You think Hillary has done good? Name one good thing.

Your credibility here will be defined by your answer.

Many of his positions are ok… but Ron Paul comes off like a wimp. And the nutjobs attacking all the internet polls and blogs are just creepy.

That Soros, the self proclaimed Master of the Universe, would spend a lot on UNELECTABLE Ron Paul is a stretch, don’t you think? Anyone can contribute to a campaign, especially on the internet, and if it is trace-able, well, what does that say for privacy?

Great way to do a little red herring monkey-wrenching, if you know what I mean. But that would be a conspiracy, which of course, never happens.

Thomas vs Alexander on June 17, 2007 at 10:09 PM

Sorry to disturb your little cult and all, but what part of “That’s what I’d do, at least, if I was the moneyman for the nutroots”, didn’t you get? Does it require one of your “conspiracies” for me to suggest that Soros–or any other Democrat–just might stoop to using political dirty tricks to win an election? The fact that Paul is deservedly unelectable doesn’t mean that he can’t siphon votes away from a candidate that is. Not that there’ve ever been any Presidential elections decided by a third-party candidate playing spoiler or anything. Oh, wait.

Thomas vs Alexander on June 17, 2007 at 10:09 PM

we are taking bin laden’s words and actions very seriously, you are a clueless ostrich.

isolationism/non-intervention brings about “blowback” too, get a clue. Then look at our history between WW1 and WW2, isolatonism led to the Great Depression on econ side and WW2 on war side…..that was ‘blowback’.

I guess you think Ronald Reagan was one of the worst Pres. ever though, beign the huge ‘interventionist’ that he was.

useful idiots, they are everywhere.

Great way to do a little red herring monkey-wrenching, if you know what I mean. But that would be a conspiracy, which of course, never happens.

It amazes me that we take what the Iranian nutball Jihadist – President really says seriously (so we gotta INVADE and/or NUKEM!), but ignore Bin-Laden’s words and statements up to and after 9/11. But then:

1. there is no such thing as blowback
2. there is no such thing as “The Lobby”
3. they hate us for our freedoms
4. repeat 1 and 2 and 3.
5. repeat 4

And RP is called a crank…

He’s so “little known” for a very good reason and the Hard Left media complex knows it. They give him airtime to take away coverage of the GOP candidates who have huge appeal, pumping up a man who is so far out of the Republican mainstream that his agenda more closely conforms with the Leftie LEFT (not moderate) fringes. Odd for someone who is ostensibly running as a Republican. He gets media time, though. How about that.

naliaka on June 16, 2007 at 5:30 PM

Personally, I’m really curious about how much of Paul’s Internet money could be traced back to the laundry list of Soros front groups. That’s what I’d do, at least, if I was the moneyman for the nutroots–make sure Paul gets enough funding (along with the free coverage the enemedia will give him) to stay in the race until Election Day, in the hope that he’ll draw the isolationist cranks and pull a Perot. That kind of spoiler strategy could be especially critical if you have a Democratic candidate who can’t pull more than 50% of the vote, like Shrillary. If I had Soros’ resources, spending a few million to use Paul as a useful idiot would be money well spent. Granted, it all hinges on how many people think they can bury their heads in the sand and pretend that we don’t live in an economy that grows more global by the day, or who can convince themselves that terrorists will be nice to us if we’re nice to them. But he’s managed to find enough suckers and cultists to stay in the game so far, so who knows?

What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them – peace be upon them all.

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions.
…
You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator.

RP is ignorant, he also mentions withdrawing and not fighting in Somalia, Beirut and the embassy bombings and USS Cole as “reasons” why they decided to “attack” us. The fact is we look weak and a “paper Tiger” as he called us, combined with the muslim baby boom and the western worlds baby decline we are ripe for the plucking.

1) Both houses of Congress authorized military action

2) Yes, how dare we, us dirty non-muslims, fight to protect our interests in the mid east. We should just stay out of Muslim nations and let them take over other nations, convert or kill Jews and Christians in Muslim nations whenever they want (Somalia, Darfur, in particular and all other Muslim nations generally). After all, extermination of all non Muslims is an internal matter to them isn’t it?

Flash back – Why should we care if the Germans are killing all the German Jews, it’s an internal German matter.

RPs position is isolationist and positively dangerous in the modern world.

That was a good posting but it isn’t actually a reply to what I wrote which had two specific parts.

The first was the Ron Paul makes his decisions based on a careful examination of the Constitution and, so far as I can tell, he is correct in his interpretations.

The second point was that he said the specific and immediate cause of 9/11 was America’s presence in Saudi Arabia. This is absolutely true because we have bin Ladin’s own words saying so. Bin Ladin may be a nut but when a nut tells you his rationale you have to accept that that really was his motivation, even if it was illogical and/or factually wrong.

plus, our Liberty is so dependent on things outside our borders today it is completely unworkable and dangerous. They don’t realize how they will be destroying american lives from the economic side(see Depression) to war side following this fundamentalist minded ideology.

you have to literally think Ronald Reagan was one of the worst presidents ever, especially on the foreign policy front, to support a guy like Paul. You also have to be extremely ignorant of the nature of Totalitarian foes and not have a clue about how interconnected the world is today, economically and technologically.

And a Happy Sunday to all! This one is for Father’s Day, for all those dads (like mine) who picture themselves as race car drivers. Little tamer then normal, but that’s OK, so is dad . Original artist is Bill Medcalf, with a bit of an addi…

and old guard Hillary (I think she has done good and might make a good president, very likely she will be the next president

gmcjetpilot on June 17, 2007 at 3:38 AM

Ron Paul, by saying that the reason we got attacked is because of our actions in the mid east, and your backing that view only shows that both of you don’t know the first thing about the enemy we face.

The first thing Billary did after being elected was to call for a constitutinal convention. The only reason to do this would be to re-write the constitution. And you think she would make a good POTUS? Puleeze….

If you’re the guy that you wind up with when you google your handle, it’s truly frightening to think that someone as unhinged and disconnected from reality as you would be piloting a commercial jet.

Ron Paul 2008! I LOVE THIS GUY, very impressive. I like what he stands for. He’s a little too, how shall I say, non main stream, not politician-like enough. He just speaks English that makes sense, not words wrapped in talking points, rhetoric and demogogary.

As we see above people can’t think and truth does not compute for them. However I hope he influences the GOP process, but he’s a dead duck because he’s a loose cannon, not in the pocket of the party and special interest (enough) for the GOP. The GOP (and Dems) likes their mother freaking special interest money, and taking that away is like taking candy away from a BIG FAT BABY WITH A FULL DIAPER LOAD ready to throw its own feces.

The American people need take the teat of money out of all the politicians mouths. They will never do it them self. Making millions to speak? Hummmm that seems to be a lot for a speech. Well Gee-W be making lots of cash speaking? Doubt it, if you know what I mean. May be a comedy act.

You d-bags distort Paul’s position that he panders to conspiracy idiots. He is saying WHY did we get attacked. There where reasons, not that we deserve it or had it coming to us or the USA planned it. You partisan jerks go right to the “conspiracy” label to discredit any one. That is old and not creative.

The problem with the way of nominating candidates; it gets boiled down two and I and fellow americans have little say so who the two are going to be. I don’t live in a primary state or am I party delegate. The “party convention” and party nomination is corrupt and based on money and special interest. There may be candidates that I like, who never make it. I would love to see Paul in the final cut.

The independent party brings a bunch of problems with it, but may be time for it, if we get jerk Rudy (authoritarian may be worse than Bush) and old guard Hillary (I think she has done good and might make a good president, very likely she will be the next president, but she may be too divisive to heal and bring the nation together – duh you think).

RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT! 2008!

Any one see mike gravel’s stare video, ha ha ha.

Not wanting to interupt here, but he didn’t say that the constitution said this or that, he said he (Ron Paul) agreed with the founders that we “should avoid foregn entanglements”. Problem here is that the founding ideology behind Bin Laden has nothing to do with what we have been doing in the mid east, it’s a recruiting tool. If it wasn’t our foregn policy it would be the US “stealing mid eastern oil”, insults against Islam, etc. ad nausium. Whether or not we want war, war is upon us. For Bin Laden and friends its the Jihad, the same Jihad that has been waged without letup for the last 1350 years.

Granted the agrument has been made that we can’t make war on a non-government entity, the 4th curcuit court said just that in handing down a ruling releasing on guy from gitmo and setting up a situation where he (or BL if caught) would have to be tried in a civilian court rather than a war tribunal. The whole issue would be solved if the fed would wake up to the reality that Islam is itself a political entity – and it describes itself as such in all schools of Islamic juresprudence.

As to the constitutionality, the bush administration calls it a “war on terrorism”. Why I don’t know, congress authorized use of force from what I remember “whatever means nessesary” or words to that effect. I’m no constitutinal scolar, (or speller either) but it seems to me that in 1794 the congress authorized the founding and expansion of a navy in order to militarily engage Muslim pirates off the Ivory coast, north africa, and modern Libia. I don’t believe that in that case the congress authorized war per se, but did authorize military action to protect American merchant shipping, and it was the founders themselves, only 10 years after the ratificatin of the constitution who did it.

In short, it’s one thing to avoid foregn entanglements, it’s quite another to not protect our interests and national security in the name of it.

If you think Ron Paul is interpreting the Constitution correctly it is likely that you are a raving moonbat.

Sigh. I had hoped that people here would be a little less likely to jump straight to pure insults.

Is there a problem with citing actual quotes from Ron Paul and then explaining how his interpretation of the Constitution is wrong?

If you think Ron Paul is wrong it is likely that you think the Constitution is wrong as well.

keylime on June 17, 2007 at 12:40 AM

If you think Ron Paul is interpreting the Constitution correctly it is likely that you are a raving moonbat.

As for the entire “blowback” issue: he isn’t saying America deserved 9/11, he is saying that, in bin Ladin’s own words, the reason bin Ladin orchestrated 9/11 was America’s presence in Saudi Arabia since the end of the Gulf War.