stignasty Posted May 16, 2007 Report Posted May 16, 2007 Tuesday, May 15, 2007 Giuliani to Paul: 'Take back' 9/11 comments WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Why did terrorists attack the U.S. on 9/11? According to Texas Congressman Ron Paul, "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East." Restrained, but clearly angry, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani jumped in, calling Paul's statement "extraordinary." "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 ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th," he said. Giuliani's fiery response prompted applause and the following demand from the former mayor: "I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that." In response, Paul stood by his comments and said that "if we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem ... They come and they attack us because we're over there." -- CNN Senior Producer Alex Wellen http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/ Quote "It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians." - Stephen Harper
Riverwind Posted May 16, 2007 Report Posted May 16, 2007 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Why did terrorists attack the U.S. on 9/11? According to Texas Congressman Ron Paul, "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East."This is hardly a new opinion. The dust had hardly settled over Manhatten when people first started expressing it. This explaination is also more rational tham the typical 'because they hate freedom' tripe that comes from the war party. The US was targeted for a reason. Refusing to talk about those reasons simply asking for more of the same. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
gc1765 Posted May 16, 2007 Report Posted May 16, 2007 According to Texas Congressman Ron Paul, "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East." From a Texas Republican? That's gotta say something... Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
buffycat Posted May 16, 2007 Report Posted May 16, 2007 Actually Ron Paul is an honourable old school conservative republican - a rare and endangered species to say the least. He is by no means a neo-liberal or neo-con. He is candid, and that is so refreshing wrt politicians. I certainly wish him all the luck. Let's hope the controlled msm give him more airtime (though it could be dangerous to do so since it might result in Amerukuns thinking!). Quote "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" ~ Ghandi
kuzadd Posted May 16, 2007 Report Posted May 16, 2007 It's a CIA coined term, BLOWBACK. It's nothing new, nor outrageous. it's based on, "what goes around, comes around" That said, Guiliani, is a twit, who has been shamelessly, and I mean shamelessly using 9/11 to promote himself. He's a raving hypocrite and a criminal. extraordinary my foot, they only thing extraordinary is the amount of hot air from Guiliani! Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
stignasty Posted May 16, 2007 Author Report Posted May 16, 2007 That said, Guiliani, is a twit, who has been shamelessly, and I mean shamelessly using 9/11 to promote himself. While I don't feel the need to resort to name calling, I do think you're right about his use of 9/11 in a pretty obvious and exploitive manner. On the other hand, I wonder what Mr. Paul is proposing. Is he suggesting a return to a policy of isolationism? Quote "It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians." - Stephen Harper
buffycat Posted May 16, 2007 Report Posted May 16, 2007 http://www.house.gov/paul/ Read all about him. I've been keeping my eye on him and enjoying his straight talking articles for some time, as I said before - he is very refreshing. Quote "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" ~ Ghandi
kuzadd Posted May 16, 2007 Report Posted May 16, 2007 That said, Guiliani, is a twit, who has been shamelessly, and I mean shamelessly using 9/11 to promote himself. While I don't feel the need to resort to name calling, I do think you're right about his use of 9/11 in a pretty obvious and exploitive manner. On the other hand, I wonder what Mr. Paul is proposing. Is he suggesting a return to a policy of isolationism? "While I don't feel the need to resort to name calling" not at this time anyway, right?! (lol, I am razzin ya!) well, he is certainly acting as a shameless twit, isn't he? exploiting 9/11? he is showing himself to be a one-trick pony, along the lines of the Bush administration, who also has exploited 9/11 and the fear factor repeatedly. what does that say about him as a political leader? Potential president? Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
GostHacked Posted May 16, 2007 Report Posted May 16, 2007 http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/15/r...s-of-terrorism/ Clip is available there. Ron Paul's composure tells a lot about the man. He seems smart and knows how to pick his words. The fact tha Juliani just jumped in there DEMANDING 30 seconds, shows how sensitive of a topic it is for him, and that 'they hate freedom' just does not seem to cut it for Paul. And for the rest of us Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 16, 2007 Report Posted May 16, 2007 Guiliani cleaned up NYC with drastic measures and strong leadership. Ron Paul has done nothing but promote his upside potential windfall with a return to the gold standard...he can be president of Prison Planet. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
B. Max Posted May 17, 2007 Report Posted May 17, 2007 Juliani has been going down in the polls and I don't think his latest performance will change that. At this point I'd still be looking at Tancredo or Thompson. Quote
buffycat Posted May 17, 2007 Report Posted May 17, 2007 Guiliani cleaned up NYC with drastic measures and strong leadership. Ron Paul has done nothing but promote his upside potential windfall with a return to the gold standard...he can be president of Prison Planet. Well BC, I would say that your dear leader, Bush is already the leader of Prison Planet - since the US leads the world in incarcerated individuals - not counting those in secret jails or the other US torture facilities!! On another note, here's a link with a nicely assembled group of Ron Paul's writings - this is for those who are actually interested in the man (NOT Bush_Cheney's rhetoric)! http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html Quote "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" ~ Ghandi
cybercoma Posted May 17, 2007 Report Posted May 17, 2007 I think the isolationism comment made earlier in this thread needs to be examined. If the United States needs to protect itself by not inciting hatred, does that mean they need to stop protecting interests and allies abroad? Is isolationism the answer? Is that even what the congressman is suggesting? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 17, 2007 Report Posted May 17, 2007 Well BC, I would say that your dear leader, Bush is already the leader of Prison Planet - since the US leads the world in incarcerated individuals - not counting those in secret jails or the other US torture facilities!!On another note, here's a link with a nicely assembled group of Ron Paul's writings - this is for those who are actually interested in the man (NOT Bush_Cheney's rhetoric)! http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html Rep. Ron Paul will have plenty of time for more "writings", as he is certainly not going to be elected president. In the mean time, President Bush will finish his second term. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cynic43 Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 Well BC, I would say that your dear leader, Bush is already the leader of Prison Planet - since the US leads the world in incarcerated individuals - not counting those in secret jails or the other US torture facilities!! On another note, here's a link with a nicely assembled group of Ron Paul's writings - this is for those who are actually interested in the man (NOT Bush_Cheney's rhetoric)! http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html Rep. Ron Paul will have plenty of time for more "writings", as he is certainly not going to be elected president. In the mean time, President Bush will finish his second term. So he will, as the most hated president in modern times.... Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 So he will, as the most hated president in modern times.... 'Tis better to have been president for two terms and "hated", than never to have been president at all. (With apologies to Sir William) Besides, the most "hated" president in modern times was Jimmy Carter and his "Misery Index". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cynic43 Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 So he will, as the most hated president in modern times.... 'Tis better to have been president for two terms and "hated", than never to have been president at all. (With apologies to Sir William) Besides, the most "hated" president in modern times was Jimmy Carter and his "Misery Index". That is debateable....most worldwide polls show Bush in the lead ..by a mile...maybe if he would lose that idiotic smirk and learn to put a proper sentence together it might help his image... Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 That is debateable....most worldwide polls show Bush in the lead ..by a mile...maybe if he would losethat idiotic smirk and learn to put a proper sentence together it might help his image... Well hell, who gives a crap about "worldwide polls"......being loved that way is a Canadian value, and of no concern to American presidents. US citizens do not elect presidents to please the world.....just ask John Kerry. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cynic43 Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 That is debateable....most worldwide polls show Bush in the lead ..by a mile...maybe if he would lose that idiotic smirk and learn to put a proper sentence together it might help his image... Well hell, who gives a crap about "worldwide polls"......being loved that way is a Canadian value, and of no concern to American presidents. US citizens do not elect presidents to please the world.....just ask John Kerry. sitting at 28% approval really shows the love eh? even the Yanks finally woke up to the "liar in chief" ( excepting you of course) Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 sitting at 28% approval really shows the love eh? even the Yanks finally woke up to the "liar in chief"( excepting you of course) 28% of sumptin' is a whole lot better than 100% of nuthin'. Hail to the Chief! But shucks, 28% is a good polling day in Canada for the NDP, Liberals, or CPC...LOL! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 Man this Ron Paul guy is a spirited one. http://infowars.net/articles/may2007/170507Ron.htm I know you anti-conspiracy-omg-alex-jones-is-a-hack-journalist will hate the link, but at least watch it. Wolf Blitzer Situation Room Ron Paul stands by his comments without remorse and asks Guiliani to apologize. OK now go ahead and pick it apart. Quote
Liam Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 I have to echo what Andrew Sullivan just posted on his blog about the Ron Paul thing: right-wingers are lambasting Ron Paul for stating the obvious (that US foreign policy decisions have ramifications, NOT that we deserved 9/11 b/c that's not what he said), but at the same time right-wingers are falling all over one another to eulogize Jerry Falwell, who stated shortly after 9/11 that we DID deserve this for becoming too secular. Quote
stignasty Posted May 18, 2007 Author Report Posted May 18, 2007 sitting at 28% approval really shows the love eh? even the Yanks finally woke up to the "liar in chief" ( excepting you of course) 28% of sumptin' is a whole lot better than 100% of nuthin'. Hail to the Chief! But shucks, 28% is a good polling day in Canada for the NDP, Liberals, or CPC...LOL! The latest poll has Giuliani down 11% to 24%. The weird thing is that the voters polled didn't gravitate to another candidate - "Unsure" increased by 13% to tie the front runner at 24%. http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm The difference between 28% in the US and 28% in Canada is that Canada has a multi-party system. If you pull in 28% in a presidential election you will have been crushed by a massive landslide. Quote "It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians." - Stephen Harper
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 The difference between 28% in the US and 28% in Canada is that Canada has a multi-party system. If you pull in 28% in a presidential election you will have been crushed by a massive landslide. Not necessarily so.....see the 1992 US presidential election wherein Bill Clinton prevailed with only 43% of the vote against two other major contenders. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Drea Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 The difference between 28% in the US and 28% in Canada is that Canada has a multi-party system. If you pull in 28% in a presidential election you will have been crushed by a massive landslide. Not necessarily so.....see the 1992 US presidential election wherein Bill Clinton prevailed with only 43% of the vote against two other major contenders. 100% minus 43% = 57% divided by 2 other parties = 28.5% each. looks like 43% is enough for a "prevailation" LOL 100% divided by 3 parties = 33.33333% each. 43% remains the winner! LOL -- by the way what is the name of the "third" party in the US? Quote ...jealous much? Booga Booga! Hee Hee Hee
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.