Skip to comments.
Ron Paul: Utah turnout wows candidate
Salt Lake Tribune ^
| 9/16/07
| Sheena McFarland
Posted on 09/16/2007 6:05:18 AM PDT by George W. Bush
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-69 next last
To: George W. Bush
I heard him say that he would not militarily support England if England were attack.
If we don’t support England, I doubt there is any country he would help.
To: Tai_Chung
To: George W. Bush
To: George W. Bush
I do not hate him I do not know him personally. I can not stand is anti-military defense of this country and our allies.
His position that we are to blame for 9/11 and his hostility over Israel.
24
posted on
09/16/2007 7:40:04 AM PDT
by
svcw
(There is no plan B.)
To: svcw
His position that we are to blame for 9/11 and his hostility over Israel.
He does not blame us for 9/11. He does point out, correctly, that our presence on the Arabian peninsula and our ongoing attacks on Iraq in the Nineties were a tremendous recruiting tool for Osama. The 9/11 hijackers said these things as well. So does Paul Wolfowitz who commented on the need to get our troops off the Arabian peninsula as quickly as possible after we invaded Iraq so we wouldn't be recruiting even more terrorists for Osama. And that's exactly what we did. That's not saying we're to blame. That's telling people about the root causes that help Osama to recruit terrorists.
He's also been pointing the finger at the Saudis for their sponsored terrorism around the world. Long overdue.
As for Israel, Ron Paul feels all foreign aid should be cut off. The usual hysteria erupts because that happens to include aid for Israel as well as Egypt, the $15 billion for Africa (now increasing to $30 billion), the nonsense of deploying our troops around the world to vaccinate children and even livestock, well, it's endless.
Now you may like the global empire thing and welfare programs for the Third World. We don't.
To: George W. Bush
Honestly, I would be the first to support Ron Paul IF I had some assurances that he would continue to fight terrorism and atleast send special forces in to continue hunting bin laden.
We’re in the middle of two wars in afghanistan and iraq, and terrorists are more determined to strike us than ever before.
So far, Paul hasn’t proved to me that he takes national security seriously AT ALL. Does Paul underestimate the willpower and the savagery of the islamofacists? I would think so..many of his supporters don’t even believe that 19 arabs hit the towers and the pentagon.
To: Tears of a Clown; George W. Bush
Honestly, I would be the first to support Ron Paul IF I had some assurances that he would continue to fight terrorism and atleast send special forces in to continue hunting bin laden.In light of the fact that Paul voted for the use of force resolution in Afghanistan, and has spoken of the desire to bring bin Luadin to justice, i'd say that continued support and Special Operations actions would continue under his Presidency.
Apparently Paul believes that 19 (actually 20 if you count Moussai) involved in 9/11 (15 of them being Saudis) committed the crimes that they were accused of.
27
posted on
09/16/2007 8:11:30 AM PDT
by
Calvinist_Dark_Lord
((I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper))
To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord
I doubt that.
According to one his aides, Paul was strongly AGAINST the use of force of afghanistan. And only begrudgingly signed it when his staff threatened to resign.
That doesn’t sound like a person who takes the war on terror seriously. It DOES sound like a person who will sit on his hands like bill clintonm, look the other way when we are attacked again and again by islamofacists, and pass off another 9/11 to be dealt with by someone who is actually strong on terror, like Dubya.
To: George W. Bush
IF (and “if” is the biggest two letter word in the English language) young people will get out to register and vote, this part of the article means a lot:
” Salt sees many young people supporting Paul.
“We look at his principles and we’re too young to be cynical about his chances,” Salt said. “
THAT could be the tale of the tape.
To: Tears of a Clown
By “signed it” i meant to say “voted for it”
To: George W. Bush
All of the Paul bashing has a basis, and I agree that he wouldn’t be the best candidate regarding the WOT. BUT....he would be the best all around candidate. Scads better than that s**thead Guliani, the socialist Romney, the pretender Thompson, or any of the others, who I believe to have at least socialist leanings if not outright socialist credentials.
Say what you will, but Ron Paul comes down squarely on the side of our divine Constitution every single time, unlike the rest of the pack who pick and choose which parts they like, and that means a lot to me. And it should mean a lot to YOU, too.
To: George W. Bush
32
posted on
09/16/2007 8:33:32 AM PDT
by
KDD
(A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse)
To: George W. Bush
33
posted on
09/16/2007 8:42:55 AM PDT
by
traviskicks
(http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
To: Tears of a Clown
According to one his aides, Paul was strongly AGAINST the use of force of afghanistan.
An aide who went flako, offended all the Republicans and Libertarians he once worked with, injects himself into a lot of different fights, then claims credit for other people's political work, alternates between trying to destroy Republicans and Libertarians. Oh, and he wrote a bogus language-learning book that's a laughingstock at Amazon and he advocates legalizing prostitution, especially for our overseas troops to enjoy, much as he brags about all the whores he patronized as a sailor. He also claims to be a combat veteran because a ship he served on was attacked after he had already been transferred elsewhere.
Eric Dondero. We're hoping he runs against Ron Paul.
Ron Paul voted for the authorization of action in Afghanistan. He also introduced a declaration of war and he offered legislation to issue letters of marque and reprisal against the Afghan warlords and against al-Qaeda's leaders. That doesn't sound too opposed to me.
Now, he certainly was against the war in Iraq although he did offer a declaration of war against them as well, to strengthen the administration's hand if we did go to war. It is the correct action.
To: svcw
"It appears there can be no conversation about his policies..."
Whose fault is that? When the RINO element started right off in the beginning with the ad hominems, that killed any hope for reasoned rational conversation right there and then. Why do you feel the need to bring out the nut perjurative and use it against those with whom you disagree? You must know that it makes you look immature, and that it isn't going to make one of us change his mind. Call me a nut enough times and that tells me you don't want to talk. I'm going to walk away rather than let you insult me endlessly. If you really want to talk then grow up and learn to talk about the issues without tossing insults. I don't call you a nut for not agreeing with my view of things. I simply know and accept that you don't agree. At worst, I'll tell you that you are wrong and I'll try to tell you why. When you call me a nut, you don't have to tell me why I'm a nut and you get out of having to tell me why I'm wrong. That's not a conversation, it's a waste of time.
"I can not support a man who has such disregard for a stern/forceful forgein policy."
Then you wouldn't have supported G. Washington or a principle he held. Paul is only saying what Washington said, have commerce with other nations, otherwise stay out of their internal affairs and avoid entangling alliances. If you can't agree with that then we will just have to be resigned to permanent disagreement on that point.
"I can not support a candidate that does not support Israel."
Well then don't. It's just as simple as that. Paul is a constitutionalist and I will support him for that reason. He would attempt to find the clause in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to support our favorite pet foreign nations and directs the President to do so. He would not find it because it isn't there. Perhaps Congress could pass a constitutional amendment for supporting Israel. Otherwise we are exercising arbitrary government and arbitrary government is what we wished to get away from in 1776.
"I can not support a candidate who blames US for 9/11."
We have corrected this error before and we can go on correcting it as many times as we need to until those of you who are slow to get the news get informed. Paul never blamed US for 9/11. Paul is citing, and quoting, CIA analysis (and the 911 commission) which concludes that certain foreign policies of certain factions that have control of the US government lead to increased radicalization and militization of peoples elsewhere who then go on to carry out terror attacks against us and our interests around the world. If you don't like what these conclusions suggest, you should take it up with the CIA, not Paul.
Paul is committing no crime by citing this CIA analysis. Yet people like you hear it the way you want to hear it and then you spread the disinformation that Paul thought the idea up all on his own to blame the entire US and everybody living here. That's just wrong.
35
posted on
09/16/2007 9:13:39 AM PDT
by
Jason_b
(Click jason_b to the left here and read something about People v. De La Guerra 40 Cal. 311)
To: the tongue
All of the Paul bashing has a basis, and I agree that he wouldnt be the best candidate regarding the WOT. BUT....he would be the best all around candidate.
Fair enough. We don't expect universal support. And his presence in the race does keep alive small-government issues, border issues, etc. So, like Tancredo or Duncan, his candidacy can serve conservatives well even if he doesn't get the nomination.
To: Tears of a Clown; George W. Bush
I doubt that.
According to one his aides, Paul was strongly AGAINST the use of force of afghanistan. And only begrudgingly signed it when his staff threatened to resign.Eric Dondero.
If you choose to believe the word of a wacko who has offended anybody he's had any prolonged dealings with and was fired by Ron Paul for offenses that Paul could not tolerate from staff, be my guest, you're beyond help.
That doesnt sound like a person who takes the war on terror seriously. It DOES sound like a person who will sit on his hands like bill clintonm, look the other way when we are attacked again and again by islamofacists, and pass off another 9/11 to be dealt with by someone who is actually strong on terror, like Dubya.
Paul takes the supposed war on terror seriously enough to have serious objections to measures that may be an unconstitutional infringement on the liberties of American Citizens.
If you think that Bush is strong on terror, answer us as to why he has not moved on a stronger immigration policy, border security, and dealt decisively with the Saudi Government who gave us bin Ladin and 20 individuals who planned and committed the 9/11 atrocities.
Your statements are laughable.
37
posted on
09/16/2007 10:05:32 AM PDT
by
Calvinist_Dark_Lord
((I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper))
To: George W. Bush
“We are not an empire. We’re a republic.”
That was the original intent.
38
posted on
09/16/2007 10:13:23 AM PDT
by
takenoprisoner
(Can you here that whistle blow? I can. I'm on the freedom train. Don't miss it.)
To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord
If you think that Bush is strong on terror, answer us as to why he has not moved on a stronger immigration policy, border security, and dealt decisively with the Saudi Government who gave us bin Ladin and 20 individuals who planned and committed the 9/11 atrocities.
We should be posting more threads on the Saudis overall. See my last
post on the Climb Aboard thread.
FrontPage.com (David Horowitz) and others have done some excellent reporting. There was a recent ABC news feature on it too, maybe it's available via YouTube.
Our Friends The Saudis - Google Search
To: George W. Bush
i posted my reply to the wrong thread:
i meant to make
this reply to you.
Sorry about the mixup.
40
posted on
09/16/2007 10:54:12 AM PDT
by
Calvinist_Dark_Lord
((I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-69 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson