Just want to point out that you could go in circles with that argument (I don't favor either opinion, but I'm pointing it out). Paul is pretty much saying that the Muslims only attacked because of our foreign policy, and that if we hadn't been playing world police it would have never happened. But I do have to say, now that they have attacked us on our own land there really is no going back.The_Mac wrote:
No, he's a quack. He seeks to appeal to the libertarians within the Republican party, but he's not getting anywhere. For one thing, he blames too much on American Foreign policy, and second, his isolation policy is nice and dandy if we hadn't been attacked by Arabs.CommieChipmunk wrote:
lol.. would have expected that from you.usmarine2005 wrote:
This guy is a quack.
I suppose any sign of intelligence in the republican party automatically sets of the "quack detectors" eh?
It seems liberals and dumbasses alike cite Bush's claims to withdrawing America from world affairs before he was elected as proof he's a hypocrite--only problem is they seem to forgot one problem--we were attacked by Muslim bums.
This guy is my new favourite American politician.
He beats Condi because he isn't part of the Bush administration.
He beats Condi because he isn't part of the Bush administration.
And why do you think you were attacked? Because they hate your freedom?The_Mac wrote:
No, he's a quack. He seeks to appeal to the libertarians within the Republican party, but he's not getting anywhere. For one thing, he blames too much on American Foreign policy, and second, his isolation policy is nice and dandy if we hadn't been attacked by Arabs.CommieChipmunk wrote:
lol.. would have expected that from you.usmarine2005 wrote:
This guy is a quack.
I suppose any sign of intelligence in the republican party automatically sets of the "quack detectors" eh?
It seems liberals and dumbasses alike cite Bush's claims to withdrawing America from world affairs before he was elected as proof he's a hypocrite--only problem is they seem to forgot one problem--we were attacked by Muslim bums.
Good lord dude, we know why FFS. This guy is not saying anything we do not know.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
And why do you think you were attacked? Because they hate your freedom?
then why did you call him a quack?
Michigan GOP leader wants Paul barred from future debates
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/g … llout.html
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/g … llout.html
Last edited by thanks_champ (2007-05-21 19:58:25)
Blaming the US for 9/11. If somehow things were really different, he would blame the government for something else. The actions we took in the recent past were to win the Cold War. Was that a bad thing? No. Did it produce problems? Yes. But who is to say we would be better off measuring our nuclear dicks with the USSR?ts-pulsar wrote:
then why did you call him a quack?
He isn't popular with Republicans because he's not a neocon.Kmarion wrote:
Do you realize that nearly every other conservative poll (Drudge, Hotair, Fox) does not even have him placing in the top five? MSNBC is not exactly a Republican hub. Pay attention to the GOP intense sites if you want a heads up on who the leaders are, especially those that allow their readers to vote and comment. That was round one, we will have another one in six days. In the mean time you might want to check this out to see who the top GOP guys are from a variety of different places.
Last edited by xintegrityx (2007-05-21 20:07:26)
Really? Did the United States' support of Israel have anything to do with the Cold War? Because that's one of the main reasons why the Arab world hates us.usmarine2005 wrote:
The actions we took in the recent past were to win the Cold War.
Maybe it has something to do with the US having more Jews than anywhere else in the world? I could be wrong, but not including Israel, I bet there are more Jews in New York city alone than anywhere else in the world.xintegrityx wrote:
Really? Did the United States' support of Israel have anything to do with the Cold War? Because that's one of the main reasons why the Arab world hates us.usmarine2005 wrote:
The actions we took in the recent past were to win the Cold War.
I like this guy.
guys get real
i saw ron paul, his views although somewhat utopian, are decent. he would probably make a decent prez
but it wont happen, he has no real PR, excep this one debate, plus his campaign is underfunded
money gets you the seat. bottom line
i saw ron paul, his views although somewhat utopian, are decent. he would probably make a decent prez
but it wont happen, he has no real PR, excep this one debate, plus his campaign is underfunded
money gets you the seat. bottom line
Hang on... wasn't the o-poster banned for neo-nazism?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Here we go again.. i was banned because of my previous name.. not because of my posts.. i changed my name to what it is right now.. my posts under this account and under the previous account were always respectful and polite. I hate Israel and i'm not afraid to say it. I hate Israel not because its full of jews but because of the way they are treating the palestinians. Israel could be full of christians and i would hate them the same if they were treating the pals the same way.Spark wrote:
Hang on... wasn't the o-poster banned for neo-nazism?
This topic is about Ron Paul, you may disagree with his opinions and this topic is here to discuss that but please don't derail the thread.
Thanks and back on topic:
Speaking about "hate", read here his opinions about HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul385.html
Please keep the discussion civil, no need to call people names here.
Yes he was....Spark wrote:
Hang on... wasn't the o-poster banned for neo-nazism?
There is nothing new in his opinion of HR 1592. He is for minimal government period. His view is the Federal government has one obligation to the people, protection.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
Here we go again.. i was banned because of my previous name.. not because of my posts.. i changed my name to what it is right now.. my posts under this account and under the previous account were always respectful and polite. I hate Israel and i'm not afraid to say it. I hate Israel not because its full of jews but because of the way they are treating the palestinians. Israel could be full of christians and i would hate them the same if they were treating the pals the same way.Spark wrote:
Hang on... wasn't the o-poster banned for neo-nazism?
This topic is about Ron Paul, you may disagree with his opinions and this topic is here to discuss that but please don't derail the thread.
Thanks and back on topic:
Speaking about "hate", read here his opinions about HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul385.html
Please keep the discussion civil, no need to call people names here.
Not all Republicans are NeoCons.xintegrityx wrote:
He isn't popular with Republicans because he's not a neocon.Kmarion wrote:
Do you realize that nearly every other conservative poll (Drudge, Hotair, Fox) does not even have him placing in the top five? MSNBC is not exactly a Republican hub. Pay attention to the GOP intense sites if you want a heads up on who the leaders are, especially those that allow their readers to vote and comment. That was round one, we will have another one in six days. In the mean time you might want to check this out to see who the top GOP guys are from a variety of different places.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I'm pretty sure that if Ron Paul were to get the GOP nomination he would be the next president. The hardest part of the campaign run will in fact be getting the GOP Nom. If he does I think the he will have the full libertarian and conservative votes of the GOP party, as well as pulling in a sizable portion of Democratic and Independent voters. Also, I think he will have a lot of votes come from people who don't want or are not exactly comfortable voting for a black guy or a woman.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. The Dem's don't want to pull out of Iraq either, and I get the impression at this point the majority of America wants to do so. Sadly, with the way that most of the other GOP guys treat him so far, I can't see him getting it.Cougar wrote:
I'm pretty sure that if Ron Paul were to get the GOP nomination he would be the next president. The hardest part of the campaign run will in fact be getting the GOP Nom. If he does I think the he will have the full libertarian and conservative votes of the GOP party, as well as pulling in a sizable portion of Democratic and Independent voters. Also, I think he will have a lot of votes come from people who don't want or are not exactly comfortable voting for a black guy or a woman.
I would still like to know why questioning the original 9/11 Commission Report(which was/is heavily redacted and incomplete) gets you branded a conspiracy theorist? Ron Paul uses historic examples to show that powers in the US Government create conflicts (Gulf of Tongkin, USS Maine) to start wars, and he is called a crackpot.
Put your fingers back into your ears, because he obviously talks about/expounds on things many of you critics cannot comprehend (or don't want to).
Put your fingers back into your ears, because he obviously talks about/expounds on things many of you critics cannot comprehend (or don't want to).
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-05-22 09:34:42)
Maybe his buddy Kucinich will be his running mate.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I would still like to know why questioning the original 9/11 Commission Report(which was/is heavily redacted and incomplete) gets you branded a conspiracy theorist? Ron Paul uses historic examples to show that powers in the US Government create conflicts (Gulf of Tongkin, USS Maine) to start wars, and he is called a crackpot.
Put your fingers back into your ears, because he obviously talks about/expounds on things many of you critics cannot comprehend (or don't want to).
Eloquence and pure intellect with your response once again Marine. You are the essence of proper debate.usmarine2005 wrote:
Maybe his buddy Kucinich will be his running mate.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I would still like to know why questioning the original 9/11 Commission Report(which was/is heavily redacted and incomplete) gets you branded a conspiracy theorist? Ron Paul uses historic examples to show that powers in the US Government create conflicts (Gulf of Tongkin, USS Maine) to start wars, and he is called a crackpot.
Put your fingers back into your ears, because he obviously talks about/expounds on things many of you critics cannot comprehend (or don't want to).
What is the debate? I said what I had to say.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Eloquence and pure intellect with your response once again Marine. You are the essence of proper debate.
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-05-22 09:41:54)
Why is he a crackpot? Because he questions an incomplete and heavily redacted Report? Because he uses historic (true) examples to show that powers in the US have created incidents to start wars?usmarine2005 wrote:
What is the debate? I said what I had to say.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Eloquence and pure intellect with your response once again Marine. You are the essence of proper debate.
Or was your point that because he is an acquaintance of Kucinich, he is a quack?