Ron Paul is a complete and utter asswipe. The utter gall of this man to blame 9/11 on America. He sounds like any other Michael Moore, Howard Dean, and KosKiddie and should be completely and utterly ashamed of himself.
On the other hand, Rudy went up a few points for calling him on it. Although he has sunk quite a few points to begin with.
UPDATE
As you can tell by my comment section I’ve attracted many of the supporters of our very own Republican Kucinich (thank you Don Surber, perfect description of this nutcase Paul) with their complete and utter (I like saying that word tonight for some reason) idiocy.
Dean Barnett described this embarrassment of a candidate perfectly:
Ron Paul – Do you know that this Robert Taft-idolizing crackpot is Andrew Sullivan’s latest heartthrob? Andrew’s bitterly disappointed that Republicans aren’t giving Paul a chance. I’m convinced that if Andrew familiarized himself with Paul’s background, his disappointment would be mitigated. On the bright side, Wendell Goler asked Paul for three programs he would cut. Talk about serving a heaping helping of red meat to a libertarian. (For what it’s worth, Paul is actually right about the Department of Homeland Security; that monstrosity is a living breathing emblem of all that’s wrong with our government.) The good news is that Paul was such an embarrassment tonight, he may not be invited to the next debate. As Captain Picard might say, make it so.
We could only hope.
Beautiful illustration of Ron Paul courtesy of SondraK
Oh, and since Fox hasn’t quite figured out that their poll has been hijacked by the KosKiddies, DummiesU crowd, and the Libertarians (they go well together….like pee’s in a pod), please check out LGF’s poll here.
UPDATE II
Great question for Ron Paul at Hot Air:
It would be interesting to ask Paul’s opinion on Jefferson’s handling of the Barbary Pirates, incidentally. If I recall those signatures at the end of the Constitution correctly, he actually was one of the founding fathers, and I don’t seem to think “blowback” was amongst his concerns.
I’m just amazed at Ron Paul’s total lack of reality here. Radical Islam wants us dead because we are not Muslim. It’s as simple as that. It does not matter what we do, where we run, where we hide. In the end it’s the same as it was 200 years ago:
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then ambassador to France, and John Adams, then ambassador to Britain, met in London with Tripoli’s ambassador, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. Jefferson and Adams asked by what right the Barbary States preyed upon American shipping, enslaving crews and passengers.
Adja replied that the actions of the Islamic nations were “… founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
UPDATE III 05-16-07
Ace makes an outstanding point:
Which is strange in and of itself– after all, Ron Paul insists, along with every other left-wing ninny, that Osama bin Ladin wants us in Iraq. If Al Qaeda wants us in Iraq, why are they always propagandizing for us to depart? Shouldn’t they be trying to keep us there, since they want us there and all?
And also, if our foreign policy is, as Ron Paul asserts, exactly what al Qaeda wants, what sense does it make to, as he suggests, craft a foreign policy more amenable to Al Qaeda, less likely to anger them?
His fundamental starting premise is that we already have just about the optimum foreign policy from Al Qaeda’s perspective; what additional measures is he thinking of when he calls for us to try to please Al Qaeda more in our foreign policy decisionmaking?
I am more then a little grateful that this dumbass decided to show his true colors last night. That way we can be rid of him, along with the rest of his liberal libertarians who were not going to vote for a Republican anyway, quicker.
Meanwhile the Ron Paulbots….or Truthers as they’re more well know as….are busy stomping on any site that dares to post a negative thought about this nimrod. Remind you of a tactic used by another faction in this country?
Yup….
The lefties.
Peas in a pod I’m telling ya.
Also, check out Hot Air tonight with a video of an exchange between Alan Colmes and Laura Ingraham about this incident. Here is Ian:
Colmes’ reasoning: because a CIA analyst and the CIA itself had similar ideas, it’s okay for Ron Paul to do the same and no one should express any anger. Commenting on the “conventional wisdom” that Rudy’s response was “iconic,” Ingraham said it was just “cute” but nothing special.
Don’t you love how all the lefties are defending Ron Paul?
But he is a true…cough….conservative….cough.
Sigh…
Other’s Blogging:
- Michelle Malkin
- Ed Driscoll
- Tammy Bruce
- Gateway Pundit
- Captain’s Quarters
- Tigerhawk
- FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog
- Atlas Shrugs
- Hot Air
- Judicious Asininity
- Penraker
See author page
@Bob is right and you are not.: Jesus….are you really this immature?
I do not allow sockpuppets here, and while I can see you are changing your username in some juvenile attempt at a gotcha the fact remains…do not change your username. Pick one and stick with it. First and only warning.
CURT
THANK’S FOR CLEARING IT,
I was trying to decipher those names, that to me look like saying same thing,
I thought I was an idiot for a while trying to weight in between the 2 names
bye
Don’t you dare threaten me, Curt. And yes I acknowledge my “ad hominem” but I don’t retract my comment. It is my honest opinion. If you think I’m a troll, fine. But you’re wrong. I will also use a little “tu quoque-ing” and say y’all are calling me: immature, arrogant, RonPaulbot, and intuectually lazy. This does not help your ethos, and certainly frustrates me. Verum est factum ut ego sum prudentior quam te, sed tu es stultus. Quaeso, licit me sole! I’m very disappointed at your disability to actually take a look at the other side of the arguments and analyze them before spewing out links instead of showing any competent debating skills. It is a rule that you need to see both sides before criticizing either, but evidently you haven’t, and simply dismiss his policies before looking into his logos. Furthermore the links you supply overlook Ron Paul’s logos, and are as equally irrelevant/invalid as any of your arguments.
@Bobcanchangehisnameallhewants: Ok then, I gave you fair warning…you’re gone.
Buh bye
Uh, I support Ron Paul, and I think you’re a jackass. If you’re even a Ron Paul supporter and not someone who’s just having fun lampooning one.
‘intuectually lazy’ – I detect another sort of laziness. Or is this some sort of sly self-parody?