Think Progress

Ron Paul rips Fox News as ‘propangadists for war.’»

Fox News will reportedly exclude Ron Paul from an upcoming forum of Republican candidates to be broadcast on January 6, 2008. The Boston Globe’s James Pindell reports Paul’s response:

Ron Paul said the decision to exclude him from a debate on Fox News Sunday the weekend before the New Hampshire Primary is proof that the network “is scared” of him.

“They are scared of me and don’t want my message to get out, but it will,” Paul said in an interview at a diner here. “They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative.”

231







Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date

214 Responses to “Ron Paul rips Fox News as ‘propangadists for war.’”


  1. dixie blood Says:

    How sweet is it when the ReichWing RePugniScums melt down!!


  2. nellre Says:

    All bullies are cowards. Fox News is no exception.


  3. Nat Says:

    “They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative.”

    I agree that Fox “News” is a warmongering network but I wouldn’t challenge their conservatism.


  4. Jason M. Hendler Says:

    Ron Paul gives libertarians a bad rep - just like Kusinich (sp?) gives UFO enthusiasts a bad rep.


  5. Peter Pointer Says:

    Please read this it explains 911 and Pakistans involvment

    http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essaysaeed


  6. GSD Says:

    If Fox News can’t handle Ron Paul, how can they handle Al Qaeda? Oh that’s right, they give bribes to terrorists to get their employees free.

    Remember Steve Centanni?

    -GSD


  7. dixie blood Says:

    Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 29, 2007 @ 5:42 pm

    Y’all,

    Ignore this racist, moronic, a$$h0le!! You will waste you life away responding this idiot!!!!!!!!!!!


  8. dixie blood Says:

    >b>JackAss Moron Hitler claims to be an expert in LOTS of areas. He’s a racist sh|t!

    Tell me again JackAss about your “Ivy League” degree from Stanford MORON!!!!! Hhahahaahahahahahahaaaaahahahahhaahah!!!!

    And your RACIST VIEWS about PAN-AFRICAN POLICY!!!

    And your stupid, patent troll expertise in Melbourne, FL!!!! HAHAHAAAAA!!!

    And your vast knowledge of the AUTO INDUSTRY because you worked at a GM Tech Center!!! HAHAHAHHAAAAA!!

    ONE FACT IS FOR SURE!!!

    JCAKASS MORON HITLER IS FULL OF SH|T EVERYDAY OF THE WEEK!!!!


  9. Xisithrus Says:

    One cold, clear, early December morning, as I stood on the tarmac of ABQ airport talking to the fueler as he filled the tanks of the Boeing 727 for its flight that day, he pointed to two cloudy spherical shaped objects as the moved around the visible sky. One, light in color, moved and then the other, ruddy reddish color, would ‘chase’ the other UFO.

    Am I crazy Jason?


  10. dixie blood Says:

    Am I crazy Jason?

    Comment by Xisithrus — December 29, 2007 @ 5:58 pm

    Please don’t feed the trolls. Ignore this assh0le!!


  11. Xisithrus Says:

    Its certainly true Fox is not fair and balanced, why they are scared of one of their own who placed very well in FOX text polls.


  12. Xisithrus Says:

    Please don’t feed the trolls. Ignore this assh0le!!

    I was talking to Kucinich =P Heh.


  13. dixie blood Says:

    Its certainly true Fox is not fair and balanced, why they are scared of one of their own who placed very well in FOX text polls.

    Comment by Xisithrus — December 29, 2007 @ 6:02 pm

    Simple. Ron Paul is not on board with the corporate facism washing away out democracy!!!!


  14. dixie blood Says:

    Fu(ks nOoze = FACISM


  15. Peter Pointer Says:

    If the 9-11 Commission is really looking for a smoking gun, it should look no further than at Lieutenant-General Mahmoud Ahmad, the director of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) at the time.

    http://www.atimes.com/ atimes/ Front_Page/ FD08Aa01.html

    THIS IS WHY BHUTTO WAS SILENCED


  16. linda Says:

    with as much dissent as there is within the democratic party, it is especially fun to watch the repuke/fundie/neocon implosion play out…lol.


  17. had enough Says:

    Fine…. But let us not forget what a racist he is and where he stands on Social security, Medicare, Womens rights,…


  18. dixie blood Says:

    Fine…. But let us not forget what a racist he is and where he stands on Social security, Medicare, Womens rights,…

    Comment by had enough — December 29, 2007 @ 6:09 pm

    True dat…


  19. Peter Pointer Says:

    http://english.ohmynews.com/ articleview/ article_view.asp?article_class=16&no=381270&rel_no=1
    FROM THE KOREAN FREE PRESS

    PressTV: We’ve just seen the United Nations Security Council endorse the U.S. mandate in Iraq for another year, so does that mean another year of Article 17 and abuse?

    Zeese: That U.N. decision is one that violates the Iraqi constitution. Last January the Iraqi Prime Minister went to the U.N. without consulting the legislature, the parliament. The parliament complained about that. In fact, a majority of the members of parliament signed a letter to the Prime Minister demanding that he bring further continuation of the U.S. role in Iraq to the parliament before he went to the United Nations, and he didn’t do that, despite the fact that the Iraqi constitution requires parliamentary approval.
    So the U.N. in approving this continuation is ignoring Iraqi law and I think acting illegally. It’s a clear indication that this is an occupation and not a democracy that we are developing in Iraq.

    PressTV: Despite that, George Bush and Prime Minister Maliki have reached an understanding on the long term presence of U.S. troops in Iraq, perhaps similar to the deals with places like South Korea or Japan. It’s quite obvious the Iraqi people don’t want American troops or mercenaries there, so what’s the future for the average American soldier posted to Iraq?

    Zeese: I don’t see a good future for this. I think we are in the process of creating more enemies than we are capturing or killing, and I think we are creating all sorts of anger throughout the Middle East. Recent decisions that we are talking about to combine U.S. and Israeli missile defense efforts will further intertwine the United States into the internationally illegal activity of Israel, and that will further create anger.

    The Iraqi people don’t want it, the U.S. people don’t want it, and I think the Democratic Party in allowing this negotiation to go forward without saying stop is ceding ground to Bush because they don’t want to stop this war either. They want to keep this war and they want Bush to do the dirty work before they come to power.


  20. dixie blood Says:

    The Iraqi people don’t want it, the U.S. people don’t want it, and I think the Democratic Party in allowing this negotiation to go forward without saying stop is ceding ground to Bush because they don’t want to stop this war either. They want to keep this war and they want Bush to do the dirty work before they come to power.

    Comment by Peter Pointer — December 29, 2007 @ 6:22 pm

    PURE TRUTH!!!!


  21. Peter Pointer Says:

    Thats the main problem of an unpopular president

    they do all the dirty work for the next goverment


  22. mr.frazzlebottom Says:

    I agree that Fox “News” is a warmongering network but I wouldn’t challenge their conservatism.

    Ron Paul could mean to say that he is a “True Conservative” while Fox News is not.

    Many a GOP campaigner runs under the “I am a True Conservative” label.




  23. Veritas Says:

    The thing I like best about Ron Paul is his fearlessness. He speaks truth to power which we don’t see too often in politics since they’ve all been hushed by blackmail or are lying sycophants. Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air. Having said that, I still wouldn’t vote for him because 1) He’s still a Repuke at heart and 2) his voting record runs asynchronous to my mindset on many issues.

    You’ve got to give him props though - Faux News has been ordered by the king of propaganda to NOT include Ron Paul because he’s doing far too much damage to the Bush Cabal.


  24. Veritas Says:

    #16 No doubt Bhutto holds a key to 911 - the things she knew and was about to divulge. Now the US is jumping into the investigation of her murder to, as always, control the message as damage control. The truth will still come out because Bush’s ranks are drawing rather thin these days and since he’s truly on his way out, I think some insiders will kick him to the curb in the next few months.


  25. Evergreen2U Says:

    One might well ask: what is the meaning of “is” or the meaning of “conservative”?

    One would think that conservatives would be fighting to conserve our earth & it’s resources, but it turns out that so called “conservatives” are in fact the biggest of spenders and the largest squanderers of our heritage and our world.

    What’s really weird is that Ron Paul (a so called libertarian) wants GOVERNMENT to restrict abortion rights for women, but probably thinks gun control is verboten. (but then guns are so manly…heh?)

    In essence RP is a jerk except for the fact that he realizes the wastefulness of lives & resources of occupation in Iraq. I assume he knows who is profitting from this “war”….Haliburton, Boeing, Exonmobil etc? And you’ld think he would realize by now…that “free trade” is not free at all. It enslaves multitudes and is bringing America to her knees.


  26. MapleStreet Says:

    I can’t find a cognizant statement on Fox as to why they are excluding Ron Paul. As much as I don’t agree with Ron Paul on many (shall we say most) matters, and as Paul seems to have enough support to be a serious contender for the repub nomination, HOW DOES FOX JUSTIFY IT ?

    It seems like this would make the debate a paid political commercial (as they picked who they wanted to highlight). This, in turn, would make it a campaign contribution and liable to the numerous restrictions on such contributions.


  27. GSD Says:

    Why is fat and sweaty Roger Ailes afraid of Dr. Ron Paul?

    -GSD


  28. Chris L Says:

    I do not agree with Ron Paul, either, but it is unfair for Fox to exclude him from this forum.

    “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” - Voltaire


  29. Shayne Says:

    Frankly anything that makes Fox News look bad to it’s viewers is worth more to me than what happens to Ron Paul. But that’s just me being selfish.


  30. jr1 Says:

    Rethinking Birthright Citizenship by Ron Paul
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html
    Ron calls the children of immigrants “anchor babies” and wants them to lose their citizenship but “progressives” carry his water


  31. bilbobaggins Says:

    Ron Paul gives libertarians a bad rep - just like Kusinich (sp?) gives UFO enthusiasts a bad rep.
    Comment by Jason M. Hendler

    Damn, I thought we got rid of this turd. Oh well, more flagging please.

    Kucinich saying he saw a UFO is in line with about 45% of the people in this country who have either seen a UFO or know someone who has. We proved that to you the other day loon Jason. And something like 70% believe there is intelligent life out there, so I guess they also see the possibilities of UFO’s.

    I know why Christofasists are so scared of believing that there is other intelligent life in the universe. They are scared that they may find that we are really a race of people who were put here by aliens as a social experiment. I wonder what they think of what has become of their “babies”.


  32. bilbobaggins Says:

    And your vast knowledge of the AUTO INDUSTRY because you worked at a GM Tech Center!!! HAHAHAHHAAAAA!!
    ONE FACT IS FOR SURE!!!
    JCAKASS MORON HITLER IS FULL OF SH|T EVERYDAY OF THE WEEK!!!!
    Comment by dixie blood

    And don’t forget his disrespect of our troops. He thinks that 3,900 dead soldiers isn’t really much in the scheme of things. Disgusting.


  33. bilbobaggins Says:

    Ron calls the children of immigrants “anchor babies” and wants them to lose their citizenship but “progressives” carry his water
    Comment by jr1

    “Progressives carry his water”….in what universe? Sheesh, another damn troll to deal with. There are few progressives here ready to carry water for Ron Paul. Many approve of his courage and his stance on the war, but most recognize him for what he is and don’t support much of what he stands for other than his stance on the occupation or Iraq.

    BTW, I really do wish that everyone here would stop calling it the “War in Iraq”. IT IS NOT A WAR, IT IS AN OCCUPATION! Call it what it is. If all Democrats started doing that, including Pelosi and Reid, I think that people’s perceptions would change drastically.


  34. Wayne Says:

    Kucinich saying he saw a UFO is in line with about 45% of the people in this country who have either seen a UFO or know someone who has. We proved that to you the other day loon Jason. And something like 70% believe there is intelligent life out there, so I guess they also see the possibilities of UFO’s.
    Comment by bilbobaggins — December 29, 2007 @ 7:58 pm

    I have video of the Marfa Ghost lights that science has yet to explain. Thousands have seen the Marfa lights.

    I also have infra-red video of floating orbs of light, a cloud of mist forming in the middle of a community center gym, objects moving and many other weird things from 15 years of doing paranormal investigations as a hobby. ( no apparitions caught yet. )

    There is a lot of weird stuff that happens and science has no explanation for them. Just because someone saw something does not mean they are crazy, or it didn’t happen, just saying….


  35. Nevar Says:

    Just because someone saw something does not mean they are crazy, or it didn’t happen, just saying….

    Comment by Wayne — December 29, 2007 @ 8:09 pm

    Whew!
    Thanks Wayne, I needed to hear that…
    ;)

    I’ve seen and heard a couple of things that have no empirical proof.
    Doesn’t mean they aren’t real.


  36. Merlin Says:

    #37 Comment by bilbobaggins — December 29, 2007 @ 8:07 pm

    BTW, I really do wish that everyone here would stop calling it the “War in Iraq”. IT IS NOT A WAR, IT IS AN OCCUPATION! Call it what it is. If all Democrats started doing that, including Pelosi and Reid, I think that people’s perceptions would change drastically.

    Spot on Bilbo!! It was an invasion and now an occupation! It is not a “war” and never has been a “war.”


  37. Merlin Says:

    #34 Comment by jr1 — December 29, 2007 @ 7:51 pm

    “progressives” carry his water

    Any Progressive that has looked into Paul’s record will be hard pressed to “carry his water.” I give him credit for his position on Iraq but nothing else. I also give him credit for speaking his mind without the triangulating and back pedaling often seen these days.

    Paul’s “libertarian” positions are diametrically opposed to the position of Progressive Democrats.


  38. Wayne A. Schneider Says:

    Paul’s “libertarian” positions are diametrically opposed to the position of Progressive Democrats.

    Comment by Merlin — December 29, 2007 @ 8:26 pm

    While I (and, I think, a lot of other progressives) are Liberal Libertarians, Dr. Ron Paul is a Conservative Libertarian, and not very appealing to progressives. He has a lot of positions on which we would never agree.


  39. Merlin Says:

    #4 Comment by Nat — December 29, 2007 @ 5:40 pm

    I agree that Fox “News” is a warmongering network but I wouldn’t challenge their conservatism.

    I would! They are neoconservative which is totally different than conservative. Check out what George Will thinks. He is a “classical” conservative. Faux Snooze would like people to think they are conservative when they are anything but.


  40. JPV Says:

    Fine…. But let us not forget what a racist he is and where he stands on Social security, Medicare, Womens rights,…

    Comment by had enough

    You mean the BS smear that was RETRACTED by the NY Time?

    http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/ 2007/ 12/ 26/ editors-note-the-ron-paul-vid-lash/

    December 26, 2007, 8:24 pm
    Editors’ Note: The Ron Paul Vid-Lash

    By The New York Times
    A post in The Medium that appeared on Monday about the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his purported adoption by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups contained several errors. Stormfront, which describes itself as a “white nationalist” Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul’s campaign, it was Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul. The original post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly “with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others” at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White. Norman Singleton, a congressional aide in Paul’s office, says that he met Bill White at a dinner gathering of conservatives several years ago, after which Singleton expressed his indignation at the views espoused by White to the organizer of the dinner. The original post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul.

    Go ahead and be fooled again, this time into supporting Neocon/AIPAC sponsored Dem candidates like Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

    You guys are all a bunch of morons.


  41. Wayne Says:

    I’ve seen and heard a couple of things that have no empirical proof.
    Doesn’t mean they aren’t real.

    Comment by Nevar — December 29, 2007 @ 8:16 pm

    8 of us were investigating the old Baker Hotel in Mineral Wells, Tx. On the 4th floor we were discussing the team split to check out the floor, we all saw a “person” walk past us, down a dead end hall and then fade to nothing. All of us watched with our jaws dropped to the floor and not one of us turned on the video cameras or took a damn picture.
    I am still kicking myself over that one, heh.


  42. JPV Says:

    I would! They are neoconservative which is totally different than conservative. Check out what George Will thinks. He is a “classical” conservative. Faux Snooze would like people to think they are conservative when they are anything but.

    Comment by Merlin

    Thank god at least one of you gets it.


  43. JPV Says:

    Paul’s “libertarian” positions are diametrically opposed to the position of Progressive Democrats.

    Comment by Merlin

    You’re correct. The position of “Progressive” Democrats is complete and utter stupidity.


  44. Wayne Says:

    You guys are all a bunch of morons.

    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 8:35 pm

    Paul is a racist piece of crap. Support him if you want, but I live in Texas and I have read his newsletter he used to put out.

    You are a blind fool if you vote for him.


  45. Nevar Says:

    I am still kicking myself over that one, heh.

    Comment by Wayne

    I saw a Mayan warrior, complete with maquahuital in one hand, and a severed head held by the hair in the other, in an abandoned lookout tower in New Hampshire.

    My first conscious thought was “What is a Mayan doing in New Hampshire?
    Poof, he was gone.
    That’s what I kick myself for.


  46. JPV Says:

    From TP not that long ago:

    Ron Paul: 95 percent of black men are ‘criminal.’

    Comment by had enough

    You guys are COMPLETE MORONS…

    http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=377205

    In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.” He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

    When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.” Paul says that item ended up there because “we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything.”

    His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: “They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.’” It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

    Go ahead, elect another Neocon/AIPAC backed candidate like Clinton, Obama or Edwards. Morons like you deserve such two faced leadership.


  47. JPV Says:

    Paul is a racist piece of crap. Support him if you want, but I live in Texas and I have read his newsletter he used to put out.

    You are a blind fool if you vote for him.

    Comment by Wayne

    That newsletter has been debunked. See my previous post.


  48. kasinca Says:

    It is not a news organization…it is FAUX NOIZ. It is all BS put out by the White House Propaganda machine via Roger Ailes. Anyone who even has it on the dial is delusional.


  49. JPV Says:

    You are a blind fool if you vote for him.

    Comment by Wayne

    Oh and speaking of blind fools… go ahead and vote for Clinton, Obama or Edwards. I’m sure that Israel will appreciate us spending billions of more dollars and the lives of few thousand more American sons and daughters to fight their wars for them…

    http://www.counterpunch.org/frank02072007.html

    In fact two weeks earlier, while visiting Israel, Edwards laid out his position on Iran quite succinctly:

    “Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.”

    Hillary Clinton pushed virtually the same bitter line while addressing the annual AIPAC convention held in New York City last week. “U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,” Clinton told the crowd of Israel supporters. “In dealing with this threat … no option can be taken off the table.”

    Barack Obama has also been upfront about how he would deal with Iran, arguing that he would not rule out the use of force and supports surgical strikes of alleged nuclear sites in the country if diplomacy (read: coercion) fails. To put it bluntly, none of the front running Democrats are opposed to Bush’s dubious “war on terror” or his bullying of Iran. They support his aggression in principle but simply believe a Democratic presidency could handle the job more astutely. All put Israel first and none are going to fundamentally alter U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

    You guys are all complete and utter fools.


  50. Wayne Says:

    You guys are all complete and utter fools.

    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 9:00 pm

    And where did you ever see me post I was voting for Clinton, Obama or Edwards?

    Fcking moron…..


