Ron Paul: Highways claim more than 9/11 killed

Baltimore Sun ^ | 9/22/07 | Rick Pearson

[Tears of a Clown]

The Ron Paul nutroots army is 50% teenager, 50% conspiracy theorist, and 100% crazy.

A candidate who doesn’t value the lives of americans killed on 9/11, and who doesn’t take the war on terrorism seriously, and who literally had to be begged by his staff to vote for authorization to go after the taliban after 9/11, will never, ever, ever get either a penny or a vote from me or anyone I know as long as I live.

[maine-iac7]

The 9/11 deaths were deliberate - and they hoped to get tens of thousands - and they hope to get hundreds of thousands more - there is a difference.

[Pistolshot]

“A lot fewer lives died on 9/11 than they do in less than a month on our highways, but once again, who owns the highways? Do we own the highways? No. It’s a government institution you know. …We need to put all this in perspective.”

Yeah Ron, the perspective is...you are not a nut...you are an asshole.

[maine-iac7]

“A lot fewer lives died on 9/11 than they do in less than a month on our highways, but once again, who owns the highways? Do we own the highways? No. It’s a government institution you know. …We need to put all this in perspective.”

Paul just jumped the shark.

One thing to say to him -

[Old 300]

The full quote from the article:

“We have been told that we have to give up our freedoms in order to be safe because terrorism is such a horrible event,” Paul said today to more than 1,000 supporters who attended a rally at a downtown Chicago hotel ballroom.

“A lot fewer lives died on 9/11 than they do in less than a month on our highways, but once again, who owns the highways? Do we own the highways? No. It’s a government institution you know. …We need to put all this in perspective.”

I think some people on this thread are quoting Ron Paul out of context. He is asking us to put the entire situation with terrorism into perspective. President Franklin Roosevelt said once in his first inaugural speech right after the Depression had gotten into full swing:

This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

A strong leader should tell the people in times of distress to remain calm and avoid rushing to conclusions. A wise leader will tell the people to use reason instead of fear to base any important decisions.

Refusal to accept the chains of fear is a time-honored American tradition. Consider General John Stark's July 31, 1809 toast:

Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.

Ron Paul could also ask the question: how many should die from terror attacks before it is reasonable for us to adopt the major characteristics of a police state, as some have suggested we must do?

The only proper answer is that we will fight to the last man before we accept tyranny.

[JTN]

There are about 75 lightning deaths in America each year. That means that in 2001 you had about one chance in 4,000,000 of dying from a lightning strike. That compares to a one in 100,000 chance of dying in the 9/11 attacks, or a 40 times greater chance than dying from a lightning strike.

Yes, but 2001 is not the only year in which terrorist attacks have been used as a weapon. They've been used for a very long time, and for maximum accuracy, the threat needs to be assessed with as large a sample size as possible. The actual threat of dying from a terrorist attack is astronomical. About the same as a lightning strike - and that's when you include September 11th in the statistics.

But even if you look at only 2001, the death rate from terrorist attacks was, as you said, about 1 in 100,000. The overall homicide rate in 2001 was 5.6 per 100,000. Yet, in spite of the fact that you were five times more likely to be killed in an ordinary homicide than in a terrorist attack, no one has suggested the government be given broad new powers to deal with the homicide threat.

[maine-iac7]

Twenty posts and not a peep from the Paulestinian Liberation Organization on FR.

Could it be that even THEY are speechless?

[JTN]

Yeah, you’re right. We should just sit back and relax until the Islamofascists have figured out how to turn New York City into a mushroom cloud. Until then, it’s not worth worrying about.

No one suggested anything remotely like what you just said.

[wastedyears]

You want to outlaw most cars, Ronnie? Nutjob

[JTN]

Yeah, good point. Guess we need to ignore the terrorist for awhile until they dump a nuke in Tulsa or a few bits of nerve agent in Pittsburgh or something.

When you dig up a suggestion from Congressman Paul that we ignore the terrorists, let me know.

[devolve]

.

The close proximity of the Mexican drug traffickers to Ron Paul’s Texas district might yield a possible clue

Those who believe in zero taxes (or ignoring them the Klintonisa-Hsu method), but love recreational mind altering illegal substances share the far left, the Mafia, Taliban poppy growers, and need a firearm to shoot any park campers or Rangerws that stumble on their little profitable hobby all share the same mindset.

It must be sad to need drugs to get thru a day or a life.

But some can cherry pick any laws they want to ignore.

I like their SUVs - so I reckon it’s fine for me to liberate a few of them for my “recreational use”.

[maine-iac7]

If you could stop If you could stop pointing and shrieking long enough to pay attention to what's being said, you might learn something. You're about as likely to be killed by a lightning strike as by a terrorist attack. The government's post-9/11 legislation was an overreaction and we do need to keep it in perspectivelong enough to pay attention to what's being said, you might learn something. You're about as likely to be killed by a lightning strike as by a terrorist attack. The government's post-9/11 legislation was an overreaction and we do need to keep it in perspective

Only took 30 posts for you to come to bat for your candidate.

I wont "point", I wont "shriek". I'll just tell you, very quietly, my estimation of him...

[AwesomePossum]

But they are 20yr olds without a clue. You base your opinions on a school student? Splains alot.

...........now, A&M is a very good school, but that don't mean that ever perfesser and ever student do be smart.

Once knew a kid that came back from A&M telling everyone that his favorite professor had convinced him that humanism was the answer to all the world's problems..........that's scary........

Joke: How do you kill a bunch of Aggies? Get 'em all liquored up and ask 'em to build a bonfire.........

Semper Fidelis

[maine-iac7]

Give it up,

Your idol has publicly jumped the shark...

He’s toasted his buns

[maine-iac7]

Ron Paul supporters on FR are sort of like naturalized trolls.

[potlatch]

My city is the ‘central hub’ of traffic from Laredo and the Brownsville area. [Mattamores -sp?]

The number of ‘liberated’ SUVs, pickups and drug money is huge here and south of us!

Did you hear Hillary say this morning that her ‘Hillary-Care’ plan WOULD NOT COVER ILLEGALS??

[maine-iac7]

I can't atop you

LOL

I bet Domandred hopes you don't try

[JTN]

After this happened did conservatives and Republicans demand a Patriot Act?

You're absolutely right. The USA PATRIOT act was loaded with powers that the Reno DoJ had been demanding for years, and that the Republican Congress blocked. When the actual USA PATRIOT act was proposed post-9/11, Dick Armey opposed many of its provisions saying, "One of these hotshots from the Justice Department said, 'This isn't new; we've been asking for this for a long time.' I said, 'We've been saying no for a long time.'"

On top of that, the version that came out of the Democratic controlled Senate was worse than the one from the Republican House. Why? When Grover Norquist asked Russ Feingold that question, he answered by pointing across the room at Tom Daschle and said, "Because Daschle told us to fold."

[Iwo Jima]

Oh, he told me why. And I pretty much knew why, but was glad to hear him say it.

He was raised in a libertarian household where the Constitution is revered. Every July 4th, we read the Declaration of Independence aloud and discuss it, and the American Revolution. We read the Constitution, and discussed its meaning and how far current political events have strayed from the Constitution.

This will be the first time that he has been able to vote, and he is excited by that. He takes it very seriously. He has been using the internet and talking to other students to find out about the candidates. The Republicans, I mean. He immediately ruled out any Democrat.

He told me that the reason that he decided on Ron Paul is that none of the others are even discussing the things that he holds dear -- the Constitution, limited government, taxes, spending, etc. (I know that some others like Hunter and Tancredo have spoken on some of these issues, but I was not there to debate him but to hear what he had to say.)

Oh, yes, I think that the personal attacks on Ron Paul really got his dander up. The "all Ron Paul supporters are liberal nutjobs" attacks didn't sit well with him at all.

[JTN]

Ron Paul could also ask the question: how many should die from terror attacks before it is reasonable for us to adopt the major characteristics of a police state, as some have suggested we must do?

The only proper answer is that we will fight to the last man before we accept tyranny.

In the words of Dwight Eisenhower:

"If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They’ll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government."