He didn't blame the US for 9/11 you tool. He said our foreign policy isn't making us any friends and it's pissing people off at us which increases the chance for terrorist attacks to occur.

5/17/2007 2:31:45 PM

It pisses me off that republicans are all about some personal responsibility as long as we are talking about Susy welfare mom with 5 kids and not our abortion of a foreign policy.

"It's not our fault everyone hates us, we are just minding our own business not doing anything to anyone and those Muslims came over and attacked us completely unprovoked."

5/17/2007 2:44:49 PM

Quote :

"you know what else he shouldve done? not blamed the US for 9/11 considering he isnt gonna win shit now"

yeah, that's why he isn't going to win.

he can't win because he's not a soulless puppet or a greedy whore.

5/17/2007 2:48:03 PM

True, but let's keep in mind that it's 50 or so years of support of Israel that has had people upset at us for YEARS. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have clean hands on that one.

5/17/2007 2:48:57 PM

Agreed, it's US foreign policy, not Repub. or Democrat foreign policy.

5/17/2007 2:49:58 PM

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/news-44/117935695635230.xml&storylist=newsmichigan

5/17/2007 3:16:27 PM

Ron Pauls point is very valid. What would our opinion be if china started throwing up military bases in the US? His choice of words, of "asking for it" was a poor choice, but he is probably the less "coached" person in the debate. Now the fox news types are running all over it pumping up Rudy. They are totally missing the point.

The flip side, however, is that most of those bases overseas are there bc at some time we had to bail out that country, and have maintained a presence there. Its a complex topic, but I think paul has a point when he said that our presence overseas does create anger towards the US.

5/17/2007 3:39:53 PM

^^ Somebody in that dialogue is out of touch with reality... And I'm afraid it's not Ron Paul.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 3:40 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2007 3:40:01 PM

Quote :

"Now the fox news types are running all over it pumping up Rudy."

Anyone else find it ironic Fox News are pumping up Giuliani?

Just goes to show, Fox News are not conservative so much as they just carry out and say what Rupert Murdoch tells them to.

5/17/2007 4:07:01 PM

Quote :

"He didn't blame the US for 9/11 you tool"

well if he didnt, half the country thinks he did...so....he fucked up

And I'm still wondering why Al Queda and other Muslim terrorist groups set off bombs and murder innocent civilians in dozens of other countries who aren't occupying the Middle East

5/17/2007 4:14:44 PM

^examples?

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 4:29 PM. Reason : \/ exactly. Tree loves to be vague in trying to support a point]

5/17/2007 4:24:16 PM

name the countries and i can give you a reason other than "they hate their freedom!" for each.

5/17/2007 4:24:41 PM

The Phillipines, Saudi Arabia, France, England, Singapore, Tunisia, Turkey, Kenya, Spain, Egypt, Jordan, Algeria

let me guess...they have blown shit up in all those countries because the US has troops in the middle east

5/17/2007 4:32:58 PM

^ It's as much about support / acknowledgement of Israel as it is about actual occupation.

5/17/2007 4:36:03 PM

so basically its the US's fault that muslim fundamentalists are batshit crazy

5/17/2007 4:45:36 PM

^^^i meant specific bombings, but I know that atleast a few of those countries had their US embassy bombed.....and it's not too hard to find warm US/Israel relations in most of the rest.

^no, but it is our fault that we feel the need to get involved in everything.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 4:46 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2007 4:46:11 PM

and a few had hotels bombed where no Americans or Jews were killed or even in the area

and Spain had their train system bombed

and England had their subway system bombed

and you can perceive what paul said anyway you want...but he basically said we brought these attacks on ourselves...and that sickens me that so many people agree

5/17/2007 4:51:47 PM

^^^ No, but when somebody punches you in the face and say's "This is for talking bad about my mother"... then it's illogical to say that said person punched you because they hate your level of freedom.

Quote :

"It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. Massacres in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina took place, massacres that send shivers in the body and shake the conscience. All of this and the world watch and hear, and not only didn't respond to these atrocities, but also with a clear conspiracy between the USA and its' allies and under the cover of the iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed people were even prevented from obtaining arms to defend themselves."

It doesn't make them not batshit crazy... it just shows motive when the leader of a group tells you why the group is doing something.

(ref: Bin Laden's 1996 Fatwa) http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 4:54 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2007 4:54:17 PM

Quote :

"then it's illogical to say that said person punched you because they hate your level of freedom."

this is more like al qeada saying "she was wearing a mini skirt, she was asking for rape"

and somehow that makes sense to you all?

5/17/2007 4:55:38 PM

^ Comparing 50 years of support for Israel both financially and militarily to a girl wearing a short skirt and getting raped is absurd.

I'm not saying that it's right, or logical that Al Qaeda responds that way. It's not. But it is their response. Saying "it's America's fault" isn't true, but saying "we never did anything to provoke these people to anger" isn't true either.

5/17/2007 4:59:21 PM

Im in for one vote for batshit crazy, on the muslim extremist. people died in riots over a freakin cartoon=batshit crazy, with a pinch of darwinism.

5/17/2007 5:01:55 PM

^^if it is al qaeda's response, then what is their (albeit) fucked up rationale for their attacks in all the other countries i listed?

5/17/2007 5:03:01 PM

Quote :

"All of this and the world watch and hear, and not only didn't respond to these atrocities, but also with a clear conspiracy between the USA and its' allies and under the cover of the iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed people were even prevented from obtaining arms to defend themselves."

It's not any less batshit crazy than their response to us, but it is their reasoning straight from the horse's mouth.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 5:05 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2007 5:04:40 PM

i think ron paul and some of you should be defense attorneys when you know your clients are insane murderers since you can somehow apparently justify what they did

cause it seems to me, if you are admitting that they are crazy, and that their response is not logical...that you would think that paul's reasoning was crazy and illogical

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 5:07 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2007 5:05:19 PM

Dude, I'm not defending anybody. I'm saying that they gave reasoning for why they attacked us, and that was their reason. That doesn't mean it's "ok" or that we shouldn't absolutely go after them and do our very best to kill every last one of them.

And at the same time, we should maybe consider less foreign entangling alliances as a future policy. (Thus possibly giving less psychos reasons to go after our men and women in the future)

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 5:10 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2007 5:08:47 PM

just seems like their reason is based on irrational and downright insane/crazy "reasoning"

and how the fuck can anyone accept that as a legit reason

were Cho's high school and college classmates responsible for his shooting spree? according to him and his reason, yes....neglecting and ignoring him while having more money than him was his reason for going on the shooting spree...its crazy and illogical but its his reason...now would you have an issue if paul said the VT shooting was because people werent nice to Cho? i fucking hope you would

5/17/2007 5:11:32 PM

Quote :

"and a few had hotels bombed where no Americans or Jews were killed or even in the area and Spain had their train system bombed and England had their subway system bombed and you can perceive what paul said anyway you want...but he basically said we brought these attacks on ourselves...and that sickens me that so many people agree"

Put it this way then. If a country practices gunboat diplomacy, it only follows that occasionally someone will take retribution with their own gunboat.

The whole "they attack us cause they hate our freedom" is a 1984 bulls*** argument.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 6:16 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2007 6:16:08 PM

I think their beef may be with more than just us not being friendly.

But I wouldn't want to empathize with anti-Americans, because that would make me anti-American.

5/17/2007 6:28:22 PM

I think there is much more to it than our actions



but they haven't helped at all

5/17/2007 6:29:42 PM

Quote :

"they attack us cause they hate our freedom"

i've never once made this argument...they attack us because they're fucking insane...they want to kill any non muslims who dont want to either live by Islamic Law or convert to Islam...they're fucking nuts

hey maybe we should send some suicide bombers to mexico since they have been occupying our land

5/17/2007 6:33:02 PM

Bush made that argument. Guiliani made that argument. Other GOP candidates continue to use that line about them hating our freedom.

5/17/2007 6:38:24 PM

Quote :

"Giuliani’s Attack on Ron Paul Falls Flat by Jacob G. Hornberger Ron Paul once again roiled Republican presidential politics on the issue of foreign policy during last night’s debate, finishing second in the post-debate poll conducted by Fox News and first in the poll conducted by MSNBC. Pointing out that U.S. foreign policy is the root cause of the anger and hatred that has engendered terrorism against the United States, including the 9/11 attacks, Paul suggested that America would be better off ending the U.S. government’s role as world policeman as wells its longtime policy of interventionism. He pointed to Vietnam as an example of where 60,000 American men died in a senseless war while today Americans are instead peacefully investing and trading with the Vietnamese despite their communist regime. Paul’s point ignited an attack by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who indignantly announced that he had never heard such a theory in his life and asked Paul to retract it. Instead, Paul steadfastly stood his ground, pointing out that the CIA itself has pointed out the “blowback” that U.S. foreign policy has engendered. He cited the CIA’s installation of the shah of Iran in 1953 for producing the blowback that resulted in the taking of the U.S. hostages in Iran many years later. In a post-debate interview, Giuliani clarified his point by reciting the official U.S. canard that was issued immediately after the 9/11 attacks – that the terrorists hate us for our “freedom and values.” Giuliani suggested that it was because of our “freedom of religion” and “freedom for women.” When Paul mentioned Iran as an example of blowback from U.S. foreign policy, he was referring to the 1953 coup in which the CIA secretly and surreptitiously engineered the ouster of the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, who had been selected Time Magazine’s Man of the Year. In his place, the CIA installed the shah of Iran, whose secret police proceeded to terrorize and torture the Iranian people for the next 25 years, with the ardent support of the U.S. government. As the Iranian people discovered the U.S. government’s role in all this, their anger and rage ultimately erupted in 1979 with the Iranian Revolution and the taking of the U.S. hostages. Consider U.S. foreign policy toward Iraq: The U.S. support of Saddam Hussein. The U.S. furnishing of weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein and the correlative assistance provided by the U.S. in the use of such weaponry. The Persian Gulf intervention. The intentional destruction of Iraq’s water and sewage facilities, with full knowledge as to what effect such action would have on the long-term health of the Iraqi people. The more than 10 years of brutal sanctions, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children from sickness and disease. The deadly no-fly zones, which had not been authorized by either the UN or the U.S. Congress, and whose enforcement entailed the firing of missiles and the dropping of bombs that killed even more Iraqis. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement to “Sixty Minutes” that reverberated throughout the Middle East that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children had been “worth it.” The invasion and occupation of Iraq, which has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of more Iraqis. The torture and sex abuse of Iraqi men at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq, photographs and videos of which are still being kept hidden by U.S. officials because of their potential blowback. The periodic rapes and murders that some U.S. troops have committed against the Iraqi people during the occupation. The arbitrary and indiscriminate searches and seizures without warrants being conducted by U.S. troops. The indefinite detentions without trial of some 20,000 Iraqi men and women in overcrowded prisons. How can anyone honestly believe that such actions would not engender horrible anger and rage throughout the Middle East and, indeed, throughout the world? As Ron Paul emphasized in last night’s debate, imagine if some foreign power – such as China – had done these types of things to the United States. Wouldn’t Americans experience anger and rage? Indeed, closer to home, suppose Venezuela imposed sanctions and no-fly zones on the Southeastern part of the United States and then sent in Venezuelan troops to wage the war on terrorism in Florida. After all, don’t forget that the U.S. government’s refusal to turn over accused terrorist Luis Posada Carriles to the Venezuelan government for trial is no different in principle from the Taliban’s refusal to turn Osama bin Laden over to the United States after the 9/11 attacks. In fact, Venezuela’s case is stronger than the Taliban’s because Venezuela, unlike Afghanistan, has an extradition agreement with the United States. Moreover, Venezuela, unlike Washington’s response to the Taliban regime, is ready and willing to offer evidence of Posada’s role in the terrorist bombing of a Cuban airliner, which took the lives of 73 innocent people, including the young members of a Cuban sports team. What Ron Paul’s participation in the 2008 presidential race is accomplishing is this: It is making people such as Rudy Giuliani think about things they’ve never thought about before and causing them to view the U.S. government and its long-time paradigm of empire and interventionism in an entirely different way. It’s also why he is engendering considerable discomfort among people who have long believed that the federal government is a deity whose foreign policies are beyond reproach. Don’t be surprised to hear more calls for suppressing Paul’s participation in future debates, even while the critics continue to wax eloquent about how U.S. soldiers are killing and dying in Iraq for the sake of “democracy.” In last night’s debate Rudy Giuliani made a mistake that is commonly made by those who view the federal government as a deity. Conflating the U.S. government and the American people, he suggested in the post-debate interview that Ron Paul was “blaming America.” Actually, Paul did no such thing. He blamed the U.S. government’s interventionist foreign policies for the morass in which our nation now finds itself. Like our Founding Fathers and the Framers, Paul understands that the federal government and the country are two separate and distinct groups, which in fact is precisely why the Bill of Rights expressly protects the country from the federal government. Ron Paul’s answers in last night’s debate reflect how differently he approaches societal problems as compared to such politicians as Rudy Giuliani. Keep in mind that Ron Paul is, first and foremost, a physician. As a doctor, he is trained in diagnosing an ailment correctly because he knows that a correct prescription almost always depends on the right diagnosis. Equally important, he isn’t going to lie to a patient or feed him a false reality about the seriousness of his ailment. In order for the patient to make the correct decision as to whether to embark on a certain course of treatment, Paul knows that it is necessary that the patient confront the reality of his condition. Therefore, during last night’s debate Ron Paul simply was doing what he has done for many years, both as a doctor and as a congressman. He was diagnosing what ails the American body politic and prescribed the radical treatment that is necessary to heal the patient. The patient can obviously go into denial, preferring to believe instead the lies and false realities of charlatans but deep down the patient always knows that ultimately reality will not enable him to escape the consequences of having done so. "

5/17/2007 11:33:53 PM

so what exactly does us foreign policy in iraq have to do with 9/11

5/17/2007 11:38:58 PM

^
Well his point is that our country has bombed Iraq for the past 10 years killings thousands of Iraqi Muslims.

We have also imposed sanctions on Iraq which also has resulted in the deaths of many Iraqis.

Paul claims that our country gave Saddam, our ally at the time against Iran, the gas he used on the Kurds.

In addition to that, we have stirred the anger of muslims by putting troops in their holy land of Saudi Arabia.

Our CIA ousted the duly elected leader of Iran in 1950s and installed the brutal Shah.

And we have steadfastly supported Israel..their hated enemy.

Paul isn't claiming these facts justified the 911 attack...they merely help to explain it. He voted for the US to go after Osama, but then objected when Bush decided to attack Iraq.

Paul isn't blaming the American people. He is blaming 50 years of idiotic and careless mideast foreign policy.
Paul points out that both the CIA and the 911 report cite our foriegn policy as contributing factors to the attack.

5/18/2007 12:50:13 AM

**warning: I am going to invoke Godwin's Law at some point in this post** ( )

I heard an interesting point this morning on Brad & Britt. You can turn on the history channel most any day and see show after show analyzing Hitler's rise to power and what conditions were like in Germany that would allow this to happen. The shows do not make excuses for his actions but help us to gain an understanding so as to curb this situation from manifesting itself in the future.

The same can be applied to Al Qaeda and 9/11. It is intellectually lazy to simply minimize their actions as simply "because they are batshit crazy". And giving reasons as to why they attacked us is NOT making excuses for them. Do the fundamentalists hate the social liberalization in this country? You betcha. Do they dislike our meddling in the Middle East? Sure. And of course Isreal is not on their top 8 MySpace friends either. But we also can not overlook that they hate the US because we were asked to defend the Middle East against Saddam in the early 90s and Al Qeada was not. Is it our fault, no, but it does bring a slight bit of understanding that the Bush regime doesn't want his sheep to understand. It's easier for them to combat perceived blind hatred with their own blind hatred.

5/18/2007 12:57:22 AM

from Pat Buchanan....

Quote :

"Rudy implied that Ron Paul was unpatriotic to suggest the violence against us out of the Middle East may be in reaction to U.S. policy in the Middle East. Was President Hoover unpatriotic when, the day after Pearl Harbor, he wrote to friends, "You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten." Pearl Harbor came out of the blue, but it also came out of the troubled history of U.S.-Japanese relations going back 40 years. Hitler's attack on Poland was naked aggression. But to understand it, we must understand what was done at Versailles – after the Germans laid down their arms based on Wilson's 14 Points. We do not excuse – but we must understand. Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war. By all means, throw out of the debate the only man who was right from the beginning on Iraq. "

Quote :

"Blaming Uncle Sam Last by Michael Tennant ...At this point Rudy Giuliani, who is running for president primarily on his alleged expertise in security (because, apparently, being mayor of a city that is attacked to great effect makes one a security expert much as being the captain of the Titanic makes one an iceberg expert), broke the rules of the debate to denounce Paul for this perfectly reasonable opinion, claiming that he’d never heard it before and demanding a retraction. Paul has repeatedly refused to do so and has challenged Giuliani to apologize to him since the very sentiments Paul expressed about blowback from U.S. intervention are expressed in the 9/11 Commission Report, which Giuliani the "security expert" has apparently not read. For all this Paul has been denounced by various blowhards on the right as a "blame America first" type who claimed that the 9/11 terrorists were justified in their actions because of U.S. foreign policy. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. First let’s set one thing straight: America and its federal government are two completely different entities. Was America, the conglomeration of its individual citizens, responsible for provoking the 9/11 attacks? Of course not. Was the U.S. government, the world’s largest organized crime ring, responsible for provoking the attacks? Absolutely. Unfortunately, innocent Americans were made to suffer for their government’s attempts to run the world. What Ron Paul was trying to convey in the limited amount of time he had was that actions have consequences, and the actions of the U.S. government can have extremely negative consequences, as one would expect all the conservatives who are denouncing him to recognize. Let’s consider something even closer to the 9/11 situation. Timothy McVeigh, a U.S. government-trained killer, was justifiably angry at the federal government’s murder of innocent Americans (allegedly to protect other Americans from dangerous people) at Waco and Ruby Ridge. In response, McVeigh bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 and wounding 850. (Change a few details here and you have the Osama bin Laden story.) Again the policies of the federal government had a direct bearing on the actions of a criminal. Again those policies were very bad, and conservatives generally recognized them as such. Were they then "blaming America first" for suggesting that these bad policies ought not to be repeated? Were they blaming the victims of McVeigh’s crime? Were they justifying the crime because they, too, believed the policies were bad and believed that justice should be done? Once again the obvious answer is no. McVeigh’s crimes were indeed the result of bad government policy, and one way to prevent such crimes in the future is to change that policy. At the same time, McVeigh was fully responsible for having murdered innocent people in response to a government injustice and was rightly punished (leaving aside for now the debate over capital punishment) for his mass-murdering ways. If you really believe that our government’s foreign policy has given Muslims no reason to hate our government and to wish to exact revenge on us, I suggest for starters the 12-point list of U.S. depredations against the Iraqi people presented here by Jacob Hornberger. America is a wonderful country populated by varied and interesting individuals, most of whom go about their daily lives in exactly the manner that Ron Paul is suggesting the federal government go about its business both at home and abroad (i.e., minding its own business). America’s government, on the other hand, is a gang of looters, busybodies, and egomaniacs that wants to micromanage not only the lives of Americans but the lives of everyone else in the world as well. The trouble is that when people get fed up with the depredations of Rome-on-the-Potomac, they tend to take it out on innocent Americans. Then when those of us not enthralled with the emperor’s new clothes dare to point this out, we are accused of blaming the victims. In fact, we have nothing but the deepest sympathy for the victims and the deepest contempt for both the terrorists and the imperial thugs who by their own evil actions provoke such despicable acts. "

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 11:00 AM. Reason : .]

5/18/2007 10:52:37 AM

Quote :

"so what exactly does us foreign policy in iraq have to do with 9/11"

It was one of the key points cited in Osama Bin Laden's Fatwa against the US. It was clearly a source of motivation for the suicide bombers.

5/18/2007 11:01:49 AM

Quote :

"well if he didnt, half the country thinks he did...so....he fucked up"

half the country is incompetent

5/18/2007 12:39:00 PM

a lot more than half the country is incompetent

but incompetent or not, he sure did ostracize a large chunk of the voting population with his comments

5/18/2007 12:41:29 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4Eugc0Xls

5/18/2007 4:13:51 PM

I may be late (just started reading this thread today). I'm not sure if you guys actually pay attention to WORLD (like the whole earth) NEWS ... but radical jihadist terrorist attacks do and have happened in MANY places other than the US.

Yes, our policy in the Middle East have affected the hostilities a good bit. And maybe we caused more trouble than needed. But the fact still remains, the issue extends much further than just that. From what I've seen in the news and read, "Jihadist" terrorism is a global issue, not a US vs. Middle East issue. If you don't think so, then you must not be watching and reading any news.

My point is: I can't believe some of you guys are claiming that we did the most awful injustice by going into Iraq. On the whole, I don't see one ounce of injustice.

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 11:14 PM. Reason : lbs]

5/18/2007 11:13:06 PM

Quote :

"they attack us because they're fucking insane...they want to kill any non muslims who dont want to either live by Islamic Law or convert to Islam...they're fucking nuts"

Is that the clinical definition of insane, or the TreeTwista the troll addict definition?

Quote :

"but incompetent or not, he sure did ostracize a large chunk of the voting population with his comments"

I think you mean alienate.

[Edited on May 19, 2007 at 11:24 AM. Reason : clinical]

5/19/2007 11:22:12 AM

Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D. is a a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, and has written on defense issues with a libertarian perspective for MilitaryWeek.com.

Quote :

"Ron Paul Rocks! by Karen Kwiatkowski I am ashamed to admit that I’ve been watching Ron Paul’s recent political acts with fingers and toes crossed, breathless. Seeing Ron Paul educate Wolf Blitzer earlier this week, after his astoundingly fantastic performance in the second Republican debate, makes me sorry I had lost my faith in the power of truth, the power of courage. I’m sorry that I didn’t believe in possibility that a serious person in the American political arena would commit that most radical act of speaking truth to power. And in doing it, not only survive, but thrive! A famous Orwell quote captures what is happening. "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." And while many have been working to prepare ground for truth and freedom in this country, I think we will note that the first shots in this revolution have been fired by Ron Paul. Orwell had glimpsed what would become the modern political state, globally engaged in endless wars, fighting shadowy enemies who constantly change, because they never really mattered anyway. What mattered, and what still matters, is war, with its handmaidens Fear and Public Amnesia. Without fear and amnesia, holding on to domestic political power in the American neoconservative oligarchy becomes risky, uncertain. Ron Paul is speaking truth to the whole world, with patience and patriotism flowing in equally generous portions. Like the young David, he is received by the dogs of war with sneers, self-important snarling, threatening stares. Like David, he seems almost unarmed and even unprepared for the great battle to come. But like David, he is unafraid. Like David, he understands what he believes in and knows it to be consistent with all that is good and just. On the other hand, his political opponents, in both parties, do not truly believe in what they are saying. The neoconservative evangelical Republican Party seeks the 2008 presidency and the neoconservative socialist Democratic Party seeks the 2008 presidency. It isn’t because they believe in something – instead, they seek to access domestic power and maintain the status quo – an enriching and profitable status quo for people and organizations in power, I might add. I’m not just saying this because I am excited about Ron Paul’s candidacy and the possibility of his presidency. Recall if you will, the first Republican debate, when the candidates were asked about National ID cards. Some of the other candidates began to respond, clonelike, each confusing the national ID card with some vague undeveloped ideas they have about security for the country. Their reptilian brains were drumming "Security, Security, Must Look Good on Security." Then Ron Paul gets to answer the national ID card question. It is unnecessary and would have little to nothing to offer in terms of national security. Oh, and then he firmly rejected it. Like a real man! Immediately, the candidates – even some who had already spoken, rushed and stumbled to agree or at a minimum, move toward the Ron Paul position. I recall Guiliani saying something like he would only have a national ID card for aliens. Huh? My mother says if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all. Let me then say this: Rudy Guiliani has the biggest reptilian brain of all the candidates. Ron Paul offers real change, and a real way ahead for America that includes not just an embrace of the original constitutional outline of small government, but something we can really partake of each day – free economics, free speech, free will. Further, Ron Paul promises something that is valuable and precious to Americans who belong to a political party – any political party. Ron Paul offers a chance to share a real sense of our country as glorious and honorable, a joyful, fearless land of opportunity and of peace. Because make no mistake, the United States has not been glorious and wonderful, and certainly not free and peaceful, for many decades. I am excited about Ron Paul and his campaign. I have ritualistically voted since 1978, usually as a Republican, later as a libertarian, and last fall I voted for Virginia Senator Jim Webb, a Democrat. I’ll ritualistically vote for Ron Paul in 2008, if I can. But far more than that, I am pleased to be humbled by each new day of the Ron Paul campaign – to witness the raw power of ideas and debate – after such a long hiatus of ideas and debate from the American political game. The Greek concept of happiness, eudaimonia, keeps coming to mind whenever I think of Ron Paul as President. It is about faithful and right action, not human exultation or social extremes. It is about the happy and fulfilling marriage of knowledge and virtue. It is about reality over fantasy, faith over existentialism, doing good over doing evil. In other words, Ron Paul rocks! "

5/20/2007 11:06:50 AM

was just on late edition on cnn live

5/20/2007 12:42:33 PM

Quote :

"Not an Empire by Brian Wilson In the middle of the 1800's, the US stepped upon the road to Empire. By the middle of the 1900's, the US was an empire. Today, that empire has expanded to its limit and is in decline. Ron Paul at the Republican Debate was John the Baptist at Herod's court. He was the child exclaiming the emperor has no clothes. He was the Ghost of Christmas Future pointing a bony finger at Ebenezer Scrooge. He was the Truth that can not be denied only denounced, ignored and expelled. Denial is both grotesque and delicate. Ron Paul's history in the Republican Party is who we like to believe we are but it stands in such stark contract to reality we can only turn our faces away in shame. The more base among us even want to shoot the messenger. Our denial requires we say "super power" instead of "empire." We like to see ourselves as a simple constitutional republic engaged in international free trade. That force is required to protect free trade is a harsh reality we never look at too closely. The world is full of pirates and crooks who prey on merchants. It takes power to protect the flow of goods. The power of an empire. As our empire grew, force was required to open new markets. From Commodore Perry and the Opening of Japan to the oil fields of the Middle East, these were trading arrangements created by the power of an empire. In the declining years of our empire, our credit is backed by the threat of force. Now a nation of consumers, the power of empire is needed to acquire the goods of a world of producers we created. This is not a new tale. Rome, the Aztecs, Spain, France and England have been down this road well ahead of us. Empires are not evil in and of themselves. Empire is the natural course of nations. From small tribes to world powers, all social organizations expand to the limits of their ability - then collapse. Don't get me wrong. I kinda like the lifestyle that comes with being the citizen of an empire. I'm just not in denial about the cost of my lifestyle. Ron Paul's words didn't shock or offend me. They were a simple statement of the truth. If anything, thanks to time constraints, his words fell well short of stating the full reality of our situation. All the front running candidates both Democrat and Republican seem the same because there is only one issue upon which to campaign: pandering to the voters. The guardians of an empire must keep the public appeased to stay in power. No matter how inane, the public must be told what it wants to believe and given the creature comforts to which it feels entitled. First, a politician can never admit we are an empire. A politician must swear to protect our environment and furry little animals. Whose environment is producing the oil and whose furry little animals are dying to keep our bodies warm and bellies full is not a subject for political debate. We don't want to know how our sausage is made, We just want it served with a couple of eggs and country gravy. All the politicians speak of the crisis about to happen but still in the future. "We have a looming Social Security crisis". The government is taxing Social Security benefits, increasing Social Security taxes and raising the retirement age. It looks as if we are already well into the crisis and the only problem is running out of K-Y jelly before the next government solution assaults us. The politicians can speak of protecting us from terrorism but heaven forbid anyone say the terrorists hate us. We are just a simple constitutional republican buying some oil to keep our wheels rolling to and from work. Our politicians can talk about evil oil companies but we don't want to know about the force required to keep the oil flowing. We don't buy oil from happy little democracies. It comes from hell-hole countries that never came out of the Middle Ages. The American Empire picks a side and keeps it in power so we don't have to walk to work. All our politicians want to get us out of Iraq and place the blame of being there on the other politicians they hope to defeat. Their pie holes are hot and loud about the public opinion that want us out but are strategically silent on any public blame for getting us in. When every man, Jack and potted plant on this planet knew the Hitler of Iraq was trying to make The Bomb, it was our war. When we found out war includes our people getting killed too, it became Bush's war. All our politicians look like empty suits ripped off the rack of some discount department store because we can't handle the Truth. We don't want to hear about a constitution that doesn't include welfare, abortion laws, the right to health care, Social Security, child labor laws or wars against ism's. We want what ever feels good and someone else to do the heavy lifting. We are the modern Roman Empire. The words of our Founding Fathers is our Spartacus and the Constitution our Hannibal hammering at the gate. We force our politicians to become sin eaters feasting at the corpse of our liberty. All this and more just so we can believe we are just a simple constitutional republican instead of an empire. "

5/20/2007 10:03:05 PM

I will vote for this man, and I'm hoping he runs 3rd party when he doesn't get the Pub nomination.

This is the first candidate I can remember being legitimately excited about in a very long time.

5/21/2007 1:38:57 AM

Unfortunately, Paul has stated that he will not run as a third party if he doesn't get the GOP nod.

5/21/2007 10:37:45 AM

Quote :

"Unfortunately, Paul has stated that he will not run as a third party if he doesn't get the GOP nod."

5/21/2007 5:06:31 PM

Having a viable third party would be great for the people. No more Conservative vs. Liberal bs. There would have to be some consensus building, leading us to have some semblance of a democracy again.

5/21/2007 5:18:36 PM

^i think everyone agrees but unfortunately im pretty disenfranchised with the possibility that a third party could become truly viable and competitive...at least in the near future

5/21/2007 5:22:58 PM