Bill Maher’s audience scream for Ron Paul. Case closed.
video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLOLYtWLMyw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcorner%2Enationalreview%2Ecom%2F
I assign Paul to read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich for his foreign policy lesson.
No fan of either, but the more Rudy ducks Paul, the more it makes Rudy look bad.
The really eerie thing about all this is that Rudy is getting exposed
Ron, I’m pretty sure that none of the 9/11 guys was from Iraq. Most of them were, in fact, from Saudi Arabia, a country that we have, I’m also pretty sure, never bombed (whether we perhaps should have is another matter). And your point was?
Why is Ron Paul ducking my challenge to have him debate me?
Why is Ron Paul cowardly avoiding AmishDude?
What is Ron Paul afraid of?
Pearl Harbor decisively refutes Paul’s stupid theory.
As if the disgrace of America leaving the UK to fight the Reich alone isn’t enough refutation of Paul’s America First! non-interventionism.
We all know those persistent ‘smartest guy in the room,’ but despite their intelligence they just can’t seem to convince people of much of anything.
I assign Paul to STFU.
Who is he recommending? Noam Chomsky? There isn’t much difference between he and Paul on the Mideast.
I detect that those who advocate for Paul’s candidacy have a hidden agenda: The legalization of drugs.
One thing that is puzzling me is where and how Rudy transformed his admirable deportment in the 911 aftermath into a profound expertise on national secirity. I just don't see it. He's gotten a rep that he hasn't really earned.
Thanks for posting this.
We witnessed Giuliani dealing with the aftermath of those attacks - a huge leap from the experience of dealing with terrorists.
Giuliani disgracefully exploits those attacks for his own political ambitions.
Suggestion time: why not just stop posting to any Paul post..let them die due to inaction.
Check out the Educating Rudy press conference. Good stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA
You are wasting your time here. Do yourself a favor go to
Alexa and put in Freerepublic for web traffic. You will see that conservatives are leaving this site. Traffic is on steady decline. You will get more thoughtful and reasoned debate on digg. You are not allowed to think
outside the neo-con box here.
So let me get this straight: Even though the House of Saud had no problem allowing American forces near Mecca to protect the nation from having its oil fields possessed by Saddam, the USA was supposed to consider the feelings of a terrorist leader that was expelled from the nation?
On top of that, America was supposed to consider the grievances of someone concerned about "the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of the sanctions imposed after the Gulf War" when the consensus of the U.N. and both the Clinton and Bush administrations were that Saddam was hiding nuclear weapon manufacturing capability in violation of the cease-fire that ended the war?
It would be very interesting to read what Congressman Paul said on the House floor about these things when they were actually happening, and not simply making reference to history books written by bureaucrats with 20/20 hindsight.