Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 60
  1. #1
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408

    Body-checked by Giuliani and no foul called!

    Columbia, South Carolina — For a man who had just grabbed the spotlight in a nationally televised presidential debate, Ron Paul seemed a little, well, defensive. A few minutes after the debate ended here at the University of South Carolina, Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas, ventured into the Spin Room to talk to reporters, only to find that they wanted to know whether he really blamed the United States for the September 11 terrorist attacks.

    “Who did that?” Paul snapped. “Who blamed America?”

    “Well, your critics felt that you did.”

    “No, I blamed bad policy over 50 years that leads to anti-Americanism,” Paul said. “That’s little bit different from saying ‘blame America.’ Don’t put those words in my mouth.”

    “But the policies were bad American policies?”

    “We’ve had an interventionist foreign policy for 50 years that has come back to haunt us,” Paul continued. “So that’s not ‘Blame America’ — that’s demagoguing, distorting issues…That’s deceitful to say those kinds of things.”

    To many people, however, it did appear that Paul blamed the U.S. for the attacks. A few feet away from where Paul was meeting reporters, Washington lawyer Ted Olson, at the debate to support his friend Rudy Giuliani, was taken aback at what he heard from Paul. “I find it personally offensive and very disturbing,” said Olson, whose wife Barbara died on September 11, “that an American, especially an American member of Congress, can say those things about what happened to cause 9/11.”

    It all started when Paul was asked how September 11 changed American foreign policy. “Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us?” Paul answered. “They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for ten years…”

    Questioner Wendell Goler, of Fox News, asked, “Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?”

    “I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it,” Paul said. “They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there.”

    Enter Giuliani. “May I comment on that?” the mayor said, interrupting the orderly flow of things for the first time in the debate. “That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th.”

    The audience loved it. As the applause built, Giuliani added, “And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.”

    Paul didn’t back down, but by cutting in, Giuliani had scored some of the best, and perhaps easiest, points of the night. So much so that advisers from rival campaigns couldn’t quite hide their frustration that Giuliani had moved so quickly. “I don’t think it takes a lot of courage to use Ron Paul as a prop,” said Charlie Black, the longtime GOP strategist who is backing Sen. John McCain. “But he [Giuliani] got his 9/11 credential in there, so congratulations.”
    Not quite as OUT as the GOP would like you to believe according to some debate polls. For all the GOP Party attempts to convince the republican voters that they don't want a Ron Paul candidate, the voters are telling the party to stuff it.

    FOX NEWS' own private "text message voting" poll shows the following results:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272493,00.html

    — 29% Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney

    — 25% Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas

    — 19% Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani

    MSNBC polls show...

    May 3rd Debate: Ron Paul- WINNER @ 42% (after 91,000+ total votes)

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18421356/

    May 15th Debate: Ron Paul- WINNING @ 46% (after 21,000+ total votes)

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18659382/

    The Corporate-Globalists hijacked the GOP in the 60s, and have been ramping up their agenda ever since. Seems only fitting that now the people, the voters, are taking the party back. And it's got the GOP "elite" terrified.

  2. #2
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    29,564
    Iraq had to do with 911...

    Did he listen?

    The major Iraq related issues that Usama cited and used for recruitment purposes was the Iraqui babies being killed because of the sanctions(and possible side effects from depleted Uranium in the first war).

    Not just because we were bombing them...we were bombing them to enforce the no fly zone.


    In any case...Usama didn't give two s about Iraq, he wanted to fight Saddam himself and he wanted the Afghan Mujahadeen to defend Saudi Arabia instead of the US when we originally stationed our military there after Iraq invaded Kuwait...however the Sauds know he has designs on ruling Saudi himself(actually he wants to reconstruct the Ottoman Empire and rule that). It's pretty obvious if you listen to him talk, and they wanted no part of him becoming a major power in their country.

    And the cause of anti-Americanism isn't merely because of 50 years of our foreign policy, the major impetus behind it was the Soviet Union wanting control of that region...they were the ones that backed and funded the PLO originally. Listen to the rhetoric, it's about 20% stuff we actually did, about 40% what Europe did(with no differentiation) and about 40% complete bull .

  3. #3
    I love J.T. smeagol's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Post Count
    11,756
    US' foreign policy is nothing to be too proud about.

  4. #4
    Keith Jackson mookie2001's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    13,278
    i cant believe a neocon would ever win a race paul was in

  5. #5
    Keith Jackson mookie2001's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    13,278
    if we compromised and put the cons ution first! dam the neocons would get dumped on

  6. #6
    Believe. BradLohaus's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    1,343
    Looks like some GOP leaders already want him barred from future debates.

    http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michi...t=newsmichigan

    Paul's best point on this, which I think went completely unaddressed by Giuliani, Hannity and the rest, was when he said that he was simply stating the same comments that the CIA has made in their reports on this subject.
    How do you argue with that? You don't. You do just what Giuliani did and just go emotional. If they ban him with the numbers he's been getting after the debates (no matter how they think he got them, spamming or whatever they want to call it) then the corporate electioneering machine will have reached the point that it is unstoppable for the forseeable future.

  7. #7
    Chronic User Bandit2981's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    2,145
    The reasons Ron Paul stated as to why we were attacked on 9-11 were the exact same reasons the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission reported. Maybe if the other candidates had read the report, it wouldn't have been such a revelation to them.

  8. #8
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    No one can refute the fact that there are some folks who want to do us harm now because we invaded Iraq. Now before the typical Bush apologists come out and accuse me of blaming America I do not in anway blame America for terrorism. I do want you kool aid drinkers to at least acknowledge that Iraq has brought people ,who were on the fence prior to the liberation experiment, in to the fight. That by definition has made things worse.. ok I'm ready for the petty personnal insults..

  9. #9
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    29,564
    No one can refute the fact that there are some folks who want to do us harm now because we invaded Iraq. Now before the typical Bush apologists come out and accuse me of blaming America I do not in anway blame America for terrorism. I do want you kool aid drinkers to at least acknowledge that Iraq has brought people ,who were on the fence prior to the liberation experiment, in to the fight. That by definition has made things worse.. ok I'm ready for the petty personnal insults..

    You deserve to be insulted because you somehow thought we were going to fight a war in which no one fought us back...of course there are going to be people join up.

    It could be the most unjust war in the world, and people are going to join up to fight in on the unjust side...you simply don't understand the complexity and stupidity of the human spieces.

    Some people are just looking for a cause...

    Especially when they are born into an oppressive human rights hole governed by religious, gender and ethnic hatred, like the ME. Because it beats sitting around starving, and it provides an outlet for the outrage at being born into a ty life...being dealt a ty hand, and having no voice to speak out with, or you are summarily killed, or imprisoned.

    God damn you are detatched from the true nature of the World... and especially in the ME...

    It must be nice to sit here in the abundant shelter of this country and get inoxicated on a bunch of bull fantasies about how nice life would be if only, it weren't the way it is.


    What about the people joining up on our side? You don't give two s about them, do you?


    And people fight back in wars...that's what happens in wars....if no one fought back, it wouldn't be a war.


    And seldom are they popular, no matter how justified.


    You know what makes a war a popular one?

    Winning it.


    ing, you must be a Buffalo Bills fan or something.
    Last edited by whottt; 05-17-2007 at 02:45 PM.

  10. #10
    Luck the Fakers Bob Lanier's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    6,425
    Ron Paul's out because he's even more of a lunatic than any other major-party candidate, including Kucinich.

    Thank democracy for small favors.

  11. #11
    Believe. BradLohaus's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    1,343
    Ron Paul's out because he's even more of a lunatic than any other major-party candidate, including Kucinich.

    Thank democracy for small favors.
    Just like with Giuliani, an ad hominem attack is passing for debate.
    How is Ron Paul a lunatic? For having the same belief in the reasons for terrorism as the CIA and 911 commission?

    Thank democracy for small favors? How is it democratic to ban a candidate (who is far from the least popular of the 10) from the debates because of his views? That's closer to fascism than democracy/

  12. #12
    Luck the Fakers Bob Lanier's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    6,425
    How is Ron Paul a lunatic? For having the same belief in the reasons for terrorism as the CIA and 911 commission?
    Of course not. He's a lunatic because he's a 'libertarian'. He's a lunatic because he wants to destroy the Federal Reserve. He's a lunatic because he wants the replace fiat money with gold-backed currency. He's a lunatic because he's 'pro-life'. He's a lunatic because for much of the '90s he was a fellow traveler of the various racist and xenophobic 'survivalist'/militia movements.

    That he's relatively sane with regard to military policy and is sceptical of liberal interventionism is, while to his credit, not enough to push him out of lunatic territory.

  13. #13
    Believe. 01.20.09's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    277
    I think Ron could kick Rudy's ass.

  14. #14
    Believe. BradLohaus's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    1,343
    ^^You like the Federal Reserve and fiat money? You like having the value of your money and your purchasing power lowered gradually and perpetually over time?

    You do know that it is fiat money that allows our government to run these massive deficits and lead us into never ending war, right? A gold-standard restrains governments from starting unnecessary wars.

    Aside from the Federal Reserve Act being uncons utional, it is also one of the ten planks Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto:

    "5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

    The Federal Reserve System, created by the Federal Reserve Act of Congress in 1913, is indeed such a "national bank" and it politically manipulates interest rates and holds a monopoly on legal counterfeiting in the United States. This is exactly what Marx had in mind and completely fulfills this plank, another major socialist objective. Yet, most Americans naively believe the U.S. of A. is far from a Marxist or socialist nation
    ."

    So is the Federal Income tax, and therfor so is the IRS, which Ron Paul wants to abolish but that you probably love.

    "2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

    The 16th Amendment of the U.S. Cons ution, 1913 (which some scholars maintain was never properly ratified), and various State income taxes, established this major Marxist coup in the United States many decades ago. These taxes continue to drain the lifeblood out of the American economy and greatly reduce the ac ulation of desperately needed capital for future growth, business starts, job creation, and salary increases."


    Unless you own shares in the Federal Banking system then I can't understand why you would want to keep it around.

  15. #15
    Luck the Fakers Bob Lanier's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    6,425
    Somehow, in a post containing that much bulk-copied fringe bull , the most ridiculous statement happened to be an original:
    A gold-standard restrains governments from starting unnecessary wars.
    Have a dancing purple elephant on me.
    By the way, although I am not, no matter what you may believe, a Marxist, this is really nifty:

  16. #16
    Believe. BradLohaus's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    1,343
    I didn't mean to imply that a gold-standard would create world peace. But you can't continue to fight a war if you don't have the gold (or silver or anything else of real value) to pay for it. However, if you can create money out of thin air, you can fight wars indefinitely. So, I guess I sould have said that "A gold standard restrains governments from starting unnecessary wars better than a fiat money standard does. I thought that was implied, but whatever.

    "Bulk copied fringe bull "
    Are you disputing that Karl Mark wanted to establish central banks and progressive income taxes around the world? Here it is in wikipedia if that's what you want.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_manifesto

    10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto

    Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

    A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

    Abolition of all right of inheritance.

    Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

    Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

    Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

    Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

    Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

    Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

    Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c..[3]

    According to the Communist Manifesto, all these were prior conditions for a transition from capitalism to communism (but Marx and Engels later rejected this passage[4]).


    I mean, I guess you could read the whole book if you don't believe me or wikipedia and you think this is "fringe bull ".

  17. #17
    Luck the Fakers Bob Lanier's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    6,425
    Are you disputing that Karl Mark wanted to establish central banks and progressive income taxes around the world?
    I'm disputing that the United States is secretly under the thrall of Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and a Marxian central-banking conspiracy to sap and impurify your precious monetary lifeblood.

  18. #18
    Believe. BradLohaus's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    1,343
    I'm disputing that the United States is secretly under the thrall of Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and a Marxian central-banking conspiracy to sap and impurify your precious monetary lifeblood.
    I only talked about the fact that the income tax and central banking are 2 pillars of Communism; I never talked about how or why they were established in the U.S.

    But here's my 2 cents on your last comment. The Federal Reserve Act and the 16th (income tax) amendment were both created in 1913. That means that 20% of the planks of Marxism were established in the U.S. in the same calender year. If there was zero communist infiltration, indoctrination, subversion or conspiracy at that time, that would have to mean that everyone involved in establishing these two major ins utions would have to have been completely unaware that they were putting into U.S. federal law 20% of the planks of the Communist Manifesto. I find that extremely hard to believe. These were highly educated men. Is this proof? No, but it is very su ious at the least.

  19. #19
    I can live with it JoeChalupa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    21,547
    Isn't a debate about discussing different views and ideas?

  20. #20
    Spurs love forever RobinsontoDuncan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Post Count
    3,000
    If Lanier is right about all of his mr. paul's views then he is indeed far to extremist and racist to be president.

    That being said, he is absolutely right about 9/11... this bull about terrorist hating freedom is just plain asinine

    as to the gold standard thing, i was just reading an article on this today and since im sure her articulation of this is better than mine could ever be ill leave it to her:


    However, US financial power was even more fictional than this. It is usual to contrast the USA’s financial actions after 1919, generally considered ill-thought-out and even irresponsible, though rarely considered in their true political light as described above, with those after 1945, when the USA is generally seen to have acted to put the world’s financial house in order, in a judicious, even altruistic, use of its great financial power, to lay the basis of a multilateral management of the world’s financial affairs. In truth, the Bretton Woods ins utions set up after 1945 were designed to serve the USA’s political interests just as much as were those after 1919, albeit in a slightly more enlightened fashion. If they turned out nevertheless to be unstable, this was another element of the tragedy of American diplomacy, this time, its financial diplomacy.
    That the world’s money had to now be managed thorough a political mechanism was clear to all acute observers. The questions were in whose interests it would be managed and by what means. As Keynes had noted, gold had functioned well in the 19th century as a stable basis for currency mainly because discoveries of new deposits had, exceptionally in the history of gold as money, kept pace with the expansion of production. The mismatch between productive and monetary expansion without such an exceptional occurrence in the 20th century could be expected to worsen as Fordism expanded productivity to an unprecedented degree. The Age of Gold had ended for another reason also: the Great War had concentrated it in the vaults of central banks—pre-eminently the Federal Reserve—never to be released even to settle matters between central banks, the preferred method being earmarking:
    Gold is out of sight—gone back into the soil. But when gods are no longer seen in a yellow panoply walking the earth, we begin to rationalise them; and it is not long before there is nothing left . . . Thus the long age of Commodity Money has at last passed finally away before the age of Representative Money. . . It is not a far step from this to the beginning of arrangements between Central Banks by which, without ever formally renouncing the role of gold, the quan y of metal actually buried in their vaults may come to stand, by a modern alchemy, for what they please, and its value for what they choose.54
    RADHIKA DESAI, Head of the Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba, The last empire? From nation-building compulsion to nation-wrecking futility and beyond, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2007, pp 435– 456, 2007


    (P.S. whottt, although you have always been a favorite poster of mine going back to the old game chats, and although i always like your basketball takes, dont bother responding to this because i never read your posts in this forum...way too much ethos and absolutely no logos or pathos....but mainly no logos)

  21. #21
    Veteran braeden0613's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Post Count
    981
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4Eugc0Xls

    here is Paul's response to giuliani

    Ron Paul in 2008!

  22. #22
    TRU 'cross mah stomach LaMarcus Bryant's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Post Count
    5,731
    hmmm ron paul, does he even have a shot at the republican nomination though?

  23. #23
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    From Ron Paul...

    "...Politics as usual is aided by the complicity of the media. Economic ignorance, bleeding heart emotionalism, and populist passion pervade our major networks and cable channels. This is especially noticeable when the establishment seeks to unify the people behind an illegal, unwise war. The propaganda is well-coordinated by the media/government/military/industrial complex. This collusion is worse than when state- owned media do the same thing. In countries where everyone knows the media produces government propaganda, people remain wary of what they hear. In the United States the media are considered free and independent, thus the propaganda is accepted with less questioning..."
    House.gov

  24. #24
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Opposing the Use of Military Force Against Iraq
    Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
    October 10, 2002


    "I oppose the resolution authorizing military force against Iraq. The wisdom of the war is one issue, but the process and the philosophy behind our foreign policy are important issues as well. But I have come to the conclusion that I see no threat to our national security. There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war.

    But I am very interested also in the process that we are pursuing. This is not a resolution to declare war. We know that. This is a resolution that does something much different. This resolution transfers the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the Congress to the President so he can declare war when and if he wants to. He has not even indicated that he wants to go to war or has to go to war; but he will make the full decision, not the Congress, not the people through the Congress of this country in that manner.

    ...But an important aspect of the philosophy and the policy we are endorsing here is the preemption doctrine. This should not be passed off lightly. It has been done to some degree in the past, but never been put into law that we will preemptively strike another nation that has not attacked us. No matter what the arguments may be, this policy is new; and it will have ramifications for our future, and it will have ramifications for the future of the world because other countries will adopt this same philosophy."
    Linky

  25. #25
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •