Ron Paul PWNS! Wolf And Giuliani On CNN
- Thread starter R127
- Start date
- Status
I have mixed thoughts on this.
On the one hand, all logic says you are correct, and I would have to agree.
On the other the total cretins dragged in so far by FBI make the DC Snipers look like a cross between Hathcock and Einstein... so much so, that I really wonder if all these arrested folk were simply boobs who allowed themselves to be entrapped (some of the warrant testimony makes it look that way).
I mean, seriously, people who can't find their own pistols or ammo? In America?
I think Falwall was wrong, God must love us: if the best terrorists with firearms can do is kill 1 or 2 people, or get arrested, somethings going our way.
Titan6
member
Show me where it is working in a country of 300,000,000 or more that holds more than 20% of the world's GDP. Let me see an example and I will suspend disbelief. Oh, wait there is not one.
maasenstodt
Member
Wow. That is simply fantastic.
Go Ron Paul!
budney
member
I assume by "it" you're referring to "not bombing the crap out of innocent people who haven't done anything to us"? Unfortunately, there's only one country that fits your description, and it hasn't tried non-intervention in well over 100 years. So there's no data to confirm or deny your hypothesis empirically.
--Len.
Kaylee
Member
1. The "terrorists are criminals/it's a law enforcement issue" (for antarti)
I'll be the first to agree with you that the "terrorist" label is a stupid one, re. the old saw about Pearl Harbor and "Declaring a War on Aviation." The trouble is that it's still too un-PC to say "jihadi/radicalized Islam/whatever" and so "terrorist" is for now still the name du jour. I don't suspect that will last the decade.
Now that said the difference is that the radical Jihadi movement has been consistently armed and supported by states for decades. Whether Quadaffi and the airplane bombers or Iran and Hezbollah, at some point you have to deal with the head of the snake, or consign yourself to dealing with increasingly bold actions against your population. Just calling the actors themselves "criminals" and a problem for LEOs alone doesn't solve the problem itself, it simply treats a symptom.
2. Effectiveness of the "terrorists" to date domestically
Again I'll agree that the majority of published cases to date have looked pretty amateurish. But then again, the effectiveness of a "terror" act lies not in brains but in guts. You don't have to be smart to blow yourself up in a schoolyard, just determined. As to why we haven't seen Israel's level of attacks, my guess is that-
A: The most immediate known threats were taken care of shortly post 9/11
and
B: Any remaining serious networked assets they have aren't worth wasting on something like a mall shooting, and are being held in reserve for something coordinated. Finding someone with the chutzpah to kill themselves in an attack and are capable of living successfully in western culture without raising alarm bells everywhere they went can't be easy.
That every now and again some folk watching the news and reading the messageboards decide it's time to go amateur-night jihad on their own, well that seems pretty much a win from their point of view - low cost for some effect no matter what.
Regardless, I'm still of the belief that there's been a fair amount going on overseas and here we've never heard about, and won't for a generation or two. Obviously that's not something either of can prove unless we have inside info, which we wouldn't be able to talk about here anyway. So I'm willing to let that one just be a "agree to disagree."
3. On Foreign Interventions
Given (1) above, I tend to think that foreign action is justified and sensible. Iraq may or may not have been the ideal place for it*, but that doesn't change the principle. The time comes when if you don't face a threat abroad, you will face a much bigger threat at home. The threat, mind you, is not "terrorists following us home." The threat is another radical Islamic state centered in Iraq, formed after our withdrawal is spun as a defeat. Whether dominated by sunni radicals or shiaa radicals, the last thing we want is another Taliban-esque nation that will serve as the jihadi's "Medina phase" base. That's not counting what happens to the people still there, of course.. I rather suspect our withdrawal would mean purges enough to make Pol Pot smile.
The thing is, I could agree with Paul if we were talking anytime prior to say 1915. Since WWI, one expansive thread or another has needed to be stopped else we find ourselves decades down the road a lonely island in a sea of hostility. Heck, the argument could even be made that had we bowed out of WWI, the ensuing threats wouldn't have arisen. Regardless though, we live in the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. And in that situation, at times we have to choose between bad choice #1 - foreign intervention and bad choice #2 - eventual foreign strangulation.
4. "Getting back to the topic" -
discussing the merits of Paul's case is the topic - unless you want just blind kudos for "look what the guy I like said" whether we think he's right or wrong. I will fully agree with him though that the Constitutional path of a Congressional Declaration of War rather than some smarmy "give powers to the President" resolution was called for.
