Ron Paul Booed at Tea party debate

[FiftyCal]

Funny thing is, he was telling the truth about 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfBKKh0C2eo

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'd just add that this is a debate from September 2011, at the present moment Ron Paul is 1st place in Iowa and joint-second nationally.

But yes, what Paul says is absolutely true - anyone who listens to that clip or looks at the evidence themselves (most don't want to do that) will find that the principal of 'blowback' is what caused 9/11 and is what will continue to cause many more deaths in the western world due to terrorism because of how we act overseas. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver) Do I and Ron Paul think we deserved to be attacked? no, absolutely not - anybody who targets innocent citizens or subjects for any campaign is sick and twisted, but we have to realise why they do it in order to stop it. If the warhawks here, on this forum want to see what the troops themselves think, here it is;

http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Paul-Obama-draw-support-from-military-voters-1842881.php
http://ronpaulronpaul.com/img/2012-Q3-graph-1000.jpg

[Eoin247]

I was shown this debate before by a friend. What he says makes perfect sense, but Americans do not want to hear it. Humans always want somebody else to blame.

[-:Undertaker:-]

First post-Christmas poll out just now after the Christmas period mud-slinging at Paul, fantastic news!! they've [the MSM] failed to shoot him down.

https://twitter.com/ppppolls

Iowa: Paul 24, Romney 20, Gingrich 13, Bachmann 11, Perry/Santorum 10, Huntsman 4, Roemer 2: publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/p…

and..


Remarkable parallel between Paul 2012 and Obama 2008 in Iowa- changing the electorate to pull an upset: publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/p…

finally..


Among voters whose minds are totally made up Paul's lead over Romney expands to 28-21: publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/p…

[HotelUser]

It's funny that you posted this, because in the debate, Paul demonstrated how he has much desire to turn the United States into a nation which practises pure isolationism. I remember this debate, Huntsman and Perry had good remarks to say on foreign influence in the middle East, and Santorum also had a good stance wherein he said America shouldn't be intimidated to demonstrate opportunities of international freedom and other things America stands for. They all essentially agreed that it's beneficial for the citizens (particularly woman) of countries of the Middle East for America to become involved in affairs, but America cannot afford to be involved presently: fair and true. Ron Paul right before mentioning what he did in the above video said America should not be involved at all and that they should mind their own business. It is absolutely shocking that he attempted to justify 9/11 in the eyes of the people who committed the crime by saying that the reason they did it was because they didn't like how America had powers in their "holy lands" not because that statement isn't necessarily true, but because even though that might very well be why 9/11 was committed, that doesn't mean it was a just reason by any means at all. Obviously he was booed for iterating through the reasons 9/11 occurred like he did, because a lot of people in the audience thought he sided with the terrorists reasons for committing 9/11, and after his blog post, and the sheer fact that he has mentioned before that he wouldn't have even of killed Bin Ladin, who can blame them. Most Republicans at the debates feel that America should withdraw from the Middle East, but most of them believe that because it's costing America something like 100,000 soldiers and 2 billion dollars a week to be involved in the first place. Ron Paul on the other hand just feels that being involved in the affairs of treatment of citizens in other nations, even to achieve basic human rights, is unacceptable and causes an inappropriate disturbance within those nations. I completely disagree with this. So long as America can go in with the notion that they're fighting for the freedoms and human rights of said nation, and that America can interact cost affectively, I feel they have an obligation to the world to act.

Ron Paul did win the Iowa Caucus so that's a good start, but then again not every nomination winner got the Iowa Caucus in past elections. I'm pretty indifferent as to which Republican wins the nomination (well-- so long as it's not Perry or Bachmann, they're both total idiots), but because of the latest polls I think Romney is going to get the nomination in the end, even though Newt came off as a strong contender to me as well.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's funny that you posted this, because in the debate, Paul demonstrated how he has much desire to turn the United States into a nation which practises pure isolationism. I remember this debate, Huntsman and Perry had good remarks to say on foreign influence in the middle East, and Santorum also had a good stance wherein he said America shouldn't be intimidated to demonstrate opportunities of international freedom and other things America stands for. They all essentially agreed that it's beneficial for the citizens (particularly woman) of countries of the Middle East for America to become involved in affairs, but America cannot afford to be involved presently: fair and true.

Is it not you and the present administration along with the Bush administration which tend to practice isolationism? Paul is a non-interventionalist, he wants to trade with people and talk with people and not take sides in a military/diplomatic manner because as the Founders warned; this leads to creating problems and thus becoming entangled in them.

You lot are the lot who attempt to shut Iran and other nations out of the international community by placing trade embargos on them (despite claiming to support free trade), by constantly threatening these nations with war and opening up military bases surrounding them along with flying spy drones overhead. So why and how is Paul the isolationist when you are the ones who wish to isolate nations outside the international sphere?

We know the regimes these nations live under aren't nice, but then neither are most U.S. allies in the region.


Ron Paul right before mentioning what he did in the above video said America should not be involved at all and that they should mind their own business. It is absolutely shocking that he attempted to justify 9/11 in the eyes of the people who committed the crime by saying that the reason they did it was because they didn't like how America had powers in their "holy lands" not because that statement isn't necessarily true, but because even though that might very well be why 9/11 was committed, that doesn't mean it was a just reason by any means at all. Obviously he was booed for iterating through the reasons 9/11 occurred like he did, because a lot of people in the audience thought he sided with the terrorists reasons for committing 9/11, and after his blog post,

He did not say it was the only reason, but yes it was one of the prime reasons with the bases being on Saudi soil and you can read many good accounts of the internal troubles the Saudi Monarchy had to battle with even before 9/11 because of this by reading a number of books which have been written on the subject. If you read the Bin Laden letter which I linked earlier, you'll see other reasons range from sanctions on the Iraqi regime (which I have no doubt you supported) along with the sides the U.S. takes in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Read the letter I urge you, it couldn't be any more clearer.


and the sheer fact that he has mentioned before that he wouldn't have even of killed Bin Ladin, who can blame them.

With Pakistan being drone bombed from above and having American troops land on its soil having total disregard for the sovereignty of Pakistan, do you not wonder why many in Pakistan are drawn to the teachings of Bin Laden who cries of the Imperial west which has no respect for Islamic land? before you reply, i'm not saying I agree with Bin Laden - but to understand why he has the support you need to understand how and what he preaches in order to recruit so many people to his cause.


Most Republicans at the debates feel that America should withdraw from the Middle East, but most of them believe that because it's costing America something like 100,000 soldiers and 2 billion dollars a week to be involved in the first place. Ron Paul on the other hand just feels that being involved in the affairs of treatment of citizens in other nations, even to achieve basic human rights, is unacceptable and causes an inappropriate disturbance within those nations. I completely disagree with this. So long as America can go in with the notion that they're fighting for the freedoms and human rights of said nation, and that America can interact cost affectively, I feel they have an obligation to the world to act.

Do you not ever look back at history and look at the fact that most of these regimes which you claim to despise are actually remaining in place/did remain in place because of either direct American support (the Shah regime in Iran, the Mubarak regime in Egypt, the Ben Ali regime in Tunisia, the Hussein regime in Iraq, the Batista regime in Cuba..) or because of American meddling which leads to these regimes gaining support in the first place? (the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the Castro regime in Cuba, the North Korean regime..). The indisputable facts are that these regimes last so long because of American meddling in their affairs; they either are held up directly by the United States/CIA such as the Shah regime or come to power on the back of popular anti-U.S. movements such as the 1979 Islamic Revolution which arose from, again, American meddling.

I share a dislike of these regimes with you, as does Ron Paul - but the days of Empire are over, formal or informal; independence movements are strong and can home territory when they never could before.