Who said this?
"Americans resort to force only when we must. We have never been aggressors. We have always struggled to defend freedom and democracy. We have no territorial ambitions. We occupy no countries. We build no walls to lock people in. Americans build the future. And our vision of a better life for farmers, merchants, and working people, from the Americas to Asia, begins with a simple premise: The future is best decided by ballots, not bullets."



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I don't want to make an a$$
December 28, 2007 - 09:05 ET by BinxlyI don't want to make an a$$ of myself with an incorrect answer, but I'm pretty sure it was the Gipper.
You are safe, and he said it
December 28, 2007 - 09:10 ET by WhichWingYou are safe, and he said it well.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
haha yes! score for me! :-P
December 28, 2007 - 09:21 ET by Binxlyhaha yes! score for me! :-P
and just for the record
December 28, 2007 - 10:57 ET by TruthMongerand just for the record even GWB has carried the practice forward 100% with his brilliant doctrine of pre-emption...
I know of one candidate
December 29, 2007 - 07:07 ET by WhichWingI know of one candidate running for President whose ideas come closest to those stated by Reagan in that speech.
You still there Binxly? Do you know who it is? (or anyone else that knows the answer)
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
WhichWing...
December 29, 2007 - 18:58 ET by Clear thinkerThe answer you are looking for is Fred Thompson. If you don't beleive me, go to Freds official site and read all his white papers. It's as if the Gipper had written them.
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
What crap
December 30, 2007 - 01:14 ET by UnsaneActually, the man you worship has zero to do with Reagan. For ONE instance:
In 1986, Libya tangled with our Navy, committed terrorist acts that killed some tourists on a TWA flight in Athens, and killed quite a few people in a Berlin nightclub.
Reagan responded with Eldorado Canyon.
Paul would respond by disbanding the Navy to show Khadafy just how super-nice we are (and by giving him a great big hug). This after telling Gorby that Europe was his from Lisbon to Kiev.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Looky here, Unsane managed
December 30, 2007 - 06:52 ET by WhichWingLooky here, Unsane managed to come dribble all over another thread. He also managed to mention Ron Paul before anyone else.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
WW, I wouldn't bother. All
December 30, 2007 - 15:06 ET by BinxlyWW, I wouldn't bother. All they see is his stance is not the 100% gung ho approach to war so therefore he MUST be a wuss who wants no military. People like Unsanse are sold on their own view points and simply post here to further stress their opinions as correct and berate ad cut down any one who disagrees with little, immature barbs at their character. Seriously, you can argue a viewpoint is wrong and still have class. I however have tried my best to avoid debating those who like unsne continue to take the low road in debate.
As for who is most like Ronald Reagan, there's multiple answers. Dr. Paul was a big element in Reagan's corner back in the day, and its true that statement is indeed how Ron Paul feels (but its skewed because of both the polarized left and right fearing someone who might unify the middle) but Fred Thompson is indeed another who reminds me of Reagan.
There's alot of good people with good policies running for POTUS, and many of the conservatives do have their foreign policy ethics in tune with that statement. Its just a shame that because Dr. Paul talks of analyzing the 'why' of terrorist agression on the free world, the US in particular, they assume that means he is a defenseless coward. Make no mistake, if Paul had been our president in 2001, he would have absolutely gone after the bastards, he just would also have dedicated manpower to the deciphering of why they attacked. As a nation I believe we are almost always at the moral high ground, and that America is still true to the Gipper's definition of it way back when, but it still doesn't mean we don't make mistakes and that all elements of our combat collective are straight as a arrow. There are bad apples in every bushel, Simply because Ron would actively seek out to stop the few spoiling the reputation of the many while also going after terrorism doesn't mean he is some softie.
Sun Tzu has often said that agression should be defended against but that to also know your enemy you must first know their motivations. Its always assumed they simply hate us out of religious fanatacism, but there are other elements afoot too. To understand them would only help our cause, but some still drag their feet because it is simply too heartbreaking to believe we are ever at fault ourselves.
And before people get all upset over this, remember, take it with a grain of salt. This is merely my humble opinion. I am by no means trying to say this IS how it is.
Binxly, worshipper of Paul
December 30, 2007 - 23:45 ET by UnsaneAll they see is his stance is not the 100% gung ho approach to war so therefore he MUST be a wuss who wants no military.
Binxly, congratulations, you typed something I agree with. Besides, if the Reactionary God you so worship is principled, the Air Force, Coast Guard and Marines MUST be disbanded.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
he never wanted to disband
December 31, 2007 - 00:21 ET by Binxlyhe never wanted to disband ANY military group, and you know it. He may not want us to be standing in everyone's backyard, and even I disagree with him to a mild point on some of those policies, but what you re claiming is defamation for the sake of your own cause. he believes in defense, not preemptive attack To assume that ,means he wants to demilitarize us as a nation is ludicrous and by claiming such you sound not only uneducated, but completely baseless and assuming. Not good qualities to add to childish and crass.
Reread, ad nauseum
December 31, 2007 - 01:09 ET by UnsaneBinxly, he HAS to if he is a man of principle.
Unless, of course, you can show me where in the Constitution an Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard are mentioned.
he believes in defense, not preemptive attack And as demonstrated by Israel in 1967, sometimes preemptive attack is necessary for defense. Your Reactionary God would rather wait and wait and wait and wait until Pearl Harbor redux to lift a single finger, and even so he has made it plain that he will not defend the United States until Congress declares war (never mind that Jefferson didn't declare war when defending trading interests from the Barbary States). That is NOT anyone I want in the White House.
For that matter, he won't do ANYTHING if a terrorist attack happens here again: except maybe apologize to the terrorists for being so mean to them. And you will cheer and applaud: after all, you have said yourself it is pointless to go after terrorists.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Dear Unsane, You just got
December 31, 2007 - 07:36 ET by WhichWingDear Unsane,
You just got slapped all over this thread. Binxly's description of you was spot on and I think it probably hurt inside when you read it. When I read it I was sure you would finally slither away, but no. You came back and did exactly what you were predicted to do. Congratulations?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
WW, if its anything I can
December 31, 2007 - 09:32 ET by BinxlyWW, if its anything I can credit to Unsane, it is his conviction and almost masochistic need to not only attack others, but it would seem he likes to draw attacks on to himself as well. There's no reasoning with him to be done. We both disagree too strongly, and he will always believe his own view of Paul is how he truely is. I say let him. I could care less to turn someone like him to my side anyways, the last thing I want is someone pushing for Paul with hs sort of attitude. We'd end up *losing* Paul supporters because of his crassness.
You say it so well. "The
January 1, 2008 - 07:02 ET by WhichWingYou say it so well.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
You will not like me!!!
December 30, 2007 - 23:49 ET by UnsaneThe more you hate me, the more you will learn, as I quoted elsewhere.
Besides, give me a break. You worship Paul and probably celebrated Paulmas (instead of Christmas). Of course that is who you are talking about. I'm actually surprised to see you, and your paramour, Binxly, posting anything here. It's kinda diffucult to do that when you are pulling down Paul's pants zipper with your teeth.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
As always, the shining
December 31, 2007 - 00:18 ET by BinxlyAs always, the shining example of maturity. The worst part is, many people with valid reasons share your opinions, you'll never convey them in a way people will recieve well though because for you its about getting in some sort of slam. I guess the NB people will just continue to let you blurt out your garbage unchecked. Im ok with it, you come off as a spoiled brat and Im beginning to wonder if that is indeed what you are. Wnjoy shouting at the wall, with your attitude it will eventually be the only person willing to put up with your hissy fits.
MYOB
December 31, 2007 - 01:17 ET by UnsaneBinxly, why do you insist on sticking your nose into this conversation?
The worst part is, many people with valid reasons share your opinions, you'll never convey them in a way people will recieve well though because for you its about getting in some sort of slam. Your refusal to read once again shines through. There are many Leftists on here I get on with quite well. Their experience alone contradicts you.
I guess the NB people will just continue to let you blurt out your garbage unchecked. Im ok with it, you come off as a spoiled brat and Im beginning to wonder if that is indeed what you are. In a few weeks we'll see who's the spoiled brat. That honor will definitely go to you and your paramour WhichWhine. Especially the latter, considering how much he enjoys sucking the tits of freedom and democracy, yet bitches and whines endlessly about the fact that they are EARNED, not given. But by all means, Binx, whatever causes you to feel superior to other posters; whatever makes you feel that somehow you are 100% above the fray.
Wnjoy shouting at the wall, with your attitude it will eventually be the only person willing to put up with your hissy fits. It's only a hissy fit because I somehow (horrors!) disagree with you.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
I call shenanigans! Either
December 31, 2007 - 07:40 ET by WhichWingI call shenanigans! Either you aren't really in the military, or they really have lowered the standards. Which is it?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Nonsense
December 31, 2007 - 07:48 ET by sarcasmoSomeone as obviously mature as "unsane" is around here obviously is 100% for-real! Only Ron Paul's US military veteran supporters could possibly be fakes. In fact, the proof they're fake is right there clearly in the accusation! ;) At least, I sure can't find it anywhere-else!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
Unsane, Getting along
December 31, 2007 - 09:52 ET by BinxlyUnsane,
Getting along with someone of opposing political ideology in some areas does not mean it isn't possible for you to still be an absolute jerk. Somehow I also believe the only left wingers you agree with, hell, the only people with differing opinions you agree with are ones who give their opinion, you respond by tearing down their intellect and character, and then they let they go unchecked and undefended. Again though, just because a conservative and a democrat don't want to kill each other doesn't mean one of them still isn't a jerk who cares more about being 'right' than correct.
As for the hissy fit you went off on (and still seem to be riding out) it had nothing to do with differing opinions, like I said, check out my debates with TM, we disagree, *alot*, yet we've always been civil. If people treat me with respect, they get respect. Like you said, its 'earned.' You don't earn respect by shouting your opposing views in someone's face and call them names when they say they disagree. And again, I call it a hissy fit because that is what it is; someone who whines and attacks because the entire room refuses to accept their viewpoint as gospel.
Good attempt though. However what you are accusing me of is exactly what you are guilty of. I have no issue with people who respectfully disagree, its proven in my past debates here. I only get scrappy when someone decides to take it there first and believes they are the end all be all in a debate. You however, its evidenced all through your active debates. You find an issue, and even agree or disagree, you *need* to make some arbitrary rude and crass comment that is cutting down on someone or some viewpoint as inferior.
It would seem that *you* are the one who gets their undies in a twist when someone disagrees. I think its pretty evident to most people here. They are just probably kind enough to you to keep a tight lip :-P