Posted on 06/02/2007 6:19:07 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
Good catch...
They are pretty much my own.
I used to be one of those people who supported Bush's version of the War on Terror. Bush has pretty much cured me of that himself, though. Islamo-democracy building over there and handing the country over to Mexico over here is not my idea of what we should be doing. What's the point of fighting a war on terror when there's no country left worth defending?
America is dead. Nothing can save us from committing suicide.
Ron Paul is 99% correct. He is a walking model of honesty and integrity.
Where he falls is in his ability to convince voters that he can protect the USA against terrorism and that he can stop insane rulers from getting the bomb.
Someone needs to appoint him to the US Supreme Court. And no, you don’t need to be a lawyer to be appointed there, you need only an ability to write well and analyze legal issues of the Constitution. I would sleep well knowing he would replace the likes of Souter or Breyer.
1. No, it's not surrender. As far as I know Iraq does not belong to the United States, so there is no land to surrender.
2. The expenditure of our tax dollars, American lives, and Iraqi civilians is liberal. The occupation's contribution to the national debt and our tax burden is liberal.
Which as has been pointed out nauseum, isn't what Dr. Paul said.
This was a good call. Keep it up.
Fred has gained some weight and lost some of that hair since that picture was taken.
I notice you seem incapable of answering my question. You respond to a legitimate question with an insult. In fact, it's all I've ever seen you do - accuse others of not debating and then deliver insults.
You want to know why rational people don't want to debate you people? Because we've all tried and have gotten a bunch of insults in response. Whenever someone criticizes a Ron Paul plank, most of his followers howl like hyenas and act as if they have been personally criticized. They start slinging insults from the get-go. Therefore, they become a laughingstock and fodder for amusement.
If all of the Ron Paul fans are as....shall we say, personable and charming as what I've seen on FR and a couple of other sites, then I kind of feel sorry for the guy. If this is what he's going to get for campaign workers, it will definitely be a detriment.
I haven't seen a lot in the way of PR skills among the Ron Paul contingent.
What do you call it then? What is your term for it? Or, I suppose I should ask, what is Ron Paul's term for it?
What exactly would the cult call a cut-and run policy? If it's not surrender, then what is it?
The first few posts on a thread like this always seem to contain detractors whose only response is "Ron Paul is a nutbag"... How do you respond to such things? There is no logical way to do so.
Nor is there a way to respond to your idiocy. You submit that Ron Paul is pro-Al Queda. This despite his wanting a full out Declaration of War against terrorist harboring nations, Letter's of M&R to hunt them down no matter where they hide, and a call from Dr. Paul for ALL Americans to reassert their RKBA as a further line of defense against "sudden jihad syndrome".
And yet, people like you still insist he's somehow "anti-war" or pro-terrorist. This is false. Slander. And really not worth my time to try and "be nice" to people like you... You aren't interested in the truth.
no.
Secure us from what? Our liberty? Secure us from being a threat to the federal government's growth and powerlust? Are you using the word secure as in "Secure the prisoners."?
Anyone with their brain wired right is skeptical of the Patriot Act.
Any other strawmen you want to toss out? If so, play on... I've got more interesting stuff to go do...
Paul can spout that crap all day long but it ain't gonna happen...the HAVE's will not allow the HAVE NOT's to run this country....
>>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.<<
I wonder what they mean when they call him “pro-gold”
There are two Republicans running in the primary, either of whom would be a good choice.
The mission is to hang around long enough for them to democratically elect an islamofascist government so we can declare that the great god Democracy is good.
Yeah, a forever war.
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.