Paul: Killing OBL “absolutely was not necessary”

posted at 8:48 am on May 12, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Ron Paul’s supporters plan on another run for the presidency from the Texas Congressman, and some are saying that the mainstream has finally begun to embrace his ideas on economics and the Fed.  On foreign policy and national defense, though, perhaps Paul is farther out than ever.  In a radio interview on Tuesday, reported this morning in Politico, Paul said he would not have greenlighted the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, and would have worked with Pakistan to arrest him instead:

“I think things could have been done somewhat differently,” Paul said this week. “I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he’s been in prison. Why can’t we work with the government?”

Paul also told WHO’s Simon Conway that the mission “absolutely was not necessary”:

“I don’t think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary,” Paul said during his Tuesday comments. “I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he’d been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London, because they were afraid the information would get out?”

For one thing, had we found him holed up in London, we would have been able to trust the British intelligence service to cooperate.  MI-5 didn’t spend more than a decade helping to build up the Taliban and playing footsie with radical Islamists the way Pakistan’s ISI did, primarily as a bulwark against India.  Moreover, as Paul should know, we tried trusting Pakistan once before on an opportunity to target bin Laden when Bill Clinton had a chance to target his compound.  The ISI warned bin Laden, and to paraphrase President George Bush, we wound up sending a $10 million rocket into a ten-dollar tent to hit a camel’s butt.

I would have had no problem with capturing Osama bin Laden, or with killing him.  He declared war on the United States and continued to pursue it until his last breath.  Furthermore, I have no problem with us conducting a military mission in Pakistan to get him.  Pakistan has proven themselves unreliable on high-level intelligence matters in the past, specifically on OBL, and we have had little cause to put any more trust in the Pakistani ISI ever since.

Paul has a few good ideas on fiscal policy, but is otherwise a nut.  Insisting that we should have asked the Pakistanis to arrest bin Laden proves rather clearly that Paul lives in a fantasy world.

Update: I forgot to hat-tip Jammie Wearing Fool — my apologies.


Related Posts:

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 3 4 5

Yeah, “world law” is so much more important than the Constitution.

Ron Paul’s claim to be a champion of freedom just went out the window.

Caiwyn on May 12, 2011 at 10:27 AM

Everyone complains about “violations of international law,” but nobody ever does anything about it.

h/t: Will Rogers, sort of

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 10:28 AM

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
Benjamin Franklin

roflmao

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 10:02 AM

Most annoying quote ever because people, like yourself, slaughter it and completely changed the meaning. The proper extended version of the quote is:

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

That is what the man actually wrote. Not your bastardized version.

See those little words? The “essential” and “temporary” bits? Do you understand how that greatly changes the meaning of the quote or are you just going to roflomgbbqwtf?

strictnein on May 12, 2011 at 10:29 AM

I’ll vote for whoever will expedite the process.

Rae on May 12, 2011 at 10:28 AM

Chalk one up for Obama. In fact, I think Rae just implied that if Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination, she’ll vote for Obama no matter who else gets the Republican nod. Unfair of me to think that?

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Yeah, “world law” is so much more important than the Constitution.

Ron Paul’s claim to be a champion of freedom just went out the window.

Caiwyn on May 12, 2011 at 10:27 AM

Yeah, thats as big a thing in this article as anything….RuPaul now wanting to follow INTERNAITONAL LAW

This same loon that will criticize the GOP when in power for going to the United Nations, wants us to follow “International Law” instead of Article 2 of the US COnstitution.

He does not have Fidelity to the Constitution, he has Fidelity to a very LEFTIST worldview and Foreign Policy.

jp on May 12, 2011 at 10:30 AM

In fact, I think Rae just implied that if when Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination, she’ll vote for Obama no matter who else gets the Republican nod.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 10:29 AM

FIFM

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 10:31 AM

A dedication to the Ron Paul fanboys and -girls out there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1xrNaTO1bI

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 10:34 AM

Ron Paul is the only thing right int he republican party. And the only thing moderates will vote for. America has had enough of war-mongering neo-cons.

bingsha on May 12, 2011 at 10:36 AM

Just remeber, file this one away next time Paul bashes the GOP for anything related to the UN and NATO and the Constitution.

In arguing for not bringing Justice to Bin Laden, Ron Paul wants the USA to Ignore the CONSTITUTION and Follow INTERNATIONAL LAW instead.

jp on May 12, 2011 at 10:36 AM

In recent social values history, I should have said.

mankai on May 12, 2011 at 10:07 AM

ok in recent times the federal gov has forced the underage drinking age to 21, the use of seatbelts, the speedlimit of 55(in the 70′s), helmet laws, the nutrional vaules of school food, the us eof tobacco by tax policy, open borders, multiculturelism, increased immaturity of our young by pushing the legal age up for things like marriage, insurance coverage, driving etc.

Now they are pushing thier social beliefs about global warming by energy policy, gas milage requirements, auto bailouts and takeovers. And pushing their social beliefs in fairness on homeownership by use of the banks they now own, CRA etc.

My point is that those in power in government will always
push their social beliefs on the population. that is why the government needs to be limited and local.

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 10:36 AM

But Osama wasn’t in Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 9:33 AM

Saddam Hussein repeatedly violated the treaty that ended the first gulf war, supported terrorist, committed acts of violence against the American Military, and claimed the 9/11 attacks as his own.

We were morally justified for the return to war with the treaty violations.

Slowburn on May 12, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Ron Paul is the only thing right int he republican party. And the only thing moderates will vote for. America has had enough of war-mongering neo-cons.

bingsha on May 12, 2011 at 10:36 AM

RuPaul is a combination of Far-Left and Far-Right Ideology, not to mention being Graceless to boot.

Moderates can’t stand anything about any extreme, fully introduced to Ron Paul he will not win over Moderates, maybe some crank Independents but not real Moderates.

jp on May 12, 2011 at 10:38 AM

My point is that those in power in government will always
push their social beliefs on the population. that is why the government needs to be limited and local.

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 10:36 AM

“National freedom, local values.” That’s my “Gryph for President, 2012!” campaign motto.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 10:38 AM

Right on Ed. If OBL had been holed up in a London hotel, the Brits would’ve killed him first probably to make sure no muck-ups occurred in the legal process…if it had been the Ruskies, they would have captured him first, put him in a room with a drain in it and then shot him in the back of the head with a small caliber weapon to save money on bullets, avoid having to clean up a mess and have complete control of the ‘story’.

I cannot believe that people are wringing their hands over killing this douche bag, the only possible explanation I can except from RonPaul is that he thinks we could have extracted information from OBL that would have led to the downfall of the Al Qeada hierarchy…otherwise, he isn’t fit to be PotUS if he can’t handle killing our enemies and terrorists.

Geministorm on May 12, 2011 at 10:41 AM

Ron Paul understands that D.C. is a much larger threat than the terrorists.
Argentine economic crisis (1999–2002): The Obama-Bush plan for America.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 10:44 AM

We’re already behind schedule

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Geministorm on May 12, 2011 at 10:41 AM

the real thing about RuPaul’s logic, is that he is a Moral Relativist, atleast on Foreign Policy….which is consistent and has been used often times.

jp on May 12, 2011 at 10:46 AM

I cannot believe that people are wringing their hands over killing this douche bag, the only possible explanation I can except from RonPaul is that he thinks we could have extracted information from OBL that would have led to the downfall of the Al Qeada hierarchy…otherwise, he isn’t fit to be PotUS if he can’t handle killing our enemies and terrorists.

Geministorm on May 12, 2011 at 10:41 AM

There is no unitary Al Qaeda hierarchy. It’s more like the Lernean Hydra. You know, where you chop a head off and two grow back?

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 10:46 AM

I see gryphon202 is the daily neocon bully on the board today. Trying to bully everyone into his world view with tidbit stats, insults and flawed arguments.

King of the Britons on May 12, 2011 at 10:49 AM

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
Benjamin Franklin

roflmao

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 10:02 AM

Most annoying quote ever because people, like yourself, slaughter it and completely changed the meaning. The proper extended version of the quote is:

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

That is what the man actually wrote. Not your bastardized version.

See those little words? The “essential” and “temporary” bits? Do you understand how that greatly changes the meaning of the quote or are you just going to roflomgbbqwtf?

strictnein on May 12, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Ohhhhhhh Please provide me with the link that shows you have the super official, definitive, verbatim, etal Quote!!!!

I’ll be hold’n my breath…

roflmao

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 10:50 AM

I see gryphon202 is the daily neocon bully on the board today. Trying to bully everyone into his world view with tidbit stats, insults and flawed arguments.

King of the Britons on May 12, 2011 at 10:49 AM

I am a traditionalist in the mold of William F. Buckley. If that makes me a “neocon,” then so be it, but somehow I don’t think Mister Buckley would be too wee-weed up about how Osama died.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 10:53 AM

I see gryphon202 is the daily neocon bully on the board today. Trying to bully everyone into his world view with tidbit stats, insults and flawed arguments.

King of the Britons on May 12, 2011 at 10:49 AM

Bully? I’m a bully? Jeebus, if you don’t like Depeche Mode, just say so. Perhaps this might be a little more appropriate for a Ron Paul thread.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 10:55 AM

I am a traditionalist in the mold of William F. Buckley. If that makes me a “neocon,” then so be it, but somehow I don’t think Mister Buckley would be too wee-weed up about how Osama died.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 10:53 AM

you are no more a ‘neo-con’ than the Founding Fathers were, we didn’t become a nation of 50 States following RuPaul’s ideology, anyone that knows there history knows this. History Ron paul lies about.

jp on May 12, 2011 at 10:55 AM

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Sorry dude. He got the quote right. You got it wrong. Ben Franklin is rolling in his grave how that you’ve misquoted him in support of Ron Paul.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 10:57 AM

But…. William F. Buckley renounced the neocons and the Iraq war on his death bed.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 11:01 AM

I see gryphon202 is the daily neocon bully on the board today. Trying to bully everyone into his world view with tidbit stats, insults and flawed arguments.

King of the Britons on May 12, 2011 at 10:49 AM

One can tell a whole lot about a person who uses the term “neocon”.

JetBoy on May 12, 2011 at 11:03 AM

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 10:31 AM

I’ll have to see how I feel that day, because I’m not sure if I can bring myself to do it. I may vote 3rd party which, as we are told constantly, is a vote for Obama. Maybe I’ll be patriotic and not vote at all!

Go team!

“What are these “political parties” but standing armies of robbers, each trying to rob the other, and to prevent being itself robbed by the other? A government that seeks only to “do equal and exact justice to all men,” has no cause and no occasion to enlist all the fighting men in the nation in two hostile ranks; to keep them always in battle array, and burning with hatred towards each other. It has no cause and no occasion for any “political warfare,” any “political hostility,” any “political campaigns,” any “political contests,” any “political fights,” any “political defeats,” or any “political triumphs.” It has no cause and no occasion for any of those “political leaders,” so called, whose whole business is to invent new schemes of robbery, and organize the people into opposing bands of robbers; all for their own aggrandizement alone. It has no cause and no occasion for the toleration, or the existence, of that vile horde of political bullies, and swindlers, and blackguards, who enlist on one side or the other, and fight for pay; who, year in and year out, employ their lungs and their ink in spreading lies among ignorant people, to excite their hopes of gain, or their fears of loss, and thus obtain their votes.”
Lysander Spooner

Rae on May 12, 2011 at 11:03 AM

But…. William F. Buckley renounced the neocons and the Iraq war on his death bed.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Riiiight. I think Buckley was more worried about the piss-poor way the war was prosecuted, than the supposed moral ambiguity of the act itself. I share those concerns, in any event. I also share in Buckley’s contention that the whole point of war is to kill people and break things, and if you can’t or won’t do that, you have no business mobilizing the military. You sully William F. Buckley, Jr.’s name, sir.

/NeoconBully

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:05 AM

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Sorry dude. He got the quote right. You got it wrong. Ben Franklin is rolling in his grave how that you’ve misquoted him in support of Ron Paul.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Ya better go back to school….. the quote he used is a paraphrase of….. Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power

but the issue has really never been settled

roflmao

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 11:05 AM

I’ll have to see how I feel that day, because I’m not sure if I can bring myself to do it. I may vote 3rd party which, as we are told constantly, is a vote for Obama. Maybe I’ll be patriotic and not vote at all!

Go team!

Rae on May 12, 2011 at 11:03 AM

The only thing I can say is that there’s nothing left to say after this crass display. I guess it’s probably better that you stay home and let the adults do the heavy lifting.

/MoreNeoconBullying

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:06 AM

And this guy is my representative.

Doughboy on May 12, 2011 at 8:59 AM

Wow! Small world! I was delivered by Ron Paul, and he was my rep until I moved away at the age of 20.

And I think he’s a whackadoodle. Nice guy. But absolutely nuts.

stvnscott on May 12, 2011 at 11:07 AM

CBS News Exclusive: Buckley Criticizes President For Interventionist Policies

Buckley was also an ex-CIA agent so he was a natural imperialist, but he was correct about the Iraq fiasco.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 11:07 AM

Ya better go back to school….. the quote he used is a paraphrase of….. Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 11:05 AM

It’s not a paraphrase. Here’s the quote in its entirety.

“Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor liberty to purchase power, for virtue is beyond worldly price, and those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:09 AM

Buckley was also an ex-CIA agent so he was a natural imperialist, but he was correct about the Iraq fiasco.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 11:07 AM

The spin is strong with this one. Now you’re citing CBS News as a “reliable source.” Good grief.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:10 AM

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at **:** AM

Dude, you sure spend a lot of time rolling on the floor.

I think they’ve got medicine for that.

hillbillyjim on May 12, 2011 at 11:11 AM

The CIA funded Irving Kristol’s magazine in the 60′s-70′s. We know that.

Who knows if Buckley actually left the group or whether the cold warrior magazine National Review was a government front group to impression the media and hijack the small government party.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Oh, and I forgot his trusty side-kick jp.

King of the Britons on May 12, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Economist magazine on the CIA link

“Regrets were very few in Irving Kristol’s…life. He had none at all for his youthful flirtation with Trotskyism…No regrets, either, for the fact that when he edited Encounter magazine…in the 1950s it was subsidised by the CIA…”

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 11:13 AM

Ron Paul is the only thing right int he republican party. And the only thing moderates will vote for. America has had enough of war-mongering neo-cons.

bingsha on May 12, 2011 at 10:36 AM

So you’re also on board with international law trumping the Constitution?

Is there anything you Paultards won’t obfuscate on?

catmman on May 12, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Let me start off by saying I disagree with Dr.Paul on this one. OBL wrote his own death warrant when he tugged on superman’s cape. And what works with Pakistan re:KSM may not (and in fact did not) work with OBL.

That being said:

Furthermore, I have no problem with us conducting a military mission in Pakistan to get him.

Really? You have no problem with it? The fact is that what we did, justified or not, was an act of war, by anybody’s definition. Furthermore, it was an act of war committed against a sovereign state that has nuclear weapons, and enough connections to terror organizations (not just AQ) to whom they might hand off those weapons to make nuclear terrorism/blackmail against us a very real possibility.

Now, it is unlikely that Pakistan is going to use this attack as a cassus belli, especially given their rhetoric over the years against OBL. But such operations are something I sure as hell don’t want our policymakers getting too comfortable with, and I would hope that when we arry them out, we are quite circumspect over.

JohnGalt23 on May 12, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Ya better go back to school….. the quote he used is a paraphrase of….. Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 11:05 AM

It’s not a paraphrase. Here’s the quote in its entirety.

“Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor liberty to purchase power, for virtue is beyond worldly price, and those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:09 AM

Feel free to cite ya source and I’ll be happy to s’plain ya error. May I suggest Poor Richard’s Almanack 1739

I’ll be hold’n my breath.

roflmao

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 11:15 AM

The CIA funded Irving Kristol’s magazine in the 60′s-70′s. We know that.

Of course we know that. Just like the CIA ran heroin into the inner cities./

Who knows if Buckley actually left the group or whether the cold warrior magazine National Review was a government front group to impression the media and hijack the small government party.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Right. Of course Buckley was responsible for the massive bureaucratic clusterfark we’re in now. Absolutely brilliant of you to figure that out. Was your biggest research source Alex Jones?/

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:15 AM

“National freedom, local values.” That’s my “Gryph for President, 2012!” campaign motto.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 10:38 AM

I like it. It fits.

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Ron Paul understands that D.C. is a much larger threat than the terrorists.
Argentine economic crisis (1999–2002): The Obama-Bush plan for America.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 10:44 AM

And he’s done what in his over two decades serving in Washington to change anything?

You guys realize Herr Doktor is laughing at ya’ll all the way to the bank, right?

catmman on May 12, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Well the CIA is the U.S. version of the Soviet Secret Police.

When you have a CIA agent running a supposedly anti-government magazine, how are small government conservatives supposed to take that seriously.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Feel free to cite ya source and I’ll be happy to s’plain ya error. May I suggest Poor Richard’s Almanack 1739

I’ll be hold’n my breath.

roflmao

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 11:15 AM

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This was written by Franklin, with quotation marks but almost certainly his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818). A variant of this was published as:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for it.

From Wikiquote. The full quote that I cited is apocryphal, granted, but I misquoted him no more woefully than you did.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Straw-grasping Monday morning quarterback is grasping.

Dave Rywall on May 12, 2011 at 11:20 AM

When you have a CIA agent running a supposedly anti-government magazine, how are small government conservatives supposed to take that seriously.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Okay. Have you been to the pharmacy yet to refill your prescriptions this month, or do you need to go back in and see your psychiatrist before you can do that?

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:21 AM

Ron paul = millions of us staying home .. Ron paul = obama 2nd term .. Ron paul = Kook!!!

WhatsRight on May 12, 2011 at 11:26 AM

That’s right. Reagan killed Gaddafi’s daughter.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 10:22 AM

So, Gaddafi killed 259 people on Pan Am Flight 193.

mizflame98 on May 12, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Ron paul = millions of us staying home .. Ron paul = obama 2nd term .. Ron paul = Kook!!!

WhatsRight on May 12, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Suck it up. Given Ron Paul’s history in electoral politics, his chances of getting through the primaries is probably as close to zero as a national figure can get.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:27 AM

CBS News Exclusive: Buckley Criticizes President For Interventionist Policies

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 11:07 AM

Citing C-BS “News” now? Desperation sets in!

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2011 at 11:29 AM

From Wikiquote. The full quote that I cited is apocryphal, granted, but I misquoted him no more woefully than you did.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:19 AM

I never denied I misquoted Ben….what I found humors was getting called on the carpet for bastardizing the Quote and then being corrected with a bastardized Quote itself.

Bwahahahahahahahaha

roflmao

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 11:29 AM

Wow! Small world! I was delivered by Ron Paul, and he was my rep until I moved away at the age of 20.

And I think he’s a whackadoodle. Nice guy. But absolutely nuts.

stvnscott on May 12, 2011 at 11:07 AM

My suggestion as a neocon bully is to figure out some sue Ron Paul for malpractice about the delivery.

thuja on May 12, 2011 at 11:29 AM

When killing rats, some times you have to go where they live to get them all. I don’t care what the seals did where they went. The problem we have is that the people in congress want to assign US constitutional rights to every jerk off on the planet.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

This means its ONLY for AMERICANS.

ColdWarrior57 on May 12, 2011 at 11:30 AM

But…. William F. Buckley renounced the neocons and the Iraq war on his death bed.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 11:01 AM

And when he was perfectly coherent and in his right mind, he repudiated and cast out Pat Buchanan, one of the purest and most despicable adherents to paleoconservatism.

MadisonConservative on May 12, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Well, it wasn’t necessary, but it sure was fun!

jeffn21 on May 12, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Ron Paul says abolish the CIA and FBI

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 11:31 AM

I guess if Ron Paul says they’re evil, then they must be evil!

/gasp

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Ron Paul is oh so wrong…………again!

GFW on May 12, 2011 at 11:36 AM

I never denied I misquoted Ben….what I found humors was getting called on the carpet for bastardizing the Quote and then being corrected with a bastardized Quote itself.

Bwahahahahahahahaha

roflmao

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 11:29 AM

Hell, it’s the internet. At least I didn’t use my bastardized quote to defend the indefensible Ron Paul.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:37 AM

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

That is what the man actually wrote. Not your bastardized version.

See those little words? The “essential” and “temporary” bits? Do you understand how that greatly changes the meaning of the quote or are you just going to roflomgbbqwtf?

strictnein on May 12, 2011 at 10:29 AM

I haven’t investigated how the Paultards make their arguments that all evil in the world comes from the Fed, but I suspect many slightly altered quotes are involved. Fact checking conspiracy nuts isn’t my game, but if someone knows some invented details in the Paultard story, please share.

thuja on May 12, 2011 at 11:37 AM

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 10:36 AM

That’s essentially my point. The federal government’s overreach and suppression of states’ rights has come primarily from the Nanny State left.

The limiting of the federal government’s power to the confines of the Constitution should unleash local control, not necessarily uncontrolled behavior.

mankai on May 12, 2011 at 11:39 AM

I haven’t investigated how the Paultards make their arguments that all evil in the world comes from the Fed, but I suspect many slightly altered quotes are involved. Fact checking conspiracy nuts isn’t my game, but if someone knows some invented details in the Paultard story, please share.

thuja on May 12, 2011 at 11:37 AM

All you have to know about the Paultards is that they sit at the feet of Alex Jones and they think “Bilderberger” is a four-letter word.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:40 AM

From Wikiquote. The full quote that I cited is apocryphal, granted, but I misquoted him no more woefully than you did.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:19 AM

“This was written by Franklin, with quotation marks”

Do you need me to s’plain what that means…..

the true Quote can be found in Poor Richard’s Almanack 1739.

BTW i’m not a Paul guy.

roflmao

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Ron Paul says abolish the CIA and FBI

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Oh, well in that case. This should be Ron Paul’s campaign song.

mizflame98 on May 12, 2011 at 11:44 AM

the true Quote can be found in Poor Richard’s Almanack 1739.

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 11:42 AM

No, that quote is not found in Poor Richard’s, although sometimes it is misattributed to it.

“Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.”

…is the original quote from Poor Richard’s. It is generally thought that Ben Franklin paraphrased his own quote, or to use your term, “bastardized” it.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:45 AM

roflmao

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Again?

How long does it take for one to laugh one’s ass off?

This is starting to look like an all-day job.

hillbillyjim on May 12, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Yeah Ron, you might as well pack your bags now. Nobody agrees with that nonsense.

tx2654 on May 12, 2011 at 11:47 AM

I don’t really know what’s more sad: that Herr Doktor is just being who he is – a sad, crank of a man – or his supporters who simply continue to prop up this guys campaigns and finances year after year after year, spouting the same talking points, never admitting (or realizing) he’s a kook.

catmman on May 12, 2011 at 11:48 AM

roflmao

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Again?

How long does it take for one to laugh one’s ass off?

This is starting to look like an all-day job.

hillbillyjim on May 12, 2011 at 11:47 AM

I’ve been laughing at ‘em since at least 2007.

catmman on May 12, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Again?

How long does it take for one to laugh one’s ass off?

This is starting to look like an all-day job.

hillbillyjim on May 12, 2011 at 11:47 AM

It depends on the size, I suppose.

kingsjester on May 12, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Will Rand Paul repudiate or endorse his fathers opinion that we should trash Article 2 of the US Constitution and follow INTERNATIONAL LAW instead and that killing Bin Laden was wrong????

If someone in Media had any sense they’d ask him this.

jp on May 12, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Will Rand Paul repudiate or endorse his fathers opinion that we should trash Article 2 of the US Constitution and follow INTERNATIONAL LAW instead and that killing Bin Laden was wrong????

If someone in Media had any sense they’d ask him this.

jp on May 12, 2011 at 11:51 AM

I would rather hear nothing from Rand than get the wrong answer.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:52 AM

I would rather hear nothing from Rand than get the wrong answer.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:52 AM

I think we need to find out where Rand Paul really is on this stuff, before we let his star rise any further.

jp on May 12, 2011 at 11:54 AM

What’s the over/under on donabernathy’s use of “roflmao” on this thread?

OhioCoastie on May 12, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Nice knowing you.

No. It really wasn’t.

Noocyte on May 12, 2011 at 11:55 AM

I think we need to find out where Rand Paul really is on this stuff, before we let his star rise any further.

jp on May 12, 2011 at 11:54 AM

If he gets the chance to vote on it, we’ll know. If he doesn’t, then ignorance is bliss. I don’t put too much stock in politicians’ words anymore.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:57 AM

According to Politico, he’s set to announce his Presidential run Friday – looks like it’s lost before he started.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/ron-paul-not-necessary-to-kill-osama-bin-laden

jdawg on May 12, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Will Rand Paul repudiate or endorse his fathers opinion that we should trash Article 2 of the US Constitution and follow INTERNATIONAL LAW instead and that killing Bin Laden was wrong????

If someone in Media had any sense they’d ask him this.

jp on May 12, 2011 at 11:51 AM

It’s an unfair question. Rand clearly has gleaned the proper ideology from his father’s ideas, apparently without the crankery. However, Ron is still his father, and he values that more than politics, hence why he’s not running since his dad is. People should respect the difficulty in reconciling that situation.

MadisonConservative on May 12, 2011 at 12:01 PM

jdawg on May 12, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Not a bad thing. The thought of all that cash his dupes will waste is icing on the cake. They love their cash and Ron loves their cash too.

Limerick on May 12, 2011 at 12:03 PM

You know, screw it. I think I would rather vote for Obama over Ron Paul.

And don’t get me wrong. I would rather vote for a dead yellow dog than Obama.

But I just give up. I can’t stomach anymore of Paul.

Vyce on May 12, 2011 at 12:05 PM

That’s right. Reagan killed Gaddafi’s daughter.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 10:22 AM

She wasn’t Gaddafi’s daughter until after she died — if she died at all.

unclesmrgol on May 12, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Last time, on Paul got 5% of the republican primary vote, and won zero states.

He’ll do a lot worse, this time.

Rebar on May 12, 2011 at 12:06 PM

It’s an unfair question. Rand clearly has gleaned the proper ideology from his father’s ideas, apparently without the crankery. However, Ron is still his father, and he values that more than politics, hence why he’s not running since his dad is. People should respect the difficulty in reconciling that situation.

MadisonConservative on May 12, 2011 at 12:01 PM

I see what you’re saying but I disagree.

Rand is a Senator. He is responsible to his constituents and the citizenry. He has a duty to answer such a question if asked.

He cant’ hide behind his relationship with his father because that’s exactly what it will look like he’s doing, contrary to any other explanation.

He can disagree with his father, if he does. There is no shame in voicing that.

Rand is going to be measured by his father’s stances on issues as long as RP is in office, that’s just how it is.

catmman on May 12, 2011 at 12:07 PM

MadisonConservative on May 12, 2011 at 12:01 PM

not judging by his positions when he campaigned for his father in 2007-2008 and who knows about before then, along with not endorsing the GOP nominee for President that year, McCain/Palin.

jp on May 12, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Would somebody please tell one of the nurses on the floor that Spathi’s using their computer at the desk again?

kingsjester on May 12, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Ron Paul says abolish the CIA and FBI

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 11:31 AM

I guess if Ron Paul says they’re evil, then they must be evil!

/gasp

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Actually I have no problem with this, but can we start with the ATF? Just a personal preference…

fossten on May 12, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Everyone complains about “violations of international law,” but nobody ever does anything about it.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 10:28 AM

That’s why we need Superman to be an international superhero. Heh.

unclesmrgol on May 12, 2011 at 12:10 PM

The CIA funded Irving Kristol’s magazine in the 60′s-70′s. We know that.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 11:11 AM

I thought your side was for the Government running printing presses — you know, NPR, PBS…

unclesmrgol on May 12, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Last time, on Paul got 5% of the republican primary vote, and won zero states.

He’ll do a lot worse, this time.

Rebar on May 12, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Of course.

Just like he was going to lose his Congressional primary.

Given your rather weasely history, forgive us if we take your prognostications with more than a grain of salt.

JohnGalt23 on May 12, 2011 at 12:17 PM

JohnGalt23 on May 12, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Like the way even you say he cannot win?

Actually, that’s a prognostication I believe in.

Rebar on May 12, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 11:29 AM

I’m late to the thread today (a west coast thingy)…

… but I wanted to remind everyone that whenever there is a Ron Paul post,

Spathi strips naked, rolls around in bacon grease, starts lashing itself with a “cat of nine tails”, squats over a mirror, and chants “I’m not worthy…! I’m not worthy…!” while gazing at a wall sized portrait of “He who should be President!”…

… Just trying to help, now carry on.

/

Seven Percent Solution on May 12, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Ohhhhhhh Please provide me with the link that shows you have the super official, definitive, verbatim, etal Quote!!!!

I’ll be hold’n my breath…

roflmao

donabernathy on May 12, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Here you go you ignorant fool:
Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin
Published 1818
By Benjamin Franklin, William Temple Franklin
http://books.google.com/books?id=W2MFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270t#v=onepage&q&f=false

Halfway in the page, just above the break.

ROFLOMGBBQWTFDUH! Does it hurt to go through life so ignorant?

strictnein on May 12, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Seven Percent Solution on May 12, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Warn me next time! Diet Coke all over the monitor…again. LOL.

kingsjester on May 12, 2011 at 12:25 PM

SPATHI – You have given yourself an appropriate handle. A spathi is a cowardly mollusk that will run from any action. Er, maybe you meant SPATHA which was a Roman short sword, meant for thrusting. However, with your exaggerated mentality, I think if you ever traversed time and met someone with a true Spatha, you really would run like hell or become instantly incarnate.

By the way, the American Artillery had an NCO sword modeled after tha spatha. You wouldn’t make a pimple on the a.. of a U.S. redleg.

Old Country Boy on May 12, 2011 at 12:31 PM

JohnGalt23 on May 12, 2011 at 12:17 PM

So you believe he would perform…how, exactly? Assuming he does enter the race…

catmman on May 12, 2011 at 12:32 PM

He pisses off a large percentage of voters with asinine comments like this and then has the gall to wonder why he never gets the nomination. What a loser.

Machiavelli Hobbes on May 12, 2011 at 12:32 PM

+1 to the ‘stick a fork in him’ category.

However, as awful as Paul is, Romney, Huckabee and most of the other candidates are awful too for progressive reasons.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2011 at 12:37 PM

That’s right. Reagan killed Gaddafi’s daughter.

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 10:22 AM

Believing the Big Libyan Government line, eh?

(It was supposedly an “adopted” daughter BTW.)

profitsbeard on May 12, 2011 at 12:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5