I think I’ve been pretty strident in my objections to a great deal of the Libertarian Position. That said, I don’t put a great deal of stock in the “gotcha” attack on those that voted to give Bush broad powers to use force. Almost every politician in the country voted that way, but it seems unfair to say that they ever envisioned an entire invasion and the total corruption and ineptitude that followed. I don’t hold it against Clinton, I won’t use it against Paul.

My favorite Ron Paul qute of the night:

–

“Why don’t we just open up the constitution and read it? You’re not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war. The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous, there’s no way, this is just war propaganda, continued war propaganda preparing this nation to go war and spread this war, not only in Iraq but into Iran, unconstitutionally. It is a road to disaster for us as a nation, it’s a road to our financial disaster if we don’t read the constitution.”
- Ron Paul [10/09/07]

Ron Paul- “We haven’t had an imminent attack in 220 years in this country!”

Thanks for failing US History Ron. You are not fit for the presidency.

Tell us Tman, which ‘country’ attacked us on 9/11? And tell us how that war is going?

Tell us Tman, which ‘country’ attacked us on 9/11?

No ‘country’ that would fit your description attacked us, but several countries did harbor those responsible and bragged about it. Two of those countries were Afghanistan and Iraq.

And tell us how that war is going?

Tell me William, what is the reason for the quote “This day will live in infamy”?

My tag-foo is weak lately. Bah.

Tell me William, what is the reason for the quote “This day will live in infamy”?

Oooh! Oooh! I know this one.

The attack on Pearl Harbour on 7 Dec. 1941 took place before Hawaii became a state in 1959. Therefore it was not technically an attack on “our soil”.

Of course you could extra-hard quibble and say since it was an attack on THE HARBOUR it was not on our “soil” regardless…

Ron Paul is right, if an attack like 9/11 could be attributed to a nation, that nation would be toast. We tried to attribute it to Afghanistan although most of the attackers were Saudis. Bush’s war in Afghanistan failed to catch bin Laden when he had him cornered. Now the Taliban are stronger than ever fueled by a record opium crop.

Ron Paul is right. [personal attack deleted–ed] Keep it up, keep sucking up to a failed policy, you’ll see why Ron Paul is right, after the demise of the GOP and the upcoming domination of the Democrats you’ve empowered.

Of course you could extra-hard quibble

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Pam,

How do you square these two statements?

“We tried to attribute it to Afghanistan although most of the attackers were Saudis. ”

” Bush’s war in Afghanistan failed to catch bin Laden when he had him cornered.”

Seems to me that Afghnistan had harbored the folks directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and they bragged about it.

Now the Taliban are stronger than ever fueled by a record opium crop.

Then why aren’t they in charge of the country anymore? Why is there record numbers of businesses that would never have been allowed under the taliban? Why did Hamid Karzai get elected? Why are their womens universities in Kabul?

Tman appears to be a typical fear mongering, sabre rattling, anti-environmental, beef eating neocon … a Bush butt boy and an example of the reason the GOP is going down.

A Bush butt boy. Nice.

Keep it up, keep sucking up to a failed policy, you’ll see why Ron Paul is right, after the demise of the GOP and the upcoming domination of the Democrats you’ve empowered.

Ron Paul is a joke candidate and will not make it past the first primarys.

If you think Clinton, who appears poised to dominate the democratic field will do less sabre rattling, you’re in for a grand disappointment.

It’s kind of funny, but I wish you guys would leave the insults in. It makes the people saying them look even more hopeless.

People with strong arguments don’t need to insult the people they disagree with.

[Okay. I was getting ready to take the reference out of your reply, but if you want them there I guess that’s your prerogative. Just don’t respond in kind, please.–ed]

Yeah, I would prefer you leave it in. People can read for themselves who is the one playing the ball and not the man.

Tman,
I wouldn’t necessarily vote for Ron Paul, the GOP’s most sensible candidate, but it is good to hear the neocons laugh at him everytime he opens his mouth and then watch him crush his opponents in every debate poll ever taken.

I echo what Pam said (don’t know about the deleted part) that your authoritarian allegience to Bush and a failed policy/presidency is the best thing you can do for Hillary and the Dems. The GOP is falling apart due to the incompetence of the Bush Administration. With a solid majority of Americans against the war, you are in abject denial in believing any pro-war GOP candidate can win, especially those that are anti-choice like Thompson.

Much of this support for Bush and those like yourself who buy the continued war/fear propaganda that Ron Paul talks about, tends to prey upon people like yourself, people that have a basic lack of knowledge as demonstrated by your previous comment where you mention Iraq in connection with 9/11 and you don’t seem to understand some of Afghanistan has recently been retaken by the Taliban and the war has escalated and 2007 will be the deadliest year in that war since the US invaded.

The bottom line is what Pam said, thanks for your support.

There is little doubt that Ron Paul will fade after a primary or two. But to discount his message and its effect on voters is myopic at best. Remember Howard Dean? He may not hold office, but he brought a message to the Dem party that obviously resonated with the base, and beyond. He continues to not just be relevant, but is actively shaping Dem campaigns.

T-Man, ignoring the obvious links from 9/11 to Saudi Arabia seems more than a little disingenuous. Bragged about it? So what?

These invasions are bankrupting us, and not having the effect of “making us safer.” The curtain has been pulled back on this gravy train, and while I don’t embrace a Libertarian viewpoint, Paul is dead on here.

William,

it is good to hear the neocons laugh at him everytime he opens his mouth and then watch him crush his opponents in every debate poll ever taken.

Ah. The debate “polls”. You realize that Ron Paul has an internet Army that skews any poll taken with his name on it, right? LGF has polls about the debates and every time Charles confirms the IP’s that people are spamming his polls. The poll argument is not a strong one in my opinion.

The GOP is falling apart due to the incompetence of the Bush Administration.

I think the GOP isn’t falling apart, but it is failing due to the fact that they have abandoned the principles of smaller government and accountability that got them elected in the first place.

With a solid majority of Americans against the war, you are in abject denial in believing any pro-war GOP candidate can win, especially those that are anti-choice like Thompson.

We’ll see William. You can call it abject denial if you want, I disagree.

your authoritarian allegience to Bush and a failed policy/presidency is the best thing you can do for Hillary and the Dems.

That’s a pretty ridiculous assessment of me. Just because I support the war doesn’t mean I have “authoritarian allegience”. And I can’t wait to see Clinton try and weasel out of her pro-war statements after 9/11 when she finally gets called on them.

people like yourself, people that have a basic lack of knowledge as demonstrated by your previous comment where you mention Iraq in connection with 9/11.

Thanks, but I mentioned that Iraq was responsible for harboring terrorists such as Zarqawi or Mahmoud Abbas. I didn’t say Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, nor do I believe it did. But after the Taliban was defeated, many Islamic terrorists fled to Iraq for safe harbor, and they met several friends who were already there. I quote the 2003 AUMF- “Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; ”

you don’t seem to understand some of Afghanistan has recently been retaken by the Taliban and the war has escalated and 2007 will be the deadliest year in that war since the US invaded.

“some” of Afghanistan? Deadliest since the US invaded? Do have any statistics to back this up?

The bottom line is what Pam said, thanks for your support.

Um, you’re welcome?

I’m a huge Ron Paul supporter, and have been before he was this year’s Howard Dean. (He is.)

I can confirm that the web polls, while delightful upon first glance, are largely inflated by the legion Paul supporters.

Mack,

T-Man, ignoring the obvious links from 9/11 to Saudi Arabia seems more than a little disingenuous. Bragged about it? So what?

No Mack, they bragged about harboring Bin Laden. Not a smart move.

These invasions are bankrupting us, and not having the effect of “making us safer.”

Americans coughed up a record $2.568 trillion in taxes to the IRS in 2007, or 6.7% more than in 2006. This means federal receipts have climbed by $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. The war is hardly bankrupting the nation. And how many attacks have happened since 9/11 again?

William, what do you think of Ron Paul’s constitutional positions on domestic issues, specifically the “it’s not yours to give” position, and the anti-abortion stance? If it was up to Paul, there would be absolutely no government hand out programs.

Take away his war position and it would seem that Paul would not make much sense to a socialist like yourself. I think that is probably true for the many other village idiots who stand outside holding up poster boards attached to sticks.

I watched part of the debate myself and I thought Paul’s reference to monetary theory was refreshing. I thought it was kind of ironic that McCain would tell a classical liberal like Paul to read the Wealth of Nations. If anybody should read Adam Smith, it should be McCain. Guiliani and Romney both sounded like liberal Republicans. Romney kept beginning sentences with “we need to”, the we being government. Tancredo and Hunter, especially Hunter, sounded like a couple of wacko protectionists, who want to put up a gate and trade with nobody. Huckabee alluded to the Fair Tax, which was good and another candidate mentioned a Flat Tax, which was also good. Thompson came across as the only real principled conservative. McCain, Romney and Rudy, all seemed like they would be business as usual if elected, not much different than the last twenty years of Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43. They didn’t come across as ideologues who believe in something, just politicians who believe in not very much. They did not sound conservative, thats for sure. Quite the contrary, they sounded a lot like the big government Republican currently occupying the White House.

Yes Tman, Afgahnistan is a mess, despite what you may hear on Fox News.

Coalition deaths have risen every year and now at 191 this year - equal to the total for 2006. 2007 will be the deadliest year for US and coalition since the war began.

And the number of attacks are up as well. This wouldn’t have happen if we didn’t take our eye off the ball and finished the job. Incompetence rules.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/04/asia/AS-GEN-Afghan-Record-Violence.php

[…] 11th 2007, 3:36 pm Filed under: Ron Paul, libertarianism, taxes I’ve been wondering, as has Glen Dean over at MCB, how many of Ron Paul’s supporters understand that his other positions run […]