Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 32

Thread: We *MUST* clarify Iran

  1. #1

    Exclamation We *MUST* clarify Iran

    Ron just went on Megyn Kelley and gave the same answer he's been giving on Iran which is the main reason people call his foreign policy terrible and call him dangerous/crazy. Ron got positive responses on "bring the troops home" lines with that SC focus group during his NH speech. That isn't the issue.

    He MUST and we MUST clarify this issue and package it in a way that is acceptable to mainstream Republicans. This is a sticking point to a massive chunk of Republican voters and old people which we MUST win over to ever win this election. I'm not saying he should be a war monger - but he should stop giving empathy for Iran. He should use Rand's approach 100% on this topic and give examples of the Panama Canal as well as his lone stance as the only one who supported Israel's sovereignty in the 80s when they bombed Iraq. He MUST say "if our country is directly threatened and the congress declares war, I will use the power of the best military on earth, compromise the threat, and bring our boys and girls home without wasting money nation-building as this current administration is doing." (he would win votes over a lot quicker if he put the brunt of the blame on Obama btw)

    If this isn't done by debate time our surge will end and we will just end up celebrating moral victories of increasing our support. We are in this to win this. This must be addressed. Someone needs to coach Ron on this. He gets too caught up in his success to realize he has to be a little political with parts of his message if he plans on winning a very necessary chunk of the republican vote.


    Also:

    Debate preparation: Strait of Hormuz: IRAN, OMAN, and the right to transit
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ght-to-transit

    Tell people that a war against IRAN means $6 GASOLINE, they certainly don't want that
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...on-t-want-that

    BLOWBACK: the UNITED STATES helped setting up the IRANIAN nuclear program in 1967
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...rogram-in-1967

    IRAN has the largest JEWISH minority of ALL islamic countries (25000 people)
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...(25000-people)

    Contact the campaign and give them this suggestion. This is the most important thing that needs to be done:


    Headquarters Phone (Toll-Free): 1-855-886-9779
    Headquarters Phone (Local): 1-703-563-6620
    Store Phone (Local): 1-979-297-5414
    Headquarters Fax: 1-703-563-7330


    Mailing address:

    Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee.
    8000 Forbes Place, Suite 200
    Springfield VA 22151
    Last edited by Havax; 01-13-2012 at 02:03 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3
    What if your premise is wrong, that his explanation is acceptable to mainstream Republicans, but not acceptable to adherents of neocon Republican pundits?

    He should absolutely not cater his message to the people you want him to cater it to.

  5. #4
    His position is crystal clear. If it's not this issue, they will find another "issue" to scare off republican voters. And they will use that issue to portray him as "SCARY" or "CRAZY".

    We all know his position and we need to continue to drive it home. If you think the media or the party establishment is going to give him a fair shake if he would only clarify his position, you haven't been paying attention.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    What if your premise is wrong, that his explanation is acceptable to mainstream Republicans, but not acceptable to adherents of neocon Republican pundits?

    He should absolutely not cater his message to the people you want him to cater it to.
    It isn't wrong. I see it with all of the people around me. The mainstream republicans are sheep to the neocon pundits. We have broken through to a small percentage of them, but if we really want to have any hope at penetrating support of a significant amount of neocons (which is an absolute necessity to win this election), we must talk about Iran in a way that they can live with.

  7. #6
    Debate preparation: Strait of Hormuz: IRAN, OMAN, and the right to transit
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ght-to-transit

    Tell people that a war against IRAN means $6 GASOLINE, they certainly don't want that
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...on-t-want-that

    BLOWBACK: the UNITED STATES helped setting up the IRANIAN nuclear program in 1967
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...rogram-in-1967

    IRAN has the largest JEWISH minority of ALL islamic countries (25000 people)
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...(25000-people)
    Last edited by swissaustrian; 01-13-2012 at 01:50 PM.

  8. #7
    I'm not saying to cater the message to anyone, but the message needs to be made clear on it's face without having to read into it further. Most people do not take civic's as serious as the average RPF person does, so we need to make it as easy as possible for them to understand without reading Liberty Defined etc.

  9. #8
    He's not Ron Paul if he starts being political. That's just part of the deal.

    Also, one thing I've noticed that this is actually the way his positions get adopted by those who disagree with him:

    1) He says something deemed "outrageous."
    2) People roll their eyes, call him kooky, dangerous, etc. Rush/Hannity/Levin start foaming.
    3) A few soft supporters either agree with his position or simply admire his courage in stating it, and become hard supporters.
    4) Now he has a slightly larger base.
    5) The eye-rollers realize that he's not going to change for their benefit. Some double-down. Some think maybe there's something to what he says, and become soft supporters.
    6) The cycle continues.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    His position is crystal clear. If it's not this issue, they will find another "issue" to scare off republican voters. And they will use that issue to portray him as "SCARY" or "CRAZY".

    We all know his position and we need to continue to drive it home. If you think the media or the party establishment is going to give him a fair shake if he would only clarify his position, you haven't been paying attention.
    I never said the media would start giving him a fair shake, I'm saying Ron needs to use this approach in debates and speeches when he's talking directly to voters.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    What if your premise is wrong, that his explanation is acceptable to mainstream Republicans, but not acceptable to adherents of neocon Republican pundits?

    He should absolutely not cater his message to the people you want him to cater it to.
    I agree. This is not about convincing people it is about waking them up from their tribal, religious, aggressive, brainwashed fever for death destruction and supremacy. Do not expect Ron Paul to play that game. These people deserve to learn better if they cannot come around. Simple.
    Agriculture is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals, and happiness.
    -Thomas Jefferson

  13. #11
    I didn't think his answer was too bad.

  14. #12
    100 % agree
    "You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government." - Patrick Henry - A Son of Thunder

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by rgampell View Post
    He's not Ron Paul if he starts being political. That's just part of the deal.

    Also, one thing I've noticed that this is actually the way his positions get adopted by those who disagree with him:

    1) He says something deemed "outrageous."
    2) People roll their eyes, call him kooky, dangerous, etc. Rush/Hannity/Levin start foaming.
    3) A few soft supporters either agree with his position or simply admire his courage in stating it, and become hard supporters.
    4) Now he has a slightly larger base.
    5) The eye-rollers realize that he's not going to change for their benefit. Some double-down. Some think maybe there's something to what he says, and become soft supporters.
    6) The cycle continues.
    Ron is definitely political with parts of his message i.e. At his heart he does want to legalize drugs/prostitution (because this would be best) but says "legalize freedom" instead which sounds better.

  16. #14
    I thought he was extremely clear about Iran...If they ever f with us...they will destroyed...quickly

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by AquaBuddha2010 View Post
    I didn't think his answer was too bad.
    Not "too bad" won't win us the election.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Havax View Post
    It isn't wrong. I see it with all of the people around me. The mainstream republicans are sheep to the neocon pundits. We have broken through to a small percentage of them, but if we really want to have any hope at penetrating support of a significant amount of neocons (which is an absolute necessity to win this election), we must talk about Iran in a way that they can live with.
    Correct. Mainstream Republicans live and breathe neocon pundit talking points. I also agree 100% with your purpose in starting this topic thread, Ron Paul must have a different Iran response in the next debate.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Havax View Post
    It isn't wrong. I see it with all of the people around me. The mainstream republicans are sheep to the neocon pundits. We have broken through to a small percentage of them, but if we really want to have any hope at penetrating support of a significant amount of neocons (which is an absolute necessity to win this election), we must talk about Iran in a way that they can live with.
    Let them live with the results of their political idiocy, their meaningless bloodthurst and all that comes along with that.
    Agriculture is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals, and happiness.
    -Thomas Jefferson

  21. #18
    The solution to this problem is education on the history of US intervention in Iran. Most peoples' thinking starts in 1979, but the tale really begins in 1953.

  22. #19
    this war is going to happen very soon ron will not be able to stop it they are bent on this

  23. #20
    This is so simple it's STUPID, YOU HEAR ME CAMPAIGN, FKING STUPID OF YOU NOT TO HAVE SOLVED IT ALREADY

    ALL RON NEEDS TO FKING DO IS NOT FALL INTO THE FKING TRAP OF THE PERCEIVED THREAT OF IRAN AND ADDRESS THE QUESTION IN GENERAL WHAT HE WOULD DO FACING A THREAT LIKE HE DID IN THIS INTERVIEW:


    Last edited by hazek; 01-13-2012 at 01:59 PM.
    My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right, tend to be unwilling or unable to accept blame )

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by danielboon View Post
    this war is going to happen very soon ron will not be able to stop it they are bent on this
    That's right. It will not be a hypothetical for much longer.

  25. #22
    Posting on RPF will probably not voice your concerns in the right direction for this issue.

    Contact the campaign.

    Moved to Campaign Suggestion Box

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Havax View Post
    Not "too bad" won't win us the election.
    Thankfully, his answer was BRILLIANT. First truth bomb out of his mouth - The Iranian scientists have been victims of terrorism. We are fighting the war on terror and should absolutely go after those who carried terrorism out on Iranian scientists.

    The first post in a related thread after Ron Paul went on the air with Kelly was a "facepalm" about those very comments.

    How about Iran being blown away by US or Israel in about 40 minutes? Newt would have been proud to have made a statement that "strong." However, it's not in Newt's interest to blow them away in 40 minutes, because it wouldn't make enough money for his Pentagon contractors.

    I hope Rush, Levin, etc. pick that video into a million pieces as "ammo" against Paul. It'll just drop their ratings further.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by JoshLowry View Post
    Posting on RPF will probably not voice your concerns in the right direction for this issue.

    Contact the campaign.

    Moved to Campaign Suggestion Box
    If the campaign doesn't read RPF why have that subforum then? With enough attention in the main forum, maybe we could get people to mass call the campaign to get our voices heard. You should move it back so I can update my OP to ask people to call the campaign.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    Thankfully, his answer was BRILLIANT. First truth bomb out of his mouth - The Iranian scientists have been victims of terrorism. We are fighting the war on terror and should absolutely go after those who carried terrorism out on Iranian scientists.
    You can't be serious? The typical Fox viewer cheers at the murder of an Iranian nuclear scientist. Calling them victims of terrorism makes Ron Paul sound like a lefty.

  30. #26
    Hes not going to change his postition nor should he.

    But there are other ways to answer the qestion.

    How about:

    "Unlike most of these war mongers, I am a Veteran and I do not take it lightly when sending my fellow members of the military into harm's way.

    I would not allow another Iraq to take place on my watch. We were told we had to attack because they had WMDs, building up the case for war the same way they're doing it with Iran.

    We lost 5,000 men and women when we didn't have to, there are tens of thousands more who are handicapped, there is now a suicide epidemic amongst the military and we're 4 trillion dollars more in debt

    Enough is enough".

    If they hit him with hypothetical questions, he should say:

    "I dont deal in hypotheticals. I deal in facts. We were mislead on Iraq and I wont be making the same mistake again".

    Almost every question can be looped into "as a veteran not wanting to send troops into harm's way unless absolutely necessary" because he cares about their lives, which is the truth.

    Either way, its an incredible pain in the A$$ when dealing with these maniac war mongers.
    Last edited by unknown; 01-13-2012 at 02:22 PM.

  31. #27
    He has to specifically clarify Ahmadinejad who when recently interviewed said Iran will not expand its territory or declare an offensive war. While not the greatest politician in the world he is HUGELY misunderstood and is not the monster most are making him out to be. He is misquoted as often as Ron Paul unfortunately.

    More specifically the 'wipe off the map' comment. It was a huge mistranslation: http://antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025 Even the NY times which started this mistranslation has backed off of it. Paul has to study up on this and make a push on this when confronted.

  32. #28
    (Don't pounce on me)

    I think Amash, Rand, and Lee probably understand the situation better than Ron. Iran could very well become dangerous and we SHOULD pay very close attention. To do otherwise is reckless.

    Also, if sanctions are an act of war, does closing the strait of hormuz justify war? Should Iran be allowed to get away with it?

    I prefer a tough approach with non-interventionist principles.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgiaAvenger View Post

    I prefer a tough approach with non-interventionist principles.
    Yer a real tough guy. Ya think yer little street brawl will put those uppity Iranians in their place. Well the analysis is WW III. Ron is avoiding that even in what if pronostications. We do not want to go there. Yet there are people on this thread with myopic views who want the war chant going on within this campaign by proxy. You want to sort out dead for two months after a rapid fire nuclear exchange for three or four days?? Read this and see what yer tough guy scenario is capable of. I really don't want to deal with surviving this $#@! because some clowns want to prove they are tough guys.

