Posted on 12/16/2011 3:18:22 PM PST by seanmerc
Here is Ron Paul in the debate last night. This is Bret Baier. [SNIP] Bret Baier: "Congressman Paul, many Middle East experts now say that Iran may be less than one year away from getting a nuclear weapon. Now, judging from your past statements, even if you had solid intelligence that Iran, in fact, was going to get a nuclear weapon, President Paul would remove the US sanctions on Iran, including those added by the Obama administration. So to be clear: GOP nominee Ron Paul would be running left of President Obama on the issue of Iran?"
PAUL: You know what I really fear about what's happening here? It's another Iraq coming! It is war propaganda going on, and we're arguing... To me the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact, and we will soon bomb Iran -- and -- and the sentiment is very mixed. We ought to really sit back and think and not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked. That's how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much in Iraq.
RUSH: Now, you may have astutely noticed that Ron Paul didn't answer the question. So Bret Baier, after the applause died down, said, "Congressman Paul, the question was based on the premise that you actually had solid intelligence as President Paul" that they got a nuke. We're not talking about being on the come. "I'm asking you about solid evidence they've got one, and yet you still at that point would pull back US sanctions -- and, again, as a GOP nominee, be running to the left of Barack Obama on this issue?"
(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...
Muslim immigrants want Switzerland to change national flag
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1993321/posts
That's just some results from a quick google search.
Ann Coulter is not a U.S. policymaker nor a participant in the debate, and Congresswoman Bachmann said nothing of the sort, who was the person he was responding to. Paul said the phrase “1 million” and that was not taken out of context - that has a very specific meaning - he said it. He also made a remark that the Islamic terrorists haven’t targeted neutral or so-called “tolerant” countries like Sweden and Switzerland, which you can find very quickly is 100% false on a simple google search for terrorist activity in those countries. We could go on and on and on with things Congressman Paul has said that have no basis in reality or common sense. You don’t find making repeated statements that have no basis in reality a disqualifier?
OWS manages to shutdown seaports; but what have we ‘conservatives’ shut down lately?
At 312,790,526 just a moment ago; a million or so is only about 0.32% of the population - nothing quite as large as the 1% that the OWS crowd is up in arms about.
Ron Paul has a shot ONLY because.
you want to have ANY hope of repealing ObamaCare....shuttering Education, Energy and EPA...your ONLY shot is Ron Paul. That’s it.
Gingrich is doin’ none of that. Perry is doin’ none of that ‘cause he’s goin’ nowhere. And Romney will expand them all and try to tell us otherwise...
AND NO_I’m NOT a PaulBot..at all...just callin’ it like I see it...
And we are upset with Radical Islam for killing HOW many?
10 years ago?
So another example of Ron Paul being wrong. Thanks for the info.
There is nothing quite like an off-topic non-sequitur post.
Understood.
I thought that was priceless. Gutfeld is my favorite on that show.
There is nothing quite like an off-topic non-sequitur post.
(Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
Well, whoop dee doo! Another meaningless post.
“I actually think he has support because people do not know who he really is. It’s like they are projecting who they think he is, without even listing to him or reading his words.
I have had conversations with these supporters, showed them links to his own words, and they refuse to beleive he actually said what is right in front of them. So weird.”
Well said. It’s also exactly what happened with Dear Reader during his two-year campaign.
Bump for reference
:) yeah..wasn’t that funny?
“The problem is that his foreign policy answers - which have ranged from naive to insane to dangerous - are an automatic disqualifier. I don’t care how well you can remodel my house if you aren’t going to luck the f***ing door.”
As if the past umpteen residents of 1600 PA are locking the door, and the other leading GOP contenders are slamming it somehow. Gingrich and Romney are ready to amnesty in a floodgate of illegals. Meanwhile, Paul is the only candidate who is willing to redeploy troops to the borders, instead of sending them to Korea, Germany, Japan, or any number of countries that we defend with our soldiers’ lives. Those countries could perfectly well pay for their own defense and put their own kids’ necks on the blocks, but we both pay for the defense of these countries and put our grandkids’ wallets on the blocks borrowing to do it—at the same time we’re giving oodles of foreign aid and trade/import concessions to the countries we’re defending AGAINST. Oh, yeah, it’s Paul that’s crazy, all right. /sarc
“I’m not running for the job that has to deal with it....he is.”
No, you just toss out the notion that his solution is bad when you have no clue how to deal with the situation yourself. It’s more likely, of course, that you do have a clue, but the logical extension of your view that Paul’s American exceptionalism is wrong is that you feel America should be like every other busybody state and intervene, either via invasion or nuke.
You said "No one has proposed that [we declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and all Muslims are the same]'. It's insane to argue against a completely false straw man." I demonstrated that it wasn't false at all and had in fact been proposed. In the face of that refutation, you now backpedal and make the statement that, well, Bachmann never said that. I never said she did, but she sure hasn't disavowed Coulter and has made statements that sure sound like she's good with Coulter's comments. I don't necessarily disagree with Coulter, either, for that matter, but your "straw man" concept was patently absurd. Plenty of folks want the Qaaba nuked and Mecca sown with salt. I still think it's a legit response to Islamist terrorism. Paul appeals to my better nature in reminding me that perhaps we'd have the same attitude if our country had been messed with the way theirs has by the resident globaloneyists at Foggy Bottom.
"Paul said the phrase “1 million” and that was not taken out of context - that has a very specific meaning - he said it."
Right, my comment regarding his language being in the context of the debate being important is irrelevant--everything everyone says off the cuff should be taken 100% literally--yet the clear language of your statement ABOVE, that's something we should ignore. Gotcha.
"He also made a remark that the Islamic terrorists haven’t targeted neutral or so-called “tolerant” countries like Sweden and Switzerland, which you can find very quickly is 100% false on a simple google search for terrorist activity in those countries."
Oh, yeah, context is irrelevant again. His comment was that they don't target US because we're free and prosperous--"...Yeah, there are some radicals. But they don’t come here to kill us because we’re free and prosperous. Do they go to Switzerland and Sweden? That is absurd."
Imagine a Chinese warship parked off Key West, retaining the right to stop boats leaving the country. Imagine the Chinese flying drones across our borders. How would that go over? Yet we expect that Iran will just suck it up, and people like you pretend that it's silly to recognize they won't take our attitude forever, any more than we will take attitude from whatever country pushes us. The bombings at the WTC and attacks on the West are targeted at us because A) we're the biggest promoter for secularism in Islamist states, and that scares the crap out of the mullahs, and B) we keep letting our globocrats control our foreign policy and pummeling their chosen goons' enemies for them. That's how we got Khomeini, and that's how we'll end up with complete Islamist states in Egypt, Iraq, and probably Afghanistan again if we keep it up.
Switzerland, I note, wasn't mentioned in any google search as having been attacked, and the only mention of arrests for terror in Sweden don't even have names attached, only the supposition that Sweden arrested the 'terrorists' because Britain asked them to.
"We could go on and on and on with things Congressman Paul has said that have no basis in reality or common sense."
Yet somehow you haven't. Did Rush only have a couple for you to "quote" this week? (And I use "quote" because again, context is important, and I keep seeing these 'exposes' of Paul's opinions omitting the context of Paul's statements, which are usually far more indicative of constitutional conservatism than the position of the "quote"-er).
"You don’t find making repeated statements that have no basis in reality a disqualifier?"
If you're trying to convince me you can't be president, I guess I'll listen. But you haven't repeated yourself too much, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt right now.
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.