Ron Paul Voted to Surrender to the Terrorists

[Naturalized-Texan]

Every Sunday the Houston Chronicle publishes the votes of the Texas delegation to Congress on key issues facing the nation for the previous week.

Not only did Ron Paul vote against appropriating funds to fight the War on Terror (HR 2207), he also voted to surrender to the terrorists in the War on Terror (HR 2237). (Among those with whom Ron Paul voted was fellow moonbat, Sheila Jackson Lee.) Fortunately, the bill to surrender to the terrorist was defeated, 171 to 255. That means that 171 members of the House of Representatives, including Ron Paul and Sheila Jackson Lee, voted to give aid and comfort to our enemies in a time of war. According to the Constitution, that is treason.

[libertyman]

Considering the source who posted this hit-piece, I'd take it w/ a grain of salt. :finger:

Ronald Reagan didn't say what he said in my signature about Dr. Paul by accident.

[Rhino]

Paul did vote against HR 2207, but it was for agricultural programs in the US, not for Iraq.

He voted for HR 2237, which was for the withdrawal of troops and contractors from Iraq, to have commenced within 90 days of passage. That was the one that was defeated 171 to 255.

[The_Elucidator]

Fire away gentlemen!

[Lubbock]

I know a number of people who were perfectly sane and lucid twenty years ago, and since that time, have gone around the bend.

It's usually due to health reasons beyond our control --sometimes inherited. Sometimes it's of our own making: consumption of things that aren't good for us can be a contributing factor.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Considering the source who posted this hit-piece, I'd take it w/ a grain of salt.
So, you're saying that the Congressional Record and the votes published by the Houston Chronicle based on the Congressional Record are not credible sources. :rotflmbo:

Ronald Reagan didn't say what he said in my signature about Dr. Paul by accident.
Reagan said that way back before Ron Paul became a moonbat. In the 1970s, when Ron Paul was our Congressman, he was in the mainstream as a Reagan conservative and a avid supporter of a stronger national defense. Ron Paul left the mainstream and the ranks of Reagan conservatism in the 1980s when he joined the Libertarian Party.

Today, Ron Paul no longer supports our national defense. In fact, he doesn't even support our troops who are fighting a war in which our very survival as a nation is at stake.

[Rhino]

HR 2207:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2207

HR 2237:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2237

[thoughtomator]

There you go again, N-T.

What he's saying is that you're deliberately misinterpreting his vote, assigning your own reasons for the purpose of demonizing him, in your obsessive hatred for the nation's foremost advocate of liberty... and that since this ain't even close to the first time, no one should be surprised to see you do it yet again.

You say more negative things about Ron Paul than you do about Hillary Clinton.


By the way, if you don't want me to respond to your nonsense, request to have your mod status removed so I can put you on ignore.

[Naturalized-Texan]

There you go again, N-T.

What he's saying is that you're deliberately misinterpreting his vote, assigning your own reasons for the purpose of demonizing him, in your obsessive hatred for the nation's foremost advocate of liberty... and that since this ain't even close to the first time, no one should be surprised to see you do it yet again.
There is only one conclusion that can be reached from his vote to withdraw our troops within 90 days and that is that he wants to surrender to the terrorists. Ron Paul voted to declare war on terrorism on September 14, 2001, so any claim that he is acting on Constitutional principle is ludicrous. The only Constitutional principle in play here is Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

You say more negative things about Ron Paul than you do about Hillary Clinton.
You haven't been here long enough to make that claim. However, Hitlery is not running for the Republican nomination for president. Ron Paul is, so he is fair game for us to expose him for what he is doing - giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war. He is the last person we should consider for the Republican nomination during a war in which the very survival of this nation is at stake. It's obvious that he doesn't want us to win the War on Terror despite the fact that he voted for the declaration of war.

By the way, if you don't want me to respond to your nonsense, request to have your mod status removed so I can put you on ignore.
Oh, I love to have you respond to me because in my reply I can expose you to the truth.

[thoughtomator]

There is only one conclusion that can be reached from his vote to withdraw our troops if one's brain is completely unable to entertain any thought not approved by the party leadership.

Correcting a minor error there.

You wouldn't know the truth if it was handed to you by God Himself inscribed on tablets of stone.

[libertyman]

So, you're saying that the Congressional Record and the votes published by the Houston Chronicle based on the Congressional Record are not credible sources. :rotflmbo:


THANK YOU, Thoughtomator :claps:

No, NT, I wasn't referring to the Congressional Record & the Houston Chronicle....I was referring to
<blink>YOU :finger:</blink>

<blink><center><blink><center>
</center></blink></center></blink>

[Rhino]

Correcting a minor error there.

You wouldn't know the truth if it was handed to you by God Himself inscribed on tablets of stone.But he's correct in this instance.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I was wrong. There is another Constitutional principle, besides Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 that I posted above, and that is Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. (Emphasis added)

Since the president is Commander in Chief, Congress (including Ron Paul and his political ally, Sheila Jackson Lee) is acting in an unconstitutional manner when trying to dictate how the president should be conducting military operations. By voting to surrender the terrorists in the War on Terror, as Ron Paul and Sheila Jackson Lee did, they are in violation of the Constitution.

[thoughtomator]

But he's correct in this instance.

Sorry, I disagree. It is apparent that N-T is not fair-minded where it comes to RP, which I find unfortunate given how few others there are who stand up for the law of the land.

This thread is a content-less swipe at a person who deserves our respect. An honest difference of opinion is fair, but fabricating motives is not. There are plenty who deserve to be savaged mercilessly but Ron Paul is not among them.

It is my perception that he specifically wants to piss me off because I do not favor his preferred candidate, and I think that is not appropriate nor helpful to anyone.

[Rhino]

Sorry, I disagree.I mean he's correct that Paul voted for HR 2237, that would have withdrawn our troops from Iraq. That isn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It's a matter of record.

As far as his making this a personal matter, he started out by merely stating what the votes were, though there was some confusion on one of the bill numbers. libertyman was the one who chose to make it a personal battle, and you seem all too willing to take up the charge. You both seem more than willing to argue the poster rather than what was posted. Besides, there are plenty of people here who have voiced the opinion that voting to withdraw is tantamount to surrender, collaboration or outright treason. N-T is hardly the first, nor the only one. You don't similarly attack those other people. You just take umbrage because he doesn't like somebody you like. Hey, opinion forums are like that. Chill out.

Why can't we all just get along???? :evilgrin:

[thoughtomator]

I do not dispute the fact of his vote, my objection is to the assignment of motive and frankly outrageous accusations of treason.

The war is long over, we won. Saddam is gone. What is going on in Iraq now is not vital to our security, never had any mandate, and cannot be justified in light of a) the deliberate lack of border security and b) the insistence that Islam is a "religion of peace".

If Islam is a religion of peace, then a country full of Islamics should be able to find its own peace without our aid, right? The patent absurdity of that question illustrates that the current set of policies in the War on Terror cannot possibly succeed because they are directly at odds with immutable reality.

Since I am likely the only actual survivor of an Islamic terrorist attack here, perhaps it should be considered that I am in a better position to evaluate what the actual risks are and what actually contributes to the end of terrorism than those to whom terrorism has consequences only in the abstract.

To call Ron Paul a traitor for his position is by inference to call me one for sharing it in large part. To have someone who is at no real risk of being a direct target of a terrorist attack call someone who has actually experienced it in the first person a traitor is a strong indicator that the War on Terror has become something other than what it is advertised to be.

[Rhino]

I disagree about Iraq, but thanks for getting back to the topic.

Although, I do agree that the term "treason" is bandied about far too casually sometimes. However, I can understand the sentiment, even if the phraseology isn't really accurate.

[The_Elucidator]

Since I am likely the only actual survivor of an Islamic terrorist attack here, perhaps it should be considered that I am in a better position to evaluate what the actual risks are and what actually contributes to the end of terrorism than those to whom terrorism has consequences only in the abstract.


Thats like saying that because you went to an NFL football game that qualifies you to be a coach!


To have someone who is at no real risk of being a direct target of a terrorist attack call someone who has actually experienced it in the first person a traitor is a strong indicator that the War on Terror has become something other than what it is advertised to be.

I don't know how you can possibly say that anybody on this board is at less of a risk for terrorism than you. I'm sure all those "high profile" targets on the 4 planes that crashed on 9/11 would disagree with you. I'm sure the kids at the daycare center at OKC would disagree with you....if they were alive! DC Sniper victims? Getting run over by muslims in SUV's... want me to go on?

[thoughtomator]

I don't know how you can possibly say that anybody on this board is at less of a risk for terrorism than you.


I'll tell you how. I was in the World Trade Center when it was attacked in 1993. I was very nearby on 9/11 - if I wasn't running late that day I would have been in the underground levels of the building at the time of the attack.

Nowadays I live very close to DC and spend much time there. When I am not in the DC area I am most often in New York City. The two cities are undisputably the two two targets for terrorists.

To tell me that someone in a town in Texas shares an equal risk of suffering the consequences of terrorism is not a credible claim.

[Naturalized-Texan]

The war is long over, we won. Saddam is gone. What is going on in Iraq now is not vital to our security, never had any mandate, and cannot be justified in light of a) the deliberate lack of border security and b) the insistence that Islam is a "religion of peace".
Wrong!

The War on Terrorism is far from being over. It could easily last several more years. Ron Paul doesn't understand those FACTS and it appears that you don't either. If we don't win the War on Terror no matter where it leads us, the lives of millions, if not tens of millions, of innocent Americans, including our children and grandchildren, will be placed at grave risk. Ron Paul and the others who voted to surrender to the terrorists in 90 days are voting to appease the terrorists, i.e., are voting to give aid and comfort to our enemies in a time of war.

I strongly oppose Ron Paul as well as all the Democrat candidates for president because none of them understand that if we surrender to the terrorists in 90 days, the terrorists will see that as giving them free rein to mount dozens of terrorist attacks on American soil that will dwarf the 9/11 attacks. The terrorists will certainly gain possession of chemical and biological weapons (if they don't already have them) and, eventually, they will gain possession of nuclear weapons, and they already have the means to deliver them. For example, in the case of biological weapons, enough biotoxins to kill everyone in New York City can be delivered in a container the size of a coffee can.

Two other things that Ron Paul and, apparently, you don't understand are the FACTS that 1) that the invasion of Iraq was as much an essential part of the War on Terror as the D-Day Normandy invasion was an essential part of World War II; and 2) that Saddam harbored, trained, financed, and armed terrorists, including al Qaeda terrorist. In fact there is powerful circumstantial evidence that the 9/11 terrorists were trained at Salman Pak, just 25 miles south of Baghdad.

Anyone who doesn't understand all of the above should NEVER be entrusted with the security of the United States and of the American people. That's why neither Ron Paul nor any of the Democrat candidates should be permitted to become president.

[Suzie]

I'll tell you how. I was in the World Trade Center when it was attacked in 1993. I was very nearby on 9/11 - if I wasn't running late that day I would have been in the underground levels of the building at the time of the attack.

Nowadays I live very close to DC and spend much time there. When I am not in the DC area I am most often in New York City. The two cities are undisputably the two two targets for terrorists.

To tell me that someone in a town in Texas shares an equal risk of suffering the consequences of terrorism is not a credible claim.

I was on the same flight out of DC to San Francisco that crashed into the Pentagon just 4 months earlier. My whole family was on that plane, and they could have chose that day to do it. You never know. And I live in a place you "wouldn't think" could be effected by it. But that's assuming you are there at the time. Truth is none of us know. Any place I go connects from some major city. So even us little folk can get hit by your big cities if the time is right,

[Naturalized-Texan]

Paul did vote against HR 2207, but it was for agricultural programs in the US, not for Iraq.

He voted for HR 2237, which was for the withdrawal of troops and contractors from Iraq, to have commenced within 90 days of passage. That was the one that was defeated 171 to 255.
Yep, that's exactly what I said.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I'll tell you how. I was in the World Trade Center when it was attacked in 1993. I was very nearby on 9/11 - if I wasn't running late that day I would have been in the underground levels of the building at the time of the attack.

Nowadays I live very close to DC and spend much time there. When I am not in the DC area I am most often in New York City. The two cities are undisputably the two two targets for terrorists.

To tell me that someone in a town in Texas shares an equal risk of suffering the consequences of terrorism is not a credible claim.:rolleyes:

I live about 10 miles from one of the largest oil refining and chemical plant complexes in the world as well as one of the largest ports in the U.S. - the Houston Ship Channel. This area will be one of the PRIME targets for massive terrorist attacks. One of our sons lives in the Washington, DC, area and our other 2 sons and our grandkids also live in the Houston area. So, don't give me that crap about not having an equal risk of being a victim of terrorist attacks. :flame:

[Naturalized-Texan]

An aside: I was about three-quarters through typing my post #20 when we had a power glitch that shut down the computer. I was sure that I would have to re-type everything. However, when the computer re-booted and I reloaded my Firefox browser, it asked me if I wanted to reload the web page I had been viewing. I said "yes" and everything was there as it was before we lost power.

[omegatrump]

:rolleyes:

I live about 10 miles from one of the largest oil refining and chemical plant complexes in the world as well as one of the largest ports in the U.S. - the Houston Ship Channel.




Up wind or down wind?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Up wind or down wind?
Yes.

[Lubbock]

In case some here have missed the point, we're all vulnerable. Muslims have sworn to destroy the United States of America.

On the other hand, sometimes I think Muslims are the least of our troubles. Every time Pelosi and Reid gavel the House and Senate to order, we're under a terrorist attack. CODE RED.

I don't know who I'm more afraid of. Muslims or Democrat[ick]s.

[Naturalized-Texan]

In case some here have missed the point, we're all vulnerable. Muslims have sworn to destroy the United States of America.
It's sad that some deny that that is the case, and not all of them are Democrats.

On the other hand, sometimes I think Muslims are the least of our troubles. Every time Pelosi and Reid gavel the House and Senate to order, we're under a terrorist attack. CODE RED.

I don't know who I'm more afraid of. Muslims or Democrat[ick]s.
Or those who vote like Democrat[ick]s.

[thoughtomator]

OK, I understand now. Not only are you not serious about terrorism, you have no idea how to be serious about it. This is some political game to you.

To me this is life and death on a very real and personal level. Unless it comes as close to you as it has to me, you will not be capable of grasping the depth of the threat. I hope that never happens to you and you can continue to enjoy your fantasy life in peace and safety. Go boost for your candidate.

[Naturalized-Texan]

To me this is life and death on a very real and personal level. Unless it comes as close to you as it has to me, you will not be capable of grasping the depth of the threat. I hope that never happens to you and you can continue to enjoy your fantasy life in peace and safety. Go boost for your candidate.:flame:

Since you say that terrorism is "life and death on a very real and personal level" to you, then there is no way that you could possibly support Ron Paul for president. He has shown by his votes (at least two times) to surrender to the terrorists that he clearly does NOT see terrorism as a threat to you, me, or any other American. By his vote to surrender to the terrorists, he has shown that he is willing to sacrifice the lives of millions, if not tens of millions, of innocent Americans on the altar of his warped sense of principle. :flame:

[The_Elucidator]

After watching the Debate last night I question anyone who thinks that he could handle the GWOT. The man blamed the US "policies" for 9/11... The dude has lost it!

Again, I don't know if the GWOT will ever be won! It may be slowed down, may be put into hibernation, but I don't believe that it can be won for Biblical reasons. However with that being said; I draw the line in the sand when it comes to blaming the US for its own demise!

[Naturalized-Texan]

I am sure that Ron Paul's insane claim that we invited the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001 will cure everyone of the delusion that he is sane enough to be president. Ron Paul is as loony as Rosie O'Donnell, Ward Churchill, Charlie Sheen, Cindy Sheehan, et al.

Rudy Giuliani's response to Ron Paul's insanity was spot on (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272719,00.html):

"That's really an extraordinary statement," Giuliani said, interrupting FOX News panelist Wendell Goler. "That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."

[Lubbock]

I don't know how anyone could support Ron Paul for Dog Catcher, much less the Presidency of the United States of America.

That said . . .

I don't know how anyone could support a man with "Hussein" as a midle name for the Presidency of the Unite States of America.

The only thing I can conclude is that there are any number of people running loose who are truly unbalanced.

Some people just shouldn't be allowed to within a country mile of a voting booth.

[Korey K]

Every Sunday the Houston Chronicle publishes the votes of the Texas delegation to Congress on key issues facing the nation for the previous week.

Not only did Ron Paul vote against appropriating funds to fight the War on Terror (HR 2207), he also voted to surrender to the terrorists in the War on Terror (HR 2237). (Among those with whom Ron Paul voted was fellow moonbat, Sheila Jackson Lee.) Fortunately, the bill to surrender to the terrorist was defeated, 171 to 255. That means that 171 members of the House of Representatives, including Ron Paul and Sheila Jackson Lee, voted to give aid and comfort to our enemies in a time of war. According to the Constitution, that is treason.

A strawman fallacy is when someone misrepresents an argument to make it easier to attack.

You made quite a few of them in your post.

[Korey K]

So, you're saying that the Congressional Record and the votes published by the Houston Chronicle based on the Congressional Record are not credible sources. :rotflmbo:


Reagan said that way back before Ron Paul became a moonbat. In the 1970s, when Ron Paul was our Congressman, he was in the mainstream as a Reagan conservative and a avid supporter of a stronger national defense. Ron Paul left the mainstream and the ranks of Reagan conservatism in the 1980s when he joined the Libertarian Party.

Today, Ron Paul no longer supports our national defense. In fact, he doesn't even support our troops who are fighting a war in which our very survival as a nation is at stake.

You have to be kidding... do you honestly feel that these wackos are of any threat to the US? All they've done is commit a few terrorist attacks here (which hardly undermine the US as a whole) and attack us while we're over there.... and they're coming here because we're over there.

If we pull out of Saudia Arabia and the rest of the middle east, people like Osama bin Laden will have trouble recruiting for their causes, and they'd probably go back to attacking each other instead of uniting against us.
A strong offense IS NOT the same thing as a strong defense.

[Korey K]

Wrong!

The War on Terrorism is far from being over. It could easily last several more years. Ron Paul doesn't understand those FACTS and it appears that you don't either. If we don't win the War on Terror no matter where it leads us, the lives of millions, if not tens of millions, of innocent Americans, including our children and grandchildren, will be placed at grave risk. Ron Paul and the others who voted to surrender to the terrorists in 90 days are voting to appease the terrorists, i.e., are voting to give aid and comfort to our enemies in a time of war.

I strongly oppose Ron Paul as well as all the Democrat candidates for president because none of them understand that if we surrender to the terrorists in 90 days, the terrorists will see that as giving them free rein to mount dozens of terrorist attacks on American soil that will dwarf the 9/11 attacks. The terrorists will certainly gain possession of chemical and biological weapons (if they don't already have them) and, eventually, they will gain possession of nuclear weapons, and they already have the means to deliver them. For example, in the case of biological weapons, enough biotoxins to kill everyone in New York City can be delivered in a container the size of a coffee can.

Two other things that Ron Paul and, apparently, you don't understand are the FACTS that 1) that the invasion of Iraq was as much an essential part of the War on Terror as the D-Day Normandy invasion was an essential part of World War II; and 2) that Saddam harbored, trained, financed, and armed terrorists, including al Qaeda terrorist. In fact there is powerful circumstantial evidence that the 9/11 terrorists were trained at Salman Pak, just 25 miles south of Baghdad.

Anyone who doesn't understand all of the above should NEVER be entrusted with the security of the United States and of the American people. That's why neither Ron Paul nor any of the Democrat candidates should be permitted to become president.

This entire post was ludicrous; can you back up your claims? There's NO evidence to show that pulling out of the middle east will lead to dozens of terrorist attacks! It's ridiculous! Especially when one of the cited reasons for terrorist attacks (according to the CIA among others) is America's interventionism.

Also, you're wrong that Saddam harbored AL Quada -- Saddam's regime was rather secular, and Al Quada, being militant Muslim, hated him. Al Quada came into Iraq AFTER the US had invaded and made a mess of things.

[Korey K]

I am sure that Ron Paul's insane claim that we invited the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001 will cure everyone of the delusion that he is sane enough to be president. Ron Paul is as loony as Rosie O'Donnell, Ward Churchill, Charlie Sheen, Cindy Sheehan, et al.

Rudy Giuliani's response to Ron Paul's insanity was spot on (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272719,00.html):

How was his response "Spot on?" He didn't even debunk it, he only said it was absurd.

So you believe that the 9/11 Commission report is wrong? You know more about the effects of foreign policy than the former CIA chief of the Bin Laden tracking unit?

[Korey K]

After watching the Debate last night I question anyone who thinks that he could handle the GWOT. The man blamed the US "policies" for 9/11... The dude has lost it!

Again, I don't know if the GWOT will ever be won! It may be slowed down, may be put into hibernation, but I don't believe that it can be won for Biblical reasons. However with that being said; I draw the line in the sand when it comes to blaming the US for its own demise!

So policies that were precedented by Woodrow Wilson (a democrat) are good policies? Sounds liberal to me. :question:

[Lubbock]

Cindy Sheehan has now joined our ranks, posting under the screen-name Korey K.

The Dems threw you out, honey. Hillary stopped taking your phone calls. Jon Carry runs and hides every time your name is mentioned. You were too wacked out for even Soros and the Move-On crowd. KOS and Huffington shunned you; they don't want anymore of your drivel polluting their sites. I don't know what you hope to accomplish here, but I have every idea that before it's over, you're gonna wish you were back in that ditch in Crawford.

But, welcome anyway, Cindy.

Most everyone here is up for a good laugh every now and then.

[Korey K]

Cindy Sheehan has now joined our ranks, posting under the screen-name Korey K.

The Dems threw you out, honey. Hillary stopped taking your phone calls. Jon Carry runs and hides every time your name is mentioned. You were too wacked out for even Soros and the Move-On crowd. KOS and Huffington shunned you; they don't want anymore of your drivel polluting their sites. I don't know what you hope to accomplish here, but I have every idea that before it's over, you're gonna wish you were back in that ditch in Crawford.

But, welcome anyway, Cindy.

Most everyone here is up for a good laugh every now and then.

Wow, that's pretty peurile. Did you take all the time posting that to vent your anger? Personal attacks don't really contribute to anything... so I'm wondering what good your post did.

[Rhino]

This entire post was ludicrous; can you back up your claims? There's NO evidence to show that pulling out of the middle east will lead to dozens of terrorist attacks! It's ridiculous! Especially when one of the cited reasons for terrorist attacks (according to the CIA among others) is America's interventionism.Good point. We could have avoided World War II by abandoning the Pacific and Europe, too.

[Republican_Legion]

Cindy Sheehan has now joined our ranks, posting under the screen-name Korey K.

The Dems threw you out, honey. Hillary stopped taking your phone calls. Jon Carry runs and hides every time your name is mentioned. You were too wacked out for even Soros and the Move-On crowd. KOS and Huffington shunned you; they don't want anymore of your drivel polluting their sites. I don't know what you hope to accomplish here, but I have every idea that before it's over, you're gonna wish you were back in that ditch in Crawford.

But, welcome anyway, Cindy.

Most everyone here is up for a good laugh every now and then.

My gut feeling its one of those "(Libertarians) that come out to defend Ron Paul or any other paranoid lunatic like Ron Paul. They seem to surface out of the sewers whenever theres a thread on a contrevesial libertarian.

[Republican_Legion]

Good point. We could have avoided World War II by abandoning the Pacific and Europe, too.

And we would have avoided all other wars like Korea and Nam because the whole world would be speaking german.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Cindy Sheehan has now joined our ranks, posting under the screen-name Korey K.

The Dems threw you out, honey. Hillary stopped taking your phone calls. Jon Carry runs and hides every time your name is mentioned. You were too wacked out for even Soros and the Move-On crowd. KOS and Huffington shunned you; they don't want anymore of your drivel polluting their sites. I don't know what you hope to accomplish here, but I have every idea that before it's over, you're gonna wish you were back in that ditch in Crawford.

But, welcome anyway, Cindy.

Most everyone here is up for a good laugh every now and then.
Yeah! Cindy, alias KK, is the latest troll to excrete the Big Lie Propaganda from Micheal Moore and George Soros.

[Lubbock]

. . . so I'm wondering what good your post did . . . .

When faced with one of your ilk, I know going in that truth and reason serve no purpose whatsoever, so I go straight for derision.

Turn it into a hoot. Giggles and grins.

Twenty years ago, your ilk used to set my hair on fire. Now I place my hand gently over my mouth and go tehetehetehetehetehe . . .

[Korey K]

Okay, I'm clearly dealing with people who, in healthier times, would have been left to pick turnips for their lords instead of posting on internet forums all day. I'm outta here, I have a life and all that have better priorities than wasting time with people who haven't quite gotten past Junior High.

[Rhino]

Okay, I'm clearly dealing with people who, in healthier times, would have been left to pick turnips for their lords instead of posting on internet forums all day. I'm outta here, I have a life and all that have better priorities than wasting time with people who haven't quite gotten past Junior High.ROFL!

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m212/omahabob/pot_kettle.jpg

[Rhino]

http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/bye-bye_kittie.gif

[M.C.]

ROFL!

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m212/omahabob/pot_kettle.jpg

Haha owned him.

I can't believe he said this though.

You have to be kidding... do you honestly feel that these wackos are of any threat to the US? All they've done is commit a few terrorist attacks here (which hardly undermine the US as a whole)

Yeah only a few thousand dead Americans, no big deal eh? Jackass, of course its a big deal.

[Republican_Legion]

You have to be kidding... do you honestly feel that these wackos are of any threat to the US? All they've done is commit a few terrorist attacks here (which hardly undermine the US as a whole)

So 3000 dead including an failed attempt on the whitehouse, a crash on pentegon and 2 crashes that takes down the WTC Is not a threat ?

[Hilemanhouse]

The only thing that make me remember him is the fact that he was the lone republican who would not vote to tell our troops they were doing a good job, can't stand the man, will not vote for him

[Naturalized-Texan]

http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/bye-bye_kittie.gif
Good riddance to bad rubbish!

[Lubbock]

When an Admin says, "Buh Bye," does that mean Cindy Sheehan got banned?

I don't see BANNED under her phony-baloney screen name.

[The_Elucidator]

Okay, I'm clearly dealing with people who, in healthier times, would have been left to pick turnips for their lords instead of posting on internet forums all day.

But now we have people that will do jobs that Americans won't, isn't that convenient!

I'm outta here,

I don't remember inviting you so.......bye You are like the flea floating down the canal on his back with a hard-on screaming open the drawbridge; nobody sees you, nobody hears you...and nobody cares.

I have a life

I'm betting not...

wasting time with people who haven't quite gotten past Junior High.

That is like so.... 1980's...


You have to be kidding... do you honestly feel that these wackos are of any threat to the US? All they've done is commit a few terrorist attacks here (which hardly undermine the US as a whole)

Right! You are absolutely correct! I remember in the day following 9/11, the stock market soaring, air travel skyrocketed and so did their stock. Unemployment hit an all time low almost immediately! Yep, barely noticed...

Brilliant bumpkin!

[Rhino]

When an Admin says, "Buh Bye," does that mean Cindy Sheehan got banned?

I don't see BANNED under her phony-baloney screen name.Not this time. This time he decided to leave on his own when we refused to fall for his rubbish.

[Timberwolf]

Good point. We could have avoided World War II by abandoning the Pacific and Europe, too.
Absolutely and we were doing just that...but, at least when we went after Japan (after they bombed Pearl Harbor), we went after the country responsible for the attack. If I remember correctly, it was Saudi Arabia from where 19 of the 20 hijackers hailed...why haven't we gone after the Wahabbists in Saudi??

FTR - Once we had engaged Japan, we were in it up to our eyeballs and KNEW we had to finish the job. Until Japan hit us, we were content to "sit this one out". THAT is an undeniable fact as, we WERE sitting it out until we were attacked.

[Timberwolf]

btw Lub, RL, Tex, Rhino, Luc, etal...y'all know me better than to lump me in with liberals/libertarians. I am a Constitutional Conservative. My position is realistic...if ya don't think it is, yer not reading what I write.

[Suzie]

Not this time. This time he decided to leave on his own when we refused to fall for his rubbish.

And they never answered my question. I assume the answer is "I have never been to Iraq".

Amazing how much people who have never been there seem to know about what the people there think. For some reason they doubt everything the MSM has to say except that if they are stuck in Ron Paul mode. Maybe they should try listening to the troops. I have one available for council should any Ron Paulite want to hear the truth.

[Naturalized-Texan]

btw Lub, RL, Tex, Rhino, Luc, etal...y'all know me better than to lump me in with liberals/libertarians. I am a Constitutional Conservative. My position is realistic...if ya don't think it is, yer not reading what I write.
I've read what you wrote. However, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

[Naturalized-Texan]

And they never answered my question. I assume the answer is "I have never been to Iraq".

Amazing how much people who have never been there seem to know about what the people there think. For some reason they doubt everything the MSM has to say except that if they are stuck in Ron Paul mode. Maybe they should try listening to the troops. I have one available for council should any Ron Paulite want to hear the truth.
Ron Paul's failure to support our troops in a time of war is reprehensible, at best, treasonous, at worst.

[Naturalized-Texan]

My son, who lives in Ron Paul's district, said here that he would vote for his neighbor's dog before he would vote for Ron Paul again. He told me later that his neighbor's dog bit him while he was cleaning his car in his driveway.

That brings to mind an apt metaphor: While our troops are fighting the terrorists in front of them, Ron Paul is nipping at their heels and biting their asses.

[Rhino]

btw Lub, RL, Tex, Rhino, Luc, etal...y'all know me better than to lump me in with liberals/libertarians.Where exactly am I supposed to have done that?

[Timberwolf]

Actually, I can't remember that you have. Sorry 'bout that. You (and possibly Luc) likely shouldn't be on that list.

[DoctorDoom]

My son, who lives in Ron Paul's district, said here that he would vote for his neighbor's dog before he would vote for Ron Paul again. He told me later that his neighbor's dog bit him while he was cleaning his car in his driveway.The difference is that the dog was being true to his nature. Dogs aren't hypocrites.

[conservatour]

It wasn't a bad bite, just a nip and fortunately I had on jeans.

Vote tally: neighbors dog-3, Ron Paul-1. Sorry Timberwolf.

[The_Elucidator]

Actually, I can't remember that you have. Sorry 'bout that. You (and possibly Luc) likely shouldn't be on that list. Don't think I did either.... Maybe lumped some folk in a blanket statement but never directly :biggrin:

[Timberwolf]

It wasn't a bad bite, just a nip and fortunately I had on jeans.

Vote tally: neighbors dog-3, Ron Paul-1. Sorry Timberwolf.
Why apologize? I DON'T support Ron Paul. I never said I did. Some have taken my comments, on his "to the letter" support of what our beloved Constitution says, with supporting his candidacy. Some have even gone so far as to mischaracterize his position...after having the reasons for his votes given to them.

He is a non-interventionist...period...as were the Founders of this great nation. I'm beginning to see the wisdom of that stance.

[dPrasse]

If I remember correctly, it was Saudi Arabia from where 19 of the 20 hijackers hailed...why haven't we gone after the Wahabbists in Saudi??

Because the Saudi's are our "friends" ?
Our Govt says they are ....

Until Japan hit us, we were content to "sit this one out". THAT is an undeniable fact as, we WERE sitting it out until we were attacked.


FDR was itching to get us involved ,though ...

[Tazeeyore]

I find it very difficult, if not entirely impossible, to find one ounce of credebility or common sense in anything Ron Paul says. Anyone who would blame America for 9/11 or bombing Iraq for 10 years without mercy is either an idiot or a treasonous baboon. Sorry fellows but he is not worthy of any further comment or support from any reasonable conservative.