Ron Paul pwns Rudy Giuliani

[Guest Night Phantom]

I think it boils down to this:

 

You're very hardpressed to find people who believe the invisible hand doesn't exist in the world. Those that choose to fall under modern liberalism simply decide that the market needs to be tweaked from time to time because of human nature. Nobody in a communist state has ever reached the infinite surplus that was spelled out.

 

Lest us not forget that communism in theory really is everyone being rich (in a sense).

[Guest Night Phantom]

As the fan base grows up, more of us are finishing/finished with our studies.

 

Not that far of a leap.

[Passion]

C'mon Juanky we know no one's intelect rivals penguino's.

[Passion]

If only!

[legacyofCangelosi]

:lol

 

I agree with most of what this Rudy poster is saying, but I find hilarious how the bull pen has become a breeding ground for amateur history experts.

 

We all have degrees, many of us in areas that deal directly with issues such political ideologies and the policies guiding certain regimes in history.

[yankeefan21]

:lol

 

I agree with most of what this Rudy poster is saying, but I find hilarious how the bull pen has become a breeding ground for amateur history experts.

I have unfettered access to wikipedia. :thumbup

[strandedx02]

Getting back to the original topic, Ron Paul and former CIA Bin Laden unit chief Michael Scheuer gave Rudy a reading assignment. :lol

 

Candidate Paul assigns reading to Giuliani

 

By Andy Sullivan

Reuters

Thursday, May 24, 2007; 2:24 PM

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Longshot Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul on Thursday gave front-runner Rudy Giuliani a list of foreign-policy books to back up his contention that attacks by Islamic militants are fueled by the U.S. presence in the Middle East.

 

"I'm giving Mr. Giuliani a reading assignment," the nine-term Texas congressman said as he stood behind a stack of books that included the report by the commission that examined the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.

 

Giuliani was mayor of New York when Islamic militants slammed two commercial airliners into the World Trade Center, a role that has vaulted him to the front of the Republican presidential pack despite his liberal social positions.

 

"I don't think he's qualified to be president," Paul said of Giuliani. "If he was to read the book and report back to me and say, 'I've changed my mind,' I would reconsider."

 

Paul advocates a limited U.S. foreign policy, including an end to the war in Iraq and a reduction in troop levels abroad.

 

Paul said he was unfairly attacked during last week's debate by 10 Republican presidential hopefuls, when Giuliani dismissed his contention that U.S. policies in the Middle East had contributed to the attacks in New York and Washington.

 

"I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th," Giuliani said to wild applause.

 

A spokeswoman for Giuliani derided Paul's latest comments.

 

"It is extraordinary and reckless to claim that the United States invited the attacks on September 11th," Maria Comella said in an e-mail.

 

"And to further declare Rudy Giuliani needs to be educated on September 11th when millions of people around the world saw him dealing with these terrorist attacks firsthand is just as absurd."

 

OUTSIDE THE MAINSTREAM

 

Paul barely registers in opinion polls of Republicans hoping to win their party's nomination to contest the November 2008 presidential election.

 

An obstetrician-gynecologist from the Houston area, Paul frequently strays far outside the Republican mainstream.

 

He voted against the Iraq war resolution in 2002 and has proposed abolishing the Homeland Security Department and diminishing the Federal Reserve. His 1988 bid for president as the Libertarian candidate drew just slightly more than 400,000 votes nationwide.

 

Paul said it was irresponsible of Giuliani and other leaders to not examine the motivations of al Qaeda and other radical Islamic groups.

 

Among the books on Paul's reading list were: "Dying to Win," which argues that suicide bombers only mobilize against an occupying force; "Blowback," which examines the unintended consequences of U.S. foreign policy; and the 9/11 Commission Report, which says that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was angered by the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.

 

Another book on the list was "Imperial Hubris," whose author appeared at the press conference to offer support for Paul.

 

"Foreign policy is about protecting America," said author Michael Scheuer, who used to head the CIA's bin Laden unit. "Our foreign policy is doing the opposite."

 

A Giuliani campaign official could not confirm whether he had read any of the books on Paul's list.

 

link

[EricWiener]

Is Ron Paul actually working for the Giuliani campaign? Rudy has nothing to get him through the GOP primary except for his 9-11 leadership. He is a cross-dressing, pro-life, anti-gun, pro-union politician, and as long as he can talk about 9-11 instead of those issues he has a chance.

[Flying_Mollusk]

Is Ron Paul actually working for the Giuliani campaign? Rudy has nothing to get him through the GOP primary except for his 9-11 leadership. He is a cross-dressing, pro-life, anti-gun, pro-union politician, and as long as he can talk about 9-11 instead of those issues he has a chance.

 

This might be one of the 1 out of 1000 times I agree with you.

[Hotcorner]

Is Ron Paul actually working for the Giuliani campaign? Rudy has nothing to get him through the GOP primary except for his 9-11 leadership. He is a cross-dressing, pro-life, anti-gun, pro-union politician, and as long as he can talk about 9-11 instead of those issues he has a chance.

 

That was kinda my point as well. I may mostly agree with Paul but all he's doing is providing Giuliani good headlines for the masses. If Rudy gets to focus on that instead of his personal life, abortion, etc... it only helps his cause.

 

I mean Giuliani can't be serious that he's never heard this before:

that U.S. policies in the Middle East had contributed to the attacks in New York and Washington.

"I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th," Giuliani said to wild applause.

If so, he's an idiot.

 

But regardless it's a softball question for Rudy to smack out of the park because there's no real debate on the issue.

