Posted on 05/11/2007 8:49:53 PM PDT by The_Eaglet
I’ll let you have the last word.
Good for you. And I will support the Party nominee too. I did not like Paul tonight and was glad Rudy put him in his place. The Fox vote had Paul way ahead with Mitt, and Rudy two, three. I will bet anything, seminar voters hit those buttons for Paul. He will not be loved after his statements tonight by primary voters. I thought Rudy, Mitt, Duncan did well tonight.
Because all the bills you cite wouldn't have done squat except increased the power of the feds and nibble at the edges of abortion anyway. Plus the pro-death lobby would've filed lawsuit after lawsuit against them.
Paul is 100% pro-life. The man delivers babies, for crying out loud.
I honestly don't think Paul can win; In my opinion, he's in the race to force the other Republicans to at least acknowledge the Constitution & talk about the real issues that are being ignored. If he does win I'll celebrate with a case of beer though.
He said things that put our troops in more danger of being killed. I guess his pro life beliefs do not extend to them.
No thanks. He is a steaming pile.
Thanks for the info.
wRong Paul isn’t a serious candidate for dog catcher.
I heard no such thing from Paul. Why do you hurl baseless insults about him?
THOMPSON/POWELL 08’
Thats what I heard.
To each their own.
I do not respect his position or him
and found his comments offensive and harmful
to our position as a country and to my party,
and to our troops in particular.
Further, Im glad he already lost.
Had the Hainnity poll not been spammed by the left
he would have already been laughed off the stage.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Most of the people that I know who voted in the FOXNews poll were conservatives.
I did not vote in the poll because I do not have an active text messaging device. There are others like me who would have, though.
Paul deserved more votes than what we could give him.
Thats my theory, I made it up based on the belief
that there cant be that many crazy Republicans.
;)
I was asking if you were the source for this statement. Is this a direct quotation? What exactly did Ron Paul say?
Further, I absolutely do not care one iota what reasons our enemies give for attacking or hating us or see any benefit whatsoever in debating it or dwelling on it. The very idea is repulsive while we are at war and our troops are in theater.
MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?
REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy.
Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.
Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.
And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don't end.
MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?
REP. PAUL: What changed?
MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.
REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.
We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir? REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.
MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)
And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Congressman?
REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.
They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?
I see. This was a fabrication of “No Blue States,” not a statement from Ron Paul.
I see. This was a fabrication of “No Blue States,” not a statement from Ron Paul.
You see nothing...but googoo eyes for Ron Paul.
Paul blaming us puts the troops in more danger while encouraging our enemies just as I stated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.