On December 18 2011 13:13 only_human89 wrote: Ron Paul can't "tone down" on his religious beliefs. It would be political suicide. He would never get elected in this country. That's about as moderate as you're going to see a U.S. politician get.
Gary Johnson. The media and Republican party have shut him out of any shot at the presidency but at least there is a politician on the national level that is a true defender of liberty and individual rights.
On December 18 2011 12:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I really don't understand how people are saying if Ron Paul wins Iowa it will be good news for Romney, even if Newt gets 2nd. Whoever comes out on top in Iowa will get much needed funding and possibly support nationwide. As for Romney wins New Hampshire, so? Doesn't mean anything if he can't carry Florida, or South Carolina.
It's a momentum issue. If Gingrich wins Iowa he might be able to snowball into a NH win and sweep things quickly. If Romney assumes he can't win Iowa, a fair assumption, he doesn't want Gringrich to win it either since Gringrich is his principal competitor. It's just better for Gingrich if he wins Iowa, and this is like a zero-sum game where what's good for Gringrich is bad for Romney. That's why a Ron Paul win is good for Romney.
It's also good because there is a fairly significant "anyone but Romney" share of the vote. The stronger Ron Paul is the more split that vote is. Romney is the only one in the race whose poll numbers have been fairly static the entire duration. He's been hanging between 20-30%, always in first or second while seemingly every other competitor peaked and crumbled. Romney doesn't poll high enough to win a 2 man race, he needs at least a 3rd to even have a shot. I think Romney would prefer the 3rd to be more orthodox Republican, more similar to Gingrich, but he'll take what he can get.
On December 18 2011 13:13 only_human89 wrote: Ron Paul can't "tone down" on his religious beliefs. It would be political suicide. He would never get elected in this country. That's about as moderate as you're going to see a U.S. politician get.
Um, no, Ron Paul isnt going to "tone down" because he is authentically a devoted Christian. Ron Paul runs on ludicrous positions, he flatly does not give a fuck about getting elected immediately but convincing people over the long term.
I dont know why so many libertarians pretend Ron Paul's life long devotion to Christianity is some kind of trick. The mans a creationist. Are you really so ashamed a candidate you like is a Christian?
On December 18 2011 13:13 only_human89 wrote: Ron Paul can't "tone down" on his religious beliefs. It would be political suicide. He would never get elected in this country. That's about as moderate as you're going to see a U.S. politician get.
Um, no, Ron Paul isnt going to "tone down" because he is authentically a devoted Christian. Ron Paul runs on ludicrous positions, he flatly does not give a fuck about getting elected immediately but convincing people over the long term.
I dont know why so many libertarians pretend Ron Paul's life long devotion to Christianity is some kind of trick. The mans a creationist. Are you really so ashamed a candidate you like is a Christian?
The shame and evasion of facts is understandable. Ron Paul understands basic economics and has a sane view on the drug war. This is rare on the national level. It's certainly understandable why people cling to this and try to ignore his terrible philosophical basis.
paul krugman is a clown, I love reading his stuff when I want to read something that's stupid and wrong.
Krugman's toenails have a better understanding of the economy than you do.
Krugman is to economists as witch doctors are to medical doctors. I would say that even the people who only have marginal understanding of medicine and take medical advice from doctors have a better understanding of medicine than witch doctors.
On December 18 2011 13:13 only_human89 wrote: Ron Paul can't "tone down" on his religious beliefs. It would be political suicide. He would never get elected in this country. That's about as moderate as you're going to see a U.S. politician get.
Um, no, Ron Paul isnt going to "tone down" because he is authentically a devoted Christian. Ron Paul runs on ludicrous positions, he flatly does not give a fuck about getting elected immediately but convincing people over the long term.
I dont know why so many libertarians pretend Ron Paul's life long devotion to Christianity is some kind of trick. The mans a creationist. Are you really so ashamed a candidate you like is a Christian?
The shame and evasion of facts is understandable. Ron Paul understands basic economics and has a sane view on the drug war. This is rare on the national level. It's certainly understandable why people cling to this and try to ignore his terrible philosophical basis.
paul krugman is a clown, I love reading his stuff when I want to read something that's stupid and wrong.
Krugman's toenails have a better understanding of the economy than you do.
Krugman is to economists as witch doctors are to medical doctors. I would say that even the people who only have marginal understanding of medicine and take medical advice from doctors have a better understanding of medicine than witch doctors.