-K
* the thinking I believe was "in order to create a long-term solution, we needing a working modern democracy with a Muslim population smack dab in the middle of the Middle East." Iraq on paper looked like an ideal place for that kind of nation-building. It was relatively modern and secular compared to its neighbors, Saddam had a list of violations against both the UN and the peace agreements he made at the end of Gulf I**, and it sat right between fundamentalist sunni Saudi and fundamentalist Shia Iran. A working modern democracy there would give the populations on both sides good reason to start looking twice at their own leadership.
The failure, of course, was in not expecting the opposition to exploit the sunni/shiaa split to forment internal warfare. Even a casual look at the news from Iraq though will show the bulk of attacks are sunni/shia related, not "Iraqi partisan" / "American occupier" however. Which blows Paul's point the hell out of the water as far as I'm concerned.
** (can I footnote a footnote?) Let's not forget either that these so-called American bombings were our planes destroying anti-aircraft emplacements that were shooting at our planes enforcing the no-fly zone to keep Saddam from continuing to massacre the Kurds in Iraq. It's not like we were bombing civilians willy-nilly. And that again is the kind of hyperbolic rhetoric that makes me toss out Paul's credibility on this issue, however much I might agree with him on the RKBA or other Constitutional issues.
PS - don't take any of that to mean I don't like Dr. Paul on domestic issues - I just don't think he's fit for the big chair. Like ArmedBear though, I'd love to see him in the cabinet.
I'll be the first to agree with you that the "terrorist" label is a stupid one, re. the old saw about Pearl Harbor and "Declaring a War on Aviation." The trouble is that it's still too un-PC to say "jihadi/radicalized Islam/whatever" and so "terrorist" is for now still the name du jour. I don't suspect that will last the decade.
Now that said the difference is that the radical Jihadi movement has been consistently armed and supported by states for decades. Whether Quadaffi and the airplane bombers or Iran and Hezbollah, at some point you have to deal with the head of the snake, or consign yourself to dealing with increasingly bold actions against your population. Just calling the actors themselves "criminals" and a problem for LEOs alone doesn't solve the problem itself, it simply treats a symptom.
2. Effectiveness of the "terrorists" to date domestically
Again I'll agree that the majority of published cases to date have looked pretty amateurish. But then again, the effectiveness of a "terror" act lies not in brains but in guts. You don't have to be smart to blow yourself up in a schoolyard, just determined. As to why we haven't seen Israel's level of attacks, my guess is that-
A: The most immediate known threats were taken care of shortly post 9/11
and
B: Any remaining serious networked assets they have aren't worth wasting on something like a mall shooting, and are being held in reserve for something coordinated. Finding someone with the chutzpah to kill themselves in an attack and are capable of living successfully in western culture without raising alarm bells everywhere they went can't be easy.
That every now and again some folk watching the news and reading the messageboards decide it's time to go amateur-night jihad on their own, well that seems pretty much a win from their point of view - low cost for some effect no matter what.
Regardless, I'm still of the belief that there's been a fair amount going on overseas and here we've never heard about, and won't for a generation or two. Obviously that's not something either of can prove unless we have inside info, which we wouldn't be able to talk about here anyway. So I'm willing to let that one just be a "agree to disagree."
3. On Foreign Interventions
Given (1) above, I tend to think that foreign action is justified and sensible. Iraq may or may not have been the ideal place for it*, but that doesn't change the principle. The time comes when if you don't face a threat abroad, you will face a much bigger threat at home. The threat, mind you, is not "terrorists following us home." The threat is another radical Islamic state centered in Iraq, formed after our withdrawal is spun as a defeat. Whether dominated by sunni radicals or shiaa radicals, the last thing we want is another Taliban-esque nation that will serve as the jihadi's "Medina phase" base. That's not counting what happens to the people still there, of course.. I rather suspect our withdrawal would mean purges enough to make Pol Pot smile.
The thing is, I could agree with Paul if we were talking anytime prior to say 1915. Since WWI, one expansive thread or another has needed to be stopped else we find ourselves decades down the road a lonely island in a sea of hostility. Heck, the argument could even be made that had we bowed out of WWI, the ensuing threats wouldn't have arisen. Regardless though, we live in the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. And in that situation, at times we have to choose between bad choice #1 - foreign intervention and bad choice #2 - eventual foreign strangulation.
4. "Getting back to the topic" -
discussing the merits of Paul's case is the topic - unless you want just blind kudos for "look what the guy I like said" whether we think he's right or wrong. I will fully agree with him though that the Constitutional path of a Congressional Declaration of War rather than some smarmy "give powers to the President" resolution was called for.
-K
* the thinking I believe was "in order to create a long-term solution, we needing a working modern democracy with a Muslim population smack dab in the middle of the Middle East." Iraq on paper looked like an ideal place for that kind of nation-building. It was relatively modern and secular compared to its neighbors, Saddam had a list of violations against both the UN and the peace agreements he made at the end of Gulf I**, and it sat right between fundamentalist sunni Saudi and fundamentalist Shia Iran. A working modern democracy there would give the populations on both sides good reason to start looking twice at their own leadership.
The failure, of course, was in not expecting the opposition to exploit the sunni/shiaa split to forment internal warfare. Even a casual look at the news from Iraq though will show the bulk of attacks are sunni/shia related, not "Iraqi partisan" / "American occupier" however. Which blows Paul's point the hell out of the water as far as I'm concerned.
** (can I footnote a footnote?) Let's not forget either that these so-called American bombings were our planes destroying anti-aircraft emplacements that were shooting at our planes enforcing the no-fly zone to keep Saddam from continuing to massacre the Kurds in Iraq. It's not like we were bombing civilians willy-nilly. And that again is the kind of hyperbolic rhetoric that makes me toss out Paul's credibility on this issue, however much I might agree with him on the RKBA or other Constitutional issues.
PS - don't take any of that to mean I don't like Dr. Paul on domestic issues - I just don't think he's fit for the big chair. Like ArmedBear though, I'd love to see him in the cabinet.
TheOtherOne
Member
And they'll have voted for the wrong man because they didn't want to "throw their vote away on someone with no chance".HiroProX said:
I don't care if voting for Ron Paul is "wasting my vote" and only helping to get the more evil of the "lesser of two evils" elected. I'm going to vote for him anyways.
Marshall
Member
That's a joke right?
The Baath regime initiated its chemical warfare on the Kurds in 1988. The operation was headed up by Saddam's cousin, Ali Hasan al-Majid,"Chemical Ali", the Secretary-General of the Northern Bureau of the Ba'th Organization.
The Baath regime launched 39 separate gas attacks against the Kurds, many of them targeting villages far from the Iran-Iraq border. Beginning at night on Thursday, March 16, and extending into Friday, March 17, 1988, the city of Halabja (population 70,000), was bombarded with twenty chemical and cluster bombs.
I won't go into the tortures, murders, other ethnic cleansing, mass graves and general terror that regime provided it's own country. But your right, it was so peaceful before the USA bad guys got there. There's your sarcasm.
The apologists amaze me.
outerlimit
Member
The place has never been peaceful. Appologies to the Christians/Jews/Muslims reading this, but I think it's always been the ******* of the world and I almost wish somebody WOULD nuke it. I just hope, as soon as they run out of oil, or we don't need it anymore, we won't have to deal with it any longer.
The people who think we will change the place amaze me.
The people who think we will change the place amaze me.
shootinstudent
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 786
Ron Paul is way off. If we hadn't invaded Iraq, Saddam hussein and al qaeda probably would've built a whole fleet of balsa wood remote controlled airplanes.
Balsawood planes are a major threat to the national security of the united states. With an army of balsawood planes, Iraq would be capable of killing millions according to some estimates (margin of error for that study is +/- 100 percent).
Iraq was a defenseless third world country. It still is. The only reason we are dying now is that soldiers are sitting in the very neighborhoods the Iraqis happen to be calling "home."
Pull the soldiers out, and we can sink every single vessel or balsawood plane that Iraq sends this way...zero casualties for us.
But this war isn't about less casualties for us. It's about some mysterious "take action!" to stop them from hating us (by killing thousands of them)
Balsawood planes are a major threat to the national security of the united states. With an army of balsawood planes, Iraq would be capable of killing millions according to some estimates (margin of error for that study is +/- 100 percent).
Iraq was a defenseless third world country. It still is. The only reason we are dying now is that soldiers are sitting in the very neighborhoods the Iraqis happen to be calling "home."
Pull the soldiers out, and we can sink every single vessel or balsawood plane that Iraq sends this way...zero casualties for us.
But this war isn't about less casualties for us. It's about some mysterious "take action!" to stop them from hating us (by killing thousands of them)
DualBerettas
Member
if you think ron paul is a nut...you are simply in denial of how bad it's gotten...the new world order DOES exist, people are getting arrested for protesting, government is getting bigger and bigger and BIGGER!!!
that 'libertarian koolaid' you speak of IS THE U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
DB
that 'libertarian koolaid' you speak of IS THE U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
DB
TheOtherOne
Member
Here's a clip from Bill Maher on the debates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3pOFxD_ddI
And, yeah, Maher is a LINO (Libertarian in name only). His stance that both the war on drugs and war on Iraq are bad decisions is really probably the only thing he has in common with Ron Paul but it is still nice to hear him being called his new hero.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3pOFxD_ddI
And, yeah, Maher is a LINO (Libertarian in name only). His stance that both the war on drugs and war on Iraq are bad decisions is really probably the only thing he has in common with Ron Paul but it is still nice to hear him being called his new hero.
