# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Justin Amash Forum >  Who exactly are these people commenting on Amash's Facebook?

## Jeremy

Justin said this today:



> This Memorial Day, I remember and honor the men and women of our Armed Forces who gave their lives to secure our right not to be indefinitely detained by our own government, but rather to be charged and to receive a fair trial when our government accuses us of wrongdoing.


Now people are talking about how they don't support the troops, and disagreeing with Amash, etc.

----------


## Zach Vega

We call these people "trolls" and "flamers".

----------


## LibertyEagle

I call them fools and idiots.  They are not helping anything.  In fact, they are going to drive people away.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Justin said this today:
> 
> Now people are talking about how they don't support the troops, and disagreeing with Amash, etc.


The man cannot win.  He even went through what appear to be rather extensive linguistic gymnastics to avoid implying that all the troops are heroes, or fighting for our freedoms, or any similar cliches.

----------


## Drex

The village lost its idiot again....

----------


## specsaregood

> I call them fools and idiots.  They are not helping anything.  In fact, they are going to drive people away.


im pretty sure that is their intention.

----------


## kuckfeynes

I think the extreme social media thing is a mistake on his part. I understand the need to meet demands for transparency, but at the same time you can't just be giving a soapbox with your name on it to every anon on the internet.

----------


## trey4sports

so what if some random idiot comments? If it's not something Justin said then it shouldn't matter.

----------


## Adrock

Are these real people? Incredibly misguided, counterproductive, and kind of disgusting.

----------


## JoshLowry

> Are these real people? Incredibly misguided, counterproductive, and kind of disgusting.


Not always...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ocial-networks

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...n-on-suspects/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15869683

----------


## Jeremy

From personal experience with some other libertarians on Facebook, here on RPF, at liberty events, elections, conferences, etc, I'd say there's a good chance these people are real.

----------


## jj-

Paid Romneybots.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

Or they're Ron Paul-approved Laurence Vance readers.

http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance264.html

http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance250.html

----------


## MelissaWV

> Paid Romneybots.


I'm sorry, but using that as a constant excuse only paints the person doing it as ignorant.

Go to events, interact with Ron Paul supporters in the flesh, and you will see that some of the really vocal ones are genuine freedom lovers ... but often lack the tact and ability to convey their opinions in a mature manner.  People will boo, throw snowballs, interrupt speeches (Ron's and others'), arrive at formal events in tees and ripped jeans, curse, and provide many a dirty gesture.  Is that the majority?  I don't think so, but then again we're only talking about a few internet trolls here.  I am more inclined to think they are genuine than employed Romneybots.  Why would Romney waste the money when there are so many willing attackers within our own movement?

----------


## jj-

> Why would Romney waste the money when there are so many willing attackers within our own movement?


Plans could've been made before the campaign started and nobody revised them.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Plans could've been made before the campaign started and nobody revised them.


They would have had to have been made before 2007, when the Movement started demonstrating quite loudly that it was full of fair-weather supporters and ideological navel-gazers who would rather tear down people almost on their side than fight those absolutely against them.

----------


## jj-

> They would have had to have been made before 2007, when the Movement started demonstrating quite loudly that it was full of fair-weather supporters and ideological navel-gazers who would rather tear down people almost on their side than fight those absolutely against them.


I root for the Paul team. As long as there exists one paid person, one can no longer freely accuse anonymous Ron Paul supporters of being rude. So when somebody wants to give me $#@! about how supporters are rude, pointing this out forces them to find something else to complain about.

Campaigns employ people to post online comments. There are documented cases of commenters pretending to be Ron Paul supporters. You have no basis for saying it is likely that these guys are RP supporters. End of story.

----------


## brandon

What's wrong with not supporting the troops? I don't support them.  Ron Paul railed against the universal soldiers before, which is what most of them are.

----------


## jj-

> What's wrong with not supporting the troops?


Nothing. It shows you don't like blowing up innocent people.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I root for the Paul team. As long as there exists one paid person, one can no longer freely accuse anonymous Ron Paul supporters of being rude. So when somebody wants to give me $#@! about how supporters are rude, pointing this out forces them to find something else to complain about.
> 
> Campaigns employ people to post in online comments. There are documented cases of commenters pretending to be Ron Paul supporters. You have no basis for saying it is likely that these guys are RP supporters. End of story.


Please reread our exchange.  I was not the one who made an assertion.  You stated they were "paid Romneybots," to which I responded that using this excuse every time makes folks look absolutely naive and stupid.  You've now turned this around to make it seem like I was stating 100% that these were absolutely not possibly in any way, shape, or form hired trolls.  It's possible, but given what I've run into over the past five years, it doesn't seem necessary or likely.

----------


## MelissaWV

> What's wrong with not supporting the troops? I don't support them.  Ron Paul railed against the universal soldiers before, which is what most of them are.


Please reread Amash's statement.  It says nothing about supporting all of the troops.  It does talk, specifically, about honoring those who died to uphold the right things.  If you don't think any of them did, then he means no one.  If you think they're all heroes defending our rights, then he means everyone.  If you're able to see that he's only referring to a specific set of circumstances, and not blanketly saying he "supports the troops," then you have at least average reading comprehension

----------


## jj-

> Please reread our exchange.


Please reread my post. Pay more attention this time. I won't explain myself any further.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Please reread my post. Pay more attention this time. I won't explain myself any further.


I did.  It still reads like you're asserting they are paid Romneybots, with no evidence.

----------


## evilfunnystuff

> I'm sorry, but using that as a constant excuse only paints the person doing it as ignorant.


Maybe at face value, but it would be foolish to think folks of opposing political stripes aren't undercover among us. Some of them don't really even give a hoot politically, and are simply in it for the luls. There are also surely cointelpro to consider...

Now, that is not to say none of this is done by "our guys" but we need to recognize they do try to stir dissent and sow division amongst us, and when there is a disagreement in the movement they will surely be in the middle of it spewing venom in every direction.

----------


## jj-

> I did.  It still reads like you're asserting they are paid Romneybots, with no evidence.


Oh well. If that's what you got, I guess our minds operate at different frequencies. I gave it a try.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Oh well. If that's what you got, I guess our minds operate at different frequencies. I gave it a try.


"Paid Romneybots."  <- Which part of this does NOT read like you are asserting they are paid Romneybots?  Is it "Paid" or "Romneybots"?  lol




> Now, that is not to say none of this is done by "our guys" but we need to recognize they do try to stir dissent and sow division amongst us, and when there is a disagreement in the movement they will surely be in the middle of it spewing venom in every direction.


^ It's always good to know there are still some good thoughts among us

----------


## phx420

when i was at the az state convention i met a loner paul supporter, kind of an older scary guy i was uncomfortable talking to him, who told me about various threatening calls he made to whoever for supporting whatever, and that he did it regularly.... i really get the feeling based on the way we are being treated that he's not the only one

----------


## jj-

> "Paid Romneybots."  <- Which part of this does NOT read like you are asserting they are paid Romneybots?  Is it "Paid" or "Romneybots"? lol


The post I told you to read was the following one. You couldn't be more obtuse if you tried.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Please reread our exchange. I was not the one who made an assertion. *You stated they were "paid Romneybots," to which I responded that using this excuse every time makes folks look absolutely naive and stupid.* You've now turned this around to make it seem like I was stating 100% that these were absolutely not possibly in any way, shape, or form hired trolls. It's possible, but given what I've run into over the past five years, it doesn't seem necessary or likely.





> *Please reread my post.* Pay more attention this time. I won't explain myself any further.





> *The post I told you to read* was the following one. You couldn't be more obtuse if you tried.


My humble apologies on not being able to read your mind and determine which post you wanted me to read, when you didn't TELL ME which one it was you were referring to.  Oddly, I did include references to the post that I was talking about.  You didn't really seem to refute it very well.

----------


## jj-

> My humble apologies on not being able to read your mind and determine which post you wanted me to read, when you didn't TELL ME which one it was you were referring to.


Because you were already quoting my post. Also, it wouldn't make sense to ask you to reread a post of mine that had two words. The fact that you didn't get that (leaving aside your attitude) already shows me talking to you is a waste of time.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Because you were already quoting my post. Also, it wouldn't make sense to ask you to reread a post of mine that had two words. The fact that you didn't get that (leaving aside your attitude) already shows me talking to you is a waste of time.


If a post of two words doesn't count as a post, then don't make it  

* * * 

Anyhow, the people commenting on his FB don't strike me as all that different from the people on here, or those making excuses for them.

----------


## jj-

> If a post of two words doesn't count as a post, then don't make it


A post of two words doesn't require rereading it. Geez.

I'll highlight the key contextual word:




> wouldn't make sense to ask you to *reread* a post of mine that had two words.


Good luck in life.

----------


## Brett85

Unfortunately, I've even seen a lot of similar comments posted on this forum.  There's some people who believe that you can't support the troops if you oppose the wars.  I'm strongly opposed to that point of view, because that's basically the line the neo-con's use.  I don't see why any libertarians would want to agree with the neo-cons on that.

----------


## Brett85

> What's wrong with not supporting the troops? I don't support them.  Ron Paul railed against the universal soldiers before, which is what most of them are.


^^^Thanks for giving an example of the kind of people we're talking about in this thread.

----------


## angelatc

> when i was at the az state convention i met a loner paul supporter, kind of an older scary guy i was uncomfortable talking to him, who told me about various threatening calls he made to whoever for supporting whatever, and that he did it regularly.... i really get the feeling based on the way we are being treated that he's not the only one


I've never told this story before, but I did some volunteer accounting and reporting for one of our higher profile liberty candidates.  I started getting emails and phone calls from a guy that were at first just political in nature ("Why are you working for him?"), and in the end really, really scary (You're a traitor, and traitors get shot in the head.")  Turns out he was a $#@!ing soldier, contacting me from a $#@!ing military base right here in the States.  My husband, also a vet, called the base commander and that was the last I heard from him.  

So, while it's true that we shouldn't act that way, and we should absolutely tell our friends to tone it down when they're out of line, I no longer believe that we're the only faction of the GOP that has a loony bin contingent.

----------


## Spoa

Even Ron Paul honors our troops: 


> This Memorial Day, let us remember those who have fallen in the defense of the freest, most prosperous nation the world has ever known. We salute you.


And Rand Paul too: 


> Please take a moment today to think about and reflect upon the sacrifices made in our name. To all those who made the ultimate sacrifice, we honor your memory. 
> 
> "Cover them over with beautiful flowers,
> Deck them with garlands, those brothers of ours,
> Lying so silent by night and by day
> Sleeping the years of their manhood away.
> Give them the meed they have won in the past;
> Give them the honors their future forcast;
> Give them the chaplets they won in the strife;
> Give them the laurels they lost with their life." -- Will Carleton


Even people opposed to all these foreign wars can support our troops. If you can't honor those who have died for your freedom, with all due respect, I don't think you truly deserve those freedoms. These men and women gave their lives fighting so you could enjoy America, while some people attack these good people. May God Bless America. Thank you.

----------


## Spoa

Also, we should thank Captain Ron Paul, Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Veteran Kerry Bentivolio, and all other veterans who have fought for our country!

----------


## MelissaWV

Yes, but if you read the quotes carefully, they are not part of the hero worship, either.

I think those are beautifully-worded and very accurate sentiments.  Those that have fallen to defend our nation, and those who've made the ultimate sacrifice for us, need not be soldiers at all, and are deserving of as much reflection and honor as we can give them.

----------


## jj-

> I no longer believe that we're the only faction of the GOP that has a loony bin contingent.


I'd go further, I'd say we are the sanest faction. As long as the other guys keep winning, they'll act respectable. As soon as they lose, you'll see then become crazy and nasty.

----------


## jj-

> If you can't honor those who have died for your freedom, with all due respect, I don't think you truly deserve those freedoms.


It seems to me that the last war for freedom was probably WWII. Is there a reason to honor those who came after them?

----------


## Spoa

Yes, because whether you agree with the war or not...they went to sacrifice their lives as AMERICAN soldiers. They signed up to fight, believing that they are fighting for something good. They wear an American uniform, protecting the American flag. Even if you don't agree with the war they are fighting, I hope you will not deny that they are still our fellow Americans who deserve our utmost respect.

----------


## jj-

> Yes, because whether you agree with the war or not...they went to sacrifice their lives as AMERICAN soldiers.


If an American kills an innocent foreigner in a war that isn't related to the security of the United States, I don't see why I should side with an American killer just because he is an American.

----------


## Brett85

> Yes, because whether you agree with the war or not...they went to sacrifice their lives as AMERICAN soldiers. They signed up to fight, believing that they are fighting for something good. They wear an American uniform, protecting the American flag. Even if you don't agree with the war they are fighting, I hope you will not deny that they are still our fellow Americans who deserve our utmost respect.


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Spoa again."

----------


## Spoa

I can see we aren't getting very far with our argument here, so let me put it this way...if these men and women had not gone to fight in the wars...congress would have started a military draft and force people like you to go fight in a war that you don't even like, under the penalty of jail time or treason. You may start thinking, "How unconstitutional!" I'm sorry, few in Washington D.C. would care about your opinion...you fight or you spend time in jail. So, if you can't be thankful to these men and women because you don't believe they are fighting for your freedom, at least be thankful that they are fighting so that you don't have to go to war yourself.

----------


## Spoa

> "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Spoa again."


Thanks Traditional Conservative! I'm glad to see we are in agreement.

----------


## Brett85

> I can see we aren't getting very far with our argument here, so let me put it this way...if these men and women had not gone to fight in the wars...congress would have started a military draft and force people like you to go fight in a war that you don't even like, under the penalty of jail time or treason. You may start thinking, "How unconstitutional!" I'm sorry, few in Washington D.C. would care about your opinion...you fight or you spend time in jail. So, if you can't be thankful to these men and women because you don't believe they are fighting for your freedom, at least be thankful that they are fighting so that you don't have to go to war yourself.


That's a very good point that I've never thought of before.  I'm having a debate on Facebook with someone over this particular issue; I'll have to bring up the point you just mentioned.

----------


## jj-

> I can see we aren't getting very far with our argument here, so let me put it this way...if these men and women had not gone to fight in the wars...congress would have started a military draft and force people like you to go fight in a war that you don't even like, under the penalty of jail time or treason. You may start thinking, "How unconstitutional!" I'm sorry, few in Washington D.C. would care about your opinion...you fight or you spend time in jail. So, if you can't be thankful to these men and women because you don't believe they are fighting for your freedom, at least be thankful that they are fighting so that you don't have to go to war yourself.


So in other words... I should be thankful to an American killer who killed an innocent foreigner in a war that wasn't related to the security of the United States, because if he didn't go it would've been more likely that Congress would draft me, and thus, the killer saved me the inconvenience of figuring out how to avoid a draft. Sorry, the argument is very weak from my point of view.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> I can see we aren't getting very far with our argument here, so let me put it this way...if these men and women had not gone to fight in the wars...congress would have started a military draft and force people like you to go fight in a war that you don't even like, under the penalty of jail time or treason. You may start thinking, "How unconstitutional!" I'm sorry, few in Washington D.C. would care about your opinion...you fight or you spend time in jail. So, if you can't be thankful to these men and women because you don't believe they are fighting for your freedom, at least be thankful that they are fighting so that you don't have to go to war yourself.


In that case, everyone needs to refuse and Washington needs to be called out for their bluff...Washington can't jail the whole country.

----------


## jj-

> In that case, everyone needs to refuse and Washington needs to be called out for their bluff...Washington can't jail the whole country.


Yeah. I have at least two issues with Spoa's argument:

1. It assumes we lost and shouldn't even try to fight.
2. It assumes it's ok to kill an innocent man, as long as he is a foreigner and such killing saves us from inconveniences such as avoiding a draft. Then we should be thankful to the killer.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> So in other words... I should be thankful to an American killer who killed an innocent foreigner in a war that wasn't related to the security of the United States, because if he didn't go it would've been more likely that Congress would draft me, and thus, the killer saved me the inconvenience of figuring out how to avoid a draft. Sorry, the argument is very weak from my point of view.


Well said

----------


## Spoa

> So in other words... I should be thankful to an American killer who killed an innocent foreigner in a war that wasn't related to the security of the United States, because if he didn't go it would've been more likely that Congress would draft me, and thus, the killer saved me the inconvenience of figuring out how to avoid a draft. Sorry, the argument is very weak from my point of view.


Innocent foreigner? Like Osama Bin Laden!!! I'm sure that he's innocent. What about Al-Qaeda followers who helped plan the 9/11 attacks? I guess they're innocent too. If we follow your logic, we should round up all our soldiers and put them in jail. I would strongly disagree that Osama Bin Laden is an "innocent foreigner that wasn't related to the security of the United States" especially when he led the attack on New York City, the Pentagon, and almost the White House!

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Innocent foreigner? Like Osama Bin Laden!!! I'm sure that he's innocent. What about Al-Qaeda followers who helped plan the 9/11 attacks? I guess they're innocent too. If we follow your logic, we should round up all our soldiers and put them in jail. I would strongly disagree that Osama Bin Laden is an "innocent foreigner that wasn't related to the security of the United States" especially when he led the attack on New York City, the Pentagon, and almost the White House!


How do we know Osama was guilty? There was never a trial. Who decides who is and isn't a terrorist? The government, on a whim? We don't trust the government to run healthcare or student loans, but we trust them to determine who is and isn't a terrorist, and thus, who is and isn't worthy of living? All by their own decree, with zero judicial or any other sort of review?

----------


## Spoa

> In that case, everyone needs to refuse and Washington needs to be called out for their bluff...Washington can't jail the whole country.


Sigh...you don't get the point. We didn't have to go fight in World War II. Vietnam and Korea were none of our business if we really want to think about it. But Rep. Paul served during the Vietnam War. Is he an American killer too since he was willing to serve his country? 

In addition, politicians are smarter than you think. If they start hearing a sense of rebellion, they'll start making arrest quicker than you can think. Internet will be shut down and people will be killed. "They can't put everyone in jail" was the logic used in several other nations...looked how things ended up!

----------


## qh4dotcom

> Innocent foreigner? Like Osama Bin Laden!!! I'm sure that he's innocent. What about Al-Qaeda followers who helped plan the 9/11 attacks? I guess they're innocent too. If we follow your logic, we should round up all our soldiers and put them in jail. I would strongly disagree that Osama Bin Laden is an "innocent foreigner that wasn't related to the security of the United States" especially when he led the attack on New York City, the Pentagon, and almost the White House!


Since you obviously didn't get it, JJ was talking about the innocent civilians and children that are killed in wars.

----------


## jj-

> Innocent foreigner? Like Osama Bin Laden!!! I'm sure that he's innocent. What about Al-Qaeda followers who helped plan the 9/11 attacks? I guess they're innocent too. If we follow your logic, we should round up all our soldiers and put them in jail. I would strongly disagree that Osama Bin Laden is an "innocent foreigner that wasn't related to the security of the United States" especially when he led the attack on New York City, the Pentagon, and almost the White House!


You're talking about specific individuals here, whose exceptional actions don't apply to soldiers in general. They are exceptions. The norm is to kill people unrelated to the Security of the United States, such as Iraqis.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> Sigh...you don't get the point. We didn't have to go fight in World War II. Vietnam and Korea were none of our business if we really want to think about it. But Rep. Paul served during the Vietnam War. Is he an American killer too since he was willing to serve his country?


He should have refused to go...and he didn't kill anyone....he served as a flight surgeon.

----------


## jj-

> But Rep. Paul served during the Vietnam War. Is he an American killer too since he was willing to serve his country?


1. Ron Paul didn't kill anyone. We are talking only about people who killed innocent foreigners in a war that wasn't related to American security. You apparently are blind to the qualifiers in our statements. Read them.
2. Ron Paul said that if he was drafted with the convictions he currently has, he would refuse to serve.

----------


## Spoa

> How do we know Osama was guilty? There was never a trial. Who decides who is and isn't a terrorist? The government, on a whim? We don't trust the government to run healthcare or student loans, but we trust them to determine who is and isn't a terrorist, and thus, who is and isn't worthy of living? All by their own decree, with zero judicial or any other sort of review?


There are videos of Osama Bin Laden proudly admitting that he was responsible for 9/11. Would you like to ask those soldiers who were brutally murdered by Al-Qaeda if Osama Bin Laden was this nice guy who has just been framed? Osama Bin Laden is a criminal...period. He isn't an American citizen so don't give me this... "innocent until proven guilty" stuff. He's guilty by his own admission...period!

----------


## Spoa

> He should have refused to go...and he didn't kill anyone....he served as a flight surgeon.


Who still saved the lives of these "American killers" you speak about. By your standards, that would make him an accomplice to the crime.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> There are videos of Osama Bin Laden proudly admitting that he was responsible for 9/11. Would you like to ask those soldiers who were brutally murdered by Al-Qaeda if Osama Bin Laden was this nice guy who has just been framed? Osama Bin Laden is a criminal...period. He isn't an American citizen so don't give me this... "innocent until proven guilty" stuff. He's guilty by his own admission...period!


No trial = no guilt.

Additionally, saying a non-citizen is not innocent until proven guilty is taking a positivist view of government; a view that holds that government grants rights. Do you believe that government grants rights?

----------


## Spoa

> 1. Ron Paul didn't kill anyone. We are talking only about people who killed innocent foreigners in a war that wasn't related to American security. You apparently are blind to the qualifiers in our statements. Read them.
> 2. Ron Paul said that if he was drafted with the convictions he currently has, he would refuse to serve.


On your first point, innocent foreigners get killed in wars. By your admission: 


> It seems to me that the last war for freedom was probably WWII.


 Well, innocent Japanese were killed during World War II. I suppose that means we should discredit WWII as a war for freedom too??? So you have just contradicted yourself.

On your second point, Rep. Paul would probably not be drafted due to his age, and he also has privileges granted to a members of congress.

----------


## jj-

> Who still saved the lives of these "American killers" you speak about. By your standards, that would make him an accomplice to the crime.


lol, not true. Doctors don't have to judge every patient to determine if he is a criminal. The justice system does that. It's not unethical for a doctor to treat a criminal, because even if he treats them, they'll go to jail if the justice system works. There are doctors who treat people in jail. There is nothing unethical about that.

----------


## jj-

> On your first point, innocent foreigners get killed in wars. By your admission:  Well, innocent Japanese were killed during World War II. I suppose that means we should discredit WWII as a war for freedom too??? So you have just contradicted yourself.


Their deaths were a consequence of self-defense. You have a right to self-defense. Innocents may die in the process where you defend yourself, but the action is not comparable to one who kills when his security isn't threatened, like the military does in most wars. You're equating someone who defends himself to someone who kills without being threatened. The sort of arguments you bring up shows pretty well that your position is unjustifiable.

----------


## Spoa

> No trial = no guilt.
> 
> Additionally, saying a non-citizen is not innocent until proven guilty is taking a positivist view of government; a view that holds that government grants rights. Do you believe that government grants rights?


I believe Osama Bin Laden is guilty by his own admission. I do not believe government grants rights...I believe that we are one nation under God, so our rights are granted by our creator. But would you have rather endangered our troops by trying to capture Osama Bin Laden? Which would you choose---endangering the criminal or endangering our troops? Also, consider the rights that were taken away from thousands of people on 9/11 by Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.

----------


## Spoa

> Their deaths were a consequence of self-defense. You have a right to self-defense. Innocents may die in the process where you defend yourself, but the action is not comparable to one who kills when his security isn't threatened, like the military does in most wars. You're equating someone who defends himself to someone who kills without being threatened. The sort of arguments you bring up shows pretty well that your position is unjustifiable.


I disagree with your recollection of history. My understanding is that Americans dropped an atomic bomb on a Hiroshima and Nagasaki...neither of which were military bases. Also, Americans were not fighting a war against the Japanese in those two specific areas. America dropped a bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war as quickly as possible so that more American lives would not be lost.

----------


## Brett85

> Innocent foreigner? Like Osama Bin Laden!!! I'm sure that he's innocent. What about Al-Qaeda followers who helped plan the 9/11 attacks? I guess they're innocent too. If we follow your logic, we should round up all our soldiers and put them in jail. I would strongly disagree that Osama Bin Laden is an "innocent foreigner that wasn't related to the security of the United States" especially when he led the attack on New York City, the Pentagon, and almost the White House!


Exactly.  Some people here are simply opposed to all wars, even wars that were a result of a terrorist attack in which 3,000 American citizens were killed.

Almost all of us are opposed to offensive wars like the War in Iraq.  There's no disagreement there.  But I think we should blame our politicans for using our military innappropriately; not blame our troops who simply want to serve our country.

----------


## Brett85

> But Rep. Paul served during the Vietnam War. Is he an American killer too since he was willing to serve his country?


According to some people here, Ron Paul actually is an evil killer simply for serving his country.

----------


## Spoa

> lol, not true. Doctors don't have to judge every patient to determine if he is a criminal. The justice system does that. It's not unethical for a doctor to treat a criminal, because even if he treats them, they'll go to jail if the justice system works. There are doctors who treat people in jail. There is nothing unethical about that.


Do you believe these "American killers" should be put in prison if they killed innocent civilians in self-defense. I encourage you to read "Lone Survivor"...a true tale about a Navy seal who released Afghan civilians, only to find out later that these civilians gave away the Navy seal's hideout to the Taliban. This Navy seal was the only one to survive of his team. Under current law, one cannot kill civilians even if he/she thinks it could save their lives. I do not believe these American killers are survivors. Have there been some that have intentionally killed Afghan civilians on purpose...of course, and I believe that they should be punished. But most are just there under the orders of our government.

----------


## jj-

> But most are just there under the orders of our government.


Oh, who used this line before? The debate is over.

Remember guys: if you're just following orders, then everything is OK.

----------


## Brett85

JJ seems to believe that you can't support the troops if you oppose the wars.  That's the exact same talking point that comes from the neo-cons.  Who would've ever thought there would be common ground between libertarians like JJ and neo-cons like John Bolton?

----------


## jj-

> JJ seems to believe that you can't support the troops *support the killers of innocent people who pose no threat to your country* if you oppose the wars *oppose the killing of innocent people who pose no threat to your country* .


Sounds right to me.

----------


## jj-

I found this argument in another place:

I wonder why those praising the military don't have more respect for police officers then..., by their logic, cops also signed up to fight, believing that they are fighting for something good. Don't the cops defend their freedom too? Shouldn't they remember those killed in the line of duty this Memorial Day?

By the way, I am no fan of cops...just pointing out their hypocrisy....and considering all the death & destruction the military is responsible for, cops look like saints by comparison.

----------


## Brett85

I suppose you believe that 9-11 was an inside job as well.  There's no other way you could possibly say that it's immoral for our troops to kill terrorists like Osama Bin Laden.

----------


## QuickZ06

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

----------


## Supernaut

When was the last time a soldier actually died defending this country?  The idea that we are going to be invaded and conquored by third world brown people unless the 'Merican military protects us is the biggest crock of $#@! of all time.  

