Ron Paul PWNS! Wolf And Giuliani On CNN

[budney]

HOWEVER it totally ignores the xenophobic militancy of radical Islam.

That's what an armed populace is for. If they militantly attack, we will defend, and they will be wiped out. Their capacity to attack militarily is already nil: any force mobilizing toward the US would be destroyed long before it reached our shores. And guerrilla or terrorist cells can't accomplish much surrounded by an armed and hostile populace.

--Len.

 

[Correia]

And guerrilla or terrorist cells can't accomplish much surrounded by an armed and hostile populace.

Yeah, it's worked just splendidly for Israel.

 

[Titan6]

Len has only one solution for nearly all of our security and law enforcement n needs. Armed Populace. While I support an armed populace I am not foolish enough to believe that is the best solution for all of our security problems.

 

[budney]

Yeah, it's worked just splendidly for Israel.

It works quite well there. For example, there hasn't been a school shooting in forever. And given the determination of the terrorists there, the number of successful attacks is impressively low. If you include all deaths by crime AND terrorism, Israel is much safer than DC.

If terrorists in the US were HALF so numerous and determined, it would be a bloodbath.

--Len.

 

[budney]

Len has only one solution for nearly all of our security and law enforcement n needs. Armed Populace.

NEARLY all, sure. I'm with that idiot Jefferson in that regard. I know he was a moron and all, but still...

I am not foolish enough to believe that is the best solution for all of our security problems.

Of course not. Depending on the security problem in question, there are lots of other measures: good locks; alarms; security guards; background checks; razor wire; and yes, sometimes even frickin' sharks with frickin' laser beams on their frickin' heads.

One of the few things NOT on my list is: bombing "dune coons" into extinction who've never done a thing to us. Like the hundred thousand or so Iraqis we've done that to (depending whose statistics you accept). Not to mention the half million we starved to death under sanctions--even if Madeline Halfwit DID think it was "worth it."

I stress arming the populace because that's one measure that the government, supposedly looking out for us, actively opposes. There are no laws that I know of against locked doors.

--Len.

 

[Titan6]

That fool Jefferson also discovered after being president that we needed a Navy and Army as well. Experience is a hard school. He might even find an Airforce useful these days, whether they bomb people with ethnic slurs or not.

 

[budney]

That fool Jefferson also discovered after being president that we needed a Navy and Army as well. Experience is a hard school. He might even find an Airforce useful these days, whether they bomb people with ethnic slurs or not.

I admit that they all turned a bit hypocritical in practice, starting with Washington and the Whiskey "rebellion." That doesn't invalidate their stated positions.

As for Jefferson, though, sending Naval ships against the Barbary pirates was hardly in the same ballpark as bombing the crap out of innocent civilians. The naval vessels boarded pirate ships. They didn't run around sinking everything on the water. My only objection to Jefferson's action is that he was using tax dollars to protect private business interests: they should have paid the costs of their own protection.

--Len.

 

[antarti]

Yeah, it's worked just splendidly for Israel.

How many kids in Israel were shot up in school in the last few years (when they started arming up the staff)? How is it we know more guns = more safety against criminals/tyrants/gangs/cartels, but this doesn't hold true against terrorists?

We have 12-20 million (depending on estimates) illegal immigrants here. Are Mexicans just that much better at running across a desert than Middle Easterners? Mexicans can come in, go wherever they please, and set up shop anywhere in America, but people from the ME "have been prevented" by fedgov from terrorizing us? How does that work?

What's the American-citizen body count of terror acts since 9/11? Compared to crime/murders by illegals as a ratio? Compared to bathtub drownings, shark attacks, lottery winners, or lightning strikes? I never thought the gun owning public was so damn paranoid of having a running gun battle with terrorists. Most people I know are let down, because, despite their wishes there haven't been any to participate in here in the states.

Of course, we are told, this is because "we are fighting them OVER THERE", but isn't that exactly what we were doing before 9/11 too.

 

[longrifleman]

Yeah, it's worked just splendidly for Israel.

Most of the attacks are coming from the territories, not from within Israel proper. The better comparison would be raids from Mexico or Canada.

Even with the attacks, Hamas and Fatah aren't a threat to the survival of the country. I'm not minimizing the pain they cause, but the Israelies have proved that terrorism by itself can't defeat a country. We are perfectly capable of defeating ourselves if we forget what this country is supposed to stand for. Running the world at bayonet point ain't it.

The west will be in conflict with Islam to a certain extent no matter what we do, but going out of our way to make enemies is foolish. The history of meddeling in the ME is pretty well established, so I don't really understand why that is an issue any more. We can debate if our power gives us the right to continue doing so. If we continue, one of the prices will be more and larger attacks than we would otherwise have to deal with.

I've always had a hard time understanding how leaving people alone if they leave you alone is the equilavent of appeasement. Please explain?

 

[budney]

Antarti and Longriflemen, very well said.

 

[helpless]

Lets see what Pat Buchanan thinks about this.

But Who Was Right -- Rudy or Ron?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted 05/18/2007 ET
Updated 05/18/2007 ET

It was the decisive moment of the South Carolina debate.

