TexasCHLforum.com

Will938 wrote:Those who hold these beliefs will be dead in 100 years, and it will be their children's children in charge. The question no one can answer is how we're supposed to kill an idea. You can't until you kill everyone who believes it...unfortunately for us part of the idea is that we're evil and want to spread our culture onto them. So invading their homeland and killing everyone justifies their beliefs and spreads them further.

Exactly. I've yet to hear a rational defense of the strategy that says we must invade their countries and kill everyone who opposes us, until they stop hating us for invading their countries and killing everyone who opposes us.

If I was setting up a business model to sustain the military-industrial complex, that particular theory of foreign relations would just sound like good job security.

Nelson Linder, president of the Austin chapter of NAACP, has known Ron Paul for over 20 years, and adamantly insists that Ron Paul is not a racist, and that libertarian positions are the least racist of all.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ja ... racist.htm

Listen to the full .mp3 interview if you have time.

Kevin

yerasimos wrote:A cheap smear piece. Ron Paul has been consistently repudiating that schlock for years. Kirchick is said to be an admirer of Giuliani, the latter who cannot stand it when someone gets the better of him (as Ron Paul has done).

More specifically:
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... ul-is.html

Kirchick said, "Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch!"

A personal request to lawrnk: since there is no truth to the accusation that Soros and Moveon.org are backing Ron Paul, would you mind editing the subject line in your first post, to change the title of this thread?

I don't expect to change your mind about Ron Paul, but I don't think you want to be intentionally untruthful about him.

Liberty wrote:

KBCraig wrote: Ignoring that fact is the true head-in-the-sand approach. "They hate us because we're free" is just ignorant.

True, The real reason they hate us is because they consider us a Christian Nation, that gives sanctuary to Jewish peoples.

They might hate us for that reason, but they attacked us because our forces are stationed in the land of Mecca, and occupying neighboring Arab lands.

Rudy Giuliani said he'd "never heard anything so preposterous", which meant he's never read the 9/11 Commission Report, nor the writings of the Michael Scheuer, the former Chief of the CIA's Osama bin Laden desk.

There are certain neighborhoods where they might hate me because of the color of my skin, but they're unlikely to attack me for that reason alone. But if I should move in, evict some former residents, kill some others, and blare "Dixie" while flying rebels flags, then... yeah, I should expect some repercussions.

International relations are not fundamentally different from personal relationships. If you kick down your neighbor's door, set up camp in their living room, and announce you're there to solve their domestic problems, you should expect some resistance.

Too many Americans are so abysmally ignorant of history, that they have no idea that we've been camped out in other people's living rooms for over a century. And those "other people" are not ignorant of history; history is the basis of their culture and their religion, and the most ignorant goatherd among them can recite his bloodline, and all offenses against his ancestors, going back 600+ years.

<rant>
Ron Paul "doesn't know squat about Islam"? Please. The "just kill 'em all before they kill us!" contingent are those who truly don't know anything about Islam.
</rant>

Kevin

lawrnk wrote:The mere fact that Paul is opposed to the death penalty, federal or not is a deal breaker. I am familiar with the very left wing "innocence project" that is no better than the morons at Amnesty International who hug criminals and plant a tree for tommorow.

So justice is irrelevant? It doesn't bother you in the least that we execute innocent people?

Of course, God kills mothers and puppies every day for reasons known only to him.

I'll leave that to God. I don't pretend to be Him, and I don't presume the omniscience necessary to apply the death penalty without error.

Red China does one thing right. If convicted of a death penalty offense, you will be executed in 48 hours and your family will be sent a bill for the cost of the bullet. Justice served.

Red China is also notoriously relaxed about standards of evidence. They often don't bother with the trial, and just execute people on the spot.

I'm not quite sure what it says, that you prefer the system in a communist dictatorship over the U.S. Constitution.

The fact that he plans to "pull out" of areas that we police (IE Israel, the Korean DMZ, etc..) is a second deal breaker. The united states "polices" the world because no one else will.

It's sad that you believe anyone must "police" other nations, or that what goes on within them is any of our business. The more traditional (and accurate) term for "police action" is "invasion by foreign troops".

Ron Paul doesn't know squat about Islam, and it will destroy him in the end. He will never be POTUS. I laugh when he calls the terrorists thugs, and brushes off the fact that state sponsored terrorism is very real.

Ron Paul has never denied that state sponsored terrorism is real. He points out that it is very real, and made far worse by three things:
- Foreign aid
- Political meddling in other nations' internal affairs
- Initiating military action against other nations

Islam can preach hate all they want, but it only becomes effective when they have very real examples to point to. The hatemongers would have little luck stirring up the group that attacked on 9/11 if they hadn't been able to point to U.S. bases in Saudia Arabia, their holiest of lands.

Ignoring that fact is the true head-in-the-sand approach. "They hate us because we're free" is just ignorant.

lawrnk wrote:I guess you chose not to respond.

I wasn't choosing to "not respond", I just haven't had time. But since you brought it up again on my day off, I'm happy to respond.

I had earlier posted a different link from Paul's official site, quoting a 2002 House speech in which he called for enhanced use of the death penalty for terrorists. The link you provided leads to this newer source:
Q: Is the death penalty is carried out justly?

A: Over the years, I've held pretty rigid all my beliefs, but I've changed my opinion about the death penalty. For federal purposes, I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you're rich, you get away with it; if you're poor & you're from the inner city, you're more likely to be prosecuted & convicted. Today, with DNA evidence, there have been too many mistakes. So I am now opposed to the federal death penalty.
Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007

It sounds like Paul's view matches my own, exactly. I believe that the death penalty is fitting punishment for certain crimes. I also believe that we must only use it when we know, beyond any doubt, that the accused is guilty; "beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't nearly good enough.

And so, I have come to be generally opposed to the death penalty. Not because I oppose the punishment, but because we have overwhelming evidence that innocent people have been wrongly convicted and executed. You can set an innocent man free, you can pay him for the years of his life spent in prison, but it's hard to apologize to a grave.

Please note that in this matter, like all others, Paul is restricting his answer to the federal death penalty; he's not going to interfere in state matters. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, there have only been three federal executions (44 are on federal death row).

I realize the stereotype is that you must favor the death penalty to be tough on crime, and that only pansies oppose it. Truth is, it often takes more courage for a politician to point out that we must not risk executing the innocent.

Please check out the Innocence Project. Did you know that since Craig Watkins took over as Dallas DA, 15 people from that district alone have been exonerated and freed from prison, based on DNA testing that proved their innocence? What would you do if you'd been a juror who condemned a man to death, only to find out later that he was innocent?

Those of you supporting Paul should be aware of his opinion on the death penalty.

Of course we should. I wouldn't want to support a man who believed in killing innocent people.

Kevin

Don't forget, today is the last day of the quarter, and it's time to push the money total above $20 million!

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate

lawrnk wrote:I did see the reporter and his response on the donation. I don't think he is obligated to return it, but for a few hundred bucks...is it worth it? Hillary gave back almost a million!

The big difference is that Hillary gave back the money because it was illegal.

lawrnk wrote:Frankly the only things about him I strongly oppose are his views on dealing with Islamic nations, and the death penalty.

You mean you disagree with him calling for the death penalty for terrorists?

Liberty wrote:As I said I am not a Ron Paul supporter, because I want to kill the dogs before they kill us.

You mean these dogs?
"5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?"

Remember: Ron Paul supports going after terrorists who have attacked us. Invading countries who have not attacked against us --and who have no military ability to do so-- does nothing except add fuel to the terrorists' fire. By their way of thinking, we're "over there", so they're justified to attack us. And they're right: if they were "over here" in exactly the same way that we're "over there", their forces would be dying at an astounding rate.

Liberty wrote:They won't address his stance on the war (I won't vote for him for this reason and this reason only) He doesn't believe that we should be killing the Islamic terrorist in either Iraq or Afghanastan.

Correction: Ron Paul voted for and supports our operations in Afghanistan, because those operations are in pursuit of the 9/11 perpetrators. One point he often makes is that the Iraq operation has diverted money and resources away from the pursuit of bin Laden.

Okay, I've paused long enough that I think I can respond to these claims without violating forum rules. Since the thread is staying open, the accusations need to be addressed.

lawrnk wrote:I've mentioned that Ron Paul has great ideas, but scares me. He is now considered the #1 candidate for 9/11 truthers.

And yet he does nothing to encourage them. He's said multiple times that he doesn't subscribe to the "9/11 was an inside job" nonsense.

Soros is backing him, and arguably moveon.org will follow.

Absolutely false. This apparently comes from Kevin McCullough's blog, which links to another blog, which links to a youtube video, which doesn't say anything at all about Soros or moveon. Nothing there except speculation and innuendo -- smear by implication, even though the idea of Soros supporting Ron Paul is ludicrous.

Most anti-war protesters are supporting him. This is the start of his demise.

He's the only candidate (other than Kucinich or Gravel) who promises to end the Iraq war. You expect them to line up behind Giuliani?

If you haven't noticed, 60-70% of Americans polled consistently report being opposed to the war in Iraq. I don't see that as much of a "demise" except among the warmongers.

I can not fathom a worse group of people to throw support behind him, except neo-nazis. Oops, scratch that, some of them are already supporting him (and he won't return their donations)

Just as with the 9/11 truthers, Ron Paul is not responsible for the views held by those who support him. Just because they support him, doesn't mean he supports them. I wonder what the neo-nazis think of Paul's praise for Muhammad Ali?

Return the money? Why? This is not like busboys at Chinese restaurants contributing sacks full of cash to Hillary Clinton. It's not even like Huckabee's Houston fund-raiser, held by a group of people who want to see Biblical commands enforced by law.

Anyone who contributes to Ron Paul knows one thing with certainty: you're not going to sway Paul's positions with money.

Wanting to repeal the death penalty isn't making me too thrilled either.

No idea where you got that one. Here's the truth:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/112 ... -measures/

I enjoy (and engage in) discussion of political politics, including the current presidential cycle. My signature makes it clear where I stand.

Rather than dismantling this blatantly false post bit-by-bit, I'll simply note that it is off topic and unrelated to Texas CHL, and asked that it be locked.

Kevin