I'm sure Traditional Conservative and Spoa beat off to this song

----------


## Brett85

@Supernaut-All of us oppose offensive wars like the war in Iraq, and the soon to be war in Iran.  The only disagreement Spoa and I have with you and others is that we believe that you can support the troops without supporting the wars.  Ron Paul believes this as well.

----------


## Supernaut

> @Supernaut-All of us oppose offensive wars like the war in Iraq, and the soon to be war in Iran.  The only disagreement Spoa and I have with you and others is that we believe that you can support the troops without supporting the wars.  Ron Paul believes this as well.


edit delete.

----------


## jj-

> I suppose you believe that 9-11 was an inside job as well.  There's no other way you could possibly say that it's immoral for our troops to kill terrorists like Osama Bin Laden.


Apparently you have the blindness-to-qualifiers-in-my-comments syndrome as well. I was specifically referring to people who kill innocent people in a war that has nothing to do with the security of the united states, which is most of the military. The just killings are exceptions. I don't think we should praise a mass of people for a rare action exceptional individuals take.

----------


## Brett85

> Apparently you have the blindness-to-qualifiers-in-my-comments syndrome as well. I was specifically referring to people who kill innocent people in a war that has nothing to do with the security of the united states, which is most of the military. The just killing are exceptions. I don't think we should praise a mass of people for an action exceptional individuals take.


I don't believe that our military intentionally kills innocent people.  (For the most part, there's always a few crazies in a large group.)  I think you're focusing your criticism on the wrong people; you should focus on criticizing the people in Congress who are responsible for getting us involved in unnecessary wars.

----------


## Brett85

> edit delete.


...

----------


## Brett85

I posted this in another thread, and it basically sums up my view on our military and the situation in Afghanistan.

The only full fledged war that we're currently involved in is the war in Afghanistan, and that was a war that was started as a result of a terrorist attack in which 3,000 American citizens were killed. My view is that the original mission in Afghanistan was to kill those responsible for attacking us on 9-11, and I believe we've already accomplished that mission. The war in Afghanistan has basically turned into an expensive nation building mission that has nothing to do with our national security. So, I favor withdrawing from Afghanistan immediately. But, while nation building is a bad idea and has nothing to do with our own national security, there's nothing immoral about it. There's nothing immoral about what members of our military are doing there. It's just immoral for our leaders in Congress to put our troops in harms way to perform a mission that has nothing to do with our national security.

----------


## jj-

> I don't believe that our military intentionally kills innocent people.


...they just invade entire countries that pose no threat to the Security of the United States, and accidentally, oops, they end up killing thousands of them. But that's not intentional. lol.

And I do put blame on Congress and the top guys. But the fact the Cheney is more guilty than the other killers doesn't make the other killers innocent, let alone deserving of praise.

----------


## Spoa

So Ron Paul, Traditional Conservative, and I support the troops without supporting foreign wars while others think that disrespecting our troops is fine. I abhor any disrespect to people who put their lives on the line for our freedom: be it our soldiers or our police, cops, and sheriffs. I have friends and neighbors who are soldiers, sheriffs, sons of cops...and I truly have a deep respect as I think all people should.

----------


## Brett85

> ...they just invade entire countries that pose no threat to the Security of the United States, and accidentally, oops, they end a killing thousands of them. lol.
> 
> And I do put the blame on Congress and the top guys. But the fact the Cheney is more guilty than the other killers doesn't make the other killers innocent.


Our leaders in Congress and the President are responsible for invading countries that pose no threat to our national security.

Most of the innocent people who were killed in Iraq were killed by terrorists who strapped suicide bombs on themselves in crowded markets.

----------


## Spoa

> Our leaders in Congress and the President are responsible for invading countries that pose no threat to our national security.
> 
> Most of the innocent people who were killed in Iraq were killed by terrorists who strapped suicide bombs on themselves in crowded markets.


I completely agree. Don't blame our troops...blame the leaders who sent them there.

----------


## jj-

> Our leaders in Congress and the President are responsible for invading countries that pose no threat to our national security.


I see. If A pays B to kill C, and B kills C, A is guilty but B is innocent and deserves praise for his heroic actions.

----------


## QuickZ06

> So Ron Paul, Traditional Conservative, and I support the troops without supporting foreign wars while others think that disrespecting our troops is fine. I abhor any disrespect to people who put their lives on the line for our freedom: be it our soldiers or our police, cops, and sheriffs. I have friends and neighbors who are soldiers, sheriffs, sons of cops...and I truly have a deep respect as I think all people should.


You like cops?

----------


## Brett85

> Are these real people? Incredibly misguided, counterproductive, and kind of disgusting.


And they're here on this forum.

----------


## Spoa

> ...they just invade entire countries that pose no threat to the Security of the United States, and accidentally, oops, they end up killing thousands of them. But that's not intentional. lol.
> 
> And I do put blame on Congress and the top guys. But the fact the Cheney is more guilty than the other killers doesn't make the other killers innocent, let alone deserving of praise.


You keep referring to them as killers, I would argue that most are self-defenders...defending our nation against terrorist. I don't agree with the wars, but neither do I agree with disrespecting out troops for just doing the job they were assigned to do. How long would you last in your job if you refused to work???

----------


## Brett85

> I see. If A pays B to kill C, and B kills C, A is guilty but B is innocent and deserves praise for his heroic actions.


There's a good number of our troops who opposed the war in Iraq and even spoke out against it while serving.  These were people who signed up to join the military to serve their country.  They then were forced into fighting a war that they didn't support.  Like I said, the blame should be leveled at the people in Congress who vote to use our military for offensive wars.

----------


## Spoa

> You like cops?


Yes, I proudly support the job they do in putting murderers and thieves in jail. I don't agree with everything they do, but I respect them as human beings!

----------


## Brett85

> Yes, I proudly support the job they do in putting murderers and thieves in jail. I don't agree with everything they do, but I respect them as human beings!


Some people here actually prefer murderers and thieves over cops.

----------


## Spoa

> There's a good number of our troops who opposed the war in Iraq and even spoke out against it while serving.  These were people who signed up to join the military to serve their country.  They then were forced into fighting a war that they didn't support.  Like I said, the blame should be leveled at the people in Congress who vote to use our military for offensive wars.


Once again, Trad.C. Has given a great paragraph explanation while opponents give 1-2 sentence arguments. And Ron, Rand, and Justin are on our side. Oh, and Karen K. Agrees that we should respect our troops.

----------


## QuickZ06

........

----------


## XTreat

> , I no longer believe that we're the only faction of the GOP that has a loony bin contingent.


Actually quite the opposite we have the largest looney bin contingent.

----------


## Spoa

> Actually quite the opposite we have the largest looney bin contingent.


Who are you referring to?

----------


## Spoa

> Would you support me if my hypothetically speaking gang told me to go over to your parents house and kill them. All because we wanted something you had or because they were not following our rules, even though it was your parents property by law and right?


What are you even talking about? We are talking about cops and the good work they do. You are talking about civilians murdering and stealing...I hope you're not promoting criminal activity.

----------


## QuickZ06

> What are you even talking about? We are talking about cops and the good work they do. You are talking about civilians murdering and stealing...I hope you're not promoting criminal activity.


No I am not, I was not talking about cops. Quoted the wrong post of his. But I will ask you; 

Would you support me if my hypothetically speaking gang told me to go over to your parents house and kill them. All because we wanted something you had or because they were not following our rules, even though it was your parents property by law and right?

----------


## TheTexan

> We are talking about cops and the good work they do. You are talking about civilians murdering and stealing


What's the difference

----------


## QuickZ06

> What's the difference


one just wears a badge I would say tattoos but I hear the LA boys love them some "gang tats"

----------


## JoshLowry

> It's just immoral for our leaders in Congress to put our troops in harms way to perform a mission that has nothing to do with our national security.


Unrelated, but does a country ran by gangsters who selectively break good laws yet leave the senseless laws on the book, have any remaining national security?

The threat is in DC.

There is no real Congress.

There is no mission.

There is no real Country.

There is no real election.

It's all a show at this point in time.  On with the show.

----------


## Spoa

> No I am not, I was not talking about cops. Quoted the wrong post of his. But I will ask you; 
> 
> Would you support me if my hypothetically speaking gang told me to go over to your parents house and kill them. All because we wanted something you had or because they were not following our rules, even though it was your parents property by law and right?


No. I haven't heard about any cops doing that...what place do you live in? Where I live, we people like our cops and they like us back. I have yet to hear of anything you mentioned happening in my neighborhood.

----------


## Spoa

> one just wears a badge I would say tattoos but I hear the LA boys love them some "gang tats"


I encourage you to bring your disrespectful views of our soldiers and cops to Reps. Paul, Amash, or Sen. Paul and see how they feel about your views. From their comments, I doubt they support disrespecting these people.

----------


## QuickZ06

> No. I haven't heard about any cops doing that...what place do you live in? Where I live, we people like our cops and they like us back. I have yet to hear of anything you mentioned happening in my neighborhood.


Lets replace some words....

Would you support me if my government told me to go over to achmeds house and kill them. All because we wanted something they had or because they were not following our rules, even though it was achmeds property by law and right?

----------


## Spoa

> Lets replace some words....
> 
> Would you support me if my government told me to go over to achmeds house and kill them. All because we wanted something they had or because they were not following our rules, even though it was achmeds property by law and right?


Who is achmed? Also, I refuse to answer anymore ridiculous hypotheticals unless you can prove that the government has truly done these things. Where I live, our local government has treated we the people well and good.

----------


## QuickZ06

> I encourage you to bring your disrespectful views of our soldiers and cops to Reps. Paul, Amash, or Sen. Paul and see how they feel about your views. From their comments, I doubt they support disrespecting these people.


Come on in

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...acebook/page11

----------


## QuickZ06

> Who is achmed? Also, I refuse to answer anymore ridiculous hypotheticals unless you can prove that the government has truly done these things. Where I live, our local government has treated we the people well and good.


K.

----------


## Spoa

> Come on in
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...acebook/page11


You have a picture of Ron Paul as your avatar,yet you disrespect our troops and cops, contrary to the views of Ron, Rand, and Justin! I stand with them while you wander around looking for a leader who agrees with your disrespect of our troops. Sad...

----------


## TheTexan

> You have a picture of Ron Paul as your avatar,yet you disrespect our troops and cops, contrary to the views of Ron, Rand, and Justin! I stand with them while you wander around looking for a leader who agrees with your disrespect of our troops. Sad...


I don't know about Rand or Justin, but last I checked, Ron wasn't very fond of our police state, and by extension... the police

----------


## LibertyEagle

> When was the last time a soldier actually died defending this country?  The idea that we are going to be invaded and conquored by third world brown people unless the 'Merican military protects us is the biggest crock of $#@! of all time.  
> 
> I'm sure Traditional Conservative and Spoa beat off to this song


We were attacked, or did you miss it?   In response to that a number of brave Americans enlisted to fight back.  How dare you insult them.  

However, I agree with you that since then our military has been used for everything but our national defense and I do not call everyone a hero just by virtue of them signing up.  I value that word too much to use it lightly.  That said, it is not their fault that our government is using them as cannon fodder for "Remaking the Middle East" and other agendas and they don't deserve your hatred.

Ron Paul never insulted our military men and women and he never will.  In fact, he has been one of the veterans' strongest advocates.  But, it's not too hard to figure out how some Americans have gotten the wrong idea about Ron Paul; believing that he doesn't support the troops or veterans and that reason would be people like you.

Perhaps you should consider how you are reflecting upon RP and this movement.  It is NOT positive.

----------


## Brett85

> We were attacked, or did you miss it?   In response to that a number of brave Americans enlisted to fight back.  How dare you insult them.  
> 
> However, I agree with you that since then our military has been used for everything but our national defense and I do not call everyone a hero just by virtue of them signing up.  I value that word too much to use it lightly.  That said, it is not their fault that our government is using them as cannon fodder for "Remaking the Middle East" and other agendas and they don't deserve your hatred.
> 
> Ron Paul never insulted our military men and women and he never will.  In fact, he has been one of the veterans' strongest advocates.  But, it's not too hard to figure out how some Americans have gotten the wrong idea about Ron Paul; believing that he doesn't support the troops or veterans and that reason would be people like you.
> 
> Perhaps you should consider how you are reflecting upon RP and this movement.  It is NOT positive.


I agree completely.  Ron Paul would've been much better off if all of his supporters were like you, Spoa, and myself.  Some of his supporters are his own worst enemy.

Whenever I read threads like this, I have to step back and realize that there's a huge difference between the man and his supporters.  I could never vote for a large number of the people who post here, but I can fully support Ron Paul.

----------


## Spoa

> I don't know about Rand or Justin, but last I checked, Ron wasn't very fond of our police state, and by extension... the police


Police state...not police. War...not soldiers. Ron is opposed to the actions not the people. He respects them, unlike some people. Go to his website and read his words honoring our soldiers. You would do well to listen to his advice and respect our troops.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I encourage you to bring your disrespectful views of our soldiers and cops to Reps. Paul, Amash, or Sen. Paul and see how they feel about your views. From their comments, I doubt they support disrespecting these people.


They wouldn't; not as a group, anyway.   They would actually follow libertarian principles and look at people as individuals, rather than a group that some have decided to collectively hate.

----------


## Spoa

Ron Paul even stated that these soldiers are simply "doing their duty"! By disrespecting our troops, some people here make it seem, that Ron Paul's people are hate-filled people...exactly contrary to the message of Ron, Rand, Justin, and others. Thank you LibertyEagle and TraditionalConservative for your common sense and for supporting Ron Paul!

----------


## TheTexan

> Police state...not police. War...not soldiers. Ron is opposed to the actions not the people. He respects them, unlike some people. Go to his website and read his words honoring our soldiers. You would do well to listen to his advice and respect our troops.


I'll respect the police when they are deserving of respect.  As of now, they brutalize, steal, intimidate, kill those unfortunate enough to get in their way, or for a victimless crime, or the unforgivable sin of contempt of cop, they do this all with unaccountable impunity.

There are a rare few good cops who I do respect.  But most of these are ex-cops; good cops generally don't last long in the force.

Until cops are held accountable for their crimes, I will continue to disrespect the institution, and the individual cops who have earned the disrespect through their actions.

----------


## Spoa

> I agree completely.  Ron Paul would've been much better off if all of his supporters were like you, Spoa, and myself.  Some of his supporters are his own worst enemy.
> 
> Whenever I read threads like this, I have to step back and realize that there's a huge difference between the man and his supporters.  I could never vote for a large number of the people who post here, but I can fully support Ron Paul.


Hate to say it, but I would almost vote for a neo-con over many people here. I will always support Ron Paul, and I stand by his common sense leadership! Thanks Traditional Conservative!

----------


## XTreat

> Who are you referring to?


I spent 15 minutes last Saturday listening to a lady explain to me that the NWO was made up of space aliens that had been ruling our world for thousands of years and currently reside on our planet in the guise of Rothschilds and Rockefellers.

----------


## XTreat

BTW I am active duty Army and here is what I posted on Facebook a few hours ago and a speech I gave this weekend.

Which freedom would we not have today if 58,000 Americans had not died in Vietnam? 

Which freedom would not have if 8,000 had not died in the middle east?

I am trying figure exactly what freedoms these guys are dying for. 

Surely not speech, religion, bear arms, privacy, or due process. Those freedoms are being diminished everyday, but not by the communists or the Muslims.





Wish I could hang around and chit chat, but PT is at 530 in the AM.

----------


## kah13176

> Even people opposed to all these foreign wars can support our troops. If you can't honor those who have died for your freedom, with all due respect, I don't think you truly deserve those freedoms. These men and women gave their lives fighting so you could enjoy America, while some people attack these good people. May God Bless America. Thank you.


I want to know how exactly they died for our freedom.  Unless we're going back centuries to the Revolutionary War or 1812, I'm pretty sure I'd still be free, and likely even moreso, if our soldiers hadn't died in the world wars, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, et. al.

----------


## QuickZ06

> Wish I could hang around and chit chat, but PT is at 530 in the AM.


How long you been in and you plan on getting out right?

----------


## Brett85

> I want to know how exactly they died for our freedom.  Unless we're going back centuries to the Revolutionary War or 1812, I'm pretty sure I'd still be free, and likely even moreso, if our soldiers hadn't died in the world wars, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, et. al.


So according to you, we didn't even have the right to fight back after we were attacked by Japan in the 30's and by terrorists on September 11, 2001.

----------


## Brett85

> BTW I am active duty Army and here is what I posted on Facebook a few hours ago and a speech I gave this weekend.
> 
> Which freedom would we not have today if 58,000 Americans had not died in Vietnam? 
> 
> Which freedom would not have if 8,000 had not died in the middle east?
> 
> I am trying figure exactly what freedoms these guys are dying for. 
> 
> Surely not speech, religion, bear arms, privacy, or due process. Those freedoms are being diminished everyday, but not by the communists or the Muslims.
> ...


Some of the wars that we've been involved in haven't had anything to do with defending our freedoms, absolutely.  Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that in all these wars, our troops died with the belief that they were defending our freedoms.  They felt that they were serving our country and giving back to it.

----------


## jj-

> How long would you last in your job if you refused to work???


If your job is to kill innocent people, you should definitely quit.

----------


## jj-

> That said, it is not their fault that our government is using them as cannon fodder for "Remaking the Middle East" and other agendas and they don't deserve your hatred.


I can't believe people who pretend to defend liberty think they'll get away with the "just following orders" cop out.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Justin just posted this on Facebook...




> I have reconsidered my support for any bill like H.R. 4133, as it pertains to ANY country, in the future.
> 
> I recognize that there is a lot of misinformation about this bill. It does only one genuinely substantive thing: It extends an existing line of credit for about three more years. This is not additional funding and certainly not "unlimited aid."
> 
> I also disagree with commenters who believe that foreign MILITARY aid and alliances are unconstitutional. If the U.S. government concludes that they are beneficial to OUR defense, then they certainly are constitutional as a Necessary and Proper correlate of Congress's power to raise and support Armies. This has been the view in our country from the Founders on.
> 
> However, as a policy matter, I believe that the U.S. should not extend credit (or aid) to another country on an ongoing basis through legislation. It's time for the U.S. to stop acting as a bank to the rest of the world. After all, with Congress and the President refusing to make any substantial changes to our spending policies, our government simply doesn't have any money to lend.

----------


## Brett85

I still think it's hilarious that "libertarians" like JJ are in full agreement with neo-cons like John Bolton on this issue.  They both believe that you can't support the troops if you oppose the wars.  I guess that just shows that the "JJ libertarians" are every bit as bad as the neo-cons.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Let me be clear, I haven't believed our military is being used to defend our freedom, or any of that nonsense, for quite some time.  It clearly is not true, as the enemy who is destroying our freedom is in Washington, D.C.; not in some distant land.

I also wish that Americans would stop volunteering for the military, given that they are being used for unconstitutional actions, overthrowing sovereign nations, installing puppets and while doing this, a lot of innocent people are being killed and maimed.  That said, I don't think many of them would do this, if they had figured out what is going on.  Don't forget all the support that Ron Paul has from the troops.  

Even you, jj, weren't always the all all-knowing perfect individual that you see yourself as.  Nor are you now.  But, we still accept you.

----------


## jj-

> I still think it's hilarious that "libertarians" like JJ are in full agreement with neo-cons like John Bolton on this issue.  They both believe that you can't support the troops if you oppose the wars.  I guess that just shows that the "JJ libertarians" are every bit as bad as the neo-cons.


In that thing they're right. What you're saying is like: most neocons like chocolate, jj likes chocolate, what a neocon. What is truly sad is that you don't get that saying that you support the troops and not the war is equivalent to saying that you *support the killers* of innocent people of a country who pose no threat to the United States and *oppose the killing* of innocent people. I can't even imagine how destroyed your mind must be to allow you to believe such contradictions simultaneously.

Seriously. How can you oppose the killing if you support the killers?

----------


## Brett85

> In that thing they're right. What you're saying is like: most neocons like chocolate, jj likes chocolate, what a neocon. What is truly sad is that you don't get that saying that you support the troops and not the war is equivalent to saying that you *support the killers* of innocent people of a country who pose no threat to the United States and *oppose the killing* of innocent people. I can't even imagine how destroyed your mind must be to allow you to believe such contradictions simultaneously.
> 
> Seriously. How can you oppose the killing if you support the killers?


I don't have a frickin clue what you're talking about.  I don't believe that our troops ever try to kill innocent people.

My overall view is that some wars are good, and some are bad.  The original war in Afghanistan was a good war.  It was a war that was fought in defense of our country.  We used military action to defend our country after 3,000 of our fellow Americans died in a terrorist attack.  Unfortunately, a good and noble war turned into a completely unnecessary nation building mission in which we used our troops to "remake the Middle East."  Our politicians in Washington are currently using our troops in Afghanistan in the wrong way; using them as a global police force.  

The war in Iraq was a mistake from the beginning, as we were never attacked or threatened by them.  But, our troops weren't the ones who voted to go in there.  Members of Congress were.  Many of our troops enlisted after 9-11 in order to fight back after the vicious attack that occurred on our soil.  That doesn't mean that they thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq.

----------


## jj-

> The war in Iraq was a mistake from the beginning, as we were never attacked or threatened by them.  But, our troops weren't the ones who voted to go in there.  Members of Congress were.  Many of our troops enlisted after 9-11 in order to fight back after the vicious attack that occurred on our soil.  That doesn't mean that they thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq.


I never thought I would've read a defense of Superior Orders in a forum named after Ron Paul. *shocked*

Apparently this needs to be said: it's a crime to kill innocent people or to invade their countries even if authority tells you it's ok.

----------


## Brett85

"This Memorial Day, let us remember those who have fallen in the defense of the freest, most prosperous nation the world has ever known. We salute you."

Ron Paul

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/112801.html




> The most ridiculous thing heard in some churches today (and I know that a lot of ridiculous things were heard), is that we have freedom to worship today because of U.S. soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just think about how stupid that sounds. If someone said WW2 then I can at least understanding why they might think such a thing. But even then, when Nazi Germany occupied France during WW2, did the evil Germans forbid the French from going to church? Someone with more than my B.A. in history please correct me if I am mistaken.
> 
> Updates:
> 
> A reader reminds me that the United States in WW2 joined forces with Stalin, a brutal dictator who did prevent lots of people from attending church by means of imprisonment and death.
> 
> Another reader reminds me that "under the Saddam Hussein regime, Christianity was tolerated in Iraq. With the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, Christianity there has almost been obliterated by the American installed government. So, U.S. soldiers played a major role in millions people losing their right to worship as they please."
> 
> And no, of course I am not sticking up for occupying Nazi forces in France as some idiot is accusing me of.


What Ron Paul says about Laurence Vance:




> He asks me if I tend to read Lawrence Vance, a writer he appreciates, who writes frequently on anti-imperialist and non-interventionist foreign policy themes.


http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/21/a-ron-paul-day-in-la

----------


## Brett85

Ron Paul voted for the war in Afghanistan.  It was a direct result of an attack that occurred on our soil; which is an example of a situation where it's appropriate to fight back with military force.

----------


## KingNothing

> so what if some random idiot comments? If it's not something Justin said then it shouldn't matter.


If I were him, though, I'd consider not allowing people to comment on my posts.  No need to give idiots a platform.

----------


## Lishy

> Not always...
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ocial-networks
> 
> http://content.usatoday.com/communit...n-on-suspects/
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15869683


Can't it be half idiots, half bots? V_V

----------


## Origanalist

> Can't it be half idiots, half bots? V_V


Yes, but the perception remains the same.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Ron Paul voted for the war in Afghanistan.  It was a direct result of an attack that occurred on our soil; which is an example of a situation where it's appropriate to fight back with military force.


He didn't vote for a war, and his rhetoric surrounding that vote and his amendments prove it. He spoke out against an occupation and invasion in his speech concerning the vote, and continued to speak out against a war ever since.

Also, he was pressured by staff to vote for it. Unfortunately, he caved.

----------


## MelissaWV

> So according to you, we didn't even have the right to fight back after we were attacked by Japan in the 30's and by terrorists on September 11, 2001.


Which famous attack on US soil did the Japanese execute in the 30's?  I'm a bit fuzzy on that one.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I can see we aren't getting very far with our argument here, so let me put it this way...if these men and women had not gone to fight in the wars...congress would have started a military draft and force people like you to go fight in a war that you don't even like, under the penalty of jail time or treason. You may start thinking, "How unconstitutional!" I'm sorry, few in Washington D.C. would care about your opinion...you fight or you spend time in jail. So, if you can't be thankful to these men and women because you don't believe they are fighting for your freedom, at least be thankful that they are fighting so that you don't have to go to war yourself.


Actually, not utilizing the draft right now is a very conscience decision. They know that a draft would result in insurmountable public backlash (real protests, draft dodging and political upheaval). It was the lesson learned during the Vietnam war.

It would be much cheaper to have a draft rather than use professional military and a very expensive army of "contractors" of all types. Politically, they know a draft can't be done.




> I abhor any disrespect to people who put their lives on the line for our freedom: be it our soldiers or our police, cops, and sheriffs. I have friends and neighbors who are soldiers, sheriffs, sons of cops...and I truly have a deep respect as I think all people should.


Interesting that this discussion came up at a BBQ this weekend. The wife of a Police officer was very much defending the very generous pension plan that they receive based on the "danger" of the work. Other people (also government workers) were quick to jump on that bandwagon. Ironically, many Law Enforcement people are very active fisherman. The case for their dangerous jobs defense (of bloated government spending) was diminished when the fact was pointed out that relatively, it's not really a dangerous job, and that there are many other jobs that are far more dangerous. At the top of the list was fishing, which they all agreed with wholeheartedly as soon as it was pointed out. 

(And the most dangerous part of Police work is for those officers who are out driving on the roads, which is why being a truck driver is more dangerous than being in law enforcement).

Just for fun:




> http://www.riskmanagementmonitor.com...bs-in-america/
> 
>  1.   Fishermen (116.0) — In late June, two people died when a 20-foot fishing boat capsized near the top of Alaska’s panhandle. A third person was able to climb on top of the overturned skiff where he waited for rescue. As the BLS states, “this occupation is characterized by strenuous work, long hours, seasonal employment, and some of the most hazardous conditions in the workforce.”
> 
> 2.    Logging workers (91.9) — This occupation repeatedly takes a spot in the top 10 as not only one of America’s, but the world’s, most dangerous jobs. In one recent example, 61-year-old John Hutt, a Colorado logger, cut off his toes after he became trapped under heavy logging equipment. He then drove himself to an area where there was enough cellphone reception to call an ambulance. In the logging industry, he is considered one of the lucky ones.
> 
> 3.    Airplane pilots and flight engineers (70.6) — It may be hard to believe that working as a police officer is safer than flying a plane, but according to the BLS, this is true. The bureau states that there were 78 fatal work injuries for this industry in 2010.
> 
> 4.    Farmers and ranchers (41.4) — In August, a 40-year-old Illinois farmer was crushed to death by his tractor after it fell into a hole on his farm, which he was filling with dirt. And just this month a woman was hit and run over by a skid loader on a farm in Wisconsin. She was pronounced dead on the scene.
> ...

----------

