Its like calling me dlnumbers
Translation: you respect what Fox News or other right wing proponents tell you to think. I could cite you numerous areas where both have changed or moved their positions based on the world of politics, same as Obama.
But because they have -Rs next to their names, you would never be receptive to this.
Translation: you respect what Fox News or other right wing proponents tell you to think. I could cite you numerous areas where both have changed or moved their positions based on the world of politics, same as Obama.
But because they have -Rs next to their names, you would never be receptive to this.
Buzzword Alert
You mean, he's a politician and Santorum and Paul aren't?
Do you want to google Paul's various positions on Israel? How about Santorum's on the Middle East.
Both are positions fraught with contradiction. But getting back to my point, yes, I know you would support either over Obama. Does that mean you are for Paul's view of isolationism or Santorum's hawkish position. Or maybe you are just for whatever the person whose name ends in -R tells you to be for.
Buzzword Alert
Let me respond to this by asking you to review this thread.
I can name at least four poster in this thread who would not vote for Santorum if he ran against Obama, which not by coincidence, is why I listen to those posters viewpoints. They aren't coming from an R vs. D mindset. Not that they would vote for Obama, but it goes to my point. Outside of just wanting to vote for an -R, you cannot reconcile their positions. They are opposite in nearly every possible way.
You mean, he's a politician and Santorum and Paul aren't?
Do you want to google Paul's various positions on Israel? How about Santorum's on the Middle East.
Both are positions fraught with contradiction. But getting back to my point, yes, I know you would support either over Obama. Does that mean you are for Paul's view of isolationism or Santorum's hawkish position. Or maybe you are just for whatever the person whose name ends in -R tells you to be for.
Ron Paul in the early 80s stood with Ronald Reagan while Paul was proclaimed a strong ally of Israel during speeches where Reagan was advocating military and economic support for America's most important ally.
Now, Paul has moved his position to one where the policies advocated by Reagan and supported by the presence of Paul, have led to to the belief of reducing or eliminating direct support for Israel, based on what it has created for the US.
I am not suggesting that either is right nor wrong. To no one's surprise, I find the answer somewhere in the middle. But it is a contradiction none the less.
Completely agree.
That was my point. The poster to whom I was responding to has this belief that anyone with an -R after their name doesn't do what you stated above.
Ron Paul in the early 80s stood with Ronald Reagan while Paul was proclaimed a strong ally of Israel during speeches where Reagan was advocating military and economic support for America's most important ally.
Now, Paul has moved his position to one where the policies advocated by Reagan and supported by the presence of Paul, have led to to the belief of reducing or eliminating direct support for Israel, based on what it has created for the US.
I am not suggesting that either is right nor wrong. To no one's surprise, I find the answer somewhere in the middle. But it is a contradiction none the less.
He stood next to Reagan while Reagan advocated for military and financial support. Link to me one time where he ever suggested that Reagan was wrong or argued in Congress against such aid?
You won't find it.
I'm not suggesting he was wrong then or now, rather that his positions can be viewed as a change.
You keep going back to his vote in 1981. No one is disputing that vote. That was back when Reagan was calling him "Israel's best friend" while Reagan was seeking military and financial support with Paul alongside.
I'm asking for any link showing he was opposed to financial and military support for Israel under Reagan.
You won't find any.
Let me respond to this by asking you to review this thread.
I can name at least four poster in this thread who would not vote for Santorum if he ran against Obama, which not by coincidence, is why I listen to those posters viewpoints. They aren't coming from an R vs. D mindset. Not that they would vote for Obama, but it goes to my point. Outside of just wanting to vote for an -R, you cannot reconcile their positions. They are opposite in nearly every possible way.
Santorum is totally
against abortion and gay marriage. Paul will say live and let live but
will not provide govt funds to either group. In
public Obama will go round and round with no clear answer. Waiting in
the background is GLAAD and Planned Parenthood. Obama knows he has to
promise them goodies so they will be motivated and campaign for him in
2012. |
|
So, are you saying Obama has done things that are clearly anti-abortion? Or anti-gay rights? Or he has just taken nuanced positions.
The reality is that you don't know or don't care about the differences in the positions of Santorum and Paul, because they are both Republicans, which was the point of my post.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
