Comments on: Video:Guiliani Responds to Ron Paul’s Statement that We Invited 9/11, 2nd GOP Debate http://gop3.com/2007/05/15/videoguiliani-responds-to-ron-pauls-statement-that-we-invited-911-2nd-gop-debate/ Fighting Like Warriors and Thinking Right. Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:53:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Chuck http://gop3.com/2007/05/15/videoguiliani-responds-to-ron-pauls-statement-that-we-invited-911-2nd-gop-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-133429 Chuck Mon, 22 Oct 2007 07:17:45 +0000 http://gop3.com/2007/05/15/videoguiliani-responds-to-ron-pauls-statement-that-we-invited-911-2nd-gop-debate/#comment-133429 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkfg0PixtnU&NR=1 A worthwhile video from May's GOP debate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....U&NR=1

A worthwhile video from May’s GOP debate.

]]> By: Chuck http://gop3.com/2007/05/15/videoguiliani-responds-to-ron-pauls-statement-that-we-invited-911-2nd-gop-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-101649 Chuck Thu, 24 May 2007 16:27:47 +0000 http://gop3.com/2007/05/15/videoguiliani-responds-to-ron-pauls-statement-that-we-invited-911-2nd-gop-debate/#comment-101649 http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/110/7629/ron.asp?nid=7629&wid=110 <b>Ron Paul and Patriotism</b> A good read <i>What I have heard all too frequently from various individuals are sharp accusations that, because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were unpatriotic, un-American evildoers deserving contempt. The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power. The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment. ... Randolph Bourne said that, <b>"War is the health of the state.''With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity.</b> Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a "war psychology'' to justify the expansive role of the state. This includes the role the Federal Government plays in our lives, as well as in our economic transactions. ... Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring war, even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions, while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate encourages big-government liberals and big-government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs. The long-term cost in dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are emphasized. It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going on simultaneously. Thus, the war on drugs, the war against gun ownership, the war against poverty, the war against illiteracy, the war against terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements are endless. All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite, prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty. </i> http://www.freemarketnews.com/.....mp;wid=110

Ron Paul and Patriotism
A good read

What I have heard all too frequently from various individuals are sharp accusations that, because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were unpatriotic, un-American evildoers deserving contempt.

The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.

The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.

…

Randolph Bourne said that, “War is the health of the state.”With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity. Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a “war psychology” to justify the expansive role of the state. This includes the role the Federal Government plays in our lives, as well as in our economic transactions.

…

Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring war, even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions, while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate encourages big-government liberals and big-government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs.

The long-term cost in dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are emphasized. It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going on simultaneously. Thus, the war on drugs, the war against gun ownership, the war against poverty, the war against illiteracy, the war against terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements are endless.

All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite, prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty.

]]> By: Chuck http://gop3.com/2007/05/15/videoguiliani-responds-to-ron-pauls-statement-that-we-invited-911-2nd-gop-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-101467 Chuck Wed, 23 May 2007 18:31:54 +0000 http://gop3.com/2007/05/15/videoguiliani-responds-to-ron-pauls-statement-that-we-invited-911-2nd-gop-debate/#comment-101467 Paul had a Point http://www.reason.com/news/show/120360.html <i>The reaction to the showdown between Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani at the second GOP presidential primary debate has been striking. Paul suggested that the recent history of U.S. foreign policy endeavors overseas may have had something to do with terrorists' willingness to come to America, live here for several months, then give their lives to kill as many Americans as possible. ... But to suggest that we shouldn't even consider that our actions overseas might have unintended consequences is, frankly, just ignorant. And to attempt to silence anyone who says otherwise by attempting to define them as the lunatic fringe of political debate is not only ignorant, it's an embrace of ignorance—a refusal to even hear ideas that might challenge your own perspective. If you get stung by a hornet, it makes sense to see if there's a hornets' nest near your home and, if there is, to exterminate it. It doesn't make sense to forge out looking for hornets' nests, taking wild smacks at them with sticks anywhere you can find them. You're bound to get stung again. It also makes sense to see if there's something you're doing that's attracting hornets, like perhaps storing perfume by a window. None of this suggests you deserved to be stung; it only means you're rationally looking at what caused you to be stung in the first place, and you're sensibly trying to prevent it from happening again.</i> Paul had a Point
http://www.reason.com/news/show/120360.html

The reaction to the showdown between Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani at the second GOP presidential primary debate has been striking. Paul suggested that the recent history of U.S. foreign policy endeavors overseas may have had something to do with terrorists’ willingness to come to America, live here for several months, then give their lives to kill as many Americans as possible.

…

But to suggest that we shouldn’t even consider that our actions overseas might have unintended consequences is, frankly, just ignorant. And to attempt to silence anyone who says otherwise by attempting to define them as the lunatic fringe of political debate is not only ignorant, it’s an embrace of ignorance—a refusal to even hear ideas that might challenge your own perspective.

If you get stung by a hornet, it makes sense to see if there’s a hornets’ nest near your home and, if there is, to exterminate it. It doesn’t make sense to forge out looking for hornets’ nests, taking wild smacks at them with sticks anywhere you can find them. You’re bound to get stung again.

It also makes sense to see if there’s something you’re doing that’s attracting hornets, like perhaps storing perfume by a window. None of this suggests you deserved to be stung; it only means you’re rationally looking at what caused you to be stung in the first place, and you’re sensibly trying to prevent it from happening again.

]]> By: Gop3.com: The Triumvirate » Blog Archive » Ron Paul blowback is justified, don’t talk to terrorists http://gop3.com/2007/05/15/videoguiliani-responds-to-ron-pauls-statement-that-we-invited-911-2nd-gop-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-100208 Gop3.com: The Triumvirate » Blog Archive » Ron Paul blowback is justified, don’t talk to terrorists Thu, 17 May 2007 18:43:16 +0000 http://gop3.com/2007/05/15/videoguiliani-responds-to-ron-pauls-statement-that-we-invited-911-2nd-gop-debate/#comment-100208 [...] Fighting Like Warriors and Thinking Right. Systematically Debunking Liberal Rhetoric. « Video:Guiliani Responds to Ron Paul’s Statement that We Invited 9/11, 2nd GOP Debate [...] [...] Fighting Like Warriors and Thinking Right. Systematically Debunking Liberal Rhetoric. « Video:Guiliani Responds to Ron Paul’s Statement that We Invited 9/11, 2nd GOP Debate [...]

]]> By: Mark http://gop3.com/2007/05/15/videoguiliani-responds-to-ron-pauls-statement-that-we-invited-911-2nd-gop-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-100064 Mark Wed, 16 May 2007 23:47:29 +0000 http://gop3.com/2007/05/15/videoguiliani-responds-to-ron-pauls-statement-that-we-invited-911-2nd-gop-debate/#comment-100064 Sadly, Chuck, it doesn't matter anymore. The message voters will probably take away from that exchange is that Giuliani is strong on terror, while Paul is anti-America. That's not necessarily reality, but that's what's being said. Sadly, Chuck, it doesn’t matter anymore. The message voters will probably take away from that exchange is that Giuliani is strong on terror, while Paul is anti-America. That’s not necessarily reality, but that’s what’s being said.

]]> By: Chuck http://gop3.com/2007/05/15/videoguiliani-responds-to-ron-pauls-statement-that-we-invited-911-2nd-gop-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-100038 Chuck Wed, 16 May 2007 21:35:28 +0000 http://gop3.com/2007/05/15/videoguiliani-responds-to-ron-pauls-statement-that-we-invited-911-2nd-gop-debate/#comment-100038 <b>Ron Paul on Iraq</b> <i>In his own words at the debate, last night:</i> “In 2002, I authored an amendment to International Relations to declare war, up or down, and nobody voted for [declaring] war. My argument there was: If we want to go to war and we should go to war, then Congress should declare it. We don’t go to war like we did in Vietnam and Korea because those wars never end." "Ronald Reagan in 1983, sent Marines into Lebanon. And he said he would never turn tail and run. A few months later, 241 Marines were killed and the Marines were taken out. And Reagan addressed this subject in his memoirs: “I said I would never turn tail and run but I never realized the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics” and he changed his policy there. We need the courage of a Ronald Reagan." <i>Taken from 1:23 into the clip</i> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WobzdQ4a_4&watch_response The clip is a condensed version of everything said by Ron Paul during the debate. Dr. Paul talks about everything a conservative should love and he has a record of always backing it up, no empty rhetoric. I think the best illustration of the Ron Paul "gift to Guiliani" fallacy is: <b>Event One:</b> United States installs the Shah in Iran, angering Muslims <b>Event Two:</b> American hostages are taken in Iran <b>Event Three:</b> Someone suggests maybe the two events are related <b>Event Four:</b> Sean Hannity et. al. breathlessly asks "Are you saying America invited the hostage crisis??" The Middle East is a very complex issue. If we want to have a war on terror, let's declare war. It is the constitutional thing to do. Ron Paul on Iraq

In his own words at the debate, last night:

“In 2002, I authored an amendment to International Relations to declare war, up or down, and nobody voted for [declaring] war. My argument there was: If we want to go to war and we should go to war, then Congress should declare it. We don’t go to war like we did in Vietnam and Korea because those wars never end.”

“Ronald Reagan in 1983, sent Marines into Lebanon. And he said he would never turn tail and run. A few months later, 241 Marines were killed and the Marines were taken out. And Reagan addressed this subject in his memoirs: “I said I would never turn tail and run but I never realized the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics” and he changed his policy there. We need the courage of a Ronald Reagan.”

Taken from 1:23 into the clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....h_response

The clip is a condensed version of everything said by Ron Paul during the debate. Dr. Paul talks about everything a conservative should love and he has a record of always backing it up, no empty rhetoric.

I think the best illustration of the Ron Paul “gift to Guiliani” fallacy is:

Event One: United States installs the Shah in Iran, angering Muslims
Event Two: American hostages are taken in Iran
Event Three: Someone suggests maybe the two events are related
Event Four: Sean Hannity et. al. breathlessly asks “Are you saying America invited the hostage crisis??”

The Middle East is a very complex issue. If we want to have a war on terror, let’s declare war. It is the constitutional thing to do.

]]> By: Chuck http://gop3.com/2007/05/15/videoguiliani-responds-to-ron-pauls-statement-that-we-invited-911-2nd-gop-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-100006 Chuck Wed, 16 May 2007 18:01:13 +0000 http://gop3.com/2007/05/15/videoguiliani-responds-to-ron-pauls-statement-that-we-invited-911-2nd-gop-debate/#comment-100006 Ron Paul does not "blame America" and his comments were not outrageous. He said there are consequences to our foreign policy actions. To argue otherwise is to argue that we live in a vacuum. Sean Hannity republicanism is not what this country needs. Republicans lost in 2006 on the war issue. Ron Paul agrees that if we are going to fight a war in the Middle East, let's fight to win. The first step, is to actually declare war. <b>Extended video clip</b> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk334TbliaY <b>Sean Hannity and Ron Paul (45 sec)</b> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ4IW0Y_7WY&mode=related&search= Ron Paul does not “blame America” and his comments were not outrageous. He said there are consequences to our foreign policy actions. To argue otherwise is to argue that we live in a vacuum. Sean Hannity republicanism is not what this country needs. Republicans lost in 2006 on the war issue. Ron Paul agrees that if we are going to fight a war in the Middle East, let’s fight to win. The first step, is to actually declare war.

Extended video clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk334TbliaY

Sean Hannity and Ron Paul (45 sec)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....mp;search=

]]>