Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Michelle [Malkin] Takes on Ron Paul and the Truthers (Lumps Him In With Fellow "Truther" O'Donnell)
HotAir.com ^ | 05/16/2007 | Michelle Malkin (via Bryan)

Posted on 05/16/2007 4:24:00 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Video clip of her easily dissecting the whack-job "truther" movement on FOX's The Big Story, here.

Enjoy. ;)


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911conspiracy; 911truthers; blameamericafirst; conspiracynuts; dhimmis; dhimmitude; godblessronpaul; lyndonlarouchelite; michellemalkin; moonbats; nutjob; rino; ronisright; ronlovesislam; ronpaul; ronpaulkoolaid; tinfoilhats; truther; waronterror; whackjob; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-185 next last
To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

I knew Paul was a “blame America firster”, but I didn’t realize that he actually associated with some “truthers”. What surprised me is that John Gibson was stunned by Paul’s comments. What kind of journalist is Gibson? Paul has been saying this for years. People who assume liberalitarians naturally belong with the GOP are misguided.


61 posted on 05/17/2007 4:36:59 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jason_b

Do you and Cindy Sheehan collect his hair clippings and dirty sweat socks to admire at your monthly fan club meetings?


62 posted on 05/17/2007 4:40:04 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jrooney

He is Lyndon LaRouche


63 posted on 05/17/2007 4:46:47 AM PDT by PurpleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
If he did vote for the war in Afghanistan,(and I know liberalitarians who opposed that, too) he's being hypocritical. I thought the whole liberalitarian "constitutional" argument was that congress, not the president, is to declare war. Thus, every recent war is "illegal" in their minds. So it is OK to conduct an "illegal" war in Afghanistan, but not Iraq?
64 posted on 05/17/2007 4:46:53 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Swordfished

His notion that we are in the slightest to blame for 9/11 makes him unpalatable to me.


65 posted on 05/17/2007 4:52:53 AM PDT by Tribune7 (A bleeding heart does nothing but ruin the carpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
Those who say [Ron Paul] said we deserved 9/11 are liars or and stupid.

Fixed it for ya. ;)

66 posted on 05/17/2007 4:53:17 AM PDT by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
There’s a difference, and I have no idea why otherwise-conservatives are so ready to condemn him on a false basis.

Because it stings when they hear him talk and are reminded how far from true conservatism they've actually strayed. Instead of coming back to their roots they lash out.

67 posted on 05/17/2007 4:58:58 AM PDT by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

I liked Ron Paul, and then I saw him on Bill Maher weeks ago coming out against the Civil War! Everyone there just said “huh?” and I thought that beneath the libertarian facade was some nutcase ideas. I was right. Mr Paul would have been right at home with those urging us to leave Nazi Germany alone to do as it pleased.


68 posted on 05/17/2007 5:10:24 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte

This is true...

But Michelle is still cuter than a button though...

Flyer liked her...So what he thinks was good in my book!

Right???


69 posted on 05/17/2007 5:15:51 AM PDT by stevie_d_64 (Houston Area Texans (I've always been hated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

Well, since Dr. Paul did NOT say that, you should be okay.

Learn the difference between an explanation, which he gave, and a justification, which he did not.


70 posted on 05/17/2007 5:25:24 AM PDT by Xenalyte (You have to defile a mummy completely, or they come back to life. You know that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: RavenATB

Do you discount the Unabomber’s manifesto on the same grounds?


71 posted on 05/17/2007 5:27:06 AM PDT by Xenalyte (You have to defile a mummy completely, or they come back to life. You know that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ksen

Irrational isolationism is a part of conservative roots? That is news to me and please spare me the “foreign entanglements” admonishment from Washington. He certainly didn’t mind when France got entangled with our quest for independence.


72 posted on 05/17/2007 5:53:02 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
Those who say he said we deserved 9/11 are liars or stupid.

Would stupid liars suffice? Blackbird.

73 posted on 05/17/2007 5:54:25 AM PDT by BlackbirdSST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Ron Paul=Pat Paulson

Pray for W and Our Troops


74 posted on 05/17/2007 5:56:23 AM PDT by bray (The co-clintons freed more terrorists than they killed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordfished
Well what did you expect? Watching clips of the media last night on the debate (I can only watch Fox so long before I get a headache), it was quite evident they were going to do any sort of hatchet job on Paul they could.

CNN may have made a mistake though (at least in the eyes of the establishment media). They allowed Paul to come on and explain his point clearly and succintly which he did. Anyone that's read document one from the government's own reporting has to side with Paul.

Course to do so would be to admit the annointed one may be wrong and I don't think Sean Hannity could actually muster up what it takes to be a man to admit that.

75 posted on 05/17/2007 6:01:32 AM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BlackbirdSST

I would agree with that characterization as well.


76 posted on 05/17/2007 6:01:35 AM PDT by Xenalyte (You have to defile a mummy completely, or they come back to life. You know that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
I didn't see the debate. This is what he was reported as having said:

"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 10 years," he said.
Asked by a moderator if he was suggesting the United States invited the attacks, Paul said: "I'm suggesting we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. And they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said: I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier."

Is this correct?

77 posted on 05/17/2007 6:02:50 AM PDT by Tribune7 (A bleeding heart does nothing but ruin the carpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

Yes, it is.

That is an explanation for why we got attacked.

It is not a justification for those attacks, and nowhere does he suggest we “deserved” or “invited” it as has been claimed.

It’s one thing to defeat your enemy from the outside. It’s another thing entirely, and often much more effective, to get inside his head, figure out why he does what he does, and use THAT to defeat him.


78 posted on 05/17/2007 6:06:35 AM PDT by Xenalyte (You have to defile a mummy completely, or they come back to life. You know that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Don'tMessWithTexas
The problem is that he showed a grievous lack of discretion and demonstrated gross political negligence

Oh so stating facts is now a lack of discretion? What would you have him do? Mealy mouth like the 9 hacks on stage about what they would do without providing any specifics? When asked what they would do we heard cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes 9 times. Only Paul stated what he would cut and why he would cut it. And poor Wendell Goler is the perfect example of what has become of the general American public. They don't want to hear specifics, they don't want to hear government isn't supposed to be there to help your boo-boo feel all better. But Dr. Paul laid out the public needs to be educated what the role of government is supposed to be. Hmmmmm...where have I heard that before. Oh that's right. Reagan.

79 posted on 05/17/2007 6:07:47 AM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
It is not a justification for those attacks, and nowhere does he suggest we “deserved” or “invited” it as has been claimed.

Well, it would have been real nice if when asked by a moderator if he was suggesting the United States invited the attacks, he simply said "no".

80 posted on 05/17/2007 6:17:16 AM PDT by Tribune7 (A bleeding heart does nothing but ruin the carpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-185 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson