[Goaltender66]

Originally Posted by TrybalRage

From the get-go Paul advocated a small tactical group taking Bin Laden out... kind of like the one that got him.

Hardly.

Rep. Ron Paul took an interesting position for a likely presidential candidate Tuesday – he explained to a Iowa radio station why he would not have ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden.
The answer seemed to catch Iowa radio host Simon Conway off guard; he asked Paul to repeat it.

Paul was unequivocal: “No, not the way it took place,” Paul said of the killing of bin Laden.

Why?

“It was absolutely not necessary and I think respect for the rule of law, international law – what if he’d been in a hotel in London?" Paul asked. "We wanted to keep it secret. Would we have sent the helicopters into London? Because they were afraid the information would get out. No you don’t want to do that.”

And since G29Reload asks who wouldn't have made the call, well, Ron Paul wouldn't.

[Atlas]

.....

[G19G20]

Originally Posted by Goaltender66

Hardly.



And since G29Reload asks who wouldn't have made the call, well, Ron Paul wouldn't.

Context friend, context. Paul submitted a bill issuing Marque and Reprisal against OBL and Al Qaeda responsible for 9/11. What he didn't authorize was 10 years of country after country being invaded to find OBL and he end up not in any of the countries we lost thousands of troops and trillions of dollars in. The quote above is true but taken in context of the rest of the story it makes perfect sense.

We had other AQ terrorists turned over to us by working with the Pakistani government. The same gov't we give billions of dollars a year to. This raid was off the Pakistani's radar and ended up with the injuries to Seals, the loss of a stealth helicopter (now in China's hands...great) and the death of OBL so no intelligence could be obtained. Approaching Pakistan would have been within international law and maintained Pakistan's sovereignty, while saving our helicopter and possibly getting intel from OBL himself.

Which plan sounds better to you? If just the death of OBL and all other consequences be damned is your position then you should think bigger. Ron Paul would have made a different call and that call would have saved us embarrassment, time, money and property. And we still would have had OBL.

[1200feather]

I think it's obvious that in some respects Paul is the only true conservative running, but I don't think he is going to do very well in SC.

[Goaltender66]

Originally Posted by G19G20

Context friend, context. Paul submitted a bill issuing Marque and Reprisal against OBL and Al Qaeda responsible for 9/11. What he didn't authorize was 10 years of country after country being invaded to find OBL and he end up not in any of the countries we lost thousands of troops and trillions of dollars in. The quote above is true but taken in context of the rest of the story it makes perfect sense.

We had other AQ terrorists turned over to us by working with the Pakistani government. The same gov't we give billions of dollars a year to. This raid was off the Pakistani's radar and ended up with the injuries to Seals, the loss of a stealth helicopter (now in China's hands...great) and the death of OBL so no intelligence could be obtained. Approaching Pakistan would have been within international law and maintained Pakistan's sovereignty, while saving our helicopter and possibly getting intel from OBL himself.

Which plan sounds better to you? If just the death of OBL and all other consequences be damned is your position then you should think bigger. Ron Paul would have made a different call and that call would have saved us embarrassment, time, money and property. And we still would have had OBL.

All a very long winded way of admitting that I was correct and Paul wouldn't have sent the SEALs to shoot Bin Laden. Moreover, Paul's reasoning is faulty, especially as expressed in his interview and his SC debate statements on the subject. He's incoherent at best and criminally negligent at worst.

There is no context that can reverse the very plain meaning of his statements on the subject.

[barbedwiresmile]

Originally Posted by 1200feather

I think it's obvious that in some respects Paul is the only true conservative running, but I don't think he is going to do very well in SC.

Or in GTPI, for that matter. And for the same unfortunate reasons.

[RC-RAMIE]

Originally Posted by Goaltender66

All a very long winded way of admitting that I was correct and Paul wouldn't have sent the SEALs to shoot Bin Laden. Moreover, Paul's reasoning is faulty, especially as expressed in his interview and his SC debate statements on the subject. He's incoherent at best and criminally negligent at worst.

