If you were/are a Ron Paul supporter, how do you feel about his comments that he wouldn't have ordered the Bin Laden raid?

[Burgold]

Evidently I have lost my moral compass, because that scenario doesn't bother me in the least

Whoops. Messed up. In that scenario, after shrugging because the Osama said he "no" the SEALS would turn around and leave. Which would, of course, be ridiculous.

I agree DJ. As near as I can tell, everything was handled perfectly in that mission from start to finish.

[Bibby]

It's great that we killed Usama Bin Laden, but I doubt in the grand scheme of it all his death really does anything. However, if i had the opprutuinty to give the go ahead to take Bin Laden I would have... unlike Clinton.

[SnyderShrugged]

While I still somewhat lean towards disagreeing, I am glad that i was able to hear the comments in context. He never said he wouldn't have killed bin Laden he said he wouldn't go in unconstitutionally in violation of international law. He wanted to do it constitutionally and tried, ten YEARS ago, see link: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-3076.

Mainly he said he would have simply brought him to justice a different way. In fact, he said specifically, that he would have approached it in the manner that we got KSM.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110512/pl_dailycaller/ronpaulsayshewouldnothaveorderedbinladenkill

Watch the dailycaller video for the whole conversation.

Again, I still kind of disagree with him, though its tough to fault his logic (but I'm pretty Machiavellian in hind-site at times)

It was a very obvious skewing of the quote by CBS

[Thiebear]

As with Newt Gingrich, Babe Ruth, Ron Paul has lots of good ideas.

And also leads the league in strike outs.

This is why you surround them with Czars and write the their speeches and put teleprompters up in front of them to keep them "on message' once entering the White House.

I've said for years: John Kerry wins and we are fractionally different than we are right now.

Campaign person is not President person with current occupant highlighting this.

[SnyderShrugged]

As with Newt Gingrich, Babe Ruth, Ron Paul has lots of good ideas.

And also leads the league in strike outs.

This is why you surround them with Czars and write the their speeches and put teleprompters up in front of them to keep them "on message' once entering the White House.

I've said for years: John Kerry wins and we are fractionally different than we are right now.

Campaign person is not President person.

Leads the leauge in strikeouts? How so? It seems to me his so called "strikeouts" are miniscule compared to the vast amount of things he has been completely correct on over the years.

Queue the "broken clock" commentary starting....now

[zoony]

Leads the leauge in strikeouts? How so? It seems to me his so called "strikeouts" are miniscule compared to the vast amount of things he has been completely correct on over the years.

Queue the "broken clock" commentary starting....now

I prefer the "pack your own gun next time you fly" so we don't have to shell out tax dollars for airline security. That's a lot more fun.

[DRSmith]

It's great that we killed Usama Bin Laden, but I doubt in the grand scheme of it all his death really does anything. However, if i had the opprutuinty to give the go ahead to take Bin Laden I would have... unlike Clinton.

I like how people ignore the special ops people who had wanted to get him and had him trapped and could not get the go ahead under Bush forget that.

[SnyderShrugged]

I prefer the "pack your own gun next time you fly" so we don't have to shell out tax dollars for airline security. That's a lot more fun.

Well, it certainly could be an option when rational thought is applied.

[DRSmith]

Well, it certainly could be an option when rational thought is applied.

Suer confined space. alcohol and some nut jobs what could go wrong

[Corcaigh]

I prefer the "pack your own gun next time you fly" so we don't have to shell out tax dollars for airline security.

Rather than the wild-wild west solution, I prefer a mathematical approach ...

You should always bring a bomb on the plane with you, because statistically, the chances of there being two bombs on the plane is essentially zero.

[SnyderShrugged]

Suer confined space. alcohol and some nut jobs what could go wrong

Hmmm, so you must support air marshalls and pilots being disarmed as well then correct? Please link to the last 5 cases where a firearm discharged inside of an airliner caused a crash, disaster, or even an injury.

[The Sisko]

Hmmm, so you must support air marshalls and pilots being disarmed as well then correct? Please link to the last 5 cases where a firearm discharged inside of an airliner caused a crash, disaster, or even an injury.

So true. I think this points to the utter waste of paying for the specialized training, knowledge, equipment and the like with these loosers. After all, any yahoo with a gun in one hand and a beer in the other could achieve the same results as a trained, vetted professional. :doh:

[DRSmith]

Hmmm, so you must support air marshalls and pilots being disarmed as well then correct? Please link to the last 5 cases where a firearm discharged inside of an airliner caused a crash, disaster, or even an injury.

If you would like a history of armed highjackers here you go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

Hey the US caught up to the rest of the world that has had high jacking problems and started using air marshells

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 09:38 AM ----------

So true. I think this points to the utter waste of paying for the specialized training, knowledge, equipment and the like with these loosers. After all, any yahoo with a gun in one hand and a beer in the other could achieve the same results as a trained, vetted professional. :doh:

I am waiting for the solution to school shootings is to arm all kids

[GibbsFactor]

Slowly but surely Ron Paul has been or will be proven to be correct.

4 years ago it was political idiocy to consider auditing the fed. 100 percent DOA. You were a kooky brain dead jackass for considering the fed should be audited.

Now we saw in the last congress a bi partisan bill passing to audit the fed.

And while Paul comes off, note the key words comes off, as kooky at times with his foreign policy, he more so is looking correct. It is completely over reaching, we have far too many bases world wide, and yes people around the world resent us in part due to this.

Does it mean all of his answers are right? Of course not, nobody has the magic beans to correct this mess, but his analysis in regards to the military establishment, the fed, and debt have all been very accurate.

SHF, I've always thought of you as an intelligent guy. The masses will catch up, ironically, when our generation is running things.

This is the exact same concept most here are calling loony that they once supported in opposition of Bush. Most people are so inconsistent and set with their biases that they can't see that they are hypocritical.

Water boarding and GTMO are perfect examples of this. Yet they are the ones to make the crazy cry. It really is quite comical, sad and depressing.

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 09:39 AM ----------

Paul seems to be taken out of context here. But keep in mind, he also proposed this:

Marque And Reprisal...One Month After 9/11

I'm going to reread his recent statements because there is some contradiction on the surface.

We did do Marque and Reprisal. Ever heard of Blackwater?

[SnyderShrugged]

So true. I think this points to the utter waste of paying for the specialized training, knowledge, equipment and the like with these loosers. After all, any yahoo with a gun in one hand and a beer in the other could achieve the same results as a trained, vetted professional. :doh:

You do realize that Paul proposed trained personnel and limits of specific equipment used right? Or did you choose to go with errant assumptions about his ideas based on random and inaccurate commentary from blogs and even other posters here?

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 09:41 AM ----------

If you would like a history of armed highjackers here you go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

Hey the US caught up to the rest of the world that has had high jacking problems and started using air marshells

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 09:38 AM ----------

I am waiting for the solution to school shootings is to arm all kids

That would be interesting if Paul were proposing to arm hijackers rather than the people who fight them.

again, please link to actual events that have occurred due to a discharged firearm in the body of a plane that caused it to either crash or lose pressure.

[DRSmith]

Did I make the claim it would cause a crash or loss of pressure?

We do not bring guns on planes so no one has guns as means of cutting down high jackings.

[SnyderShrugged]

Did I make the claim it would cause a crash or loss of pressure?

We do not bring guns on planes so no one has guns as means of cutting down high jackings.

and Paul proposed (way back in 2007 btw, this isnt something recent) that to cut down on hijackings, armed personnel privately employed by the airlines could provide an inhibitor to terrorists attempts.

While you may feel differently, there isnt much wrong with the logic.

[GibbsFactor]

Did I make the claim it would cause a crash or loss of pressure?

We do not bring guns on planes so no one has guns as means of cutting down high jackings.

So let's be good citizens and think of the in between.

We get high jacked by people with knives and box cutters and bombs and guns and brute force.

What is the answer? Arm pilots and Air Marshalls with guns? Increase security checkpoints?

Both flawed answers. The security checkpoints do not work. The Air Marshall/Pilot could discharge the weapon hurting passengers or even taking down the plane.

Is this the best idea we can come up with? And what is the cost? Delays in boarding. Higher expenses to fly. Safer? Not really.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I guess all the people here that are happy we killed bin laden, are also for the the death penalty,right? Just asking

I don't think I've ever claimed to be consistent. Consistent people are jagoffs.

[zoony]

and Paul proposed (way back in 2007 btw, this isnt something recent) that to cut down on hijackings, armed personnel privately employed by the airlines could provide an inhibitor to terrorists attempts.

While you may feel differently, there isnt much wrong with the logic.

That's what we had prior to 9-11. Airlines paid for security.

But wait, you must mean that airlines could choose to add several million dollars on their own to provide security. Yah, I'm sure they'll be lining up to do it.

But wait wait, you must mean that the government passes a law requiring airlines to pay for security? There's that pesky gov't again.

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 10:19 AM ----------

Is this the best idea we can come up with? And what is the cost? Delays in boarding. Higher expenses to fly. Safer? Not really.

Yes, it's much safer. Stop with the insults to the collective intelligence, seriously.

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 10:21 AM ----------

You do realize that Paul proposed trained personnel and limits of specific equipment used right? Or did you choose to go with errant assumptions about his ideas based on random and inaccurate commentary from blogs and even other posters here?

WRONG.

Ron Paul said it himself. He was not ambiguous. How many times has the link been posted? He said it on Realtime with Bill Maher on his first run.

Ron Paul is a blathering idiot He can say anything, his cult will spin it to one of two ways:

(a) what he REALLY meant was :blahblah:

( You've taken his comments out of context

© Well sure he's wrong about some things, but doggone it, he's right about so much else! For instance, did you know he thinks that the Fed and our financial system has greedy incompetent people in it? He's a visionairy!!!

:dunce:

.....

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 10:26 AM ----------

Rather than the wild-wild west solution, I prefer a mathematical approach ...

You should always bring a bomb on the plane with you, because statistically, the chances of there being two bombs on the plane is essentially zero.

Idea man! I like it.

However, the bomb you bring on board could accidentally go off. Don't want that. I think what we should do is require that a survivor from a previous airline hijacking or crash be on board every domestic flight. What would the odds be of being in 2 airline crashes?

...

[The Sisko]

You do realize that Paul proposed trained personnel and limits of specific equipment used right? Or did you choose to go with errant assumptions about his ideas based on random and inaccurate commentary from blogs and even other posters here?

...and I suppose next you'll be trying convince us that RP never actually advocated a return to the gold standard, 'eh?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Do it

There is no way that will not be misread.

[SnyderShrugged]

That's what we had prior to 9-11. Airlines paid for security.

But wait, you must mean that airlines could choose to add several million dollars on their own to provide security. Yah, I'm sure they'll be lining up to do it.

But wait wait, you must mean that the government passes a law requiring airlines to pay for security? There's that pesky gov't again.

And the airline with the best security certainly would draw the most customers. Again, though you may dislike the idea, it isnt wacky, just different from what you want.

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 10:19 AM ----------

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 10:21 AM ----------

[/color]

WRONG.

Ron Paul said it himself. He was not ambiguous. How many times has the link been posted? He said it on Realtime with Bill Maher on his first run.

Ron Paul is a blathering idiot He can say anything, his cult will spin it to one of two ways:

(a) what he REALLY meant was :blahblah:

( You've taken his comments out of context

© Well sure he's wrong about some things, but doggone it, he's right about so much else! For instance, did you know he thinks that the Fed and our financial system has greedy incompetent people in it? He's a visionairy!!!

:dunce:

.....

Link to the specific proposals that he fomally made please. verbatim, full context quotes (not blurbs from media or clips from a debate)

because I have a link that says you are incorrect.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR02896:@@@L&summ2=msummary

H.R.2896

Latest Title: Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001

Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 9/14/2001) Cosponsors (19)

Latest Major Action: 9/17/2001 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Aviation.

Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments

SUMMARY AS OF:

9/14/2001--Introduced.

Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 - Declares that no Federal agency shall prohibit a pilot, copilot, or navigator of an aircraft, or any law enforcement personnel specifically detailed for the protection of such aircraft, from carrying a firearm.

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 10:26 AM ----------

Idea man! I like it.

However, the bomb you bring on board could accidentally go off. Don't want that. I think what we should do is require that a survivor from a previous airline hijacking or crash be on board every domestic flight. What would the odds be of being in 2 airline crashes?

...

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 10:40 AM ----------

...and I suppose next you'll be trying convince us that RP never actually advocated a return to the gold standard, 'eh?

again, please provide a link. I did, and it shows you are in error.

The funniest part about this thread is that some here apparently think a proposal to allow private airlines to handle their own security is somehow one of Ron Paul's core campaign pledges or even a core issue.

[GibbsFactor]

...and I suppose next you'll be trying convince us that RP never actually advocated a return to the gold standard, 'eh?

He didn't. He simply wanted to legalize competing currencies such as gold in an effort to remove some of the power the Fed holds.

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 10:48 AM ----------

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 10:40 AM ----------

again, please provide a link. I did, and it shows you are in error.

The funniest part about this thread is that some here apparently think a proposal to allow private airlines to handle their own security is somehow one of Ron Paul's core campaign pledges or even a core issue.

Even funnier is how it has nothing to do with the OP. It's cherry picking on, in their minds, easily discreditable stances.

[SnyderShrugged]

He didn't. He simply wanted to legalize competing currencies such as gold in an effort to remove some of the power the Fed holds.

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 10:48 AM ----------

Even funnier is how it has nothing to do with the OP. It's cherry picking on, in their minds, easily discreditable stances.

some are too scared to speak about the actual, meaningful positions rather than a small one from a decade ago. I dont blame the proponents of big government and big spending for running away from the subjects and finding minutae to focus on instead. I would too in their shoes.