Ron Paul is blowing up real good

Salon ^ | June 2, 2007 | Michael Scherer

[Austin Willard Wright]

The antiwar, pro-gold, libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul tells me he would rather be riding his bicycle than speaking to another reporter on a Thursday afternoon. "My vice is that I'm obsessed with exercise," says the Republican congressman from Texas.

But running for president does not exactly disagree with him. All day long, he has been hustling from one press appearance to the next, a high-energy bundle packed into a lithe 71-year-old frame. His brown eyes sparkle with fire as he blurts out one big adjective after another. "Preposterous," he says of Rudy Giuliani, who accused Paul in mid-May of blaming America for the attacks of Sept. 11.

[MichiganConservative]

...send the U.S. military to guard the Mexican border...revoke public services for illegal immigrants

Well, that just shows that he's out of touch.

[Bigg Red]

Shame this is happening to a good man.

&&
I don’t think that a “good man” would maintain that on September 11 we got what we asked for.

[gas0linealley]

Big online betting operation has lowered the odds against Ron Paul from 200 to 1 down to 15 to 1. This blowing up is not a bad thing.

[Jeremydmccann]

or better yet, the conservatives conservative.

[Cicero]

Salon wishes.

[johnny7]

...or better yet, the conservatives conservative.

More like a wartime-isolationist... odious but unique for this Republic.

[gas0linealley]

“Did it also sound good to you when he echoed the al-Qaeda propaganda that on September 11 we got what we asked for?”

Do you remember the “Cuban Missle Crises”?

I do. I remember how much I hated Russia for putting those missles right next door. And I remember cheering JFK when he bullied Kruschev into removing them.

It’s a two way street.

[gas0linealley]

Aren’t his views refreshing though?

[Irontank]

I don’t think that a “good man” would maintain that on September 11 we got what we asked for

I don't understand you guys...Ron Paul said that US government policies (i.e. interventionism) is the reason Al Qaeda attacked the US on 9/11...now...do you guys dispute that as a matter of fact? (I can cite you AQ expert after AQ expert and US government reports that state exactly what Ron Paul said)

Or are you just angry that a Presidential candidate spoke the truth?

[Allegra]

Yeah, but he lacks common ground with the RINO contingent so they feel a compulsion to slander him to make their liberalim feel better to themselves...

Yeah, because wanting to surrender to the terrorists and blaming 9/11 on U.S. Middle Eastern policies aren't liberal concepts at all.

[Dead Corpse]

Which as has been pointed out ad nauseum, isn't what Dr. Paul said.

Thanks for perpetuating the stupidity though...

[Dead Corpse]

Which as has been pointed out ad nauseum, isn't what Dr. Paul said.

Thanks for perpetuating the stupidity though...

[The_Eaglet]

Thanks for the flag. It was an interesting article even though they tried to downplay Paul's appeal on issues other than foreign policy.

The title was strange although I do not have high expectations from Salon.

[Allegra]

Which as has been pointed out spun ad nauseum, isn't what Dr. Paul said.

There. Much better.

[Silly]

Great headline.

[The_Eaglet]

Yeah, because wanting to surrender to the terrorists and blaming 9/11 on U.S. Middle Eastern policies aren't liberal concepts at all.

30 posted on 06/02/2007 11:21:56 AM EDT by Allegra (Socks.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Allegra
Which as has been pointed out ad nauseum, isn't what Dr. Paul said. Allegra's post is wrong on two points. 1. It wrongly implied that Ron Paul wants to surrender to terrorists and blames 9/11 on U.S. Middle Eastern Polices.

2. It wrongly implies that U. S. Middle eastern policies are not liberal.

[The_Eaglet]

bump for discussion

[Allegra]

1. It wrongly implied that Ron Paul wants to surrender to terrorists and blames 9/11 on U.S. Middle Eastern Polices.

OK, the Democrats call it "ending the war." Really,there are only two options. Stay and complete the mission or surrender. You can pretty that term up all you want, but it's still surrender. What does Ron Paul want to do, then? Unstart the war? Seriously. Enlighten me.

2. It wrongly implies that U. S. Middle eastern policies are not liberal.

Well, you twisted those words pretty well (CNN is looking for people like that!), but regardless, that is a matter of opinion.

So, no, I'm not wrong. But I've noticed with the RP crowd, that any disagreement with his policies are just viewed as wrong, instead of differing opinions.

[Dead Corpse]

I should have known better than to thhink you’d be capable of a cogent argument...

[ex-snook]

He can be wrong about everything but he is right about Iraq.