If You Were Going to Start A Revolution ....

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by This_person

Paul was suggesting our actions were wrong, and they provoked the reaction, and the people doing the reacting believed we deserved what we got for our actions..

I didn't follow Paul. Despite the sour grapes of his ardent supporters, he had no chance of winning.

However, the "you had it coming" attitude was enunciated by our northern neighbor in the mouth of then prime minister Jean-Paul Chretien. I'm glad the schmuck is gone now.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

At some point you'll come to the realization that we will never agree on this. There were other candidates that were on the ballot who represented what she claims was an important issue. They just didnt have an R next to their name, she sold out for the party instead.

We agree that there were better candidates.

We agree that those candidates would never have won the election. If they had a chance, they'd have been major candidates, not "also rans".

What we disagree on is whether to vote for someone with whom you agree with a lot, and disagree with a little, just to make yourself feel better; or, to vote for someone with whom you disagree with some, agree with some, to vote against the only other person who could win that you disagree with far, far, far, far, more.

I can agree that the vast majority of the country views it one way, and you and Larry view it another.

Right, perception is a funny thing. Here is the questions leading up to the "Bombing Iraq" response (that would be the why he said it) and what he actually said. My comments are in Blue.

I did not edit the transcript, except to add my own comments. Even though Vrai will never face it and admit she was wrong on this point, the transcript is inlcuded, click on it and read for yourself. Its pretty clearn, and black/white what Paul was trying to get accross (find out why your enemy hates you) verses the koolaid Giulliani served up to Vrai.

Read it, posted the pertinent portions. I don't feel I changed his meaning one bit.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Doesnt matter, that is not what Paul was stating.

I wasn't answering what Paul was saying in what you quoted. I was answering the claim I don't understand English.

He gave the Terrorists reason for attacking America. He states "Have you ever read why they attacked us?". At no point does he say we deserved the attack, all he ever did was say "The terrorists said they attacked us because of ....".

Vrai and yourself have comprehension problems. Explaining, from the terrorists own words, why they attacked us is not justification nor is it exusing their actions.

Using that same (twisted) thought process, by saying a Rapist raped a woman because she had on yellow tennis shoes, would excuse the Rapist. It doesnt, all it does is explain, in the criminals own words, the reason for the crime.

I don't think Paul was excusing it. I think Paul said the terrorists had their justifications, and their justifications were not inaccurate.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

She is if she's doing it right.

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

I posted the actual transcript, you posted a revised version.

It's pointless... their brains are drowning in all the GOP kool-aid they've been drinking out of their bottles.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Paul never stated that, that was a misrepenstation by Giulliani that Vrai and Yourself swallowed without question.

He did not use those specific words in that order. We can agree on that.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

I posted the actual transcript, you posted a revised version.

I weeded out 80% of what you posted without changing the meaning of Paul's words. I changed nothing.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Beaver-Cleaver

It's pointless... their brains are drowning in all the GOP kool-aid they've been drinking out of their bottles.

Pointless is discussing anything with you.

[Libertarian]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

MY beef with it is that money controls elections, and the money centers around the major parties. Unless you're Ross Perot and have loads of your OWN money, you can't compete with the major parties when they have the airwaves.

True, but in local elections, money is less of a factor. Thus, it is more likely for Libertarians and other third parties to win local races such as county commissioner races and mayor races. Once the party name is more widely established, it will become more likely for them to occupy congressional seats and, perhaps in 2016 or even 2012, the White House. There are currently some 200+ elected Libertarians in elected office nationwide; the number is rapidly growing.

[Libertarian]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke dope.

Actually, I am a Libertarian who does not want to smoke dope, although I believe the government wastes too much of our money trying too stop people from doing it. There are actually several other issues which seperate Libertarians from Republicans. Another issue is the Second Amendment. Despite the fact that the NRA seems to be in bed with the GOP, the Libertarian Party is more adamantly pro-gun than the GOP. The Republicans have sold out the Second Amendment repeatedly for the sake of pandering to the anti-gun groups. Libertarians, on the other hand, adamantly hold to their principles and support the Second Amendment just the way it was written. The other issue that seperates Libertarians from Republicans is on smaller government. Although the GOP touts itself as "the party of small government," it is downright laughable since they tripled the size of government during their last tenure in the White House.