Thanks Joe Plummer for link.
There are over 1500 comments. People are posting positive comments, and some are not not. We need to post more positive comments. Plus more views will get Yahoo News to cover Ron Paul more. We can post some short RP Quotes. This is an opportunity to reach people who know nothing about Ron Paul. Some of the negative comments are based on misinformation.
Laws were already on the books and information available to Federal Officials that would have prevented 9-11. You don't compensate for incompetence by passing laws that destroy the very Freedom you are trying to protect. Then we have to look at "blow back"...Said with confidence for God's sake.
Seems Ion network will host the next debate....let them know you are boycotting, you need not mention RP, just say that you think Donald Trump is a joke, a disgrace, and he should not be moderating any debates as a representative of unbiased journalism in this country...Say you will from here on out boycott the Ion network, and any products or services they promote.
They should understand what an egregious mistake it is to wallow in the mud with that clown, trump.
I'm a big fan of RP, but the way he wants to fight the crime of terrorism is quite inefficient in my honest opinion.
I believe the FBI, CIA and others should be working on a national level to prevent terrorism. I can not see 50 states coordinating their antiterrorism work without a federal institution.
I understand that US foreign policy is to blame for most terrorism threats, but a sudden change of the policy under a Paul administration isn't going to erase this threat overnight.
I don't want to sound like a neocon, but the threat of terrorism is quite real and it will continue to be real under president Paul. He should consider the deal with this on the federal level, within the confines of the Constitution (no Patriot Act).
End ALL central banks, end the Euro and the European Union
What if the USG simply stopped doing stuff that makes people want to blow us up ? Just a thought.
The problem was THEY FAILED. so Ron Paul is right, the NYC attack and Underwear Bomber incident didn't happen because we had a lack of laws or intelligence agencies, it happened because they failed to connect the dots on the information they had. Adding more scope or agencies, ie: Homeland Insecurity, will only magnify the ineptness of said govt agencies.
is not so real as it is lucrative and beneficial for the government and corporations. It is lucrative for the Terror/Industrial Complex, and so using terrorism as an excuse, they spy on us and search us to the tune of billions of dollars of our taxpayer money. It is beneficial to the government in that they can terrorize and cow us into submission and then pass their unconstitutional laws with no pushback from us.
As far as terrorism goes:
9/11 happened over a decade ago, Bin Laden is dead, and Al Qaeda is virtually ineffective, according to the "experts."
The more you believe the threat of terrorism trumps our freedoms, the easier it is for corporations and their mouthpieces (i.e., politicans)to round us up and imprison us--as they now say they can do--without trial for the rest of our lives.
Docile and afraid is no way to go through life.
In my understanding, Paul wants the federal government to limit its anti-terrorism activities to foreign affairs and the border. So, there would still be cooperation with foreign governments regarding information sharing and the like, there would still be federal screening of people coming into the country, and there would still be the option for direct action against terrorists overseas (letters of marque and reprisal), even without any declaration of war against a foreign State. As for the regular police work of finding evidence, making arrests, getting warrants, and all that, why couldn't the states handle this?
If you take out the political-ideological aspect of terrorism, and look at the actual behavior that we're talking about, it's no different from any other conspiracy to commit violent crimes. FBI agents don't have some special ability to catch criminals better than state authorities. And the States can cooperate all they want, sharing information, sharing assets - they already do this.
And we can't forget that, given a non-interventionist foreign policy, the terrorist threat it going to shrink immediately, and all but vanish after a period of time.
"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."
Being safer by preventing terrorism is a null point. If you sacrifice any freedom for security, then the terrorist wins and ALL American citizens lose. That's the entire meaning of Paul's response. I feel the best way we can counter the motives for terrorism without sacrificing liberty is to become a more peaceful nation--something quite foreign to today's government.
True, the terrorists have already won. My point is that having a comprehensive antiterrorism strategy isn't unconstitutional. And letting the local sheriffs (figure of speech) fight terrorism isn't really effective IMHO.
RP really lost a lot of the american people with responses like the one on Timothy McVeigh. Of course this guy had to be punished and of course he already knew he was going to be executed if they catched him, that wasn't going to stop him. RP makes it sound unconstitutional that guys like him be found (screened) and monitored IN ADVANCE of their terrorist attack. I'm sure 168 families and most of the american people disagree with that. He loses me there.
Still, I would vote for him.
"comprehensive antiterrorism strategy"
this basically means preventing crime before it happens. sure, any leads should be reported to the authorities, but i don't see how you can prevent crime from happening. last time i checked people have the freedom to do bad things, for now. who knows? in the future, planning to rebel against a tyrannical govt will be considered terrorism and the people won't even get a chance to get the revolution started because we started the slippery slope of sacrificing liberty for security.
Actually, getting out of the middle-east could very well end the terrorist threat overnight. This is why they are attacking us. If we left, they might just be happy to leave us alone since we finally left them alone. And maybe, just maybe, they won't blame President Paul and the people for the mistakes of the corrupt government of the past. It is possible, especially with some diplomacy.
OBAMA Says: "The Republican approach to the economy is dirtier air, dirtier water and less people with health insurance"
This is a shill, 1st off USA is the biggest air polluter in the world so we already have dirty air (No party has a monopoly of clean air). Dirtier water check out our drinking water for instance most are recycled and where does it comes from? I guess you can use your imagination also, how about the biggest oil spill in the worlds history Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill isn't that dirtier water infact it's toxic. We already have laws on this the problem is no one is being held accountable. Be it in WALL ST, Big Oil Companies, Big Pharmaceutical Companies, Insurance companies, Big Banks etc. Middle class Americans are being beaten up to a pulp. The legislative, executive and judiciary branch of government is not working anymore.
I guess Obama has no idea what he is talking about. People are still waiting when you can fulfill your broken promises.
"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Read "The Law" by Federich Bastiat (pronounced boss - tee - ah)
"You as an individual cannot do certain things, but if you can't do it the government can't do it, if you can't steal from your neighbor you can't send a politician to steal from your neighbor"--- Ron Paul
Ron Paul is now being questioned...
Someone was upset that Dr. Paul used the word "anarchy" to refer to "chaos," but I don't think that was his intended meaning.
He was saying that if they repealed Social Security, Medicaid, and similar programs overnight, there would be anarchy. I took that as a bit of hyperbole, but it was indicating that the people who have been on these programs would be so upset that they would nearly be tearing down the halls of Congress in revolt. So I think "anarchy" was the correct word to use in this instance.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." --H. L. Mencken
Anarchy can be peaceful or chaotic.He was obviously stating a violent anarchy.
Perhaps. Given Ron Paul's knowledge of Ayn Rand's work and how it has obviously influenced his thinking, he may actually think a peaceful anarchy is not possible. Ayn Rand didn't think it was possible, and gave some really compelling reasons why this would be the case. This is possibly why Ron Paul used the word anarchy in this case.
.. if we beat "The Doneald" at his own reality TV game? Why don't we go survivor on him and form an alliance with all the other camps, but Newty... Then on the night of the apprentice debate, we all show up at our own debate and Newty and "The Done" can stand there together holding their junk in their hands..BOOM.. Extinguish your torch Newts, you have been found lacking..
http://mises.org/books/thelaw.pdf Here is the link to a free pdf to "The Law" by Frederick Bastiat. Help spread this and maybe more people will be more able to understand Ron Paul.
This is a part of the e-mail I sent to Carol. I did mention the 16th Amendment not being mentioned, but I feel what I wrote below is even more important:
The other issue though, that I don't think has occurred to him, is that McVeigh's OK City bombing was motivated by Waco. McVeigh's actions were blowback from Clinton & Reno's suspension of Posse Comitatus, and the murder of all those men, women & children (some of them British nationals). If our government hadn't attacked its own citizens, the bombing would have never happened. The bombing was McVeigh's payback. So, it appears Ron is going to be asked regularly about his nonsupport of the Patriot Act & McVeigh given as an example. While I agree that McVeigh might have never been stopped if the P.A. was in effect, and that he was in the end, tried & punished under the law, the horrendous act would have never happened if we'd just treated OUR OWN citizens according to our Constitution. I believe that when Ron points out the horrible consequences of our Constitution not being followed, people really connect with that message and "get it." For over four decades, I have refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance because I do not believe there is "liberty & justice for all."
ausscyn I agree with your assessment of McVeigh and the Waco massacre 100%. I still get upset when I think of what our government did to our own citizens. Ron addressed the massacre in an article in the 1990s. It is in his archives.
Watching the Sunday Morning Shows today, I am amazed that they are struggling with their talking points & trying their best to TALK AROUND Ron Paul! They are bring up ALL the other Candidates - BUT, RON PAUL! I don't know WHO is more stupid, THE MEDIA or THE SHEEPLE! I am just so frustrated with the direction of our country, I could puke!!!
I don't think he was up to his usual standards. In fact, when asked about the amemdments, I was amazed that he didn't say the 16th amendment never should have passed.
I thought he might have pointed out the federal agencies failures on connecting the dots on the good info that we now know they had, both for 911 and for Underwear Bomber. That came out that they let him through knowingly
anarchy when he was referring to chaos. I didn't like that.
In the purest sense, "anarchy" simply means "no king." Free people don't want or need rulers. About the only government we REALLY need is to organize the schlepping of our sewage, and maintaining a map room.
The statists use it as a scare word, because they believe everyone needs to be ruled from on high, which is the exact opposite to Liberty.
And what's inherently so terrifying about "chaos." Have you ever been to the forest? That's very chaotic, but by Free Will, they all figure out their place; the authoritarians dread anything that can't be quantified and ruled.
Other than sunbeams, there are no straight lines in Nature.
Freedom is my Worship Word!
This morning on the Sunday Morning talk shows, they are all showing Ron Paul right behind Gingrich in Iowa/2nd Place - BUT, they are interviewing ALL the bottom tier candidates - ie: Bachmann, Santorum & Huntsman! Ron Paul is 2nd in IOWA & 3rd in New Hampshire, with the exception of CNN, Ron has had NO Interviews this morning on the MSM Crap Lineup! We really NEED to rock IOWA & NEW HAMPSHIRE - SHUT THESE PEOPLE UP & FORCE THEIR COVERAGE IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION!!!