RON PAUL WINS ANOTHER ROUND [so says a commie at The Nation]

The Nation ^ | 11/28/2007 | John Nichols

[nsmart]

Arizona Senator John McCain tried to resuscitate his ailing campaign for the Republican presidential nomination by attacking Texas Congressman Ron Paul's anti-war stance during Wednesday night's CNN/YouTube debate.

But, as in previous Republican debates where leading contenders have stumbled in their attempts to attack the renegade congressman, it was Paul who ended up drawing the cheers of the crowd.

Playing his Thanksgiving visit to Iraq for political points, McCain tore into Paul for arguing -- as part of a discussion about spending -- that bringing the troops home from Iraq would save "a trillion dollars."

Just as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani tried in an earlier debate to buff his national-security credentials by attacking Paul's suggestion that misguided U.S. foreign policies increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks, McCain attempted to burnish his image as a champion of the troops by attacking Paul -- and, by extension, all critics of the war.

Invoking memories of the American First movement's opposition in the late-1930s and early-1940s to preparation for the fight with Hitler and Mussolini, McCain declared, "it's that kind of isolationism that caused World War II."

That rhetorical flourish drew hisses from the Republican crowd that listened to the debate in St. Petersburg, Florida

But Paul did not need the audience to protect him.

[mnehring]

Ever looked at Dr. Paul’s voting record? He has a near 100% conservative rating.

Really? The American Conservative Union and OnTheIssues would disagree with you.

Don't be fooled.. Paul is no Conservative. Votes speak louder than rhetoric.

Ron Paul's 2006 American Conservative Union rating: 76% Lifetime Rating: 82.3%

Ron Paul's Voting Record (ya, ya, I know, there is an excuse for all of these, state's rights are more important than stopping abortion and fixing the border, Ronnie is making a statement, or everyone else was voting against it and he was just playing the game, yadda, yadda, yadda)

Here are some more ‘Conservative(sic)’ votes by Paul:

Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes.

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.

Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons.

Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime.

Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism.

Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror.

Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools.

Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy.

Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy.

Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.

Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects.

Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding.

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations.

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers.

Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers

Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse.

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.

Voted NO on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Voted NO on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill.

Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers.

Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers.

Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients.

Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks.

Let's also not forget Paul's Pork Projects (that he voted for before he voted against when he calls them unconstitutional but he is just playing the game when he submits them because everyone else does it.. yadda yadda yadda..)

Paul also supported the NAU superhighway by funding the TransTexas Corridor

[SJackson]

Ever looked at Dr. Paul’s voting record? He has a near 100% conservative rating.

Right, 100% that Paul fellow.

Don’t tell the American Conservative Union they’re wrong. Lifetime rating

Tancredo 97.8
Hunter 92
Thompson 86
McCain 82.3
Paul-82.3

Paul advocates motto, never let truth get in the way.

Why he answered that question in the way he did, I don’t know. Maybe to keep from offending his friend. Ever done something to keep from hurting a friend’s feelings?

Maybe because that's the proper time to be making a decision on a 3rd party run. Today isn't. They're both ego driven campaigns, they'll have financing, 3rd party makes complete sense. To "get the word out".

[rineaux]

Read your original post before attempting to correct anyone, you were the one that was incorrect in your posting.

Your facts are incorrect. Correct them and get back to me.

[dcwusmc]

Truth, indeed, is not a vice. You’d do well to start USING truth, instead of lies, distortions and half-truths.

[rineaux]

Love your tagline. Everytime I read it I LOL.

[wideawake]

Read your original post before attempting to correct anyone, you were the one that was incorrect in your posting. Your facts are incorrect. Correct them and get back to me.

Here are the facts:

(1) Letters of marque are useless and have no legal force.

(2) Letters of marque are not bounties.

(3) Bounties can be set completely independently of letters of marque, because - as stated above - letters of marque are not bounties.

(4) Paul's individual contribution the legislative agenda (made after the President published the bounty) concerned letters of marque, which - as stated above - are not bounties.

(5) The claim that Ron Paul had any kind of rational response to 9/11 is proven hollow, since his only contribution was the concept of letters of marque, which are completely useless in prosecuting any action against bin Laden.

(6) Even though there is a substantial bounty, there have been no takers, because a private attempt at capturing bin Laden is a suicide mission unless you are already a deep insider in his own organization.

(7) Paul's idea of letters of marque was a laughable non-starter and not a serious suggestion. The State Department's bounty idea, far more intelligent and practical than Paul's letters of marque idea, has also been unsuccessful. The President's solution: hunt and kill as many terrorists as we can, has been incredibly successful in its core goal: the prevention of further terrorist attacks on our home soil.

[rineaux]

We all know what L/of/M are, but thanks. Correct your misleading original post to nsmart with regards to the bounty.

[rineaux]

“McCain is so busted.... and bankrupt.”

RP has about 9.7 million in the bank now. Do you think he will surpass the 12 million his campaign set out to raise in the 4Q with 32 days left?

Some predictions by supporters of RP (not the campaign) who set up these fundraisers think he should be another great day on the 16th of Dec. NOT pledges, but contributions.

Should get interesting especially when the average donor is 100.00 or less.

Any news on the money “fred giving day” raised?

[wideawake]

We all know what L/of/M are, but thanks.

You clearly didn't until I explained them to you.

Correct your misleading original post to nsmart with regards to the bounty.

I'm not going to alter a true post just because the facts don't look good for your hero.

[rineaux]

The original facts and time lines do not support “your facts”. Keep throwing “your facts” up against the wall and pray they stick. Guess as long as they do in your mind. LOLAU.

[wideawake]

LOLAU.

By all means, continue in your delusions and continue exhibiting the level of maturity we've all come to expect from supporters of Ron Paul.

After all, everyone has to make a living, and soliciting donations from neo-Nazis is, I guess, one way of making a living.

[nsmart]

“Would you force them to come home?”

Do you suppose any of the soldiers who ate with McCain were handpicked? Naw.. couldn’t be. McCain is kneed deep in obfuscation like wearing a bullet proof vest, protected by air and led and followed by military saying ‘see the market is safe’.

[rineaux]

You used the “racism” card. Sure signs of a defeatist. LOL Is this Al or Jesse?

[nsmart]

“To demonstrate to the regime that they could not hope to defeat our troops in the field.”

Oh, so its a demonstration. I’m sure that will make everyone with a dead family member feel so much better.

[Allegra]

Do you suppose any of the soldiers who ate with McCain were handpicked?

The ones I have the honor of working with every day aren't. The rotation before them and before that one and the one before that one and all of the previous ones I have worked with, eaten with, relaxed with, bonded with weren't either.

The ones I see when I go to the Green Zone aren't. The ones that strike up conversations with me at the gym, the MWR, the PX aren't.

And I've never met a cut-and-runner among them. They are disgusted by whiny, false, cowardly remarks that you Code Pinkos back home perpetrate on their behalf..

[nsmart]

“The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to the men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power that they have been given. It will come when Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic. Who will proclaim in a campaign speech: ‘I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel the old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.’”

Barry Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative, 1960: Victor Publishing Company, Shepherdsville, Ky., p. 17.

To be in favor of electing a neocon you must believe big govt all of a sudden became a good thing. And that preemptive war or 100 nations with our military bases is nothing like running an empire.

[wideawake]

You used the “racism” card.

I don't think Ron Paul is a racist. He just takes money from racists and humors them to keep the cash flowing. I'm sure he would take contributions from whoever's in charge of The New Black Panther Party as well.

Sure signs of a defeatist.

A defeatist is a person who says things like: "The war in Iraq is now unwinnable."

LOL Is this Al or Jesse?

I'm sure either Al or Jesse would take money from neo-Nazis if the price was right.

Ron Paul's price is evidently lower than theirs, which in itself is an interesting commentary on his character.

I myself would never take money from such a source - but that's me.

[wideawake]

Oh, so its a demonstration. I’m sure that will make everyone with a dead family member feel so much better.

In other words, you believe that the people killed in our initial bombardment were innocent civilians?

You really are a sucker for Nation propaganda, aren't you?

When do I get to hear about all the fluffy puppies and adorable kittens who perished? All the baby milk factories destroyed?

[nsmart]

We should never have invaded, but denying that ‘shock and awe’ killed innocent civilians in some cases is dishonest. Can you say none of the bombs strayed? Collateral damage is a fact of life with aerial bombing.. By the way, our troops didn’t purposely shoot civilians. If that happens, they are brought up on charges as they should be. Don’t try to turn this around.

9/11 was ‘shock and awe’ for us and we reined ‘shock and awe’ down on Baghdad, too. Neither case is justified.

[mnehring]

We should never have invaded, but denying that ‘shock and awe’ killed innocent civilians in some cases is dishonest. Can you say none of the bombs strayed? Collateral damage is a fact of life with aerial bombing...9/11 was ‘shock and awe’ for us and we reined ‘shock and awe’ down on Baghdad, too. Neither case is justified.

You may be more comfortable in one of these places.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/
http://www.ronpaulforums.com