Ron Paul just ended his campaign

Slightly off topic, but still related.

Lets get rid of some of those bases in Europe and then we can spend more time figuring out the Middle East. Let those Europeans take care of things themselves.
 
divemedic,
At the time, they (our Founders) were traitors- since there was no "United States" for them to be patriots of-
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. They declared their independence, and established (albeit in basic form) a new nation. At that point, they were fighting for, and in the name of, a new nation.

Could you please tell me what nation these current terrorists are fighting for?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul VERY interesting. Listening to all the "conservative" mouths, you'd think he was a joke. Not according to this. Plus the fact that we have about 4 or 5 threads about Ron Paul going on with 90% good things to day among just our circle, I think the OP of this thread has been safely put to rest (hopefully to the original poster's relief)

May 3rd GOP Presidential Debates
Ron Paul participated along with nine other Republican presidential candidates in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library's 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates Debate on May 3, 2007 sponsored by MSNBC. In an non-scientific MSNBC online poll following the debate, Paul received over 40% of the responses to several positive questions such as "Who showed the most leadership qualities?" Approximately 70,000 votes were cast as of May 9.[18] An ABC News article reported Paul's apparent win in online polling, but noted that online polls are not scientific and they do not indicate that Paul has widespread support among voters.[19] In an ABC News debate vote “WHICH REPUBLICAN CAME OUT ON TOP?”,[20] Ron Paul garnered over 85%. The C-SPAN debate vote[21] had similar results with over 70 percent casting their votes for Paul. ABC News attributed Paul's success to viral marketing by his supporters, noting that Paul has a "robust online presence".[22]

Since May 9, 2007 the term "Ron Paul" has been listed as the #1 top Internet search term by Technorati.com[23] and on May 9, 2007 was ranked #815 on Wikicharts,[24] a measurement of most-viewed Wikipedia pages, above better-known Republican contenders such as Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani, and John McCain. The U.S. News & World Report article titled "Ron Paul's Online Rise"[25] states "Technorati spokesman Aaron Krane confirmed that, to the best of the company's knowledge, the online support for Paul is genuine. (Tech-savvy devotees occasionally attempt to enlist programs called "bots" to artificially boost their candidate on search engines, but Krane said Technorati is usually able to detect and delete the cheaters.)"

In a May 10, 2007 article titled "Defeat the Media Clones"[26] on LewRockwell.com Thomas Woods notes that, "The same media establishment that bought the Iraq propaganda package and then claimed to be oh-so-sorry is now trying to keep out of the limelight the one presidential contender (Ron Paul) who has actually bucked the establishment and does something other than parrot government/media slogans."

On May 11, 2007 Jim Capo National Spokesman for the John Birch Society and writer for The New American, the organization's biweekly news magazine, published an article titled "Media Elites Struggle to Keep Ron Paul Under Wraps"[27] in which the author observes that "the silent treatment of Ron Paul" in the mainstream media is "becoming deafening". Capo implies that Americans should take issue with the assumption that the so called "scientific off-line polls of a few thousand people that (the mainstream media) control and tell you about are correct".

A May 12, 2007 article on OpEdNews.com by Alex Wallenwein titled "MEDIA BLACKOUT BOOSTS PAUL CAMPAIGN"[28] recommends that "the Paul campaign should probably avoid courting the media’s attention. Not only that, the campaign should actually avoid talking to big media reporters, period. Having big media cover the debates live is good enough. The Internet is very well capable of disseminating Ron Paul’s message of Hope for America. Big media always injects a sense of doom and hopelessness into everything they touch, anyway."

As of May 18, 2007, techPresident.com reports that Dr. Ron Paul's YouTube Video Website statistics[29] have surged to place him well ahead of all other Republican candidates at 3,875 subscriptions and growing. The next closest Republican candidate, Romney, has 1,955 subscriptions. Of the Democratic candidates only Obama has more YouTube subscriptions at 5,598. [this source's reliability may need verification]

According to Joshua Dorkin at TimeForBlogging.com,[30] "As you can see, this candidate (Ron Paul) is fast becoming a real internet sensation, not a manufactured one. He generated passion and curiousity and the people took over from there. I don’t really foresee this guy ripping off his supporters by stealing their MySpace support page (really stupid move for Obama)." [this source's reliability may need verification]


