Ron Paul’s Impact on The Election (Semi Barf Alert)

Reuters ^ | July 24, 2007 | Ron Chusid

[vetsvette]

“We all need someone to laugh at”

Sorry to disappoint, but I don’t laugh at anyone with the gumption to seriously run for the Presidency. I may not agree with much of what he says — I do agree with some of it — but, he does make a serious contribution to the discussion of both personal liberty and foreign affairs.

Leftist moonbats, now they’re a chuckle.

[elhombrelibre]

”Phill Dave,

Yes, Ron Paul did vote to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan. That was only after his Staff, mainly me, GOT DOWN ON OUR HANDS AND KNEES AND BEGGED AND PLEADED WITH HIM TO DO SO!!!

I, his Top Staffer, threatened to resign on the spot if he didn't vote to invade Afghanistan.

Ron Paul was smart enough to know that it literally would have been political suicide in this South Texas District if he hadn't done so.

You should have been there. There's an amazing story about that time in the Ron Paul office, for some enterprising reporter. It was agonizing for all involved.

It was at that point, me having to beg Ron to vote to fight the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan, that I lost virtually all respect for the man.

I had been with him through thick and thin, campaigning with him through 40 states in his 1988 Libertarian Presidential effort as his Personal Travel Aide.

I had dropped my life in Tallahassee, Florida and pulled up and moved to Texas to run his Congressional Campaign in 1995/96.

And there was a man who could have cared less that 3,000 of his fellow countrymen had just been brutally murdered in the flames of 9/11.

Sickening. I was absolutely sick to my stomach over his dithering of whether or not to invade Afghanistan.

Fortunately at the very last minute, and after two other Top Staffers begged and pleaded with Ron, he reluctantly voted for the resolution.“

[okie01]

Feel free to vote for Ron Paul in the primary, if it gives you satisfaction.

But be honest with yourself: don't expect it to accomplish anything. Because it won't.

Then, if you feel sufficiently offended by our political process, feel free to sit at home on election day.

But be honest with yourself: don't expect it to accomplish anything. Because it won't.

[Allegra]

How do you know that? Just how large a statistical sample have you collected anyway?

LOL! A little defensive there, aren't you? What a typical ROFL Ron Paul Acolyte response. Don't get too hot under the collar of your Star Trek shirt, now.

We do not reveal our secrets, silly. You should know that by now. It all has to do with basic psychology and that "sixth sense" we have.

But thanks for the hearty laugh.

[George W. Bush]

We do not reveal our secrets, silly. You should know that by now.

I think such "personal research" as you may have conducted is probably pretty anecdotal and might tell us more about you than about Ron Paul. LOL.

[George W. Bush]

Please send Eric Dondero a nice big campaign donation. Pretty please! LOL.

[Allegra]

You don't know anything about what kind of 'research" anyone has conducted. You just guess and pretend, as you do with just about everything.

But that makes you fun to laugh at.

...probably pretty anecdotal and might tell us more about you than about Ron Paul. LOL.

Who said anything about tying Ron Paul into this?

Oh, wait...you did. Dude, you're obsessed. I wasn't this bad when I was a pre-teen gushing over my latest rock-band member or actor crush.

Yer funny. Weird, but funny.

[svcw]

Ok voting NO on condemning violence against Israel is not anti-semtism? Huh?

[George W. Bush]

Ok voting NO on condemning violence against Israel is not anti-semtism? Huh?

He voted no on asking the United Nations to condemn Israel.

Ron Paul never votes for anything for the U.N., funding, international authority, etc. He wants to eliminate and expel that corrupt and criminal group of global socialists.

You do understand that the U.N. is the leading international bastion of antisemitism and anti-Israel policy, competing for the title with such groups as the Arab League? That their Assembly would, were it not for our Security Council veto, have done away with Israel long, long ago?

Now, if the House offered a resolution to condemn the United Nations for antisemitism and anti-Israel politicking, you would probably see Ron Paul vote for it.

The U.N. is always evil. We should never do anything to legitimize their standing in any way.

[svcw]

You may justify and make excuses all you want, Paul is an anti-semic little weasel.

[George W. Bush]

correction to my previous: He voted no on asking the United Nations to condemn violence against Israel.

svcw: You may justify and make excuses all you want, Paul is an anti-semic little weasel.

Only if you believe that all the foreign aid we hand out is justified. In fact, Israel is no longer the leading recipient of it. Opposing foreign aid is simply opposing foreign aid, not antisemitism.

The argument can and has been made that U.S. aid actually harms Israel both militarily and economically. As we saw with welfare reform here in the U.S., welfare for Africa and Israel and Egypt and everyone else leads to bad results economically. It incentivizes dependency and subsidizes bureaucracies. The Exim (Export-Import Bank) is especially notorious.

[Puddleglum]

I guess you have to ask whether Israel = all Judaism. I think Israel is the fruition of a particular branch of Judaism (Zionism), acting in recent history to provide a safe haven for Jews in light of the West's historical persecution of them. It is a fruition that opens its arms to all branches of Judaism and offers Jews the right to collectively govern and defend themselves -- open even to Jews that were not/are not Zionist.

One can argue that the state-building strategy and its execution were an action contingent upon a misinterpretation of Judaism and the promise of reinheriting the holy land; that said, Israel is here - it is a fact, and US foreign policy must act upon that fact. Arab nations must accept that fact and grant Israel a right to exist.

However, now that modern Israel is a state, one can criticize it for non-religious reasons -- i.e. criticize its foreign and domestic policy, its wisdom and its efficacy, the way one judges any group that manages its resources, its people, and its relationship with its neighbors.

BTW, these are my thoughts and not Ron Paul's. He votes against everything UN, even/especially the well-intended pablum.

[svcw]

The resolution had nothing to do with asking the UN to condemn violence OR foreign aid.
Paul voted against condemning violence against Israel..in my book thats makes him a weasely little anti-semite.

[svcw]

Paul voted against condemning violence against Israel. It was not a UN request from congress resolution.
He voted against Israel, in my book that makes him a weasely little anti-semite.

[Puddleglum]

He voted against Israel, in my book that makes him a weasely little anti-semiite.

Your name calling, and your readiness to hurl the "anti-semite" bomb speaks more about your own character than Ron Paul's. You are doing the typical liberal two step (that passes for argument in their ranks): express "how dare you?!??!" shock and indignation, then accuse the person of being anti-[fill in the blank].

[George W. Bush]

The resolution had nothing to do with asking the UN to condemn violence OR foreign aid.

The resolution was a non-binding request to the U.N. to condemn and censure the remarks by Iran's leader advocating violence against Israel.

The other common charge used to fabricate "antisemitism" against Ron Paul is that he votes against all foreign aid and always has. Since Israel has formerly been among the largest or the largest recipient of foreign aid, there are those who like to accuse him of being antisemitic. He's not antisemitic, he's anti-foreign aid.

Now, if the resolution had been to defund the United Nations if they refused to condemn Iran, then you might have gotten his support. Still, he does nothing to legitimize the U.N. so even that would be a long shot.

[new yorker 77]

“The people of Texas” do not re-elect him.

The morons in his district do.

Furthermore, it was after the 2006 election when Ron Paul decided to side with Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda when agreed with them that America caused 9-11.

He is a traitor.

When he loses in 2008, he will be an unemployed traitor.

If the people of his district decide to re-elect him in 2008 when he is a clearly defined traitor, then your comment would make sense.

Until then, Traitor Ron Paul has to deal with his pro-al Qaeda stance.

[svcw]

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) reaffirms its steadfast support for the State of Israel;
(2) condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for engaging in unprovoked and reprehensible armed attacks against Israel on undisputed Israeli territory, for taking hostages, for killing Israeli soldiers, and for continuing to indiscriminately target Israeli civilian populations with their rockets and missiles;
(3) further condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for cynically exploiting civilian populations as shields, locating their equipment and bases of operation, including their rockets and other armaments, amidst civilian populations, including in homes and mosques;
(4) recognizes Israel’s longstanding commitment to minimizing civilian loss and welcomes Israel’s continued efforts to prevent civilian casualties;
(5) demands the Governments of Iran and Syria to direct Hamas and Hezbollah to immediately and unconditionally release Israeli soldiers which they hold captive;
(6) affirms that all governments that have provided continued support to Hamas or Hezbollah share responsibility for the hostage-taking and attacks against Israel and, as such, should be held accountable for their actions;
(7) condemns the Governments of Iran and Syria for their continued support for Hezbollah and Hamas in their armed attacks against Israelis and their other terrorist activities;
(8) supports Israel’s right to take appropriate action to defend itself, including to conduct operations both in Israel and in the territory of nations which pose a threat to it, which is in accordance with international law, including Article 51 of the United Nations Charter;
(9) commends the President of the United States for fully supporting Israel as it responds to these armed attacks by terrorist organizations and their state sponsors;
(10) urges the President of the United States to bring the full force of political, diplomatic, and economic sanctions available to the Government of the United States against the Governments of Syria and Iran;
(11) demands the Government of Lebanon to do everything in its power to find and free the kidnapped Israeli soldiers being held in the territory of Lebanon;
(12) calls on the United Nations Security Council to condemn these unprovoked acts and to take action to ensure full and immediate implementation of United Nations Security Council 1559 (2004), which requires Hezbollah to be dismantled and the departure of all Syrian personnel and Iranian Revolutionary Guards from Lebanon;
(13) expresses its condolences to all families of innocent victims of recent violence; and
(14) declares its continued commitment to working with Israel and other United States allies in combating terrorism worldwide.

Paul voted NO.

[Puddleglum]

it’s not pro-Al Qaeda. He did not blame America for 9-11. He did, however, say that decades of meddling in the Middle East brews resentment against the USA, which the Muslim terrorists exploit. Would they still attack us if we threw up our hands and said to the various Arab states, “go ahead and kill each other off?” They might keep busy for a while, fighting over oil revenues and who control the holy of holies.

Solong as the USA backs Israel to the degree it does now, relations will be “hot” between the USA and any radical Muslims.

[dragnet2]

Oh...I had no idea there were so many morons in Texas.