anyone for Ron Paul 2008? discuss...

[2003SSVT]

I think the 2008 presidential election will be very interesting, what do you think?

[Slowhand]

I am a supporter of ron paul (sig check). i still don't like the way that he's handled himself on the war in iraq, but aside from that, I can't really find much I don't like about his views. He's the most voteable of the Republican candidates imo, I just think most people don't really know of him.

His biggest failure running on a Republican ticket is his foreign policy; I don't really agree with it too much. However, moderate dems and undecideds are much more likely to vote for him than any other republican candidate in the race, simply because of Iraq alone.

I'm just not sure that any of the other Republican candidates can win this race. Thompson could have (and should have) taken this election by storm, but he's just sat and played with his dick instead.

Look at it this way; Obama is probably going to get the democratic nomination, and I just don't see an uneducated public voting against him for anyone that really wants to finish the job in Iraq. Romney's religious views hurt him with the moderates, Giuliani's flip-flopishness and question record hurt him with everyone, and Huckabee's extravagance hurt his.

But I could be completely wrong.

[01WhiteCobra]

Ron Paul... everything but the fact he doesn't have a forgien policy bone in his body.

I disagree and I'm calling, early, Hillary as the democrap candidate.

Huckabee is coming on really strong with the Republicants but its too early to tell over there. Republicants are in trouble at the moment.

Better make plans for another Clinton in the Whitehouse.

[Slowhand]

Ron Paul... everything but the fact he doesn't have a forgien policy bone in his body.


he's so close to being a perfect candidate, but that's such a big shortcoming with the republican base that it may be too much to overcome.

and with all the troubles that hillary has had lately, it wouldn't surprise me if she didn't get the nomination, which would be terrible, becuase she's our only hope to get a non-socialist into office.

[black01gt]

Ron Paul... everything but the fact he doesn't have a forgien policy bone in his body.

Better make plans for another Clinton in the Whitehouse.
Ron Paul has plans to be very active with foriegn policy. A different approach with foriegn policy doesn't mean there isn't any. Not pissing off the rest of the world might have a good effect. If not, I have no doubt President Paul would actually kick the shit out of anyone asking for it. I really get charged by the fact that he's still as pissed off at Bin Laden et al as I am. That alone is a pretty good switch in "foriegn policy". I think he would first ask Pakistan nicely to give em up...

28 years of Bush -Clinton - Bush - Clinton....my gawd!!! We're gonna have to save ourselves.

[BP]

I just got back from Nevada and you'd think he's the only candidate running by all the ads they are running there. He's got a huge campaign office on Fremont Street, billboards all over the place and all of the popular radio stations keep playing ads.

Mostly talking about cutting government spending to where it was 10 years ago and getting rid of the IRS. Sounds great, just like the kids running for class president offering longer recess, bigger chocolate milks and less homework.

[Trip McNeely]

Sounds great, just like the kids running for class president offering longer recess, bigger chocolate milks and less homework.
LOL I said that same exact thing months ago. Hes the prez for the people of where hes speaking to at that time. Promises he cannot make, just sounds good for the morons that buy it.

[BP]

Fred Thompson will be the GOP candidate. Paul is just running under their ticket so he can get into the debates. After they make it official I can see him switching to the Libertarian party just to make waves at the debates again.

I'd love to see him get 20% of the popular vote, as a Libertarian with all of the fundraising he's done it could happen. I don't see him winning anything though. Eventually the other two parties will read some of Ross Perot's speeches attacking constitutionalist views and will have some great talking points.

[Trip McNeely]

Lets hope so.

[black01gt]

Mostly talking about cutting government spending to where it was 10 years ago and getting rid of the IRS. Sounds great, just like the kids running for class president offering longer recess, bigger chocolate milks and less homework.
So you're not a fan of cutting government spending? It would not be a difficult task for anyone following the presidency of "daddy's boy".

[Fox466]

So you're not a fan of cutting government spending? It would not be a difficult task for anyone following the presidency of "daddy's boy".


If you show me a politician that says he is for cutting gov't spending, I will show you a liar.

[D]

Ron Paul is a tard. He'd be a great president if we weren't at war, but that's the big problem...we are...


This topic has been beaten to death in all of the message boards I'm on, so I'll just leave it at he's a tard and be done.

[Mustangman_2000]

I'm with James on this. Ron Paul has been discussed ad nauseam.

He's certainly intelligent and has some interesting idea's, but he also has some impractical idea's regarding government.

The more I watch Rudy Giuliani, the more I like his overall disposition. I'll take a socially liberal Republican over a hard core leftist like Barrack Obama at this stage in the game.

Ron Paul is not the worst candidate on the slate. I never understand why he gets so much criticism? I think some of it is unjustified.

My 2 cents..............Carry on.

[BP]

So you're not a fan of cutting government spending? It would not be a difficult task for anyone following the presidency of "daddy's boy".

Oh I'm a fan of it but I'm a realist, it isn't gonna happen. Whatever he wants to do has to get through Congress and when you start cutting programs that benefit a Senator's home state they'll vote against it every time.

The first step in cutting spending is always the military, which is cash strapped as it is. An anti war president that want's to cut government spending is the worst possible answer right now. We'll have an instant depression and no jobs available for unemployed veterans coming back from Iraq.

[black01gt]

The first step in cutting spending is always the military, which is cash strapped as it is. An anti war president that want's to cut government spending is the worst possible answer right now. We'll have an instant depression and no jobs available for unemployed veterans coming back from Iraq.
It's pretty sad to see that the Iraqi "war" has defined America. He's not anti-war at all.

[Slowhand]

It's pretty sad to see that the Iraqi "war" has defined America. He's not anti-war at all.

lmao! he's one of the most outspoken critics of the war, are you fucking nuts?

<----ron paul supporter. does not agree with him here.

[black01gt]

lmao! he's one of the most outspoken critics of the war, are you fucking nuts?

<----ron paul supporter. does not agree with him here.
Operative word here being "the" war.

[Paladin]

Operative word here being "the" war.

Yeah, depends upon the meaning of what the word "is" is, or I mean the "the" in that sentence, right?

[01WhiteCobra]

Ron Paul has plans to be very active with foriegn policy. A different approach with foriegn policy doesn't mean there isn't any. Not pissing off the rest of the world might have a good effect. If not, I have no doubt President Paul would actually kick the shit out of anyone asking for it. I really get charged by the fact that he's still as pissed off at Bin Laden et al as I am. That alone is a pretty good switch in "foriegn policy". I think he would first ask Pakistan nicely to give em up...

28 years of Bush -Clinton - Bush - Clinton....my gawd!!! We're gonna have to save ourselves.

Ron Paul's biggest weakness is foreign policy. Some of his policies would downright weaken the US, in my opinion.

Other than that, I like his ideas.

Like I said in another thread if I thought someone like Ron Paul has a snow ball's chance in hell at winning I probably would support.

Ain't gonna happen. We have extremists at all ends of the political spectrum. Ron Paul completes the triangle with the far right and far left. Won't get elected, no way, no how.

Still waiting for the middle of the road candidate that represents the true middle of this country.

[White trash wagon]

Ron Paul's biggest weakness is foreign policy. Some of his policies would downright weaken the US, in my opinion.

Other than that, I like his ideas.

Like I said in another thread if I thought someone like Ron Paul has a snow ball's chance in hell at winning I probably would support.

Ain't gonna happen. We have extremists at all ends of the political spectrum. Ron Paul completes the triangle with the far right and far left. Won't get elected, no way, no how.

Still waiting for the middle of the road candidate that represents the true middle of this country.

I view Ron Paul AS the middle of the road candidate. He's actually a Libertarian, which means fiscal conservative/social liberal.

Scott

[Paladin]

I view Ron Paul AS the middle of the road candidate. He's actually a Libertarian, which means fiscal conservative/social liberal.

Scott

As stated before, he is so anti-war that he has no chance of being elected. Every time I see him being interviewed he looks like he is lost. I think he has no chance of being elected and even less chance of getting anything he advocates accomplished.

I am starting to lean pretty strongly to Thompson. I like what he says, I think he will be conservative, and he will be strong on the War on Terror.

[01WhiteCobra]

I view Ron Paul AS the middle of the road candidate. He's actually a Libertarian, which means fiscal conservative/social liberal.

Scott

Not even close. Again, think of politics as a triangle, not a line from point a to b.

[White trash wagon]

As stated before, he is so anti-war that he has no chance of being elected. Every time I see him being interviewed he looks like he is lost. I think he has no chance of being elected and even less chance of getting anything he advocates accomplished.

I am starting to lean pretty strongly to Thompson. I like what he says, I think he will be conservative, and he will be strong on the War on Terror.

I figured you for a Huckabee supporter. I researched Huckabee & he's GW Bush II in spirit. Big Spender, Evangelical, open borders, pro-Iraq war.

Scott

[Paladin]

I figured you for a Huckabee supporter. I researched Huckabee & he's GW Bush II in spirit. Big Spender, Evangelical, open borders, pro-Iraq war.

Scott

You really need to stop thinking like black01gt that I am some gung ho GW supporter who thinks he can do no wrong. I have expalined it to you time and time again, yet you continue. I expect it from the idiot black01gt, but not from you.

[black01gt]

Not even close. Again, think of politics as a triangle, not a line from point a to b.
So where are you going to find your "middle of the road" candidate in this triangle? The strength of Ron Paul's campaign is moderate republicans and democrats that are convinced they've had no voice during the current administration, with a common goal to rescue this country from the corporate global elite that entails many chronic ailments for us.

I can't imagine why any patriotic and conservative American wouldn't be a staunch Paul supporter. You have youself recently stated that our economic future scares you more than the terrorist situation. I agree. That and being over run on a daily basis by illegal foreigners to me make the terrorist #3 on my list of priorities of concerns because those first two are happening persistantly and absolutly. Dr. Paul has plainly and simply stated how he will address each of these crisis immediately, and it doesn't bode well for the aforementioned global elite. I won't go into his plans but there are tons of google and youtube on it. His historic 30 year voting record is flawlessly unwavering. What other candidate can say that? He'll be impossible to "swift boat" and it wouldn't be wise to try the ole "flip flop" routine either. The other candidate attacks are starting to get amusing...

In this era our national leader cannot represent the global elite and the American Citizens at the same time successfully. I see one candidate and one candidate only making a stand for the American Citizens...all of us.

It seems nowdays that if a president isn't talking about unleashing our Army and invading other countries then he's construed as having no foreign policy. Not so. Dr. Paul is not trapped into Cheney/Bush's "my war my way or no war" mentality. He is still perplexed by the events of Tora Bora as we all should be. That, like mine, was his reluctance to go to Iraq in the first place. We left unfinished business. He has stated that he will "go back" and apprehend Bin Laden and the origional al quaeda network for the safety of America. He didn't bother to thump his chest and proclaim something about "...Dead or Alive" :D Like I said before I think he will ask Pakistan nicely the first time to turn em over...
He's not one for a lot of talk. He's more of a just do what we gotta do guy.

If Ron Paul is not by far the most useful candidate we have then I really don't think we know what we're looking for anymore. And that spells doom, but it's ours to avert.

Keep it simple. Ron Paul 2008

[Slowhand]

I am starting to lean pretty strongly to Thompson. I like what he says, I think he will be conservative, and he will be strong on the War on Terror.

Thompson is the candidate that we (the republican party and American people) need, but he needs to get off his ass. he's hardly a factor in any of the debates, and you rarely hear anything out of him. WAKE UP FRED! Bring some law and order ;) to the race! :D

[01WhiteCobra]

So where are you going to find your "middle of the road" candidate in this triangle? The strength of Ron Paul's campaign is moderate republicans and democrats that are convinced they've had no voice during the current administration, with a common goal to rescue this country from the corporate global elite that entails many chronic ailments for us.

I can't imagine why any patriotic and conservative American wouldn't be a staunch Paul supporter. You have youself recently stated that our economic future scares you more than the terrorist situation. I agree. That and being over run on a daily basis by illegal foreigners to me make the terrorist #3 on my list of priorities of concerns because those first two are happening persistantly and absolutly. Dr. Paul has plainly and simply stated how he will address each of these crisis immediately, and it doesn't bode well for the aforementioned global elite. I won't go into his plans but there are tons of google and youtube on it. His historic 30 year voting record is flawlessly unwavering. What other candidate can say that? He'll be impossible to "swift boat" and it wouldn't be wise to try the ole "flip flop" routine either. The other candidate attacks are starting to get amusing...

In this era our national leader cannot represent the global elite and the American Citizens at the same time successfully. I see one candidate and one candidate only making a stand for the American Citizens...all of us.

It seems nowdays that if a president isn't talking about unleashing our Army and invading other countries then he's construed as having no foreign policy. Not so. Dr. Paul is not trapped into Cheney/Bush's "my war my way or no war" mentality. He is still perplexed by the events of Tora Bora as we all should be. That, like mine, was his reluctance to go to Iraq in the first place. We left unfinished business. He has stated that he will "go back" and apprehend Bin Laden and the origional al quaeda network for the safety of America. He didn't bother to thump his chest and proclaim something about "...Dead or Alive" :D Like I said before I think he will ask Pakistan nicely the first time to turn em over...
He's not one for a lot of talk. He's more of a just do what we gotta do guy.

If Ron Paul is not by far the most useful candidate we have then I really don't think we know what we're looking for anymore. And that spells doom, but it's ours to avert.

Keep it simple. Ron Paul 2008

Did I say I was going to find one?

Ron Paul is not the answer.

I've written on these forums before... I like Ron Paul, all except his suicidal national security policy.

Check out opensecrets.org and check out his top campaign giver. Google. Home of Al Gore. Home of alot of democrat support.

Look up the top donating zip codes outside Texas. You will find liberal areas. The zip codes in San Francisco are also top contributors to Pelosi and Boxer.

As far as economic concerns, I'd rather have the government stay the fuck out of the economy. They screw it up more than they help it. Competiveness doesn't come from the government helping you out.

Again, he has 0 chance of winning the Republican nomination. Hell, he may not have enough support to actually participate in the Iowa debates.

[BP]

It's pretty sad to see that the Iraqi "war" has defined America. He's not anti-war at all.

Well you are correct in that he's not anti war, he just doesn't support the war in Iraq. It's one of the few instances where he doesn't share Fred Thompson's beliefs.

I've completely ruled out Giulani (gun control and pro abortion), Romney (can't make up his mind on abortion and supports gun control), and Huckabee (can't trust former Arkansas governors). Huckabee is also a creationist and doesn't believe in evolution at all. That and he is strongly against medicinal marijuana.

Leaving me with McCain, Thompson, Hunter and Ron Paul. McCain is a little too old in my opinion, he'd probably do an excellent job but I'd hate to see a 79 year old president trying to convince Congress to do something. Hunter is just a plain old cookie cutter conservative, nothing wrong with that but he doesn't give me a reason to vote for him over anyone else. He'll make a great vice president for someone.

Now between Fred Thompson and Ron Paul, that's a tough one. Paul is actually a year older than McCain so that's one strike against him. He's a little extreme in his plans and doesn't come across to me as someone that will negotiate, meaning he won't get anything done and will be gone in 4 years leaving the door wide open for whatever Democrat runs in the 2012 election.

If the election were today Fred Thompson gets my vote. His views and plans nearly mirror Paul's but he comes across to me as someone that can actually get the job done by working with both parties. Paul can't even get along with Republicans!

[black01gt]

Paul can't even get along with Republicans!
Good post.

I know lots of republicans that think highly of Dr. Paul. Big split happening in the republican party. Hell...the republican party can't get along with republicans anymore.

[BP]

Good post.

I know lots of republicans that think highly of Dr. Paul. Big split happening in the republican party. Hell...the republican party can't get along with republicans anymore.

One of his sons is my family doctor and a personal friend so obviously I think very highly of the man. Then again one of my good friends in school is related to
Al Gore and I can't stand the guy. I even visited his mansion while he was still a senator.

We just need a Thompson - Paul ticket and the election might as well be over with.

[black01gt]

One of his sons is my family doctor and a personal friend so obviously I think very highly of the man. Then again one of my good friends in school is related to
Al Gore and I can't stand the guy. I even visited his mansion while he was still a senator.

We just need a Thompson - Paul ticket and the election might as well be over with.
Paul might end up running as an Independent but he won't be running as a VP candidate. Nope. I don't care for Thompson. Too detached and we've had plenty of that.

[Yale]

I really love ron paul, but I have to agree with BP. An entrenched government's perceives its first duty as the preservation of itself, not its citizens. Beyond that, I think he could shut the newsies up on that whole "stormfront" thing by giving $500 out of his campaign fund to the Southern Poverty Law Center, or a comparable charity oriented toward racial integration.

[BP]

Beyond that, I think he could shut the newsies up on that whole "stormfront" thing by giving $500 out of his campaign fund to the Southern Poverty Law Center, or a comparable charity oriented toward racial integration.

It's free publicity, he doesn't want them to shut up. That $500 isn't even a drop in the bucket to his fund raising but it's been worth millions in additional name recognition.

[Paladin]

Paul might end up running as an Independent but he won't be running as a VP candidate. Nope. I don't care for Thompson. Too detached and we've had plenty of that.

Thompson detached? Please explain.

I have seen numerous one on one interviews with him and he nails the issues very well.

[Paladin]

Thompson is the candidate that we (the republican party and American people) need, but he needs to get off his ass. he's hardly a factor in any of the debates, and you rarely hear anything out of him. WAKE UP FRED! Bring some law and order ;) to the race! :D

I would worry except for the fact that a guy named Deam was all but nomintaed by the media well into the primaries 4 years ago and he fell off the map. I think Thompson will be just fine. Hell, Huckabee and Romney are so busy trying to defend media driven controversies that they are not getting their message out.

I have seen a few hints of him making his move near the first primary while watching some interviews he has made recently.

[01WhiteCobra]

Thompson detached? Please explain.

I have seen numerous one on one interviews with him and he nails the issues very well.

Plus the old man bagged a 35 year old wife. What's not to like about him?

[Paladin]

Good post.

I know lots of republicans that think highly of Dr. Paul. Big split happening in the republican party. Hell...the republican party can't get along with republicans anymore.

You have put those goggles back on again. It is only you recent converts to the Republican party that think there is some big split. You Ron Paul supporters are something else.

Have you decided who you will vote for after Paul falls off the map a few primaries in yet?

The Republicans I speak to think Paul is a joke. Thompson, Huckabee, and Romney are the ones who bring the most favorable responses in my circles. I think Guilianni has worn out his name recognition now and will fall of pretty quick, his social views are too much for a real Republican to swallow.

[Paladin]

Plus the old man bagged a 35 year old wife. What's not to like about him?

Damnit, his wife is younger than mine is. :mad:

[black01gt]

The Republicans I speak to think Paul is a joke.
Duly noted. I'll get the word out as soon as possible. :D

[Paladin]

Duly noted. I'll get the word out as soon as possible. :D

LOL, to who?

[01WhiteCobra]

LOL, to who?

All the democraps that have been funding Ron Paul.

[Paladin]

All the democraps that have been funding Ron Paul.

I find it funny that all the very angry Bush hating youth have come to support Paul. I think he is the only candidate that they actually think will pull all troops from every country almost immediately after being elected, which is why they support him so fervently.

I also find it funny that people like black01gt won't admit it is his hatred of Bush and the Iraq war that have made him so fond of Paul. That's just my opinion though, I have a sick sense of humor.

[Goose1]

I like his views also, but i also look at it this way too "Who could do any worse" than Bush has done with this country?

[Paladin]

I like his views also, but i also look at it this way too "Who could do any worse" than Bush has done with this country?

You are the prototypical Paul supporter. LOL

[fast83]

he calls it like it is.thats why hes ignored in the mainstream media.

he also believes in the constitution of the united states of america,unlike most other politicians.

if you think he is alittle quirky,witch he does sound like,hes not.
you need to take the time to hear what hes saying and research what it is hes talking about,you'll learn to respect him for speaking out.


RON PAUL '08 all the way! :D

[black01gt]

I find it funny that all the very angry Bush hating youth have come to support Paul. I think he is the only candidate that they actually think will pull all troops from every country almost immediately after being elected, which is why they support him so fervently.

I also find it funny that people like black01gt won't admit it is his hatred of Bush and the Iraq war that have made him so fond of Paul. That's just my opinion though, I have a sick sense of humor.
I see it more as you're just full of shit. I guess you'll always be hellbent on giving Bush too much credit. This country, including Bush haters like me are going forward. Get over it.

BTW, Paul has never said a damned word about "pulling all the troops from every country almost immediately after being elected." You sound like some Karl Rove understudy bullshit. :D Always with the drama...

[Zarathustra]

How about let's do away with partisan politics? That would be amazing...

[Paladin]

I see it more as you're just full of shit. I guess you'll always be hellbent on giving Bush too much credit. This country, including Bush haters like me are going forward. Get over it.

BTW, Paul has never said a damned word about "pulling all the troops from every country almost immediately after being elected." You sound like some Karl Rove understudy bullshit. :D Always with the drama...

Please interpret his stance that we will not have troops in other countries unless there is a direct threat to our country? Will he leave them in Iraq? Afghanistan? What about all the places we have bases in countries that have never attacked us?

He has taken the stance of only using the miliatry once he has seen a direct threat to our country. Why keep bases in other countries? I have a feeling you know very little about the man you are supporting. Have you seen his interviews on Glen Beck, The View, and all the other shows he goes on? I have.

[Paladin]

How about let's do away with partisan politics? That would be amazing...

The Bush hater speaks about bipartisanship? You are a joke son.

[black01gt]

Please interpret his stance that we will not have troops in other countries unless there is a direct threat to our country? Will he leave them in Iraq? Afghanistan? What about all the places we have bases in countries that have never attacked us?

He has taken the stance of only using the miliatry once he has seen a direct threat to our country. Why keep bases in other countries? I have a feeling you know very little about the man you are supporting. Have you seen his interviews on Glen Beck, The View, and all the other shows he goes on? I have.
Do your own interpretations...like you wouldn't anyway. :rolleyes:

No he will not leave troops in Iraq. I don't think he'll even leave bases there. But I think you knew that already. He recognizes like most of the rest of us that a somehow perfect democracy provided to Iraq tomorrow would be fucked up beyond recognition in a week. That's a lot of American lives and money for blue sky. But hey...it ain't your life or limbs, right?

Yes he will leave troops in Afganistan. In fact he will strengthen our presence in Afgan/Pakistan which is where he feels the authentic terrorist are "hiding" (and I use that term loosly).

I haven't heard him mention closing any bases elsewhere abroad and neither have you.

Nice try but he has taken the stance of abiding by the Constitution and declaring war only when being threatened by another country warrants it. And then without hesitation and full bore. There's a big difference in going to war with a purpose other than generating rediculously large wealth for "the group".

I have more than a feeling that you know very little about the man you keep trying to trash because he's never been a Bush loyalist, and you're right...it does make him a few extra points with me. Sue me.

No, I have not seen his interviews on The View. :rolleyes: I don't watch The View. Isn't it pretty much a housewifes show? I'm at work at that time.

But I have seen him own a couple of right wing "showtime blowhards" and they were too stupid to know it or too embedded in their neo-con cause and TV ratings to admit it.

Amongst all the sideshows and discussion about the competion for who's the best Christian or the most proper religion, Dr. Paul is eager to discuss the most pertinent issues like our economic future, the immigration crisis, the healthcare crisis, actual terrorist control, and many others. Soon same sex marriage will be the front line issue once again like our future well being depends more on whether Frank and Fred can be married, than having to sit and watch our country be taken away from us.

LMAO.......The View... :D

[Paladin]

Do your own interpretations...like you wouldn't anyway. :rolleyes:

No he will not leave troops in Iraq. I don't think he'll even leave bases there. But I think you knew that already. He recognizes like most of the rest of us that a somehow perfect democracy provided to Iraq tomorrow would be fucked up beyond recognition in a week. That's a lot of American lives and money for blue sky. But hey...it ain't your life or limbs, right?

Yes he will leave troops in Afganistan. In fact he will strengthen our presence in Afgan/Pakistan which is where he feels the authentic terrorist are "hiding" (and I use that term loosly).

I haven't heard him mention closing any bases elsewhere abroad and neither have you.

Nice try but he has taken the stance of abiding by the Constitution and declaring war only when being threatened by another country warrants it. And then without hesitation and full bore. There's a big difference in going to war with a purpose other than generating rediculously large wealth for "the group".

I have more than a feeling that you know very little about the man you keep trying to trash because he's never been a Bush loyalist, and you're right...it does make him a few extra points with me. Sue me.

No, I have not seen his interviews on The View. :rolleyes: I don't watch The View. Isn't it pretty much a housewifes show? I'm at work at that time.

But I have seen him own a couple of right wing "showtime blowhards" and they were too stupid to know it or too embedded in their neo-con cause and TV ratings to admit it.

Amongst all the sideshows and discussion about the competion for who's the best Christian or the most proper religion, Dr. Paul is eager to discuss the most pertinent issues like our economic future, the immigration crisis, the healthcare crisis, actual terrorist control, and many others. Soon same sex marriage will be the front line issue once again like our future well being depends more on whether Frank and Fred can be married, than having to sit and watch our country be taken away from us.

LMAO.......The View... :D

I was trying to point out that I have seen Paul being interviewed by shows that were liberal and ones that were not, I am surprised you missed that point. :rolleyes:

If I had not mentioned I had seen him being interviewed, you would have used that against me to try and say I didn't know much about thim. I take the wind out of that sail and you attack a show I only watch when they have someone on that I want to see, like O'Reilly or Paul. I am shocked you do that even though it shows your anger once again. :rolleyes: You are one frustrated and angry little guy, that is for sure.


I also find it funny that I have apparently seen some of the same interviews you have and I see a guy who is lost and appears out of touch, yet you see a guy who got the best of the interviewers even though some of the shows even had liberal Democratic and Republican commentators laughing at him. It seems like those Bush hating goggles also shield you from the truth about Paul. I am shocked!

I guess if you go to his website and believe it, then the interviews showing him in person wouldn't mean much, right? Why should you actually watch him perform under pressure when you can read something from the internet? I thought most people distrusted things on the net and made informed decisions based on fact and personal obervation. I guess I am old school in that regard. LOL

[black01gt]

:rolleyes: You are one frustrated and angry little guy, that is for sure.

I am shocked!

Why should you actually watch him perform under pressure when you can read something from the internet? LOL
Now there you go calling me "little" again. :D

You're always shocked.

"...watch him perform.."? What the fuck...

As far as trusting the internet over Fox...yep.

[Paladin]

Now there you go calling me "little" again. :D

You're always shocked.

"...watch him perform.."? What the fuck...

As far as trusting the internet over Fox...yep.

I never said I saw him on Fox only. Selective reading, it serves those with their heads in the sand well. LOL

You wouldn't understand the difference between a live interview as opposed to reading a website? Call it performance, call it whatever you want, I will trust his interviews, not his website.

BTW, please be on notice my "shocking" comments are meant to mock you. LOL

[black01gt]

You wouldn't understand the difference between a live interview as opposed to reading a website? Call it performance, call it whatever you want, I will trust his interviews, not his website.


Obviously you don't trust anything about Ron Paul. It's a shame about your short sightedness but not surprising.
But anyway, I have seen dozens of live interviews with Ron Paul...usually twice. Just about everything you've seen him do on live TV or radio ends up on youtube which is just a simple replay of the interview. There's nothing to have to trust or unspin. Go ahead and watch unless you just want to see someone "perform" the hustling your vote routine. I mainly go onto his website only to contribute money to his campaign. I read his stance on the issues a long time ago. They don't change, like the other candidate's weekly adjustments. LMAO at them jumping on his illegal immigration stated policy of it won't continue under his watch.

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

* Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

* Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

* No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

* No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

* End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.

* Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

PAUL/POWELL 2008

[Paladin]

Obviously you don't trust anything about Ron Paul. It's a shame about your short sightedness but not surprising.
But anyway, I have seen dozens of live interviews with Ron Paul...usually twice. Just about everything you've seen him do on live TV or radio ends up on youtube which is just a simple replay of the interview. There's nothing to have to trust or unspin. Go ahead and watch unless you just want to see someone "perform" the hustling your vote routine. I mainly go onto his website only to contribute money to his campaign. I read his stance on the issues a long time ago. They don't change, like the other candidate's weekly adjustments. LMAO at them jumping on his illegal immigration stated policy of it won't continue under his watch.

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

* Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

* Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

* No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

* No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

* End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.

* Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

PAUL/POWELL 2008

I don't have a major issue with any of your proposals. The only problem I have is that Paul has no chance of getting any of that passed or enacted if he got elected IMO. You are right, I don't trust or like Ron Paul as a person.

I haven't checked his record, but what has he accomplished while he has been in Congress? I have lived in Texas most of my life and I had never heard of the guy. Surely as long as he has been in Congress he has done something, right? If not, it just supports my opinion that he will not or cannot get anything accomplished.

There is a big difference in talking a good game about what you will do, but another to have actually followed through and gotten some of it done. I am sure your trust in him is partly based upon his accomplishments and not just his website and his promises about what he would like to do, right?

[black01gt]

I don't have a major issue with any of your proposals. The only problem I have is that Paul has no chance of getting any of that passed or enacted if he got elected IMO. You are right, I don't trust or like Ron Paul as a person.

I haven't checked his record, but what has he accomplished while he has been in Congress? I have lived in Texas most of my life and I had never heard of the guy. Surely as long as he has been in Congress he has done something, right? If not, it just supports my opinion that he will not or cannot get anything accomplished.

There is a big difference in talking a good game about what you will do, but another to have actually followed through and gotten some of it done. I am sure your trust in him is partly based upon his accomplishments and not just his website and his promises about what he would like to do, right?
Ah come on. You know you don't like him because you didn't like his "performance" on The View. :D

"The only problem I have is that Paul has no chance of getting any of that passed or enacted if he got elected IMO." Why is that? Thanks to Dubya he'll have a lot of executive power when in office, and with 80% public approval of his immigration proposals and corporate power put back in it's place I don't see a problem.

But seriously. He's not made any earth shattering front page worthy :rolleyes: noise during his political career. But he has an unwavering voting history which you admittedly have not bothered to look at, while not giving up his honor, integrity, or sworn oath to uphold The Constitution of The United States of America. I know that thesedays where too many people vote for someone simply because of their looks that's not much...until you think about it.

BTW, you say "I haven't checked his record..." and you obviously don't know anything about his message or platform. Are you always so opposed to someone you know nothing about? And why? Do you still need the Fox News and Karl Rove to tell you who to vote for?

[Paladin]

Ah come on. You know you don't like him because you didn't like his "performance" on The View. :D

But seriously. He's not made any earth shattering front page worthy :rolleyes: noise during his political career. But he has an unwavering voting history which you admittedly have not bothered to look at, while not giving up his honor, integrity, or sworn oath to uphold The Constitution of The United States of America. I know that thesedays where too many people vote for someone simply because of their looks that's not much...until you think about it.

BTW, you say "I haven't checked his record..." and you obviously don't know anything about his message or platform. Are you always so opposed to someone you know nothing about? And why? Do you still need the Fox News and Karl Rove to tell you who to vote for?


I know about his position from his website, I have visited it a few times. I also have seen him on lots of shows being interviewed.

You admitted he has done little since he has been in Congress, why should I go verify it? I say past performance is a great indicator of future performance.

[black01gt]

You admitted he has done little since he has been in Congress, why should I go verify it? I say past performance is a great indicator of future performance.
What part of his voting history do you have a problem with?

[Paladin]

What part of his voting history do you have a problem with?

You said he has not done much while in Congress, not me. I never mentioned his voting record. Although I do consider just showing up and voting to be the minimum, not anything to crow about.

Please read before you respond. LOL

[black01gt]

Although I do consider just showing up and voting to be the minimum, not anything to crow about.


Fair enough. Who do you support? What is their political experience in the federal government arena? And what have they done for the good of the USA?

[Paladin]

Fair enough. Who do you support? What is their political experience in the federal government arena? And what have they done for the good of the USA?

I have not fully decided yet, it is too early to decide IMO.

[black01gt]

I have not fully decided yet, it is too early to decide IMO.
When you do, let's re-visit this sentence ----> "I say past performance is a great indicator of future performance."

[Paladin]

When you do, let's re-visit this sentence ----> "I say past performance is a great indicator of future performance."

As long as you concede that Paul has done very little during his time in Congress and you have decided to vote for him anyway, why would you want to go there? :confused:

[black01gt]

As long as you concede that Paul has done very little during his time in Congress and you have decided to vote for him anyway, why would you want to go there? :confused:
Why would you not want to go there?

He's kept a clean record, his honor, his integrity, an excellent understanding the economic dangers of the current trend, made valient efforts to preserve The Constitution and soverignty of our country, remained a TRUE CONSERVATIVE, and well represented his district of constituants for 10 terms. What is it that you think Republican Congressman Paul should have done? Maybe he should have given up the aforementioned rare traits for large money favors, then he would be a "real and acceptable politician" to you just like the others, huh?

[5.0_CJ]

Ron Paul doesnt have a snowballs chance in hell of getting the nomination. Why are we even discussing him?

[black01gt]

Ron Paul doesnt have a snowballs chance in hell of getting the nomination. Why are we even discussing him?
Either he runs on the republican ticket or he runs on a third party ticket and good luck with the pre-sold out women or very inexperienced black man as your new president.

That's why.

[mikeb]

Nice try but he has taken the stance of abiding by the Constitution and declaring war only when being threatened by another country warrants it. And then without hesitation and full bore. There's a big difference in going to war with a purpose other than generating rediculously large wealth for "the group".


Here is the problem with that - which country declared war on us on 9/11?

It wasn't a country; rather it was a radical group operating out of several countries, apparently including our own.

It is a new era, and requires a new style of "warfare". We are fighting shadowy groups that do not align with a country, do not wear uniforms, do not adhere to the geneva convention, and basically will stop at nothing to achieve their goals.

Waiting for another country to declare war on us - not gonna happen. They don't fight fair. And it will be suicide if we wait around instead of trying to root out the evil at it's source.

[black01gt]

Here is the problem with that - which country declared war on us on 9/11?

It wasn't a country; rather it was a radical group operating out of several countries, apparently including our own.


That's a very good point. So why are we spending all of our marbles on Iraq?

[mikeb]

That's a very good point. So why are we spending all of our marbles on Iraq?

*sigh*....

this has been hashed over many times before. Decisions were made on what turned out to be questionable intel about what iraq had "in stock". Saddam himself admitted that he was bullshitting about what he had on hand to keep iran at bay. That plus saddam's thumbing of any number of UN resolutions = necessary invasion. Denny was there and says that bad stuff was found; saddam was not supposed to have any of that stuff.

Personally, I think the world is a better place without saddam and his bloody sons. And there has been a significant thinning of terrorists because of activities in iraq (the terrorists came because we built it). Not to mention an exposure of iran's hand in mideast meddling. Iraq gives us a base of operations in the middle east; my personal opinion is that we should build the shit out of military bases there, and keep the pressure on with no apologies.

Remember, the element that they all have in common is radical islam. Doesn't matter if it is afganhistan, iraq, or iran (?) - they all want to kill us and erase the western way of life. Keep that in mind.

[Paladin]

Why would you not want to go there?

He's kept a clean record, his honor, his integrity, an excellent understanding the economic dangers of the current trend, made valient efforts to preserve The Constitution and soverignty of our country, remained a TRUE CONSERVATIVE, and well represented his district of constituants for 10 terms. What is it that you think Republican Congressman Paul should have done? Maybe he should have given up the aforementioned rare traits for large money favors, then he would be a "real and acceptable politician" to you just like the others, huh?

Were you not reading a few posts ago when I got you to admit he had done very little except show up to vote? He did the MINIMUM, and you admitted it. That is why it would be stupid for you to go after any candidate I choose, since even if they are both at the minimum, you have nothing to counter with.

BTW, I have mentioned my top 3, how do they compare to Paul? :D

[Paladin]

Here is the problem with that - which country declared war on us on 9/11?

It wasn't a country; rather it was a radical group operating out of several countries, apparently including our own.

It is a new era, and requires a new style of "warfare". We are fighting shadowy groups that do not align with a country, do not wear uniforms, do not adhere to the geneva convention, and basically will stop at nothing to achieve their goals.

Waiting for another country to declare war on us - not gonna happen. They don't fight fair. And it will be suicide if we wait around instead of trying to root out the evil at it's source.

black01gt will never undertsand this, it goes right over his head. I have always thought he was a liberal, because they sure don't understand it. Now it may just be that he is not smart enough to undertand it, since he seems to have converted to conservatism, although he did choose an anti-war conservative. :cool:

[black01gt]

Were you not reading a few posts ago when I got you to admit he had done very little except show up to vote?
You "got me to admit...."? :D That's rich. You really are a legend in your own mind aren't you? Yep...you really smacked me with that one you crafty devil. ;)

"Fool me once...uh...fool me twice..uh..well ya can't fool me again!!!" :D :D :D

[black01gt]

BTW, I have mentioned my top 3, how do they compare to Paul? :D
Well as long as they keep stealing from his platform...pretty close. :rolleyes: Next thing you know they'll be talking about protecting our borders and coast.

Huckabee campaigning for 23% sales tax

Political suicide? Quite the opposite for the GOP White House hopeful -- so far. But many call the plan for a national levy 'crackpot' (even if it would shut down the IRS).

http://www.latimes.com/la-na-salestax24dec24,0,5286232.story?coll=la-home-center

[Paladin]

Well as long as they keep stealing from his platform...pretty close. :rolleyes: Next thing you know they'll be talking about protecting our borders and coast.

Huckabee campaigning for 23% sales tax

Political suicide? Quite the opposite for the GOP White House hopeful -- so far. But many call the plan for a national levy 'crackpot' (even if it would shut down the IRS).

http://www.latimes.com/la-na-salestax24dec24,0,5286232.story?coll=la-home-center

They are anti-war, will be weak on terrror, and have a defeatist foreign policy?

[black01gt]

They are anti-war, will be weak on terrror, and have a defeatist foreign policy?
If you've read these last couple of posts correctly then why the hell are you supporting em?

How bout a Christmas truce?

MERRY CHRISTMAS ya cantankerous turd! :D

[Paladin]

If you've read these last couple of posts correctly then why the hell are you supporting em?

How bout a Christmas truce?

MERRY CHRISTMAS ya cantankerous turd! :D

You said they (Huckabee, Romney, Thompson) were stealing from Pauls platform, and I asked if they were all anti-war, weak on terror, and had a defeatist foreign policy like Paul does. You didn't answer me.

BTW, I hope you had a Merry Christmas, I sure did. Especially after I got home from work.

[black01gt]

You said they (Huckabee, Romney, Thompson) were stealing from Pauls platform, and I asked if they were all anti-war, weak on terror, and had a defeatist foreign policy like Paul does. You didn't answer me.


Oops, I didn't notice the "?". Too much Christmas cheer.

You have nothing to base the facts that Paul is anti-war, weak on terror, or has a defeatist foriegn policy on.

But they're finally producing some "tougher" talk on the border situation, and I now notice Huckabee has some new stances on taxes. I posted a link to that effect.

[Mustangman_2000]

Hello

[Paladin]

Oops, I didn't notice the "?". Too much Christmas cheer.

You have nothing to base the facts that Paul is anti-war, weak on terror, or has a defeatist foriegn policy on.

But they're finally producing some "tougher" talk on the border situation, and I now notice Huckabee has some new stances on taxes. I posted a link to that effect.

So how do you defend someone who says an immediate pull out of Iraq is anti-war? How do you defend the people in this thread who also say his foreign policy will be defeatist or at least detrimental to the county? How is he going to be strong on terror if he pulls our troops out of the country where we are currently defeating the same terrorists who attacked us on 9/11?

[black01gt]

Notch sez:
So how do you defend someone who says an immediate pull out of Iraq is anti-war?

I don't. It's not true.

Notch again:
How do you defend the people in this thread who also say his foreign policy will be defeatist or at least detrimental to the county?

I don't. Ain't buyin it.

Still Notch:
How is he going to be strong on terror if he pulls our troops out of the country where we are currently defeating the same terrorists who attacked us on 9/11?

By going back to :rolleyes: Pakistan/Afganistan and "defeating the same terrorist who attacked us on 9/11". Jeeez..You're a slow one to snap out of it.
Say three times...Bush lied...Bush lied...Bush lied because Cheney made him. Anything yet?

[Paladin]

Notch sez:
So how do you defend someone who says an immediate pull out of Iraq is anti-war?

I don't. It's not true.

Notch again:
How do you defend the people in this thread who also say his foreign policy will be defeatist or at least detrimental to the county?

I don't. Ain't buyin it.

Still Notch:
How is he going to be strong on terror if he pulls our troops out of the country where we are currently defeating the same terrorists who attacked us on 9/11?

By going back to :rolleyes: Pakistan/Afganistan and "defeating the same terrorist who attacked us on 9/11". Jeeez..You're a slow one to snap out of it.
Say three times...Bush lied...Bush lied...Bush lied because Cheney made him. Anything yet?

LOL, still on Bush lying even though it has been shown time and time again that Clinton and most other foreign leaders and their intel units thought he had WMD's, and in fact he did. Denny saw them.

You are a broken record, that is blinded by your hatred and anger

BTW, the terrorists who attacked us are in Iraq right now, today. Why pull out?.

[01WhiteCobra]

Notch again:
How do you defend the people in this thread who also say his foreign policy will be defeatist or at least detrimental to the county?

I don't. Ain't buyin it.



Dude, you cannot unwind 90 years of interventionalism in a Presidential term. This is what makes his ideas dangerous.

Bottom line, his foreign policy is wonderful... for the US about 150 years ago.

Paul wants the Jeffersonian ideals of the US garnering support and goodwill from all foreign nations yet wants to do things like ignoring the UN and withdrawing from NATO which would damage relationships with foreign governments.

Before I start hearing about my "support" for the UN I don't have any at the moment. But I do believe destroying our relationship would be very detrimental to this country. A call for reform would be much better.

Go to his foreign policy page on his site. He starts his policy with "The Iraq War was wrong." Nice way to define a Presidential candidate's foreign policy platform and a page stolen from the page book of MoveOn.org.

Dr. Paul's immature and childish foreign policy platform is the reason I stopped looking at him as a serious candidate for President.

[black01gt]

LOL, still on Bush lying even though it has been shown time and time again that Clinton and most other foreign leaders and their intel units thought he had WMD's, and in fact he did. Denny saw them.

You are a broken record, that is blinded by your hatred and anger

BTW, the terrorists who attacked us are in Iraq right now, today. Why pull out?.
So because many people believed what the leader of the western world told them, that's proof that he wasn't lying? That's pretty gullible and naive logic. If "in fact he did" have wmd, what's that cover up about? :confused: Any ideas why Bush wouldn't be crowing about the find?
I've seen Denny's pics and I still think they are left overs from what we supplied them during the 80's and about as harmful as the vintage migs buried in the sand.

Technically, the terrorist from Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia that attacked us died on planes. THERE WERE NO TERRORIST IN IRAQ AT THAT TIME. They were, and still are, in the Pakistan/Afganistan border region where we had em by the nads in a very economic and successful use of our military might. But then "Super CEO Cheney" decided...

I think the broken record is you.

[black01gt]

Paul wants the Jeffersonian ideals of the US garnering support and goodwill from all foreign nations yet wants to do things like ignoring the UN and withdrawing from NATO which would damage relationships with foreign governments.

Go to his foreign policy page on his site. He starts his policy with "The Iraq War was wrong." Nice way to define a Presidential candidate's foreign policy platform and a page stolen from the page book of MoveOn.org.

Dr. Paul's immature and childish foreign policy platform is the reason I stopped looking at him as a serious candidate for President.
Like Bush hasn't completely ignored the UN, but now it's suddenly not good to do so? I have never noticed much support of the UN on this board.

I don't see where stating what 70% of the American population believes is a bad way to define his presidency, for a change. Do you really think he subscribes to MoveOn? :D He's the most conservative candidate running.

Support whomever you want. I am. With cash.

[01WhiteCobra]

Like Bush hasn't completely ignored the UN, but now it's suddenly not good to do so? I have never noticed much support of the UN on this board.

I don't see where stating what 70% of the American population believes is a bad way to define his presidency, for a change. Do you really think he subscribes to MoveOn? :D He's the most conservative candidate running.

Support whomever you want. I am. With cash.

Oes Noes! Black01gt is using his cash now! Huckabee and Guliani are screaming mercy!

Throw your good money after bad. No skin off my back. Lets me make fun of you after he has to drop out.

Again, I didn't say I supported the UN or NATO. But you also can't talk out of both sides of your mouth. You can say you support good will between industrialized nations and then unilaterally pull your support from two organizations supported by the majority of the industrialized nations.

Like I said, I'm not ready to go back to the 19th century.

Does he subscribe to MoveOn.org? Where the fuck did I say that? I said he is using their tactics. He also is trying to pull those people over to him with his foreign policy page by starting with the Iraq war was wrong. Here is someone that you want to trust with this country as President and he starts off his foreign policy page with something akin to a 3rd grade debate.

It's actually not a bad tactic. He'll receive support from people like you, rapid support, because the majority of people in America don't think.

http://images.cafepress.com/product/178293209v4_240x240_Front.jpg

[BP]

Paul could be the next Ross Perot if he runs as an independent. Meaning Hillary will be our next president since Paul will take 15-20% of the popular vote, just enough for the GOP to lose again. It worked for her husband and it'll work for her.

[Denny]

So because many people believed what the leader of the western world told them, that's proof that he wasn't lying? That's pretty gullible and naive logic. If "in fact he did" have wmd, what's that cover up about? :confused: Any ideas why Bush wouldn't be crowing about the find?
I've seen Denny's pics and I still think they are left overs from what we supplied them during the 80's and about as harmful as the vintage migs buried in the sand.

Technically, the terrorist from Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia that attacked us died on planes. THERE WERE NO TERRORIST IN IRAQ AT THAT TIME. They were, and still are, in the Pakistan/Afganistan border region where we had em by the nads in a very economic and successful use of our military might. But then "Super CEO Cheney" decided...

I think the broken record is you.
I thought it was just a river in Egypt! :confused:

[black01gt]

Paul could be the next Ross Perot if he runs as an independent. Meaning Hillary will be our next president since Paul will take 15-20% of the popular vote, just enough for the GOP to lose again. It worked for her husband and it'll work for her.
1) Ross Perot pussed out.

2) She's already sold out to the status quo corporate control, and will develop an even more dependent population so, what's the problem? (sarcasm)

3) I'll say it again. If the fucking repubs had done their job we ain't having this discussion. That's not to say they didn't do an excellent job for some of the folks who put them in place, but there are many more of us non-billionaires and we're voting this time. Ah democracy. It's a thing of beauty.

It's good to see the good doc stirring some shit up. He suddenly has Huckabee wanting to get rid of the IRS. Next they'll be talking about immigration control instead of who's the "best" Christian with the "most proper" religion. :D

[black01gt]

the majority of people in America don't think.


At least we agree on something.

[Paladin]

Oes Noes! Black01gt is using his cash now! Huckabee and Guliani are screaming mercy!

Throw your good money after bad. No skin off my back. Lets me make fun of you after he has to drop out.

Again, I didn't say I supported the UN or NATO. But you also can't talk out of both sides of your mouth. You can say you support good will between industrialized nations and then unilaterally pull your support from two organizations supported by the majority of the industrialized nations.

Like I said, I'm not ready to go back to the 19th century.

Does he subscribe to MoveOn.org? Where the fuck did I say that? I said he is using their tactics. He also is trying to pull those people over to him with his foreign policy page by starting with the Iraq war was wrong. Here is someone that you want to trust with this country as President and he starts off his foreign policy page with something akin to a 3rd grade debate.

It's actually not a bad tactic. He'll receive support from people like you, rapid support, because the majority of people in America don't think.

http://images.cafepress.com/product/178293209v4_240x240_Front.jpg

I was beginning to think it was only my posts he twisted, manipulated, and cherry picked his answers to. LOL

[Paladin]

Paul could be the next Ross Perot if he runs as an independent. Meaning Hillary will be our next president since Paul will take 15-20% of the popular vote, just enough for the GOP to lose again. It worked for her husband and it'll work for her.

The difference is that Perot had some pretty serious adults backing him. It seems like the people who are supporting Paul are people who have never voted before or people who think this country is evil and does no good. I doubt either group will vote in large numbers.

[Denny]

The difference is that Perot had some pretty serious adults backing him. It seems like the people who are supporting Paul are people who have never voted before or people who think this country is evil and does no good. I doubt either group will vote in large numbers.
There's too many people voting against someone, rather than for someone to really tell.

[black01gt]

The difference is that Perot had some pretty serious adults backing him. It seems like the people who are supporting Paul are people who have never voted before or people who think this country is evil and does no good. I doubt either group will vote in large numbers.
Yeah. You're right as always. Get comfortable. ;)

[Paladin]

Yeah. You're right as always. Get comfortable. ;)

Please show me some poll, since you are so fond of them, that showed the college age kids or the America-hating idiots voting in large numbers.

BTW, I am referring to people who actually voted, not those who say they will vote.

[Zarathustra]

Denny was there and says that bad stuff was found; saddam was not supposed to have any of that stuff.




You can NOT be serious...

[Zarathustra]

Please show me some poll, since you are so fond of them, that showed the college age kids or the America-hating idiots voting in large numbers.

BTW, I am referring to people who actually voted, not those who say they will vote.

(Red Herring)

[Denny]

You can NOT be serious...
Do you have anything stating better information than what I delivered?

[Zarathustra]

Do you have anything stating better information than what I delivered?

I can't answer that, as I never absorbed any information stated by you about any WMD findings you experienced.
Some questions I have for you regarding such claims...

What did you 'find' in Iraq?

Why wasn't the finding widely publicized and brought out into the open for everyone to see?

What "exclusive" information do you have that leads you to believe that what you saw were ACTUALLY weapons of mass destruction.

I'm sure you have a theory about why it was suppressed, or why it was covered up.

Very anxious to hear it...

[Denny]

I can't answer that, as I never absorbed any information stated by you about any WMD findings you experienced.
Some questions I have for you regarding such claims...

What did you 'find' in Iraq?

Why wasn't the finding widely publicized and brought out into the open for everyone to see?

What "exclusive" information do you have that leads you to believe that what you saw were ACTUALLY weapons of mass destruction.

I'm sure you have a theory about why it was suppressed, or why it was covered up.

Very anxious to hear it...
Believe it or not, I do not have information why my reports didn't go any further than where I submitted them to. It actually baffles me. My guesses could only be that the things I did handle could also be considered "industrial chemicals," but it could not be the case for where they were located and the quantities of the chemicals. A few specific chemicals had no industrial use, though. The list of chemicals included ethylene dichloride, dimethyl sulfate, chlorine gas, and red mercury. Tell me why a base in the middle of the western Iraqi desert needs any of that.

[Zarathustra]

Oh ok, so you didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. I was under the impression you found a secret stockpile of chemical of biological weapons. Was there laws, international or otherwise in place that prevented Iraq or Saddam in particular from handling or storing these chemicals. And what does the topographical position have anything to do with chemical volatility or lawfulness of possession of chemicals in general?. In all likelihood, the chemicals you found were not being used for the greater good of Iraq or its people, but that doesn't mean it was illegal or even that big of a deal; and apparently, it wasn't.

So pull out the significance for me...

[black01gt]

Was there laws, international or otherwise in place that prevented Iraq or Saddam in particular from handling or storing these chemicals. ...
I think he was forbidden to have anything stronger than Comet Cleanser on hand. But I could be wrong.

[Zarathustra]

By whom?

[black01gt]

By whom?
The UN. I'm not arguing about it cause I don't know that much about the sanctions and I ain't reshearching it.

If that's where you're headed.

[Zarathustra]

Not necessarily, just proddin' ya...

Who knows? maybe Joe Wilson.....?

[Denny]

Oh ok, so you didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. I was under the impression you found a secret stockpile of chemical of biological weapons. Was there laws, international or otherwise in place that prevented Iraq or Saddam in particular from handling or storing these chemicals. And what does the topographical position have anything to do with chemical volatility or lawfulness of possession of chemicals in general?. In all likelihood, the chemicals you found were not being used for the greater good of Iraq or its people, but that doesn't mean it was illegal or even that big of a deal; and apparently, it wasn't.

So pull out the significance for me...
Oh, fuck me! We have another two-bit lawyer for terrorists!

Look, bro... you obvoiusly don't know the chemical properties of the chemicals I posted. You obviously don't understand the size cashe that was there to make it obvious it wasn't there for its industrial purpose. You obviously didn't take the time to look back at our past discussions that I fully explained every detail of what was going on when it was going on. You obviously don't care to get the facts before you spew this horseshit coming from your keyboard, only to post a protest, rather than have a legitimate discussion or rebuttal. You obviously don't have the mental capacity to rationalize anything other than what you want to believe, so arguing with you is about as pointless as you procreating. You're always screaming for everyone else to do the research on topics to prove you wrong. We already have and if you're too lazy to go back and look it up, then that's nobody's fault but your own.

[Zarathustra]

I don't care about your findings, sir. As to most people, they and you are expendable. There's a reason your findings didn't make it to the state department because you're not credible, obviously.

Rationalized thought is one of my strong suits, but you continually prove to me that you are most incapable of comprehending viewpoints or ideals other than your own. Yet you've the nerve to tell me I don't? You're the fucking christian going to fight the Jihad for the good guys, Denny the Crusader...


A lawyer for terrorists?

I think you're the terrorist, sir.

You possess all the characteristics that they do, only you're for the opposite side. The only think that makes them the bad guys, is 9/11. Elitist factions in our government executed those attacks on our own people for that very reason. Give it some thought... If you can.

[Paladin]

I think he was forbidden to have anything stronger than Comet Cleanser on hand. But I could be wrong.

It is very telling that you find common ground with idiots like Zarethra.

[black01gt]

I don't care about your findings, sir. As to most people, they and you are expendable.
Yeah yeah yeah...blah blah blah....when do we get the 72 virgins?

[black01gt]

It is very telling that you find common ground with idiots like Zarethra.
What pray tell "common ground" is that?

[Paladin]

What pray tell "common ground" is that?

The fact that you and him seem to bond and agree in posting back and forth. You are one silly guy! LOL

[Zarathustra]

The fact that you and him seem to bond and agree in posting back and forth. You are one silly guy! LOL


Silly guy, huh?

Why are you so repulsed/intimidated by me? What have I done to you, sir?

[Paladin]

Silly guy, huh?

Why are you so repulsed/intimidated by me? What have I done to you, sir?

You are an idiot. I always seek them out and make fun of them, you are just another in a long line of them to come to this site.

[black01gt]

The fact that you and him seem to bond and agree in posting back and forth. You are one silly guy! LOL
More detective work Barney? When you post some outlandish bullshit do you actually expect it to be taken seriously? Please show me where I've "bonded" with Zarathustra (WTF is with that name? I know who he was but..). Please show me where I've "agreed" with him. I've replied to three posts of his and they are in this thread. Two to answer a question, and one to make fun of his "overdone philosophical language".

You're obviously always trigger happy for me, but why completely show your ass with zero credibility in the process?

Back on topic:
RON PAUL 2008

[Paladin]

More detective work Barney? When you post some outlandish bullshit do you actually expect it to be taken seriously? Please show me where I've "bonded" with Zarathustra (WTF is with that name? I know who he was but..). Please show me where I've "agreed" with him. I've replied to three posts of his and they are in this thread. Two to answer a question, and one to make fun of his "overdone philosophical language".

You're obviously always trigger happy for me, but why completely show your ass with zero credibility in the process?

Back on topic:
RON PAUL 2008

Trigger happy? Nope, making fun of you is just so easy, it is second nature.

[black01gt]

Trigger happy? Nope, making fun of you is just so easy, it is second nature.
You got picked on a lot as a kid didn't you.

[Paladin]

You got picked on a lot as a kid didn't you.

Why do we keep revisiting this stuff? You are one broken record that never seems to get new material.

I picked on the bullies and took care of the underdogs. I was not someone who would have been chosen as a victim by the bullies. LOL

[black01gt]

Why do we keep revisiting this stuff?
I picked on the bullies and took care of the underdogs.
rrrright...

With a big red "U" on your chest huh? :D

[Paladin]

rrrright...

With a big red "U" on your chest huh? :D

Reading comprehension escapes you. LOL

[black01gt]

I was not someone who would have been chosen as a victim by the bullies. LOL
Really? Why is that?


(since this thread has been completely highjacked anyway)

[Denny]

I don't care about your findings, sir. As to most people, they and you are expendable. There's a reason your findings didn't make it to the state department because you're not credible, obviously.

Rationalized thought is one of my strong suits, but you continually prove to me that you are most incapable of comprehending viewpoints or ideals other than your own. Yet you've the nerve to tell me I don't? You're the fucking christian going to fight the Jihad for the good guys, Denny the Crusader...


A lawyer for terrorists?

I think you're the terrorist, sir.

You possess all the characteristics that they do, only you're for the opposite side. The only think that makes them the bad guys, is 9/11. Elitist factions in our government executed those attacks on our own people for that very reason. Give it some thought... If you can.
Way to completely ignore any factual evidence AND turn a pointing finger in one post! You truely are the epitome of a douchebag/dumbass procreation!

[Paladin]

Really? Why is that?


(since this thread has been completely highjacked anyway)

Do you remember the guy in school who always protected you from the bullies? Imagine me being that kind of guy. :D

[Denny]

Do you remember the guy in school who always protected you from the bullies? Imagine me being that kind of guy. :D
He pays for your services on his knees in the showers? :confused:

[Paladin]

He pays for your services on his knees in the showers? :confused:

That was example was there for him to imagine what kind of guy I was in school, it does not mean we knew each other. BTW, I take the military's view on his homosexual activity, I won't ask him about it and I don't want him to tell me about it. ;)

[black01gt]

That was example was there for him to imagine what kind of guy I was in school, it does not mean we knew each other. BTW, I take the military's view on his homosexual activity, I won't ask him about it and I don't want him to tell me about it. ;)
I'm really at a loss to understand why you are suddenly talking about some gay activity. Snap out of it. Put your NAMBLA books away. Not good!

BTW, I can only imagine you wanting to be the bully until Sally kicked your ass in the 4th grade. :D

[Paladin]

I'm really at a loss to understand why you are suddenly talking about some gay activity. Snap out of it. Put your NAMBLA books away. Not good!

BTW, I can only imagine you wanting to be the bully until Sally kicked your ass in the 4th grade. :D

You are the epitome of the guy who laughs uncomfortably because he has no idea that he is laughing with people who are making fun of him. LOL

[black01gt]

You are the epitome of the guy who laughs uncomfortably because he has no idea that he is laughing with people who are making fun of him. LOL
Hey watch it! You're gonna hurt my feelings.

I'm the epitome of a guy that thinks you are full of shit.......LOL

[Paladin]

Hey watch it! You're gonna hurt my feelings.

I'm the epitome of a guy that thinks you are full of shit.......LOL

Here we go, both laughing again. LOL

[Paladin]

It seems even the Libertarians have issues with the good Doctor. I notice this author uses words like "weird" and "dangerous" just like a few of us on here had previoulsy said. I especially love the highlighted point. LOL

"Not All Libertarians Happy With Ron Paul

With former Libertarian Party presidential nominee Ron Paul in the race for the Republican nomination, libertarians might be expected to fall in line in support of his candidacy.

But one libertarian publication will have none of it.

The latest issue of The New Individualist magazine features the cover story “The Abominable Dr. Paul: How Ron Paul Tortures the Cause of Liberty.”

The cover illustration, a spoof of a movie poster for the 1971 movie “The Abominable Dr. Phibes,” shows Paul’s face morphing into a monstrous visage.

The article by Stephen Green begins: “It’s probably no exaggeration to say that, among readers of this magazine, there exists much sympathy for the presidential candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul, Republican congressman from Texas. Or, if not for the man, then at least for many of the nominally pro-freedom, pro-capitalism ideas he espouses.

“However, Dr. Paul’s specific remedies for what ails our nation amount to the political equivalent of patent-medicine quackery. He only discredits the cause of liberty by associating it with his own weird and dangerous brand of utopianism.

“And I find that abominable.”

The article takes Paul to task on a number of issues:

On immigration, it places Paul “to the right of most Republicans,” and cites his call for an end to automatic citizenship for the born-in-America children of illegals.
On government spending, the author points to Paul’s request for $400 million in earmarks in 2007.
The article calls Paul’s plan to abolish the Federal Reserve system and return the U.S. to the gold standard “dangerous.”
It terms Paul’s foreign policy of nonintervention “utopian silliness dressed up in the outdated language of Washington.”
The article concludes: “America has plenty of ailments in need of sound diagnosis and common-sense cures. But I wouldn’t look to Dr. Ron Paul for treatment.”

This was sent out by Newsmax."

[black01gt]

The article concludes: “America has plenty of ailments in need of sound diagnosis and common-sense cures. But I wouldn’t look to Dr. Ron Paul for treatment.”

This was sent out by Newsmax."
Newsmax wants to be Fox News when it grows up. :D

Notch's complete dedication to slamming Ron Paul makes me think I must be on the right track.

[Paladin]

Newsmax wants to be Fox News when it grows up. :D

Notch's complete dedication to slamming Ron Paul makes me think I must be on the right track.

LOL, you are just as right about me being dedicated to slamming Ron Paul as you were about me blindly following Bush. How could you be so wrong all the time?

BTW, ignore the point of the article and go after me. You may not be a complete liberal, but you have their "attack others ideas and fail to come out with any solutions" down pat! Attack the source, attack the messenger, attack, attack, attack! Where do I get this stuff about you liberals being angry, hate-filled creatures? LOL

[jyro]

I can't vote for Ron Paul
http://www.sagehistory.net/worldwar2/topics/1920WWII1940.htm

sound familar:
"Reasons for isolationism:

Belief that the depression had been caused by World War I
Belief that Europe was unworthy of our support
Belief in Pacifism—people hated and abhorred war
Belief that arms manufacturers, bankers had caused World War I
Belief that World War I had been a tragic mistake for the U.S. "

It's proven history repeats itself

1940 Presidential Election
FDR’s promise: “I have said it before, and I will say it again and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent to fight in any foreign wars.”

[black01gt]

LOL, you are just as right about me being dedicated to slamming Ron Paul as you were about me blindly following Bush. How could you be so wrong all the time?

BTW, ignore the point of the article and go after me. You may not be a complete liberal, but you have their "attack others ideas and fail to come out with any solutions" down pat! Attack the source, attack the messenger, attack, attack, attack! Where do I get this stuff about you liberals being angry, hate-filled creatures? LOL
Oh calm down. No need to get hysterical about it. Such drama... :o

Your quoted post (no article) had no point. Just opinions.

But one libertarian publication will have none of it.

The latest issue of The New Individualist magazine features the cover story “The Abominable Dr. Paul: How Ron Paul Tortures the Cause of Liberty.”

BFD

[black01gt]

I can't vote for Ron Paul
http://www.sagehistory.net/worldwar2/topics/1920WWII1940.htm

sound familar:
"Reasons for isolationism:

Belief that the depression had been caused by World War I
Belief that Europe was unworthy of our support
Belief in Pacifism—people hated and abhorred war
Belief that arms manufacturers, bankers had caused World War I
Belief that World War I had been a tragic mistake for the U.S. "

It's proven history repeats itself

1940 Presidential Election
FDR’s promise: “I have said it before, and I will say it again and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent to fight in any foreign wars.”
So are you saying that if Ron Paul's foregn policy is of non intervention then it must be isolationism? Isolationism is not at all RP's planned foregn policy. And of course neither is global intervention and policing the world. Neither is required and very expensive. Physcal conservatism for a change anyone?

[Paladin]

Oh calm down. No need to get hysterical about it. Such drama... :o

Your quoted post (no article) had no point. Just opinions.

But one libertarian publication will have none of it.

The latest issue of The New Individualist magazine features the cover story “The Abominable Dr. Paul: How Ron Paul Tortures the Cause of Liberty.”

BFD

You tell me to calm down? How ironic is that!

I figure it is a big deal if it ruffles your feathers and gets such a response from you. BTW, the only drama is when you respond and whine like a bitch. Stop doing it and maybe I will stop poking at you to get the response I so enjoy. Most people learned that stuff in grade school, I guess you didn't. That is probably why people like me shielded you from the bullies in the schoolyard, you never learned how to deal with them. LOL

[Paladin]

So are you saying that if Ron Paul's foregn policy is of non intervention then it must be isolationism? Isolationism is not at all RP's planned foregn policy. And of course neither is global intervention and policing the world. Neither is required and very expensive. Physcal conservatism for a change anyone?

Does physcal conservatism have anything to do with fiscal conservatism? LOL

[black01gt]

Does physcal conservatism have anything to do with fiscal conservatism? LOL
Apparently neither have anything to do with your smoke and mirrors illusions of big government "conservative".

[01WhiteCobra]

So are you saying that if Ron Paul's foregn policy is of non intervention then it must be isolationism? Isolationism is not at all RP's planned foregn policy. And of course neither is global intervention and policing the world. Neither is required and very expensive. Physcal conservatism for a change anyone?

Physical conservatism. LOL. Like I said, his ideas would have worked back in the 1800s.

[Paladin]

Apparently neither have anything to do with your smoke and mirrors illusions of big government "conservative".

I would ask for a definition of "physcal conservatism", but you would probably refuse even if there was one for it. LOL

[black01gt]

I would ask for a definition of "physcal conservatism", but you would probably refuse even if there was one for it. LOL
Sorry. I got in a hurry and mispelled a word. First time that's happened on here? :rolleyes:

Here you go-----> Fiscal conservatism.

Nice sidetrack. Don't want to discuss fiscal conservatism? How about the complete lack of it? No? Wouldn't be conservative nowdays to discuss the complete lack of fiscal conservatism would it? ;)

Some exciting news Notch!!! There's a new handbook out just for you. Should be some new helpful "pointers" in here for you. LOL
http://www.amazon.com/Official-Handbook-Vast-Right-wing-Conspiracy/dp/1596980494?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197912675&sr=1-2

[Paladin]

Sorry. I got in a hurry and mispelled a word. First time that's happened on here? :rolleyes:

Here you go-----> Fiscal conservatism.

Nice sidetrack. Don't want to discuss fiscal conservatism? How about the complete lack of it? No? Wouldn't be conservative nowdays to discuss the complete lack of fiscal conservatism would it? ;)

Some exciting news Notch!!! There's a new handbook out just for you. Should be some new helpful "pointers" in here for you. LOL
http://www.amazon.com/Official-Handbook-Vast-Right-wing-Conspiracy/dp/1596980494?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197912675&sr=1-2


I asked you to give me your definition of fiscal conservatism, you refuse, and then ask me to discuss it? You are a trip in your delusions dude.

Define it for me, and then we discuss it. How is that cart in front of you Mr. Horse? LOL

[black01gt]

I asked you to give me your definition of fiscal conservatism,
No you didn't. But, without all of the intricacies because I'm not too good with economics, but you don't have to be to know that it's basically to not end up 9,...go ahead and make that 10 or 11 Trillion dollars in debt. Especially to the Chinese, even while counterfeiting money on the side.
Used in a sentence: A fiscally conservative administration will not bankrupt The United States of America.

Did you get your new handbook yet? LOL

[Paladin]

No you didn't. But, without all of the intricacies because I'm not too good with economics, but you don't have to be to know that it's basically to not end up 9,...go ahead and make that 10 or 11 Trillion dollars in debt. Especially to the Chinese, even while counterfeiting money on the side.
Used in a sentence: A fiscally conservative administration will not bankrupt The United States of America.

Did you get your new handbook yet? LOL

I don't need handbooks to make fun of you, it is already too easy. And since that is my only goal with you, any other handbooks are not needed.

[black01gt]

I don't need handbooks to make fun of you, it is already too easy. And since that is my only goal with you, any other handbooks are not needed.
In a bad mood this morning huh? Yeah, that's a good point. You already have the one main handbook plus Fox, Hannity, The Orielly Factor :D , Limbaugh, etc etc...

I just wanted to make sure you knew it was available. Just tryin to help. LOL

[Paladin]

In a bad mood this morning huh? Yeah, that's a good point. You already have the one main handbook plus Fox, Hannity, The Orielly Factor :D , Limbaugh, etc etc...

I just wanted to make sure you knew it was available. Just tryin to help. LOL

You must be feeling guilty for going back to moveon.org since you went back to your usual and lame rhetoric. Are you still trying to convince yourself or do you actually believe it?

BTW, I am always in a good mood when making fun of you. Remember, when we are both laughing, it means I am laughing at you, not with you. LOL

[black01gt]

You must be feeling guilty for going back to moveon.org since you went back to your usual and lame rhetoric. Are you still trying to convince yourself or do you actually believe it?

BTW, I am always in a good mood when making fun of you. Remember, when we are both laughing, it means I am laughing at you, not with you. LOL
What "rhetoric" is that? (BTW, "rhetoric" is so..last election Limbaughish :o I think you really do need that new handbook)

So, all your life you "beat up" bullies to protect guys like me. Then laughed at guys like me. What kind of fuckin weirdo is that?

For the record: In high school and college I was 6'2" and 235 lbs embedded in pool halls in West Texas when I wasn't playing football and surrounded by friends bigger than me. I never needed any help from someone like you, "Barney the Underdog". And please save the "so you're a badass" talk. I'm just sayin...

Remember, when we are both farting, it means I am farting your general direction, not with you. LOL...yuk yuk yuk

[White trash wagon]

BTW, I am always in a good mood when making fun of you. Remember, when we are both laughing, it means I am laughing at you, not with you. LOL

You REALLY do like to insult people, don't you?

Scott

[Paladin]

You REALLY do like to insult people, don't you?

Scott

This is a mutual thing between he and I, get over it.

[Paladin]

What "rhetoric" is that? (BTW, "rhetoric" is so..last election Limbaughish :o I think you really do need that new handbook)

So, all your life you "beat up" bullies to protect guys like me. Then laughed at guys like me. What kind of fuckin weirdo is that?

For the record: In high school and college I was 6'2" and 235 lbs embedded in pool halls in West Texas when I wasn't playing football and surrounded by friends bigger than me. I never needed any help from someone like you, "Barney the Underdog". And please save the "so you're a badass" talk. I'm just sayin...

Remember, when we are both farting, it means I am farting your general direction, not with you. LOL...yuk yuk yuk

You are wrong about me blindly following Bush, listening to Rush, and so many other things. How can one person be so wrong?

Did moveon.org recommend you posting your height and weight when you were in HS? LOL

[black01gt]

This lowdown cheesy assed chickenshit attempted ambush by Fox and their flunky's is a new low for them in serving evil.

If Dr Paul were allowed a level playing field this election would be a unanimous no brainer election of Ron Paul for President...except for Notch of course. Ron Paul and Paul supportes are not "9-11 Truthers" and there has been hardly any connection of them to Paul other than some support him, until Fox starts their "swift boat" horseshit. Anybody else sick and tired of this sleazy manipulate the sheep crap? Anybody else sick and tired of big money and chips picking their servants to pose as our leaders?

It's a God damned shame a statement can be made "if he were allowed a level playing field' by the so called "liberal media' as I've been hearing them called for 7 or 8 years now. Can we still recognize the truth if we hear it? Since this could very well be our last chance at survival for life as we know and enjoy it, it's damned sure worth the effort to try.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=t-lxZmrqLxU

Fuck Fox News
RON PAUL 2008

[01WhiteCobra]

Yea, its always someone else's fault when you can't close the deal. I thought RP stood for personal responsibility and not trying to blame things like losses on someone else?

Maybe his supporters should take his lead. They'd sound alot less whiny.

[black01gt]

I thought RP stood for personal responsibility and not trying to blame things like losses on someone else?

Maybe his supporters should take his lead. They'd sound alot less whiny.
I haven't seen RP take a loss yet nor have I seen anybody "close the deal" yet. All I see is him having to take what little time he's "allowed" to make his points to have to explain why he won't tell a small percentage of his supporters what they can and cannot believe. I've never seen that asked of another candidate, ever.
Come on, you know it's a manipulaed unfair distraction by cheaters as well as me and any body else with a brain does.
Would you teach your kids to "get ahead" that way?

I'll say it again: If Dr Paul were allowed a level playing field this election would be a unanimous no brainer election of Ron Paul for President. Instead you're gonna get Obama.

No I'm not naive. I just don't see why we keep propping this type of sleazy shit up and pretend that we don't see it.

Having a damned valid complaint is not being whiney. Other wise next time you get in a fender bender and it's not your fault, don't go whining to the insurance company.

[01WhiteCobra]

I haven't seen RP take a loss yet. All I see is him having to take what little time he's "allowed" to make his points to have to explain why he won't tell a small percentage of his supporters what they can and cannot believe. I've never seen that asked of another candidate, ever.
Come on, you know it's a manipulaed unfair distraction by cheaters as well as me and any body else with a brain does.
Would you teach your kids to "get ahead" that way?

No I'm not naive. I just don't see why we keep propping this type of sleazy shit up and pretend that we don't see it.

Having a damned valid complaint is not being whiney.

Dude, seriously, you are being whiny.

Political campaigns are a competition. You capitalize on your strengths, expose your opponent's weaknesses and tried to minimize the threat of your weaknesses.

Crying about coverage displays the campaign's weaknesses. Stop being a little whiny supporter. RP wouldn't appreciate it.

Your posts on this site show how naive you are about political campaigns.

[black01gt]

Dude, seriously, you are being whiny.

Political campaigns are a competition. You capitalize on your strengths, expose your opponent's weaknesses and tried to minimize the threat of your weaknesses.

Crying about coverage displays the campaign's weaknesses. Stop being a little whiny supporter. RP wouldn't appreciate it.

Your posts on this site show how naive you are about political campaigns.
I don't think I am. I'm pointing out some bizarre behavior on the part of Fox News which is no surprise to anyone.

And if you can't expose your opponent's weakness because there are none you just make shit up. Right? When McCain was runing against Dubya he was "a nutcase" but now he's better and capable. Right?

I defianetly don't notice any weakness in Ron Pauls campaign. They hold thir own among "the giants" very well among extra obstacles and don't seem to be losing any strength.

So you like Obama?

[01WhiteCobra]

I don't think I am. I'm pointing out some bizarre behavior on the part of Fox News which is no surprise to anyone.

And if you can't expose your opponent's weakness because there are none you just make shit up. Right? When McCain was runing against Dubya he was "a nutcase" but now he's better and capable. Right?

I defianetly don't notice any weakness in Ron Pauls campaign. They hold thir own among "the giants" very well among extra obstacles and don't seem to be losing any strength.

So you like Obama?

Good lord. Obama? LOL. Have you not read my posts on this board.

[Paladin]

Yea, its always someone else's fault when you can't close the deal. I thought RP stood for personal responsibility and not trying to blame things like losses on someone else?

Maybe his supporters should take his lead. They'd sound alot less whiny.

Especially since the first time I heard disparaging things about RP supporters was from CNN's Glen Beck who had been threatened by some of his supporters. Man, that CNN sure has gone to extreme conservatism and hatred of all that is the "truth" that RP brings to the table. LOL

[black01gt]

Good lord. Obama? LOL. Have you not read my posts on this board.
Ok it was a question I knew the answer to. Let me ask another way. How many times do you think we'll ask why we let Obama become prez? Cause other than RP, there's no republican that can beat him.

[black01gt]

Especially since the first time I heard disparaging things about RP supporters was from CNN's Glen Beck who had been threatened by some of his supporters.
Yeah, we're a regular bunch of Hell's Angels alright.

[Paladin]

Yeah, we're a regular bunch of Hell's Angels alright.

I don't think the Hell's Angels would be happy about being compared to a bunch of internet idiots who threaten to kill people from behind a computer.

[01WhiteCobra]

Ok it was a question I knew the answer to. Let me ask another way. How many times do you think we'll ask why we let Obama become prez? Cause other than RP, there's no republican that can beat him.

You are showing your political naiveness again if you believe Obama will be President if the Democraps put him up as the candidate.

My only fear is Clinton wins the nomination.

[black01gt]

I don't think the Hell's Angels would be happy about being compared to a bunch of internet idiots who threaten to kill people from behind a computer.
Ok, I didn't get the memo and I want to get this straight. Ron Paul supporters have threatened to kill Glen Beck? Is that about right?

Last I saw of Glen Beck his docter and our excellent accountant controlled HMO healthcare system was trying to kill him.

[Paladin]

Ok, I didn't get the memo and I want to get this straight. Ron Paul supporters have threatened to kill Glen Beck? Is that about right?

Last I saw of Glen Beck his docter and our excellent accountant controlled HMO healthcare system was trying to kill him.

That's what he said when he interviewed RP. He mentioned it and told RP he would forward the emails to him during a break so that RP could see them and respond. It was another in a long line of odd interviews with RP.

I don't know the history, but I suspect Glen Beck had something negative to say about RP.

[01WhiteCobra]

I don't know the history, but I suspect Glen Beck had something negative to say about RP.

I think he called RP supporters terrorists.

[flashstang04]

I think he called RP supporters terrorists.


Actually what he was saying is the way that Paul supporters are speaking out it can lead to domestic terrorism, and after he said it, everyone started crying that he (Beck) was calling all of his supporters terrorists, which he really didnt.

[black01gt]

Actually what he was saying is the way that Paul supporters are speaking out it can lead to domestic terrorism,
Hmmm..."domestic terrorism' with what as a motive? Supporting their candidate?

[01WhiteCobra]

Hmmm..."domestic terrorism' with what as a motive?

Timothy McVeigh ring a bell? Eric Rudolph?

[black01gt]

Timothy McVeigh ring a bell? Eric Rudolph?
OMG! Are you serious?
We should remove RP from any ballots to make America safer. Right?

[01WhiteCobra]

OMG! Are you serious?
We should remove RP from any ballots to make America safer. Right?

He didn't specify whose motiive. His statement was domestic terrorism, what would be the motive?

He didn't say, "What are RP's supporters motives for domestic terrorism?"

Stop trying to read something in that isn't there, numbnuts.

[flashstang04]

He didn't specify whose motiive. His statement was domestic terrorism, what would be the motive?

He didn't say, "What are RP's supporters motives for domestic terrorism?"

Stop trying to read something in that isn't there, numbnuts.


Thats exactly why we are discussing this, as you can see how fast RP supporters are to jump on the "He called us terrorists" train. It isn't so far fetched if you look at our history. With the way that the GOP gets slammed, the fact that RP'ers are getting their feelings so hurt over this sounds an awful lot like Dem mentality.

[black01gt]

It isn't so far fetched if you look at our history. With the way that the GOP gets slammed, the fact that RP'ers are getting their feelings so hurt over this sounds an awful lot like Dem mentality.
Awwww....we sowwy. Better now? Talk about whining.

[flashstang04]

Awwww....we sowwy. Better now? Talk about whining.


Who's whining? I can agree with a lot of the stuff the GOP gets put down for. But thanks for proving my point. Excellent, and yes, even informative post on your part. :rolleyes:

[Paladin]

OMG! Are you serious?
We should remove RP from any ballots to make America safer. Right?

The strong feelings (hate) you have for Bush have been transferred to the feelings (love) you seem to have for RP. The zealousness of your emotions for politicians is something you really need to seek help about. LOL

[Paladin]

Thats exactly why we are discussing this, as you can see how fast RP supporters are to jump on the "He called us terrorists" train. It isn't so far fetched if you look at our history. With the way that the GOP gets slammed, the fact that RP'ers are getting their feelings so hurt over this sounds an awful lot like Dem mentality.

He can't see anything beyond what he wants to, and that is pretty limited to his small tainted view of the world. He is actually showing to be the typical RP supporter.

[01WhiteCobra]

Awwww....we sowwy. Better now? Talk about whining.

Only one on this thread is whiny. His candidate of choice is in the single digits.

[black01gt]

:D gang mentality. ATTACK!!! SWARM HIM!!!

Just messin with ya. I'm supporting McCain...this week.

[01WhiteCobra]

:D gang mentality. ATTACK!!! SWARM HIM!!!

Just messin with ya. I'm supporting McCain...this week.

Nah. I don't really care. I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Personally I feel sorry who ever gets elected. Country has a lot of pain to endure over the next 4-8 years.

I haven't decided who I want to see endure the pain yet. :D

[black01gt]

Nah. I don't really care. I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Personally I feel sorry who ever gets elected. Country has a lot of pain to endure over the next 4-8 years.

I haven't decided who I want to see endure the pain yet. :D
Damage control of industrial mega proportions.

I'm still trying to figure out why a guy worth $100 million wants a shit storm job that pays $400,000? I just don't sense it's as a patriotic urgency, but then I'm a little cynical that way. Notch sez I'm angry and hostile. Me?

[gpamp]

Especially since the first time I heard disparaging things about RP supporters was from CNN's Glen Beck who had been threatened by some of his supporters. Man, that CNN sure has gone to extreme conservatism and hatred of all that is the "truth" that RP brings to the table. LOL
I KNEW you were into AM Right Wing Radio shows. You even follow him to the TV. I called you out on it several times, and you denied it.

I now stamp you with the "Brainwashed" stamp, so I can filter everything you say.

Whew.

[01WhiteCobra]

Damage control of industrial mega proportions.

I'm still trying to figure out why a guy worth $100 million wants a shit storm job that pays $400,000? I just don't sense it's as a patriotic urgency, but then I'm a little cynical that way. Notch sez I'm angry and hostile. Me?

Nothing left to do. Why not try for the most powerful position in the world?

[Paladin]

I KNEW you were into AM Right Wing Radio shows. You even follow him to the TV. I called you out on it several times, and you denied it.

I now stamp you with the "Brainwashed" stamp, so I can filter everything you say.

Whew.

I watched to see what all the hype was about with RP. I guess me watching CNN qualifies me for the right wing AM radio type guy, huh?

You are an idiot!

[gpamp]

I think I know what the hype is.

Number 1: Every election year, we need someone who seems like the underdog. Perot and Nader both filled these positions nicely. They usually get grass roots support, and it seems to be a "buzz", and they're usually anti-party, in theory, if not in practice.

Number 2: Ron Paul is for the legalization of marijuana. As I texted someone this morning, after seeing a homemade banner for Paul, hanging over Northwest Highway, "I haven't seen stoners this active since the McRib came back."

I really don't have anything against the guy. But seeing as how some of the hard, non-religious right-wingers gravitate towards him, it's going to hurt the Republicans if he decides to run independent.

It's almost a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't vote for him in the primaries, if you're a Republican. I'm basing this, of course, on the fact that he doesn't have a chance. If by some miracle, he gets the primary nomination, then I think he'll bring some democrats over to the Republican side, and he would probably win.

Just my thought on it all.

I do think that everyone's pretty limited on the choices this year. I feel bad, and I'm not saying this to degrade, for the Republican choices. We had better choices last time around, and that's not saying anything. The good news is, if Mit Romney gets the nom., he has a stance for EVERYONE. Pro-abortion, Anti-abortion, Pro-gun control, Anti-gun control, etc. Very electable. Even with the hair.

[Paladin]

I think I know what the hype is.

Number 1: Every election year, we need someone who seems like the underdog. Perot and Nader both filled these positions nicely. They usually get grass roots support, and it seems to be a "buzz", and they're usually anti-party, in theory, if not in practice.

Number 2: Ron Paul is for the legalization of marijuana. As I texted someone this morning, after seeing a homemade banner for Paul, hanging over Northwest Highway, "I haven't seen stoners this active since the McRib came back."

I really don't have anything against the guy. But seeing as how some of the hard, non-religious right-wingers gravitate towards him, it's going to hurt the Republicans if he decides to run independent.

It's almost a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't vote for him in the primaries, if you're a Republican. I'm basing this, of course, on the fact that he doesn't have a chance. If by some miracle, he gets the primary nomination, then I think he'll bring some democrats over to the Republican side, and he would probably win.

Just my thought on it all.

I do think that everyone's pretty limited on the choices this year. I feel bad, and I'm not saying this to degrade, for the Republican choices. We had better choices last time around, and that's not saying anything. The good news is, if Mit Romney gets the nom., he has a stance for EVERYONE. Pro-abortion, Anti-abortion, Pro-gun control, Anti-gun control, etc. Very electable. Even with the hair.

I have been to his site and I didn't notice the legalization of marijuana stance. Where did you see it?

[gpamp]

Here's a good one.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm

Not that I don't disagree with some decriminalization. But considering I've been smashed drunk maybe 5 times in my life, and that's the closest I've come to drugs... I don't have much ground to stand on, in the way of arguing it.

That site also shows that he voted "no" to an amendment to set up a task force on counter-terrorism and drug interdiction and allow military personnel to help patrol U.S. borders.

I barely know any Democrats that aren't for that, now. Much less Republicans. That's gonna hurt him. It might make him dead last, rather than 3rd or 2nd to last in the primaries. Eesh.

[black01gt]

Nothing left to do. Why not try for the most powerful position in the world?
Huh...I guess it would beat the boredom. In Romney's case he should just get a more expensive hobby.
Michael Bloomberg could possibly convince me that he's nothing more than a powerful patriot. Hmmm..he could make a good running mate for the good docter. I think Colin Powell would be a good running mate choice for RP also.

[black01gt]

That site also shows that he voted "no" to an amendment to set up a task force on counter-terrorism and drug interdiction and allow military personnel to help patrol U.S. borders.


He didn't like the wording and planning for THAT amendment to the task force on counter terrorism. So he didn't support it. Are you trying to say he's pro terrorist?

We've spent over $500 Billion on the "war on drugs" and you yourself say you've never seen so many stoners since the McRib. Time for a new plan. One that works. I think we've got a meth crisis getting out of hand rapidly here!!!

He filed a formal protest through his congressional office when the national guard was pulled off of guarding the US Borders to go guard the Iraqi Borders.
But...the US Military is not supposed to have to guard the US Border, that is what the border patrol is for. The US Border is not supposed to be overwhelmed with rampant out of control illegal crossing by illegal aliens. Did you check his stances on those issues? Here ya go:

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

Do you not agree with this plan? Show me a better one from a candidate that can convince anyone they are sincere about keeping this promise.
Show me a canidate that's not just hustlin your vote to get elected and hoping they can figure out what to do once they have been. If they don't know what they're going to do and have not been sticking to their plan then they're just waiting to be told what to do by the same ole bosses of Bush/Cheney. No thanks. Can't afford it.

We CANNOT continue to spend money like we have been and I only hear one candidate state that. Even if we turn off the flow of spending we'll be damned lucky to avoid a depression. Can you imagine us in a depression with Obama as Prez? Or for a real nightmare...Hillary? All Rudy could do would be to run around yelling "9-11, 9-11".

It's great to see Ron Paul starting to make the extremist from both ends nervous.

[black01gt]

I really don't have anything against the guy. But seeing as how some of the hard, non-religious right-wingers gravitate towards him, it's going to hurt the Republicans if he decides to run independent.

It's almost a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't vote for him in the primaries, if you're a Republican. I'm basing this, of course, on the fact that he doesn't have a chance. If by some miracle, he gets the primary nomination, then I think he'll bring some democrats over to the Republican side, and he would probably win.

"non-religious right wingers"? Since we're comparing candidates and gonna sling a little shit, what's up with Obama's church? Looks a little fishy don't it? Looks to me like he's about one step away from being a grinning Louis Farrakhan. And I've never quite gotten clear on why he won't pledge alligence to The United States of America, yet wants to be it's leader. Can you help me there?

Columnist says Obama's church has 'black supremacist' agenda
Rush says when visiting Trinity's website, he was disturbed to learn that Trinity United Church of Christ professes a commitment to the "Black Family," the "Black Community," and the "Black Work Ethic," and "pledge[s] allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Values System."

"The first thing that I did was that I went through the list and I substituted the words white for black in it," the columnist notes. " And I, in addition to being disturbed, wondered just how far a white candidate with beliefs like that would get. It looked like it was either being overlooked or excused, and I thought that it needed to be brought to light."

One could argue that Obama's church "worships things African to a far greater degree than they do Christ," Rush contends. Meanwhile, he says the writings and speech of Trinity United's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, appear to be more Marxist than Christian.

Rush formed this opinion of Wright "after doing some digging and then seeing him appear on Fox News the night after I did," the columnist points out. He says he became convinced that the pastor's views are "nothing short of militant; and he complains about living in the United States of white America and ... talks about giving back to the black community, et cetera."

Rush says "like the Nation of Islam, a white separatist church, or the Branch Davidians, Trinity United Church of Christ more resembles a cult than a church." Senator Obama's office did not return calls seeking comment.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/03/columnist_says_obamas_church_h.php

[Paladin]

Here's a good one.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm

Not that I don't disagree with some decriminalization. But considering I've been smashed drunk maybe 5 times in my life, and that's the closest I've come to drugs... I don't have much ground to stand on, in the way of arguing it.

That site also shows that he voted "no" to an amendment to set up a task force on counter-terrorism and drug interdiction and allow military personnel to help patrol U.S. borders.

I barely know any Democrats that aren't for that, now. Much less Republicans. That's gonna hurt him. It might make him dead last, rather than 3rd or 2nd to last in the primaries. Eesh.

Damn, he blames the laws about drugs for unequal treatmenet of blacks? The guy is a bigger nut than I thought.

Thanks for the link, I may have to ask black01gt about his stances when he goes on the attack of the guy I choose to support. I wonder if he still thinks RP is the guy? :rolleyes:

BTW, RP is a joke to all but the idiots and youth in the country, so worrying about his stances hurting him is a moot point.

[black01gt]

Thanks for the link, I may have to ask black01gt about his stances when he goes on the attack of the guy I choose to support. I wonder if he still thinks RP is the guy? :rolleyes:


Thanks for the ambush warning. I don't give a shit who you support. :rolleyes:

Do I still think RP "is the guy"? Well I dunno. What do todays polls say? :D

I don't see this country electing or not electing anyone based on the so called "war on drugs" issue at this point. Who can say with a straight face that it's not another expensive joke? If he pulled fed jurisdiction out of drug "control", who would notice other than overpaid administrators.

[Paladin]

Thanks for the ambush warning. I don't give a shit who you support. :rolleyes:

Do I still think RP "is the guy"? Well I dunno. What do todays polls say? :D

I don't see this country electing or not electing anyone based on the so called "war on drugs" issue at this point. Who can say with a straight face that it's not another expensive joke? If he pulled fed jurisdiction out of drug "control", who would notice other than overpaid administrators.

The king of avoidance and ignoring the point is in the house!

Do you agree with all of RP's stances or not? These are simple questions even you should be able to answer. LOL

[trey85stang]

IF Ron Paul doesnt make it anywhere which will probably be the case... they should at least listen and implement his monetary policy ideas... instead of creating more debt to stimulate the economy, they just need to listen too RP he seems like the only person that wants to fix the broken money system instead of band-aiding it.

[black01gt]

Do you agree with all of RP's stances or not? These are simple questions even you should be able to answer. LOL
No. Do I support him? Absolutely.

Have you found a candidate that you agree with 100% on issues and stance yet? The rest of the list is quite a moving target. Good luck.

[Paladin]

No. Do I support him? Absolutely.

Have you found a candidate that you agree with 100% on issues and stance yet? The rest of the list is quite a moving target. Good luck.

I have explained this before, have you forgotten already?

[black01gt]

I have explained this before, have you forgotten already?
I'm just asking if anything has changed. Are you holding out for 100% agreement with a candidate? Maybe 80%? Maybe someone that will come close to what they promise? Remember, Bush ran on a platform of non-intervention and no nation building.

[Paladin]

I'm just asking if anything has changed. Are you holding out for 100% agreement with a candidate? Maybe 80%? Maybe someone that will come close to what they promise? Remember, Bush ran on a platform of non-intervention and no nation building.

I have given this answer many times.

What percentage of issues do you agree with RP on? I know you are all about the anti-war and Bush hating stuff, but what about the other major issues?

[black01gt]

I have given this answer many times.

What percentage of issues do you agree with RP on? I know you are all about the anti-war and Bush hating stuff, but what about the other major issues?
I'm still pro-choice with restrictions, on a woman and her pregnancy as far as disagreement with him. And..well that's about it.

I don't see this as a top tier issue but, I don't think he's ready to turn the cities over to the drug dealers and users. I think he wants to take it apart and put it back together with federal and state jurisdiction using common sense and focus this time (eliminating the corruption and financial waste ;) ).

It's Ron Paul's messages of true CONSERVATISM, COMMON SENSE, HONESTY, and determination to preserve the basic principles of The Constitution that is throwing some people off because it's been so long since they've heard the truth from anything connected with government (unless they understand, and agree, but it's an obstacle for their own agendas which don't bode well for us average American citizens). But there are also massive amounts of groups of citizens locked on what he's saying.

His stance on the major issues are no brainers. I think his "swift boating" per se is coming in the form of Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc etc....trying to keep his message hidden. For obvious reasons.
I see they're back to attacking McCain about his 5 years of torture. This shit can get sickening. :mad:

BTW, my concentration on my family's future in my country is way beyond my Bush hating.
There's nothing he and his cronies can ever do to make me feel warm and fuzzy about em but who cares? Even tho there is still surely damage to be caused by them, those creeps are about to leave and I don't think this country will buy any more of their ilk's bullshit. Other than that, I'm not interested in harping on Dubya and his abuse.

Is Bush gonna send me $800 bucks? Great, now I can make a down payment on that expensive surgery that my wife needs. :D Just kidding. She's healthy.

[Paladin]

I'm still pro-choice with restrictions, on a woman and her pregnancy as far as disagreement with him. And..well that's about it.

I don't see this as a top tier issue but, I don't think he's ready to turn the cities over to the drug dealers and users. I think he wants to take it apart and put it back together with federal and state jurisdiction using common sense and focus this time (eliminating the corruption and financial waste ;) ).

It's Ron Paul's messages of true CONSERVATISM, COMMON SENSE, HONESTY, and determination to preserve the basic principles of The Constitution that is throwing some people off because it's been so long since they've heard the truth from anything connected with government (unless they understand, and agree, but it's an obstacle for their own agendas which don't bode well for us average American citizens). But there are also massive amounts of groups of citizens locked on what he's saying.

His stance on the major issues are no brainers. I think his "swift boating" per se is coming in the form of Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc etc....trying to keep his message hidden. For obvious reasons.
I see they're back to attacking McCain about his 5 years of torture. This shit can get sickening. :mad:

BTW, my concentration on my family's future in my country is way beyond my Bush hating.
There's nothing he and his cronies can ever do to make me feel warm and fuzzy about em but who cares? Even tho there is still surely damage to be caused by them, those creeps are about to leave and I don't think this country will buy any more of their ilk's bullshit. Other than that, I'm not interested in harping on Dubya and his abuse.

Is Bush gonna send me $800 bucks? Great, now I can make a down payment on that expensive surgery that my wife needs. :D Just kidding. She's healthy.

You are one angry and interesting (not in a good way) dude.

This country has serious issues to address, but RP isn't even close to the answer. The massive groups you refer to are made up mostly of disenfranchised college aged kids on dope. The kind of liberal who hates everything and really dislikes the current Dems who are not anti-war enough. They have come to RP becuase of his anti-war immediate pull out stance. I would wager the majority know very little else about him. My very small and unscientific poll of RP supporters has so far not strayed from this opinion of mine, you are the only exception who is anti-war and wants extreme conservatism in social and fiduciary issues, except of course, your liberal stance on abortion. :confused: LOL, you RP supporters are so confused.

[black01gt]

Notch's words are of course the slanted ones...
You are one angry and interesting (not in a good way) dude.

So?

This country has serious issues to address, but RP isn't even close to the answer.

Again I'll ask...who is then?


The massive groups you refer to are made up mostly of disenfranchised college aged kids on dope.

LMAO :D ... :D

The kind of liberal who hates everything and really dislikes the current Dems who are not anti-war enough. They have come to RP becuase of his anti-war immediate pull out stance

I know it's very important to you that we are "at war" but have you ever considered any other elements like...who we are "at war" with? What are the actual consequences of said "war"? and what is the end result and outcome of "the war"? I'm not at all anti-war as most American citizens aren't. I would like to see Gen. Colin Powell as a running mate with Dr. Paul. No more "war" amatuers!!!

I would wager the majority know very little else about him

"A fool and his money...." ;)

My very small and unscientific poll of RP supporters has so far not strayed from this opinion of mine, you are the only exception who is anti-war and wants extreme conservatism in social and fiduciary issues

Nuff said about your poll.
Define "extreme conservatism". True conservatism should work just fine don't you think? Or do you really need the right wing Dick Cheney/ Tom Delay/ Jack Abramoff/ Karl Rove cut throat skin em quick kind of "extreme conservatism"? Again, I'm not anti-war.

I'm waiting to hear who you think is best to address the serious issues facing this country. To be so certain RP is not, you must have a fairly good idea of who is at this point. Your choices are limited.

.

[ayzo]

You are one angry and interesting (not in a good way) dude.

This country has serious issues to address, but RP isn't even close to the answer.

Well take into consideration the current news, and Ron Paul's monetary policies and I think he's the only guy who can save us because he is the only one who will admit the problem:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hZsZ0_OLer4&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hZsZ0_OLer4&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/USSAEQl0XMM&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/USSAEQl0XMM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[gpamp]

Columnist says Obama's church has 'black supremacist' agenda etc. etc.
Rush says...Rush contends...Rush formed this opinion...Rush says

I can't say for sure that the columnist is Rush Limbaugh, because your link doesn't work. At least not on my computer. But I'm sure a right-winger would wonder about Obama's church. Because it would probably help his cause. Maybe I'm thinking a little too much about it.

Snopes has already put to rest the stupid e-mail that went around, claiming that Obama was raised Muslim. Sure, the damage is done, as per the whisper campaign standards of the Right. I can't believe you bought it, though.

It does make a little sense. Since Ron Paul doesn't really dig black people. Or so I've heard.

[Paladin]

So?

Thanks for stopping the denials about your hatred and anger. While it doesn't really matter all that much, it does provide me much fun pointing it out and getting you all upset.

Again I'll ask...who is then?

While candidates like RP, Hillary, Edwards, and Obama are not the answer for sure, the the rest are not clearly THE answer. It may be that whoever gets elected will just have to be watched to see if they come through or not. Pretty sad to admit, but right now nobody of great substance wants to be President. Why would they?

LMAO :D ... :D

I will continue to take your non answers as tacit admissions.

I know it's very important to you that we are "at war" but have you ever considered any other elements like...who we are "at war" with? What are the actual consequences of said "war"? and what is the end result and outcome of "the war"? I'm not at all anti-war as most American citizens aren't. I would like to see Gen. Colin Powell as a running mate with Dr. Paul. No more "war" amatuers!!!

It is very important that we stop having attacks every other year or so like we did during the 90's. That has so far been accomplished. Is the war what I wanted, NO. Is the war, all of them, the reason for the attacks stopping?

"A fool and his money...." ;)

Have you figured out where it went? Other than to RP's campaign that is! LOL

Nuff said about your poll.
Define "extreme conservatism". True conservatism should work just fine don't you think? Or do you really need the right wing Dick Cheney/ Tom Delay/ Jack Abramoff/ Karl Rove cut throat skin em quick kind of "extreme conservatism"? Again, I'm not anti-war.

Extreme conservatism is such strict interpretation of the constitution that we ignore the reality of the current days events and realities. I doubt any of the founding fathers would advocate the interpretation of RP. His words sure do tantalize you disenfranchised dope smoking types (whether or not you actually are currently smoking or not anymore) who don't want to be part of the solution and just want to complain about others ideas and attempts at solutions.

I'm waiting to hear who you think is best to address the serious issues facing this country. To be so certain RP is not, you must have a fairly good idea of who is at this point. Your choices are limited.

Unfortunately it is easier to point out from the only choices we have the ones who are not the ones to address the problems we face. The BEST choice will have to come from the Republican side since none of the Dems is the answer and only one of the Republicans is absolutely not the answer. I guess by default it will be the republican candidate. BTW, don't even go there and ask me to consider RP. He will only be there becuase a bunch of idiots have sent him money which will allow him to go the distance as the constant 4th or 5th place vote getter.

[Paladin]

I can't say for sure that the columnist is Rush Limbaugh, because your link doesn't work. At least not on my computer. But I'm sure a right-winger would wonder about Obama's church. Because it would probably help his cause. Maybe I'm thinking a little too much about it.

Snopes has already put to rest the stupid e-mail that went around, claiming that Obama was raised Muslim. Sure, the damage is done, as per the whisper campaign standards of the Right. I can't believe you bought it, though.

It does make a little sense. Since Ron Paul doesn't really dig black people. Or so I've heard.

I have seen quite a few people comment on Obamas church, most have been very negaticve. CNN, MSNBC, and FOX have all had segments from different shows about it. The tone of the church appears to be the leader has serious issues of hatred against non-blacks. This will only be an issue if he gets the nomination IMO.

[Paladin]

Do you have some special interest in the cause of black people or something?

You have to ask a serious hard core angry hate filled liberal this question? LOL

[black01gt]

I can't say for sure that the columnist is Rush Limbaugh, because your link doesn't work. At least not on my computer. But I'm sure a right-winger would wonder about Obama's church. Because it would probably help his cause. Maybe I'm thinking a little too much about it.

Snopes has already put to rest the stupid e-mail that went around, claiming that Obama was raised Muslim. Sure, the damage is done, as per the whisper campaign standards of the Right. I can't believe you bought it, though.

It does make a little sense. Since Ron Paul doesn't really dig black people. Or so I've heard.
Yep, the site is down. Nope, it's not Rush Limbaugh (please.. :rolleyes: ) It's not Obama's birthright as a Muslim that bothers me. It's his obvious focus on the black community, his refusal to pledge allegiance to the USA, and his lack of experience that bothers me.

Here is the first paragraph from The Trinty Church's website:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

Here's what the NAAPC sez about Ron Paul being a racist:

NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
Linder says Paul being smeared because he is a threat to the establishment
Paul Joseph Watson
Sunday, January 13, 2008

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people.

"Knowing Ron Paul's intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that....so I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm

Do you have some special interest in the cause of black people or something?

[Slowhand]

on the subject of barack, it's fairly simple:

he's a socialist. socialism is unamerican. if he wants to govern a socialist body, he can take himself to canada, but he WILL NOT be implementing his socialist agenda in this country.

[gpamp]

Here is the first paragraph from The Trinty Church's website:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

Do you have some special interest in the cause of black people or something?
I don't see anything wrong with that statement at ALL. The fact that you see something wrong with it, makes me question your motive. Should they be ashamed to be black? Or apologize for being Christian? Or do you not believe slavery happened? Oh, wait, you made something bold.... Ok, so you hate the fact that they call Africa the cradle of civilization? Well... if you believe the Bible, IT'S TRUE. And since they are a church... they probably believe it!!! Oh, wait... you don't like that they remain "true to their native land". Gotcha. So, everyone who comes here, or has had grandparents come here, should ditch their culture and take on the American culture? I've got news for you.... America has no culture. Our culture is built out of little pieces of OTHER COUNTRIES' CULTURE. Do you get pissed when you see someone playing a bagpipe? I know I do. I get enRAGED when I see a guy of Italian heritage, eating pizza... in MY country!!! And don't even get me started about the little Asian communities in Richardson.

I threw the Ron Paul being racist out there just to show you that if you buy into crap like that, you're just part of a giant gossip squad. You're showing me that you might really not like black people.

[BHAM]

Ron Paul Owns!

[black01gt]

I
I threw the Ron Paul being racist out there just to show you that if you buy into crap like that, you're just part of a giant gossip squad. You're showing me that you might really not like black people.
Don't know. It depends completely on their attitude. Just like everyone else I meet.

It's the same old thing. There could not be a white candidate that could proclaim that he (she) belongs to an organization, even if it's a church who's intent was to serve only his/her race. With a bit of a chip on their shoulder if you ask me. Already Obama gets extra allowance because of his race. It makes eventual "Reparations for Slavery" look like a done deal to me. Like we can afford that bullshit. :rolleyes:

[jyro]

It's his obvious focus on the black community, his refusal to pledge allegiance to the USA, and his lack of experience that bothers me.

Here is the CHANGED first paragraph from The Trinty Church's website:

"We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the White religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are Caucasian people, and remain true to our native land . It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as White people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community."


Is it still acceptable to write it that way, sounds a little racist huh.

You join a church because you like the message and format of the church, The church pastor preaches beliefs in line with what you believe. If Obama goes to this church , it's because he chooze to base on his beliefs. I don't believe God treats blacks and whites differently or any Christian organization should profess that God watches over blacks any differently. Was Africa Christian in the 17-1800's?. If they remained true to their native land, wouldn't that be pagan or heathen.

[Paladin]

Here is the CHANGED first paragraph from The Trinty Church's website:

"We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the White religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are Caucasian people, and remain true to our native land . It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as White people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community."


Is it still acceptable to write it that way, sounds a little racist huh.

You join a church because you like the message and format of the church, The church pastor preaches beliefs in line with what you believe. If Obama goes to this church , it's because he chooze to base on his beliefs. I don't believe God treats blacks and whites differently or any Christian organization should profess that God watches over blacks any differently. Was Africa Christian in the 17-1800's?. If they remained true to their native land, wouldn't that be pagan or heathen.

Ouch, I bet there won't be many of the defenders of the original version coming out to say the changed version is okay. I wonder what you call that kind of thought? LOL

[gpamp]

Ouch, I bet there won't be many of the defenders of the original version coming out to say the changed version is okay. I wonder what you call that kind of thought? LOL
There is a little difference, there. I realize that being white, it's easy to gloss over something like slavery as something that happened "a long time ago" and people need to "get over it", but if you think about it... it wasn't THAT long ago. It has completely shaped who black Americans are today. It's WHY they're here, and it's what has formed their culture. It's not that we "owe them" or anything like that. But they have a culture, and they're allowed to say what they want, as American citizens.

Doesn't anyone here drive through Richardson and get mad when they see a Vietnamese church, with everything written in Vietnamese characters? Would you want to walk in there and say "Hey! What if this said 'American church', instead of 'Vietnamese church??'" That would be ridiculous. You can argue that there's a language difference, and people who speak different languages need a church that speaks to them. But so do different cultures.

I think it's silly when people start saying "what if it said 'white' instead of 'black'? then who's the racist? huh? huh?" There's a big difference, considering the majority of America is white, and every black minority in this country is here because our ancestors couldn't get off their ass and mow their yard.

Plus, every white person I know has some kind of European pride. Whether it's Irish, Scottish, Italian, or whatever. It's ok to hearken back to your culture. Remember? Melting pot.

On topic... Ron Paul's still a nut.

[Paladin]

There is a little difference, there. I realize that being white, it's easy to gloss over something like slavery as something that happened "a long time ago" and people need to "get over it", but if you think about it... it wasn't THAT long ago. It has completely shaped who black Americans are today. It's WHY they're here, and it's what has formed their culture. It's not that we "owe them" or anything like that. But they have a culture, and they're allowed to say what they want, as American citizens.

Doesn't anyone here drive through Richardson and get mad when they see a Vietnamese church, with everything written in Vietnamese characters? Would you want to walk in there and say "Hey! What if this said 'American church', instead of 'Vietnamese church??'" That would be ridiculous. You can argue that there's a language difference, and people who speak different languages need a church that speaks to them. But so do different cultures.

I think it's silly when people start saying "what if it said 'white' instead of 'black'? then who's the racist? huh? huh?" There's a big difference, considering the majority of America is white, and every black minority in this country is here because our ancestors couldn't get off their ass and mow their yard.

Plus, every white person I know has some kind of European pride. Whether it's Irish, Scottish, Italian, or whatever. It's ok to hearken back to your culture. Remember? Melting pot.

On topic... Ron Paul's still a nut.

I guess your lengthy life experience has helped you come to these conclusions, huh? I think it's pretty funny you think RP is a nut. I guess it takes one to know one.

[black01gt]

There is a little difference, there. I realize that being white, it's easy to gloss over something like slavery as something that happened "a long time ago" and people need to "get over it", but if you think about it... it wasn't THAT long ago. It has completely shaped who black Americans are today.

I think it's silly when people start saying "what if it said 'white' instead of 'black'? then who's the racist? huh? huh?" There's a big difference, considering the majority of America is white, and every black minority in this country is here because our ancestors couldn't get off their ass and mow their yard.

On topic... Ron Paul's still a nut.
OMG!!! You DO have some special interest in the black cause. I would ask if you would approve of "Reparations for Slavery" but I think you've more than answered that already.
Black Americans have shaped who they are, no one else. And I must say that wearing their pants below their ass, caps sideways, bling grills with welfare or crack money, etc, etc, doesn't help their blending into mainstream at all. That's why they do it. Perhaps you (and them) think they would be better off in Africa? I'm generalizing here obviously because I know several normal and stand up black people. My gosh you're more full of shit than Notch.

I will say this about the Mexican fella. He doesn't stand around crying about "somebody owes him something."

It's pretty obvious who is still a nut.

Notch pay attention....up there is your liberal. :cool:

[black01gt]

LMAO to actually hear the "smoke and mirrors".

The Romney Whisper: "pssst...say...I'm not gonna raise taxes" Hilarious!!!

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/27/msnbc-responds-to-the-romney-whisper/

[gpamp]

OMG!!! You DO have some special interest in the black cause. I would ask if you would approve of "Reparations for Slavery" but I think you've more than answered that already.
Black Americans have shaped who they are, no one else. And I must say that wearing their pants below their ass, caps sideways, bling grills with welfare or crack money, etc, etc, doesn't help their blending into mainstream at all. That's why they do it. Perhaps you (and them) think they would be better off in Africa? I'm generalizing here obviously because I know several normal and stand up black people. My gosh you're more full of shit than Notch.

I will say this about the Mexican fella. He doesn't stand around crying about "somebody owes him something."

It's pretty obvious who is still a nut.

Notch pay attention....up there is your liberal. :cool:
Wow. I've never been one to cry racist. I have no "special interest" in the "black cause". But dammit, man. You sound like a redneck racist.

Just by you, saying "black Americans have shaped who they are", then proceeding to tell me how bad they are... SCREAMS "racist".

Had white "Americans" been dragged over here, by Spaniards to be slaves, who KNOWS how our "white culture" would be today? Slavery, here in the US went from 1620-1865. That's 245 years of doing all the work that "white" America was too lazy to do. And throughout those 245 years, "white" America collected wealth, and got fat on food. Then, we didn't allow black people equal rights until the '60s.

And of COURSE the "Mexican fella" isn't going to say anything about owing him something. a) he came over here on his own accord, and b) if you're referring to an illegal immigrant, he's not going to bring attention to himself.

I see what Ron Paul's followers feel about black Americans, now. Now the letters make sense.

[black01gt]

Wow. I've never been one to cry racist. I have no "special interest" in the "black cause". But dammit, man. You sound like a redneck racist.

Just by you, saying "black Americans have shaped who they are", then proceeding to tell me how bad they are... SCREAMS "racist".

Had white "Americans" been dragged over here, by Spaniards to be slaves, who KNOWS how our "white culture" would be today? Slavery, here in the US went from 1620-1865. That's 245 years of doing all the work that "white" America was too lazy to do. And throughout those 245 years, "white" America collected wealth, and got fat on food. Then, we didn't allow black people equal rights until the '60s.

I see what Ron Paul's followers feel about black Americans, now. Now the letters make sense.
A white man (I assume you are white) playing the race card for the black man. And I've never been one to cry liberal. But dammit man, you sound like an indepted to a waste of a cause liberal. Not saying that you're "angry and hate filled" which some require to go with the statement :rolleyes: , but you are bumping the boundaries of the left.

Explain how someone other than black Americans "have shaped who they are". What do you even mean "shaped who they are"? If you are trying to emply that they still aren't getting a fair chance for opportunity then how is it that a black man is running for President of the United States for crying out loud?

Nice crack about Ron Paul. :rolleyes: Proves that you're not interested in fairness at all. :cool:

LMAO at you thinking white people were lazy in the 1800's.

[gpamp]

A white man (I assume you are white) playing the race card for the black man. And I've never been one to cry liberal. But dammit man, you sound like an indepted to a waste of a cause liberal. Not saying that you're "angry and hate filled" which some require to go with the statement :rolleyes: , but you are bumping the boundaries of the left.

Explain how someone other than black Americans "have shaped who they are". What do you even mean "shaped who they are"? If you are trying to emply that they still aren't getting a fair chance for opportunity then how is it that a black man is running for President of the United States for crying out loud?

Nice crack about Ron Paul. :rolleyes: Proves that you're not interested in fairness at all. :cool:

LMAO at you thinking white people were lazy in the 1800's.
What do I even mean with "shaped who they are?" You were the one to say it, without prompt. And without prompt, you also said "...And I must say that wearing their pants below their ass, caps sideways, bling grills with welfare or crack money, etc, etc, doesn't help their blending into mainstream at all."

That might not've been a hate-filled statement, if we were talking about guys in gangs, etc. But that came out of nowhere with a lot of anger.

If I'm a liberal for wanting all men to be equal... cool.

[black01gt]

What do I even mean with "shaped who they are?" You were the one to say it, without prompt. And without prompt, you also said "...And I must say that wearing their pants below their ass, caps sideways, bling grills with welfare or crack money, etc, etc, doesn't help their blending into mainstream at all."

That might not've been a hate-filled statement, if we were talking about guys in gangs, etc. But that came out of nowhere with a lot of anger.


Originally Posted by gpamp
There is a little difference, there. I realize that being white, it's easy to gloss over something like slavery as something that happened "a long time ago" and people need to "get over it", but if you think about it... it wasn't THAT long ago. It has completely shaped who black Americans are today.

Again I ask, what do you mean by "it (slavery) has shaped who black Americans are today"?

Why do you view my statement as "with a lot of anger" because I point out the ridiculous act of young black men walking around with their ass hanging out of their pants in a restaurant, in a movie, on the sidewalk....
You pasted the part of preventing them from "blending into the mainstream", but you left out the part of "That's why they do it."

They would have to change their attitude but, if a young black man wants whatever, it's not beyond his reach. MANY of them do. Why do you seem to concentrate on the ones that don't? They have all the rights thay need. Many of them choose to ignore and/or abuse them. It ruins their argument of "they can't get a break".

Also you failed to answer why if the blacks are still so mistreated why is one running successfully for President?

[Vertnut]

LMAO at honkies arguing about the plight of the black man...

[black01gt]

LMAO at honkies arguing about the plight of the black man...
Yep.

[Paladin]

LMAO at honkies arguing about the plight of the black man...

It is just one of the many rights of passage for the average goofy white guy liberal. LOL

[gpamp]

Originally Posted by gpamp
There is a little difference, there. I realize that being white, it's easy to gloss over something like slavery as something that happened "a long time ago" and people need to "get over it", but if you think about it... it wasn't THAT long ago. It has completely shaped who black Americans are today.

Again I ask, what do you mean by "it (slavery) has shaped who black Americans are today"?

Why do you view my statement as "with a lot of anger" because I point out the ridiculous act of young black men walking around with their ass hanging out of their pants in a restaurant, in a movie, on the sidewalk....
You pasted the part of preventing them from "blending into the mainstream", but you left out the part of "That's why they do it."

They would have to change their attitude but, if a young black man wants whatever, it's not beyond his reach. MANY of them do. Why do you seem to concentrate on the ones that don't? They have all the rights thay need. Many of them choose to ignore and/or abuse them. It ruins their argument of "they can't get a break".

Also you failed to answer why if the blacks are still so mistreated why is one running successfully for President?
Ah. Sorry. I honestly didn't know you were quoting me when you said "shaped who they are", because I didn't say it with any implications of "things I don't like that some black people do."

You had brought up the fact that you were angry because Obama's church has said that they wanted to remain true to their native land, and you didn't like that they were unashamed of being black. At least I think you were angry about those things, or else you wouldn't have brought them up in a strange accusatory way.

When I say that slavery has "shaped who they are" it's because... are you kidding? You have to ask what I meant by that? a) They wouldn't even be here if we hadn't bought their ancestors and forced them to come over here. b) While our country moved from slavery to equality, their freedom was put on hold... until the NINETEEN SIXTIES! Some black families have gone through 2 centuries of poverty. I don't care how poor you think you are, if you're a white person, with a long history of family in this country, there's people in your lineage who've gained wealth because of the free labor of slavery. Directly or indirectly.

The statement you made out of anger was exactly that. Do you go down to Deep Ellum, find the weirdest white kids you can find, with tattoos, piercings, in goth clothes, and what-not, and use them as an example for all white people? No. No one does. (It really is racist that you pointed that out. Though I don't believe you are.)

[black01gt]

Ah. Sorry. I honestly didn't know you were quoting me when you said "shaped who they are", because I didn't say it with any implications of "things I don't like that some black people do."

You had brought up the fact that you were angry because Obama's church has said that they wanted to remain true to their native land, and you didn't like that they were unashamed of being black. At least I think you were angry about those things, or else you wouldn't have brought them up in a strange accusatory way.

The statement you made out of anger was exactly that. Do you go down to Deep Ellum, find the weirdest white kids you can find, with tattoos, piercings, in goth clothes, and what-not, and use them as an example for all white people? No. No one does. (It really is racist that you pointed that out. Though I don't believe you are.)
Please change the word "angry" to "concerned". Please show me where I "didn't like that they were unashamed of being black". That's a ridiculous accusation.

Of course I stereotype kids that are goth, tats, peircings, sagging, hip-hop, etc etc...black, white, whatever. It's human nature and that's why they have the look. To get response and show they have "wild child" tendencies. BFD. Do I hold that aginst their general population? No.

I'm not a racist. I gauge everyone I meet by their character and attitude only. That's why I love the movie "Crash". It's very educational.

[gpamp]

Please change the word "angry" to "concerned". Please show me where I "didn't like that they were unashamed of being black". That's a ridiculous accusation.

Of course I stereotype kids that are goth, tats, peircings, sagging, hip-hop, etc etc...black, white, whatever. It's human nature and that's why they have the look. To get response and show they have "wild child" tendencies. BFD. Do I hold that aginst their general population? No.

I'm not a racist. I gauge everyone I meet by their character and attitude only. That's why I love the movie "Crash". It's very educational.
It's not so much stereotyping the goth kids only. I said "black people" and you immediately thought of the stereotypes, with the pants, "bling", etc. What I was trying to get across is, when someone says "white people", I'm gathering you don't immediately think of goth kids, right? That's what I was going for.

So, is Ron Paul going to run independent? I'm shocked Rudy's bailing for he is.

[black01gt]

It's not so much stereotyping the goth kids only. I said "black people" and you immediately thought of the stereotypes, with the pants, "bling", etc. What I was trying to get across is, when someone says "white people", I'm gathering you don't immediately think of goth kids, right? That's what I was going for.

So, is Ron Paul going to run independent? I'm shocked Rudy's bailing for he is.
They strereotype themselves. I just notice. But not neccessary racially. I just don't care for punks with shitty attitudes no matter what race they are. I do appreciate meeting a sharp young person with some ambition...no matter what race they are.

Hope so. Rudy made a mistake even running, unless he and his high paid "consultants" banked some serious cash.

[gpamp]

If he runs Independent, I have a theory that it'll be a reverse version of the 2000 election. Ron Paul will tear votes away from mostly the Republican candidate, as Nader did to the Democrats of 2000. Just a theory, though. I wish I would've caught the debate tonight. But I don't have tv.

[Paladin]

If he runs Independent, I have a theory that it'll be a reverse version of the 2000 election. Ron Paul will tear votes away from mostly the Republican candidate, as Nader did to the Democrats of 2000. Just a theory, though. I wish I would've caught the debate tonight. But I don't have tv.

I sure would like to see the people who would vote for RP that claim to have ever voted for a Republican in the past. I sure wish we could then give polygraphs and see that most of those are liars! LOL

I know your vote for RP as an independent is a loss to the Dems, assuming you have ever voted, which is doubtful. Kinda hard to get to the polls if you are high, right? :D

[black01gt]

If he runs Independent, I have a theory that it'll be a reverse version of the 2000 election. Ron Paul will tear votes away from mostly the Republican candidate, as Nader did to the Democrats of 2000. Just a theory, though. I wish I would've caught the debate tonight. But I don't have tv.
I think he'll pull large chunks of voters from both "former" parties. The repubs should have listened to him. 2 large chunks = 1 huge mass.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c205/FeatMike/Mitt20Romney.gif

[gpamp]

I sure would like to see the people who would vote for RP that claim to have ever voted for a Republican in the past. I sure wish we could then give polygraphs and see that most of those are liars! LOL

I know your vote for RP as an independent is a loss to the Dems, assuming you have ever voted, which is doubtful. Kinda hard to get to the polls if you are high, right? :D
Who said I was voting for Ron Paul? Did you not read the thread?

I'm still a Democrat. And keep yappin'. Just wait until our secret plan to implement John McCain as President, then he'll reveal that he's really one of us! bwahahahaha

And I've never been high in my life. I've never even smoked a cigarette. When you accuse me of being high, do you feel better about the young boys from Thailand that you peek at?

[Paladin]

Who said I was voting for Ron Paul? Did you not read the thread?

I'm still a Democrat. And keep yappin'. Just wait until our secret plan to implement John McCain as President, then he'll reveal that he's really one of us! bwahahahaha

And I've never been high in my life. I've never even smoked a cigarette. When you accuse me of being high, do you feel better about the young boys from Thailand that you peek at?

What is so secret about McCain being a RINO?

BTW, only someone who is stupid or high would think they were the only one who knew how liberal McCain is. LOL

[White trash wagon]

Face the facts, all of the Republican candidates are RINO's. Being strong on terrorism (and New Yorkers contest that) didn't make Guiliani any less a liberal. McCain is labeled a RINO by virtually all Republicans. Romney only recently changed (flip flopped in soem circles) his rather liberal views on many litmus test Republican questions,plus his religious affiliation scares the right wing evangelicals. Ron Paul is a RINO because he's actually a Libertarian.

Read Rod Drehers column in todays Dallas paper in "Points". The conservative Mr Dreher advocates a Democratic president for 2008, since he concludes that any Republican running now would fatally wound the Republican party.

The Republican Party as it was in the 80's, is essentially dead.

[Paladin]

Face the facts, all of the Republican candidates are RINO's. Being strong on terrorism (and New Yorkers contest that) didn't make Guiliani any less a liberal. McCain is labeled a RINO by virtually all Republicans. Romney only recently changed (flip flopped in soem circles) his rather liberal views on many litmus test Republican questions,plus his religious affiliation scares the right wing evangelicals. Ron Paul is a RINO because he's actually a Libertarian.

Read Rod Drehers column in todays Dallas paper in "Points". The conservative Mr Dreher advocates a Democratic president for 2008, since he concludes that any Republican running now would fatally wound the Republican party.

The Republican Party as it was in the 80's, is essentially dead.

The sad part is that if the Dems could actually put out a few decent candidates they would win this thing hands down. Instead they put out candidates that actually make McCain and Romney decent choices IMO.

[jyro]

I sure would like to see the people who would vote for RP that claim to have ever voted for a Republican in the past. I sure wish we could then give polygraphs and see that most of those are liars!

I think he's the most conservative of the bunch. anti- abortion, fiscal responsibility, Constitutionality, reform drug laws, states rights, cut gouv. size and spending.

What's not to like? what's liberal about him. I think what he says makes a lot of sense. He says what all the others wished they could but won't.

[White trash wagon]

I sure would like to see the people who would vote for RP that claim to have ever voted for a Republican in the past. I sure wish we could then give polygraphs and see that most of those are liars!

I don't get that statement either. What's liberal about Ron Paul, especially on the immigration and budget agendas? I was a solid Republican from 1980 to 1992. Ron Paul is a bit of a RINO, but only in the modern context, because he's not a neo-con, but an old school Republican as they were about 30 years ago.

But I will comment whoever would voted for McCain, Guiliani or even Bush have a questionable status as real Republicans.

[black01gt]

Ron Paul is a bit of a RINO, but only in the modern context, because he's not a neo-con, but an old school Republican as they were about 30 years ago.

But I will comment whoever would voted for McCain, Guiliani or even Bush have a questionable status as real Republicans.
I would definately add Romney to that list.

[Paladin]

I think he's the most conservative of the bunch. anti- abortion, fiscal responsibility, Constitutionality, reform drug laws, states rights, cut gouv. size and spending.

What's not to like? what's liberal about him. I think what he says makes a lot of sense. He says what all the others wished they could but won't.

I said most, not all.

[Paladin]

I don't get that statement either. What's liberal about Ron Paul, especially on the immigration and budget agendas? I was a solid Republican from 1980 to 1992. Ron Paul is a bit of a RINO, but only in the modern context, because he's not a neo-con, but an old school Republican as they were about 30 years ago.

But I will comment whoever would voted for McCain, Guiliani or even Bush have a questionable status as real Republicans.

I didn't mean to say RP is liberal, I meant to say that most of his current supporters tend to be young dreamer types who have probably never voted before, much less voted for a Republican. I haven't spoken personally to any RP suppporters. I know lots of conservatives and Republicans, and except for this board, none think RP is anything but a nut.

BTW, this is just my opinion, nothing more. Relax guys, I am entitled to it and I base it off of what I have seen on this board, on media coverage, and other outlets reading what RP supporters say and do.

I get it why he is appealing to his supporters. I get it why they think he is a great guy. I just think he is a nut. Funny, I can see why he is appealing to his supporters, yet my decision to support another cnadidate is not as tolerated by the RP supporters. LOL, I love that!

[black01gt]

Funny, I can see why he is appealing to his supporters, yet my decision to support another cnadidate is not as tolerated by the RP supporters. LOL, I love that!
Pity Party? Awwww. We sawwy. :rolleyes: Somebody call a Wambulance for Notch.

I've seen nothing but you questioning why people support RP, yet I haven't seen a post of anyone questioning your choice of a candidate, who ever that might be. :confused:

Double standards? ....yep.

[Paladin]

Pity Party? Awwww. We sawwy. :rolleyes: Somebody call a Wambulance for Notch.

I've seen nothing but you questioning why people support RP, yet I haven't seen a post of anyone questioning your choice of a candidate, who ever that might be. :confused:

Double standards? ....yep.

I am shocked you can't see it! LOL

Besides, it seems you care more about me than I do for you.

[gpamp]

In the music circle I run in, since most of us hold some religious values, I'm one of the few Democrats I know. Every single member in my band is Republican (when they actually vote) except for me. Every one of them are full-on Ron Paul supporters. My keyboardist is even helping in the campaign, I think.

One thing I do like about Ron Paul is he's not running around screaming that he's Reagan come back from the dead. At the heart of his policies, you'll see a Libertarian. But if you look at what a Libertarian believes, and strip away Religion-in-politics, that's what a Conservative is/should be.

The thing is, if you go by the right-wing media, if a Republican candidate is in the center (McCain) Rush starts screaming "LIBERAL!!!!" and they all fall in line and do the same. A Democrat is always going to be "liberal" to them, no matter how "center" he is. Look at Clinton. That guy was almost Republican with most of his decisions. And he's looked at as a "liberal".

I think the right-wingers are pretty thankful that Pat Buchanan came along. That way they have someone to point to when someone says "well, what's a right-wing-nut?". When in reality, they're just moving the bar that decides that.

What's sad is, if McCain got elected... I think that would be such a unifying thing. I mean, sure, Democrats will be upset at first, because seriously, 8 years of happy Rush Limbaugh is enough... but after everything gets going, I think Democrats like McCain. I like him. I want Obama to win. But if McCain wins, I won't think the world's coming to an end.

[Paladin]

In the music circle I run in, since most of us hold some religious values, I'm one of the few Democrats I know. Every single member in my band is Republican (when they actually vote) except for me. Every one of them are full-on Ron Paul supporters. My keyboardist is even helping in the campaign, I think.

One thing I do like about Ron Paul is he's not running around screaming that he's Reagan come back from the dead. At the heart of his policies, you'll see a Libertarian. But if you look at what a Libertarian believes, and strip away Religion-in-politics, that's what a Conservative is/should be.

The thing is, if you go by the right-wing media, if a Republican candidate is in the center (McCain) Rush starts screaming "LIBERAL!!!!" and they all fall in line and do the same. A Democrat is always going to be "liberal" to them, no matter how "center" he is. Look at Clinton. That guy was almost Republican with most of his decisions. And he's looked at as a "liberal".

I think the right-wingers are pretty thankful that Pat Buchanan came along. That way they have someone to point to when someone says "well, what's a right-wing-nut?". When in reality, they're just moving the bar that decides that.

What's sad is, if McCain got elected... I think that would be such a unifying thing. I mean, sure, Democrats will be upset at first, because seriously, 8 years of happy Rush Limbaugh is enough... but after everything gets going, I think Democrats like McCain. I like him. I want Obama to win. But if McCain wins, I won't think the world's coming to an end.

McCain supports amnesty and he has been in bed with so many liberal Democrats here in the last few years why wouldn't conservatives be worried? Why do conservatives have to blindly support a Republican candidate just because he is running as a Republican?

If there was a moderate Democrat, like Lieberman was before he got ran off from your party for being a moderate, I would probably be voting Democrat again.

BTW, I find it funny that your band members are Republicans but don't vote. Doesn't that make them non-voters? I can see the leaders of either party talking about how many supporters they have on their side by claiming people who don't actually vote. Yeah, that makes sense. LOL

BTW, the fact that you admit you would support McCain kind of makes the point of how liberal he is. You probably wouldn't be saying the same if Fred Thompson was going to be the nominee, would you?

[jyro]

super Video by a real DEMOCRAT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4GqdfRJf5E

[gpamp]

Why do conservatives have to blindly support a Republican candidate just because he is running as a Republican?
Not sure. Maybe because if they don't tote the party line, they get labeled a liberal?

If there was a moderate Democrat, like Lieberman was before he got ran off from your party for being a moderate, I would probably be voting Democrat again.
haha, I knew you'd bring up Lieberman. A lot of Democrats see Lieberman like you see McCain. It would be perfect if I called Lieberman a far-right conservative. Because McCain, being in the center... leaning away from his party is a "liberal" and Lieberman, leaning away from the Democrats is "just right", haha. Hypocrite.

BTW, I find it funny that your band members are Republicans but don't vote. Doesn't that make them non-voters? I can see the leaders of either party talking about how many supporters they have on their side by claiming people who don't actually vote. Yeah, that makes sense. LOL
I realize you're way of arguing is to throw so many accusations and ignorant statements up as possible, that way whoever is arguing with you has to spend a lot of time trying to "defend" these stupid statements you make. Which gives you ample time to look through all the dialog and find faults to distort once again. It's very Fox. My band members support the Republican party, more often than not.
Keep in mind that 2 of them have never been of age during a presidential run. The other 3 have voted before. But I shouldn't have to validate that. Not even the point. But it's cute that you listen to so much Hannity that you know how to argue just like him.

BTW, the fact that you admit you would support McCain kind of makes the point of how liberal he is. You probably wouldn't be saying the same if Fred Thompson was going to be the nominee, would you?
Never said I'd "support McCain". But if he were my President, I'd be more likely to be ok with it. Fred who? haha He was about as plausible as your boy, Flip.

I realize you probably hate McCain because he fought for this country in Vietnam. I know you guys didn't like that about Kerry. I think it adds character to him, though. Despite what you say. :D

[jyro]

QUOTE=gpamp
The thing is, if you go by the right-wing media, if a Republican candidate is in the center (McCain) Rush starts screaming "LIBERAL!!!!"

Gee, McCain's voting record shows it too, excuse Rush for showing his voting and bill support history.


A Democrat is always going to be "liberal" to them, no matter how "center" he is.


Like Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman?


because seriously, 8 years of happy Rush Limbaugh is enough...

you don't listen to Rush I guess, he hasn't been happy with Bush


but after everything gets going, I think Democrats like McCain. I like him.


Why shouldn't you, he's more Democrat than Republican

if McCain wins, I won't think the world's coming to an end

it won't but it will signal a shift of Republicans to the left

I realize you probably hate McCain because he fought for this country in Vietnam. I know you guys didn't like that about Kerry. I think it adds character to him, though.

I don't hate McCane for fighting and being a POW. I don't hate him at all!
I actually think he's damaged from being a pow and shouldn't have his finger anywhere around a red nuke button.

[gpamp]

1. Gee, McCain's voting record shows it too, excuse Rush for showing his voting and bill support history.


2. Like Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman?

3. you don't listen to Rush I guess, he hasn't been happy with Bush

4. Why shouldn't you, he's more Democrat than Republican

5. it won't but it will signal a shift of Republicans to the left

6. I don't hate McCane for fighting and being a POW. I don't hate him at all!
I actually think he's damaged from being a pow and shouldn't have his finger anywhere around a red nuke button.

1. It's not "liberal". You conservatives throw that word around like Rudy throws around "9/11". The whole point was that if a Republican goes center, you say "liberal." If a Democrat goes center, you guys say "good democrat".

2. Further enhancing my point. Lieberman & Miller went pretty conservative, and every Republican in the media said "THAT'S what Democrats are supposed to be like!" But when McCain goes center (NOT liberal... seriously, you guys over-use that word. no more 820 for you) you all cry out that he might as well be a Democrat. It's a stupid double standard, really.

3. I do listen to Rush. I've never heard Rush say anything bad about Bush without really lightening the mood of the monologue. It's never sarcastic or venomous like when he lays it on a Democrat, etc. Plus, I think Rush is more upset over Ruddy jumping ship, than anything Bush might've done to upset him and his formerly nicotine stained fingers.

4. Again with the cry-liberal thing again. McCain is NOT more Democrat than Republican. Just because he's moderate does NOT mean he's a liberal. Any more than Zell Miller is Pat Buchanan's best bud, because he rides the middle. Conservatives need to be ok with the middle. Seriously. If everything went as far right as some Conservatives want it to go, we'd be holding "God Hates Fags" rallies.

5. I think the Republicans can handle a "shift to the left". Sheesh. Let's calm down with the "how conservative are YOU??" pissing matches.

6. I didn't say you hated McCain. I was talking to 90. :)

[jyro]

1. It's not "liberal". :)

nice tunes on your myspace page

mine-- http://www.myspace.com/charliedaubitz

[black01gt]

nice tunes on your myspace page


Yep.
The Granada - I am impressed.
Bill Ellison has done photography for my friends, the subdudes.

[gpamp]

nice tunes on your myspace page

mine-- http://www.myspace.com/charliedaubitz
Thanks, man! I guess you're talking about my band's myspace. We're workin' on a new album right now.

Although we're nothing compared to Zappa. haha.

I grew up on Frank.

[White trash wagon]

Why do conservatives have to blindly support a Republican candidate just because he is running as a Republican?

If there was a moderate Democrat, like Lieberman was before he got ran off from your party for being a moderate, I would probably be voting Democrat again.


I'm impressed 90Notch, blindly following any political party is foolish, and you appear not to. You've moderated a bit. :)

Scott

[gpamp]

I'm impressed 90Notch, blindly following any political party is foolish, and you appear not to. You've moderated a bit. :)

Scott
...or has he gone LIBERAL?!

haha

Keep up with the Fox Formula. Democrat sliding right is all right. Republican sliding left... "LIBERAL!!!"

[Paladin]

Not sure. Maybe because if they don't tote the party line, they get labeled a liberal?

LOL, you don't even know when I am making fun of you, do you?

haha, I knew you'd bring up Lieberman. A lot of Democrats see Lieberman like you see McCain. It would be perfect if I called Lieberman a far-right conservative. Because McCain, being in the center... leaning away from his party is a "liberal" and Lieberman, leaning away from the Democrats is "just right", haha. Hypocrite.

I am really impressed with what idiot Democrats think. NOT!

How is wanting amnesty for illegals, wanting to raise taxes by ending tax cuts, getting into bed with radical liberals being moderate? You silly liberals have gone so far left that when someone is also left of center, you see them as moderate. McCain is hardly moderate when he goes liberal. Besides, no one from the Republicans is advocating throwing McCain out of the party like you liberals did to Lieberman. There is a difference even though you can't see it.

//whispers// Please remember that Ann Coulter has never asked for a vote, so she is juts a citizen, not a representative of the Republican party//whispers//

I realize you're way of arguing is to throw so many accusations and ignorant statements up as possible, that way whoever is arguing with you has to spend a lot of time trying to "defend" these stupid statements you make. Which gives you ample time to look through all the dialog and find faults to distort once again. It's very Fox. My band members support the Republican party, more often than not.
Keep in mind that 2 of them have never been of age during a presidential run. The other 3 have voted before. But I shouldn't have to validate that. Not even the point. But it's cute that you listen to so much Hannity that you know how to argue just like him.

Damn man, you sound like a whiny bitch!

//earpiercing whine from gpanty// Why do I have to answer all these hard questions and facts from 90? //earpiercing whine from gpanty//

And on the non-voter point, thanks for confirming I was right. LOL

Never said I'd "support McCain". But if he were my President, I'd be more likely to be ok with it. Fred who? haha He was about as plausible as your boy, Flip.

Why wouldn't you be okay with a liberal Republican being president? DUH! I would be okay with a moderate Democrat considering the field who is currently running for the Republican nomination. Dude, you make this stuff so easy. LOL

BTW, can I put a bumper sticker on my car if Hillary gets the nomination that says "Anyone but Hillary" like you liberals did to Bush? I mean, if Kerry is not a flipflopper but Romney is, then you would probably have a problem with the bumper sticker that you liberals used, right? Gotta keep up the hypocrisy, don't you?


I realize you probably hate McCain because he fought for this country in Vietnam. I know you guys didn't like that about Kerry. I think it adds character to him, though. Despite what you say. :D

I think the people who didn't like Kerry were the men who served with him. I haven't heard anyone come after McCain. I served my time in the Air force, so why would I have a problem with a veteran who served honorably?

BTW, I was really headed toward supporting Fred Thompson, so my forst choice is not available anymore. I guess all of us who wanted people who dropped out have to settle for what's left.

[Paladin]

I'm impressed 90Notch, blindly following any political party is foolish, and you appear not to. You've moderated a bit. :)

Scott

LOL, I haven't changed a bit. You guys just think my passion is fanaticism. I have told you guys I am only a 2 time voter for a Republican.

It took a great man like Bush and a total idiot like Clinton to let me see the light!

It didn't hurt that the Democrats blindly supported Clinton when the rest of the free world knew he was a liar, had committed perjury and had sex with a subordinate, something that would have caused any other leader of a decent group to be ousted. Hell, you can't even wave a few fingers under a restroom stall and survive being a Republican! LOL