ex-Ron Paul Campaign Co-ordinator

I did not get to see the debate but I did see Hannity interview him afterward. It was pretty ugly and he is not the man for the job.

take care

 

I am reading websites that quote Ron Paul as saying the VA TECH shooter was a CIA plant so that 2nd amendment rights can be taken away, and another site says something about Paul agreeing with Rosie O'Donnell that Bush is plotting a confrontation with Iran that will make it appear that Iran has attacked us so we can go to war with them. I cannot verify the veracity and will not post the links as they would violate language rules here, but these are indeed troubling allegations. Paul makes a lot of good points, but these allegations, if true, are just outrageous and not becoming a statesman.

 

My first thought after reading this, and before opening the link, was that this guy must be running against Ron Paul for his congressional seat.

Sure enough, when I opened the link, the title of the article is:

"I AM DECLARING FOR CONGRESS AGAINST RON PAUL IN TEXAS CD 14"

I think that says it all right there. Motivation, maybe?

 

Where have you read this?

I did find a website that has a radio interview between Alex Jones and Dr. Paul. That website says that Alex Jones is the nutcase who believes the CIA carried out the VA Tech shootings, not Dr. Paul. They were criticizing Dr. Paul for being interviewed by him.

I haven't heard much at all on which I would disagree with Dr. Paul, and certainly nothing to make me think he is a kook or crackpot.

 

Dr. Paul was put in a spot during that debate. He said something whichsounded, at the least, juvenile and lacking in depth.
He may sincerely believe what he said, but he did not come prepared with facts and figures.
He did not cite any authority that could have backed up what he said.
If he had said that we were attacked by the 9/11 murderers because one motivation they had was that they considered our presence in Saudi Arabia abominable, he might have been on firmer and better defensible grounds because there have been an instance when the tall murderer OBL did refer to that.
I do not think Dr. Paul is cut out for the presidency.
Now, Fred Thompson.
He's something elss.......

 

Ron Paul is apparently finished. Who's next?

God Bless!

 

At this stage of the game, the question isn't so much "is Ron Paul cut out for the Presidency" as it is "do some of Ron Paul's ideas have feet?"

His gaffe had the effect of making Giuliani look presidential for a change, and some of his trial balloons - eliminating Homeland Security, for example - sound pretty good.

Perhaps he is another flash-in-the-pan, but if some of his ideas can take root, it will be good for the country.

 

With that attitude, this country will NEVER change and will only get worse.

When it happens and in the next 5-10 years I hope you're still around this forum.

All the people that cry and complain in the next few years after the election of 08 will have me to remind them they had a chance to at least listen to somone that means well for this country. Someone that, even though you don't 100% agree with 100% of everything he says, at least you know he honestly wants this country to move forward and to get better.

Now, does that mean I believe he is right for the job? Right now. Yes. He hasn't had a chance to prove himself either way. Some or you guys are talking pot shots at him left and right and yet, you're letting the others with all their "great" qualities go.. Listen to the man, study his ideas and let him prove himself before you discount him. The media hardly acknowledges him, some website portals are blocking him. It's amazing what a little honesty will do to people.

When Hillary or Romney or another clone like that gets elected, it will be your (and everyone else's that's not at least willing to listen) fault.

Jamie
Make a bed... Lay in it...

 

Ron Paul exposed two things in that exchange. One, that Rudy Giuliani perceives him as a threat otherwise he wouldn't have given him the time of day. Two, that Giuliani doesn't have a clue as to why those attacks supposedly occured. It's no surprise that the smear campaigns are going into overdrive.

 

So he is automatically wrong because he is running against him? How does that work?

 

I didn't say he was the only hope. I only asked that everyone give him the chance to have his say before writing him off.

The election is a long ways away. Things come up from the past, people say things, etc. But unless everyone will listen with an open ear to each and every one of them and then make a decision, then their decision is flawed in my opinion.

It has been stated before that a Paul/Tancredo or a Tancredo/Paul ticket would be a good one.

Jamie

 

I wouldn't say he is wrong, but it does shed some light on the situation and his opinion don't you think?

Jamie

 

I thnk you're right on the 1st statement. The 2nd statement is harder to believe, but possible.

You are also right that the smear campaigns are in overdrive already and that is happening on both sides. It wouldn't be an election without those huh?

Jamie

 

No, the fact that he is running against him sheds no light on whether or not what Paul said was right or wrong, or said properly or improperly.

 

People want to act like we were sitting idly by, twiddling our thumbs, humming to ourselves, and thinking happy thoughts about all mankind before 9/11. Such was not the case.

Our leadership has failed us for so long with broken foreign policy and broken border security/immigration policy. If these problems were fixed, we very well may never have faced 9/11.

That is not to say it is America's fault, which Dr. Paul did not say, btw. It does say that the leadership in this country, conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat, for the past 50 or so years, has given us and the world the notion that America is responsible for keeping every country in the world in line, and what we say goes. As much as our leaders might like to be the indisputable rulers of the world, others are going to speak up and try to stop "us". America is looked upon through our leaders. If the people see our leadership as evil, corrupt, war-mongering fools, guess what they are going to think the rest of us are like?

Dr. Paul said that our leadership over the years, and their failed policies, helped bring in what happened on 9/11.

Sure, there are extremists who want to destroy us solely because of our way of life. But, those are actually few and far between. When America is viewed by so many in those countries as war-mongering fanatics who want to replace their governments with our own, those people who then view us as imperialists hook up with those who want to kill us.

While we would have some enemies, we would not have near as many if we were not constantly injecting our military into middle eastern problems.

Dr. Paul, the CIA, and other analysts are right about blow back. Just like we learned in school, any action produces an equal and opposite reaction. If we go overseas, topple a government that we don't like, or bomb medicine factories, or what have you, we are naive to think that we won't incite those people to hate us for our actions.

Dr. Paul, so far, seems to be the only candidate to understand that our actions have consequences.

Tighten border security and immigration policy, and stop interfering with other countries, and we will have no real worries about another 9/11 occurring in this country.

I guarantee you that Giuliani knows what Dr. Paul is talking about, but it is not popular to tell Americans that our government and policies have been wrong about anything.

You almost always win elections by preaching the status quo doctrine, not by stirring the pot and showing people their weaknesses.

It's really a shame that the media is reporting that Giuliani won that argument, and that people are gullible enough to believe it.

We will never win the "War on Terror" because politicians refuse to acknowledge what's really causing it and because it is a vote getter. Why end something that can propel you to public office?

 

Certainly, it does.

It may not explain everything away, but it certainly gives him an incentive to cast Dr. Paul in a bad light and to pick apart and exaggerate Dr. Paul's positions. That's politics.