Posted on 08/26/2007 6:30:16 AM PDT by SJackson
I didn’t say that all we had to do was come home and I don’t believe Paul did either. He said our actions caused this. One would have to be living in a fantasy world to believe otherwise.
You seem to be trying to avoid saying that you agree with me that even in doing the right thing, there can be repercussions.
Because there can be, we have to be judicious in our interventions and be prepared for the consequences. There are a lot of people in and out of government who are surprised that someone took offense and did something about it.
I seem to recall our Founders warning us about entangling alliances that require such intervention.
I think that Paul is right, constitutionally speaking but I do believe that he is ignoring that we do face a threat from an irrational (to say the least) enemy and that is why I am not supporting him. Otherwise, I do agree with him more than I do the others.
Dude, did Ron Paul sleep with your wife or something? So much hate from such a n00b.
Extremely Extreme Extremist 76-So...where in this statement that Paul supports complete legalization of drugs or would give dealers amnesty? Paul would likely end the paramilitary, no-knock raids on law-abiding citizens perpetrated by the DEA and out of control local cops and let states handle drug policy.
You don’t address the point.
An indicted drug dealer in Canada attempts to organize support groups for Ron Paul. When the campaign is queried, they reply (longer quotes in post 47)
Paul's communications director, Jesse Benton, says the fledgling campaign welcomes all support. But Emery shouldn't necessarily expect amnesty from a Paul administration. "You would see a cooling of the federal war on drugs [under Paul]," Benton says. "But Ron believes in the rule of law, and I don't think this guy should look to Ron for him getting off scot-free."
The issue isn’t whether he’s grant amnesty, his right as President, or oppose current drug laws, I think he would and that’s his job as President.
The issue is where he looks for support.
For me, I’d expect a campaign to turn down the support of an indicted drug dealer, as I would a racist, neonazi, or terrorist funder.
Others, like the Paul campaign, are happy to accept support from wherever they can get it.
We simply disagree on this.
------------------------------
NCSteve 90You need to find a different hobby. Your Paul-hating borders on clinical neurosis.
Always’s nice to hear from FR’s MD’s.
------------------------------
Gondring 103 The problem is, Ron Paul is a Reagan Republican
We disagree that he’s Reagan incarnate
112 SJackson, if you are related to Jeff Jackson or have some direct line to him, would you please pass along these comments, since I'm too dumb to figure out how to send him the comments that he claims to receive. Thanks! :-)
Someone upthread thinks he’s related to JJ Walker, might be a screenname, I don’t know. You can probably reach them both at their blogs.
------------------------------
dcwusmc 136 Let's see here... Your list: My list: See how easy that was? Nothing left that doesn't fit the Constitution and now we can pare taxes down to nearly zilch
Yes, simple, thank you for proving my point that Paul’s solutions are laughably simplistic. You trim the budget to $852 billion, yet neglect to answer the question I asked, How do you provide for $852 billion in spending on the $200 billion or so in revenue remaining after repealing social security and the income tax? BTW, though you’re willing to cease benefits to those collecting them, most Paul supporters say he won’t. I tend to believe them. If they’re right, you’ve got another $550 billion to finance, nearly $1.4 trillion on $200 billion in revenue. Sorry, the numbers just don’t work.
------------------------------
52-nother blatantly dishonest article from you. Hardly surprising.The article doesn't mention how many of Ron Paul's earmarks ever get funded. That's because they don't get funded.
Produce proof that any of Ron Paul's earmarks have passed the relevant budget committees and made it past reconciliation.
But then, that would spoil your entire little ongoing trollfest, wouldn't it? Because there are no Ron Paul earmarks that have been funded. We can find plenty of others for House leaders and committee chairmen and the senior minority leaders on the committees. But none for Ron Paul.
Produce these earmarks.
58 -You know they don't. That's why the CoC types that want fed money to renovate their stupid theater say, when congratulated by the local paper, that it's all fine for Ron Paul to submit their earmark to the appropriate committee but that they'd like him a lot more if only he would vote for porky earmarks.
The problem is that to get your own porky earmarks, you have to collude with the other porksters in Congress. And Ron Paul won't do it. Therefore, he gets no earmarks that he submits.
An interesting use of time then.
How ignorant and malicious can you be? Really.
He has an earmark list that was less than 70 items, each a single page made from a word processor template. These earmark requests are submitted to the relevant committee.
My estimate is that it probably takes about one afternoon for a single staffer to type them up and deliver them to the appropriate committee.
If he believes they’re unconstitutional, I don’t, he shouldn’t submit them. All the rest is posturing. If you’re suggesting none of his earmarks get funded, as I noted before that’s the height of absurdity. Let his staff do something productive.
A President who will advocate “unconstitutional” legislation to pacify supporters, then veto it would be a joke.
----------------------------------
tpaine Get real. You've been posting hissy fit articles like this one for quite some time.
I didn’t remember that so I did a quick title search for Paul and Paul’s back to mid July and found these two in addition to this thread.
Aug 6Ed Thompson considers becoming Pro-9/11 Truth U.S. Presidential Candidate [If Paul doesn't]
July 24 White House preparing to stage new September 11 - Reagan official (Paul Craig Roberts Nutjob alert!)
It would appear the objection isn’t to the number of articles I post, rather the fact that I post on Ron Paul threads, and as the author suggests his supporters are completely intolerant of opposing views, attacking critics personally, as you’ll see up and down this and other Paul threads.
tpaine 63-No, I'm suggesting that you've gone off the deep end in suggesting that Paul's platform is what? -- Un american?; - unconstitutional?
Comical comes to mind, but it’s important this nuttiness not be associated with the Republican Party.
----------------------------------
George W. Bush 69 Freeping polls is how we got our name as Freepers here at FR. The DUmmies and the Kos bunch have finally caught on and are doing the same thing. These polls don't mean that much unless you're looking at one that follows a major political event and even then they're too easy to spam.Your posts are systematic in their use of innuendo and third-party misquotes which you can then attribute as truth. You rely upon the laziness of FReepers to believe your little lies so you can spread your FUD.
74-For a candidate you claim to be so marginal, you certainly jump through hoops to try to lie about him by quoting "others". You're pathetic and post disinformation routinely.Your own news threads are all suspect when you have established such a history of deliberate dishonesty.
I thought it was worth pointing out how SJackson and the other Paul-haters routinely use misleading quotes from obscure websites to trash Ron Paul. It shows how desperate and dishonest they really are. Well, if the malicious keyword spamming they engage in isn't enough to tip readers off to begin with.
As usual, when her trick is exposed (as she has been so many times before), SJackson will feign indignant righteousness, pretending that she didn't know and click through. Of course, when someone like SJackson has done this exact same trick dozens of times on countless threads with her little crew of Paul-haters, the denials become pretty hard to believe. Any ordinary person who examines such a post would conclude that SJackson is a deliberate smearer who has no interest in the truth.
It doesn't get much more dishonest than this. But I'm sure the Paul-haters are just waiting for another chance to smear Ron Paul as they have done so many times before. This is part and parcel of the tactics of the Paul-haters, hence my flag to the rest of you.
Ahh, yes, the reasoned attacks of George W. Bush, of great interest to the Paul supporters, thus his ping.
Right, a Paul supporter suggests I’d be more comfortable with Kuchinich as my candidate, I post a internet poll showing Dennis has more support than Ron, and you’re in a hissy fit.
Guess what, internet polls are irrelevant, even when Paul wins. So are straw polls. Get over it.
As to the rest of your rant, proving the Ron Paul derangement, grow a set and take your complaints to management. You attacks on my dishonesty have gotten very, very old. And feel free to have your cohorts do the same.
BTW, your allegations of a conspiracy being conducted by the anti-Paul FR crew are laughable.
FR appears to have a serious problem.
Not only crystal clear history of dishonest posting, but an apparent underground conspiracy to control the content of the site.
I happen to think George W. Bush is a liar, but this may be something for you to look into.
If he's right, clearly you should ban me as well as other members of the conspiracy.
blatantly dishonest article from you.your entire little ongoing trollfest
How ignorant and malicious can you be?
Your posts are systematic in their use of innuendo and third-party misquotes
Your own news threads are all suspect when you have established such a history of deliberate dishonesty.
As usual, when her trick is exposed (as she has been so many times before), SJackson will feign indignant righteousness, pretending that she didn't know and click through
her little crew of Paul-haters
It doesn't get much more dishonest than this
This is part and parcel of the tactics of the Paul-haters, hence my flag to the rest of you.
They attempt to get someone to say someone about 9/11 Trutherism or something antisemitic so they all hit Abuse.
This is an organized disinformation effort by the Paul-haters, likely coordinated via FRmail if you notice the pattern of how they appear on these threads.
I thought that due to the repeated dishonest posting and baiting tactics the Paul-haters use, we need to start pointing it out.
see exactly how the Paul-haters operate, who they are, who some of them truly support, the anti-FReeper forums some of them belong to, etc.
Many of the Paul-haters are not what they appear to be. They are FUDsters and rely on people's laziness to believe their lies and distortions. I think everyone needs to know about it before they waste their time responding to such obvious trollish and baiting posts.
There's a lot of malicious keywords out there.
Simple solution, ping the admin moderator, I just showed you how, he can not only remove them, he can tell you who added them if he wishes to and/or ban them or ask them to cease.
An interesting characterization of the people on this fake conservative forum.
He supports an immediate withdrawl, and does not recognize the enemy as irrational, imo rational, but with a vastly different value system than our own. My bold as to the relevant points.
Dennis Miller: Alright, let's get to the war Ron; because here is where you and I go down to the same fork in the road and take the Virgin Pass. Gimmie your stance on it; I guess you just want us out of there tomorrow, right?Ron Paul: Right, because I never wanted us to go in the first place. So, it's pretty easy to want to quit something that's not going well, when you didn't want it to happen in the first place.
Dennis Miller: What did you think was rotten in Denmark or in Iraq as they say? Why didn't you want to go? Didn't you think it was time to get it on with radical Islam?
Ron Paul: Well, no, not really. We had already been associated with radical Islam, because of the intervention that we had pursued before. We, at one time, were an ally of Osama Bin Laden; one time an ally of Suddam Hussein.
Dennis Miller: Yeah, but things can change in a millisecond, much less a decade.
Ron Paul: This on again, off again thing is what bothers me. It's a Constitutional issue as much as anything. The authority to go to war was transferred to the President; but only Congress should declare when we go to wars, so that bothered me a whole lot. And then the two reasons they gave, I thought, were not valid. One reason was Saddam Hussein was a threat to us, and I never believed that, and proved that he wasn't a threat; he didn't have an army or navy, and they were living in poverty. They couldn't even shoot down one of our airplanes.
Dennis Miller: What about bad intentions? I agree with you; like, we're not talking about looking down the way and seeing Roman Centurions coming at us, but I do think that to have, after 9/11, a sort of Damocles, a bad intention man, a possible expediter of terror. You know how Magic Johnson used to run the break and he was so great a dispersing the ball? I always thought this guy could help in that way. What about that we just had to take somebody who was not playing ball and smack him around to remind the world not to trifle with us. What about that? Isn't it important to look formidable again Ron?
Ron Paul: I think if he felt strongly about that you should go after the people who might have had something to do with 9/11.
Dennis Miller: Bush knows he had nothing. Play that clip, really quick, just to remind everybody. Bush knew there was no connection.
Bush Clip:
Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September 11th, uhhhh, were ordered by Iraq.
Dennis Miller: That's just the short of it. It had nothing to do with weapons; it just had, uh; America establishing that at some point there was a line that could not be crossed. That's the way I see it.
Ron Paul: Yes, and I understand the emotions, but the logic isn't there because I did support the authority to go in and go after Osama Bin Laden, who was in Afghanistan at that time, and yet we didn't pursue that, and we still aren't pursuing it, and he's in a so-called friendly country that we subsidize, who has nuclear weapons, and they're a military dictatorship, and that's in Pakistan. So, we ignore Pakistan, and we're over fighting a war that is going so poorly, and at the time there was no connection. Also, 15 out of the 19 (hijackers) came from Saudi Arabia; that government there is a protectorate of ours; we protect that government no matter what! So we went after the wrong people, and we've gotten ourselves really dug into a hole, which is about to spread into Iran. So those are the concerns I have. But the other reason, other than going after the weapons, the other reason given for this authority being given to the President, was the fact that we had to enforce UN resolutions. I don't think we should go to war for UN resolutions, and I don't think we should go to war unless it's declared. It turns out, that if you just look at history since World War 2, that when we go into wars carelessly, and we don't declare them, we do a very poor job in winning them. Here now we've been in Iraq longer than we were in World War 2, and I think it's because of our carelessness in how we go to war.
Dennis Miller: Ron, what if I told you that I believe we're going to be going to war for the next 50, 75, 100 years against radical Islam, and Iraq is the first tentative baby steps just inserting ourselves into the equation? I don't know what you think happens if we just come back here. Now paint the ideal scenario for me. The Mullah’s are mollified? Everything just goes away? Tell me what happens...
Ron Paul: If you understand what motivates suicide terrorism, you'll realize it's not radical Islam. The most motivating factor is that fact they are being occupied by a foreign force. They cannot mobilize, they cannot recruit. So we are serving the interests of Osama Bin Laden by him getting more recruits than ever before. Yes, there would be problems in the Middle East when we leave. Everybody knows we're gonna leave because we're gonna go broke; we won't be able to afford it! All empires end because they eventually go broke. But who knows, there may be a tremendous incentive for them to settle their disputes. Already there's a large number, it's not the majority of them, of the members serving in the Parliament, Sunni's and Shiites, that are talking to each other! And they're getting ready to vote to ask us to leave. The Arab League could fill the vacuum; and they offered some peace treaties with Israel that are very attractive; by recognizing Israel. All kinds of good things can happen.
