Why Ron Paul Can Not Be President
By Jim Lynch on Nov 26, 2007 in 2008
If there weren’t plenty of other reasons why Ron Paul should never be president, this one quote is more than enough for me:
Terrorists are “just hoodlums and convicts, so to speak, but we incite them with our foreign policy,” he said.
That’s not simply naive, it’s dangerous.
Sphere: Related ContentTags: 2008, Ron Paul
Loading ...
I am a conservative Republican in South Carolina. I read his quote from above- and I 100% agree with Ron Paul.
It is apparent you have not read Rudy’s Reading List and have been raised on Bush and Faux News propaganda.
Read the 9/11 Commission Report and educate yourself. Most of the terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden has said he dislikes US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia.
Of course Bin laden is now in Pakistan where the nukes are while Bush and company are mired down in Iraq.
Turn off Faux News and read a few books .
http://www.rudysreadinglist.com/
I will see you at the voting booth.
truthseeker | Nov 26, 2007 | Reply
Wow, that has to be a new record. Five minutes from posting to a Ronulan comment.
So, you’re telling me that you think that terrorists are just “hoodlums and convicts”?
I’m glad that you’re going to be at the voting booth. Of course Ron Paul’s name won’t be anywhere to be found come November.
Jim Lynch | Nov 26, 2007 | Reply
And what do you think terrorists are? Mutants with the evil gene?
Grab a rifle and join the IDF, you coward.
Captain Obvious | Nov 26, 2007 | Reply
Of course the author can not determine the difference between a terrorist , an insurgent , a hoodlum or a criminal. That is what Bush is hoping for - it is easier to keep fighting if the enemy is ill-defined.
Karl Rove was the master at filling these type of minds up with propaganda so they can not think clearly for themselves.
What is a terrorist? In 2 sentences or less - please
truthseeker | Nov 26, 2007 | Reply
I’m not the one that has problems understanding the difference between a terrorist (n. one who engages in acts of murder, rape or other violent crime, usually against civilians, under the guise of political activism.) and a hoodlum (n. A gangster; a thug.). That Ron Paul and his supporters can’t see the difference is dumbfounding.
Jim Lynch | Nov 26, 2007 | Reply
By your definition, George Bush and Dick Cheney are two of the biggest terrorists on the planet today. I have seen estimates as high as 600,000 Iraqis killed - our military does not count Iraqi civilian deaths- and clearly these poor innocent Iraqis did nothing to provoke our country into killing them-all ” under the guise of political activism” and without a declaration of war from our Congress as is required under the Constitution our President and Congress have sworn to uphold.
The handful of terrorists that are still alive and responsible for 9/11 are hiding in the Pakistani hills -apparently safe and out of harms way as we flail away in Iraq spending several billion dollars a week.
Please be careful with who falls under your “terrorist ” definition.
truthseeker | Nov 26, 2007 | Reply
Not by my definition. Only by your twisted illogic.
And you still miss the miss the point I made, that terrorists are not the Sharks and Jets that Ron Paul appears to think they are.
Jim Lynch | Nov 26, 2007 | Reply
Drunk drivers are more of a concern to me, then “terrorists”… Wake up people!
BicycleGladiator | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
a terrorist (n. one who engages in acts of murder, rape or other violent crime, usually against civilians, under the guise of political activism.)
If that doesn’t describe Bush, I don’t know what does.
BicycleGladiator | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
he was saying terrorists are just gangsters who join together and recruit others to f***** kill Americans because we are on there land and have been for decades. You are twisting it around.
Aj | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
This is quite unreal! Notice that the first two words of this “quote” are not in quotes at all. Ron Paul could have said anything there. We don’t know. He could very well have said “Terrorists are NOT” or “Democrats are” or “FISH”.
I challenge the poster to get the entire quote in context. Not just a fraction of a sentence, with unquoted words tacked on the front. But something worth actually having a discussion over.
Sheesh!!!
Eddie James | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
ok you must be another one of the folks who choose to believe in the “they attack us because we’re free” approach of Rudy McRomney, eh? Mr. Paul is referring to the fact that we provide them with the perfect opportunity to go from punk thugs who think they’re big and bad to extremist fighters gaining support all over the middle east and in other parts of world from a lot of young muslims. If you took a look at American history, you’d perfectly understand how our foreign policy has caused this hatred, how we’ve gone against the founder’s advice to STAY OUT of entangling alliances. the League of Nations drew up the middle east with no regard to cultural, religious, or any other implications and we’re STILL dealing with the problems of that today. So, keep attacking Ron Paul’s supports like little playground bully since I’m not hearing any factual or sensical arguments against his stand on issues, and furthermore, keep believing that America can do no wrong. Keep believing that our actions have no consequences. Of course, it’s not like being the sole superpower in the world and using that status to act like the world police and pursue a policy of empire and nation-building, keeping troops in 130 nations would ever incite hatred, that’s ridiculous, isn’t it? haha you silly uninformed man. you’ve got so much homework to do how can you spare time to do a write-up like this? you’re loyal to the Republican party, not to America, and not to the US Constitution. you’re caught up in bullshit partisan bumper-sticker politics and its hilarious.
Kyle | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
“Hoodlums” of the past fit your criteria for terrorists perfectly. They commited murder, used automatic weapons, and terrorised through threats and intimidation. So Ron Pauls defination is perfectly correct. It is you who is at fault for summarily dismissing and individual for his vocabulary. Even if he does not make it to election, I would prefer him to who ever the republican winner would be. America needs a new way of thinking. It’s headed for the abyss.
Gary | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply