Below is a video from the Daily Show with a fake correspondent who goes out and taps the "wisdom" of the anti-war crowd.
Some of my favorite parts:
The idiot protester says it's their free speech right to protest the Marines.
The interviewer asks, "If only there was an organization that was sworn to defend that free speech..."
The idiot protester replies, "Wouldn't that be great!"
(See why I call them "idiot protesters"?)
Another idiot protester says, "We don't need to be worrying about their [the Marines] rights. It's not an equal relationship."
Another of my favorite parts: the idiot peace protester says, "Wars in general would stop if we didn't have weapons."
The interviewer says, "So if we got rid of police, we wouldn't have crime?"
Idiot protester: "Potentially, yes." (with a smile).
One of the reasons I couldn't support Ron Paul for president is that he is aligned with these idiots with his talk of lies leading to war and an unjust war in Iraq.
HT to Newsbusters.
Featured Article
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The Wisdom of War Protesters
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Aligning Ron Paul with this satire from Comedy Central is pretty weak, and intellectually dishonest. If you don't like Ron Paul, go ahead and admit you're a little left of center. I'm sure Hillary will be glad to get your vote.
Bush came out against individual rights to bear arms, today, as reported in this article on Townhall.com. Here's a quote from it:
"Consequently, a Republican administration finds itself aligned against the most popular tenet of social conservatism: gun rights"
Are you prepared to follow Dubya down this unconstitutional path, as well?
Ron Paul isn't against any branch of the military. He has supported veterans and they support Dr. Paul with more donations than any other candidate. Ron Paul is very much for a strong national defense. He is not for sending our troops over seas to support a foreign welfare police state. Ron Paul is against using our troops as police for other countries. Ron Paul would go directly after Bin Laddin and Al-Queda, when we won he would not pay for Bin Laddens hospital bills. Neo-Conns are liberals who wont settle for just an American welfare state, they think the rest of the world needs our money and might. They just want to give away our money to make the middle east a better place. Use the force of Govt. to control the welfare of the world. Sounds good on paper, Marx would agree. We who support Ron Paul support freedom. We don't believe taking money through coercion and using it to fight another countries cause. Look at history, why did the American Revolution start. England taxing us for wars with Africa that had nothing to do with America. Iraq isn't home to Bin Ladden, he escaped Afganistan. The 10 Billion we gave Pakistan to get him is wasted, and we have no plan to go after Bin Ladden ourselves. Meanwhile we are building Governments in Afagan and Iraq and using our forces to police these countries. Is that a strong national American defense?
Tonewah, I'm not a big fan of President Bush in many areas. But one of the few where he's done well is the War on Terrorism and the Iraq invasion. There were multiple reasons for invading Iraq (not just the balleyhooed WMD materials--that I still believe were moved to Syria or somewhere else): Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions that were backed by US force (which placed our credibility on the line), captured documents prove Iraq would have pursued WMDs after sanctions were lifted, Iraq was firing on US and British aircraft almost daily in the year before the invasion, Saddam was demonstrably funding terrorism (even if there was no direct tie to al Qaeda), and leaving Saddam in charge of Iraq would have made it impossible to deal with Iran, the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world, who is also pursuing WMDs.
And I'm not the one aligning Ron Paul with these anti-war idiots. He did that himself with all his intellectually dishonest talk about lies from the Bush administration, unjust wars and silly talk of "wars for oil" (BTW, our country--including our military defense--would grind to a halt without oil, so what's wrong with protecting the lifeblood of our modern civilization and the defense of that civilization).
Anonymous, Ron Paul's commitment to the Constitution and traditional American ideals is commendable in most areas. But he's placed himself on the same side as these pink-haired nuts in Berkley.
We are not supporting a "foreign welfare police state" in Iraq. We removed a dangerous dictator that threatened not only the stability and peace of the Middle East, but ultimately our own national security.
And we have never stopped going after bin Laden. May I remind you that we invaded Afghanistan and hoped to capture bin Laden there more than a year before the Iraq invasion. If we weren't hot on his trail after a year, it's logically inconsistent to claim that the Iraq invasion "distracted" from the hunt for bin Laden.
We will stay in Iraq and Afghanistan as long as we need to in order to ensure the bad guys are wiped out and the local governments are able to defend themselves against foreign or internal aggression. That day would come a lot quicker if people like these idiots in Berkley and misguided folks like Ron Paul weren't undermining the effort and encouraging the terrorists to hang in there a little longer until we give up.
Post a Comment