Author Topic: Ron Paul  (Read 17159 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 23384
  • Real Kahanist
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #50 on: December 02, 2007, 07:46:52 PM »

But, while that makes said Gentiles idiots - it's good for the Jews.
Od, a lot of Nazis say that "Jews should leave" or "Jews should go to Israel". They don't all say outright that Jews or Israel should be destroyed. Before they realized they could get away with the Final Solution, that's what the Third Reich said.

Maybe all Jews should go to Israel, but that is not something for Gentiles to decide, especially those who support Ron Nazi Paul (ys"vz).

Offline OdKahaneChai

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1794
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #51 on: December 02, 2007, 08:12:50 PM »

But, while that makes said Gentiles idiots - it's good for the Jews.
Od, a lot of Nazis say that "Jews should leave" or "Jews should go to Israel". They don't all say outright that Jews or Israel should be destroyed. Before they realized they could get away with the Final Solution, that's what the Third Reich said.

Maybe all Jews should go to Israel, but that is not something for Gentiles to decide, especially those who support Ron Nazi Paul (ys"vz).
You misunderstood me.  What I meant was that obviously the "lot of Nazis say that 'Jews should leave' or 'Jews should go to Israel,'" are idiots - and believe it for the complete wrong reason.  But it still works out for us, doesn't it?

One does not deal with terrorists; one does not bargain with terrorists; one kills terrorists.
- Rabbi Meir Kahane ZT"L, HY"D

Offline MassuhDGoodName

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 4542
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #52 on: December 02, 2007, 08:45:17 PM »
It is quite true that those who once painted swastikas and shouted "Jews Go Home!", are today pointing at the Jews who took their advice, returning to live in their own ancestral homeland, but the same Nazi Jew-Haters have only had to make one minor change in their behavior in order to find acceptance among those who "think" that they oppose Nazism and Fascism:


They still wear and paint swastikas, only they are now shouting "The Zionists stole all the Arabs' Land!".

When asked why it is they still hate the Jew, even though the Jew has returned home where they belong, they always answer with the lie "oh!...we aren't against Jews...we are against Zionism!".

"...Can the leopard change its spots?..."

Any and all people who "oppose Zionism", are followers of Nazi ideology; this whether they realize it or not.




Offline Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 23384
  • Real Kahanist
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #53 on: December 02, 2007, 09:02:38 PM »
It "works for us" only if the Jews actually WOULD all go to Israel at once. The Nazis who say that really want to see the Jews dead and to destroy Israel.

Offline OdKahaneChai

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1794
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #54 on: December 02, 2007, 09:06:59 PM »
It "works for us" only if the Jews actually WOULD all go to Israel at once. The Nazis who say that really want to see the Jews dead and to destroy Israel.
Come on now, Chaimfan.  This is exactly the point.  What do you think's going to happen if he threatens to do that?

One does not deal with terrorists; one does not bargain with terrorists; one kills terrorists.
- Rabbi Meir Kahane ZT"L, HY"D

Offline White Israelite

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 4535
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #55 on: December 02, 2007, 11:28:46 PM »
I wouldn't want to leave America, this is where I grew up, where my friends are, where I feel at home.

Offline RationalThought110

  • Moderator
  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *
  • Posts: 4813
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #56 on: December 03, 2007, 12:17:00 AM »
C.F. ..."you want us to believe you that you are a legitimate contributor to the forum, but yet ALL you have posted on, so far, is how you support Ron Paul and how the Israeli government's interests are inimical to those of the United States..."

As to Rubystar's support of Ron Paul...

Rubystar both supports one of the Republican Party's candidates for their Presidential nomination, and by this choice also supports one ten-term Congressional Member from Texas who each year returns a portion of their Congressional salary back to the United States Federal Government.

Would C.F. rather know that Rubystar supports one of the Democrat Party's candidates and not one from the Republicans?

If Congressman Paul is the worst of all possible choices, then how can the Republican Party consider him as a member and candidate?

Would not this, in and of itself, denote the acceptance and embracing of the totally unacceptable by the Republican National Committee?

Is C.F. inferring that the "interests" of the U.S.A. and the "interests" of The State of Israel and 'one and the same' and do not diverge at some point? 

If so...please do explain how Washington's plan for an Israel returned to its pre-1967 "Auschwitz borders" with Jerusalem, Gaza, Judaea, and Samaria recognized as a new Muslim Terror State, combined with Washington's determination to see the Golan Heights given back over to a Ba'athist Dictatorship so that it may be used once again to shell Jewish Land and cut off the source of Israel's water supply, are consistent with Jewish National aspirations.

Apparently my education and understanding are misinformed, so I eagerly await C.F.'s wisdom.

Perhaps C.F. infers that MassuhDGoodName's contributions to this forum are also 'less than legitimate'?



MassuhDGoodName,

 
       You know that C.F. means that Israel is an ally of the US and does not do anything that is bad for the US. 

       

Offline RationalThought110

  • Moderator
  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *
  • Posts: 4813
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #57 on: December 03, 2007, 12:20:15 AM »
Rubystar,

Your concern with the "influence" of AIPAC is based on a media barrage of propaganda which is both myopic and focused only on one fully legal lobbying group, to the total exclusion of all others.

The State of Israel's "peace process" in which it is considering giving land to terrorists, is the result of the U.S.A.'s policy FORCING Israel to do it.

The canard is often spoken and printed, that "the tail [Israel] is wagging the dog [U.S.A.]", but it is a complete lie.

Forty years ago, all of Israel's Arab enemies were funded and militarily supplied by the Communist Soviet Union; Israel being helped by the U.S.A., Western Europe to some degree, and the Union of South Africa.

Today, ALL of Israel's sworn enemies are funded and militarily supplied by the U.S.A. ... Are you thus concluding that AIPAC is working to control American foreign policy?

More Muslims have been brought into the United States under George Bush, than at any time in history.

During the 1990's the Republican leaders planned to "end Republican reliance on the Jewish Vote", and have been importing literally millions of Christian-hating, Jew-hating terrorists from the 6th Century into our American heartland.

To you this indicates that "no President and no Congress and no Senate can say 'NO' to "the Israeli Lobby"?

Arab Muslims just bought 10% of CITIBANK, the largest Bank in the United States.

More undue Jewish influence?

The largest group of influence in Washington is the Saudi presence. 

Do just a little research, and you will find that virtually every Government official from Presidents to Legislators have been totally and completely "compromised" with Saudi money.

Guess who funds the largest part of all "Presidential Library" funds?

Guess who assures all State Department officials a retirement of luxury and wealth in exchange for enacting Saudi Foreign Policy rather than U.S. foreign policy?

Hint:  It's not AIPAC, not Israel, not the Jews.

Stop swallowing the "anti-Zionist" propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

Incidentally, there are numerous Americans both in and out of government with dual-citizenship.

It is completely legal and authorized by Federal Law with certain friendly nations.

In theory, I can agree with you that Chertoff should be only an "American citizen", but in practice the ownership of a dual citizenship is not by definition an indication of disloyalty or behavior which is suspect.

Legislation to end this practice of legal dual citizenship can be enacted.

Chertoff would turn my stomach regardless of his citizenship.

Finally, I observe that the Saudi Lobby and its Muslim influence over our government and media have been an unqualified success...your acceptance of untruths and partial truths as your personal world view are proof of it.

Research who it is that owns controlling influence over the American media, banks, and government, and you will find out that is not the Jews or Israel, but the Muslim Terrorists who have hoodwinked you.   


Great job.

Offline RationalThought110

  • Moderator
  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *
  • Posts: 4813
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #58 on: December 03, 2007, 12:30:19 AM »
I know Chaim doesn't like Ron Paul but has he endorsed any other presidential candidate?

Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are great choices.  They're both against any North American Union, they've both criticized the State Department, etc. 

Hunter made sure that a fence in San Diego was built and wrote the border bill that Bush and the Democrats don't want to be built.  Tancredo has worked very hard against illegal aliens invading the country.  Tancredo got into a verbal altercation with Karl Rove and was told to stay away from the White House. 

They've both against corrupt trade policies like NAFTA and CAFTA. 

Hunter has called for the Bush administration to release border patrol agents who were wrongly jailed and to suspend or reform trade policies with China. 



Offline RationalThought110

  • Moderator
  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *
  • Posts: 4813
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #59 on: December 03, 2007, 12:35:06 AM »
And after the exchange between McCain and Paul, Tancredo gave a good response to both of them. 

Offline Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 23384
  • Real Kahanist
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #60 on: December 03, 2007, 03:07:27 AM »
Then you should vote for him. He is the only TRUE limited-government classical conservative on the ballot. (Well, Tom Tancredo is decent also, but has gotten a bit too close to Pat Buchanan for my tastes).

Offline JTFFan

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 3964
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #61 on: December 03, 2007, 03:28:11 AM »
I like Duncan Hunter. I took a quiz to see which republican presidential candidate lined up most with my views and he came up.

The only problem is most people won't vote for him.  :( ???

Offline RationalThought110

  • Moderator
  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *
  • Posts: 4813
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #62 on: December 03, 2007, 03:47:21 AM »
I like Duncan Hunter. I took a quiz to see which republican presidential candidate lined up most with my views and he came up.

The only problem is most people won't vote for him.  :( ???

Don't base your decision on who you think has the best chance to win the primary.  In primaries, you support the candidate who you like the best. 

Offline Muck DeFuslims

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1070
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #63 on: December 03, 2007, 03:56:18 AM »
Here we have Paul comparing Israel to Hezzballah      http://towelianism.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/muslims-discover-ron-paul/   





------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Quote
Ron Paul stood up in Congress in 2006 and opposed a resolution that sided with Israel in the Lebanon-Israel conflict. He stated the following.

Ron Paul: “Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn’t authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts.  It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does


The way I read it, it sounds like he was debating over calling one side bad and one side good, that he doesn't favor either side. It doesn't sound like he's comparing Israel to hezballah at all.

You know something, Cohen ?

This exchange between Mord and yourself has convinced me that you're truly a moron.

The piece of excrement Paul that you continually defend --in this thread and others-- clearly demonstrates that he thinks there are 'terrorists' on both sides of the Israel/Hezbollah war. In other words, he's calling the IAF and IDF terrorists.

And what is Paul's reason for doing so ? Because there are "more civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians". That's quite a yardstick to use in determining that the Israeli Defense Forces are terrorists. Absolutely un-freaking-believable.

Read the beginning of this crucial sentence again...."It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side"....so Paul can't support the resolution because it's not objective. In other words, Paul's objective opinion is that there are terrorists on 'both sides'.

So you're defending a piece of [censored] that thinks Israel committed terrorism during the war.

Paul's going to be 'neutral' on the issue. The scumbag can't side with Israel, because maintaining neutrality precludes him from taking sides-- even when one side is clearly right and the other side is a bunch of freaking genocidal moooozie thugs !! He would prefer to be neutral rather than picking sides. What leadership ! What a fooking tool !!

You want a person like this occupying the most powerful office on the planet ?

You're either an idiot, or a scumbag like Paul, that can't differentiate between good and evil, or terrorists and an army defending a nation from mooozie nazi swine.

Now, I don't want to call you a scumbag (that strong of an insult might be a violation of forum rules), so I'll have to settle for calling you a boneheaded moron that makes me want to puke.

Offline JTFFan

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 3964
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #64 on: December 03, 2007, 06:07:15 AM »
I like Duncan Hunter. I took a quiz to see which republican presidential candidate lined up most with my views and he came up.

The only problem is most people won't vote for him.  :( ???

Don't base your decision on who you think has the best chance to win the primary.  In primaries, you support the candidate who you like the best. 

That makes perfect sense, but sometimes I think it's a wasted vote. It's ridiculous for myself to say such a thing but if the candidates that most likely win that are better than "decent" and are in the majority than I'll vote for one in the majority like Giuliani or Huckabee, but I thought about Hunter.

Offline mord

  • Global Moderator
  • Platinum JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 25853
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #65 on: December 03, 2007, 08:34:30 AM »
Duncan Hunter has always been my Candidate
Thy destroyers and they that make thee waste shall go forth of thee.  Isaiah 49:17

 
Shot at 2010-01-03

Offline Muck DeFuslims

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1070
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #66 on: December 03, 2007, 10:14:22 AM »
"One major reason I was wanting to vote for Ron Paul is that he's the only Presidential candidate on the Republican side who will bring the troops home immediately and won't get us into more wars during his term."


This type of thinking is typical of the Paul supporters.

'Ron Paul won't get us into more wars during his term'---Really ?

Has it ever occurred to you that we're (meaning the USA, Israel, Western civilization) at war with Islam whether we like it or not ?

Has it ever occurred to you that this war is unavoidable and is imposed on us, that we don't have a choice in the matter, that the mooooozies have declared war on us ??

Nah, Ron Paul supporters think that hiding their heads in the sand will make the war with Islam go away.

Ron Paul supporters think we won't have more 9/11's if we just change our foreign policy. Ron Paul supporters agree with Paul's assertion that we brought 9/11 on ourselves because of our foreign policies, especially siding with Israel.

Ron Paul supporters think we can prevent Iran from obtaining nukes and perpetrating a nuclear holocaust against the USA or Israel through increased dialogue and trade with the Iranian madmen mullahs and the rest of the tyrannical mooozie world---or worse yet, they just don't care if Iran and other moooozie nations develop nukes, that it's none of our business.

I can understand how Paul would be getting support from moooozies, nazis, 9/11 truthers, etc.---but explain to me how in the hell Ron Paul is getting support at the JTF forum ?

Do the Ron Paul supporters here actually think Ron Paul would be good for Israel or America ? Apparently so, and this is truly sad.


"I wish I hadn't started this thread now, with people being called scum bags, etc."


That's something we can agree upon. I wish you hadn't started it either.

There's already far too much spamming of the internet blogs, forums, polls, YouTube, debates, news organizations, and media by the myopic 'Ron Paul revolutionaries' in support of their candidate. It's disgusting to see it here.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2007, 10:16:09 AM by Muck DeFuslims »

Offline mord

  • Global Moderator
  • Platinum JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 25853
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #67 on: December 03, 2007, 10:20:53 AM »
Listen to Ronald Reagan who many Paul supporters like to compare Paul to.They  really seem do think differently               
Thy destroyers and they that make thee waste shall go forth of thee.  Isaiah 49:17

 
Shot at 2010-01-03

Offline White Israelite

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 4535
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #68 on: December 03, 2007, 02:34:54 PM »
Here we have Paul comparing Israel to Hezzballah      http://towelianism.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/muslims-discover-ron-paul/   





------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Quote
Ron Paul stood up in Congress in 2006 and opposed a resolution that sided with Israel in the Lebanon-Israel conflict. He stated the following.

Ron Paul: “Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn’t authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts.  It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does


The way I read it, it sounds like he was debating over calling one side bad and one side good, that he doesn't favor either side. It doesn't sound like he's comparing Israel to hezballah at all.

You know something, Cohen ?

This exchange between Mord and yourself has convinced me that you're truly a moron.

The piece of excrement Paul that you continually defend --in this thread and others-- clearly demonstrates that he thinks there are 'terrorists' on both sides of the Israel/Hezbollah war. In other words, he's calling the IAF and IDF terrorists.

And what is Paul's reason for doing so ? Because there are "more civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians". That's quite a yardstick to use in determining that the Israeli Defense Forces are terrorists. Absolutely un-freaking-believable.

Read the beginning of this crucial sentence again...."It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side"....so Paul can't support the resolution because it's not objective. In other words, Paul's objective opinion is that there are terrorists on 'both sides'.

So you're defending a piece of excrement that thinks Israel committed terrorism during the war.

Paul's going to be 'neutral' on the issue. The scumbag can't side with Israel, because maintaining neutrality precludes him from taking sides-- even when one side is clearly right and the other side is a bunch of freaking genocidal moooozie thugs !! He would prefer to be neutral rather than picking sides. What leadership ! What a fooking tool !!

You want a person like this occupying the most powerful office on the planet ?

You're either an idiot, or a scumbag like Paul, that can't differentiate between good and evil, or terrorists and an army defending a nation from mooozie nazi swine.

Now, I don't want to call you a scumbag (that strong of an insult might be a violation of forum rules), so I'll have to settle for calling you a boneheaded moron that makes me want to puke.

Yes that's right, i'm the moron, lets start insulting people because we all know how mature that is in a debate. Isn't that what the liberals do when they lose a debate is scream "RACIST!" "WARMONGERER!" when they can't face the facts? It's all emotion.

You need to look at the bigger picture, you are critical of me because I support Ron Paul, yet Ron Paul apparently is a Nazi because he somehow has Nazis and Muslims supporting him. You don't think Muslims and Nazis vote in this country? Who do you think they supported before? Lesser of two evils? I don't support all of Ron Paul's policies, I support his policies for the fact that he is following the constitution regardless if you want to believe it or not. Have you ever read the constitution or the bill of rights? As I listed in my first post, you can twist Ron Paul however you want.

Meanwhile, this is what I have observed on my time on JTF.

Most of the members are against foreign aid to Israel because the money has strings attached to it.

Ron Paul is against foreign aid not only to Israel but to other middle eastern countries as well. Suddenly he's an anti-semite because Nazis and Muslims support ending foreign aid as well, duh. What do you expect? Any time you have a candidate that wants to end foreign aid to Israel, this is going to appeal to Israel haters as well.

Yet we are supposed to endorse Rudy Giuliani who supports foreign aid to Israel and will force Israel to continue to dismantle settlements after he said he supported the "peace in the middle east process" right that makes sense.

Ron Paul is against the Iraq war and intervention.

Nazis and Muslims support this because they claim "hey it's the Zionists who started this war for oil", ok we've heard it all, they are twisting this for their own agenda.

JTF, most of them feel the Iraq war is wrong, don't they? They feel it's a disaster. Many of our members here are supporters of the constitution aren't they? The constitution talks about intervention and how we shouldn't involve ourselves in the affairs of other nations. You are taking Ron Pauls quote out of context, his meaning of us being attacked on 9/11 has absolutely nothing to do with blaming America but rather giving the terrorists and excuse to attack us. He's never said 9/11 was a inside job, he's never said that Zionists did it. Where are you getting this idea because 9/11 truthers talk about him and support him? Again they are using him for their own agenda.

Gun Control
Gee seeing as most of us are pro constitution here, the constitution is strict about what it says

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Guess what? Ron Paul is against Gun Control, guess what, Nazis support Ron Paul because of that, they claim that current republicans are infringing on their rights. Both Republicans and Democrats are supporters of some sort of control and this is a problem, this is against the constitution.

Know what i've observed? Most Nazis are hypocrites. They say they support the constitution but they really don't, they think the founding fathers wrote the constitution only for whites living in America and that blacks were only 2/3 a person (which is true at that time), courts passed that blacks are considered "people" therefore they have the right to bear arms. Go ahead on StørmFrønt and ask Nazis if they support Jews right to bear arms and they will give you a flat out "NO"

What have I observed on this forum? Some of the members here feel only Jews should have guns on a few of my threads or that we should disarm Muslims, Mexicans, anyone not white, the mentally ill (yes lets disarm all our veterans with PTSD), etc. Unfortunately some of the members here actually WANT the Government to have control of what guns people should be allowed to have yet at the same time throughout history, governments have disarmed us Jews. StørmFrønt supports disarming other people, now some of the members here support gun control and a candidate who HAS A LONG HISTORY of disarming people in new york city? *cough* Giuliani *cough* sorry i'm not falling for that.

Now in reference to this quote.

Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn’t authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts.  It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does

If you bothered to post the full script, it doesn't sound like he is calling the Israelis terrorists at all, he is referring to the bill H.RES.921

"Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel's right to defend itself, and for other purposes. "

Reading the full article, it appears that he is referring to the bill stating that it clearly mentions that the terrorists are all on one side and victims and innocents are on the other. In specific, the way I interpret it is that not all the targets bombed in Lebanon were terrorists and that he opposes the way Israel handled the war. If you go on to read the rest of the article, you can see how he blames American intervention in fueling the war to begin with.

Before the U.S. House of Representatives, July 20, 2006

I rise in opposition to this resolution, which I sincerely believe will do more harm than good.

I do agree with the resolution's condemnation of violence. But I am convinced that when we get involved in foreign conflicts and send strong messages, such as this resolution will, it ends up expanding the war rather than diminishing the conflict, and that ultimately comes back to haunt us.

Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn't authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does.

Some would say that there is no room to talk about neutrality, as if neutrality were a crime. I would suggest there should be room for an open mind to consider another type of policy that may save American lives.

I was in Congress in the early 1980s when the US Marines were sent in to Lebanon, and I came to the Floor before they went, when they went, and before they were killed, arguing my case against getting involved in that conflict.

Ronald Reagan, when he sent the troops in, said he would never turn tail and run. Then, after the Marines were killed, he had a reassessment of the policy. When he wrote his autobiography a few years later after leaving the Presidency, he wrote this.

    Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.

    In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.

It is very easy to criticize the Government of Lebanon for not doing more about Hezbollah. I object to terrorism committed by Hezbollah because I am a strong opponent to all violence on all sides. But I also object to the unreasonable accusations that the Government of Lebanon has not done enough, when we realize that Israel occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years and was not able to neutralize Hezbollah.

Mr. Speaker, There is nothing wrong with considering the fact that we don't have to be involved in every single fight. That was the conclusion that Ronald Reagan came to, and he was not an enemy of Israel. He was a friend of Israel. But he concluded that that is a mess over there. Let me just repeat those words that he used. He said, he came to the conclusion, "The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there.'' I believe these words are probably more valid now even than when they were written.

July 21, 2006

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.


If you bothered to read my post about the JPFO (Jews For The Preservation Of Firearm Ownership) where Aaron Zelman bashed the ADL about writing anti-semites support Ron Paul, he mentions that the Neo Nazis who support Ron Paul are hypocrites because Ron Paul supports freedom for everyone, the Nazis only support freedom for themselves. Muslims are also hypocrites for voting for him considering that they are supporters of the Quran. The only reason Neo Nazis and Muslims are supporting him are for specific issues. Muslims and Nazis see his stance on being against the war in Iraq, Iran, and foreign aid to Israel as beneficial to them. You guys don't see it that way, but if you look at his issues, he is more in touch with the issues we have going on in this country than we may think.

I don't agree with Ron Paul 100 percent, theres a lot I don't agree with him on, but I find him a better choice than any democrat or republican in this debate.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2007, 02:39:44 PM by Cohen »

Offline mord

  • Global Moderator
  • Platinum JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 25853
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #69 on: December 03, 2007, 02:43:59 PM »
Quote
It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does
No here and i gave the link he's comparing a terrorist militia with Israel ,of course one side will have more casualties. The words in italics are the thought i'm talking about it speaks for itself he's almost being sarcastic about Israel
Thy destroyers and they that make thee waste shall go forth of thee.  Isaiah 49:17

 
Shot at 2010-01-03

Offline White Israelite

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 4535
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #70 on: December 03, 2007, 02:51:48 PM »
Quote
It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does
No here and i gave the link he's comparing a terrorist militia with Israel ,of course one side will have more casualties. The words in italics are the thought i'm talking about it speaks for itself he's almost being sarcastic about Israel

He never stated that the Israelis were terrorists, if you read the text of the bill, it defines that Israel was under attack first and has a right to defend it's self. He clearly states he doesn't pick sides. The way he views the bill is that the bill specifically states Lebanon are the terrorists and the Israelis are the innocent, he goes on to say that there are more innocent civilians who were killed in Lebanon and therefore finds it unfair to specifically state Lebanon as the terrorists when it was Hezballah that was attacking and the civilians had nothing to do with Hezballah although it was impossible to not have collateral damage due to where Hezballah had their rocket launchers located in the city. He then goes on to state the resolution is about picking sides which is why he rejected it as he is neutral. The quote has been taken out of context like all his other quotes.

Online Chaim Ben Pesach

  • Administrator
  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5772
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #71 on: December 03, 2007, 03:02:04 PM »
Any Jew who supports Ron Paul is self-hating. His entire campaign reeks of the worst Nazi Jew-hatred and Jews that are comfortable with that are demented.

Paul himself is the ONLY Republican who accepts the support and contributions of open Nazis because he privately agrees with them.

Any Jew who supports Paul when he says that we should not care if Muslim Nazi Iran develops nuclear weapons is a traitor. And any American who supports that suicidal policy is a traitor to the United States.

And yes, ALL Paul supporters are certifiable morons. Only a moron would believe that the world's 1.5 billion Muslims will stop trying to conquer the world for Allah if the U.S. ignores their genocidal plans. ALL Paul supporters have learned nothing from history and know even less about Islam or Arabs. These insane imbeciles will guarantee that America will be hit with an Islamic nuclear attack.

That filthy pig Paul keeps saying that the Muslim terrorists murdered thousands of Americans "because we're over there in their countries. We would feel the same way if someone came here to our country." In other words, he justifies the Muslim terrorism and feels that we would do the same thing. Just as he thinks there's nothing wrong with taking money and support from open Nazis, he thinks there's nothing wrong with the Muslim terrorists, because they are just defending themselves against America and Israel. America and Israel are the real bad guys. There's nothing wrong with Iran or Hezballah or with open Nazis giving Paul money. The only bad people are the "neo-cons".

I'm getting tired of seeing these sicknesses on our forum. Supporting Paul is supporting Muslim terrorism, supporting Iran's nuclear bomb-making program, supporting enabling the Iranians to commit nuclear genocide, and legitimizing open Nazis.

Offline White Israelite

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 4535
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #72 on: December 03, 2007, 04:59:31 PM »
You can read up Ron Pauls voting record here, he voted against Israel giving up land for peace.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

Don't pressure Israel to give up land for promise of peace
Q: Past presidents have expected Israel to give up land, not for peace but for the promise of peace. With this mindset, Pres. Bush introduced the "roadmap" in 2003, yet 60 terrorist acts are attempted & 300 rockets fall every month in Israel. Will you stand behind Israel to not give up land for unfulfilled promises of peace, even in the face of opposition of European & Arab countries?

    * HUCKABEE: Yes.
    * TANCREDO: Yes.
    * COX: Yes.
    * BROWNBACK:Yes.
    * PAUL:Yes.
    * HUNTER:Yes.
    * KEYES: Yes.

Offline shimon

  • Full JTFer
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #73 on: December 03, 2007, 06:08:38 PM »
see cohen mr. ben pesach agrees with me and as he said all of his jewish supporters are self hating

Offline White Israelite

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 4535
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #74 on: December 03, 2007, 06:28:38 PM »
see cohen mr. ben pesach agrees with me and as he said all of his jewish supporters are self hating

Anyone who supports the current administration or any candidates that are identical to the administration is a self hating Jew in my opinion. Would you vote for Hilary Clinton if she said she supports Israel because Israel comes first meanwhile sacrificing all your other freedoms?

I support America and Israel, I don't support either current government in power.

Israel has a right to exist but America does not need to intervene. If you want a better understanding about Israel from Ron Pauls point of view you can watch the video.



More about intervention and Israel, stating he is not anti-Israel and does not take sides

« Last Edit: December 03, 2007, 06:40:09 PM by Cohen »