User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 14

  1. #1
    Member FranG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    41

    Default Ron Paul Wins Another Presidential Debate

    I wish I coulda saw this; "fair and balanced" FoxNews sponsored a GOP presidential debate on Tuesday night. As usual, Ron, a "real" conservative was ostracized and attacked for his not so popular views; mainly on bringing the troops home from Iraq and positing that American foreign policy is the true cause of terrorism. See article below. Here's is video of Paul on CNN with Wolf Blitzer discussing the debate



    ----------------------

    Source: Yahoo News

    Rudy Giuliani v. Ron Paul, and Reality

    Wed May 16, 12:29 AM ET

    The Nation -- Rudy Giuliani made clear in Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate that he is not ready to let the facts get in the way of his approach to foreign policy.
    ADVERTISEMENT

    The most heated moment in the debate, which aired live on the conservative Fox News network, came when the former New York mayor and current GOP front-runner angrily refused to entertain a serious discussion about the role that actions taken by the United States prior to the September 11, 2OO1, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the
    Pentagon may have played in inspiring or encouraging those attacks.

    Giuliani led the crowd of contenders on attacking Texas Congressman Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) after the anti-war Republican restated facts that are outlined in the report of the The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

    Asked about his opposition to the invasion and occupation of
    Iraq, Paul repeated his oft-expressed concern that instead of making the U.S. safer, U.S. interventions in the Middle East over the years have stirred up anti-American sentiment. As he did in the previous Republican debate, the Texan suggested that former President
    Ronald Reagan's decisions to withdraw U.S. troops from the region in the 198Os were wiser than the moves by successive Republican and Democratic presidents to increase U.S. military involvement there.

    Speaking of extremists who target the U.S, Paul said, "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is 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."

    Paul argued that
    Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are "delighted that we're over there" in Iraq, pointing out that, "They have already... killed 3,400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary."

    Giuliani, going for an applause line with a conservative South Carolina audience that was not exactly sympathetic with his support for abortion rights and other socially liberal positions, leapt on Paul's remarks. Interrupting the flow of the debate, Giuliani declared, "That's really an extraordinary statement. That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 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 withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."

    The mayor, who is making his response to the 9-11 attacks on New York a central feature of his presidential campaign, was joined in the assault on Paul by many of the other candidates.

    But congressman did not back down, and for good reason. Unlike Giuliani, the Texan has actually read the record.

    The 9-11 Commission report detailed how bin Laden had, in 1996, issued "his self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia" and identified that declaration and another in 1998 as part of "a long series" of statements objecting to U.S. military interventions in his native Saudi Arabia in particular and the Middle East in general. Statements from bin Laden and those associated with him prior to 9-11 consistently expressed anger with the U.S. military presence on the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people and U.S. support of
    Israel.

    The 9-11 Commission based its assessments on testimony from experts on terrorism and the Middle East. Asked about the motivations of the terrorists,
    FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald told the commission: "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."

    Fitzgerald's was not a lonely voice in the intelligence community.

    Michael Scheuer, the former
    Central Intelligence Agency specialist on bin Laden and al-Qaeda, has objected to simplistic suggestions by
    President Bush and others that terrorists are motivated by an ill-defined irrational hatred of the United States. "The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people," Scheuer said in a CNN interview. "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. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people."

    It is true that reasonable people might disagree about the legitimacy of Muslim and Arab objections to U.S. military policies. And, certainly, the vast majority of Americans would object to any attempt to justify the attacks on this country, its citizen and its soldiers.

    But that was not what Paul was doing. He was trying to make a case, based on what we know from past experience, for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq.

    Giuliani's reaction to Paul's comments, especially the suggestion that they should be withdrawn, marked him as the candidate peddling "absurd explanations."

    Viewers of the debate appear to have agreed. An unscientific survey by Fox News asked its viewers to send text messages identifying the winner. Tens of thousands were received and Paul ranked along with Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as having made the best showing.

    No wonder then that, when asked about his dust-up with Giuliani, Paul said he'd be "delighted" to debate the front-runner on foreign policy.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"
    I live the life daily; I die the death nightly

  2. #2
    Senior Member Alienclock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    infp
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FranG View Post
    President Bush and others that terrorists are motivated by an ill-defined irrational hatred of the United States. "The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people," Scheuer said in a CNN interview. "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. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people."
    This is basically saying that our "doings" in the Islamic World caused the WTC attacks. For some reason, somehow, having a sense that the US could have somehow caused the attacks is equated with believing that Al Queada was justified in destroying WTC and Thousands of people. So, by way of explanation, US determines that there is an axis of "evil" and that its sole desire is the mindless and unprovoked attacks on other countries, and its entire intent is to to crush freedom and make sure other countries don't wack off to girly mags, and woman don't get to walk around without burkas. There is no reality. This is my united states of whatever.

  3. #3
    respect the brick C.J.Woolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    424

    Default

    I don't think anyone is suggesting we should let Arab public opinion run our foreign policy. But if we can achieve our strategic goals without unnecessarily pissing off some potentially violent foreigners, wouldn't you rather do that?

    As he did in the previous Republican debate, the Texan suggested that former President Ronald Reagan's decisions to withdraw U.S. troops from the region in the 198Os were wiser than the moves by successive Republican and Democratic presidents to increase U.S. military involvement there.
    Well played, invoking Saint Ronald like that. I didn't like Reagan much when was in office, but he was a lot more pragmatic than the current crowd.

  4. #4
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.J.Woolf View Post
    Well played, invoking Saint Ronald like that. I didn't like Reagan much when was in office, but he was a lot more pragmatic than the current crowd.
    Eh, nothing special in that. I think Reagan was used 40 odd times in the debate. I can't help but wonder if there is a particular correlation between the Christians right looking up to Reagan simply because they are used to looking up to a higher authority. It seems really strange to have such an unusual hero worship attitude... when they barely reflect his good qualities at all. Though actually, that does reflect a lot of Christian right too, envoking God without walking the path.

    In any case, as much as I like Ron Paul and would love him to sweep through the primaries, I think the odds are stacked against him.

    What I do love is how he is exposing the media-state corruption that permeates the whole system. I knew politics in the US had gotten corrupt - I mean, power corrupts, and being a super power should tend towards being super corrupt - but I think the house of cards is really being stripped away under this administration. And of course, I'm not referring to the administration as corrupt - the whole system is unbelievably stacked against the people. The current administration is just a symptom of social and cultural factors, fed into a system. A robust system at that... but every system can be gamed.

    The other thing I found scary was how the audience felt it was worthwhile to clap when taking about torture

  5. #5
    Member FranG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    41

    Default

    PrisonPlanet has been covering Ron Paul throughout this campaign. Click link to see Ron's views on a variety of subjects. I especially like how he exposed the Federal Reserve System as a total fraud. Doomsday relevation like that won't win him much support however, but I can still keep my fingers crossed.
    I live the life daily; I die the death nightly

  6. #6
    respect the brick C.J.Woolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Eh, nothing special in that. I think Reagan was used 40 odd times in the debate.
    I'm not surprised. Hell, I expect there are Democratic candidates who could cite Reagan in their support.


    I can't help but wonder if there is a particular correlation between the Christians right looking up to Reagan simply because they are used to looking up to a higher authority. It seems really strange to have such an unusual hero worship attitude... when they barely reflect his good qualities at all. Though actually, that does reflect a lot of Christian right too, envoking God without walking the path.
    I think that is exactly the case. Some of the left-wing blogs throw around the term Right-Wing Authoritarian (RWA) as a personality type.

    The other thing I found scary was how the audience felt it was worthwhile to clap when taking about torture
    Expect more of it. The Republicans got into power by appealing to the hindbrain: fear of the Other, the desire to punish, the desire to hurt those who hurt us. Never mind that most of those we torture did not hurt us.

  7. #7
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.J.Woolf View Post
    I'm not surprised. Hell, I expect there are Democratic candidates who could cite Reagan in their support.
    Maybe after the primaries... It's not like the republicans have much support of the public, so democrats will attempt to strip away every last piece of meat that the current administration has carved away.

    I think that is exactly the case. Some of the left-wing blogs throw around the term Right-Wing Authoritarian (RWA) as a personality type.
    It's actually pretty common - even FFM uses a form of ethnocentric behavior, not to mention authoritarian themes. I wouldn't say one has to be too left to make that claim, it's pretty well documented in terms of personality preferences towards religion and governance.

    Course, it's similar for the left wing new age liberals that trend towards F types... just as NTs trend towards libertarianism, SJs towards authoritarianism.

    It's interesting to see how many different traps there are to certain personality types, mixed with certain ideologies.

  8. #8
    Senior Member kuranes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    XNXP
    Posts
    1,065
    "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
    Reichsfuhrer Herman Goering at the Nuremburg trials.

  9. #9
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kuranes View Post
    I find him very interesting... however, I've been watching him for some time now and he seems... uhh... inconsistent. I feel like he is trying to play politics but doesn't have much natural ability in it. He should stuck with his big balls and just let them try to carry him through. I feel like he weakened by playing the demographic game... so I don't think he'll end up getting through.

    That is in part true due of the light smear campaigns against those that don't tow the more extreme right wing versions (Ron Paul and McCain both), as well as holding unpopular non-macho views (on torture, etc).

    If I had to make a guess, it's going to be Rudy that will face off, unless the blowback from his lack of knowledge of terrorism gets enough attention. However, I don't think this is likely with the new republican audience, having pushed most of the centric voters away over the last few years. The horror that brings to me... yah. Scary. My nightmare scenario involves culling the true conservative types because of the more extreme right wing demographics that put pressure on the candidates... then having that person become president despite not having dominant public support.

    However, I can't deny that it is at least possible that exact scenario will play out. I can't deny that the odds are that Hillary or Rudy will gain power. I feel that the best chance to change the direction of the country will evaporate at that moment...

    (More musings - I think, however, it is possible that the pressure technology is bringing into politics will grow, and it will grow exponentially. I fear, however, that if it doesn't change the way campaigning is done this time, it could cause unbelievable political chaos in the elections that follow 2008. The internet revolts, supporting Ron Paul and the like are almost like the new 'riots' in this day and age... how long till it starts to spill over?)

  10. #10
    Junior Member Krill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    In any case, as much as I like Ron Paul and would love him to sweep through the primaries, I think the odds are stacked against him.
    Especially considering how Fox had numerous oppurtunities to ask him about his views on issues that would get him support in the right-wing, and instead asked him only questions that would end up having him answering in a controversial -- and thanks to Giuliani's absurd response -- offensive manner.

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] What Strategy Would Win Ron Paul the Republican Nomination/Presidency
    By Vizconde in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-18-2012, 03:28 AM
  2. Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll
    By pure_mercury in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 03-02-2010, 05:09 PM
  3. Presidential Debate 2008 Reviews
    By Tigerlily in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 09-28-2008, 07:56 AM
  4. Ron Paul
    By Paul3144 in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 03-06-2008, 11:14 AM
  5. Ron Paul Tea Party... will you be donating?
    By file cabinet in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 12-20-2007, 03:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO