|
Post by solinvictus on May 18, 2007 19:54:23 GMT -5
[/quote] Bela Lugosi's Dead! Undead undead undead undead!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on May 18, 2007 20:11:42 GMT -5
If Paul keeps this up he may hand the 9/11 mayor the Presidency.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 18, 2007 20:52:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dixie56 on May 18, 2007 22:41:25 GMT -5
Ron Paul did not just pull up what he said out of a hat. Go look into the 9-11 commission report. There were many including if I am not mistaken CIA etc. that said the same thing. But the MSM and those that do NOT want someone that the people want will do everything they can to destroy him. Do the research and you will know who is telling the truth! www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/160507foxclaims.htm Fox News Claim Ron Paul's Online Voters Skewed Text-Message Only Poll! Limbaugh, Neo-Cons pretend Ron Paul doesn't exist to prevent their delusional soap bubble from being popped Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Wednesday, May 16, 2007 Fox News had an explanation for why Ron Paul did so well in their poll even after the deliberate smear job that constituted their presidential debate - online activists were skewing the numbers. There's only one problem with that claim - the poll was by text message only and no online votes were taken! Fox News Claim Ron Paul's Online Voters Skewed Text-Message Only Poll! Limbaugh, Neo-Cons pretend Ron Paul doesn't exist to prevent their delusional soap bubble from being popped Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Wednesday, May 16, 2007 Fox News had an explanation for why Ron Paul did so well in their poll even after the deliberate smear job that constituted their presidential debate - online activists were skewing the numbers. There's only one problem with that claim - the poll was by text message only and no online votes were taken! Watch the video. It seems that the Neo-Cons who are hell-bent on destroying anyone other than their Neo-Lib icon Hillary Clinton, for whom Fox owner Rupert Murdoch regularly throws fundraisers, and will go to any lengths to try and dismiss the massive wave of popular support for Ron Paul, including by lying outright in claiming Internet votes swung the vote for Paul when no Internet votes were even taken. This moron also states that Romney won the MSNBC poll after the first debate! Another total lie - Ron Paul won it hands down. Neo-Con blog sites like Little Green Footballs are now removing Ron Paul from their polls because too many people are voting for him! This is not as a result of one person voting multiple times, as in all the online polls only one vote per IP address is allowed, but the operators of the site simply don't like Ron Paul and have chosen to ignore reality and pretend that he doesn't exist. Hillbilly heroin popping walrus Rush Limbaugh also accused Ron Paul supporters of spamming online polls on his radio show. These people do not seem to be able to grasp the meaning of the term "IP address" and how online polls are designed to block multiple votes from one person. Here's a newsflash to all you chicken hawk fake conservatives - political campaigns and elections are about people getting involved and having their voices heard - this is called the "democratic process". More individuals are motivated to vote for Ron Paul over establishment bootlickers like Romney and Giuliani because Ron Paul actually stands for something and represents the majority view of the people living in the United States. This is not "cheating" or skewing the vote, it's a reflection of popular opinion and just because it feels good for you to ignore that fact - God forbid it pop your phony little Neo-Con bubble - doesn't mean it's not the truth. Ron Paul clearly won the debate and heads up every poll taken other than Fox News' suspicious closed-door 3 hour text-message only charade, in which Paul came second behind Mitt Romney after a mysterious sudden swing in the last 20 minutes. A World Net Daily Poll also shows Paul on top in front of pro-torture "Jack Bauer" acolyte Tancredo at 32 per cent. Both ABC News and MSNBC show Paul trouncing his rivals again despite Fox News' best efforts to shoot him down last night. Ron Paul is made of sterner stuff and this snowball is only getting bigger!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 18, 2007 22:56:18 GMT -5
But even the most cursory study of history puts the lie to the notion that Isolationism 'protects' a given country. Poland, 1939. Of course you know the Nazis went in to liberate Poland after a terrorist attack right? Maybe you guys are right. Some of the parallels between WWII and our current war against (?) are downright eerie.
|
|
lawman
Apprentice Cog
Posts: 237
|
Post by lawman on May 18, 2007 23:00:03 GMT -5
Good stuff, Dixie56! If you were Paul's campaign manager...I honestly believe he might have a real chance!
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 18, 2007 23:01:26 GMT -5
dixie-
You're conflating two separate and distinct issues- well...YOU aren't but the website you quote is.
What Fox News was alluding to is that liberal activists on various ONLINE websites such as MoveOn.org, DemocratUnderground and HuffingtonPost were suggesting that their readers text-message Fox and vote for Ron Paul.
Wander over to those sites and you'll see various posts by their readers 'supporting' Ron Paul not because they agree with him but because their goal is to embarass Republicans.
Ever hear of "crossover" elections?
In a crossover election, members of one political party can vote in the primary of the other political party- a Democrat can vote in the Republican primary and vice-versa.
Remember the primary objection to such elections?
That voters of one party can throw their support behind the weakest candidate in the other party so as to increase the chances that their own candidate will win?
That is EXACTLY what's going on with Ron Paul.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 19, 2007 3:32:00 GMT -5
Ron Paul was right about what he said period. If Guiliani "has never heard something this absurd before" that clearly shows he has either not read the 9/11 Commission Report or he can't remember what he reads.
|
|
|
Post by dixie56 on May 19, 2007 9:36:11 GMT -5
Yes W.O.M.I. I have thought about that. It never ceases to amaze me the stupid games these people play. Did you see the article where the Alabama department of homeland security are labeling libaterians as terrorists? www.chrisbrunner.com/2007/05/09/libertarians-are-terrorists-says-the-state-of-alabama/Libertarians Are Terrorists, Says the State of Alabama The Alabama Department of Homeland Security (ALDHS), established in June of 2003, has recently constructed a website that defines Domestic Terrorists as those who oppose gun control and a strong federal government. Under the heading “Anti-Government Groups”, the site displays a flag that is widely considered one of the first symbols of American patriotism and reads, “In general, these terrorists claim that the U.S. government is infringing on their individual rights, and/or that the government's policies are criminal and immoral. Such groups may hold that the current government is violating the basic principles laid out by the U.S. Constitution…” While Anarchism is defined by a lack state control and Communism is a maximization state control, two polar opposite concepts, the page that follows reads, “Anarchists groups are the 21st Century’s version of left wing or communist groups of the last. Anarchists believe that any government or organization that has power over others…will eventually become corrupt and abusive.” If I’m not mistaken, the idea that government, if not kept in check, will become corrupt and abusive was first made popular in this country by our founding fathers, not a bunch of terrorist anarchist groups. This was the very reason for the implementation of the United States Constitution! In fact even Section 35 of the Alabama Constitution warns of this danger is it declares, “the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.” The Alabama.gov site continues, “Most of these groups operate around larger urban areas and colleges/universities… Some are focused on issues such as World Trade, International Debt, and military involvement in foreign cultures… The theme is always the same. Big [government] is bad. Rich are using the poor to stay rich. Our government in particular is using its power immorally.” In short, if you oppose gun control, taxes, military intervention, most of our national debt being held by foreign nations, or just a large federal government, you might be a terrorist! The very idea that those who value their personal rights and liberties are being labeled terrorists by the State of Alabama is not only absurd and egregiously offensive, it completely contradicts the ideals our federal and state governments were founded on! The people of Alabama should be outraged! These Alabama.gov pages can be reached by visiting the Alabama Homeland Security TAP Course, clicking on "Domestic Terrorists", and then on "Anti-Government Groups".
|
|
|
Post by dixie56 on May 19, 2007 9:38:41 GMT -5
Lawman, no I am not but he and Tancredo are in my book about the only ones with the guts to tell it like it is. I have received my Ron Paul for president bumper sticker. You can order one from cafepress.
The fact that they are so against Ron Paul tells me that they are scared of him and rightly so. He could bring down the elites and wreck their plans.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 19, 2007 9:42:40 GMT -5
In short, if you oppose gun control, taxes, military intervention, most of our national debt being held by foreign nations, or just a large federal government, you might be a terrorist! These Alabama.gov pages can be reached by visiting the Alabama Homeland Security TAP Course, clicking on "Domestic Terrorists", and then on "Anti-Government Groups". If that is the case I am a terrorist. Hey somebody needs to post that number and we should all call and complain.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 19, 2007 9:43:17 GMT -5
If nothing else, Ron Paul should stay in the race to keep everyone on their toes. That has been said by many people. He may not stand a chance (general populace = mostly ignorant), but he will force Republicans to tow a straighter line.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 19, 2007 16:19:40 GMT -5
dixie-
Seems like I made much the same argument here on this very Forum a while back- that some Libertarians are virtual Anarchists, resistant to every government check as being 'infringements on their personal liberties'.
I'm not sure if I'm pleased to see that the state is basically codifying my argument because it would seem to indicate that they see the need to keep an eye on "Libertarian groups"/"Free Militias"- it's interesting that Ron Paul could be a spokesman for the Alabama Free Militia, isn't it? (not that I think he'd want folks to use him that way).
The rabid Libertarians among us reject pretty much all government restrictions on anything, even if a very persuasive case can be made that a given restriction is reasonable- like denying a citizen the 'right' to own a bazooka. By being so extreme in their views- in much the same way Al Gore is in his- they do their cause irreparable harm by making it that much more difficult for average people to get behind them. I'm generally not much for 'moderation' (or perhaps I should say 'Moderates"), but accepting that government has a rational compelling interest in imposing reasonable restrictions on any number of issues- gun control, abortion, drugs, trade, foreign policy, etc.- I think they could gain traction rather than being dismissed as 'right-wing extremists'.
|
|
|
Post by dixie56 on May 19, 2007 19:51:21 GMT -5
From the research on Ron Paul over the years I do not see him as an extremist. We have a government that is totally out of control and in the pockets of big business. When government and corporations started partnering (public private) we lost any hope of protection for the citizens. Big business is now protected and the consumer gets screwed!
|
|
|
Post by dixie56 on May 19, 2007 21:38:27 GMT -5
When I was reading this speech, the sentence in red made my blood run cold. We are seeing this same wording today (government and private corporations in bed with each other). I was not expecting this and was totally taken off guard! It only reaffirms that there has been an agenda for a VERY long time and the ones that have been duped are the American people!!!!!!!!
President Eisenhower On The Military-Industrial Complex From Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now! Farewell Address, 1961
Farewell Address President Dwight D. Eisenhower 17 January 1961
Good evening, my fellow Americans: First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunity they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.
Three days from now, after a half century of service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.
This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.
Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.
Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on questions of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation.
My own relations with Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation well rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So my official relationship with Congress ends in a feeling on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.
We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
Throughout America's adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations.
To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people.
Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us a grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle – with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.
But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.
Of these, I mention two only.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Sponsored Links
Dwight EisenhowerLearn Little-Known Facts About The Life of Dwight D. Eisenhower.www.history.com
President EisenhowerFacts on the 34th US president more - at Biography.com®.www.Biography.com
Eisenhower BiographyMost important Eisenhower book in a generation.www.kaseyspipes.com Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. Sponsored Links
Dwight EisenhowerLearn Little-Known Facts About The Life of Dwight D. Eisenhower.www.history.com
President EisenhowerFacts on the 34th US president more - at Biography.com®.www.Biography.com
Eisenhower BiographyMost important Eisenhower book in a generation.www.kaseyspipes.com The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
So – in this my last good night to you as your President – I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I – my fellow citizens – need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.
Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.
Thank you, and good night.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 19, 2007 22:36:49 GMT -5
dixie56, can you please just provide links and maybe a few quotes that you want to point out from now on? My mouse wheel is wearing out. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 20, 2007 15:51:21 GMT -5
I've always wondered why it was Eisenhower who spoke out against the "military-industrial complex". I've never known the genesis behind his statement.
After all, had there not been a "military-industrial complex", would he have been elected President?
For that matter, would there have been a United States existing for him- or anyone else- to have been elected President?
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 20, 2007 16:31:29 GMT -5
womi IF you kinew history of this nation you would KNOW that the FF were very much against a large standing army, BECAUSE they also KNEW that a large army to justifiy its existence must be used fairly often....they understood the dangers of having lifetime soldiers, that is why they desired EVERYONE to be part of the militia to be used ONLY when needed for defense! the industrial/military complex is a very bad MIX and harmful for this nation! since eisenhower how many times has the military been used please? ? SEVERAL is the answer. how many times has war been declared by congress??? NONE ZERO NADA recent history proves the wisdom of eisenhower indeed mix military and industry and BOTH GROW larger at the expense of us all.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 20, 2007 18:31:23 GMT -5
bill-
I do know something of the history of this nation.
Jefferson did indeed cut most of the military's budget and mothball not only much of our navy but disband much of the army as well.
Just in time for the War of 1812.
Had Britain not been distracted by Napoleon on the Continent, Jefferson's short-sightedness would have led to our defeat in very short order. Would England have re-absorbed the colonies or let us remain free though exacting a very high price for her forebearance? That's debateable (and an enjoyable debate it would be!) but our defeat would have been inevitable.
We disarmed after the Mexican-American War. Just in time for the Civil War.
We disarmed after the Spanish American War. Just in time for WW1.
We disarmed following WW2. Just in time for WW2.
We disarmed following WW2. Just in time for Korea.
We disarmed after Korea. Just in time for Vietnam.
We disarmed after Vietnam. Just in time for the Cold War >AND< the emergence of Jihad.
We disarmed after the Cold War. Just in time for Jihad.
We disarmed after the First Gulf War. Just in time for Jihad.
Am I seeing a pattern here?
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 20, 2007 18:54:44 GMT -5
i see an obvious "pattern" of massive distortion by YOU womi....since WW1 we have NEVER "disarmed" by any definition of the word.
ALL of your claims are based on a FALSE premise....after WW2 the USAF was formed....the cold war started in the 50's, from the 50's until present there has been a continual build UP of arms by our military, the numbers of active duty change from time to time but the basic armed defense of this country has always GROWN it just takes fewer people to do the job because of advances we has made.
that IS the military/industrial complex at work womi, cant you see that reality?
cant you see you are saying we are in a religious war by saying jihad? that means we are at war with islam as a religion?
I DONT think most followers of islam desire to kill us.? the few that do arent an organized military our military is useful against.
the purpose of military is to kill people and break things, NOT be policeman for the world!
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 20, 2007 19:13:50 GMT -5
cant you see you are saying we are in a religious war by saying jihad? that means we are at war with islam as a religion? I DONT think most followers of islam desire to kill us.? the few that do arent an organized military our military is useful against. This needs to be clarified: jihad is often the reason the Islamic extremists give for attacking us. So they are the ones making it into a religious war. From wikipedia Jihad literally means to "struggle in the way of God" and is sometimes referred to as the sixth pillar of Islam, although it occupies no official status as such. Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants. There is more there that is worth reading because you are absolutely correct -- many more muslims DO NOT interpret jihad as military struggle, and even those who do refer to it as a defensive -- not offensive -- struggle. However, just like any extremist, some things can be interpreted in the manner that best supports the wanted position. But you're right, most muslims don't want to kill us. In fact, if they could live peacefully amongst themselves, they'd want us gone TODAY. But there are many who want us there as a form of protection, and that does become a police action.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 21, 2007 17:02:31 GMT -5
So some of you suggest that the U.S. government had nothing to do with terrorist attacks against the U.S?
Do any of you know who trained Osama bin Laden and the Taliban? Do you know who provided Saddam Hussein with weapons and training?
The unconservative republicans of today have been looking for some trump card to try and discredit Dr. Paul to say "See! See! I TOLD you he shouldn't be president!" The fact is that Republicans and Democrats alike absolutely love their big government socialist programs and out-of-control spending.
Paul says what he believes. He doesn't blow smoke up anyone's ass depending on who may be listening and to score points with any certain group. He doesn't tell you what you think you want to hear. He speaks his mind whether it's popular or not. And I agree with him.
You can act as if the U.S. government hasn't trespassed all over the world killing people and supporting dictators, but some of us are willing to look at history and use logic to to see the truth behind the hate for America.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 22, 2007 17:33:21 GMT -5
So some of you suggest that the U.S. government had nothing to do with terrorist attacks against the U.S? Do any of you know who trained Osama bin Laden and the Taliban? Do you know who provided Saddam Hussein with weapons and training? The unconservative republicans of today have been looking for some trump card to try and discredit Dr. Paul to say "See! See! I TOLD you he shouldn't be president!" The fact is that Republicans and Democrats alike absolutely love their big government socialist programs and out-of-control spending. Paul says what he believes. He doesn't blow smoke up anyone's ass depending on who may be listening and to score points with any certain group. He doesn't tell you what you think you want to hear. He speaks his mind whether it's popular or not. And I agree with him. You can act as if the U.S. government hasn't trespassed all over the world killing people and supporting dictators, but some of us are willing to look at history and use logic to to see the truth behind the hate for America. Brandon be truffin it!!!
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 22, 2007 17:37:56 GMT -5
I think it's a lost cause, dude. Most people want to hear a politician talk about handouts and "entitlements" at the expense of others without having to work hard for their own financial welfare. We can still try though, right?
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 22, 2007 17:55:03 GMT -5
Amen! I'm praying for old Ron Paul. Maybe the Lord will have some mercy on us and spare us from some Shepherd that just abuses the sheep. It would be a blessing to have a real man of principle that is for freedom. I'd love to work with him and for him if he were to take office.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 22, 2007 17:58:51 GMT -5
If ole Ron Paul comes to Alabama or close enough I plan on going out to support him. All of us Ron Paulites on this forum should try to get together when he comes close and tear the house down for him!
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 22, 2007 20:51:59 GMT -5
brandon-
Get a copy of "Disinformation" by Richard Minter.
He totally discredits the notion that the United States in any way supported either the Taliban or UBL and uses UBL himself as the source for the denial.
Now unless you want to say that it is yet another Bush Administration conspiracy that reaches back to approximately 1980 of which OBL is a part and so of course would deny involvement, you're of course free to do so. You'll just have to forgive me as a laugh uncontrollably.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 22, 2007 21:08:23 GMT -5
i see an obvious "pattern" of massive distortion by YOU womi....since WW1 we have NEVER "disarmed" by any definition of the word. Since 1919 we've repeatedly disarmed after wars. Since you singled out WW1, let's examine the record, shall we? How many ships were scrapped as a result of the Armistice? How many planes? How many soldiers were deactivated? Did we or did we not reduce the size of our armed forces after WW1? Further, the Washington Naval Treaty of 1925 (and amended subsequently) required us to adhere to a strict tonnage allowed both in terms of classes of ships (carriers, battleships, crusiers, etc.) but also capped tonnage of individual ships within a class and mandated that capital ships could not be repleaced until they were some 20-30 years old. If a nation exceeded any of the limits, they were required not to mothball the ships but to salvage them. No longer having ships = disarmament. Have you ever seen training newsreels from the mid- to late-1930s? Our troops were using BROOMS as firearms because we didn't have enough rifles. We trained with cars covered by canvas with "tank" written on the side because we lacked real tanks. Had the Japanese actually invaded Hawaii post Pearl harbor, we'd've had to fight them with ammunition produced in >1918<. So instead of two services fighting for dwindling funding, we had three. The funding pie shrunk and had to be divided three ways. Approximately 2/3 of our military was deactivated after VE and VJ Day in 1945. When Korea broke out, we were forced to use WW2-vintage Corsairs, Mustangs and Superfortresses against Russian-made MiGs. Piston driven planes against jets is a recipe for disaster- and it was. Funding cuts post WW2 had slowed development of second-generation jet aircraft in the United States- our F9F Panthers and P-80 Shooting Stars were outmatched by MiG-15s. Adequate funding would have allowed us to have the F-86 Sabre on line well before 1951- possibly even before the war began. No, the reality is that some politicians refused to follow the maxim "Those who would have peace must prepare for war." A "religious war" means that both sides justify the war on religious grounds. We aren't justifying our participation on any religious ground, nor do I think we should. It is absolutely the right strategery to fight reluctantly, with limited goals and to continually and consistently point out that we fight not against Islam as a whole but against those who have hijacked Islam to further their own political ends- and who consitute a tiny minority of Muslims. I agree. I further think that not even a majority of Muslims around the world- yes even in the Middle east- want to kill us. I would dispute your thought that our military can't be effective against such a minority. That's what Delta Force, the Seals, the Rangers, SAS and other specialist wariors are for. Then why are there military policemen?
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 22, 2007 23:35:06 GMT -5
He totally discredits the notion that the United States in any way supported either the Taliban or UBL and uses UBL himself as the source for the denial. So this guy Richard, we'll just call him "Dick, " says that the U.S. did not give training to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Ok, find whatever book you can to make your point. If it takes bullshit to get your idea across then we can all agree in unison that it's bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 22, 2007 23:37:26 GMT -5
Then why are there military policemen? To police the military perhaps? Ok, you're right... the job of the military police is to police the world. You win once again.
|
|