Jump to content

First Republican Debate


lord_casek

Recommended Posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 167
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

http://www.petitiononline.com/RPRNC08/petition.html

To: Republican National Committee

 

Date May 11, 2007

 

To the Republican National Committee,

 

WHEREAS, Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis has announced a petition of Republican National Committee members asking the Republican National Committee to bar Congressman Ron Paul from future debates due to Congressman Paul’s comments in the second Republican presidential debate that Mr. Anuzis characterizes as "off the wall and out of whack";

 

WHEREAS, the terrorist motivation comments made by Congressman Paul are, at minimum, supported by the following:

 

The 911 Commission Report: During the 9/11 Commission hearings, Vice Chair Lee Hamilton asked, "What motivated them to do it?" FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald answered, "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States." 9/11 Commission testimony June 16, 2004

 

One of the countless expert CIA statements: Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer has bluntly stated, "The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live." Lou Dobbs CNN

 

Osama Bin Laden statement: In response to President George W. Bush’s statement in an Address to a Joint Session of Congress and to the American People, "They hate ... a democratically elected government. ... They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other,”

 

Bin Laden in a video response stated, "The White House (is) hiding the truth ... the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries (Arabian Peninsula)."

 

WHEREAS, Congressman Paul’s statements concerning the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Education spoke to Congressman Paul’s position of reforming and streamlining both organizations to make them more efficient while lessening the expense burden on the U.S. taxpayer – a true conservative Republican position;

 

WHEREAS, Congressman Paul represents traditional, conservative republican values more so than any Republican candidate;

 

WHEREAS, the Republican party is losing membership to other parties due to the abandonment of the traditional, conservative republican platform;

 

WHEREAS, registered Republican voters and American citizens desire to hear Congressman Paul’s message on these issues and others in his bid for president;

 

BE IT DECLARED, that the undersigned request the Republican National Committee to support fair election procedures, as well as the views and desires of its members and American citizens, by allowing Congressman Ron Paul full participation in all future debates and election events as a Republican National Committee candidate.

 

Sincerely,

 

The Undersigned

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i called Saul Anuzis' office today. his secretary told me that mr. anuzis has backed down from filing papers to bar dr. paul from the debates. she giggled when i said, "that's wonderful!"

and then i told her that this is what america is really about. you could hear a smile in her voice.

good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting article from pat buchanan

 

But Who Was Right -- Rudy or Ron?

by Patrick J. Buchanan (More by this author)

Posted: 05/18/2007

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giuliani is truly a loathsome shit. I can't believe as a New Yorker he would use 9/11 as an applause line. No taste, no class and perpetuating myths that any sane and intelligent person knows not to be true.

 

yea what was it that he said..

 

" if you vote democratic, you die in a terrorist attack"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the govt was angry with our middle eastern foreign policy, and that’s why they decided to orchestrate 911? Ron Paul just blew my mind.

 

 

not the government, al-qaeda.

that's what the cia report, the official 9/11 commission report, and osama himself said in his fatwa.

 

ron paul's official view on 9/11 is that there needs to be an independent investigation. a real independent investigation.

lots of questions about insider trading, etc. that is it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think 911 was not an inside job or carried out by the US govt?

 

i've stated my position several times before. i think it was an inside job, but certainly not the whole of the government. compartmentalization is the way things in the military industrial complex work.

 

i think it was a radical group of individuals who either let it happen for financial gain, or who openly helped it happen by other means. i lean more towards the latter of the two.

 

there's a whole lot to it and it's a completely different subject. my point is that alot of people made and are making alot of money from that tragedy. there was alot to be gained for the

people in control. patriot act 1 and 2, etc....ushering in whatever kind of hell they are bringing to this country.

 

anyhow, back to the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i saw part of the debate today. watched about 10 minutes.

 

best part was some dude (don't know who he is), who appeared to be a liberal republican, talking about how 9/11 happened because the US had been bombing iraq and had their nose in middle eastern affairs.

 

guiliani got all mad saying that the congressman/senator didn't know what he was talking about, that 9/11 had nothing to do with the US bombing Iraq, and he asked him to withdraw his statement. of course the congressman didn't, but elaborated on why he feels that way. then everyone started to chime on 9/11 at once, and the hosts quickly asked another question on a seperate subject, stating that the argument wouldn't get resolved tonight.

 

but yeah, i agreed with the congressman, not mayor guilliani.

 

but i think he'd be better than mccain. i get the feeling mccain gets a hard-on for war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i've stated my position several times before. i think it was an inside job, but certainly not the whole of the government. compartmentalization is the way things in the military industrial complex work.

 

i think it was a radical group of individuals who either let it happen for financial gain, or who openly helped it happen by other means. i lean more towards the latter of the two.

 

there's a whole lot to it and it's a completely different subject. my point is that alot of people made and are making alot of money from that tragedy. there was alot to be gained for the

people in control. patriot act 1 and 2, etc....ushering in whatever kind of hell they are bringing to this country.

 

anyhow, back to the subject.

 

 

who do you think was this small "radical group" that planned their evil sadistic deeds of 9/11. name names.

 

apparently you said people like bush are just puppets and pawns in this grand scheme by this supposedly elite radical group, so i'm guessing he's ruled out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

theo: research dr. paul some more, i have a feeling you'd like him alot if you heard what he has to say without the little time limit thing going on.

 

guiliani's dad was a mob boss....that's where he gets his politics from. watch the above video i posted of dr. paul talking about why he said what he said at the SC debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh, so that's his name. yeah, like i said ron paul was right about why 9/11 happened. guilliani was in denial.

 

bin laden himself stated that 9/11 happened for these major reasons --

 

1. support for israel and subsequent desecration of the palestinian people.

 

2. support for non-Islamic charlatan states in the arab world that are oppressive

 

2. u.s. aggression against iraq and iraqi children (through military aggression throughout the 90's and US-backed UN sanctions),

 

3. saudi arabia's use of american forces in the Gulf War, instead of mujahadeen fighters that bin laden proposed.

 

4. following the Gulf War; the subsequent "permanent" stationing of US forces on sacred Islamic soil -- the Arabian Peninnsula, home to Islam's two holiest cities. which also bin laden states that US forces have used these bases to launch attacks against iraqi people.

 

 

 

So Ron Paul was right.

 

of course, if you're casek, all of this goes out the window because bin laden had nothing to do with 9/11. so casek you should actually be disagreeing with Ron Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

furthermore, watching that video, giuliani says he doesn't think he ever heard that statement before (about iraq being the result of 9/11).

 

that's ridiculous. anyone here that remembers the 90's remembers that following Gulf War I, the US had been enforcing the "no-fly-zone" over iraq, and the US had been bombing iraq for perhaps a little over 10 years, under both Clinton and Bush.

 

and following 9/11, there has been plenty of discourse around the country, from both americans and arabs, that 9/11 happened as a result of the US's decade-long agression against Iraq. it's nothing new and i'm surprised giuliani claims to have never heard such an assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh, so that's his name. yeah, like i said ron paul was right about why 9/11 happened. guilliani was in denial.

 

bin laden himself stated that 9/11 happened for these major reasons --

 

1. support for israel and subsequent desecration of the palestinian people.

 

2. support for non-Islamic charlatan states in the arab world that are oppressive

 

2. u.s. aggression against iraq and iraqi children (through military aggression throughout the 90's and US-backed UN sanctions),

 

3. saudi arabia's use of american forces in the Gulf War, instead of mujahadeen fighters that bin laden proposed.

 

4. following the Gulf War; the subsequent "permanent" stationing of US forces on sacred Islamic soil -- the Arabian Peninnsula, home to Islam's two holiest cities. which also bin laden states that US forces have used these bases to launch attacks against iraqi people.

 

 

 

So Ron Paul was right.

 

of course, if you're casek, all of this goes out the window because bin laden had nothing to do with 9/11. so casek you should actually be disagreeing with Ron Paul

 

 

you'd be surprised at my beliefs. i think ron paul is right about foreign policy being our downfall. i think ron paul is privy to things we are not privy to. i think that if he's elected president, there will be a formal independent investigation into 9/11 and things will come out that will shake the whole of washington d.c.

 

as i've told you, i am a republican. not a neo-con. i made a mistake a long time ago by hating republicans, but that's because i thought republicans were neo-cons. neo-conservatism is a fairly new thing to our government. more liberal views than anything. republicans are actually awesome people.

 

i feel bad for thinking such things, but i was young and underexposed to politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you'd be surprised at my beliefs. i think ron paul is right about foreign policy being our downfall. i think ron paul is privy to things we are not privy to. i think that if he's elected president, there will be a formal independent investigation into 9/11 and things will come out that will shake the whole of washington d.c.

 

as i've told you, i am a republican. not a neo-con. i made a mistake a long time ago by hating republicans, but that's because i thought republicans were neo-cons. neo-conservatism is a fairly new thing to our government. more liberal views than anything. republicans are actually awesome people.

 

i feel bad for thinking such things, but i was young and underexposed to politics.

 

i'm neither a republican nor a democrat, conservative, or liberal. i'm more of a moderate, or at least i try to be. i'm conservative on certain issues, liberal on others. though i liked clinton, was hoping gore won in 2000, and voted for kerry '04 -- but i tend to go along with donald trump's philosophy, on "voting for the individual, not the party."

 

personally, i'm not too thrilled about this year's selection of democrats.

 

judging by what little i've seen of ron paul, he seems to be the most rational candidate thus far, as far as the foreign policy spectre goes. unfortunately, he's not among the "big names" like guiliani and mccain, and his chances of getting past the primaries seem slim.

 

so far you have stated that you are conservative, and now republican. if i were to make an assertion about your ideals, casek, based on all of your posts, i would say you are a traditionalist in the sense that you believe America is an inherently "good" nation with superior fundamental values rooted in its Constitution, and that the US should be held to a high standard/regard because of these very same values; but within the last half-century you feel our government and nation has been hijacked by an emergence of neocons, a radical offshoot of traditional conservatives, driven by greed, manifested within a self-depricating military-industrial complex which has mainly helped corporate interests and the wealthy elite, at the expense of the people, and at the expense of US foreign policy (which is hated worldwide and at home). how far off is my assertion? and fill in the blanks on aspects about you that i missed.

 

anne coulter stated the case that there are no conservative conspiracy theorists, and that all conspiracy theorists are liberals. obviously she's never met people like you. although i agree most 9/11 conspiracy theorists are leftwingers, i can now start to see why a conservative would be one. but it's still hard to see it, but i can understand.

 

borrowing a term coined by bill o'reilly, i would say most far left-wing 9/11 conspiracy theorists would fall under the category of "secular-progressives," as in they think the united states is fundamentally wrong at its foundation and requires radical changes. you don't seem to fit the secular-progressive mold of most 9/11 conspiracy theorists -- but you're not exactly far off either. it's a thin line when it comes to such ideals within the realm of the conspiracy world.

 

question:

 

do you feel neocons have also distorted the name of traditional conservatives? because no neocon really calls themselves a "neocon," they simply call themselves "conservatives." the label "neocon" is usually used as a pejorative, and has negativity written all over it.

 

and did you just say neo-conservatism is a "liberal view?" was that a typo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you'd be surprised at my beliefs. i think ron paul is right about foreign policy being our downfall. i think ron paul is privy to things we are not privy to. i think that if he's elected president, there will be a formal independent investigation into 9/11 and things will come out that will shake the whole of washington d.c.

 

 

i don't see that happening. let's be realistic.

 

ron paul already cited his source for his statements today about 9/11 to the 9/11 Commission Report. which in itself states that ron paul is not a conspiracy theorist, and is satisfied with the official investigation.

 

any 9/11 conspiracy theorist in the world knows not to agree with the 9/11 Commission Report. that would be like Jews agreeing with Mein Kampf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"best part was some dude (don't know who he is), who appeared to be a liberal republican, talking about how 9/11 happened because the US had been bombing iraq and had their nose in middle eastern affairs."

 

nigga called paul a liberal republican! sike, just messing with you, but ron paul is the most consistent conservative in DC. he was what all the others 'claim' to be, but he takes it seriously. conservatives talk about the constitution, ron paul actually votes in accord with it. only member in congress to be this consistent. matter of fact he is seriously the most pro liberty politician in our history. it is hilarious to me how the neo cons are trying to silence ron paul because he objects to thier fanatical foreign policy. the even funnier part is the mordern conservative movements founder, russell kirk spent practically his whole career denoucing every military intervention up until his death riight after the first iraq war.

 

i think ron paul is the next barry goldwater, except ron paul is much more consistent. more like robert taft or howard buffett who were outstanding old right members of congress. the cool part about ron paul to me is the crowd he draws. he has a small contingent of paleo republicans, but also libertarians, and some far left liberals are drawn to him for his views on war.

 

barry goldwater:

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AOD: you're right. it is hilarious that these neo-cons are trying to shoosh dr. paul

for his beliefs. calling him a liberal..."wouldn't you feel more comfortable running as a democrat?"-fox news moderator, SC debate.

 

hahah! my mouth dropped open at that, the i laughed.

 

 

THEO: you have me nailed almost dead on. i didn't want to do that much typing, though.

if dr. paul is elected, i promise you he will have an independent investigation on september 11th. it doesn't align him with conspiracy theorists. all it says is "we want some very important questions answered". the american people deserve that much, don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...