youtube.com — Ron Paul gives a press conference on the day Clinton deflected media attention away from his looming impeachment by launching a bombing campaign on Iraq for alleged non-compliance with UN inspections. He dismisses the Lewinsky fiasco as nothing but a sideshow to the REAL reasons Clinton should be impeached, namely his criminal bombing of Iraq
Sep 5, 2009 View in Crawl 4
northmassSep 6, 2009
"Ron Paul's foreign policy is death to America, death to Israel and death to brown people."Ron Paul was one of the only congressmen who defended Isreal in 1981 when they attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq."Back in 1981 when the Israeli's attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq nearly every member of the U.S. legislative branch condemned the assault. Not Ron Paul. In fact he took the floor to defend Israel's right to act independently in the arena of foreign policy."<a class="user" href="http://leftconservativeblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/israel-and-ron-paul.html" rel="nofollow">http://leftconservativeblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/i ...</a>
northmassSep 6, 2009
"McCain had the same fatal flaw Ron Paul had.He wants to cut taxes first and find a way to pay for it later."Ron Paul wants to get rid of 80% of the Federal Government, McCain wants to expand its power."Criticize Democrats all you want but the truth is though their spending may be high they do care about where they get the money from.Republicans on the other hand cannot get taxes low enough but never manage to be able to cut spending. In fact quite often they raise spending on defense."I fail to see how either party cares about balancing a budget. Clinton didn't really do that either because he took social security money to balance the budget because the social security fund wasn't counted in the budget."Ron Paul wants to get rid of absolute necessities in our government. Things like social security in medicare. Things the people would not stand to be rid of in a million years. Things that make our country civilized."They have to go, they are unsustaniable due to being so heavily in debt, they are ponzi schemes."Yet these are the things that must go for Ron Paul's tax cuts to be even remotely fiscally sound. But that doesn't stop Ron Paul or John McCain from doing the most politically easy move first and cutting taxes before any spending cuts are made."Ron Paul advocates getting rid of Medicare and Social Security, and most of the federal departments.
thetaoofbillSep 6, 2009
@Northmass.Clinton's surplus would exist without the social security money. <a class="user" href="http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_c ...</a>So stop using that as an excuse. Clinton's surplus was due to sound fiscal policies. He didn't cut taxes just to cut taxes and he wasn't afraid to raise taxes when he needed to. In fact his first tax plan raised taxes across the board.And you freely admit Ron Paul wants to get rid of a lot of our economic safety nets that have made our economy so strong. Like social security, medicare and medicaid.
northmassSep 6, 2009
@TheTaoOfBillIf Clinton balanced the budget then how come the Treasury Department even admits that the deficit went up?<a class="user" href="http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/hist ...</a><a class="user" href="http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16" rel="nofollow">http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16</a>&quot;And you freely admit Ron Paul wants to get rid of a lot of our economic safety nets that have made our economy so strong. Like social security, medicare and medicaid."They are all on the verge of bankruptcy, how can you defend these programs? They are ponzi schemes! I mean we are talking about Medicare being tens of trillions of dollars in the hole, this isn't viable.
Closed AccountSep 6, 2009
Don't you have a town meeting to go shout at, vbullinger? I mean, it's you paultards organizing all that s**t, isn't it?Anyway, could you be more specific? For instance, in what way is #5 wrong? Or #12? How about #5? Or why don't we skip to the juiciest one: in what way have I misrepresented Ron Pauls view in #7?
Closed AccountSep 6, 2009
He's voted to ban abortions federally.He's voted to ban stem cell research federally (no, not just federal funding).If he's not a conspiracy theorist, he sure sounds like one:<a class="user" href="http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/files/ronpaul.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/files/ronpaul.pd ...</a>("the UN will take your guns!"sent out by his campaign in 2007).I'd love to link to the insane and hand-signed "the UN is tracking you through magical paint in currency" letter his campaign sent out, but the Ron Paul campaign has had it pulled through DMCA takedown notices so I no longer have a working link. Anyone?Ron Paul *says* he's not a racist, true. His campaign, however, sends out stuff like this:<a class="user" href="http://pushingrope.blogspot.com/2008/01/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters.html" rel="nofollow">http://pushingrope.blogspot.com/2008/01/ron-pauls- ...</a>(also now only available through quotes; the Ron Paul campaign obviously *loves* teh DMCA!)And he knowingly accept campaign contributions from white supremacists, visit them in their homes, eat dinner with them, and pose for photo ops with them:<a class="user" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_2dJQxEtZAVo/RmHxTPqb_mI/AAAAAAAAAIo/vvYzwHPBrYs/s320/PaulRon-n-ClarksonRob.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_2dJQxEtZAVo/RmHxTPqb_mI/ ...</a>Ron Paul waffles on 911. When interviewed by truther crackpot Alex Jones he would not say that the US government didn't do it, and instead Ron Paul called for more investigation:<a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH9nOWnp5G0" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH9nOWnp5G0</a>Yes, he does actually support universal healthcare. Why? Because he says the free market can't handle healthcare. Yes, really. No, I'm serious:<a class="user" href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2301379/posts" rel="nofollow">http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2301379 ...</a>YES, I am talking about those 18 billion dollars. I'm talking about things like this:<a class="user" href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html</a><a class="user" href="http://blogs.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/04/ron_pauls_earmarks_for_fy2009.html" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/04/ron_pauls ...</a>But hey, since its RON f**kING PAUL doing it, earmarks and pork is a good thing:<a class="user" href="http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-16/more-earmarks-less-government/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-16/more-earmarks-le ...</a>Alarming? I hope so. Ignorant? Not half as much as his followers.
emazurSep 6, 2009
Ron Paul wasn't just guessing either - just as his forecast of the economic collapse was based on a sound understanding of economics, his forecast of terrorism was based on a sound understanding of foreign policy (read his book: A Foreign Policy of Freedom) and actually paying attention to world affairs.Bin Laden first declared war against the US in 8/23/96 (citing massacres in Iraq and the US/UN food and medicine sanctions that killed 600,000 Iraqi children, among other reasons - the most serious being the US troop presence in Saudi Arabia)He repeated the Iraqi sanctions as reasons to fight the US in an interview that aired May 10, 1997 on CNN, and again emphasized the presence of US troops on Saudi soil, and specifically denied that he was concerned with cultural issues such as Madonna, drugs, Hollywood, and sexOn 2/28/98, again he cited the Iraq sanctions and massacres, and said that he thought another round of massacres was set to occur.More warnings came on 8/20/98- Clinton's strike failed to do any serious damage but insulted Afghanistan's leader, who lifted an embargo and allowed bin Laden to move freely in Afghanistan. Bin Laden's profile was raised - becoming the underdog in the Arab world who outmaneuvered the most powerful armed forces in the world- al-Zawahiri: bin Laden continues to call for Muslims to fight Jews and Americans to liberate their holy places- bin Laden's associate of the 1980's: America's assault against bin Laden has made him a hero in the Muslim world- unidentified Gitmo detainee before a US military tribunal later declared: the US made bin Laden famous after the Gulf WarSuch statements have been repeated every year, yet politicians like Bush and Giuliani maintain that "that hate us b/c of our freedoms". And such drivel is repeated on the mainstream media, and people buy into it b/c they've never heard the real reasons. Look somewhere else for foreign policy news, like antiwar.com or informationclearinghouse.com. Just last month Ayman al-Zawahiri declared that nothing has really changed in the transition from Bush to Obama:?Q. Then you see that Obama has offered nothing to the Muslims???A. How? How can we deny Obama's graciousness and selflessness? He has given a lot.He offered us the raids on Gaza where more than 1,300 martyrs died, and he gave usthe death of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia. He gave us thewidening of the American prisons, like Baghram prison, to host more Muslim victims, andhe gave us the bloody massacres, and fights the establishment of Sharia in Swat Valley,and the jet raids against the tribal regions in Pakistan, and he gave us his objectiontowards the conference on fighting discrimination in Geneva. And, he gave us hisforgiveness the CIA prosecutor, and he gave us his reluctance to closing downGuantanamo Bay detention when he decided to transfer more than 50 detainees fromGuantanamo to the underground American prisons, and he gave us his promise for themilitary dominion of Israel and supports the Jewish nature of Israel, and his support toIsrael taking Jerusalem as a united indefinite capital to the so-called state of Israel. Thisand other more are from Obama and his graciousness that still continues.?
Closed AccountSep 7, 2009
I've dugg him on occassion (never on Ron Paul threads).He's not always so wrong as he is on that subject.