Posted on 01/14/2012 7:27:09 PM PST by Absolutely Nobama
So your brilliant argument is that two wrongs make a right?
You're not racking up any points here, missy.
You got that right! I’m putting on the FOX Neocon Channel as we speak. Channel flippin’ time!
“Oh, screw the Giants.”
Most Giants fans would whole hartedly agree with that statement. Win or lose, we’re never happy. It’s like we secretly fear that Ray Handley will be inflicted on us again at any moment.
“You’re not racking up any points here, missy.”
Paulbot arguments are as weak as the Miami Dolphins “O”, who also has all kinds of problems racking up points.
:)
Ugh. Ray Handley to a Giants fan is like Rich Kotite to a Jets fan. Here's hoping that neither will be inflicting on either of us soon. Enjoy the games today!
You too, buddy!
“‘Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.’ “”
OK, thanks for the specific reference. Before I answer you, however, we still have to agree on the terms of the debate. Are you willing to open your mind enough to give careful consideration of what I am about to explain to you? Please note that I am not asking you to agree, but only to honestly consider the possibility that you have been mistaken in your evaluation of what Ron Paul said and meant by the sentence that you quoted above.
A simple yes or no answer will suffice. Upon receiving a positive response, I will answer your challenge. Upon receiving a negative response, I will assume that you are not interested in hearing the other side of the issue and will not share what I have learned about the question you raised.
I’ll listen.
Thank you.
I looked up the entire article from which your quote was taken. I note that you quotation came from a secondary source (The Red State quoting the New Republic).
Just analyzing the statement by itself (on the face of it), I note the following:
1. Ron Paul (or his ghostwriter) asserts that it could have been set up by the Israeli Mossad (as his friend suspects, so he said), or by the Islamic fundamentalists.
I can’t see that he is blaming the Mossad any more than he is blaming the Islamic fundamentalists—it’s one or the other, so he is at least 50 percent right and 50 percent wrong. One has to be overly sensitive to take this as laying the blame on the Mossad. Or believing that he is “suggesting” that the Mossad is to blame.
As it turns out, Paul was 50 percent right—it was the Islamic fundamentalists. You can read the full story in Wikipedia. I googled “World Trade Center 1993” and the Wikipedia story popped right up.
2. Making a statement that “it matters little” is not saying that either party is to blame; it just means what it says, it doesn’t matter who is to blame. Rhetorically, when one makes a statement like this, it is a signal that there is some other point to be made. It’s like saying: “it doesn’t matter who is to blame, BUT . . . “
3. So what is the “BUT . . . .”? That’s what you get in reading the rest of the article. I’ll quote the entire rest of the article in order to show you the context of the statement in question and the context of the entire piece.
“We now know what one homemade bomb can do to a large city—one billion dollars of damage. Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish fiend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little. The cities have become centers of violence, whether through the daily and routine terrorism of crime, political bomb terrorism, or the terrorism of mob behavior as in Los Angeles.
“Never before in this nation’s history has there been such a push for the banning of guns by federal law. The elite want the population disarmed, so only the government and the criminals have guns. If crime is related to the availability of weapons, why does Switzerland, where every house has a fully automatic weapon, not have a high crime rate?
“If you are not armed now, buy a gun and learn how to use it safely and effectively. The National Rifle Association is a big help in this. Also, do your very best to keep your family away from inner cities. If you can’t, have a haven remote from the metropolitan areas.”
4. Just to re-emphasize the point: This is not an article about the World Trade Center, the Mossad, or the Islamic fundamentalists. It is an article about gun control. He references the National Rifle Association, but I would prefer that he would have referenced the JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership), my preferred membership for the defense of firearms, and whose position would be the same as Ron Paul’s.
5. I hope the above will be helpful to you.
Dear Old Lady:
I have previously responded to the references forwarded to you by RaceBannon (except for the last three, which were added to his list after my reply was posted. Race didn’t seem to respond to my answers other than to call me morally degenerate. But perhaps you will still find some of my answers useful to you.