    Rev9


    What War With Iran Might Look LikeBy Philip Giraldi
    1-12-12

    Back in September 2007, I wrote an article for Antiwar.com called "What World War III May Look Like." The article, which presumed that an incident involving U.S. troops on the border between Iraq and Iran could easily escalate into what would eventually become a global conflict, was widely replayed in the alternative media and even in the mainstream. Well, I am pleased to report that no such war has yet started, though there has been a disturbing expansion of U.S. military activity through the deployment of drones to hit targets in assorted countries without having to worry about American casualties or niceties like declarations of war.

    Other geopolitical elements that figured in my 2007 analysis have also changed, so I believe that the time has come for an update. Iran is clearly the target of choice, just as it was in 2007. Despite President Barack Obama's assertion that he would open up avenues to talk to the Iranians, he has failed to do so, he has rejected Iranian initiatives to start a dialogue, and he is showing every sign of unwillingness to negotiate on any level. Congress has even moved to block any contact between American and Iranian diplomats. The sanctions that recently took effect against the Iranian banking system can be construed as an act of war, particularly as Iran has not provided any casus belli. Further sanctions that will restrict energy imports are impending and will bring the country's economy to a halt.

    There are already signs that the Iranian government feels itself compelled to demonstrate to its people that it is doing something about the situation. That "something" might well be a confrontation with the U.S. Navy that will have unfortunate results. In light of all that, it might be useful to imagine just how war with Iran could play out if the Iranians don't roll over and surrender at the first whiff of grapeshot.

    It might start with a minor incident, possibly involving an Iranian armed small craft manned by the Revolutionary Guard. Though the Strait of Hormuz is generally considered an international waterway, the Iranians claim that half of the strait is within their territorial waters. Tehran, in response to intensified sanctions, declares that it can determine who can use the strait and says that it will take steps to keep American warships from entering. The frigate USS Ingraham, patrolling off of Bushehr, is confronted by the small craft and ordered to heave to, an order it rejects. The Iranian commander, ignoring instructions to back off when confronted directly by the U.S. Navy, opens fire with rocket-propelled grenades. The frigate's Phalanx rapid-fire battery immediately responds by blasting the Iranian boat, killing the entire Revolutionary Guard crew, but two American sailors are also killed in the exchange and four are wounded.

    Fighters from the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis are immediately launched under standing orders, and they devastate the naval base that the Iranian boat departed from. President Obama holds a press conference and calls the incident an act of war and vows to do everything necessary to support U.S. forces in the region, but he stops short of a commitment to stage a full-scale attack on Iran. A hastily called meeting of the U.N. Security Council results in a 17 1 vote urging the United States to exercise restraint, with only Washington voting "no." In the General Assembly, only the United States, Israel, Micronesia, and Costa Rica support possible military action. The United States is effectively alone, but Israel takes advantage of the growing war fervor in the United States to launch an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities.

    The recently completed nuclear reactor at Bushehr is destroyed, killing 13 Russian technicians working on the site, and the aboveground buildings at the Natanz nuclear research facility are leveled. Russian-supplied Iranian air defenses shoot down six Israeli aircraft. Washington receives no prior warning of the Israeli attack, though it does pick up the signal traffic that precedes it and knows something is coming. It makes no effort to stop the Israelis as they fly over undefended Iraqi airspace.

    Congress and the media rally behind the Israelis and demand war. A bill in the House of Representatives calling on the White House to take military action in support of Israel passes 431 4. A similar bill in the Senate receives only two nays. President Obama hesitates but then approves a limited offensive, directed against Iran's military, its nuclear sites, and, most particularly, its Revolutionary Guard installations. In the first few days, overwhelming American air and naval superiority destroys Iran's principal air, naval, and army bases. Iranian Revolutionary Guard facilities are obliterated, as are the known Iranian nuclear research and development sites. The limited offensive soon becomes anything but that, with strategic bombers dropping 30,000-pound Big BLU bunker-buster bombs to strike underground labs and processing centers.

    Population centers are avoided, though smart weapons are used to destroy communications centers and command and control facilities. There are nevertheless large numbers of civilian casualties as many of the targeted nuclear sites are close to or within cities and large towns. Infrastructure is also hit, particularly bridges, roads, and power-generation stations close to known nuclear research centers and military sites.

    There is a pause in the attacks, and Iran strikes back. With nearly 10 years to prepare, Tehran has successfully hidden and hardened many of its military and nuclear facilities, a large percentage of which are undamaged. The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis operating in the Gulf of Oman is hit by a lucky strike by a Chinese Silkworm cruise missile that comes in low and successfully evades countermeasures. The Stennisretires to port in Bahrain. Three other support vessels are also hit and severely damaged when they are attacked by waves of small craft manned by suicidal Revolutionary Guards, not unlike the kamikaze attacks in the Second World War.

    The Iranian attackers are annihilated, but the Pentagon refuses to say how many American sailors have been killed in the exchange. Pro-Iranian riots break out in Beirut. In the south of Lebanon, Hezbollah fires salvos of rockets into Israel, striking Tel Aviv and killing several hundred Israelis. Israel responds by bombing Lebanon and Syria, which it blames for supporting the attacks. Upgraded Iranian Shahab-3 missiles also strike Israel, killing more civilians. The Israeli Defense Forces are fully mobilized, and troops are sent to the northern border. Syria and Lebanon also mobilize their forces. Rioters in Baghdad attack the American embassy, which demands that the Iraqi government "do something" to protect it, but Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shrugs and says that the situation is out of his control.

    Large public demonstrations demand that Iraq support Iran in a fraternal struggle against the United States. Shi'ites sympathetic to Iran sabotage Saudi Arabian eastern oil fields. Hundreds of alleged saboteurs are shot dead by Saudi security forces. An oil tanker out of Kuwait is hit by a Silkworm and runs aground to keep from sinking. Another hits a mine. Insurers at Lloyd's of London refuse to cover any tankers transiting the Persian Gulf, claiming that damage incurred during a state of war is not covered by the policies. Oil shipments from the region, one quarter of the world's supply, stop completely, and oil goes up to $300 a barrel. Wall Street suffers its biggest loss in 20 years, with the Dow Jones index plummeting more than 900 points. The United States offers Iran a cease-fire, which Tehran rejects.

    Two days later, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan is assassinated by a Shi'ite bodyguard under orders from Tehran. Pakistan declares that it is neutral in the conflict and orders the U.S. embassy to reduce its staff by 50%, including the CIA station chief and his deputy. Order breaks down in both countries, and the Pakistani army declares a state of emergency, closing the border with Afghanistan. NATO calls an emergency meeting and decides to begin the evacuation by air of the multinational force trapped in Afghanistan, leaving many weapons and heavy equipment behind. In the power vacuum, NATO troops withdraw to their bases while Taliban-backed militias take over much of Kabul and Kandahar. Afghanistan's Mazar-i-Sharif, which is largely Shi'ite, declares itself a part of Iran. The government resigns in Beirut, and Hezbollah forms a new one.

    A salvo of Iranian Silkworm missiles sets the Saudi Arabian eastern oil fields ablaze. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates send an urgent diplomatic message to Tehran declaring that they will be "neutral" in the fighting and will not assist the United States in any way. Kuwait sends the same message, while Egyptian volunteers gather along the border with Israel in Sinai, demanding that Cairo take steps in support of their Arab brothers in Lebanon. Kuwait refuses to allow the United States to use its men and supplies at Camp Doha against Iran. In Bahrain, rampaging Shi'ite crowds depose Sheikh Khalifa al-Khalifa and set up an Islamic Republic, forcing the U.S. Fifth Fleet to abandon its only secure base in the region. The Dow Jones index loses another 1,000 points. The United States attempts to get China and Russia to mediate with Iran to end the fighting, but they refuse to do Washington any favors, noting that they had opposed the attack in the first place and also citing their countrymen killed in the U.S. attacks. Suicide bombers attack in London, Washington, New York, and Los Angeles. The attacks are poorly planned and inflict only a few casualties, but panic sets in and the public demands that the respective governments do something. The United States tells the Iranian government that unless resistance ceases, nuclear weapons will be used on select targets.

    India and Pakistan are alarmed by the U.S. threat and put their own nuclear forces on high alert, as does Israel. Russia and China also increase their readiness levels to respond to the crisis. Iran refuses to concede defeat, and the Iranian people rally around the government. The U.S. public is clamoring for action. Oil prices continue to surge, and the long-term viability of petroleum supplies is in question as the Strait of Hormuz continues to be closed. Another U.S. ship is badly damaged by suicide attackers in the Persian Gulf. American embassies throughout the region are attacked. Anti-American rioting takes place in Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Mindanao, and in Dhaka.

    The United States consulate general in Karachi, Pakistan, is sacked and burned. Forty Americans die along with scores of Pakistanis when the Marine guards open fire. There are frequent terrorism scares in a number of American cities, which are under red-alert security lockdown, though there are no new attacks. Domestic air travel declines by more than 50%. As a preventive measure, there are mass arrests of American Muslim leaders. Some antiwar activists are detained at military prisons, including Guantanamo, under the provisions of the Military Commissions Act and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. Israel continues to be bombarded from inside Lebanon. Its air attacks inflict massive damage on civilians but are unsuccessful in stopping the rockets. Its government falls and is replaced by a hard-right regime headed by former Foreign Secretary Avigdor Lieberman. Rioting rocks the West Bank and Gaza, forcing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to resign and flee to Paris. Hamas forms a provisional government. India threatens to attack Pakistan if there is any question about the security of Islamabad's nuclear arsenal.

    The United States uses a neutron-type bomb against the main Iranian nuclear research center at Natanz, which both Washington and Israel had already bombed conventionally and destroyed. It vows to bomb again if Iran continues to resist. Iran is defiant and fires another wave of Silkworms at U.S. ships, hitting one. Russia and China place their nuclear forces on high alert. Pakistani militants assume control of the government, aided by radical elements in the army and the intelligence service.

    India launches a preemptive strike against the main Pakistani nuclear centers at Wah and Multan, where the country's arsenal is believed to be concentrated. Pakistan has some of its nukes moving around on trucks to avoid such a scenario, however, and is able to strike back by bombing New Delhi. A minor engagement between American and Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf has ignited World War III.
    http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/...ght-look-like/[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    Last edited by Revolution9; 01-13-2012 at 09:53 PM.
    Drain the swamp - BIG DOG
    http://mindreleaselabs.com/
    Seeking work on Apps, Games, Art based projects

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    Thankfully, his answer was BRILLIANT. First truth bomb out of his mouth - The Iranian scientists have been victims of terrorism. We are fighting the war on terror and should absolutely go after those who carried terrorism out on Iranian scientists.

    The first post in a related thread after Ron Paul went on the air with Kelly was a "facepalm" about those very comments.

    How about Iran being blown away by US or Israel in about 40 minutes?
    I'm the one who posted the facepalm, in response not to the "terrorism" reference but to RP *twice* saying that he "empathizes with Iran". Because I knew FOX would grab that sound byte and run with it. And wouldn't you know it, FOX grabbed that sound byte and ran with it:

    hxxp://video.foxnews.com/v/1389364819001/ron-paul-says-the-us-should-empathize-with-iran/?playlist_id=162223

    And I'll bet you a $10,000 bill with Willard Romney's picture on it that FOX will bring that quote up at the Monday debate. In fact, I can see Wallace or Cameron or Baier stacking that "empathy" quote on top of Ron's "sanctions are an act of war but Iran closing Hormuz isn't" quote and his bin Laden quote in an attempt to paint Paul as a pacifist blame-America-firster. And Ron better have an answer for it and it better be a strong national defense answer.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. CLARIFY: Iran, Drugs, Electability, Isolationism
    By Havax in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-10-2012, 08:57 PM
  2. I apologize and need to clarify...
    By progressiveforpaul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 03-11-2011, 02:09 AM
  3. Iran to U.S.: No talks until you clarify stance on Israel nukes
    By Liberty Star in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-12-2010, 08:15 PM
  4. Hey Can Someone Clarify Something For Me?
    By TortoiseDream in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-20-2010, 12:47 PM
  5. Iowans: Clarify something for me...
    By foofighter20x in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-28-2007, 03:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •