Ron Paul: Highways claim more than 9/11 killed

Baltimore Sun ^ | 9/22/07 | Rick Pearson

[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.

[The Pack Knight]

Yes, Ron Paul knows that ideas and words mean something. That is why he avoids war rhetoric as much as possible, instead preferring to talk about restoring our liberty. He is correct.

So that's why he throws the word "neocon" around so much. What does that word mean again?

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. Or maybe he comfortable in the knowledge that, after listening to his rhetoric, no one will have a reason to attack the United States so long as Ron Paul is President.

If Ron Paul was as serious about defending this country as his supporters insist he is, he might just be worth considering. The overwhelming weight of evidence, largely coming out of his own mouth, flies in the face of such as assertion.

[RussP]

But don’t forget that the Nazis were “right-wing” socialists. What, you’ve never heard of a “right-wing socialist”?

[LdSentinal]

Keep that in mind as a Clinton continues to lead in the polls.

I'll keep that in mind when that's shown in actual polls and when Clinton did nothing to stop Al-Queda.

[elkfersupper]

Ron Paul thinks the bigger threat is the government, not the terrorists.

And he is correct in that assessment.

[LdSentinal]

Nobody is pointing and shrieking. That's left to Ron Turd supporters.

There's a difference between highway deaths and smashing jet airliners into buildinds filled with thousands of people.

[elkfersupper]

There's a difference between highway deaths and smashing jet airliners into buildinds filled with thousands of people.

Yes.

Pne happens every day, the other does not.

Hence, the absurdity.

[Doctor Raoul]

Paul/Gravel '08
One Percent of America Can't be Wrong
(This message brought to you by Kucinich '04, 08, '12, '16, '20...)
(Ramsey Clark, Chairman and Lead Defense Attorney)

[Iwo Jima]

I stand by my statements.

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?

Our government can and should track who has nuclear or chemical weapons, and act if their intentions are shown to be to harm us.

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.

As a group.

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.

[YdontUleaveLibs]

I warned the Ron Paul supporters he is a moonbat, but do they listen nooooooooo. I think Ron Paul would be right at home with the DUmmies.

[Iwo Jima]

I am not supporting every idea that Ron Paul has. I am more interested in having a dialogue about what our foreign policy should be.

I believe in a non-interventionist foreign policy, meaning that we are justified in using force in defense of ourselves and our country and at times -- with great restraint -- for retaliation, but never for global strategies, "regime change," or nation building. IMO the war in Iraq started out as legitimate defense and justified retaliation (Paul would disagree with this), but has become or maybe has been shown to be more about nation building global strategy.

This interventionist foreign policy makes us more vulnerable to things like 9/11. It not only makes us less safe but less free. It also makes things more dangerous for our military. And with our all volunteer force, it makes it less likely that people will want to volunteer, and that puts more strain on those that are serving.

[OldArmy52]

We need to stop car deaths.
Registration and licensing should do the trick.

[Iwo Jima]

Ditto that.

[JTN]

Yes you did. You have been saying, as Ron Paul did, that the chance of getting killed due to a terrorist attack is much lower than getting killed in an accident on the highway, getting struck by lightning, etc.

Not the same as saying that nothing should be done about it.

Before the first attack on the WTC, the chances of getting killed in a terrorist attack were zero.

Wrong. And completely ridiculous.

Then the chances went up after the first attack on the WTC in 1993, and again the chances went up (considerably this time) after 9/11/01. With each successive attack on our soil (not to mention the numerous attacks on our interests outside of this country), the chances get better and better.

This shows a ludicrous misunderstanding of probability.

Just how many American deaths does it take before we take radical Islam seriously and try to eradicate it?

We should take it seriously now. Again, no one said otherwise.

[JTN]

So that's why he throws the word "neocon" around so much. What does that word mean again?

Irving Kristol tells you here.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

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? Our government can and should track who has nuclear or chemical weapons, and act if their intentions are shown to be to harm us. 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. As a group. 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. ;0)

[massfreeper]

This shows a ludicrous misunderstanding of probability.

No more ludicrous than yours and Ron Paul's understanding. He was the one comparing the 3,000 deaths on 9/11 with highway death rates and you compared it to the chances of being struck by lightning. Now you're saying you think we should take it seriously. Then what is the point of your ridiculous comparisons with lightning and traffic accidents?

[Lakeshark]

This interventionist foreign policy makes us more vulnerable to things like 9/11

*Banging head on monitor*

Begging your pardon, but are you really so ignorant in understanding we actually did have a non-interventionist policy before we were hit on 9/11? Do you really not understand that since 9/11 and we have had an interventionist policy we have not been hit with another 9/11 type attack?

Ron Paul is a moron when it comes to foreign policy, and so are his followers.

[Archon of the East]

Dear Ron

I do like some of your libertarian ideas but ARE YOU STUPID! Its the intent of the act and the decade old declaration of war against your country and more important the very principles you claim to live by that is the difference between highway accidents and intentional murder. Very poor analogy for a Presidential candidate

[Lakeshark]

Is that Ron Paul after eating a burrito?

[Old 300]

If Ron Paul was as serious about defending this country as his supporters insist he is, he might just be worth considering.

The single-most important issue is closing our borders, and Ron Paul favors putting troops on the job. Today, in the midst of all the war rhetoric, terrorists can move freely across our borders. We are not being protected by current measures, which have rolled back liberties we fought to obtain at Runnymede and during the Revolution.