  51. Wayne Says:

    That newsletter has been debunked. See my previous post.

    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 8:53 pm

    My grandfather subscribed to that newsletter, I still have them. Even if he used a “ghost writer”as he claimed, HE published it with himself listed as the author. I call that pulling the wool over the eyes of fools with his excuse. Debunked? Hardly.


  52. Wayne Says:

    In none of the later newsletters did he put a retraction. It was only after running for president did he give that excuse out.

    You are a moron JPV.


  53. republicans hate facts Says:

    You’re correct. The position of “Progressive” Democrats is complete and utter stupidity.
    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 8:39 pm

    How would YOU know, considering you’re COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY STUPID? More projection from the ‘tard that thinks we should do away with any assistance for the poor, disabled and disenfranchised. You’re a MORON, that IDEALIZES the THIRD WORLD - what a FOOL!


  54. republicans hate facts Says:

    Here’s you posting on redstate and all the ‘intolerance’ you received. you’re post 20, 29, 31, 38.
    http://redstate.com/ stories/ culture/ two_cheers_for_the_hypocrites#comment
    Doesn’t appear to me that you were being shut down. Maybe it was a different redstate?
    Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 29, 2007 @ 9:15 pm

    How LONG was he permitted to post, before he was blocked? Was he posting anything DISRUPTIVE and OFF TOPIC, like YOU DO - ‘TARD?


  55. Brain From Planet Arous Says:

    Go ahead and be fooled again, this time into supporting Neocon/AIPAC sponsored Dem candidates like Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

    You guys are all a bunch of morons.

    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 8:35 pm

    While what you say about the top three Dems is true, I don’t believe TP posters are “morons”. Ron Paul has some good points, but is mildly sociopathic. What has happened is Progressives and in fact. most of the planet, have disliked Bush so much that a head of cabbage could win if it ran against Bush or somebody like him. Romney and Giuliani, one of who will run against a Dem, are genuine psychos, and anybody looks good against them. Of course, in a real world, the race would be Kucinich vs Paul, who basically are Constitutionalists, but on opposite sides of social issues. Personally, I would pick Kucinich, but Ron Paul would be better than any of the “foaming at the mouths” running as Republicans. This AIPAC issue is very serious, and all of these Zionist whores in the US Government make my stomach turn, including Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. They are all Globalists in the worse case.


  56. republicans hate facts Says:

    Personally, I would pick Kucinich, but Ron Paul would be better than any of the “foaming at the mouths” running as Republicans. This AIPAC issue is very serious, and all of these Zionist whores in the US Government make my stomach turn, including Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. They are all Globalists in the worse case.
    Comment by Brain From Planet Arous — December 29, 2007 @ 9:17 pm

    Ron Paul believes poor people and the sick should starve or pull themselves up. Be careful what you ask for, because from where I sit, that’s AS FOAMING or MORE FOAMING radicalism than what ANY of the religious morons are saying.


  57. pete Says:

    You guys are all complete and utter fools.

    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 9:00 pm

    As opposed to the fools who still think invading Iraq was a good idea, or, can’t get invited to a debate?


  58. JPV Says:

    My grandfather subscribed to that newsletter, I still have them. Even if he used a “ghost writer”as he claimed, HE published it with himself listed as the author. I call that pulling the wool over the eyes of fools with his excuse. Debunked? Hardly.

    Comment by Wayne

    Well it sounds like he at least took responsibility for it during the campaign.

    That’s more than I can say for ANY other candidate in recent memory.


  59. JPV Says:

    Of course, in a real world, the race would be Kucinich vs Paul, who basically are Constitutionalists, but on opposite sides of social issues. Personally, I would pick Kucinich, but Ron Paul would be better than any of the “foaming at the mouths” running as Republicans. This AIPAC issue is very serious, and all of these Zionist whores in the US Government make my stomach turn, including Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. They are all Globalists in the worse case.

    Comment by Brain From Planet Arous

    Paul, and Kucinich, are both far from ideal.

    However given the option of any of the other Republican and Democratic Neocon/AIPAC/Zionist backed candidates that the MSM are pushing, I’d take either of them in a heartbeat!

    What other choices do we realistically have?


  60. Wayne Says:

    Check out the link and decide for you self, btruthful.

    Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 29, 2007 @ 9:25 pm

    bilbobaggins is not his first moniker here at TP. Just because he was able to post there today does not refute his previous argument.


  61. Wayne Says:

    That’s more than I can say for ANY other candidate in recent memory.

    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 9:26 pm

    Kucinich has filed and fought for impeachment. Dodd stood in the way of immunity for the telcos.

    And Ron Paul….. what has Ron Paul done exactly?

    Hillary and Obama can’t even get into the Senate to do their fscking jobs. They didn’t even show for the FISA vote.


  62. gummitch Says:

    You guys are all complete and utter fools.

    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 9:00 pm

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but that certainly caused me to change my mind about Ron Paul. That’s an amazingly effective campaign strategy, JPV.

    Go Ron! Bring on the fish sticks!


  63. gummitch Says:

    Does the Captain have some kind of crush on bilbobaggins? This whole stalking routine is frickin’ lame.


  64. Wayne Says:

    Well it sounds like he at least took responsibility for it during the campaign.
    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 9:26 pm

    He has not refuted one of the statements in the newsletter. He tried to explain away the article as written by a ghost writer, but he stood by the statements stating statistics back them up and he didn’t mean them as racist.

    He to this date has not retracted, but has defended his statements as “statistically sound”.


  65. Brain From Planet Arous Says:

    Hillary and Obama can’t even get into the Senate to do their fscking jobs. They didn’t even show for the FISA vote.

    Comment by Wayne — December 29, 2007 @ 9:33 pm

    Ha! They are grepped and fscked, but the MSM has us believing they are the best choices for us after 8 years of a nightmare. However, if Hillary ran against Ghouliani or Romney, I would have to vote for her. She may be AIPAC, but those other two are crackpots as well as AIPAC. They would be full blown fascists.


  66. Wayne Says:

    Go Ron! Bring on the fish sticks!

    Comment by gummitch — December 29, 2007 @ 9:38 pm

    LMAO

    You hear that “Hordes” of Paul supporters are staging a virtual march though World of Warcraft?

    I will probably load one of my lvl 70s, and if any get pvp tagged, gank them LOL


  67. OxyCon Says:

    If Fox “News” can’t stand up to Ron Paul, how can they stand up to al Queda terrorists?

    “Fair & Balanced” my rear.


  68. Wayne Says:

    They are grepped and fscked, but the MSM has us believing they are the best choices for us after 8 years of a nightmare.
    Comment by Brain From Planet Arous — December 29, 2007 @ 9:44 pm

    And I have been watching the “tail” of their voting records.
    Both of them need a thorough fsck -yf =)


  69. lefttown Says:

    I haven’t made up my mind yet, but I do know that restoring the Constitution, ending the Occupation, and the economy are the most important issues to me. I have looked at all the candidates’ stances on these issues. I do agree with Ron Paul when it comes to ending the Occupation, Constitutional restoration and the economy. I won’t let the media or the blogs determine my vote. Ron Paul makes a lot of sense in the areas that are important to me. Maybe many (or most) people disagree. That’s immaterial really. I don’t want to regret my vote. I’m torn between Edwards and Paul.


  70. Zooey Says:

    I’m torn between Edwards and Paul.
    Comment by lefttown — December 29, 2007 @ 9:57 pm

    Really?

    Maybe you should read up on Paul…


  71. Wayne Says:

    I’m torn between Edwards and Paul.

    Comment by lefttown — December 29, 2007 @ 9:57 pm

    After the last 7 years, no Republican will get my vote, even Ron Paul.
    And quite a few Democrats currently in office won’t get my primary votes either.

    Final vote, see the “no Republican” comment……


  72. barfly Says:

    “Well it sounds like he at least took responsibility for it during the campaign.”
    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 9:26 pm

    When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.” Paul says that item ended up there because “we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything.”

    So he took responsibility - by blaming his staffers?

    Perhaps I’m too much of a “complete and utter fool” to see it.


  73. Brain From Planet Arous Says:

    And I have been watching the “tail” of their voting records.
    Both of them need a thorough fsck -yf =)

    Comment by Wayne — December 29, 2007 @ 9:55 pm

    Our country needs a good Forced System Check, Connectivity Check, and could repair all errors encountered without waiting for Congressional response.


  74. Wayne Says:

    So he took responsibility - by blaming his staffers?

    Perhaps I’m too much of a “complete and utter fool” to see it.

    Comment by barfly — December 29, 2007 @ 10:03 pm

    Yeah, that seems to be “debunked” means, now days. Shifted blame, not taking real responsibility for ones own actions.

    mv “Ron Paul” /dev/null


  75. JPV Says:

    So he took responsibility - by blaming his staffers?

    Perhaps I’m too much of a “complete and utter fool” to see it.

    Comment by barfly

    Yeah, you are. That interview was done well AFTER the campaign.

    In fact, in the excerpt that you quoted he even says…

    “I could never say this in the campaign”

    You should learn how to read sometime. It helps.


  76. JPV Says:

    Maybe you should read up on Paul…

    Comment by Zooey

    Unlike Edwards the AIPAC/Zionist shill?

    LOL!!!


  77. republicans hate facts Says:

    You should learn how to read sometime. It helps.
    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 10:11 pm

    ROTFL!! Typical republican! Practice what you PREACH there WIDE STANCE!! ROTFL!!


  78. republicans hate facts Says:

    Unlike Edwards the AIPAC/Zionist shill?
    LOL!!!
    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 10:13 pm

    ROTFL!!! Spoken like a TRUE NUTJOB!!!


  79. JPV Says:

    ROTFL!! Typical republican! Practice what you PREACH there WIDE STANCE!! ROTFL!!

    Comment by republicans hate facts

    Errr… who said i was a Republican?

    Fool.


  80. barfly Says:

    “Yeah, you are. That interview was done well AFTER the campaign.”

    So, temporally speaking, he’s had time to consider his remarks - and he still blames his staffers?

    And that’s your ideal of “personal responsibility?”

    So; you support Paul because…


  81. JPV Says:

    ROTFL!!! Spoken like a TRUE NUTJOB!!!

    Comment by republicans hate facts

    Laugh it up…

    http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=161493

    During a speech via satellite at a security conference last week in Herzliya, Israel, Edwards joined the chorus of those threatening the Iranian government. “Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world,” Edwards said, echoing a line peddled by many neoconservatives. “Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons.”

    A few moments later, he strongly hinted at the need for possible US military action. “To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table,” Edwards said. “Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table.”


  82. Lefty Patriot Says:

    JPV, you my be able to read, but you don’t understand. You’re a total and complete moron. Ron Paul is labeled a republican, but claims to be libertarian. Why won’t he change his affiliation? Because he’s a liar, a hypocrite, a Republican politician, the lowest of the snakes in the gutter. you don’t have the brains you were born with.


  83. Lefty Patriot Says:

    A few moments later, he strongly hinted at the need for possible US military action. “To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table,” Edwards said. “Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table.”

    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 10:19 pm

    so what? what does that mean? that Edwards can talk tough during a campaign? you’re so gullible and stupid, it’s amazing you can feed yourself.


  84. Wayne Says:

    who said i was a Republican?

    Fool.

    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 10:14 pm

    Your posting support for a Republican candidate ( Ron Paul ) says you are Republican and bad mouthing ALL Democrats, then calling all posters here fools.

    And lets see your proof of Edwards being AIPAC?
    I would like to read that for myself. Link?


  85. Lefty Patriot Says:

    “I could never say this in the campaign”

    You should learn how to read sometime. It helps.

    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 10:11 pm

    you should look up “hypocrite’ sometime. It describes Ron Paul, and you, perfectly.


  86. pete Says:

    I can’t force myself to trust a candidate who’s despised by their own party, or, comes from Texas. We should have learned our lesson with LBJ.


  87. JPV Says:

    So, temporally speaking, he’s had time to consider his remarks - and he still blames his staffers?

    And that’s your ideal of “personal responsibility?”

    So; you support Paul because…

    Comment by barfly

    Like I said, he took the blame for the newsletter during the campaign. I’m sure that it was apparent to him at the time that it was an issue that would hurt him. I’m also sure that if he wanted to make excuses, at the time, that he didn’t need years to think them up.

    And I support him because I don’t much care for all of the other candidates that I see as being the same old DC players as usual.

    Like I said, he’s not ideal, but to me at least, far more preferable to me than Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee or McCain.

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/

    Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

    He has never voted to raise taxes.
    He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
    He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
    He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
    He has never taken a government-paid junket.
    He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

    He voted against the Patriot Act.
    He voted against regulating the Internet.
    He voted against the Iraq war.

    He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
    He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

    Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.


  88. barfly Says:

    “I can’t force myself to trust a candidate who’s despised by their own party, or, comes from Texas. We should have learned our lesson with LBJ.”

    Comment by pete —

    Don’t drop a hammer on him, Wayne.

    Reagan came from California…

    Mea Culpa.


  89. barfly Says:

    Comment by JPV —

    And what is Dodd - chopped liver?


  90. had enough Says:

    I’m torn between Edwards and Paul.

    Comment by lefttown — December 29, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
    I do hope you vote for Edwards in the primary and let the repugs eat their own or what ever they end up doing. I am from one of those states - Oregon, where the primary is in May… by then the candidate is already picked…. we do depend upon others to vote the correct way.


  91. JPV Says:

    Your posting support for a Republican candidate ( Ron Paul ) says you are Republican and bad mouthing ALL Democrats, then calling all posters here fools.

    And lets see your proof of Edwards being AIPAC?
    I would like to read that for myself. Link?

    Comment by Wayne

    I believe that Paul is a Libertarian not a Republican. I bad mouth Republicans ALL the time on the forum.

    Here’s a link to a speech that Edwards made to AIPAC in March 2006…

    http://www.stopaipac.org/ documents/ PC06_Transcript_Edwards.pdf

    Enjoy.


  92. Wayne Says:

    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 10:29 pm

    Paul’s record from Paul’s web site, LMAO
    Thats rich….

    Want to know his real voting record, look him up here:
    http://votesmart.org/index.htm


  93. JPV Says:

    I can’t force myself to trust a candidate who’s despised by their own party, or, comes from Texas.

    Comment by pete

    LOL, if the other Republicans despise him, that you tell you something right there.

    Of course, I’m sure that you despise the guys that despise him.

    Really quite funny logic there… if that’s what you can call it.


  94. RUCerious Says:

    Ron Paul’s libertarian streak goes too deep for my liking. I actually plan on retiring with at least a little bit of the Social Security contributions I’ve paid in over the years.
    And the gold standard, well, good luck with that.


  95. Wayne Says:

    Here’s a link to a speech that Edwards made to AIPAC in March 2006…

    http://www.stopaipac.org/ documents/ PC06_Transcript_Edwards.pdf
    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 10:32 pm

    That marks Edwards off my list.
    That leaves Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel.


  96. Zooey Says:

    Unlike Edwards the AIPAC/Zionist shill?
    LOL!!!
    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 10:13 pm

    He can read up on Edwards, too. Funny how that works.

    Let me guess…you’re an “independent,” right? :-D


  97. JPV Says:

    Want to know his real voting record, look him up here:
    http://votesmart.org/index.htm

    Comment by Wayne

    Yeah, and what do you see as problematic votes that he’s made?

    http://votesmart.org/ voting_category.php?can_id=296


  98. Wayne Says:

    And what is Dodd - chopped liver?

    Comment by barfly — December 29, 2007 @ 10:30 pm

    He seems to be promoting the media darlings view of the race doesn’t he?


  99. JPV Says:

    Let me guess…you’re an “independent,” right? :-D

    Comment by Zooey

    Guess again. No affiliation. Independent is a party.


  100. Wayne Says:

    Yeah, and what do you see as problematic votes that he’s made?

    http://votesmart.org/ voting_category.php?can_id=296

    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 10:37 pm

    His voting against a womens right to choose, against armor for the troops, against or NV for every environmental bill. Did you actually read that link?


  101. gummitch Says:

    Guess again. No affiliation. Independent is a party.

    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 10:38 pm

    You live in Oregon? Because most places, “independent” means “no affiliation.” Because, y’know, it’s English language.

    The Independent Party in Oregon is brand-new and in most states, nonexistent. And you’ll notice that Zooey used the lower-case i.


  102. barfly Says:

    “That marks Edwards off my list.
    That leaves Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel.”

    Comment by Wayne — December 29, 2007 @ 10:36 pm

    You’re not allowed to choose that, you “complete and utter fool!” You’ve bad-mouthed RON PAUL for God sakes!

    What ARE “propangadists,” anyway?

    Are they like propaniacs?


  103. had enough Says:

    94 Comment by JPV
    You failed to mention that Paul IS a racist… IS for privatizing social Security….Always votes against funding women clinics, Always votes against abortion,… Votes against any social program.
    Paul’s view is every man for himself… Some out there are saying that not only would he like to eliminate SS, welfare, medicare, he would privatize/eliminate fire and police protection. Do you want to throw grandma out into the streets or let some homes burn down?
    The man is a kook..


  104. gummitch Says:

    I flirted with libertarian theory back a few decades but it eventually became clear to me that “libertarian” = “greedy” in real terms. The entire approach is “I’ve got mine and if you don’t, tough sh!t.” Given the opportunity, Ron Paul would defund the entire federal government, including departments of education, health, agriculture . . . think your food is tainted? Well, then sue someone. Water is teeming with bacteria from upstream? Sue someone. Good luck in the courts and 20 years from now you may get a settlement. Or, more likely, your kids might get a settlement because you’ll be dead.

    The bedrock of his opposition to the Iraqi occupation is that the fed is spending his money on it. If we could do it for free, fine, no problem. Just keep your hands out of my pocket.


  105. JPV Says:

    http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/012907CARMICHAEL.shtml

    Edwards Veers Hard Right, Supports Escalating Middle East Conflicts

    by MICHAEL CARMICHAEL

    “This week, during a speech at the Herzliya Conference, a major international gathering dedicated to Israeli security and diplomatic issues, Edwards stuck to his hawkish positions on Iran.”—The Jewish Daily/Forward

    In a shocking development, John Edwards cast aside his progressive veneer and veered to the hard right to support the escalation of Bush’s wars in the Middle East to engulf Iran.

    During a lamentable speech he made to an audience assembled in Herzilya, a city named for the founder of Zionism that is located a mere 20 miles from Tel Aviv, Edwards sanctioned a U.S. war against Iran, denied the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) and bashed the Palestinian people.

    According to a report on the website TotallyJewish.com, John Edwards proclaimed his support for the neoconservative agenda of the Israel Lobby, and he even echoed the bellicose rhetoric of George Bush vis-à-vis Iran — “Hinting to possible military action.” Edwards has now become the official candidate of the Israel Lobby for the Democratic presidential nomination.

    In his speech before the Herzilya Conference, John Edwards echoed the neoconservative ideology of George W. Bush, who is threatening to bomb Iran. In Israel, Edwards is now regarded as a strong supporter for American military intervention in Iran and the de facto expansion of the war in Iraq that would then engulf Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan in a flaming arc of war, terrorism and ultra-violence.

    In taking this position, Edwards is now in direct conflict with the Democratic Party leadership in the Senate, where both Senator Joe Biden and Majority Leader Harry Reid have promised to set in motion a constitutional crisis if Bush orders U.S. forces to expand the Iraq war into Iran. Edwards’ position on Iran even places him to the right of Bush’s newly installed Secretary of Defense, William Gates, who warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the expansion of the Iraq war into Iran would have “devastating consequences,” for American diplomacy.

    Additionally, Edwards criticized Syria for not doing enough to prove they are serious about negotiating the return of the Golan Heights in exchange for their help in fostering peace between Israel and the Palestinians and stabilizing the increasingly turbulent situation inside Iraq. Edwards’ position on Syria places him to the right of the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton ISG that recommended negotiations with Syria for the resolution of both the war in Iraq and a peace settlement with Israel.

    To top those blunders, Edwards then criticized the Palestinians for democratically electing the Hamas government.

    In the same disastrous speech, Edwards refrained from criticizing Israel for withholding hundreds of millions of dollars of the Palestinians’ funds and creating chaos among the already deeply repressed population. Israel’s deliberate withholding of the Palestinians’ funds exacerbated the already dreadful conditions in the Occupied Territories and the Gaza Strip where the United Nations describes Israel’s harsh repression of the Palestinian people as one of the most egregious violations of human rights in the world today.

    At no time in his entire career has John Edwards ever publicly expressed any concern for Israel’s refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Neither has Edwards criticized Israel for its refusal to acknowledge the existence of her powerful nuclear arsenal that is known to contain over 200 armed nuclear warheads, making her either the third or fourth most powerful nation on earth.

    While John Edwards has capably expressed his support for deconstructing the U.S. war in Iraq, he leaves the impression that he is now ready, willing and able to launch a U.S. attack against Iran.
    In a statement that tacitly condoned Israel’s repressive policies: targeted assassinations, house demolitions, military attacks on civilian targets, detentions of thousands of Palestinian political prisoners, and the persistent violation of the human rights of the Palestinians, Edwards proclaimed his allegiance to the agenda designed by the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC). In their now well-known paper, two highly distinguished American academics, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, exposed AIPAC as the political core of the Israel Lobby. While John Edwards has capably expressed his support for the deconstruction of the premiere project of the Israel Lobby — the U.S. war in Iraq — he leaves the impression that he is now ready, willing and able to launch their next foolish enterprise: a U.S. attack against Iran.

    The fact that Edwards condones the humiliating violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people places him far to the right of former President Jimmy Carter, whose latest book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid is now soaring at the top of the bestseller lists in America. All of this inconsistency with Edwards’ pledge to uphold human rights is deeply disappointing. Edwards’s neoconservative attitudes will be a major disappointment to his erstwhile supporters in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

    Edwards promised to be a progressive candidate, but he now appears to be a devotee of the Democratic Leadership Council who is obviously under the heady ether of the Israel Lobby.

    Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton declined to address the Herzliya Conference, but Edwards was joined by three Republicans: Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain in addressing the conference of right-wing Israelis by satellite.


  106. JPV Says:

    The man is a kook.

    Comment by had enough

    Yeah, you’re right. we are better of voting for one of the other candidates and letting them start WWIII in the Middle East.

    Sigh…


  107. Wayne Says:

    JPV ignores questions and real debate, then just posts links like a troll.

    If you’re gonna act like a troll, we will just have to treat you like one.


  108. JPV Says:

    His voting against a womens right to choose, against armor for the troops, against or NV for every environmental bill. Did you actually read that link?

    Comment by Wayne

    Yeah, I skimmed it. He’s know for being called “Dr. No” by his colleagues.

    From what I gather, it’s not so much that he is against certain programs, I just think that he believes that they should be administrated at the State and not Federal level.

    He firmly believes in a minimal Federal government with minimal powers.

    In that respect, I can’t help but agree with him wholeheartedly.


  109. JPV Says:

    JPV ignores questions and real debate, then just posts links like a troll.

    If you’re gonna act like a troll, we will just have to treat you like one.

    Comment by Wayne

    What do you want me to respond to?


  110. Zooey Says:

    If you’re gonna act like a troll, we will just have to treat you like one.
    Comment by Wayne — December 29, 2007 @ 10:55 pm

    I thought he was a troll. Posts like a troll…


  111. JPV Says:

    I thought he was a troll. Posts like a troll…

    Comment by Zooey

    What did I post that made me seem like a troll?


  112. Wayne Says:

    In that respect, I can’t help but agree with him wholeheartedly.

    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 10:57 pm

    Even labor law stance? No workmans comp, no ovetime pay, no to every workers right.

    You are either really ignorant of what Paul really stands for, or you are just as bad as he is.


  113. pete Says:

    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 10:34 pm

    I would have more respect for Dr. Paul if he had the courage to end his affiliation with the Republican party. As it is, he just uses the (R) after his name to lend legitimacy to a fringe campaign.

    Personally, I didn’t pay much attention to party affiliation before the neocon scum seized the GOP. I will vote against anyone with an (R) after their name until: we are out of Iraq, we have begun to regain the respect and trust of the rest of the world, and, the neocons are just a bad memory.

    That probably means I won’t ever vote for another Republican, though, I may change my mind if someone within the party speaks out against the current crop of criminals.

    As for Dr. Paul himself? His stand on Social Security, Medicare, and abortion are enough to disqualify him. Over, and above, his lack of conviction re. his continued affiliation to a party with which he, apparently, shares so little. Everything I’ve learned about him indicates he’s a profound fraud and a danger to much that’s good about our country.


  114. Zooey Says:

    What did I post that made me seem like a troll?
    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 11:00 pm

    1. Posting long-assed cut & paste crap. Links do fine.

    2. Responding to every single post you think might have something to do with you. Very troll-like.

    M’kay?


  115. RUCerious Says:

    Here’s a link to a speech that Edwards made to AIPAC in March 2006…

    http://www.stopaipac.org/ documents/ PC06_Transcript_Edwards.pdf
    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 10:32 pm

    What am I missing? There’s no link to any Edwards speech that I can find on this link??


  116. old_hack Says:

    where was this post for Mike Gravel? thats when I stopped trusting this website.


  117. RUCerious Says:

    http://www.stopaipac.org/ documents/ PC06_Transcript_Edwards.pdf

    Enjoy.

    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 10:32 pm

    And this link gives me a
    Web page not found error…?


  118. Zooey Says:

    Comment by JPV — December 29, 2007 @ 10:32 pm

    Posting links that don’t work. Very troll-like.


  119. JPV Says:

    And this link gives me a
    Web page not found error…?

    Comment by RUCerious

    Yeah, I just figured that out. I’ll see if I can find a better link.

    I did post a whole article that talks about a speech that he gave at the Herzliya Conference, which I believe covers the same territory.


  120. RUCerious Says:

    Here’s the gist of what Edwards said at the AIPAC dinner (contrasted with Hillary’s talk minutes earlier)…

    Democratic hopefuls have been in agreement about the importance of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In a January 22 speech to American and Israeli security officials and experts, another 2008 contender, former North Carolina senator and vice-presidential nominee John Edwards, said, “Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons.”

    His address, in contrast with Clinton’s speech, made no mention of engaging with Iran. But when an audience member asked afterward, “Would you be prepared, if diplomacy failed, to take further action against Iran?” the former senator said he supported talking with Tehran.

    “As to what to do, we should not take anything off the table,” Edwards said. “More serious sanctions need to be undertaken, which cannot happen unless Russia and China are seriously on board, which has not happened up until now. I would not want to say in advance what we would do, and what I would do as president, but there are other steps that need to be taken. For example, we need to support direct engagement with the Iranians, we need to be tough. But I think it is a strategic mistake to avoid engagement with Iran.”

    He supported talking with Iran…


  121. Wayne Says:

    Posting links that don’t work. Very troll-like.

    Comment by Zooey — December 29, 2007 @ 11:11 pm

    hehe

    Add Promoting a regressive kook like Ron Paul on a progressive site.


  122. JPV Says:

    Posting links that don’t work. Very troll-like.

    Comment by Zooey

    Wasn’t intentional. Sorry, I should have checked it fist.


  123. had enough Says:

    JPV…
    Who are you counting on to vote for Paul?
    Women?
    Minorities?
    Senior Citizens?
    Clear thinking caring souls?


  124. Wayne Says:

    He supported talking with Iran…

    Comment by RUCerious — December 29, 2007 @ 11:13 pm

    Good catch.


  125. Chris L Says:

    Al though I heavily disagree with Paul on most issues, I do find it interesting that his campaign has received the 2nd highest amount of donations from the military -(the highest is Obama). I talk to a lot of troops that like him.


  126. RUCerious Says:

    While there are major changes in the direction this nation needs to go, Ron Paul would be going in pretty much the other direction.

    The only bullet I admire is his stance on the war. His stance on Pirates is pretty good too.



  127. Wayne Says:

    I talk to a lot of troops that like him.

    Comment by Chris L — December 29, 2007 @ 11:17 pm

    They don’t know he voted against giving them armor then.


  128. Chris L Says:

    They don’t know he voted against giving them armor then.

    Comment by Wayne — December 29, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
    ####

    I think his stance on the war is the only thing that most people do know about, and a big reason for his popularity.


  129. RUCerious Says:

    Ron Paul’s web page says he supports lower taxes, but nowhere does he mention repealing Bush’s tax break for the 1% of the wealthiest Americans. JPV, care to comment?


  130. had enough Says:

    I talk to a lot of troops that like him.

    Comment by Chris L — December 29, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
    Isn’t Paul the most outspoken about bringing the troops home?


  131. Zooey Says:

    Isn’t Paul the most outspoken about bringing the troops home?
    Comment by had enough — December 29, 2007 @ 11:25 pm

    Kucinich


  132. JPV Says:

    He supported talking with Iran…

    Comment by RUCerious

    Oh yeah? Well here’s a longer excerpt from his speech…

    http://www.aipac.org/ Publications/ SpeechesByPolicymakers/ Edwards-PC-2006.pdf

    Let’s start with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, which I believe is the single greatest security threat, not only to Israel, but to the United States. In fact today is a pivotal day with the IAEA meeting to send the matter to the U.N. Security Council to take action. It’s about time, is what I have to say about that. For years I have argued that the United States has not been doing enough to deal with the growing threat in Iran. While we’ve talked about the dangers of nuclear terrorism, we’ve largely stood on the sidelines and the problems got worse. I believe that for far too long we’ve abdicated our responsibility to deal with the Iranian threat to the Europeans. That is not the way to deal with an unacceptable threat to America, and an unacceptable threat to Israel. Iran’s recent actions beginning with the reprocessing of uranium, refusing to cooperate with international inspections, makes clear that it intends to build nuclear weapons. And the Iranian President’s statements such as the despicable description of the Holocaust as a myth or his ugly pledge to wipe Israel off the map, you know, when he says these kind of things, I take him at his word. And we need to treat it as a very serious statement. And we all know that if Iran goes nuclear it increases the likelihood that Saudi Arabia would be next, making Israel’s neighborhood even more dangerous. It’s good that we’re finally at the point where the international community is ready to confront Iran with a clear choice. Give up your nuclear ambitions or suffer the consequences. But I believe that with more engaged and more active American leadership we could have been ­ in fact we should have been at this point months ago. An active American leadership will be needed in the days ahead to ensure that our European allies as well as countries like China and Russia stand with us together to confront Iran at the Security Council with meaningful sanctions. The truth is that for too long we’ve muddled through on this threat. Now we need to make a clear stand that Iran cannot and will not have nuclear weapons. Keeping nuclear weapons ­ keeping nuclear weapons out of Tehran’s hands is a strategic imperative for the security of the United States, for Israel and for the world, and we need to do what we can to help encourage democratic change in Iran. Iran is the greatest external threat facing Israel, but just as alarming ­ just as alarming is the threat on its doorstep.


  133. Chris L Says:

    Kucinich

    Comment by Zooey — December 29, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
    ####

    Unfortunately, Kucinich’s name is not as well known.


  134. Zooey Says:

    Unfortunately, Kucinich’s name is not as well known.
    Comment by Chris L — December 29, 2007 @ 11:33 pm

    Really? I’ve known about him for years. I only heard about Paul a few months ago.


  135. JPV Says:

    Ron Paul’s web page says he supports lower taxes, but nowhere does he mention repealing Bush’s tax break for the 1% of the wealthiest Americans. JPV, care to comment?

    Comment by RUCerious

    I don’t know. If I find some relative info I’ll post it.

    Like i said, I don’t think that Paul is ideal, but I don’t much care for the alternatives. Except for maybe Kucinich, who seems capable of rocking the boat also.