Hearing Rep. Ron Paul recite the reasons for Arab and Islamic resentment of the United States, including 10 years of bombing and sanctions that brought death to thousands of Iraqis after the Gulf War, Rudy Giuliani broke format and exploded:

"That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of 9-11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.

"I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us what he really meant by it."

The applause for Rudy's rebuke was thunderous -- the soundbite of the night and best moment of Rudy's campaign.

After the debate, on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," came one of those delicious moments on live television. As Michael Steele, GOP spokesman, was saying that Paul should probably be cut out of future debates, the running tally of votes by Fox News viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30 percent, the winner of the debate.

Brother Hannity seemed startled and perplexed by the votes being text-messaged in the thousands to Fox News saying Paul won, Romney was second, Rudy third and McCain far down the track at 4 percent.

"I would ask the congressman to ... tell us what he meant," said Rudy.

A fair question and a crucial question.

When Ron Paul said the 9-11 killers were "over here because we are over there," he was not excusing the mass murderers of 3,000 Americans. He was explaining the roots of hatred out of which the suicide-killers came. |

Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahideen whom we, in the Reagan decade, were aiding when they were fighting to expel the Red Army from Afghanistan. We sent them Stinger missiles, Spanish mortars, sniper rifles. And they helped drive the Russians out.

What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?

Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahideen were declaring war on us.

Elsewhere, he has mentioned Sykes-Picot, the secret British-French deal that double-crossed the Arabs who had fought for their freedom alongside Lawrence of Arabia and were rewarded with a quarter century of British-French imperial domination and humiliation.

Almost all agree that, horrible as 9-11 was, it was not anarchic terror. It was political terror, done with a political motive and a political objective.

What does Rudy Giuliani think the political motive was for 9-11?

Was it because we are good and they are evil? Is it because they hate our freedom? Is it that simple?

Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq.

Does the man not have a point? The United States is now tied down in a bloody guerrilla war in the Middle East and increasingly hated in Arab and Islamic countries where we were once hugely admired as the first and greatest of the anti-colonial nations. Does anyone think that Osama is unhappy with what is happening to us in Iraq?

Of the 10 candidates on stage in South Carolina, Dr. Paul alone opposed the war. He alone voted against the war. Have not the last five years vindicated him, when two-thirds of the nation now agrees with him that the war was a mistake, and journalists and politicians left and right are babbling in confession, "If I had only known then what I know now ..."

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.

 

[helpless]

As someone said over at glocktalk, I believe it rings true here as well...

It's really amazing that here on a gun board the one person in this Republican race who is against any federal gun control laws is constantly criticized and attacked by many posters.

 

[Correia]

How many kids in Israel were shot up in school in the last few years (when they started arming up the staff)? How is it we know more guns = more safety against criminals/tyrants/gangs/cartels, but this doesn't hold true against terrorists?

Get off your fricking high horse and read my signature line. I put my time and money where my mouth is on that issue.

I've spent hundreds of hours arming people. I've fought for it. I've testified in front of state legislatures for it. I'm on track to teach about 1,000 people for CCW in 2007. So back the hell up.

Just because someone believes we need an actual military, doesn't mean that they want a disarmed populace, so put that nonsense away, because it is patently annoying and offensive.

Now back to your regularly scheduled Libertarian Purity contest.

 

[budney]

Just because someone believes we need an actual military, doesn't mean that they want a disarmed populace...

I don't recall recently calling for the military to be disbanded. I might have, but that's not because I have a beef with the military itself: the problem is that it proves to be an irresistible temptation for politicians to launch military adventures (i.e., invasions) instead of using the military defensively.

In that regard, the founders were exactly right: a standing army is dangerous because it always ends up being used aggressively at home and abroad.

However, I have no objection whatsoever to a defensive military. If we were consistent about hauling out and shooting any politician who attempted military aggression under any circumstances, then that would be great. An awful lot of our past presidents would have been impeached and then executed, but that's fine with me.

--Len.

 

[Titan6]

I admit that they all turned a bit hypocritical in practice, starting with Washington and the Whiskey "rebellion." That doesn't invalidate their stated positions.

You mean reality was different than a stated ideal? Say it ain't so....

As for Jefferson, though, sending Naval ships against the Barbary pirates was hardly in the same ballpark as bombing the crap out of innocent civilians. The naval vessels boarded pirate ships. They didn't run around sinking everything on the water. My only objection to Jefferson's action is that he was using tax dollars to protect private business interests: they should have paid the costs of their own protection.

Well the Pirates were actually a powerful force when compared to the Navy of the day. Maybe you will just ignore his whole relationship with the innocent civilans of the day.... Maybe Tecumseh could tell you more about that. Or maybe Jefferson can:

"If we are to wage a campaign against these Indians the end proposed should be their extermination, or their removal beyond the lakes of the Illinois River.

TJ 1780

Ahh, except years later when he was president and had established the five tribes;

William Henry Harrison, under pressure from Thomas Jefferson to get the American Nations out of the Illinois-Indiana region, marched an invading army to the vicinity of a Native village at Tippecanoe precisely when he knew that [Shawnee war chief and pan-tribal political leader] Tecumseh was on a tour of the south and west.

 

[budney]

You mean reality was different than a stated ideal? Say it ain't so....

Sort of like "don't rape women" is an ideal, but reality is different? Oh, you don't really believe that no principle is absolute and unbreakable after all. Yeah, I didn't think you did.

As for your other quotes, you have Jefferson supporting genocide, and then opting instead of genocide to forcibly remove entire peoples from their rightful property. Are you trying to prove that Jefferson said and did some horrible things? You don't have to convince me: I already agree that he did.

--Len.

 

[Titan6]

Sort of like "don't rape women" is an ideal, but reality is different? Oh, you don't really believe that no principle is absolute and unbreakable after all. Yeah, I didn't think you did.

That is pretty twisted and not even logical. To say we need no Military is the same as saying we need no guns. Go figure that one out.

As for your other quotes, you have Jefferson supporting genocide, and then opting instead of genocide to forcibly remove entire peoples from their rightful property. Are you trying to prove that Jefferson did some horrible things too? You don't have to convince me: I already agree that he did.

As for Jefferson, though, sending Naval ships against the Barbary pirates was hardly in the same ballpark as bombing the crap out of innocent civilians.

You are the one saying that Jefferson would not bomb innocent civilians. I am saying that is not the case, if the people in question are weaker than us and have something we want there is a long history of it everywhere. You can focus on an ideal if you want but reality will kick your but everyday.

 

[antarti]

Antarti and Longriflemen, very well said.

I don't want to turn this into some mutual-backpatting society, but "same here" and "thanks" FWIW.

There are some things I can't seem to understand for the life of me, from some responses in this thread:

We use the word "terrorism" instead of "crime" because it means something, but then we ignore what it means.
Terrorists use terror as a weapon, to cause their foes to modify their political/military/economic behavior. If there were a bunch of slobbering lunatics attacking the country, simply trying to rack up bodycount for it's own sake (no political goal in mind), we would just call them "lunatics" or "criminals" or "mass murderers" and let the police (here and abroad) handle it. Most people (rightly so) went nuts when Clinton/Gore were using the words "law enforcement" or "criminal matter" to refer to terrorists like BinLaden. Somebody gets it, apparently.

So why do we persist in not understanding what "terrorist" means?

I think we understand plenty when it concerns Israel (and probably other countries). It's hard (and not a position one reads or hears often) accepting that people want to modify our behavior, or make demands on us. Of course we hate people trying to make demands on us, and we take it personally. That is only natural. However, when we look at the demands (get out of the "Holy Land", etc) those aren't things any one of us can do anything about, only fedgov.

This business of being "offended" that somebody would point out "our" failings (we do that here 24/7/365 vs. gun-controlers - and with great flair and relish) abroad is utter rubbish. The truth either matters, or it doesn't. If it does matter, how sweet or sour it's taste doesn't.

 

[budney]

That is pretty twisted and not even logical.

Actually, the logic is perfect. You are claiming with no proof that a certain principle that's great in theory is invalid in practice. You're appealing to the general belief that theoretical principles always have practical exceptions. I'm demonstrating that even you don't really believe that.

You are the one saying that Jefferson would not bomb innocent civilians.

I said that his stated principles oppose the use of a standing army for aggression at home or abroad. I also agreed that he turned out to be a hypocrite, because he proceeded to do exactly that.

The fact that Jefferson was a hypocrite doesn't prove anything--any more than a man saying "don't rape," but who then rapes, would somehow invalidate the prohibition of rape.

--Len.

 

[Titan6]

Actually, the logic is perfect. You are claiming with no proof that a certain principle that's great in theory is invalid in practice. You're appealing to the general belief that theoretical principles always have practical exceptions. I'm demonstrating that even you don't really believe that.

No, I am rejecting it completely because it does not work.

 

[budney]

No, I am rejecting it completely because it does not work.

Well, if you'd rather make flat pronouncements than discuss the subject logically, that's fine with me.

I'd point out, though, that what we're doing now is sure working out splendidly.

--Len.

 

[helpless]

WOW! Way off topic guys! how about...
Ron Paul PWNS! Wolf And Giuliani On CNN

 

[Boats]

Why debate that illiterate subject header all over again? It sucked the first time too.

 

[xd9fan]

It's really amazing that here on a gun board the one person in this Republican race who is against any federal gun control laws is constantly criticized and attacked by many posters.

Life-long GOP voters that claim to be for gunrights need to take a hard look at their party. You are at a crossroads.........look at your party settle with immigration....

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

damn that was good
Dont ever back down RON!!!

 

[Werewolf]

And guerrilla or terrorist cells can't accomplish much surrounded by an armed and hostile populace.

Hmmph...

Makes me think about the DC Snipers. They accomplished quite a bit actually and got caught only because they were stupid and greedy. I imagine a terrorist cell would be way more effective especially if the populace they were surrounded by was disarmed and cowering like the one in DC and surrounding areas when the DC Snipers were at large.

What ever would make one imagine that the same level of cowering sheep wouldn't be the norm anywhere else in the USA?