While I understand shame for Creationism, fundamentally attempting to pretend he isnt a Christian because its that uncomfortable a proposition to you, highlights nothing more than that the individual is ignorant and bigoted, which is anything but understandable.
On December 18 2011 16:31 OsoVega wrote: Krugman is to economists as witch doctors are to medical doctors. I would say that even the people who only have marginal understanding of medicine and take medical advice from doctors have a better understanding of medicine than witch doctors.
I don't particularly like Krugman, but that's a terrible analogy when he has a B.A. in economics from Yale and a PhD from the MIT.
@OsoVega I watched your first video and while what she said was mostly accurate, it doesn't explain how Paul is completely unacceptable as president. The weight of the issues that matter (for me at least) far outweigh his positions on social issues. Cutting spending, balancing the budget, cutting regulations, ending the war on drugs, auditing the federal reserve, bringing our troops home, and his non-interventionist foreign policy (reducing the American empire) are far more important than something like gay marriage (which I support). There's also no way he will have the power to repeal something like Roe v Wade, something that's stood since 1973 even with evangelical Christians like Reagan holding office failing to do so. Do I like the fact he's a creationist and very religious? Not at all, but he is right on all of the economic issues which are by far the most important when all the other candidates haven't got a clue.
On December 18 2011 16:31 OsoVega wrote: Krugman is to economists as witch doctors are to medical doctors. I would say that even the people who only have marginal understanding of medicine and take medical advice from doctors have a better understanding of medicine than witch doctors.
I don't particularly like Krugman, but that's a terrible analogy when he has a B.A. in economics from Yale and a PhD from the MIT.
On December 18 2011 16:31 OsoVega wrote: Krugman is to economists as witch doctors are to medical doctors. I would say that even the people who only have marginal understanding of medicine and take medical advice from doctors have a better understanding of medicine than witch doctors.
I don't particularly like Krugman, but that's a terrible analogy when he has a B.A. in economics from Yale and a PhD from the MIT.
Funny how most of the famous people in politics and economics today all graduated from Yale or Harvard yet completely failed at predicting or resolving the economic crisis.
On December 18 2011 13:13 only_human89 wrote: Ron Paul can't "tone down" on his religious beliefs. It would be political suicide. He would never get elected in this country. That's about as moderate as you're going to see a U.S. politician get.
Um, no, Ron Paul isnt going to "tone down" because he is authentically a devoted Christian. Ron Paul runs on ludicrous positions, he flatly does not give a fuck about getting elected immediately but convincing people over the long term.
I dont know why so many libertarians pretend Ron Paul's life long devotion to Christianity is some kind of trick. The mans a creationist. Are you really so ashamed a candidate you like is a Christian?
The shame and evasion of facts is understandable. Ron Paul understands basic economics and has a sane view on the drug war. This is rare on the national level. It's certainly understandable why people cling to this and try to ignore his terrible philosophical basis.
paul krugman is a clown, I love reading his stuff when I want to read something that's stupid and wrong.
Krugman's toenails have a better understanding of the economy than you do.
Krugman is to economists as witch doctors are to medical doctors. I would say that even the people who only have marginal understanding of medicine and take medical advice from doctors have a better understanding of medicine than witch doctors.
It is funny how you have it exactly backwards. Ron Paul's 'Austrian Economics' has the same relationship to economics as witch doctory has to medicine. It is illegitimate, denies empirical evidence, and has no foundation in scientific research.
If you think what Paul Krugman writes is "stupid and wrong" then maybe your understanding of economics needs some refreshing? I read his column fairly often, not enough to claim to be an expert on his perspective, and from what I have seen he is usually spot on. He is definitely a Keynesian, which is to be expected since he writes in the NY Times, but Keynesian economics is still the school with the best track record for economic growth in the past half century.
On December 18 2011 13:13 only_human89 wrote: Ron Paul can't "tone down" on his religious beliefs. It would be political suicide. He would never get elected in this country. That's about as moderate as you're going to see a U.S. politician get.
Um, no, Ron Paul isnt going to "tone down" because he is authentically a devoted Christian. Ron Paul runs on ludicrous positions, he flatly does not give a fuck about getting elected immediately but convincing people over the long term.
I dont know why so many libertarians pretend Ron Paul's life long devotion to Christianity is some kind of trick. The mans a creationist. Are you really so ashamed a candidate you like is a Christian?
The shame and evasion of facts is understandable. Ron Paul understands basic economics and has a sane view on the drug war. This is rare on the national level. It's certainly understandable why people cling to this and try to ignore his terrible philosophical basis.
On December 18 2011 15:25 kwizach wrote:
On December 18 2011 12:18 Kiarip wrote:
On December 16 2011 19:31 kwizach wrote: Nice column by Paul Krugman about Ron Paul's off-the-mark economic ideas.
paul krugman is a clown, I love reading his stuff when I want to read something that's stupid and wrong.
Krugman's toenails have a better understanding of the economy than you do.
Krugman is to economists as witch doctors are to medical doctors. I would say that even the people who only have marginal understanding of medicine and take medical advice from doctors have a better understanding of medicine than witch doctors.
It is funny how you have it exactly backwards. Ron Paul's 'Austrian Economics' has the same relationship to economics as witch doctory has to medicine. It is illegitimate, denies empirical evidence, and has no foundation in scientific research.
If you think what Paul Krugman writes is "stupid and wrong" then maybe your understanding of economics needs some refreshing? I read his column fairly often, not enough to claim to be an expert on his perspective, and from what I have seen he is usually spot on. He is definitely a Keynesian, which is to be expected since he writes in the NY Times, but Keynesian economics is still the school with the best track record for economic growth in the past half century.
Uh, no. Krugman is a fool and everybody damn well knows it.
Tons of economists point out that he is incredibly short sighted and utterly incapable of understanding the dynamics of a capitalist system as a whole.
Additionally, here's a post of idiotic things Krugman has endorsed and the excuses he had afterward. http://blog.mises.org/10153/krugman-did-cause-the-housing-bubble/ As someone correctly points out in the first reply on that page, his views are eerily reminiscent of 1929 Irving Fisher.
@ {CC}StealthBlue It's a game the mainstream media plays with Ron Paul. At first they try to say he will never win the nomination and then if he wins Iowa...It's not considered an important state anymore. Then they have the arrogance of saying that Mitt Romney wins if Ron Paul gets 1st in Iowa. By doing this you plant the seeds of doubt in peoples minds. lizzard_warish is a perfect example of this. It's so blatant at times too...just like the 89 seconds CBS gave him in the 90 minute debate. Which is why I hate mainstream media so much when they do things like that.
@OsoVega I'll give you a history lesson soon on Iran Just watch this video before you do that:
On December 18 2011 13:13 only_human89 wrote: Ron Paul can't "tone down" on his religious beliefs. It would be political suicide. He would never get elected in this country. That's about as moderate as you're going to see a U.S. politician get.
Um, no, Ron Paul isnt going to "tone down" because he is authentically a devoted Christian. Ron Paul runs on ludicrous positions, he flatly does not give a fuck about getting elected immediately but convincing people over the long term.
I dont know why so many libertarians pretend Ron Paul's life long devotion to Christianity is some kind of trick. The mans a creationist. Are you really so ashamed a candidate you like is a Christian?
The shame and evasion of facts is understandable. Ron Paul understands basic economics and has a sane view on the drug war. This is rare on the national level. It's certainly understandable why people cling to this and try to ignore his terrible philosophical basis.
On December 18 2011 15:25 kwizach wrote:
On December 18 2011 12:18 Kiarip wrote:
On December 16 2011 19:31 kwizach wrote: Nice column by Paul Krugman about Ron Paul's off-the-mark economic ideas.
paul krugman is a clown, I love reading his stuff when I want to read something that's stupid and wrong.
Krugman's toenails have a better understanding of the economy than you do.
Krugman is to economists as witch doctors are to medical doctors. I would say that even the people who only have marginal understanding of medicine and take medical advice from doctors have a better understanding of medicine than witch doctors.
It is funny how you have it exactly backwards. Ron Paul's 'Austrian Economics' has the same relationship to economics as witch doctory has to medicine. It is illegitimate, denies empirical evidence, and has no foundation in scientific research.
If you think what Paul Krugman writes is "stupid and wrong" then maybe your understanding of economics needs some refreshing? I read his column fairly often, not enough to claim to be an expert on his perspective, and from what I have seen he is usually spot on. He is definitely a Keynesian, which is to be expected since he writes in the NY Times, but Keynesian economics is still the school with the best track record for economic growth in the past half century.
Uh, no. Krugman is a fool and everybody damn well knows it.
Tons of economists point out that he is incredibly short sighted and utterly incapable of understanding the dynamics of a capitalist system as a whole.
Paul Krugman won the Nobel Prize 3 years ago, and has literally hundreds of articles published in the worlds leading economic journals. Sorry if I disagree with your assessment on whether or not Krugman is a fool.
When the people who advocate your 'economic' theory are Glenn Beck and Ron Paul, I would hesitate before applying the 'fool' label to anyone.
On December 18 2011 16:59 GameTime wrote: @OsoVega I watched your first video and while what she said was mostly accurate, it doesn't explain how Paul is completely unacceptable as president. The weight of the issues that matter (for me at least) far outweigh his positions on social issues. Cutting spending, balancing the budget, cutting regulations, ending the war on drugs, auditing the federal reserve, bringing our troops home, and his non-interventionist foreign policy (reducing the American empire) are far more important than something like gay marriage (which I support). There's also no way he will have the power to repeal something like Roe v Wade, something that's stood since 1973 even with evangelical Christians like Reagan holding office failing to do so. Do I like the fact he's a creationist and very religious? Not at all, but he is right on all of the economic issues which are by far the most important when all the other candidates haven't got a clue.
His 'non-interventionist' foreign policy is precisely the biggest reason not to vote for him combined with his religious fundamentalism and evasion of rationality. It is one thing to not want to be nation building in Afghanistan, it is another to universally condemn the use of force abroad to defend ourselves and to blame America for terrorism. He's anti-Israel, which is not only the sole nation that respects individual rights in the Middle East, but an essential ally in American self-defense. Based on the religious basis of his beliefs, I don't see him adapting and acting rationally and in our self-interest as situations change. A suicidal foreign policy like his is completely unacceptable for America, in my opinion.
I would also disagree on Ron Paul not being able to deliver on abortion. Considering the strong social conservative views most Republicans hold, a more conservative house and senate in combination with a social conservative president, I think, could definitely move the country in a social conservative direction. However, considering the weakness of fiscal conservatism among Republicans, I think his economic policies are what will have trouble. I think there will have to be a real paradigm shift in America towards true belief in capitalism before those kinds of things are accepted and a Republican president would delay this. Instead of getting out and starting things like the Tea Party, I see many conservatives becoming complacent cheer leaders.
As for someone who has a clue, watch the second video I posted. No, he's not going to get nominated but I think it's important to look forward to 2016 and show him your support, especially if you'll be voting in the primaries.
On December 18 2011 16:59 GameTime wrote: @OsoVega I watched your first video and while what she said was mostly accurate, it doesn't explain how Paul is completely unacceptable as president. The weight of the issues that matter (for me at least) far outweigh his positions on social issues. Cutting spending, balancing the budget, cutting regulations, ending the war on drugs, auditing the federal reserve, bringing our troops home, and his non-interventionist foreign policy (reducing the American empire) are far more important than something like gay marriage (which I support). There's also no way he will have the power to repeal something like Roe v Wade, something that's stood since 1973 even with evangelical Christians like Reagan holding office failing to do so. Do I like the fact he's a creationist and very religious? Not at all, but he is right on all of the economic issues which are by far the most important when all the other candidates haven't got a clue.
I watched up to the point where she said that Paul is anti-Israel and blames America for terrorism. Then she talks about the "threat of Islam" and an Iranian nuke in Manhattan...maybe the rest of what she says drifts more towards credibility but that was all I could handle for tonight. I agree with your assessment for the most part, Ron Paul hits the nail on the head on a lot of important issues. I can't hope for a candidate that I agree with 100% but the only guy in the room advocating a return to the proper role of the executive branch, which has been gradually becoming more of a monarch with every new face it seems, is the one whose social views and religious values I worry least about. The rest of them talk about small government but really just want the same big brother to turn us into the United States of Christianity and Reckless Imperialism.
On December 18 2011 13:13 only_human89 wrote: Ron Paul can't "tone down" on his religious beliefs. It would be political suicide. He would never get elected in this country. That's about as moderate as you're going to see a U.S. politician get.
Um, no, Ron Paul isnt going to "tone down" because he is authentically a devoted Christian. Ron Paul runs on ludicrous positions, he flatly does not give a fuck about getting elected immediately but convincing people over the long term.
I dont know why so many libertarians pretend Ron Paul's life long devotion to Christianity is some kind of trick. The mans a creationist. Are you really so ashamed a candidate you like is a Christian?
The shame and evasion of facts is understandable. Ron Paul understands basic economics and has a sane view on the drug war. This is rare on the national level. It's certainly understandable why people cling to this and try to ignore his terrible philosophical basis.
On December 18 2011 15:25 kwizach wrote:
On December 18 2011 12:18 Kiarip wrote:
On December 16 2011 19:31 kwizach wrote: Nice column by Paul Krugman about Ron Paul's off-the-mark economic ideas.
paul krugman is a clown, I love reading his stuff when I want to read something that's stupid and wrong.
Krugman's toenails have a better understanding of the economy than you do.
Krugman is to economists as witch doctors are to medical doctors. I would say that even the people who only have marginal understanding of medicine and take medical advice from doctors have a better understanding of medicine than witch doctors.
It is funny how you have it exactly backwards. Ron Paul's 'Austrian Economics' has the same relationship to economics as witch doctory has to medicine. It is illegitimate, denies empirical evidence, and has no foundation in scientific research.
If you think what Paul Krugman writes is "stupid and wrong" then maybe your understanding of economics needs some refreshing? I read his column fairly often, not enough to claim to be an expert on his perspective, and from what I have seen he is usually spot on. He is definitely a Keynesian, which is to be expected since he writes in the NY Times, but Keynesian economics is still the school with the best track record for economic growth in the past half century.
Uh, no. Krugman is a fool and everybody damn well knows it.
Tons of economists point out that he is incredibly short sighted and utterly incapable of understanding the dynamics of a capitalist system as a whole.
Paul Krugman won the Nobel Prize 3 years ago, and has literally hundreds of articles published in the worlds leading economic journals. Sorry if I disagree with your assessment on whether or not Krugman is a fool.
When the people who advocate your 'economic' theory are Glenn Beck and Ron Paul, I would hesitate before applying the 'fool' label to anyone.
Good reasons not to take Nobel Prizes or most of the world's leading economic journals seriously.
On December 18 2011 16:59 GameTime wrote: @OsoVega I watched your first video and while what she said was mostly accurate, it doesn't explain how Paul is completely unacceptable as president. The weight of the issues that matter (for me at least) far outweigh his positions on social issues. Cutting spending, balancing the budget, cutting regulations, ending the war on drugs, auditing the federal reserve, bringing our troops home, and his non-interventionist foreign policy (reducing the American empire) are far more important than something like gay marriage (which I support). There's also no way he will have the power to repeal something like Roe v Wade, something that's stood since 1973 even with evangelical Christians like Reagan holding office failing to do so. Do I like the fact he's a creationist and very religious? Not at all, but he is right on all of the economic issues which are by far the most important when all the other candidates haven't got a clue.
I watched up to the point where she said that Paul is anti-Israel and blames America for terrorism. Then she talks about the "threat of Islam" and an Iranian nuke in Manhattan...maybe the rest of what she says drifts more towards credibility but that was all I could handle for tonight. I agree with your assessment for the most part, Ron Paul hits the nail on the head on a lot of important issues. I can't hope for a candidate that I agree with 100% but the only guy in the room advocating a return to the proper role of the executive branch, which has been gradually becoming more of a monarch with every new face it seems, is the one whose social views and religious values I worry least about. The rest of them talk about small government but really just want the same big brother to turn us into the United States of Christianity and Reckless Imperialism.
Ron Paul is anti-Israel, blames America for terrorism and there is an Islamic threat to America and American allies. The only mis-assessment is Manhattan.
On December 18 2011 13:13 only_human89 wrote: Ron Paul can't "tone down" on his religious beliefs. It would be political suicide. He would never get elected in this country. That's about as moderate as you're going to see a U.S. politician get.
Um, no, Ron Paul isnt going to "tone down" because he is authentically a devoted Christian. Ron Paul runs on ludicrous positions, he flatly does not give a fuck about getting elected immediately but convincing people over the long term.
I dont know why so many libertarians pretend Ron Paul's life long devotion to Christianity is some kind of trick. The mans a creationist. Are you really so ashamed a candidate you like is a Christian?
The shame and evasion of facts is understandable. Ron Paul understands basic economics and has a sane view on the drug war. This is rare on the national level. It's certainly understandable why people cling to this and try to ignore his terrible philosophical basis.
On December 18 2011 15:25 kwizach wrote:
On December 18 2011 12:18 Kiarip wrote:
On December 16 2011 19:31 kwizach wrote: Nice column by Paul Krugman about Ron Paul's off-the-mark economic ideas.
paul krugman is a clown, I love reading his stuff when I want to read something that's stupid and wrong.
Krugman's toenails have a better understanding of the economy than you do.
Krugman is to economists as witch doctors are to medical doctors. I would say that even the people who only have marginal understanding of medicine and take medical advice from doctors have a better understanding of medicine than witch doctors.
It is funny how you have it exactly backwards. Ron Paul's 'Austrian Economics' has the same relationship to economics as witch doctory has to medicine. It is illegitimate, denies empirical evidence, and has no foundation in scientific research.
If you think what Paul Krugman writes is "stupid and wrong" then maybe your understanding of economics needs some refreshing? I read his column fairly often, not enough to claim to be an expert on his perspective, and from what I have seen he is usually spot on. He is definitely a Keynesian, which is to be expected since he writes in the NY Times, but Keynesian economics is still the school with the best track record for economic growth in the past half century.
Uh, no. Krugman is a fool and everybody damn well knows it.
Tons of economists point out that he is incredibly short sighted and utterly incapable of understanding the dynamics of a capitalist system as a whole.
Paul Krugman won the Nobel Prize 3 years ago, and has literally hundreds of articles published in the worlds leading economic journals. Sorry if I disagree with your assessment on whether or not Krugman is a fool.
When the people who advocate your 'economic' theory are Glenn Beck and Ron Paul, I would hesitate before applying the 'fool' label to anyone.
It's not even a matter of opinion. He's been proven wrong over and over again. There are equally as many fools who blindly follow him and Bernanke.
And your point of him having a nobel prize is null. It's a bunch of hand waving in the same way that Obama won a peace prize while secretly funding military actions in other countries.
And if you really do insist on going down the nobel prize road, I take your Krugman and raise you Friedman and Hayek.
He's anti-Israel, which is not only the sole nation that respects individual rights in the Middle East, but an essential ally in American self-defense
I don't know that he is. Or at least only in comparison to American zionism. And that sort of political support tends to be extreme outside of the actual country. Take the Orange Order in Ireland back in the 1800's. They were more British/ imperialist than the British themselves and far more extreme on a lot of positions.
I'm not sure I follow Ron Paul's non-intervention completely as I am half-convinced of Niall Ferguson's case for the usefulness of an American empire. But I do see the use of cutting costs in the military if conservatives are actually serious about balancing the budget. (And why exactly do you still need bases in Germany and Japan?)
In regards to Israel, he does support Israel's right to defence, but he also supports their sovereignty and thinks US gets in the way of Israel itself. Furthermore, his foreign aid cuts would apply to countries like Egypt which he figures in the balance would actually be better for Israel as far more money goes to Egypt than goes to Israel. Combined with the Israeli's PM insisting that Israel doesn't need American troops to defend itself, that Israel is perfectly capable of defending itself, I don't think Ron Paul is that out of step with Israeli zionism.
He parts company with American zionism, but that's a different animal (see Orange Order Britishness). A case could be made that he is not pro-Israel. But by the same token, you would be hard pressed to argue he is anti-Israel.
On December 18 2011 17:52 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @ {CC}StealthBlue It's a game the mainstream media plays with Ron Paul. At first they try to say he will never win the nomination and then if he wins Iowa...It's not considered an important state anymore. Then they have the arrogance of saying that Mitt Romney wins if Ron Paul gets 1st in Iowa. By doing this you plant the seeds of doubt in peoples minds. lizzard_warish is a perfect example of this. It's so blatant at times too...just like the 89 seconds CBS gave him in the 90 minute debate. Which is why I hate mainstream media so much when they do things like that.
I will assume you will mention America sponsoring a coup against a democratically elected government. America was wrong in doing so. It should have supported a British invasion instead.
All your video, which tries to emotionally equate an occupation of America with the occupation of Afghanistan, does is further show the irrationality of Ron Paul's foreign policy.
EPT
It's so blatant at times too...just like the 89 seconds CBS gave him in the 90 minute debate. Which is why I hate mainstream media so much when they do things like that.
Just watch this video before you do that:
