No, this is silly:
Posted on 05/20/2007 5:02:49 PM PDT by Rodney King
"Paulbearers"
How funny that the Democrats are afraid to have a debate on Fox News and the Republicans (at least some of them) appear to be afraid to have a debate with Ron Paul. Such cowardise!
Let the man speak. If he’s a kook, at least he’s a kook on different issues than the other RINOs.
No, this is silly:
Ron Paul supported by dummies, kos kids and sorosites on the left. That speaks volumes. Not a candidate worthy of the whitehouse that garnishes such support. He should be given an award, most likely Libertarian in Congress to surrender to Al Qaeda.
I find it near impossible to believe that this is the first you have heard of attempts to silence Paul. In fact, it is the position take by many FReepers for the last week.
I stopped reading right there. I would point out that he did no such thing, but the church of the Iraq war has brainwashed too many minds..I would be wasting my time. ---and I say that as someone who supported the war, and although I think it has gotten screwed up, don't believe in pulling out now.
I like that he is actually wanting to get rid of the IRS and DOE, as any sane conservative would. Will we ever get real change??
We won't get change so long as even half of free republic supports candidets who will, without question, increase the size of government.
Judging by Willie Nelson’s radio ads promoting the legalization of marijuana...
And by the rants of the Paulies here, along with the candidacy of Kinky Freedman....
I gotta wonder if weed is already legalized in Texas!
I don’t think that any GOP person wants Paul removed from the debates for his comments. Certainly they set the stage for at least memorable response so far, and I’m betting that a few more would loved to tee off on Paul’s comments in future debates.
What I know is that, in the past, the debates usually eliminate those whose poll numbers remain under 5%. Paul, in his wildest dreams, can’t hope to break 5%. Ergo, he’ll be gone.
If the Left wants Paul to remain, then perhaps they’d let Lieberman share the stage w/ their candidates?
I don’t support Rudy, but he spoke out as he was at the
World Trade Center when it burned and fell and saw the people jumping 100 stories down to their death.
But of course R. Paul thinks America deserved this.
One reason Bill Mahar who thinks the terrorists were heros
thinks Paul is a great guy.
Silence him? SILENCE HIM??? He had his big shot, his big break. Finally, Ron Paul on the dais. Now we would get it. Now people would be able to see libertarian principles writ large.
And they were a joke. A joke that Paul’s minions have to rush around the internet trying to mitigate.
I don’t want Ron Paul on the dais anymore because he’s a freakshow and a distraction.
On a previous thread, I challenged Ron Paul to debate me. He has cowardly refused. He is trying to silence me. Why is he doing this? Why is he afraid of my ideas?
Please explain this. While I disagree with Dr. Paul's conclusions, bin Laden has said that our military presence in the Mideast was the trigger. Dr. Paul's comments seemed to be taken out of context by Giuliani, e.g. when Paul said that Middle Eastern terrorists "attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years..." he was referring to all military presence (bin Laden has cited our Saudi Arabia presence, as well as our support for the state of Israel) and Paul made an example, "bombing Iraq for 10 years."
What I'd like to know is what Dr. Paul would have done to prevent 9/11, which I think I remember him suggesting could have been accomplished, and if not, what his response would have been. In other words, is he a speak softly/carry a big stick guy, or is he as weak as the Giuliani goons would have us believe.
I do guess that Dr. Paul would not try to prevent Iran from going nuclear. I do not believe this is a sound policy. If anyone can correct me on that, please do.
All I need to know about why we were attacked is in 1400 years of islamic history. American meddling in the mideast is simply the excuse of the moment.
India isn’t meddling in the mideast and they face terrorism more than we do. The same can be said for Nepal, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and the Philippines and a growing number of African nations. Meddling in the mideast doesn’t account for islam overrunning north Africa or much of southern Europe hundreds of years before the USA existed.
Islam has always been bent on expansion and global domination. Sure we can curl up in the fetal position and hope they don’t hit us but they will.
It’s a fight we can’t avoid and frankly I would rather fight it now before they have nukes and ballistic missiles to deliver them with. Passing this fight off to the next generation is simply cowardly and irresponsible.
Yes, I mean, being there is a trump card when it comes to commenting on 9/11. Nobody could actually comment on it well if they weren't there.
But of course R. Paul thinks America deserved this.
Of course that's not true. Now, it is quite acceptable to disagree with him, but the fact that people are posting to such outright lies just reinforces that he is on to something.
It might be a good idea to contact Dr. Paul's office directly for the answer you seek. No one can speak for Dr. Paul except Dr. Paul.
I do guess that Dr. Paul would not try to prevent Iran from going nuclear.
See above, contact the Congressman's office is a much better choice than guessing.
I don't disagree with that. In fact, I am arguing Ron Paul's case on Iraq largely for the purposes of sparring, as I actually don't reallyl agree with him. (However, I agree with him 100% on everything else).
The problem is this: We are, right now, passing this off to another generation. Mucking around in Iraq while ignoring the Saudis, Iranians, and just about every other muslim nation is not taking care of business. All we are doing is meddling around in their affairs, while at the same time not diminishing the threat.
My philosophy is simple: Either mind our own business totally, which is what I think we should have done after WW2 rather than taking over all of France and Britain's colonial problems. OR, kick ass and wipe out our enemies.
The worst thing to do is to go in half-assed... mess around with them, piss them off, etc. and then not take them out. That is what I think we are doing now. That is what we have done in one form or another for hte last 50 years. So, although I basically disagree with Paul on Iraq, I don't think what we are doing now is a particularly sane or well-reasoned policy.
Paul isn’t on to something, he is on something.
Personally I don’t have a problem with Ron Paul in fact I regularly recieve his freedom reports. In fact I would love to see someone like him in the AG slot.
I agree with you that we need to fight a total war or not at all.
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.