Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Ron Paul for President?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Marietta, GA

    Post Ron Paul for President?

    See He gets it right!

    I don't know much about his other positions, but as far as Iraq, 9/11, and Al Queda are concerned, he speaks the truth.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 1997

    Re: Ron Paul for President?

    If Hagel and Bloomberg run as an independent ticket...I would be tempted to vote for them.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2001

    Re: Ron Paul for President?

    But who was right Rudy or Ron?

    By Patrick J. Buchanan:

    05/18/07 "WND" -- -- It was the decisive moment of the South Carolina debate.

    Hearing Rep. Ron Paul recite the reasons for Arab and Islamic resentment of the United States, including 10 years of bombing and sanctions that brought death to thousands of Iraqis after the Gulf War, Rudy Giuliani broke format and exploded:

    "That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of 9-11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.

    "I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us what he really meant by it."

    The applause for Rudy's rebuke was thunderous the sound bite of the night and best moment of Rudy's campaign.

    After the debate, on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," came one of those delicious moments on live television. As Michael Steele, GOP spokesman, was saying that Paul should probably be cut out of future debates, the running tally of votes by Fox News viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30 percent, the winner of the debate.

    Brother Hannity seemed startled and perplexed by the votes being text-messaged in the thousands to Fox News saying Paul won, Romney was second, Rudy third and McCain far down the track at 4 percent.

    "I would ask the congressman to ... tell us what he meant," said Rudy.

    A fair question and a crucial question.

    When Ron Paul said the 9-11 killers were "over here because we are over there," he was not excusing the mass murderers of 3,000 Americans. He was explaining the roots of hatred out of which the suicide-killers came.

    Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahedeen whom we, in the Reagan decade, were aiding when they were fighting to expel the Red Army from Afghanistan. We sent them Stinger missiles, Spanish mortars, sniper rifles. And they helped drive the Russians out.

    What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?

    Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahedeen were declaring war on us.

    Elsewhere, he has mentioned Sykes-Picot, the secret British-French deal that double-crossed the Arabs who had fought for their freedom alongside Lawrence of Arabia and were rewarded with a quarter century of British-French imperial domination and humiliation.

    Almost all agree that, horrible as 9-11 was, it was not anarchic terror. It was political terror, done with a political motive and a political objective.

    What does Rudy Giuliani think the political motive was for 9-11?

    Was it because we are good and they are evil? Is it because they hate our freedom? Is it that simple?

    Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq.

    Does the man not have a point? The United States is now tied down in a bloody guerrilla war in the Middle East and increasingly hated in Arab and Islamic countries where we were once hugely admired as the first and greatest of the anti-colonial nations. Does anyone think that Osama is unhappy with what is happening to us in Iraq?

    Of the 10 candidates on stage in South Carolina, Dr. Paul alone opposed the war. He alone voted against the war. Have not the last five years vindicated him, when two-thirds of the nation now agrees with him that the war was a mistake, and journalists and politicians left and right are babbling in confession, "If I had only known then what I know now ..."

    Rudy implied that Ron Paul was unpatriotic to suggest the violence against us out of the Middle East may be in reaction to U.S. policy in the Middle East. Was President Hoover unpatriotic when, the day after Pearl Harbor, he wrote to friends, "You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten."

    Pearl Harbor came out of the blue, but it also came out of the troubled history of U.S.-Japanese relations going back 40 years. Hitler's attack on Poland was naked aggression. But to understand it, we must understand what was done at Versailles after the Germans laid down their arms based on Wilson's 14 Points. We do not excuse but we must understand.

    Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war.

    By all means, throw out of the debate the only man who was right from the beginning on Iraq.


    reines: I don't go along with all of Ron Paul's strictly Libertarian viewpoints- but the man is the only breath of fresh air in the Republican field. He's been against this foolish war from the beginning- and has said so many times.
    How telling that the current supposed "front-runner"- Guiliani- was able to immediately shut down any consideration of what Paul was getting were most of the fawning commentators I listened to afterwards- who were much more concerned with telling us how Rudy "owns" 9-11, instead of exploring the truth of Paul's comments.
    Too bad so many only want to believe in fairy tales.......instead of living in reality.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 1999

    Re: Ron Paul for President?

    Still deciding about the candidates, liked Edwards early on as well as a couple on both sides, but there's no where when I can understand having money...for richer or poorer...some one who can spend that kind of money for a haircut. Maybe all the rich polticians can afford too, but any person runniing for office on (which I agree) there are two Americas....the haves and the have nots....

    Stay away while running for office...from the Beverly Hills salons. Crap, REAL people in MANY suburban areas are trying to figure out how to pay or ful to get them to work along with paying for everything else. I wish all the best for the Edwards family...tough times for them.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 1999

    Re: Ron Paul for President?

    pay for fuel , that is

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2003

    Probably not

    His comments on Paul sound attractive from an old school conservative stand point. He's a paleocon and like Pat Buchanan, his reviews reflect how far Republicans have gone in repudiating old school conservative ideology. If Ron Paul was a presidential candidate prior to WWII, he along with many Republican politicians of his ilk, would have argued that the United States had no role in getting involved in preventing the spread of fascism in Europe. He's a libertarian, which means that he believes that the role of the US military is just to defend US borders.

    Considering Pres. Bush's unilateralist approach to Iraq, Ron Paul's foreign policy prescription of isolationism seems tempting but at the end of the day, it's unworkable--at least it's unworkable for my values.

    As a liberal, I do think that the US has a moral responsibility to intervene to prevent genocide in places like the Sudan, when it's feasible. Although there are problems with the UN, the World Bank and the IMF and those multi-lateral institutions need some reform, I do think they should exist and they do help to provide some stability in the world. I believe that the US can perform some good in the world through grants/donations to underdeveloped countries to prevent them from becoming terrorist havens. Providing these countries with basic infrastructure and teaching residents of third world countries work skills will prevent many in these countries from turning to OBL for inspiration IMHO. Giving them alternatives is a huge key to prevent future 9/11s from happening.

    As for whom I support in the Democratic primaries, I'm still undecided, although I am now no longer leaning towards Bill Richardson. His response about Supreme Court nominees (Justice White) in the 1st Democratic/MSNBC debate was a dealbreaker for me. I'm looking at HRC and Obama closely. My vote isn't going to matter too much anyway. Maryland primary will be a week after the super primaries in Feb 5th so the nomination should be decided by then....
    "It's hard for your opponent to tell lies about you if your fist is in his mouth."

    --Bill Clinton


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts