Ron Paul gains support in second GOP debate

[Digging4Truth]

Ron Paul gains support in second GOP debate

Michael Hampton
Homeland Stupidity
Wednesday May 16, 2007

For those who doubted that Rep. Ron Paul was a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, the debate Tuesday night in South Carolina put all doubts to rest. Paul stirred up a firestorm of controversy for suggesting that the Department of Homeland Security made national security even more inefficient after September 11 than before, and especially for his assertion that U.S. foreign policy over the past several decades contributed to the rise of Islamic terrorism.

But viewers at home responded, putting Ron Paul in second place in FOX’s own tamper-proof viewer poll.

As opposed to the largely conservative FOX viewers, MSNBC’s interactive post-debate poll, with more moderate viewers, puts Ron Paul squarely at the top of the heap among that network’s viewers.

And his assertions are not without merit.

Last week, the Government Accountability Office reported (PDF) that DHS “lacks a comprehensive integration strategy with overall goals, a timeline, appropriate responsibility and accountability determinations, and a dedicated team to support its efforts.” DHS still doesn’t have a plan to “deal with its many management challenges . . . could have serious consequences for our homeland security.”

Paul said during the debate that we had all the dots to put together the 9/11 plot and stop the attackers, but the bureaucracy was too inefficient to connect the dots. So in response, the government created even more inefficient bureaucracy.

Indeed, sharing of intelligence even between federal agencies, let alone with state and local agencies, still hasn’t improved that much since 9/11. Another GAO audit (PDF) last week found that the Homeland Security Information Network, meant to share intelligence with state and local officials, is doing a poor job and is largely redundant, since states and localities have already set up information-sharing networks, which DHS has failed to plug into. We’re little closer to being able to connect the dots, and all we have is a new “giant bureaucracy” eating up billions of taxpayer dollars to show for it.

That’s right, instead of real security, we’ve gotten real incompetence.

Citing the Central Intelligence Agency’s “blowback” principle, Paul explained that U.S. intervention in Middle Eastern affairs over the past several decades contributed to anti-American sentiment and helped create enemies, some of whom are today’s terrorists. This didn’t go over too well with Rudy Giuliani, who seems to know little about U.S. foreign policy for someone who supposedly led his city through the worst international terrorist attack in U.S. history.

“They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. … We’ve been in the Middle East,” Paul said in explaining his opposition to going to war in Iraq. “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.

“They are delighted that we’re over there because Usama bin Laden has said, ‘I’m glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.’ They have already now since that time they’ve killed 3,400 of our men and I don’t think it was necessary,” he continued.

“That’s really an extraordinary statement,” Giuliani said, interrupting FOX News panelist Wendell Goler. “That’s really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 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 withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.” — FOX News

It goes back far before Desert Storm, as Paul pointed out, citing Reagan sending the Marines into Lebanon in 1983, saying “I will never turn tail and run,” and then pulling them back out after realizing just how “irrational” they are over there.

The only people who really reacted negatively to this were the handpicked debate audience, who applauded Giuliani for his ridiculous outburst and poor understanding of just what it is we’re up against.

While I rarely write about it, I follow the war in Iraq and other U.S. counterterrorism activities very closely. Ronald Reagan was right when he called them “irrational,” and so is Ron Paul. Indulge me for a moment while I quote from possibly the greatest military strategist of all time:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. — Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Sound familiar? The reason we’re suffering so badly in Iraq is that we’ve failed to know and truly understand our enemy. We failed in 1967, we failed in 1983, we failed in 2001, and we have failed today. The party line is that the Islamic jihadists hate us and our freedom and want to establish a global Islamic caliphate, dominating the world under Sharia law. Some people in this country claim that every Muslim wants this. (This is kind of like saying that the Church of Scientology represents all of Christendom.) The reality is quite a bit more complex than that.

Speaking of which, it’s probably more accurate to think of Al Qaeda and their associated jihadists as a religious cult. This is, after all, exactly how they act. We already know how to deal with religious cults, and it doesn’t involve long, protracted wars in the desert halfway around the world.

One last thing Ron Paul has been at pains to point out is that it’s left-leaning Democrats who have gotten us into the vast majority of conflicts in the last century, and conservative Republicans who have gotten us out of the vast majority of them. We must certainly be ready to defend ourselves from those who would attack us and have attacked us. If I’m around when somebody starts shooting people in a shopping mall, he’s getting two to the chest and one to the head. But we should not be picking fights, especially with people we don’t understand. We should instead open commerce and trade and let other countries sort out their own problems. That’s been the American way since the beginning, and it’s about time conservatives started being conservative again.

I’m apparently not the only person who thinks so; Ron Paul gained 25% of the vote in FOX’s more secure viewer poll of largely conservative viewers, coming in just behind Mitt Romney at 29% and far ahead of Guiliani at 19%. Supposed first tier candidate John McCain has fallen to the back of the pack with the rest of the second-tier candidates. It’s going to be much more difficult for the mainstream media to keep up their blissful, deliberate ignorance now.

[deacon blues]

Ron Paul is a NUTJOB!!!!!!!

Did you hear his diatribe about the causes of 9/11? He hasn't a chance, and anyone who would vote for him doesn't know their politics or foreign policy very well.

[Digging4Truth]

Ron Paul is a NUTJOB!!!!!!!

Did you hear his diatribe about the causes of 9/11? He hasn't a chance, and anyone who would vote for him doesn't know their politics or foreign policy very well.

What Ron Paul said about the causes of 9/11 came directly out of the 9-11 Commission Report.

[bishopnl]

Ron Paul is a NUTJOB!!!!!!!

Did you hear his diatribe about the causes of 9/11? He hasn't a chance, and anyone who would vote for him doesn't know their politics or foreign policy very well.

I guess that settles that.

Thanks for the intellectual insight...I'll keep that in mind when I go to the polls. I take it that's about as deep as it gets.

[bishopnl]

I'm not sure that I totally agree with Ron Paul's assessment about 9/11, although I agree with many of his points about military intervention (or non-intervention).

But a lot of his other policies I applaud. So far, all Rudy Guliani has is his stance on taxes and national security. Isn't he the same guy who believes abortion is a constitutional right that should be supported by federal tax revenue?

Both McCain and Romney have switched positions several times...McCain helped author one of the most blatantly anti-first amendment bills ever passed, and voted against the Bush tax cuts. Romney has switched positions on abortion.

Paul, on the other hand, has consistently voted against loads of unconstitutional legislation, and opposes things that would be good for his own district if he sees them as unconstitutional. So far, he's the only presidential candidate who is what I would really consider to be principled. The others are just selling themselves and their ideals for a shot at the presidency. In my opinion, thanks but no thanks. I can't see that the country will be that much better off with Rudy Guliani over some of the Democratic nominees...Gun control, federally funded abortions, special rights for homosexuals...the only thing that separates Guliani are a few minor issues, unless you believe that radical Islam is the most dangerous threat to the United States today, which I don't.

[deacon blues]

What Ron Paul said about the causes of 9/11 came directly out of the 9-11 Commission Report.

And the 9/11 Commission Report failed to address Sandy Berger's theft and destruction of classified documents from the National Archives. The 9/11 Commission was a joke! Jamie Gorelick was appointed by the Democrats to serve on the Committee and she was the one who was greatly responsible for the communications "wall" between intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies that were pursuing terrorist leads. The wall is a major reason why FBI and CIA operatives could not compare notes and in large part kept the authorities from stopping the 9/11 terrorists before they attacked the US.

Read this:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040429-122228-6538r.htm

Richard Ben-Veniste was deeply connected to the Clinton Adminstration and his line of questioning throughout the Commission's investigating was harsh, one-sided and badgering. His history runs all the way back to the Watergate scandal and he had many ties to liberal and Democratic causes.

Read this:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/967rwskg.asp

So don't feed me bull about the 9/11 Commission. That Commission was a complete joke.

And Ron Paul is a GOOFBALL!

[Chan]

Ron Paul is a NUTJOB!!!!!!!

Did you hear his diatribe about the causes of 9/11? He hasn't a chance, and anyone who would vote for him doesn't know their politics or foreign policy very well.What diatribe? I watched the debates: there was no diatribe. Ron Paul's assessment of what led to 9/11 was accurate. As for politics, you sound like you want to maintain the status quo. As for foreign policy, well, I'll go with the foreign policy of men like George Washington and John Quincy Adams over the interventionists and globalists in Washington today!

[ReformedDave]

He hasn't a chance, and anyone who would vote for him doesn't know their politics or foreign policy very well.


And you are voting for whom????????

[Chan]

And you are voting for whom????????Isn't that like asking a woman how old she is?

[Digging4Truth]

Isn't that like asking a woman how old she is?

This is true...

But if that woman goes around talking about how the other women don't stand a chance of ever getting married they might just be setting themselves up for such a question.

:)

[Chan]

This is true...

But if that woman goes around talking about how the other women don't stand a chance of ever getting married they might just be setting themselves up for such a question.

:)True.

A woman has as much a chance of getting married as a man will give her just as a candidate has as much a chance of winning an election as the voters will give him.

[ReformedDave]

Isn't that like asking a woman how old she is?

I'm curious to see which of the GOP is he able to throw his support behind. I agree that Dr. Paul has some beliefs that I tend to be in conflict with but on the big picture I agree. He is for genuine small government and believes in a constitutional republic where the constitution actually means something.

[crakjak]

Ron Paul gains support in second GOP debate

Michael Hampton
Homeland Stupidity
Wednesday May 16, 2007

For those who doubted that Rep. Ron Paul was a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, the debate Tuesday night in South Carolina put all doubts to rest. Paul stirred up a firestorm of controversy for suggesting that the Department of Homeland Security made national security even more inefficient after September 11 than before, and especially for his assertion that U.S. foreign policy over the past several decades contributed to the rise of Islamic terrorism.

But viewers at home responded, putting Ron Paul in second place in FOX’s own tamper-proof viewer poll.

As opposed to the largely conservative FOX viewers, MSNBC’s interactive post-debate poll, with more moderate viewers, puts Ron Paul squarely at the top of the heap among that network’s viewers.

And his assertions are not without merit.

Last week, the Government Accountability Office reported (PDF) that DHS “lacks a comprehensive integration strategy with overall goals, a timeline, appropriate responsibility and accountability determinations, and a dedicated team to support its efforts.” DHS still doesn’t have a plan to “deal with its many management challenges . . . could have serious consequences for our homeland security.”

Paul said during the debate that we had all the dots to put together the 9/11 plot and stop the attackers, but the bureaucracy was too inefficient to connect the dots. So in response, the government created even more inefficient bureaucracy.

Indeed, sharing of intelligence even between federal agencies, let alone with state and local agencies, still hasn’t improved that much since 9/11. Another GAO audit (PDF) last week found that the Homeland Security Information Network, meant to share intelligence with state and local officials, is doing a poor job and is largely redundant, since states and localities have already set up information-sharing networks, which DHS has failed to plug into. We’re little closer to being able to connect the dots, and all we have is a new “giant bureaucracy” eating up billions of taxpayer dollars to show for it.

That’s right, instead of real security, we’ve gotten real incompetence.

Citing the Central Intelligence Agency’s “blowback” principle, Paul explained that U.S. intervention in Middle Eastern affairs over the past several decades contributed to anti-American sentiment and helped create enemies, some of whom are today’s terrorists. This didn’t go over too well with Rudy Giuliani, who seems to know little about U.S. foreign policy for someone who supposedly led his city through the worst international terrorist attack in U.S. history.



It goes back far before Desert Storm, as Paul pointed out, citing Reagan sending the Marines into Lebanon in 1983, saying “I will never turn tail and run,” and then pulling them back out after realizing just how “irrational” they are over there.

The only people who really reacted negatively to this were the handpicked debate audience, who applauded Giuliani for his ridiculous outburst and poor understanding of just what it is we’re up against.

While I rarely write about it, I follow the war in Iraq and other U.S. counterterrorism activities very closely. Ronald Reagan was right when he called them “irrational,” and so is Ron Paul. Indulge me for a moment while I quote from possibly the greatest military strategist of all time:



Sound familiar? The reason we’re suffering so badly in Iraq is that we’ve failed to know and truly understand our enemy. We failed in 1967, we failed in 1983, we failed in 2001, and we have failed today. The party line is that the Islamic jihadists hate us and our freedom and want to establish a global Islamic caliphate, dominating the world under Sharia law. Some people in this country claim that every Muslim wants this. (This is kind of like saying that the Church of Scientology represents all of Christendom.) The reality is quite a bit more complex than that.

Speaking of which, it’s probably more accurate to think of Al Qaeda and their associated jihadists as a religious cult. This is, after all, exactly how they act. We already know how to deal with religious cults, and it doesn’t involve long, protracted wars in the desert halfway around the world.

One last thing Ron Paul has been at pains to point out is that it’s left-leaning Democrats who have gotten us into the vast majority of conflicts in the last century, and conservative Republicans who have gotten us out of the vast majority of them. We must certainly be ready to defend ourselves from those who would attack us and have attacked us. If I’m around when somebody starts shooting people in a shopping mall, he’s getting two to the chest and one to the head. But we should not be picking fights, especially with people we don’t understand. We should instead open commerce and trade and let other countries sort out their own problems. That’s been the American way since the beginning, and it’s about time conservatives started being conservative again.

I’m apparently not the only person who thinks so; Ron Paul gained 25% of the vote in FOX’s more secure viewer poll of largely conservative viewers, coming in just behind Mitt Romney at 29% and far ahead of Guiliani at 19%. Supposed first tier candidate John McCain has fallen to the back of the pack with the rest of the second-tier candidates. It’s going to be much more difficult for the mainstream media to keep up their blissful, deliberate ignorance now.

This is exactly what conservatives need to get distracted with to make sure the Hillary gets elected.

[crakjak]

I'm not sure that I totally agree with Ron Paul's assessment about 9/11, although I agree with many of his points about military intervention (or non-intervention).

But a lot of his other policies I applaud. So far, all Rudy Guliani has is his stance on taxes and national security. Isn't he the same guy who believes abortion is a constitutional right that should be supported by federal tax revenue?

Both McCain and Romney have switched positions several times...McCain helped author one of the most blatantly anti-first amendment bills ever passed, and voted against the Bush tax cuts. Romney has switched positions on abortion.

Paul, on the other hand, has consistently voted against loads of unconstitutional legislation, and opposes things that would be good for his own district if he sees them as unconstitutional. So far, he's the only presidential candidate who is what I would really consider to be principled. The others are just selling themselves and their ideals for a shot at the presidency. In my opinion, thanks but no thanks. I can't see that the country will be that much better off with Rudy Guliani over some of the Democratic nominees...Gun control, federally funded abortions, special rights for homosexuals...the only thing that separates Guliani are a few minor issues, unless you believe that radical Islam is the most dangerous threat to the United States today, which I don't.

Then you are speaking from you south end, because your north end is buried in the sand.

These ideas are put forth as intellectual, just to confuse the ignorant. Tell Israel that radical Islam is not the most dangerous threat, and with the likes of you and Ron Paul they will soon be the barbarians at the gate for us. Europe will soon be engulfed with Islam, and they apparently will still be agreeing with you. Hopefully, France's turn to a more conservative president is not too late for the French, they have seen it up close and personal.

You can blame America for all sorts of things, but if America loses its strength the world will soon go up in flames, there will be no restraint. And the fact that the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton support your type foreign policy is enough for me to know it is very wrong headed.

[crakjak]

I'm curious to see which of the GOP is he able to throw his support behind. I agree that Dr. Paul has some beliefs that I tend to be in conflict with but on the big picture I agree. He is for genuine small government and believes in a constitutional republic where the constitution actually means something.

These bolded things I agree with, even if I totally agreed with Ron Paul (which I don't), he cannot win. However, the media will play these lies up for all its worth because if they can split the GOP vote, it will ensure a Demo win.

[Digging4Truth]

These bolded things I agree with, even if I totally agreed with Ron Paul (which I don't), he cannot win. However, the media will play these lies up for all its worth because if they can split the GOP vote, it will ensure a Demo win.

A Democrat is going to win the Republican Presidential Primary?

Well... actually there is more possibility to that than most would imagine. :)

[crakjak]

A Democrat is going to win the Republican Presidential Primary?

Well... actually there is more possibility to that than most would imagine. :)

No, but dividing the GOP would still help the Democrats. And he has been known to try to run as a third party.

[bishopnl]

Then you are speaking from you south end, because your north end is buried in the sand.

These ideas are put forth as intellectual, just to confuse the ignorant. Tell Israel that radical Islam is not the most dangerous threat, and with the likes of you and Ron Paul they will soon be the barbarians at the gate for us. Europe will soon be engulfed with Islam, and they apparently will still be agreeing with you. Hopefully, France's turn to a more conservative president is not too late for the French, they have seen it up close and personal.

You can blame America for all sorts of things, but if America loses its strength the world will soon go up in flames, there will be no restraint. And the fact that the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton support your type foreign policy is en ought for me to know it is very wrong headed.

One thing I'm getting tired of is people who bloviate and prattle on and on, offering up endless cliches and accusations, without ever facing the facts.

Firstly, my foreign policy has little in common with John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, or Hillary Clinton. The fact that you try to parallel it as such tells me that you know little about my foreign policy, and probably little about their foreign policy as well.

Secondly, do you believe that the fate of the current day state of Israel and America are somehow intertwined? Otherwise, why would I care about telling Israel anything? I was talking about America.

Third, why don't you show me how radical Islam is the most dangerous threat to America today? And don't bother pointing to 9/11. More people die in car accidents every year than died in 9/11. That's not said to suggest that 9/11 isn't very significant, or that global terrorism is not significant. But you people who are ignoring every issue to focus on terrorism are going to wake up one day to find there's no America left to protect. America is rotting from the inside...government has expanded massively, unconstitutional legislation is constantly passed and upheld by the judicial system, our social welfare state has become so big that we have to borrow money from other countries just to keep up, and you're telling me that all of that pales in comparison with terrorism? When it comes to deaths in the United States, deaths by terrorist activities ranks way way way down on the list. And when it comes to problems in the US, terrorism is not the number one priority. If you think it is, then you need a reality check.

I used to think along the same lines as you...but then I woke up to reality. The GOP anymore is just like a lesser version of the Democratic party. Unfortunately, rabid anti-thinkers like you don't give a hoot and are content with the rotting away of civil liberties and your money being confiscated and redistributed...as long as you're protected from the 1% chance that you might die in a terrorist attack.

[Digging4Truth]

No, but dividing the GOP would still help the Democrats. And he has been known to try to run as a third party.

He has said he won't run via 3rd party if he loses the primary. Of course I hope he does and will be pressing him to do so if he does not win the primary... but that is what he has said.

And when the primary is over then the party generally unites under the chosen candidate.

[crakjak]

A Democrat is going to win the Republican Presidential Primary?

Well... actually there is more possibility to that than most would imagine. :)

I really would like to see radical change in US politics: but I don't see how we can isolate ourselves from the global influences. There certainly seems to be global interests to the detriment of true US interest. I'm afraid we are beyond the real help of anyone, except the Lord our God in whom I put my trust.

The diverse interests of the nations and the money brokers of the world is as divisive as the confused languages of Babel.

[crakjak]

He has said he won't run via 3rd party if he loses the primary. Of course I hope he does and will be pressing him to do so if he does not win the primary... but that is what he has said.

And when the primary is over then the party generally unites under the chosen candidate.

If a third party could truly have an impact and possible win I would listen carefully. However, it does not seem to me that any third part has done anything but insure the less desirable party a win.

[bishopnl]

If a third party could truly have an impact and possible win I would listen carefully. However, it does not seem to me that any third part has done anything but insure the less desirable party a win.

The Republican party started as a third party.

[crakjak]

One thing I'm getting tired of is people who bloviate and prattle on and on, offering up endless cliches and accusations, without ever facing the facts.

Firstly, my foreign policy has little in common with John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, or Hillary Clinton. The fact that you try to parallel it as such tells me that you know little about my foreign policy, and probably little about their foreign policy as well.

Secondly, do you believe that the fate of the current day state of Israel and America are somehow intertwined? Otherwise, why would I care about telling Israel anything? I was talking about America.

Third, why don't you show me how radical Islam is the most dangerous threat to America today? And don't bother pointing to 9/11. More people die in car accidents every year than died in 9/11. That's not said to suggest that 9/11 isn't very significant, or that global terrorism is not significant. But you people who are ignoring every issue to focus on terrorism are going to wake up one day to find there's no America left to protect. America is rotting from the inside...government has expanded massively, unconstitutional legislation is constantly passed and upheld by the judicial system, our social welfare state has become so big that we have to borrow money from other countries just to keep up, and you're telling me that all of that pales in comparison with terrorism? When it comes to deaths in the United States, deaths by terrorist activities ranks way way way down on the list. And when it comes to problems in the US, terrorism is not the number one priority. If you think it is, then you need a reality check.

I used to think along the same lines as you...but then I woke up to reality. The GOP anymore is just like a lesser version of the Democratic party. Unfortunately, rabid anti-thinkers like you don't give a hoot and are content with the rotting away of civil liberties and your money being confiscated and redistributed...as long as you're protected from the 1% chance that you might die in a terrorist attack.

You are right I don't know squat about your foreign policy views and neither do you know mine. I referred to Israel because Israel is a case study with how Muslims deal with those with whom they disagree, no other reason. Europe is another, they are being taken over because the foreigners are out populating them, just as we are from the south. Western societies are dying and many seem to believe that is a good thing, not speaking of race at all.

I am not content with the rot within, but I do not believe the "rabid" anti-American "thinkers" path will lead anywhere but to the denigration of the US. Sounds like the European "thinkers" that allowed Hitler and Mussolini to raise to power and to negotiate with them as valid partners in foreign policy. So lets tell the millions slain during WWII that the "one percent chance" is nothing to worry about.

Peace thru strength works, unfortunately (due to the rot within) this country is so divided we don't give pause even to third world countries. "...so the weak shall say we are strong..."

[bishopnl]

I really would like to see radical change in US politics: but I don't see how we can isolate ourselves from the global influences.

-Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.
~George Washington~

-The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith:--Here let us stop.
~George Washington~

-It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary, and would be unwise to extend them.
~George Washington~

[crakjak]

-Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.
~George Washington~

-The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith:--Here let us stop.
~George Washington~

-It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary, and would be unwise to extend them.
~George Washington~


O, for want of true statesmen!

Great and true discourse by a true statesman and patriot!

[bishopnl]

I referred to Israel because Israel is a case study with how Muslims deal with those with which they disagree, no other reason.

If you think that Islamic relations with Israel are based merely on disagreement, then you are woefully ignorant of history and politics both.

The current state of Israel was carved out of land that belonged to Muslims. I'm not here to debate the rightness or wrongness of that action, nor to criticize the current state of Israel. They are the "freest" country in the Middle East, so I'm not going to denigrate them. But Islam's attitude goes deeper and is much more complex than a simple disagreement. And whether you want to admit it or not, our military and political support of Israel are a large part of why Muslim countries hate us. Its not because we're free and they hate freedom.

Europe is another, they are being taken over because the foreigners are out populating them, just as we are from the south. Western societies are dying and many seem to believe that is a good thing, not speaking of race at all.

Illegal immigration doesn't have anything to do with radical Islam being the single greatest threat to our nation. Unless you believe that these immigrants are practicioners of Islam.

I am not content with the rot within, but I do not believe the "rabid" anti-American "thinkers" path will lead anywhere but to the denigration of the US. Sounds like the European "thinkers" that allowed Hitler and Mussolini to raise to power and to negotiate with them as valid partners in foreign policy. So lets tell the millions slain during WWII that the "one percent chance" is nothing to worry about.

Well, the ignorant policies of Europe did allow Hitler and Mussolini to come to power, but perhaps in different ways than you think. Britain and France were so intent on getting their pound of German flesh after WWI that they helped create a vaccuum into which Hitler stepped. And unfortunately, the United States, led by Woodrow Wilson, was so intent on getting an "alliance" (the League of Nations) that they let France and Britain cripple Germany and make it easy for Hitler to deceive the masses and rise to power. (Note--I'm not saying that the US, Britain and France are to blame for the Holocaust or WWII--only saying that a little more critical thinking and reticence to assert ourselves in Europe's problems might have made it much harder for Hitler to come to power).

Which leads me to believe that perhaps, if the U.S. would not be so anxious to insert itself in European affairs, we wouldn't have as much to worry about.

Not only that, but comparing what has happened in the United States with the Holocaust is a stretch of unimaginable proportions.

[Chan]

Then you are speaking from you south end, because your north end is buried in the sand.

These ideas are put forth as intellectual, just to confuse the ignorant. Tell Israel that radical Islam is not the most dangerous threat, and with the likes of you and Ron Paul they will soon be the barbarians at the gate for us. Europe will soon be engulfed with Islam, and they apparently will still be agreeing with you. Hopefully, France's turn to a more conservative president is not too late for the French, they have seen it up close and personal.

You can blame America for all sorts of things, but if America loses its strength the world will soon go up in flames, there will be no restraint. And the fact that the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton support your type foreign policy is enough for me to know it is very wrong headed.Nothing will happen to this wicked world that contradicts Bible prophecy. The problem with what you and others like you are saying is that it displays an utter lack of faith in God and in what He through the prophets said is going to happen. And, no, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton do not support Ron Paul's type of foreign policy (Ron Paul's foreign policy was that of the founding fathers). They're just as globalist and interventionist as today's Republicans (though for different reasons).

