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 ...
For crying out loud. This is a man who evidently does not understand the purpose and function of government. Mindlessly comparing "how many killed" by one thing vs. another is an exercise in arrant nonsense. Surely cancer or heart disease "kills more" than either, but that doesn't bring those things within the purview of a discussion over what should be our national defense policy.
Your second sentence does not follow from your first. Making the connection would require making an argument of some kind.
And the stupid thing is, not a single person defending him could name a tangible "civil liberty" that we've "lost" as part of that supposed trade-off in the first place.
These people have the luxury of whining about fantasies because, let's face it, their lives are nice and comfortable.
I defy any Ron Paul supporter to explain how their lives have been changed one iota by the "lost civil liberties" they feign such outrage over.
Look at the Napolitano “Civil Liberties in Wartime” speech to the Future of Freedom Foundation this year. He spells it out in great detail. Be patient, and be prepared to be disturbed.
Ron Paul is correct that more are lost on highways. However, the highways did not “rise up” and murder the drivers of the cars. So, that makes it a silly analogy.
It would be correct to say that America has been drip tortured to death with the relentless reporting of “one more dead in Iraq today” news. It now totals some 3800 dead. If America were really concerned with that number of deaths, it would be drip torturing us with news about how many have been killed on highways.
Is this guy for real? Another good reason not to vote for this doofus.
In that vein, I will refer you to the second paragraph of my comment at #146.
Does your handle refer to Dr. Frank of the Mr. T Experience? You've inspired me to break out my copy of Everyone's Entitled to Their Own Opinion. I haven't listened to that in a long time.
It is people like Paul is the reason why I would never vote for the Libertarian Party..
Saying that we should take it seriously is not the same as saying the government should be given broad new police powers.
Putting something "into perspective" entails making valid comparisons among like things. Comparing the number of people killed by terrorist acts to the number of people killed in highway accidents is a nonsense comparison. The latter has no place whatsoever in a national security discussion to begin with.
A strong leader should tell the people in times of distress to remain calm and avoid rushing to conclusions. A wise leader will tell the people to use reason instead of fear to base any important decisions.
Who's not "calm"? Who has "rushed to conclusions"? Who's "using fear" and not reason to make their decisions? What are these vague accusations you (and Paul?) are making?
Ron Paul could also ask the question: how many should die from terror attacks before it is reasonable for us to adopt the major characteristics of a police state, as some have suggested we must do?
I don't know who "some" is. I know of no serious people who have "suggested" we "must" do anything of the sort. Is this straw-man the entire content of your post?
The only proper answer is that we will fight to the last man before we accept tyranny.
What "tyranny"? What are you talking about? How odd that in this time of incipient "tyranny", you have managed to somehow - miraculously - find a way to post your anti-tyrannical views to an interent message board, yet for some reason have neglected to regale us with the actual details of the suffering you've surely endured living under all this tyranny of Bush's iron fist.
What is Ron Paul suggesting that will increase the probability of apprehending Osama bin Laden?
Ron Paul knows that our liberties have suffered,
Yes, and that's part of the problem, that Paul "knows" something that is just plain nonsense. Pray tell what "liberties" of yours do you think have "suffered"? Be as specific as you can. I'll be here.
You tell me to read some speech, and then to "be patient".
It's just as I said, you can't name a single "liberty" we've "lost". I defied you to, and you couldn't.
Ron Paul is right. We should just ignore this terrorism thing until it kills more Americans than all other causes combined (about 2.4 million/year). Anything else is just government propaganda taken way out of proportion.
The argument you make in post #146 goes to the conclusion that one's chances of dying from lightning are higher than from a terrorist attack. I never denied such a thing in the first place.
The actual claim of yours that I denied was that the government's actions since 9/11 have been "an overreaction". You did not, and still haven't, made an argument in support of this claim.
Does your handle refer to Dr. Frank of the Mr. T Experience?
Yup.. :-) I used to just use "Dr. Frank" but then he got on the internet himself so I had to have FR change my handle... sometimes people assumed I was him..
Ron Paul calls our action in Iraq “illegal.”
No he's not even right about that. Congress authorized war powers; there is no Constitutional requirement that the empowering document contain the phrase "declaration of war". And even aside from that - even if you could make a case that, for example, it's not a 'real' or 'legitimate' war because it "wasn't declared" - it still wouldn't make Bush's use of force "illegal". Congress authorized force and Bush ordered it; how is any of that "illegal" (=prohibited by some law)? which law is the war against exactly?
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.