May 15th GOP Presidential Debate
In a May 15, 2007 GOP debate in South Carolina, Ron Paul took a close second (25%) to Mitt Romney, who received the most votes (29%) in a Fox News-sponsored non-scientific poll.[31] On other sites, such as ABC News and MSNBC, Paul was the night's winner, according to respondents in non-scientific polls.[32][33]

During the debate, Congressman Paul commented that America's history of interventionism in the Middle East has led to an unpopular view of the U.S. in Middle Eastern countries. Agreeing with what has previously been asserted by the 9/11 Commission Report and the CIA's specialists on al Qaeda, Paul stated that the CIA removal of an elected Iranian leader (the 1953 removal of the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq in Operation Ajax) and the bombing of Iraq in the 1990s, culminating in the ongoing Iraq war, has led to increasing anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. He went on, stating that these events have also led to terrorists developing such a hatred for America that they're willing to die in suicide attacks and are able to recruit others for their cause. He went on to say the following:

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.[34]
Rudy Giuliani interrupted to suggest Paul was implying that America had invited the September 11, 2001 attacks; he demanded a retraction and called the idea "absurd". Ron Paul defended his previous statement, which did not mention 9/11, and further explained, "I believe the CIA is correct when it warns us about blowback. We overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and their taking the hostages was the reaction. This dynamic persists and we ignore it at our risk. They’re not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there."

While Paul's assertions have received criticism from some, other reports have found that Ron Paul is factually correct with his assertion;[35] as cited in the 9/11 Commission Report, Osama bin Laden's 1996 fatwa[4] called "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," published in Britain, reveals his anger with American policies as his reason for declaring a fatwa. In his fatwa, bin Laden cites the reasons for attacking America. In order, they are:

American involvement in the Middle East, including U.S. armies in Saudi Arabia
Palestine, and
Bombings of Iraq in the 1990s
The Nation detailed how the CIA's former bin Laden and al Qaeda specialist, Michael Scheuer, told CNN, "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."[36] Chalmers Johnson, a CIA analyst, political scientist and author of the year 2000 book "Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire"[37] spoke of blowback in regards to the September 11 attacks in October 2001.[38]

In a press release following the debate, Paul's campaign chairman Kent Snyder said in response to Giuliani, "It is clear from his interruption that former Mayor Giuliani has not read the 9-11 Commission Report and has no clue on how to keep America safe" [39] and on May 16, 2007, during an appearance on The Situation Room with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Dr. Paul asked for an apology from Giuliani and suggested that Giuliani should read the 9/11 Commission's Report.[40]

Early supporter of the Iraq War Andrew Sullivan was led by Rep. Paul's remarks to conclude that:

The question serious supporters of a real war on terror must now ask is: will continuing the fight in Iraq help reverse this trend or cement it for decades to come? Is the war making us less secure and the world much less safe? Would withdrawal or continued engagement makes things better? At the very least, it seems to me, this question should be on the table in the Iraq debate. And yet the Republicans - with the exception of Ron Paul - don't even want to talk about it. Until they do, they are not a party serious about national security.[41]

In the debate, only Ron Paul and John McCain did not endorse torture. [42]
Click to expand...
 
She's a little cutie but a shrill nonetheless. This is because Fox News doesn't actually hire journalists, only entertainers.
 
FOX is better than all the rest...but even it leaves much to be desired. They may not have the liberal slant all the others do, but all FOX is really noted for is having the most good looking women....and even they may not even have good brains...just good looks. It's superficial, it's just a bunch of pretty faces talking.
 
I'll admit that Ingraham can look elegant when she cleans up but Coulter needs a cheeseburger and is more of a rotten bitch than the other two put together. I'm no chubby chaser but we don't need to see your ribs, darlin' :barf:



Anyways, back to the topic at hand. :p
XD-Ro said:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/18/martin/index.html
Click to expand...
Good article. People seem to forget that we have indeed caused a lot of crap over the world. It still amazes me that there haven't been terrorist actions commited by a number of Central and South American nations we've bent over the kitchen table.

Yet this is somehow news to people. :rolleyes: Oh dear, we can't ever suggest that 9/11 was ever related to anything we've ever done because that means we'd have to take responsibility for our own actions!
 
