Last Night's Debates and Ron Paul

[Lubbock]

I'm putting this in Member's Lounge because it's not from a news source --unless you consider me the Town Crier.

Did anyone watch the debates last night?

I did not.

But . . . I'm up early and listening to the Spin Room with Hannity and Colmes.

I just heard Ron Paul blame America for the 9/11 attacks. I just heard him sit there between Hannity and Colmes and tell the world that the United States of America, through our foreign policy, invited and deserved what we got on 9/11.

That's the exact same thing that I heard Ibramin Hooper, head of CAIR, say --over and over again, for days on end after 9/11. While the rescue efforts were still going on at Ground Zero, Ibrahim Hooper was all over the airwaves telling the world that that United States of America had gotten just what She deserved.

Now, I've just listened to a man who is running for the Presidency of this nation tell us the same thing. The United States of America deserved what She got on 9/11.

How can that be?

How can anyone in their right mind be touting this man as a serious candidate for the Presidency of this nation?

I'm ashamed that Ron Paul is from Texas.

[And I want everyone to notice that I used Ibrahim Hooper's name and did not curse.]

[M.C.]

Of course we didn't deserve it. But our foreign policy is absolutely even less than pathetic. I have to sincerely agree with Paul on that. As for us deserving it? That is an awful thing to say indeed. But again I must reiterate, Paul is DEAD ON about our policy. Perhaps if we had a true border lockdown and didn't let these towel heads in, the two towers would still be standing today. I can't help but believe that is the truth.

But Ron Paul as a serious candidate? No. Maybe Sec. of homeland security though.

[noncom]

Of course we didn't deserve it. But our foreign policy is absolutely even less than pathetic. I have to sincerely agree with Paul on that. As for us deserving it? That is an awful thing to say indeed. But again I must reiterate, Paul is DEAD ON about our policy. Perhaps if we had a true border lockdown and didn't let these towel heads in, the two towers would still be standing today. I can't help but believe that is the truth.
Of course the phrase "foreign policy" does not mean "immigration." Of course someone who doesn't lock his front door does not "deserve" to be robbed and of course, present company excepted, that's not what any of the moonbats are talking about.

What the liberals, libertarians and terrorists are saying is that if America simply stuck its head in the sand and didn't "interfere" with things OUTSIDE OUR BORDERS, then all of the Islamofascists would respect our rights and leave us alone.

[M.C.]

Um, I don't mean to imply that you're an idiot, but of course the phrase "foreign policy" does not mean "immigration." Of course someone who doesn't lock his front door does not "deserve" to be robbed and of course, present company excepted, that's not what any of the moonbats are talking about.

What the liberals, libertarians and terrorists are saying is that if America simply stuck its head in the sand and didn't "interfere" with things OUTSIDE OUR BORDERS, then all of the Islamofascists would respect our rights and leave us alone.
Different but closely related. Leaving our doors open while poking crazy muslims with sticks is a surefire way to get attacked.

[noncom]

Um, I don't mean to imply that you're an idiot, but of course the phrase "foreign policy" does not mean "immigration." Of course someone who doesn't lock his front door does not "deserve" to be robbed and of course, present company excepted, that's not what any of the moonbats are talking about.

What the liberals, libertarians and terrorists are saying is that if America simply stuck its head in the sand and didn't "interfere" with things OUTSIDE OUR BORDERS, then all of the Islamofascists would respect our rights and leave us alone.
Different but closely related. Leaving our doors open while poking crazy muslims with sticks is a surefire way to get attacked.
Thanks for clearing that up. Please note that I went back and took out the beginning of that first sentence.

[ConservativeFV]

Now this isn't about Ron Paul at all, but I just want to add that out of the 'big three', I thought that Mitt Romney came out on top. I believe his sincerity when he says that he has changed his mind on certain issues. Maybe I am being lied to, but if Fred Thompson doesn't get into the game then I want to vote for someone who at least has a shot and has some what of a more conservative background.

[M.C.]

Romney is a no-no. Sadly "The Big Three" are the worst three at this point. Giuliani, Romney, and McCain are easily the worst candidates from my point of view. Tancredo is easily the best, poor guy doesn't stand a chance, same story with Hunter and Brownback. Newt isn't a very well-liked guy by most, Fred Thompson is just a tease at the moment, meanwhile, Hitlery and Giuliani are gaining tons of support each and the future looks very bad.

Thanks for clearing that up. Please note that I went back and took out the beginning of that first sentence.]
Noted.

[Lubbock]

Different but closely related. Leaving our doors open while poking crazy muslims with sticks is a surefire way to get attacked.

Excuse me.

Poking crazy Muslims with sticks?

Hmmm . . .

[Dowple]

Excuse me.

Poking crazy Muslims with sticks?

Hmmm . . .


Should have poked them with bayonets instead. And not just the "crazy" ones. The only good musselman is a . . . .

[M.C.]

Should have poked them with bayonets instead. And not just the "crazy" ones. The only good musselman is a . . . .

Indeed, poison coated bayonettes, don't spare the children either.

But the president is a big:limp:, he won't/claims he can't do that etc.

If the troops could decide, they'd turn the mid east into a parking lot, a radioactive parking lot.

[oldcoastie]

Romney is a no-no. Sadly "The Big Three" are the worst three at this point. Giuliani, Romney, and McCain are easily the worst candidates from my point of view. Tancredo is easily the best, poor guy doesn't stand a chance, same story with Hunter and Brownback. Newt isn't a very well-liked guy by most, Fred Thompson is just a tease at the moment, meanwhile, Hitlery and Giuliani are gaining tons of support each and the future looks very bad.

Very good summation, in my opinion.

[M.C.]

Very good summation, in my opinion.
Thanks. I wish it weren't true though. I have a very bad feeling the next president will be a woman or the liberal hiding behind a republican flag. Quite frankly it is scary.

[Dowple]

Indeed, poison coated bayonettes, don't spare the children either.

But the president is a big:limp:, he won't/claims he can't do that etc.

If the troops could decide, they'd turn the mid east into a parking lot, a radioactive parking lot.


I still remember the reports of Bush's preferences at the beginning of the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan: can't we just bomb them with food instead? We're spending a trillion dollars on social work, instead of fighting, killing, and making our enemies submit. We should have put the fear of God into the musselmen, all of them. Make them fear us much more than they support and fear al qaeda. Had we done so, there would have been a stampede to be the first in line to tell us who ambushed and abducted our soldiers this weekend. But nooooooo. We want to make them luuuvvv us and like us. Working real well, isn't it?

[Rhino]

I'm putting this in Member's Lounge because it's not from a news source It doesn't have to be from a news source, so I moved this to Elections.

[Rhino]

Oooooo! I just noticed that this post will put me at 15,000 total! Where's my kewpie doll?

[M.C.]

I still remember the reports of Bush's preferences at the beginning of the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan: can't we just bomb them with food instead? We're spending a trillion dollars on social work, instead of fighting, killing, and making our enemies submit. We should have put the fear of God into the musselmen, all of them. Make them fear us much more than they support and fear al qaeda. Had we done so, there would have been a stampede to be the first in line to tell us who ambushed and abducted our soldiers this weekend. But nooooooo. We want to make them luuuvvv us and like us. Working real well, isn't it?
No kidding, shoulda taught them fear. It is the only way those beasts will ever get anything through their rag-covered skulls. We failed to do that though, instead we want to "free them from evil." I don't want them free, I want them all buried in a mass unmarked grave.

[Nutrider99]

The sad reality is that outside of the president there isn't a set of balls to be found in all of Congress. Most of you know me by now, so pardon my rant. Take from it what you will.

I am SICK AS HELL of this president getting attacked on both sides from spineless bastards who believe that true leadership begins with a poll. There are 435 Congressmen and 100 Senators in this country club we call a Congress. The Republicans have had control of government for years.

Bush is the first president to propose a REAL solution to the problem of illegal immigration. We are NOT going to deport several million people. We have to have a VIABLE method of tracking these people. They aren’t here to become citizens. They are here to make money which will go ten times as far in Mexico. They shouldn’t have voting rights, they shouldn’t get government benefits and they shouldn’t get amnesty. They must be required to pay a fine for breaking the law. The border MUST be secured and we MUST deport anyone who ever commits a crime or who refuses to legalize his status. Bush’s plan had flaws. Did we get a better plan from the OTHER 270+ Republicans? No. They did NOTHING.

Bush is the first president to propose a REAL solution to the problem of Social Security insolvency. What has been done to solve the problem? NOTHING! Even though we controlled the House and the Senate, in six years Congress could not come up with one single viable proposal. They did NOTHING but kick the problem down the road so that any future solution has to be more radical, more painful and less likely to ever get approved.

Bush is the only man in Washington DC to take a firm, unwavering commitment against the terrorists. The other Republicans know that we are NOT at war with Iraq, that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq who seek its destruction as well as ours. Yet where are they? Covering in his shadow! Not one Republican has come out strong in support of our actions. They have sat back and let our enemies in the media erode support for the war by calling it Bush’s war an illegal invasion, and a horrendous lapse of judgment. John Mcliberal sat at the debate and claimed to be wholeheartedly in support of our efforts, yet as usual he sided with the democreeps in talking about how this war was mishandled. MISHANDLED? Can anyone suggest a better way of destroying an enemy that can’t be identified, who blends in with civilians, and for whom every civilian death is a personal triumph? This is not an out of control president attacking a few Muslims because he doesn’t like them. THIS IS A WORLD WAR! Anyone who can’t comprehend that is no better than the democreeps.

President Bush is NOT a conservative. He’s center-right. Anyone who thought he was a conservative never listened to a thing he said. However, he was the right man in the right place at the right time. He simply has not had one single person who would stand up with him, despite getting many of them elected. Bush is no Reagan, but thank God he was no Gore or Kerry, either. America is dangerously close to letting the clintoons infest the White House again. While anyone in America would make a better president than hillary, I didn’t see one single person in that debate who is half the man that Bush is. What a sickening, pathetic thing that is. Especially considering that Bush isn’t half the man Reagan was.

So many conservatives want it all or nothing. It they can’t get everything they want in one bill they’ll settle for getting nothing. That’s NOT how the democreeps were able to destroy our culture. They used incrementalism. Take what you can get passed now and take it further with the next bill. Only in their case, they had to make law with the judiciary because their rulings would never withstand the public scrutiny. Instead they used judges they appointed for life to circumvent the Constitution. We need constructionist judges and lawmakers with balls to reverse the course of decay before we slide into the dark night of history.

Bush has proved one thing. If you lead, the cowards won’t follow unless the polling data supports it. After the debate the Fox polling gave Ron Paul an early lead and a strong finish. That proves that there are a lot of profoundly stupid people in America.

God bless America. With candidates like these, we'll need it.

[Lubbock]

Hall of Fame post, Nut.

Hall of Fame.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Hall of Fame post, Nut.

Hall of Fame.
I agree.

I have said the following in this and other forums and sometimes I have been poo-pooed for doing so, but I'll say it again anyhow:

I think that God's hand made George W. Bush president in 2000. No other candidate for president in 2000, Republican or Democrat, would have had the gonads to respond to the 9/11 attacks as forcefully as George W. Bush did. No other 2000 candidate would have had the gonads to forcefully pursue the broader War on Terror as George W. Bush did. No other 2000 candidate would have had the gonads to stick to the War on Terror despite all the hate and lies thrown at him by the media and the opposition party.

George W. Bush clearly is the right man at the right time when America needs him. I thank God every day that He gave us George W. Bush as president.

[PrezLeefun]

I loved that Rudy stood up to that guy. You could tell he was angry but handled himself with a wonderful grace.

[DesertFox]

If the troops could decide, they'd turn the mid east into a parking lot, a radioactive parking lot.Seriously, seriously doubt it. Everywhere US troops have been for any length of time at all, they fall in love with the local kids and the decent folk. They go out of their way to make hard lives easier and more promising. Radioactive parking lots have never figured into that thinking.

[Republican_Legion]

I think we will discover the Ron Paul platoon to disappear all the sudden.

My reaction is just WOW...Ron Paul just proved himself as an enemy to America.

[Dowple]

I think we will discover the Ron Paul platoon to disappear all the sudden.

My reaction is just WOW...Ron Paul just proved himself as an enemy to America.

Paul was on CNN this afternoon and he just kept digging his hole deeper. He sounded like Michael Moore. He complained about bombing Saddam for the ten years after the first Gulf War! He defended Saddam's supposed plans for getting a nuclear weapon and even seemed to justify North Korea getting one to stop US aggression. Geez. He must be kept out of the next debate before he damages good and credible people on the illegal immigration issue like Tancredo and Duncan Hunter. His mere presence harms them. And on top of it all he made that sleeze Giuliana look like a hero. Shut his mouth!

[noncom]

He must be kept out of the next debate before he damages good and credible people on the illegal immigration issue like Tancredo and Duncan Hunter. His mere presence harms them. And on top of it all he made that sleeze Giuliana look like a hero. Shut his mouth!
This "pre-primary" primary campaign is a farce. The Democrats picked their candidate 8 years early, so they're just trying to generate free publicity. And some Republican camera-whores are just going along for the ride - with no regard to how much damage it does to their party. Well, with one exception: I think Ron Paul, all else being equal, actually wants to hurt the Republican Party even more than he wants his ugly mug on TV.

And the craziest thing is that - despite the fact that this crap has never happened before in history - all the pundits keep trying to paint Thompson and Gingrich as the oddballs because they DON'T take part in this giant cluster-f*ck.

Based on the ratings of the debates so far this is sort of redundant, but we need to boycott this process for a few months.

[Lubbock]

But where are all of the Paul supporters?

I thought there would be at least one among the many here at FC who would show up and tell me that I didn't see and hear what I saw and heard.

I thought there would be at least one who would show up here and defend Paul to the bitter end.

I think they must all be afraid to poke their heads up out of the ditch that Paul's put them in.

[Naturalized-Texan]

But where are all of the Paul supporters?

I thought there would be at least one among the many here at FC who would show up and tell me that I didn't see and hear what I saw and heard.

I thought there would be at least one who would show up here and defend Paul to the bitter end.

I think they must all be afraid to poke their heads up out of the ditch that Paul's put them in.
Yep. I've been thinking the same thing all day. Ron Paul is as loony as Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, Charlie Sheen, Cindy Sheehan, et al. He should be in the loony bin instead of running for president.

[Timberwolf]

Ron Paul is an idealist...his positions are firmly rooted in following the Constitution to the letter (to his credit). If you don't think so, you have no clue about his politics, nor what the Constitution states. Sadly, he also is denying the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves (to his shame). A situtation caused by our leaders NOT following the warnings of our Founding Fathers.

WHY have we been in the Middle East for the past 20-30 years? Oil? Heck, we have enough here at home to keep up with domestic demand for 500-800 years (present known reserves). That can't be it.

To protect Israel? She seems more than capable of doing that herself (with or without our assistance...mind you, I am a supporter of Israel. Make NO mistake about that). So, that can't be it, either.

WHY are we there?

If we WOULD HAVE been minding our own business for the past 20-30 years, maybe this crap wouldn't be happening. Who knows? We've NOT tried 'minding our business' for some time....too worried about being the 'World's Police Force'...just gotta give credibility to the UN, don'tchaknow...kicking Saddam's butt outta Kuwait was one thing, but the resumption of those hostilities is putting our servicemen at risk and the only purpose for doing so was to enforce UN resolutions.

Does this mean I think we should immediately withdraw from Iraq? No, that would be lunacy and suicidal. But, when we CAN withdraw, we should. Immediately following that withdrawl, we should begin "minding the store" here at home. Immediate redeployment of our troops in Germany to the Mexican border would be a plus (IMHO). Redeployment of our troops in S. Korea to Iraq (allowing our reservists to come home) would be another.

Okey Dokey...flame away.

[ConservativeFV]

He did make some very valid points. The republicans have typically been the isolationists in this country while the democrats have been the pointless war-mongers. I haven't believed in our mission in Iraq for months now. In fact, I almost defacted to the left because of it, but after hanging around some of these morons for a while I began to swallow my own vomit.

Our country should go back to being an isolationist country, only focusing on countries who have a real hand in terror like Iran and North Korea. **** Iraq, the only thing Saddam was capable of was torturing his own citizens. And not to sound racist, but a few more dead Muslums is never a bad thing. Saddam was a secularist to, so the Muslums he was torturing were typically the Jihad looney ****ers we are dealing with in Iran.

[conservatour]

I live in Ron Paul's district in Texas and I will no longer vote for him even if he is unopposed as he was in the last general election, I'd rather vote for my neighbor's dog.

[Rhino]

I'd rather vote for my neighbor's dog.You'd vote for Hillary?????? :question:

[M.C.]

Ron Paul is an idealist...his positions are firmly rooted in following the Constitution to the letter (to his credit). If you don't think so, you have no clue about his politics, nor what the Constitution states. Sadly, he also is denying the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves (to his shame). A situtation caused by our leaders NOT following the warnings of our Founding Fathers.

WHY have we been in the Middle East for the past 20-30 years? Oil? Heck, we have enough here at home to keep up with domestic demand for 500-800 years (present known reserves). That can't be it.

To protect Israel? She seems more than capable of doing that herself (with or without our assistance...mind you, I am a supporter of Israel. Make NO mistake about that). So, that can't be it, either.

WHY are we there?

If we WOULD HAVE been minding our own business for the past 20-30 years, maybe this crap wouldn't be happening. Who knows? We've NOT tried 'minding our business' for some time....too worried about being the 'World's Police Force'...just gotta give credibility to the UN, don'tchaknow...kicking Saddam's butt outta Kuwait was one thing, but the resumption of those hostilities is putting our servicemen at risk and the only purpose for doing so was to enforce UN resolutions.

Does this mean I think we should immediately withdraw from Iraq? No, that would be lunacy and suicidal. But, when we CAN withdraw, we should. Immediately following that withdrawl, we should begin "minding the store" here at home. Immediate redeployment of our troops in Germany to the Mexican border would be a plus (IMHO). Redeployment of our troops in S. Korea to Iraq (allowing our reservists to come home) would be another.

Okey Dokey...flame away.
:claps:
Gotta agree with this post entirely. We have far too many problems in our own nation to try and interfere with all the ragheads and other trash nations. Isolationism was the best policy and needs to return, the founding fathers didn't come up with that policy for nothing. The US government is at fault for us getting attacked, for poking a caged lion for far too long, through far too many administrations.

Finish Iraq, boot the illegals, secure the border, shut down immigration legal , and illegal, and mind our business.

[Dowple]

Finish Iraq, boot the illegals, secure the border, shut down immigration legal , and illegal, and mind our business.

All good and true. And we should be finished with Iraq. The problem is NOT that we went into Iraq, however, it's that we didn't smash it into a zillion pieces and provide an object lesson, then install our own strongman, and get out. The tragedy is that we're engaged in a neo-Wilsonian, neo Jimmy Carteristic scheme to build nations and democratize the world. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Rhino]

Not that I have a problem with the underlying premise, but there are a couple of problems with that.

As the world situation stands right now, Iraq is our business. Like it or not, what happens in the rest of the world does affect us, and we ignore it at our peril. As much as I'd like to see us not entangled in conflicts abroad, isolationism simply does not work.

The troops we have overseas can't be used to enforce the border under present statutes.

[wilson1]

Seriously, seriously doubt it. Everywhere US troops have been for any length of time at all, they fall in love with the local kids and the decent folk. They go out of their way to make hard lives easier and more promising. Radioactive parking lots have never figured into that thinking.

Thank you Fox. I find his comment deplorable at best...

[M.C.]

Seriously, seriously doubt it. Everywhere US troops have been for any length of time at all, they fall in love with the local kids and the decent folk. They go out of their way to make hard lives easier and more promising. Radioactive parking lots have never figured into that thinking.

Can't speak for everyone, but my brother, cousin, and uncle seem to say the parking lot theory would be nice. They're there not me, so I can't speak for 'em I say what I hear.

[Rhino]

I've heard several military people say that, but only as a flippant comment. None of them would seriously consider it, though I have no doubt there are the odd few that would.

[Nutrider99]

Ron Paul is an idealist...his positions are firmly rooted in following the Constitution to the letter (to his credit).
We have differences in spelling. I spell it 'I-D-I-O-T." He's a blame America first moral relativist from what I've seen.

Sadly, he also is denying the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves (to his shame).
Sadly, he is also denying the truth and perpetuating lies, which sounds suspiciously like something democreeps do. Islamists aren't killing Americans because we are interfering with their lives, they are killing non-Muslims because that is all they live for. Surprisingly, none of them seem to know enough about their own religion to comprehend that when they kill Muslims, as they do predominantly, they damn themselves to Hell even according to their own make-believe god.

A situtation caused by our leaders NOT following the warnings of our Founding Fathers.
Our founding fathers lived in a world where if a man kept to himself and didn't interfere in matters that didn't concern him, he would be left alone. Today, however, two oceans do not provide us the isolated haven it did then. You might keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines to the Barbary Coast. That isn't exactly Boston Harbor.

WHY have we been in the Middle East for the past 20-30 years?
Well, let's see. It started with the discovery of oil and the knowledge that leaving it to roaving bands of desert dwelling nomads was not condusive to its continuous flow. In WWII we went there to defend against Hitler's conquest of the oil fields. We left them in the control of the local popultation. Subsequent to WWII, we threatened to use the atomic bomb to keep Stalin out of Persia, now Iran. We kept Iran free. After WWII, Israel, which was owned by the British, was given to the Jews as a homeland. Our presence was needed to shore them up, although they were more than willing to provide their own defense. Subsequent to that, our forces helped protect the oil fields for those who owned them from those who did not and wanted to take them. We have deployed forces in the Middle East to protect MUSLIMS from other MUSLIMS.

During the 80's, Iran and Iraq were at war with each other to see who would dominate the Persian Gulf. Over a million Muslims were killed. Who won? Humanity!

In 1991 So-Damn Insane ordered an attack on Kuwait and the massacre of its people. We went to Saudi Arabia to protect them from Iraq. Finally we lead the Gulf War which, again, liberated Muslims who were being systematically murdered by other Muslims. When those who had committed the atrocities were caught on the road leaving and killed to the last man, the libs cried a river of tears and the Gulf War ended several days early. There was a cease-fire signed, which was promptly violated, meaning that the war resumed.

Throughout the clintoon years, we were at war with Iraq but didn't have the guts to admit it. We couldn't pull out of Saudi Arabia because Iraq would take it over. We enforced a no-fly zone to try and limit which of Insane's people he was allowed to murder. We bombed when we needed to avert media attention from a major clintoon felony and he needed to look presidential. Hussein violated 17 UN resolutions and was starving is own people- Muslims, by the way. We couldn't pull out because we were in a war zone and didn't have the guts to go finish it.

Oil? Heck, we have enough here at home to keep up with domestic demand for 500-800 years (present known reserves).
Oil comes from the ground, but we can't pump it out using the most sophisticated machinery in the world because it might spill back into the ground. We can't drill in a desolate arctic wasteland for fear of disturbing animals that aren't there. We can't drill in the Gulf of Mexico and lower the level of oil that is continuously leaking into the Gulf for fear that some might leak into the Gulf. We can't build refineries because the tree huggers would be upset. In short, America's enemies within have made us dependant on America's enemies without.

