Video: Rudy blasts Ron Paul’s apology for 9/11

posted at 11:16 pm on May 15, 2007 by Allahpundit

Ahem.

The smartass reply would have been to ask Paul whether, if in fact conditions in Iraq precipitated 9/11, it wasn’t perfectly appropriate then to take extreme measures to try to remedy those conditions afterwards. A more thoughtful response would have been to ask him what his studiously noninterventionist “constitutional” option would have been when Saddam invaded Kuwait. But that’s all gravy; Rudy’s answer suffices as an expression of the palpable disgust most Americans (or at least most conservatives) felt at that moment for that Bircheresque crank, which is why he got the reaction he did. You can hear Mitt at the end over the din demanding that Rudy not be given the extra 30 seconds he requested, and with good reason — he might have walked away with the nomination right there.

I tacked on a bit from the post-debate interview with H&C for good measure. I like the analogy Rudy draws between Paul and another terror apologist he once encountered.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

And now PAUL is the leading vote getter on Fox’s “text” your vote in….HHmmmm Who is watching/voting? WTF?

shooter on May 15, 2007 at 11:19 PM

…would have been to ask Paul what his studiously noninterventionist “constitutional” reaction would have been to Saddma’s invasion of Kuwait.

No kidding. I thought the exact same thing when I heard him say it. His whole position that we somehow deserved to be attacked because we prevented Saddam from pillaging a small country was ridiculous. Rudy slammed him again in the follow-up segment with Sean and Allen. It was priceless that every candidate on the stage wanted time to rebut this jack@ss. He’s definitely running on the wrong ticket and I’m sure the MSM will praise him for taking such a brave stand.

thedecider on May 15, 2007 at 11:22 PM

That’s some good Rudy.

see-dubya on May 15, 2007 at 11:23 PM

shooter on May 15, 2007 at 11:19 PM

I’m thinking it’s a lefty scam like burying vids on You Tube.

thedecider on May 15, 2007 at 11:23 PM

The nutroots are hijacking the text poll…losers.

SouthernGent on May 15, 2007 at 11:24 PM

I didn’t think Mitt was demanding Rudy Not get 30 seconds. What I heard was Mitt saying that all the candidates need 30 seconds to counter Paul’s outrageous views.

Melba Toast on May 15, 2007 at 11:26 PM

So, the hostages were our fault, too? He’s beyond stupid. He’s insane. Nice job by Rudy.

amerpundit on May 15, 2007 at 11:29 PM

Melba Toast on May 15, 2007 at 11:26 PM

Yeah, I think he wanted everyone to get a chance to counter remarks.

amerpundit on May 15, 2007 at 11:30 PM

The nuroots are living in cyberspace and thinking it matters. It don’t. They are living in a fantasy land , Rudy knows the real world. Too real for them to handle.

bbz123 on May 15, 2007 at 11:30 PM

You can hear Mitt at the end over the din demanding that Rudy not be given the extra 30 seconds he requested, and with good reason — he might have walked away with the nomination right there.

He might have anyway. But you’re spot on there.

rick moran on May 15, 2007 at 11:30 PM

Here’s little more red meat for the Ron Paul feast-o-rama.

Dig in.

The Ugly American on May 15, 2007 at 11:40 PM

And now PAUL is the leading vote getter on Fox’s “text” your vote in….HHmmmm Who is watching/voting? WTF?

Why do you care? Noone pays any attention to those unscientific online polls.

DaveS on May 15, 2007 at 11:45 PM

Ron Paul is a nut-case.

WHY the hell is he running as a Republican?!?!?!??!?!

Just listened to him with Hannity and Colmes.

This guy makes Ross Perot look normal.

Talon on May 15, 2007 at 11:46 PM

An embassy in Iraq bigger than the Vatican? Is he exaggerating or just off his nut?

I read someone’s response somewhere on an online poll (sorry, it’s late and I really don’t feel like searching around for it now) who said that Ron Paul has the best chance of winning the general election. I know he’s got lots of people who support him and believe in him. But I don’t see how.

Gottafang on May 15, 2007 at 11:47 PM

So Paul seems to believe that if China were investing in oil development in and about the United States, Americans would respond by murdering nearly 3,000 Chinese civilians in their homeland? He certainly has some peculiar notions about the American people.

He also seems a bit eager to believe Al Qaeda’s spin on their feelings about our troop presence overseas. Maybe he could arrange a one-on-one with Mullah Dadullah’s corpse, so he can ask it first-hand just how enthusiastic it is about the target-rich environment we’re currently providing.

1939′s on the line. They want their tool back.

Blacklake on May 15, 2007 at 11:54 PM

Is Ron Paul a Rudy plant?

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 12:00 AM

The nutroots are hijacking the text poll…losers.

A good argument as to why the morons on Fox and elsewhere should stop with the unscientific polls. The “scientific” ones are already useless enough; nobody needs witless attempts at turning the political process into a bad season of “American Idol” on top of them.

