Rick Santorum Tells Rep. Ron Paul To Stop ‘Parroting Osama Bin Laden’ In CNN Debate

Originally posted by mishigas

And just what type of "proof" would the Taliban find acceptable? They'd drill us to glean our methods of collecting intel so they could turn it to their advantage.

If he tells you, you'll say that they still wouldn't have handed him over. And such and so forth, etc.

Anyhow, that bit about the Taliban "drilling" the USA, was that serious?

Because I don't think that would happen - there wouldn't be any "drilling".

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


The Tea Party is against war, including war against the US by terrorists.

Ron Paul had a huge gaff, his words sounded as if he was excusing or even justifying the 9-11 attacks since we were in the Middle East after the first Persian Gulf war.

It doesn't matter what we did over there, it does not justify attacks on innocent people and civilian targets period.

That is why they booed him, especially the day after the 9-11 anniversary.

Paul shot himself in the foot and his chances of winning the nomination and general election now are nihil. He tried to be sympathetic to the terrorists and he radically failed, even insulting the audience for booing him, saying something is wrong with them if they disagreed with him. A Presidential candidate should never ever insult the audience at a debate.

He's done.

I know ATS will collapse into cognitive dissonance and fanboyism, but the reality is after those remarks he is finished as a viable candidate.

reply to post by MikeboydUS

Paul shot himself in the foot and his chances of winning the nomination and general election now are nihil. He tried to be sympathetic to the terrorists and he radically failed,
A Presidential candidate should never ever insult the audience at a debate.

He's done.

No he isnt done he was only booed by 72 people in that stage where they were debating they could have been just rick santorum fans.

He tried to be sympathetic to the terrorists and he radically failed

Thats not what he meant he was talking about the foreign policies i didnt hear anything about been sympathetic to the terrorists so you fail on that point

even insulting the audience for booing him, saying something is wrong with them if they disagreed with him.

Oh? i didnt seen Ron paul insulting the audience for booing him nice try that with that



source

He's done.

Says who? you and the facist mainstream media?

reply to post by MikeboydUS

I know ATS will collapse into cognitive dissonance and fanboyism, but the reality is after those remarks he is finished as a viable candidate.

he isnt finished as a viable candidate it seems that you support those war mongering fools eh?

reply to post by MikeboydUS


and finally the booing werent all that damaging since it was only a few people 72 people booing him.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


They were not just Santorum fans. He upset alot of people with his remarks even if they misunderstood him.

When he mentioned the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who had died between 1991-2003, he said we killed them. That is a sympathy plea and sounds to many people as an excuse for 9-11.

If you missed the part where the crowd started booing him after the sympathy plea, he told them there was something wrong with them if they didn't understand. That amounts to calling someone stupid.

If you didn't see it, don't worry it will be on youtube by tommorow.

I liked Ron Paul, if you look at some of my previous posts before this debate, I actaully said he may be the only one who could win against Obama in a general election. I am not a follower though. I don't idolize humans or succumb to cults of personality. I can't stand the MSM. I maintain an analytically objective viewpoint. I am the first to call BS, regardless if its on the left or right. Both of the Texans last night, Paul and Perry, spewed BS and its going to hurt them among voters, especially Paul.

His cult on ATS will still thrive strong as any cult of personality due to the effect of cognitive dissonance, but ATS will not win a presidential election.

Here's his quote:

At the end Paul said “Would you be annoyed? If you’re not annoyed, then there’s some problem.”

abcnews.go.com...

Even if he didn't mean to insult the audience, it comes off as an elitist remark suggesting there is a problem with people if they don't sympathize with the feelings that those in the Middle East have towards US occupation and intervention.

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by deadmessiah

 

Nope, not at all, and here's why:

The Taliban government in Afghanistan offered to present Osama bin Laden for a trial long before the 9/11 attacks, but the U.S. government showed no interest, Al-Jazeera TV reports, quoting a senior aide to Taliban leader Mullah Omar.

Al-Jazeera says Robert Grenier, the CIA station chief in Pakistan at the time of 9/11, confirms that such proposals were made to U.S. officials.

Sou rce

See ya,
Milt

This is a poor attempt at trying to save face. Regardless of whether or not the Taliban offered bin Laden to the U.S. before, they also did it after the 9/11 attacks while George W Bush was in command. That was the point I made in my first post, it was true, and you were incorrect in claiming it was concerning a different period of time prior to 9/11. All you did was discredit yourself by attempting to show how you were right in an area that was not in question.

peace

Originally posted by MikeboydUSEven if he didn't mean to insult the audience, it comes off as an elitist remark suggesting there is a problem with people if they don't sympathize with the feelings that those in the Middle East have towards US occupation and intervention.

edit on 13/9/11 by MikeboydUS because: add quote

With all due respect, if those people don't get that imperialist foreign policy can have negative consequences, then there IS a problem with them. This hyper-nationalist suspension of reality garbage does nothing but promote further problems. Paul was right, and idiots don't get a pass because their feelings got hurt.

Rick Santorum says he is of an Italian immigrant family. Most Italian last names end in a vowel, Santorum obviously does not. Just thought I'd point that out. His mother, Catherine Keane, has a name that could be Italian, although wikipedia describes her as Italian and half-Irish, Keane seems more Irish than Italian, but his father, Aldo Santorum, has a last name that doesn't end in a vowel, although the name Aldo is an Italian name.

Other Italian names that end with a vowel:

Janet Napolitano - half Italian
Nancy Pelosi- Italian-American
Antonin Scalia- Sicily (yes, I know, not too many good Italians in politics, forget about it)
Andrew Napolitano - wikipedia does not say, but most likely he is also Italian

Ralph Macchio - Italian-American
Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino - Italian-American

All names that end with an o,i,a

Santorum...not so much.

Originally posted by filosophia
Rick Santorum says he is of an Italian immigrant family. Most Italian last names end in a vowel, Santorum obviously does not. Just thought I'd point that out. His mother, Catherine Keane, has a name that could be Italian, although wikipedia describes her as Italian and half-Irish, Keane seems more Irish than Italian, but his father, Aldo Santorum, has a last name that doesn't end in a vowel, although the name Aldo is an Italian name.

Other Italian names that end with a vowel:

Janet Napolitano - half Italian
Nancy Pelosi- Italian-American
Antonin Scalia- Sicily (yes, I know, not too many good Italians in politics, forget about it)
Andrew Napolitano - wikipedia does not say, but most likely he is also Italian

Ralph Macchio - Italian-American
Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino - Italian-American

All names that end with an o,i,a

Santorum...not so much.

It's Latin-ized, but very much Italian.

SANTORI, SANTORIO, SANTORELLI, SANTORIELLI, SANTORINI, SANTORUM: From the medieval first name Santoro, derived from the Latin word Sanctus = Saint, the genitive plural form is "Sanctorum", used also to indicate the All Saints feast. Possibly connected to someone acting as a saint, or who has connection with religious things (a sacristan)

Ron Paul should have known better....trying to tell the truth in a room full of ignorant people. I sometimes wonder; how can you wave a flag when both of your hands are busy plugging your ears?

If you can't see that Santorum is pandering to the masses, playing on their ill-informed emotional patriotism, I'm not sure what to say.

Obviously we were attacked on 9/11 because we are such an exceptional country and we have such a high standard of living *cue national anthem* *release the eagles* *end of debate*

Author Marya Mannes once said, "The sign of an intelligent people is their ability to control their emotions by the application of reason"....

The trouble with Ron Paul is he gives truthful, insightful and nuanced answers to an audience incapable of understanding him.

Its very sad.

As a smarter man than me one said. Democracy is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses.

Please

As we head into another political season, take a few minutes to review..

Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate

I know it can get heated in Politics, but let's join together to show the world how these topics can be discussed civilly.

Thanks for your cooperation

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Well again he was only booed by 72 people and thats not alot go re watch the debate to hear the boos if you want, secondlly Ron Paul is right about Iraq.

When he mentioned the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who had died between 1991-2003, he said we killed them. That is a sympathy plea and sounds to many people as an excuse for 9-11.

Oh? and america didnt klill the Iraqis who had died between 1991-2003? tell me who started the war in iraq over lies eh?


They booed Ron paul because he spook the truth and the facts.

reply to post by deadmessiah

You said:

All Ron needs to do is point out the fact that the Taliban offered to give us Bin Laden if we could show them proof that he was at fault. What did we do? Ignored them and started killing people.

In that statement you claimed: "the Taliban offered to give us Bin Laden".

In a attempt to refute this comment (Mine):

That was regarding involvement in plots targeting U.S. facilities during the 1990s, not the attacks of 9-11-01.

You quoted:

The Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden to a neutral country for trial if the U.S. would provide evidence of bin Laden's complicity in the attacks. U.S. President George W. Bush responded by saying: "We know he's guilty. Turn him over", and British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned the Taliban regime: "Surrender bin Laden, or surrender power".

Source
In your own quote, it very clearly states: "The Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden to a NEUTRAL COUNTRY" Most definitely, that wasn't referring to the UNITED STATES!

If your statement were true, there would have been no need for the demand: "Surrender bin Laden, or surrender power"

Are your reading skills really so poor that you can interpret that as: "the Taliban offered to give us Bin Laden"?

The only way your statement would be even partially correct, IS IN REGARD TO MY QUOTE:

The Taliban government in Afghanistan offered to present Osama bin Laden for a trial long before the 9/11 attacks, but the U.S. government showed no interest, Al-Jazeera TV reports, quoting a senior aide to Taliban leader Mullah Omar.

Al-Jazeera says Robert Grenier, the CIA station chief in Pakistan at the time of 9/11, confirms that such proposals were made to U.S. officials.

Sou rce

This is a poor attempt at trying to save face.

Not at all! I will, however, suggest that yours was a FAILED attempt to do so.

Regardless of whether or not the Taliban offered bin Laden to the U.S. before, they also did it after the 9/11 attacks while George W Bush was in command. That was the point I made in my first post, it was true, and you were incorrect in claiming it was concerning a different period of time prior to 9/11.

NO THEY DIDN'T! And that's clearly stated in a source YOU provided! Just because you say I was incorrect: "It ain't necessarily so"!

All you did was discredit yourself by attempting to show how you were right in an area that was not in question.

I disagree! With both of us "working" together, I feel that we BOTH successfully discredited YOU. I like to give credit when it's due.

See ya,
Milt

I'm starting to think that the only reason Santorum is still in the race is so that he can be the bad guy who takes on Paul in the debates.

It seems to me that Santorum is consatantly trying to bait Paul on his anti-war stance in order to give the "real" front runner candidates some out-of-context soundbites to use to attack Paul and make him look like some looney extremist.

That way, when the dust settles, whoever turns up as the Republican front runner can say that it wasn't them attacking Paul in the debates and this will give them a chance to try to win over the Ron Paul voters.

How else can you explain a guy with so little support (barely even in the single digits) and absolutely NO CHANCE of getting the nomination still being allowed to take part in the Republican debates?

reply to post by Britguy

Perhaps I was premature in using the word "buddy". For now, anyway: I'm sorry about that!

Well...:
Because of my "vast intellect and superior knowledge", and lack of "half an ounce of common sense", I can't afford to take your words at "face value". Do you have any sources to back up your claims?

Considering your assurances that Iraq was not a threat:
1) Would it be safe to assume that you supported Saddam's actions?

2) You seem to be quite sure that Saddam would never lie, why is that?

3) Why did bin Laden consider Iraq a threat, and offer to fight for the Saudis?

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by mishigas


Uhh...No change? how about Audit the FED which uncovered TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS in SECRET BAILOUTS?

No change? getting 10% of the American population to get on board with the message of liberty and the Constitution?

Come on, I know you can see it too.

If you all watch the video again, you could literally count the boos, might just be some random Santorum fans trying to sway audience emotion, might not be. Who knows but what I do know is that RP's foreign policy response did get some on-the-fence voters thinking for themselves.

The people who already hate Paul will always hate Paul and he can't change that, ever.

I heard a LOT of people clapping for Ron Paul during the boos. More clapping than booing, and they were right to clap for a man for telling the truth and being honest. It takes courage to be consistent, truthful and honest to a bunch of bumpkins who would rather be lied to.

Cheers