[Chan]

No, but dividing the GOP would still help the Democrats. And he has been known to try to run as a third party.You do realize that we haven't even gotten to the primaries yet, don't you? The Demoncrats also have a slate of candidates from which their drones (er, um, I mean voters) have to choose. Yet, I don't hear you saying that having Barak Osama or Bill Richardson or John Edwards or some of the others in the race will divide the Demoncrats.

[Chan]

One thing I'm getting tired of is people who bloviate and prattle on and on, offering up endless cliches and accusations, without ever facing the facts.

Firstly, my foreign policy has little in common with John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, or Hillary Clinton. The fact that you try to parallel it as such tells me that you know little about my foreign policy, and probably little about their foreign policy as well.

Secondly, do you believe that the fate of the current day state of Israel and America are somehow intertwined? Otherwise, why would I care about telling Israel anything? I was talking about America.

Third, why don't you show me how radical Islam is the most dangerous threat to America today? And don't bother pointing to 9/11. More people die in car accidents every year than died in 9/11. That's not said to suggest that 9/11 isn't very significant, or that global terrorism is not significant. But you people who are ignoring every issue to focus on terrorism are going to wake up one day to find there's no America left to protect. America is rotting from the inside...government has expanded massively, unconstitutional legislation is constantly passed and upheld by the judicial system, our social welfare state has become so big that we have to borrow money from other countries just to keep up, and you're telling me that all of that pales in comparison with terrorism? When it comes to deaths in the United States, deaths by terrorist activities ranks way way way down on the list. And when it comes to problems in the US, terrorism is not the number one priority. If you think it is, then you need a reality check.

I used to think along the same lines as you...but then I woke up to reality. The GOP anymore is just like a lesser version of the Democratic party. Unfortunately, rabid anti-thinkers like you don't give a hoot and are content with the rotting away of civil liberties and your money being confiscated and redistributed...as long as you're protected from the 1% chance that you might die in a terrorist attack.I think the greatest threat to America is the erosion of liberty over the last several years, particularly since 9/11.

[Chan]

If a third party could truly have an impact and possible win I would listen carefully. However, it does not seem to me that any third part has done anything but insure the less desirable party a win.
Third parties have as much impact as the VOTERS allow. Third parties become viable when people VOTE for them.

[Digging4Truth]

Ron Paul is questioned on CNN "The Situation Room.

I think he did a great job.

Sy4Eugc0Xls

[Chan]

O, for want of true statesmen!

Great and true discourse by a true statesman and patriot!If you agree with those quoted statements then you agree with Ron Paul.

[crakjak]

If you think that Islamic relations with Israel are based merely on disagreement, then you are woefully ignorant of history and politics both.

The current state of Israel was carved out of land that belonged to Muslims. I'm not here to debate the rightness or wrongness of that action, nor to criticize the current state of Israel. They are the "freest" country in the Middle East, so I'm not going to denigrate them. But Islam's attitude goes deeper and is much more complex than a simple disagreement. And whether you want to admit it or not, our military and political support of Israel are a large part of why Muslim countries hate us. Its not because we're free and they hate freedom.



Illegal immigration doesn't have anything to do with radical Islam being the single greatest threat to our nation. Unless you believe that these immigrants are practicioners of Islam.



Well, the ignorant policies of Europe did allow Hitler and Mussolini to come to power, but perhaps in different ways than you think. Britain and France were so intent on getting their pound of German flesh after WWI that they helped create a vaccuum into which Hitler stepped. And unfortunately, the United States, led by Woodrow Wilson, was so intent on getting an "alliance" (the League of Nations) that they let France and Britain cripple Germany and make it easy for Hitler to deceive the masses and rise to power. (Note--I'm not saying that the US, Britain and France are to blame for the Holocaust or WWII--only saying that a little more critical thinking and reticence to assert ourselves in Europe's problems might have made it much harder for Hitler to come to power).

Which leads me to believe that perhaps, if the U.S. would not be so anxious to insert itself in European affairs, we wouldn't have as much to worry about.

Not only that, but comparing what has happened in the United States with the Holocaust is a stretch of unimaginable proportions.

You have filtered everything I have said thru your view of the world and then feed it back with your twist to it, in essence putting words that I did not say in my mouth. I am quite sick of the M. Moore's of the world sucking up the resources of the freedom of this country and them demonizing everything that America does and has done.

Germany and Hitler are responsible for the Holocaust, and if the current radical Islamics are not resisted they will produce more Holocausts. You seem to believe if the US will just stay at home and go about our business that no one will bother us, I believe you are just as mistaken as Europe was then, and continues to be now. We live in a wicked world and we must resist those that will impose their will on others. The US does have rot within, but that does not mean I will turn traitor to my country of origin, and willingly give in to the wickedness from without.

Having said all that, and for Chan, I believe God is in control and will allow his purpose to be fulfilled in the earth. My hope is not in "...horses and chariots, but in the Living God."

[crakjak]

Nothing will happen to this wicked world that contradicts Bible prophecy. The problem with what you and others like you are saying is that it displays an utter lack of faith in God and in what He through the prophets said is going to happen. And, no, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton do not support Ron Paul's type of foreign policy (Ron Paul's foreign policy was that of the founding fathers). They're just as globalist and interventionist as today's Republicans (though for different reasons).

Don't put words in my mouth, I know God will accomplish His purpose in this earth, and that is where my trust exist. I don't spend much time with the quacks in politics, be it GOP or Demos. But I will vote for what I believe is the lesser of evil that has a reasonable opportunity to win, I don't want to waste whatever small impact my one vote can have. That's my story and I will stick with it until I have better understanding. If you think you can enlighten me then have at it.

[crakjak]

You do realize that we haven't even gotten to the primaries yet, don't you? The Demoncrats also have a slate of candidates from which their drones (er, um, I mean voters) have to choose. Yet, I don't hear you saying that having Barak Osama or Bill Richardson or John Edwards or some of the others in the race will divide the Demoncrats.

The Democrats are the more evil, I don't believe anyone of them. They oppose the very basics of human responsibility, so I don't give a rip what they do, I will not be voting for anyone of them.

But Ron Paul's view could very well turn GOP voters to the Democrats, by dividing and creating suspicion among the party faithful. Of course, the Democrats are Ron Paul's greatest fans.

[crakjak]

If you agree with those quoted statements then you agree with Ron Paul.

Well, maybe he can have a positive impact on the GOP.

[crakjak]

Ron Paul is questioned on CNN "The Situation Room.

I think he did a great job.

Sy4Eugc0Xls

I don't think he did even a good job, leans way to heavy on the :ursofunny :ursofunny 9-11 Report, which was biased by politicians covering their cans. The every person that pushed the wall between FBI and CIA, on the committee, typical beltway thinking.

Lambasting sanctions on Iraq, saying they cost thousands of Iraqi lives as if it was US fault. When the incompetent UN was undercutting and doing deals with Saddam. Saddam was a terrorist, and he was the cause of those lives being lost.

Yeah, just leave them alone and we will be safe.

[bishopnl]

You have filtered everything I have said thru your view of the world and then feed it back with your twist to it, in essence putting words that I did not say in my mouth. I am quite sick of the M. Moore's of the world sucking up the resources of the freedom of this country and them demonizing everything that America does and has done.

Way to argue your point. Compare me with Michael Moore and leave it at that.:rolleyes2

I leave you in your blissfully unaware state. Between Democrats who think the American government was meant to be the sugar daddy for every have-not in this country, and Republicans thinking the American military was meant to be the savior of the world and the world's police force, I'm not sure either party getting voted in will be the "lesser" evil. It may end up just being evil of a different kind.

[Chan]

Don't put words in my mouth, I know God will accomplish His purpose in this earth, and that is where my trust exist. I don't spend much time with the quacks in politics, be it GOP or Demos. But I will vote for what I believe is the lesser of evil that has a reasonable opportunity to win, I don't want to waste whatever small impact my one vote can have. That's my story and I will stick with it until I have better understanding. If you think you can enlighten me then have at it.There was nothing in my post that was putting words into YOUR mouth. I was writing in response to what you posted and, so, the words are entirely mine.

The problem with voting for the lesser of the evils, besides the fact that you're behaving like a stupid sheep that can't think for himself (which is exactly what the Democrats, Republicans and the media want you to do), is that people who could actually change the status quo get pushed aside. Candidates and political parties become viable when people vote for them!

[Chan]

The Democrats are the more evil, I don't believe anyone of them. They oppose the very basics of human responsibility, so I don't give a rip what they do, I will not be voting for anyone of them.

But Ron Paul's view could very well turn GOP voters to the Democrats, by dividing and creating suspicion among the party faithful. Of course, the Democrats are Ron Paul's greatest fans.Do you realize that Ron Paul's views were the views Republicans ran on in 1994 when they won control of Congress? Do you realize that throughout the 1990s most of Ron Paul's views were mainstream Republican views?