The sad truth about the American populace is that they DO NOT READ ANYTHING OF IMPORTANCE. How many here ACTUALLY read the 9-11 Commission Report??? Only those who actually read the document has any clue as to what Ron Paul was saying.
There is no difference between the man who cannot read & the man who DOES NOT read...
There is no difference between the man who cannot read & the man who DOES NOT read...
TrybalRage
Member
I read about 3/4 of it.
"He does not look and act like a president or world leader by any stretch of the imagination. He is not electable. The MSM will pump him up because they want someone that is weak as an opponent. He would get killed in the general election."
Surely you jest...
ZDo you think the Dems do? How about the current prez? Clinton? The GOP rascals...
You know, I guess we have the type of gov't because of US... We ultimately get what we ultimately deserve - collectively.
We have a "reincarnation", philosophically, of one of the founders and we fail to recognize him...
Surely you jest...
ZDo you think the Dems do? How about the current prez? Clinton? The GOP rascals...
You know, I guess we have the type of gov't because of US... We ultimately get what we ultimately deserve - collectively.
We have a "reincarnation", philosophically, of one of the founders and we fail to recognize him...
Actually, the Chechens were and are being supported by the West in our attempt to deconstruct Russia. One of the UK large papers was advertising for radical Muslims to join the fight in Chechnya. They would be provided all support (training and weapons).
The Caucasus is extremely important. There were pre-existing pipelines and plans for pipelines in various states of completion. Russia was running them westwards (to themselves) and we want them to run eastwards (towards Japan, China and India).
By supporting conflicts in Dagestan and Chechnya we disrupt the geopolitical infrastructure of Russia - while we build relationships with the "stans" that will work for us.
It's failling, however.
Go to www.globalresearch.ca and go under the section about oil as well as the section about Russia and read the incredibly detailed analyses.
The Caucasus is extremely important. There were pre-existing pipelines and plans for pipelines in various states of completion. Russia was running them westwards (to themselves) and we want them to run eastwards (towards Japan, China and India).
By supporting conflicts in Dagestan and Chechnya we disrupt the geopolitical infrastructure of Russia - while we build relationships with the "stans" that will work for us.
It's failling, however.
Go to www.globalresearch.ca and go under the section about oil as well as the section about Russia and read the incredibly detailed analyses.
I read somewhere that if people don't like a candidate, no amount of money can change that. People who hear of Paul seem to like him and approve of his message according to every poll I've seen.
What's been hampering him is lack of publicity, but that changed at the last debate. Now he's got all sorts of publicity (intentionally skewed tho' it may be) people are going to be watching him more closely.
That's really all he needs. And honestly, Paul is the only candidate the Republicans can field who stands a chance of beating Hillary. All it takes is a trip over to liberal-land to see why; Paul is just as popular over there as he is here. For instance, did you know that he won both debate polls on DailyKos? <---DAILY friggin' KOS???
He can pull her support out from under her in exactly the same way that Giuliani or Romney or McCain can't.
Conversely, should Paul be summarily ejected from the primary debates he's going to take a great many supporters with him, supporters that the Republicans can't win without.
Next debate is June 5th on CNN. I'm looking forward to him cleaning their clocks once again with his kooky ideas about following the Constitution, bringing the Federal government to heel, and balancing budgets.
What's been hampering him is lack of publicity, but that changed at the last debate. Now he's got all sorts of publicity (intentionally skewed tho' it may be) people are going to be watching him more closely.
That's really all he needs. And honestly, Paul is the only candidate the Republicans can field who stands a chance of beating Hillary. All it takes is a trip over to liberal-land to see why; Paul is just as popular over there as he is here. For instance, did you know that he won both debate polls on DailyKos? <---DAILY friggin' KOS???
He can pull her support out from under her in exactly the same way that Giuliani or Romney or McCain can't.
Conversely, should Paul be summarily ejected from the primary debates he's going to take a great many supporters with him, supporters that the Republicans can't win without.
Next debate is June 5th on CNN. I'm looking forward to him cleaning their clocks once again with his kooky ideas about following the Constitution, bringing the Federal government to heel, and balancing budgets.
TrybalRage
Member
It got to the point where I knew how the story ended.
Autolycus
Member
Got any support or links that prove this?
Whoa!... As Moe would say "Ya got me wrong, stranger!".
The line you are replying to uses the word WE (meaning all gun owners, including ME), not YOU, singular.
I don't believe I ever equated having a military with having a disarmed populace, but if you can find it, I'll admit I screwed up, because I surely didn't mean to imply that.
Sheeesh! Who peed in your Cheerios? I don't believe I ever said anything about your commitment to CCW... Is this some clever joke (you know "pulling a Guiliani on me" or something?
Next time you are 2 seconds from having the typographical version of an AD regarding one of my posts, just PM me and ask.
SoCalShooter
Member
Rudy played off the emotions of the crowd. Paul is just pointing out the facts and that is what other canidates are trying to avoid. He may have shafted himself but I will still vote for him, because he has a better idea of what is going on than any of the others.
I had the chance to catch Maher yesterday and it was a pretty decent show. He put Paul into a good light with his statements and coming from the FAR left that aint to bad.
BTW here is another one with Hannity and Colmes after the debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekfuWq_p_Cw&NR=1
I had the chance to catch Maher yesterday and it was a pretty decent show. He put Paul into a good light with his statements and coming from the FAR left that aint to bad.
BTW here is another one with Hannity and Colmes after the debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekfuWq_p_Cw&NR=1
What in the world...
What should we do against radical islam then? commit our entire military to hunting down every single one of them?
how can you hunt something that isn't individuals - its a mindset. an ideal.
The way to defeat ideals is to have ideals that more people share, or want.
Like the freedoms that our country is 'known' for. People come to this country (under some pretenses, but from what i understand the consesus to be) to have freedoms. to be free. to work for your family, be safe(r), and generally have a better life.
We have been fighting other countries and worrying more about other nations and policing the world (which is what we are doing, not finding those responsible for 9/11) instead of fixing the country fighting the wars, and policing the world. the USA.
How many people are below the poverty line in the USA? i dont know numbers or percentages. Why do we have people getting rich from this war? We have jobs that could have been tasked to the military that KBR is being paid 'cost Plus' to do. Blackwater does whatever the hell they want over here (anyone who has seen them knows that).
regardless of all of the little things we see everyday that we complain about on this forum and around our friends, the astonishing things is - we dont ever mention that our Constitution doesn't allow for half of the things our government does. They control so much, most of which they are allowed no control over. they put 'common-sense limitations' on our freedoms, when they are specifically denied to do so by the constitution. nobody mutters a word about it... its the States'/Peoples' rights to limit... hell, even the SCOTUS knows that (sometimes)...
I have been in the military almost 4 years now, and it has become frighteningly apparent that the Constitution i swore to uphold and defend is being ... well... not defended by very many people at all. most notably those VOTED to do so...
my .02
What should we do against radical islam then? commit our entire military to hunting down every single one of them?
how can you hunt something that isn't individuals - its a mindset. an ideal.
The way to defeat ideals is to have ideals that more people share, or want.
Like the freedoms that our country is 'known' for. People come to this country (under some pretenses, but from what i understand the consesus to be) to have freedoms. to be free. to work for your family, be safe(r), and generally have a better life.
We have been fighting other countries and worrying more about other nations and policing the world (which is what we are doing, not finding those responsible for 9/11) instead of fixing the country fighting the wars, and policing the world. the USA.
How many people are below the poverty line in the USA? i dont know numbers or percentages. Why do we have people getting rich from this war? We have jobs that could have been tasked to the military that KBR is being paid 'cost Plus' to do. Blackwater does whatever the hell they want over here (anyone who has seen them knows that).
regardless of all of the little things we see everyday that we complain about on this forum and around our friends, the astonishing things is - we dont ever mention that our Constitution doesn't allow for half of the things our government does. They control so much, most of which they are allowed no control over. they put 'common-sense limitations' on our freedoms, when they are specifically denied to do so by the constitution. nobody mutters a word about it... its the States'/Peoples' rights to limit... hell, even the SCOTUS knows that (sometimes)...
I have been in the military almost 4 years now, and it has become frighteningly apparent that the Constitution i swore to uphold and defend is being ... well... not defended by very many people at all. most notably those VOTED to do so...
my .02
xd9fan
Member
yep
fellow Bill of Rights kook here
budney
member
Um, you know that the populace of DC is by law unarmed, right? Worse, the chief of police knew very well that two black men were involved, and he purposely publicized that the perps were white because he "didn't want to encourage racial profiling."
When the police are helping you in your spree against an unarmed populace, then sure--you've got a real edge there.
--Len.
- Status