Tea Party Heckles Ron Paul's Hate America First Message

[SemperFiUSMC]

Last night's debate was very interesting. Rick Santorum called out Ron Paul for posting an "9/11 was all America's fault" message on his web site on 9/11. Paul was booed by the Tea Party crowd in attendance when he tried to justify why it was in fact America's fault. There is still a glimmer of sanity in the world.

I think Rick Perry lost big time last night. Coddling illegals and forcing little girls to get HPV vaccines are going to be insurmountable issues for him. Michelle Bachman landed some devastating body blows last night.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

While the tea party crowd may boo, pushing the message that we were correct to invade Iraq will eliminate a candidate from winning the general election.

Santorum attacks Paul because Santorum knows he stands little chance.... but he shot himself in the foot with that one.

 

[melensdad]

Yup, for a while during the debate it looked a lot like a fight that will lead to an Obama victory. Let's all destroy ourselves and make ourselves weaker!!!

 

[WWIIIDefender]

They booed, he made his point and then they cheered. They also booed Rick Perry

 

[Garb]

How is questioning America's foreign policy the same as hating America?

 

[Scutter01]

Why are people booing and cheering during a debate? Are they animals? They can't sit quietly and listen?

 

[NYFelon]

How is questioning America's foreign policy the same as hating America?

because anything that doesn't blindly bleat along with the official line "during war time" is hating America.

 

[Garb]

because anything that doesn't blindly bleat along with the official line "during war time" is hating America.

Sometimes I think people love war more than they love America.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKBDHWDgBo&feature=player_embedded

 

[Garb]

I love how this thread got hijacked by the "hate America" crowd.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

While the tea party crowd may boo, pushing the message that we were correct to invade Iraq will eliminate a candidate from winning the general election.

Santorum attacks Paul because Santorum knows he stands little chance.... but he shot himself in the foot with that one.

Pushing a message that we were right to invade Iraq is a far cry different than saying it was America's fault we were attacked, wouldn't you agree?

They booed, he made his point and then they cheered. They also booed Rick Perry

Yeah, like 12 Paultards cheered after.

Rick Perry got booed and deservedly so. His answers on illegal immigration and forced vaccination were unacceptable. I think he's damaged goods.

because anything that doesn't blindly bleat along with the official line "during war time" is hating America.

Not true at all. We've made plenty of policy errors in prosecuting the wars. It's absolutely fair game to point those failures out in order to rectify them.

I'm all for getting out of Iraq and Afganistan; but on our terms, not the terrorists.

Blaming America for the attacks of 9/11 is not only intellectually dishonest it's historically inaccurate. America was attacked because evil exists and was personified by Al Queda. Bin Laden used our Middle East foreign policy as a pretext to commit attrocities against America and American civilians. If they hadn't found one excuse they would have spouted another.

Sometimes I think people love war more than they love America.

Who?

 

[Garb]

Who?

I was really trying to make a point. You categorize me and others on this board as people who hate America. Do you love war more than America? If you do, it wouldn't surprise me, but I'm not going to read into your motives or mischaracterize your position. Ron Paul, nor anyone on this board (that I have read) have ever said that they hate America. You should stop trying to put words in people's mouths.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I was really trying to make a point. You categorize me and others on this board as people who hate America. Do you love war more than America? If you do, it wouldn't surprise me, but I'm not going to read into your motives or mischaracterize your position. Ron Paul, nor anyone on this board (that I have read) have ever said that they hate America. You should stop trying to put words in people's mouths.

People don't generally come right out and say they hate America, unless they live in Berkeley or Libya. It's far more nuanced than that - more often spoken in code. Blaming America for being attacked on 9/11 is one of the code words. Saying America's chickens have come home to roost is another. So is calling for America's surrender to our enemy.

Waging war is a tool of diplomacy. Sometimes it's executed just to open a big old can of whoopass on somebody that needs their ass whooped. I find no joy in war. I find even less when losing one after the decision has been made to engage. Relitigating the decision to enter Iraq, Afganistan, or even Libya for that matter is futile. You can't wind the clock back. Right or wrong the decision was made. The only course now is to win and withdraw. Surrender should not be an option on anyone's plate, unless their agenda is America's failure.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

People don't generally come right out and say they hate America, unless they live in Berkeley or Libya. It's far more nuanced than that - more often spoken in code. Blaming America for being attacked on 9/11 is one of the code words. Saying America's chickens have come home to roost is another. So is calling for America's surrender to our enemy.

Waging war is a tool of diplomacy. Sometimes it's executed just to open a big old can of whoopass on somebody that needs their ass whooped. I find no joy in war. I find even less when losing one after the decision has been made to engage. Relitigating the decision to enter Iraq, Afganistan, or even Libya for that matter is futile. You can't wind the clock back. Right or wrong the decision was made. The only course now is to win and withdraw. Surrender should not be an option on anyone's plate, unless their agenda is America's failure.

How do we win and withdraw?

 

[Garb]

People don't generally come right out and say they hate America, unless they live in Berkeley or Libya. It's far more nuanced than that - more often spoken in code. Blaming America for being attacked on 9/11 is one of the code words. Saying America's chickens have come home to roost is another. So is calling for America's surrender to our enemy.