Ron Paul supports legal dope and prostitution
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/05/06/Ron_Paul_on_Prostitution_Gay_
I got an HTTP 404: The resource cannot be found.
Marriage/
Starts half way in the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mz9pDGHBTo&feature=related
There was nothing about marriage in this clip. It was, in fact, a very positive Ron Paul commercial.
Nevada prostitutes endorse Ron Paul
Http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/06/nevada-prostitutes-endorse-ron-paul/
So what? There was no reason given while the Nevada prostitutes endorse Ron Paul. I’ll bet that prostitutes have the same concerns as everybody else about inflation and the value of the dollars that get stuffed in their panties (or worse!). The soundness of the economy and the money supply is of concern to everyone, prostitutes and pimps included. True, the prostitutes didn’t say that, but they didn’t say anything else either, especially whether Ron Paul was a favorite client.
White supremecist David Duke endorses Ron Paul;
http://patdollard.com/2011/12/former-kkk-grand-wizard-david-duke-says-he
%E2%80%99s-voting-for-ron-paul/
David Duke said that he favored Ron Paul because he (Paul) was opposed to the use of government power in banking, the media, in government influence, in campaign finance.
Now Duke attributed that abuse of power to Jews. But Ron Paul opposes that abuse of power to anyone. Those two differing views of things may overlap, but they are not identical.
Ron Paul refuses to disavow STORMFRONT associations
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/45537/ron-paul-refuses-to-disavow-stormfront-
other-anti-semitic-racist-groups-openly-campaigning-for-him/
It is true that Ron Paul doesn’t disavow or denounce the StormFront associations, but neither does he endorse them. The article even indicates that Ron Paul said that he “would not be happy with” their positions. And the author notes that their views “have not exactly been warmly received.” Again, the presence of overlapping views does not equal identity of views.
And further: The anti-semetic groups favor Ron Paul because he is opposed to the Federal Reserve Board. They like that because they consider that the Fed is run by Jews. Ron Paul opposes the Fed for economic reasons, not racial or religious reasons. He would oppose the Fed even if it were run by Episcopalians, Catholics, Baptists, or Presbyterians, or Germans, Englishmen, Chinese, or Africans.
Ron Paul SUPPORTS NAMBLA
http://videosift.com/video/Does-Ron-Paul-Support-NAMBLA-Well-yes-and-no
http://www.dailypaul.com/70100/age-of-consent?page=1
This video was marked “private.” (Probably with good reason.)
Why do the Ron Paul guys support gay marriage?
Http://www.queerty.com/ron-paul-on-gay-marriage-20071210/
Ron Paul’s position on this issue is that the Federal Government should have no jurisdiction or standing on this issue. If any institution has standing to rule, it should be the States. And marriage should be left up to the churches, not to the state (government). It does not indicate moral approval of gay marriage to observe that the matter is beyond the scope of state power.
Question for you: Why is approval of gay marriage bad when Ron Paul approves it, but is good when Barak Obama (or some other liberal) approves it?
the 2008 RONULAN economic advisor to Ron paul saying that libertarians need to
infiltrate the GOP. Libertarians need to infiltrate the GOP. VIDEO of Schiff saying just that!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ncLTFoTFa8
What’s wrong with that? Do you remember Barry Goldwater at the 1960 Republican Convention telling conservatives: “Conservatives, let’s grow up and take over this party!” Schiff, in this video, is suggesting a strategy for the Libertarian Party: Let’s turn the Republican Party into the Libertarian Party by pressing our issues there. Nothing wrong with that unless one is so wedded to the traditional Republican Party that its fuzziness on the issues is considered sacrosanct.
An organization called Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth video taped an inpromtu
appearance with Ron Paul and recorded some of his comments. They can be found
Here: http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/
First: Loaded words and terms are always a distraction and not worthy of an accomplished journalist. She needs to edit out a good number of loaded adjectives.
Second: The imbedded video has been removed by the user, whoever that is.
Third: It appears from the written description that Ron Paul was carefully hedging his comments and trying not to commit himself to their (the Student Scholars) conspiracy view, and then his comments were distorted by the Student Scholars.
But even I would like to ee an investigation of 9/11 as a coverup of something. I’d also like to see an official report on Building No. 7. I understand that one has never been produced.
While Ron Paul has said on TV shows such as Glen Beck that he dismisses the
major theories, he openly says there is a coverup of what went on yet refuses to
elaborate on just what is covered up. The 9/11 Comission clearly showed that
intelligence failures happened because of Clinton era laws that prevented our
intelligence agencies from communicating with each other.
On the website CONSPIRACY PLANET, information about Ron Paul and issues similar
to this can be found: http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?ChannelID=90
Ron Paul asserts that “there is a definite connection” between the intelligence failures and the events of 9/11, and that his views of the issue has been misconstrued. This video was a replay of an interview with Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” where Schieffer brought up all the controversial questions that have been generated by Ron Paul. I thought he gave acceptable and rational answers to the questions, and I especially interested in Schieffer’s response to each: “Let me move on. . . .” That’s typical of the liberal press: They never respond to a good argument; they just “move on.”
And even the headline writer noticed it: The headline was “Ron Paul Bitch Slaps Media Whore Bob Schieffer.”
Ron Paul has publically said that the CIA has accomplished a coup against
America and needs to be taken out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dECSYm5bSM
A direct quote from this conference is as such:
(January 20, 2010) House Rep. Ron Paul says the CIA has in effect carried out a
“coup” against the US government, and the intelligence agency needs to be “taken
out.”
Ron Paul asserts that the CIA runs the military, is like a government unto themselves, and are even engaged in the drug trade. I can’t speak to those charges, but I do know that he is not the only one who is concerned about the excessive-influence of the CIA in international and military affairs. To be concerned and to express such concerns is not irresponsible. His reminder that sacrificing liberty for security in the short run usually means losing both in the longer run is very much in order.
Speaking to an audience of like-minded libertarians at a Campaign for Liberty
regional conference in Atlanta this past weekend, the Texas Republican said:
“There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs
everything, they run the military. They’re the ones who are over there lobbing
missiles and bombs on countries...”
Additional video proof of him saying this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SZKLvEOp9c
See the comment immediately above.
And here is one prominant website that supports the 9/11 conspiracy theories,
calling for a RON PAUL PROVISIONAL ARMY to take over after we investigate the
9/11 events:
http://how911wasdone.blogspot.com/
Did you even read this website? It does not appear to be irresponsible babbling, but a care consideration of the alternatives to the official report.
Among the other kooky connections to Ron Paul, is a UFO COnnection. I have yet
to find the original article, but numerous articles repeat the belief of Ron
Paul’s that UFO’s are real. Some of the Ron Paul sites have soeone trying to
mock this belief, but the Ron Paul site, DailyPaul.com says this:
http://dailypaul.com/node/125999
Apparently the British government does believe that there is something going on there.
But the links do not work.
This has been repeated again in San Francisco, not known to support
conservatives or Libertarians anyways, but associated with Ron Paul out there
were UFO enthusiasts mentioned in this article:
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2007/08/ron_pauls_ufo_sighter_friends.php
So what? Maybe the UFO kooks are like the Nevada prostitutes: they, too, would like sound money and a stable economy. Just because kooks and whores like Ron Paul doesn’t tell us why they like him. It may have nothing to do with UFOs and prostitution; it have something to do with economics and freedom.
How is it that the kookiest ideas are surrounding Ron Paul?
Ron Paul, UFO disclosure, etc... simply nothing more than a pacifier — a
distraction!
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message462483/pg1
Here’s the telling quote from the article: “The global powers that be will be damned if they are not going to place their pieces exactly how they want to . . . .” That Ron Paul’s real offense, the one that over-shadows everything else: he threatens the established and vested interests.
Ron Paul supported by anti-war group CODE PINK
http://www.dailypaul.com/165272/anti-war-group-code-pink-counts-ron-paul-in-their-camp-on-israel-aid-opposition
This is a case of who is moving toward whom? The telling quote: “ The anti-war group is getting closer to his views. That’s one thing, but he’s certainly not looking to them for policy information.” Ron Paul’s views are issue specific. Other may agree with him whereas he may not agree with them.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/18/rep-paul-codepink-camp-israel-aid-
opposition/
Page not found.
Ron Paul and his acolytes are following George Soros on the defense of our nation, and connections between the two have been proved
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/02/ron-pauls-soros-defense-plan/
Ron Paul will join anyone who shares his position. Francis Schaeffer, Christian theologian and apologist, used to speak of the cooperation between Catholics and Protestants on the issue of abortion that they were “co-belligerents, not allies.” That seems to me to be a good description of Ron Paul in relation to all these other groups that are considered to be negatives and embarrassments.
Qiestion for you: Why is it OK for Soros to fund all kinds of liberal groups and activists, but not OK for him to be funding conservative groups and activists, or for conservative groups and activists to take advantage of the organizations he has funded?
Tehran TV LOVES Ron Paul!
http://www.aim.org/special-report/tehran-tv-loves-ron-paul/
So? Maybe that’s a good sign. That Ron Paul will be able to negotiate and cooperate with the Iranians, turning them from enemies into friends. Free trade and non-intervention in internal affairs may enhance the chances of peaceful relations. Nations, said Frederic Bastiat, must either trade or fight.
Ron Paul supported by anti-war group CODE PINK
http://www.dailypaul.com/165272/anti-war-group-code-pink-counts-ron-paul-in-their-camp-on-israel-aid-opposition
This is a duplicate of an item above. See the answer there.
Glenn Beck exposes Ron Paul’s ties to Soros. Does it shock you, or does it do much to explain why Ron Paul is friendly with “Bawney” Frank and almost as bad as Obama is when it comes to illegal aliens and Islam? Listen to video please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFSHGhq19CM
Same answer as the question above. It appears that Soros gave money to everybody and every cause he favored. It should not surprise us that there will be overlap in interests. That there is overlap does not indicate agreement except in those areas where the interests overlap.
Dennis Prager points out Ron Paul’s lunacy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qqHAoXRVk4g
The relevant quote from this piece: “I don’t understand, but I will still comment. . . .” Need I say more? And you guys think the “Paultards” are hateful? This guy is not doing your cause any good.
Prager says that Ron Paul is lying when he talks about the statistics of black / white incarcerations and capital punishment. The actual statistics are mentioned in the comment section under Prager’s vituperative speech: Whites make up 64 percent of the population and 48 percent of the capital executions. Blacks make up 12 percent of the population but 41 percent of the capital executions. I can’t vouch for these statistics, but there they were, in the footnotes.
Ron Paul says he is against the NDAA bill, so why didn’t he VOTE AGAINST it??
Http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/06/ron-paul-supporters-claim-he-opposes-the-ndaa-so-why-didnt-he-vote-on-it/
Yeah, I don’t understand that myself. I would have thought that he would want to be on the record against the NDAA bill. But I do note that it wouldn’t have made any difference (except for the record). The vote was 283 for, 136 against, and 14 not voting.
Well, Race, that’s it. I’ll be interested in your responses. But, please, no ad hominem arguments. It doesn’t further the debate to just keep yelling “You’re Crazy.” I promised you serious answers if you would ask serious questions. I think you did, and I tried to. If I failed, then I’ll try again. If I got it wrong, I’ll try to get it right. But unsupported assertions don’t help.
And another question you need to consider: Is there any amount of evidence or rational argument that will change your mind about Ron Paul? If not there is not much use in further discussion. “The open mind,” said Whittaker Chambers, “is always closed on one end.”
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.