[legacyofCangelosi]

Ron Paul is a libertarian (sure hes a republican now but hes a former member of the lp and holds on to the rhetoric) and unfortunately the political reality is that he has no legitimate chance of winning this primary, so the next best thing to do is just bring these issues to light. The goal is not the destruction of Guiliani, its to spread an alternative message. For example, his anti-interventionist rhetoric is something many republicans haven't heard in the last few years and its an alternative worth addressing and discussing. Hes been able to get on the news with some of these ideas and thats a victory for his ideology and policies. Its baby steps for people who try to stary from any of the major political parties's areas of mainstream thought.

[RudyTHEGANGSTER]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq2Q848P0h8

 

People wonder why I am speaking so seriously and somberly about the history of American foreign policy. The above link is Ron Paul's interview with Dennis Miller. Miller, besides insulting Hillary for no good reason, was a gentleman as far as talk radio goes. However, I cannot help but feel he's mildly retarded.

 

Are Americans so deluded that we think it is feasible to fight in the middle east for the next 100 years, as Dennis Miller scolds Paul for not supporting? I mean, listen to him. The WMDs, Saddam is evil, Democracy in the Middle East, and stability in the Middle East arguments have been abandoned for this "well, Iraq is baby steps in our tricathalon agains Islamic terrorists for the next 100 years." What kind of dumb justification for policy is this?

 

I think their are well-meaning pro-war people here on this board. But, knowing the facts, with knowledge that containment failed, with knowledge that you can't find a tactic or ideology because they are not geographically based, with knowledge that our foreign policy in the past (i.e. supporting al Qaeda, giving arms to Iran and Iraq, building permanent bases in Saudi Arabia, our present Iraq war) have certainly only made us more enemies, with knowledge that the justification for this war keeps changing, what justification do we have for all the wasted human lives and money? How do the benefits of this foreign policy justify it's costs? Does anyone here actually feel as safe as they did 10 years ago?

 

 

I am ranting now, because that Dennis Miller interview scared me. It scares me that the majority of Americans do not disagree with his totally absurd ideas. I used to think that supporting Ron Paul was a mere result of my political taste. However, after hearing Miller's justification for this war (and future ones), I am absolutely horrified that Ron Paul is not THE frontrunner. If America is going to refuse to seriously reconsider their foreign policy, the costs will be so great, I don't think America will ever be the same again.

 

I apoliogize for the emotions in this response.

[legacyofCangelosi]

But thats just the problem. As ridiculous as you find what Dennis Miller says, other people including myself find statements by Gore Vidal or Al Franken equally disturbing and ignorant. And thats the beauty of democracy. Furthermore, as can be seen by arguments made on this board it is a matter of open debate whether or not containment failed, and why it failed if it in fact did. As such, all these issues remain open for debate.

[RudyTHEGANGSTER]

But thats just the problem. As ridiculous as you find what Dennis Miller says, other people including myself find statements by Gore Vidal or Al Franken equally disturbing and ignorant. And thats the beauty of democracy. Furthermore, as can be seen by arguments made on this board it is a matter of open debate whether or not containment failed, and why it failed if it in fact did. As such, all these issues remain open for debate.

True, open debate is a good thing. But let me ask you an honest question. Do you want America to be in Iraq for the next 50 years? And, if so, do you think that will make our country more or less safe?

 

I only ask this question, because this is the policy America is publicly pursuing: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...30?pageNumber=1

[legacyofCangelosi]

But thats just the problem. As ridiculous as you find what Dennis Miller says, other people including myself find statements by Gore Vidal or Al Franken equally disturbing and ignorant. And thats the beauty of democracy. Furthermore, as can be seen by arguments made on this board it is a matter of open debate whether or not containment failed, and why it failed if it in fact did. As such, all these issues remain open for debate.

True, open debate is a good thing. But let me ask you an honest question. Do you want America to be in Iraq for the next 50 years? And, if so, do you think that will make our country more or less safe?

 

I only ask this question, because this is the policy America is publicly pursuing: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...30?pageNumber=1

 

Personally I don't think the U.S. should police the World at all, and the fact we're in so many other countries bothers me. However, I do see the merits of an argument in favor of staying in Iraq the way we have in Japan or South Korea. You maintain a strong military presence and center of operations in a crucial part of the World where your influence is weak. The asian campaign seems to have been successful in terms that our defense of those nations has allowed them to blossom economically. Granted Japan is different than Iraq in culture and history, but it is not that easy to dismiss such a policy. Furthermore, we assume that Iraq in 10 years will be like it is now, but aside from speculation we have no way to know.

So though I don't agree with the policy, I don;t find it ridiculous either, and in fact, I think many other American policies foreign or domestic are significantly worse.

[Shaq-Man]

I mean Giuliani can't be serious that he's never heard this before:

that U.S. policies in the Middle East had contributed to the attacks in New York and Washington.

"I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th," Giuliani said to wild applause.

If so, he's an idiot.

 

But regardless it's a softball question for Rudy to smack out of the park because there's no real debate on the issue.

FYI, here's what Giuliani actually said:

 

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/us/polit...p;ex=1180670400

[legacyofCangelosi]

I mean Giuliani can't be serious that he's never heard this before:

that U.S. policies in the Middle East had contributed to the attacks in New York and Washington.

"I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th," Giuliani said to wild applause.

If so, he's an idiot.

 

But regardless it's a softball question for Rudy to smack out of the park because there's no real debate on the issue.

FYI, here's what Giuliani actually said:

 

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/us/polit...p;ex=1180670400

 

It is relevant to note that the U.S. has 'attacked' Iraq on several occasions before the current conflict there that started in '03.

[RudyTHEGANGSTER]

RuPaul on the daily show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qrwy3mR3Mo&eurl=