[quote]JeffR wrote:
I have to admit to being quite amused at the lines of attack used by the loons (jlesk), the communists (liftus), and the partisan democrats (rocky).
It seems that if this is all they have, Rudy should win big.
Vague associations and innuendos aren’t going to get you anywhere–see 2000-2004.
JeffR[/quote]
oh jeffrey jeffrey, it’s so easy to call names. Ron Paul swept the floor the all the other clowns, afterwards when the polls began to show that he was winning the debate wars, mainstream media did not know what to do to make him look bad, starting with the two stooges Hannity & Colmes.
Bulliani’s got nothing, and he’s milking the “American’s Mayor” label, but he’ll probably get elected to run against Billary, and unfortunately he’ll lose and then we’ll really be screwed…
Yeah, umm, I can’t believe I used to like Ron Paul. He sounded like a desperate, frustrated old man.
Although in my humble opinion, Rudy merely feigned indignation to score cheap political points, Ron Paul showed that he is a class A jackass in regards to terrorism. He sounds more like Harry Reid than his self-imagined Ronald Reagan.
I only saw that clip. Ron Paul made a fool of himself and Rudy pounced.
There’s Rudy, then there is everyone else. Both dems and Republicans are going to get swamped.
He is EXACTLY who I want to go after the slime who are killing our brave soldiers and civilians.
That moment reminds me of Reagan grabbing the mike.
Hello, Mr. President.
Even the dems will understand strength.
JeffR
We are talking about the same Rudy who put the NYC emergency center in WTC? and BFF with Kerik? [/quote]
Don’t waste your time, Jeff won’t bother replying to reasonable criticisms of Rudy, as he hasn’t on previous threads. He’s a huge fan of the lisping little authoritarian.
Yeah, umm, I can’t believe I used to like Ron Paul. He sounded like a desperate, frustrated old man.
Although in my humble opinion, Rudy merely feigned indignation to score cheap political points, Ron Paul showed that he is a class A jackass in regards to terrorism. He sounds more like Harry Reid than his self-imagined Ronald Reagan.
I only saw that clip. Ron Paul made a fool of himself and Rudy pounced.
I think Rudy got some points with the crowd, but Paul is right.
And we are talking about this part right?
But your average person does not want to hear that the actions of the United States contributed to the attack on 9/11.
Its must easier to simply say they hate us for our freedoms and then go bomb them.
But, the CIA agrees with Paul and not Rudy, and Osama even declared the reasons in his Fatwa back in 1996.
This is just silly. I think the average politically aware person understands that our refusal to withdraw from the world and let our enemies have their way gives them reason to attack us.
The average politically aware person also should understand that when a politician yammers like Ron Paul did in a public debate it emboldens the enemy.
This is a war that is being fought in the media as much as in Baghdad.
Any political candidate that tries to justify the reasons for terrorism in such a manner is a nimrod.
[/quote]
So in a war against a stateless enemy, a war that will last generations, politicians should refrain from debating their honest views of foreign policy for fear of “emboldening” the enemy?
I’m not real big on the idea that we should reign in our democracy because of some overblown fear that it strenghtens our enemy, especially in a war with no real end in sight. It seems like “emboldening the enemy” is convenient excuse for confining debate to political orthodoxies and even hushing criticism of the massive mistakes we’ve made in the last seven years.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Ron Paul is a jester at this point, providing some entertainment for serious contenders.
[/quote]
Nice, the facile dismissal of the most principled man in the race. Funny that you’re taking the same tack as the “MSM” you’re usually quick to deride.
You honestly think our actions don’t cause reactions, that what we do doesn’t have consequences? Does that make any sense at all?
It’s entirely possible to be a patriot, to not “blame America,” and to realize that our diplomatic and military efforts can have serious negative consequences. When we shoot up an Afghan wedding by mistake, think maybe mourning fathers and orphaned kids are going to become terrorists? Any chance of that?
Or if we support what is in essence a Crusader state planted in the Middle East, and rush arms to it while it’s in the midst of killing thousands of Lebanese civilians, is that maybe going to engender some ill-will?
None of this excuses terrorism, and I don’t even agree with Ron Paul’s foreign policy, although I admire him for having the guts to say it. Islamic terrorism is the result of a lot of things, but to pretend our actions have no effect on it is moronic.
The smartest thing Ron Paul said was, “We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.”
And it’s worth mentioning that Ron Paul, unlike most of the men on that stage, including Rudy Giuliani, served in his nation’s armed forces.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The average politically aware person also should understand that when a politician yammers like Ron Paul did in a public debate it emboldens the enemy.
You don’t even know what this means…you are just repeating partisan hackery.
How does this “embolden the enemy”? And what enemy are you referring to?[/quote]
If you don’t understand my statement you have no understanding of this whole war or terrorism in general.
Then kiss more of our freedoms goodbye and welcome the North American Union, which will suspend the Constitution.
Seriously, what a stupid post.
North American Union? get real.
Google it and learn. Also look up on youtube the concentration camps being buit in the US as we speak. And whoever said I was a democrat I only vote for true patriots so therefore being only 31 i have never voted. I swear somepeople are just begging to be enslaved
Yeah, umm, I can’t believe I used to like Ron Paul. He sounded like a desperate, frustrated old man.
Although in my humble opinion, Rudy merely feigned indignation to score cheap political points, Ron Paul showed that he is a class A jackass in regards to terrorism. He sounds more like Harry Reid than his self-imagined Ronald Reagan.
I only saw that clip. Ron Paul made a fool of himself and Rudy pounced.
I think Rudy got some points with the crowd, but Paul is right.
And we are talking about this part right?
But your average person does not want to hear that the actions of the United States contributed to the attack on 9/11.
Its must easier to simply say they hate us for our freedoms and then go bomb them.
But, the CIA agrees with Paul and not Rudy, and Osama even declared the reasons in his Fatwa back in 1996.
This is just silly. I think the average politically aware person understands that our refusal to withdraw from the world and let our enemies have their way gives them reason to attack us.
The average politically aware person also should understand that when a politician yammers like Ron Paul did in a public debate it emboldens the enemy.
This is a war that is being fought in the media as much as in Baghdad.
Any political candidate that tries to justify the reasons for terrorism in such a manner is a nimrod.
So in a war against a stateless enemy, a war that will last generations, politicians should refrain from debating their honest views of foreign policy for fear of “emboldening” the enemy?
I’m not real big on the idea that we should reign in our democracy because of some overblown fear that it strenghtens our enemy, especially in a war with no real end in sight. It seems like “emboldening the enemy” is convenient excuse for confining debate to political orthodoxies and even hushing criticism of the massive mistakes we’ve made in the last seven years.[/quote]
In a time of war politicians should refrain from blaming America for terrorists attacking it.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
In a time of war politicians should refrain from blaming America for terrorists attacking it.[/quote]
Yeah, much better to pretend that US foreign policy happens in a vacuum and that it has no effect whatsoever on anyone, anywhere.
Bombing people doesn’t piss them off. Destroying bridges, water supplies, roads, etc. doesn’t bother a population. These times are green ones, people loooove going back to nature.
Hell, don’t you often wish someone would take away your electricity, running water and roads? Just with the roads gone, think of all the extra space to bury your dead children. Only ungrateful bastards would miss that.
Occupying a country is a neutral proposition; Americans are welcome everywhere. Building permanent military bases doesn’t annoy anyone, they enjoy the presence of a foreign fighting force on their soil. Think about how happy we’d be to enjoy the protection of Russian or Chinese troops here. If only other nations were as generous as the Ol’ US of A.
No, in a time of war, reality does not apply. A true patriot should restrain himself to repeating platitudes like “they hate us for our freedom” and similar catchy slogans.
Everyone knows that in war, truth is always the first casualty.
Nice, the facile dismissal of the most principled man in the race. Funny that you’re taking the same tack as the “MSM” you’re usually quick to deride.[/quote]
No, he is no more “principled” than McCain or Giuliani - you just happen to like his principles more.
As is, Paul is the equivalent of Kucinich in his respective candidacy - hence the jester comment. He acts merely to make extraordinary (and idealistic) claims so other candidates can distinguish themselves from him.
Nowhere did I say what you are suggesting - I am saying the Islamists are not the reaction of legitimate grievances.
If what you say is true, why are Islamists slaughtering African Christians and animists in the Sudan? I bring this up constantly, and it doesn’t fit into the cause-and-effect you portray. But no one seems to have an answer.
Islamists have an independent agenda - they have goals. If America withdrew from the world completely, that agenda wouldn’t change. Ask the Africans.
Sure our actions can have negative consequences. No one said otherwise.
They just aren’t creating the “consequences” you suggest.
And why are your “cause and effect” scenarios always one-sided? Why can’t the actions of terrorists make thousands of enraged Americans sign up for the army to visit a vengeance on the peoples that give Islamism tacit cover?
Why aren’t you wagging your finger at Muslim cultures for the “negative consequences” they are creating by being complicit in terrorism? Why not lecture them on the “blowback” they are causing with their actions, causing Americans to take up arms against them?
Where is it, Gdollars? You lament what happens when we “accidentally shoot up a wedding” - what about the reverse, when American civilians are slaughtered? Where is your warning to Muslim cultures that they better shape up lest they invite more American vengeance?
The predictable Israel whine - I expected better.
Israel has a right to exist. A “crusader state”, aye? It’s clear which side you want to take.
Well, again you miss the point - I don’t our actions have some kind of effect. But our actions don’t “create” Islamism any more than our resistance to fascism encouraged people to become fascists.
Let’s see, maybe your are right - if I am a 7th centure barbarian who wants to re-establish a caliphate, humiliated by the mere existence of Jews in land in which they should have no power, I would see their point exactly.
Paul’s simplistic moral equivacation ignores everything that is important in the debate, and here is why: he reflexively presumes that the grievances are legitimate.
I don’t. They can hate Israel as much as they want, but I won’t simply acquiesce and say “well, you have a right to that and we should adjust our foreign policy accordingly.” This is a battle of values - and willfully ignore the values in furtherance of being so deferential to their “complaints” is a recipe for suicide.
Good for Paul - and I appreciate his service. McCain served as well, and he agrees with my stance - so, do you have a point?
Then kiss more of our freedoms goodbye and welcome the North American Union, which will suspend the Constitution.
Seriously, what a stupid post.
North American Union? get real.
Google it and learn. Also look up on youtube the concentration camps being buit in the US as we speak. And whoever said I was a democrat I only vote for true patriots so therefore being only 31 i have never voted. I swear somepeople are just begging to be enslaved
[/quote]
LOL!! Major flames on the way…
Please note that you can vote before you are 31, btw.
In a time of war politicians should refrain from blaming America for terrorists attacking it.[/quote]
Ah yes, the simple attack everyone has been using on Ron since he gave that speech.
There, a six minute clip. In this short clip he proves he has a better understanding of foreign policy than the entire Bush administration together.
Oh yeah, and for those of you that think he is “weak” on terror, he says he WILL go after Osama if he is president.
Quite spreading the FUD that is running around. For all you Rudy fans who extole his virtues, the man lauds his 9/11 experience, yet he does not know some of the basic facts from the 9/11 commission report? And you want him to be president.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If you don’t understand my statement you have no understanding of this whole war or terrorism in general.
[/quote]
Well, so far none have it right…so I am pretty sure you fall into that same camp. I understand your statement to be the same illogical rhetoric. I proved my self correct numerous times, you don’t even know what it mean what you have written.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If you don’t understand my statement you have no understanding of this whole war or terrorism in general.
Well, so far none have it right…so I am pretty sure you fall into that same camp. I understand your statement to be the same illogical rhetoric. I proved my self correct numerous times, you don’t even know what it mean what you have written.[/quote]
Only in your own mind.