Waging war is a tool of diplomacy. Sometimes it's executed just to open a big old can of whoopass on somebody that needs their ass whooped. I find no joy in war. I find even less when losing one after the decision has been made to engage. Relitigating the decision to enter Iraq, Afganistan, or even Libya for that matter is futile. Right or wrong the decision was made. The only course now is to win and withdraw. Surrender should not be an option on anyone's plate, unless their agenda is America's failure.

Right. And people don't generally come right out and say they love war, unless they were part of the Mongol Horde. Blaming Muslim countries for all our problems is one of the code words. Saying they deserve to get their asses kicked because they hate us is another. So is demanding that they submit to our military might. Do you see how absurd that is?

As for finishing what we start, I disagree. These wars are never going to end if we try to finish what we start. They will keep recruiting members because of the fact we are there. That's like saying because we kicked the mean little kid in the mouth we should keep pummeling him until he dies. Right or wrong, the decision has been made.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

Here is a video log of the blog on Ron Pauls website that Rick Santorum was referring too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3NJLzfscMrg

This is his site were you can read the transcript of the blog, but its the same as the vlog.
Ron Paul .com

 

[ViperJock]

Up until this point, I have agreed with Paul. Hell, I've even sent him money. That argument is like saying a women who dresses to "impress" deserves to get raped. The Islamists are crazy, murderous, extremists who don't care what our foriegn policy is unless it is Sharia law. They hate us, they will attack us, they will try to kill us regardless. WTF Ron.

That doesn't mean I want to see us invade and/or bomb every middle eastern country. That doesn't mean I think we need to be the world police. But this seems strangely like the Obama apology tour. They attacked us. They made a deliberate choice to kill civilians.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

How do we win and withdraw?

One of four ways.

1. You cause them to surrender.
2. You destroy their will to fight.
3. You destroy their ability to fight.
4. You annihilate them.

Right. And people don't generally come right out and say they love war, unless they were part of the Mongol Horde. Blaming Muslim countries for all our problems is one of the code words. Saying they deserve to get their asses kicked because they hate us is another. So is demanding that they submit to our military might. Do you see how absurd that is?

As for finishing what we start, I disagree. These wars are never going to end if we try to finish what we start. They will keep recruiting members because of the fact we are there. That's like saying because we kicked the mean little kid in the mouth we should keep pummeling him until he dies. Right or wrong, the decision has been made.

Silly retort. It has nothing to do with who hates us or whom we think should submit to our military might. We rightfully don't attack people we don't like, or that don't like us. We attack threats. It can be summed up as follows.

If you attack or pose a threat to the continued existance of America we will destroy you.

Wow, that was pretty easy.

If you walk out in the middle of the fight leaving the perception you were defeated, your enemy will be that much more emboldened next time. As far as beating the bully til he's dead, another silly analogy. You beat him until he is no longer a threat.

They don't recruit because we are there; they recruit because they want to reestablish the caliphate and are stuck in the year 700 where it is their duty to kill all infidels. That means all non-Muslims as well as Muslims that do not practice their particular form of Islam.

You really should study more about Islam, what it's goal is, and how Muslims intend to achieve it. Your ignorance (not meant to disparage you) clouds your ability to rationally discuss it.

Up until this point, I have agreed with Paul. Hell, I've even sent him money. That argument is like saying a women who dresses to "impress" deserves to get raped. The Islamists are crazy, murderous, extremists who don't care what our foriegn policy is unless it is Sharia law. They hate us, they will attack us, they will try to kill us regardless. WTF Ron.

That doesn't mean I want to see us invade and/or bomb every middle eastern country. That doesn't mean I think we need to be the world police. But this seems strangely like the Obama apology tour. They attacked us. They made a deliberate choice to kill civilians.

+1 and repped.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Up until this point, I have agreed with Paul. Hell, I've even sent him money. That argument is like saying a women who dresses to "impress" deserves to get raped.

Women don't DESERVE to get raped for being fit, attractive, & wearing close to nothing, but you're a damned fool if you think they're just as likely to be raped if they are fat, ugly, & wearing a snow mobile suit.

Ron Paul isn't saying we DESERVED to be attacked. He's pointing out the situation America put itself into & the enemies we created when we !@#$ed with the politics of the region for cheaper oil prices. If you're rude to someone long enough, whether you realize it or not, you're going to get punched eventually.

Also see: 1941 Japanese Oil Embargo & ensuing sneak attack at Pearl Harbor

How many sucker punches are we going to bear before we realize our irresponsible foreign policy is dangerous to the health of our nation & safety of our citizens?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Pushing a message that we were right to invade Iraq is a far cry different than saying it was America's fault we were attacked, wouldn't you agree?

I would agree a difference exists in those two statements... but in politics, it will not matter.... how he framed his argument will destroy his political viability. It is not just what he says, it is how the voters will perceive his stance.

He tries to sell it as if it were the American values being attacked, and that they hate "freedom" etc etc and they will attack us no matter what, because they cannot stand us being "free". In his argument our foreign policy is downplayed.... and I think that is a real hard sell outside of the republican base.

Think of it this way - Obama is not Ron Paul, and Santorum cannot challenge his disagreement of previous foreign policy in the same way he challenged Ron. If Santorum happens to win the nomination (unlikely) he has already given that argument, which many voters outside of his base will dislike. If Ron Paul happens to win the nomination (unlikely too, I would have to guess) his argument is still going to leave a bitter taste in non-base voters minds.

Whoever the republican party nominates, does not immediately win the election... they have to then move on to the actual presidential debate and general election. This negatively impacted both candidates viability.