Ron Paul answers questions on recent segment of 'Face The Nation'.

Ron discusses his positions on foreign policy, eliminating government departments, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZa0yUdhaVc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

Ron Paul says that we should have captured and tried Bin Laden. Ron Paul says that Alawaki was assasinated. Ron Paul says that 911 was our fault. Ron Paul claims to be against earmarks but he tacks them onto bills that he knows will pass then votes against the bill. Ron Paul says that he favors term limits but he's been in Congress 22+ years. And the list of his hypocritical and moonbat positions goes on and on.

The guy is a first class whack job. And so are his supporters.

 

No sir, you folks who continuously repeat the same stupidity about Ron Paul are the whack jobs.

Did you even watch the video?

 

There's nothing "stupid" about what I said. Every word was true.

Here's another little nugget about Paul. How many items of legislation did Paul introduce that passed? In 22+ years, only three of Paul's bills passed. The man is functionally ineffective. How many members of Congress endorsed Paul in the 2008 election? Just one.

Paul is seriously nuts.

 

This was his initial proposal:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVFwx9q_FrQ"]Ron Paul would have captured bin Laden quickly. - YouTube[/ame]

He opposed Obama's shoot from the hip illegal method.

So what would be the problem with working with Pakistan rather than going 'Team America'? Bin Laden probably would have been worth some info. Don't you think?

Which is an accurate statement. It is what it is.

Get it right, our policy makers are not "us". He's never blamed Americans as in you and I.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWTyHbGcUQY"]Ron Paul on Earmarks - YouTube[/ame]

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=10943

Fine, I'll debunk more of these alleged moonbat positions if you'd like.

So who do you support?

 

Why shouldn't we have captured him? Where was the resounding proof that made Awlaki a threat while at the same time permitted the Government to override the 5th Amendment? Clearly there were only two choices presents and they were that of little it go into some other project or let it fall further in the Federal Governments hands. The choice was pretty clear as to what to do when you're elected to Represent your constituents. Also Ron Paul's own explanation explains they entire situation clearly without your use of misrepresentation. Your argument is as idiotic as someone who says "He wants to reduce the Power of the Government yet he wants to get Elected into a Government office for Power!". Clearly all the rest of the Politicians who support Crony Capitalism and more Federal Power are going to follow Ron Paul when it comes to their Election time right? Another idiotic argument.

Clearly the past Administrations of his entire tenure have been filled with Pro-Freedom/Pro-Free Market Officials/Representatives... Another idiotic argument coming from Jason Bourne. *Clap*

Clearly when you're not endorsed by the same Administrations Representatives who pushed for the Bail outs, more Executive Control, more Regulation, further Wars, more inflation and crony capitalism you must be insane. That's simply suggesting that nearly all of the Politicians currently holding positions are of the best quality and have no blemishes on their Records. But who I am to argue with someone is most likely a Neo-Conservative? Better off calling yourself an Imperialist or Statist.

Do you have anything else to add or do you plan to argue with further nonsense of your Position that doesn't work in Reality?

 

Certainly not that old foolish imbecile Ron Paul.

 

For 22+ years Paul was an ineffective joke in Congress. He'll make a fool of himself in the 2012 election then slink off to retirement and write a few books so that he can soak his supporters for their money.

 

Top bloke. He would do wanders in establishing a just American system that would be greatly respected by the world.

 

Well you are only ineffective in a government if you are marginalized and ignored as Paul was.

 

Can you justify "foolish imbecile"?

 

Paul claims that the 911 terrorist attacks were our fault. That Bin Laden should have been captured and tried. That Alawaki's killing wasn't justified. That's the very definition of foolish and imbecilic.

 

No, actually he said, quite accurately, that US foreign policy was a huge contributing factor in directing the anger of jihadis toward the US. He was entirely correct.

I agree.

He was also correct on that point.

How so?

 

Paul's full of crap. He got a sound verbal beatdown during the 2008 debates when he inferred that US foreign policy was behind the 911 attacks. It wasn't.

Paul is bat sh*t crazy.

 

So we we're attacked for no reason whatsoever?

 

Certainly not because of our foreign policy. If that were the case why has al Qaeda attacked other countries, not just the US?

 

The reasons cited by many other than Al Qaeda leaders themselves are our support of Israel, U.S. troops on the Arabian peninsula, sanctions against various M.E. nations, and interventionism in the form of regime changes and nation building.

The simpleton explanation is that "terrorist hate freedom".

 

Then why has al Qaeda committed bombing in London, Madrid, Bali, Tanzania and Kenya? Because Paul is wrong and US foreign policy has nothing to do with jihadist radicalism.

Read...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/21/alqaida.terrorism

 

I'm not sure that article helped your position any.

It's plain as day to anyone who wishes to open their eyes, that we're attacked because of what we do far more so than for who we are. And when I say we, again I'm speaking for those who decide how to project our presence overseas. That's to say foreign policy.

 

What crap is that?

Actually there he got a lot of claps as well. Americans like him. There is one poll that shows he could beat Obama in an selection.

Ron Paul was ENTIRELY correct in what he said. The US' foreign policy is completely corrupt.

Yeah right, how interesting you cant show this.

 

Exactly. I'm sure terrorists certainly do hate our freedoms, but this has very little to do with their activities. These kind of situations always have a nuanced set of origins. The war on terror is a classic case of 'blowback' in the words of the CIA. Most Americans simply dont know about this, and this isn't really their fault since the government goes out of its way to misguide the public. The scariest thing though is to see people like Jason Bourne who cannot prove their point, but worst of all cannot change their view because they are so stuck in the mythology of government propaganda.

 

LOL Because those other countries have foreign policy that is entirely linked. Better question is, as bin Laden put it himself; 'why didnt we attack Sweden'?

 

If the 911 attacks were due to US foreign policy, why did al Qaeda attack targets in Europe, Indonesia and Africa?

The article clearly supports the position that al Qaeda attacks weren't because of US foreign policy but instead because of radical jihadist's trying to influence moderate Islam to support their anti-Western positions.

 

They did attack Sweden...

http://www.thelocal.se/30804/20101213/#

 

All of these were conducted by local terrorists at the periphery of the war on terror. Furthermore we are discussing America, not Europe. The attacks you mentioned all took place after said European countries had invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.

It has A LOT to do with it, it is the only reason America was attacked in the first place. You realize bin Laden was armed, resourced and trained by the CIA? You realize bin Laden has stated quite clearly he attacked America because it funds repressive regimes and so forth? Do you entirely dwell in the fantasies of your mind or do you actually pay attention to terrorists?

What does this show that proves your point?