Posted on 09/26/2009 2:18:01 PM PDT by GoldStandard
If you think speeches attacking the U.S. Federal Reserve couldn't excite a Friday night crowd on a college campus, think again.
About 2,000 people -- students and older adults who were in the majority -- filled Northrop Auditorium at the University of Minnesota to cheer libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican, as he joined Rep. Michele Bachmann to preach the gospel of a less powerful federal government.
Before Bachmann, R-Minn., introduced Paul, she hailed legislation of his that would require a detailed audit of the Fed. The crowd jumped to its feet and roared approval.
When she described the Fed's actions helping the banking industry as "shrouded in secrecy," one man jumped up and yelled, "Ponzi scheme!"
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
The interests of America may not stop at the water’s edge, but the authority of the Federal Government does, absent a specific declaration of war against a specific enemy. Sort of like what we had in the last war we WON. And what we have not had since (nor have we WON since WWII, have we?). The Congress passed a declaration of war, told the world who our enemy was and why and then specifically pledged the full and unconditional support of the Congress and the American People until the job was done and the war won. If Congress cannot do that NOW, then why even bother? They passed a resolution which then the Rats decided to remove their support from when it became inconvenient and we are where we are. Thanks but no thanks. I had my fill of MY unwinnable war, the one where we beat the enemy every time we met up, we had him on the ropes, but because there was not COMMITMENT by Congress, only a weasel-worded resolution, despite our victories we were denied the win. NO MORE. Either fight to win (which Obambi says won’t happen) or bring our troops HOME NOW. From all over the world.
Makes more sense to reform the Fed than the health care industry.
Nor has Ron Paul ever, even once, said that America’s to blame for 9/11. What he DID say was that some of the Policies of the federal government (which is NOT America, by the way) caused some serious blowback amongst the ignorant in the region, but even so that there was NO JUSTIFICATION for what they DID to us. Just as FDR’s policies vis-a-vis the Japanese had some blowback, but that yet did NOT justify Pearl Harbor. So we proceeded to DECLARE WAR on Japan, then kicked their asses up around their shoulder blades. and wiped the map slick of those who attacked us. AS WE SHOULD HAVE.
And, while I admire Dr. Paul and his consistency on the Constitution, the only ADULATION I have is for my God, thank you very much! Now quit acting like a jackass. That is the Democrat’s job.
No, NOT all of us are fools. Only some of you. And neither I nor RP fit that category.
Funny, I just listened to the video of the debate and did not hear him say “they” once, but heard “we “ in his words.
The main fallacy to his claim, though, is why did Al Qaeda launch attacks in country’s that have long opposed our foreign policy and objected to us being there?
Thumbing through the list here and you will find several attacks by radical Jihadists against country’s opposed to us for a long time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents
How are they to blame for us being there?
That’s a matter of opinion,
But let me ask, did you pick up your whine in the Marines or from following along behind Paul on your knees?
As I said erlier on, I don’t which is worse, blind devotees to Obama or blind devotees to Ron Paul.
Six of one, half dozen of another to me.
Where were these idiots when Bush tried to privatize Socialist Security in 2005? Or worse— when he added Medicare Part D in 2003?
Liberal-tarians tragically only care about conspiracy theories, like War for Oil, 911 troof, the Illuminati controlling the FED, etc. They’re conspicuously AWOL when it comes to rolling back federal largesse.
“Nor has Ron Paul ever, even once, said that America’s to blame for 9/11.”
Saying the 911 attacks were blowback ***IS*** blaming America for 911.
Especially if the people in the trenches trying to rein in the government are Republican politicians.
>>> nor have we WON since WWII, have we? <<<
Not unless you include Iraq War I and II. And maybe Grenada and Panama.
>>> absent a specific declaration of war against a specific enemy. <<<
You’re saying that PL 107-243 doesn’t count as authorization for Iraq War II? Nonsense.
>>> Either fight to win (which Obambi says won’t happen) or bring our troops HOME NOW. From all over the world. <<<
...or get off your *ss and help elect Congressmen who will get the job of defending the US done and not stab our soldiers and our allies in the back. But don’t worry — I’m sure that Obama will — sooner rather than later — send our boys back home to the loud applause of Rep. Ron Paul.
Actually, Reagan Man makes plenty of sense. Common sense. And backs up his common sense with facts.
Which is more than I can say for the foreign policy ramblings of Rep. Ron Paul.
He has said (in my words, ‘cause I don’t have his in front of me) that actions have consequences. Which does NOT JUSTIFY the consequence that was meted out on 9/11. Nothing does. Only that it is important to look at their “justification” for doing what they did in order to help defeat them on the battlefield. Or prevent recurrences.
It’s like you taunting your next door neighbor. It builds up a lot of tension and hard feelings and you really hadn’t ought to do it (in fact, you’re a MORON if you do). However, presuming you yourself have not crossed the line and INITIATED an act of aggression, taunting does not in any way JUSTIFY your neighbor’s act of arson when he burns your house down with you in it. BUT, presuming (once more) that you survive the fire, it would be a good idea to, among other things, look at anything YOU might have done to contribute, however minutely, to whatever demons your neighbor had that caused him to try to kill you. JUST IN CASE HE HAS KINFOLK THAT MIGHT ALSO COME AFTER YOU, whilst HE is in prison. It’s only uncommonly GOOD sense.
Emulate the Nazis? Hell, the U.S. eugenics movement (started by the predecessors of today's "progressives") and the public policy that grew from it inspired the Nazis!
When Ron Paul says, they attacked us on 911 "because we're over there", he's deadwrong! The Islamic Fundamentalists oppose the USA and our freedom and liberty becasue it is against their religious beliefs. If we weren't over there, they'd be over here. The idea that America, through our federal government and military, has no right being involved overseas defending and protecting Americans and American interests, is flat out wrong.
America has been here before. We've dealt with these terrorists before and we've known for centuries why they really hate us.
"Two future presidents, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, were dispatched in 1786 to London to negotiate a peace treaty with the Dey of Algiers. They reported the Dey's reason for his Islamically-inspired hostility towards America:
"[I]t was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
Thank you kindly.
By yours and Pauls reasoning, how does he justify World War Two? Wouldn’t that also have been “blowback” from Japan when they attacked Pearl Harbor for how we were refusing to send them materials, gas, oil and sticking our noses into Asian matters and building up militarily in the Pacific?
Yet, he readily states that was “justified,” the nrails on how “unnecessary” it was.
Likewise, he justified Afghanistan by voting for it and now, rails against it saying, “...our national security is not threatened by us not being in Afghanistan. Our national security is much more threatened by us being in Afghanistan.”
He must think the Taliban and Al Qaeda taking Afghanistan back over and quite possibly Pakistan too, giving terrorists nuclear weapons, will keep us safe?
No thanks, “Buckie.”
I thought the Iraq and Afghan wars were to hit our enemies and to deny them the ability to further attack the USA and our interests.
We could accomplish the above on a perpetual basis with improved intelligence, special forces, and air power. Some things that must just must be so, however . . .
1. We need a president who wasn’t trained by communists and Muslims, and believes in America.
2. We need to be able to carry out military operations without having to tell the news media every time a soldier is headed to the latrine.
3. We need to carry out operations against Islamo-terrorists without being concerned in the least what other countries think—we need to do what we need to do.
I am a believer that we can do all of this without masses of troops on the ground. I also believe we can so this without creating impressions that we are trying to “take over” countries.
In the event of a country proven to allow the use of its territory for attacks upon the United States, I have no problem with invading that country, and I would care what anyone says if we were to decide to keep that territory. That doesn’t always mean that taking and keeping territory is always the wise thing to do, unless we are intending to permenantly manage it and change it.
1. Closed mouths.
2. Superior intelligence.
3. Patience to move and strike when and where we see fit.
4. To ignore our international critics - Do what we need to do.
5. Surgical use of air power.
6. Surgical use of special forces.
7. Be willing to carry on operations for as many years as necessary, and with the intensity required, that the whole world will see that we just will not tolerate terrorist attacks on us or our allies.
Oh really? Care to provide some citations? Because I can.
CNN: Under what circumstances, if you were president, would you intervene outside the borders of the US in some sort of crisis around the world?
PAUL: When Congress directed me to in the act of war. If our national security was threatened and we went through the proper procedures, Congress would say, “Our national security is involved, it is threatened and we have to act.” And Congress has that responsibility. The president is the commander in chief, and then he acts.
Source: CNN Late Edition: 2007 presidential series with Wolf Blitzer, Dec. 2, 2007
CNN: What do you say to the criticism that you’re blaming the victim, the US, for the policies?
PAUL: Well, that’s not correct. Because I don’t blame the American people, and I don’t blame somebody who gets murdered for the murder. You have to look for the cause and the incentive and the motive. And the motive is that our foreign policy does aggravate a lot of people. I know there are radicals, and I know they will attack us, but if we don’t understand the motive, if we continue to believe they attack us because we’re free and prosperous, we can’t win this fight.
Source: CNN Late Edition: 2008 presidential series with Wolf Blitzer, Jan. 6, 2008
Shall I keep going?
I read every single item in his record on foreign policy and could not find a single statement where Ron Paul said "I blame the American people for 9/11," unless you count the interpretations of folks like Giuliani.
I did, however, read lots of statements in which he was literally pleading--and his words basically falling on deaf ears--for folks to follow the Constitution.
Nor has Ron Paul ever, even once, said that America’s to blame for 9/11.
If he has said such a thing, then I certainly have not heard of it.
What he DID say was that some of the Policies of the federal government (which is NOT America, by the way) caused some serious blowback amongst the ignorant in the region, but even so that there was NO JUSTIFICATION for what they DID to us.
That is correct.
The only thing that the American electorate is guilty of is stupidity, for electing incompetent and foolish statists to run the United States government.
You're right. Breaking and entering into someone's house, simply because we perceive them as a "threat" (or perhaps unwelcome competition), while leaving our back door wide open, is such a smart idea.
Oh, and intervening in a fight between two other people and expecting not to get hit ourselves is not just smart, but good strategery!
/sarc
Yeah, I know. Letting the private sector compete with the Government, following the Constitution, etc. is soooo eighteenth-century. And the Founders? Hell, they had no clue how to properly "govern" a "modern democracy."
Only the Government can save us now!
/sarc
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.