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 ...
We actually have a different word for things that violate the Constitution ("unconstitutional"). Ron Paul said the Iraq war was "illegal" and like I said, you can't tell me what law it violates. Apparently the only way you can think of to defend Paul's words is to try to pretend Ron Paul said something different from what he actually said and hope I don't notice.
As for it being unconstituional there is nothing unconstitutional about the Iraq war or the War Powers Act. If you think there is, kindly cite the Supreme Court case where "the Iraq war" or the War Powers Act was declared unconstitutional. Because failing that all we're left with is self-anointed Supreme Court Justice-at-large Ron Paul shooting his mouth off.
RP-—What a sad but loud little clown
That doesn't answer my question. And I'm afraid I really have no idea what you're talking about. Because we have a (somewhat) interventionist foreign policy and don't fight socialism at home enough, this means we're "letting 9/11 completely dictate everything we do"?
No, it doesn't mean that.
I mean, you have people voting for guilani simply because he seems ‘tough on terror’.
And? So? There are zillions of dumber reasons people base their voting decisions on. "I think he'll be tough on terror", all things considered, is actually a pretty good basis on which to vote for the President, a huge part of whose job it is to defend the nation. At least you gotta admit it's better than "he's cute and I have a crush on him" or "he wears boxers not briefs" or "he feels my pain" or "she's a woman and it's time for a woman President" or "he's black and it's time for a black President" or.... etc.
Hell, "I think he'll be tough on terror" looks like a pretty damn good rationale to me.
Now, maybe you're saying you disagree with the assessment held by many (me, for example) that Giuliani would be tough on terror and that he'd therefore be a relatively good choice for President (compared to other options on the table). That's your right. That's called a difference of opinion. You don't get to bandy about charges like "that's letting 9/11 completely dictate everything you do and throwing caution to the wind" just because someone disagrees with your assessment of Giuliani. I can't speak for every single supporter of Giuliani obviously but I'll have you know that
1. I do indeed believe Giuliani would be tough on terror
2. and that he'd be a better President than most other contenders
3. it's not because I'm "letting 9/11 completely dictate everything I do", I actually have perfectly rational reasons for this assessment of mine, thank you very much.
The Federal governments meddling with the healthcare system along is enough for it to be more of a threat than islamic terrorism,
I disagree with this statement, which is so wacky it doesn't really merit further discussion.
Paul’s letter of marque is a brilliant idea IMO, it lets private organizations go after and track down those responsible for 9/11 without the bureaucratic stifflings and diplomatic and rules of engagement problems in the military. At least it would have been interesting to see it tried.
I agree with this part, sure, let's try letters of marque.
Not clear why it needs to be an either/or proposition as opposed to both/and, however. Letters of marque and military force are not mutually exclusive.
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.*****
I think he means that the slow, but continuous degradation of our liberties is more dangerous. Have you ever heard of the central government giving up a power, once they have obtained that power?
It reminds me of watching old WW II movies, when the Germans were occupying France. A common question was, “Your papers, please.” Back then Americans thought it was ridiculous that a policeman could ask anybody for identification for just walking down the street. Now we are close to that in the US. E.g. a person found a hot Wi-Fi spot and was just playing on his computer in a car. A policeman came by and asked him for identification. (This was before the current hysteria.) He told him he would be glad to show it if the policeman would tell him why he wanted it. This little defiance of the police state put him in jail for a day. A grandfather out here was fined $50, because his granddaughter didn’t have her seat belt on. And $50 was not an insignificant sum to him. If you ride a motorcycle, you must wear a helmet. Some places, if you ride a bike, you must wear a helmet. A 1st or 2nd grader was kicked out of school because he “drew” a picture of a gun. A valedictorian was denied her dipolma for a while because she mentioned Jesus in her speech. My youngest was valedictorian this past year (brag, brag), I will have to ask him if he was given any guidelines for his speech. The federal government used its powers to get the “national” drinking age up to 21. An 18 year old can fight and possibly die in Iraq or else where, but he can’t drink a beer legally. If you carry a large sum of cash with you, it could be seized as possible drug money and it is up to you to prove that it is not. Students have been expelled from schools for giving another student an aspirin. Zero tolerance laws have got many good kids in trouble for innocent mistakes. First, they mandated that seat belts be installed in cars, then they madated that you wear them. After that came air bags. How many years was it before we learned that air bags could kill small children and small women (people), in minor accidents? The list could go on for a long time.
I know a lot of these things occurred prior to 9/11, but they just show the direction of our country.
***Your statement shows how dangerous Ron Paul supporters are and should be banned from this forum.***
As I have mentioned before, the Democratic forum banned all the conservatives from Townhall who went over there when TH was dying because of a stupid mistake of charging people to join when all the other forums were going cost free. If Ron Paul supporters are so bad, you should be able to beat them in the forum of ideas, not by banning them.
The automobile.
Why haven’t we banned or at the very least restricted it?
It is severely restricted. We're working on banning it.
thanks for your reasoned comments.
Perhaps my comment in post 248 will provide a better answer to your question, and my initial statment was based also on future, not just present misfocusings.
And, yes, I was speaking about people who saw Giulani on TV after 9/11 and so will vote for him based on that. If someone, like yourself, understands Giulani’s past and present statements, plans, and has rationally thought out and compared his stance against the other candidates and believes Giuliani would be be tough on terror and ranks terror as a top priority, then I would commend that person for making an informed decision and voting for that candidate. After all, all we can ultimately do is do what we feel is right, right? :)
Sorry you feel my statment about current socialized american medicine is wacky, doesn’t leave much area for discussion does it? :)
Glad to see your thoughts on Letter of Marq, yea i think half and half would be a good first step, give the military some competition.
I do however KNOW the many FREEDOMS I have lost due to left wing socialist policies like the NEW DEAL and the GREAT SOCIETY etc!!!
Which people are these? I know of none.
This seems to be just a straw man.
well enough people to give him front runner status early in the race when he hadn’t even formed any positions, and apparently the so called ‘conservative’ voters wern’t informed enough to read up on his liberal record in NYC, so I am inferring they mostly liked him based on him being famous and ‘tough’ due to 9/11
‘course, perhaps some the same could be true, although much less so, for Thompson...
Nobody asked me to stay off of any Paul threads. I gave Jim Robinson the courtesy to voluntarily discontinue supporting Paul on his Forum because I respect him and his Forum. And I value my posting privileges and didn't want to turn into a pillar of salt, I might add.
There's no such thing as an individual "giving a candidate front runner status". I don't even know what that would mean. "I hereby give Giuliani front-runner status", says person 1.. "me too!", says person 2....?
No. If Giuliani had front runner status it's because of the cumulative effect of having more supporters than the next guy. You know, supporters. Something candidates tend to have, to a greater or lesser degree. Giuliani seems to have a plurality of them. More people favor Giuliani than do, say, Sam Brownback. Big deal.
So what you're describing, instead, is the cumulative effect of a bunch of people who favored/favor Giuliani more than the next guy. Your insinuation is that a lot of those people didn't have good reasons for doing this. Your proof is that Giuliani had popularity at a time when "hadn't even formed any positions".
The thing you're overlooking/eliding (forgot?) is that Giuliani was already a nationally-known figure with a 2-decade track record that was well-known. It's not like nobody knew any single thing about Rudolph Giuliani until his Presidential campaign came out with his first official "position" on something.
So again, your whole point boils down to
a) a lot of people disagree with you about Giuliani, and
b) they can't possibly have good reasons for this. They are all stupid/ignorant, or many/most of them are, anyway.
c) They are in fact, you "infer", mindlessly basing their support completely on 9/11 in the most superficial way imaginable (i.e. because Giuliani "looked tough" and no other reason). It can't be otherwise, because after all, they disagree with you, and you're smart! So their entire reason (these people who, I remind you, are still unnamed) must be a stupid one, like Giuliani "looking tough".
Refusal to assume that those who disagree with you may have come to their views honestly/sincerely and after careful thought (i.e. (b)) is not conducive to reasoned debate. Nor are straw-men (i.e. (c)).
LOLOL, luckily we didn’t use the same face! How funny.
Good post!
St Pauli Girl Lager!
But you didn’t send the opener!!
.
Big in PA
Something about turning the label towards someone.....
3,000 per month by accident, 3,000 in minutes by an act of murder, I wonder if the diference can sink in.
Hmmm, don’t know anything about that. Wonder where it’s made, Minnesota?
Or perhaps in Pa!
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.