On Sept. 10, he was NOT one of the better mayors in NYC, not even close. In fact he was a very polarizing and hypocritical politician, disliked by almost all New Yorkers, especially the police and firemen. If GWBushit had been doing his job on 9/11, Rudy would not even have been noticed. Both are both just more incapable, lying Repukes. This country does not need any more of them, especially in leadership positions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dr. Ron Paul is a refreshing voice in the Republican party. At this point in time, hes got my support over any other presidential candidate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My Space Blocks Ron Paul Supporters

That's right!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of course, I do have reservation about some of his social conservative issues but sure beats the rest of the GOP gang these days.

P.S.: I believe he's a Libertarian but that in TX, he'd have to be running as one of the two major party candidates to get a seat, yes?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ron Paul is a conservative Republican, so Alterneters shouldn't be fooled. That said, I'm a Paul supporter even though he has no chance to win. The GOP establishment can't stand Ron Paul because he is anti-war, and the new GOP is heavily pro-war, whichever war, for whatever reason war can be justified for.

Giuliani revealed himself to be the bastard son of George W. Bush. When Ron Paul challenged our war-based foreign policy, Rudy jumped up and down like a little boy. Instead of engaging Paul and describing why he disagreed, Giuliani chose to mischaracterize Paul's argument and pound on the table. I'm not saying that Alternet readers should support Ron Paul (though they should look into his views on the issues), but he would certainly be the best GOP choice for America because he analyzes the issues. Sadly, the GOP is based on zero-analysis chants of war, irrational dislike of minorities and foreigners, and heavy government spending on GOP pet projects (like bridges to nowhere).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

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.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Because he is a Libertarian. Most of us on here are social libertarians - that is government should stay out of people's private lives, and out of other country's business. However, most of us would disagree with the Libertarian economic ideals - that government should only provide the most basic of services - security, minimal internal improvements, but mostly just police and military. The libertarians largly reject the idea of the "commons"; that is those things all of society needs that should be provided at no private profit - like drinking water, transportation infrastructure, health care and education. They don't believe in much taxation, and they certainly don't believe in limiting inherited wealth through estate taxes.

Yes, I agree with Rep. Paul on some things. But believe me, the downside to people like him for a progressive agenda more than makes up for the good parts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ron Paul Pre Iraq War

See how I just post the link instead of the whole article? So nice!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ron Paul is a bigoted reactionary just like all the others. Libertarians rely on racist/nationalist principles that inhibit worker solidarity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Look, I do like the way he talks, he's reasonably honest and he does not appear to be a criminal; in any case he's not the scripted media event so many of us are sick of.

However, saying the republican party is an anti war party is just breathlessly absurd. Nixon did get elected partially to "end the Vietnam War" but he escalated it dramatically, in addition to dropping enough ordnance on Cambodia and Laos such that even today, it looks like the surface of the moon over there.

Reagan had many military misadventures, in addition to funding right wing terror all over Central and South America.

Bush I invaded Panama, killing thousands, when a drug dealing right wing thug that Bush helped to install turned on him.

Now, the democrats aren't a whole lot better so don't go pointing out Clinton, LBJ, Carters adventures as well. I know all about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ron is the last chance for the Republican party. When he is President he will set the bar for future Presidents, politicians, and Americans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]