Dennis Miller: I think it turns into a slaughterhouse.
Ron Paul: After Vietnam that did not happen, which what was predicted; we're trading partners and they're capitalistic now, more so than ever before! So, there's reason to be pessimistic.
Dennis Miller: What if I said that I think it turns into a slaughterhouse that's going to make the killing fields look like a glade in the forest? Let me ask you this; we pull out and within a month we notice that people are starting to be cleaved like a sie through wheat. How do you feel? Does it make you feel guilty, or...
Ron Paul: I would blame it on the people who wanted to go to war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally. They helped create the mess. AND (emphasis added) the people who predict that are the ones who predicted that he had weapons, that it was an easy target, that we'd get the oil, we'd pay all our bills and it'd be over in a couple months! And now, they were completely wrong on everything and now we're listening to them say "well, it's going to turn into a killing field!".
Dennis Miller: Alright, I've got 5 seconds here, I've gotta split. I appreciate your time and I wish you luck in your run.
I'm not nitpicking him.
Get real. You've been posting hissy fit articles like this one for quite some time.
I didn't remember that so I did a quick title search for Paul and Paul's back to mid July and found these two in addition to this thread.
Comical 'answer'. Search further back and not so 'quick'.
I'm suggesting that you've gone off the deep end in suggesting that Paul's platform is what? -- Unamerican?; - unconstitutional?
Comical comes to mind, but it's important this nuttiness not be associated with the Republican Party.
Again, are you claiming that Paul's "nutty" platform is -- unamerican?; - unconstitutional?
Talk about nutty ---.
I suppose I could, but it would be a waste of time since I've probably posted hundreds of articles since early July and found only this on on Paul, one on Tommy Thompson's brother who may support Paul, and one on Paul Craig Roberts. If I count all three, that's only 1% or so, which doesn't sustain your charge of
I regognize Paul's supporters consider 1% correct definitive proof of anything.
I do post on the threads, and I understand Paul supporters don't like that, they're intolerant of criticism.
Comical comes to mind, but it's important this nuttiness not be associated with the Republican Party....Again, are you claiming that Paul's "nutty" platform is -- unamerican?; - unconstitutional?
That seems clear to me. I don't think he's un-American or un-Constitutional, I think he's comical.
He runs a campaign of sound bites with little or nothing in the way of real world, concrete legislative solutions to any of the issues he raises. Solutions as in practical solutions, ones that could actually implemented in the real world. And his supporters run around as though he’s about to be King.
And yes, I think his nuttiness needs to be separated from the Republican Party. He gets support from a number of distasteful groups, and that’s not something the Republican Party needs to be associated with.
What’s your point?
I already said that I disagreed with Paul on the war.
Misunderstood, I thought you were suggesting he doesn’t favor an immediate pullout.
If that is an apology, I accept. I really didn’t expect one.
“I didn’t say that all we had to do was come home and I don’t believe Paul did either. He said our actions caused this. One would have to be living in a fantasy world to believe otherwise.”
I believe he did say that. I think SJackson provided the quotes in his recent post to both of us.
“You seem to be trying to avoid saying that you agree with me that even in doing the right thing, there can be repercussions.”
A rather meaningless statements since there can be repercussions regardless of whether an action is right or wrong. And, I disagree that ‘we caused this’. Radical islaam is irrational so you cannot say that ‘we caused this’.
Thanks for the post. Nothing like the man’s own words.
Sorry, but you are talking in circles.
Paul said that we should come home immediately (with which I disagree) but he doesn’t believe that the anger or hatred would abate at the same time. He believes that our forces should be defensive in nature and protect us here.
We all know that Islam is irrational. Why didn’t we know and prepare for such attacks? Why haven’t we closed our borders to hinder further entry into the country?
Paul would do those things. Bush hasn’t and won’t. Who is more dangerous? IMO, Bush. Your mileage may vary.
It's really odd. For someone with 1% of the vote, people certainly spend a lot of time and energy denouncing him. I wouldn't entertain any thought of voting for him, but he brings some good ideas to the table domestically. Small minded people always resort to ad hominem attacks rather than addressing a person's ideas on their merits. It's amazing.
So the nutiness that needs to be separated from the Republican party is the candidate who favors closing our borders, repealing Roe v. Wade, and reducing our federal government to its constitutionally permitted functions? But the candidate who favors opening the borders, killing the unborn, putting firearms manufacturers out of business is okay? And the president who oversaw the largest expansion in the federal government in a generation and tried to legalize 30 million illegals is not nutty either?
“He believes that our forces should be defensive in nature and protect us here.”
If you were coaching a football team would you forbid your players from crossing the fifty yard line?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.