There is no context that can reverse the very plain meaning of his statements on the subject.

Ron Paul wouldn't have violated Pakistan's sovereignty just as he would expect other nations not to violate ours.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by G19G20

Assuming it's obvious to all that the quoted post is irrevelent to the content I posted about Reagan's quote about libertarianism, Ill respond.



Do you have some problem with posting links to your sources? I see you quote a lot of things without pointing out where it comes from.

Paul campaigned for Reagan and was one of only 4 Congressman to endorse Reagan.



He did not like Reagan's policies when Reagan proceeded to jack up the debt, involve the country in foreign affairs of other nations, and other policies that Reagan campaigned against.



Or maybe you can recognize that Reagan wasn't as good as a president as the history books like to paint him. Reagan abandoned conservative principles many times during his terms and if there's one thing we know about Paul it's that he sticks to his principles no matter what.

Besides, you don't usually get invited to fly on Marine One with the President when you're not very friendly with him.
Ron Paul Talks About His Friendship with President Ronald Reagan... - YouTube




So you call Reagan a liar and that's supposed to be your argument? Today's conservatism is 95% liberal and 5% conservative. Big government? Check. Big spending? Check. Big interventionist foreign policy? Check. Welfare state? Check. The only thing the right can lay claim to is religion (aka social issues) and that's why the party is shrinking. But heck, even those principles go out the window as long as the nominee might beat that evil Democrat, who happens to have most of the same policies as the guy you're cheering for. (see Gingrich, Newt poll numbers in SC for examples of abandoning even the social issues)

Is your google broken? I can help you with your google-Fu

LINK

There ya go grasshopper.

If you liked Reagan in office, Ron Paul is probably not your guy. Even though he tried to take a ride on his coat tails. Ron paul left the party, made a third party bid for president, and came back when it was convenient to do so, so he could get some more government paychecks, and do some favors for his political supporters. Yes, even Reagan made some mistakes, Ron paul was one of them.

Did Reagan endorse Ron Paul for president when he ran? Nope. That should tell you something.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by TrybalRage

From the get-go Paul advocated a small tactical group taking Bin Laden out... kind of like the one that got him.

Paul has heavily criticized that operation. It's not his style at all.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ron-...adens-killing/

Hard to give the guy credit for something he quite clearly stated he would not do, huh?

[Goaltender66]

Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE

Ron Paul wouldn't have violated Pakistan's sovereignty just as he would expect other nations not to violate ours.

So again, another confirmation that Ron Paul would not have agreed to go after Bin Laden. That decision has all kinds of ramifications, well beyond tha naive golden rule garbage he's trying to sell.

How is your statement at all a rebuttal of what I said? It isn't. Therefore, if it comes down to Paul v. Obama I'm voting for the guy who didn't get the vapors when presented with a chance to put a bullet in Bin Laden's head.

[G29Reload]

Latest poll confirms R Paul unelectable.

4th place in SC. Really an exercise at this point. all downhill from here for him.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by G29Reload

Latest poll confirms R Paul unelectable.

4th place in SC. Really an exercise at this point. all downhill from here for him.

Did you notice that he did worse in the counties that had large military communities than he did state wide? Odd?

[Goaltender66]

Originally Posted by G29Reload

Latest poll confirms R Paul unelectable.

4th place in SC. Really an exercise at this point. all downhill from here for him.

Hey, he's beating Perry and Huntsman!!!!111!!! /ronulan


Yeah, fourth place in a four man field in an open primary.

[RyanBDawg]

Originally Posted by Goaltender66

Hey, he's beating Perry and Huntsman!!!!111!!! /ronulan


Yeah, fourth place in a four man field in an open primary.

Pretty good for someone who never really had any plans to contest South Carolina on a scale such as Newt or Romney..


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[geo57]

Originally Posted by RyanBDawg

Pretty good for someone who never really had any plans to contest South Carolina on a scale such as Newt or Romney..


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

How much worse can a person do than finish in last place ?

[RyanBDawg]

Originally Posted by geo57

How much worse can a person do than finish in last place ?

Finish behind someone who has dropped out of the race. Happened in 04 and 08.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[geo57]

Originally Posted by RyanBDawg

Finish behind someone who has dropped out of the race. Happened in 04 and 08.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Wouldn't that be just like the owner of a racehorse taking pride in finishing dead last by 20 lengths by justifying his pride that his horse beat the 3 horses that were scratched in the paddock ?

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by RyanBDawg

Pretty good for someone who never really had any plans to contest South Carolina on a scale such as Newt or Romney..


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

How did he do with his biggest push, in a state with his best forum, the caucus?




Third place, without any delegates won either. At least he won some counties there.


Lets see how he does in Florida, where a lot of people are closer to him in age.

[G19G20]

More recent USA Today polling confirming the previous polling. Newt and Rick lose badly to Obama. Paul and Romney both poll even (within margin of error) with Obama.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2903...bama-polls.htm

Originally Posted by G29Reload

Latest poll confirms R Paul unelectable.

4th place in SC. Really an exercise at this point. all downhill from here for him.

All downhill for the GOP you mean.

Just because many Republicans continue to vote for candidates that will LOSE to Obama doesn't mean Paul isn't electable. It means there's a lot of GOP voters that don't pay attention to what matters, like how the rest of the country feels about the candidates. Everyone cries about how beating Obama is all that matters, then those same people go vote for Newt who polls horribly against Obama and would get slaughtered on election day. Go figure. Wake up folks. It's time to pick Romney or Paul and send Newt and Rick packing. Voting for either of those guys in the primaries and caucuses is a wasted vote.

[Eurodriver]

Its kind of funny seeing the Texans support someone who is nothing like what Texas is all about.

I think these same Texans would absolutely hate Sam Houston and Stephen Austin.

[Goaltender66]

Originally Posted by G19G20

More recent USA Today polling confirming the previous polling. Newt and Rick lose badly to Obama. Paul and Romney both poll even (within margin of error) with Obama.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2903...bama-polls.htm

Just because many Republicans continue to vote for candidates that will LOSE to Obama doesn't mean Paul isn't electable. It means there's a lot of GOP voters that don't pay attention to what matters, like how the rest of the country feels about the candidates. Everyone cries about how beating Obama is all that matters, then those same people go vote for a guy like Newt that polls horribly against Obama and would get slaughtered on election day. Go figure. Wake up folks. It's time to pick Romney or Paul and send Newt and Rick packing.

Again, it's polling registereds, not likelies, and doesn't provide a party breakdown (for all you know they are oversampling Dems).

http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/1523...Pt1_120130.pdf

Details matter.

[geo57]

Originally Posted by Eurodriver

Its kind of funny seeing the Texans support someone who is nothing like what Texas is all about.

I think these same Texans would absolutely hate Sam Houston and Stephen Austin.

I guess you'll have to laugh all you want to. IIRC, 92 % of GOP voters did not favor Paul in the 08 Texas primary.

[Fred Hansen]

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Eurodriver

Its kind of funny seeing the Texans support someone who is nothing like what Texas is all about.

I think these same Texans would absolutely hate Sam Houston and Stephen Austin.

Actually, in some areas, liberals fit right in. In Austin, you'll see entire herds of free range hemp rope sandal wearing' hippies.

I don't live near any cities. Most people around where I live aren't real happy about the group this year. But just about everyone is sure Barry should find another job.

Nice troll attempt though. I'd give it a three. The" if you don't love Ron Paul you hate Sam Houston " was a bit too obvious. Ron may live near Houston, but he's no Sam Houston.

[rgregoryb]

at least he's consistent , last in Fl