To protect Israel? She seems more than capable of doing that herself (with or without our assistance...mind you, I am a supporter of Israel. Make NO mistake about that).
The economy of the free world is dependant on the continuous supply of energy at market prices. When people say that we are in the Middle East because of oil, I generally assume that they are stupid. Present case excepted. The reality is that we ARE there because of oil, but not for the reasons they will automatically claim. We have never taken a drop of oil. We have always paid for it and will continue to pay for it because we are a nation of laws and because our economy is are based on free market capitalism. There is nothing wrong with protecting the world's oil supply or defending the rights of those who own the wells to continue to operate them. There is nothing wrong with protecting American interests by ensuring that the energy that drives our economy is not held hostage by our enemies. In regards to Israel, they exist because we say the exist. No other reason. They defend themselves with American arms and live in the shade of the American sixth fleet. Would we go to war over Israel? Yes. Should we go to war over Israel? Yes. For those to whom much is given, much is expected. We feed and protect half the world. We honor our treaties.

If we WOULD HAVE been minding our own business for the past 20-30 years, maybe this crap wouldn't be happening.
Which crap? Terrorism? Terrorism is an integral part of Islam. We never should have allowed the Islamist to overthrow the Shah. We should have used Iran as a base to spread freedom and Christianity to those oppressed by Islamic tyranny. The fact is, evil cannot co-exist with good. Islam teaches conversion by the sword. Muslims are commanded to attack non-Muslims and create a global theocracy under Sharia law. If we pulled out and allowed them to have the Middle East, the next battlefields would be Europe and America. The only way to have prevented it would have been to preemptively never allowed the Islamists to have gained the support that they did.

...kicking Saddam's butt outta Kuwait was one thing, but the resumption of those hostilities is putting our servicemen at risk and the only purpose for doing so was to enforce UN resolutions.
The resumption of hostilities came from Hussein violating the cease-fire agreement. We removed Insane by force because he was a threat to America. The fact is, both Kay and Dulfer verified that Iraq was a GREATER threat than we had thought. We didn't take out So-Damn Insane BECAUSE of the UN, we took him out DESPITE the UN. Is the life of a billion Muslims worth the life of one human being? No, but protecting the lives of Americans is why our servicemen enlisted. We are making a huge difference in the Middle East. The Iraqi people are finding out that hatred, murder and oppression does not have to be the way of life. With freedom will come freedom of religion. When the lie is exposed and the truth revealed, we can say that our efforts have been worthy.

Does this mean I think we should immediately withdraw from Iraq? No, that would be lunacy and suicidal. But, when we CAN withdraw, we should.
Agreed. Our troops are needed in Iran.

Immediately following that withdrawl, we should begin "minding the store" here at home. Immediate redeployment of our troops in Germany to the Mexican border would be a plus (IMHO).
I like that suggestion. However, the price of peace is eternal vigilance. We maintain our peace by dealing with threats before they can come to our shores.

Redeployment of our troops in S. Korea to Iraq (allowing our reservists to come home) would be another.
First we have to take out Kim Mentally Ill.

Okey Dokey...flame away.
Me? Never!

[Naturalized-Texan]

Nutrider, you nailed it! The era in which we can be isolationist is long gone - gone for more than 100 years.

The War on Terror is ALL about protecting America's vital interests, including, especially, the lives of every American. As everyone knows, or should know, the invasion of Iraq was as much an essential part of the War on Terror as the D-Day invasion of Normandy was an essential part of World War II. The trigger for the War on Terror was the 9/11 terrorist attack just as the Pearl Harbor attack was the trigger for our entry into WW II. Those who try to separate the Iraq Campaign from the 9/11 terrorist attack and the War on Terror are living in a fantasy world totally devoid of reality.

[Naturalized-Texan]

With his lunacy in Tuesday's debate and in his CNN interview, Ron Paul confirmed EVERYTHING that I have been saying about him. I hope that a REAL conservative runs against him and defeats him in next year's Republican primary. The people of that district deserve a real conservative instead of that RINO lunatic.

[Lubbock]

Another World-Class Hall of Famer, Nut.

Any other questions for Professor Rider?

Anyone?

Rebuttal?

Anyone?

Anyone care to step forward and further defend Paul?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I didn't think so.

[noncom]

A situtation caused by our leaders NOT following the warnings of our Founding Fathers. ...You might keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines to the Barbary Coast. That isn't exactly Boston Harbor.
Thanks for taking the time and considerable effort to respond to the nutcase. I simply don't have the energy and could barely guess where to even begin addressing such comprehensive ignorance. If a genius makes a mistake, I can pick him apart, but when someone knows absolutely nothing and confuses that vacuum with expansiveness, really the only option I ever consider is to just ignore him or tell him to shut up.

This guy demonstrates that he doesn't know - literally - the first thing about American history, and then he has the gall to portray his complete ignorance as exclusive expertise. How does one respond to that? Or more importantly WHY should anyone feel the need to bother?

Some people around here throw a fit over "picking on" the liberaltarians because of their conspiracy theories and drug advocacy -- as if those are random and irrelevant side attributes - like the color of their skin or pattern of socks they wear. But it's not. There is no difference between believing that your own ineptitude regarding physics "proves" that 9/11 was an inside job, and believing that your lack of knowledge of history, law, economics, current events, etc., etc., "proves" that no one besides you (and one pretty much randomly selected head goofball) has any idea how to run America.

Trying to "educate" people who know everything is a waste of time, and trying to incorporate people who are incapable of compromise into a political movement is counter productive.

Addle-minded arrogance is not some cute, funny fringe component of liberaltarianism; it's part-and-parcel. It's what they are. It's all they are. And nothing good can ever come out of that.

[Nutrider99]

Thanks for taking the time and considerable effort to respond to the nutcase. I simply don't have the energy and could barely guess where to even begin addressing such comprehensive ignorance. If a genius makes a mistake, I can pick him apart, but when someone knows absolutely nothing and confuses that vacuum with expansiveness, really the only option I ever consider is to just ignore him or tell him to shut up.
We all reserve the right to be wrong at times, and TW is very seldom wrong. We disagree on this issue. However, if you read more of what he writes you'll discover that he is not a nutcase and certainly not ignorant. More on point, he is usually right on in his commentary.

It's hard to retain perspective when you are lied to by a hostile media 24/7 for five years. It's only natural to want to bring our men home when they are fighting and dying for people of lesser value to humanity than snail darters. However, it is vital to our national security that we defeat our enemies, foreign and domestic. It is equally vital to our sanity that we shield ourselves from the propaganda and lies of a media vested in our defeat.

[conservatour]

You'd vote for Hillary?????? :question:

All right now, I was talking district and NO I would not vote for Hillary under any ciircumstances. My neighbor's dog is prettier and smarter than Hillary.

[Nutrider99]

All right now, I was talking district and NO I would not vote for Hillary under any ciircumstances. My neighbor's dog is prettier and smarter than Hillary.
Then you'd better keep your dog away from bill clintoon. The affair with Monica proved that he was in to bestiality.

[organix]

Kudos to Ron Paul for bringing substance and reason into the debate. Shame on the media for ignoring him.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger126.html

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/05/07/corporate-media-censor-ron-pauls-debate-success/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.t1production.com%2Fcorporat e-media-censor-ron-pauls-debate-success&frame=true

http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=3255

http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=3244

http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=3239

http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=3236

[Lubbock]

Well, it just goes to show ya, not all "nuts" are brilliant.

So far we have one in the "brilliant" column, and one in the "kook" column.

[Naturalized-Texan]

We should just consider the source: organix from China supports Ron Paul. That puts the proper perspective on Ron Paul's race to the hate-America far left.

[noncom]

We should just consider the source: organix from China supports Ron Paul. That puts the proper perspective on Ron Paul's race to the hate-America far left.
Has anybody figured out what country "M.C." is from? 'Cause I'm pretty sure English can't be anywhere NEAR his native tongue.

[organix]

We should just consider the source: organix from China supports Ron Paul. That puts the proper perspective on Ron Paul's race to the hate-America far left.

No, you should consider the words of Ron Paul without immediately writing him off because it doesn't conform to common conservative talking points or offends your politically correct sensibilities. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you sanction, occupy, and bomb an entire region for years, it will make more than a few people angry.

[Naturalized-Texan]

No, you should consider the words of Ron Paul without immediately writing him off because it doesn't conform to common conservative talking points or offends your politically correct sensibilities. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you sanction, occupy, and bomb an entire region for years, it will make more than a few people angry.
Ron Paul has turned into a hate-America leftist.

On September 14, 2001, Ron Paul voted for a declaration of war against terrorism. That declaration of war is still in effect. He has voted twice to surrender to the terrorists just this year. Consequently, he has given aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war. According to Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution, that is treason.

[Timberwolf]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Timberwolf http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=551861#post551861)
Ron Paul is an idealist...his positions are firmly rooted in following the Constitution to the letter (to his credit).
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
We have differences in spelling. I spell it 'I-D-I-O-T." He's a blame America first moral relativist from what I've seen.
Nope. Just a "to the letter" Constitutionalist. As I've stated, he's denying the reality of the situation.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Sadly, he also is denying the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves (to his shame). </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Sadly, he is also denying the truth and perpetuating lies, which sounds suspiciously like something democreeps do. Islamists aren't killing Americans because we are interfering with their lives, they are killing non-Muslims because that is all they live for. Surprisingly, none of them seem to know enough about their own religion to comprehend that when they kill Muslims, as they do predominantly, they damn themselves to Hell even according to their own make-believe god.
Fine...all well and good. And, UNTIL THEY GET HERE, let'em do what they want to the other countries that won't stand up to their crap. Why is it incumbant upon US to always police the world?

That kind of attitude is not one supported by the FFs...and for good reason. They had the foresight to recognize what would happen, should we entangle ourselves in foreign affairs that did not DIRECTLY threaten our security.

One may argue that 9/11 was "them getting here"...but, WHY did they come here? Could it POSSIBLY be that we were already over there, dictating to them how they "should" run their countries? How would WE react if some foreign country was here doing that to us?

I don't see us being too terribly receptive to that. Just a thought....

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">A situtation caused by our leaders NOT following the warnings of our Founding Fathers. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Our founding fathers lived in a world where if a man kept to himself and didn't interfere in matters that didn't concern him, he would be left alone. Today, however, two oceans do not provide us the isolated haven it did then. You might keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines to the Barbary Coast. That isn't exactly Boston Harbor.
Yes, he did...because they were affecting our ability to trade with our European partners.

We can go back to the 'isolated haven' we once enjoyed...if we CHOOSE to do so.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">WHY have we been in the Middle East for the past 20-30 years? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Well, let's see. It started with the discovery of oil and the knowledge that leaving it to roaving bands of desert dwelling nomads was not condusive to its continuous flow.
We have enough here for our own needs...that's something with which the other countries can contend...should THEY want THEIR oil supply to be uninterrupted.

In WWII we went there to defend against Hitler's conquest of the oil fields.
MUCH different scenario. We were at war with Germany and had no interest in letting him acquire the capacity to bring the war to us/conquer the world.
We left them in the control of the local popultation.
To our credit.
Subsequent to WWII, we threatened to use the atomic bomb to keep Stalin out of Persia, now Iran. We kept Iran free.
Why? Was it because of a direct threat to our national security?

After WWII, Israel, which was owned by the British, was given to the Jews as a homeland. Our presence was needed to shore them up, although they were more than willing to provide their own defense.
As I've already stated. WHY are we still "shoring them up"?

Subsequent to that, our forces helped protect the oil fields for those who owned them from those who did not and wanted to take them.
As I've stated, WHY? We have enough in reserve right here at home. We DON'T NEED Middle Eastern oil. Why continue to fight over it?

We have deployed forces in the Middle East to protect MUSLIMS from other MUSLIMS.
Which makes no sense if they want to kill us "infidels". LET THEM kill each other. If we'd leave 'em alone, maybe they'd kill each other and save us the trouble.

Just a thought...

During the 80's, Iran and Iraq were at war with each other to see who would dominate the Persian Gulf. Over a million Muslims were killed. Who won? Humanity!
Amen.

In 1991 So-Damn Insane ordered an attack on Kuwait and the massacre of its people. We went to Saudi Arabia to protect them from Iraq. Finally we lead the Gulf War which, again, liberated Muslims who were being systematically murdered by other Muslims.
As I've said before...WHY? The rest of the world seems uninterested in the 'goings on' over there...why do we entangle ourselves in such situations? If muzzies wanna exterminate other muzzies, why are we preventing them from doing so?

When those who had committed the atrocities were caught on the road leaving and killed to the last man, the libs cried a river of tears and the Gulf War ended several days early. There was a cease-fire signed, which was promptly violated, meaning that the war resumed.
So, you have no problem with the UN being the 'be all and end all' of world situations?

I do. I do not want our servicemen fighting wars to protect and line the pockets of the corrupt bastards that run that meaningless, worthless organization.

Throughout the clintoon years, we were at war with Iraq but didn't have the guts to admit it. We couldn't pull out of Saudi Arabia because Iraq would take it over. We enforced a no-fly zone to try and limit which of Insane's people he was allowed to murder. We bombed when we needed to avert media attention from a major clintoon felony and he needed to look presidential. Hussein violated 17 UN resolutions and was starving is own people- Muslims, by the way. We couldn't pull out because we were in a war zone and didn't have the guts to go finish it.
Now, you make my argument for me. Klintoon used the situation for distraction, getting us 'in deeper'. It was a UN no-fly-zone that was being patroled. It was UN resolutions being violated. It was a 'war' that shoulda been finished under Bush's dad's administration...but, we COULDN'T defy the UN's wishes!! Oh no...couldn't have thaaaaat.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Oil? Heck, we have enough here at home to keep up with domestic demand for 500-800 years (present known reserves). </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Oil comes from the ground, but we can't pump it out using the most sophisticated machinery in the world because it might spill back into the ground. We can't drill in a desolate arctic wasteland for fear of disturbing animals that aren't there. We can't drill in the Gulf of Mexico and lower the level of oil that is continuously leaking into the Gulf for fear that some might leak into the Gulf. We can't build refineries because the tree huggers would be upset. In short, America's enemies within have made us dependant on America's enemies without.
And that gives us Carte Blanche to involve ourselves in foreign affairs? LOL C'mon, you can do better than that.

I have a better idea. We make HALF the effort of going to war in shoving the Alaska Pipeline up the whazoo of the environazis and do the domestic production thangy instead. Kill two stones with one bird.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">To protect Israel? She seems more than capable of doing that herself (with or without our assistance...mind you, I am a supporter of Israel. Make NO mistake about that). </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The economy of the free world is dependant on the continuous supply of energy at market prices. When people say that we are in the Middle East because of oil, I generally assume that they are stupid. Present case excepted. The reality is that we ARE there because of oil, but not for the reasons they will automatically claim. We have never taken a drop of oil. We have always paid for it and will continue to pay for it because we are a nation of laws and because our economy is are based on free market capitalism. There is nothing wrong with protecting the world's oil supply or defending the rights of those who own the wells to continue to operate them. There is nothing wrong with protecting American interests by ensuring that the energy that drives our economy is not held hostage by our enemies. In regards to Israel, they exist because we say the exist. No other reason. They defend themselves with American arms and live in the shade of the American sixth fleet. Would we go to war over Israel? Yes. Should we go to war over Israel? Yes. For those to whom much is given, much is expected. We feed and protect half the world. We honor our treaties.
Yes...free flow of oil...*shrug*

Non-issue for us...IF we develop our own reserves and "keep to ourselves". Look, if we take ourselves OUT of the world market for crude, we stabilize our economy in numerous ways...no worries about world events cutting off our supply, reduction in military expense, reduction in foreign aid, etc.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">If we WOULD HAVE been minding our own business for the past 20-30 years, maybe this crap wouldn't be happening. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Which crap? Terrorism? Terrorism is an integral part of Islam. We never should have allowed the Islamist to overthrow the Shah. We should have used Iran as a base to spread freedom and Christianity to those oppressed by Islamic tyranny.
There ya go advocating dictating to others how their countries ought to be run.

The fact is, evil cannot co-exist with good. Islam teaches conversion by the sword. Muslims are commanded to attack non-Muslims and create a global theocracy under Sharia law.
Fine...WHEN they try it on us, THEN we kick their collective butts back to the Mesozoic Era. Until then, let 'em exterminate each other.

If we pulled out and allowed them to have the Middle East, the next battlefields would be Europe and America.
They already HAVE the ME. If Europe doesn't wanna pull its head out, too bad...so sad.

The only way to have prevented it would have been to preemptively never allowed the Islamists to have gained the support that they did.
How about giving them no reason to focus upon us, and thus short-circuit the world's apathy towards us? If we're not there, no possible reason can be given for them attacking us. Of course, there are those that will now claim I'm saying we brought it on ourselves...think again. They THINK they have a legitimate reason to do what they're doing. All I'm saying is, if we weren't there, no one would give that line of thinking any credence.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">...kicking Saddam's butt outta Kuwait was one thing, but the resumption of those hostilities is putting our servicemen at risk and the only purpose for doing so was to enforce UN resolutions. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The resumption of hostilities came from Hussein violating the cease-fire agreement.
Yeah...with the UN.

We removed Insane by force because he was a threat to America.
Yup. But, WHY did he BECOME a threat to us? That is the important issue...WHY? What forces were at work that he painted a target on us?

The fact is, both Kay and Dulfer verified that Iraq was a GREATER threat than we had thought. We didn't take out So-Damn Insane BECAUSE of the UN, we took him out DESPITE the UN. Is the life of a billion Muslims worth the life of one human being? No, but protecting the lives of Americans is why our servicemen enlisted.
All I'm saying is, if we had listened to the forewarnings of our Founders, and not entangled ourselves in the affairs of others, chances are we wouldn't have to worry about it.

We are making a huge difference in the Middle East. The Iraqi people are finding out that hatred, murder and oppression does not have to be the way of life. With freedom will come freedom of religion. When the lie is exposed and the truth revealed, we can say that our efforts have been worthy.
Sadly, the Truth will not be revealed by HUMANITY. I think you and I both know that....

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Does this mean I think we should immediately withdraw from Iraq? No, that would be lunacy and suicidal. But, when we CAN withdraw, we should. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Agreed. Our troops are needed in Iran.
Naw...our troops are needed on our southern border. A MOAB (or 5 or 6) is/are needed in Tehran (gotta finish the job completely before we withdraw from the region, right?)

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Immediately following that withdrawl, we should begin "minding the store" here at home. Immediate redeployment of our troops in Germany to the Mexican border would be a plus (IMHO). </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I like that suggestion. However, the price of peace is eternal vigilance. We maintain our peace by dealing with threats before they can come to our shores.
No argument there...as long as the threat is to US and it is real, not merely perceived. Until we are vigilant about securing the borders to our country, we're screwed.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Redeployment of our troops in S. Korea to Iraq (allowing our reservists to come home) would be another. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
First we have to take out Kim Mentally Ill.
No argument there, either. He has made direct threats against us. He needs to go the way of the Dodo bird.

[Timberwolf]

Another World-Class Hall of Famer, Nut.

Any other questions for Professor Rider?

Anyone?

Rebuttal?

Anyone?

Anyone care to step forward and further defend Paul?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I didn't think so.
I'm not defending Ron Paul. I'm defending the Constitution. Try reading my post for the context offered in it.

[Timberwolf]

Ron Paul has turned into a hate-America leftist.

On September 14, 2001, Ron Paul voted for a declaration of war against terrorism. That declaration of war is still in effect. He has voted twice to surrender to the terrorists just this year. Consequently, he has given aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war. According to Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution, that is treason.
Pull yer head out, Tex...already gave you the speech in which he stated his misgivings, but stated "doing nothing was unthinkable". He voted for it because no other options were forthcoming at the time.

He also didn't have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight that we now enjoy.

[noncom]

Nope. [Ron Paul is] a "to the letter" Constitutionalist. As I've stated, he's denying the reality of the situation.
Reality is kind of important. And when you don't deal with that, two things happen:

1. Everybody will think you're crazy, and

2. They'll all be right.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Pull yer head out, Tex...already gave you the speech in which he stated his misgivings, but stated "doing nothing was unthinkable". He voted for it because no other options were forthcoming at the time.

He also didn't have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight that we now enjoy.
You're talking irrelevancies. Ron Paul voted to declare war on terrorism - period. That declaration is still in effect. Consequently, He has a total obligation to support our troops fighting the war he voted to declare, a total obligation to fund the war he voted to declare, a total obligation to do everything in his power to help us win the war he voted to declare. He hasn't. He has voted with his leftist, hate-America allies to surrender to the terrorists. It is people like Ron Paul and his leftist, hate-America allies in Congress and in the media who have prolonged the War on Terror and, as a result, thousands of American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilians have been killed needlessly.

Even after the Pearl Harbor attacks there were a few isolationists who had misgivings about entering WW II and spoke them publicly. However, they all soon fully supported the war, voted to fund it, and fully supported our troops. There were no Ron Paul's to undermine the war effort and to give aid and comfort to our enemies

[Naturalized-Texan]

Reality is kind of important. And when you don't deal with that, two things happen:

1. Everybody will think you're crazy, and

2. They'll all be right.
I really think that Ron Paul belongs in a loony bin instead of running for president. He has clearly taken leave of his senses.

[noncom]

I really think that Ron Paul belongs in a loony bin instead of running for president. He has clearly taken leave of his senses.
So? Moonbats think that mindlessly screeching about how you care more than anyone else does about the Constitution magically makes all that OK. Reality is just an annoying side-issue that Conservatives keep fixating on for no apparent reason; it doesn't matter as long as your heart's in the right place.

There is no practical distinction between liberals and libertarians. Crazy is as crazy does, and I could not possibly give less of a rat's ass how incredibly wonderful they all think their motivations are.

[Naturalized-Texan]

So? Moonbats think that mindlessly screeching about how you care more than anyone else does about the Constitution magically makes all that OK. Reality is just an annoying side-issue that Conservatives keep fixating on for no apparent reason; it doesn't matter as long as your heart's in the right place.

There is no practical distinction between liberals and libertarians. Crazy is as crazy does, and I could not possibly give less of a rat's ass how incredibly wonderful they all think their motivations are.
Sadly, Ron Paul is not the same man who was our Congressman back in the 1970s. Back then he was sane and since he was sane, I enthusiastically voted for him. I don't know what turned him into a loon, but that's what he is now.

I don't think that he cares a whit about the Constitution. I think it's all just empty rhetoric. If he really believed in the Constitution, he would fully support the War on Terror rather than encouraging our enemies.

[Timberwolf]

Ignorance truly is bliss...guess this election is all about convenience & popularity...*sigh*

[Naturalized-Texan]

Ignorance truly is bliss...guess this election is all about convenience & popularity...*sigh*
I'm sorry that you are so full of bliss. I'm glad that I live in the real world. Ron Paul and his liberal buddies in Congress and the media certainly don't. I can't believe that you are defending a RINO. That may be a first.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Last month I heard an interview of Ron Paul conducted by a leading local conservative talk show host. If I hadn't heard the host introduce him as Congressman Ron Paul, I would have sworn that it was Teddy Kennedy being interviewed because of the far left positions he took and the bald-faced lies he told. About the only issues where Ron Paul differed from Teddy Kennedy were that he supported the Fair Tax and that he favored free trade. Other than that he was a straight down the line lefty.

I don't remember all the lies he told, but these 3 lies that he told are favorites of the loony left:

Lie #1) Reagan paid off Iran to release the Americans being held hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran for more than 400 days.

It's obvious that he believes in the "October Surprise" in which George H. W. Bush supposedly flew in an SR-71 to Paris in October 1980 to work out an agreement with Iran. The problem with that is that at the very instant he was supposedly in Paris, Bush was making a campaign speech before 5,000 people in Indiana.

Lie #2) Reagan supplied arms and funds to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan when the Afghanis were fighting Soviet troops.

That is false. Reagan supplied arms and funds to the mujihideen fighting in the north (later the Northern Alliance that helped us overthrow the Taliban and drive al Qaeda out of Afghanistan), not to bin Laden in the south. Osama bin laden got all his arms and funds from the Saudis.

Lie #3) We are fighting an undeclared war in Iraq.

There WAS a declaration of war in the War on Terror passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, and Ron Paul voted for it. The Iraq campaign of the War on Terror is as much a part of the War on Terror as the Normandy invasion was part of WW II and it was authorized by that declaration of war that Ron Paul voted for.

[Rhino]

There are only 3 things of importance here.

1. Ron Paul is entitled to his opinions, whatever they may be.

2. Ron Paul is entitled to voice said opinions in his quest for the Republican nomination. In fact, he's expected to voice them.

3. Americans are entitled not to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, based on those opinions. In fact, they're expected not to vote for him.

[organix]

3. Americans are entitled not to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, based on those opinions. In fact, they're expected not to vote for him.

All polls following the debate indicated otherwise. Ron Paul trumped every candidate by a wide margin. Whether his success survives in the long run, remains to be seen...

[DesertFox]

I don't know whose polls you've been reading, but Ron Paul lost any chance of a GOP nomination in that debate.

[pRIMrose]

Ron Paul is an idealist...his positions are firmly rooted in following the Constitution to the letter (to his credit). If you don't think so, you have no clue about his politics, nor what the Constitution states. Sadly, he also is denying the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves (to his shame). A situtation caused by our leaders NOT following the warnings of our Founding Fathers.

:urtheman:

While I am not a big fan of Ron Paul, and he is definitely not my idea of presidential material, he does understand the dynamics of government. He doesn't have the "silver tongue" of the front runners and let's his emotions betray his factual knowledge. I heard what he said, and I'm not defending him at all. I did hear him say that we were attacked on 9/11 because of our involvement in that region over the past 10 years. I didn't hear him say we "deserved" 9/11. If he did say that, explicitly, then shame on him. What I heard, and I may be wrong, is that 9/11 was a direct result of our meddling in foreign affairs. Whether you agree or not, this is factually true. The muslims hate us and they don't want us in the region. They have attempted many attacks on the US and US holdings, all over the world. So, technically, they are retaliating because we invaded their soverign territory. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just facts. Which explains why a Constitutionalist like Ron Paul would speak the unvarnished truth as he sees it, and how the rest of the world seems to view us too. There must be a reason we have become so unpopular.

That said, I supported our going to Afghanistan. And I supported going into Iraq. I've always supported this administration and thought I understood the reasons. However, as time has dragged on and excuse after excuse has been given for ineptness and "mistakes that have been made," I can see why many would begin to question our ability and understanding of this worsening situation. The changing of the guard and the fighting for funds in Congress have cast a pall over the entire operation and what could have succeeded may fail because our Congress is more interested in votes and getting re-elected than in doing what it would take to win this war.

The Republicans threw away their advantage in 2006 because of bad decisions and they are in the process of throwing away the Presidency in 2008 over the same thing.

Unless we are willing to dissect what is going on in this country and understand what issues to champion and which ones to put off for another day, the GOP may wander in the wilderness for another 40 years. It's our call and our's to lose. When 70% of the American people say they are dissatisfied with the direction we are going, and this when the economy is perking away and things couldn't seem better, something is definitely wrong.

I certainly hope we get it figured out before November 2008. I'm afraid playing "gotcha" games won't do it.

[noncom]

While I am not a big fan of Ron Paul, and he is definitely not my idea of presidential material, he does understand the dynamics of government. He doesn't have the "silver tongue" of the front runners and let's his emotions betray his factual knowledge. I heard what he said, and I'm not defending him at all. I did hear him say that we were attacked on 9/11 because of our involvement in that region over the past 10 years. I didn't hear him say we "deserved" 9/11. If he did say that, explicitly, then shame on him. What I heard, and I may be wrong, is that 9/11 was a direct result of our meddling in foreign affairs. Whether you agree or not, this is factually true. The muslims hate us and they don't want us in the region. They have attempted many attacks on the US and US holdings, all over the world. So, technically, they are retaliating because we invaded their soverign territory. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just facts. Which explains why a Constitutionalist like Ron Paul would speak the unvarnished truth as he sees it, and how the rest of the world seems to view us too. There must be a reason we have become so unpopular.
I'm pretty sure you don't need a "silver tongue" for any of this. What you're saying is convoluted, but it's not in the tiniest bit complicated: we didn't "deserve" 9/11; it just happened as a "direct result" of our "meddling;" the Muslims were "retaliating" because "we invaded their sovereign territory;" and the Constitution (somehow) tells you that all of this is "true."

There is nothing hard to understand about any of that. And contradicting yourself with every other sentence doesn't make what you're saying any more profound.

The problem is not that you, Ron Paul and the rest of the liberaltarians have heads full of incredibly incisive ideas, but an inability to clearly express them. The problem is just the opposite: You are saying exactly what you are thinking - and it's gibberish.

[pRIMrose]

You're entirely welcome oh grand poobah! You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. Is that plain enough?

[Lubbock]

Between noncom and Nut, and together, they ought to have their own syndicated radio and/or television talk show, and/or syndicated newspaper column. Sane, factual voices.

" . . . There must be a reason we have become so unpopular. . . . " pRIMrose.

Okay. That's the one I want to see one or the other of you --Nut or noncom, take apart and put back together.

I can't even begin to answer it, it hacks me off to the point that I become inarticulate. [Nut and noncom are pure logic, I'm pure emotion.]

To even suggest that it is the fault of United States of America, that we are so unpopular around the world makes me see red. Sets my hair on fire.

Large or small, our contributions to their existence is incalculable.

Tsunami or earthquake, who does the rest of the world call on?

Serial killer loose on the European Continent, who do they call on --the FBI, much maligned that it is, steps in, performs the forensics and nabs their killer [something not widely deciminated in the media, and unless you're in the law enforcement community, you wouldn't have any reason to know].

And very soon, the United States of America is going to be back on that benighted continent pulling their fat our of the fire, just as we did during the Blitz. Spilling blood.

How many billions of people around the world are breathing free air at this moment for no other reason than the United States of America exists?

But . . . . " . . . There must be a reason we have become so unpopular. . . . "

Give me a break!!!

There is a certain element here at FC who believe in isolationism. If you walk that back to it's logical conclusion, we would never have been . . .

. . . over paid, over sexed and over there . . .

And where would they be today if we hadn't been?

[Naturalized-Texan]

For some reason it seems that Ron Paul would welcome further 9/11-type terrorist attacks on American cities. If, in his warped mind, we deserved the 9/11 attacks, then it's logical to conclude that be believes that we deserve future terrorist attacks on American cities and the accompanying slaughter of millions, if not tens of millions, of innocent Americans.

He has also said that Iran and N. Korea are justified in developing nuclear weapons despite the fact that he knows very well that those weapons will certainly be used against the United States.

Ron Paul is as loony as Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, Charlie Sheen, Cindy Sheehan, Barbra Streisand, Jane Fonda, et al. He should be in a loony bin instead of running for president.

[noncom]

" . . . There must be a reason we have become so unpopular. . . . " pRIMrose.

Okay. That's the one I want to see one or the other of you --Nut or noncom, take apart and put back together.
Well, du-uh.

Is he demanding that terrorists justify their acts or be blown to Hell? Of course not. He's obviously demanding that we understand why their hatred toward us must - simply must - be justified, so that we may then repent all our evil ways.

Quit buying into the notion that there is some amazing deeper meaning here. No one in the world can go over that post and explain how it differs from what the terrorists and moonbats are saying.

That's because there isn't any difference.

How many billions of people around the world are breathing free air at this moment for no other reason than the United States of America exists?

But . . . . " . . . There must be a reason we have become so unpopular. . . . "
I think that answers the question right there. The Islamofascists have a really, really, good reason to hate and fear America.

The moonbats don't. But then again, having reasons isn't exactly their forte.

[Rhino]

All polls following the debate indicated otherwise. Ron Paul trumped every candidate by a wide margin. Whether his success survives in the long run, remains to be seen...I don't know whose polls you've been reading, but Ron Paul lost any chance of a GOP nomination in that debate.Elsewhere he has quoted MSNBC, ABC, and Fox. There's a few problems with that.

1. These polls are on the debate, not the election chances that we are discussing. Those are two very different things.

2. The MSNBC and ABC polls were online polls of viewers. Most MSNBC and ABC viewers are not Republicans, and online polls are not statistically significant. They even say that on their web sites.

3. The Fox poll showed Romney as the winner of the May 15 debate. They picked Rudy on the previous one. If they also did an online poll, then it's useless anyway.

4. Absolutely none of those news venues show Paul as a frontrunner. In fact, they don't show him as a runner at all. Nor do any other polls. Hence, my comments stand, and the polls do indeed show that Paul would get few, if any, votes.

[Tazeeyore]

Of course we didn't deserve it. But our foreign policy is absolutely even less than pathetic. I have to sincerely agree with Paul on that. As for us deserving it? That is an awful thing to say indeed. But again I must reiterate, Paul is DEAD ON about our policy. Perhaps if we had a true border lockdown and didn't let these towel heads in, the two towers would still be standing today. I can't help but believe that is the truth.

But Ron Paul as a serious candidate? No. Maybe Sec. of homeland security though.

Ron Paul is not qualified to be a sanitation engineer much less Sec of Homeland Security. Since he thinks we caused 9-11 I don't think I would want him involved in any way with national security or anything else. What policies are you refering to as being pathetic. Enlighten us before you are castigated for being anti-American and several other euphemisms.

[Timberwolf]

Man, pRIMrose...don'tcha just love it when people read what they want to read, instead of reading what ya post?

I guess the popular position is that, just because we cite the obvious about Paul, we SUPPORT what he says? Talk of grasping at straws...

btw - thank your for GETTING IT about what I was saying about the man

[noncom]

Of course we didn't deserve it. But our foreign policy is absolutely even less than pathetic.
Enlighten us before you are castigated for being anti-American and several other euphemisms.
Hehe. The moonbats know perfectly well how to give constructive advice. The rest of us just don't know how to properly READ it.

People like Ron Paul and Michael Moore have been saying what they're saying for years now:

"America didn't deserve 9/11; it just happened because of what America has done."
"There must be a good reason for people to hate America."
"We support the soldiers; we just oppose everything they do and wish to God they would stop doing it and go home."

The language moonbats speak is convoluted, but nothing about them will ever be complicated. As codes go, this isn't exactly the most secure system ever invented. No matter which one of their epithets you plug into the moonbat-to-English decoder ring, you always get the exact same "euphemism" out the other side.

[Naturalized-Texan]

On another thread, organix (from China) claimed that Ron Paul won the online viewer poll on MSNBC and ABC. In that thread I posted a partial list of Ron Paul supporters who were highly likely to have voted in those online viewer polls:

Cindy Sheehan, Ward Churchill, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, George Soros, John Murtha, Osama bin Laden, Charlie Sheen, B. Hussein Obama, Rosie O'Donnell, Hitlery Clinton, Barbra Streisand, Hasan Nasrallah, Jane Fonda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Teddy Kennedy.

[ConspiracyBuff]

I do agree with Ronnie boy that we should get the hell out of the UN. Thats about the smartest thing he has said.

[Timberwolf]

Something about a broken clock comes to mind....

[ConspiracyBuff]

Eh?

[Lubbock]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while.

[Timberwolf]

Yeah...but, I was referring to Tex's post not CB's.

[pRIMrose]

Man, pRIMrose...don'tcha just love it when people read what they want to read, instead of reading what ya post?

I guess the popular position is that, just because we cite the obvious about Paul, we SUPPORT what he says? Talk of grasping at straws...

btw - thank your for GETTING IT about what I was saying about the man

Hi Timber ~ sorry I didn't get back sooner. I had decided it was beneath me to get into a pissing contest with people who not only can't think, but can't read either.

I completely understood what you were saying and where you were coming from. Thanks, for taking time to READ what I said.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while.
Those are apt descriptions of Ron Paul's current positions. He's right on a few issues, but he is dead wrong about the War on Terror, by far the most important issue facing this nation. If we don't win the War on Terror, none of those other issues will matter because we will all either be dead or being forced to bow down to Mecca.

[Timberwolf]

Hi Timber ~ sorry I didn't get back sooner. I had decided it was beneath me to get into a pissing contest with people who not only can't think, but can't read either.
Amen. I think it's absolutely hilarious that the "holier-than-thou" types try to put words in others mouths. It IS frustrating though.

I completely understood what you were saying and where you were coming from. Thanks, for taking time to READ what I said.
You're more than welcome. It's the least ANYONE can do. It makes people seem less foolish when/if they will actually take the time to read what's posted instead of seeing what they want to see.

Now then, don't be such a stranger! Haven't seen 'round there here parts in a while!! :D

[noncom]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while.
Those are apt descriptions of Ron Paul's current positions.... If we don't win the War on Terror, none of those other issues will matter because we will all either be dead or being forced to bow down to Mecca.
There have always been lots of crazy people out there; that's not the end of the world - either literally or figuratively. The problem is when the lunatics insist on running the asylum. That is the fundamental issue, and I contend it is the ONLY issue that thinking people should be focused on.

Jihad, Shmeehad. It is irrelevant whether the psychopath in question happens to be wearing a towel on his head, demanding abortion rights for men, or screaming something about how the economic price index will kill us all... For all practical purposes, all of the moonbats are currently on the SAME side when it comes to American foreign policy; they are all making the SAME accusations against America; and they are all demanding that America do the SAME things.

Of course there will eventually be a problem when they figure out that they don't all want Sharia law, gay marriages, and a repeal of all drug and tax laws. But none of those things are burning issues RIGHT NOW. For the time being, in terms of America's foreign policy, the moonbats of the world are on exactly the same page. And each faction just sort of assumes that it will somehow end up on top once the fly in the ointment - America - has stopped being a factor on the international scene.

Make no mistake: the world is not fighting a bunch of battles between Christians and Muslims, or liberals and conservatives. The world is fighting a WAR between reason and the infinitely more natural mental processes that have ruled most of humankind for the vast majority of history.

We each need to pick a side in that war. The Democrat Party has staked out its position in absolutely no uncertain terms. The Republican Party will have to straighten out its battle lines as well, and the sooner we do that, the better.