Message from Ron Paul

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

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Sometimes I’m amazed at how stupid some of you people can be. Of course Ron Paul never said those things, and NapkinUser wasn’t saying that he did. His point was that the neocons say and have said things like that, which is a better example of “sucking people in with pretty words”. Ron Paul doesn’t speak with pretty words - he speaks the blunt, honest truth, even if it’s painful to hear.

[Iwo Jima]

Incredibly cheap shot. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Iwo Jima]

In order to be a delegate or alternate delegate, you have to vote in the primary, let your precinct Chair/judge know that you want to be chosen and be part of the slate elected at the County Convention.

In our precinct in Harris County, our former precinct chair would only allow "country club" Republicans to be elected. She presented a list of her selections and the entire list was voted on 1-2-3 with any discussions or additions being ruled out of order. There were less delegates sent to the state convention than were allotted, and many would have filled those slots, but she preferred to have empty seats as opposed to people with grassroots conservative values and people she could not control.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

You write well, EEE.

Thanks! I do a lot of data entry work (Planes are flying over Lambeau Field now for the Packers/Eagles game!) so it's important that spelling and proper grammar is used. I guess it carried over here to FR.

[hocndoc]

Do y’all have a vote on issues at the precinct convention? It may be time to stack the meeting.

[elhombrelibre]

I don’t wonder why other countries see us as a bully. That’s Leftwing propaganda, something you’re susceptible, but I am not. Of course, you want to treat the overthrow of Saddam as if it were an event completely unrelated to Saddam’s past behaviors and wars. Thus do you once again come back to blaming America for what happened, and even throw in the slur that America is being the world’s policeman - better the world’s policeman than the world’s dupe, as Run Paul would have us be. Cut-n-run won’t work. America’s enemies and their sympathizers wherever they are - foreign and yes domestic - can bet that we’ll finish the job this time.

[elhombrelibre]

Bush removed troops from Saudi on our terms and in agreement with the Saudi Royal family who rule there, not because of al Qaeda’s threat. Thus, he did not pull a Run Paul.

[SoldierDad]

Just called it like it is. It’s his own bio.

[elhombrelibre]

What was it, I missed it?

[SoldierDad]

Post #452

[elhombrelibre]

#452 is true. I mean Benedict Arnold served too. Just because someone served doesn’t mean they have the right to support America’s enemies, provide apologias for them, espouse their strategic goals, and generally undermine the morale of the nation during war. Run Paul is clearly more concerned with al Qaeda’s purported grievances than he is with our strategic interest. I say he is a traitor hiding behind some silly sophistries about “nonintervention” and just other gibberish and claptrap. His motives are either to help our enemies or he is too foolish to be in public life.

[SoldierDad]

Yep, yep.

[humblegunner]

Message from Ron Paul

To heck with that.

Here's a message from me:

Never surrender and never forget.

Ron Paul is a cut-and-run apologist.

[Mr. Silverback]

First, I don't understand why you are acting as if I didn't answer your question. I not only answered it, I gave you two answers that both apply. If you want to say I'm wrong, then that's great, but if you're going to act like I'm dodging you this conversation will be over faster than an Air Supply concert at Ozfest.

Then there's this:

Which you stated those being imported are no threat to us).

You apparently cannot read. I specifically said otherwise. Here it is again, slightly edited, and with the passage you couldn't read bolded:

And if they are capable of destroying and conquering America, why does our current administration continue to allow into our country, tens of thousands of Muslims routinely and legally?

Both of the following answers are correct:

1. Because they underestimate the threat from [newly] resident Muslims because the vast, vast majority of domestic Muslims [long-term immigrant and native-born] have no interest in killing the infidel; they came to America to escape that crap.

2. They believe (correctly, thus far) that their security methods are working very well in preventing attacks.

Now, unless you're blind or illiterate, you've had that answer, and you can see it has nothing in it that says there is no threat from Muslim immigrants.

Your question is what do we do with American citizens, that were born and raised here? Are they a problem? I don't think so. Maybe there are a few nuts between them, but do you think these few native American citizens that happen to be Muslims are actually capable of destroying and conquering America?

I don't think it's likely, no. And I do think American Muslims are for the most part quite different from Muslims in other Western countries. For example, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran the Muhammad cartoons, and while newspapers in Europe had received violence and death threats the Inquirer got peacefully picketed by 11 American Muslims.

Consider this: Christianity is absolutely, positively NOT the Religion of Anal Sex. Yet there are people claiming to be Christians (indeed, who believe they are Christiands just as surely as I believe I am one) who will tell you that Jesus blessed a male gay couple in their relationship and that we are only His followers if we support homosexual conduct.

Well, I believe that Islam is absolutely, positively NOT the Religion of Peace. Yet the vast majority of Muslims (and almost all American Muslims) have no interest in killing infidels for Islam.

So, if I were trying to keep people out of my country that would campaign for gay marriage, should I exclude all Christians, or should I try to determine which ones think Jesus gave the thumbs up to people having gay sex? You seem to have a problem with the administration letting Muslims into the country. Well, they've decided to try and exclude the jihadists without excluding people who are much like American Muslims. Is that a good idea? Well, we've gone six years without a major attack.

Me, I'd prefer Victor Davis Hanson's strategy where we revive the Cold War immigration restrictions for the Communist bloc and apply them to Muslim states, but then we would have to keep the same scrutiny methods now in place for immigrants from places like Germany, Britain and Holland.

I have now answered your questions and even elaborated beyond them. Now it's your turn. What do you believe are the answers to your two questions, and what do you think we should have as a policy in those areas?

[Mr. Silverback]

Ron Paul doesn’t speak with pretty words - he speaks the blunt, honest truth, even if it’s painful to hear.

No, but wideawake and Ramesh Ponnuru spoke the truth on this issue:

The comment in brackets is mine.

Al-Qaeda hates and targets America because America is : (a) powerful and (b) not Muslim.

Al-Qaeda's goal is a restoration of the world to what they perceive to be its golden age: an era when an armed Islam united under a supreme Caliph was the world's uncontested superpower.

Anything America does or fails to do is a sufficient excuse for their hatred.

Modifying our policies in any way will not change the fact that we are powerful and not Muslim.

16 posted on 05/17/2007 11:58:35 AM PDT by wideawake

_____________________________________________

It is one thing to make a case on the merits that our foreign policies should be changed. Perhaps we should end our alliance with Israel. Perhaps we should remove our troops from Saudi Arabia, or lift the sanctions on Iraq. But not under duress. A policy designed to keep from offending people who might be inclined to attack us is a policy of preemptive capitulation to terrorists. In his address to Congress, President Bush explained why the terrorists kill: "With every atrocity they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends." The terrorists' hope is the frank advice of those who would have us back away from Israel because of the September 11 attacks [or run out of Iraq like scalded dogs].

Dishonorable in principle, such a policy would also fail in practice. There would be no obvious stopping-point to it. Having seen terrorism accomplish its objectives in the Mideast, why should North Korea not use it to make us withdraw our protection from South Korea? Beijing could sponsor terrorism until we let it swallow Taiwan. In the past, Puerto Rican independistas have resorted to terror. Etc. Shall we capitulate to them all?

Here, then, is the true strategy being recommended to America: Curl up and die.--Ramesh Ponnuru

Though I am not sympathetic to isolationist sentiments, if I were I would have the exact same position I have now. We are in this fight now, and if we run away from this fight, if we show weakness in the face of people who only listen to death and strength, we will get more terrorism, not less. Moreover, the fight will likely be over here, not over there. The duty of every American is to get behind this effort and push until victory. Then everybody can snipe all they want.

[Mr. Silverback]

You're a Packer fan?

Well, ayt least we've got that in common.

[Mr. Silverback]

Just called it like it is. It’s his own bio.

Soldier Dad, you know I have enormous respect for you, but I'm goign to need a cite for what you're basing the accusation on. I find it hard to believe Paul ever said he joine dthe military just for non-patriotic ambition.

[Mr. Silverback]

#452 is true.

Whoa there. It says in Paul's bio that he was only in the military to serve selfish ambition, and that he didn't really serve while he was there?

I think Paul is a nut, but facts are facts and accusations need to be backed up by facts.

[dragnet2]

What do you believe are the answers to your two questions, and what do you think we should have as a policy in those areas?

I don't think Muslims or Islam can destroy, conquer or convert this country to Islam...If we stop these lunatic immigration policies of allowing in tens of thousands of Muslims into this country. Seems like common sense to me.

Do you disagree?

[dragnet2]

It says in Paul's bio that he was only in the military to serve selfish ambition

That's really a slam to anyone that joined or was drafted into the military. You should rethink that statement.

Young people joining or being drafted are not, or did not do so for future ambitions. There are other ways to do that if that is the goal. Anyone that has served that was discharged other than dishonorably, was an honorable, patriotic gesture.

Remember, about 18,000 draftees were killed in Vietnam. They did their duty, and paid the ultimate price.