Blacklake on May 16, 2007 at 12:00 AM

Ron Paul is a tool. But what do you want to bet that the nutroots and the MSM will be blaming FOX news for Wendell’s follow-up question about non-intervention policy changes after 9/11? As for Reagan, I think the Gipper would be bombing the heck out of the middle east as well, and could hardly be described as a non-interventionist President. His use of Reagan’s name in an absurd attempt to support his point was absolutely shameful.

thedecider on May 16, 2007 at 12:01 AM

I can’t help but think FOX was trying to throw Ron under the bus – not that I mind, at all. He is after all, inconsequential. He was good television even if he was a complete idiot. He definitely added entertainment to what could have been a dull debate. Look at how we’re commenting about him? Roger Ailes you genius!

thedecider on May 16, 2007 at 12:07 AM

It would be interesting to ask Paul’s opinion on Jefferson’s handling of the Barbary Pirates, incidentally. If I recall those signatures at the end of the Constitution correctly, he actually was one of the founding fathers, and I don’t seem to think “blowback” was amongst his concerns.

Blacklake on May 16, 2007 at 12:07 AM

Reposting what I just said in the other thread, relating to Ron Paul:

Wow, Ron Paul a close second (after leading) in the text message voting on Fox News? Yeah, that’s not suspicious… Colmes is demanding reaction to something so stupid. Big deal, Ron Paul has a bunch of nutty supporters who think they’re going to make some statement by wasting their time and money voting in this stupid thing. It’s like when the Kos Kids flood online MSNBC polls and “prove” that 95% of the country wants to impeach Bush. Or all the idiot college kids showing up in the thousands to protest whatever is popular that week. Colmes, you’re an embarrassment as is anyone who gives that “poll” a second thought.

RightWinged on May 15, 2007 at 11:56 PM

Speaking to the specific Ron Paul comments… he blames the 9/11 attacks on us being in other countries including bombing Iraq for 10 years. Setting aside how misleading (at the very least) it is to say we were “bombing Iraq for 10 years”, does anyone else find it odd that HE is actually saying Iraq was involved in 9/11? Sure, he’s saying if you follow it back, it’s our fault, and sure, he’s not saying that Saddam ordered 9/11, but when he says our “bombing them for 10 years” lead to 9/11, he’s essentially saying they were involved. Something we don’t even say (despite the fact that the left accuses of saying it). It just seemed a little odd that those who oppose the Iraq war constantly say “Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11″ (which we, again, don’t claim anyway), yet the anti-war guy on this stage is actually saying the opposite.

RightWinged on May 16, 2007 at 12:10 AM

Rudy looked genuinely angry. I like that.

mikeyboss on May 16, 2007 at 12:17 AM

How can you tell a Ron Paul supporter from a left wing truther?…..

You can’t

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 12:20 AM

“Ding Ding” was an appropriate sound effect for ding dong Ron(Puke)Paul.

kevcad on May 16, 2007 at 12:20 AM

Rudy!

James on May 16, 2007 at 12:26 AM

There is one thing bothering me, and don’t take this as me being a lefty troll I sincerely want the answer to this.

Al Queda is not only spinning the reasons as hatred to us, but they are using the hatred against us to recruit. Now is it possible that there is an increased amount of Jihadists because of our visiblility?

In other words, assuming Ron Paul got elected and moved us all out, would the number of active Jihadists drop harshly?

Personally I don’t think that’s possible, because I believe that it’s moreso a hatred of the west than a hatred of our presence. But they do hate our presence, so would the recruitment plummet?

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 12:31 AM

Yeah, “Blame America First”. This Ron Paul guy is a total turd. Yet he exemplifies (sp) the trend of the Republican Party, and it’s pure cowardice. And it’s pissing me off. When is the Republican Party going to grow a spine?
This idiot needs to switch parties and join the other America haters.

SuperManGreenLantern on May 16, 2007 at 12:34 AM

That was a great line by Rudy, but c’mon….it was the ONLY answer possible to the stupidest, easiest target of the ten. Short of that, Rudy was unimpressive. The follow up line was better, I forget by who, was that the religion teaches the total takeover of the entire earth by islam. And even at that, Mitt! mentioned it before anyone else.

csdeven on May 16, 2007 at 12:40 AM

The nutroots are hijacking the text poll…losers.

You gotta give them credit for organization.

Their Dad’s are going to br pissed when the phone bill comes in though. You texted who? Why? Gimme the damn phone. You’re obviously not mature enough to have a phone.

BacaDog on May 16, 2007 at 12:42 AM

You can hear Mitt at the end over the din demanding that Rudy not be given the extra 30 seconds he requested, and with good reason — he might have walked away with the nomination right there.

Yep, not much is gonna get by a man with proven executive experience.

csdeven on May 16, 2007 at 12:43 AM

Excuse me for being the odd man out here, but I must say a few things…

Ron Paul is the only legislator who votes Constitutionally correct. Whatever happened to the Constitution being the supreme law of the land? Why is it so bad that someone is standing up for what the Constitution says Congress should be doing?

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve heard the whole “we brought the attacks on ourselves” a number of times, so I disagree with Paul’s conclusion there, but let’s be fair to the guy. He is not a moron, he is rather intelligent and understands the Constitution better than any other legislator out there.

Ask yourselves, when was the last time that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution was followed by Congress? When was the last time that Congress limited itself in the activities that it undertook.

I have listened to Ron Paul a number of times and he always says, “If you want to do things a certain way, then amend the Constitution to make it legal to do it that way.” But Congress never does. They just ignore the Constitution over and over again.

So he’s off a little on this issue, but would it be such a bad idea if we pulled in a little bit from our rampant nation building and world policing? We complain about income tax, but we don’t want to cut back on anything to help lower taxes. We complained during the Clinton years about his abuses of power, but we sign off on the same types of violations when we have terrorist attacks?

Terrorism does change how we wage war, but in which direction should it change it? We’ve gone the route of restricting citizen rights more and more in the name of “National Security”. I won’t bother quoting Franklin, but if the average citizen took national security into their own hands, none of those planes would have hit their target. None. United 93 didn’t have to be an isolated event. Law abiding citizens have been stripped of their rights, so what fear is there for the criminals?

9/11, Columbine, Utah’s Trolley Square incident, and Virginia Tech all have something in common. Madmen took advantage of the government’s policy of victim disarmament. The answer is not to give the Federal Government more power, it is to give the people more power.

Decoy256 on May 16, 2007 at 12:44 AM

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 12:31 AM

They don’t care if we are there militarily or not.
It is our culture that bothers them.

They are jealous of our freewheelin’ life style.

Jealous that western culture over took their’s after they had been on top for so long.

Every time they use a computer, oogle Scarlett Johansson, or talk on a cell phone they feel humilated.

They think they should be A-#1, they think they are chosen. They simply cannot deal with the fact that they are not.

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 12:45 AM

Rudy’s reaction in the debate, and his commentary on the topic on H&C were spot on.

Rudy/Fred or Fred/Rudy would provide some smackdowns, no matter the source asking for them. It promises to be a very long and interesting year and almost one half.

Today was not a very good day for Edwards/Clinton.

Entelechy on May 16, 2007 at 12:49 AM

Al Queda is not only spinning the reasons as hatred to us, but they are using the hatred against us to recruit. Now is it possible that there is an increased amount of Jihadists because of our visiblility?

Let’s think historically.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then ambassador to France, and John Adams, then ambassador to Britain, met in London with Tripoli’s ambassador, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. Jefferson and Adams asked by what right the Barbary States preyed upon American shipping, enslaving crews and passengers.

Adja replied that the actions of the Islamic nations were “… founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

They attacked us because we’re not Muslims. It was the same over 200 years ago as it is now.

Mojave Mark on May 16, 2007 at 12:50 AM

No you do not understand Mr Ron Paul so let me educate you.

We did not have hostages taken in Iran in 1979 because We backed the Shah in 1954. We had hostages taken in Iran because our Commander in Cheif was Jimmy Carter and nobody was afraid of him.

Your ideas exist in a vacuum Mr Paul. In 1954 the US and the entire world was threated by global Communism. We backed Iran because we knew that the Shah while bad was better than a communist dictatorship there.

And 9/11 didnt happen because of Iraq. None of the 9/11 attackers were Iraqi. Saddam was a different kind of threat but he was still a threat.

In summary mr Paul I suggest you read up more on history because your lack of knowledge of these matters is telling. The United States by staying strong and doing its utmost to defeat global communism won the cold war. Now we have a new global threat and appologizing and appeasing it is not an answer.

In 1941 people asked “shouldnt we be talking to the Nazis. The were the America First crowd and their naaivity led to an attack on Dec 7th. America has never been attack when its strong but when we show weakness. The same weakness you showed in this debate tonight.

I am ashamed that you are a fellow American.

William Amos on May 16, 2007 at 12:52 AM

Decoy: Instead of having the balls to tell that 9/11 Truther kid to go f**k himself, he instead gave him the patented John Edwards “I’ll look into it.”, response.

I’m sorry, but that is just unacceptable to me.

The man is not fit for office, let alone the presidency.

The Ugly American on May 16, 2007 at 12:53 AM

Ugly American: Do you honestly think any other politician would have put it quite the way you did? Besides, I don’t think that having a healthy suspicion of government stories is that bad? Have we not had enough corrupt leaders to learn our lesson? I’m not saying Bush is corrupt (I’m not a 9/11 truther), but is it so bad that people have this suspicion about what they are told? I don’t have a problem with it? I wish more people would question the government’s story about quite a few things.

But aside from all of the 9/11 truth stuff, there is a major problem in Washington, DC with regards to ignoring the Constitution whenever it suits them. I tell you that the Constitution hangs by a few brittle threads and if something is not done quickly to turn this country around, we won’t need Jihadists to turn us into slaves. We are a hair’s breadth from that with our own government already.

Decoy256 on May 16, 2007 at 1:03 AM

Here are 2 on-line polls that haven’t been totally hijacked by the Ron Paul kiddies … Wearetheright.com and Thevirtualvideomapblog.

DannoJyd on May 16, 2007 at 1:06 AM

Keljeck: It’s called a Target. Rich. Environment. To quote everyone’s favorite homoerotic movie.

They hate everything that we are and desire. They want to control the world. That’s a very seductive message to a certain spectrum, just as revolutionary communism or radical environmentalism are, irrespective of the merits or demerits of the society against which it is proposed to rebel. Too much nihilistic Nietschze that lies within the human heart and can be called out by evil. The only way to defeat it is for civilisation to be stronger, merciless, and unrelenting.

Rudy (and a few others) is solid on the only question that matters: Life, Liberty, And the Pursuit of All Who Threaten it. To quote a Navy ad. McCain worries about our treatment of the jihadis who love to make beheading videos, while Rudy is liable to take Air Force 1 to Afghanistan and bring along his own battery and jumper cables so he can assist in the interrogations. I now who I prefer on my side!

libertarianuberalles on May 16, 2007 at 1:09 AM

They attacked us because we’re not Muslims. It was the same over 200 years ago as it is now.

Jealous that western culture over took their’s after they had been on top for so long.

I’m not doubting any of this. I know that the true intention is their hatred of western culture, not necessarily America. They hate that we are not muslim and they hate that we don’t want to be and many times act exactly un-muslim (if that is a word). My point is that their pitch to other jihadists in Iraq or Israel isn’t “Western Culture sucks” that’s a given, their pitch is “Let’s get these bastards out of here.”

If we moved troops back, would the numbers of terrorists potentially die down? I think they would, but that would take a long time. So I still support the war effort. But I agree with Decoy when he says that it should not be in the form of nation building. Iraq has shown us this plan will not work because Iraqis and like minded people are simply not ready for democracy. And they will fight it.

It’s tough. All I’m going to say is that Ron Paul has a point when he says that they hate us because we are there, but he takes it too far. They are going to hate us regardless of our interventions. However, I feel that with that rationale gone the terrorist groups will be cut down, but then again we can’t just pull out. Ideally I wish along with Ron Paul that America would not need to intervene in other countries, and in fact we have done so wrongfully in the past. But this is a necessary war, and we have to deal with reality. The fact we had to intervene previously makes our intervention now even more essential, sadly enough. If we pull back, and if we don’t fight there, they will come after us in Israel, in Europe, and even on our own continent. They did not forget the Crusades, they will not forget WWI and after that.

Ron Paul doesn’t deal with reality, he wishes to attain his libertarian utopia. Which is not a bad thing, in fact that’s a good thing. It’s something we need domestically. But right now we can’t risk it abroad.

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 1:11 AM

Decoy256 on May 16, 2007 at 12:44 AM

The average citizen in Franklins time didn’t have to worry about killing by weapons of mass destruction via passenger airlines. The complexity of this country’s make up has made certain ways of thinking obsolete in certain situations. There is no way the average joe can defend himself and others in many situations. We are way too busy working and otherwise engaged in the running of our lives to handle the complexity of law enforcement these days. That’s why we have police departments etc.

RP is speaking to the constitution, but it’s way too late to turn back the clock now. It may lead to problems down the road, but hopefully calmer heads will prevail and the necessity to enact hundreds of constitutional amendments will not be necessary.

csdeven on May 16, 2007 at 1:13 AM

However, I feel that with that rationale gone the terrorist groups will be cut down,

Well that can’t happen any sign of weakness on our part will be a much larger rally point than us being there.

A pull out now would give them legitmacy and swagger they never could have gained on their own.

We need to crush the fanatics and get the rest hooked on xbox, porn, and beer…Just like me.

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 1:19 AM

csdeven on May 16, 2007 at 1:13 AM

Seriously? That’s your argument? Our time is “more complex” and those feeble minded forefathers couldn’t have conceived of the dangers we face today. That is BS and you know it. Are you honestly going to sit there and suggest that the “average Joe American” can defend himself? Well, let’s just hand the reins over to the fascists now and be done with it. Why do you support the 2nd Amendment? I certainly hope you aren’t still buying into the NRA crappy “sportsman’s rights” arguments. That was weak 50 years ago and it’s weak today. If it was going to work 50 years ago, we wouldn’t have the gun bans we have today.

I am sick and tired of people looking for ways to ignore or discount the Constitution. IF YOU WANT TO DO THINGS A DIFFERENT WAY, THEN AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO MAKE IT LEGAL!!!!!!!!! What is so hard about that? You honestly think that we are all that different than the founders? Well, make amendments to do things differently, but until then FOLLOW THE FREAKING CONSTITUTION!!!

Gosh! I am so tired of dealing with people who don’t use their God given mental capacities. Or maybe they are using them, which is an even scarier thought.

Decoy256 on May 16, 2007 at 1:30 AM

Well that can’t happen any sign of weakness on our part will be a much larger rally point than us being there.

A pull out now would give them legitmacy and swagger they never could have gained on their own.

If you read everything I wrote down I agree with you. They will utilize their momentum to fight back. My point is that it’s not necessarily their hatred of our culture that drives them to attack us, it’s the fact we are there. There is a large drive in muslim thought toward unity. There is one God, there is one Prophet ect. When they see Israel or a Western occupied Iraq they get pissed and it gives them extra rationale, and I think we need to recognize this.

However I also think that after a prolonged period of time the desire to attack the west will die down. Not that they won’t hate us anymore, but that they won’t bother flying planes into our buildings. Not that I want to cut and run. To quote Henry Kissinger the only meaningful exit strategy is victory. If we leave with our tail between our legs they’ll bite us in the ass. If we leave victorious, and remove our military presence, I think we can have a longer and more meaningful peace.

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 1:31 AM

Keljeck

eck on May 16, 2007 at 1:11 AM

I see your points of view, however, I think the prevailing thoughts on this subject are, if we leave Iraq now, the terrorists/insurgents will feel emboldened (whether they are or not, they will use it to their advantage) and the U.S. will appear (in the minds of these people and our challengers (China, North Korea, etc…)) weak and uncommitted. Tonight’s debate brought out a very good point – the U.S. is the last great hope of western-style democracy in the world. If we fall, all democracies fail and government of the people, by the people, for the people (as envisioned by our founding fathers) essentially dies and the radical dictators/Islamist facists win. Our image in the world as a superpower is as strong and meaningful as our ability to sustain a conflict and see it to a winning or meaningful conclusion.

thedecider on May 16, 2007 at 1:37 AM

Ron Paul has just become the new “maverick Republican” darling of Western Europe. Just wait for the stories today from the Euromedia…

Halley on May 16, 2007 at 1:37 AM

Decoy256 on May 16, 2007 at 1:30 AM

Show me a quote from a founding father that refers to the possibility of an attack by a group of individuals that could kill 3000 americans and you MIGHT be able to defeat my point. You can’t, I know you can’t, and you know you can’t, so why don’t you cut the BS and have an intellectually honest discussion?

What’s so hard about amending the constitution? You’re kidding right? Look, the knife cuts both ways and everyone has, does, and will continue to benefit from this culture of bypassing the constitution. You are advocating closing the barn door after the horse is already gone. That’s silly.

The founding fathers were brilliant for their time. Some of their ideas are valid, even more so, today as they were then. But there are other ideas that have seen their best days.

What you are tired of dealing with are people who are rational enough to know the difference between the real world and the imagined utopia that you are pining for.

csdeven on May 16, 2007 at 1:40 AM

You people don’t even listen to what the man is saying. You quickly label him and throw him to the side.

No wonder this country is going to hell in a hand basket.

Decoy256 on May 16, 2007 at 1:41 AM

Decoy256 on May 16, 2007 at 1:41 AM

No. If you’d enage this with me and give me a chance to expand, we might, and will, find areas of agreement.

csdeven on May 16, 2007 at 1:45 AM

You people don’t even listen to what the man is saying. You quickly label him and throw him to the side.

The man label’s himself he don’t need us.

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 1:45 AM

No. If you’d enage this with me and give me a chance to expand, we might, and will, find areas of agreement.
csdeven on May 16, 2007 at 1:45 AM

Why bother man? The dude is a true believer. Rational arguements are like bullets to superman… they bounce off.

It is Jim Jones, Kool Aid, David K and the Davidians…the dude is too far gone.

He doesn’t need a converstion he needs an intervention.

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 1:48 AM

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 1:45 AM

Maybe you’re right. You have labeled yourself as a close-minded, dogmatic, sheep. I guess I can just ignore you now. Yippee!

Decoy256 on May 16, 2007 at 1:50 AM

The founding fathers were brilliant for their time. Some of their ideas are valid, even more so, today as they were then. But there are other ideas that have seen their best days.

I don’t think their ideas have become any less valid. To me, believing that, makes someone a liberal in our current sense of the word. The constitution lacks validity so it’s a “living document.” I’m a conservative-libertarian. I believe we have the rule of law in this land for a reason. If we wish to change it, fine, but it should go through the proper venues. Though I agree at this point it’s hard to change it.

What makes their ideas less valid is that the U.S. had chosen not to follow the ideas of the Founding Fathers. Since the Great Depression, and before that, we have flagrantly ignored the classical liberal ideas our country was founded on. It’s not because the ideals have become any less valid, it’s because we’ve put ourselves in a position where it’s going to cause so much trouble that few people are going to want to do it.

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 1:53 AM

Ok, csdeven, you’re on. Let’s talk it out.

First rule: The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. If what you say doesn’t follow the Constitution, it is invalid. Period.

If we can’t agree on what the laws of this country are, we have nothing else to talk about.

So, go ahead… what would you like to have clarified?

Decoy256 on May 16, 2007 at 1:54 AM

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 1:53 AM

Keljeck, you are right on! Thank you… that is what I have been saying and Ron Paul is the only legislator that actually believes that. Everyone else should be impeached for violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

Decoy256 on May 16, 2007 at 1:56 AM

Maybe you’re right. You have labeled yourself as a close-minded, dogmatic, sheep.

Lamb? I love lamb. Bring out the mint jelly!

I guess I can just ignore you now. Yippee!

Good. Cause I have been ignoring you all night. I haven’t read one of your post all the way through cause they be so wacked…and yet still predictable.

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 1:57 AM

Everyone else should be impeached for violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

Like I said…wacked.

Ouch that was painful I had to read the whole post.

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 1:58 AM

This is why Rudy is so popular with Conservatives despite his pro-choice views. He’s got some passion. That’s what a lot of us are looking for.

I get really tired of comments like, “well, the rest of his answers were unimpressive.” Folks, Ronald Reagan (may he rest in peace) is gone. If you’re looking for someone who’s gonna blow your mind every time he opens his mouth, you should just wait until the day you shake hands with God.

Jim-Rose on May 16, 2007 at 2:07 AM

Though I agree at this point it’s hard to change it.
Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 1:53 AM

That is a perfect example. Sure we SHOULD follow the consitution, but we passed that so long ago, that it would be unimaginely difficult to change now. Ergo, the founding fathers, in all their wisdom, didn’t foresee this move away from their constitutional procedures. There may come a day that the problems caused by violating the consitution will make it worth the effort to attempt all the amendments. The first thing would be to strike down every single law that violates the consitution. This would cause a chaos that this country could not withstand. But, if cooler heads don’t prevail, we may have to do that one day.

csdeven on May 16, 2007 at 2:10 AM

Ron Paul – what a naive, stupid, ignorant, weak, fool! What a complete idiot! Who is supporting this fool?

omegaram on May 16, 2007 at 2:11 AM

Decoy256 on May 16, 2007 at 1:54 AM

Where do the founding fathers deal with the idea of commercial airliners being used as wmd’s and that the second amendment can prevent that from happening?

csdeven on May 16, 2007 at 2:13 AM

I get really tired of comments like, “well, the rest of his answers were unimpressive.” Folks, Ronald Reagan (may he rest in peace) is gone.
Jim-Rose on May 16, 2007 at 2:07 AM

His answers were unimpressive notwithstanding anything Reagan ever did. By my recolection, Reagan didn’t become the God of conservatism until after his first term.

I’m not looking for the next Reagan. I’m looking for the next conservative that makes Reagan a fond memory instead of a God for all conservativism.

csdeven on May 16, 2007 at 2:18 AM

Ergo, the founding fathers, in all their wisdom, didn’t foresee this move away from their constitutional procedures.

They thought people would obey the law and that people would vote for those who would uphold the law, thus is the failure of democracy. People don’t always vote for who’s right, just who they like.

I agree that to turn our nation constitutional again would cause mass chaos, if it’s done all at once. I don’t think we should do it all at once, I think it should be a process over time. America suffers from the same sickness Iraq suffers from concerning democracy, to a lesser extent. We have allowed our freedoms to be stripped. Many people are so used to the comfort of not having to chose that if their rights were offered to them they would reject them. Yet paradoxically, they want government to be smaller.

We won’t be able to do it in a year, but if the Republicans didn’t screw up it could have happened. But that’s what power does. I’m not going to give up the dream of a constitutional US. I’m not a man who cuts and runs. We need to continue voting for people who will lower taxes, eliminate the IRS, eliminate the Department of Education, ect. and not give up.

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 2:19 AM

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 2:19 AM

I have not studied it, but I like the sound of doing away with the IRS JUST to save the money it costs to run it. I think it could be a nice start. With our current system changing elected officials every two years, any coheisive attempt to get back to constitutionality would like not survive after two or three cycles. Considering all the jobs etc that would be lost to certain communities, the call for the old ways would be, as you pointed out, overwhelming.

csdeven on May 16, 2007 at 2:28 AM

eliminate the IRS, eliminate the Department of Education, ect. and not give up.

…and the monkeys are flying out of where?

You don’t seriously believe any of this do you?

How would these things ever in a million years actually, possibly happen.

Step off the Dumbo Ride, Fanstyland is closed.

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 2:30 AM

How would these things ever in a million years actually, possibly happen.

Step off the Dumbo Ride, Fanstyland is closed.

Well you see what we do is go to the primaries and elect actual conservatives. Then we give them money so that they run successful campaigns and get elected. Once elected hopefully they try to do it. Yes I realize it’s a stretch. But for a time people thought it would be a stretch to see the USSR fall. All it takes is public education.

People want to see lesser government, show them how to do it. In the end that is my goal, anything closer to that goal is alright in my book.

Keljeck on May 16, 2007 at 2:38 AM

People want to see lesser government, show them how to do it.

People want less government…until they don’t.

Then it’s gimme gimme gimme.

liberrocky on May 16, 2007 at 2:42 AM

Rudy is losing me. Quickly. The whole “they hate us for our freedom” bit is a lie. Rudy also played the “9/11 survivor” card out of context which made his reply look like pure self-puffery. Ron Paul merely said that the reasons for 9/11 (as given by the people who planned it) were our interventionist foreign policies. That won’t get you on H&C or a country music song like “they hate us because we’re free” will, but it’s the truth. Paul also said that their politics are irrational (by quoting Reagan). That’s hardly terrorism apologetics. That’s just realism.

Mark Jaquith on May 16, 2007 at 4:20 AM

I haven’t read one of your post all the way through

Well, that’s obvious. You are a complete idiot and I’m surprised you CAN read.

To everyone else, this whole “the Constitution isn’t being followed, but it’s too hard to do, so I guess we’ll have to live with things the way they are” thing is really the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

You know, I used to think HotAir was cool, but you all are just neocon/Republican traitors. Follow the Constitution or get out of the way.

Michelle, Allah, Brian, you all have some real talent and I respect you all, but unless you wake up to the sorry state of this country, the Republican party, and our Government you will lose many supporters.

Good-bye, HotAir. It was fun while it lasted, but I’ve had enough. Visit me at my website or forum. Farewell.

Decoy256 on May 16, 2007 at 4:25 AM

I am sick and tired of people looking for ways to ignore or discount the Constitution. IF YOU WANT TO DO THINGS A DIFFERENT WAY, THEN AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO MAKE IT LEGAL!!!!!!!!! What is so hard about that?

Hey, I love the Constitution. And believe that “he who govern’s least, governs best” It would be wonmderful if we could still govern responsibly according to the Constitution only (Plus I volunteered on Paul’s 1988 campaign so don’t try to bash me for not knowing what Paul is trying to say.)

But do you have the vaguest clue of how difficult and how long it takes to actually ammend the Constitution? (Rhetorical question; Obviously you do not.)

Amend the Constitution to micro-manage every little conflict and emergency? FOOLISHNESS. When we can build that impenetrable dome over the entire country and be entirely self-sufficient and not under threat of at least local anhillation by radicals, then we might have the leisure to amend the Constitution for every little thing.

Good-bye, HotAir. It was fun while it lasted, but I’ve had enough. Visit me at my website or forum. Farewell.
Decoy256 on May 16, 2007 at 4:25 AM

Don’t let the door hit you in the posterior on the way out.

LegendHasIt on May 16, 2007 at 5:24 AM

Don’t let the door hit you in the posterior on the way out.

LegendHasIt on May 16, 2007 at 5:24 AM

Ditto. Decoy, indeed. GFY.

Jaibones on May 16, 2007 at 6:43 AM

A quick follow-up on my comments in the other thread (which I reproduced once here), in case any of you need to shut up any idiot friends or coworkers you may run in to today. I’ll start with what I already said, and give you a sample of why this is obvious

Wow, Ron Paul a close second (after leading) in the text message voting on Fox News? Yeah, that’s not suspicious… Colmes is demanding reaction to something so stupid. Big deal, Ron Paul has a bunch of nutty supporters who think they’re going to make some statement by wasting their time and money voting in this stupid thing. It’s like when the Kos Kids flood online MSNBC polls and “prove” that 95% of the country wants to impeach Bush. Or all the idiot college kids showing up in the thousands to protest whatever is popular that week. Colmes, you’re an embarrassment as is anyone who gives that “poll” a second thought.

RightWinged on May 15, 2007 at 11:56 PM

Here’s the Digg page for “Ron Paul”… How did I get there? Well Paul’s page focuses more on links to his name or page at social networking, etc. sites all over the web (myspace, youtube, etc. etc. etc.) (Funny side note: Check out his page and notice how low on his priorities “Issues” is on the page. It’s all about donations and support, and giant colorful links to all those other sites where his deranged minions can pump him up.

Anyway, here’s the dig page. If you get there in time, You’ll find this headline:

http://digg.com/search?s=%22Ron+Paul%22&submit=Search&section=news&type=both&area=all&sort=new

Fox News SPINS Ron Paul’s Early Success in Polls 2nd Debate

The link actually goes to YouTube video (that most of you probably saw on Fox last night)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4e_ckSjyq0&NR=1

These idiot Ron Paul supporters are all commenting like he’s some savior and that Fox is “silly” and spinning, etc. I (honestly) wonder if they’re just being dishonest, or if they’re really that stupid to believe that a text message poll has any relevance to…. anything.

I guess the only reason I care about this is because I know he’s going to get press out of this and he’s really just a distraction and yet another thing the media can use to pretend there is this huge break within the party. When in reality his support is from a handful of people who have in all likelihood worn a tinfoil hat at some point in their lives. It doesn’t take much for a site with decent traffic to pull off crap like the text message scam.

Proof there is a (admittedly well oiled) machine at work for Ron Paul? His name in dig, sorted by most digs… The top link has 6282, and it’s a push to get him on the Daily Show (big shocker there, huh?).

http://digg.com/search?s=%22Ron+Paul%22&submit=Search&section=news&type=both&area=all&sort=most

As I said, I only care because of the distraction the press will pull on us with this guy… but I don’t care enough to research this further at the moment, time for me to crash. But that might be an interesting project for someone else this morning… find out what site was pushing their visitors to text bomb Fox News to make Ron Paul come out on top.

*BONUS* – I notice a lot of dugg links are from Truther sites. Another shocker, huh?

*BONUS 2* – Has anyone heard what his supporters actually support him for? He’s like Obama, they support him because it’s what the cool kids are doing.

RightWinged on May 16, 2007 at 6:44 AM

… now I’m really going to bed, but quickly… your smoking gun (though I’m sure this is just the tip of the iceberg:

(yes this is his blog, linked to from his own page)
http://www.ronpaul2008.typepad.com/

May 15, 2007
Your Help Requested

As you already know, Congressman Ron Paul will appear tonight in the 2nd GOP debate in South Carolina on FoxNews.com. This is another fantastic opportunity for Ron Paul to convince potential Republican primary voters of how critical it is for our nation to return to its founding principles.