Ahenry-

The declaration of independence did not create the Union, all it did was announce to King George that the colonies were in a state of rebellion. The Declaration was signed July 4, 1776. The Articles of Confederation (the precursor to the Constitution) were not ratified until November 15, 1777.

So tell me how George Washington differed from the men we are now branding as terrorists.
 
washington

Washington was asked by a representative body, to serve .( Continental Congress,) and conducted war action against military establishment. Representatives from each state attended the Congressional meeting.
Our soldiers fought to bring freedoms given by God to those of the US.
Washington relinguished power freely to perserve a democratic republic, 1st leader in History to do so.

Terrorists are zealots who do not represent a Soverign state or body of people. Their intent is to take away YOUR freedom to worship The GOD of your choice and IMPOSE their GOD on you.If you are not Muslim you are an Infidel and by dictates of their version of the Koran must be killed.

Simply stated US government(which is us) did not and are not responsible for attacks by these cowardly Sons of Perdition. Responsibility falls on those perpetrating the action. We have been attacked. A state of war exsists and these evil worshipers want total destruction of our way of life and Capitualation to Their GOD. As for me and my House we will Worship THE LORD Jesus Christ in the free country of America and will Fight all evil doers who would make us bow to any other GOD be they domestic or international.
 
Simply stated US government(which is us) did not and are not responsible for attacks by these cowardly Sons of Perdition.
Click to expand...

Get off your high horse buddy. The problem with people like you is that you confuse government with country. I am not the government I am a citizen.

The foreign policy of my Government was responsible for the attacks on Sept 11. That comment is not anti American or Anit Government. That is a fact.
 
The Continental Congress was not a government at the time the war started. That came later.

I am not saying we shouldn't fight- we were attacked. After all, it was our meddling in Japan's affairs that caused Pearl Harbor to happen- but we still had a right to fight back.

I am just saying that we would not have been attacked on 9-11 if we weren't constantly trying to bully everyone in the world into doing it our way. Let me rephrase what you said to reflect the opinion of the other side:

A state of war exists and these evil worshipers want total destruction of our way of life and Capitulation to Their GOD. As for me and my House we will Worship THE LORD Allah in the free country of Palestine and will Fight all evil doers who would make us bow to any other GOD be they domestic or international.

Don't you see that they are protecting what they see as their way of life? The rest of the world sees this country as a bunch of Christian crusaders out to force their will on the "heathens"
 
helpless said:
The foreign policy of my Government was responsible for the attacks on Sept 11. That comment is not anti American or Anit Government. That is a fact.
Click to expand...
That is an opinion, kind sir or madam, and nothing near to being a fact.

What is the difference between your blaming the foreign policy of the .gov for the September 11 atrocities and the leftists who blame "society" for the actions of a few sociopaths? None.

What Ron Paul said was wrong. He's entitled to his opinion and it is his right to be wrong.

U.S. foreign policy didn't kill 2,997 people on September 11, 2001 any more than society killed 32 people on April 16, 2007.

-Dave
 
TBM,
Depends on how you define "fact".
If you define "fact" as the official government finding, the 9/11 commission supports his statement.
If you define "fact" as the public statement of the mastermind himself, that supports his statement too.
If you support "fact" as the end-result of objective reality and reasoning, that supports his statement too.

The terrorists could give two squirts about what goes on over here in the land of the decadent so long as it doesn't impact them. But we have been directly affecting their commerce, their sovereignty, their politics, and their autonomy for the last fifty years. If you think that doesn't factor into it, perhaps you could be so kind as to enlighten us as to why they've been so busy attacking us as opposed to...say..Denmark.

I don't know what you consider to be "fact", but the rest of us seem to be going with something that doesn't fit your definition.

/just sayin'.

And as an aside, I do believe that "society's" silly P.C. rules about guns had a direct impact on V.T.
 
Even the most ardent of Paul supporters must concede that there isn't any way that Paul will take the nomination.
Click to expand...
Since I don't concede, your statement must be a ... ahem ... falsehood.

Unless, of course, you are referring to only the single, very most ardent supporter. That is probably someone else, but my guess is that he doesn't concede either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top