Posted on 09/23/2007 10:47:55 AM PDT by LdSentinal
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul contends that the federal government has overreacted by limiting personal freedom in the wake of terrorist attacks six years ago, noting more people die on U.S. highways in less than a month’s time compared to the number who lost their lives on Sept. 11, 2001.
“We have been told that we have to give up our freedoms in order to be safe because terrorism is such a horrible event,” Paul said today to more than 1,000 supporters who attended a rally at a downtown Chicago hotel ballroom.
“A lot fewer lives died on 9/11 than they do in less than a month on our highways, but once again, who owns the highways? Do we own the highways? No. It’s a government institution you know. …We need to put all this in perspective.”
More than 2,970 people were reported dead in the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Federal highway traffic statistics show an average of 3,509 people a month were killed on the nation’s highways in 2001.
(Excerpt) Read more at weblogs.baltimoresun.com ...
“The Federal government is a much worse threat than islamic terrorism!”
Thank you for your candid response. Ron Paul should use that statement in the next presidential debate. It will do wonders for his campaign.
Same thing with different words. You're caught up in semantics.
If you were right, the War Powers Act would be declared unconstitutional. Has it been? Why not? Let me know when it has.
My congressman, conservative Republican John Culberson, said at one of his town hall meetings that he wanted to declare war after 9/11, but that the Bush administration did not want to do so because that would trigger things which it did not want -- like closing the border.
I'm unaware of the Constitutional provision that means declaring war necessarily "triggers" "closing the border". How does that work exactly? Even if the President - the Commander-in-Chief - didn't want to, there'd be people going "Sorry - you declared war. That triggers it. We gotta close it." Huh?
Seems to me that travel across the U.S. border occurred during other declared wars. I've never heard of "closing the borders" being "triggered". Maybe your Congressman is wrong. Or maybe you're mischaracterizing the idea he conveyed (or maybe he mischaracterized it).
If it's worth going to war over, it's important for Congress to declare war -- clearly and unequivocally -- not these vague "authorizations" that every argues over what they mean.
Maybe there would be less argument over what a war powers authorization meant if people like you didn't make factually incorrect claims about them, like that they were somehow unconstitutional.
And when we're at war, we are at war.
Good point! And clearly, we are at war now. So you see, the fact that the magic word "declaration" was not placed in the authorizing document, really means very little to the question of whether we are at war.
And you still haven't explained which law the Iraq war is against (to make it "illegal"). Remember, that was Paul's claim that you're trying to defend, not very successful. Seriously, if it's so "illegal" it should be pretty darn easy to just tell me the law it violates. Why can't you?
And who exactly is letting 9/11 "completely dictate everything we do" and "throwing all other cautions to the winds"?
“It also must be why he’s come up with a comprehensive, practical, alternative plan for defeating Islamic terrorism rather than engaging in “rhetoric”. I’m sure he’ll get around to explaining what he’s going to do about al Qaeda just as soon as possible.”
Ron Paul has a ‘comprehensive, practical, alternative plan for defeating Islamic terrorism’. He would issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
“Explain how terrorists (not nations, but rogue terrorists) will get nuclear or chemical weapons. Also, even if they do, how will that make us follow Sharia law?”
First, some country run by some nutjob like Iran gets those kinds of weapons...
“Our government can and should track who has nuclear or chemical weapons, and act if their intentions are shown to be to harm us.”
In a non-interventionalist way of course.
“But beyond that, the idea that gangs of terrorists are going to come over here and force us to follow Sharia law is absurd. Americans are made of hardier stock than that.”
Agreed. Four or five terrorists armed with box cutters won’t make that happen.
The fact remains that the principal objective of Al Qaeda is the imposition of Sharia law around the globe.
“As to the presence of guns, experience has shown that more guns means less crime. Especially widespread anonymous possession. If our government had not disarmed us in the air, there would not have been 3000 dead Americans on 9/11.”
Clinton thought the best way to deal with terrorism was to treat it as a ‘crime’. That worked real good, didn’t it?
Whether the federal government would allow weapons on board is one thing. Whether the airlines would allow the average Joe to pack heat on a passenger flight is another. Do you really think AA or Delta would?
With that statement it seems to me that Paul is intimating that government is colluding in the highway deaths of thousands of citizens, What a putz!
It’d be interesting to see how he would differentiate between the two attacks.....****
The over reaction to the 9/11 attacks could be compared to the internment of the Japanese during WW II. Something that 30-40 years later, we agreed was a blot on our history.
People that down play the extra intrusion of government now, don’t look to the possible future problems. Also, the spending of billions, if not trillions, financing the war in Iraq has to have an effect on future generations. They will be the ones really paying the bill.
We must be willing to take risks to defend our freedoms. As Ron Paul has said the risk of driving on the road is greater than the threat of Islamic terrorists, to the average person. Giving up liberties for such a marginal risk, is not the American way of life.
We have a lot of Muslims in this country, but we have not had one suicide bomber or one car bomb attack from them. So far, we have had more possibilities of some one going postal than a Muslim suicide attack from our citizens.
Which liberties are those, again?
The Constitution.
As a matter of fact, we also don't know if the increased powers given the government, which some consider to be infringements of civil liberties, have not prevented further attacks.
So I was right in my assumption. I can garner that any non-Paulnut freeper that reads that post will come to the same conclusion. You Paulnuts are only hurting what little chances, less than my cat’s, Ron Paul has at winning the GOP nomination. After all, he is not a republican but a Libertarian.
Stating the number of highway deaths would be more appropriate in dealing with the CAFE standards. There is nothing relative to 9/11 and the WOT.
LdSentinal seems to be unaware that there were 50,000,000 travelers on the highways.
Therefore, (obviously) there was a chance of way more people getting killed on the highways.
Don'cha just love this new math?
kuel, I say. Why, we can say anything we like, and it all makes sense!
Oh, they're counted all right.
One difference is that we also count everybody else, too!
I don’t know, but Paul’s the one making the ridiculous statements. Maybe you’d better talk to him about it.
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.