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

Skip to comments.

Ron Loses It Again (Supermegabarfhurl Alert)
Politics and Eggs Breakfast, Bedford, NH | 19 December 2007 | C-Span

Posted on 12/21/2007 6:43:53 PM PST by 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."


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 911; druggiesforpaul; morethorazineplease; muslimsforpaul; passthatbongpaul; pearlharbor; pearlharborinsidejob; pimpsforpaul; ronpaul; rupaulians; shrimpwithblimp; surrendermonkey; youknowhesnuts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 581-587 next last
To: OCCASparky

this shows that he believes the United States of America is illegitimate, for who can say on these principles that the first European had any right or cause to set foot on Indian soil? Or to drive them from every square inch to gain sovereignty over the extent?


21 posted on 12/21/2007 6:59:24 PM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky

I guess his father slept through WWII.


22 posted on 12/21/2007 6:59:39 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Elections have consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky

I don’t know if it’s the entire video, though.


23 posted on 12/21/2007 7:00:03 PM PST by BGHater (If Guns Cause Crime Then Matches Cause Arson?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

Unfortunately, that only covers the first five minutes of his speech. His comments are about 23-25 minutes in.


24 posted on 12/21/2007 7:02:28 PM PST by OCCASparky (Steely-Eyed Killer of the Deep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104
I wonder how the paultards are going to spin this...

Freepers who support Ron Paul aren't bad people - they're just not as familiar about their candidate than they will soon be in the coming months.

25 posted on 12/21/2007 7:02:52 PM PST by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky

love to see that video link....


26 posted on 12/21/2007 7:04:34 PM PST by God luvs America (When the silent majority speaks the earth trembles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky
Fascinating. A "Constitutionalist" who believes that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were war criminals.

Not surprising, since he is chums with Lew Rockwell and Don Black, both of whom believe that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was provoked by the US and part of a larger plot by President Roosevelt to deceive America into war.

There are even some craven FReepers who like to retail that particular bit of paranoia.

27 posted on 12/21/2007 7:04:46 PM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky

If this is true and Ron Paul actually said this, wow, just wow. Ron Paul does not think the deadliest attack on America soil where 3000 innocent lives were slaughtered on 9/11/2001 justifies a retalitory response? What is the body count we need to reach before we can retaliate, 100,000? Ron Paul is a disgrace.


28 posted on 12/21/2007 7:09:03 PM PST by jrooney (Ron Paul makes Jimmy Carter look tough and Dennis Kucinich look sane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky

Ron Paul = Surrender monkey!


29 posted on 12/21/2007 7:10:27 PM PST by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
Trust me, its going to get weird.


30 posted on 12/21/2007 7:12:23 PM PST by darkwing104 (Lets get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky
I have never used this word to describe Paul but if he said this and believes that the 9/11 attacks that slaughtered 3000 innocent lives did not deserve a response by our POTUS, he is a traitor.
31 posted on 12/21/2007 7:12:46 PM PST by jrooney (Ron Paul makes Jimmy Carter look tough and Dennis Kucinich look sane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky

I don’t know if this can be done or not, but is there a way to kick Ron Paul out of the Republican party?

The guy is NUTS!


32 posted on 12/21/2007 7:14:30 PM PST by Momaw Nadon ("...with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky

What would he have done after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor? What about if NYC gets nuked?


33 posted on 12/21/2007 7:15:18 PM PST by wastedyears ("I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky; Allegra; Petronski

Allow me:

Out of context.

Guilt by association.

It’s okay to keep money donated by a nazi so the nazi can’t have it.

Ron Paul clarified his comment on Glen Beck and Glen Beck was absolutely speechless.

Did I get all the talking points?


34 posted on 12/21/2007 7:16:06 PM PST by Larry Lucido (Hunter 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky
"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."

Hard to imagine he said this, or that he honestly believes it.

35 posted on 12/21/2007 7:16:28 PM PST by lakey (Duncan Hunter '08 for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky


Amazon
36 posted on 12/21/2007 7:17:58 PM PST by The Spirit Of Allegiance (Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lakey
Hard to imagine he said this, or that he honestly believes it.

If I hadn't seen in while channel flipping past CSPAN, I wouldn't have believed it myself.
37 posted on 12/21/2007 7:20:10 PM PST by OCCASparky (Steely-Eyed Killer of the Deep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
You forgot the "You bunch of Ron Paul haters are making it up again" and the soon to be famous "We're going to vote for Hillary to teach you big Govt Republicans a lesson"...


38 posted on 12/21/2007 7:20:41 PM PST by darkwing104 (Lets get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: rom
Concerning Pearl Harbor - this is one area where certain conservatives take refuge in a tactic generally found on the other side of the aisle, claiming that Pearl Harbor never would have happened had we kept our noses out of Asia. Pat Buchanan makes that point HERE. The difficulty with that position is the same theorists run into everywhere once reality intrudes, a flurry of "should"s and "would"s and might-have-beens.

The idea is Acheson maneuvered FDR into placing sanctions on Japanese procurement of oil (in retaliation for Japan's invasion of Manchuria, Vietnam, and Korea). That constituted unconstitutional policy, and the theory goes that it is what "forced" Japan into attacking. Unfortunately for that argument it is also one of those economic steps inherent in international collective security that is intended to force changes in policy short of warfare. Discarding that form of collective security takes "non-interventionism" immediately into the arena of isolationism despite the earnest objections of its adherents to the contrary.

You can see where this is going. Everything that runs contrary to the idea that a naked act of violent aggression can impel us to action is immediately claimed to be the result of our own lack of adherence to some constantly-shifting standard. 9/11, for example - we "would" - that word again - never have been attacked, that argument runs, if we hadn't troops in Saudi Arabia. Which we wouldn't have had if only we had acceded to Saddam's naked aggression in Kuwait. Which he wouldn't have done had we not supported him against Iran, which we wouldn't have done had we not been caught meddling there in the person of the Shah, etc, etc...it's a constant litany of blame that infallibly finds a way to deflect the blame away from those committing the violence and onto its ultimate victim.

The real problem is that nobody short of God can say how anything "would" have turned out in circumstances other than the ones that actually happened. That is the arena of academics and fools - amusing, entertaining, but ultimately futile. It is no basis on which to build a foreign (or any other) policy. IMHO, of course.

39 posted on 12/21/2007 7:21:25 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky

Waste of bandwidth.


40 posted on 12/21/2007 7:21:41 PM PST by popdonnelly (Get Reid. Salazar, and Harkin out of the Senate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 581-587 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