Message from Ron Paul

Ron Paul 2008 ^ | September 07, 2007 | Ron Paul

[elhombrelibre]

My point is my involvement with Muslims is more extensive than yours and that the point you were making had no validity. However, you instead say I should do it on my own dime. I don’t care what you think, to be honest, about whose dime it was, but you seem to think Muslims are genetically incapable of doing anything but killing each other. That’s a racist type idea and it’s one some Americans used to say about Europeans. I guess we fixed that part of the world, eh? Any way, support for Run Paul is prima facie reason to suspect someone’s real motives. The man is willing to turn our foreign policy over the whims and wishes of al Qaeda. So you get a clue.

[elhombrelibre]

I don’t think most of them are real conservatives, maybe one in a thousand is.

[elhombrelibre]

You have to realize that liberty for on-line gambling, smoking pot, gay sex, and capitulation to al Qaeda is what binds the Ron Paul movement together.

[bray]

His internet campaign is nothing more than a DNC dirty trick. These are mostly seminar posters who have been here for a long time to destroy FR.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[elhombrelibre]

Run Paul wants to go after the perpetrators. That’s just stupid. You go after the entire organization, all of its infrastructure, and its finances. Obviously, Run Paul is not a very deep thinker on these subjects, and it’s no wonder he appeals to people indifferent to human rights (not if it cost them a dime) and America’s strategic interest. In short, Run Paul’s good supporters are dilettantes.

[ejonesie22]

The irony, and display of how really insane these folks really are, is the fact the capitulation to Al Qaeda will destroy the liberty for on-line gambling,smoking pot, gay sex, etc. etc. etc....

[elhombrelibre]

You can’t appeal to a Run Paul supporters idea of National Interest since to them we have none, and turning our national interest over to al Qaeda seems perfectly fine to them. After all, al Qaeda has grievances, so we must assuage them.

[Lurker]

The reason the government failed to protect us on 9/11 is because Bill Clinton to a Ron Paul approach to fighting terrorism.

Wrong. BC had a BC approach which was essentially to do nothing. I don't believe Congressman Paul ever said we should do nothing. However if you can dig up a statement in which the good Congressman said the attacks on the Cole, Khobar, and the American embassies should go unpunished I'll happily concede your point.

Then, in addition, Paul blames us for the attacks

I don't remember him doing that. I remember him saying that the attacks were a response to some of our policies in the Middle East and elsewhere. I think everyone pretty much agrees this is the case. AQ doesn't like our foreign policy. That's a fact. OBL whines and moans about it every time one of his 'greatest hits' tapes comes out.

Then when Paul says something along those lines you lot start shouting that he 'hates America'. What a load of crap that is.

One OBLs primary motivitions according to his own words was the presence of American troops in Saudi. Well Bush pulled our troops out of Saudi after 9/11.

Does that mean Bush was 'appeasing' Al Queda? How about Rumsfeld? He sure had to sign off on that decision. Is Rumsfeld an AQ sympathizer?

but he seems to forget that an armed pilot won't stop terrorists from blowing the plane in half at 40,000 feet over the atlantic with a liquid explosive IED.

Armed pilots sure would have come in handy against 4 or 5 guys with boxcutters, though. And if those mutts had been stopped we most likely wouldn't be worrying about other nuts with detonating Dentucream now would we.

Frist, the airlines (who Ron says "know best how to protect their property") opposed arming the pilots

Did they? Did all of them disagree? When was that poll taken? Got a link to the statements of each and every airline CEO to document that assertion?

he was NOT ridiculed by the administration

Maybe they didn't ridicule him openly, but they didn't do a damned thing to expedite the process either. Did Bush write an Executive Order demanding the FAA allow armed pilots immediately? That's within his power. But instead he put that bastion of right wing conservative thought Norman Minetta in charge of the 'program' to arm pilots.

So at this rate American commercial airliners should have armed pilots sometime in 2036...maybe.

I don't care if you two want to make fun of Paul. It's not like I'm supporting the guys run for President. What I don't like is the yards of bullsh** I see spewed about the guy.

Ron Paul doesn't hate America. Ron Paul doesn't think 9/11 was 'our fault'. And he certainly does support our troops.

L

[elhombrelibre]

Ron Paul wants to give into al Qaeda, except for maybe catching one man or two, and he wants to cut-n-run from the whole Middle East. As it is, Run Paul is more of a sissy than Bill Clinton. Run Paul is basically willing to give al Qaeda a veto over US foreign policy. He’s a dope.

[elhombrelibre]

And I suppose we should include moonshine as a RUN Paul priority supported by his dilettantes and philistines.

[ejonesie22]

We need an Amendment for that...

[Iwo Jima]

What was the criteria for being eligible to vote in the straw poll? Is it true that a Texas citizen who has voted in every Republican primary for three decades would not have been allowed to vote? That you had to have held an official position in the party to vote?

If that is the case, then Ron Paul's showing in the Texas straw poll was very good.

[Lurker]

Ron Paul wants to give into al Qaeda,

Bush pulled our troops out of Saudi. Did he give in the Al Queda?

he wants to cut-n-run from the whole Middle East

When did he say that?

L

[Iwo Jima]

He's happy he only got 17% is his home state?

He got 17% in a straw poll in which only party officials were allowed to vote, as I understand it. Lifelong Texas Republican voters were not allowed to vote.

[hgro]

Sorry Ron, you are a bit nutty. Have you been prescribing your own medication?

[elhombrelibre]

It seems like they are trying to wrapped together an amalgamation of weirdo special interest votes in order to break out of the 1 - 2% ratings in the national polls. I don’t know how big the pro-al Qaeda in the Middle East bloc is. I suppose that’s designed to pick up the Left and the blame America First crowd along with some Buchanite America Firsters who think it’s still 1930. Then you throw in the Gays, the pot heads, the on-line gamblers, Birchers, and a few others special interest nuts, and what a weird bunch you end up with.

[Iwo Jima]

You intentionally misquoted Ron Paul. He clearly said that he takes his order from the Constitution, not international law.

[traviskicks]

well said. :)

[ejonesie22]

Long strange trip it’s been...

Good thing is it will end between here and the convention.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I perceive President Bush as espousing the principles expressed in our Constitution. The argument is not without merit that those principles are universal and not to be confined within our borders, and that to see those principle established on a wider basis requires force against those who would attack them.

The question is, on a practical basis which makes more sense? To establish borders around which those principles can thrive in practice, defend them, and invite others to participate, or to expend our blood and resources in an effort to bring them to peoples who prefer slavery to freedom.

To see the issue reduced to a bunch of lollygagging and name calling is to miss the point altogether. We need to have this debate. We need to assess what is best for the United States of America. I see President Bush, Ron Paul, and other Republican candidates making an effort to address this without discarding what we hold dearest.

On the other hand, I see liberal Democrats and tyrants who prefer nothing less than to enslave us to mediocrity on the one hand and fanatacism on the other.