Rudy Giuliani v. Ron Paul, and Reality

[organix]

Rudy Giuliani made clear in Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate that he is not ready to let the facts get in the way of his approach to foreign policy. The most heated moment in the debate, which aired live on the conservative Fox News network, came when the former New York mayor and current GOP front-runner angrily refused to entertain a serious discussion about the role that actions taken by the United States prior to the September 11, 2OO1, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon may have played in inspiring or encouraging those attacks.Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070516/cm_thenation/45195576

<script language="javascript">if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['WcJUD0SOxLg-']='&U=13b6kndmr%2fN%3dWcJUD0SOxLg-%2fC%3d578680.10657134.11290754.1442997%2fD%3dLREC %2fB%3d4570120'; </script><noscript>http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=ZXfegUSOwhWHiWbPRh2ONAioOyjXc0ZSghgABquN&T=1dtp6tg7t%2fX%3d1179812376%2fE%3d96796479%2fR%3d news%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d2 731021258%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdzIiBjb250ZW50PS JSZXB1YmxpY2FuO2RlYmF0ZTtuZXR3b3JrO3RlcnJvcmlzdDtU ZXJyb3Jpc3Q7TWlkZGxlIEVhc3Q7QW1lcmljYW47RGVtb2NyYX RpYzttaWxpdGFyeTtJcmFxO3BvbGl0aWNzO2l0O3RlcnJvcmlz bTtJdDtob21lO3JlZnVybF93d3dfeW91dHViZV9jb20iIHJlZn VybD0icmVmdXJsX3d3d195b3V0dWJlX2NvbSIgdG9waWNzPSJy ZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3lvdXR1YmVfY29tIg--%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d59C28E44&U=13b6kndmr%2fN%3dWcJUD0SOxLg-%2fC%3d578680.10657134.11290754.1442997%2fD%3dLREC %2fB%3d4570120</noscript>

[Republican_Legion]

Those are Republicans I dont care for.
Democrats can have them for all I care.

[cerebraldebris]

Those are Republicans I dont care for.
Democrats can have them for all I care.

:claps:

[organix]

Those are Republicans I dont care for.
Democrats can have them for all I care.

I highly doubt the Democrats would care to have either candidate on their side. Either way, you are missing the point of the article: that Giuliani (and many other Republicans) refuses to acknowledge the connection between our foreign policy and their hatred of America. It's extremely naive and irresponsible to ignore the facts on this matter. This short-sightedness, applied to foreign policy, only contributes to the problem. At least one Republican Candidate is standing up to challenge the party and its failed policy. Read more...

The 9-11 Commission report detailed how bin Laden had, in 1996, issued "his self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia" and identified that declaration and another in 1998 as part of "a long series" of statements objecting to U.S. military interventions in his native Saudi Arabia in particular and the Middle East in general. Statements from bin Laden and those associated with him prior to 9-11 consistently expressed anger with the U.S. military presence on the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people and U.S. support of Israel (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Israel).


The 9-11 Commission based its assessments on testimony from experts on terrorism and the Middle East. Asked about the motivations of the terrorists, FBI (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=FBI) Special Agent James Fitzgerald told the commission: "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States."


Fitzgerald's was not a lonely voice in the intelligence community.


Michael Scheuer, the former Central Intelligence Agency (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Central+Intelligence+Agency) specialist on bin Laden and al-Qaeda, has objected to simplistic suggestions byPresident Bush (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=President+Bush) and others that terrorists are motivated by an ill-defined irrational hatred of the United States. "The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people," Scheuer said in a CNN interview. "We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people." <input value="" name="sourceURL" type="hidden"> <input value="yq-news" name="fr" type="hidden"> <input value="Michael Scheuer, the former Central Intelligence Agency specialist on bin Laden and al-Qaeda, has objected to simplistic suggestions by President Bush and others that terrorists are motivated by an ill-defined irrational hatred of the United States. &quot;The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people,&quot; Scheuer said in a CNN interview. &quot;We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people.&quot;" name="context" type="hidden">
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070516/cm_thenation/45195576

[Lubbock]

What you fail to recognize, organix, is that this nation was attacked on September 11, 2001, by radical Muslim extremists --just 19 out of the thousands of radical Muslim extremists who have sworn to destroy the United States of America; indeed, have threatened to destroy Western Culture all together, and the vast majority of America is sick to death of the Blame America First crowd, of which you and Ron Paul seem to be leading the pack.

Due to the fact that you live in China [so you say], maybe you aren't even an American who has skin in the game; maybe you don't have any understanding of America or Americans, and maybe you're just here pushing Ron Paul in an effort to stir controvery and trouble.

Whatever your game is, I'm quite sick of you and your Liberal Ilk blaming this nation for every ill that has befallen the planet since Eve at the apple.

I put this question to you once before, and of course, like all good Liberals, you ignore what you chose to: How many people on this planet are breathing free air at this moment for no other reason than the United States of America exists?

[Rhino]

Rudy Giuliani v. Ron Paul, and RealityPoorly written title. It should have read:

Rudy Giuliani (Reality) v. Ron Paul (Fantasy)

Of course, one could easily substitute "Delusion" for "Fantasy".

[noncom]

..the former New York mayor and current GOP front-runner angrily refused to entertain a serious discussion about the role that actions taken by the United States prior to the September 11, 2OO1, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon may have played in inspiring or encouraging those attacks.
Those who refuse to learn from history ...are liberals.

OK, Organix is an complete blithering idiot, but even HE knows that Osama bin Ladin only ordered 9/11 because Clinton:
1) Refused to do absolutely everything he was told to do by the Islamofascists, and
2) Showed a complete lack of will by surrendering after a handful of deaths in Mogadishu.

That combination can never work. You have to pick one or the other. If you're going to appease, you have to go ALL THE WAY or not at all. There is no middle ground.

[Naturalized-Texan]

At least Giuliani is sane. Ron Paul isn't.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Those are Republicans I dont care for.
Democrats can have them for all I care.
Rudy is moderate to left of center, but he is hard-right on fighting terrorism and for that reason, he would not be welcome in the DemocRAT Party.

Ron Paul is hard left, so the DemocRAT Party would welcome him with open arms.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Those who refuse to learn from history ...are liberals.

OK, Organix is an complete blithering idiot, but even HE knows that Osama bin Ladin only ordered 9/11 because Clinton:
1) Refused to do absolutely everything he was told to do by the Islamofascists, and
2) Showed a complete lack of will by surrendering after a handful of deaths in Mogadishu.

That combination can never work. You have to pick one or the other. If you're going to appease, you have to go ALL THE WAY or not at all. There is no middle ground.
The terrorists were encouraged by the fact that BJ Clinton did absolutely nothing after 5 terrorist attacks on the U.S. that took place on his watch. In addition, Osama bin Laden was offered to BJ Clinton at least 3 times and BJ turned down the offer every time. Consequently, the terrorists were convinced that no matter what they did, no matter how viciously they attacked, we would not retaliate. THAT is the MAIN reason that they attacked us on 9/11/2001.

Thank God George W. Bush was president at the time. AlGore would have continued the Clinton policy of doing nothing and we would all by bowing to Mecca by now.

[organix]

What you fail to recognize, organix, is that this nation was attacked on September 11, 2001, by radical Muslim extremists --just 19 out of the thousands of radical Muslim extremists who have sworn to destroy the United States of America; indeed, have threatened to destroy Western Culture all together, and the vast majority of America is sick to death of the Blame America First crowd, of which you and Ron Paul seem to be leading the pack.

I'm quite aware of the 9/11 attacks, thank you. In order for terrorism to go away we must take responsibility for contributing to the problem, rather than denying it. This is a difficult, yet healthy, mature and sensible thing to do - the same as it is for any individual to admit any level of fault. Take a cold, hard, and honest look at the history of American foreign policy in the Middle East, and tell me that we have done nothing to incite them. You can't. It's already in the literature and in the government reports, etc. As Paul said, we ignore this at our own peril - which unfortunately results in fueling the fire of terrorism, the very thing we are trying to fight. Contradiction exemplified. America is not sick to death of the so called "blame America" crowd - America is sick to death of the war.

[organix]

OK, Organix is an complete blithering idiot

Let me counter with another childish name-calling assault on you while I hide behind the anonymity of the internet because I could never say this to your face: wait...

No thanks, I've got more class than that.

Learn some manners.

[noncom]

Learn some manners.
Yeah, I'll do that, just as soon as I agree with your constant claims that everyone here besides you is a retard.

Guess what, Einstein? We all know how to read. When you keep saying that America is "responsible" and "at fault" for "inciting" terrorism, but that you don't "blame" America, EVERYONE besides you understands exactly what you are saying. No one here except for you is the tiniest bit confused about that.

So repeating the same gibberish over and over and over again doesn't make it seem one tiny bit less crazy to anyone who doesn't live inside your head.

Oh, and by the way: that's also not a very polite thing to do either, you jackass.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I'm quite aware of the 9/11 attacks, thank you. In order for terrorism to go away we must take responsibility for contributing to the problem, rather than denying it. This is a difficult, yet healthy, mature and sensible thing to do - the same as it is for any individual to admit any level of fault. Take a cold, hard, and honest look at the history of American foreign policy in the Middle East, and tell me that we have done nothing to incite them. You can't.
Anyone who lives in the real world can easily see that we have done nothing to incite them. The fact is that, except for the complete lack of response to unprovoked terrorist attacks on BJ Clinton's watch, we have done nothing but defend ourselves from terrorist attacks since at least the 1970s. We have taken NO offensive actions against the terrorists, only defensive actions.

It's already in the literature and in the government reports, etc. As Paul said, we ignore this at our own peril - which unfortunately results in fueling the fire of terrorism, the very thing we are trying to fight.
Nonsense. That is nothing but far-left Big Lie Propaganda that Ron Paul has taken an active part in spreading.

Contradiction exemplified. America is not sick to death of the so called "blame America" crowd - America is sick to death of the war.
That is nothing more than more far-left Big Lie Propaganda. The only opposition to the War on Terror comes from the left-wing of the DemocRAT Party and the leftist-controlled media. According to unbiased polls, far more than a majority of the American people support the War on Terror and want us to win. The last such poll I've seen shows that 63% of the American people want us to win.

[Lubbock]

Waaaay before September 11, 2001, how many Muslims were breathing free air because the United States of Americas exists?

[Maybe if I narrow the field, I'll get an answer. I don't think so, but I'll give it a try.]

Here's the deal, and the point that the Left always misses when they join the Blame America First Society [which club, organix is apparently a Charter Member]: If the United States of America was a conquering nation, we would have had 99.9% of the Muslim population around the world living under our rule at this moment in time.

Doesn't anyone from the Left understand that the United States of America has no wish or desire to Rule another nation.

If we did, all of the European Continent would be speaking English at this moment.

Get it?

We're a nation that has gone along, minding our own business, growing and prospering, until called upon by the oppressed. That's when we gear up, load up, kiss the women and children goodbye, and go spill blood on foreign soil so that others can breathe free.

When it's over, we don't empower ourselves on a throne and rule the nation[s] we've freed. We help them bury their dead, wipe their tears, give them loans, help them rebuild their nations, prop them up, then we load up and come home.

Libs don't get it.

They don't get that Spilled-American-Blood-So-That-Others-Can-Live-Free part.

[noncom]

If the United States of America was a conquering nation, we would have had 99.9% of the Muslim population around the world living under our rule at this moment in time.
Just like we did in Kuwait. Oh, yeah, we were all a bunch of rampaging Crusaders there, all right. Even worse, we evily refuse to allow the extinction of the cursed nation of Israel. And why? When giving Islam that one tiny, county-sized, speck of land would cause the Jihaddists to finally give up this silly little forteen-hundred-year-old notion of destroying all infidels.

The libs agree wholeheartedly with the Islamofascists: as long as the stench of infidels is "contaminating" the otherwise pure air of any land earmarked for Allah, there can be no peace.

And who was it that CAUSED the horrible injustice which so desperately needs to be righted? And who must be forced to STOP doing the horrible, awful terrible things they're doing so that there can finally be justice, peace and progress in the Middle East?

Again, the libs and terrorists are in complete accord: the simple fact that we are THERE is in itself an atrocity.

[Republican_Legion]

Rudy is moderate to left of center, but he is hard-right on fighting terrorism and for that reason, he would not be welcome in the DemocRAT Party.

Ron Paul is hard left, so the DemocRAT Party would welcome him with open arms.

No they wouldnt. They wouldnt let a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax person into the Democrat party. They would welcome Rudy liked they have Lieberman who is pro-war.

[Naturalized-Texan]

No they wouldnt. They wouldnt let a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax person into the Democrat party. They would welcome Rudy liked they have Lieberman who is pro-war.
Since Ron Paul has aligned himself with the hate-America left with his votes to surrender to the terrorists, I'm sure that the Dims would welcome him with open arms. Surrendering to the terrorist is by far THE most important issue to the Dims, so they'll gladly overlook that he is a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax person (if he still is, which I doubt).

[Timberwolf]

Gosh golly gee whiz...I wonder how WE would respond to a foreign entity meddling in OUR affairs...UNINVITED...just because the Republicans and Democrats were feuding and said feud threatened the free flow of oil to the rest of the world. And we'd been putting up with it for over 25 years.

Hmmmmm...yeah, we wouldn't like it too much.

We need to ramp up extraction here at home...China's been using American-developed tech to extract crude from oil shale for 30 years.

We need to militantly tell the environazis to "take a powder" or else.

We need to build nuclear power plants, oil refineries and reduce the number of gasoline formulas to about 10-15 rather than the insane number we presently have.

We need to take care of bidness here at home and tell the rest of the world to go to hell.

Sad fact of the matter is we are involved in FOREIGN affairs up to our friggin' eyeballs and THAT is merely ONE of the factors contributing to 9/11...there are plenty of others. Envy, greed, fanaticism, hate, fear, etc are among the others.

So sorry to be telling the truth...yeah, it bugs me to no end, but the truth is the truth. Sadly, the fact of the matter is the Founders were right, we should NOT be involving ourselves in the matters of foreign countries. Unless a direct threat to our national security is very real. Until recently, that was not the case.

[Timberwolf]

Tex, you're so blinded by party loyalty, you wouldn't recognize proper decorum (on the world stage) if it bit you on the keister. You also can't see the forest for the trees. The Pubbies are selling us out as are the democreeps...they're just going about it in a different fashion.

Until you and others (who I KNOW truly love this country) wake up to that sad reality, we're toast.

Ron Paul has aligned himself with the Founding Fathers vision for our country and the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately, to get the country back to 'operating' Constitutionally, it will take about 30-40 years of "baby steps" as, to do it all in one fell swoop would destabilize not only the ME, but the entire world economy and likely create such havoc, here at home, it would destroy America.

[Timberwolf]

Waaaay before September 11, 2001, how many Muslims were breathing free air because the United States of Americas exists?
I don't know, nor do I care.

How many muzzies give a rosy rats rear about their freedom? Apparently, not too terribly many, since the "moderates" outnumber the "fanatics" by 9-1.

[Maybe if I narrow the field, I'll get an answer. I don't think so, but I'll give it a try.]
Narrow it all you want, my answer likely won't change.

Here's the deal, and the point that the Left always misses when they join the Blame America First Society [which club, organix is apparently a Charter Member]: If the United States of America was a conquering nation, we would have had 99.9% of the Muslim population around the world living under our rule at this moment in time.
I guess I fall into that category too. This has nothing to do with "if America were a conquering nation", it has to do with "if the USA minded its own business and kept to itself except in the rare occassion our national security was threatened".

Doesn't anyone from the Left understand that the United States of America has no wish or desire to Rule another nation.
I'm not a leftist, so I cannot anwer that question. Besides, the question is irrelevent.

If we did, all of the European Continent would be speaking English at this moment.

Get it?
Yeah, it's called distraction from the topic. The question is, "Is America's foreign policy CONSTITUTIONAL and did our own actions (over the past 25-30 years) contribute to our being attacked 6+ years ago?".

We're a nation that has gone along, minding our own business,
That's a joke, right?

growing and prospering, until called upon by the oppressed.
Ummmm...no. Until WE see what WE think is oppression. That still is none of our business, AS A COUNTRY. Individually, we have a duty to try and alleviate that oppression/suffering through charity.

That's when we gear up, load up, kiss the women and children goodbye, and go spill blood on foreign soil so that others can breathe free.
And invite the scorn of those who don't want us there in the first place. Do you realize how terribly imperialistic you sound? Nah, didn't think so.

What give us the RIGHT to impose OUR sense of "right", "moral" and "free" upon anyone?

When it's over, we don't empower ourselves on a throne and rule the nation[s] we've freed. We help them bury their dead, wipe their tears, give them loans, help them rebuild their nations, prop them up, then we load up and come home.
And wait for them to bite us on the ass, the first chance they get.

Libs don't get it.
Nor do you.

They don't get that Spilled-American-Blood-So-That-Others-Can-Live-Free part.
Who died and made us God? Who appointed US the world's police force?

[noncom]

Since Ron Paul has aligned himself with the hate-America left with his votes to surrender to the terrorists, I'm sure that the Dims would welcome him with open arms. Surrendering to the terrorist is by far THE most important issue to the Dims, so they'll gladly overlook that he is a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax person (if he still is, which I doubt).
Even the pro-gun and anti-tax things won't matter to the Democratic Caucus. They know he's such a psycho that he can never have the slightest affect on any legislation.

But lately, the Democrat Party's stock-in-trade is psychosis. They feed off the energy of their moonbats, and Ron Paul would fill that niche perfectly.

Of course, this is all a moot point: he's doing the Democrats a lot more good right where he is than he could ever do from within their ranks.

[noncom]

Gosh golly gee whiz...I wonder how WE would respond to a foreign entity meddling in OUR affairs...UNINVITED...
Excellent point. It's no fun at all to just take the things that moonbats say and point out where they're wrong. It's usually as simple as changing a "yes" to a "no," or an "always" to a "never."

What's a lot more fun is to take the lunacy they spout, assume that it makes sense, and then try to warp the world to fit around their rhetoric. For example, if George Bush had invaded FRANCE instead of Iraq, I personally might just chuckle, but I could at least imagine how a sane person could throw a fit over it.

But when one of the psychos tries to put himself in the place of IRAQ's citizens, and tries to tell us all he would be happy to live under a totalitarian government, and that he would violently oppose any effort to remove his favorite dictator... That, my friends, is entertainment.

[TheUndertaker]

Ron Paul is right, at least in one regard. America's foreign policy has undoubtedly made it more hated by Muslims around the world.

This doesn't mean I think America deserved what happened to it. If I saw a woman getting bashed up by a few youths, and I rushed into help, I have put myself into harms way. It doesn't mean I deserve to be attacked! I am doing what I feel is right.

America by integrating itself into middle eastern politics, and in particular helping out Israel is most certainly not a bad thing! Yet these actions did pave the way for the 9/11 attacks. America didn't deserve it , and what you do after these attacks is where I and Ron Paul differ.

Watching Ron Paul on that fox news debate it struck me that he would make a fantastic president.........for the 19th century. Both with his economic AND foreign policy views. Back in the 19th century, as long as you had a reasonably powerful army, as long as you weren't looking to colonize African countries you were not going to find yourself in a War. In this environment, an isolationist policy makes perfect sense. It does not make sense in the 21st century.

There are many reasons, i feel, why the isolationist policy won't work now. I think just giving one reason is sufficient for now....

The countries that had the potential to attack you back in the 19th century were 'civilized'. They realize that there is no point using their military if there is no gain in it for them. As long as you stay out of their affairs then you don't matter to them. This is not true for the terrorists. There is no reasoning with them. They want to destroy any nation which fails to live under strict Islamic law. And America, given their foreign policy, has certainly helped stir up sympathy and recruits for this goal from your typical Muslim which led to 9/11.

Ron Paul thinks that if you leave these terrorists alone, they will leave you alone. Nonsense! Pandora's Box has been opened and there is no closing it. Isolating yourself from the rest of the world is going to be seen as a sign of weakness by these guys. It will encourage these guys, knowing that they can defeat the 'Great Evil'. Only by going out and confronting these terrorists head on, will you he able to keep this threat under control.

[Timberwolf]

Excellent point. It's no fun at all to just take the things that moonbats say and point out where they're wrong. It's usually as simple as changing a "yes" to a "no," or an "always" to a "never."

What's a lot more fun is to take the lunacy they spout, assume that it makes sense, and then try to warp the world to fit around their rhetoric. For example, if George Bush had invaded FRANCE instead of Iraq, I personally might just chuckle, but I could at least imagine how a sane person could throw a fit over it.

But when one of the psychos tries to put himself in the place of IRAQ's citizens, and tries to tell us all he would be happy to live under a totalitarian government, and that he would violently oppose any effort to remove his favorite dictator... That, my friends, is entertainment.
It is quite entertaining, also, to see you twist words the way you do.

Nice "pick & choose" job ya did there...now, try reading for "context" instead of "soundbite".

You're truly priceless. I'm laughing AT you in your utter cluelessness.

[noncom]

...now, try reading for "context" instead of "soundbite".
This, too, makes absolutely perfect sense -- as long as we assume that there is no such thing as "reality", and all that matters is how the speaker FEELS about whatever bile spews out of his mouth or keyboard.

Seriously though, notice how *I* am supposed to pay absolute attention to each and every ultimately important syllable the psycho utters. But, is that really fair? I mean, do you think that even he himself has been paying attention to his own drivel?

If I asked him to go through all of that rabid gibberish to find the part that differs from what all the leftist moonbats are saying, could he do it?

[Timberwolf]

If you HAD a single clue as to what the intent of the Founders was, and how closely Paul has followed their 'directives' throughout his political career, you would refrain from asking such vaccuous questions.

To call the ideas and intents of the Founders of this great nation "gibberish" and refer to a guy who holds fast to those ideals a "psycho" is to call not only your sanity, but also your credibility, into question, not his.

Again, the broken clock comes to mind...even a leftist moonbat can be right occassionally. The problem is (as I've stated numerous times), Paul is not basing his comments in the context of the situation at hand. His only mistake is wanting (I think) immediate withdrawl. That is a position we cannot support.

We DO need to extricate ourselves from foreign affairs - completely. As I've also stated, that will likely take 20-30 (and possibly 40) years. But, if we are to honor, uphold and protect our Constitution, the effort must be undertaken.

[Timberwolf]

Now then...answer the question.

Were the roles reversed, and a foreign entity was meddling in our political affairs because an ongoing feud between the 'R' and the 'D' was putting the free flow of oil at risk, how would WE respond to such interference?

I think the response would swift, overwhelming and decisive...and those sticking their nose in OUR business would not want to do so again...EVER.

[noncom]

To call the ideas and intents of the Founders of this great nation "gibberish" and refer to a guy who holds fast to those ideals a "psycho" is to call not only your sanity, but also your credibility, into question, not his.
ME: "Dude, I hate to break it to you but I think you might have a few bats in the belfry..."

TW: "How DARE you call George Washington crazy!"

Oh yeah, you sure showed us all who the nutjob is around here!

[ConspiracyBuff]

Whats all this over the edge stuff, jeez, feel like I'm having a bad dream where I'm about to fall off a cliff.

[organix]

This video contains a few specific quotes from the 9/11 report, directly citing American foreign policy as a motivation for the attacks: http://youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg

You can't deny what was said in the report. The FBI & CIA know a lot more than you do, and I'll take their word for it.

[organix]

Furthermore, for what it's worth, quoted from Wikipedia:

"President Bush says, "They hate ... a democratically elected government. ... They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion), our freedom of speech (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech), our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." (President George W. Bush (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush)) Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html) Bin Laden says, "the White House hiding the Truth ... the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries (Arabian Peninsula)." <sup id="_ref-62" class="reference">[89] (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_attack#_note-62)

</sup> Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer) has bluntly stated that politicians are lying to the American people about the terrorists' motives, "The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people." Lou Dobbs CNN (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/07/ldt.01.html)

During the 9/11 Commission hearings, Vice Chair Lee Hamilton asked, "What motivated them to do it?" FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald answered, "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States." 9/11 Commission testimony June 16, 2004 (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing12/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-06-16.htm)

Jason Burke (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Burke), author of Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam, makes the point that, "Bin Laden is an activist with a very clear sense of what he wants and how he hopes to achieve it. Those means may be far outside the norms of political activity as we usually understand it, but his agenda is a basically political one, though it is couched, of course, in religious language and imagery." He says bin Laden's aim is "to end the repression of the Islamic world by the hypocrite governments and the 'Crusader-Zionist' alliance supporting and manipulating them." <sup id="_ref-Burke_0" class="reference">[90] (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_attack#_note-Burke)

</sup> Counter-terrorism (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-terrorism) expert Richard A. Clarke (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke), says to understand why America was targeted we need to remember foreign policies of the last 25 years. Policies of "confronting Moscow in Afghanistan, inserting the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf," and "strengthening Israel as a base for a southern flank against the Soviets."<sup id="_ref-Clarke_0" class="reference">[91]" (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_attack#_note-Clarke)</sup>

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_attack

[Rhino]

In other words, if they simply hate us for who we are, you think that makes us responsible when they attack us. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. :question:

[Lubbock]

That's a joke, right organix? Lou Dobbs? Richard Clarke? The 9/11 Report?

You're just joking.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Gosh golly gee whiz...I wonder how WE would respond to a foreign entity meddling in OUR affairs...UNINVITED...just because the Republicans and Democrats were feuding and said feud threatened the free flow of oil to the rest of the world. And we'd been putting up with it for over 25 years.

Hmmmmm...yeah, we wouldn't like it too much.
Your "question" is based on the false premise that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror. It's impossible to answer a question that is based on a false premise.

The invasion of Iraq was every bit as essential to winning the War on Terror as the D-Day Normandy invasion was essential to winning World War II. After all, Saddam Hussein harbored, trained, armed, and financed terrorists, including al Qaeda terrorists and there is powerful circumstantial evidence that the 9/11 terrorists were trained at Salman Pak, 25 miles south of Baghdad.

Anyone who denies, as Ron Paul does, that the invasion of Iraq was completely justified by the 9/11 terrorist attacks is living in a fantasy world.

We need to ramp up extraction here at home...China's been using American-developed tech to extract crude from oil shale for 30 years.

We need to militantly tell the environazis to "take a powder" or else.

We need to build nuclear power plants, oil refineries and reduce the number of gasoline formulas to about 10-15 rather than the insane number we presently have.

We need to take care of bidness here at home and tell the rest of the world to go to hell.
Agreed, but that has nothing to do with the War on Terror that we have been forced to fight in Iraq and elsewhere, so it is irrelevant to the current discussion.

Sad fact of the matter is we are involved in FOREIGN affairs up to our friggin' eyeballs and THAT is merely ONE of the factors contributing to 9/11...there are plenty of others. Envy, greed, fanaticism, hate, fear, etc are among the others.
We had no choice but to fight the War on Terror. We were forced into it by the 9/11 attacks. If we surrender in the War on Terror, as Ron Paul wants, that surrender will endanger the lives of every American and could easily result in the slaughter of millions, if not tens of millions, of innocent Americans, including our children and grandchildren. Does Ron Paul even care that that will be the ultimate result of the surrender he wants so badly?

So sorry to be telling the truth...yeah, it bugs me to no end, but the truth is the truth. Sadly, the fact of the matter is the Founders were right, we should NOT be involving ourselves in the matters of foreign countries. Unless a direct threat to our national security is very real. Until recently, that was not the case.
There is no way that the Founding Fathers would want us to just sit back and be slaughtered by our enemies. They would certainly want us to fight back as we are in the War on Terror, wherever that war takes us. Remember, Thomas Jefferson (a Founding Father) sent U.S. Marines to the shores of Tripoli to stop the piracy against our merchant ships. I'm sure that he would have taken the same actions that President Bush has taken since the 9/11 attacks.

EDIT: Terrorism has been a direct and REAL threat to our national security since long before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. We have no choice but to defend ourselves, hence the War on Terror.

[Naturalized-Texan]

That's a joke, right organix? Lou Dobbs? Richard Clarke? The 9/11 Report?

You're just joking.
No one should be surprised that a hate-America leftist from China is supporting a hate-America leftist in America.

[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=553501#post553501)
Gosh golly gee whiz...I wonder how WE would respond to a foreign entity meddling in OUR affairs...UNINVITED...just because the Republicans and Democrats were feuding and said feud threatened the free flow of oil to the rest of the world. And we'd been putting up with it for over 25 years.

Hmmmmm...yeah, we wouldn't like it too much.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Your "question" is based on the false premise that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror. It's impossible to answer a question that is based on a false premise.
Wrong...try again.

The invasion of Iraq was every bit as essential to winning the War on Terror as the D-Day Normandy invasion was essential to winning World War II. After all, Saddam Hussein harbored, trained, armed, and financed terrorists, including al Qaeda terrorists and there is powerful circumstantial evidence that the 9/11 terrorists were trained at Salman Pak, 25 miles south of Baghdad.

Anyone who denies, as Ron Paul does, that the invasion of Iraq was completely justified by the 9/11 terrorist attacks is living in a fantasy world.
We didn't KNOW Iraq was ever involved in the 9/11 attack when hostilities were resumed. All we 'knew' was that 19 out of 20 of the terrorist were SAUDI ARABIANS. So, why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia instead?

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">We need to ramp up extraction here at home...China's been using American-developed tech to extract crude from oil shale for 30 years.

We need to militantly tell the environazis to "take a powder" or else.

We need to build nuclear power plants, oil refineries and reduce the number of gasoline formulas to about 10-15 rather than the insane number we presently have.

We need to take care of bidness here at home and tell the rest of the world to go to hell. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Agreed, but that has nothing to do with the War on Terror that we have been forced to fight in Iraq and elsewhere, so it is irrelevant to the current discussion.
Wrong again. It has EVERYTHING to do with the WoT. We are in the ME because we have refused to develop our domestic reserves of crude oil and find ourselves needing to 'protect our (and others) supply of oil'. Were we to have no dependence upon ME oil, we wouldn't have to be there POLICING the area.

Capice, Guido?

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">Sad fact of the matter is we are involved in FOREIGN affairs up to our friggin' eyeballs and THAT is merely ONE of the factors contributing to 9/11...there are plenty of others. Envy, greed, fanaticism, hate, fear, etc are among the others. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
We had no choice but to fight the War on Terror. We were forced into it by the 9/11 attacks. If we surrender in the War on Terror, as Ron Paul wants, that surrender will endanger the lives of every American and could easily result in the slaughter of millions, if not tens of millions, of innocent Americans, including our children and grandchildren. Does Ron Paul even care that that will be the ultimate result of the surrender he wants so badly?
Of course we have a choice. That choice is to actually go after the country responsible for CREATING the terrorists! You, me and everyone reading this knows full well that country is Saudi Arabia. Mind you, Afghanistan harbors the mastermind behind the plan, so we need to be there.

And, I don't care if Paul knows his butt from a hole in the ground...I've repeatedly stated that I do not agree with his support of immediate withdrawl, a premise apparently lost on those "holier-than-thou" types who read/hear what they wanna read/hear.

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">So sorry to be telling the truth...yeah, it bugs me to no end, but the truth is the truth. Sadly, the fact of the matter is the Founders were right, we should NOT be involving ourselves in the matters of foreign countries. Unless a direct threat to our national security is very real. Until recently, that was not the case. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
There is no way that the Founding Fathers would want us to just sit back and be slaughtered by our enemies.
There ya go puttin' words in people's mouths again. You seem to be quite adept at doing that...you sure you're not a liberal?

They would certainly want us to fight back as we are in the War on Terror, wherever that war takes us. Remember, Thomas Jefferson (a Founding Father) sent U.S. Marines to the shores of Tripoli to stop the piracy against our merchant ships. I'm sure that he would have taken the same actions that President Bush has taken since the 9/11 attacks.
Sure, Tripolian(?) pirates were attacking our ships...so that means Jefferson should've sent our Marines to Nigeria or Sierra Leone, right?

EDIT: Terrorism has been a direct and REAL threat to our national security since long before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. We have no choice but to defend ourselves, hence the War on Terror.
Since when?

Tell ya what...I'm going to start a new thread, cuz I just found a gem from the Cato Institute.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Timberwolf: You can't be serious. Or have you just been brainwashed by the left-wing media? You are certainly parroting liberal media talking points over and over and over again, ad nauseum, just like Ron Paul does. :question: :rolleyes:

[Timberwolf]

Then you're not reading what I'm posting. In fact, you've been pretty much assuming much. READ what's posted.

btw - Here's the link (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=553871#post553871) to the thread I started in the WoT forum.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Then you're not reading what I'm posting. In fact, you've been pretty much assuming much. READ what's posted.

btw - Here's the link (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=553871#post553871) to the thread I started in the WoT forum.
Why do you keep parroting the liberal line? Everything you have posted in this thread could have been posted by John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Teddy Kennedy, et al.

Also, why do you think that Mr. Richman's opinions have any more validitythan the facts presented by Stephen F. Hayes in the following links?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp?pg=1
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/990ieqmb.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/167gwjtp.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/339finwc.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/327igxby.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

Or the Wall Street Journal?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005353
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002149

Or John Perazzo?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7636

Or Richard Miniter?

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

Or Amir Taheri?

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-taheri061303.asp

Or Inigo Gilmore?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/27/ixnewstop.html

Or Deroy Murdock?

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock040703.asp

Or Robert Kagan & William Kristol?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/236jmcbd.asp

Or Scott Wheeler?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/10/4/141421.shtml

[Naturalized-Texan]

TW: Do you ever read what YOU write? If you did, you would easily see that it reads pretty much like the talking points about the War on Terror that Howard Dean and George Soros distribute to the liberal media and the Democrat leaders in Congress. You even parrot Dean’s and Soros’s ridiculous lie that the invasion of Iraq was not part of the War on Terror.

I know that you’re not a liberal so that places your support of Ron Paul’s vote to surrender to the terrorists in the War on Terror waaaayyyy beyond my ability to comprehend. Your feeble attempt to invoke the Constitution and the Founding Fathers to explain that support is ludicrous, at best. The Constitution is not a suicide pact and the Founding Fathers would never surrender in a war in which the very survival of our nation is at stake. They would fight to the death to defend this nation.

Ron Paul and the other 170 House members who voted to surrender to the terrorists in the War on Terror gave aid and comfort to our enemies in a time of war and thereby encouraged the terrorists to step up their efforts to kill our troops. If Ron Paul and the others ever manage to get enough votes to force the surrender in the War on Terror, we will see the slaughter of millions, if not tens of millions, of innocent Americans, including our children and grandchildren.

I had better stop now before I say something that I’ll regret. This is my last post in this thread. However, I will continue to expose Ron Paul’s failure to support our troops and his efforts to surrender to the terrorists, but not in this thread.

[Timberwolf]

I've decided that we, the United States, had better start following the precepts of our Founders. To do otherwise is to invite problems.

Nothing more, nothing less. If that means that I'm "siding with Hitlery, Schumer, and Murtha", makes no difference to me. I've repeatedly stated that we must finish what we've begun in the ME and AS SOON AS IT IS FEASIBLE TO DO SO, we must extricate ourselves from the region.

If that is too hard for you to fathom, too bad. Getting ourselves mixed up in the affairs of other countries while ignoring the sinking ship, here at home, is a fool's errand (to be quite kind).

So, continue to spout your nonsense...I wash my hands of you and your "toeing the party line".

[Rhino]

Can't you guys just agree to disagree and move on? :D

[The_Elucidator]

Can't you guys just agree to disagree and move on? :D

Yes Please... This stupid thread gave me a freakin' headache!! Especially Orgazmo's BS... Quoting from BSapedia!

[omegatrump]

What Timberwolf said

[Nutrider99]

From the link:

Speaking of extremists who target the U.S, Paul said, "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting."

Let me remind people what the reality is. Radical islamists are not committing acts of terrorism and murder because we are in the Middle East, we are in the Middle East because radical Islamists are committing acts of terrorism and murder. That is what they do. It's who they are. The FACT is that over 20 countries have been targeted by Islamic terrorists. Remember what happened when clintoon pulled out of Somalia?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/progress/attacking.html

Since September 11, 2001, 209 of the 212 countries and jurisdictions in the world have expressed their support for the financial war on terror; 173 countries have issued orders to freeze the assets of terrorists; .... Over 100 countries have introduced new terrorist-related legislation, and 84 countries have established Financial Intelligence Units.

