And yet still no logic or formal debate in sight...
Hahahahaha, what a disrecpectful paranoid piece of shit. 
Didn't "Politically Incorrect" with Bill Maher get canceled for this exact same thing?
Spoken like someone who has no comprehension of philosophy at all. Go ahead and gather accolades from your fear mongering support base. It reminds me of Rudy Giuliani's comments in this debate:Ron Paul: "Well I think the party has lost it's way, cause
the conservative wing of the republican party always advocated a non-interventionist foreign policy. Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy. No nation building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean war. The republicans were elected to end the Vietnam war. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the republican party,
it is the constitutional position, it is the advice of the founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy. Stay out of entangling alliances. Be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them. Just think of the tremendous improvement of relationship with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men, we came home in defeat, now we go over there and we invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the founders and follow the constitution. My argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. When we do, the wars don't end."
Moderator: "Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attack?"
Paul: "What changed?"
Moderator: "The non-interventionist policies"
Paul: "Non-intervention [ meant to say "intervention"? ] was a major contributing factor.
Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us. They attack us because we've been over there, we've been bombing Iraq for ten years. We've been in the middle east. I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now We're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican, we're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us."
Moderator: "Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks sir?"
Paul: "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. And they are delighted that we are over there cause Osama Bin Laden has said 'I'm glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier' They've already now since that time killed 3,400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary"
Guiliani: Can I make a comment on that?
That's really an extraordinary statement. As someone who lived through the attack of September 11th, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. [ applause ] I would ask the Congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us he didn't really mean that. [applause]
Look at Guiliani's fear of being politically incorrect! How difficult for us to accept that yes, the attacks were in part our own fault! Guiliani is just giving a fear mongering population what they want to hear rather than dealing with the cold hard facts.
