Ron Loses It Again (Supermegabarfhurl Alert)

Politics and Eggs Breakfast, Bedford, NH | 19 December 2007 | C-Span

[OCCASparky]

A quote from Ron Paul's speech at Politics and Eggs breakfast airing on C-Span now (actual comments aired appx 9:25 pm EST):

"A president has a responsibility to, uh, you know, retaliate against an attack. I don't think there's been a good example of a need to do that throughout our whole history."

[bootless]

Wuh-hut?!

[ConservativeMind]

Well said.

[jrooney]

"I lost friends on 9/11."

My prayers. They are never forgotten.

[SaxxonWoods]

2CavTrooper is working his way through the thread, and working up a righteous head of steam along the way.

[Mr. Silverback]

Oh man, that is going to be sweet.

[nutmeg]

OMG. I will think of this quote everytime I see a Ron Paul yard sign and/or bumper sticker... which, unfortunately in Connecticut, is just about every day. Thank you for posting this!

[jrooney]

His steam is justified.

[nutmeg]

A quote from Ron Paul's speech at Politics and Eggs breakfast airing on C-Span now (actual comments aired appx 9:25 pm EST):

"A president has a responsibility to, uh, you know, retaliate against an attack. I don't think there's been a good example of a need to do that throughout our whole history."

[niki]

If Paul actually said this and feels that the 3000 innocent lives slaughtered on 9/11 did not justify a retaliation, how do you feel about that?

I know he authorized the use of force to go after those responsible for 9/11 and has said we need to respond when attacked. I think the posted statement is actually from a debate and it simply didn't make sense when he said it. If he actually said it again I think he should be asked to clarify.

[2CAVTrooper]

“Greetings,

My father served with the 3rd Cav in WWII. Patton’s Ghost Troops. It was nice to see the 3rd Cav Brave Rifles logo on your page.”

Greetings,

I thank your father for his service.

[jrooney]

Thanks for the response.

"If he actually said it again I think he should be asked to clarify."

I agree but the damage will have already been done.

[SaxxonWoods]

Welcome to FR. Did you join just to post that little sentence?

[jrooney]

Must have been the pulled thread. I missed it.

[2CAVTrooper]

“A realistic poll without the Paulnut spamming.”

I wouldn’t be surprised if they had misread the question and voted for paul because the campaign masters demand that they do so.

[SaxxonWoods]

And the same to you.

[SaxxonWoods]

Wasn’t meant for you, sorry. Yep, he didn’t last long.

[jrooney]

When I read the post initially I thought the same thing. Oh another poll for Paul, I am voting for him, without them actually reading it. Lol.

[2CAVTrooper]

Thank you

[Stultis]

Then there's this cute little interview with Neil Cavuto.

Granted he says the neo-nazis (although he doesn't use such mean words!) are "bad" (in a pointedly nonspecific way) and he doesn't "endorse" them (but only in the same sense he doesn't endorse anyone who donates to him!).

But, you know, they're not so bad that he's willing to specifically repudiate them or their ideology in any specific terms, nor so bad that he's going to return their donations.

The real kicker though, and the tie-in to the current thread, comes when he explains, although "bad," the neo-nazis aren't "the real evil." The "real evil" is the "military-industrial complex".

Yep, that's right. The industries building the bombs that destroy or enemies, supplying the equipment that protects our country, fabricating the armor that shields our soldiers, etc, are "evil," whereas neo-nazis are merely (and unspecifically) "bad".