Ron Paul PWNS! Wolf And Giuliani On CNN

Status
Not open for further replies.
How many of the people who responded here watched the clip with Wolf Blitzer? It sounds as though some of you didn't and are only responding to the statement made during the debate. Guiliani did nothing but hide behind the idea that to question foreign policy is unpatriotic. So explain to me how questioning this let alone Clintons Foreign Policy is Unpatriotic
During the clip I watched linked in the OP I heard Ron Paul make clear and rational statements that left me thinking he Is In Fact a Viable Candidate.
 
Read on Guiliani "conflict of interest" on the issue (Saudi's are probably clients of his consulting firm):
http://www.rightsourceonline.com/welch/bnews2.cfm?rank_cho=4100

FOX morning crew ridicules their own online poll, showing Paul ahead of Mr. 9-11:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz7XsSl3wIg&NR=1

Check out the lates gallup poll... Rudy slips 5 pts despite his "heroic" debate performance. :eek:

Will anybody ask the tough questions of the Mayor?
1) Why did you locate your HQ in the WTC when everybody told you it was already a target?
2) Why did you have the port authority tell everybody to stay in the 2nd building when the first was hit?
3) Why did you arrest firefighters that were angry about not being able to retrieve their fallen brothers, so that the big digging equipment could come in?
4) Why havent you even read the 9-11 commission report?
5) Why have you no idea what CIA has to say?
6) Why have you no idea what AlQuaida is writing, aren't you supposed to be keeping up with them?

... but I DREAM by thinking some reporter might actually ask "His-9/11-ness" about those things, or anything else. Rest assured, if Rudy is the candidate, the Dems will get around to asking them.
 
If these many, many polls are any indication, it looks like the mass media is attempting to suppress Ron Paul, but is failing miserably. He might have a lot more grassroots support than we think.
 
Justin, that is funny. I love the Onion.

Rudy's one claim to fame is that he showed up after something horrible and gave a speech. Whoop de fricking do. I hate the man.
 
"pwns!"???

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does that mean? Is it an acronym? A misspelling?

If you look up "pwned" in the dictionary you will see a link to the video clip in the topic post and a pic of Giuliani crying. :neener:

Seriously though, if you don't know it's some kind of stupid internet slang for "dominates" or "makes others look weak and foolish" something along those lines. You may have heard of "owned." As in "we own the night!" or similar. The "p" adds emphasis, presumably because "pwn" looks like "own" and "pawn."
 
ron paul never stood a real chance...but i like the fact that he shakes things up
 
We would keep our noses out of other countries bidness unless they messed with us.

So Ron Paul is going to pull a Clinton in dealing with the terrorists? :what:

Just ignore them killing US citizens?
 
Is FOX lobbying for Guiliani, while Guiliani lobbies for FOX???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051500191.html?nav=rss_business/industries

Giuliani's law and lobbying clients have included Saudi Arabia, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., and chewing tobacco maker UST Inc.

Tackled issues of copyright protection and legislation governing how cable TV lineups are purchased for News Corp., and DirecTV.

Tough on the dictators of the world:

It also is working for Saudi Arabia. In March, the firm filed papers in a Texas court case on behalf of Saudi Arabia's oil ministry _ taking sides with another international energy giant, Citgo, which is controlled by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a rival of the Bush administration. One month after the 2001 terrorist attacks, then-Mayor Giuliani famously rejected a $10 million check from a Saudi prince to help terrorism victims. Giuliani spokeswoman Comella declined to comment on the firm's Saudi connection.
 
So Ron Paul is going to pull a Clinton in dealing with the terrorists?

Just ignore them killing US citizens?

You must be trying really hard not to listen, killing US citizens would be messing with us, wouldn't it? Here is some ideas Paul came up with within 1 month after the 9/11 attack.

October 15, 2001

Effective and Practical Counter-Terrorism Measures


Over the past month I have introduced several bills designed to address terrorism and make Americans feel more secure. While many counter-terrorism proposals were considered in Congress last week, my belief is that the most effective steps we can take do not infringe upon the civil liberties of American citizens. In fact, I believe only a free society can ever be truly secure. The goal should be to make terrorists feel threatened, not the American people.

Here are some concrete steps Congress can take immediately to make our borders, our cities, and our skies more secure:

Arm Pilots: It is unthinkable to leave pilots defenseless in the cockpit after the events of September 11th. We trust pilots to operate multimillion dollar machines filled with human cargo, yet incredibly we do not trust them with firearms. While airport security certainly can be strengthened, pilots must have the choice to carry weapons as a last line of defense against future hijacking attempts.

Immigration Restrictions: Common sense tells us that we should not currently be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists. Remember, only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. While we should generally welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. My legislation would restrict immigration, including the granting of student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department.

Better intelligence gathering: Burdensome regulations and bureaucratic turf wars hamper the ability of federal law enforcement personnel to share information about terrorists. My proposal would slash regulations and make sure the CIA, FBI, State department, Justice department, and military work together to coordinate anti-terrorism efforts.

Harsher criminal penalties for terrorists: The federal statute of limitations for terrorist offenses should be eliminated, so that suspects can never breathe easy even 10 or 20 years from now. Jail sentences and penalties should be increased, and the death penalty should be possible for many offenses. Terrorist attempts and conspiracies should be treated as harshly as completed acts.

Letters of marque and reprisal: This constitutional tool can be used to give President Bush another weapon in the war on terrorism. Congress can issue letters of marque against terrorists and their property that authorize the President to name private sources who can capture or kill our enemies. This method works in conjunction with our military efforts, creating an incentive for people on the ground close to Bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. Letters of marque are especially suited to the current war on terrorism, which will be fought against individuals who can melt into the civilian population or hide in remote areas. The goal is to avail ourselves of the intelligence of private parties, who may stand a better chance of finding Bin Laden than we do through a conventional military invasion. Letters of marque also may help us avoid a wider war with Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern nations.

End legal preferences for terrorist suspects: Congress should clarify all federal criminal statutes to insure that so-called "extralegal" preferences for criminal terrorist suspects are eliminated. In some past terrorist investigations, federal rules have been interpreted to require law enforcement to show something more than standard probable cause to obtain warrants. Law enforcement officials should never have to demonstrate anything more than standard probable cause when seeking a warrant in the war on terrorism.

Here's the link,

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst101501.htm
 
What does that mean? Is it an acronym? A misspelling?
It's Internet jargon, started among gamers. I believe it was an original World of Warcraft misspelling, on the summary page after a mission you failed. Was supposed to say "owned."

So pwned now means, "dude, he just like totally messed you up!" Or something.
 
Dr. Paul is just not a good speaker.......

As oppossed to.............the current language mangler occupying the Whitehouse now?:rolleyes:

So Ron Paul is going to pull a Clinton in dealing with the terrorists?:what:
Just ignore them killing U.S. citizens.

How did you reach that conclusion? Where did Dr. Paul say he wouldn't defend the U.S. if attacked?:scrutiny:
 
He doesn't oppose republicans in everything, he's fairly consistently pro-freedom on most topics. He's pro-gun, knows the War on Drugs is about as successful as when they tried it on alcohol in the '20s, and thinks the government can be a hell of a lot smaller than it is.
If anyone thinks there's no 'blowback' after decades of meddling in other nations' issues... I mean, Bill Klinton tossed missiles willy-nilly into the area for years.
What do you think would happen if China did the same to us?
Methinks we'd kick a little ass, though Americans would tend to be a bit more straightforward.

The terrorists did the deed, and they were wrong.
But, anyone who thinks the scantily clad teenaged girl is 'asking for it' has some idea of *why* it happened.

America didn't cause them to attack. Our government pissed them off to that extent. I guess it's up to us to kick our bums out so their bums no longer want to attack us.
Or... we can just keep our heads in the sand.
 
The big question is how to pronounce "pwned." Some folks I know say "pawned," but that doesn't sound right. The only language I know where "w" is a vowel is Welsh where it's pronounced "oo". So I vote for "pooned."

--Len.
 
Congressman Paul crossed another, more specific forbidden line when he contradicted one of the major working assumptions of nearly all mainstream American pundits: foreigners never, ever get angry at the U.S. government’s foreign policy, and would never for any reason want to avenge themselves against it. You can go out of your way to prevent water treatment facilities from being repaired, you can starve and bomb without compunction, and you can bring about half a million deaths, and the people will quietly take it. In fact, they probably spend their time reproaching themselves for having so displeased the U.S. government.

This is it. He is being torn up by his own party because he refuses to spout the BS they have been spouting and knows the real reason why the ME hates us.

It is truly sad to see a man getting eaten by quoting the truth.
 
Saying that our actions provoked 9/11 doesnt blame us and it doesnt relieve Al Queda of responsibility. Just like if you go up to a 7 foot tall dude and call his mom a wh*re- it is stilll an assault and battery if he knocks you out, but that doesnt mean cursing his mom was a smart thing to do.

Ron Paul has repeatedly said he would go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan. One of his main objections to Iraq is that 90 percent of our soldiers are there instead of hunting bin laden.
 
It is pronounced Poned. Like Phoned with no H. Eric Cartman said so.
 
PWNED= Player Owned. Geez, even I know that and I am over 40 and have never played an on line game. Player is thought to have come from one of two sources either black slang or on line games. No one knows for sure.

So Ron Paul is going to pull a Clinton in dealing with the terrorists?

Just ignore them killing US citizens?

Paul was the ONLY ONE at the debate to bring up Bin Laden still on the loose as the known terrorist leader behind 911. They cut him off on the hypothetical terrorist question because he was leading them down the path of "why the hell are we not doing something about this?" :banghead:
 
"pwns!"???

What does that mean? Is it an acronym? A misspelling?

It's a child's word, popular with the gamer community. Has it's history in a mispelling of "own" that was somehow accepted as "cool".

I don't understand why so many gun owners are against Ron Paul. He stands for so many other positive things besides just gun control. He's for a smaller, less intrusive government. Reduced govt spending (a man is entitled to the fruits of his own labors) and reducing the welfare burden on society. Securing the borders and the country. Dealing properly with the illegal alien issue. Strengthening America's sovereignty. His stand on property rights, eminent domain and personal privacy are sorely needed. We need to get America back on track and he's the only one trying to do it. I can't remember the last time we had a candidate who tried. I can't remember one who even know what the Constitution is, much less tried to govern according to it.
 
If these many, many polls are any indication, it looks like the mass media is attempting to suppress Ron Paul, but is failing miserably. He might have a lot more grassroots support than we think.


You have it exactly backwards. If the MSM is doing anything they will try their best to put Paul "leading in the polls". They would like nothing more than the GOP to put this guy up against Hillary. That would be leading the pig to the slaughter. Make no mistake, after conservatives saw Paul in the debates he has little if any grassroots support. Regardless of your position on issues you must look and act like a president to win as a GOP canidate. This guy is off the reservation on foreign policy and acts like he is off his meds. He is not even close to electable. Do not waste time trying to support him, it will only help to secure a Hillary presidency.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top