You’re showing a rather disturbing double standard behavior towards gays that “might make him homophobic” would definitely “make him racist” were it directed at blacks.
Please explain.
Thanks
That’s not even close to what he said.
Active military personnel disagrees with you, so does the CIA of the bin Laden division.
The neocon politicians in Washington DC agrees with you.
Hmmm, I think I’d side with the former.
That’s pretty much it.
If elected, he’ll be able to push Congress in the direction of the bad ideas his supporters like, but he’ll lack any influence to advance the bad ideas his supporters don’t like (or rather, don’t care about).
Win-win.
I’m sure most Americans really like how he opposed the establishment of Martin Luther King Day. What a principled stand! Why, his opposition to that holiday simply transcends any question of racism!
Or wait a second… who was it that actually voted against MLK Day? Was it Ron Paul or Lew Rockwell? Did Ron Paul even know that he voted against MLK Day?
ETA: Ha! Below is a pro-Ron Paul site “clearing the record” on Paul’s steadfast opposition to MLK Day:
http://www.dailypaul.com/196197/martin-luther-king-day-ron-pauls-vote
He’s not very good at passing legislation and does a lousy job advocating for some of his views, but for a guy who isn’t a racist, he definitely does a skilled impression of a racist.
OK that’s not what he said.
But if you agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy issues like the military and CIA does, that is pretty close to what he said.
No, it isn’t. That’s your opinion, but he didn’t say anything like that. Meanwhile, the military and the CIA don’t agree with Paul. There are people in the military and CIA who do, but you can’t back up a blanket assertion like that. It’s false to imply that the entire military or intelligence community agrees with him.
How would they?
Because it’s ignorant or insane. Wilson didn’t even approve of the Germany-punitive terms of the Versailles Treaty.
Er, you haven’t shown that.
You simply showed that one former CIA agent agrees with Paul.
Scheuer it should also be noted is more than a little unstable, a huge media whore and hardly representative of the CIA.
He is for a lot of Paul’s issues - to a degree. He states several republican/democrat status quo policies that he belives are whacko. He agrees that as president, the whacko libertarian wouldn’t have enough influence to fully implement his policies.
But he also agreed that as president, he would have the “autonomy” to push his disastrous foreign policy. So if you side with 71% of the military political contributors, as well as the former CIA chief, then how is it not logical to imply the whacko libertarian would be a great way to balance out the whacko republican/democratic policies in place now?
Can anybody else think of a candidate with supporters who’ve said “Oh don’t worry about all that crazy stuff, he won’t be able to actually do that.” Maybe I’ve missed something but I can’t remember anything quite like it.
He isn’t just any former CIA agent, he was the former chief of the bin Laden unit. But of course, it’s easy to just label him as unstable and a media whore.
Chief of the Bin Laden issue station from '96 to '99, Special Advisor to the Chief of the Bin Laden Unit from '01 to '04. Must have been a real pro at his job, handling that Bin Laden problem so successfully all that time.
You’re using the term “Chief” like he was a station chief. He wasn’t.
During the late 90s, when he was the head of that unit it consisted of less than a dozen people and was viewed as a dumping ground for rejects. He was the head of it because no one else wanted it.
Since then he’s tried to parlay that part of his career into making a lot of money by making many alarmist and extremist claims from blaming Bill Clinton for 911, a “fifth Column” in America for the Iraq War, and in claiming in 2009 that there was a strong possibility Al Quaeda was close to detonating a nuke in the US.
Beyond that, you’ve done nothing to substantiate you’re eye-opening claim that both the military and the CIA agree with the racist Ron Paul.
I’d still take his opinion over the establishment, that has nearly bankrupted us bringing us into a war with those dangerous Iraqis with weapons of mass destruction.
Got any sources to back up your claims?
Here’s something to substantiate my claim of the military.
Yes, because the CIA had nothing to do with the Iraq War.
Who put that pie chart together and how did they gather their information?
I don’t mean to sound rude, but have you read any of his stuff or are you basing your opinion of him on a four minute TV clip, and that he once held an important-sounding title?
I ask, because I related fairly basic well-known facts about him that both his detractors and defenders are well aware of?