Islam is a terrorist religion. It's founder was a terrorist. Murder and evil are fundamental components of its teachings. By liberating Iraq we are not only demonstrating to the oppressed people of the Middle east that they can be free if they simply throw off the Islamists oppressing them, we are also bringing religious freedoms to a damned people. Paris was attacked by the Islamists and French Prime Minister Jean Pierre-Raffirin once said, "The Iraqi insurgents are our greatest allies." You cannot negotiate with madmen. They kill because they are a religion of murderers, thieves and hate-filled evil men. Why the HELL should we give them Iraq after we fought to liberate it?

[noncom]

Radical islamists are not committing acts of terrorism and murder because we are in the Middle East, we are in the Middle East because radical Islamists are committing acts of terrorism and murder.
QFT

[Naturalized-Texan]

Nutrider:
:claps::claps::claps::claps::claps::claps::claps:
:thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Can't you guys just agree to disagree and move on? :D
:flame: It pisses me off that there are moonbats in the Senate and the House who are threatening the lives of my family by voting to surrender to the terrorists. How anyone, particularly a conservative, can support any of those moonbats is beyond my comprehension. :flame:

[Timberwolf]

:flame: It pisses me off that there are moonbats in the Senate and the House who are threatening the lives of my family by voting to surrender to the terrorists. How anyone, particularly a conservative, can support any of those moonbats is beyond my comprehension. :flame:
And there ya go, in your blinded narcissism, ignoring what I've been saying.

Be pissed at the US gov't for caving into the enviropsychos and not developing our domestic reserves, building oil refineries and nuclear power plants, not me. I'm only pointing out the failings of our own gov't. Failings, which btw, make it NECESSARY for us to "protect our interests" in the ME. We NEED crude or our economy, right along with the rest of the world, collapses. That would not be the case had we been developing our known domestic reserves, the ability to refine them, and nuke power.

So, enough of your nonsense. I've REPEATEDLY stated that I disagree with Paul's stance of immediate withdrawl. Get that through that thick head of yours. Your mewling is quite pathetic.

[Jack_Savage]

Either way, you are missing the point of the article: that Giuliani (and many other Republicans) refuses...Organix








I think you miss the point. We as a group need to mount-up and ride to the sound of the gunfire even tho Pat Buchanan isn't since he joined MSNBC. We gotta quit riding side-saddle complaining about personal issues.

"Its easier to ride the horse in the direction its going!" (Werner Erhardt)

We are at war!

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I think you miss the point. We as a group need to mount-up and ride to the sound of the gunfire even tho Pat Buchanan isn't since he joined MSNBC. We gotta quit riding side-saddle complaining about personal issues.

"Its easier to ride the horse in the direction its going!" (Werner Erhardt)

We are at war!


I'M not riding the horse to H-E-double-toothpicks, whether it be fast (Democrats) or slow (RINO's). I'M for turning the horse around because the dog-gone thing is going in the WRONG DIRECTION!

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I'm not posing "righteous rhetoric"; it's not ME who's left the train! It's all those willing to ride the RINO mobile instead of standing strong and firm for a REAL Conservative candidate. It's been proven, Conservatism WINS. I will NOT support a RINO just because he acted appropriately on one ocassion (9/11).

I want this country back, and compromising principles in the "name" of the lesser of two evils is NOT going to achieve that goal. ONLY refusing to settle for the above will we force this country back on the right track.

Perhaps you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I'm sure you're tired of hearing those of us who want a Conservative or no other, just as I'm sick and tired of having Rudy thrown down my throat and being accused of wanting the Democrats to win.

[Nutrider99]

It's been proven, Conservatism WINS. I will NOT support a RINO just because he acted appropriately on one ocassion (9/11).
The problem is, there are no true conservatives running. Thompson comes the closest.

I want this country back, and compromising principles in the "name" of the lesser of two evils is NOT going to achieve that goal.
Winning elections has to be first. Put a conservative in charge and give him a congress with balls to back him. In the case of a someone like President Bush, you need a larger core of conservatives to help keep his policies conservative. I'd still take a center right conservative over a center left liberal any day.

ONLY refusing to settle for the above will we force this country back on the right track.
That leaves us voting for nobody, which elects hillary.
Perhaps you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I'm sure you're tired of hearing those of us who want a Conservative or no other, just as I'm sick and tired of having Rudy thrown down my throat and being accused of wanting the Democrats to win.
We all want a conservative. Unfortunately, Reagan and John Wayne are dead. Maybe if we elect the most conservative candidates available more conservatives will stick their heads out of the ground and come forward.

[dPrasse]

We all want a conservative. Unfortunately, Reagan and John Wayne are dead. Maybe if we elect the most conservative candidates available more conservatives will stick their heads out of the ground and come forward.

Agreed ... that is why I am a Thompson or nothing supporter at this time ...

In negotiations , one never says up front what the "least I'll settle for" point is ...

I sure won't tell the RINO power brokers that I'll settle for RINO A,B or C in the end ... the power weenies want my vote in November ??

They'd best be listening to TW ,Homes , Laz , and others like us ... We want the RINO's to sweat ...

We want them to know that they are seen by us as just one little tic better than the Democrats ...

The problem Conservative Activism ??

We're too busy working , raising families to be full time "Sharptons, Jacksons, Moore's and Clintons ....

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Maybe if we elect the most conservative candidates available more conservatives will stick their heads out of the ground and come forward.

Bull ca-ca. If we continue to accept unacceptable candidates, the only thing we will get is the watering down of the party/ideology. It's the real thing, or nothing. Until the party proper sees we will NOT accept anyone LESS than a Conservative, only then will they begin to change the party. Either that, or we'll have to leave the party OF the RINO's TO the RINO's. When one wants wine, they don't accept a glass of 3 parts wine to 1 part urine, and waiting longer and/or adding more urine ISN'T going to produce a pure glass of wine.

[Nutrider99]

Bull ca-ca. If we continue to accept unacceptable candidates, the only thing we will get is the watering down of the party/ideology. It's the real thing, or nothing.
Since there are no conservatives on the ticket you should get used to the idea of saying President Hillary Clinton.

Until the party proper sees we will NOT accept anyone LESS than a Conservative, only then will they begin to change the party.
There are no conservatives running. It's the center right VS the extreme left. We have a better chance with conservative congressmen. It's either that or we hand control of this country to its greatest enemies.

I DO blame Bush for this. He was sooooo conciliatory that he REFUSED to prosecute the useless bastards who sold out our country for illegal contributions from the Chinese government, and refused to prosecute hillary for multiple counts of perjury.

Either that, or we'll have to leave the party OF the RINO's TO the RINO's.
And the country to the democreeps???

When one wants wine, they don't accept a glass of 3 parts wine to 1 part urine, and waiting longer and/or adding more urine ISN'T going to produce a pure glass of wine.
However, electing democreeps WILL cause hundreds of thousands of deaths in the Middle East, the loss of American support in the WOT, and massive attacks on our soil by the islamists with whom we will try and negotiate.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Since there are no conservatives on the ticket you should get used to the idea of saying President Hillary Clinton.

And if that DOES happen, then the next Congressional election you'll see a sweeping victory for Conservatives. You'll see an upsurge in citizen participation in overthrowing a ruthless government, because they will recognize it for what it IS, instead of having their ears tickled by RINO's and Republican impostors.

Change usually requires pain. Just ask those brave souls who stood up to imperial tyranny at the American Revolution.

[Jack_Savage]

The problem is, there are no true conservatives running. Thompson comes the closest.


Winning elections has to be first. Put a conservative in charge and give him a congress with balls to back him. In the case of a someone like President Bush, you need a larger core of conservatives to help keep his policies conservative. I'd still take a center right conservative over a center left liberal any day.


That leaves us voting for nobody, which elects hillary.

We all want a conservative. Unfortunately, Reagan and John Wayne are dead. Maybe if we elect the most conservative candidates available more conservatives will stick their heads out of the ground and come forward.
I agree with you. The one thing that is hard for me to accept is when I screw up. I have done it lots of times. When I look around todays landscape, its pretty clear conservatives have screwed up. Not that they intended to but they did never the less. We have been ineffective with getting the job done, big time. What did we do when Newt was under attack? Not much. What did we do when Bush was attacked, performed real bad. What did we do, those of us who live in Ma. ? Horrible. we couldn't even get rid of a radical "gay" member of congress who's lover ran a call-boy operation out of the condo they shared.

On the other hand a small group of freaks were able to run the AG Gonzelez out of office in short order from pukes. No this isn't time to cut any of us off at the knees, we better give it all we got and pray for more if we have any chance to turn this around. We gotta pass it along that we are happy for anybody who is willing to throw the lying punks out of office. Come on down! We got door number 1, 2, and 3 covered. Its just a matter of what each of us has to offer. Ideas, not the same old stuff that got us in this spot in the first place. Sure we use the good stuff, but not the things that just don't work anymore. Leave that to the greenpeople.

[Air Force Guy]

I'm quite aware of the 9/11 attacks, thank you. In order for terrorism to go away we must take responsibility for contributing to the problem, rather than denying it. This is a difficult, yet healthy, mature and sensible thing to do - the same as it is for any individual to admit any level of fault. Take a cold, hard, and honest look at the history of American foreign policy in the Middle East, and tell me that we have done nothing to incite them. You can't. It's already in the literature and in the government reports, etc. As Paul said, we ignore this at our own peril - which unfortunately results in fueling the fire of terrorism, the very thing we are trying to fight. Contradiction exemplified. America is not sick to death of the so called "blame America" crowd - America is sick to death of the war.How much time have you spent in a military uniform? How much time have you served as any kind of liaison, military or civilian, in the Middle East?

You only know what people in your news and political organizations tell you. I have been over there for tours totalling almost 3 years....BEFORE 9/11 happened. I saw and lived with people so oppressed, and dysfunctional that they need something to lash out at---but their holy book has been enlisted on the side of their governments for protection via deflection; using madrassas (schools of fervent brainwashing) to program the youth to believe the enemy is external instead of internal political and religious leaders. They are told their lives are so backwards because westerners make the world that way.

Other proof that they were raised with angry hornets buzzing in their heads is the staggering numbers of their own kind that they're killing.

Do you think it's always right to kill people whose non-lethal behavior and/or mere presence "bothers" you? Your presence on this forum "bothers" people here. Is it all right for any of us to crash a plane into your house?

If I make friends with the kid who has beat you up at school, does that make it OK for you to come over and torch my house? My belief is that the kid who beat you up was just defending himself after YOU attacked him. I buy him lunch afterwards. How am I deserving death because of that?

[Jack_Savage]

Agreed ... that is why I am a Thompson or nothing supporter at this time ...

In negotiations , one never says up front what the "least I'll settle for" point is ...

I sure won't tell the RINO power brokers that I'll settle for RINO A,B or C in the end ... the power weenies want my vote in November ??

They'd best be listening to TW ,Homes , Laz , and others like us ... We want the RINO's to sweat ...

We want them to know that they are seen by us as just one little tic better than the Democrats ...

The problem Conservative Activism ??

We're too busy working , raising families to be full time "Sharptons, Jacksons, Moore's and Clintons ....
I'm not negociating a thing away when I say I am for Rudy and if he loses I am for Fred, unless something happens that I change my mind and am for Romney. I am for anybody who can get the job done. This isn't about my High School winning on friday night. It's about keeping the White House and as many other seats as possible cause the Democrats have been taken over by traitors. Bought and paid for by George Soros. They will trade you and I to the enemy in a heartbeat, IMO.

We need to be smart, not nice. We need to chop off hands and feet, instead of water-boarding when that doesn't work. We need to find through the process of elimination what works, stepping up the tactics incrementally as needed both abroad and at home. This is not Allen Ladd fighting Jimmy Stewart, its Allan Ladd fighting Wilson. Were at Rikers place. We are not the sod-busters anymore, all of us are Shane.

[Maggie_T]

I agree with you. The one thing that is hard for me to accept is when I screw up. I have done it lots of times. When I look around todays landscape, its pretty clear conservatives have screwed up. Not that they intended to but they did never the less. We have been ineffective with getting the job done, big time. What did we do when Newt was under attack? Not much. What did we do when Bush was attacked, performed real bad. What did we do, those of us who live in Ma. ? Horrible. we couldn't even get rid of a radical "gay" member of congress who's lover ran a call-boy operation out of the condo they shared.

On the other hand a small group of freaks were able to run the AG Gonzelez out of office in short order from pukes. No this isn't time to cut any of us off at the knees, we better give it all we got and pray for more if we have any chance to turn this around. We gotta pass it along that we are happy for anybody who is willing to throw the lying punks out of office. Come on down!

Well said.

My friends, the old "we're busy working and raising families" adagio is wearing thin. We simply cannot afford to hide behind it anymore. We'd better MAKE time, or we won't have a job, and our families are going to be taken hostage by the left.

Think about it.

[Rhino]

How much time have you spent in a military uniform? How much time have you served as any kind of liaison, military or civilian, in the Middle East?......Doubt you'll get an answer. organix hasn't been around in months. The Chinese must be cracking down.

[Nutrider99]

And if that DOES happen, then the next Congressional election you'll see a sweeping victory for Conservatives. You'll see an upsurge in citizen participation in overthrowing a ruthless government, because they will recognize it for what it IS, instead of having their ears tickled by RINO's and Republican impostors.
No, what you'll see is a ruthless power whore using information from illegally obtained FBI files to blackmail her opposition. You'll see the federal government used to attack everyone and everything conservative from trumped up criminal charges to IRS audits. You'll see hillary-care shoved down the throats of the taxpayers and a seizure of 1/7th of the nation's economy. You'll see the fairness doctrine revived and $7. per gallon gasoline. You'll see no new drilling, no new refineries and many new taxes. You'll see regulations put on industry which will drive it out of America, never to return. You'll see massive unemployment and billions of dollars in lost revenue. You'll see thousands of Americans murdered by an invigorated terrorist coalition. You'll see the blood of our soldiers wasted when Iraq and Afghanistan are left to the terrorists. You'll see the nation destroyed.

Yeah. Sometimes change IS painful.

[Jack_Savage]

No, what you'll see is a ruthless power whore using information from illegally obtained FBI files to blackmail her opposition. You'll see the federal government used to attack everyone and everything conservative from trumped up criminal charges to IRS audits. You'll see hillary-care shoved down the throats of the taxpayers and a seizure of 1/7th of the nation's economy. You'll see the fairness doctrine revived and $7. per gallon gasoline. You'll see no new drilling, no new refineries and many new taxes. You'll see regulations put on industry which will drive it out of America, never to return. You'll see massive unemployment and billions of dollars in lost revenue. You'll see thousands of Americans murdered by an invigorated terrorist coalition. You'll see the blood of our soldiers wasted when Iraq and Afghanistan are left to the terrorists. You'll see the nation destroyed.

Yeah. Sometimes change IS painful.
Very good point. And it needs to be said over and over again. We need to keep explaining to the people what it actually means if Hillary or Obama, or even that ambulance chaser Edwards were to get in. Dobson is not the enemy. He actually can be real effective with doing many things, and enrolling many people to help.

[Nutrider99]

We have been ineffective with getting the job done, big time.
We have allowed our Republican "leaders" to cowtow to the democreeps when they should have been leading.

What did we do when Newt was under attack? Not much.
We REFUSED to prosecute the CRIMINAL actions of Jim McDermott.

What did we do when Bush was attacked, We sided with the enemy and said he performed real bad. Only a few of us stuck up for the president by demanding that the Republicans carry their share of the load. Only a few of us realized that a center-right conservative could not be expected to govern as a true conservative. Harriey Myers was one example when we came toether and pulled the president back to the right. We neeeded to do it more, but as a party we let him take the blows alone.

On the other hand a small group of freaks were able to run the AG Gonzelez out of office in short order from pukes.
Because demopcreeps understand how to band together.

No this isn't time to cut any of us off at the knees, we better give it all we got and pray for more if we have any chance to turn this around.
We also have to understand that the president is an ADMINISTRATOR!! He does NOT make law!! That's why we need 65% control of the Congress.

[Jack_Savage]

We have allowed our Republican "leaders" to cowtow to the democreeps when they should have been leading.


We REFUSED to prosecute the CRIMINAL actions of Jim McDermott.

We sided with the enemy and said he performed real bad. Only a few of us stuck up for the president by demanding that the Republicans carry their share of the load. Only a few of us realized that a center-right conservative could not be expected to govern as a true conservative. Harriey Myers was one example when we came toether and pulled the president back to the right. We neeeded to do it more, but as a party we let him take the blows alone.


Because demopcreeps understand how to band together.


We also have to understand that the president is an ADMINISTRATOR!! He does NOT make law!! That's why we need 65% control of the Congress.
Another good point.

[Timberwolf]

So sorry, but I don't care how many "good points" are made in defense of a LIBERAL, I'm NOT voting for him.

I will vote for a conservative or I shall not vote. End of discussion. The RNC has been made aware of this sentiment from FAR more people than VTY. They WILL get over their infatuation with compromising - i.e. WEAKENING - the conservative platform or they will NEVER regain their power in DC.

I've had enough voting "against the other guy"/"for the lesser of 2 evils". I shall not do either ever again.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

No, what you'll see is a ruthless power whore using information from illegally obtained FBI files to blackmail her opposition. You'll see the federal government used to attack everyone and everything conservative from trumped up criminal charges to IRS audits. You'll see hillary-care shoved down the throats of the taxpayers and a seizure of 1/7th of the nation's economy. You'll see the fairness doctrine revived and $7. per gallon gasoline. You'll see no new drilling, no new refineries and many new taxes. You'll see regulations put on industry which will drive it out of America, never to return. You'll see massive unemployment and billions of dollars in lost revenue. You'll see thousands of Americans murdered by an invigorated terrorist coalition. You'll see the blood of our soldiers wasted when Iraq and Afghanistan are left to the terrorists. You'll see the nation destroyed.

Yeah. Sometimes change IS painful.

I absolutely disagree.

We didn't let it happen under Bill, we won't let it happen under Hillary IF the people band together (FINALLY) and stand up for REAL Conservatism istead of settling for watered down RINOnomics.

"We the people" stood up to Bush and Shamnesty, "we the people" will do the same if Hitlery gets in office. But we DON'T have to LET Hillary rule the day, if we band together NOW and put forth a (more) CONSERVATIVE candidate instead of a RINO (which Rudy ABSOLUTELY is).

I bet the good patriotic AMERICAN citizens had to hear the same kind of clap-trap from the Torys prior to the American Revolution.

[Nutrider99]

We didn't let it happen under Bill, we won't let it happen under Hillary IF the people band together (FINALLY) and stand up for REAL Conservatism istead of settling for watered down RINOnomics.
On the contrary. Under bill we DID see a corrupt administration using information from illegally obtained FBI files to blackmail the opposition. We DID see the federal government used to attack everyone and everything conservative from trumped up criminal charges to IRS audits. Remember the travel office employees who were fired? Remember the woman who was jailed and audited for saying "You suck" to clintoon? We DID see an attempt to shove hillary-care down our thoats, only now we don't have Newt Gingrich to stop it. You DID see the fairness doctrine trumpeted and multiple attempts to silence Rush and other conservative radio hosts. We DID see an unwillingness to drill oil, build refineries or properly handle an energy policy. We DID see massive regulation put on industry which will drove many manufacturing jobs out of America, never to return. The only difference is, now we don't have Bill gates and the emergence of e-business to bail us out. You DID see multiple attacks by terrorists who grew ever bolder as we demonstrated signs of weakness. You WILL see the blood of our soldiers wasted when Iraq and Afghanistan are left to the terrorists after we pull the troops out. You WILL see Iraq and Afghanistan fall to terrorists. The difference is, when we have to go in again to protect American lives, something democreeps are demonstrably piss poor at, we won't get ANY help from the locals who know we can't be trusted, and that standing up for a nation like America with no backbone will result in the slaughter of their families. What makes you think we will band together when we are in the minority, when we couldn't do it while having the majority???


"We the people" stood up to Bush and Shamnesty, "we the people" will do the same if Hitlery gets in office.
We'll have a harder time doing that when the Fairness Doctrine takes away much of our ability to communicate. This entire idea of having strength through minority status is crazy. Strength comes from CONTROLING the White House and both branches of Congress. The problem is, there was no Newt Gingrich to rally our forces behind the president and to make CONSERVATIVE laws for him to sign. Once hillary gets in and uses the information she has to blackmail people into following her lead, do you think there's a chance in Hell of defending America from a socialist takeover?

But we DON'T have to LET Hillary rule the day, if we band together NOW and put forth a (more) CONSERVATIVE candidate instead of a RINO (which Rudy ABSOLUTELY is).
I'm all for a conservative candidate, which is what the primaries are for. Got any? The fact is, if your president isn't conservative enough, elect all conservatives in Congress. Liberalism LOST the last election. The dems who were elected ran to the right of the RINO's. My contention has always been to divest ourselves of RINO's in the primaries, and then to band together with what we have and defeat America's greatest enemy- the democreeps.

I bet the good patriotic AMERICAN citizens had to hear the same kind of clap-trap from the Torys prior to the American Revolution.
I'll bet nobody ever dared tell George Washington, "Let's let them massacre us on this hill so that people will rally behind us on the hill behind that."

[Plain Old Dave]

I've had enough voting "against the other guy"/"for the lesser of 2 evils". I shall not do either ever again.

THIS is why I am a reluctant Thompson supporter. Been voting for the lesser of 2 evils since 1992 for President and it wears thin. If somehow the former Mayor gets the nod, I will be voting 3d party or staying home.