If you do not see how an American politician justifying terrorist acts helps the enemy recruit, etc then you are a lost cost.
Nice, the facile dismissal of the most principled man in the race. Funny that you’re taking the same tack as the “MSM” you’re usually quick to deride.
No, he is no more “principled” than McCain or Giuliani - you just happen to like his principles more.
As is, Paul is the equivalent of Kucinich in his respective candidacy - hence the jester comment. He acts merely to make extraordinary (and idealistic) claims so other candidates can distinguish themselves from him.
[/quote]
Again, calling someone a “jester” is a nice way to wall off his comments as being outside the bounds of reasonable discourse.
I’d say Ron Paul is markedly more principled than even McCain. Paul has:
never voted to raise taxes.
never voted for an unbalanced budget.
never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
never voted to raise congressional pay.
never taken a government-paid junket.
never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
voted against the Patriot Act.
voted against regulating the Internet.
voted against the Iraq war.
You seem to share the simplistic view of most “conservative” pundits and politicians that “Islamists” are one big bloc. I thought you were smarter than that. They’re not. Hamas is not Hezbollah is not Al Qaeda is not the Janjaweed is not Kashmir militants is not Iran is not Saudi Arabia is not the Islamic Courts Union is not the AKP is not the Muslim Brotherhood. The word “Islamofascism,” which gets tossed around by idiots all the time, is moronic, because it assumes anyone we oppose is part of one global movement. They’re not.
Some of these people want a caliphate, some want national theocracies, some are fighting to kick occupiers out of their homeland, some are even peaceful, mildly religious political parties. All are “Islamist.” Some are fanatics bent on world domination, many are at war with us, and a few could even be our allies. Some, believe it or not, have legitimate grievances. Saying someone has a legitimate grievance doesn’t equal justifying terrorism.
Putting “Islamists” into one big box is incredibly simplistic, stupid, and worst of all, self-defeating. David Kilcullen, an Australian lieutenant colonel and doctor of anthropology who is now in Baghdad as one of General Petraeus’ chief counter-insurgency experts, thinks our strategy should be the exact opposite, disaggregation. I’d link to the New Yorker story on it, but it’s no longer online.
Doesn’t seem to have happened. Military retention and recruitment issues are getting worse every year, especially in the Army.
Maybe I’m in error in assuming that some things are just common sense, that when insurgents decapitate aid workers or blow up worshipers, that’s just assumed to be wrong. Thought we were all on the same page here, and didn’t automatically assume that a critic of his own side is therefore a cheerleader for the enemy. My mistake.
OK, I think Israel should be a multi-ethnic state encompassing all of Israel and the occupied territories with equal rights for everyone in its borders, Jew and Arab alike, like South Africa after appartheid. Whose side does that put me on?
And you reflexively assume that they aren’t. Many of them aren’t, we obviously can’t negotiate or cater to people who want to exterminate us. But if there were Iranian troops in Canada, there under the best of intentions but still killing thousands of Canadian civilians a year, you don’t think many Americans would be radicalized? It’s not “appeasement,” or “surrender,” or whatever other stupid buzzword is in vogue, to want to fight this war intelligently.
Yes, that the demagogue attacking Ron Paul is also a hypocrite.
Ron Paul seems pretty clueless when he makes statements like he did in the debate as does Pat Buchanon.
Everyone understands that we are a target for terrorists because of our policies.
The statements made seem to provide the terrorists justifications for their actions without further examining why are policies are the way they are.
Paul (and some of the posters here) are acting as if this is new knowledge and don’t understand why it is a bad idea to discuss these things in a televised presidential debate.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Paul (and some of the posters here) are acting as if this is new knowledge and don’t understand why it is a bad idea to discuss these things in a televised presidential debate.
[/quote]
Zap, there is an elephant in the room. You can choose to ignore it or you can engage in civilized, rational debate about it. Either way, the elephant is going no where.