You can help Ron Paul garner more media attention and support – before, during, and even after tonight’s debate in Columbia. The following is a list of powerful actions you can take to help Ron Paul:

Before the Debate
1. Fox News is accepting questions from the public to ask the candidates. Email your question today to debate@foxnews.com. Remember to include your name, town, state and contact number for verification.
2. Email your friends to remind them to watch tonight and encourage them to join our effort at RonPaul2008.com. You can also leave a “comment” to your MySpace friends so that their friends and site visitors will see the reminder as well.
3. Find other Ron Paul supporters in your area through RonPaul.meetup.com and organize a debate-watching party in your area. It’s always more fun that way!

During the Debate
1. Make your voice heard on blogs during the debate.

After the Debate
1. Vote for Ron Paul via text-message using your cellular phone. The number to which you can send your text-message is 36988. It will accept your vote between 7:30 p.m. EDT and 12:30 a.m. EDT. The code for Ron Paul is “R7″

2. Engage with others in the blogosphere about why Ron Paul is the only real conservative in the race who values the Constitution and the core values of America. Many of these sites will be querying their audiences about who won the debate – so please help promote Ron Paul!
3. The next day, Wednesday, May 16, take an hour out of your day to call and email your friends, family, neighbors and associates and encourage them to “Join us” at RonPaul2008.com. They can also sign-up by phone at (703) 248-9115.
4. Be sure to check back often at RonPaul2008.com for all the latest updates on post-debate coverage, as well as what people are saying.

Your efforts to support Ron Paul are greatly appreciated and we hope that you will continue to be a part of the Ron Paul Campaign – Hope for America!

Warm Regards,

Justine Lam
eCampaign Director

I never tire of being right.

RightWinged on May 16, 2007 at 6:52 AM

Rudy is losing me. Quickly. The whole “they hate us for our freedom” bit is a lie.

That is not a lie; it’s the truth. They hate us because we are not Muslim with sharia law, and we have freedom and liberties. We are the number one power to hinder the spread of Islam.

They hated the West long before we installed the Shah of Iran, as Charles Martel would tell you.

januarius on May 16, 2007 at 7:16 AM

Mark Jaquith on May 16, 2007 at 4:20 AM

Did you miss something? Usually I ask if I missed something, but it must be you. You do understand that the government they rave about, and want to rule the world by, is an oppressive government of torture and terror, where women have no freedom, and men have just a little? See, now, to me, that would mean hating freedom.

amerpundit on May 16, 2007 at 7:52 AM

Ron Paul merely said that the reasons for 9/11 (as given by the people who planned it) were our interventionist foreign policies. That won’t get you on H&C or a country music song like “they hate us because we’re free” will, but it’s the truth. Paul also said that their politics are irrational (by quoting Reagan). That’s hardly terrorism apologetics. That’s just realism.

I hate to be the one to remind you but we didn’t “intervene” in Iraq until after 9/11. The point of the Iraq sanctions was to avoid actual intervention by opting for economic containment instead. And what do we get from Ron Paul? In so many words, “we deserved it.” That’s the real subtext of what he’s saying. And of course libertarians, always eager to show how much more “enlightened” and “reasonable” they are than the rest of us, eat it up and end up apologizing for atrocities committed against them because it shows them to be above the petty irrational personal emotions that weight the rest of us sheep down.

Paul says he fears a new Gulf of Tonkin in Iran — which also conveniently blames Bush, preemptively, for any conflict that breaks out there notwithstanding Iran’s nuclear program — and goes on Alex Jones’s show to talk about the North American Union. He’s a crank. And the most crankish part of his politics is wanting to emulate someone like Robert Taft whose heyday was in the 1940s — ironically, the decade when American interventionism did the most good.

Allahpundit on May 16, 2007 at 8:15 AM

Allahpundit on May 16, 2007 at 8:15 AM

It won’t surprise you I don’t care for Paul. However the northern/southern watch operations were pretty proactive operations that enforced those sanctions.
I wouldn’t classify that as the definition of “intervene” but others might. For military folk it was the start of a much higher ops tempo for deployments that has been running hot for 16 years.

Bradky on May 16, 2007 at 8:21 AM

when he says our “bombing them for 10 years” lead to 9/11, he’s essentially saying they were involved. Something we don’t even say (despite the fact that the left accuses of saying it). It just seemed a little odd that those who oppose the Iraq war constantly say “Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11″ (which we, again, don’t claim anyway), yet the anti-war guy on this stage is actually saying the opposite.

Osama himself says that the US bombing of Iraq led to 9/11. Osama’s 1998 fatwa says, in short, the Americans are using Saudi Arabia as a base to attack Iraq, and this means Muslims must kill American civilians.

Lehuster on May 16, 2007 at 8:36 AM

The nutroots are hijacking the text poll…losers.

SouthernGent on May 15, 2007 at 11:24 PM

I did a little trolling over at DU lastnight:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×3266108

Ron Paul Gets 30% on the Feedback POLL!!!!

iconocrastic (166 posts) Tue May-15-07 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. It’s because we’re stuffing it. GET BUSY PLEASE !!!!!!!!

Connie on May 16, 2007 at 8:37 AM

Comment pages: 1 2