Kaffis Mark V wrote:
Meh. I don't agree with you on that one, Elmo; I don't think his support of blowback theory is a winning point for him, nationally. It's a point I have a hard time outright supporting, and is the one most frequently brought up as deal-breakers when people hear me discussing Paul.
I think he's better off when he's framing it as not waging expensive, bankrupting wars, and his handlers and advisors should urge him to avoid talking about Palestine, Israel, and Iranian nukes if he's serious about winning a Presidential nomination/election. I understand his policy, and respect it; but it's not a nuance that will fly with the public at large, because when you approach it from a simplistic perspective, it sounds too much like sympathizing with a bunch of wackjobs who want to blow normal people up.
I don't understand those who would argue against the blowback theory. It is pretty much the single most common-sense thing that any self described conservative or libertarian should absolutely see the truth of.
People don't want to surrender their soveriegnty to a foriegn military presence. Even brown people. Eventually that presence will reach critical mass.
_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
Ezekiel 23:19-20