Republican Paul enters 2008 White House race

Yahoo! News ^ | March 12, 2008 | Reuters

[The_Eaglet]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record), a nine-term congressman from Texas and a former Libertarian Party candidate for the White House, said on Monday he would seek the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

[BlackElk]

I gave you my citations and, understandably, you have none.

[The_Eaglet]

"Does paleoPaulie vote against war appropriations during a war? I rest my case."

That has no basis on your fallacious statement that Ron Paul was stabbing the troops in the back at the time you posted.

Stabbing anyone in the back and voting against funding are two entirely different things and to equate them is foolish at best and malevolent at the worst.

[The_Eaglet]

Ron Paul is allied with Cuckoocinich, Abercrumble, Weepy Walter Jones and they hold anti-American press conferences together.

If U.S. Citizenship is alliance, then you are correct, but that would also implicate you and me.

IF U.S. Citizenship is not alliance, then what are your criteria for saying, "Ron Paul is allied with Cuckoocinich, Abercrumble, Weepy Walter Jones and they hold anti-American press conferences together." ?

[The_Eaglet]

The burden of proof is upon you. You made the accusation.

[BlackElk]

I don't agree. Ahmanutjob will do exactly as the mullahs tell him to do and he has repeatedly threatened exactly the use of nuclear weapons. When it happens, Paul's and your "Gee, I never imagined they would actually do it!" will be of no comfort to the victims. We would not have been discussing this if Carter had been man enough to see to it that the Ayatollah Khomeini was arrested, turned over to Savak, and physically shredded slowly to oblivion. In that event, the Shah's son would now be ruling a pro-American Iran, there likely would have been no necessity for an Iraq War, gasoline would be a lot more plentiful and reasonably priced. OTOH, Carter's cowardly stupidity and incompetence paved the way for Ronaldus Maximus's landslide victories. That was Carter's sole positive contribution.

[BlackElk]

There was a press conference on C-SPAN featuring Cuckoocinich, Abercrumble and Weepy Walter Jones and claiming Paul's support despite his absence in which Weepy Walter, sniffled his way through an explanation of his conversion to the anti-American side because he (sniff) had attended (sniffle) a funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq and it was his Road to Damascus" moment in which he realized the evil of war. Cuckoocinich and Abercrumble thanked him and paleoPaul for agreeing with them on American surrender plans.

Noam Chomsky and Ramsay Clark and the Code Pink witches and Cindy Sheehan and Jane Fonda and Mr. and Mrs. Arkansas Antichrist and Ron Paul and Weepy Walter (sniffle) Jones and Abercrumble and Cuckoocinich are, in theory, American citizens but that does not make any of them allies other than Paul on pro-life issues. The Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss were, in theory, American citizens who were anti-American. Thus the press conference may implicate thee but not me since its alliance is based on opposition to the American war effort and on their opposition to American troops and thus their opposition to America all of which I support and you and they apparently do not if you want to end funding for the war as they do.

[BlackElk]

The proof is on you for the assertion YOU made in #76. The despicable anti-Americanism of Paul during war speaks for itself. Res ipsa loquitur.

[BlackElk]

Your last sentence says it all. Withdrawing funding is stabbing the troops in the back whether you or Ron Paul agree or not, whether Ted the Swimmer agrees or not, whether John the Traitor agrees or not, whether Al the Global Warming Eccentric thinks so or not, whether Nancy Pelosi and her constituent Dykes on Bikes agree or not, whether Noam Chomsky agrees or not, etc.

It is not necessary for any of you to don mufti and AK-47s against American troops in the field or to wrap yourselves in plastique to blow up our troops directly. Depriving the troops of their wherewithal to defend themselves will do as anti-Americanism and malignant opposition to the troops. Besides, it is the paleosafer thing to do.

The Rockford Institute is NOT the conservative movement. Lavender Justin(e) Raimondo is NOT the conservative movement. Nor is antiwar.com.

[BlackElk]

See mkjessup's #60, 65, 67 and especially #59. Is it the Americans and the Israelis or the Islamonutjobs who have all the terrorists, according to paleoPaulie. Give supporting evidence. If it is the US and Israel, explain 9/11, the blowing up of Orthodox Jewish grammar school children by Hamas, Jihad, Fatah or whomever, the beheading of the Wall Street Journal reporter, and the daily mass murders by bombing in Iraq.

[LS]

Paul is an appeaser of the worst sort. He is exactly the kind of Republican who sat by while the Japanese built up their forces and attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Unfortunately, I thought we had gotten rid of all those guys in WW II.

[dc-zoo]

No, he can buy the 'veto' pen on ebay and he'll still have 1%.

[ex-snook]

As Dorothy might ask him - Are you Bush or an unBush?

[ex-snook]

kind of Republican who sat by while the Japanese built up their forces and attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Unfortunately, I thought we had gotten rid of all those guys in WW II."

Nah, they are now building up China.

[WOSG]

"That is a distortion, because removing the troops from Iraq is _not_ stabbing them in the back. "

Difference of opinion - IMHO it is harming our military, and hamring *us* to wimp out on Iraq. If you want to support our troops, well and fully, support *all* the troops up to the Generals and CIC, and support the mission to successful completion.

It's sad indeed that Ron Paul followed the Democrats with their non-binding 'under cut the Iraq surge' bill.

[mkjessup]

What you (and apparently Ron Paul) conveniently overlook is that the mullahs and their current sockpuppet Ahmadinejad are utterly in the grips of an Islamic equivalent of 'end times theology' with a terrorist twist
I don't believe that, and I think you are mistaken to assert that Ron Paul believes that.

My little Eaglet, are you having comprehension problems or something?

RE-READ what I said, I said that you (and apparently Ron Paul) OVERLOOK, meaning that you do NOT see that the mad mullahs of Iran, and the little runt they have for a mouthpiece are in the grips of an Islamofascist ideological/theological frenzy.

Ron Paul seems to think that Iran will behave like a responsible nation if it acquires nuclear weapons. He is wrong. He is wrong because the volume of recent historical evidence weighs heavily in favor of Iran USING a nuke (most likely on Israel) IF they acquire one, and they will use it based upon their own suicidal tendencies, beliefs and desire to bring about the return of their Islamic saviour.

You need only conduct a casual review of Ahmadinejad's speeches and statements to see that he is far from balanced and stable.

'BZZZZT' - try again, ok?

[The_Eaglet]

See # 76.

[mkjessup]

If Ron Paul really believes that Iran would be a responsible Nation with nuclear weapons, then he is as at least as naive as you are, and the idea that he is a Congressional Representative is positively frightening.

[LS]

Too bad we didn't "build up" China more in the 1930s. It might not be a problem today.

[Youngstown]

Thanks!

[The_Eaglet]

Why would your speculation be any more credible than his?