Blogcritics Comments on Ron Paul for President?

Comment by Andy Marsh on Ron Paul for President?

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:25:45 EST

YOu see...this is what i love about BC...you guys let any moonbat post here! But it does keep it interesting... When did Rosie change her name to Ben anyway???

Comment by Ben on Ron Paul for President?

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:18:22 EST

All you people who believe we were honestly attacked by muslims on 9-11 wake up and smell the coffee! The Independent Thinker's 9/11 FACT SHEET What occurred on September 11th, 2001 is a matter of facts, physics and unprecedented violations of national protocol by American officials themselves. Here are 10 points to consider. There are hundreds more. 1. No steel-framed building before or since 9/11 has ever collapsed due to fire. 2. No official agency (FAA, FBI, or the airlines) has ever released a list of the 9/11 passengers. But within hours, the FBI released a list of the hijackers. 3. Multiple air-defense drills were planned for the morning of 9/11. These exercises left only two fighter jets available to protect the entire Northeastern United States. 4. Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper and part of the World Trade Center complex, was not struck by a plane but collapsed in 6.5 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on September 11th, in the exact manner of a controlled demolition. 5. There was no visible airplane debris where Flight 93 supposedly crashed in Pennsylvania – only a smoking hole in the ground, much like a bomb crater. 6. Office fires burn at low temperatures of 600-800 dF. Jet fuel is an ordinary hydrocarbon; its maximal burning temperature is 1200 dF in open air. Steel melts at 2750 dF. Neither jet fuel nor the burning contents of the buildings could cause the towers' steel structure to buckle or fail. 7. Tests have shown that cell-phone calls cannot be made at altitudes over 4000 to 8000 feet, as cell towers are located on the ground. Commercial airplanes fly at 30,000 feet and above. No passenger could have successfully placed a call for help by cell phone from an airborne plane on 9/11, as reported. 8. 9/11 was immediately declared an "act of war" by President Bush. The rubble from the Twin Towers' collapse was carted away and the steel sold and shipped overseas without examination. 9. Enormous profits were made by insiders on plummeting stock prices of the two airlines involved in 9/11 – American and United. Federal law protects their identities. 10. Accepting victims' compensation barred 9/11 families from further discovery through litigation. check out this link proving the trade towers collapsing, including tower number 7( which was never hit by a plane) was an inside demolition job. There are numerous facts and CIA agents that have come out and even admitted the CIA helped train the hijackers. Research it for yourself if you don't believe me! The patriot act, along with the 2007 defense authorization act clearly make this the most powerful u.s. presidency ever in history- if we ever got attacked again Bush with the stroke of a pen would be able to sidestep congress and have unlimited power in total martial law including the use of UN soldiers which he already said he would use if we ever got attacked again! The neocons and neolibs want a new world order- vote ron paul! While ron paul claims we were attacked because of our policy- im takin it a step further- we were attacked by our own government! Listen to audio files if rudy fuckin guiliani on tv stations announcing the fall of trade center number 7 20 minutes before it eveen collapses! Research it for yourself!

Comment by Ben on Ron Paul for President?

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:16:54 EST

All you people who believe we were honestly attacked by muslims on 9-11 wake up and smell the coffee! The Independent Thinker's 9/11 FACT SHEET What occurred on September 11th, 2001 is a matter of facts, physics and unprecedented violations of national protocol by American officials themselves. Here are 10 points to consider. There are hundreds more. 1. No steel-framed building before or since 9/11 has ever collapsed due to fire. 2. No official agency (FAA, FBI, or the airlines) has ever released a list of the 9/11 passengers. But within hours, the FBI released a list of the hijackers. 3. Multiple air-defense drills were planned for the morning of 9/11. These exercises left only two fighter jets available to protect the entire Northeastern United States. 4. Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper and part of the World Trade Center complex, was not struck by a plane but collapsed in 6.5 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on September 11th, in the exact manner of a controlled demolition. 5. There was no visible airplane debris where Flight 93 supposedly crashed in Pennsylvania - only a smoking hole in the ground, much like a bomb crater. 6. Office fires burn at low temperatures of 600-800 dF. Jet fuel is an ordinary hydrocarbon; its maximal burning temperature is 1200 dF in open air. Steel melts at 2750 dF. Neither jet fuel nor the burning contents of the buildings could cause the towers' steel structure to buckle or fail. 7. Tests have shown that cell-phone calls cannot be made at altitudes over 4000 to 8000 feet, as cell towers are located on the ground. Commercial airplanes fly at 30,000 feet and above. No passenger could have successfully placed a call for help by cell phone from an airborne plane on 9/11, as reported. 8. 9/11 was immediately declared an "act of war" by President Bush. The rubble from the Twin Towers' collapse was carted away and the steel sold and shipped overseas without examination. 9. Enormous profits were made by insiders on plummeting stock prices of the two airlines involved in 9/11 - American and United. Federal law protects their identities. 10. Accepting victims' compensation barred 9/11 families from further discovery through litigation. check out this link proving the trade towers collapsing, including tower number 7 (which was never hit by a plane) was an inside demolition job. There are numerous facts and CIA agents that have come out and even admitted the CIA helped train the hijackers. Research it for yourself if you don't believe me! The patriot act, along with the 2007 defense authorization act clearly make this the most powerful u.s. presidency ever in history- if we ever got attacked again Bush with the stroke of a pen would be able to sidestep congress and have unlimited power in total martial law including the use of UN soldiers which he already said he would use if we ever got attacked again! The neocons and neolibs want a new world order- vote ron paul! While ron paul claims we were attacked because of our policy- im takin it a step further- we were attacked by our own government! Listen to audio files if rudy fuckin guiliani on tv stations announcing the fall of trade center number 7 20 minutes before it eveen collapses! Research it for yourself!

Comment by Dave Nalle on Ron Paul for President?

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 03:34:21 EDT

Michelle, you might want to read that quote in context. I agree that it's rather poorly stated, but it's clear that Giuliani's overall intent in the speech is not really to say that 'freedom is about authority'. What he's actually saying is that freedom requires responsibility and that the reason we give government authority is to protect our freedoms. Let's hope he's gotten better speechwriters since then. Dave

Comment by michelle fire eater on Ron Paul for President?

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:27:22 EDT

This Giuliani quotation, from a 1994 speech, sums up his philosophy: "Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it." There is nothing moderate about this statement. I have a lot of tolerance for different perspectives, but this attitude that Judy Ruliani is acceptable in any way is abhorrent to me.

Comment by Jeff S. on Ron Paul for President?

Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:02:15 EDT

I heard a rumor Eric was going 2 run for Paul's seat. It looks like he is running on an anti-Paul platform. And Guiliani is not a liberterian.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Ron Paul for President?

Sat, 9 Jun 2007 23:18:41 EDT

Harold, that's a pretty depressing bit of news you've brought up. The idea that some religious-right whacko would want to run against Sandford and think he has enough support to make it worthwhile is pretty discouraging. Let's hope that if he runs Sandford hammers him into the ground. What's Knotts platform going to be, raising taxes and reducing school choice? Seems like a hard campaign to run for a republican given Sandford's exceptional record. BTW, I read up on Knotts. His main claims to fame seem to be that he's a Vietnam vet and a freemason. Dave

Comment by Chris Welton on Ron Paul for President?

Sat, 9 Jun 2007 21:47:59 EDT

Note to Progressives... One thing that is critical to remeber about Ron Paul is that while his beliefs on progressive issues are not considered by many people to be "good", he is still firmly in favor of giving that power back to the states. I live in Washington... I would like to see universal healthcare, evironmental reform, and a safety net to help people in hard times. I have come to the realization, however, that these are NEVER going to come so long as we live in a police state with federal laws preventing change at the state level and a bureaucracy intent of the status quo. The system is rigged... Period. Every year we send hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal government and then bitch when it doesn't come back to us. It's time to quit sending the money out in the first place, and use it instead to fix the problems in the states in which we now stand. The simple fact is, the positions of his which could be considered "bad" are positions which he does not attempt to dictate to the people. With Ron Paul you will be able to affect real change where you live. Without him, you won't be able to affect it at any level. America Needs Ron Paul!

Comment by Harold Driver on Ron Paul for President?

Sat, 9 Jun 2007 18:57:09 EDT

Sanford for prez?? read on. Republican senator to decide today if he will challenge Sanford By AARON GOULD SHEININ Sen. Jake Knotts said Sunday he has the numbers, but he is not yet sure he would have the votes. Knotts, R-Lexington, has until noon today to decide whether he'll submit stacks of petitions to the S.C. Election Commission in an attempt to place his name on the November ballot for governor as an independent. "I really want to run and I really want to be governor," Knotts said. "But I've got to look into the woods and not just at the tree line." Knotts' adviser, Rod Shealy Jr., said early Sunday afternoon that he did not have an accurate count but was sure they had more than 10,000 signatures — the number required to get on the ballot. Signed petitions "are still coming in from all over the state," Shealy said. "We're sitting down now to make sure that he's going to pass muster with the election commission. The enthusiasm is out there, boy." Passing muster with the commission is a major concern and it could take several days for Knotts' petition to be accepted or rejected. The signatures must be verified as having come from registered voters. Petition experts in South Carolina have said it is wise to turn in 14,000 to 15,000 signatures to be sure that 10,000 meet the state's standards. But even if he has enough signatures, Knotts said he has yet to decide if he'll pull the trigger and run.

Comment by Gloria on Ron Paul for President?

Mon, 28 May 2007 17:33:26 EDT

"He has zero willingness to work with others, and that's a fatal flaw in a politician." In fact, Ron Paul is known for working with many other members of Congress on legislation, including bipartisan measures. He often works with Democratic politicians, more than you can say of many rigid Republicans; he works with Jeff Flake for smaller government measures. It's silly to say he doesn't work with anyone, not to mention just plain wrong. He'd be willing to work with anyone who came up with Constitutional, small government, sensible measures. He just doesn't vote the party line with other Republicans when the party line is unconstitutional; I think that's a good thing and I wish my representative, John Shimkus, did the same thing. But no, Shimkus goes along with the party on anything, even larger-government measures.

Comment by Ray on Ron Paul for President?

Fri, 18 May 2007 06:16:50 EDT

"Is this what the Inavsion is known as? An intervention? Shucks, that sure is a sugar-coated explanation for nation breaking and oil grabbing." Interventions can be for any stated or unstated political agenda, the point is to put an end to interventionist foreign policies. Power corrupts, so let's rein in our overly intrusive government at home as well as abroad in order to reduce the corruption and abuse of power.

Comment by Graham McKnight on Ron Paul for President?

Fri, 18 May 2007 04:46:05 EDT

'...he's dead-set against the War in Iraq or any interventionist foreign policy.' Is this what the Inavsion is known as? An intervention? Shucks, that sure is a sugar-coated explanation for nation breaking and oil grabbing.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Ron Paul for President?

Fri, 18 May 2007 02:27:01 EDT

Wow, Richard. Disturbingly reminiscent of Nazi party propaganda from the 1930s. "Our Plan" as in "Mein Kampf"? Awfully close. And here I was thinking about voting for Paul at least in the primary. BTW, I kind of wonder if you realize that Paul opposes almost all of your most cherished beliefs? Dave

Comment by Richard Brodie on Ron Paul for President?

Fri, 18 May 2007 02:20:11 EDT

Check out my new Ron Paul video Feel free to copy it to your own site if you like it.

Comment by Christopher Rose on Ron Paul for President?

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 04:28:40 EDT

Richard, as a modest gesture of goodwill, I'd like to point out that you have transposed the o and the d in the url for your site, so it is not getting linked to...

Comment by Richard Brodie on Ron Paul for President?

Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:29:14 EDT

Dave, the President's job is not to "run the country" To be successful at running the government well, he needs to do two things. One, sign vetoes until he has writer's cramp. And two, communicate to the American people explaining how the legislation he is vetoing violates the Constitution and/or threatens our Liberties. If the government is well run (constitutionally), then the country will run itself just fine.

Comment by Mike Wagner on Ron Paul for President?

Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:14:32 EDT

"ideologically rigid assumptions"? Do you mean like...having Congress and the President actually OBEY the US Constitution? There's a quaint thought. The idea that maybe, just maybe in a nation that prides itself on being a "nation of laws, and not of men," might actually insist that its leaders obey the law. Is that what you mean by "ideologically rigid assumptions?" Obeying the law is not an ideologically rigid assumption, it is simply obeying the law. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and Federal officials are sworn to uphold it. I'll take that sort of ideologically rigid assumption over the fuzzy logic that passes for deep thought inside the beltway anyday. By all means, let's have more of these ideologically rigid assumptions.

Comment by Richard Brodie on Ron Paul for President?

Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:05:47 EDT

Dave says: "his general lack of pragmatism and reliance on ideologically rigid assumptions makes him incapable of following his candidacy through to victory or running the country well." Oh my God! Another "do-nothing" President. Just imagine all the stupid wars we would not have fought, all the entangling alliances we would not have entered into, and all the bureaucracies we would not now be saddled with, if only all of our Presidents had been do-nothings!

Comment by Mike Wagner on Ron Paul for President?

Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:53:22 EDT

And what exactly makes Guliani a libertarian? He was mayor of NYC for years and certainly didn't do much to shrink the bloated NYC bureaucracy, legalize guns or drugs, cut spending or anything else that could be considered libertarian. No, I'm sorry to say, but Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate out there with a firm track record of supporting most (but not all) libertarian ideals. If Ron Paul is not the next President, I'm leaving the US. I'm not quite sure where I'll go, but there are a few countries south of here where my pension will enable me to live very nicely. I really don't want to be here when the police state really kicks in. The US just isn't what it used to be. Sad to say we are not a great nation any more, just a crumbling empire. We had such potential and we blew it.

Comment by Eric Dondero on Ron Paul for President?

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:12:35 EDT

Interesting to see that after all this time you all are still continuing this thread. This is obviously a hot topic. I'd only say that I'm impressed with Dave's comments that Giuliani, while not a straight out Libertarian, is probably the best we could ever hope for. That's my argument too. Giuliani is probably the closest thing we're ever going to get to an actual Libertarian President in our lifetimes. So, you Giuliani critics need to lighten up and embrace him. Libertarians for Giuliani

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem on Ron Paul for President?

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 05:34:49 EDT

I don't have a dog in this race. I'm an ex-pat from Minnesota and the main thing I know about Texas is that it is on the other end of Interstate 35 and has huge cockroaches. Whether any of them post at this site is an issue I'll not address. I live in Samaria and have no love whatever for the Arabs who constantly talk about wanting us all dead. I'd like to address some of you here, particularly Eric, by recommending you to my writers page at BlogCritics Magazine. I recommend you to my article "Dependence Day" and to my articles on the likelihood of war with Iran. I would also ask that you look over my piece Ruminations on the Future of the People of Israel, particularly for its first section on definitions, so that you don't get bogged down or confused about terms like "Israeli," "Palestinian," etc. Put briefly, while I think that initially going in to unhorse Saddam Hussein might have been a good thing, your army should have pulled out as fast as it moved in. Your real enemy in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia. They fund the Wahhabi religious movement and all of its branches, and for the most part, the Wahhabi have stolen Islam and turned it into a nightmare for the Moslems, not to mention all the minorities who have to live with a philosophy of persecution and murder of non-believers. The Taliban, who unfortunately have a hold on many Pakhtun in Afganistan, are a sect of Moslems from Deoband, India, who worship like the Sufi but have a religious philosophy that corresponds to the Wahhabi. I suspect (I'm guessing here) that one of the reasons that the Taliban has been so successful among the Pakhtun is their belief in keeping women out of the public eye, which is a Pakhtun cultural more in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir and Jammu. As for the average Moslem, they tend to view western culture as a pornographic culture of whores, sexual deviants and perverts who do not have enough class to keep their clits and penises behind closed doors - a key point, as Moslems have plenty of sexual deviants and whores themselves - BEHIND closed doors... So for many Moslems, westerners have no manners or self-respect and deserve none from them. This is certainly the view of many Moslems of secular Israelis, the very ones in this country who talk so loudly about "Peace Now" and about being "tired of winning", and all the other bullshit that indicates a suicidal tendency to let the enemy kill one. A separate issue are the Shi'a. They have more of a messianic view of the world, and their Mahdi is someone that Ahmadinejad is trying to foist on all of us "qafir", as well as upon the Sunni Moslems. If Ahmadinejad wants to hide a revived Persian empire behind his Mahdi, so be it, so long as the Iranians can send troops freely from their own territory to the Meditteranean. What does all this have to do with Ron Paul and the fractured Republican Party? First of all, while it might be personally more honorable to stick by an ally (Bush having made Rep. Paul's re-election possible) is sticking by someone who is nothing more than the son of the Saudi head-waiter here a wise thing? Second of all, is it wise to support keeping American troops in Iraq when they would be far better employed guarding oil fields in Arabia after having nuked Riyadh and having gotten rid of the head of the Wahhabi snake, the family of ibn Saud? My point? Once you get rid of the central funding source for all the madrassas that teach rabid hatred of the west, the madrassas have to either close or change their own tune. Does Ron Paul understand any of this? Do you, Eric and all you other libertarians arguing over candidates? If you are all stuck in the ruts of the standard foreign policy debates in America and are not able to see the realities (one of which is that there is no such animal as Islamo-fascism - this is just a term to keep you from seeing the Wahhabi behind the curtain), then you are all wasting your time. The real money makers in the world who are raking in obscene profits, the drug lords, the oil men and the bankers, will continue to manipulate you like so many puppets while your standard of living falls and falls and falls.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Ron Paul for President?

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 04:37:36 EDT

I wish I could say that we did agree, Paul, but while I find much to admire in Ron Paul I don't think he's the best GOP candidate. I think his general lack of pragmatism and reliance on ideologically rigid assumptions makes him incapable of following his candidacy through to victory or running the country well. Right now I think Giuliani is as close as the GOP is going to get to a Libertarian candidate. He shares many of the basic principles of libertarianism, but he's enough of a realist to actually get elected and do some good. Either that or we need to hold out for Mark Sandford in 2012 or 2016. Dave

Comment by Paul Levinson on Ron Paul for President?

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 04:29:53 EDT

Dave - I'm pleased to say that, for once, I agree with you! Ron Paul's defense of the Constitution easily makes him the best Republican candidate, and I sincerely hope he gets the nomination. I wrote a blog post about this last month - Ron Paul At Very Least the Most Appealing Republican for President

Comment by Richard Brodie on Ron Paul for President?

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 02:50:21 EDT

Although I like Ron Paul's strong opposition to the War on Iraq (and I do mean "on" not just "in", since it is a culture destroying war that seeks to convert them to an alien, democratic/capitalistic system), the main reasons I'm contributing to his campaign, and would vote for him, are his position against the SPP, and his promise to stop illegal immigration and the insanity of citizenship by birthplace regardless of the citizenship of the parents. The only thing wrong with his platform is that he does not oppose all immigration.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Ron Paul for President?

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 02:53:59 EDT

Why, how appropriate that you should spam your little essay of lunacy onto this particular post when I recently wrote an article on this very subject - perhaps you would enjoy readin it. Dave