Posted on 09/23/2007 10:47:55 AM PDT by LdSentinal
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul contends that the federal government has overreacted by limiting personal freedom in the wake of terrorist attacks six years ago, noting more people die on U.S. highways in less than a month’s time compared to the number who lost their lives on Sept. 11, 2001.
“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.”
More than 2,970 people were reported dead in the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Federal highway traffic statistics show an average of 3,509 people a month were killed on the nation’s highways in 2001.
(Excerpt) Read more at weblogs.baltimoresun.com ...
Seriously, I know Ron’s running for president. I’m just not sure he understands what country he’s campaigning in, much less what party.
The man seems incapable of discerning between conspiracy mingled with evil with the ultimate goal of mass murder, and americans excercising their freedom by travelling on our roads, inadvertently screwing up, and crashing.
“If you could stop pointing and shrieking long enough to pay attention to what’s being said, you might learn something.”
Which do you consider the greater threat, Islamic Terrorism or the Federal Government?
A ridiculous and clueless line of reasoning, IMO, and I’ve been willing to defend Paul on domestic/economic issues.
Hey, and you are not too likely to be murdered either. So why not cut back on homicide divisions in police departments? So what about justice when it’s those other guys who are dead?
Okay, whether or not the security measures have gone too far is a legitimate thing to debate, but this comparison in what appears to be an effort to minimize 9/11 is digusting and shows a lack of basic character. Hopefully he will be out of Congress soon as well. Is he being primaried, I hope?
Ron is just like any internet troll- an attention-getting jerk, who may or may not believe the crazy things he says.
As a poster, he would be banned from FR.
There are many. Here's one:
A false sense of insecurity? How does the risk of terrorism measure up against everyday dangers?For all the attention it evokes, terrorism actually causes rather little damage and the likelihood that any individual will become a victim in most places is microscopic. Those adept at hyperbole like to proclaim that we live in "the age of terror." However, while obviously deeply tragic for those directly involved, the number of people worldwide who die as a result of international terrorism is generally only a few hundred a year, tiny compared to the numbers who die in most civil wars or from automobile accidents. In fact, in almost all years, the total number of people worldwide who die at the hands of international terrorists anywhere in the world is not much more than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States.
Until 2001, far fewer Americans were killed in any grouping of years by all forms of international terrorism than were killed by lightning, and almost none of those terrorist deaths occurred within the United States itself. Even with the September 11 attacks included in the count, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s (which is when the State Department began counting) is about the same as the number of Americans killed over the same period by lightning, accident-causing deer, or severe allergic reaction to peanuts.
Ron Paul supporters on FR are sort of like naturalized trolls.
“Yeah this is a standard gripe of libertarians - the loss of civil liberties due to the WOT.”
The one question that should be asked of Ron Paul is this: which do you consider the greater threat, Islamic Terrorism or the Federal Government?
Get this retard out of the GOP ASAP.
Candidate for Cap'n Obvious Award of the Month.
This argument shows a lack of reason and maturity.
How many people were killed by lightning strikes in the U.S. on 9/11/01 between 6AM and 8AM EST?
I'll answer for you - None.
Do you see a difference between victims of accidents and victims of murder?
Do you understand that you cannot compare the two?
Unless we quit driving we assume the risk of being killed in an accident. We accept that risk.
We should not have to accept the risk of being murdered by terrorists.
Unfortunately, creeps like Ron Paul increase this risk astronomically by being treasonous, terrorist codling bastards.
Yeah, that's right, I went there.
Ron Paul's a nutjob, and frankly the only supporters of him are the conservative versions of the truther nutjobs on the liberal side.
What the western world realized on 9/11 was that 1) there was no limit to the barbarity of Islamic radicals, and 2) if protected and sponsored by sympathetic governments there was no upper limit on the amount of death and destruction they could unleash on the West.
We were left with two options: severely restrict our own civil liberties and commerce in a (probably futile) attempt to control these people once they entered our realm, or attack and neutralize their safe havens in the Muslim world. I hope Paul would not be in favor of the first option which left us only with the second.
To quote Rumsfeld, "We either have to change the way we live or change the way they live. We have chosen the latter."
He's acting like we don't really worry about road safety. That's a lie.
Well put. And I do think he fears the Fed Gov worse. This means he'd accept a certain number of American deaths as a "collateral damage" trade off for the maintenance of civil liberties. I wonder if he's thought about how high that number would be before he'd draw some sort of line.
Pathetic! If he’s making statements such as this, it’s no wonder he’s starting to get followers who are so kooky they even think John Kerry is a Bush puppet. Paul appears headed for Paul Craig Roberts kookoo territory.
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.