Ron Paul: Both Parties OWNED by Same Elite. Stop the renewal of the Patriot Act NOW


UEzWhPFb0HQ

9 Trillion in 8 months. Impressive. Ron Paul has good ideas, I'd like to see him debate Obama.

Ron Paul is a borderline senile kook. :lmao: Doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell.

Ron Paul is a borderline senile kook. :lmao: Doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell.

The reason why he’s viewed as a kook is because his ideas are radical and uncomfortable, forcing people to step outside of their paradigms of how government has been run for decades. The question that people need to answer about him is: is he right?

On a couple of issues I haven't decided yet.

The reason why he’s viewed as a kook is because his ideas are radical and uncomfortable, forcing people to step outside of their paradigms of how government has been run for decades. The question that people need to answer about him is: is he right?

On a couple of issues I haven't decided yet.

I don't think that - I think he's a kook because of his delivery and demeanor in the presentation of those ideas. He's always been that way, too, according to the bios I've read. (out on the edge, etc)

By profession, he's an OB/GYN doctor. :ick: He acts too much like a nutty professor. Based on how he presents himself, I'd never pick him as my doctor! :lol:

The reason why he’s viewed as a kook is because his ideas are radical and uncomfortable, forcing people to step outside of their paradigms of how government has been run for decades. The question that people need to answer about him is: is he right?

On a couple of issues I haven't decided yet.

His ideas are not radical, uncomfortable yes. but not radical.
Anyone paying attention for the last 20 years at least, has seen the push for a one world government, one world currency. Its been coming for a long time.
I personally think that the collapse of the world economy has been carefully orchestrated to bring everyone down to a certain level so the one world government can rebuild all countries equally.
I am getting close to thinking that its possible that many countries leaders are already taking their orders from a central government. In other words, we may already be part of a one world government and not even fully know it. Clinton, Bush and obama might very well have been nothing more than the U.S representatives to this organization. Our financial situation was too text book, and it was seen and ignored too long before it happened to be anything other than planned.

The reason why he’s viewed as a kook is because his ideas are radical and uncomfortable, forcing people to step outside of their paradigms of how government has been run for decades. The question that people need to answer about him is: is he right?

On a couple of issues I haven't decided yet.I heard him on WMAL a few days ago and he came across as nuttier than squirrel poop. I just read the Wiki page on him and do agree with many of his positions but...

He sees Iran as no threat whatsoever. Doesn't care if they get nukes. He even denied that Imadinnajacket said Israel needs to be obliterated. The host went beserk! :killingme

In May 2011, Paul said he would not have ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, calling the operation "absolutely not necessary". :crazy:

He opposes capitol punishment.

I will watch and listen more closely in future debates/interviews.

Ron Paul is a borderline senile kook. :lmao: Doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell.

And I thank you for an insightful, considered and well reasoned comment on the issue.

And Goldman and the rest of the establishment breathe a small sigh of relief that they may yet get out of this hopey changey crap after all.

The reason why he’s viewed as a kook is because his ideas are rational and considered and, therefore, radical and uncomfortable, forcing people to step outside of their paradigms of how government has been run for decades. The question that people need to answer about him is: is he right?

On a couple of issues I haven't decided yet.

*fixed*

Irrational is the policies 'non' kooks have followed that have made Iran able to afford the BOMB in the first place while at the same time giving them every reason to WANT the BOMB. Good lord, a few Mexican's live in the US and 'conservatives' want them shot and deported. It's war!!! Imagine how they'd feel if a massive foreign army moved in next door and started shooting while trying to argue, with a straight face, "Why, we are no threat to you. What earthly reason could you have for being concerned let alone wanting to be able to defend yourself?"

I personally think that the collapse of the world economy has been carefully orchestrated to bring everyone down to a certain level so the one world government can rebuild all countries equally.
I am getting close to thinking that its possible that many countries leaders are already taking their orders from a central government. In other words, we may already be part of a one world government and not even fully know it. Clinton, Bush and obama might very well have been nothing more than the U.S representatives to this organization. Our financial situation was too text book, and it was seen and ignored too long before it happened to be anything other than planned.

While it may not be 'carefully orchestrated' there is a pseudo or, if you like, de facto one world government when banking and energy and economies are so tightly connected.

The actions of Dubbya and Obama would lend credence to the argument that it may be a bit more formal. We, the people, really don't seem to have the first clue how much of TARP was about other nations and using the US taxpayer to fix everyone elses problems.

While it is one thing to consider the potential benefits, and negatives, of a one world government, we won't even have the conversation because if you do, you are a kook.

:tap:

I think he's a kook because of his delivery and demeanor in the presentation of those ideas.


As opposed to a smooth and more, what, sugary delivery? Like, say, Obama? Or Clinton?

William F. Buckley could get on your nerves in a heartbeat with his delivery and demeanor and that is if you were on his side. He was still the smartest, wisest guy in the room. George Will, same thing.

So, this is where we are; we have smooth hucksters because that's what we like and we don't have truly knowledgeable and thoughtful people because they are tougher to listen to???

So, this is where we are; we have smooth hucksters because that's what we like and we don't have truly knowledgeable and thoughtful people because they are tougher to listen to???

Yeah, pretty much. :frown:

a few Mexican's live in the US

:killingme "a few" :killingme 12+ million is "a few" :killingme

:killingme "a few" :killingme 12+ million is "a few" :killingme



there goes Larry, talking out of his ass again

:killingme "a few" :killingme 12+ million is "a few" :killingme

Thought you might like that one.

:killingme "a few" :killingme 12+ million is "a few" :killingme

Ps, its more than 20 mil

Ps, its more than 20 milYou sure?

Number of Illegal Immigrants in US Steady at 11.2M | CNSnews.com (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/number-illegal-immigrants-us-steady-112m) says 11.2M

FAIR: FAIR estimates there are 13 million illegal aliens (http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16859&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007) says 13M as of 2007

Illegal immigrant population of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_United_States) says 7-20M

13 Million Illegal Immigrants Living in the United States (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2206440/posts) says 13M as of 2009

And DHS says 10.8M as of last year. http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2010.pdf

*fixed*

Irrational is the policies 'non' kooks have followed that have made Iran able to afford the BOMB in the first place while at the same time giving them every reason to WANT the BOMB. Good lord, a few Mexican's live in the US and 'conservatives' want them shot and deported. It's war!!! Imagine how they'd feel if a massive foreign army moved in next door and started shooting while trying to argue, with a straight face, "Why, we are no threat to you. What earthly reason could you have for being concerned let alone wanting to be able to defend yourself?"

I didn’t say he was irrational. For the ordinary voter who has come used to hearing the same old talking points with the same old message with the same old slick/smooth tone, Paul has some very radical ideas. I happen to think most of his ideas are right on and needed. He is a rooted constitutionalist and understands what is needed to get back to those roots. He knows what ails this country and knows how to fix it. He just has a quirky delivery.

If it doesn’t feel good then it’s a no-go. When Paul talks, much of the time I am going :confused: or :doh: because he fails to articulate himself in a way that makes sense to most people. I get him most of the time, but I think most people don’t get him most of the time. In this American society delivery is everything.

As opposed to a smooth and more, what, sugary delivery? Like, say, Obama? Or Clinton?

William F. Buckley could get on your nerves in a heartbeat with his delivery and demeanor and that is if you were on his side. He was still the smartest, wisest guy in the room. George Will, same thing.

So, this is where we are; we have smooth hucksters because that's what we like and we don't have truly knowledgeable and thoughtful people because they are tougher to listen to???

Larry I think what you’re not getting about this is most people want to feel their candidate cares about them. In order for them to feel this way that person has to have communications skills that makes voters feel the candidate is talking to each of them individually. Clinton and Reagan were masters at this. It was natural for them. Obama is a coached speaker; but he was able to make people feel they have something to believe in. His election epitomizes how people vote for style over substance.

When Paul speaks I feel like I am listening to my grandfather lecture me. People don’t want to be lectured. They want someone to tell them that, under them, everything is going to be okay. You can’t expect everyone out there to change the way they listen and expect Paul to change nothing. Paul needs to get a speaking coach and learn how to deliver.

*fixed*

Irrational is the policies 'non' kooks have followed that have made Iran able to afford the BOMB in the first place while at the same time giving them every reason to WANT the BOMB. Good lord, a few Mexican's live in the US and 'conservatives' want them shot and deported. It's war!!! Imagine how they'd feel if a massive foreign army moved in next door and started shooting while trying to argue, with a straight face, "Why, we are no threat to you. What earthly reason could you have for being concerned let alone wanting to be able to defend yourself?"
:doh: Wow, just Wow, this is the same nut job, utterly deluded crap that Paul spits out.

Iran has been a Rogue State since the 70's and they didn't get that way because we are fighting a war near them. Their list of misconduct is legion, and they never did it because mean ol' USA scared them into doing it.

Conservatives do NOT want illegal aliens shot, and they number far more than a few. Heck, there are a lot of conservatives that don't even want them deported, they just want to get the border under control.

Its convenient demagoguing, you don't agree with foreign policy, instead of arguing your positions on the Merits, Paul and yourself, act like liberals and make up nonsense explanations designed to make people feel guilty, or fool the ignorant into thinking its all our fault.:rolleyes:

Will and Buckley would characterize the position you just articulated, as Nuttier than Squirell Poop, with a laugh.

Ron Paul co-sponsors/authors bills with Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich on things like legalizing drugs, pulling funding to force a withdrawls in the war on terror, turning back the clock on trade, etc, etc. He's aligned himself with Kucinich and Noam Chomisky supporting the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters. For an originalist and purist capitalist, he certainly has no qualm getting cozy with socialist, counter-culturalist with opposite objectives as himself.

Paul is the favority of 9/11 truthers, black helicopter conspiracy crowd, and although he has never endorsed their conspiracy theories directly, he always has words of patronidge and praise for them and encourage them to keep up their nut job pursuits.

So, great, for every good, originalist statement he makes, he makes two other that are just nutjob, out to lunch, no basis in rational thought statements. Sorry, if he got in power, he'd be a disaster.

Mongo nailed it. I'll hear Paul and think he's got a lot of good points and maybe he's what we need. And then he'll say "hey, let Iran have nukes" and I realize that even monkeys banging on keyboards for years might come up with a few real sentences.

He's got too many negatives for me.

Mongo nailed it. I'll hear Paul and think he's got a lot of good points and maybe he's what we need. And then he'll say "hey, let Iran have nukes" and I realize that even monkeys banging on keyboards for years might come up with a few real sentences.

He's got too many negatives for me.

I’ve spent some considerable time thinking about Paul’s stance on Iran and trying to figure out whether I have it right or wrong. Is it in our best interest to determine whether Iran (or any other country) possesses nukes? Isn’t really any of our business? If we didn’t rely so much on the Mideast for oil would we even care about what happens there? Would we even care about Israel? I’m pretty mixed about it. But my humanitarian side tells me we can’t have rogue nations like Iran running loose obtaining nukes while spewing threats to eliminate other countries. This is where I think Paul is wrong. I really want to know what Paul would do is Iran got nukes under his watch and actually used them. What would be his response? I’m gathering it would be nothing. And, perhaps that's what it should be. Israel can defend themselves.

Our support of Isreal hurts our relationship with the oil producing nations, if we were purely maichavallian in our foreign policy we would abandon Isreal.

And, if you look deeper, you'll find many leaders in the mid-east, that behind close doors, would acknowledge our relationship with Israel has been benificial to the region more than once. When Palestinians and surrounding nations have finally pushed Isreal too far with their terrorism and attacks, and they are getting their butts kicked up and down the desert, they have been thankful for the U.S. intervening and pulling Isreal back. They'll never admitt it publically, because it would be a death sentence for them with their people and clerics, they can only put out the same demagoguery that the clerics drive their people with.

The whole "why is it our business" way of thinking sounds sensible and right on the surface. But tolerance of others ways of life only works when they are tolerant of yours, too.

Is this country perfect and always right? No, but I'm glad there's someone who will step up and say "you're dangerous to the human race, we're not going to let you do this." I wish some other countries who silently feel the same way would do it too.

:doh: Wow, just Wow, this is the same nut job, utterly deluded crap that Paul spits out.

Iran has been a Rogue State since the 70's and they didn't get that way because we are fighting a war near them. Their list of misconduct is legion, and they never did it because mean ol' USA scared them into doing it.

Maybe it had something to do with the CIA overthrowing their government and installing a dictator.

Conservatives do NOT want illegal aliens shot, and they number far more than a few. Heck, there are a lot of conservatives that don't even want them deported, they just want to get the border under control.

The point is, everyone cries about illegal’s, just image in China put a base in Cuba or an aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Mexico.

Its convenient demagoguing, you don't agree with foreign policy, instead of arguing your positions on the Merits, Paul and yourself, act like liberals and make up nonsense explanations designed to make people feel guilty, or fool the ignorant into thinking its all our fault.:rolleyes:

Nonsense? Like, "they only hate us for our freedoms?" Like that bull####? How about the CIA's head of the Bin Laden unit criticizing our involvement in the region, the 9/11 commission, or Bin Laden himself saying that our occupation of Saudi Arabia prompted the attack on the Twin Towers? All nonsense? Which position uses the fear-mongering tactic again?

Will and Buckley would characterize the position you just articulated, as Nuttier than Squirell Poop, with a laugh.

Ron Paul co-sponsors/authors bills with Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich on things like legalizing drugs, pulling funding to force a withdrawls in the war on terror, turning back the clock on trade, etc, etc. He's aligned himself with Kucinich and Noam Chomisky supporting the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters. For an originalist and purist capitalist, he certainly has no qualm getting cozy with socialist, counter-culturalist with opposite objectives as himself.

Please explain how the war on drugs (which has cost $1 trillion dollars) is anything but a complete failure? I thought conservatives wanted smaller government, not larger federal organizations like the ATF, DEA, etc.? And the bills he sponsored were for legalizing medical marijuana. Oh the humanity....

Of course he wants to bring the troops home. That has never been a secret. Seeing how he believes occupation makes us less safe and a bigger target, not to mention bankrupt as a country, why wouldn't he want to pull funding to force a withdraw? 400+ bases overseas, yeah, that's small government conservatism at its finest.

How exactly has he ever turned back the clock on trade? By wanting to withdraw from "free-trade agreements? You really need to look at how those limit trade, restrict entries of other countries, and hurts the economy. But since they have a fancy name like "free-trade" then of course they are good. Nothing to see here, move along.

Paul is the favority of 9/11 truthers, black helicopter conspiracy crowd, and although he has never endorsed their conspiracy theories directly, he always has words of patronidge and praise for them and encourage them to keep up their nut job pursuits.

Who even cares about truthers? Why in the world should that have any impact on anything is beyond me. But sure, if we all see problems like Waco, Ruby Hill, etc, why should anyone condemn US citizens for inquiring about them? Just look at some of the unethical medical experiments conducted by the US. Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments or experiments on our own troops should make everyone a little curious about our government.

So, great, for every good, originalist statement he makes, he makes two other that are just nutjob, out to lunch, no basis in rational thought statements. Sorry, if he got in power, he'd be a disaster.

It always amazes me when it comes to so-called conservatives or tea party supporters. Big government is bad as long as it's the Left's big government. Don't touch my military, my drug war, my federal reserve bank, etc. Hypocrites.

The whole "why is it our business" way of thinking sounds sensible and right on the surface. But tolerance of others ways of life only works when they are tolerant of yours, too.

Is this country perfect and always right? No, but I'm glad there's someone who will step up and say "you're dangerous to the human race, we're not going to let you do this." I wish some other countries who silently feel the same way would do it too.

So what about the genocides taking place in Bhuma, Uganda, Congo, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, etc? Unless they have oil or natural resourses of interest to the US, they get the cold shoulder. If we were such liberators and world care-takers, why aren't we preventing those murders and genocides? You are fooled by the fancy words and flashy news reporters.

But instead, we'll put our votes behind smooth talkers, nice hair pieces, or flavors of the week. Everyone seems to be anti-bailouts, yet Romney and Cain lead the polls (for the record, they both supported TARP).

The GOP debates and platform have been directed by Ron Paul's positions that haven't changed in 30 years, with a voting record to prove it. Just a couple years ago he was laughed off the stage while speaking of the coming economic collaps while the GOP contenders went on and on about how the fundamentals of our economy are strong. He has been adamently against all bailouts. He wants to bring the troops home to make for a stronger National Defense. Can you even imagine Newt ever talking about the Federal Reserve before these debates? All mainstream positions now.

Yet here we are, talking about tinkering with the tax code or tiny budget cuts that don't do anything to reduce the size of the federal government. Yet the ONLY guy on the stage with the record to make the cuts and the understanding of the economy is the kook.

But instead, we'll put our votes behind smooth talkers, nice hair pieces, or flavors of the week. Everyone seems to be anti-bailouts, yet Romney and Cain lead the polls (for the record, they both supported TARP).



Did he? Cain? That is flat out a disqualify-er right there. :tap:

Did he? Cain? That is flat out a disqualify-er right there. :tap:

Ol45PnAIFRU

He supported it before he didn't :lol:

Did he? Cain? That is flat out a disqualify-er right there. :tap:

Here is an article that came up from a quick google search.
Herman Cain: My Support For TARP Could Be A Problem | TPMDC (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/herman-cain-my-support-for-tarp-could-be-a-problem.php)

Herman Cain was once one of TARP's strongest supporters. In fact, he still thinks the idea was a good one, in theory anyway. This puts Cain in direct opposition to the tea party followers largely responsible for his meteoric rise of late up the Republican presidential polls.

Cain acknowledges this could be an issue.

"If they want to nail me with my support for TARP -- you know what? I'm not going to be able to counter that," Cain told TPM in a wide-ranging interview last weekend. "Here's what we will do -- we will have a spot on our website that says, 'if you really want to know the truth about my position on TARP, go look at this two-minute video.' If they choose not to, I can't change that."

Man, that's too bad. That's why I can't stomach Cantor or Ryan. But, I am sorry; if TARP was right then, nothing is wrong, including Obama's stimulus and, frankly, the world we have today, owned by Wall Street, US taxpayers as chumps for the world, is what we deserve and anyone who was for it and could not see that, at the time, when it mattered most, I am sorry. It's a tough job and we've had plenty of people who could not handle the pressure when it mattered most.

:shrug:

And don't forget the flip-flop poster boy, Romney.
Mitt Romney’s TARP problem (http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news/12574)

The former Massachusetts governor and private equity investor supported the $700 billion bank bailout then and he still supports it today, albeit with a host of reservations and qualifications. The problem, of course, is that the Troubled Asset Relief Program is wildly unpopular among Republicans. And Romney, one can safely assume, would like to be their presidential nominee in 2012.

And who can forget this gem?
I know we didn’t all agree on TARP. I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses. For free markets to work, there has to be a currency and a functioning financial system.
-Mr. Conservative, Mitt Romney

Cain Is Worse Than I Thought | Tom Woods (http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/cain-is-worse-than-i-thought/)

Yes we are all run by the Bilderberg Club. They are the true leaders who run the world.

As opposed to a smooth and more, what, sugary delivery? Like, say, Obama? Or Clinton?

William F. Buckley could get on your nerves in a heartbeat with his delivery and demeanor and that is if you were on his side. He was still the smartest, wisest guy in the room. George Will, same thing.

So, this is where we are; we have smooth hucksters because that's what we like and we don't have truly knowledgeable and thoughtful people because they are tougher to listen to???

He's a kook. Pure & simple. And I am not the only one who thinks so - and he'll never get elected as a nuttie nut nut in mainstream America. :shrug:

He's a kook. Pure & simple. And I am not the only one who thinks so - and he'll never get elected as a nuttie nut nut in mainstream America. :shrug:

So you are basically saying, "He's a kook. I don't know why, but the media tells me that, and some other people think so too damn it!"

Now that everyone's darling Sara Palin has officially said she will not run, who will you throw your support behind? I can't wait to hear.

So you are basically saying, "He's a kook. I don't know why, but the media tells me that, and some other people think so too damn it!"

Now that everyone's darling Sara Palin has officially said she will not run, who will you throw your support behind? I can't wait to hear.

I've said elsewhere at other times that I think he's a kook and I'm not following what everyone else said - just stating a fact that the mainstream of America thinks he's a nut, too. :rolleyes:

And if you read the political forums even a LITTLE you would know who my support will be behind. :dance:

I've said elsewhere at other times that I think he's a kook and I'm not following what everyone else said - just stating a fact that the mainstream of America thinks he's a nut, too. :rolleyes:

And if you read the political forums even a LITTLE you would know who my support will be behind. :dance:

I don't feel like digging through pages of threads. Why don't you just spit it out?

I don't feel like digging through pages of threads. Why don't you just spit it out?

(I see you changed your last post.)

Sorry, I don't have time to do other people's research. :shrug:

Maybe it had something to do with the CIA overthrowing their government and installing a dictator.
:killingme The CIA used an Army to invade Iran and overthrow their government? Or was there already a coupe, with a far worse dictator, nationalizing British interest and British and U.S. intelligence helped influence the Shah whom already was the Prince to take power from the far worse dictator that already had stolen power.

And the evil shah of Iran did such evil things as modernize their society and tried to influence their culture toward tolerance and the worse sin of all, he recognized Israel. Please, don't talk about the secret police, the revolution increased the number and severity of secret police, it was the modernization and recognition of Israel that they revolted over.

Like Paul, you're repeating the far left's mindless demagoguery about everything around the world being Americas fault.

The point is, everyone cries about illegal’s, just image in China put a base in Cuba or an aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Mexico.
:shrug:How are these even related? How does everyone crying about illegals justify ridiculous hyperbole of claiming conservatives want to shoot illegal aliens?

Nonsense? Like, "they only hate us for our freedoms?" Like that bull####? How about the CIA's head of the Bin Laden unit criticizing our involvement in the region, the 9/11 commission, or Bin Laden himself saying that our occupation of Saudi Arabia prompted the attack on the Twin Towers? All nonsense? Which position uses the fear-mongering tactic again?
I'll give "they hate us for our freedoms" is a simplification, although remote to the problem it closer to the mark then Paul's repeat of the far left's, they hate us because we don't appease their every whim.

Now we're occupying Saudi Arabia?:killingme We had a tiny headquarters element there at the invitation of the Saudis and would have left at their request. If that was really OBL's motivation, why didn't he attack Saudi Arabia with that ferocity?

So you believe John Kerry would do the most damage to Al-Qaeda and would have been the most effective President at the war on terror, I mean, since we are believing everything OBL's is saying.

You left out the Al-Qaeda Field Manuals that instruct their followers to lie and make up stories to exploit the west's institutions, protections of individual rights and NOT least of all, manipulate the useful idiots that will believe their claims.:rolleyes:

9/11 Commission, was that before or after Sandy Berger stole and destroyed classified documents and Vincent Bugliosi kept changing people's testimony, literally telling them they meant something else then they just said. It was partisan sham with liberals acting shamefully.

Why did the Japanese hate us during WWII? Yet you play right into this leftist introverted naval gazing on turning around everything being the result of culture and institutions.

Its simple, the mid-east is a regressive culture, over emotional, that exploits anger and hate to achieve their goals. Just like Nazi Germany, no appeasment changed their goals, they'll simply changed their rhetoric to move the goal posts and continue their conquest. The Islamic Fascist will continue to hate us, until we all convert to Islam and submit to the pan-Arab caliphate. But in the meantime, the Islamic Fascist will continue to come up with new justification after justification of why they hate us, to exploit the useful idiots of the West that will believe and promote it, and the useful idiots will fall for it hook line and sinker, again and again.

Please explain how the war on drugs (which has cost $1 trillion dollars) is anything but a complete failure? I thought conservatives wanted smaller government, not larger federal organizations like the ATF, DEA, etc.? And the bills he sponsored were for legalizing medical marijuana. Oh the humanity....
Yes, of course, notice that Mexico issued a travel warning for the U.S. that drug violence had grown so prevalent it wasn't safe to travel here. Our military is deserting and working for drug dealers and doing para-military excursions over the border.

I certainly do have a problem with the money spent and the bureaucratic competition and self-interest that results in a lot of problems that should be fixed and scaled back.

But, by what measure is war on drugs a complete failure? Other then the stupid PR name pushed by government. You're talking about tossing the baby out with the bath water, gee big government screws up law enforcement, I guess we just stop enforcing the law. How about scaling back big government and continue to properly enforce the law.
Of course he wants to bring the troops home. That has never been a secret. Seeing how he believes occupation makes us less safe and a bigger target, not to mention bankrupt as a country, why wouldn't he want to pull funding to force a withdraw? 400+ bases overseas, yeah, that's small government conservatism at its finest.
:killingme Even at it peak, Military Spending hasn't exceeded one fifth the federal spending. The Military has taken real cuts and deep cuts, while the Social Welfare Spending has only been increased, and even slight reductions in the yearly increases have been claimed to be cuts by the left, while they expand the entitlements again and again. And its Military Spending that is bankrupting the country? But, quite originalist, Military a constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government NOT being cut is bankrupting the country, NOT the Social Welfare spending that is NOT constitutional responsibility.

How exactly has he ever turned back the clock on trade? By wanting to withdraw from "free-trade agreements? You really need to look at how those limit trade, restrict entries of other countries, and hurts the economy. But since they have a fancy name like "free-trade" then of course they are good. Nothing to see here, move along.
:killingmeYou really need to look at those trade agreements and trade before the agreements. It is NOT forcing any nation to do anything against their will, and before it, there was all sorts of unfair trade practices and restrictions that resulted in less trade to the detriment of all. Of course, if you believe Americans that have squandered every education opportunity provided to them, entitled to $30/hr to do a $1/hr unskilled job, then I can see how free trade agreements are bad. Again the leftist demagoguery, its NOT perfect, its better, but NOT perfect, therefore its BAD.

Who even cares about truthers? Why in the world should that have any impact on anything is beyond me.
Well when they are running for President, I kinda care! Paul has never endorsed the Black Helicopter Conspiracy Theories or 9/11 Truthers as being true or his opinion. BUT, he's done just everything short of that, NOT Presidential Material IMO. A healthy distrust of government is one thing, patronizing whackos is something totally different, and he doesn't seem to know that.
But sure, if we all see problems like Waco, Ruby Hill, etc, why should anyone condemn US citizens for inquiring about them? Just look at some of the unethical medical experiments conducted by the US. Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments or experiments on our own troops should make everyone a little curious about our government.
:shrug: Like before, what does this have to do with the subject?
It always amazes me when it comes to so-called conservatives or tea party supporters. Big government is bad as long as it's the Left's big government. Don't touch my military, my drug war, my federal reserve bank, etc. Hypocrites.
It always amazes me when it comes to so-called conservatives or tea party supporters, that adopt the left's mindless slogans and simplistic explanations and think the answers are all simple, as long as they are radical. Hypocrites. :rolleyes:

Wirelessly posted

I don't feel like digging through pages of threads. Why don't you just spit it out?

(I see you changed your last post.)

Sorry, I don't have time to do other people's research. :shrug:

He's asking for your opinion and how you justify YOUR assertion that Ron Paul is a kook and that the majority of Americans feel the same way. How is that his reseach to do?

BTW It's not a good sign if you are embarrassed to name the guy you are going to support :shrug:

Wirelessly posted



He's asking for your opinion and how you justify YOUR assertion that Ron Paul is a kook and that the majority of Americans feel the same way. How is that his reseach to do?

BTW It's not a good sign if you are embarrassed to name the guy you are going to support :shrug:


Embarrassed? :lmao: Eff off jerk. :moon:

Larry & I have posted many times back & forth about Ron Paul & I was replying to him. Also, I've posted in many threads about where my support lies and I don't have to cowtow to you or assorted Ron Paul nutties just so you can get your panties wet by trying to bait me. :1bdz:

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



He's asking for your opinion and how you justify YOUR assertion that Ron Paul is a kook and that the majority of Americans feel the same way. How is that his reseach to do?

BTW It's not a good sign if you are embarrassed to name the guy you are going to support :shrug:


Embarrassed? :lmao: Eff off jerk. :moon:

Larry & I have posted many times back & forth about Ron Paul & I was replying to him. Also, I've posted in many threads about where my support lies and I don't have to cowtow to you or assorted Ron Paul nutties just so you can get your panties wet by trying to bait me. :1bdz:

I know, I know, I can't expect you to actually be able to defend your statements, you heard it on FNC but you didn't get the background :yay:

So who is your candidate? What is so hard about saying " at this point I support ..."

:killingme The CIA used an Army to invade Iran and overthrow their government? Or was there already a coupe, with a far worse dictator, nationalizing British interest and British and U.S. intelligence helped influence the Shah whom already was the Prince to take power from the far worse dictator that already had stolen power.

And the evil shah of Iran did such evil things as modernize their society and tried to influence their culture toward tolerance and the worse sin of all, he recognized Israel. Please, don't talk about the secret police, the revolution increased the number and severity of secret police, it was the modernization and recognition of Israel that they revolted over.

Like Paul, you're repeating the far left's mindless demagoguery about everything around the world being Americas fault.

Did we overthrow their government and install the Shah? When the CIA admits to Blowback, that is just a fairy tale?


:shrug:How are these even related? How does everyone crying about illegals justify ridiculous hyperbole of claiming conservatives want to shoot illegal aliens?


I'll give "they hate us for our freedoms" is a simplification, although remote to the problem it closer to the mark then Paul's repeat of the far left's, they hate us because we don't appease their every whim.

Just a mischaracterization of Paul's stance. He doesn't care about appeasing them, he just wants to end the occupation of their country.

Now we're occupying Saudi Arabia?:killingme We had a tiny headquarters element there at the invitation of the Saudis and would have left at their request. If that was really OBL's motivation, why didn't he attack Saudi Arabia with that ferocity?

A headquarters element? Ha. So 5,000 troops is just a small headquarters element now? I flew in Operation Northern and Southern Watches. I know the size of the element in Saudi Arabia.

So you believe John Kerry would do the most damage to Al-Qaeda and would have been the most effective President at the war on terror, I mean, since we are believing everything OBL's is saying.

Where did say anything like that? You are just misrepresenting Paul's views and putting words in my mouth.

You left out the Al-Qaeda Field Manuals that instruct their followers to lie and make up stories to exploit the west's institutions, protections of individual rights and NOT least of all, manipulate the useful idiots that will believe their claims.:rolleyes:

You caught me, I never thought of that. And neither has the CIA. What dopes.

9/11 Commission, was that before or after Sandy Berger stole and destroyed classified documents and Vincent Bugliosi kept changing people's testimony, literally telling them they meant something else then they just said. It was partisan sham with liberals acting shamefully.

Why did the Japanese hate us during WWII? Yet you play right into this leftist introverted naval gazing on turning around everything being the result of culture and institutions.

Its simple, the mid-east is a regressive culture, over emotional, that exploits anger and hate to achieve their goals. Just like Nazi Germany, no appeasment changed their goals, they'll simply changed their rhetoric to move the goal posts and continue their conquest. The Islamic Fascist will continue to hate us, until we all convert to Islam and submit to the pan-Arab caliphate. But in the meantime, the Islamic Fascist will continue to come up with new justification after justification of why they hate us, to exploit the useful idiots of the West that will believe and promote it, and the useful idiots will fall for it hook line and sinker, again and again.

Easy there Glenn Beck. Actually, the middle east is full of great people. You have fallen for the fear mongering that is pushed on us to justify our occupations. Don't you think that us intervening has anything at all to do with their resentment? You are just classifying the extremists as the norm.

Yes, of course, notice that Mexico issued a travel warning for the U.S. that drug violence had grown so prevalent it wasn't safe to travel here. Our military is deserting and working for drug dealers and doing para-military excursions over the border.

I certainly do have a problem with the money spent and the bureaucratic competition and self-interest that results in a lot of problems that should be fixed and scaled back.

But, by what measure is war on drugs a complete failure? Other then the stupid PR name pushed by government. You're talking about tossing the baby out with the bath water, gee big government screws up law enforcement, I guess we just stop enforcing the law. How about scaling back big government and continue to properly enforce the law.

How about you look to end the prohibition? What happened when the government outlawed alcohol? It led to the rise in organized crime and the rise of master-criminals such as Al Capon. And at least they amended the constitution. Now we have the federal government arbitrarily banning these drugs, creating the incentive for these cartels, not to mention the rise of the police state with their increased powers to throw out reasonable cause and illegal search and seizure. And all at the small price of 1 trillion dollars.

:killingme Even at it peak, Military Spending hasn't exceeded one fifth the federal spending. The Military has taken real cuts and deep cuts, while the Social Welfare Spending has only been increased, and even slight reductions in the yearly increases have been claimed to be cuts by the left, while they expand the entitlements again and again. And its Military Spending that is bankrupting the country? But, quite originalist, Military a constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government NOT being cut is bankrupting the country, NOT the Social Welfare spending that is NOT constitutional responsibility.

Where have I ever said to cut military without cutting welfare programs?But lets just keep our 400 overseas bases open. I mean, we need all of those troops stationed in Korea, Germany, and Japan, right? I mean, we have plenty of money to go around, lets just cut the Left's spending programs while leaving the Rights alone. I mean, big government is only bad when the Left is doing it.


:killingmeYou really need to look at those trade agreements and trade before the agreements. It is NOT forcing any nation to do anything against their will, and before it, there was all sorts of unfair trade practices and restrictions that resulted in less trade to the detriment of all. Of course, if you believe Americans that have squandered every education opportunity provided to them, entitled to $30/hr to do a $1/hr unskilled job, then I can see how free trade agreements are bad. Again the leftist demagoguery, its NOT perfect, its better, but NOT perfect, therefore its BAD.

Just do a simple search on why trade agreements are bad. Damn. And will you please stop putting words in my mouth? Nowhere have I said anything about minimum wage laws in regards to trade agreements. Just like with Paul's positions, you misrepresent them and then try to pass them off as fact.

Well when they are running for President, I kinda care! Paul has never endorsed the Black Helicopter Conspiracy Theories or 9/11 Truthers as being true or his opinion. BUT, he's done just everything short of that, NOT Presidential Material IMO. A healthy distrust of government is one thing, patronizing whackos is something totally different, and he doesn't seem to know that.

If we know that the government has conducted unethical medical experiments on troops and poor people, why shouldn't we have a little more than a healthy distrust? He has come out and said he does not support truthers, what more does he have to do?

:shrug: Like before, what does this have to do with the subject?

It always amazes me when it comes to so-called conservatives or tea party supporters, that adopt the left's mindless slogans and simplistic explanations and think the answers are all simple, as long as they are radical. Hypocrites. :rolleyes:

Holy crap, all you have done is misrepresent Paul's positions, put words in my mouth, and dishonestly pretend that I support liberal programs. You need to do a little research into his policies. He doesn't hide them, hell, he even published a book this year listing his beliefs on 50 of the most pressing issues. Try reading a little more and listening less to Beck, Hannity, and Rush.

Embarrassed? :lmao: Eff off jerk. :moon:

Larry & I have posted many times back & forth about Ron Paul & I was replying to him. Also, I've posted in many threads about where my support lies and I don't have to cowtow to you or assorted Ron Paul nutties just so you can get your panties wet by trying to bait me. :1bdz:

I don't blame you. I would be ashamed of putting my "conservative" support behind these jokers the media is selling us. I wouldn't broadcast my pick either if I were you.

:killingme The CIA used an Army to invade Iran and overthrow their government? Or was there already a coupe, with a far worse dictator, nationalizing British interest and British and U.S. intelligence helped influence the Shah whom already was the Prince to take power from the far worse dictator that already had stolen power.

And the evil shah of Iran did such evil things as modernize their society and tried to influence their culture toward tolerance and the worse sin of all, he recognized Israel. Please, don't talk about the secret police, the revolution increased the number and severity of secret police, it was the modernization and recognition of Israel that they revolted over.

Like Paul, you're repeating the far left's mindless demagoguery about everything around the world being Americas fault.
:

In this case, it was. At least in so far as why we have problems with Iran.

Post WWII, keep in mind, most Arabs (mostly Sunni) (not to be confused with Persians) were very pro Nazi and, obviously, very anti Hebrew. This was a clear distinction, Sunni and Shia. Shia's are nowhere near the Jew haters that Sunni's are and, in any event, they do not like Sunni's.

Iranian's were very much pro US after the war and were interested in modernizing and, this is key, westernizing. They wanted, rather rationally, to own their own resources, oil, and that would have hurt British interests. In yet another case of doing England's bidding, we messed up legitimate, open and fair elections and that lead to us being seen by the more devout as what we were; only interested in saying one thing and then doing another about this liberty and freedom business. So, we opened the door for the Ayatollahs.

That's just what happened. Which, of course, makes Paul a kook because...???

:shrug:

Wirelessly posted



I know, I know, I can't expect you to actually be able to defend your statements, you heard it on FNC but you didn't get the background :yay:

So who is your candidate? What is so hard about saying " at this point I support ..."

I don't blame you. I would be ashamed of putting my "conservative" support behind these jokers the media is selling us. I wouldn't broadcast my pick either if I were you.


:killingme

Wirelessly posted



I know, I know, I can't expect you to actually be able to defend your statements, you heard it on FNC but you didn't get the background :yay:

So who is your candidate? What is so hard about saying " at this point I support ..."

That's because Bann is quietly reconsidering her stance on Paul because, if he is right on TARP and the Fed and too much government and loss of liberty and all sorts of other issues, maybe, just maybe he's not the kook and maybe, just maybe, we are our own worst enemy when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world. All sorts of little issues really don't matter much when we get the big ones, like TARP and the wars, wrong.

At worst, if he is a kook but he is right, maybe that's not so bad especially when the 'non kooks' have been steadily destroying our nation.

For Bann ------> :buddies:

That's because Bann is quietly reconsidering her stance on Paul because, if he is right on TARP and the Fed and too much government and loss of liberty and all sorts of other issues, maybe, just maybe he's not the kook and maybe, just maybe, we are our own worst enemy when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world. All sorts of little issues really don't matter much when we get the big ones, like TARP and the wars, wrong.

At worst, if he is a kook but he is right, maybe that's not so bad especially when the 'non kooks' have been steadily destroying our nation.

For Bann ------> :buddies:

OH, no I ain't! :lol: Nice try, Lar! :buddies: <-----for Larry

OH, no I ain't! :lol: Nice try, Lar! :buddies: <-----for Larry

:lol:

I have a question; If Ron Paul, when Ron Paul, wins the nomination, will you support and vote for him?

:popcorn:

:lol:

I have a question; If Ron Paul, when Ron Paul, wins the nomination, will you support and vote for him?

:popcorn:

Uh-no! In that case, I think I'll write in John McCain. :biggrin:

Uh-no! In that case, I think I'll write in John McCain. :biggrin:

:jameo:

:cds:

:lol:

:jameo:

:cds:

:lol:


:diva:

Wirelessly posted

OH, no I ain't! :lol: Nice try, Lar! :buddies: <-----for Larry

:lol:

I have a question; If Ron Paul, when Ron Paul, wins the nomination, will you support and vote for him?

:popcorn:

Of coarse she would, because once Paul wins the nomination FNC will be telling her her is the guy. She is just mavricky like that :killingme

Holy crap, all you have done is misrepresent Paul's positions, put words in my mouth, and dishonestly pretend that I support liberal programs. You need to do a little research into his policies. He doesn't hide them, hell, he even published a book this year listing his beliefs on 50 of the most pressing issues. Try reading a little more and listening less to Beck, Hannity, and Rush.

Great rebuttal and I think I'm nearly in 100% agreement with you. Unfortunately, for Paul, I think the media and the far Right has successfully characterized him as a kook with idiotic ideas and many people (Bann) have bought into the propoganda. I think if many of these people would read The Consitution and really really see what it is advocating for this country, they would see that our government has stepped so far outside its constitutional bounds, both domestically and internationally, that it will take someone with radical ideas (Paul) to pull it anywhere back near those boundaries.

Even though I will vote for Paul in the primaries, I have little hope that he will get the nomination. People don't like change, even though this country has undergone a drastic change, those in charge were smart about instigating that change. They slowly turned up the heat over a century so that this nation thinks these new boundaries are the norm. Most people have no clue or probably even want to get one.

Read the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire many of the parallels are frightening. We are heading quickly the same direction. It will take someone like a Ron Paul or to a much lessor extent (and this is a big maybe) a Cain to start us turning in the correct direction.

:lol:

I have a question; If Ron Paul, when Ron Paul, wins the nomination, will you support and vote for him?

:popcorn:

Yes.

Of coarse she would, because once Paul wins the nomination FNC will be telling her her is the guy. She is just mavricky like that :killingme

And what superior source/s do you have to help you decide about your candidate? How do you come to a conclusion to trust those sources? Who is your candidate?

With all of the garbage pumped out of our media and internet, trying to sort through it to glean accurate information about these candidates isn’t easy. I get the impression Bann and many others in this forum weigh their choices carefully. You seem only bent on criticizing people for doing their duty in making sure they not only make the most informed decision, but also actually get out and vote. Give us something constructive here. Who is your candidate and how did you determine this is the best person for the job.

Yes.

:buddies:

And what superior source/s do you have to help you decide about your candidate? How do you come to a conclusion to trust those sources? Who is your candidate?

With all of the garbage pumped out of our media and internet, trying to sort through it to glean accurate information about these candidates isn’t easy. I get the impression Bann and many others in this forum weigh their choices carefully. You seem only bent on criticizing people for doing their duty in making sure they not only make the most informed decision, but also actually get out and vote. Give us something constructive here. Who is your candidate and how did you determine this is the best person for the job.

I watch both sides and the middle when it comes to media coverage fo the candidates, i make my decisons by assessing what i hear and read from all sources and comparing it to my values and where i would like to see the country go. You cant trust ANY of the sources if you listen to only them, you really have to compare the info coming from all sides. 'Maveriky Bann' and her ilk are content to listen to one source accept what they are feeding her, and then defend their analysis as unbiased.


For me, Johnson is the guy, a true fiscal conservative with an eye on the constitution. Paul would be my next choice based on his libertarian positions.

I watch both sides and the middle when it comes to media coverage fo the candidates, i make my decisons by assessing what i hear and read from all sources and comparing it to my values and where i would like to see the country go. You cant trust ANY of the sources if you listen to only them, you really have to compare the info coming from all sides. 'Maveriky Bann' and her ilk are content to listen to one source accept what they are feeding her, and then defend their analysis as unbiased.


For me, Johnson is the guy, a true fiscal conservative with an eye on the constitution. Paul would be my next choice based on his libertarian positions.

All sources? That’s an awful lot. How many is ALL? I watch MSNBC often. I want to hear what they’re saying from that side. But they are nothing but a bunch of babbling leftists. Very little of what comes out of them is even close to accurate. Case in point is their reporting of the tea party. They have pinned them as racist. This is a blatant lie. There is not one thing racist about the tea party. On the other hand they have reported these latest protests in NY as patriotic and needed. These people are nothing but a bunch of aimless hippies just looking for something for free. They have been disruptive and nothing more than a nuisance to the city. There is no central cause or purpose; yet MSNBC is reporting them as a bunch of heroes saving this country from evil capitalism.

I don’t have one clue about you and Bann; but it’s just a hunch that you don’t have the first clue of what she reads/watches/listens to. And I don’t think Bann has ever contended that she isn’t biased. I am biased. I am a right winger. Why wouldn’t I be biased? I can’t stand the blather of the left. So naturally I will give more attention and credibility to what comes from the right. I think moderates are dangerous in that they don’t know their core and will vote where the wind blows.

:buddies:

And if Romney or Perry get the nomination I will write in Newt.

All sources? That’s an awful lot. How many is ALL? I watch MSNBC often. I want to hear what they’re saying from that side. But they are nothing but a bunch of babbling leftists. Very little of what comes out of them is even close to accurate. Case in point is their reporting of the tea party. They have pinned them as racist. This is a blatant lie. There is not one thing racist about the tea party. On the other hand they have reported these latest protests in NY as patriotic and needed. These people are nothing but a bunch of aimless hippies just looking for something for free. They have been disruptive and nothing more than a nuisance to the city. There is no central cause or purpose; yet MSNBC is reporting them as a bunch of heroes saving this country from evil capitalism.

I don’t have one clue about you and Bann; but it’s just a hunch that you don’t have the first clue of what she reads/watches/listens to. And I don’t think Bann has ever contended that she isn’t biased. I am biased. I am a right winger. Why wouldn’t I be biased? I can’t stand the blather of the left. So naturally I will give more attention and credibility to what comes from the right. I think moderates are dangerous in that they don’t know their core and will vote where the wind blows.

Much of MSNBC is babbling leftistisms, just like much of FNC is babbling rightistisms, the truth generally lies somehwere in the middle. Bann and her ilk want to defend FNC as not being biased, that is just the sheep talking there. She, and many others here proudly proclaim they refuse to listen to other sources.....

as for moderates being dangerous, i'd say you are crazy. We moderates do know their core, it just doesn't match exactly to the party line and they aren't willing to compromise their values to satisfy the "voting with the party" requirement.

Much of MSNBC is babbling leftistisms, just like much of FNC is babbling rightistisms, the truth generally lies somehwere in the middle. Bann and her ilk want to defend FNC as not being biased, that is just the sheep talking there. She, and many others here proudly proclaim they refuse to listen to other sources.....

as for moderates being dangerous, i'd say you are crazy. We moderates do know their core, it just doesn't match exactly to the party line and they aren't willing to compromise their values to satisfy the "voting with the party" requirement.

The truth is neither the middle nor left or right. It just is. There is no middle to the fact that Obama’s economic policies have failed. Not only have they not fixed our problems, but they have made it worse. Political bias doesn’t play into that unless you deny that it’s failed. People in this sector seem to have little interest in the truth and only interested in their political agenda.

What makes you a moderate?

The truth is neither the middle nor left or right. It just is. There is no middle to the fact that Obama’s economic policies have failed. Not only have they not fixed our problems, but they have made it worse. Political bias doesn’t play into that unless you deny that it’s failed. People in this sector seem to have little interest in the truth and only interested in their political agenda.

What makes you a moderate?

well that seems like a reasonable position, that people are unbiased as long as they agree with you :killingme

what makes me a moderate is that i am not blindly beholden to either party, nor do i blindly accept either side's propaganda as truth. On top of that, I vote for me, not for the party.

And if Romney or Perry get the nomination I will write in Newt.

:buddies:

Great rebuttal and I think I'm nearly in 100% agreement with you. Unfortunately, for Paul, I think the media and the far Right has successfully characterized him as a kook with idiotic ideas and many people (Bann) have bought into the propoganda. I think if many of these people would read The Consitution and really really see what it is advocating for this country, they would see that our government has stepped so far outside its constitutional bounds, both domestically and internationally, that it will take someone with radical ideas (Paul) to pull it anywhere back near those boundaries.

Even though I will vote for Paul in the primaries, I have little hope that he will get the nomination. People don't like change, even though this country has undergone a drastic change, those in charge were smart about instigating that change. They slowly turned up the heat over a century so that this nation thinks these new boundaries are the norm. Most people have no clue or probably even want to get one.

Read the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire many of the parallels are frightening. We are heading quickly the same direction. It will take someone like a Ron Paul or to a much lessor extent (and this is a big maybe) a Cain to start us turning in the correct direction.

Au contraire. I haven't bought into anything. I formed my own opinion and you have been around here long enough to know that I am capable of doing just that.

I happen to not agree with Paul on several issues and I also happen to think the man comes across as a person who is just off his nut. Sorry. As always, your mileage may vary. :shrug:

Much of MSNBC is babbling leftistisms, just like much of FNC is babbling rightistisms, the truth generally lies somehwere in the middle. Bann and her ilk want to defend FNC as not being biased, that is just the sheep talking there. She, and many others here proudly proclaim they refuse to listen to other sources.....

as for moderates being dangerous, i'd say you are crazy. We moderates do know their core, it just doesn't match exactly to the party line and they aren't willing to compromise their values to satisfy the "voting with the party" requirement.

I have ilk?! :diva:

I'm glad you know so much about me that you think I have no other sources but FNC. I've posted on this forum for a while & have a pretty damned good track record of posting reputable sources from all over.

So you really don't know jack s#*#, but thanks for playing! :high5:

Wirelessly posted

Much of MSNBC is babbling leftistisms, just like much of FNC is babbling rightistisms, the truth generally lies somehwere in the middle. Bann and her ilk want to defend FNC as not being biased, that is just the sheep talking there. She, and many others here proudly proclaim they refuse to listen to other sources.....

as for moderates being dangerous, i'd say you are crazy. We moderates do know their core, it just doesn't match exactly to the party line and they aren't willing to compromise their values to satisfy the "voting with the party" requirement.

I have ilk?! :diva:

I'm glad you know so much about me that you think I have no other sources but FNC. I've posted on this forum for a while & have a pretty damned good track record of posting reputable sources from all over.

So you really don't know jack s#*#, but thanks for playing! :high5:

You're just so Mav like that :killingme

Btw did you see your savior will be staying a FNC talking head? You can be Mav and a sheep at the same time.

Did we overthrow their government and install the Shah? When the CIA admits to Blowback, that is just a fairy tale?
:killingme You’re repeating the leftist fairy tale. The prime minster suspending the parliament, and seizing power and extending it, rioting in the streets, people being killed. And what did the CIA and MI6 do? Bribe a dozen Iranian officials and got them to push propaganda, yea, that’s a huge overthrow.:rolleyes: It was a power struggle in a country falling apart.
I’m NOT saying it was right or good, but golly gee, Iran has it revolution and now can go back to their peaceful democracy, with honest voting, tolerance and peaceful co-existence with its neighbors, except, it did the opposite of that.
Iran carries on war’s of proxy, agitates and spreads terrorism all over the world, its selected leader by its theocracy, with rigged elections, goes to the U.N. on shuch a hateful and irrational tirade, that half the U.N. walks out on him, and it’s the U.S. that is the problem?
Just a mischaracterization of Paul's stance. He doesn't care about appeasing them, he just wants to end the occupation of their country.
It’s hard to believe that when Paul keeps quoting OBL and radicals claims and saying that is why they hate us, and that is all the cause of the problems.
A headquarters element? Ha. So 5,000 troops is just a small headquarters element now? I flew in Operation Northern and Southern Watches. I know the size of the element in Saudi Arabia.
Ok, you got me there, I was in the Adriatic, I forgot about the Iraq containment doing the no fly zones.

Yet, 5000 is far from some occupation force, at the invitation of Host Government, by definition is NOT an occupation. So OBL makes an obvious deluded and false statement, but you go ahead and repeat it.:rolleyes:
Where did say anything like that? You are just misrepresenting Paul's views and putting words in my mouth.
Definition of RHETORICAL
1a : of, relating to, or concerned with rhetoric
b : employed for rhetorical effect; especially : asked merely for effect with no answer expected <a rhetorical question>
I guess by your reaction, you want to add, putting words in a person’s mouth. :rolleyes:
So when are OBL’s statements to be trusted as true and when are they to be discounted as the enemy’s propaganda?
You use OBL’s statements as evidence and source, but get upset when I ask about OBL’s other statements?
You caught me, I never thought of that. And neither has the CIA. What dopes.
:killingme So you’ve read that their tactic is to lie and use propaganda to manipulate the debate in the west, and you go ahead and repeat what they say.
Easy there Glenn Beck. Actually, the middle east is full of great people. You have fallen for the fear mongering that is pushed on us to justify our occupations. Don't you think that us intervening has anything at all to do with their resentment? You are just classifying the extremists as the norm.
:killingme Ummm, haven’t you’ve been claiming I’m putting words in your mouth by using rhetorical questions, and also claiming everyone is hypocrite. :Doh: Wow, just Wow.
Easy there Keith Olberman. Actually, if you read a little, you’d know there is a difference between culture and people, I said the former. And search my posts, you will find I have said that many a times. You’ve adopted the tactics of the far left as matter of convenience.
How about you look to end the prohibition? What happened when the government outlawed alcohol? It led to the rise in organized crime and the rise of master-criminals such as Al Capon. And at least they amended the constitution. Now we have the federal government arbitrarily banning these drugs, creating the incentive for these cartels, not to mention the rise of the police state with their increased powers to throw out reasonable cause and illegal search and seizure. And all at the small price of 1 trillion dollars.
Well, at least the prohibition part is new, the rest, your just repeating your last post all over again.
Where have I ever said to cut military without cutting welfare programs?But lets just keep our 400 overseas bases open. I mean, we need all of those troops stationed in Korea, Germany, and Japan, right? I mean, we have plenty of money to go around, lets just cut the Left's spending programs while leaving the Rights alone. I mean, big government is only bad when the Left is doing it.
Seeing how he believes occupation makes us less safe and a bigger target, not to mention bankrupt as a country, why wouldn't he want to pull funding to force a withdraw?
Where did I ever say you had or you hadn’t said anything about cuts. I’m pointing out the disingenuousness of claiming the much smaller proportion of the budget is what is bankrupting us. I also pointed out the constitutional responsibility of the right's spending, that has taken cuts in the past, huge cuts, and the non-constitutional responsibility of the left’s spending that has only been increased year after year and never suffered a single cut. But keep pushing the left's argument.
Just do a simple search on why trade agreements are bad. Damn. And will you please stop putting words in my mouth? Nowhere have I said anything about minimum wage laws in regards to trade agreements. Just like with Paul's positions, you misrepresent them and then try to pass them off as fact.
Please, again a rhetorical question, and I’m putting words in you mouth. Yea, do a search about past trade wars, tarrifs and unfair trade practices. Nothing is perfect, but its better than the past.
If we know that the government has conducted unethical medical experiments on troops and poor people, why shouldn't we have a little more than a healthy distrust? He has come out and said he does not support truthers, what more does he have to do?
How about stop patronizing the nut jobs, stop making ambiguous, tacit dodges and side-steps that patronize the conspiracy people, while maintaining his plausible deniability.
88x6JdfjwCY
d91a13Yr3oQ
Go to the 2 min mark on the following
dtjwHHKp3GE
Holy crap, all you have done is misrepresent Paul's positions, put words in my mouth, and dishonestly pretend that I support liberal programs. You need to do a little research into his policies. He doesn't hide them, hell, he even published a book this year listing his beliefs on 50 of the most pressing issues. Try reading a little more and listening less to Beck, Hannity, and Rush.
:killingme The great swami mind reader, knows all about me :killingme

Wirelessly posted



You're just so Mav like that :killingme

Btw did you see your savior will be staying a FNC talking head? You can be Mav and a sheep at the same time.


:diva:

:diva:

Have any dreams about Ron Paul about to save the universe last night right up to the point where all he needed was one hand from you and you let him down and we all died horrible deaths, including the kittens?


:evil:

Have any dreams about Ron Paul about to save the universe last night right up to the point where all he needed was one hand from you and you let him down and we all died horrible deaths, including the kittens?


:evil:

Nope, I slept like a baby. :getdown: No nightmares.

Now I'm off to take Thing2 over to the HS for his practic & then on my 3 mile walkabout before work...

Nope, I slept like a baby. :getdown: No nightmares.

Now I'm off to take Thing2 over to the HS for his practic & then on my 3 mile walkabout before work...

:buddies:

well that seems like a reasonable position, that people are unbiased as long as they agree with you :killingme

You love to spin things don’t you? That’s not what I wrote. I said the TRUTH isn’t biased. Denying that truth for the purpose of pushing your agenda is. Bush failed on numerous levels setting the table for our current national problems. That is a truth that only someone acting through their bias refuses to see. If you are denying that Obama’s policies have FAILED to fix this country’s economic problems, then you are either not paying attention or you are acting with a bias that refuses to believe that Obama could have failed. FACT is, he has been in office for over 2 years now and we are worse off than when he took office. Even Obama admits this.

what makes me a moderate is that i am not blindly beholden to either party, nor do i blindly accept either side's propaganda as truth. On top of that, I vote for me, not for the party.

Isn’t that just a wishy-washy answer. I’m not beholden to any political party either, yet I’m an unapologetic conservative. I always thought of conservatives/liberals/moderates as having specific ideals regarding economic/social/national defense issues. I didn’t know moderate was defined as someone that refuses to identify themselves with a specific party. I assume you believe that conservatives are beholden to the republican party and liberals to the democrat party? Can I surmise from your answer that you really aren’t sure where you stand on the major issues? That would certainly define you as a moderate.

I’m not beholden to any political party

I am. Bugs the hell out of me. I am reflexive GOP'er; put a picture of a dog turd up and say "Senator ________ Beautification project a great success!" and if it says "Senator Blah, D,..." I immediately see a dog turd and spout 'anyone who can't see that THAT is a dog turd is an idiot!'

If it says 'Senator Blech, R,' I immediately see fertilizer and blurt "Anyone who can't see that THAT is a thoughtful use of a natural, and national, resource is an idiot!"

I fight this all the time and try, desperately, to look at what people actually do as the lens to see them through. As an example of success, this is why Baynor pissed me off right out of the box; He did not secure an extension of the Bush tax cuts; he caved in for more spending when he had Obama stuck to where he could have demanded either serious cuts or LOWER taxes or some combination of the two. The ####ing guy punted on first down and no one talks about it.

An example of a FAIL on my part is Cain. I wanted to see a sound business man of long time experience who knew 'stupid' damn well when he saw it. To learn he supported TARP bothered me but, it is a simple principle; Anyone who thinks it was a good idea will think ANYTHING is a good idea the moment you add pressure; 'but we HAVE to do this or that or the other thing!' No, you don't. You don't give sharks blood. They WILL eat. Just put the food where you can get the sharks to do some good. Don't ####ing hand it to them.

:buddies:

I am. Bugs the hell out of me. I am reflexive GOP'er; put a picture of a dog turd up and say "Senator ________ Beautification project a great success!" and if it says "Senator Blah, D,..." I immediately see a dog turd and spout 'anyone who can't see that THAT is a dog turd is an idiot!'

If it says 'Senator Blech, R,' I immediately see fertilizer and blurt "Anyone who can't see that THAT is a thoughtful use of a natural, and national, resource is an idiot!"

I fight this all the time and try, desperately, to look at what people actually do as the lens to see them through. As an example of success, this is why Baynor pissed me off right out of the box; He did not secure an extension of the Bush tax cuts; he caved in for more spending when he had Obama stuck to where he could have demanded either serious cuts or LOWER taxes or some combination of the two. The ####ing guy punted on first down and no one talks about it.

An example of a FAIL on my part is Cain. I wanted to see a sound business man of long time experience who knew 'stupid' damn well when he saw it. To learn he supported TARP bothered me but, it is a simple principle; Anyone who thinks it was a good idea will think ANYTHING is a good idea the moment you add pressure; 'but we HAVE to do this or that or the other thing!' No, you don't. You don't give sharks blood. They WILL eat. Just put the food where you can get the sharks to do some good. Don't ####ing hand it to them.

:buddies:

I don’t think you are. I think there’s a difference between knowing which party typically supports your thinking and just voting for the ‘R’ for the sake of voting for the ‘R’. I mean there are some things that you just know and react to out of experience. But you’re a smart guy and use a vetting process to make informed decisions. So, even though you may knee-jerk for the republican, that’s only until you’ve learned they are a RINO and not someone you’d support.

Since you haven’t voted for anyone, how can you say Cain was a fail? This is like Bush, he sold himself as fertilizer, but we had to learn the hard way that he was actually a turd. How could we possibly know? Thankfully we learned about Cain before the election.

You love to spin things don’t you? That’s not what I wrote. I said the TRUTH isn’t biased. Denying that truth for the purpose of pushing your agenda is. Bush failed on numerous levels setting the table for our current national problems. That is a truth that only someone acting through their bias refuses to see. If you are denying that Obama’s policies have FAILED to fix this country’s economic problems, then you are either not paying attention or you are acting with a bias that refuses to believe that Obama could have failed. FACT is, he has been in office for over 2 years now and we are worse off than when he took office. Even Obama admits this.

I do beleive that his policies have failed to fix the problem, but you also asserted that they have made the problem worse. I dont think that is so clear to see. No one can quantify the what if's, so we really dont know what the "truth" is there.


Isn’t that just a wishy-washy answer. I’m not beholden to any political party either, yet I’m an unapologetic conservative. I always thought of conservatives/liberals/moderates as having specific ideals regarding economic/social/national defense issues. I didn’t know moderate was defined as someone that refuses to identify themselves with a specific party. I assume you believe that conservatives are beholden to the republican party and liberals to the democrat party? Can I surmise from your answer that you really aren’t sure where you stand on the major issues? That would certainly define you as a moderate.

Talk about spin.....

I do identify myself as a republican, i am just not a teetotaller. I am a moderate republican of the fiscal conseervative/social liberal type. there is nothing wishy-washy about my beliefs. And your assumption is about as accurate as me saying that because you claim to be an unapolgetic conservative that you blindly follow the party and need them to tell you how to think :bigwhoop:

It amazes me how people demonize Ron Paul's ideas. They mirror much of what the founders said, certainly George Washington. The founders stated that the U.S. should avoid foreign entanglements including fixed alliances like NATO and fighting for any other people's freedom. Belief in the true meaning of the Constitution and original intent have been lost because most U.S. citizens are ignorant of the history of the founding of their own country.

Why do we have bases around the world on non-U.S. territory? Do we not have the ability to protect ourselves from within our own shores?

While I do not agree with tenants of Islam, what is it that the extremists want? The United States out of the middle east. So what is our response? We send in more troops and tweak their collective noses even more.

I have my own issues with Ron Paul. He is the consummate politician. He rails against set asides but receives more set asides than any other Congressman.

I am hoping Herman Cain does not self destruct and grows into the statesman, not politician, he needs to be to be POTUS.

I do beleive that his policies have failed to fix the problem, but you also asserted that they have made the problem worse. I dont think that is so clear to see. No one can quantify the what if's, so we really dont know what the "truth" is there.

There is no ‘what if’ in the fact that our economy is worse than when Obama took office. It’s clear to me that when Obama entered into the WH unemployment was at 7.6%. It’s now, after everything Obama has done, steady at 9.1% and ready to go higher real soon. Is not 9.1% unemployment worse than 7.6%? GPD has been stagnant. Consumer confidence has plummeted since Obama took office. Housing market is still dying. Banks are still suffering despite TARP; so much so that they are now charging fees just for holding a card in their name. You don’t think that’s worse and a catastrophic waste of our tax dollars? Then there’s that pesky little thing called the debt. Do you believe owing more money is better than owing less? Even Obama admits Americans are not better off. You have a strange understanding of better/worse. This isn’t a prediction of how things will be, it’s how things ARE, NOW. Obama has failed, up to now, to improve anything.

Solyndra
Operation Gunrunner
Obamacare
Ligthsquared
TARP
Stimulus

The list is starting to get pretty long.

He ran on ending these wars. Heck he won the Nobel Peace prize, yet got us into yet another war in Libya, without even conferring with Congress and ordered more drone attacks in Pakistan than Bush's entire 8 years; and we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. He promised to close Gitmo. Still there. He promised to end the Patriot Act but instead extended it. He has made a mockery of an already chaotic situation on our southern border. He praises the recent anti-capitalist protests while demonizing the Tea Party.

Talk about spin.....

I do identify myself as a republican, i am just not a teetotaller. I am a moderate republican of the fiscal conseervative/social liberal type. there is nothing wishy-washy about my beliefs. And your assumption is about as accurate as me saying that because you claim to be an unapolgetic conservative that you blindly follow the party and need them to tell you how to think.

I didn’t say your beliefs were wishy-washy; I said your answer was wishy-washy. Your answer didn’t even address your actual beliefs. You answer side-stepped my question. But you’ve now finally answered it. Thank you. :buddies:

There is no ‘what if’ in the fact that our economy is worse than when Obama took office. It’s clear to me that when Obama entered into the WH unemployment was at 7.6%. It’s now, after everything Obama has done, steady at 9.1% and ready to go higher real soon. Is not 9.1% unemployment worse than 7.6%? GPD has been stagnant. Consumer confidence has plummeted since Obama took office. Housing market is still dying. Banks are still suffering despite TARP; so much so that they are now charging fees just for holding a card in their name. You don’t think that’s worse and a catastrophic waste of our tax dollars? Then there’s that pesky little thing called the debt. Do you believe owing more money is better than owing less? Even Obama admits Americans are not better off. You have a strange understanding of better/worse. This isn’t a prediction of how things will be, it’s how things ARE, NOW. Obama has failed, up to now, to improve anything.

Solyndra
Operation Gunrunner
Obamacare
Ligthsquared
TARP
Stimulus

The list is starting to get pretty long.

He ran on ending these wars. Heck he won the Nobel Peace prize, yet got us into yet another war in Libya, without even conferring with Congress and ordered more drone attacks in Pakistan than Bush's entire 8 years; and we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. He promised to close Gitmo. Still there. He promised to end the Patriot Act but instead extended it. He has made a mockery of an already chaotic situation on our southern border. He praises the recent anti-capitalist protests while demonizing the Tea Party.



I didn’t say your beliefs were wishy-washy; I said your answer was wishy-washy. Your answer didn’t even address your actual beliefs. You answer side-stepped my question. But you’ve now finally answered it. Thank you. :buddies:

there is no way to know if obama's policy MADE THINGS WORSE or if they were headed that way already and his policies lessened the impact. That they didn't fix things is undeniable, but that his actions made things worse is pure conjecture.

It amazes me how people demonize Ron Paul's ideas. They mirror much of what the founders said, certainly George Washington. The founders stated that the U.S. should avoid foreign entanglements including fixed alliances like NATO and fighting for any other people's freedom. Belief in the true meaning of the Constitution and original intent have been lost because most U.S. citizens are ignorant of the history of the founding of their own country.

Why do we have bases around the world on non-U.S. territory? Do we not have the ability to protect ourselves from within our own shores?

While I do not agree with tenants of Islam, what is it that the extremists want? The United States out of the middle east. So what is our response? We send in more troops and tweak their collective noses even more.

I have my own issues with Ron Paul. He is the consummate politician. He rails against set asides but receives more set asides than any other Congressman.


Well, I don’t know who specifically you’re addressing this to, but I happen to think Paul has most things right on a constitutional level. But in today’s day-and-age I think we need a clear understanding on how he’s going to deal with terrorism and other threats like Iran (which he has made clear he will ignore), N. Korea, China, etc… Is Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, knowing the rhetoric he has used against Israel and the US, considered a “foreign entanglement”? Did Washington anticipate that countries could obtain such firepower that could destroy entire nations in a couple of pushes of a button? Would Washington approve of our massive nuclear arsenal? I’m just asking for clarity on Paul’s position of national defense; which the constitution enumerates.

I am hoping Herman Cain does not self destruct and grows into the statesman, not politician, he needs to be to be POTUS.

So you’re comfortable with Cain supporting TARP? I'm not sure how you are uncomfortable with set-asides yet seem okay with approving TARP.

there is no way to know if obama's policy MADE THINGS WORSE or if they were headed that way already and his policies lessened the impact. That they didn't fix things is undeniable, but that his actions made things worse is pure conjecture.

Then I suppose, using that argument, it’s safe to say that we really don’t if it was Bush’s, or Clinton’s, or even Reagan's policies that got us in this mess.

When you hear business owner say they aren’t going to hire because they fear what Obama might do next (especially in the line of taxes) I think that’s a safe bet that Obama’s policies can be blamed for our current unemployment rate.

Having nearly 1 in 10 people out of job impacts the GDP; and since Obama’s policies have affected unemployment one can logically conclude he has also negatively impacted the GDP.

I think it’s safe to say that, through Obama’s spending policies, he increased our debt 4-fold over Bush or any other previous president. Now, I don’t very people that think having such massive debt is a good thing.

Explain to me how more drone attacks in Pakistan and adding another front for our already-thinly-stretched military makes things better for our national security?

With all due respect, you’re in denial!

And if Romney or Perry get the nomination I will write in Newt.

Me too. :yay:

Wirelessly posted

there is no way to know if obama's policy MADE THINGS WORSE or if they were headed that way already and his policies lessened the impact. That they didn't fix things is undeniable, but that his actions made things worse is pure conjecture.

Then I suppose, using that argument, it’s safe to say that we really don’t if it was Bush’s, or Clinton’s, or even Reagan's policies that got us in this mess.

When you hear business owner say they aren’t going to hire because they fear what Obama might do next (especially in the line of taxes) I think that’s a safe bet that Obama’s policies can be blamed for our current unemployment rate.

Having nearly 1 in 10 people out of job impacts the GDP; and since Obama’s policies have affected unemployment one can logically conclude he has also negatively impacted the GDP.

I think it’s safe to say that, through Obama’s spending policies, he increased our debt 4-fold over Bush or any other previous president. Now, I don’t very people that think having such massive debt is a good thing.

Explain to me how more drone attacks in Pakistan and adding another front for our already-thinly-stretched military makes things better for our national security?

With all due respect, you’re in denial!

As hard as you are trying you haven't shown a single element of fact that shows Obama's policies have negatively impacted job numbers. You talk of truth but then base your logic on a single anecdote and a bunch of opinion.

Btw, I do believe that the current state of affairs was caused by the collective policies and decisions of our leaders over the past 20-30 years, maybe longer. Obama stepped in on a down swing, I don't think that means he is solely responsible for the trajectory of our economy

what makes me a moderate is that i am not blindly beholden to either party, nor do i blindly accept either side's propaganda as truth. On top of that, I vote for me, not for the party.

See, I think this is hogwash when anyone says it, and just about everyone says it.

We all like to think we know what the hell is going on and we're oh so open minded. We're all manipulated in one way or another by the political establishment and the media.

In the end, the media determines who is going to be our candidates, and we'll all go out and vote for those chosen candidates. I don't know a soul who cares for Romney, but I bet you a dollar he will be the Republican candidate. Just about everyone I talk to prefers Newt, but the media tells us that he is unelectable, not outright, but basically through limited coverage and they pretty much have everyone convinced that his past personal indiscretions will prohibit him from being elected. Whereas Obama's questionable past was never an issue, not ever.

It's all incredibly frustrating, but in the end, propaganda does win out and we can all talk high and mighty about how we don't buy into it :blahblah:, maybe we don't buy into it, but we certainly don't have near the power that we should have in order to determine our candidates.

As hard as you are trying you haven't shown a single element of fact that shows Obama's policies have negatively impacted job numbers. You talk of truth but then base your logic on a single anecdote and a bunch of opinion.

So, his spending didn’t directly impact our debt? Are saying increasing the debt in this way isn’t a bad thing? Are you saying employers refusing to hire because of the impact of Obamacare they fear that Obama will raise taxes doesn’t indicate his policies are directly impacting our unemployment numbers?

Btw, I do believe that the current state of affairs was caused by the collective policies and decisions of our leaders over the past 20-30 years, maybe longer. Obama stepped in on a down swing, I don't think that means he is solely responsible for the trajectory of our economy

You tend to overanalyze things. Every honest person will agree Obama inherited a huge mess; especially our economy. It was massive, unkempt spending and misguided regulations that got us here. And this is something that amassed itself over several decades; but particularly during the W. Bush years. What did Obama do to fix this? More of the same. What’s the definition of insanity? So, my point is not to solely blame Obama; my point is to say he has not been effective in even coming close to fixing the problem. He has done everything to make it worse. We can’t continue to go down this road. Just as Bush failed, so has Obama. We didn’t learn the Bush lesson until it was too late. But we have an opportunity to correct this problem called Obama.

Wirelessly posted

As hard as you are trying you haven't shown a single element of fact that shows Obama's policies have negatively impacted job numbers. You talk of truth but then base your logic on a single anecdote and a bunch of opinion.

So, his spending didn’t directly impact our debt? Are saying increasing the debt in this way isn’t a bad thing? Are you saying employers refusing to hire because of the impact of Obamacare they fear that Obama will raise taxes doesn’t indicate his policies are directly impacting our unemployment numbers?

Btw, I do believe that the current state of affairs was caused by the collective policies and decisions of our leaders over the past 20-30 years, maybe longer. Obama stepped in on a down swing, I don't think that means he is solely responsible for the trajectory of our economy

You tend to overanalyze things. Every honest person will agree Obama inherited a huge mess; especially our economy. It was massive, unkempt spending and misguided regulations that got us here. And this is something that amassed itself over several decades; but particularly during the W. Bush years. What did Obama do to fix this? More of the same. What’s the definition of insanity? So, my point is not to solely blame Obama; my point is to say he has not been effective in even coming close to fixing the problem. He has done everything to make it worse. We can’t continue to go down this road. Just as Bush failed, so has Obama. We didn’t learn the Bush lesson until it was too late. But we have an opportunity to correct this problem called Obama.

Again, you offer conjecture and anecdote as truth.
The truth is that we will never know if Obama's policies cost us any jobs. For all we know without his administrations actions things could have been much worse. For the record, I don't think he "fixed" anything, and I think his adding to the debt isn't a positive. But what may have been had he not acted or had he acted in a different manner, we will never know.

Well, I don’t know who specifically you’re addressing this to, but I happen to think Paul has most things right on a constitutional level. But in today’s day-and-age I think we need a clear understanding on how he’s going to deal with terrorism and other threats like Iran (which he has made clear he will ignore), N. Korea, China, etc… Is Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, knowing the rhetoric he has used against Israel and the US, considered a “foreign entanglement”? Did Washington anticipate that countries could obtain such firepower that could destroy entire nations in a couple of pushes of a button? Would Washington approve of our massive nuclear arsenal? I’m just asking for clarity on Paul’s position of national defense; which the constitution enumerates.



So you’re comfortable with Cain supporting TARP? I'm not sure how you are uncomfortable with set-asides yet seem okay with approving TARP.

Middle east is chicken and egg. We should have left the middle east alone and let them ride camels and stayed out of their business. We didn't. Now they are doing what ever they can to get us out of their territory.

Nukes are what they are; the ultimate deterrent or destructive force. So I see only two outcomes. We either preemptively nuke Iran into a big patch of glass or we leave them alone and they attack Israel and Israel nukes them into a big patch of glass.



Did not catch that Herman Cain supported TARP. He had no vote; has never held public office. So reference please.

Again, you offer conjecture and anecdote as truth.
The truth is that we will never know if Obama's policies cost us any jobs. For all we know without his administrations actions things could have been much worse. For the record, I don't think he "fixed" anything, and I think his adding to the debt isn't a positive. But what may have been had he not acted or had he acted in a different manner, we will never know.

As long as you're in denial about it, of course you wont see the truth.

:shrug:

Here's The Real Reason Unemployment Is So High: Because The Government Makes It Impossible For Small Businesses To Hire Employees - Business Insider (http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-07-06/markets/30049141_1_small-businesses-payroll-taxes-high-business-taxes)


Traditionally, about 75 percent of all new jobs are created by small businesses. But today, hundreds of thousands of small businesses are being strangled out of existence by all of the oppressive taxes, fees, rules, regulations, paperwork and demands that government keeps imposing on them...

...When it comes to hiring new employees, the federal government has made the process so complicated and so expensive for small businesses that it is hardly worth it anymore. Things have gotten so bad that more small businesses than ever are only hiring part-time workers or independent contractors...


... Wayne Allyn Root described what he is hearing from his friends who are small business owners....

I've polled all my friends who own small businesses -- many of them in the Internet and high-tech fields. They all agree that in this new Obama world of high business taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, and workers compensation taxes, the key to success is to avoid employees. The only way to survive as a business owner today is by keeping the payroll very low and by hiring only independent contractors or part-time employees provided by temp agencies.

:shrug: Study: Obama's Stimulus Cost 595,000 Jobs - Investors.com (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/572443/201105171800/Study-Obamas-Stimulus-Cost-595000-Jobs.aspx)

New economics research suggests that President Obama's stimulus plan may have destroyed or forestalled employment, including more than 1 million private-sector jobs...

Economists Timothy Conley, University of Western Ontario, and Bill Dupor of Ohio State University found that the stimulus resulted in a net loss of 595,000 jobs from April 2009 to September 2010.

Their paper shows the stimulus created or saved 443,000 government jobs and 92,000 non-HELP service jobs. But it destroyed or forestalled 772,000 HELP jobs and 362,000 goods-producing positions. That's a net loss of 1.042 million private jobs.

Middle east is chicken and egg. We should have left the middle east alone and let them ride camels and stayed out of their business. We didn't. Now they are doing what ever they can to get us out of their territory.

Nukes are what they are; the ultimate deterrent or destructive force. So I see only two outcomes. We either preemptively nuke Iran into a big patch of glass or we leave them alone and they attack Israel and Israel nukes them into a big patch of glass.



Did not catch that Herman Cain supported TARP. He had no vote; has never held public office. So reference please.

Yes, yes… what we should’ve done. Well we didn’t do what we should’ve done. So we are here, now… what do we do going forward? What is Paul’s plan to deal with these threats? I’m not liking what I hear. We can’t play the isolationist game and pretend that what Iran does doesn’t or wont affect us. For us, nukes were used as a deterrent. Are you really convinced that’s Iran will use them for? Are you really convinced he wont use them against Israel or perhaps hand them off to the Palestinians or some other terror group to use against us?

If we ignore the problem and just sit on the sidelines, and that first nuke goes off in Israel killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, are you going to be satisfied we addressed the situation, despite the fact that Israel will subsequently turn Iran into a sheet of glass? Is that how we want to deal with these situations? Even worse, if/when an Iranian-made nuke gets into this country and kills thousands, is that how we deal with threats in this day-and-age? Wait until the disaster occurs to react?

As remote as it is that this might happen, don’t you think that’s a pretty big gamble, knowing what we know about Iran? How certain are you, if we pull all of our troops out of the Mideast, that they will play nice going forward and leave us alone?

So, when POTUS Paul does pull us out and al Qaeda hits us again, what will Paul’s response be? “We had it coming to us”? Americans might support the idea of pulling out, but I guarantee they wont support blaming us for another attack. They will want some sort of response.

I am. Bugs the hell out of me. I am reflexive GOP'er;

I fight this all the time and try, desperately, to look at what people actually do as the lens to see them through.


:buddies:

I guess I will JOIN Larry's Club, :buddies: because I am in the same place ... I woke up a few yrs ago to this as well (voted for Reagan in 84 [right before going in the Military] - Bush 41, against Clinton and for Bush 43 - what a mess that was ..... but better that Goreacle and Swift Boat Kerry) .... and skipped voting for the Liberal in the last Presidential Election .... I did bump into G. Gordon Liddy @ the poling place ..... he was wearing a suit and Tie :faint:

who where's a TIE and Jacket to VOTE ......... :popcorn:

who where's a TIE and Jacket to VOTE ......... :popcorn:

G. Gordon Liddy :shrug:

there is no way to know if obama's policy MADE THINGS WORSE

:popcorn:

I heard the same thing about Clinton's election ........ buy the time the election rolled around, the press was burying the FACT that Bush's policies were having a positive affect on the economy - which if widely know, would have not gotten Bill elected in 1992 ... so like Obama's laco of JOB Experience and since Bill was running on 'it's the economy stupid' the State Run Media was silent on the improvement ... but with in months of Bill getting elected, long before he would have had a chance to affect any change on the course of the company - suddenly everything was Unicorns and Rainbows - Clinton had saved the country :whistle: by then every one was arguing about Hillarycare

G. Gordon Liddy :shrug:

reminds me of the story,


Reagan had so much respect for the Oval Office, he never took his jacket off, Clinton had so little, he could not keep his pants on :jet:

Yes, yes… what we should’ve done. Well we didn’t do what we should’ve done. So we are here, now… what do we do going forward? What is Paul’s plan to deal with these threats? I’m not liking what I hear. We can’t play the isolationist game and pretend that what Iran does doesn’t or wont affect us. For us, nukes were used as a deterrent. Are you really convinced that’s Iran will use them for? Are you really convinced he wont use them against Israel or perhaps hand them off to the Palestinians or some other terror group to use against us?

If we ignore the problem and just sit on the sidelines, and that first nuke goes off in Israel killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, are you going to be satisfied we addressed the situation, despite the fact that Israel will subsequently turn Iran into a sheet of glass? Is that how we want to deal with these situations? Even worse, if/when an Iranian-made nuke gets into this country and kills thousands, is that how we deal with threats in this day-and-age? Wait until the disaster occurs to react?

As remote as it is that this might happen, don’t you think that’s a pretty big gamble, knowing what we know about Iran? How certain are you, if we pull all of our troops out of the Mideast, that they will play nice going forward and leave us alone?

So, when POTUS Paul does pull us out and al Qaeda hits us again, what will Paul’s response be? “We had it coming to us”? Americans might support the idea of pulling out, but I guarantee they wont support blaming us for another attack. They will want some sort of response.

Well I've posted this several times; insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Maybe it is time to try something different.

I am tired of the same ol' same ol' over and over again from the Dems and the GOP. So it is either Ron Paul or Herman Cain or I vote for myself for POTUS again.

If Iran gets nukes, and I think that is inevitable, we can be appeasers like Chamberland before WW II or we can walk softly but be willing to swing for the fence with the "big stick" we have. Appeasement never works, so that leaves one option. Unless we continue to do the same ol' same ol'.

Well I've posted this several times; insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Maybe it is time to try something different.

I am tired of the same ol' same ol' over and over again from the Dems and the GOP. So it is either Ron Paul or Herman Cain or I vote for myself for POTUS again.

If Iran gets nukes, and I think that is inevitable, we can be appeasers like Chamberland before WW II or we can walk softly but be willing to swing for the fence with the "big stick" we have. Appeasement never works, so that leaves one option. Unless we continue to do the same ol' same ol'.

I can't vote Paul until I have national security questions answered. Cain is out for me because of TARP. The only left is Newt. And he has a lot of personal baggage that makes me uncomfortable.

:shrug:

I’d vote for you but I think entering ‘2ndAmendment’ isn’t going to look so good. :lol:

I can't vote Paul until I have national security questions answered. Cain is out for me because of TARP. The only left is Newt. And he has a lot of personal baggage that makes me uncomfortable.

:shrug:

I’d vote for you but I think entering ‘2ndAmendment’ isn’t going to look so good. :lol:

As far as Cain and TARP are concerned:
Herman Cain - TARP (http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=98516477&category=views&id=20110509185038) As the financial crisis unfolded, Herman Cain expressed an opinion that something needed to be done by the government. He stated that the US government was the only entity with shoes big enough to fill the void left by the economic collapse. As opposition to the TARP plan mounted, Mr. Cain stated that the plan was far from nationalization and would be a win-win for taxpayers. He mocked those who expressed concern that the plan would lead to a takeover of the banking industry.

Months after the TARP plan went into affect, Herman Cain wrote that the plan had not been carried out as the legislation stated, noting that preferred stock was called for in the legislation but this restriction was not being adhered to by Congress. During the 2012 election, he has expressed opposition to the manner in which the plan was carried out.

As far as Cain and TARP are concerned:

Herman Cain - TARP (http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=98516477&category=views&id=20110509185038) As the financial crisis unfolded, Herman Cain expressed an opinion that something needed to be done by the government. He stated that the US government was the only entity with shoes big enough to fill the void left by the economic collapse. As opposition to the TARP plan mounted, Mr. Cain stated that the plan was far from nationalization and would be a win-win for taxpayers. He mocked those who expressed concern that the plan would lead to a takeover of the banking industry.

Months after the TARP plan went into affect, Herman Cain wrote that the plan had not been carried out as the legislation stated, noting that preferred stock was called for in the legislation but this restriction was not being adhered to by Congress. During the 2012 election, he has expressed opposition to the manner in which the plan was carried out.

Government wasn’t meant to bail out failed private enterprises. It’s way beyond the intended scope of our constitution. I honestly don’t care if it had worked (which it didn’t); it’s not our federal government’s job. What else will Cain approve that puts our constitution in question? And because TARP failed shows why our government shouldn’t be involved in bailouts.

Government wasn’t meant to bail out failed private enterprises. It’s way beyond the intended scope of our constitution. I honestly don’t care if it had worked (which it didn’t); it’s not our federal government’s job. What else will Cain approve that puts our constitution in question? And because TARP failed shows why our government shouldn’t be involved in bailouts.

I totally agree that government is involved with far more than it was intended to be involved. Original intent of the Constitution started to be subverted with the First Congress; Washington, Jefferson, and other founders complained. But power corrupts and a big building with a big white dome full of lawyers is full of corruption. So Paul or Cain are the best of the lot. Neither is perfect. Pick one or none, but vote your conscience and not the party.

PsyOps and others, take the time to listen.

http://forums.somd.com/politics/234420-cain-values-voter-summit.html#post4678807

I totally agree that government is involved with far more than it was intended to be involved. Original intent of the Constitution started to be subverted with the First Congress; Washington, Jefferson, and other founders complained. But power corrupts and a big building with a big white dome full of lawyers is full of corruption. So Paul or Cain are the best of the lot. Neither is perfect. Pick one or none, but vote your conscience and not the party.

And Cain supports this level of involvement.

And Cain supports this level of involvement.

Not so sure that is correct any more. He is getting better educated about the Constitution and original intent as he progresses it seems, at least according to what I heard in the speech.

Not so sure that is correct any more. He is getting better educated about the Constitution and original intent as he progresses it seems, at least according to what I heard in the speech.

It's a little late in the game for that don't you think? I mean, as much as it may seem the be the case in the past, being president isn't an OJT position when it comes to understanding the constitution.

It's a little late in the game for that don't you think? I mean, as much as it may seem the be the case in the past, being president isn't an OJT position when it comes to understanding the constitution.

Learning as you go is not a bad thing. Our Constitutional scholar in chief sure dose not understand the Constitution nor does any of the field of GOP candidate except Ron Paul. The fact that Cain is gaining understanding and when he states his position, if it morphed, it morphed in the direction of original intent.