U.S. Ambassador to Libya, 3 Other Embassy Staff Killed in Rocket Attack

[NEPatriots]

Originally Posted by Wallace108

In my opinion, there's plenty of blame to go around. It's time to pull out of the Middle East and end all aid.

I'm certainly not one of those who blames America for what happened on 9/11, but our policies on the Middle East aren't working. I used to argue with Ric about this, but I'm beginning to see things his way. Since 9/11, we've invaded two countries, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, including women and children, and have spent trillions of dollars in an effort to make us safer. How has that worked out for us?

How many more countries do we have to invade? How many more hundreds of thousands of innocent people do we have to kill? How many more billions (or trillions) of dollars do we have to spend? How many more of our own soldiers do we have to lose? All to be at the same place we started off at ... if not a worse place.

This.

I find it hard to believe that still, after everything that has happened in the last ten years, that party partisanship prevails among the American people when it was made so clear to even the most casual of political observers in the 21st century that BOTH political parties are wildly corrupt, increasingly unhinged, arrogant, power hungry, and uninterested in the American people or what was once the American way of life.

The Republicans pass the Patriot act (which at least had judicial oversight, though I was still against it), and Democrats cry foul and complain about a loss of liberty and accuse Bush of being a tyrant.

The Democrats come to power, strengthen the Patriot act, set the precedent for a President to assassinate American citizens without a trial, and, with the help of "small government Republicans," pass the NDAA, shredding the 4th amendment and effectively giving the government the power of a vicious and very complete police state, yet the same Democrats don't say a single word in protest.

Neither do Republicans.

One party (D) are collectivist/corporatists who believe in a welfare/warfare state and the other party (R) are corporatists/collectivists who believe in a warfare/welfare state. Neither care about you. Neither care about freedom. Neither care about the Middle class. Nobody cares about the poor.

Our foreign policy is just awful. There is no reason any of us should be supporting our foreign policy in the Middle East of bribery, bombings, and "preventive" wars of aggression. How many more nations who have done nothing to us can we invade while still believing we hold some morale high ground over some of the most aggressive expansionists in world history?

THERE IS NOT A SINGLE NATION ON EARTH that the quest for Empire did not ultimately destroy, and many of these nations that came and went before us were much more clever than we are. It is bankrupting us, it makes us less safe, and it does not serve our national security interests one bit.

We can not prop up repressive regimes or invade other foreign nations and kill hundreds of thousands of people and not expect there to be what the CIA calls "Blowback"

What is going on in the Middle East is not just some isolated event that came out of nowhere. This is a link in a chain of a great many events and this chain will continue with more terrorist attacks, more Americans being killed, more destructive military spending which is drowning our economy, more wars, more death, more destruction, more costly Empire, and the COMPLETE loss of our liberty in the name of security which BOTH parties seem eagerly anxious to provide.

It's time to bring the troops home. It's time to close these bases all around the world. It's time to open the door to trade and friendship with other nations. This leads to prosperity, peace, and freedom which, in my opinion, is preferable to bankruptcy, endless wars of aggression, and the complete loss of freedom.

[YOUTUBE]pqv31-r4244[/YOUTUBE]

[MasterOfPuppets]

thats not part of the plan patriot...

[YOUTUBE]4PpMdTmVMpo&feature=related [/YOUTUBE]

[ricardisimo]

There's a long list of candidates who oppose this, Ron Paul just happens to be the only one from either major party. I'm also starting to think that abstaining from voting is perfectly legitimate. I used to be very judgmental about it, but refusing to have anything to do with a diseased, corrupt system is healthy, not harmful.

[MasterOfPuppets]

although i'd never lump paul in with either of those cabal's. the guy's consistent voting record and no nonsense opinions on the issues proves he's thinks more like the average joe than one of those sell out empty suits.
but alas, the naive population will continue to get what we deserve for blindly swallowing every lie and scam these scumbags throw our way.

TAMPA, September 6, 2012 — There was no big announcement during Ron Paul’s appearance on Jay Leno Tuesday night. On the contrary, Paul’s appearance was somewhat anticlimactic given Mitt Romney’s nomination at the Republican National Convention last week. Of course, he still said what he has been saying for over thirty years in public life: America must stop spending money it doesn’t have, must liquidate its debts and rethink the role of government as cradle-to-grave caregiver and policeman of the world.

Ron Paul has said many memorable things during his two most recent campaigns for president. A debate moderator tried to put him on the spot regarding his position on leaving Iraq, asking contemptuously, “What is your plan to get U.S. troops out of Iraq?” Paul replied without hesitation, “We marched right in there without a plan, we can march right out.”

When asked about Newt Gingrich’s suggestion that the U.S. government explore colonizing the moon, Paul replied, “No, I don’t want to go to the moon, although I’d like to send some politicians up there.”

A few days ago, I posed a question at the end of my story on the Maine delegation fiasco. What were they really so afraid of?

It wasn’t what Ron Paul said that had them so scared. It was what he didn’t say.

At the RNC, it was what he wasn’t allowed to say. It is hard not to conclude that the entire war to unseat Paul’s delegates was waged to silence him. There was almost no chance for Paul to win. He came into the convention with eight states. In order to win, he would have had to persuade almost a thousand of Romney’s delegates to change their minds.

But had all of Paul’s delegates been seated, he would have had a chance to try. He would have been entitled to a 15-minute speech for that very purpose. Whether he would have persuaded a single Romney delegate is not important. What is important is that millions of television viewers would have heard that speech, a large percentage of whom have still probably never heard of Ron Paul.

Think for a moment what a problem that would have been for the Romney/RNC cabal. While Romney/Ryan tried to pass themselves off as champions of small government even as they propose to spend more during their first year in office than Obama is spending now, Ron Paul would have talked about his budget that would have cut $1 trillion during his first year in office.

While Paul Ryan was attacking President Obama for cutting Medicare, Ron Paul would present his plan to phase out both Social Security and Medicare while still maintaining benefits for those who paid into the programs.

While Romney beat the war drums against Iran, Ron Paul would talk not only about getting U.S. troops out of the Middle East, but getting out of Germany, Japan, Korea and 100 other countries as well. That may not have played well with the aging neoconservatives, but millions of people watching on television would have heard a completely different Republican platform.

In short, a Ron Paul speech at the RNC would have been about really doing what Republicans claim they stand for but never actually do: reduce the size and influence of the federal government. And it would have appealed not only to Republicans, but Democrats and independents as well, just as Paul’s campaign had during primary season.

This could not be allowed to happen. He could not be allowed to speak.

Instead, Ryan, Romney and others made some exhilarating speeches about free markets, smaller government and restoring America’s founding principles, while every detail of their plans completely contradicts those principles.

A friend texted me during Romney’s speech. “Is it exciting?” she asked?

“As exciting as watching tens of thousands of people who have no grip on reality can be,” I replied.

Now, we head into another general election season with two candidates who really don’t disagree on anything of substance. We’ll hear that Romney didn’t pay enough taxes and that Obama didn’t drop enough bombs.

And whoever wins will propose the first $4 trillion federal budget in U.S. history.

Couldn’t we have at least been allowed to hear something different?

Read more: What Ron Paul didn't say | Washington Times Communities
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter