Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul: Highways claim more than 9/11 killed
Baltimore Sun ^ | 9/22/07 | Rick Pearson

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 ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Texas; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 5thplaceis1stplace; 911; 911truther; asseenonstormfront; braindeadzombiecult; cutandrun; dopesforpaul; electionpresident; elections; iraq; isolationism; isolationist; moonbats; mrspaulsshrimp; nut; offhismeds; patbuchananlite; paulbearers; paulestinians; paulinsanity; paulqaeda; paultraitors; ron; ronkkkpaul; ronpaul; ronsamabinpaulen; rontards; rossperotthesequel; rp4prez; rupaul; scampi; shrimpboatcaptain; talkradio; tinfoilarmy; trojanhorse; truthers; truthhurts; turd; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 401-403 next last
To: Iwo Jima
Quite Welcome,Iwo,,,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Our security and freedom are intertwined.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I guess some folks will never understand this,,,

The worst threat to the USA (freedom and security) is the
Gubmint/NWO/NAU/NAFTA/CAFTA/CFR/Krappola that is being shoved down our throats in small? pieces after the defeat of the “shamnesty” bill,,,WHY DO “THEY” KEEP ON WITH THIS ??
60-70% of the people said “HELL NO!!!”

What Does This Prove ?!?!?!

It proves Arbusto ,et al,are trying their dead level best
to sell out this country,,,

There is a reason why “they” want to take our guns away...

241 posted on 09/23/2007 8:21:43 PM PDT by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima

At the Texas Straw Poll, Paul called what we did an illegal act of aggression. He called us the aggressors. In fact, we were enforcing a contract that was the consequence of Saddam’s aggression in the First Gulf War. He had continued to test and push against any restrictions.

Congress voted to authorize the President to use all force necessary. That’s all that was necessary.


242 posted on 09/23/2007 8:46:08 PM PDT by hocndoc (http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank fan
The Constitution does not authorize Congress to "authorize war powers." It authorizes Congress AND ONLY CONGRESS to declare war.

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.

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. And when we're at war, we are at war.
243 posted on 09/23/2007 8:52:01 PM PDT by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: keat

he’s trying to keep things in perspective, we should not let 9/11 completely dictate everything we do and throw all other cautions to the winds


244 posted on 09/23/2007 8:56:37 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal

And drunk illegals killed more than the 19 hijackers since 9/11. But Paul is still a douche.


245 posted on 09/23/2007 8:59:53 PM PDT by Captainpaintball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper; Jim Robinson
"Ron Paul thinks the bigger threat is the government, not the terrorists."

You replied - "And he is correct in that assessment."

Please shows us where the government wants to wipe out the city you live in with a nuke weapon, like al Qaeda would like to do. While your at it, please show us any case where our government has beheaded a US citizen or any person and videotaped it? You can't.

Your statement shows how dangerous Ron Paul supporters are and should be banned from this forum.
246 posted on 09/23/2007 9:00:05 PM PDT by jrooney (The democrats are the friend of our enemy and the enemy of our friends. Attack them, not GW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
I disagree with Ron Paul that our initial actions in Iraq were an aggressive use of force as opposed to a defensive and retaliatory use of force. The principle of non-interventionism is, as with many other principles, subject to interpretation and application. Not everyone will agree with whether an act of force is offensive or defensive.

Do you agree with the principle of non-interventionism?

As to "enforcing a contract" with Saddam, I call BS on that one. You don't contract with murdering dictators. Either he had sufficient involvement with 9/11 to warrant the use of force against him (I think so), or he did not. I don't give 2 figs about the First Gulf War, its aftermath, consequences, or restrictions. None of that is worth sacrificing the lives of our military for.

As to the "authorization of force" issue, see my post above.
247 posted on 09/23/2007 9:00:53 PM PDT by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke

The Federal government is a much worse threat than islamic terrorism! I’ve said it before on here, the fed gov steals 50% of what you make, spreads socialism, indoctrinates our children, spreads immorality and economic disaster, limits our freedoms, constrains our creativity and on and on. Islamic terrorists are a bunch of stone age thug parasites whose only hope is prick us enough into a hyperreaction that destroys our own society.

It is sad that people fear Islamic terrorists more than our government... It shows a misunderstanding or ignorance of what the government does to us, and an exaggerated importance/overfixation on a bunch of stone age stooges, why respect them so?

This discrepency is likely what paul was addressing in his comments here.


248 posted on 09/23/2007 9:03:51 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: jrooney

see my comment 248, it is ridiculous to talk of banning someone for stating the truth, IMO, you don’t seem to have a very good grasp of how the government effects our lives.

They steal 50% of every cent you make, and you aren’t bothered!?

a little ban happy too huh?


249 posted on 09/23/2007 9:10:30 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
Every true American patriot knows that America can never be beaten from without, and certainly not by a bunch of Islamic terrorists, not even if they get ahold of a nuclear device or two.

No, the only way that America can be defeated is from within. At the hands of our own government if we allow it to keep on stealing our liberty away bit by bit. Or in big chunks if Hillary becomes president.
250 posted on 09/23/2007 9:11:46 PM PDT by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
Congress voted to authorize the President to use all force necessary. That’s all that was necessary.

Back in 2002, RP urged Congress to declare war in order to force debate about our reasons for going to Iraq, which were specious. See:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

He felt that declaring war would put Congress and the people of the US behind the war effort. See:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst101402.htm

IMO, the lack of a formal declaration is water under the bridge. However, the objectives stated in Congress' authorization were to:

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

We're done, don't you think? What's Iraq going to do to us now?

251 posted on 09/23/2007 9:13:34 PM PDT by US at Risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima

exactly, but isn’t this obvious? from reading this thread it appears not to be; many if not most people at FR seem fear external enemies more... very puzzling, im not quite sure why that is...

I think in a way it shows a lack of appreciation on how powerful the US is as a culture, as a free people, as an economic powerhouse, as a beacon of morality. To fear external threats so?


252 posted on 09/23/2007 9:16:46 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima
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.

This is key. Why is the border open, and why are Muslims swarming into the US like never before? IMO, these are because of W's globalist pretensions.

What's more, I believe that our slack national security (which RP would like to correct, btw) indicates that terrorism is not a significant threat.

Some have argued that we have not lost liberties. The fact is that through various executive orders since Reagan, bolstered by the Patriot Act which can be used to authorize surveillance and suspend due process against citizens, we have indeed lost liberty. We are dependent only on the gentle graces of our Chief Executive to not run the US as a dictator.

253 posted on 09/23/2007 9:30:30 PM PDT by US at Risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima

The contract was the terms of peace after the first Gulf War. To break an agreement is fraud and aggression. To fail to enforce an agreement is also fraud, while enforcing agreements is not “interventionist.” Libertarians like Ron Paul should understand fraud and aggression.


254 posted on 09/23/2007 9:34:31 PM PDT by hocndoc (http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Agreed just like the anti-gun crowd doesnt think about is that Doctors kill more people a year from malpractice. Should we band doctors,cars,or alcohol?


255 posted on 09/23/2007 9:36:28 PM PDT by lndrvr1972
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: US at Risk

Welcome to FreeRepublic.

We’ve been talking about the dangers of leaving a divided Iraq here at FR, long before the first of this month. The Search feature may help you.


256 posted on 09/23/2007 9:40:26 PM PDT by hocndoc (http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
Thanks for the welcome! Yeah, I know I just opened a new (old) can of worms, but the fact is that the authorization has really run out because we accomplished our objectives.

I personally think we ought to let the Iraqis go back to fighting each other if they feel inclined to do so. We can continue to work with the government and kill some more al Qaeda while we are packing up, but it's their show.

257 posted on 09/23/2007 9:57:37 PM PDT by US at Risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
"...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."

What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Fewer people died at Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941 than died on 9/11. So according to Ron Paul, we should have just shrugged our shoulders and went on with life?

To hell with this nincompoop. My respect for this guy has fallen to subzero.

258 posted on 09/23/2007 10:15:42 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enchante
*****Not only that, but if we don’t get terrorist jihad stomped on and under control then there will be MANY attempted 9/11s and much worse. We are fighting not only because of the deaths of nearly 3,000 innocents on that day (significant as they are), but because the terrorists who set that plot in motion truly aim to slaughter us infidels on a huge scale unless/until we submit to them taking over all of the Middle East for starters.... but their glorious new “Caliphate” would not be an end of it, only another beginning of a much larger and more deadly jihad still.******

Actually our involvement in the Middle East has resulted in the religious cleansing of the Middle East. 15 years ago, both Iraq and Iran had significant, although very minority populations of Christians and even some Jewish people. And they were able to co-exist in the Muslim nations. Today, they are essentially all gone. Our involvement in the Balkans led to the same result. E.g. Kosovo had a large minority Christian population. Today, there are very few Christians left in Kosovo.

****Just let the jihadists start using WMDs in western cities and the problems that the Ron Pauls of the world are whining about today will seem like chickenfeed compared to the enormity of trying to stop all possible future mass casualty attacks. Competent jihadists, with more time and funding and organization, could be killing hundreds of thousands, probably millions, in years to come.****

That is just silly. If an atomic bomb would be set off in NYC, some Muslim country (which ever one we thought was most responsible) would be wiped off the map. We wouldn’t be going in and trying to set up a Democratic government. We would be seeking vengence. If we invaded, there would be no namby, pamby rules of engagement. It would be more like, “kill them all and let God sort them out.”

To illustrate the stupid way we are fighting this war now, two special forces soldiers were tracking a terrorist in Afghanistan. The rules of engagement were “capture or kill”. They killed him and now they are subject to a court marshal because some hack general thought they should have been able to capture them.

As Sherman said, “War is hell.” You can’t occupy a country that doesn’t want you there without being very brutal. I haven’t seen any of our enemies being put in prison, by their leaders because they over stepped the rules of engagement. But we have put some of our military in prison on that type of reasoning.

You folks that want us to be cops of the world have to also say that in order to protect our troops, we will be brutal cops of the world.

Population wise, we are a small country. No way can we impose our ideas and virtues on the rest of the world by being Mr. nice guys.

259 posted on 09/24/2007 2:59:41 AM PDT by jmeagan (Our last chance to change the direction of the country -- Ron Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Melinda in TN
***I’m a member of a grassroots forum and the nutters in there are psychos. I received a PM from one of them this afternoon screaming at me because I don’t like Ron Paul. According to him it’s all Bush’s fault that he is doing his third tour in Iraq. He said that I need to take a look at my soul for supporting anybody but Ron Paul because Ron Paul will get them all out of Iraq. I didn’t reply to him but I wanted to ask him why he was blaming me because as far as I know we have a volunteer army and nobody twisted his arm to make him join.****

This should make a point to the freepers who claim that no one in the military takes the view of getting out of Iraq.

One young man I know, did a hitch in the Marines and a tour in Iraq. He got out, but was unable to find a decent job to support his family. So he went back into the Marines. It is a lot like the 70’s when the draft was done by the numbers. Once the elite had to think that their children would be subject to the draft, the war got over rather quickly.

Put it on a personal level. Would you be willing to fight and perhaps die to support a democracy in Iraq. I wouldn’t as it doesn’t affect me personally enough. Would I be willing to die to protect my children, of course. The threat of the radical Islamic Jihadists is not that much of a danger to me or my children that I would want them fighting a war in a land half way around the world. Let the countries on the borders of radical Islam fight them, they have the most to lose.

260 posted on 09/24/2007 3:26:30 AM PDT by jmeagan (Our last chance to change the direction of the country -- Ron Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 401-403 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson