massively cutting spending would send us into another depression.
Dodge - i'm taking you off filter.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
#22. To: go65, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#13) (Edited)
but it will require an adjustment period and we need to slowly disengage
Yes it will require an adjustment period. Any attempts at a phased withdrawal (slow disengagement) will fail, as our foreign policy has. Such attempts will just create more quagmires and boondoggles. Just pull them all out and deal with the adjustment period as required.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
#23. To: Gatlin (#19)
The original point: Ron Paul say the Iranians are justified in wanting/having nuclear weapons?
What he's said is that it is understandable that they would want nukes, that there is no evidence they are working on nukes, and that he opposes sanctions on Iran.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
#24. To: go65 (#13)
...or in restoring the Kuwaiti monarchy.
It's remarkable that the two biggest foreign policy blunders ever committed in the history of our republic were initiated by the same gene pool over the same country.
America...My Kind Of Place...
"I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..."
--GW Bush
"THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!"
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
#25. To: Get Outta Dodge!, go65 (#18)
#18. To: war (#12) Hey, war
Would you do me a favor and pass on a comment from me to "go"? I am surprised, given the tone and tenor of his posts, to see him saying positive things about RP.
I'd do it myself, but he has me on filter . . .
Get Outta Dodge! posted on 2011-08-12 11:13:59 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
America...My Kind Of Place...
"I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..."
--GW Bush
"THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!"
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
#26. To: go65 (#23)
What he's said is that it is understandable that they would want nukes ...
Yea, I read that ...
He surely did NOT say that is is NOT okay for them to have them, then did he mean that it's okay for them to have them?
I don't know ...
If I were to "guess" ... I would "guess" that he means that it is okay for them to have them. That is what I understood him to say ... I could be wrong.
#27. To: Gatlin, *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin* (#26)
He surely did NOT say that is is NOT okay for them to have them
Yeah, Ron Paul would not even interfere with YOUR ability to defend yourself. But being a neo-progressive statist liberal, you'd like to deny others the tools to defend themselves, wouldn't you?
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
#28. To: no gnu taxes (#6)
Who unloosened Ron Paul's straight jacket and allowed him to attend this debate?
Wassamatter, Dondero???
Still mad that Ron Paul fired you?
The two sides in America are people who work for a living versus people who vote for their living.
#29. To: Gatlin (#26)
He surely did NOT say that is is NOT okay for them to have them, then did he mean that it's okay for them to have them?
He has said it shouldn't scare us if they have them, so to me that means he sees nothing wrong with Iran having nukes.
Hey, we accept a nuclear North Korea, why can't we accept a nuclear Iran?
Tagline for sale - inquire within
#30. To: war (#24)
It's remarkable that the two biggest foreign policy blunders ever committed in the history of our republic were initiated by the same gene pool over the same country.
Yes, Republicans sent U.S. troops to their deaths to restore a monarchy and to install a pro-Iranian government in the country that had been Iran's biggest enemy.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
#31. To: go65 (#30)
Yes, Republicans sent U.S. troops to their deaths to restore a monarchy and to install a pro-Iranian government in the country that had been Iran's biggest enemy.
another brilliant move by that moron bush
#32. To: Gatlin (#19)
The original point: Ron Paul say the Iranians are justified in wanting/having nuclear weapons?
I didn't watch the debate, so my only context is the video clip linked at the top of the thread. That clip doesn't show Ron Paul saying "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 ... why wouldn't it be natural if they might want a weapon? Internationally, they might be given more respect."
It does seem naive / irresponsible to think the world would be better off with no deterrent to nuclear proliferation, or that the United States itself would be safer.
#33. To: Thunderbird, *Neo-Lib Chickenhawk Wars* (#32)
It does seem naive / irresponsible to think the world would be better off with no deterrent to nuclear proliferation
Not as naive as thinking that you can run the world.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
#34. To: hondo68 (#27)
... you'd like to deny others the tools to defend themselves, wouldn't you?
Nope.
I would however like to deny MUSLIM FANATICS, who continue to kill people and themselves with their suicide bombs, a nuke bomb tool ... wouldn't you?
#35. To: hondo68, (#33)
Not as naive as thinking that you can run the world.
Only a fucking idiot would think you have to "rule the world" in order to keep a handful of rogue nations from acquiring nuclear weapons.
#36. To: Gatlin (#34)
I would however like to deny MUSLIM FANATICS, who continue to kill people and themselves with their suicide bombs, a nuke bomb tool ... wouldn't you?
Pakistan has one already.
And we seem to all be OK with North Korea having a nuke.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
#37. To: Thunderbird (#35)
Only a fucking idiot would think you have to "rule the world" in order to keep a handful of rogue nations from acquiring nuclear weapons.
if we can't keep North Korea from getting a nuke, what makes you think we can stop Iran?
Tagline for sale - inquire within
#38. To: Capitalist Eric, *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin* (#28) (Edited)
#25. To: Infowarrior (#24)
The KKK in 2012
If you can't face the truth...
change your candidate.
GrandIsland posted on 2011-08-12 11:27:54 ET
An indication of just how crazy and desperate the neocon yukon/dondero statist cult is.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
#39. To: go65, mininggold, war (#21)
Really? I believe go65 has stated he has voted for RP in the past.Not only voted for him, but contributed to his 2008 presidential campaign. I donated to him before he raised his first $500k.
I do think he's wrong about how to respond to the current economic conditions, but he was correct in flagging the need to reign the deficit "before" the 2008 crash. One of the biggest problems we have now is that we ran big deficits in the 2000's when the economy was growing and we should have been running surpluses. The net result is that we didn't have the financial flexibility to deal with the 2008 crisis that other countries had (e.g. Canada, Germany).
I do think implementing Paul's approach "now" of massively cutting spending would send us into another depression.
Everyone has a basic political philosophy.
Of course, I can only judge yours by what I've seen you post - so I may be way off base. But I would never have imagined you would support RP's political philosophy of smaller, Constitutional government. I don't think, for instance, that RP would ever find himself supporting something like Obamacare - but I'm pretty sure you do. And if that's the case, that's a pretty big "except for."
So I find this "revelation" interesting.
#40. To: Get Outta Dodge! (#39)
But I would never have imagined you would support RP's political philosophy of smaller, Constitutional government. I don't think, for instance, that RP would ever find himself supporting something like Obamacare - but I'm pretty sure you do. And if that's the case, that's a pretty big "except for."
I didn't and still don't support Obamacare. As I've stated numerous times, I think the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and I think it's a terrible solution to the challenge of reigning in health care costs. I do however support a single-payer solution simply because it's the cheapest, most efficient means of providing health insurance to the nation's citizens.
I'm not an ideologue, I support what works based on available evidence. I note that every country with a AAA rating has a national health insurance program. I note that countries with national health insurance systems pay less than we do and get better care with better metrics.
I like a lot of what Ron Paul has to say with respect to foreign policy. I disagree with him a lot on domestic policy.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
#41. To: Gatlin (#34)
like to deny MUSLIM FANATICS, who continue to kill people and themselves with their suicide bombs, a nuke bomb tool ... wouldn't you?
No, I even support the right of crackpot warmongers such as yourself to have a nuke.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
.
.
.
Comments (42 - 85) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]