Posted on 05/17/2007 7:08:13 PM PDT by tpaine
The neocon globalists aren't satisfied that they've managed to slip in a liberal like Rudy as the front running Republican, now they've set their sights on smearing and removing from the debates the most conservative candidate of the bunch because what he says threatens their simplistic worldview. Sad as to how the Republican Party has fallen sway to these big government globalists to the point to where the last small government Constitutionalist is literally chased out of the party by smears and innuendo.
Hey Einstein -- did you see my reply to your fellow cultist tpaine in comment #120? He said the same thing you're saying and I provided a direct quote of Paul's (pbuh) as well as a link to the video in which he says it. Hell, I even gave him the length of time he had to go in the video to get to the correct point where Paul says his quote.
I'll repeat it for you also, cuz I'm a nice guy:
Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there.
Are you still going to try to assert that Paul didn't say that the "U.S.'s actions caused 9-11" when there's video of him saying otherwise?
Great reply.
Typically, no comeback from the bashers.
It's not so much the liberals, in the traditional term.
What has happened is that for the last 5 years, we have had to deal with liberals wanting out troops to die, and our armed forces to lose, so that they can score political points against the GOP.
It has thus become a matter of faith that anyone who questions our role in Iraq must be a liberal who wants our troops to die.
So, along come Ron Paul, who asserts that, well, maybe we should just mind our own business in this world... and people can't even process that perhaps he might not be a liberal who wants our troops to die.
This is evidenced by the absurd idea that he is in fact a liberal, or a democrat.
At a time when the intense debate is about what to do currently with where we are, it is useless to bring up a point such as the one Ron made. If he is trying to advance his good points of better government by using the limits of the Constitution as a strength, keeping the message on point is of the utmost importance.
Knowing that he is a marginal candidate, why did he not advance his principles, in general, rather than going off into such a useless dead end that could be so easily mischaracterized?
You didn't ignore me because you posted a reply to me; what you ignored was the substance of my posts in #120 and #138 just as I knew you would.
I proved you wrong with links to video of Paul in #120 and I proved that you've supported contradictory ideas in #138. You're afraid to answer the substance of those posts, but maybe that's just your "high minded debate style."
Are you sure you're not a Democrat or a Muzzie because you sure avoid the facts like one?
Baloney.
The Jihadists would come after us even if we were not in Iraq and Saddam was still alive and in power.
Jihadism is in their religion the way they interpret it and they hate our freedoms and culture enough to do what they do anyway.
It’s what they do.
Good criticism. - Paul is not known for his logical finesse.
If he is trying to advance his good points of better government by using the limits of the Constitution as a strength, keeping the message on point is of the utmost importance.
I agree with you, and Paul would be wise to expand on his constitutional points.
Knowing that he is a marginal candidate, why did he not advance his principles, in general, rather than going off into such a useless dead end that could be so easily mischaracterized?
Good question, best answered by the '60 second sound bite' format of the debate.
While not a RP supporter, I was hoping he would stick on message and drive home the strict adherence issue. If he had done that, without getting cute with stuff like his usage of the 911 report lanquage, he would have been harder to marginalize and more useful to advancing the issue of constitutional utility.
Sure, he is getting beat up -- he only has himself to blame, IMHO.
No -- my best shot was providing video proof that you were wrong. You're afraid to answer the substance of what I wrote in #120 and #138 so you focus on the word "cultist."
I'll let you have the last frothing word as I'm done with you.
"-- Meddling in the affairs of others often fosters animosity and a desire for retaliation, and we would never allow other countries to do to us some of the same things that the US is doing to them --"
Seems to me the above is a fairly simple concept; - why so many here at FR blow up about it [like Guiliani] is a minor mystery.
Sauropod:
Baloney. The Jihadists would come after us even if we were not in Iraq and Saddam was still alive and in power.
Of course they would. No one [including Paul] is saying otherwise.
Jihadism is in their religion the way they interpret it and they hate our freedoms and culture enough to do what they do anyway. It's what they do.
Do you expect an argument from me?
I'm not defending Paul's misconceptions about Iraq. I'm defending his record as a constitutionalist/patriot.
Check out post 150, by JerseyHighlander:
Paul almost immediately brought forth a bill of Marque and Reprisal that would have allowed anyone in the world to track down and kill the Al Qaeda and Taliban officer corps, for a just reward from the US Treasury.
Google 'Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001'
Thanks for the clarification.
I agree with you that Paul has been (in the past) a constitutionalist and a patriot. I have been a great admirer of his in the past.
The Ron Paul I saw Tuesday and the PMSNBC debate was not that man. ‘Pod.
Rep. Paul has said that he would not take another party’s nomination, that he is only running for the Republican nomination. I wonder if the way he’s been treated might change his mind.
Trying to label Ron Paul as a conspiratorialist is ridiculous. He isn’t saying we did 9/11, as Rosie and otehr loons are. He says that certain things that we do triggered it. That’s a different thing.
Now, I think that the Islamofascists’ resentment of us has more to do with the fact that we’re the world power that they think they should be (they’ll set up the caliphate just as soon as they decide which one of themis to be the caliph) and with the perception of our culture from movies, TV, music, and the like, which makes our culture look even more decadent than it already is. They probably fear for their daughters.
Nonetheless, they’d hate us for those reasons even if we completely withdrew from the Middle East.
Trying to label Ron Paul as a conspiratorialist is ridiculous. He isn’t saying we did 9/11, as Rosie and otehr loons are. He says that certain things that we do triggered it. That’s a different thing.
Now, I think that the Islamofascists’ resentment of us has more to do with the fact that we’re the world power that they think they should be (they’ll set up the caliphate just as soon as they decide which one of them is to be the caliph) and with the perception of our culture from movies, TV, music, and the like, which makes our culture look even more decadent than it already is. They probably fear for their daughters.
Nonetheless, they’d hate us for those reasons even if we completely withdrew from the Middle East.
No, and he wouldn't stand in a debate and say we needed to "understand" the "Soviet Anger."
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.