GOP running scared [Archive] - FreeConservatives

THEBIRD

12-29-2007, 09:04 AM

The GOP has made the backroom request that Ron Paul not be allowed to participate in the January 6th Fox News forum for republican candidates.

Moves like this that rig the game only will compell RP to run third party and be the GOP spoiler.

Here is the official press release from the RP campaign.

December 28, 2007 10:39 pm EST
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – According to the New Hampshire State Republican Party and an Associated Press report, Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul will be excluded from an upcoming forum of Republican candidates to be broadcast by Fox News on January 6, 2008.
“Given Ron Paul’s support in New Hampshire and his recent historic fundraising success, it is outrageous that Dr. Paul would be excluded,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Dr. Paul has consistently polled higher in New Hampshire than some of the other candidates who have been invited.”
Snyder continued, “Paul supporters should know that we are continuing to make inquiries with Fox News as to why they have apparently excluded Dr. Paul from this event.”
###

They know his message is hitting home with conservatives....they, like most on this board are scared of the one true conservative in the race and his message of REALLY cutting back governmet.

DoctorDoom

12-29-2007, 09:14 AM

Dream along with me
I'm on my way to a star

HomeschoolrsRUs

12-29-2007, 09:27 AM

They know his message is hitting home with conservatives....

:biglaugh: Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! :biglaugh:

....like most on this board are scared of the one true conservative in the race and his message of REALLY cutting back governmet.

No, most on this board are BACKING the ONE TRUE CONSERVATIVE in the race!

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LXwxIqRh1us&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LXwxIqRh1us&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

DesertFox

12-29-2007, 09:32 AM

:roar: they, like most on this board are scared of the one true conservative in the race

THEBIRD

12-29-2007, 10:35 AM

Thompson will concede in less than 30 days. He is raising zero dollars and is lower than Paul in some of the mainstream polls.

DesertFox

12-29-2007, 10:36 AM

:rolleyes:

garlicguy

12-29-2007, 10:47 AM

Thompson will concede in less than 30 days.

Amen. Turn off the lights on that one, he's already done and knows it.

'bye Fred. Too bad your heart wasn't in it, you could've done great things.

Naturalized-Texan

12-29-2007, 11:22 AM

No, most on this board are BACKING the ONE TRUE CONSERVATIVE in the race!

Yep! Fred Thompson is conservative on every issue where Ron Paul is conservative AND is conservative on every issue where Ron Paul is not.

The_Elucidator

12-29-2007, 11:24 AM

The GOP has made the backroom request that Ron Paul not be allowed to participate in the January 6th Fox News forum for republican candidates.

Moves like this that rig the game only will compell RP to run third party and be the GOP spoiler.

Here is the official press release from the RP campaign.

They know his message is hitting home with conservatives....they, like most on this board are scared of the one true conservative in the race and his message of REALLY cutting back governmet.

I am now fully convinced that you are either retarded, delusional...or both!

The reason your POS candidate isn't invited is because he is only polling 4% nationally, in spite of ALL that money he is gathering from the herd of fools. Who cares if he is polling ahead of Thompson in N.H. We all know what a track record N.H. has of predicting the GOP nominee.. :rolleyes:

Real Clear Politics Avg:

Iowa:

Thompson 12%

Rupaul 4.3%

New Hampshire:

Thompson 3.6%

Rupaul 6.4%

Michigan:

Thompson 6.5%

Rupaul 4.3%

Nevada:

Thompson 9.7%

Rupaul 5.0%

South Carolina:

Thompson 13.5%

Rupaul 6.3%

Florida:

Thompson 8.8%

Rupaul 3.3%

And Nationally:

Thompson 12%

Rupaul 4.0%

Yeah, I'm sure the GOP is quaking in their boots... :rolleyes:

The reason he wasn't invited is because he is an idiot and irrelevant; much like Alan Keyes. They probably figure that if anyone can collect as much cash as he has and still only polls 4% nationally, he must be a loser! :rotflmbo:

ColonialMarine0431

12-29-2007, 02:39 PM

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/ColonialMarine/Ron%20Paul/rupaul-s.jpg

And that's all I have to say about that.

DoctorDoom

12-29-2007, 02:47 PM

Is Denny Kook-inich piloting that shuttle?

ColonialMarine0431

12-29-2007, 02:51 PM

I think so. Along with his 3 twin brothers.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/ColonialMarine/Ron%20Paul/munchkin.jpg

Rhino

12-29-2007, 06:27 PM

GOP running scaredhttp://freeconservatives.com/smilies/doggie.gif

THEBIRD

12-29-2007, 11:40 PM

EVen John Zogby says Paul will end Iowa in double digits. Also looks like Paul is going to break 19 million in the next 24 hours.

Get ready.

DesertFox

12-29-2007, 11:45 PM

* Y a w n *

THEBIRD

12-30-2007, 12:06 AM

The_Elucidator

12-30-2007, 05:14 AM

You are basing you conclusion on an outdated August Straw Poll? The most recent Straw Poll that I saw was the 1st Annual Freecon Straw Poll where Paul was trounced by a poo flinging monkey! That is the only poll that I have seen nationwide that ever had him at double digits. Your original post talked about some conspiracy about the GOP wanting to keep Rupaul from the Jan debate even though he has surged to 4% nationally. :rotflmbo: And you can't stay on topic even in your own thread... :rolleyes:

Pay particular attention to this: (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/republican_iowa_caucus)

Sixty-two percent (62%) of Likely Caucus participants say they are certain they will not change their mind before January 3. That includes 65% of Huckabee supporters, 58% of those who prefer Romney, and 55% of McCain voters.

Among those who say there’s a good chance they could change their mind, Thompson and Huckabee top the second choice list.

You really need to learn the dynamics of politics before spouting conspiracy theories and WAG's. If Rupaul finishes higher than 5th in Iowa and 5th in N.H. it would be a huge surprise.

Beowulf

12-30-2007, 06:04 AM

EVen John Zogby says Paul will end Iowa in double digits. Also looks like Paul is going to break 19 million in the next 24 hours.

Oh yes. Zogby's word is law, right? :rolleyes:

DoctorDoom

12-30-2007, 06:55 AM

Also looks like Paul is going to break 19 million in the next 24 hours.BFHD! Buy a clue, Chuckles: all the war-chest money in the world won't make an asshole less of an asshole. Money can't make RuPaul electable. It proves only the veracity of the perceptive observation: "There's a sucker born every minute."

Trivia Time (in keeping with the nature of the Paulbot forum): it was said by David Hannum, not Phineas Taylor Barnum (http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html).

namvet527

12-30-2007, 08:52 AM

DesertFox

12-30-2007, 10:40 AM

Huh? Doom is "a luney left wing Ru Paul supporter"?

http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/doggie.gif

Rhino

12-30-2007, 12:23 PM

I assume it's sarcasm. Either that, or the dude simply hasn't got a clue.

Maggie_T

12-30-2007, 04:27 PM

Doom, these are all LEFT WING LIES & PROPAGANDA. None of the propaganda that you have spewed is true. You are just a luney left wing Ru Paul supporter.

The best thing we have ever done was go to Iraq. It has kept us safe ever since 911. Iraq war has killed or captured most all of the Al Qaida leaders.

Ru Paul will DESTROY AMERICA.

No need to shout, mate. And let me inform you that Doom is NOT a Rupaul supporter. You must have misread his post. Trust me, I've known the Doc a lot longer than you have. There isn't a lefty bone in his body. On the contrary. He's somewhere to the right of me ... and that's saying something.

Timberwolf

12-30-2007, 04:37 PM

Hey Fox, lets not forget, RP beat out Thompson, McCain, and Rudy in the August Iowa straw poll. With the crowd thinned out since then, there is a very good chance that Paul can come in third place in the primary. Especially if the poll turnout is anything like primary day.
Considering Fred didn't DECLARE his candidacy until SEPTEMBER, it would be my sincere HOPE that EVERY candidate would've rated higher.

That is what is helping John Zogby come to his conclusions.

4516 Mitt Romney
<o></o>
2587 Mike Huckabee
<o></o>
2192 Sam Brownback
<o></o>
1961 Tom Tancredo
<o></o>
1305 Ron Paul
<o></o>
1039 Tommy Thompson
<o></o>
203 Fred Thompson
<o></o>
183 Rudy Giuliani
<o></o>
174 Duncan Hunter
<o></o>
101 John McCain
<o></o>
41 John Cox
<o></o>
Total 14302

###

453 Credentialed Media
<o></o>
176 Media Outlets Represented
<o></o>
38 International Journalists
<o></o>
28 International Outlets Represented

###
You must not be paying attention. This is a poll of MEDIA personnel. They've been ignoring Thompson's campaign SINCE he declared. Considering this straw poll was taken BEFORE he declared, that 203 chose him oughta scare the holy living crap outta the media types. (they don't want him anywhere near the nomination, let alone the WH).

Fer cryin' out loud, Sam Brownback and TOMMY Thompson is rated higher than FRED Thompson!! :rotflmbo::rotflmbo: That is all I need to know about the credibility of those numbers. :rolleyes:

Timberwolf

12-30-2007, 04:44 PM

Doom, these are all LEFT WING LIES & PROPAGANDA. None of the propaganda that you have spewed is true. You are just a luney left wing Ru Paul supporter.

The best thing we have ever done was go to Iraq. It has kept us safe ever since 911. Iraq war has killed or captured most all of the Al Qaida leaders.

Ru Paul will DESTROY AMERICA.
Um, namvet...you might want to re-read what Doc said...methinks yer confusing him with someone else. I'm pretty sure everyone on this board is to the left of Doc...

THEBIRD

12-30-2007, 05:29 PM

On December 27, the Associated Press reported (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071227/ap_po/on_the2008_trail_7): "The New Hampshire Republican Party is sponsoring a forum for Republican presidential candidates on Jan. 6, two days before the state's first-in-the-nation primary." Later in the article, the AP stated: "Participating in the forum will be Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson."

On the evening of December 28, Jared Chicoine and Jordan Brown of our New Hampshire campaign staff, met in person with Fergus Cullen the New Hampshire GOP chairman to discuss whether or not Dr. Paul would be invited to participate in the presidential candidates forum scheduled for January 6. Mr. Cullen confirmed there will be an event on January 6, but he could not confirm whether or not Dr. Paul would be invited. We also learned the event would not be a debate with an audience, as has been held previously, but instead would be a forum in a closed studio with the candidates questioned only by Chris Wallace of Fox News.

A few hours after that meeting, we contacted Fox News seeking clarification. Later that night, we issued a press release (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/94/has-fox-news-excluded-ron-paul) while waiting to hear from Fox News.

On December 29, the Baltimore Sun featured a report by Jason George (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/ron_paul_outfoxed.html). Mr. George reported, "Calls and emails to Fox News spokespersons by the Tribune were not returned Saturday evening.
"An official at the New Hampshire GOP, which is co-sponsoring the event with Fox, said that Paul might still be included, but the planning for the debate was still coming together and it was ultimately Fox's call."
As of late afternoon today (December 30), we have nothing more to report.

Kent Snyder
Chairman, Ron Paul 2008

Timberwolf

12-30-2007, 06:58 PM

Wrong thread...

DoctorDoom

12-30-2007, 07:46 PM

You are just a luney left wing Ru Paul supporter.I'll have you know that I am LOONY, not LUNEY. If you are going to try to insult me, please proofread.

But first, READ my posts in this forum. Sheesh! :rolleyes:

THEBIRD

12-30-2007, 07:55 PM

Wrong thread...

No, its an update to the story. The GOP in NH is blaming Fox News for the oversight.

They and Fox are getting hammered with calls and emails asking for Ron Paul to be included in the upcoming round table forum.

namvet527

12-30-2007, 08:06 PM

No need to shout, mate. And let me inform you that Doom is NOT a Rupaul supporter. You must have misread his post. Trust me, I've known the Doc a lot longer than you have. There isn't a lefty bone in his body. On the contrary. He's somewhere to the right of me ... and that's saying something.

Maggie I am not your mate. If this guy is as right wing as you say why did this wannabee even play that immature game?

I don't know any REAL CONSERVATIVES that will even pretend to be a lefty or supporter of a lefty.

DesertFox

12-30-2007, 08:14 PM

namvet, nobody was playing any immature game. YOU misread something.

THEBIRD

12-30-2007, 08:46 PM

Maggie I am not your mate. If this guy is as right wing as you say why did this wannabee even play that immature game?

I don't know any REAL CONSERVATIVES that will even pretend to be a lefty or supporter of a lefty.

Namvet, How is Ron Paul a lefty?

He is pro-gun.
He is pro-life.
He wants to close the borders.
He wants to lower taxes.
He wants to get the US out of the UN.
He would disband the ATF.
He would end welfare programs.

Doesn't sound like a lefty to me.

DoctorDoom

12-30-2007, 08:55 PM

Maggie I am not your mate. If this guy is as right wing as you say why did this wannabee even play that immature game?

I don't know any REAL CONSERVATIVES that will even pretend to be a lefty or supporter of a lefty.<table align="center" bgcolor="400000" bordercolor="CCCCCC" border="4" cellpadding="8"><tr><td><div align="center"><font face="Verdana" color="yellow" size="7"><b>* CLUEPON *<br><font size="5">This cluepon entitles the bearer to<br>one free clue at any local retailer.<br><font size="3">Valid worldwide. No expiration date.</font><br></font></b> </font></div></td></tr></table>

If you think that I support RuPaul, use the cluepon QUICKLY. You're in desperate need of it. :rolleyes:

IMO, you're a liberal troll.

ColonialMarine0431

12-30-2007, 08:58 PM

Namvet, How is Ron Paul a lefty?

He is pro-gun.
He is pro-life.
He wants to close the borders.
He wants to lower taxes.
He wants to get the US out of the UN.
He would disband the ATF.
He would end welfare programs.

Doesn't sound like a lefty to me.

He also believes we brought 9-11 on ourselves. As a survivor of that day who lost an Aunt in the South Tower I find that highly offensive...to put it mildly.

Suzie

12-30-2007, 09:13 PM

He also stabbed our troops in the back by voting for the war then cutting off the money they needed to stay safe and to fight in the mission he sent them on.

Timberwolf

12-30-2007, 09:18 PM

namvet, you need to re-read Doc's response...cuz you really missed something. Nothing in his post(s) remotely indicates he supports RP. In fact, I think he's supporting Fred...Doc, please correct me if I'm wrong.

DoctorDoom

12-30-2007, 10:07 PM

Fred! is my man. RuPaul is an also-ran. I cannot fathom how he interpreted what I wrote ...

BFHD! Buy a clue, Chuckles: all the war-chest money in the world won't make an asshole less of an asshole. Money can't make RuPaul electable. It proves only the veracity of the perceptive observation: "There's a sucker born every minute."... to suggest support for that loser. His post reeks of trolling.

Timberwolf

12-30-2007, 10:14 PM

I don't think so, Doc...I truly believe he just misread your post.

DesertFox

12-30-2007, 10:22 PM

Yep. Misread.

DoctorDoom

12-30-2007, 10:34 PM

How?

The_Elucidator

12-31-2007, 05:34 AM

Namvet, How is Ron Paul a lefty?

He is pro-gun.
He is pro-life.
He wants to close the borders.
He wants to lower taxes.
He wants to get the US out of the UN.
He would disband the ATF.
He would end welfare programs.

Doesn't sound like a lefty to me.

He carries a Code Pink membership card!!

Chanting his anti-war rhetoric makes him every bit as RINO as Rudy's anti-gun, pro-choice stance!

Sorry but Rupaul is at best a RINO at worst a closet lefty!

The_Elucidator

12-31-2007, 05:39 AM

Maggie I am not your mate. If this guy is as right wing as you say why did this wannabee even play that immature game?

I don't know any REAL CONSERVATIVES that will even pretend to be a lefty or supporter of a lefty.

Dude; I ACTUALLY read Doc's post and at no time did he ever sound like a lefty! This would have been evident in his previous 100K posts. Sheesh! And what Doc specializes in is sarcasm, an art that is obviously foreign to you.

And back off Maggie!! She knoweth what she speaketh...!!!

The_Elucidator

12-31-2007, 05:41 AM

No, its an update to the story. The GOP in NH is blaming Fox News for the oversight.

They and Fox are getting hammered with calls and emails asking for Ron Paul to be included in the upcoming round table forum.

Actually it was 3 calls by Rupaul supporters with the wrong number looking for the local Nazi Youth Rally... :rolleyes:

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 10:24 AM

anti-war rhetoric makes him every bit as RINO as Rudy's anti-gun, pro-choice stance!

Anti-war is Republican in Name Only? Are you stoned or st_p_d? Republicans are traditionally antiwar. Only this bunch of "Republicans" that recently came over from Scoop Jackson are pro-war.

Rhino

12-31-2007, 10:27 AM

Republicans are traditionally antiwar.Based on?????

The_Elucidator

12-31-2007, 10:35 AM

Based on?????

Based on what they garner from Rupauls website.... :rolleyes:

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 10:37 AM

Based on?????

History?

Republicans wanted to stay out of WWI. Dems wanted in. Republicans wanted to stay out of WWII... FDR wanted us in... ultimately the empire brought us in. Republicans wanted us to stay out of Korea... but thanks to Truman... Johnson escalated JFK's war, Nixon got us out. Barry Goldwater charged that President Lyndon Johnson lied to the American people and that he is committing the United States to war "recklessly." Having previously called the war "McNamara's War," he now described it as "Johnson's War."

So...

Rhino

12-31-2007, 10:44 AM

That's not "antiwar". It's reasoned judgement over what constitutes a need for it or not in specific circumstances.

Rhino

12-31-2007, 10:46 AM

Isolationists held the upper hand in the party before World War II, and in 1940 two Republicans, Henry L. Stimson and Frank Knox, were virtually read out of the party for accepting posts in Roosevelt's cabinet. But the party supported the nation's war effort...http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0860705.html

Rhino

12-31-2007, 10:48 AM

Korea:

I am very glad that you have proposed measures that correspond to the magnitude of the danger.

On the basis of talks which I had yesterday with some of the leading Republicans, I feel confident that, subject to scrutiny of detail, your proposal will have Republican support.

Special Consultant to the Secretary of State John Foster Dulles
John Foster Dulles to Harry S. Truman, July 20, 1950
Papers of Harry S. Truman: White House Central Files-Official File

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 11:18 AM

Robert Taft insisted the US stay neutral during WWII

Dwight Eisenhower ran on a promise to end the Korean war, which he did

Richard Nixon negotiated a peace agreement with the North Vietnamese government, which provided for a U.S. pullout. Gerald Ford presided over the fall of Saigon

Ronald Reagan recognized the futility of our presence in Lebanon in 1983 and pulled out.

Republicans called for the withdrawal of American troops from the Balkans

John McCain insisted we should leave "as rapidly and safely as possible" from Somalia 1993.

Do you see the pattern starting to develop? The big Pro-War Republican are RINOS (No offense) Conservative Republicans have tended to be anti-war. Dims start the wars, and Repubs end them.

Bush the Elder, Bush the lesser, and the gaggle of Neocons that swarm around them like peter gnats. (as commonly seen around dogs in the summer)

Naturalized-Texan

12-31-2007, 11:26 AM

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 11:32 AM

Justaguy: You'll soon have to face the FACT that you are a victim of Ron Paul's Goebbels-type Big Lie Propaganda. Ron Paul is preying on your ignorance of history and your ignorance about the dangers we face in today's world to brainwash you with his lies. Get yourself informed before it's too late.

With all due respect, I've been a supporter of Ron Paul for nearly a decade. I used to live in his district. Back when this board begain, there were many Ron Paul supporters on board. That all changed Sept. 11th 2001. When the US went crazy for war and Ron stayed true to his beliefs "conservatives" turned on him. Of course, Conservatives still support him.

I would be glad to talk history with you, if you think you can share something with me that will change my mind. I would caution you, I'm not ignorant of US history. Ron Paul is right. The only way to save the nation is to return to the founding principles. We are not subjects of the government, we are sovreigns.

Rhino

12-31-2007, 11:36 AM

But the founding principles don't prevent us from military action when it is appropriate. That's where I differ with RP, as do most conservatives. And by the way, you don't get to decide the definition of "conservative", so it would be appreciated if you didn't try to lecture along those lines.

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 11:43 AM

But the founding principles don't prevent us from military action when it is appropriate.

You're absolutely right. Who gets to decide, constitutionally, when it's appropriate?

That's where I differ with RP, as do most conservatives.

And exactly what is it that most conservatives are trying to conserve? If you play fast and loose with the Constitution, are you a conservative?

And by the way, you don't get to decide the definition of "conservative", so it would be appreciated if you didn't try to lecture along those lines.

Great! Care to share that sentiment with the others on the board that want to call Dr. Paul a "liberal?" Ron Paul is a classic conservative from libertarian end of the party. Being anti THIS war is not liberal. Nation building and spreading democracy is as liberal as Woodrow Wilson.

Rhino

12-31-2007, 12:04 PM

You're absolutely right. Who gets to decide, constitutionally, when it's appropriate?Generally, our elected representatives.

And exactly what is it that most conservatives are trying to conserve? If you play fast and loose with the Constitution, are you a conservative?Depends on the conservative, and on your definition of fast and loose.

Great! Care to share that sentiment with the others on the board that want to call Dr. Paul a "liberal?" Ron Paul is a classic conservative from libertarian end of the party. Being anti THIS war is not liberal. Nation building and spreading democracy is as liberal as Woodrow Wilson.That's a label for a candidate. Feel free to do that. It's insinuations about others on this board that I was referring to. I wasn't levelling a prohibition. I was just saying that it would be appreciated. Being insulting toward others here isn't exactly a good methodology for winning friends and influencing people. While you may not be looking for friends, you do seem intent on exerting at least a modicum of influence if you can, as are most people.

The_Elucidator

12-31-2007, 12:16 PM

That all changed Sept. 11th 2001. When the US went crazy for war and Ron stayed true to his beliefs "conservatives" turned on him. Of course, Conservatives still support him.

I don't know of any conservatives whose beliefs consist of sticking their head in the sand when it comes to recognizing the threat to this country from the radical wing of Islam!

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 12:30 PM

I don't know of any conservatives whose beliefs consist of sticking their head in the sand when it comes to recognizing the threat to this country from the radical wing of Islam!

Fear mongering is what has the US accepting the equivalence of martial law in its streets. You do no one any favors by continuing to propagate the great lie that the US is in mortal danger of "radical Islam." We are in much GREATER threat from a total economic melt down resulting from that last 20 years of borrow and spend administrations. The war in Iraq is worse than useless. It's pointless, AND it's bleeding us dry.

Rhino

12-31-2007, 12:32 PM

Martial law in the streets??????

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 12:36 PM

Generally, our elected representatives.

Well... I reckon we both know which elected representatives are responsible for making the decision, but we'll save that for another day.

Depends on the conservative, and on your definition of fast and loose. I thought you were from Ohio. Are you sure you're not from Hope Arkansas? They seem to teach that down there... FWIW... I know what "is" is. :D

I wasn't levelling a prohibition. I was just saying that it would be appreciated.

Fair enough. I'll take that as a friendly request.

Being insulting toward others here isn't exactly a good methodology for winning friends and influencing people. While you may not be looking for friends, you do seem intent on exerting at least a modicum of influence if you can, as are most people.

Well, you know as well as I do that it's unlikely I'm going to influence anyone on this board. You know the history. What I can do is point out the low lying fruit to get people to tighten up their positions. Maybe they'll consider the points I make and come to their own conclusions (as opposed to my conclusions)

Generally the conclusion they come to is that I'm an a$$hole. I can live with that if it helps someone form an honest opinion rather than simply parrot back Rush Limbaugh's talking points.

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 12:40 PM

Martial law in the streets??????

Yeah, pretty much. Here's a list;

They can listen to your phone calls without a warrant.
They can come in your house without a warrant.
They can identify you as a "terrorist" and take away your right to Habeus corpus
They can hold you, as a terrorist, even after you've been acquitted
They can torture you
They can take away your property without due process
They can freeze you bank accounts without you having committed a crime.
They can limit your speech to specifically designated areas

How much more do you need?

Lubbock

12-31-2007, 12:51 PM

The Democrats damned sure got us into the war we're into now.

And if the Democrats and the RouxPaulers have their way, we'll be living under Sharia Law in about five years.

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 12:57 PM

The Democrats damned sure got us into the war we're into now.

And if the Democrats and the RouxPaulers have their way, we'll be living under Sharia Law in about five years.

Wrong. You're not getting the message. The message is that YOU will be empowered to help yourself; you won't be dependant on unreliable civil servants to do it for you.

Are you afraid of personal freedom?

Lubbock

12-31-2007, 01:02 PM

They can listen to your phone calls without a warrant.
Tell me when the last time one of your phone calls was listened to. Tell me when it was done to your friends or relatives.

They can come in your house without a warrant.
Tell me when the last time "they" came into your house. Tell me when the last time "they" came into the home of your friends or relatives.

They can identify you as a "terrorist" and take away your right to Habeus corpus.
Tell me when you were identified as a terrirost. Have any of your friends or relatives been identified?

They can hold you, as a terrorist, even after you've been acquitted.
You were tried as a terrorist, acquitted, and you're still being held?

They can torture you.
You've been tortured by the CIA? Military" FBI? Your local police?
This was at GITMO? Or in the local precinct?

They can take away your property without due process.
You lost your home and business? When was this?

They can freeze you bank accounts without you having committed a crime.
And this happened to you? Your friends? Relatives?

They can limit your speech to specifically designated areas.
You were denied free speech? When? It happened to someone you know, or a relative? Who? When?

The instant I hear someone staft yowling about "listening to phone calls," I know immediately who I'm dealing with.

Naturalized-Texan

12-31-2007, 01:02 PM

With all due respect, I've been a supporter of Ron Paul for nearly a decade. I used to live in his district. Back when this board begain, there were many Ron Paul supporters on board. That all changed Sept. 11th 2001. When the US went crazy for war and Ron stayed true to his beliefs "conservatives" turned on him. Of course, Conservatives still support him.
I was a strong supporter of Ron Paul in the 1970s and early 1980s when he was our congressman and while he was still sane. Back then he was a Reagan conservative - i.e., a real conservative. After the Democrat legislature gerrymandered him out of office following the 1980 Census, he went off the deep end and left the ranks of Reagan conservatism (he lies that he left office voluntarily, but that's another story). He has never returned to the ranks of Reagan conservatism - real conservatism.

Ron Paul has now committed treason as defined in Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution by giving aid and comfort to our enemies in a time of war. To save you the trouble of looking it up, here is the definition from the Constitution:

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. (Emphasis added)

Ron Paul should be arrested and tried for treason instead of running for president.

BTW, my son who posts here occasionally now lives on Ron Paul's district. He said here that he would rather vote for his neighbor's dog (who bit him) than vote for Ron Paul again.

The polls in his district show that he is in deep trouble and it's likely that he will be retired from public life by this time next year. We here in Texas are patriots who support our troops and we don't like politicians who vote to cut off funds to our troops who are fighting to keep him, you, and us safe from terrorist attacks or politicians who vote for surrendering in the War on Terror - World War IV.

If Ron Paul and his Paulbots, including you, get their way the result could easily be the slaughter of millions, if not tens of millions, of innocent American men, women, and children in terrorist attacks. Is that what you want? I wonder.

I would be glad to talk history with you, if you think you can share something with me that will change my mind. I would caution you, I'm not ignorant of US history. Ron Paul is right. The only way to save the nation is to return to the founding principles. We are not subjects of the government, we are sovreigns.
Since Ron Paul is a coward, a traitor, and an appeaser, the best history lesson I can give you is the following name: Neville Chamberlain. The direct result of his appeasement of Hitler was World War II with its slaughter of tens of millions of innocent men, women, and children. Do you want that to happen again? I wonder.

Why would you want to vote for a phony conservative like Ron Paul when you could vote for a REAL conservative like Fred Thompson? After all, Fred is conservative on every issue where Ron Paul is conservative AND Fred is conservative on every issue where Ron Paul is not.

Naturalized-Texan

12-31-2007, 01:18 PM

Lub: We should know by now that it's impossible to reason with brainwashed Paulbots like Justaguy. Ron Paul's Big Lie Propaganda machine has been extremely successful in filling the feeble brains of the uninformed with endlessly repeated demagoguery. Ron Paul has learned his lessons well at the feet of that master propagandist, Josef Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda and the originator on the Big Lie Propaganda technique: If you tell a big enough lie often enough, people will begin to believe it. Goebbels must be very proud of his star pupil, Ron Paul.

The Paulbots don't understand or refuse to face the fact that Ron Paul is a RINO who has aligned himself with hate-America/pro-terrorist leftists like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, Chuckie Schumer, John Kerry, Cindy Sheehan, George Soros, John Murtha, MoveOn.org, Code Pink, DailyKos, Howard Dean, et al.

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 01:25 PM

Ron Paul has now committed treason as defined in Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution by giving aid and comfort to our enemies in a time of war. To save you the trouble of looking it up, here is the definition from the Constitution:

Wait a minute. War. Isn't a a specifically declared thing? Can you declare war against abstract verbs? Could Barry Goldwater have been tried for treason for opposing the "War on Poverty?" Hmmmm... I think you got more piss than vinegar.

BTW, my son who posts here occasionally now lives on Ron Paul's district. He said here that he would rather vote for his neighbor's dog (who bit him) than vote for Ron Paul again.

Apparently the fruit don't fall too far from the tree.

We here in Texas are patriots who support our troops and we don't like politicians who vote to cut off funds to our troops who are fighting to keep him, you, and us safe from terrorist attacks or politicians who vote for surrendering in the War on Terror - World War IV.

What a load of fertilizer. Texas isn't some monolithic mythic state that acts and breathes as a living thing. If it is, would you care to explain Ann Richards to me?

"War on Terror" is a marketing tool to push acceptance of government theft and intrusion on the drool and creamed peas croud. It's stupid, and it's a lie. I guess that makes it a stupid lie. Who would buy a stupid lie?

If Ron Paul and his Paulbots, including you, get their way the result could easily be the slaughter of millions, if not tens of millions, of innocent American men, women, and children in terrorist attacks. Is that what you want? I wonder.

I guess you missed the memo where insulting people isn't going to win you friends or influence people. I don't mind. However, the above scenario is pure fantasy. What are they going to kill them with? Harsh Language? Fear mongering at its best. OOooo... They're going to fly over here on their magic carpets and use their genies and their swords and killl us all... Gyah.

Since Ron Paul is a coward, a traitor, and an appeaser, the best history lesson I can give you is the following name: Neville Chamberlain. The direct result of his appeasement of Hitler was World War II with its slaughter of tens of millions of innocent men, women, and children. Do you want that to happen again? I wonder.

This is UTTERLY ridiculous. Comparing a rag tag bunch of cave dwellers to one of the most powerful armies of the 20th century borders delusional. Are you serious? Please tell me you're not.

Why would you want to vote for a phony conservative like Ron Paul when you could vote for a REAL conservative like Fred Thompson? After all, Fred is conservative on every issue where Ron Paul is conservative AND Fred is conservative on every issue where Ron Paul is not.

I would discuss this point with you, but it's a moot point. Fred's out. They're just waiting for the body to drop. Ron, on the other hand, is definitely in the running. I bet that really chaps your ass, doesn' t it? What are you going to do when you choice is Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton?

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 01:28 PM

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 01:33 PM

Rhino

12-31-2007, 01:37 PM

Speaking of fast and loose!!! :lol:Yeah, pretty much. Here's a list;

They can listen to your phone calls without a warrant.No, they can't.
They can come in your house without a warrant.No, they can't.

They can identify you as a "terrorist" and take away your right to Habeus corpusNo, they can't.

They can hold you, as a terrorist, even after you've been acquittedNo, they can't.

They can torture youNo, they can't.

They can take away your property without due processNo, they can't.

They can freeze you bank accounts without you having committed a crime.No, they can't.

They can limit your speech to specifically designated areasNo, they can't.

How much more do you need?One instance of martial law would have been good for a start, but you haven't provided one yet. You do tend to exaggerate quite a bit though.

Rhino

12-31-2007, 01:41 PM

Lot of emotion laden words there. It's a shame that it's total hogwash. You should start a business. You have a real talent for hogwashing.After that list you posted, you're not in any position to lecture on hogwash.

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 01:48 PM

After that list you posted, you're not in any position to lecture on hogwash.

The list I posted is a matter of public record. Your unwillingness to recognize it has NO EFFECT on its validity.

You know EVERY ITEM on the list is true. You think not. Challenge one. Once I prove that it's true, I would expect you and the Bobo twins would at least have the integrity to acknowledge it. (well... actually, I wouldn't expect that of the Bobo twins. That kind of thing usually comes with some sort of moral and intellectual grounding.)

The gauntlet is now firmly in your corner.

Lubbock

12-31-2007, 01:55 PM

. . . "War on Terror" is a marketing tool . . .

This is a statement made by someone who is completely devoid of any significant historical knowledge; someone who has apparently been living in a cave since the day Carter allowed the Shah of Iran fall.

And it comes as no surprise to any of us that a Paulbot would make such a hideously stupid statement.

Rhino

12-31-2007, 01:57 PM

Every item on that list has a valid underlying concern, all of which have been discussed here before. But you have so dramatically oversensationalized them, that I simply responded in kind by dramatically oversimplifying my responses. You should realize that by sensationalizing them in such a way, you harm your case far more than help it, because you start to sound ridiculous. Instead of rationally debating what are valid concerns about government powers, you hurt your own argument by sounding like some crazed zealot. if you want to debate those subjects, then do so in a rational manner. However, I'm sure you are probably aware that that has already been done here before, for each and every thing on that list. But if you are going to go into the realm of the ridiculous like that, it is quite natural to get condescending responses in return. Try coming back down to earth if you really want to discuss that stuff. However, I suggest another thread on the matter since we are getting off topic here.

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 02:00 PM

This is a statement made by someone who is completely devoid of any significant historical knowledge; someone who has apparently been living in a cave since the day Carter allowed the Shah of Iran fall.

And it comes as no surprise to any of us that a Paulbot would make such a hideously stupid statement.

Ooooooo.... The stupid lie hit a nerve, did it? Who would believe a stupid lie?:rotflmbo:

I especially like that statement:"Since Carter allowed the Shah of Iran fall.":claps:

That's a classic!

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 02:12 PM

Every item on that list has a valid underlying concern, all of which have been discussed before. But you have so dramatically oversensationalized them, that I simply responded in kind by dramatically oversimplifying my responses. You should realize that by sensationalizing them in such a way, you harm your case far more than help it, because you start to sound ridiculous. Instead of rationally debating what are valid concerns about government powers, you hurt your own argument by sounding like some crazed zealot. if you want to debate those subjects, then do so in a rational manner. However, I'm sure you are probably aware that that has already been done here before, for each and every thing on that list. But if you are going to go into the realm of the ridiculous like that, it is quite natural to get condescending responses in return. Try coming back down to earth if you really want to discuss that stuff. However, I suggest another thread on the matter since we are getting off topic here.

Wait a minute. I'm having trouble understanding how "Every item on that list has a valid underlying concern" and "But if you are going to go into the realm of the ridiculous like that, it is quite natural to get condescending responses in return. " can go together in the same paragraph.

Here's an example. During Katrina, they were going door to door and taking guns away from law abiding citizens. Now, I've said that as calmly as I know how. That is but one demonstration of the attitude of the government toward the people.

For the record, what I said was:

US accepting the equivalence of martial law in its streets.

I didn't say that there was martial law in the streets, I said it was the equivalant. Those items I posted were to support that statement. We are one event away from martial law in the US. All of the infrastructure has been put in place with the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions act, the recent Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. All of these are the result of an unbridled government overstepping its charter. Who's going to bring our freedom back? Freedoms lost are never GIVEN back.

Rhino

12-31-2007, 02:27 PM

For the record, what I said was:

US accepting the equivalence of martial law in its streets.

I didn't say that there was martial law in the streets, I said it was the equivalant.Okay. Point taken. But no one is really 'accepting' what you listed. What I meant was that there are valid points for discussion somewhere at the root of each of the items on your list, but that the reality in no way approaches the way you depicted them here. I'm not saying I agree with them, but there are indeed underlying issues. But again, that would be a discussion for another thread. And these subjects have been addressed here before, quite extensively.

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 02:43 PM

Okay. Point taken. But no one is really 'accepting' what you listed. What I meant was that there are valid points for discussion somewhere at the root of each of the items on your list, but that the reality in no way approaches the way you depicted them here. I'm not saying I agree with them, but there are indeed underlying issues. But again, that would be a discussion for another thread. And these subjects have been addressed here before, quite extensively.

Let's go back. My belief is that many people who consider themselves conservative reject Ron Paul because he rejects the current war in Iraq outright, and he rejects the way the war in Afghanistan has been fought. When he voted for the war in Afghanistan, it was to go after bin Laden and to take down the Taliban.

I believe that fear mongering is being used by the other GOP candidates to scare you into their camp (Rudy, McCain) or they are of so little character that they are afraid to reject the war and their support for the war is luke warm (Huck and Romney) Given the choice, the latter is more dastardly in my opinion. I dislike Rudy for too many other reasons, but at least he's consistent on that one issue.

Granted, Fred would be my second choice after Ron Paul; but I don't think he's got a really good feel for the war either.

I truly believe that we are in much GREATER threat from a total economic melt down resulting from that last 20 years of borrow and spend administrations that we are from terrorists. Anything the terrorists do will affect a few of us. A total economic melt down will affect us all.

Rhino

12-31-2007, 02:52 PM

I'm not motivated by fear, and I don't think too many other conservatives are. I think it's what we should be doing.

I'm not as concerned about the economy as you are, at least not to the point of thinking we're in a near meltdown. There are disturbing signs, to be sure, but I don't think it's quite as drastic as you do. I also don't think the President controls the economy, nor should he.

We have differing opinions on these issues, but they're based on our perception of them, and on our underlying principles, rather than on hype and hyperbole.

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 03:10 PM

I'm not motivated by fear, and I don't think too many other conservatives are. I think it's what we should be doing.
Why? What threat is/was Iraq to us? If it's because of "terrorism" then that is mainline fear. My big concerns with the war is that it's wrong for us in the international arena, it's wrong for us in the fiscal arena, and it's wrong for us morally. It's simply not what we need to be doing. We're not gaining anything of benefit, and we are using up precious resources, most notably, our military. Time to bring them home and rebuild them. There's a fairly good chance that we're going to need them for something important in the future and if we don't fix it, we're not going to have them.

I'm not as concerned about the economy as you are, at least not to the point of thinking we're in a near meltdown. There are disturbing signs, to be sure, but I don't think it's quite as drastic as you do.

I think we are in a bad place. We are borrowing from China to rebuild Iraq. The value of our money has lost 30-40 percent against other currencies. Our manufacturing base is gone. The housing market is collapsing and the President is bailing out banks. I think we're in a really bad place, and for the most part I lay it at the feet of big government.

I also don't think the President controls the economy, nor should he.

We agree with this caveat. The president has a significant influence on the growth or shrinking of government. As government grows and requires more taxes, that burden is passed on to the people. Businesses have trouble competing because the taxes have to be built into the price of the item. That makes them difficult to find markets outside the US. Resources for investment are absorbed by the government. (this list could go on and on)

We have differing opinions on these issues, but they're based on our perception of them, and on our underlying principles, rather than on hype and hyperbole.

Wouldn't it be great to be able to share that process with others. Not so that they come to your answers, but rather that they come to their own answers.

Naturalized-Texan

12-31-2007, 03:25 PM

Wait a minute. War. Isn't a a specifically declared thing? Can you declare war against abstract verbs? Could Barry Goldwater have been tried for treason for opposing the "War on Poverty?" Hmmmm... I think you got more piss than vinegar.
A declaration of war WAS passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, with only one dissenting vote - a Commie from San Francisco. Yes, Ron Paul DID vote to declare war on terrorism. Since the War on Terror - World War IV - IS a declared war, Ron Paul IS committing treason when he gives aid and comfort to our enemies.

Apparently the fruit don't fall too far from the tree.
Yep! My son is also a patriot who would never vote for a hate-America traitor like Ron Paul.

What a load of fertilizer. Texas isn't some monolithic mythic state that acts and breathes as a living thing. If it is, would you care to explain Ann Richards to me?
So, you supported Ann Richards. Why am I not surprised? She was a liberal, but she was to Ron Paul's right politically.

Of course, the people of Ron Paul's district turn out in droves to honor the fallen troops who died fighting to protect them from terrorist attacks, some of whom were killed because of Ron Paul's treason. They would never vote for a traitor, especially since a true patriot is running against him in the Republican Primary.

"War on Terror" is a marketing tool to push acceptance of government theft and intrusion on the drool and creamed peas croud. It's stupid, and it's a lie. I guess that makes it a stupid lie. Who would buy a stupid lie?
Thanks for proving that you don't give a shit about the nearly 3,000 killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks and for proving that you don't give a shit about the additional 2,000 American troops who lost their lives because of the treason committed by Ron Paul and his hate-America/pro-terrorist leftist allies and that you don't give a shit about the millions, if not tens of millions, of innocent American men, women, and children who will be slaughtered in terrorist attacks if we surrender to the terrorists as Ron Paul and you Paulbots want.

I guess you missed the memo where insulting people isn't going to win you friends or influence people. I don't mind. However, the above scenario is pure fantasy. What are they going to kill them with? Harsh Language? Fear mongering at its best. OOooo... They're going to fly over here on their magic carpets and use their genies and their swords and killl us all... Gyah.
It isn't an insult to tell the truth that Ron Paul and his Paulbots are traitors.

BTW, since you are so ignorant of the threat of terrorism, you should be reminded that nearly 3,000 innocent Americans were slaughtered on 9/11 by terrorists you don't believe can kill Americans on American soil (or are one of those truthers who believe that President Bush killed all those people, not the terrorists?):

http://tex.connectingzone.com/Tower2Explodes.jpg

FYI, enough botulism toxin to kill everyone in New York City can be contained in a container the size of a coffee can and could be smuggled into the U.S. in a breifcase. If we don't win the War on Terror - World War IV - it's a sure bet that something like that, or worse, will happen. And you don't give a shit!

This is UTTERLY ridiculous. Comparing a rag tag bunch of cave dwellers to one of the most powerful armies of the 20th century borders delusional. Are you serious? Please tell me you're not.
Once again, you prove your complete ignorance of the threat of terrorism.

I would discuss this point with you, but it's a moot point. Fred's out. They're just waiting for the body to drop. Ron, on the other hand, is definitely in the running. I bet that really chaps your ass, doesn' t it? What are you going to do when you choice is Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton?
You are delusional. Ron Paul has even less chance of getting the Republican nomination than a snowball has of surviving in Hell.

DesertFox

12-31-2007, 04:03 PM

And that ain't much

Naturalized-Texan

12-31-2007, 04:05 PM

Justaguy needs to read The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered AMERICA by Stephen F. Hayes. It started me thinking about some history of the past 6 or 7 years.

First a little history lesson:

In 1998, when Bill Clinton requested and received authorization from Congress to invade Iraq, Richard Clarke built the case for the invasion on two main points:

1) Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the United States.

2) There was evidence of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda going back to before the first WTC bombing. (Note: Richard Clarke must have forgotten about that evidence when he wrote in his book, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever.")

Unfortunately, Clinton never acted, thanks to Monica, hence the 9/11 attacks.

The Iraq operation of the War on Terrorism:

As Stephen Hayes points out, President Bush made a three-part case for the Iraq operation:

1) Saddam Hussein's brutality against his fellow Iraqis;

2) Saddam's failure to account for his weapons of mass destruction;

3) Iraq's connections with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

There was no controversy about the first two parts. Everyone in the world agreed that Saddam had been slaughtering the Iraqi people and everyone in the world, including virtually every intelligence agency in the world, knew that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Which brings me to an aside: Hans Blix declared in his final report to the UN that Iraq was in "material breach" of UN Resolution 1441 because Saddam had not declared his weapons of mass destruction and that he had not provided proof that he had destroyed them.

Here is an interesting fact that I had forgotten about until Stephen Hayes reminded me: Until the very last minute before the Iraq operation actually began, Saddam could have stopped the invasion by merely complying with UN Resolution 1441. Why didn't he? I'm sure that Saddam thought about that a lot as he sat in his tiny cell awaiting execution.

More about the Iraq-al Qaeda connection:

However, there was controversy about the third part above - whether there were connections between Iraq and Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda despite the fact that Clinton had built the case for those connections in 1998. It's important to note that prior to the Iraq operation NO ONE ever claimed that Iraq and al Qaeda collaborated on the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

However we are now seeing evidence, documented by Stephen Hayes, that there may very well have been collaboration between the Iraq Intelligence Service (IIS) and the al Qaeda terrorists who attacked the United States on 9/11.

Lt. Col. Ahmed Hikmat Shakir of IIS was assigned by the Iraq Embassy as a greeter at the Kuala Lumpur, Maylasia, airport. In January 2000, Shakir escorted Khalid al Mihdhar, one of the 9/11 "pilots" (American Airlines Flight 77 that was crashed into the Pentagon), through Customs and then accompanied him to a three-day 9/11 planning meeting at a condominium owned by Yazid Sufaat, an American educated al Qaeda terrorist. After the meeting, Mihdhar flew to Bangkok and eventually to Los Angeles. And the rest, as they say, is history.

(For more details, see The Connection (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp))

Recently, the Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the 9/11 Commission Report both confirmed that there were Iraq-al Qaeda connections dating back to before the first WTC bombing.

Case Closed Part 2 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp?pg=2)

And then there is the alleged contact between lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. The reporting on those links suggests not one meeting, but as many as four. What's more, the [DOD] memo [dated October 27, 2003] reveals potential financing of Atta's activities by Iraqi intelligence.

The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11 hijacker [Mohamed] Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, [Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir] al Ani, on several occasions. During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office.

And the commentary:

CIA can confirm two Atta visits to Prague--in Dec. 1994 and in June 2000; data surrounding the other two--on 26 Oct 1999 and 9 April 2001--is complicated and sometimes contradictory and CIA and FBI cannot confirm Atta met with the IIS. Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross continues to stand by his information.

FYI, here are some additional links to articles by Stephen Hayes and others:

Case Closed (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp)

The Missing Link (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/339finwc.asp)

More Connections (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/167gwjtp.asp)

The 9/11 Commission and the Connection (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/327igxby.asp)

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp)

Saddam's Files: New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133)

Naturalized-Texan

12-31-2007, 04:13 PM

Justaguy:

The declaration of war on global terrorism that Ron Paul voted for on September 14, 2001, stated, in part, that "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States."

That declaration clearly covered Iraq.

Ron Paul's and his Paulbots' claim that the War on Terror - World War IV - is an undeclared war is another one of their many lies.

Ron Paul is a John-Kerry-type flip-flopper. He voted for the Global War on Terror before he voted against it.

DoctorDoom

12-31-2007, 05:29 PM

Fear mongering is what has the US accepting the equivalence of martial law in its streets.The scary thing is that the Muzzie-ass-kisser probably actually believes that.

One common thread in the lunatic ravings of America-bashing idiots is that the US suppresses free speech and the "right" to protest. So where were the goose-stepping "martial law" enforcers from Bush's new Gestapo when these events were going on in US streets?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/AntiWar/shoot-officers.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/AntiWar/LAantixU.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/AntiWar/IMG_3584.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/AntiWar/LAantix9.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/AntiWar/LAantixQ.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/AntiWar/LAantixV.jpg

One would think that during martial law, those treasonous human-shaped piles of dog shit would be arrested and made to go away. So where's your support for your ludicrous assertion?

You do no one any favors by continuing to propagate the great lie that the US is in mortal danger of "radical Islam."It must be difficult to post on the Web when one's viewpoint is confined to the wall of his colon. But for those with short or selective memories such as this fool's ...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/WTC/WTC-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/WTC/wtc_coll.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/WTC/survivor.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/WTC/zero08.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Patriotic/WTCFlag600.jpg

And let's not forget the Pentagon.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/WTC/Pentagon0.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/WTC/Pentagon3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/WTC/Pentagon2.jpg

Where was Bush's Sturmabteilung rounding up dissenters following this nightmare? And where are they when there are still braindead assholes claiming that there was no plane involved there and that it was a US conspiracy?

Fact time, dipstick:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Terrorism/Islam2.jpg

<table align="center" bgcolor="white" bordercolor="cccccc" border="2" cellpadding="8"><tr><td><div align="center"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/flag.gif"/></div></td></tr></table><br><table align="center" bgcolor="400000" bordercolor="cccccc" border="2" cellpadding="8"><tr><td><div align="center"><font face="Verdana" color="ff6060" size="7"><b>God <font color="white">Bless</font> <font color="6060ff">America!</font><font size="4"><br></font></b> </font></div></td></tr></table>

I've had it up to my greying hairline with microcephalic, America-loathing sons of bitches who revel in abusing our freedom by ranting and raving and sniveling and screeching against the greatest country on Earth and in history. The lot of you can go perform anatomically impossible acts on yourselves. And if you don't like that, you can

<table align="center" bgcolor="white" bordercolor="CCCCCC" border="4" cellpadding="8"><tr><td><div align="center"><font face="Verdana" color="blue" size="6"><b>Plant a wet one on my<br>my 100% <font color="red">red-blooded</font><br><font color="blue">American ass!</font><font size="4"><br></font></b> </font></div></td></tr></table>

BTW, Chuckles, if you're a typical Paulbot, nothing further needs to be said about that POS.

Rhino

12-31-2007, 05:43 PM

Why? What threat is/was Iraq to us? If it's because of "terrorism" then that is mainline fear. My big concerns with the war is that it's wrong for us in the international arena, it's wrong for us in the fiscal arena, and it's wrong for us morally. It's simply not what we need to be doing. We're not gaining anything of benefit, and we are using up precious resources, most notably, our military. Time to bring them home and rebuild them. There's a fairly good chance that we're going to need them for something important in the future and if we don't fix it, we're not going to have them. The threat is stability in the region, which greatly affects us and the rest of the world. Like it or not, what happens in the rest of the world does affect us. It would be simpler if that were not so, like it was in the days of the founders, but such is not the case today.

I think we are in a bad place. We are borrowing from China to rebuild Iraq. The value of our money has lost 30-40 percent against other currencies. Our manufacturing base is gone. The housing market is collapsing and the President is bailing out banks. I think we're in a really bad place, and for the most part I lay it at the feet of big government. I know. We've discussed this before. I agree that there are significant problems right now. I just don't agree on the severity that you foresee. I'm not saying you can't be proven right. I just don't see it that way right now.

We agree with this caveat. The president has a significant influence on the growth or shrinking of government. As government grows and requires more taxes, that burden is passed on to the people. Businesses have trouble competing because the taxes have to be built into the price of the item. That makes them difficult to find markets outside the US. Resources for investment are absorbed by the government. (this list could go on and on) We have no disagreement on excessive taxes. I'm with you there.

Wouldn't it be great to be able to share that process with others. Not so that they come to your answers, but rather that they come to their own answers.Yes, but unfortunately too many Americans are ignorant, or simply misinformed.

DoctorDoom

12-31-2007, 05:57 PM

Rhino, you're almost infinitely more tolerant of Pauloids than I am. Kudos.

Lubbock

12-31-2007, 06:51 PM

What I will never understand about the Paulbots and others of their ilk is the blinders they wear when it comes to the threat of Islamofacism.

Radical Islam is blasting it at us 24/7/365: WE WILL DESTROY YOU.

All you have to do is look at the history of Radical Islam --no further back than from the moment CARTER ALLOWED THE SHAH OF IRAN TO FALL, to see the strides the Islamofacists have made when it comes to attaining their goal. Carrying out their threat.

Paulbots and others of their ilk are simply mentally ill.

They are truly sick individuals. Sick and sad.

Has anyone on This Board had their telephone calls intercepted and listened to by any intelligence agency?

Do you know anyone who has?

Anyone been locked up and charged with terrorism? Not allowed to make a phone call?

Anyone here had their Free Speech stepped on? Anyone not been allowed to carry a sign and protest?

Anyone?

Do you know anyone who has been denied their rights?

Do you know anyone who has been tortured? Waterboarded?

If Doc or NT would fish around a little, they could find that stats on FISA Court Warrants. I heard someone quote the stats a while back, and I remember how stunned I was at how very little the Court has even been petitioned.

Where does anyone get the addle-brained idea that a Nazi-like Gestapo is running roughshod over our rights.

Maybe when Gitmo closes, we should see to it that the Terrorist Ass Kissers like Rupaul and his ilk --and his supporters, end up with the Muslim Terrorist detainees living next door.

Would that make you comfortable?

I do not understand Terrorist Ass Kissers.

You can't make a housepet out of a rattlesnake.

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 07:54 PM

Rhino, you're almost infinitely more tolerant of Pauloids than I am. Kudos.

It's a sign of intelligence. I wouldn't worry about it if I were you... chances are you'll NEVER be able to understand.

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 07:59 PM

The threat is stability in the region, which greatly affects us and the rest of the world. Like it or not, what happens in the rest of the world does affect us. It would be simpler if that were not so, like it was in the days of the founders, but such is not the case today.

There is NEVER going to be stability in the region. Or at least, not any more than you can get in any tribal region. You can't impose western ideas on tribal peoples. If we pull out, some sort of stability will come. We may not necessarily like how it settles out, but it will settle out. Once it settles out, then you have a foundation on which to build something.

I think we're adding to the destablilization of region. I can tell you that we've done ourselves no favors in the region being here.

DoctorDoom

12-31-2007, 08:00 PM

It's a sign of intelligence.Not at all. He's just long-suffering with fools. BTW, fool, are you ready to retract your preposterous claims, or are you, being a faithful Paulbot, immune to facts?

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 08:10 PM

The scary thing is that the Muzzie-ass-kisser probably actually believes that.

If I said it, you can bet I believe it.

Blah blah blah 9/11 blah blah killed 9/11 blah blah blah dangerous blah blah blah

Don't you EVER get tired of bringing out that same old tired saw? Bush and company have spent us into ruin, attacked our constitutional rights at home, destroyed the value of the dollar, turned us into a rogue nation, and spread a message of fear throughout the land.

BTW, Chuckles, if you're a typical Paulbot, nothing further needs to be said about that POS.

That's MR. Chuckles to you.

I've been a Ron Paul supporter since I've been on this board... or... since it was Town Hall's board. It's unlikely anything you or Tex say will change my mind. Tex has a head full of custard, and you've got a gut full of bile. When you come up with a reasonable position and the ability to discuss it civilly, we can chat. As long as you're abusive, I don't see the point.

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 08:11 PM

Not at all. He's just long-suffering with fools. BTW, fool, are you ready to retract your preposterous claims, or are you, being a faithful Paulbot, immune to facts?

Have you lost your mind? Neocon talking points do not facts make.

Hey Rhino... did the Doc just say you weren't intelligent?

DoctorDoom

12-31-2007, 08:18 PM

Have you lost your mind? Neocon talking points do not facts make.So you deny the photographs that blow your ridiculous leftist claims into tiny fragments? How unexpected! :rolleyes:

Vote for Paul. You deserve him.

Hey Rhino... did the Doc just say you weren't intelligent?Nice spin job, Chuckles.

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 08:19 PM

Stephen Hayes

:roar:Stephen F Hayes of The Weekly Standard? LOL!!!!

Enough said!

I guess you proved my point. Neocons loathe Ron Paul... don't they Tex?

Well Tex... hate to break it to you, but Conservatives loathe Neocons. I reckon after the election you'll be following your heros back to the Democrat party where you belong.

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 08:22 PM

So you deny the photographs that blow your ridiculous leftist claims into tiny fragments? How unexpected! :rolleyes:

Huh? That's the dumbest thing I've heard recently, and that's quite a feat considering Tex and Lubbock are posting.

The pictures tell the story of some bad stuff. They say NOTHING about the underlying dynamics. Why am I not surprised that you appear to lack the capacity to understand that?

Vote for Paul. You deserve him.

COUNT ON IT!!!!

Nice spin job, Chuckles.

So... you don't deny it. I see.

DoctorDoom

12-31-2007, 08:23 PM

N-T, I don't think the fool likes you very much. Take that as a compliment from the Paulbot.

J, go back to DUh, and return when you can't stay as long.

DoctorDoom

12-31-2007, 08:26 PM

The pictures tell the story of some bad stuff. They say NOTHING about the underlying dynamics. Why am I not surprised that you appear to lack the capacity to understand that?So you're one of those imbeciles who blames 9/11 on America. Your credibility just reached zero, fool, and you're trying for negative numbers.

Never mind DUh. Go back to Saudi Arabia and resume your ass-kissing of those barbarians.

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 08:32 PM

N-T, I don't think the fool likes you very much. Take that as a compliment from the Paulbot.

J, go back to DUh, and return when you can't stay as long.

No tolerance for a difference of opinion I see. Is the very idea of it too scary for you? "Oooooo....Oooooo Where did he get those thoughts.... Rush didn't say that, and I'm sure I didn't see it on Bill O'Reilly.... OOOooooo"

If you ever accidently HAVE an independent thought, let me know, and we'll discuss it.

DoctorDoom

12-31-2007, 08:33 PM

Quote:Vote for Paul. You deserve him.COUNT ON IT!!!!http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Politics/Paulbot.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Politics/PaulAd.jpg

DoctorDoom

12-31-2007, 08:36 PM

Enjoy your brief moment of Paulgasm. When the primaries are over and he has been shredded, and the Texas voters kick his sorry ass to the curb, you can always look him up and whine to each other about "neo-cons".

DesertFox

12-31-2007, 08:39 PM

There is NEVER going to be stability in the region. Or at least, not any more than you can get in any tribal region. You can't impose western ideas on tribal peoples. You couldn't be wronger, Just. Federated democracy, which is what we have in America, isn't new at all and isn't foreign anywhere. It's the most natural form of govt there is, which is why it's so effective everywhere it's put into practice. The tribes keep their structures and send their reps to the federal govt chamber. That ain't no dif from states sending their reps to Washington.

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 08:43 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Politics/PaulAd.jpg

Sooo.... Cancer patience should be denied access to Marijuana to help them with the nausea associated with Chemo. People with degenerative immune system diseases should be locked up for usint it as a pain reliever. The government knows more than your doctor.

The government should be able to take away your property if you choose to use Marijuana as a medicine. Hmmmm.

Doc, you should quit while you're behind.

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 08:48 PM

You couldn't be wronger, Just. Federated democracy, which is what we have in America, isn't new at all and isn't foreign anywhere. It's the most natural form of govt there is, which is why it's so effective everywhere it's put into practice. The tribes keep their structures and send their reps to the federal govt chamber. That ain't no dif from states sending their reps to Washington.

Fox, I don't know what you've been drinking, but I'd say you've had enough.

Can you name a middle eastern state that's been able to adopt it? What you're describing is a feudal system, not a modern democracy. Our modern system is based on the idea of one man, one vote. It's a system of ideas, not a system of clan or other group ruling. That's why it starts to break down when you get "group think."

DesertFox

12-31-2007, 08:52 PM

It all started with tribes, Just, and quickly turned into modern democracy. But you need to know a little history to grasp that.

Lubbock

12-31-2007, 09:07 PM

I stopped speaking truth to the Paulbots three weeks ago.

Threw up my hands, turned and walked away.

To my eternal sorrow, I got sucked back into it today.

We're wasting time, energy and bandwidth. These people know nothing of history, and worse, they have no desire to become educated. These people know nothing of the world in which they live, and worse, they have no desire to become educated.

And just as I suspected, at least with this last one, he's a doper.

DoctorDoom

12-31-2007, 09:10 PM

Sooo.... Cancer patience should be denied access to Marijuana to help them with the nausea associated with Chemo. People with degenerative immune system diseases should be locked up for usint it as a pain reliever.And you Paulites don't give a shit about them, because your war is against the concept of illegal drugs, period. You liberals shamelessly exploit the terminally ill for your political needs.

Perhaps you can show us the non-NORML studies that demonstrate the awesome,. incomparable value of smoking pot as opposed to other drugs. And while you're at it, admit that your REAL intent is to remove any limits on "recreational" drugs because you can't live without the illusion of pleasure that results from polluting your brains with psychoactive chemicals.

The government knows more than your doctor.Probably.

The government should be able to take away your property if you choose to use Marijuana as a medicine. Hmmmm.And where has that happened?

Doc, you should quit while you're behind.I'd have to forfeit 99% of my magnificent IQ to deal with you as a peer, fool.

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 09:13 PM

It all started with tribes, Just, and quickly turned into modern democracy. But you need to know a little history to grasp that.

Quickly? Like... 10,000 years?

Do you seriously think I don't know anything about the history that got us to where we are today? Remember, this is ME you're talking to.

DoctorDoom

12-31-2007, 09:15 PM

Remember, this is ME you're talking to.He does. :rolleyes:

Timberwolf

12-31-2007, 09:20 PM

Can you name a middle eastern state that's been able to adopt it?
Turkey...Israel...Egypt...

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 09:22 PM

I'd have to forfeit 99% of my magnificent IQ to deal with you as a peer, fool.

C'mon, get real... nobody can have a NEGATIVE IQ.

I'm almost certain that your IQ is smaller than your shoe size. Keep it up and you'll force me relegate you to the same category as the Bobo twins.

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 09:26 PM

Turkey

That one's hard. Turkey isn't actually middle eastern. It's more European than it is middle eastern.

Israel

Do you really want to go there? We know with half the population living like serfs and outcasts, it can hardly be held up as a paragon of democracy

...Egypt...

Mubarak? Are you serious?

Timberwolf

12-31-2007, 09:28 PM

Jag...put down the crack pipe and try to recognize the reality of the situation. Your candidate is an isolationist who's gonna get a LOT of our people killed by emboldening our enemies.

Abe Lincoln once said, "Congressmen who willfully take actions during
wartime that damage morale, and undermine the military are saboteurs and
should be arrested, exiled or hanged."

Ron Paul fits into that category...as a supporter of his, so do you.

Timberwolf

12-31-2007, 09:29 PM

That one's hard. Turkey isn't actually middle eastern. It's more European than it is middle eastern.

Do you really want to go there? We know with half the population living like serfs and outcasts, it can hardly be held up as a paragon of democracy

Mubarak? Are you serious?
You asked for democracies...now you're moving the goalposts cuz you don't like the answer? TFB

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 09:34 PM

You asked for democracies...now you're moving the goalposts cuz you don't like the answer? TFB

Well... you didn't really answer the question. Let's review:

I said:

Can you name a middle eastern state that's been able to adopt it?

You named three.

One's not middle eastern
and two are not democracies.

That's not the same as "moving the goal post."

Justaguy

12-31-2007, 09:37 PM

Jag...put down the crack pipe and try to recognize the reality of the situation. Your candidate is an isolationist who's gonna get a LOT of our people killed by emboldening our enemies.

Wrong. Our current policy of interventionism is what's inflaming our enemies. We are killing/getting killed a lot of people NOW.

My candidate is nonintervention. He's not China of the 17th century. Stop drinking the koolaid.

Abe Lincoln once said, "Congressmen who willfully take actions during
wartime that damage morale, and undermine the military are saboteurs and
should be arrested, exiled or hanged."

Ron Paul fits into that category...as a supporter of his, so do you.

So you think I should be hanged? Is that right?

BTW, Lincoln was a tyrant.

jayson

12-31-2007, 09:41 PM

Your candidate is an isolationist who's gonna get a LOT of our people killed by emboldening our enemies.

I keep saying this and no one listens. Ron Paul isn't an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. Two very different things.

Timberwolf

12-31-2007, 09:44 PM

Watch the following and tell me you're still gonna vote for Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VblJq4j0_SE

Timberwolf

12-31-2007, 09:47 PM

btw - if he's SUCH a "non-interventionist", WHY did he vote to go to war back in 2001?

Sounds to me like he's more of a hypocrite than anything else...

DoctorDoom

12-31-2007, 10:18 PM

The Paulbots' effect on REAL conservatives: :banghead:

Naturalized-Texan

12-31-2007, 10:19 PM

btw - if he's SUCH a "non-interventionist", WHY did he vote to go to war back in 2001?

Sounds to me like he's more of a hypocrite than anything else...
As I said earlier, Ron Paul is a John-Kerry-type flip-flopper: he voted for the War on Terror - World War IV - before he voted against it. Not only is Ron Paul a hypocrite and a traitor, but he is also a pathological liar.

Timberwolf

12-31-2007, 10:26 PM

'Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale, and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged.' ~~~ President Abraham Lincoln

Sound like anyone we know???

jayson

12-31-2007, 10:28 PM

btw - if he's SUCH a "non-interventionist", WHY did he vote to go to war back in 2001?

Proves to me that the man will defend our nation when the time calls for it.

Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and needed to be taken out. Ron voted for that.

We ended up fighting a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and occupying it. That's why he wants to end this now before, and God help us if we do, invade Iran.

Remember, non-interventionism doesn't mean throwing your defense out the window... it simply means that we need to be very selective in the fights you choose. Fight the ones that need to be fought and leave these police actions and wars-on-UN-resolutions out of the picture.

Timberwolf

12-31-2007, 10:40 PM

Uh, the times call for it NOW.

As for "throwing defense out the window"...you better think long and hard about "what defense REALLY is", in TODAY'S world.

200 years ago, we had the luxury of being "non-interventionist". In fact, we could likely pull it off today, except for one small problem. The pharking muzzies have been at war with US since 1968. What we're experiencing today is us finally saying, "well, I guess talk is cheap with them...let's go kick their ass and see if they'll stop phuqqing with us."

Wake up to the reality of the world in which we live. The muzzies will NOT stop if we leave the ME...it will only embolden them to bring their holy war to OUR shores AGAIN.

That ain't gonna happen...unless the historically challenged get their way, that is. Remember, EVERY knee shall bow to allah or the head attached to that body will be removed. We stop them now, cuz we may not be able to later. Your choice.

DoctorDoom

12-31-2007, 10:47 PM

Watch the following and tell me you're still gonna vote for Paul ...Compare that with RuPaul's pathetic whining about the "cross" behind Huckabee and calling Christians fascists. Fred is a statesman. RuPaul is a consummate asshole.

Justaguy

01-01-2008, 05:40 AM

I keep saying this and no one listens. Ron Paul isn't an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. Two very different things.

You'll probably not make much head way. I understand the difference and you're right.

There are actual meat heads in this very thread that don't realize that the authority to go into afghanistan does NOT grant authority to go into Iraq. Try not to put too many facts in one post... it only serves to confuse them.

sunsettommy

01-01-2008, 11:07 AM

Just to remind everyone here:

Ron Pauls little wagon will fall apart after a few primaries have come and gone.

The suckers who sent him all that cash for a fringe candidate with some insane views that do not mesh with current reality.Will go away screaming and then peace will come back in the many forums that have had to deal with mental defective Paul fans.

Time is on your side for true relief from irrational mutterings from a dedicated group of Paul zombies.The flood of facts presented in this thread that are quickly ignored or swept aside.Proves that you are dealing with people who simply can't think rationally.

I stayed away from most of the Ron Paul B.S. in many forums for the simple reason.They are not worth it for their second grade thinking.

Justaguy

01-01-2008, 11:34 AM

sunsettommy

01-01-2008, 11:40 AM

You sound like a child with delusions of a Paul and Clinton vote off.

Why are you making a fool of yourself over someone who has no chance of winning the GOP nomination?

It is better to let him go and get back to living in the real world.

Naturalized-Texan

01-01-2008, 12:00 PM

The suckers who sent him all that cash for a fringe candidate with some insane views that do not mesh with current reality.Will go away screaming and then peace will come back in the many forums that have had to deal with mental defective Paul fans.
It's a sure bet that much, if not most, of that cash has come from Ron Paul's leftist hate-America/pro-terrorist buddies like George Soros, MoveOn.org, Code Pink, DailyKos, and probably even the DNC, as a reward for Ron Paul's support of their campaign to surrender to the terrorists.

If it's true that Ron Paul has not participated in the congressional pension program, he will have to use that cash to finance his retirement after the voters of his district send him packing in this year's election. By November, Ron Paul will be retired from public life for good.

The_Elucidator

01-01-2008, 02:18 PM

You'll probably not make much head way. I understand the difference and you're right.

You don't understand jack squat! Saying that there is a difference between being an isolationist vs non-interventionist is like saying there is a differene between getting a cold vs getting the Rhinovirus. :rolleyes:

There are actual meat heads in this very thread that don't realize that the authority to go into afghanistan does NOT grant authority to go into Iraq. Try not to put too many facts in one post... it only serves to confuse them.

Read some of N-T's previous posts on said subject; if they're not over your head...

Naturalized-Texan

01-01-2008, 02:50 PM

Read some of N-T's previous posts on said subject; if they're not over your head...
I'm sure that his reading comprehension is no higher than the 4th grade level, so I'm sure that those posts are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy over his head. I'm also sure that he doesn't comprehend that the word "nations" in the declaration of war, that Ron Paul voted for, is plural and means that it refers to more than one nation; more than just Afghanistan.

jayson

01-01-2008, 03:16 PM

It's a sure bet that much, if not most, of that cash has come from Ron Paul's leftist hate-America/pro-terrorist buddies like George Soros, MoveOn.org, Code Pink, DailyKos, and probably even the DNC, as a reward for Ron Paul's support of their campaign to surrender to the terrorists.

If it's true that Ron Paul has not participated in the congressional pension program, he will have to use that cash to finance his retirement after the voters of his district send him packing in this year's election. By November, Ron Paul will be retired from public life for good.

And you call us delusional! :roar:

Ron stands for everything George Soros, MoveOn.org, Code Pink, DailyKos and the DNC DO NOT stand for, save the war issue. Ron is for smaller government, less taxes, phasing out welfare with something that works, phasing out the many departments (Dept of Education is a big one), abolishing the Fed... etc., etc. They would not donate to him because he is against 99% of what they stand for. You are kidding yourself when you think that all those donors were Soros funded.

As much as it might frighten you to think... Ron Paul supporters are by and large regular people. Not kook fringe, not conspiracy theorists, not rabid liberals... Just regular old conservatives sick and tired of the status quo.

jayson

01-01-2008, 03:19 PM

You don't understand jack squat! Saying that there is a difference between being an isolationist vs non-interventionist is like saying there is a differene between getting a cold vs getting the Rhinovirus.

You think wholly too much in the military realm.

Isolationism means cutting off trade, cutting off travel and cutting off communication.

Non-interventionism means that we should stay the hell out of these civil wars and internal strifes. It only causes us more problems in the end. We need to pick and choose our fights.

Rhino

01-01-2008, 03:48 PM

There is NEVER going to be stability in the region. Or at least, not any more than you can get in any tribal region. You can't impose western ideas on tribal peoples. If we pull out, some sort of stability will come. We may not necessarily like how it settles out, but it will settle out. Once it settles out, then you have a foundation on which to build something.

I think we're adding to the destablilization of region. I can tell you that we've done ourselves no favors in the region being here.There will never be stability in the sense that we have stability here. That much is a given. But there are varying degrees of stability, and we do have a stake in that. And we're not attempting to impose anything on them. The Iraqis wanted democracy too, long before we went in. Well, except for the ones who had a stake in the Hussein regime, of course. I have doubts that it would settle out. But even if it did, much of the damage done to the rest of the world in the interim would be irreparable, and we would suffer greatly as a result.

THEBIRD

01-01-2008, 04:02 PM

But there are varying degrees of stability, and we do have a stake in that.

Why, because the oil needs to keep flowing? If Bush and the republicans had any balls to stand up to the politically correct enviromentalists, then we could drill for our own resources and not worry about stability in the middle east.

But instead, Americans are denied the resources on our own soil and political correctness keeps the president hiding under his desk.

BUSH: "This is a good bill and I'm happy to sign it"
-Bush signing the latest energy bill that had nothing to do with energy.

DoctorDoom

01-01-2008, 04:08 PM

Incredible as it might seem, I'm in full agreement with that. But I still don't support RuPaul.

Rhino

01-01-2008, 04:27 PM

As incredibly much as I'd like to see that, it would be many years before we would be independent. It also would not really help the rest of the world. And yes, like it or not, what affects the rest of the world also affects us.

namvet527

01-01-2008, 05:05 PM

You think wholly too much in the military realm.

Isolationism means cutting off trade, cutting off travel and cutting off communication.

Non-interventionism means that we should stay the hell out of these civil wars and internal strifes. It only causes us more problems in the end. We need to pick and choose our fights.

ISOLATIONISM also means buring your head in the sand & waiting for the enemy to attack us like all the terrorist attacks during the KKKlintoon regime & 911.

The best thing we ever did was go to Iraq. The Iraq war has killed or captured most of the Al Qiada & alot of other terrorists. Iraq war has kept America safe since 911. If anyone does not believe this they are DELUSION & DELIRIOUS.

These people probably thought the military was we lost in Nam. Read the following:

North Vietnamese General-America Lost at Home

How many of you remember the name General Giap from the North Vietnamese army? He was a very famous, knowledgeable general in the North Vietnamese army.

He's published his memoirs and here's a pull quote:

"What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender. It was the same at the battle of Tet. You defeated us. We knew it. We thought you knew it.
But we were elated to notice that your media was definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefield. We were ready to surrender. You had won."

He makes the point the Vietnam War was not lost in Vietnam; it was lost here. That's why I keep telling everybody that the Drive-Bys were trying to do the same thing in Iraq that they did in Vietnam for a host of reasons, not the least of which among them was to reestablish their own ability to influence people into the United States losing a war that the media was opposed to. Scary, scary stuff.

The same goes for over in Iraq except now we have conservative talk radio & other conservative media that spread the TRUTH. I've been saying this ever since before I was in Vietnam.

namvet527

01-01-2008, 05:14 PM

Sooo.... Cancer patience should be denied access to Marijuana to help them with the nausea associated with Chemo. People with degenerative immune system diseases should be locked up for usint it as a pain reliever. The government knows more than your doctor.

The government should be able to take away your property if you choose to use Marijuana as a medicine. Hmmmm.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

Justaguy

01-01-2008, 07:00 PM

But even if it did, much of the damage done to the rest of the world in the interim would be irreparable, and we would suffer greatly as a result.

I don't think we would suffer greatly. I think in Iraq, their focus is on Iraq. They want to get their lives back in order. Obviously, there is great friction between the several groups there, but our presents does nothing to confront that. Whatever solutions come out of Iraq, they will have to be Iraqi solutions.

Frankly, I don't see how us leaving sets the world up for any more damage than has alreadly occurred.

Timberwolf

01-01-2008, 07:02 PM

Why, because the oil needs to keep flowing? If Bush and the republicans had any balls to stand up to the politically correct enviromentalists, then we could drill for our own resources and not worry about stability in the middle east.

But instead, Americans are denied the resources on our own soil and political correctness keeps the president hiding under his desk.
Incredible as it might seem, I'm in full agreement with that. But I still don't support RuPaul.
Ditto that, Doc...

But, Bird...if we begin drilling TODAY, we won't get any of that oil to market for at least 5 years, if not 10.

We need solutions that will take effect TODAY, or we must stay the course in the ME. If that region falls under the control of Imanutjob or some other jihadist, what do you think will happen not only to OUR economy but the WORLD economy?

You're supporting chaos with your support of RP. The sad thing is, you are so short-sighted, you don't even realize it. None of the PaulBots do.

Or maybe you guys DO realize it...if that's the case, y'all need to duck and cover, cuz there's a whole world of hurt gonna come down on ya.