Control Congress is a multi-partisan, issue-oriented political forum that brings together the Left, Right, and everyone in between.

Ron Paul & Mitt Romney win debate?

Ron Paul was ignored by FOX in the post-debate interviews and put down by fellow candidates, but FOX viewers almost voted him the winner! Congressman Paul pointed out that our Middle East policy is part of the problem regarding terrorism. This was part of a study as well as a CIA analysis of the Middle East, yet he was ridiculed by most the candidates.

NPR-“Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been essentially doubling in Iraq every year that we’ve had more or less 150,000 American combat soldiers stationed there.”Robert Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism.

AC-Full interview with Robert Pape.

Do you think Ron Paul is right that the GOP base is shrinking due to the war policy?

FOX News -asked you to tell us who you thought won Tuesday night’s First-in-the-South Republican Presidential Candidates Primary Debate. With more than 40,000 votes submitted via text message, 29 percent said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney made the best showing of all 10 GOP presidential hopefuls who made their cases to the American people at the University of South Carolina’s Koger Center for the Arts in Columbia, S.C.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who ignited controversy at the debate with remarks that U.S. policy had invited the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, came in second with 25 percent. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who strongly admonished Paul for his comments, came in third place with 19 percent. Arizona Sen. John McCain, who is the frontrunner in South Carolina polls, came in sixth with 5 percent.

READ MORE

125 Responses to “Ron Paul & Mitt Romney win debate?”

  1. Chris says:

    Bart needs an education.

    January 13, 1998

    Memo To: Senator Jesse Helms, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
    From: Jude Wanniski
    Re: The bombing at the World Trade Center

    Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the man who planned the terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center, was sentenced to life imprisonment last week in Federal District Court in Manhattan. A fragment of his statement to the court was published in The New York Times on January 9, Page B4. I doubt that a handful of Americans read it, but it occurs to me that you should read it carefully, given the enormous burden you have in helping shape U.S. foreign policy. It may help you understand the mind of a terrorist, which is the kind of thinking that poses the greatest threat to the security of American citizens now that the threat of communism has been dissolved. I’m afraid Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy, in response to Yousef, failed to grasp the political essence of the defendant’s remarks and incorrectly drew the conclusion that Yousef has developed a taste for death in the Afghanistan war. In reading Yousef’s statement, Senator, put aside your anger for what he did, and listen to his message, if only to learn the mind of a terrorist in order to develop defenses against it.

    Begin quote:
    “You keep talking also about collective punishment and killing innocent people to force governments to change their policies; you call this terrorism when someone would kill innocent people or civilians in order to force the government to change its policies. Well, when you were the first one who invented this terrorism.

    “You were the first one who killed innocent people, and you are the first one who introduced this type of terrorism to the history of mankind when you dropped an atomic bomb which killed tens of thousands of women and children in Japan and when you killed over a hundred thousand people, most of them civilians, in Tokyo with fire bombings. You killed them by burning them to death. And you killed civilians in Vietnam with chemicals as with the so-called Orange agent. You killed civilians and innocent people, not soldiers, innocent people every single war you went. You went to wars more than any other country in this century, and then you have the nerve to talk about killing innocent people.

    “And now you have invented new ways to kill innocent people. You have so-called economic embargo which kills nobody other than children and elderly people, and which other than Iraq you have been placing the economic embargo on Cuba and other countries for over 35 years…

    “The government in its summations and opening said that I was a terrorist. Yes, I am a terrorist and I am proud of it. And I support terrorism so long as it was against the United States Government and against Israel, because you are more than terrorists; you are the one who invented terrorism and using it every day. You are butchers, liars and hypocrites. (Ramzi Ahmed Yousef)”

    In fact, Senator, everything Yousef says here has some truth to it. Of course I still believe his life sentence is justified and I would not have any problem with a death penalty. Still, I believe his motivation in his terrorist act is exactly as he says it was, that it was a political act which he justified in his own mind on the grounds that something had to be done and no government was willing to act on the cause in which he believes. In the Oklahoma City bombing, Timothy McVeigh also justified his terrorist act as that of an avenging angel, choosing a federal building as his target, not the innocents who happened to be there at the time. Terrorism is a political act. It is a criminal political act, but it is important that those in a position to defend us against it understand its origins. My honest belief, Senator, is that our government has been derelict in studying the causes of terrorism, even in the most elementary way, and concentrates entirely on how to defend against it. It is a miracle that so little damage was done in the World Trade Center bombing. There is no reason to disbelieve that if there is a next time, the mind of that terrorist will succeed in taking the twin towers down completely.

    I could be writing this communique to a great many people, but I chose you because you are primarily a communicator. You were picked out of your community to run for the Senate in the first place because your radio talk show demonstrated a profound willingness to communicate in a civilized manner. You tell the truth as you see it and you listen respectfully to those who communicate to you in similar fashion, even when there is not the slightest chance that they will change your mind. This is what is missing in our foreign policy, Senator. As long as we faced the communist nuclear threat, we did not have the luxury of hearing petitions from those on the other side. Everything is fair in war. Everything is not fair in peace, and we have not yet made the adjustment. By that I mean that even after the Cold War ended, we continued the practice of isolating those countries. Even this week, when the Iranian prime minister held out an olive branch after 18 years of isolation, the first reaction of our government was to reject his appeal for cultural exchanges. We do not wish to communicate.

    If there are many causes of political terrorism, the refusal of a stronger power to communicate with a weaker power is the most important. In a family, which is the smallest political unit, a father’s refusal to hear the petition of his son, slamming the door in his face, is one that may have positive effects if the son knows he deserves nothing but punishment, and finally begs forgiveness without conditions. But even a righteous and wrathful father should not expect positive results if he attempted to starve his son and his son’s family into submission. Only outrage will result, and from outrage springs political terrorism.

    Our embargo against Iraq, I’m afraid, is perceived in the Islamic world as an act of terrorism on our part. The estimated 1.4 million civilian deaths that the U.N. attributes to the embargo weigh on the minds of potential terrorists like Yousef, men who are pondering action without the knowledge of their governments. We are not at war with Iraq. After seven years, we have found no weapons of mass destruction which the Iraqis themselves did not lead us to and help us destroy. It is reasonable for them to believe that we have never had any intention of lifting the embargo. As an American citizen, I am legally obliged to support the embargo, but I cannot help but agree with the convicted terrorist, Yousef, that we are trying to punish Saddam Hussein by punishing his people. The fact that we will not even permit our UN Ambassador, Bill Richardson, to communicate with his counterpart in New York, is a policy that invites terrorism. In Cuba, I know you continue to insist we should not even consider normalization with the government . there until Castro leaves the country. Wouldn’t your position be stronger if you said you are prepared to hear what the Cuban government has in mind, that under satisfactory conditions and penances on Havana’s part, the embargo could be relaxed or lifted? Even a small opening of that kind creates the kind of hope that discourages political terrorism. Don’t you think? The kind of outrage that invites political terror cannot exist when there is any hope of adjudication and redress. (Thanks to Dennis Boylon.)

    (link)

  2. Chris says:

    Bart #98 If Americans do not have the fortitude to stop this movement in its relatively early stages, then our children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences.

    That sounds exactly like the global warming radicals using everything in their power to make fear the dominant factor in our lifestyles.

  3. bb says:

    Chris,

    The difference using your analogy; terrorism is a proven reality, global warming is not even close to being an exact science.

  4. Chris says:

    I guess if you want to make believe the ice is still up there on those really big mountains, and still sitting big and tall at the polar regions, that’s your choice. And even when you do come around to believing your own eyes, you’ll refuse to consider what might have caused all that to happen and jump right into OMG! Panic and run mode, right into the fire.

  5. JohnKonop says:

    caroline

    You cannot control what goes on in any Country. All we you can do is not reward bad behavior by penalizing with money!

    Under your logic and Hillary, you guys are pushing us to keep buying products from child and slave labor and hope it goes away?

  6. JohnKonop says:

    Chris,

    Bart has a hard time when you get past GOP talking points!

    That is why he is the VC of the local party!

    He knows his lines well like an actor!

  7. Chris says:

    Paul Wolfowitz, 2003:

    Wolfowitz said another reason for the invasion had been “almost unnoticed but huge” – namely that the ousting of Saddam would allow the United States to remove its troops from Saudi Arabia, where their presence had long been a major al-Qaeda grievance.

  8. bb says:

    John,

    You have been toasted throughout this thread…if indeed my ideas are limited to GOP talking points, what does that say about you?

  9. JohnKonop says:

    Bart

    That is why the GOP will loose more seats and the White House. Because GOP leadership like you thinks you are winning the argument while not dealing with facts!

  10. Has any one seen this parody yet on FOX NEWS after the debate.
    WARNING! This is so funny you may bust a gut.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8oO_OD3PtI

  11. David O'Rear says:

    Mr Konop,

    Whatever percent of US imports is produced by child and / or slave labor is obviously too much.

    Can you identify what percentage that might be? Me neither.

    So, the so-called solution of cutting off trade with everyone because we can’t figure out who’s doing what and with which to whom is silly.

    Give it up.

    .

  12. JohnKonop says:

    David

    I did not say cut off trade. I said put a fine high enough to kill the incentive to cheat.

  13. JohnKonop says:

    David C

    GREAT VIDEO!!!!

  14. Bill says:

    Davey C Rockett
    LMAO!!

  15. JohnKonop says:

    David C

    I posted the video thanks jk

  16. caroline says:

    John,
    You completely misunderstood what I was saying.

    Yes, you can’t control what is going on in other countries so the only way to deal with it is to cut off trade with them. Free trade as you describe it probably has never existed and never will. Under your definition of free trade we couldn’t trade with Europe or Canada.

  17. JohnKonop says:

    caroline

    Why?

    BTW I never said cut off, I said fine the goods high enough to take away incentives not to cheat and violate human rights. If I follow your logic if some steals you would give then the goods and hope they stop.

  18. caroline says:

    John,
    If you give them fines, they are going to find ways to make the good even cheaper. Do you honestly think that would end child labor? It wouldn’t. The only way to get rid of third world problems is to stop trading with them. Tariffs won’t do a thing about child labor. The only thing they would do would is make their products price competetive with the factories in the US. Tarriffs could even encourage more use of child labor as they try to compete at a lower price.

  19. JohnKonop says:

    caroline

    You cannot go much lower on wages ( 28 cents an hour when they pay) that they are at now in places like Oman, China…..

    If the fine is high enough it would be cheaper to give living wages out.

    As I said would you keep giving goods to someone who steals from you.

    BTW the IP theft alone is 200 billion dollars a year!

    How do you ever win if China steals the IP rights?

  20. caroline says:

    Why then even trade with them at all? If they are stealing, won’t enforce the international trade laws then why should we even deal with them. Tarriffs won’t solve that problem.

    And the could pay 14 cents an hour or 1 cent an hour. Why not just say “if you don’t participate in fair trade practices, we don’t trade with you.” End of discussion.

  21. JohnKonop says:

    If we put a high enough penalties the problem will fix itself.

  22. JohnKonop says:

    Also it lower tension with the people and let them focus it on the leaders if they do not raise standards.

  23. caroline says:

    Well John, if the people won’t revolt now at the terrible wages why would they revolt with tarriffs? It won’t effect their pay-it will still be cents per hour. Perhaps we should put pressure on their leaders by not trading with them. Losing those jobs, it seems to me, would have a greater effect than letting them to continue to pay poverty wages.

  24. JohnKonop says:

    caroline

    They are revolting that is why Chavez is a hero after CAFTA in Central America. The Oman trade deal is being used against us in the Middle East by Bin Laden.

  25. rudy says:

    Bart people like you are the reason I am getting out of the military next week. I have served 5 years 2 of them in Iraq (AND FOR WHAT!?!?!) I am done sacrificing my time, freinds, family… LIFE for people like you that dont respect the very thing I am supposed to be fighting for, FREEDOM! If you realy disbelive paul maybe you should read some history or philisophy, hell even economics. I’ll give you some names. Bastiat, Hayek, plato, Aristotle, milton freidman, Socraes, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson. These are the people who shaped our contry and I have read multiple works from Each and every one of them… Listining to you speak makes me sick, you are ignorant ill informed and disgusting.

    “The man who will sacrifice his freedom for a little bit of security deserves nor shall recive neither.”
    -Benjerman Franklin

« Older Comments |