# Off-Topic Discussion > Extended Discussion >  >  What's the dealio with GOP candidate Ron Paul?

## Cyclic13

What do you all think of him? I'm must admit, I'm completely out of touch with America since I've been living in Japan these past few years. I recently stumbled across a few of his videos for the presidential debates and I must say I'm pretty impressed. He seems like a steady contender

He seems to be giving a lot of these Rupert Murdoch mass media machines like FOX news a run for their money. The bias floating around these mass media giants seems frightenly sickening when they were interviewing him. They also conveniently edit out clips, and try and twist and spin his words to make him look horrible when it doesn't seem at all the case. My god, I can't believe how biased this coverage is. Who ever said mass media provides us with only the facts and have nothing to gain? HA!? Take a look and judge for yourself...

Ron Paul Courageously Speaks the Truth

Post GOP Debate coverage "Fox News Style" - Ron Paul
FoxNews Hit Piece Ron Paul, Alex Jones and 911 Truth May 16
Ron Paul on Fox News 3/21/2007
Ron Paul : Stop Dreaming
Ron Paul Interview On FOX News (June 16, 2007)
Ron Paul Most-Demanded GOP Presidential Candidate
Ron Paul wins CNN Poll for 3rd GOP Debate
CNN Censorship of Ron Paul support (video proof)
Ron Paul on Colbert Report 6/13/07 
Ron Paul 0wnz the Federal Reserve


So what's the deal with this back in the states? Are people actually talking about this?

It seems to me as an outsider that the mass media has their own interests in other candidates like Giuliani and aren't giving proper unbiased coverage of what this man has to say. I must say, a lot of what he is saying should ring pretty true to anyone with half a brain. 

Whaddya think? :Confused:

----------


## ThePhobiaViewed

I had heard the name before and now after watching all these videos I think he would be a good candidate. I will be old even to vote in the next election and I would definately vote for him if he is the candidate. I didn't like when Giuliani made that remark about 9/11 in that debate because what Ron Paul said was essentially correct. Whether or not we like it, the reason the terrorists attack us is because they don't like us because we interfere with their countries. Giuliani came to my schools baccalaureate this past year to speak (my high school is the one where students died in Flight 800) and it ws supposed to not be political (yeah right), and I wasn't too impressed by him. My brother got a picture with him though so that was cool. I like how in the Hannity and Colmes clip how they keep saying its a fluke that Paul was leading, like it was some conspiracy where everyone is voting for him to be funny. I think he has a legit shot and the only reason he wouldn't is because he's not as known as people like Romney, McCain and Giuliani.

----------


## Alric

If you go on the internet ron paul is by far the most popular person out there. A lot of the mass media kind of just ignores him though. So its hard to judge how well he is doing, since on the internet you will do a poll and ron paul will get like 80%+ of the votes for him but then you watch the news on tv and he won't even be on the poll.

Personally I have never seen him in a bad interview. He really knows his stuff and it shows. His biggest problem is a lot of republicans don't like him since he is a classic conservative instead of a neocon.

----------


## Universal Mind

That guy is a joke.  I watched the debate where Giuliani spanked his ass repeatedly.  I'm glad that guy isn't going to win the election.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> I'm glad that guy isn't going to win the election.




Who, Giuliani?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Who, Giuliani?



Dammit, I committed a reference ambiguity.   :Bang head:   I am glad the joke, Ron Paul, isn't going to win the election.  I hope Giuliani does win.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Dammit, I committed a reference ambiguity.    I am glad the joke, Ron Paul, isn't going to win the election.  I hope Giuliani does win.



Hell yea, dude I like Giuliani. Apparently he is leading the Republican in terms of campaign funds. He's more of a moderate, anyway. He has the foreign policy ideals of a Republican with some of the civil liberty ideals of Democrats. 

He should lead the Libertarian party.

----------


## Universal Mind

> He has the foreign policy ideals of a Republican with some of the civil liberty ideals of Democrats.



That's what I'm looking for.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> That's what I'm looking for.



Frankly, I'll be happy with anyone who won't withdraw us from Iraq and Afghanistan. Since that is the pivot issue, any Democrat will have to deliver upon the promise of withdrawing to get elected.

----------


## Cyclic13

I kind of expected you two to say the normal idiocy of someone trying to impose their narrow version of freedom through the barrel of a gun. HELLO!? Don't you realize that's SO FAR from anything that can even remotely be called freedom it's beyond laughable?! If this is how most americans think now then I truly feel sorry for you guys. AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!

And, you fools actually wonder why every country hates us?

I'll let you in on a little secret: It's definitely NOT because we are rich, as we are so far in debt it's staggering. It's also NOT because we have the most attractive people since america is known as the fattest country in the world. Also, it's NOT because we are as smart as we think we are, either. Education has long since waned and put us far far behind a great many other countries. Basically, america is now responsible for creating fat dumbed down mindless consumers that are closer to cattle now than people. People that just veg out mindlessly in front of a box, stuffing their pie holes with obscenely large sized portions of greasy empty calories while being told exactly what to think. And if by some minuscule chance you happened to manage to slip through the cracks of this system, and have an opinion enough to disagree with that system you are viewed of as 'unpatriotic' by the herd... 

What exactly are we left with to be so proud of then? Not a damn thing.

Get your heads out of your ass before it's too late. The american dream is dying fast, and those that are too stupid to see that are trying desperately to pin the blame and climb the walls to avoid accepting fault or hitting the bottom with any kind of grace. 

As they always say,
...Pride cometh before the fall.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I kind of expected you two to say the normal idiocy of a someone trying to impose their version of freedom through the barrel of a gun. HELLO!? Don't you realize that's SO FAR from anything that can even remotely be called freedom it's beyond laughable?! If this is how most americans think now then I truly feel sorry for you guys. AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!
> 
> And, you fools actually wonder why every country hates us?
> 
> I'll let you in on a little secret: It's definitely NOT because we are rich, as we are so far in debt it's staggering. It's also NOT because we have the most attractive people since america is known as the fattest country in the world. Also, it's NOT because we are as smart as we think we are, either. Education has long since waned and put us far far behind a great many other countries. Basically, america is now responsible for creating fat dumbed down mindless consumers that are closer to cattle now than people. People that just veg out mindlessly in front of a box, stuffing their pie holes with obscenely sized portions of greasy empty calories while being told exactly what to think. And if by some minuscule chance you happened to manage to slip through this system, and have an opinion enough to disagree with that system you are viewed of as 'unpatriotic' by the herd... 
> 
> What exactly are we left with to be so proud of then? Not a damn thing.
> 
> Get your heads out of your ass before it's too late. The american dream is dying and those that are too stupid to see that are trying desperately to pin the blame and climb the walls to avoid accepting fault or hitting the bottom with any kind of grace. 
> ...



Are you really a person and not a left wing nut blog site robot?  You also sound like you might be a fifteen year old run away who just watched the news for the first time and thinks he's cool because he can insult grown ups and call the government stupid.  And as always, your post is full of personal insults, yet it lacks substance.  Why do you want to act so snobby and shitty after I was so polite, considering the circumstances, after I tore you to shreds after you ran your mouth about how retarded I supposedly am for not baaaahing like a sheep in agreement with your hysterical claim that Al Qaeda does not exist?  I had you pinned in a corner with counterarguments and detailed facts and logic, and all you could do was throw out your usual hollow personal insults.  So you want to act like an ass again and have round 2?  Let's go. 

First of all, what in the Hell does your post have to do with the thread topic?  We were talking about that dipshit imitation of a Republican running for president.  So we go from that to my talk with Half/Dreaming about how Giuliani is a better candidate and even the best candidtate and why and then onto your post about how Americans suck.  I'm not sure how we got there, but let's go off on that tangent together so you don't have to do it alone. 

To say the world hates us is to generalize.  Many people in the world do hate us, but many do not.  Why do so many people in the world hate us?  It's for many reasons.  Some are brainwashed by their non-capitalist news companies that have agendas other than profit and therefore have no reason not to lie.  Some of those news companies are government controlled and told to lie.  Some people don't understand our foreign policy because it's more complex than what a lot of people are able to swallow, so they go, "Oooh, war and overthrow...  Bad!  Bad!"  Many are brainwashed Islamofascist fanatics and are brainwashed from birth to hate us.  A lot of people are spoiled, ungrateful brats who actually resent us because we protect them and in many cases have even saved from take over.  With people of low morality, jealousy is often a much more powerful emotion than appreciation.  Many people despise capitalism because they either don't understand it or despise extreme success because that is what many people do when they think they are not capable of achieving it themselves.  So many are very hatefully jealous of our success, as people often are over the best school in a state.  But you say we are not great, and you list reasons for doubting the worldwide belief that we are.  Your areas of disagreement regard our wealth, attractiveness, and intelligence.  I'll talk about each of those with a precise counterargument to your claims.  

Wealth--  Our government is in debt.  Debt is part of business.  But that does not mean that our citizens themselves are poor.  We have the richest population in the world.  That is a result of our capitalist system which produces the world's greatest business success.  The freedom that allows for our level of capitalism was won with the barrels of many guns.  That is a fact.  Please make me laugh by trying to deny it.  

Attractiveness--  We are, on average, the fattest country in the world.  That results from the fact that we are the richest country in the world.  However, we still have many millions of people who are not fat, and within that pool, we have what the world generally views as the most attractive models and actors/actresses in the world. 

Intelligence--  We do have a stupid trash element that screws up the averages on our education statistics.  However, outside of that element, we have the pool of people which includes the most inventive, educated, and advanced thinkers on Earth.  That is why we lead the world in business and technology and, and even within the pool of uneducated people, we have had many of the greatest artists and artistic pioneers.  

I still don't know why you decided to go off on that tangent instead of defending your guy, but there's my counterargument to it.  You didn't seem to understand on-point debate in the Al Qaeda thread, but if you do now, please demonstrate it here.  Just remember that while you struggle, my sympathy is right there with you.   ::wink:: 

By the way, if you will quit making such shitty comments about my country, I will stop taking up for it.  I would love for the rest of the world to adopt our system so those who hate us will start being proud of their countries and not feel the need to vent any venom.

----------


## archdreamer

His platform seems pretty reasonable, mainly because of his libertarian leanings, but he's anti-choice on abortion, which is unacceptable.

----------


## syzygy

> That guy is a joke.  I watched the debate where Giuliani spanked his ass repeatedly.



You are kidding, right? For the hope of free-thinking, please tell me you are kidding.





> Hell yea, dude I like Giuliani. Apparently he is leading the Republican in terms of campaign funds. He's more of a moderate, anyway. He has the foreign policy ideals of a Republican with some of the civil liberty ideals of Democrats. 
> 
> He should lead the Libertarian party.



If you want a Libertarian, Ron Paul is your man. In fact, he ran as a Libertarian in '88. The problem with Paul running for the Republican party, is that he is an actual Republican, whereas the party has turned into a Neocon platform. Just think about the difference between Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush...wow. If you want someone who has deep-rooted Constitutional principles and a near flawless record defending them: Ron Paul.





> Are you really a person and not a left wing nut blog site robot?  You also sound like you might be a fifteen year old run away who just watched the news for the first time and thinks he's cool because he can insult grown ups and call the government stupid.  And as always, your post is full of personal insults, yet it lacks substance.



Anyone else find this ironic?





> Some people don't understand our foreign policy because it's more complex than what a lot of people are able to swallow, so they go, "Oooh, war and overthrow...  Bad!  Bad!"



You think people are opposed to the Iraq war because they don't understand the complexity of our foreign policy? I thought it was because our current government was too dense to understand the complexity and irrationality of Middle East politics which got us into a war with no end in sight. This government had a plan to invade Iraq before 9/11 and then fed off of the country's emotions in an extremely traumatic time, coupled with questionable information made to "fit" the plan, to go to war. They thought it was going to be easy because they didn't understand the situation. Anyone who truly understands the complexity of foreign policy would not invade a country unrelated to an attack on our country in such a hurry. Its messed up there and we have only added to the mess, for what? What have we gained? Because I can tell you what we've lost.

----------


## Cyclic13

I don't know enough about Ron Paul to sit here and defend him, which is why I initially asked about him, not Giuliani... so you guys already started taking things off-topic. He was clearly NOT slapped, anyone that watches the entire biased clip would see that. You must be the stupid americans that actually think FOX news tells the unbiased truth. I must say, I'm not surprised. 

A lot of what Ron Paul mentions about the deficit, the inflation rate, the federal reserve, the economy, and the war seem to ring really true to what I have read as FACTS, and so his continued stance on these issues sparked my interest in him. Unfortunately, reality hurts for most to hear it seems.

Quickly, since you seemed to miss Alric and Ynot's posts in the other thread regarding our half-assed economy that you are so proud to boast about, here they are again...




> I started to write my own explanation, but this pretty much sums it up
> 
> http://www.petrodollar.info/indexp1.html
> 
> There's a whole historic background to this, from the early 1900's, though World War One and the abolishment of the Gold Standard, through the 1930's American depression to the rise of Europe as a rival super-power during the 1960's, etc. etc., but the above gives a fairly good overview







> Its a fact that the US debt is at nearly 9 trillion dollars. An amount we can not pay. If tomorrow the government took everything ever person in the US owned and sold it, it still wouldn't be enough to pay off what we owe. The US is basicly bankrupt and our money is worthless. Now what Ynot is saying is this. Even though our money is basicly an IOU with no real value, people still need it in order to buy oil, and as long as they need it there is some value to it. Now if for some reason you no longer need the money to buy oil, there is no value left in it. Its just a piece of paper, worth about as much as monopoly money.



About the stereotypes- not all americans are those things I mentioned, but surely enough to become a stereotype worth mentioning. After residing in another country for the past three years where the people don't spend countless hours eating themselves into oblivion, the FIRST thing I always notice when returning home to america is that everyone is ridiculously large and lined up like cows to the slaughter outside the fast food joints. Of course not everyone, but enough to make me shake my head in amazement at the sheer scale of size difference between the two countries' general populous.

There was a nice three-part documentary called "Americana" with each episode aptly titled, Fat, Dumb, and Rich- debunking all those claims about most americans. I can't seem to find the videos available on google but, let's be honest, you wouldn't have watched them, anyway. 

You are a 35 year old child that thinks they have the world all figured out by watching FOX news, and CNN. You think that sticking guns into people's lives based off of lies and empty suspicions that never panned out in order to subvert goverments and offer up your twisted version of freedom is, 'righteous' thinking, when it's actually more along the lines of 'dangerous' thinking...to ANY true objective thinker.

Aggression is never an answer to anything...which america's paranoid policies are slowly all drifting towards.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Solskye, if you want Team America check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnS0Lxslbs4

Which category do you think you fall under?

I believe Guiliani is the best candidate because of his stiff stance on foreign policy. I like him because he's not overly religious, and believes a woman has a right to choose. He is by far the best hybrid candidate running for 2008. I would like us to continue winning the war against terrorists, and gain some civil liberties. We need a moderate, and any of these ass-hat Democrats like Hillary get elected, we are going to have major problems.

----------


## Alric

Your comment on how the US government is in debt but the people are rich, only shows how little you know about our economy. The government issues all our money. If your holding a dollar bill, its based on what the government owns, which is nothing, since they are 9 trillion in debt.

People who don't understand the federal reserve, inflation or how the US debt effects their money has no business talking about economy. Its a fact that we are in massive amounts of debt, there is no arguing this.

Ron paul is for smaller government. He is against foreign military actions, hes for cutting back the amount of foreign aid we send to countries all around the world. He is for trading with everyone. Hes for closing the borders. Hes for moving our money back to a gold system. And with all the money he will saves by ending the foreign aid and wars, he wants to get rid of income tax! He wants to get rid of social security!

How can you not love him? Hell he has my vote for just wanting to move our money to the gold system and getting rid of income tax, everything else is just a bonus.

Heck hes the only one willing to discuss any of the real issues in the US. You never seen Guiliani talk about the federal reserve? None of the other people will ever talk about our economy or our debt.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Your comment on how the US government is in debt but the people are rich, only shows how little you know about our economy. The government issues all our money. If your holding a dollar bill, its based on what the government owns, which is nothing, since they are 9 trillion in debt.
> 
> People who don't understand the federal reserve, inflation or how the US debt effects their money has no business talking about economy. Its a fact that we are in massive amounts of debt, there is no arguing this.
> 
> Ron paul is for smaller government. He is against foreign military actions, hes for cutting back the amount of foreign aid we send to countries all around the world. He is for trading with everyone. Hes for closing the borders. Hes for moving our money back to a gold system. And with all the money he will saves by ending the foreign aid and wars, he wants to get rid of income tax! He wants to get rid of social security!
> 
> How can you not love him? Hell he has my vote for just wanting to move our money to the gold system and getting rid of income tax, everything else is just a bonus.
> 
> Heck hes the only one willing to discuss any of the real issues in the US. You never seen Guiliani talk about the federal reserve? None of the other people will ever talk about our economy or our debt.



No one president can switch us back to the gold reserves. That is no reason to vote for any candidate for that sole reason.

----------


## Universal Mind

> You are kidding, right? For the hope of free-thinking, please tell me you are kidding.



Perhaps thinking freely would help you actually debate my point.  Ron Paul got slammed by Giuliani on several flat out false statements Paul made.  Paul stated the usual sheepish falsehoods about the Iraq war, and he got stumped by Giuliani, so he side-stepped.  I will find the video if you would like me to.  





> Anyone else find this ironic?



Please make an actual argument so I can be fooled into thinking your supposed view might have some substance.  





> You think people are opposed to the Iraq war because they don't understand the complexity of our foreign policy?



Read more carefully so you can see that I listed that as just one of the explanations for why a lot of people hate the United States.  I stand by that point.  It IS one of the reasons.    





> I thought it was because our current government was too dense to understand the complexity and irrationality of Middle East politics which got us into a war with no end in sight. This government had a plan to invade Iraq before 9/11 and then fed off of the country's emotions in an extremely traumatic time, coupled with questionable information made to "fit" the plan, to go to war. They thought it was going to be easy because they didn't understand the situation. Anyone who truly understands the complexity of foreign policy would not invade a country unrelated to an attack on our country in such a hurry. Its messed up there and we have only added to the mess, for what? What have we gained? Because I can tell you what we've lost.



The Iraq war has been about many things.  The most important stated objective was to take down an international terrorist government which has used WMD's in terrorist attacks and was our bitter enemy and that had violated our ceasefire on several terrorism grounds for 12 years and was reported by six governments and the U.N. to have stockpiles of WMD's.  We went out to take that government down, and we successfully erased them from existence.  We did it.  Also, we wanted to plant a democracy in the heart of the Middle East because with democracy comes capitalism, with capitalism comes wealth, and usually with wealth comes the lack of will to be a suicide bomber.  We accomplished that too, but we are of course in a transition phase right now.  We are trying to get the new government to learn to fly without us.  I believe they eventually will.  I hope you are rooting for them.  I believe that another big objective of the war was to create a terrorist vacuum.  Nut case suicide bombers and other types of Islamofascist insurgents have been coming out from all over the Middle Eastern woodwork and getting killed or captured.  So we've been accomplishing that too.  What we are doing is necessary and very advantageous for the long run.  





> You are a 35 year old child that thinks they have the world all figured out by watching FOX news, and CNN. You think that sticking guns into people's lives based off of lies and empty suspicions that never panned out in order to subvert goverments and offer up your twisted version of freedom is, 'righteous' thinking, when it's actually more along the lines of 'dangerous' thinking...to ANY true objective thinker.
> 
> Aggression is never an answer to anything...which america's paranoid policies are slowly all drifting towards.



(yawn)  Your hollow mantra is really starting to bore me.  Let me know if you want to actually debate your repeatedly defeated points.





> Your comment on how the US government is in debt but the people are rich, only shows how little you know about our economy. The government issues all our money. If your holding a dollar bill, its based on what the government owns, which is nothing, since they are 9 trillion in debt.
> 
> People who don't understand the federal reserve, inflation or how the US debt effects their money has no business talking about economy. Its a fact that we are in massive amounts of debt, there is no arguing this.



Money is worth what people think it is worth.  The only thing you can do with a dollar bill is trade it with somebody who thinks it is worth something.  As a result, our money is worth a great deal.  Watch the money buy things.  Watch it buy lots and lots of things.  That makes it worth something.  Foreigners believe it is worth something too, so to them it is too. We have the richest population in the world.  Deal with it.  

Do you work?  Why?  The money isn't worth anything, right?  Duuuuhhhhhhh....

----------


## Alric

> Money is worth what people think it is worth. The only thing you can do with a dollar bill is trade it with somebody who thinks it is worth something. As a result, our money is worth a great deal. Watch the money buy things. Watch it buy lots and lots of things. That makes it worth something. Foreigners believe it is worth something too, so to them it is too. We have the richest population in the world. Deal with it. 
> 
> Do you work? Why? The money isn't worth anything, right? Duuuuhhhhhhh....



I can't believe you just said that. You basicly just admited that our money is only worth something because people 'believe' its worth something. Read what you said just. You said that our money has no value EXCEPT for what people believe it has. Your just described how our entire economy is based on the illusion that people believe the dollar has a real value.

----------


## Alric

Also no we don't have the richest population in the world. The average american is deep in debt. Which means if you dont have any debt and you own a dollar, your richer than most americans.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Also no we don't have the richest population in the world. The average american is deep in debt. Which means if you dont have any debt and you own a dollar, your richer than most americans.




Our posessions are on average worth more than those of citizens of other countries.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I can't believe you just said that. You basicly just admited that our money is only worth something because people 'believe' its worth something.



Uh, yeah.  That's how money works.  It's all about the collective agreement that it is worth something.  Otherwise, it's just paper and tiny pieces of metal.  And America's total wealth is the greatest in the world, even if most of us are in debt.  I'm talking about the total.  Plus, a dollar is still worth something even if the holder of it is in debt.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> That guy is a joke.  I watched the debate where Giuliani spanked his ass repeatedly.



Really? I'd like to see that, if you have a link.

Or are you talking about the recent debate where Giuliani got _one_ applause over Ron Paul's feelings on U.S. foreign policy? (and a subsequent round after asking him to take back what he said) This One?
Can you honestly tell me, UM, that that applause was not based on the rhetoric of sympathy for the sheer atrocity of 9/11, rather than _facts_ that discredit the sentiment of _why_ we were actually attacked, that Ron Paul was expressing?

I have spent the past few hours looking around for the debate where Giuliani "spanked Paul's ass repeatedly." I used google video search, as I didn't want to just limit it to Youtube (although I got mainly youtube hits). Do that on your own. Google "Giuliani" and "Ron Paul." I simply used both names (and only Giuliani's first name, as that what people seem to, most often, refer to him as, without his first name. I even put his name first in the search, before "Ron Paul," getting more hits). Internet-based support seems to me, Without Question, in support of Ron Paul over Giuliani. I'm not saying this to incite some sort of huge argument, as I (obviously) haven't had much time, lately, to participate in some of these passionate debates, like I used to. I am simply trying to understand where you are coming from, on this. I will say, though, that I (so far) support Ron Paul and many of his views, over Rudy Giuliani. I will cite a few vids that I found interesting that illustrate why. (Of course, these could all be dispatched as "propaganda," which is fair enough, but, if that's the case, please post some Pro-Giuliani media sufficient enough to give me reason to reconsider.)
Remember, many of these were the most prominent hits after just cross-referencing their names and clicks on some of the "Related" sections of youtube's search window. Nothing biased was input into the search. (Though I openly admit that some of my subsequent searching, after initial hits, were based on what grabbed my attention. You are welcome to counter-point them.)

(As much of Giuliani's support seems to be based on his position during 9/11, I found this clip really interesting)
Giuliani Gets Exposed as Fraud by Firefighters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaCYEEO-58I

Ron Paul - Truth to Power:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvCLjp4r7wE

Ron Paul vs. Giuliani: Eisenhower Cabinet Support
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yif110zXHME

Ron Paul Discusses Economy with Neil Cavuto:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_Qt8...elated&search=

Google News vs. Congressman Ron Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZngO...elated&search=

Heavy Heated Ron Paul Debate on Paula Zahn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDnkpTkNXtM

What did Rudy Giuliani say about the collapse of WTC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu5Nb...elated&search=

Rudy Giuliani's Corruption Town hall meeting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT-ou...elated&search=

(Again, a complete ignorance of the views expressed by the caller, followed by a _completely unprofessional_ series of personal attacks)
Rudy Giuliani mocks Parkinson's victim:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMzPvSpJ1Z8

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Or are you talking about the recent debate where Giuliani got _one_ applause over Ron Paul's feelings on U.S. foreign policy? (and a subsequent round after asking him to take back what he said) This One?
> Can you honestly tell me, UM, that that applause was not based on the rhetoric of sympathy for the sheer atrocity of 9/11, rather than _facts_ that discredit the sentiment of _why_ we were actually attacked, that Ron Paul was expressing?




Ron Paul was correct that terrorists hate us becuase of our presence in the middle east, but that does not necessarily mean America is in the wrong. Terrorists are pissed at us because we don't let them get away with anything they want. They want to be able to oppress and kill Jews and the other Muslim groups without anybody getting in their way.

So yes, we _were_ attacked because we stuck our nose in other people's business. I just don't feel that is a bad move on our part.

Who cares anyway? It was a stupid debate on both parts. 9/11 was _six_ years ago. I can't believe people are still bickering about why it happened. Every single politician should be focused on how to fix Iraq, not on how fast they can get troops out. I really think Democrats want to pull out of Iraq for 1 of 2 reasons: 1) It is the exact opposite of what Republicans want; 2) They want Iraq to fail miserabely so they can use it as ammo against Republicans in the future. I don't buy for a second that they really care about our troops.

----------


## Alric

Money normally has some inherit value to it. Our money has none, the only value it has is that other people agree to take because there some illusion of it having value. If tomorrow everyone refused to accept dollars, your money would become totally worthless. It doesn't matter if you have 1 dollar or a million dollars, either way you just became dirt poor. Which is where america is at right now. Walking on the tightrope trying to balance itself between being a rich country and becoming totally bankedrupt. One false step and we are all in trouble.

Now people like you and Giuliani think thats cool. Your willing to risk everything, hoping and preying the economy doesn't one day implode in on itself. Now ron paul brings up going back to a money system where all our money is based on gold. When your money is actually backed by something with real value, it gives the entire system stability.

Our country is 9 trillion in debt. If tomorrow countries asked us to pay up, we couldn't, our economy would crash and anyone holding their cash in american dollars will lose everything. If our money was gold back each person will have an guarantee that their money will always have value, no matter what happens to our government.

----------


## Cyclic13

Nice posts there, Oneironaut and Alric. It's nice to see that some people actually take the bull by the horns and go out and learn something before they develop an opinion enough to think they can speak either way. Unfortunately, don't expect Universal Mind to step out from within his ignorant bubble to actually make the time to get informed, though. He seems to have the mental sickness of thinking that he can somehow refute points without actually reading up on the facts, or watching them, nor is he even able to provide us with any real counter facts to support his empty ideas... Crazy I know, but at least we now know who these people are that actively watch and believe the bile coming from FOX news.

Rudy Giuliani's answer to everything  ::chuckle::

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Nice posts there, Oneironaut and Alric. It's nice to see that some people actually take the bull by the horns and go out and learn something before they develop an opinion enough to think they can speak either way. Don't expect Universal Mind to step out from within his ignorant bubble to actually make the time to get informed, though. He seems to have the mental sickness of thinking that he can somehow refute points without actually reading up, or watching them, nor being able to provide us with any real counter facts to support his empty ideas... Crazy I know, but at least we now know who the people are that actively watch and believe the bile coming from FOX news.
> 
> Rudy Giuliani's answer to everything



You have no idea how hypocritical you are, do you? 

Judging by your posts, you have obviously not spent a lot of time researching every angle of these subjects. You never concede points. You never admitt that you may be wrong. Your "research" is extremely one sided and laughingly ill informed. It is all based on speculation.

And before you come up with some snappy remark about my views, I don't watch FOX news. Most of the stuff I know is from the History Channel or indiscriminate searches on the Internet. Maybe you should try the same.

O yea, Bush didn't plan 9/11. Let's see you play around with that like a cat with a ball of yarn for a while.

----------


## Alric

If you ever watch a full interview with Ron paul, you will notice he knows his stuff, and is always very honest and gives a straight answer. ALL and I do mean all of the other people give half answers and dance around the questions. Hes the only real person to give straight answers on all questions. 

Anyone who calls him names is a moron and its that simple. Even if you don't agree with him, you have to admit hes very honest and straight forward. You know exactly what your getting from him which is more than nearly all the other people.

----------


## Cyclic13

Half/Dreaming...just do yourself a favor already, and enlist like you've been talking about so you can finally do what you've always wanted; going to other countries and killing people in the name of "freedom"... You think I'm a hypocrite? Talk about hypocrisy. BE FREE, OR I'LL KILL YOU!! LOLZ.

And, if you somehow manage to pass your DNA along, then when your kids or grandkids ask you why you killed innocent people in the name of a meaningless, inert, and subjective word, you can skirt responsibility and blame just like the Nazi's did by saying..."Uhh...I was just following orders..."

If you pieced together any kind of real source of information you would know america now holds a preventative war policy, in other words, a war of aggression policy. In international law, preventive war has no recognized status as distinct from a war of aggression. Many wars have been characterised as "preventive" in nature, often by both sides of the conflict. Basically, we can now feel justified in attacking people first without any real evidence, provacation, or checks and balances to stop us. PLEASE tell me how that is protecting anyone's freedoms and I'll gladly eat my words...The thing is, none of you nay-sayers have ever provided me with any evidence supporting your view. Just talk about how you FEEL this threat is real, and THINK this about that. I'll put it bluntly, I don't care what you THINK... just show me how it IS. Because that's all I've been doing (with added tidbits of humor to spice things up).

----------


## Half/Dreaming

This is what I posted in the other thread. Come on, I know you can understand this.





> If we continue the fight, we will either exhaust their resourses and put them into hiding, make them change their ways, or kill them all. Once Fanatical, murderous, jihad Islam is gone, we WILL leave!!! And the Mid East will be great!!! The reason it is _not_ great, and never has been, is because of their stupid violence. 
> 
> Fanatical Islam is the source of _all_ problems in the Middle East. If we attack the source, we stop the problem. You're just going to have to put up with it for years to come. If we leave now, not only will the source of problems remain, but they will become empowered by defeating the West.
> 
> At this point, it's finishing off the bad seeds, so there won't be any _future_ problems. This is about the future of a land that has always been empovrished. And YES!!! That wil give this country rewards!!! But the Muslims will also see the benefits.



Its not about liberation!!!! Get that out of your head. The mid East is a shit hole, and it always has been. *It is that way because of fanatical Islam*. The violence they create drains on their world. And it all stems back to their faction of religion that believes all non-Muslims must die. That is the source.

I WILL admitt that we have interests in the region. A better middle east means a better United States, hell, a better WORLD. Its not all about Muslims. Its a win-win situation, and all we have to do is get rid of those fucking scumbags like Al Qaeda and Hamas. 

I say we either exhaust their resourses by making them fight a war they can't continue, or KILL them all. I seriously doubt they will change their ways. And they will continue to drain on the Muslim world until they are neutralized.

Thats all. Thats what this is about. George Bush said is was about "liberation" to get people on his side (and it is partially about that). Dude, you are way too easily fooled, and obviously don't understand politics. There are 2 sides to every story.

----------


## Cyclic13

You, and a lot of mindless self-righteous americans need to learn the meaning of the word...Tolerance. Your way of thinking isn't perfect and it obviously steps on the toes of other groups of people, hence the problems we have with the world today.

If america wasn't so full of itself to entertain the thought of different perspectives, I wholly believe, we wouldn't have had the global problems we do with "terrorism". 

All of these desperate fundamentalist's way of thinking started when we invaded their land and supported biased dictator's facist regimes in order to feed our oil needs. We didn't care about freedom then just lining our greasy pocketbooks. 

Step outside your comfy american lifestyle and think outside yourself for a second here. Would you enjoy sitting idly by while your chances at having a decent living are continually crushed by facist dictators that were put in place by good ol' Uncle Sam himself. ALL of what Ron Paul has been stating is the truth. The terrorist's mentality is a direct link to our previous interactions with the middle east. They are just biting the hand that feeds them this negative lifestyle. Is it so hard to understand? You'd be doing exactly the same thing in their shoes with the same experiences, so don't be so quick to label the 'crazy' ones. It's easy to pin the tail on the donkey, as long as you think subjectively.

Do some damn research for god-sake.

----------


## Alric

That is a war we can not possibly win. There is no way we can ever kill them all and they will never run out of money, unlike us who are already trillions in debt.

I can't help but be reminded by the countless tv shows, and books and movies and old stories which talk about tolerance and understanding. This is just out of a book, one side believes the other is horrible evil people while the other thinks the same about the others. And so they fight and kill each and it never solves anything. Its a story that is always repeating over and over, not only in books and in movies but in real life, its a part of history.

People are not insane. The idea that a group of people want nothing but to destory another group of people is insane. Real life is not like that! People do not live their day to day life going, "How can I kill people?"

You are the fanatical Islamic! Listen to yourself! You will not give up untill you kill every single one of them? What is that? Your preaching violence against other. You support invading their country and killing them! How the hell is killing people with tanks any less wrong than blowing them up with a car bomb? Your the same as them! YOU are the problem. Your a fanatical american bent on the destruction of another group. The only diffrence is that you don't want to physically kill someone yourself... Oh wait. Didn't you say you wanted to join the army so you can go to the middle east and murder them? Wow you really are exactly like them.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Really? I'd like to see that, if you have a link.
> 
> Or are you talking about the recent debate where Giuliani got _one_ applause over Ron Paul's feelings on U.S. foreign policy? (and a subsequent round after asking him to take back what he said) This One?
> Can you honestly tell me, UM, that that applause was not based on the rhetoric of sympathy for the sheer atrocity of 9/11, rather than _facts_ that discredit the sentiment of _why_ we were actually attacked, that Ron Paul was expressing?



Yes, the video you posted shows part of what I am talking about.  Guiliani did a great job of standing up to Paul's misinformation and challenged his point that our presence in the Middle East regarding our 1991 conflict with the Hussein regime was THE reason we were attacked on 9/11.  Giuliani went back to the subject again later because he was shut off at the end of that video segment you posted.  Ron Paul made a false statement, and it is a dangerous one.  Giuliani expressed the absurdity of the point and illustrated the absurd details of it with several statements, and I was impressed with the way he called Paul out on his one dimensional view which puts 100&#37; of the blame on the United States.  Paul just basically repeated himself and continued to ignore the other factors.  I could not find a video showing the rest of the exchange. 

I wish Giuliani had had more time to go into detail and not be so indirect, but with the several statements he made, he said a great deal.  I think he is an excellent communicator and a stand up guy with conviction and courage.  He illustrated how Ron Paul completely overlooked the fact that Al Qaeda made a DECISION to pull the attacks, that Al Qaeda's demands go way beyond U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East, that the attacks were not a rational means of getting us to leave the Middle East, and that the attacks were not justified.  If you ever read Bin Laden's letter to the United States, you saw that Al Qaeda's hate goes way beyond the simplistic explanation Ron Paul gave.  Ron Paul's statements were simplistic and false, and Giuliani stood up to them and made light of their absurdity.  But I do admit that he could have done much better if he had had more time to debate.  

I watched the videos you posted.  It looked to me like some people who really hate Giuliani were grasping at straws to say absolutely horrific things about him.  I would even classify their behavior as evil.  Giuliani said he believed the towers would collapse, but that he did not know they would collapse when they did.  The people in the videos tried to make it sound like he said he knew they would collapse when they did, but no proof of that claim was shown.  The firefigher video showed a very small minority of firefighters who are probably Democrats and hate Giuliani because they know he is the the best contendor for defeating the Democratic candidate in the next election.  I believe their point was very weak.  They said Giuliani didn't give them good enough equipment for 9/11.  What????  Giuliani was not the person responsible for picking out the equipment.  The mayor is not the multitask fairy of the bigggest city in North America.  People in lower offices make those decisions.  And they did have the equipment.  But the equipment could have been better?  Okay.  The guy who was chased off by security guards or cops or whatever was engaging in flat out hostile harassment.  He was really getting on my nerves too, and I wasn't even in the room.  He was just a repetitive barking chihuahua full of hostility and accusations and lacking substance, like Solskye.  Showing up for a debate or a press hearing and asking hard questions is one thing.  Blindsiding somebody and acting hostile and being totally relentless with it is not something people have a moral obligation to put up with for long periods of time.  The guy Giuliani stood up to at the town hall meeting was being a total ass and making rotten accusations, and I don't blame Giuliani at all for standing up to him.





> The idea that a group of people want nothing but to destory another group of people is insane. Real life is not like that! People do not live their day to day life going, "How can I kill people?"



You have a lot of reading to do.





> How the hell is killing people with tanks any less wrong than blowing them up with a car bomb?



There is a difference between the good side and the evil side.  If you don't believe in that difference, then no wonder you say the things you say.  Killing people who are out to target the innocent in mass numbers to make some fairy in the sky happy is completely justified.  If you don't believe in killing the evil masses to protect the innocent masses, then I am glad you are not in charge.





> Unfortunately, don't expect Universal Mind to step out from within his ignorant bubble to actually make the time to get informed, though. He seems to have the mental sickness of thinking that he can somehow refute points without actually reading up on the facts, or watching them, nor is he even able to provide us with any real counter facts to support his empty ideas...



I want you to inform me of the counterarguments to the arguments you backed down to.  Your hot air mantra is not working as a substitute.  Besides, you said you don't even read my posts.  Remember?  





> I must admit, I skip through your posts because I feel that if I actually took the time to try and absorb your hollow and empty posts they might somehow seep in, and infect me with that vacuous and intolerant babble.



That's awesome.  Let me know if you ever have anything to argue with.  I must admit that I have given up on that expectation.

----------


## Cyclic13

Y'know it's funny. I've provided you with countless links of sources of information and you've provided me with nothing other than your lame opinions of those links...(ie. HOT AIR)

And yet, it is I who must debunk you? Yeah OK, man...keep on dreaming...

Republican Convention

----------


## Universal Mind

> I must admit, I skip through your posts because I feel that if I actually took the time...



.

----------


## Cyclic13

keyword: THROUGH, not OVER.  :smiley: 

Just look at the facts...

and if you still deny it...

Just look at the facts again...

and if your brain hasn't exploded yet from trying so hard not to face the facts...

Nothing but the facts...

...again, prove me wrong. k, thx. buh-bye.

----------


## Universal Mind

> keyword: THROUGH, not OVER. 
> 
> Just look at the facts...



Key word:  SKIP   ::rolleyes::

----------


## Cyclic13

:Dead Horse: Hey...one trick pony. Look up!

Face the facts...here's some more...
Olbermann - Sep 5 2006 - Bush Nazi issue

wraps your lips around this...
Pallets of money fund covert ops

and to keep things on topic...
Ron Paul Interview 1988 
STEADY views across the board...you gotta respect that. Also, you might notice how much less biased the media coverage was back then. Funny stuff.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> You, and a lot of mindless self-righteous americans need to learn the meaning of the word...Tolerance. Your way of thinking isn't perfect and it obviously steps on the toes of other groups of people, hence the problems we have with the world today.
> 
> If america wasn't so full of itself to entertain the thought of different perspectives, I wholly believe, we wouldn't have had the global problems we do with "terrorism". 
> 
> All of these desperate fundamentalist's way of thinking started when we invaded their land and supported biased dictator's facist regimes in order to feed our oil needs. We didn't care about freedom then just lining our greasy pocketbooks. 
> 
> Step outside your comfy american lifestyle and think outside yourself for a second here. Would you enjoy sitting idly by while your chances at having a decent living are continually crushed by facist dictators that were put in place by good ol' Uncle Sam himself. ALL of what Ron Paul has been stating is the truth. The terrorist's mentality is a direct link to our previous interactions with the middle east. They are just biting the hand that feeds them this negative lifestyle. Is it so hard to understand? You'd be doing exactly the same thing in their shoes with the same experiences, so don't be so quick to label the 'crazy' ones. It's easy to pin the tail on the donkey, as long as you think subjectively.
> 
> Do some damn research for god-sake.



You really are an idiot. If you think fanatical Islam was _created_ because of America, then I can't possibly help you.

You only understand what happened in your lifetime. Learn history. I GUARANTEE you I know more about mid East history than you.

Dont comment on my "comfy lifestyle". You have no fucking idea. I've been coming to terms with the fact that I could be dead in 6 months.

Only a bafoon like you would "Tolerate" terrorism.

----------


## Cyclic13

How's the view from that nice Hot air ballon?

Prove it...

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> How's the view from that nice Hot air ballon?
> 
> Prove it...



I can see more from my balloon than the ant's eye view you have.

Bush didn't plan 9/11. Prove it othewise....

----------


## Tornado Joe

Man, you all actually think you're going to solve anything here? You're both clear on where you stand with the issues, and show no signs of budging - so let it go. Agree to disagree and move on.

To respond to the topic of the thread, Sol - I heard of Ron Paul about a couple months ago (?), something like that. Was mentioned in another thread. I looked him up and got a quick overview of who he is etc. What I think? I do like what I'm hearing from him. Now with all the links provided in this thread (specially by big O  ::goodjob2:: ) I'll be able to get a bit more in depth info.

However, as much as I'd like someone like him to step up and get a shot at this mess of an administration we got - the reality is that he (at this point in time) doesn't have much of a chance to make it. So, voting for him would really be taking away votes to the candidate of which I'm currently a  (reluctant) supporter of.

Every four years we here in the US seem to have the same problem: we don't vote FOR a candidate, we simply vote AGAINST the that which we feel is the worst of the choices.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Every four years we here in the US seem to have the same problem: we don't vote FOR a candidate, we simply vote AGAINST the that which we feel is the worst of the choices.



That is a huge problem with US politics. The job of the politician is not to point out what is good about himself, but what is bad about the opponent. Have you ever seen the commercials on TV that just point out the bad stuff about some guy? And at the end it says it was paid for by the opponent. So freggin stupid.

----------


## Alric

> However, as much as I'd like someone like him to step up and get a shot at this mess of an administration we got - the reality is that he (at this point in time) doesn't have much of a chance to make it. So, voting for him would really be taking away votes to the candidate of which I'm currently a (reluctant) supporter of.
> 
> Every four years we here in the US seem to have the same problem: we don't vote FOR a candidate, we simply vote AGAINST the that which we feel is the worst of the choices.



You can't think like that. If you like someone you have to take a risk and back them 100%. The biggest killer of candidates are people who want to vote for them but don't because they think its some how wasting votes. How is voicing your opinion a waste? You don't always have to win, you just need to speak up loud enough for people to hear your opinion.

Personally I think he would easily win in the election. His biggest problem is in the primaries however. That will be a challenge but if he can get though that he will have it wrapped up.

----------


## Tornado Joe

Half/Dreaming - mud slinging is as old as elections themselves. Unfortunately among all the strategies in campaigning, it seems to be the easiest to do and therefore most widely used.

Alric - I understand what you're saying about the attitude of a 'wasted' vote. However, if a candidate is trully as good as he/she comes across as, he should be alble to rally up enough people to form a substancial following. Even then there is the biggest hurdle - finacing. Bet there's a good handfull of great potential leaders out there, just no money to finance a good campaign. Sad, but apparently money is what "makes" a candidate these days (just look at Obama). Anyone remember Ross Perot? And where does that money come from? Special interest groups and corporations (oil, energy, etc). The same people that run the government today.

So, you want to rule this great nation? You gotta sleep with the devil first.

I don't really think any vote is 'wasted' (except those which were tossed out with the whole "hanging chad" fiasco  ::rolleyes::  ). Yes, voting for neither of the major parties would send a message. But who'd hear it? Who would care? All I'd be left with is four years of a leader of which I could have prevented from coming into office- all for the sake of a message or voice.

In my opinion this country has taken a severe beating for 8 years (or more) economically and globally - the healing is still a long way off. But we need to at least stop the bleeding.

*Question:* Would Ron Paul run as a Republican or what? Wouldn't he be better off as an independent?

----------


## Alric

You answered your own question. Unless you are in one of the two main parties people don't take you seriously, which is why he is running as a Republican. While a lot of his views don't line up with the majority of neocons that run the republican party, he is in fact a conservative republican. As so it is appropriate for him to run as such. He could have very well ran as a libertarian and had the support of the entire group but thats not how you get elected.

We have a ways to go before we can know however. He doesn't have a lot of money but he does have a great grassroots campaign and its growing everyday. He has a great message as well, its all of a matter of getting it out for everyone to hear. There is no question he is doing very well, the thing is, will be it be enough?

----------


## shark!

- why can't I delete posts?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Hey...one trick pony. Look up!



 
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RB1Dvcwjxgo

----------


## Original Poster

Ron Paul is by far the greatest candidate for President.  He has his head in the right place and a nice bonus is he isn't weird or condescending.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Ron Paul is by far the greatest candidate for President.  He has his head in the right place and a nice bonus is he isn't weird or condescending.



That's an opinion. That's why we have elections. I'm skeptical of some of his stances.

----------


## Universal Mind

> He has his head in the right place and a nice bonus is he isn't weird or condescending.



He doesn't seem so much that way after I've watched speeches by Democrats in Congress.

----------


## Neruo

I am not really into it, but Ron Paul sounds like one of the few people running for office that knows what he is talking about. But probably some ignorant fool that will keep on ignoring America's problems will get elected, plunging America into an even deeper abyss they are never coming out of.

At the very least, Ron Paul proves that republican doesn't always equal moron. The morons just took over the party.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Honestly, if a Democrat is going to be elected, I want it to be Mr. Obama. I disagree with him on a lot of his stances, but he seems more level headed and less fanatical than people like Hillary Clinton.

He says he will take action against Iran, if necessary. Unfortunately I think conflict with Iran is a strong possibility.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Honestly, if a Democrat is going to be elected, I want it to be Mr. Obama. I disagree with him on a lot of his stances, but he seems more level headed and less fanatical than people like Hillary Clinton.
> 
> He says he will take action against Iran, if necessary. Unfortunately I think conflict with Iran is a strong possibility.



Really?  If he wants to invade Iran, that's a plus for him because I think that government has got to go.  But Obama said some crazy things a few days ago.  He said we should invade Pakistan.  I think that would really screw things up for us.  He also said he rules out using nukes, and that is something that should never be stated even when it is true.  I like Obama a lot more than the other Democratic candidates, but I think he has a lot to learn about foreign policy.  But so do all of the other Democrats running.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> I like Obama a lot more than the other Democratic candidates



Exactly. He seems so much less fanatical. But, he said we might have to invade _Pakistan_? Iran is much more dangerous.

What's worring me right now is Hillary Clinton. I don't know if she would be a bad president, because she would have to set an example as the first female president. Nevertheless, she is absolutely crazy. Just look.

----------


## Alric

Any sane person is going to rule out nukes. And it probably should be said. When you say stuff like, "We reserve the right to nuke people." You come across as crazy.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Any sane person is going to rule out nukes. And it probably should be said. When you say stuff like, "We reserve the right to nuke people." You come across as crazy.



Appearing "crazy" can be an advantage. No president is going to nuke terrorists, but he/it should never directly say he/it won't use nukes. He/it should say nothing about nukes at all, especially with Iran trying to get a nuke.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Appearing "crazy" can be an advantage. No president is going to nuke terrorists, but he/it should never directly say he/it won't use nukes. He/it should say nothing about nukes at all, especially with Iran trying to get a nuke.



Yes, appearing crazy can be a very good strategy.  I want the government Iran to worry that we might nuke them back to the stone age.

----------


## Alric

> Yes, appearing crazy can be a very good strategy. I want the government Iran to worry that we might nuke them back to the stone age.



Thats the same line of thinking Iran use, and look where it got them. Its very unlikely they are ever going to nuke but everyone now thinks they are crazy and might actually do it. And now people want to attack them. We don't want to put ourself in the same position.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Except Iran has the entire world looking at them right now. They wouldnt dare use any nukes. They will, however give them to terrorists for free to use against Israel.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Thats the same line of thinking Iran use, and look where it got them. Its very unlikely they are ever going to nuke but everyone now thinks they are crazy and might actually do it. And now people want to attack them. We don't want to put ourself in the same position.



The difference is that we would overthrow the government of Iran in a matter of days.  They fear that we will overthrow them.  We don't fear that they will overthrow our government.  They know they can't.

----------


## Neruo

Edit: I often am to lazy to read more than 5 words to form and opinion about someone's posts, and flame them based solely on that opinion. 

HMMM KAY. 

Sorry.

Still.

Just because she is a Democrat, silly, Blond and against the war---, actually, forget the rest, just because she is against the war doesn't make anyone a bad president or political leader.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

It was a joke, jackass. It is a funny picture, though, right? 

Read my post. I said "I don't know if she would be a bad president, because she would have to set an example as the first female president". I know everything about her policies, and she doesn't deserve to see the inside of the White House again. She is wishy washy, and supported action against Saddam Hussein, then DENOUCED IT. She is a liar, and conducts her politics in a shaky, unethical way. She fights dirty. She uses her husband to gain popularity. She is a sick, twisted woman.

I still think your rants about Fox News are fucking fantastic. Its funny you never mention the fanatical left news channels. Do you know their names?

----------


## Neruo

> It was a joke, jackass. It is a funny picture, though, right?



Actually, it would be pretty cool if they matched it with a picture of Bush (I am pretty sure Bush has a face like that on some pic too), and than say: "still fucked" above the picure. Would be a great bumpersticker if you are an Anarchist or something. 





> Read my post. I said "I don't know if she would be a bad president, because she would have to set an example as the first female president". I know everything about her policies, and she doesn't deserve to see the inside of the White House again. She is wishy washy, and supported action against Saddam Hussein, then DENOUCED IT. She is a liar, and conducts her politics in a shaky, unethical way. She fights dirty. She uses her husband to gain popularity. She is a sick, twisted woman.



Okay, I don't know why I edited my post. You actually do have a fucked up, biased idea about any democrat.

A liar? jesus tittyfucking christ H/D... you never cared ONCE about the literally hundreds of lies of the current administration. I never heard you ONCE about that. Isn't that biased? Why don't you care as much about lies of the guys on your side? Why don't you have such negative ideas about anyone pro-war (or do you?)? I can assure you there are dozens of pro-war people that are FAR more Wishy Washy and dirty than her, that are in power right now. 

Question your own opinions, for once. You might like it. 





> I still think your rants about Fox News are fucking fantastic. Its funny you never mention the fanatical left news channels. Do you know their names?



I am certain that no channel that truly can be called 'fanatical left' draws more than 5% of American viewers. While Fox News, politically biased, sensationalistic and fanatically right and racists, is the biggest channel in America. I personally care more about a clearly biased, powerful political tool being used to dumb down and fear people so they will accept a war, than about some 'fanatical left' news channels, that might get some people to -oh my god- try to form unions or even do something silly as trying to save monkeys or whatever leftists do. 

But, now you bring it up, Why don't you give me a video of some horribly biased fanatical left news channel. (despite what fox news tells you, CNN and such don't count, they still are pretty far on the right comparing to objective journalism). But do, try, find me a evil 'fanatical left news channel' video that will be as full of shit, racism and lies as an abstract of Fox News.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

When has George W. Bush "lied"? I'm not saying it never happened, but please give me some examples.

We are talking about the next administraton, not the current one. The people there aren't going anywhere, so the best we can do is prevent more wishy washy people from getting in. Think about it like that.

You won't shut up about Fox, will you? "Despite what Fox tells me". Grow up, young man. I would also like you to bring up one instance where Fox is "racist".

http://youtube.com/watch?v=U98l7HuVc4M

----------


## Neruo

> When has George W. Bush "lied"? I'm not saying it never happened, but please give me some examples.



I really wonder, and I hope you honestly wonder about this too:

Are you actually capable of ignoring the dozens of lies Bush had told, by ignoring the probably dozens of videos posted on dreamviews that depict Bush telling a lie. Or are you actually abstaining from every source of news that seems 'liberal' to you, what would make you a complete biggot, close-minded retard. Or is your memory bad. I don't see how you can actually ask "give me an example where bush has lied". I hope , for your humanity, your memory is bad. No, _Horrible_ even. Wake up. Look critically upon your government, or you are risking your own democracy. 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cv1DuKDi8...elated&search=
Keith Olbermann must be so jealous of Bill O'reileys intelligence. Ha.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=x7xyd_IRg...elated&search=
This one is pretty good.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bNws6IG69...elated&search=
Anyhow, this one is pretty good. It's even better than just Bush' lies. Do you even understand what they are saying? They are saying exactly what you wanted to hear. "We know saddam has WMDs".  However, if you just accept that it's fine if the government lies to you, then you are undermining democracy in every way. They lie, because they can. Because you fail miserably in holding your leaders responsible for what they say, for what they lie.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=AatT2v1XdTM
Some Rumpsfelt lies.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ygb5uyPZB...elated&search=
I wonder if you can see objectively how much Bush just draws people into mass-retardation on a very basic level.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60
May be just due to Bush his Alzheimer or whatever the poor bloke has. But it does seem strange to be so wrong about how he got to knew about 9/11. To quote Lincoln if I am not mistaken: "No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar" 


I am sure you are going to do a great job at not getting the importance of the last line of the following:

-----------

The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq                        President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:         "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed."   *Source:* President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).*Explanation* This statement was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledged that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."------------
Source, pretty good site: http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/20...%2F&frame=true





> We are talking about the next administraton, not the current one. The people there aren't going anywhere, so the best we can do is prevent more wishy washy people from getting in. Think about it like that.



Yeah. History shows that people in power gone corrupt always tidy up after a while. Sure. Keep believing.





> You won't shut up about Fox, will you? "Despite what Fox tells me". Grow up, young man. I would also like you to bring up one instance where Fox is "racist".




http://youtube.com/watch?v=IVgbppRVRXc

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lkdDNNkRD3Y
Sure, it is fine to do racial profiling. Why not just spy on all Muslims 24/7, they are at least 0,5% more dangerous than average. And cutting mikes. That's a mature lesson. 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=P4xiv6EyMsk
haha, found some funny O'reily footage. Yes. Shutting up, that is what they founded democracy on, right?!

-

Now. Give me ONE SINGLE video where you see 'left wing media' you dispise doing something bad. One single video. I spend quite some time trying to get some objective information in your lap, I would like it if you shared your view aswel. 

-------

I do hope you will honestly think about this. You seem extremely delusional. The irony is that 'leftists media' doesn't need to push their opinion, all they need to do is show the facts, the crimes, the footage of poker-faced lying. Even someone with down syndrome could then see what's wrong with the current administration. 

The ball is in your court.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Neruo, I have told you before that if you and I sat down and talked this out face to face, you would see that I am not delusional at all. Let me know if you want to go into the chat, which could work.

I never said conservatives are skip dandy. I have almost as many problems with conservatives as I do with liberals. American politics are ridiculus. I just don't believe the democrats' theory of "talk first, talk second, get mad later" policy with terrorism is going to solve anything. Fuck 9/11. Forget about it. It barely even matters anymore. 

Also, I hate Fox news. I never said they are not bias. But they are not more right-bias than CNN is left-bias. Still, they all suck.

Weed=WMD
Child=Saddam
Parent=USA

If you smell like weed, and you dont empty your pockets, then parents know whats going on. The only difference between Saddam showing his bunkers, and NOT showing his bunkers, is that we feared he had worse things than what we thought.

Refusing entry to inspectors is a guilty action, and theres now way around that. In my opinion, he stalled so long so he could get rid of the chemicals.

----------


## Alric

> The difference is that we would overthrow the government of Iran in a matter of days. They fear that we will overthrow them. We don't fear that they will overthrow our government. They know they can't.



So basicly you think its important for the US to play the part of the bully?

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> So basicly you think its important for the US to play the part of the bully?



Of course we appear to be bullies. We are the only country that actively pursues world affairs. Everyone else seems to just stand by, accept credit when things go well, and point fingers when things go bad.

I'm perfectly happy with having to do the dirty work. Afterall, we are the most technologically advanced country in the world. World affairs should be left up to the best.

----------


## Universal Mind

> So basicly you think its important for the US to play the part of the bully?



No.  We're the guy on the playground who stands up to the bullies.

----------


## Alric

No, no we are not. We are the bully, you said it yourself. Threatening people with nuclear attacks is horrible. You put it nicely when you basicly described that we do whatever we want because we don't believe anyone can actually invade us.

----------


## Universal Mind

> No, no we are not. We are the bully, you said it yourself. Threatening people with nuclear attacks is horrible. You put it nicely when you basicly described that we do whatever we want because we don't believe anyone can actually invade us.



You need to read more carefully.  I never said we should threaten anybody with nuclear attacks.  I said we should not tell the terrorists we will NOT engage in them.  I said we are not afraid Iran will invade us, not that we can do whatever we want.  You're hearing things.  

Iran is a bully.  Somebody has to stand up to a bully.  Tell me about the countries Iran has liberated and how much they give in foreign aid every year.  Then I'll tell you what the government Iran has said they want to do to Israel, what terrorist groups they fund and support, and what they are doing to support Iraqi insurgents who stand against Iraqi freedom.  THAT is bullying.  Try to deny that.  When you see that you can't, you can see why we need to stand up to them.  Standing up to a bully is not bullying.  It is justifiable retaliation.

----------


## Alric

My point is that we are doing the same thing, we are threatening people all the time, and here you are saying, we should drop a hint that a nuclear attack is possible. Thats not something you play word games with, and it comes across just as bad as threatening them.

----------


## Universal Mind

> My point is that we are doing the same thing, we are threatening people all the time, and here you are saying, we should drop a hint that a nuclear attack is possible. Thats not something you play word games with, and it comes across just as bad as threatening them.



I am not talking about dropping a hint.  I am talking about not taking away a worry.  There is a difference between threating to kill somebody and just refraining from saying you won't kill him.

----------


## Alric

That works untill someone asks about it.

----------


## shark!

> Also, I hate Fox news. I never said they are not bias. But they are not more right-bias than CNN is left-bias. Still, they all suck.



 cnn is left wing?  more like fox is really really fucking rightwingredneck, and cnn is rightwing.  it only seems left compared to fox

----------


## Universal Mind

> cnn is left wing? more like fox is really really fucking rightwingredneck, and cnn is rightwing. it only seems left compared to fox



No, CNN gives the most anti-Republican spin possible at every turn, just like NPR.  The commentators at Fox are generally right wing, but the reporters are pretty good at not showing bias.  Can you give me an example of where Shep Smith has been biased?  What about Uma Pemaraju?  Can you even name any of the other reporters at Fox?

----------


## shark!

> No, CNN gives the most anti-Republican spin possible at every turn, just like NPR. The commentators at Fox are generally right wing, but the reporters are pretty good at not showing bias. Can you give me an example of where Shep Smith has been biased? What about Uma Pemaraju? Can you even name any of the other reporters at Fox?



antirepublican spin isn't left wing, its antirepublican.  pro-democratic spin isn't left wing, its pro-rightwing.

wait, do you watch and like fox new universal mind?

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Antirepublicanism is the worst kind of left wing. They care more about smearing republicans than actually discussing the news. Its ridiculus.

Fox news does the same, but they are _so_ much smarter about it.

----------


## shark!

> Fox news does the same, but they are _so_ much smarter about it.



thats sarcasm right?

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> thats sarcasm right?



No, its not. Fox news commentators are hated by so many because they attack people to their core, and are relentless about it. They don't take as many cheap shots as liberal news stations. Have you ever heard Bill Oriley? The man never lies, and never gets off subject. Sure, he's a dick, but he is not shaky and not hypocritical. Leftist commentators extremely hypocritical and change their opinions to try gain viewers. There's a reason why Fox news is rated #1.  They are known for telling the truth, with a right leaning stance, of course. But then you have shows like "Hannity and Colmes", who mix conservatives and liberals all in 1 program. I would love to see a successful show like that on some of the other stations.

Watch a liberal news station. If a republican does something, they just tie him back to Iraq to make him look like a jackass.

----------


## Cyclic13

LOL...Hurray for the mindless drones of the propaganda machine!! Good to see their tireless efforts weren't completely in vain.  ::chuckle::

----------


## Half/Dreaming

All hail Solskye, smarter-than-me guy. He is so enlightened, and is completely unaffected by what other people say. He has an immunity.

The only people that have that immunity are hermits. Are you a hermit, solskye?

----------


## Cyclic13

Do you actually think before you type? Or is the fox news probe stuck so far in your head it hurts to NOT be a retard?

----------


## Half/Dreaming

YOU KEEP GOING ON ABOUT FOX!!!!!!!! Its so funny to me.

Fox is my life. I watch nothing but Fox News. I eat Fox News cereal. I drink Fox News milk. I have a years worth of Fox News underwear. I have a Fox News tatoo of Bill Oriley's face on my left butt cheek. In lucid dreams I summon Sean Hannity and have him pleasure me. If I don't inject Fox News directly into my bloodsteam daily I will carve Fox News into my arm with a knife.

How's that Conspiracy cereal, Solskye?

----------


## shark!

> No, its not. Fox news commentators are hated by so many because they attack people to their core, and are relentless about it. They don't take as many cheap shots as liberal news stations. Have you ever heard Bill Oriley? The man never lies, and never gets off subject. Sure, he's a dick, but he is not shaky and not hypocritical. Leftist commentators extremely hypocritical and change their opinions to try gain viewers. There's a reason why Fox news is rated #1. They are known for telling the truth, with a right leaning stance, of course. But then you have shows like "Hannity and Colmes", who mix conservatives and liberals all in 1 program. I would love to see a successful show like that on some of the other stations.



now you're just being really sarcastic.  If you arn't being sarcastic, I'm pretty sure you're late for a monster truck show or something somewhere..Also until now I never knew anyone had actual respect for bill o'reily

anyways I think its #1 because there are a lot of rednecks, conservatives, white trash etc, and they watch the news too, and fox realizes this and thats why they have shows such as When Animals Attack 12 and Fox News, they want to cash in on it.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> now you're just being really sarcastic.




Is my addiction a joke to you? Grow up. 

Shark, you need to head on down to America. Your misconception about our redneck population is absolutely mindblowing.

I think every Canadian looks like this


You all say words like "buddy" and "eh" and the beginning and end of every sentence.

----------


## shark!

> Your misconception about our redneck population is absolutely mindblowing.



you mean you don't have people that watch fox news and also enjoy monster trucks?  I never used the word Every

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> you mean you don't have people that watch fox news and also enjoy monster trucks?



You mean you don't live in igloos?

----------


## shark!

> Your misconception about our redneck population is absolutely mindblowing.



ok im willing to learn, which part of my misconception is mindblowing?

----------


## Half/Dreaming

First of all, I need to know your idea of what a redneck is. I'm being completely serious here, so don't give me a joking answer.

----------


## shark!

an american...


no not a serious answer, but 



> Your misconception about our redneck population is absolutely mindblowing.



i just meant what misconceptions were so mindblowing?

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Hey shark, whats new with maple syrup? I hear there'll quite a harvest this year.

OK I saw your edit.

Our redneck population is so small that it could not make a news station #1. 

When I was a kid, I LOVED wrestling. You know, Hogan and Kevin Nash and Sting. I even turned my trampoline into a wrestling ring with ropes and everything. I like watching a big ass truck crush little sedans. I grew up in Georgia, raised by a Georgian and and Floridan. Yet, I don't have a southern accent. I don't live in a trailer. I am not a redneck.

"Rednecks" don't vote. They have no power, and absolutely no influence over our population. In fact, I don't really even notice them. I hate saying "redneck" because it makes them sound like a different species of person. Most of them are decent people, and are not ill informed or retarded. Their religious beliefs are stupid in my opinion, but that doesn't bother me. 

America is the most culturaly diverse nation on the planet. Any strange culture just gets canceled out by all the other crazy cultures. And in the end, you get the greatest superpower in history.

I must ask again, what is your idea of a redneck?

----------


## Alric

Republicans and democrates are both left wing. Which is why they nearly always support the same kind of stuff, except for in cases where they like to bash the other side. Which brings us back to Ron Paul who is actually a conservative republican.

Its probably why everyone always says it doesn't matter who you vote for because you always get the same thing. Which is true, they do always agree on 80-90% of the issues then argue over the remaining 10-20%. You get a left wing democrate or a left wing republican.

Ron Paul is the only person running who actually wants smaller government in any way, what so ever.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

Not that is has much to do with this thread but, if you can't see that FOX has a _massive_ right-wing slant, then it's _obviously_ the only thing you watch.
OutFOXed
...and Bill O'Reilly "never lies??" I can't believe anyone can type that with a straight face.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Not that is has much to do with this thread but, if you can't see that FOX has a _massive_ right-wing slant, then it's _obviously_ the only thing you watch.
> OutFOXed
> ...and Bill O'Reilly "never lies??" I can't believe anyone can type that with a straight face.



You must not understand my satire. Its hard to convey over the net. Everyone knows FOX is a joke. Thats why I don't watch it, or any other news channel on a regular basis. BUT, they balance out the extreme liberal bias that has become prominent. Today conservatives are on defence and liberals are on offence. The liberals are ravenous. It will be interesting to see how things change if we get a democratic president. FOX on offence gets nasty.

Just for kicks and gigles, can you show me an instance when Bill Oriley has lied?

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

Oh ok. I could tell in your "I eat FOX cereal, etc." post, but your entire first post, the one about O'Reilly never lying is _Exactly_ the sort of stuff that many pro-FOXNewsers say. That's, I guess, what was so scary; because even though you were being satirical, there was no exaggeration, at all. But I suppose the best type of satire is the completely believable kind. Haha.  ::goodjob2:: 

(There's a whole section of that OutFOXed video devoted to O'Reilly, but here is something I found before that vid.)

Krugman vs. O'Reilly
http://www.jimgilliam.com/video/krug...reilly_200.mov

Bill O'Reilly Lying With Rebuttal
http://www.outfoxed.org/oreillylies.php

----------


## skysaw

> Just for kicks and gigles, can you show me an instance when Bill Oriley has lied?



http://www.ifilm.com/video/2671823

----------


## Universal Mind

> Not that is has much to do with this thread but, if you can't see that FOX has a _massive_ right-wing slant, then it's _obviously_ the only thing you watch.
> OutFOXed
> ...and Bill O'Reilly "never lies??" I can't believe anyone can type that with a straight face.



The most popular of the commentators are right wing.  Examples are Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Neil Cavuto.  There are also popular liberal commentators, such as Alan Colmes, Geraldo Rivera, and Greta Van Susteren.  There are less prominent commentators on both sides.  However, like I said, the reporters who report straight news and don't give opinions don't show bias.  Shephard Smith, Uma Pemaraju, and Laurie Dew just give the news and don't feel the need to end every segment with, "And by the way, Hillary Clinton masturbates goats," which is the type of behavior the newscasters at CNN and MSNBC engage in regarding Republicans.  I watch all of the news networks, and I know that Fox is the least biased.  They just seem biased to people who are very used to liberal slants on every single news story.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> The most popular of the commentators are right wing.  Examples are Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Neil Cavuto.  There are also popular liberal commentators, such as Alan Colmes, Geraldo Rivera, and Greta Van Susteren.



Some of the least-liberal "liberals" I've seen on the air, today, IMO. Alan Colmes, for one, is hardly anything more than Hannity's sidekick, and allowed to get a jab in, every now and then, to keep the "illusion" (and a poor one, at that) of "fair and balanced" upheld. Hannity is the star of that show, and Colmes is simply appeasement. 
As far as the FOX reporters:
I can agree with you that many of the FOX Reporters do not go off on biased tangents and whatnot. I'm actually quite fond of Uma and Laurie Dhue. They are both very charismatic and seem to be straight shooters, from what I've seen. Unfortunately, their part in the bias is being subjected to _what news stories are to be talked about_, which is not something that they, themselves, delegate. They simply tell the news that they are given, and are given whatever news the channel's agenda calls for. Often, therein, lies the bias - _much_ more covert, but 'non-existent'? I'd definitely disagree.





> ...and don't feel the need to end every segment with, "And by the way, Hillary Clinton masturbates goats," which is the type of behavior the newscasters at CNN and MSNBC engage in regarding Republicans.



Please show as many examples of that as you are willing to post. I'm not going to say I watch _ALL_ the news networks, (which is a bold claim that I don't have the conviction to call you out on) but my TV is constantly on either FOX, CNN or MSNBC. My sole purpose for jumping around is _exactly_ to compare and contrast their styles. I am constantly seeing politicians (_in general_) getting absolutely _reemed_ by CNN newscasters. No matter the party (but I'm sure you know this), if they have a guest on that they have an issue with, they will take it to them. I'm not going to go so far as to say that there is [i]no[i] bias because I've seen a lot of angst against the Administration (R), and I'm not going to try to excuse it, either. I simply don't see it as the over-bearing, in-your-face bias, that FOX news blatantly shells out, about Democrats...
...At All.





> I watch all of the news networks, and I know that Fox is the least biased.  They just seem biased to people who are very used to liberal slants on every single news story.



No. You watch "all the news networks" and _believe_ that FOX is the least biased - which is your right. Its bias is picked up by more than people who just compare it to an absorbed liberal slant, but also by many of the people who Used To Work There. (as is evidenced in the video I posted, if you watched it. If not, I hope you find the time to. I was kinda disappointed how, in the 9/11 thread, after I posted the link to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, you had nothing to say but, after a while, went back to stating how there are "0/6" - or something to that affect - experts that believe that there is something wrong with the official story. Take the time to check out the vid posted above, before just reinforcing your argument with more, suggested, bias.)
But, of course, I know how easy it would be to say, "Oh well, that's just a small majority of people.." or "..well, those people are just anti-conservative or Bush-haters" and dismiss it all, to continue on with one's line of thinking. So we can agree to disagree on that point, because I think there is hardly anything short of a world-wide poll that would be able to convince you of FOX's blatant bias (which is not meant to be an insult, UM - simply my honest opinion) and that, _particularly_, is not something that I'd like to get into an endless clash of unverifiable opinions over.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> The most popular of the commentators are right wing.  Examples are Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Neil Cavuto.  There are also popular liberal commentators, such as Alan Colmes, Geraldo Rivera, and Greta Van Susteren.  There are less prominent commentators on both sides.  However, like I said, the reporters who report straight news and don't give opinions don't show bias.  Shephard Smith, Uma Pemaraju, and Laurie Dew just give the news and don't feel the need to end every segment with, "And by the way, Hillary Clinton masturbates goats," which is the type of behavior the newscasters at CNN and MSNBC engage in regarding Republicans.  I watch all of the news networks, and I know that Fox is the least biased.  They just seem biased to people who are very used to liberal slants on every single news story.



You're probably going to get attacked for this. I must dissagree with you that FOX is the least bias. You are right that the reporters are straight edged, but the commentators are known best, and they are known for their conservative views. On a side note, there is something to the fact that FOX has both liberals and conservative, but is known for its conservatives.

I am just fed up with all TV news. I stopped watching them after seeing 9/11 replays 24 hours a day. They all pass their slants off as fact, fact or not.  Its a finger pointing match. As I said earlier, if we get a Democrat president, I will start watching again.

----------


## Universal Mind

> You're probably going to get attacked for this. I must dissagree with you that FOX is the least bias. You are right that the reporters are straight edged, but the commentators are known best, and they are known for their conservative views. On a side note, there is something to the fact that FOX has both liberals and conservative, but is known for its conservatives.
> 
> I am just fed up with all TV news. I stopped watching them after seeing 9/11 replays 24 hours a day. They all pass their slants off as fact, fact or not. Its a finger pointing match. As I said earlier, if we get a Democrat president, I will start watching again.



They have a lot of liberal commentators.  Those just aren't as popular as the conservative ones.  Liberal commentators just don't make big names for themselves because they usually don't have truth to work with.  That is why Air America turned out to be such a disaser.  Liberal commentators don't know how to capture an audience without using fiction, as in the cases of John Stewart and Steven Colbert.  They are huge because they use fictitious concepts and act like total jackasses to get attention.  Conservative commentators are great at acting like total jackasses with real concepts.

----------


## Mystic7

> I know that Fox is the least biased



Now I know for sure there is something wrong with you.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Now I know for sure there is something wrong with you.



I'm sure the numerology and prophecy sources you use give a much clearer picture of reality.   ::lol::

----------


## Original Poster

Nice strawman.  I don't watch any news because I'd rather know I'm not informed than untruthfully believe I am informed.

Ignoring how obvious it is that Fox news is run by unapologetically subjective journalists I'll just mention a general note on the News.

There was a poll taken in California asking if people thought violent crime was going up in the state and the vast majority of people that get their news from the TV said yes, even though violent crime in the state had actually gone down.  The reason is every single year violent crime gets more and more news time, even though there's less and less of it.  Why?  Because violent crime sells.

Fox News has an audience it sells to, the republicans, and it does whatever it can to reinforce negative associations with liberals (like the one above) and censor real news.  I don't think it's that much worse than the other news networks though.  If you were to compare it to a new network that reported the truth in a panoramic manner they would all look pretty much the exact same.

But all this censorship of Ron Paul only helps his campaign.  If only the republicans watched the debates, then they'd see how untouchable he is as a candidate.  He just schools the other candidates.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Nice strawman. I don't watch any news because I'd rather know I'm not informed than untruthfully believe I am informed.
> 
> Ignoring how obvious it is that Fox news is run by unapologetically subjective journalists I'll just mention a general note on the News.
> 
> There was a poll taken in California asking if people thought violent crime was going up in the state and the vast majority of people that get their news from the TV said yes, even though violent crime in the state had actually gone down. The reason is every single year violent crime gets more and more news time, even though there's less and less of it. Why? Because violent crime sells.
> 
> Fox News has an audience it sells to, the republicans, and it does whatever it can to reinforce negative associations with liberals (like the one above) and censor real news. I don't think it's that much worse than the other news networks though. If you were to compare it to a new network that reported the truth in a panoramic manner they would all look pretty much the exact same.
> 
> But all this censorship of Ron Paul only helps his campaign. If only the republicans watched the debates, then they'd see how untouchable he is as a candidate. He just schools the other candidates.



Straw man?  No, a straw man argument involves a false assessment of someone else's claim.  I did not make anything up to say that mystic believes in numerology and prophecy.  He admits it.  His whole argument was that there is something wrong with me, so I ragged him back.  No strawman.  Sorry.  

Read what I said in the ecstasy thread and what I have said in the religion forum and then try to tell me that I am a Republican.  

All of the news networks have some bias, but Fox News has the least.  MSNBC has a fierce agenda of news slanting against Bush.  Even their straight news reporters show it every day.  Fox News has analysts that are biased toward Republicans, but they have several that are biased toward Democrats.  Geraldo Rivera, Alan Colmes, and Greta Van Susteren are all liberal commentators.  The straight news reporters are far less biased than the straight news reporters at MSNBC and CNN.  However, I don't think any of the three can get away with lying, which is very different from mere slanting.  They are all big time corporations in obsessive competition with each other, and MSNBC and Fox News have personal hate against each other.  CNN hates Fox almost as much as MSNBC does.  They are all fiending to see another one say something that is a lie so they can sink them once and for all.  Look at what happened to Dan Rather and CBS Nes when he tried that junk.  Rather got fired, and CBS News still has not recovered from the lie.  Left wing blog sites, on the other hand, don't have that kind of pressure.  

Did you see Ron Paul on Bill O'Reilly's show?  Paul turned out to be there to play a game of dodgeball.  Bill kept giving him direct questions, and Paul kept side stepping and refusing to give straight answers.  Ron Paul is a moron with a one track mind.  I seriously question whether he is on Al Qaeda's payroll.  His refusal to ackowledge any cause of terrorism other than U.S. involvement in the Middle East makes him a perfectly good sympathizer and spokesman for Al Qaeda.  I think he should look for other factors, such as the fact that terrorist organizations are INSANE and EVIL and actually make decisions.  Then he could maybe get into the full list of their unrealistic demands, such as the mass Islamization of the western hemisphere, and not just one of them.

----------


## Original Poster

Now THAT is a straw man (not to mention a slippery slope)

Here's a link to the debate you mentioned so people can see for themselves if Ron Paul was really skating passed the questions and playing dodgeball.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=R7JPvbVsDdY

Ron Paul did his best to answer O'Reilly's questions but the man kept interrupting him claiming he was avoiding the questions when he was just trying to tell Bill O'Reilly that he was focused on the wrong people.  Anyone can say what Bill O'Reilly said, he might as well have been asking if Ron Paul believed the world is a dangerous place.  What Ron Paul was saying is that this country's focus is put on nations that aren't nearly as threatening to us as other ones, or don't require nearly as much attention.

Oh but you're right, the fallacy you used against Mystic was an ad hominem

----------


## Universal Mind

> Now THAT is a straw man (not to mention a slippery slope)
> 
> Here's a link to the debate you mentioned so people can see for themselves if Ron Paul was really skating passed the questions and playing dodgeball.
> 
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=R7JPvbVsDdY
> 
> Ron Paul did his best to answer O'Reilly's questions but the man kept interrupting him claiming he was avoiding the questions when he was just trying to tell Bill O'Reilly that he was focused on the wrong people. Anyone can say what Bill O'Reilly said, he might as well have been asking if Ron Paul believed the world is a dangerous place. What Ron Paul was saying is that this country's focus is put on nations that aren't nearly as threatening to us as other ones, or don't require nearly as much attention.
> 
> Oh but you're right, the fallacy you used against Mystic was an ad hominem



I didn't use a fallacy with Mystic.  I engaged in the silly insult war he wanted to have because he could not counter my point about Fox News.  HE committed the ad hominem fallacy.  His point was 100% pure ad hominem, so I threw it back at him.  An ad hominem used back at a total ad hominem is not fallacious.  That's like saying if somebody calls you a booty head and you call him a biscuit face that you have committed a fallacy.  Don't be silly.  Was I supposed to post my psychological history because, "There's something wrong with you," is a serious debate point?  Get real.  

Ron Paul did very briefly touch Bill's issue about Iran, but he mostly kept playing the, "But let's talk about this other subject instead," game instead of giving direct responses.  Iran is a megaserious matter we have on our hands right now, and Bill was trying to get Ron to talk about what we should do about them.  Ron barely did it at all.  He just said we shouldn't be in the Middle East at all, even though he voted for the war in Afghanistan.  How consistent.  What a stable candidate.  And Ron also said that what Iran is doing is legitimate.  A Ron Paul presidency would be a horrifying nightmare for the entire world.  It's a good thing we don't have to realistically worry about such a thing.

----------


## Original Poster

You're wrong, Ron Paul addressed the issue thusly:

Iran is a threat, but Saudi Arabia has half the terrorists, so why are we ignoring Saudi Arabia and just focusing on Iran?  

Bill O'Reilly was trying to set the stage of the world, stating opinions as facts.  He wanted Ron Paul to asnwer yes or no is Iran a threat, but that's a bullshit question because if Ron says no then he can get attacked for an outrageous statement and if he says yes then O'Reilly would just call him a flip flopper.  O'Reilly was trying to set the stage as if Paul didn't care about Iran, and that's just not true, he simply has his priorities straight and Iran should not be our top priority.

The biggest megaserious threat to our nation is the fucking plutocracy and the federal reserve, not Iran.

----------


## Bearsy

Ron Paul Is The Last Hope For The American People


Vote Libertarian Or Watch Your Freedoms Be Stripped Away!

----------


## Universal Mind

> You're wrong, Ron Paul addressed the issue thusly:
> 
> Iran is a threat, but Saudi Arabia...



That's called dodging.  Paul could have talked about the specifics of Iran and the full details of how to deal with them and then gone off about Saudi Arabia.  Instead, he played the side step game.  

Iran supports suicide bomber terrorism on a large scale, and we are their biggest enemy.  They are working on nuclear weapons.  That is a humongous problem.  If Ron Paul does not have the capacity to understand that, then he is not even qualified to be the mayor of a hick town.

----------


## Original Poster

The debate lasted 5 minutes, he wasn't dodging anything because the issue is this: The media is overrating Iran and ignoring other threats, Ron Paul has a responsibility to address these more severe threats for the safety of the American People.  Just because people that don't care about our safety are placing Iran in a position of hyper-threat doesnt make it so.

----------


## Universal Mind

> The debate lasted 5 minutes, he wasn't dodging anything because the issue is this: The media is overrating Iran and ignoring other threats, Ron Paul has a responsibility to address these more severe threats for the safety of the American People. Just because people that don't care about our safety are placing Iran in a position of hyper-threat doesnt make it so.



The question was this:  What should be done about Iran?  

If there are bigger issues, which I don't think there are, then he could have brought that up after answering the incredibly important question.  The idea of electing somebody who does not take Iran seriously is an absolute nightmare.

----------


## Original Poster

> If there are bigger issues, which I don't think there are,



The argument is officially over between us until you do some fact checking on the state of the world, bro.

----------


## Universal Mind

> The argument is officially over between us until you do some fact checking on the state of the world, bro.



Could you be a little more vague?

----------


## Aldrich

I think what happened was a pretty common act by OReilly, he asks a question and when someone tries to answer he starts shouting then goes on to the next question and says how they didnt answer their last one. OReilly uses a tactic many lawyers do to make people look bad on the stand. If I was ever on OReilly I would have to say Yes, well before I answer that I will need to qualify my answer 

He wasnt giving Mr. Paul any time to explain himself, look at it this way, when it comes to politics how easy is it to answer a question, such as OReilly asked, and not explain yourself for a few minutes? Of course I dont consider this much of a debate as OReilly just trying to make Ron Paul look bad, Im somewhat surprised Fox news even had him on TV.

----------


## Universal Mind

> The biggest megaserious threat to our nation is the fucking plutocracy and the federal reserve, not Iran.



Oh yeah, that threat.  The United States government wants to nuke itself out of existence.  Good point.

----------


## Mystic7

O’Reilly already knows he is destroying the country. That's the difference between him and a ignorant person like Universal Mind.

Omnius Deus is absolutely correct. The federal reserve is what needs to be dealt with. Iran is just another target for the Nazis of the forth Reich.

----------


## Universal Mind

> OReilly already knows he is destroying the country. That's the difference between him and a ignorant person like Universal Mind.



Tell me more about La La Land.  But first, actually counter some points I made.

----------


## jaasum

You know what. I was going to post some long post about how you obviously know nothing. But then I noticed you were form Mississippi. I have been there, for a while. 

Keep thinking like you do, you are in lala land. Say what you want about me but I know how you think...you will make all sorts of assumptions about me because of how you have been programmed by the MSM (all of it, not just fox) 

Think for yourself, gosh.

----------


## Universal Mind

> You know what. I was going to post some long post about how you obviously know nothing. But then I noticed you were form Mississippi. I have been there, for a while. 
> 
> Keep thinking like you do, you are in lala land. Say what you want about me but I know how you think...you will make all sorts of assumptions about me because of how you have been programmed by the MSM (all of it, not just fox) 
> 
> Think for yourself, gosh.



That's great.  Another ad hominem post that counters none of my points.  The last two people who responded to me in this thread had nothing left to do but throw empty personal insults at me.  Rudeness is a perfectly good subtitute for actual retort, in La La Land.  Thank you for taking this debate absolutely nowhere.

----------


## jaasum

I didn't even read your posts get off your high-horse, and I think lala land is a insult last time I checked.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I didn't even read your posts get off your high-horse, and I think lala land is a insult last time I checked.



 ::yawn::   Yes, I return pure insults with insults, but at least I challenged you and Mystic to actually debate.  I don't return debate points with pure insults, and that is what you two have done.  You have a Ron Paul promotion in your sig line, and you have nothing to say on the subject in a thread about Ron Paul.  By the way, since you have started showing your true colors of rudeness lately, do you think Ron Paul is the cause of himself?

----------


## jaasum

> Did you see Ron Paul on Bill O'Reilly's show?  Paul turned out to be there to play a game of dodgeball.  Bill kept giving him direct questions, and Paul kept side stepping and refusing to give straight answers.  Ron Paul is a moron with a one track mind.  I seriously question whether he is on Al Qaeda's payroll.  His refusal to ackowledge any cause of terrorism other than U.S. involvement in the Middle East makes him a perfectly good sympathizer and spokesman for Al Qaeda.  I think he should look for other factors, such as the fact that terrorist organizations are INSANE and EVIL and actually make decisions.  Then he could maybe get into the full list of their unrealistic demands, such as the mass Islamization of the western hemisphere, and not just one of them.



Okay, I will refute one of your points then.

What your "Universal Mind" can't comprehend is that unlike what Bill (trust me I know his show I used to watch it every day) turns every question into "A simply yes or not question" reality is much much different. Ron Paul was not avoiding his questions, the questions have very complicated answers mixed with history, policy and other factors beyond the obvious. Bill OReilly loves to make every a simple "yes and no"

"Yes or no, is Iraq safer with Saddam Hussien." And when people are like "Ehh well in a way but not really because you have to..." but that is as far as they get because he will interject. "Yes or no! It's simple!" Which even you should be able to point out as bullshit.

Ron Paul is not a sympathizer to Al Queda, that the fact that you make that statement is an obvious fallacy. The same as when they asked him in the debate "Do you take your marching orders from Al-Qaeda then?" which holds no journalistic or fact checking merit. If you fail to see that then you fail to see where people are pointing out your obvious lack of critical thinking.

No, Ron Paul does NOT take his marching orders from Al-Qaeda. In fact I firmly believe if we followed his initial proposal to simply GO AFTER Al-Qaeda and not get into nation building and Saddam Hussien we wouldn't be in this mess. What does our government do? Instead of going after our enemy they declare war on a tactic, terrorism. That would be like declaring war on submersibles and any country that harbors persons using submersible military tactics. Our enemy was Al-Qaeda, plain and simple. But then we let him run off in Pakistan and shut down the CIA group searching for him. This makes NO SENSE.

And no, Ron Paul has not "forgotten" about 9/11 that is another statement full of fallacies. He is one of the only people looking to prevent something like that from ever happening again. And this can only be acheived through removing our influence in the middle east. Tell me one good reason that benefits the American people that we have our army occupying that part of the world. And if you say defending our life that is bullshit. The reason we were attacked is because we were over there. That pisses some people off so much, people who are supposed to be our allies that they come over here and kill our innocent people. Osama Bin Laden is a fucking lunatic that deserves to be brought to justice, I agree and I am sure Ron Paul would agree. His is not a sympathizer he is intelligently assessing the situation and putting the focus back onto the American people. You do not spread democracy by force, you do not meddle in the affairs of foreign countries (giving billions of dollars of weapons to our allies to use against our enemies in the middle east is NOT HELPING US AT ALL). One of the reasons given fro the 9/11 attacks was our aid to Israel, but what do we do? Give them 30 billion dollars MORE weapons! This is completely mad!

Even our AIDS relief is to fight terrorism and spread democracy in other parts of the world. I honestly do not see where you get your information that refutes proven facts. I don't see how what George Bush said after the attacks dismisses the reasons, that were admitted, of why we were attacked.

Do you think we have the right to do what we are doing around the world? Do you think your tax dollars should be spent to meddle in the affairs of other countries? Imagine if some country did that here? Can you even open your mind enough to consider that what you get from the news (fox or not) may not be entirely true. Maybe because if Bill O'Reilly actually let someone finish a sentence you might get a glimpse of what is true, instead of some loud mouth like him shoving down ideas of how you should think. If you think a supposed "fair and balanced" journalistic network that releases "daily memos" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_news#Internal_memos) is a unbiased source of information then you, my friend are living in la la land. But wait, wikipedia is probably too "liberally slanted" for you so you will dismiss that. The world isn't a simple yes or no answer, I hope you open your "Universal Mind" to this. Because I honestly did used to think like you, nobody came up and told me "hey LIBERAL PROPAGANDA!" and I was like "OH YES OF COURSE" I just eventually saw through the bullshit on both sides one day. I would describe myself as a traditional conservative in every meaning of the world. I want the government off my back and off the worlds back. Because when we embark on this stupidity it is only hurting people like you and I, who have absolutely no choice nor anything to do with it. I could care less if Israel got 30 billion dollars of my tax dollars, so why should they? I want true freedom and liberty, I don't want a fucking "free speech zone" and I don't want the main stream media telling people who to vote for. Don't believe me, look at how much time different candidates are allowed to speak in each debate....Ron Paul or not it is bullshit. The frontrunners are automatically based on money and polls, therefore nobody else is given a chance, that isn't democracy that is propaganda. If FOX news backs a certain ideal and then un-factually makes another side look bad, while un-factually makes their side look good, that is propaganda. 

"information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2.	the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3.	the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement."

When Bill O'Reilly says "everyone who watches The Daily Show is a pot-head" That is propaganda. That is not factual and it used to make one side look good (his) and the other look bad. Just to make a point, he does this politically, not just about fake news shows. 

Does any of this make any sense to do? Do you just glaze of factual information such as why we were attacked? Or are you going to mis-read what I said and think I said "Osama Bin Laden was a great man, he was right in what he did" like Fox news so desperately wants to make Ron Paul sound like.

----------


## Universal Mind

> What your "Universal Mind" can't comprehend is that unlike what Bill (trust me I know his show I used to watch it every day) turns every question into "A simply yes or not question" reality is much much different. Ron Paul was not avoiding his questions, the questions have very complicated answers mixed with history, policy and other factors beyond the obvious. Bill O’Reilly loves to make every a simple "yes and no"



My God you have gone from, "Hi, I'm Mr. Friendly," in the Religion forum to showing what you are really about.  Why are you so rotten about everything now?  

O'Reilly asks yes/no questions because they get to the heart of important issues.  "Should we make decision A, or should we not?"  Left wing fanatics despise yes/no questions because they greatly minimize their abilities to dodge by babbling. 





> "Yes or no, is Iraq safer with Saddam Hussien." And when people are like "Ehh well in a way but not really because you have to..." but that is as far as they get because he will interject. "Yes or no! It's simple!" Which even you should be able to point out as bullshit.



Whether Iraq is and will later be safer without Saddam Hussein is an extremely important question.  People who don't want to give a yes/no answer to it are people who want to dodge it.  Yes, Iraq is safer even now, and Iraq will be much safer in the long run.  





> Ron Paul is not a sympathizer to Al Queda, that the fact that you make that statement is an obvious fallacy. The same as when they asked him in the debate "Do you take your marching orders from Al-Qaeda then?" which holds no journalistic or fact checking merit. If you fail to see that then you fail to see where people are pointing out your obvious lack of critical thinking.



My critical thinking tells me that I have yet to see Ron Paul give the slightest trace of responsibility to Al Qaeda for their actions.  He even said that U.S. presence in the Middle East "CAUSED" 9/11.  That might as well be a Bin Laden quote.  Does your critical thinking notice the same thing?  





> No, Ron Paul does NOT take his marching orders from Al-Qaeda. In fact I firmly believe if we followed his initial proposal to simply GO AFTER Al-Qaeda and not get into nation building and Saddam Hussien we wouldn't be in this mess. What does our government do? Instead of going after our enemy they declare war on a tactic, terrorism. That would be like declaring war on submersibles and any country that harbors persons using submersible military tactics. Our enemy was Al-Qaeda, plain and simple. But then we let him run off in Pakistan and shut down the CIA group searching for him. This makes NO SENSE.



We have captured and killed tons of members of Al Qaeda, inculding many of their highest ranking members.  What are you talking about?  We tried really hard to catch Bin Laden, but he is apparently hiding in Pakistan, and we have national security reasons for not invading Pakistan.  Al Qaeda was not our only enemy.  There are other terrorist organizations with the same goals, and preventative measures are necesssary.  We are also going after governments that could help those organizations get their hands on WMD's.  It is not as simple as going after Al Qaeda, which we in fact have been doing.  The question about marching orders was a joke meant to illustrate the extent to which Paul agrees with Al Qaeda and promotes their philosophy, however inadvertently.  





> And no, Ron Paul has not "forgotten" about 9/11 that is another statement full of fallacies. He is one of the only people looking to prevent something like that from ever happening again. And this can only be acheived through removing our influence in the middle east. Tell me one good reason that benefits the American people that we have our army occupying that part of the world. And if you say defending our life that is bullshit. The reason we were attacked is because we were over there. That pisses some people off so much, people who are supposed to be our allies that they come over here and kill our innocent people. Osama Bin Laden is a fucking lunatic that deserves to be brought to justice, I agree and I am sure Ron Paul would agree. His is not a sympathizer he is intelligently assessing the situation and putting the focus back onto the American people. You do not spread democracy by force, you do not meddle in the affairs of foreign countries (giving billions of dollars of weapons to our allies to use against our enemies in the middle east is NOT HELPING US AT ALL). One of the reasons given fro the 9/11 attacks was our aid to Israel, but what do we do? Give them 30 billion dollars MORE weapons! This is completely mad!



The reason for the 9/11 attacks was that Al Qaeda decided to commit them.  Everything else you mention can qualify only as influences and Al Qaeda's excuses, if anything.  We are in Iraq for many reasons.  I am so sick of listing them here.  Look up any Iraq thread in Extended Discussion and read my long list of reasons for our presence in Iraq.  





> Do you think we have the right to do what we are doing around the world? Do you think your tax dollars should be spent to meddle in the affairs of other countries? Imagine if some country did that here? Can you even open your mind enough to consider that what you get from the news (fox or not) may not be entirely true. Maybe because if Bill O'Reilly actually let someone finish a sentence you might get a glimpse of what is true, instead of some loud mouth like him shoving down ideas of how you should think. If you think a supposed "fair and balanced" journalistic network that releases "daily memos" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_news#Internal_memos) is a unbiased source of information then you, my friend are living in la la land. But wait, wikipedia is probably too "liberally slanted" for you so you will dismiss that. The world isn't a simple yes or no answer, I hope you open your "Universal Mind" to this. Because I honestly did used to think like you, nobody came up and told me "hey LIBERAL PROPAGANDA!" and I was like "OH YES OF COURSE" I just eventually saw through the bullshit on both sides one day. I would describe myself as a traditional conservative in every meaning of the world. I want the government off my back and off the worlds back. Because when we embark on this stupidity it is only hurting people like you and I, who have absolutely no choice nor anything to do with it. I could care less if Israel got 30 billion dollars of my tax dollars, so why should they? I want true freedom and liberty, I don't want a fucking "free speech zone" and I don't want the main stream media telling people who to vote for. Don't believe me, look at how much time different candidates are allowed to speak in each debate....Ron Paul or not it is bullshit. The frontrunners are automatically based on money and polls, therefore nobody else is given a chance, that isn't democracy that is propaganda. If FOX news backs a certain ideal and then un-factually makes another side look bad, while un-factually makes their side look good, that is propaganda.



If our government ever becomes genocidal and a supporter of suicide bomber terrorist organizations and the citizens cannot do a damn thing about it, I hope somebody does come here and overthrow them.  Yes, we have a right and a major need to meddle in the affairs of our enemies.  We would be screwed if we didn't.  The world would be screwed if we didn't.  

Fox News shows the views of all sides.  They even have liberals giving their views every segment on the commentary shows.  Their straight news just shows the news.  I don't know why you keep harping on them any way.  They are just one of my many news sources.  





> "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
> 2.    the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
> 3.    the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement."
> 
> When Bill O'Reilly says "everyone who watches The Daily Show is a pot-head" That is propaganda. That is not factual and it used to make one side look good (his) and the other look bad. Just to make a point, he does this politically, not just about fake news shows.



No, it is a joke.  I saw that clip.  It is amazing how seriously liberals take that joke.  But it is true that most of the Daily Show audience, now that the Daily Show is a PROPAGANDA show, is college kids on the left, and of course pot runs rampant with that audience. 





> Does any of this make any sense to do? Do you just glaze of factual information such as why we were attacked? Or are you going to mis-read what I said and think I said "Osama Bin Laden was a great man, he was right in what he did" like Fox news so desperately wants to make Ron Paul sound like.



Fox News showed the entire clip of Ron Paul's talk of how 9/11 was COMPLETELY America's fault.  You are sounding very paranoid and vicious about what you assume I think of what you are saying.  I've given major details on my disagreements with your points, so you can relax now.  

You seemed like a pretty good guy when I first came across you in the Religion forum.  You are really a disappointment.

----------


## jaasum

I take a different tone when it comes to political topics. Because in religion there isn't a simple "yes this is true" "no this is not" I feel it is slightly different in the political realm. And I don't really care to comment anymore in this discussion. I find you are too set in your ways to even try and comprehend (not that I think you can't) what I was trying to say and we will go in loops and loops. About "yes I said this, no I didn't say that" because when I read what you wrote I just keep saying to myself "Hmmm, nooo that is not what I was saying." or "He missed my point" whereas in the religion forms I am much more open and trying to challenge beliefs I find even your attitude to be much more authoritative and un-open.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I take a different tone when it comes to political topics. Because in religion there isn't a simple "yes this is true" "no this is not" I feel it is slightly different in the political realm. And I don't really care to comment anymore in this discussion. I find you are too set in your ways to even try and comprehend (not that I think you can't) what I was trying to say and we will go in loops and loops. About "yes I said this, no I didn't say that" because when I read what you wrote I just keep saying to myself "Hmmm, nooo that is not what I was saying." or "He missed my point" whereas in the religion forms I am much more open and trying to challenge beliefs I find even your attitude to be much more authoritative and un-open.



Set in my ways?  I took a lot of time to have an on-point dialogue with you about this, so you are being dishonest once again.  I have completely welcomed and invited your detailed responses, so you have no basis for assuming that I wish to shut out what you say.  Yet you say that any way.  Keep in mind that your rudeness alone, which is the dominant theme in your posts, is completely noneducational, aside from giving me more perspective on how the leftist mind works.  You can talk about this stuff without being rude.  If it is really peace that you value, show it in your own behavior.

----------


## jaasum

Please re-read that post. I am obviously angry, anger and peace can go hand in hand. I mostly react that way because I sense the same from your posts, could just be my own perception though so forgive me...I'll try to work on it. 

And for the recrod, don't say I have a "leftist" mind because I in no way think of myself as "leftist" or "rightist" or any side. My interests are for my country and that of my own life and my fellow person's lives. Calling me a "leftist" is incredibly ignorant and assumptions and it shows the reason I get aggravated from reading your posts. It is the same thing as when this guy comes into my work and walks up to the front office and says "Oh hey you liberals how is it going?" I never once called you a neo-con. I said you were form Mississippi which I apologize for, not apologizing for being from mississippi but for assuming you are a redneck-bush-love just for being from there. So can you accept an apology and maybe not come off as so "I am right!" all the time, because you are only going to get the same back.

----------


## Cyclic13

> Set in my ways?  I took a lot of time to have an on-point dialogue with you about this, so you are being dishonest once again.  I have completely welcomed and invited your detailed responses, so you have no basis for assuming that I wish to shut out what you say.  Yet you say that any way.  Keep in mind that your rudeness alone, which is the dominant theme in your posts, is completely noneducational, aside from giving me more perspective on how the leftist mind works.  You can talk about this stuff without being rude.  If it is really peace that you value, show it in your own behavior.



LOL. That's it... everyone _else_ is rude, narcissistic, and *un*educated. God forbid if UM is actually ever wrong about something. There can't possibly be a way that he could just be simply living in delusion sucking on that mass-media teet, even though the only other person on here that ever agrees with him went off and sold his soul to kill people in Iraq for the corporate plutocracy called, America.  ::roll:: 

Do you really need to wonder why people step back and concede from arguing with you? I'll give you a hint... it's definitely not because of your unparalleled wit and insight.  ::chuckle::

----------


## jaasum

welp, thats a step in the wrong direction

----------


## Universal Mind

> LOL. That's it... everyone _else_ is rude, narcissistic, and *un*educated. God forbid if UM is actually ever wrong. There can't possibly be a way that he could just be simply living in delusion sucking on that mass-media teet, even though the only other person on here that ever agrees with him went off and sold his soul to kill people in Iraq for the corporate plutocracy called, America. 
> 
> Do you really need to wonder why people step back from arguing with you? I'll give you a hint... it's definitely not because of your unparalleled wit and insight.



Oh great, it's the return of... Solskye.   ::|: 

I know YOU kept backing down to my arguments because you couldn't argue with them.  I notice that your post above countered absolutely none of my points.  That seems to be a trend with you.  You should be proud.   ::goodjob2:: 





> Please re-read that post. I am obviously angry, anger and peace can go hand in hand. I mostly react that way because I sense the same from your posts, could just be my own perception though so forgive me...I'll try to work on it. 
> 
> And for the recrod, don't say I have a "leftist" mind because I in no way think of myself as "leftist" or "rightist" or any side. My interests are for my country and that of my own life and my fellow person's lives. Calling me a "leftist" is incredibly ignorant and assumptions and it shows the reason I get aggravated from reading your posts. It is the same thing as when this guy comes into my work and walks up to the front office and says "Oh hey you liberals how is it going?" I never once called you a neo-con. I said you were form Mississippi which I apologize for, not apologizing for being from mississippi but for assuming you are a redneck-bush-love just for being from there. So can you accept an apology and maybe not come off as so "I am right!" all the time, because you are only going to get the same back.



I do have opinions, and one of them is that at least your views on 9/11 and the Iraq war are leftist.  When I debate this stuff, my initial goal is not to say, "Ha ha, I'm right!"  I get that way when I am insulted because shit talk becomes part of the game, but not by my initiation.  My original goal is to say, "This is how I see it.  I want to learn why you think it is wrong."  I think angry behavior is unpeaceful, so let's both try to keep it out of our conversation.

----------


## Cyclic13

Not really, I don't fear idiocy so I call it when I see it and laugh, rather than mask my intentions with eloquence and pretentiousness in order to gain stupidity's respect and admiration. 

I thought I'd point out that after weeks of stepping out of these debates he talks in so many circles it's dizzying. Just be forewarned, It'd be wise to rethink wasting your time stepping into the vacuous void of a debate with UM.

Now that I think of it...his avatar makes a lot of sense in describing his debating method. It's kind like a spirograph or blackhole from which no light or rationale can escape.  ::chuckle::

----------


## jaasum

> Oh great, it's the return of... Solskye.  
> 
> I know YOU kept backing down to my arguments because you couldn't argue with them.  I notice that your post above countered absolutely none of my points.  That seems to be a trend with you.  You should be proud.  
> 
> 
> 
> I do have opinions, and one of them is that at least your views on 9/11 and the Iraq war are leftist.  When I debate this stuff, my initial goal is not to say, "Ha ha, I'm right!"  I get that way when I am insulted because shit talk becomes part of the game, but not by my initiation.  My original goal is to say, "This is how I see it.  I want to learn why you think it is wrong."  I think angry behavior is unpeaceful, so let's both try to keep it out of our conversation.



Well they are not, because I don't understand where simply trying to get an overall grasp of all sides of the story and all motives and responses and history my peon mind can comprehend on such a complex matter is automatically leftist. I already told you I am a conservative, but even that would give you assumptions about what I think and believe. I am a conservative in the literal meaning of the word. Going to war isn't conservative and the things that lead to 9/11 weren't conservative, and neither was our response that lead us into the wars in the first place. I am defending the innocence of the American people (you tend to think I am blaming them, which I am sorry to say is exactly what fox news says about anyone who says 9/11 was a result of our foreign policy), I am advocating our freedom and democracy and I am most of all trying to make the most logical decisions on what truly will prevent the next attack from extremist groups and make this nation safer and more sovereign. But you can keep calling me a leftist, but that just isn't the case. I see leftists as complainers who fail to come up with any better idea. I have better ideas and Ron Paul fits many of those, that is why I support Ron Paul, not because I am some tree-hugger-hippie-leftist-liberal.

----------


## Universal Mind

*Translation of SolSkye's post*:  I am still stumped from all of the debates I started having with Universal Mind but was too stumped to finish and as a result resorted to empty insults instead, obviously. 





> Well they are not, because I don't understand where simply trying to get an overall grasp of all sides of the story and all motives and responses and history my peon mind can comprehend on such a complex matter is automatically leftist. I already told you I am a conservative, but even that would give you assumptions about what I think and believe. I am a conservative in the literal meaning of the word. Going to war isn't conservative and the things that lead to 9/11 weren't conservative, and neither was our response that lead us into the wars in the first place. I am defending the innocence of the American people (you tend to think I am blaming them, which I am sorry to say is exactly what fox news says about anyone who says 9/11 was a result of our foreign policy), I am advocating our freedom and democracy and I am most of all trying to make the most logical decisions on what truly will prevent the next attack from extremist groups and make this nation safer and more sovereign. But you can keep calling me a leftist, but that just isn't the case. I see leftists as complainers who fail to come up with any better idea. I have better ideas and Ron Paul fits many of those, that is why I support Ron Paul, not because I am some tree-hugger-hippie-leftist-liberal.



You don't have to get offended by it.  Your views on those subjects are considered left wing.  It is a fact.  

9/11 was not "caused" by our foreign policy.  It was _caused_ by members of Al Qaeda, who hate the United States for a mulititude of reasons, as they have stated, one being our foreign policy as it relates to our "infidel" status.  

Why are you so obsessed with Fox News?

----------


## Mystic7

> I am obviously angry, anger and peace can go hand in hand. I mostly react that way because I sense the same from your posts, could just be my own perception though so forgive me...I'll try to work on it.



No way. Universal Mind should be the one apologizing to you. Not the other way around. He totally distorted your views. Like he seems to enjoy doing. I find it odd to say the least.





> Translation of SolSkye's post: I am still stumped from all of the debates I started having with Universal Mind but was too stumped to finish and as a result resorted to empty insults instead, obviously.



And more defamation. King of distortion.

----------


## Cyclic13

I honestly hope that no one is _still_ taking UM's circular logic seriously...

Here's the circular breakdown:

*1.)*Someone posts some evidence supporting their opinion regarding a given topic.
*2.)*UM disagrees with them, but refuses to post any _actual_ evidence as to why. Other than saying, "the majority must be right". Somehow thinking that, official statements must always be held in higher regard even if the facts don't _actually_ add up to that statement being true. Not to mention, we must disregard that these official statements have come from proven liars.
*3.)*People continue to say he's wrong in his thinking, and refer him back to some more evidence.
*4.)*Rather than address or disprove this evidence, he says they refused to address his initial point about majority rules, side-steped his anecdotal _opinion_, and somehow, he feels they must still prove him wrong. Even though, it's only ever been an opinion he's provided us with. Perhaps, at this juncture he'll throw another 'majority rules' scenerio your way...mind you, he still has given no evidence. Maybe a link to someone else's opinion or the official statement itself.
*5.)*The other person continues to provide him with more and more evidence and the debate begins to slowly decline into this endless repetition of steps 2-5 until someone sees the conversation growing stale, and decides to leave it.

*X.)*From within the center of this infinite absurdity, UM thinks this concession of the other debating party somehow proves he was initially 'right', and in possession of a flawless way of thinking.

Anyway, It's pretty obvious to me that he's just looking for some sort of attention and emotional escapism from his daily monotony of having to live under a rock in his uneventful podunk town of Jackson, Mississipi. His debating method does a good job of reflecting the monotonous and dull personality of his that people grow ever-so tired with. The fact that he doesn't ever seem to realize, or tire from it himself never ceases to amaze me. I guess, on a daily basis he exists at such an unfathomable level of boredom that these circular debates seem to continually bring something fresh and new to him. Sadly, for him, the most exciting thing in his life he could ever hope to look forward to, would be the emotional equivalent of a taking a dump for a normal person.  ::shakehead::

----------


## Universal Mind

SolSkye and Mystic7, making general comments about lies concerning the way I argue and making up really bizarre ad hominem lunacy that comes straight from the sixth grade playground does not qualify as counterarguing.  If you think my points are false, prove it by countering them.  Otherwise, you are doing nothing more than barking.  But feel free to lie.  It's the leftist way.   :Clap: 

SolSkye, I think you hold the record for making the most posts in a row dogging the way I argue while not having the guts or the logic to actually argue with what I have said, but Mystic7 is hot on your trail.  Be careful.  Maybe you can scare him into backing off your numbers by playing that nauseating nightmare you call your music.  And if he is actually a woman, maybe you can brag about treating him like shit. But when in doubt, just bark at the wall.  It gets you nowhere, which seems to be the place you are trying to go.  

Any way, if either of you think you can debate my last political points, surprise me.  I already know you can't.

----------


## Mystic7

I'm getting bored of this game with universal mind and his tickle me Elmo logic.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I'm getting bored of this game with universal mind and his tickle me Elmo logic.



Aw man, you failed my challenge.  I'm just so shocked.  Okay, we'll just consider your king turned over.  Run along now.  Bye bye.   :OK Bye now:

----------


## Mystic7

> Aw man, you failed my challenge. I'm just so shocked. Okay, we'll just consider your king turned over. Run along now. Bye bye



You even sound like Elmo. But Elmo with political delusions. With the official 911 big bird conspiracy on sesame street.

Seriously SolSkye is going to get a lot further than you what are you talking about getting no-where? We only go no-where when we are speaking to you.

----------


## jaasum

> You don't have to get offended by it.  Your views on those subjects are considered left wing.  It is a fact.  
> 
> 9/11 was not "caused" by our foreign policy.  It was _caused_ by members of Al Qaeda, who hate the United States for a mulititude of reasons, as they have stated, one being our foreign policy as it relates to our "infidel" status.  
> 
> Why are you so obsessed with Fox News?



You are playing with words and missing the points I am trying to make. Also, your brash "rightness" about your opinions of my political views makes it very difficult to have an honest discussion with you. You aren't so much concerned with actually looking at evidence or dissecting what I have placed before you, instead you are concerned with "converting" me to your "right wing" mindset, because you see me as some "left winged liberal". This just simply is not the case and until you can change your mind about how you view my posts and information I can't continue with you. If we are going to discuss Ron Paul there is a great deal more to discuss than simply his anti-war stance. Though that plays a huge role in solving many problems the US faces, mostly financially. 

And in response to your statement (this is why you are playing with words). Do you think I am some sort of idiot? I know Al-Qeada CAUSED 9/11. I am no idiot and I am not justifying what they did. As Ron Paul puts it WHAT Al-Qeada did was called blowback. They did this BECAUSE, as in their motive, their reason, why they attacked us because of UNJUST things the US did. We were unrightfully involved in the affairs of their nations, what the US has done is killed thousands of their people, unjustifiably twisted balances of power to fit our interests ect ect. If we fail to look at this then we fail to do anything to prevent future attacks.

If Iran bombed us (which is highly unlikely) do you know why they would bomb us? If your answer to that is "they would bomb us because they would bomb us." they maybe you can see how what you are saying doesn't make sense. I am talking about key historical reasons they hate the US and they think the only way to get us to stop is by "and eye for an eye" by killing innocent people. In the last Osama Bin Laden tape he specifically said "There are Christians in this land, and we won't kill them, ect ect" Making an obvious point that he doesn't hate us for our freedom, our religious beliefs ect he hates us because we blindly put people like bush in power who meddle in the affairs of their nations, kill their people, force their beliefs around the world. The 9/11 attacks where a political move, a horrible horrible one that should be looked down upon and the people who carried it out brought to justice. Osama Bin Laden isn't right in what he did, but the reasons he did it are factual, and if we fail to look at them, and keep doing things like them it only drastically increases the chances of us getting attacked. And as you love to say "That is a fact and my point still stands."

Do you think Osama Bin Laden did it just because he is sitting over there in the desert and is like. "THOSE FUCKING AMERICANS WITH THEIR RAP MUSIC GAHHHH!!!!!" or do you think maybe he got that angry because of things we did.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Seriously SolSkye is going to get a lot further than you what are you talking about getting no-where? We only go no-where when we are speaking to you.



Really?  I'm the only person who stumps you?  It's not like it's that hard to do.

----------


## Mystic7

> Really? I'm the only person who stumps you? It's not like it's that hard to do.



You didn't stump me Elmo. That's wrong. Your only pretending. Get your legs off the table it's not number time yet. Wait for Bernie and Ernie.

----------


## jaasum

If we wanted to "debate" or "discuss" the way you do Universal Mind we might as well just end each post with. "I am right, apparently I stumped you." Which shows to me you don't want to discuss you just want to prove someone wrong. But you haven't and you aren't.

----------


## Universal Mind

> You are playing with words and missing the points I am trying to make. Also, your brash "rightness" about your opinions of my political views makes it very difficult to have an honest discussion with you. You aren't so much concerned with actually looking at evidence or dissecting what I have placed before you, instead you are concerned with "converting" me to your "right wing" mindset, because you see me as some "left winged liberal". This just simply is not the case and until you can change your mind about how you view my posts and information I can't continue with you. If we are going to discuss Ron Paul there is a great deal more to discuss than simply his anti-war stance. Though that plays a huge role in solving many problems the US faces, mostly financially.



Please stop whining that I think I am right.  People usually think they are right when they debate, just like you do in this one.  I am arguing on point and giving your perfect opportunities to debate back.  That complaint is nothing but a dishonest distraction.  





> And in response to your statement (this is why you are playing with words). Do you think I am some sort of idiot? I know Al-Qeada CAUSED 9/11. I am no idiot and I am not justifying what they did. As Ron Paul puts it WHAT Al-Qeada did was called blowback. They did this BECAUSE, as in their motive, their reason, why they attacked us because of UNJUST things the US did. We were unrightfully involved in the affairs of their nations, what the US has done is killed thousands of their people, unjustifiably twisted balances of power to fit our interests ect ect. If we fail to look at this then we fail to do anything to prevent future attacks.



Then stop saying the United States' presence in the Middle East CAUSED 9/11!  

We have defended democracy in the Middle East.  It is why we have been there, and it is why we will continue to be there.  Anybody who tries to prevent liberation and the preservation of liberty can die, and they will never have my sympathy.  





> If Iran bombed us (which is highly unlikely) do you know why they would bomb us? If your answer to that is "they would bomb us because they would bomb us." they maybe you can see how what you are saying doesn't make sense. I am talking about key historical reasons they hate the US and they think the only way to get us to stop is by "and eye for an eye" by killing innocent people. In the last Osama Bin Laden tape he specifically said "There are Christians in this land, and we won't kill them, ect ect" Making an obvious point that he doesn't hate us for our freedom, our religious beliefs ect he hates us because we blindly put people like bush in power who meddle in the affairs of their nations, kill their people, force their beliefs around the world. The 9/11 attacks where a political move, a horrible horrible one that should be looked down upon and the people who carried it out brought to justice. Osama Bin Laden isn't right in what he did, but the reasons he did it are factual, and if we fail to look at them, and keep doing things like them it only drastically increases the chances of us getting attacked. And as you love to say "That is a fact and my point still stands."



Lots of innocent Christians have been kidnapped and killed by Al Qaeda.  Have you read Bin Laden's letter to the United States?  I think you need to do that before you keep making your claims.  

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1393057

Be sure you read the whole second part before you comment on it.  That is the part that goes into detail about all of the things Al Qaeda hates us for and what they are demanding we do. 

I know Al Qaeda has their excuses for attacking us, our spreading of democracy and our wild party influence on the world being two of them.  We are not going to give those up, so Ron Paul needs do give up on blaming the excuses and put more focus on the people who make them.  You do too.  





> Do you think Osama Bin Laden did it just because he is sitting over there in the desert and is like. "THOSE FUCKING AMERICANS WITH THEIR RAP MUSIC GAHHHH!!!!!" or do you think maybe he got that angry because of things we did.



The rap music is a factor, but I listed a lot of other factors.  Read again.





> If we wanted to "debate" or "discuss" the way you do Universal Mind we might as well just end each post with. "I am right, apparently I stumped you." Which shows to me you don't want to discuss you just want to prove someone wrong. But you haven't and you aren't.



If you were honest, you would recognize that I have only been saying that to people who use pure trolling to return my arguments.  I want to debate, and I am pointing out that THEY don't.  I think you know that.

----------


## jaasum

Okay, to settle this I don't mean caused in the sense that we intentionally did it. I mean caused as in WRONG things we are doing are leading to these kinds of results and in order to prevent them we need to re-look our involvement in the middle east. THAT is what I am saying, if that is wrong then we might as well choose to disagree and stop wasting each-other's time.

Why is it so important that we are over there? Why is it so important that we provide all these people in the middle east with billions of dollars in weapons? Why is it important that we help out this country, then turn against them, then help their enemies? Why must we do this? Why is it beneficial to me and the people around me that we do this? How does it make us safer by igniting hatred in the minds of insane people? Answer me this, just let your stance out and lets stop debating specific facts and scenarios.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Okay, to settle this I don't mean caused in the sense that we intentionally did it. I mean caused as in WRONG things we are doing are leading to these kinds of results and in order to prevent them we need to re-look our involvement in the middle east. THAT is what I am saying, if that is wrong then we might as well choose to disagree and stop wasting each-other's time.
> 
> Why is it so important that we are over there? Why is it so important that we provide all these people in the middle east with billions of dollars in weapons? Why is it important that we help out this country, then turn against them, then help their enemies? Why must we do this? Why is it beneficial to me and the people around me that we do this? How does it make us safer by igniting hatred in the minds of insane people? Answer me this, just let your stance out and lets stop debating specific facts and scenarios.



We defend Israel because we fight to preserve democracy where it exists, especially in the Hell hole that is the Middle East.  We have allied with bad governments in the past because we had common enemies.  The best example is the Soviet Union in WWII.  We invaded Afghanistan because their government was a terrorist organization that harbored Al Qaeda and because the spreading of democracy to countries like that fights poverty and thereby reduces the nesting ground for the future of the suicide bomber mentality.  We overthrew the Hussein regime for many reasons, including the fact that they were an enemy terrorist government that violated our ceasefire for 12 years on several terrorism grounds and for the benefit of spreading democracy in the Middle East to reduce the future tendency of the suicide bomber mentality to develop.  We have also created a terrorist vacuum that has had thousands and thousands of people with the potential for the terrorist mentality coming out of the wood work so we can capture or kill them.  Bending over so the terrorists can make their demands while we get raped would not be so effective.

----------


## jaasum

Okay, so look one step before the statements you just made. And plus you "woodwork" mentality isn't a fact last time I checked. Terrorists aren't like ants, and if they are they are ant's that are shapeshifted from humans, because what we are doing is only GROWING the ant farm. People look at these extremist groups and then look at what we do and then say "Oh these extremists are right." This is why Osama Bin Laden is more popular in Pakistan then their own "Extremist Fighting" leader. We made Osama Bin Laden who he is, why did he turn on us? Iran would have wiped out Saddam Hussien if we hadn't beefed up his military. Israel was a country that was PUT there by the west which is why they are so pissed off. Imagine how irritated we would be if china forced tibet to be in part of canda (a weak analogy I know). But I don't think you are looking at the reality of the situation. 

Why I support Ron Paul is because I agree with him. If we just leave they will stop caring about us and turn onto their own governments. If we put our focus on security and intelligence rather than the cost of war I think it would be much more effective. We have the same goals, I just feel yours idea isn't working. I don't have some pro terrorist agenda and that is why it is difficult to discuss this because it seems so ingrained in you this "for us or against us" mentality. Either you support the war or you are a terrorist sympathizer. The world just isn't that black and white. 

I agree with Ron Paul that our way of life should be lead by example. There are more peaceful democratic societies that lead a much better example than us. People hate us because of what we do, because of spreading democracy. Going over to the middle east and telling their populations "Hey we are going to give you democracy by destroying your country and then rebuilding it. Have fun living in fear for an indefinite period of time while we make this place better." Or with Israel "We are going to give you democracy by shoving these people out of where they are living and give it to you, good luck! We will give you stuff!" Just start to think of what it would be like doing that here. Look at how much we hate cuba for crying out loud.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Okay, so look one step before the statements you just made. And plus you "woodwork" mentality isn't a fact last time I checked. Terrorists aren't like ants, and if they are they are ant's that are shapeshifted from humans, because what we are doing is only GROWING the ant farm. People look at these extremist groups and then look at what we do and then say "Oh these extremists are right." This is why Osama Bin Laden is more popular in Pakistan then their own "Extremist Fighting" leader. We made Osama Bin Laden who he is, why did he turn on us? Iran would have wiped out Saddam Hussien if we hadn't beefed up his military. Israel was a country that was PUT there by the west which is why they are so pissed off. Imagine how irritated we would be if china forced tibet to be in part of canda (a weak analogy I know). But I don't think you are looking at the reality of the situation.



Yes, those two alliances turned out to be huge mistakes.  

There are people all over the Middle East who have it in them to become terrorists, people who have the potential to target innocent civilians to spew hate and make Allah horny.  We have a magnet in the Middle East now that is bringing out stadium loads of such people, and we are taking them down.  Of course that is not going to be a stated goal of the U.S. government.  It would ruin the cause.  





> Why I support Ron Paul is because I agree with him. If we just leave they will stop caring about us and turn onto their own governments. If we put our focus on security and intelligence rather than the cost of war I think it would be much more effective. We have the same goals, I just feel yours idea isn't working. I don't have some pro terrorist agenda and that is why it is difficult to discuss this because it seems so ingrained in you this "for us or against us" mentality. Either you support the war or you are a terrorist sympathizer. The world just isn't that black and white.



I believe in "for us or against us"?  You just pulled something else straight out of your ass.  Why do you keep doing that?  Is it because of some kind of paranoia that comes with debate?  It's getting you nowhere.  





> I agree with Ron Paul that our way of life should be lead by example. There are more peaceful democratic societies that lead a much better example than us. People hate us because of what we do, because of spreading democracy. Going over to the middle east and telling their populations "Hey we are going to give you democracy by destroying your country and then rebuilding it. Have fun living in fear for an indefinite period of time while we make this place better." Or with Israel "We are going to give you democracy by shoving these people out of where they are living and give it to you, good luck! We will give you stuff!" Just start to think of what it would be like doing that here. Look at how much we hate cuba for crying out loud.



Democracy is a right every person has, and it is not an imposition.  It is the taking away of imposition.  The right government's do NOT have is to force their populations to not be free.  Democracy is not just one type of government that is no different from the others while we just shove our random preference onto everybody.  Democracy, which can be mixed with other principals like republicanism, is the only fair type of government.  I do not agree with the common leftist belief (I'm not sure if you have it.) that governments have a right to oppress their people.  I agree with that about as much as I agree with the idea that men have a right to oppress their wives and children because what happens in their houses is their business.  It is the entire world's business.

----------


## jaasum

Okay to your last statement, which would be that you think democracy is the right of every person. Sure I would like to see no oppressive government (our government oppresses though....there is no truly non-oppressive government) That is all good and fine. The problem is how we spread it. One thing people no is yeah, their government sucks but they have a job, they are providing for their family ect and then "America FUCK YEAH!" busts down the door and turns their country into chaos in the name of "democracy" Now these people live in fear because the terrorist groups that were kept under control by the authoritarian governments are now running rampant in the street along with our soldiers and hundreds of thousands are getting killed in the crossfire. These people don't "hate freedom" they hate the way we spread it. So who do they side with to say "we don't want the US here?" What we are doing is not spreading democracy it is occupying their countries. Taking control, forcing them to comply with us. In order for democracy to work the people truly have to want it. People do not want what we are offering because we aren't offering it the correct way. Maybe if the US truly lead by example democracy would spread a lot better, because look how wealthy and prosperous this nation is. We are looking worse, the value of our dollar is at an all time low, our national debt is out of control, we work 4 months out of the year to pay taxes, our jobs are going overseas. Why? Well look into where our money goes and where the debt comes from.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Okay to your last statement, which would be that you think democracy is the right of every person. Sure I would like to see no oppressive government (our government oppresses though....there is no truly non-oppressive government) That is all good and fine. The problem is how we spread it. One thing people no is yeah, their government sucks but they have a job, they are providing for their family ect and then "America FUCK YEAH!" busts down the door and turns their country into chaos in the name of "democracy" Now these people live in fear because the terrorist groups that were kept under control by the authoritarian governments are now running rampant in the street along with our soldiers and hundreds of thousands are getting killed in the crossfire. These people don't "hate freedom" they hate the way we spread it. So who do they side with to say "we don't want the US here?" What we are doing is not spreading democracy it is occupying their countries. Taking control, forcing them to comply with us. In order for democracy to work the people truly have to want it. People do not want what we are offering because we aren't offering it the correct way. Maybe if the US truly lead by example democracy would spread a lot better, because look how wealthy and prosperous this nation is. We are looking, the value of our dollar is at an all time low, our national debt is out of control, we work 4 months out of the year to pay taxes, our jobs are going overseas. Why? Well look into where our money goes and where the debt comes from.



We are the most capitalistic country in the world.  You talk like we are the most socialistic.  Our financial freedom has not been enough to set a strong enough example to take down truly oppressive governments, which created a state of life far worse than merely what you described.

----------


## jaasum

Our capitalistic economic standard is responsible for much of the third world poverty. International corporations and our banks result in much of the oppression and debt around the world. 

I am a little confused as to what you exactly mean by the point I made, and I am not sure if you even addressed my point to be exact.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Our capitalistic economic standard is responsible for much of the third world poverty. International corporations and our banks result in much of the oppression and debt around the world. 
> 
> I am a little confused as to what you exactly mean by the point I made, and I am not sure if you even addressed my point to be exact.



You talked about our oppressive tax measures, when our lack of tax oppression is what allows us to be so successful.  It is also what allows us to be so prosperous that we can have relatively low tax percentages and generate enough income to put more money into the government than otherwise, which allows us to give more money in foreign aid to third world countries than anybody else.  The third world countries are the way they are because they are so far from having our type of system.  

Most of the people in Iraq do not not feel the way you described.  They don't like the temporary occupation, but it is the brainwashed Islamofascists who think we are doing the work of Satan and want to kill us.

----------


## jaasum

I said nothing of extremist and only of people not wanting our occupation of their country, which fuels the extremists agenda.

That was the point I was making with more people liking Osama Bin Laden than their own leader. You see, making a point with facts instead of just something like "The people think this way."

And look into the world bank, then say we help the third world (western society in general)

----------


## Universal Mind

> I said nothing of extremist and only of people not wanting our occupation of their country, which fuels the extremists agenda.
> 
> That was the point I was making with more people liking Osama Bin Laden than their own leader. You see, making a point with facts instead of just something like "The people think this way."
> 
> And look into the world bank, then say we help the third world (western society in general)



Oh, that's right.  I haven't used any facts.  Thank you for your intense commitment to honesty.  And please keep insulting me personally so I won't feel the need to do it back.  It really helps your arguments.  

We give more in foreign aid than any other country.  If you want to dispute that, I will go fetch a bunch of very credible links on that.  Almanacs, encycllpedias, and many other sources will help you understand that it is a fact.  

You did just mention the extremist agenda, which is the big problem.  I know that Islamofascists love Usama Bin Laden.  People who have such potential and have the potential of dying in the name of his sick mentality against the creation and preservation of democracy and other understandable things need to be sucked out of the woodwork and killed.  I am glad we are doing that.  The factor you mention is small compared to the many factors I am mentioning.  It's not like wonderful, warm, fuzzy people in the Middle East said, "La la la, I'm so happy, and life is so terrific!  I think I will go out and be good all day.  Oh no!  The United States is spreading that freedom stuff again!  I think I will go blow up a mall full of innocents!"  The people we are killing who would not have done shit if we had not invaded are people who had it in them to do terrorist stuff without justification.  They could have easily found some other excuse later.  We want to lure that type of creature out and and kill them in gigantic numbers.  It is working, and it is worth it, especially considering all of the other enormous reasons we invaded.

----------


## Original Poster

Thanks for taking the baton after I told um he was too ignorant of world affairs to debate me, jaasum.  Though his opinions will never change you've definitely set a very convincing argument for all who are undecided about Ron Paul.  Um has used pretty much all the worthless mass media talking points against Paul and you've elegantly countered them so well I doubt anyone who reads through this thread could vote for anyone else.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Thanks for taking the baton after I told um he was too ignorant of world affairs to debate me, jaasum. Though his opinions will never change you've definitely set a very convincing argument for all who are undecided about Ron Paul. Um has used pretty much all the worthless mass media talking points against Paul and you've elegantly countered them so well I doubt anyone who reads through this thread could vote for anyone else.



Allright!  More SolSkye style nondebate!  It is so convincing.  

Maybe we should send Jaasum's arguments to the Ron Paul camp so they can read them on the air, and then Ron Paul will win the election.  You really are in touch with reality.  Thank you for proving it.

----------


## jaasum

Okay, I'm done. And not that doesn't mean you have defeated me, I agree with Omnius and you proved everything I have said about the way you debate with the above post. This is childish to keep talking to you about this. Anyone else care to discuss other points about Ron Paul?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Okay, I'm done. And not that doesn't mean you have defeated me, I agree with Omnius and you proved everything I have said about the way you debate with the above post. This is childish to keep talking to you about this. Anyone else care to discuss other points about Ron Paul?



It is majorly sick of you to throw false accusations at people like that.  I have been very on point and inviting of your responses.  You are just making terrible shit up, and you seem to have a really bad habit of doing that.  It is really unfortunate.

----------


## Cyclic13

Yea, everyone is making shit up, out to get you, narcissistic, and flat-out wrong...everyone except you, that is. Riiiiiight.  ::rolleyes:: 

You don't _honestly_ believe that, do you?

(Anyone else see how steps 2-5 have repeated themselves, YET AGAIN? LOL  ::chuckle:: )

----------


## Universal Mind

> Yea, everyone is making shit up, out to get you, narcissistic, and flat-out wrong...everyone except you, that is. Riiiiiight. 
> 
> You don't _honestly_ believe that, do you?
> 
> (Anyone else see how steps 2-5 have repeated themselves, YET AGAIN? LOL )



Make sure you don't discuss the issues.  You might get yourself in a hole you can't get out of once again.    ::lol::

----------


## Cyclic13

That's just it, I never got myself into one. Just like all the other people pulling out of your vacuous bile, everyone just sees the futility in arguing with a close-minded tool such as yourself. It's unfortunate really, because you have ruined many good threads with page after page of repetition of your hollow opinion disregarding all evidence presented and not presenting any yourself. 

Sure, you can paint us the bad guys, but as the walls close in around you and you find yourself without any sympathy, it'd be wise to start to rethink your way of thinking.  :Cool:

----------


## CymekSniper

I just wanted to say that Bill O'Reilly really pissed me off a few weeks ago when he attacked an open forum on a news website for what members said. He even attacked its sponsor, Jet Blue. 

I guess that was a little late but I don't care.

----------


## Universal Mind

> That's just it, I never got myself into one. Just like all the other people pulling out of your vacuous bile, everyone just sees the futility in arguing with a close-minded tool such as yourself. It's unfortunate really, because you have ruined many good threads with page after page of repetition of your hollow opinion disregarding all evidence presented and not presenting any yourself. 
> 
> Sure, you can paint us the bad guys, but as the walls close in around you and you find yourself without any sympathy, it'd be wise to start to rethink your way of thinking.



Oh, it is me vs. all left wing Bush haters.  That must mean you're political arguments are right.  Wait...  You stopped making political arguments.  I know why that really is.  :;-):   Just make sure you Keep on lying for my entertainment value.  It makes you look desperate and pathetic.   :Clap:

----------


## Cyclic13

Nah, we've all just been debating in the realm of factual evidence as opposed to your unfounded anecdotal opinions. You might want to consider trying it sometime. 

Me, desperate? For what exactly? The approval of flippant internet personas coming from angry ill-informed retards, such as yourself? Pfft. Give me a break. By all means, keep telling yourself whatever pep talk necessary to keep you from slitting your sad little wrists out from under that rock in your little backwater town.

----------


## Universal Mind

Since it applies to you, I will post here what I said in another thread just a minute ago...  

You babies are in such denial.  It is not circular logic I use.  It is logic that stumps you.  You get stumped and have no retort, so you make up this crap about how I am impossible to talk to and use circular logic and all kinds of other garbage you know is ridiculous to say.  If you would just counter my points, you would see just how smooth these conversations can be.  But you can't do that, so you act like a baby.  If you don't want your topics analyzed, don't make threads and posts about them.  I have seen a whole thunderstorm of ridiculous whining today from people who have run out of arguments.  It's sad.  


To answer your question, SolSkye, you are desperate to hit me with what weak fluff you have left in you to come at me with, although we both know you are lying when you do it.  It's funny how you keep asserting that you have facts and logic on your side and I don't, yet you have not even dared to attempt to show that in weeks.  All you do is assert that you are right.  I actually argue my side.  You don't.  We both know why that is.  Go to your equipment room and pretend you are musician instead of doing this.  You are accomplishing nothing but making me laugh at how you got burned in our debates and are very frustrated over it.  Why do you want to keep making a spectacle of that?  What is your excuse for continuing to post?  (This should be interesting.)

----------


## Cyclic13

It's actually quite simple why I stepped out of the debates. I, like so many others on here, quickly lost interest in your circular anecdotal style, and found the other things in my _actual_ life more engaging than these half-assed pseudo debates with you. You act as if our ability to take action on this forum is some pathetic determining factor of our connection to reality, or an admittance of validity to our claims. Well that's kind of right. It does act as a guage of sorts, but not quite in the way you see it.

It's more like, it shows how disconnected we are from our reality. Having you stick around these past few weeks where I withdrew, was a perfect example. Let me explain; While I was out planning and playing events, being productive, making music, and socializing in the land of the real... Where were you, and what were you doing?  ::cry::  Exactly. The time you spend in here inevitably shows the level of your abhoration for, and disconnection from your real life situation. It sadly succeeds in showing your lack of motivation to better yourself in _real_ definable terms. Hence, the necessity for you to constantly espouse your anecdotal opinion in these half-assed circular debates. You sadly don't have anything better to do with yourself, do you? No? That's OK, though. Everyone has their moments of boredom, myself included, which is exactly why I came back to explain the WHY behind my absence. Tsk, Tsk. You aren't still taking things on here seriously, are you?  ::D: 

What can I say, other than, I had a free moment so I came back to check up on these threads after taking a long absence to show you how much I _don'_t care. In the process, I just happened to see how many times you had repeated yourself over and over again, and wondered what you actually got out of doing that. It's been about a month or so, hasn't it? Don't you ever grow tired of repeating yourself, and seeing people grow tired of you...or is this some sort of sick inside joke with yourself? I guess not. But hey, by all means, continue thinking your method has it's merits. Escape the monotony of your life, by creating more monotony. Whatever helps dull the pain.  :wink2: 

And, occasionally, when I make the time I'll come by and check up on how badly you've made the conversations spiral out of control. Peace.  :tongue2:

----------


## Mystic7



----------


## Universal Mind

SolSkye, people who can't win an argument do get tired of it.  You are an excellent example of that.  You can't debate me, so you make up stuff about me like the hilarious ideas that I am here all day every day and that you are more successful than I am.  The only argument style you know is the use of the ad hominem fallacy, which is one of the main academic terms concerning an illogical reaction to debate points.  Thank you for continuing to squirm for my laughter as your dishonesty and cowardice live on.  I don't think anybody has ever had as much of a pissed off reaction to losing debates to me as you have.   :;-):

----------


## Original Poster

No, Um, we get tired of you because YOU can't debate.  We rebuke your points and you just say some ridiculous, ignorant crap and we just drop our jaws in wonder that anyone could actually believe that nonsense.

----------


## jaasum

Or refutes are met with "why are you making up stuff I said?"

----------


## Universal Mind

> No, Um, we get tired of you because YOU can't debate. We rebuke your points and you just say some ridiculous, ignorant crap and we just drop our jaws in wonder that anyone could actually believe that nonsense.



That is a lie, and we both know it.  What a shitty thing to say when you don't even agree with it.  Now that you bring it up and want to stick your neck out with such a terrible insult, I think you are very poor at debate.  I almost feel sorry for you over it.  At least I have had enough class not to say that to you, until now, since you have been such a jackass with that empty insult of distraction.  If you would just debate me without these preposterous interruptions, you would have to really face how dishonest you have been in making comments like that.  You are wasting your time with comments like that, unless you are fooling yourself.  

If you really want to get personal, I can tell you in a PM what I have already diagnosed you with and hit the nail pretty close to the head with what your relationship with your parents has been like.  But I suggest we just debate the political issues instead.  Make an effort to stick to that. 





> Or refutes are met with "why are you making up stuff I said?"



Only when it is correct.  I will call bullshit on people who lie about me every single time.  My suggestion is that you stop talking about me all together and just debate the political issues.  You don't know how to talk about me without lying.

----------


## jaasum

Do you honestly think I am just sitting here going "Oh I know how to make me look better I will make stuff up that Universal Mind never said and then say he did it!"

Grow up.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Do you honestly think I am just sitting here going "Oh I know how to make me look better I will make stuff up that Universal Mind never said and then say he did it!"



Oh, that's why you do it?

----------


## jaasum

I am not making stuff up, I paraphrase what you say and then you get nit picky if I don't quote you exactly word for word. You would rather play word games than debate. So...why am I doing this with you?

----------


## Universal Mind

> I am not making stuff up, I paraphrase what you say and then you get nit picky if I don't quote you exactly word for word. You would rather play word games than debate. So...why am I doing this with you?



Wrong.  You greatly mischaracterize what I say, and sometimes you do it after I have corrected you on it repeatedly.  I want you to debate me, but don't expect me not to say anything when you tell bizarre lies about what I said.

----------


## jaasum

Whatever it's been real.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Whatever it's been real.



Peace.

----------


## Cyclic13

All cock-blockery and tom-foolery aside...

Anyone have any news or new developments with Ron Paul. I don't want to see him pushed off to the wayside. 

(And please, no comments from the spiraling vacuous blackhole which is clearly devoid of any real sense or logic on many a political issue.)

----------


## Universal Mind

> All cock-blockery and tom-foolery aside...
> 
> Anyone have any news or new developments with Ron Paul. I don't want to see him pushed off to the wayside. 
> 
> (And please, no comments from the spiraling vacuous blackhole which is clearly devoid of any real sense or logic on many a political issue.)



 ::rolllaugh::  

Ron Paul is whipping major ass.  I think he's going to be the president.  

Do you have those Al Qaeda counterarguments yet?  Uh, no.   :Clap:

----------


## Jeff777

Screw Ron Paul...Obama or Hilary for pres!

----------


## juroara

holy great yellow bananas!  ::banana:: after years of being indifferent to every candidate, I have found a liking to ron paul

I was watching the republican debate when my sister corrected me to tell me "were democratic" me, never remembering which was which can't tell the difference but I had fun laughing at the candidates. that new york guy looks like an ass.

but I admit that both of us took the republican debate a little more seriously when this old man took the stage

----------


## juroara

> and I was impressed with the way he called Paul out on his one dimensional view which puts 100% of the blame on the United States.



universal mind, please leave this forum for a while. because you need time to think before you debate any further. you're being illogical and can't see the hypocrisy of your own statements. at no point did Paul blame America. You are doing what you do with everyone on this board, taking their words and twisting to some contorted idea they are not expressing. I don't think you mean to do this on purpose, but it's sad, and it's dangerous in a presidential election if you can't understand what a candidate is saying. 

If you some how think apples means oranges, don't vote!

All Paul is saying that there is a real cause and effect here. We attacked, they attacked. Who attacked first years ago is not the point, the point is we did attack them for many years prior 9-11. This is important to the American people, because a lot of ignorant Americans do not know we were in Iraq prior to 9-11, which 'could' explain 'why' it happened.

Twisting Paul's words around to "blaming America 100%" is something the corrupt media does. Come on, you're smarter than that.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> and I was impressed with the way he called Paul out on his one dimensional view which puts 100&#37; of the blame on the United States.



I never saw this post, so forgive me if it's already beeen retracted, but I just wanted to say:

Ron Paul has _never_ (to the extent that I've seen) placed 100% of the blame on the U.S. What he's done is tried to bring public attention to the parts of the fight that _IS_ the fault of the U.S. that is widely over-looked and/or completely ignored by so many. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, I encourage it.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I never saw this post, so forgive me if it's already beeen retracted, but I just wanted to say:
> 
> Ron Paul has _never_ (to the extent that I've seen) placed 100&#37; of the blame on the U.S. What he's done is tried to bring public attention to the parts of the fight that _IS_ the fault of the U.S. that is widely over-looked and/or completely ignored by so many. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, I encourage it.



I have never seen him mention any factor involved in our terrorist threat or the 9/11 attacks other than our policies in the Middle East.  I have never heard him blame or condemn the terrorists.  If he has, I have not come across it yet.  All I ever see him doing is blaming the United States.  

Plus, I don't think the United States is to blame at all for the terrorist threat situation we are dealing with now.  It would be like blaming a rape victim because her skirt was short and tight.  I blame the rapist.  I blame the terrorists.  They have no justification whatsoever in what they do.  I also think we are doing more than any other country in the world to turn the Middle East into a civilized place instead of a Hell hole where poverty and despair run rampant and that serves as a breeding ground for terrorism.  Our actions are justifiable, and even if they were not, terrorists have no business targetting civilians to vent rage and satisfy their bizarre religious fanaticism and quest for virgins.  

If Ron Paul would say something like, "We are dealing with supercuckoo nutball loonie toons who are obsessed with murdering the innocent and dying to bang virgins, and we need to deal with that situation the way we would deal with a hornet's nest.  Innocent people could get stung.  But the big problem is that we are dealing with hornets who really want to sting us for all kinds of insane reasons," I would not have such a bad attitude about him.  I am sick of how he talks about the United States like we're the real villains.  I don't see things that way at all.





> universal mind, please leave this forum for a while. because you need time to think before you debate any further. you're being illogical and can't see the hypocrisy of your own statements. at no point did Paul blame America. You are doing what you do with everyone on this board, taking their words and twisting to some contorted idea they are not expressing. I don't think you mean to do this on purpose, but it's sad, and it's dangerous in a presidential election if you can't understand what a candidate is saying. 
> 
> If you some how think apples means oranges, don't vote!
> 
> All Paul is saying that there is a real cause and effect here. We attacked, they attacked. Who attacked first years ago is not the point, the point is we did attack them for many years prior 9-11. This is important to the American people, because a lot of ignorant Americans do not know we were in Iraq prior to 9-11, which 'could' explain 'why' it happened.
> 
> Twisting Paul's words around to "blaming America 100%" is something the corrupt media does. Come on, you're smarter than that.



Your condesension is weak and trashy.  I said that all I ever see Paul doing is blaming America when he talks about our foreign policy issues.  If you will show me a video of Ron Paul condemning terrorists or admitting to Bin Laden's answer to Q2 of his letter or talking about the fact that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have extremely unrealistic demands on us, I will recognize it.  Can you?  Until then, I stand by what I said, and you would be following your own philosophy by leaving the forum for a while.

----------


## Alric

Actually I have seen Ron Paul many times saying that terrorist is a problem, and he often points out how we should be going after Bin laden. He also happens to be against the war in Iraq and says its a diversion from the real problem which is Bin Laden, who we still have not caught.

Your problem isn't that he is weak on terrorism. Your problem is that he is to focused on capturing Bin Laden, and he doesn't support the other, largely unneeded actions, such as attacking Iraq. 

He doesn't believe in spreading freedom by force but instead believes in spreading freedom by setting an example for the rest of the world to follow. You problem is you have no faith in mankind or any faith in the middle east. You don't not believe they can find freedom on their own so you believe we should invade them and force our ideals onto them untill they bend to our definition of freedom.

The fact is, the largest reason they hate us over there is because of our foreign policy. Anyone honest with themself knows this. Whats wrong with admiting it?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Actually I have seen Ron Paul many times saying that terrorist is a problem, and he often points out how we should be going after Bin laden. He also happens to be against the war in Iraq and says its a diversion from the real problem which is Bin Laden, who we still have not caught.



Yes, he said we should focus on capturing Bin Laden.  But he still talks as though what Bin Laden did and stilll does is our fault.  He claims we should capture the poor baby out of control victim because our present and past Middle East policies are causing him to have a temper tantrum.  I reallly wish Paul would read the answer to Q2 of Bin Laden's letter to America.  I know Paul says terrorism is a problem.  The issue is what he blames the problem on.  





> Your problem isn't that he is weak on terrorism. Your problem is that he is to focused on capturing Bin Laden, and he doesn't support the other, largely unneeded actions, such as attacking Iraq.



We can focus all day on capturing Bin Laden, but he is in Pakistan, a nuclear ally we cannot invade because we need their alliance and in which the government cannot hand over Bin Laden because the necessary leader would be overthrown and replaced by an Islamofascist who would immediately have access to a nuclear weapon.  Ron Paul can use a magnifying glass, a microscope, binoculars, and the Hubble telescope to focus on Bin Laden 24/7, but we cannot afford to have Musharaff hand him to us and cannot afford to invade Pakistan because both situations would throw off their government in a way that would make its new leadership far more dangerous than Al Qaeda.  I wonder if Ron Paul knows that.  And killing Bin Laden is not the same as killing Al Qaeda.  Al Qaeda is set to function just as well even without Bin Laden.  





> He doesn't believe in spreading freedom by force but instead believes in spreading freedom by setting an example for the rest of the world to follow. You problem is you have no faith in mankind or any faith in the middle east. You don't not believe they can find freedom on their own so you believe we should invade them and force our ideals onto them untill they bend to our definition of freedom.



No, I do not have faith that oppressed dictatorships can find freedom on their own.  It is not completely impossible, but what we are dealing with is way too serious to depend on something so close to impossible.  And freedom is not some random principle we decided to "force" on oppressed nations.  It is a right that all innocent people are entitled to.  If children are being abused by their father in a home, the father has to go to jail and the children need a new home, especially if the father was attacking other homes and posing a major threat to even the ones he had not attacked yet except for when those homes drove him out of a home he had attacked.  Freedom from oppressive authority is not an imposition.  It is a granting of deserved rights, even if the household was sovereign.  





> The fact is, the largest reason they hate us over there is because of our foreign policy. Anyone honest with themself knows this. Whats wrong with admiting it?



It might be their biggest problem with us, but their demands go way beyond the changing of it and into the zone of the outrageously unrealistic.  It is not just the government they have a problem with.  They want you dead too.  That is a fact.  They want to turn the entire world Islamofascist, with the Koran as the law book of every country.  They are not "mind our own business" kinds of people.  They are way up in your business and would rather die than back off of that.  The Islamofascists are not going to stop until you and the rest of us become exactly the type of Muslim they want us to be with their version of what is a proper Islamofascist government.  They admit this.  Why can't Ron Paul?

----------


## Alric

He just doesn't care. And honestly I don't care either. They can say they want to kill us all they want thats not going to mean they can actually do it. Bankrupting the country hardly makes us any safer, and neither does blowing up other countries.

Your basicly saying we should kill them because they hate us.

----------


## Universal Mind

> He just doesn't care. And honestly I don't care either. They can say they want to kill us all they want thats not going to mean they can actually do it. Bankrupting the country hardly makes us any safer, and neither does blowing up other countries.
> 
> Your basicly saying we should kill them because they hate us.



No, we should kill them because they are trying to kill us.  Do you really question whether they actually can?  They already have.  The reason they are having such a hard time killing us now (on our soil) is that we keep foiling their plots.  And we didn't blow up Iraq.  We liberated it and planted a seed for a free and prosperous future.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> I have never seen him mention any factor involved in our terrorist threat or the 9/11 attacks other than our policies in the Middle East.  I have never heard him blame or condemn the terrorists.  If he has, I have not come across it yet.  All I ever see him doing is blaming the United States.  
> 
> Plus, I don't think the United States is to blame at all for the terrorist threat situation we are dealing with now.  It would be like blaming a rape victim because her skirt was short and tight.  I blame the rapist.  I blame the terrorists.  They have no justification whatsoever in what they do.  I also think we are doing more than any other country in the world to turn the Middle East into a civilized place instead of a Hell hole where poverty and despair run rampant and that serves as a breeding ground for terrorism.  Our actions are justifiable, and even if they were not, terrorists have no business targetting civilians to vent rage and satisfy their bizarre religious fanaticism and quest for virgins.  
> 
> If Ron Paul would say something like, "We are dealing with supercuckoo nutball loonie toons who are obsessed with murdering the innocent and dying to bang virgins, and we need to deal with that situation the way we would deal with a hornet's nest.  Innocent people could get stung.  But the big problem is that we are dealing with hornets who really want to sting us for all kinds of insane reasons," I would not have such a bad attitude about him.  I am sick of how he talks about the United States like we're the real villains.  I don't see things that way at all.



I think your main issue is that you couldn't _stand_ to see things that way, even if it were true, as is the case (understandably) with many Americans. Maybe I'm wrong, and I don't mean that insultingly. That's just how it appears.

I also think that (possibly because of that) you aren't giving Ron Paul's stance the credibility/understanding/attention that it actually deserves. As he's said, he does not believe that the fault lies _entirely_ upon the U.S. (Your impression of that being his opinion is wrong.) Though the reason he is proposing that some, maybe even _most_ of the fault is with the U.S. occupation, so adamantly, seems (at least to me) to be because that factor is being _completely_ ignored by the media and pro-war advocates. His stance is very well-founded (and has an undeniably strong, scholarly base) and is not something that just oozes out of a so-called "bleeding-heart." I think a refusal to see this and take it into account is a very large part of your opinion of him.

Suicide Terrorism by Rep. Ron Paul

Further Information on Robert Pape

A Scholarly Look at Terror Sees Bootprints in the Sand

----------


## Universal Mind

> I think your main issue is that you couldn't _stand_ to see things that way, even if it were true, as is the case (understandably) with many Americans. Maybe I'm wrong, and I don't mean that insultingly. That's just how it appears.
> 
> I also think that (possibly because of that) you aren't giving Ron Paul's stance the credibility/understanding/attention that it actually deserves. As he's said, he does not believe that the fault lies _entirely_ upon the U.S. (Your impression of that being his opinion is wrong.) Though the reason he is proposing that some, maybe even _most_ of the fault is with the U.S. occupation, so adamantly, seems (at least to me) to be because that factor is being _completely_ ignored by the media and pro-war advocates. His stance is very well-founded (and has an undeniably strong, scholarly base) and is not something that just oozes out of a so-called "bleeding-heart." I think a refusal to see this and take it into account is a very large part of your opinion of him.
> 
> Suicide Terrorism by Rep. Ron Paul
> 
> Further Information on Robert Pape
> 
> A Scholarly Look at Terror Sees Bootprints in the Sand



No, Oneironaut, my view has nothing to do with a refusal to accept or consider anything.  If I really believed that the United States were the bad guys and the cause of our own terrorism problem, I would be infuriated over it and screaming that we need to change our policies.  But like I said, I do not blame a rape victim because I think her skirt was too short.  Islamofascists hate us because our women's skirts are too short, figuratively and literally.  The terrorists are not accomplishing anything except getting lots of innocent people and themselves killed and getting their governments overthrown, so their actions are not the least bit understandable.  They are acting mindlessly and with great evil.  Their irrationality factor is the biggest problem in the entire picture, by far.  

Ron Paul argued in that link that Islam itself and a quest for Heaven are not the number one factors behind suicide terrorism.  I agree with that.  The number one factor behind suicide terrorism is the influence the West, particularly the United States, is having on world culture.  Our presence in the Middle East does greatly increase that factor because in being there plus changing the governments away from complete control of their citizens, we are having a much more direct effect on Middle Eastern culture than we otherwise would.  But even without any presence in the Middle East, we would be having a major "infidel" influence on their land and people.  We are being sacrilegious either way, in their view.  Our influence is greater than ever now that we have world wide media, the internet, Youtube, etc.  Those were not issues twenty years ago.  The world is really getting to know itself now.  The Girls Gone Wild effect we are having on the world is what has the Islamofascists pissing fire more than anything, and being in the Middle East and freeing nations is making that factor much stronger than otherwise.  But that factor is here to stay in very powerful form, even if we leave the Middle East.  

The only way we can stop seeming so sacrilegious toward the "holy land" is to take down all of our television and internet communication that reaches the Middle East.  Even then, their hatred for us would not cease.  We would also have to stop preserving the democracy of Israel, and then we would still have to become a Muslim nation with a Muslim government, and we would even have to make sure it is the right kind according to the Islamofascists we are dealing with presently.  I agree that if we left the Middle East we would have less passion against us.  Everything I just listed is an added factor without which there would be less passion against us in the Middle East.  But in order to make it go away, we would have to become exactly like they are, which is completely unreaslistic.  The idea of taking down all media that affects the Middle East is unrealistic.  The idea that the hate would disappear if we left the Middle East is just flat out false.  The only choice we have is to transform the Middle East.

----------


## Alric

Thats not a fair example. Its nothing like blaming a rape victim for having to short of a skirt. Its like blaming the drunk guy that spit it someones face. Yes the other person is totally wrong and has no right to punch him in the face, but the guy was still asking for it.

Just like how we bring a lot of our problems on ourself. Obviously anyone trying to kill people is bad and evil and they are wrong. But we can clean up our side of the problem. At the very least you can talk about the problems. Ignoring them and acting like we are perfect, hardly solves anything.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Thats not a fair example. Its nothing like blaming a rape victim for having to short of a skirt. Its like blaming the drunk guy that spit it someones face. Yes the other person is totally wrong and has no right to punch him in the face, but the guy was still asking for it.
> 
> Just like how we bring a lot of our problems on ourself. Obviously anyone trying to kill people is bad and evil and they are wrong. But we can clean up our side of the problem. At the very least you can talk about the problems. Ignoring them and acting like we are perfect, hardly solves anything.



We started out protecting democracy (which you call spitting in somebody's face), and then we had to fight terrorism while protecting and later spreading democracy.  Those are not morally wrong actions.  I disagree with my government on a lot of things, but this is not one of them.  And Al Qaeda literally believes that our women's skirts are too short.  They don't even think women should show their faces, much less their legs.  That is part of why they hate us and want to kill us.  Just think what effect Wild On and Girls Gone Wild have on Al Qaeda.

----------


## Alric

We didn't start off protecting anything. We starting off with meddling in the affairs of other countries. And obviously when you are spreading 'democracy' by force people have problems with it.

----------


## Universal Mind

> We didn't start off protecting anything. We starting off with meddling in the affairs of other countries. And obviously when you are spreading 'democracy' by force people have problems with it.



We meddled in the affairs of Israel's democracy by protecting it.  The people who have a problem with the spreading of democracy are the people who don't value the freedoms of others.  They don't have my sympathy.

----------


## Moonbeam

> We meddled in the affairs of Israel's democracy by protecting it. The people who have a problem with the spreading of democracy are the people who don't value the freedoms of others. They don't have my sympathy.



The problem is that they don't want democracy.  If they had it, the first person they would elect would be some radical who would take it away from them.  Then what do we do?   Protect them from themselves forever?

----------


## Universal Mind

> The problem is that they don't want democracy. If they had it, the first person they would elect would be some radical who would take it away from them. Then what do we do? Protect them from themselves forever?



They vote in higher percentages than even we do, despite the death threats.  The numbers of nut cases who despise democracy will start wearing thin as the country advances.

----------


## jaasum

> I have never seen him mention any factor involved in our terrorist threat or the 9/11 attacks other than our policies in the Middle East.  I have never heard him blame or condemn the terrorists.  If he has, I have not come across it yet.  All I ever see him doing is blaming the United States.  
> 
> Plus, I don't think the United States is to blame at all for the terrorist threat situation we are dealing with now.  It would be like blaming a rape victim because her skirt was short and tight.  I blame the rapist.  I blame the terrorists.  They have no justification whatsoever in what they do.  I also think we are doing more than any other country in the world to turn the Middle East into a civilized place instead of a Hell hole where poverty and despair run rampant and that serves as a breeding ground for terrorism.  Our actions are justifiable, and even if they were not, terrorists have no business targetting civilians to vent rage and satisfy their bizarre religious fanaticism and quest for virgins.  
> 
> If Ron Paul would say something like, "We are dealing with supercuckoo nutball loonie toons who are obsessed with murdering the innocent and dying to bang virgins, and we need to deal with that situation the way we would deal with a hornet's nest.  Innocent people could get stung.  But the big problem is that we are dealing with hornets who really want to sting us for all kinds of insane reasons," I would not have such a bad attitude about him.  I am sick of how he talks about the United States like we're the real villains.  I don't see things that way at all.



Your analogy proves you don't understand the situation at all. Our dress isn't "too short and tight" it would be something more along the lines of we broke into a mans house, tied his kids up and raped his wife, so in return he broke into our house and killed our entire family.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Your analogy proves you don't understand the situation at all. Our dress isn't "too short and tight" it would be something more along the lines of we broke into a mans house, tied his kids up and raped his wife, so in return he broke into our house and killed our entire family.



Oh God, it's you again.  You're Mr. Friendly from the Religion forum.   ::roll::   If you want to get into a house setting for the analogy, we are hated because we went into a mass murderer's house to arrest him and to free his brainwashed family members, many of whom have Stockholm Syndrome and many of whom think we are the saviours of the world.  He had been tying up kids and raping women (in this analogy and in actual reality).  So had the heads of the surrounding households.  Furthermore, he and the other heads, as well as some of the people who lived in their houses, hated us in the first place because our women's skirts are too short, in this analogy and in reality.  He had broken into one of his neighbors' houses, and we made him leave that neighbor's house.  We allowed him to continue to be a home owner as long as he followed certain rules, which he ignored.  Many of those rules concerned his power to hurt neighbors and people in other parts of the city and his support for mass murderers who massly murder.  He ignored the rules and kept being a mass murderer, so we freed his household and killed him.  We are working on killing the other mass murderers and keeping his house free of his tyrranical style forever, as we are with his neighbor's house and most likely the houses of more of his neighbors.  I know you hate that.

Here is something from a mass murderer who hates how we are keeping the other mass murderer's house free.  He wants to commit more evil over how short our women's skirts are.  http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=44733

----------


## jaasum

LOL now I remember why I left.

----------


## Universal Mind

> LOL now I remember why I left.



Good.  Hold on to that memory.

----------


## Cyclic13

UM should also take note, it's not because you were right...

It's because you are a broken record stuck on an anecdotal baseless farce...

I'm sure you already know that...and that's where you get your kicks... I've been watching long enough to know you aren't a complete buffoon...You like deception...

The light, truth, and flames of the third eye of SolSkye penetrates... your vacuous dark unfounded blackhole...


RA (SUN)


VS.

SETH (DARKNESS)



I see your hand...now draw...Zoro VS. Mihawk

----------


## Universal Mind

> UM should also take note, it's not because you were right...
> 
> It's because you are a broken record stuck on an anecdotal baseless farce...



Awesome.  Another return of a great seven year old who has nothing to add to the discussion.  





> The light, truth, and flames of the third eye of SolSkye penetrates... your vacuous dark unfounded blackhole...



Ooh, cool!  My mommy said she will take us to Chuck E. Cheese when we get finished playing Star Wars in the yard.  Can I be Luke?

----------


## Cyclic13

Who's the one continually steering things away from facts, dodging truth, and just joking around?

----------


## Cyclic13

I gotta go be productive and teach people some english... we'll continue... Your move, son... ::chuckle::

----------


## Universal Mind

> Who's the one continually steering things away from facts and just joking around?



I would like to thank you for the valuable contributions you make to these threads.  It reminds me that you are not obsessed with me and that you do not dedicate a huge percentage of your Extended Discussion threads purely to the topic of me.  Would you like for me to mail you an autograph?  Keep following me around like a lost puppy.  It strongly supports the argument that Ron Paul is going to kick major ass in the 2008 election.  How many more posts would you like to come at me out of the blue with and make all about me?  I can keep finding this amusing as long as you don't play that factory banging nightmare you call your music.

----------


## jaasum

Lol I am always right and you would realize that if you actually responded to my questions instead of dodging them repeatedly with opposing opinions and just accept my apparent truth because I simply said it. [/sarcasm]

----------


## Universal Mind

> Lol I am always right and you would realize that if you actually responded to my questions instead of dodging them repeatedly with opposing opinions and just accept my apparent truth because I simply said it. [/sarcasm]



Okay!

----------


## jaasum

i am drunk

----------


## Cyclic13

I only started 'dedicating' crap to you, because of all the people on here, you like to persist and insist on excreting obvious lies and unfounded nonsense on a regular basis on many a political issue...and have continually refused to accept well-known irrefutable facts...So much so, that the people interested in these topics get irritated with even attempting to reason with you, and eventually the topics end up going no where and die...always with you as the culprit...WHY?

Your brainwashed partner in crime went off to Iraq to protect the forever pure and true version of American 'freedom'... by forcefeeding that freedom through the barrel of the gun... Blindly thinking he's making real changes by invading another country and killing 'al Qaeda' members...*ahem*...insurgents... 

(Also commonly known as, Iraqi citizens standing up to an oppressive regime who's self-righteously invading their homeland and been bombing their neighborhood and country for over 10 years now. Needlessly and senselessly killing innocent people in the process, and blatantly stealing their oil to selfishly steer their piss-poor economy away from the verge of collapse.)

C'mon now...You haven't and don't support your opinion with ANYTHING substantive, you haven't provided us with any real information of where you get your opinion nor have you provided us with how the facts we present are in any way wrong...

I know you aren't an idiot, because I've read some interesting posts and threads from you before. 

I don't know, man...Perhaps you have a chip in your head, watched one too many O'Reilly factor episodes and have been brainwashed like your buttbuddy Half/Asleep... *OR* perhaps you have some other sinister ulterior motive you aren't telling us that you somehow get your kicks from by purporting your unfounded noise as the truth. I honestly can't fathom how you fail to see and accept when you are completely talking out of your ass...

Of those scenerios, I prefer to go with the latter because I think you are smarter than being so easily caught up in the biased bile coming from mass-media.

So...lets be honest... Which is it? Is spreading lies, instigating anger, and refusal to accept facts in the political arena where you find your stress release or something? If so, may I suggest you cease and desist from participating in these topics, because they really aren't a laughing matter...

Start thinking objectively...

As Ron Paul said,
*"We NEED to look at what we do from the perspective of, What if somebody else did that to us?"*

No truer words to live by...

----------


## Universal Mind

Oh, another very long post about ME from my obsessed fan SolSkye.  Gosh, I'm flattered again.   :Oops:   At least you didn't try to counter my points or the information in my links.  That would be a big miracle.  Thank you for not posting your attempt at music.

----------


## Cyclic13

You shouldn't be flattered... you should be embarrassed...

Where are your links again? That _one_ barking dog one you provided us with during the entire 9 pages of this discussion?

Exactly my point...Can't you concede with any grace at all? You've been found out and your shill responses are shadows of deceit to those seeking truth and justice. Now, step back into the shadows from whence you came.

Game...set...and match

----------


## Universal Mind

> You shouldn't be flattered... you should be embarrassed...
> 
> Where are your links again? That _one_ barking dog one you provided us with during the entire 9 pages of this discussion?
> 
> Exactly my point...Can't you concede with any grace at all? You've been found out and your shill responses are shadows of deceit to those seeking truth and justice. Now, step back into the shadows from whence you came.
> 
> Game...set...and match



 ::lol::   If you want to claim victory in a debate, you have to debate first.  

I can't believe how important I am to you.  Maybe you should start a thread about me.  You also should consider making a web site about me.  I think this is the most important I have ever been to anybody who only knew me from a forum site.  Thank you.   :wink2:

----------


## Cyclic13

Believe whatever delusion that gets you through the day...

Just stay out of a thread if you have nothing pertaining to the common reality we all exist in, which you _clearly_ lack...

----------


## Original Poster

I don't know what your malfunction is UM but perhaps if you think we're all mad at you because we're jealous you should look up... oh I don't know... narcissisism, borderline, perhaps antisocial disorder?

This is more like an intervention.  UM, you are addicted to attacking people without nonsense and ignoring their claims.  We would like to promote discussion on Ron Paul, not on how much we, as discussers, are not as cool as you.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Believe whatever delusion that gets you through the day...
> 
> Just stay out of a thread if you have nothing pertaining to the common reality we all exist in, which you _clearly_ lack...



Good afternoon, tag along.  I thought you didn't believe in reality.   ::lol::  





> I don't know what your malfunction is UM but perhaps if you think we're all mad at you because we're jealous you should look up... oh I don't know... narcissisism, borderline, perhaps antisocial disorder?



Oh nice.  More discussion about the topic of ME.  Thanks.   :smiley:   But maybe I am hallucinating and you and SolSkye are not really making the subject ME. 





> IThis is more like an intervention. UM, you are addicted to attacking people without nonsense and ignoring their claims. We would like to promote discussion on Ron Paul, not on how much we, as discussers, are not as cool as you.



So by saying that, you are stating a debate point about Ron Paul and not talking about ME.  I guess I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  Let's pretend.  Damn, you and SolSkye keep trying to make intelligent posts about Ron Paul, and I keep interrupting your brilliant dialogue with post after post about ME.  

Sorry, what were you saying about Ron Paul's promising presidential future?  Make sure you don't get distracted and start thinking that I am the topic of the thread.   ::rolllaugh::

----------


## Cyclic13

I'm not in America right now so I have no real clue what's going on except from what I read and watch on the internet...so I'm curious to hear from real sources and opinions about this topic...

Need I remind you of what I originally said on page 8 but you continually persist...

I'm asking you to cease and desist... you have done nothing but divert things...





> All cock-blockery and tom-foolery aside...
> 
> Anyone have any news or new developments with Ron Paul. I don't want to see him pushed off to the wayside. 
> 
> (And please, no comments from the spiraling vacuous blackhole which is clearly devoid of any real sense or logic on many a political issue.)

----------


## Alric

Ron Paul has been in the news recently because everyone was surprised that he has raised more money than most of the other candidates. People still like to point out some polls saying he doesn't stand a chance, but as far as raising money goes he has shown he is a serious candidate.

----------


## Cyclic13

I really hope that he gets pushed into the limelight and enough americans wake up in time...

----------


## Universal Mind

> (And please, no comments from the spiraling vacuous blackhole which is clearly devoid of any real sense or logic on many a political issue.)



Gosh, I can't believe I commented after you said that.  

I too want to know how Ron Paul is coming along.  Is he the president of the United States yet?  Look out, because here he comes!   ::goodjob2:: 

Serious answer:  Ron Paul is way behind in the polls and does not have support from anybody but the fringe left.  He has no chance of winning the Republican nomination because Republicans do not want to elect somebody who overlooks what they perceive to be very important facts about the nature of our terrorist enemies.  He has no chance at all of winning the nomination.

This information will help answer your question.  

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ntial_election

Paul is not mentioned here because his numbers are considered insignificant.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ation-192.html

These polls, from various sources, show that Paul is getting about 1 to 5 percent of the poll support.  He showed up as "n/a" in some and was classified under "other" in some.  

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm

----------


## Original Poster

Poisoning the well again?

You talk pretty smart for someone stupid enough to believe the reason Ron Paul isn't mentioned because he isn't significant enough.

I'll list just one example my friend told me about where he started winning in the polls so they changed his name to undecided so undecided became the poll leader.

He has united democrats and republicans, the evidence is all around us.  I see Ron Paul signs everywhere I go.  There are rallies for him in Sacramento, a conservative city.  Tons of conservatives are rallying for him, actually.  I know one guy who is a fastitdious conservative who was in favor of the war until he started listening to Ron Paul.  Now when people talk about the war on terror he goes, "That is not a war on terror!"  He, like any reasonable person, would support the end of terrorism, and like most Americans would support it done by force.  But even he can't hide from the fact that terrorism is just an excuse the politicians are using to invade the Middle East.  It's so obvious only a pathological liar like yourself wouldn't be able to see it.

Now you told me you agree with his stance on the Federal Reserve, well he is the only popular candidate that wants to get rid of it, so how can you not support him?

Finally, as your above post has no factual basis whatsoever, it further proves just how much of a threat he is.  You're scrambling to use bullshit talking points and ignoring peopls arguments in favor of him.  That, to me, is a very good sign.

----------


## Alric

During the last debate on fox, they had a poll on who people thought won the debate. I am not sure what the end result was but it was staying around 30-40&#37; said ron paul won, with the next person getting 20-30%, and everyone else getting below 10%.

Even if you want to believe that Ron Paul supporters only voted because they support him and not because they think he actually won the debate, that still shows very strong support for him. You look at polls like that, then the actual cash he has raised for his campaign and you can hardly say he doesn't stand a chance. Its funny what hannity said about the poll, that he doesn't believe the result of any of the polls because Ron Paul always wins by large amounts.

The fact is he does always win. Now some people claim its because his supporters are fanatical and always vote for him, but that doesn't change the fact that he actually has enough supporters to win most of the polls he is on.

Now a fair arguement would be to say he has a large base. He does get a lot of support from democrates as well as republicans and of course democrates don't vote in the republican primaries. So he can't count on all his supporters for getting the nomination. Then again even the democrates can donate money, and go out and post signs for him. So while its far from an easy win, he is still in the running. The one big thing he has going for him is that people who like him actually like him. While alot of other candidates get support because they are "not as bad" as someone else.

----------


## Original Poster

That is an excellent point.  I don't think I've met anyone who's choosing Ron Paul because he's a lesser evil.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Poisoning the well again?
> 
> You talk pretty smart for someone stupid enough to believe the reason Ron Paul isn't mentioned because he isn't significant enough.
> 
> I'll list just one example my friend told me about where he started winning in the polls so they changed his name to undecided so undecided became the poll leader.
> 
> He has united democrats and republicans, the evidence is all around us. I see Ron Paul signs everywhere I go. There are rallies for him in Sacramento, a conservative city. Tons of conservatives are rallying for him, actually. I know one guy who is a fastitdious conservative who was in favor of the war until he started listening to Ron Paul. Now when people talk about the war on terror he goes, "That is not a war on terror!" He, like any reasonable person, would support the end of terrorism, and like most Americans would support it done by force. But even he can't hide from the fact that terrorism is just an excuse the politicians are using to invade the Middle East. It's so obvious only a pathological liar like yourself wouldn't be able to see it.
> 
> Now you told me you agree with his stance on the Federal Reserve, well he is the only popular candidate that wants to get rid of it, so how can you not support him?
> ...



Why do you want to be so pathetic?  Did you even get a peep at the links?  SolSkye asked for information on how Ron Paul is doing, and I provided three links on exactly that, not a statement of, "Duh, I know of some dudes who support him, so he's doing a kick ass job."  There are a whole bunch of major polls listed in there.  And you are going to rebut that by mentioning a few people who support Ron Paul?  You would have been much better off not posting anything.  You are really struggling to lie if you are going to accuse me of "poisoning the well" and making up stuff over that.  And I have said repeatedly in this thread why I don't support Ron Paul.  It's because he is dangerously out of touch with reality on foreign policy, which is out of the question no matter how much sense he makes on the other issues.  This conversation is such a Monty Python sketch.  That is why I am so entertained by it.   





> During the last debate on fox, they had a poll on who people thought won the debate. I am not sure what the end result was but it was staying around 30-40% said ron paul won, with the next person getting 20-30%, and everyone else getting below 10%.



On Fox?  Could you post a link on that?  Fox had one of the polls I linked, and they had him at like 1 or 2%.  He would be gettting much more support than that if he were dominating debate reactions so much.  Ron Paul is the only candidate who has been getting loud booing at those debates.  I haven't seen this 30-40% thing yet.  

If Democrats like him so much, shouldn't he be running as a Democrat?  And that is IF.  The only people I have seen supporting him are fringe leftists.

----------


## Cyclic13

It seemed so plausible at one time... Didn't it, UM? 

But... unfortunately it seems, you, like all the other fundamentalist republican neo-con nuts out there, are afraid to admit their err in judgement in dealing with others, and so simple-mindedly proud to think their current version of the 'truth' is an *absolute*, and continually disallow for the different shades of gray that exist in dealing with foreign policies and thought process' of other countries and people...

The real reason Ron Paul stirs peoples' emotions, hearts, and support is because they intuitively know he is right in the sense of being 'TOLERANT' and 'CONSIDERATE' of other methods of thinking...

The current neo-con method is more of an eye for an eye...leave the world blind methodology...

Remember: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes..." -Obi wan Kenobi


PS... I don't see any threads for any other ONE candidate out there? I wonder why...?

----------


## Universal Mind

> It seemed so plausible at one time... Didn't it, UM? 
> 
> But... unfortunately it seems, you, like all the other fundamentalist republican neo-con nuts out there, are afraid to admit their err in judgement in dealing with others, and so simple-mindedly proud to think their current version of the 'truth' is an absolute, and continually disallow for the different shades of gray that exist in dealing with foreign policies and thought process' of other countries and people...
> 
> The real reason Ron Paul stirs peoples' emotions, hearts, and support is because they intuitively know he is right in the sense of being 'TOLERANT' and 'CONSIDERATE' of other methods of thinking...
> 
> The current neo-con method is more of an eye for an eye...leave the world blind methodology...
> 
> Remember: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes..." -Obi wan Kenobi
> ...



You always give me the impression that I am talking to a crazy South Park character.  What grade are you in?  Maybe you can argue against polls by quoting C3PO

----------


## Cyclic13

Here ya go...

These type of things (not to mention countless others on the previous pages) seem to crush your mere 3 links one of which was from fox...hmmm....anything substantive to add? I still don't see it...He is an underdog becoming the big dog...can't you see that?

No one can deny the truth he speaks...it's rings so true that it's causes an underdog like him to raise more money, and get more attention from the average person than *ANY* of the other candidates out there who are simply backed by corporate greed, biased mass-media, and dirty money...

So much so, the mass-media is starting to have no choice but to listen to the people and do pieces on him...

This awakening that is happening isn't something to just be written off, which you continually like to do... and why people are continually frustrated even attempting to reason with you... You lack tolerance to an unbelievable degree...

I think everyone in this thread has not only told you but shown you, that you are flat-out wrong. Everyone except your brainwashed butt-buddy who went off to impose his 'absolute' truth on people in Iraq...Why don't you just go do the same, instead of sitting in your wading pool of stagnation...spreading intolerance and deceit? At least then, more people can stay on topic and find out and spread more actual information about him, as opposed to having to hear your dis-information.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Here ya go...
> 
> These type of things (not to mention countless others on the previous pages) seem to crush your mere 3 links one of which was from fox...hmmm....anything substantive to add? I still don't see it...He is an underdog becoming the big dog...can't you see that?
> 
> No one can deny the truth he speaks...it's rings so true that it's causes an underdog like him to raise more money, and get more attention from the average person than *ANY* of the other candidates out there who are simply backed by corporate greed, biased mass-media, and dirty money...
> 
> That awakening that is happening isn't something to just be written off, which you continually like to do...



:bravo:  I thank you so much for this free entertainment.  Fox was just one of the many conductors of the polls I posted.  Ask your mother to read them to you past the top of the third one.  But I will agree with you so you can have more fun playing Star Wars in the yard.  Yes!!!  Ron Paul is doing an AWESOME job!  :yumdumdoodledum:  He IS going to be the next U.S. president!!!   ::D:

----------


## Cyclic13

From FOX news of all places!!!

Can you all start to hear the corporate greedy individuals grinding their teeth as they break under the public pressure, and feel themselves losing their grip over the less-fortunate peoples' lives? It's great...

I can feel it all the way from Japan... ::chuckle:: 

FREEEEEEEEEEDOM!!!

----------


## Michael

WOOOOOOOOT 10 pages and nothing accomplished besides all of you thinking you are pwning the other!!!! [email protected]#@#(&#37;U$

This post was just as contributional as all the others. Admit it.

----------


## Cyclic13

I've just been wanting to find out more about him from Japan, without people chiming in with dis-information...and misrepresentations of what's actually going on...

When "he-who-shall-not-be-named" wouldn't stop, and I continually saw people that posted very informative links and research on him start to leave the conversation because of this individual...then...Yes...I made it personal...

Why would someone purposefully try and make a topic die, which obviously seems like his intent?

The topic doesn't say, "Bash Ron Paul, and lie about him..."

If he wants to continue doing that he needs to make a topic about that...if not...I'll continue to beat him into the ground with my own research until he concedes...

----------


## Michael

UM, do them a favor and just talk about Ron Paul. See what happens from there.

----------


## Universal Mind

> WOOOOOOOOT 10 pages and nothing accomplished besides all of you thinking you are pwning the other!!!! [email protected]#@#(%U$
> 
> This post was just as contributional as all the others. Admit it.



No, you have not praised Ron Paul's 1-5% in the polls or dedicated 75 entire posts to the subject of me.  So you have accomplished nowhere near as much as those who follow me around this forum like lost puppies.  





> From FOX news of all places!!!
> 
> Can you all start to hear the corporate greedy individuals grinding their teeth as they break under the public pressure, and feel themselves losing their grip over the less-fortunate peoples' lives? It's great...
> 
> I can feel it all the way from Japan...
> 
> FREEEEEEEEEEDOM!!!



Yes, the other Republicans are scared shitless of Ron Paul.  I already told you that.  

And stop being so tolerant.  





> When "he-who-shall-not-be-named" wouldn't stop, and I continually saw people that posted very informative links and research on him start to leave the conversation because of this individual...and then...Yes...I made it personal...



Damn, I screwed up your request for information about how Ron Paul is doing by posting the statistics of dozens of major polls that actually answer to that issue with numbers.  What was I thinking?  What would you like now?  Do you want me to tell you that Ron Paul is in the lead and Yoda is in second place?  





> If he wants to continue doing that he needs to make a topic about that...if not...I'll continue to beat him into the ground with my own research until he concedes...



 ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::  ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::  
 ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::  ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::  
 ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::  ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::  
 ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::  ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::  
 ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::  ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::  
 ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::  ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::  
 ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::  ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::  
 ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::  ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::  
 ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::  ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::  
 ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::  ::rolllaugh::   ::rolllaugh::

----------


## Alric

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

Theres a link to the video of the post debate chat with ron paul. They talk about it a bit at the start and end of the interview, and if you watch the bottom of the screen it displays what everyone is at in the poll. Then again at the end it shows the final result. Ron Paul winning with 34%, giuliani came in third with only 11%.

----------


## Universal Mind

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsGSMZxNPsM
> 
> Theres a link to the video of the post debate chat with ron paul. They talk about it a bit at the start and end of the interview, and if you watch the bottom of the screen it displays what everyone is at in the poll. Then again at the end it shows the final result. Ron Paul winning with 34%, giuliani came in third with only 11%.



Weird, it's true.  The thing is that that type of poll is not scientific, so it is not representative.  They teach about stuff like that in statistics classes.  All of the scientific polls I posted show that he has 1-5% support.  I think what probably happened is that lots of Democrats wanted to screw with Fox News and were far more determined to vote in that unscientific poll than the Guiliani and Romney supporters.  They really wanted to throw Paul in the faces of the majority of the supporters of Giuliani and others.  When you take away all of the confounding variables, whatever they may be, Paul is not above 5%.  

If Ron Paul gets the nomination over Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson, I will jump off a building with full belief that I can fly because I will know that I am dreaming. Paul is not going to end up with 34% while Guiliani has 11%.  There is no way it is going to happen.  He does not have enough support.

----------


## Alric

The thing is most of the polls turn out like that. You can even see hannity in the interview joking about how he always wins. Now I wouldn't say he has 3 times the supporters like the poll suggest but he obviously has support.

----------


## Universal Mind

> The thing is most of the polls turn out like that. You can even see hannity in the interview joking about how he always wins. Now I wouldn't say he has 3 times the supporters like the poll suggest but he obviously has support.



Do you think the many polls in my links are incorrect?

----------


## Alric

Obviously most of the polls wrong because he jumps around on the extremes. For every one you post showing him below 5% I can find one showing him beating everyone else.

I would say there is a few reasons why. He has a big base, so you will get different results depending on if you do a general poll of everyone or if you do a poll on just republicans. His supporters are really motivated so they vote in every poll they see. Which is a good sign as they are all likely to vote in the election, while a lot of other people just sit back and just dont take the time to vote. Of course its not going to be the average persons opinion if the average person is to lazy to vote in the poll while all the ron paul supporters do. Then again you don't need the majority of the people but the majority of the people actually voting.

Now I don't know if he is going to win but I am fairly sure he is going to make it into the top three. I personally think if he gets that far, hes going to go all the way however.

----------


## Universal Mind

> For every one you post showing him below 5&#37; I can find one showing him beating everyone else.



Really?  Can you post those?

If Ron Paul becomes the president of the United States, I am going to become a Baptist preacher.  You read it here.

----------


## Original Poster

Ahem!

Won CNN debate poll by 64&#37;

Won ABCNews debate poll by 84%

Won a C-Span online GOP candidate poll by 69%

Won the MSNBC poll after first debates

Became "most searched" term on Google and Yahoo

Became the most mentioned person in blogs according to technorati.com

Has most youtube subscribers of all candidates.

And if anyone here says "What about Fox News" please look up the documentary "Outfoxed" on google videos.

Better freshen up on the Gospels, UM

----------


## Moonbeam

> If Ron Paul becomes the president of the United States, I am going to become a Baptist preacher. You read it here.



OK, I'm breaking my rule against voting for a Republicrat just to increase the odds of seeing that happen.  I mean if he runs.

----------


## R.D.735

The primaries represent the ultimate political test of R. Paul's viability as a candidate, however. If the Republicans don't choose him to lead, those who are loyal to the party will not follow. 

We shouldn't forget that the nomination is based upon who is most likely to win in the electoral college. In order to win the nomination, he must not only compete with the anointed candidates, but he must who that his campaign can win majorities in enough states to win. 

Unfortunately, his grass-roots campaign is supported by a diverse group. In terms of political strategy, the Republicans think the liberal support he gets is a complete waste of campaign power, since they believe he has no chance of getting a majority in any of the Democratic strongholds. He may be a great national candidate, but his party's strategies(and thoughts) are based upon dividing the country _almost_ in half.  To seek wide support is viewed as a long-shot gamble, and the media reinforces this idea. 

Even though I support Ron Paul, I think it's fair to say that his candidacy depends far more upon his popularity with Republicans than upon his popularity with the people at large, and this makes his chances for nomination slim, barring a major political catastrophe for the anointed front-runners. 

They should bet the election on a national candidate. That's how I'll vote.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Ahem!
> 
> Won CNN debate poll by 64&#37;
> 
> Won ABCNews debate poll by 84%
> 
> Won a C-Span online GOP candidate poll by 69%
> 
> Won the MSNBC poll after first debates
> ...



Better freshen up on what I said.  I posted dozens of major polls.  How many times do I need to clarify that?  And those call in polls are not scientific.  Do you think the many major polls in my links are false?  If so, then say it.  All you are proving is that liberals love to call in and affect call in polls and that the internet bloggers love Ron Paul, plus the fact that Paul is looke up a lot.  I have looked him up more than any other candidate just because I wanted information on him so I could argue with his leftist supporters, and you know my opinion of him.  Do you know what the difference between a scientific poll and an unscientific poll is?  

This is really silly.  Ron Paul is getting his ass absolutely whipped in the scientifc voting polls.  He is not going to win the Republican nomination.  He is not even going to come close.  Sit back and watch what a psychic I am.  Ronald Reagan has a better chance of winning the Republican nomination this time than Ron Paul has.  He can't even get jack shit if he ends up running as an independent.  But good luck to him.   :wink2: 





> OK, I'm breaking my rule against voting for a Republicrat just to increase the odds of seeing that happen. I mean if he runs.



If Omnius Deus is right in his claim that Ron Paul is the big dog in this campaign at this point, you very well may see it happen.  If he becomes the president, it's off to the seminary I go.  I will even post my church's address so you can all come and see me preach the Gospel of Our Lord the King Jesus Christ Our Savior.

----------


## Original Poster

LMAO so basically the bloggers are conspiring to make him win.  Okay, sure.

I'm not claiming the polls that dare include his name are innaccurate.  I was just arguing tht he is popular despite that he has gone unnoticed by some.

But I don't see where you come up with "scientific voting polls" as a term.  Your polls seem completely random to me like you picked out the ones that reflected him negatively.

----------


## Universal Mind

> LMAO so basically the bloggers are conspiring to make him win. Okay, sure.
> 
> I'm not claiming the polls that dare include his name are innaccurate. I was just arguing tht he is popular despite that he has gone unnoticed by some.
> 
> But I don't see where you come up with "scientific voting polls" as a term. Your polls seem completely random to me like you picked out the ones that reflected him negatively.



No, I did not come up with the term.  Take a statistics class and learn all about what a scientific poll is.  A scientific poll is one that systematically maximizes the avoidance of all possible confounding variables.  I provided links with very long lists of major polls that are scientific.  They are not C-Span call in contest polls with numbers that result from a complete lack of regard for representative sampling principles and avoid other confoundings such as differences in will to call a show and affect numbers.  Giuliani supporters don't freak out and go, "Like, oh my God!  Let's get Rudy really high numbers on C-Span in the next five minutes!"  They don't feel the need to prove themselves in that way.  Paul supporters are obsessed with it.  That is why the scientific polls show profoundly different results.  

You mentioned that some polls do not include his name.  That is because his numbers are so low he fits under the category "other".  It's not like there is a 60&#37; reading with the name "The Unmentioned Phantom Candidate" beside it.  

But any way, Ron Paul is not going to be the next president.  This is not something we are going to have to argue about forever.  In a few days more than a year, we are going to see that he was not elected.  We will see much sooner that he did not get the Republican nomination.  He will not even make the top five.  If he runs as an independent, he will not come close to winning.  Just watch.  The truth will very obvious.  I feel silly even arguing about this.  It is not even an issue.

----------


## jaasum

lol do you think any republican besides Ron Paul could win in the general election?

----------


## Universal Mind

> lol do you think any republican besides Ron Paul could win in the general election?



I think Giuliani is the only person who would have a shot at it, and I am not even sure he would win.  I am 99% convinced he is going to be the candidate.  Hillary would easily beat any of the other candidates.

----------


## R.D.735

Why would she beat any of the other candidates? Their platforms are very similar, after all. Why isn't John McCain as good as Giuliani? Or Huckabee, for that matter?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Why would she beat any of the other candidates? Their platforms are very similar, after all. Why isn't John McCain as good as Giuliani? Or Huckabee, for that matter?



Giuliani is more popular.  He is seen as a better leader.

----------


## jaasum

Haha, no not really. He was the mayor of new york during the terrorist attack, and people think he even did a poor job at that. He is a sniving pandering moron that is for big buisness, just look at his background it has "conflict of interest" written all over it. Not to mention all his campaign money is made off of pulling people's emotion's over 9/11.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Haha, no not really. He was the mayor of new york during the terrorist attack, and people think he even did a poor job at that. He is a sniving pandering moron that is for big buisness, just look at his background it has "conflict of interest" written all over it. Not to mention all his campaign money is made off of pulling people's emotion's over 9/11.



I know your opinion of him, but he does have the most support of all of the Republican candidates.  The scientific poll numbers verify that.

----------


## R.D.735

Why is Giuliani more popular than his rivals? That's what I was attempting to get at. Everyone knows that the most popular candidate is the most likely to win, but that isn't very useful in determining what makes one candidate superior to another.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> Why is Giuliani more popular than his rivals?



Because he is riding on the coattails of 9/11 (IMHO). 9/11 was the best thing that ever happened to the far right, and (as far as the public is concerned) he was the "man on the ground," as it were.

----------


## Original Poster

Here is a perfect example of how the Radicons attack Ron Paul's positions.  Ten points for every time you spot something ironic.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cch-yKaTyW4

Oh and in case you want to know what it is, It's Sean Hannity trying to take on Ron Paul supporters.

And here is another attempted attack on Ron Paul.  The man arguing against him uses some other classic talking points Sean Hannity didn't include so I thought it was an important addition.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FDnkpTkNXtM

Why do pundits reach so far into the realm of ridiculousness in order to attack him?

----------


## jaasum

The fact that every fox news debate goes out of their way to make him look bad is hillarious. It is like "Oh yeah people love him, but really, people don't"

Lets put it this way, if the planes that were supposed to hit the twin towers failed, nobody would give a SHIT about Rudy, at all. The only reason he is there is because he is profiteering off of 9/11 and that is fucking disgusting to me.

----------


## Original Poster

Now UM should see how I feel when people claim Ron Paul just says what he says to get attention.

I personally think Giuliani is there because he has mananged to raise the most money, just like Hillary Clinton.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Now UM should see how I feel when people claim Ron Paul just says what he says to get attention.



Ron Paul is sincere as far as I know.

----------


## juroara

> Your condesension is weak and trashy.



I wasn't condescending you, I was being honest. You're on the defensive edge   ::banana:: 

PS. I have a life, I can't be on the forum all day ranting and raving over silly things as if it makes a difference. That and I wanted to hear learn more about the other candidates since so far I haven't heard much about the democrats or third parties

----------


## Universal Mind

> I wasn't condescending you, I was being honest.



You can't be condescending and honest at the same time?  However, you were being dishonest, and I illustrated that.  You were also being dishonest just then by saying this is not condescending...  





> universal mind, please leave this forum for a while. because you need time to think before you debate any further. you're being illogical and can't see the hypocrisy of your own statements. at no point did Paul blame America. You are doing what you do with everyone on this board, taking their words and twisting to some contorted idea they are not expressing. I don't think you mean to do this on purpose, but it's sad, and it's dangerous in a presidential election if you can't understand what a candidate is saying.



You were also condescending in your last post too, although you are obviously in no legitimate position to be condescending.  Plus, you did not counter the arguments I made about the post I called condescending.  Conclusion:  Your last two posts in this thread are nothing but condescending, evasive, defeated hot air.   :wink2: 

Now talk about the political issues, preferably starting with countarguments to my political points, if you actually have some intelligent points to make.  I won't hold my breath.

----------


## juroara

sorry, but that was my honest opinion. I'm not here to make counter arguments with you. is there a point?  ::bowdown:: 

and several people here have already said things here about ron paul of which I agree with so I would just be repeating them. my sentiments are the opposite of yours, I would just about die if giuliani became president.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I'm not here to make counter arguments with you.



Obviously.  Why do something like that when it is so much easier to just make unfounded personal insults against me and not back them up?  Nice work.  Thank you for contributing so much to this discussion.   ::goodjob2::

----------


## juroara

I dont mean to personally insult you, so I'm sorry. but they aren't 'unfounded', because that's what you do a lot. you twist words around, you've done it with me lots. someone says apple and you yell a them for saying orange.

you twisted ron pauls statements, and I find that dangerous in a political debate were understanding what a candidate is saying is essential. that and, I hate politics because I hate words getting twisted up to sway the public. if a candidate is talking about apples, yell at them for those apples. and not this orange.

----------


## Original Poster

Don't take him personally, its his nature to assume everyone that disagrees with him needs to be attacked rather than conversed with.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Don't take him personally, its his nature to assume everyone that disagrees with him needs to be attacked rather than conversed with.



She attacked me, troll.  Did you look in a mirror while you made that comment?  You should have.  

Why are you so determined to be a troll?

----------


## Kal8

i wish i was amerian so I could vote for ron paul

----------


## Universal Mind

> i wish i was amerian so I could vote for ron paul



Just pretend you did.  The result will be the same.

----------


## grasshoppa

> Just pretend you did.  The result will be the same.



Ok.

----------


## memeticverb

> Haha, no not really. He was the mayor of new york during the terrorist attack, and people think he even did a poor job at that. He is a sniving pandering moron that is for big buisness, just look at his background it has "conflict of interest" written all over it. Not to mention all his campaign money is made off of pulling people's emotion's over 9/11.



Yeah Guiliani is a thug.  Hes being criminally investigated for wrongdoing on 9/11, foreknowledge, and destruction of evidence.  He has no chance of winning the nomination.  Hes a mayor of a city, and the Republicans are going to want to appeal to a wide audience, not their typical base (the moral majority) which Guiliani doesnt even appeal to anyways.  

NYC Councilman Calls For Investigation Of Giuliani's Performance Re 9/11

----------


## Cyclic13

Remember to donate THIS MONDAY... November 5th..for the largest one day political donation event in history

The idea is to make a BIG STATEMENT to the mainstream media that we will not be silent! ONE DAY... TEN MILLION DOLLARS!
Your donation is NEEDED NOW to win the primaries in December.

Please visit http://www.thisnovember5th.com and also make your donation this MONDAY at http://www.ronpaul2008.com.

DIG DEEP with your debit card MONDAY, they TAKE PAYPAL too! whatever you can spare & Spread the word Spread the word Spread the word!

Ron Paul wins Sept. 5 Debate 

Sept. 5 Fox Debate Poll - "Ron Paul Won Overwhelmingly"

Ron Paul on Fox and Friends Interview 10/17/2007

----------


## Universal Mind

> Guiliani... He has _no_ chance of winning the nomination.



Those words have been marked.   :wink2: 

"No" chance.  Very bold statement.  We are going to get back to your statment soon so I can show you how convinced of things you get when you are wrong.

----------


## R.D.735

Why is Giuliani the best Republican candidate, though? Sure, he's the most popular among Republicans, but what is that based on? McCain has more foreign policy experience, after all, and has a more conservative social platform.

I've heard the "he's running on 9-11" explanation, but I'm sure you have a different idea, UM.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Why is Giuliani the best Republican candidate, though? Sure, he's the most popular among Republicans, but what is that based on? McCain has more foreign policy experience, after all, and has a more conservative social platform.
> 
> I've heard the "he's running on 9-11" explanation, but I'm sure you have a different idea, UM.



Mainly, he is the only Republican candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton.  That alone gets him the nomination, most likely.  That is so important to Republicans that they are willing to overlook that fact that he is pro-choice and pro-gun-control.  His handling of 9/11 has a lot to do with his popularity, and so does his great ability to communicate, debate, and sound strong.  McCain is seen as having a lot of good qualities and an impressive resume too, but he comes across as kind of a wuss when he speaks, and that makes him look vulnerable in a debate with Hillary Clinton.  He lacks conviction and energy.  I think the Republicans are tired of having candidates that suck at communicating.  Bob Dole was a total pansie of a public communicator, and Bush has trouble getting through sentences.  Republicans want a great communicator with conviction on top of what they see as the other necessary qualities.

----------


## Alric

Exactly, no one actually wants to vote for him because of his policy. They want to vote for him because they think he can beat hillary. Now for Ron Paul people want to vote for him because they like his policy. I also know for a fact he would easily beat hillary in an election, though no one seems to give him much credit for that.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Exactly, no one actually wants to vote for him because of his policy. They want to vote for him because they think he can beat hillary.



I was just talking about what gives him the advantage over the other candidates, whose policies are not that different from his generally.  





> Now for Ron Paul people want to vote for him because they like his policy. I also know for a fact he would easily beat hillary in an election, though no one seems to give him much credit for that.



Really?  Then he needs to run as an independent.  Seeing is believing.

----------


## Moonbeam

> Now for Ron Paul people want to vote for him because they like his policy. I also know for a fact he would easily beat hillary in an election, though no one seems to give him much credit for that.



How the heck can you know that as a fact?  He makes too much sense and can't lie as well, and would probably not change his mind based on which way the wind was blowing, so I really don't think he has much of a chance.

I have other reasons for not liking him--he is known as one of the worst for animal rights voting record, and he is against abortion.  But I assume he isn't for giving huge somes of money for research,  which would probably do more for animal experimentation than actually changing laws, and they'll never outlaw abortion, because that would give up a big reason why a lot of people support the Republicans.

----------


## memeticverb

> Mainly, he is the only Republican candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton.  That alone gets him the nomination, most likely.  That is so important to Republicans that they are willing to overlook that fact that he is pro-choice and pro-gun-control.  His handling of 9/11 has a lot to do with his popularity, and so does his great ability to communicate, debate, and sound strong.  McCain is seen as having a lot of good qualities and an impressive resume too, but he comes across as kind of a wuss when he speaks, and that makes him look vulnerable in a debate with Hillary Clinton.  He lacks conviction and energy.  I think the Republicans are tired of having candidates that suck at communicating.  Bob Dole was a total pansie of a public communicator, and Bush has trouble getting through sentences.  Republicans want a great communicator with conviction on top of what they see as the other necessary qualities.



I could be wrong that the Repubs arent going to nominate someone with no chance of winning.  

But you are using circular reasoning.   How can Giuliani have a chance of beating Hillary if there is another candidate who would steal more votes from her than Giulinai would?  

And you just admitted that the only things that would make him more appealing are his left-leaning stances on abortion, etc- when its obvious to everyone that Giuliani is one of the most disliked Republican figures by the left.  So who is he going to appeal to?  Pro-abortion people who just happen to like Neo-cons? Hmmm...I wonder...what does the average Giuliani fan look like?

----------


## jaasum

Moonbeam, you don't understand his policies at all.

He personally is against abortion and against a federal allowance on it, he also however isn't for a federal ban on it. He doesn't think it is the governments place (in washington) to makes decisions based on that. Also, I doubt he is for abusing animals, his voting record probably shows that it isn't the governments place to pass such laws. He is for restoring a balance in power to the way it should be, he is the only candidate running for the people of america, not special interest groups.

----------


## Moonbeam

> Moonbeam, you don't understand his policies at all.
> 
> He personally is against abortion and against a federal allowance on it, he also however isn't for a federal ban on it. He doesn't think it is the governments place (in washington) to makes decisions based on that.



No, I didn't really know the specifics of that, just his personal opinion on the subject.





> Also, I doubt he is for abusing animals, his voting record probably shows that it isn't the governments place to pass such laws.



Well he may not be for it, but he voted against laws prohibiting it.  If he thinks that the government doesn't exist to protect beings that can't protect themselves, I'd say I disagree with him there--that's one of the few things I think government exists for.  But you are just speculating on why he voted against the laws, right?

Despite how I feel concerning the above, I'd probably still vote for him if he ran.  His ideas on the war would have a lot more influence than his other ideas, I think.

----------


## Alric

He has a very large base, far larger than any of the other people running. Like memeticverb pointed out, Giuliani isn't going to get any left leaning voters to vote for him. Hes just going to polarize the election. Ron Paul on the other hand will get a lot of votes from democrates, thus stealing votes from hillary while also getting many of the third party votes and most of the republican votes.

As for abortion, his stance is very fair. He says let the states decide. Far to often the federal government tries to bully all the states around and its really not how this country was built. If some states want allow one thing, while the other states want to ban it, it is their right to do so. If you disagree you can move out of the state. Why is this country always trying to make it all or nothing? Some times people just disagree.

----------


## Universal Mind

> But you are using circular reasoning. How can Giuliani have a chance of beating Hillary if there is another candidate who would steal more votes from her than Giulinai would?



And who would that be?  





> And you just admitted that the only things that would make him more appealing are his left-leaning stances on abortion, etc- when its obvious to everyone that Giuliani is one of the most disliked Republican figures by the left.



No, that is not what I said.  Read again.





> He has a very large base, far larger than any of the other people running. Like memeticverb pointed out, Giuliani isn't going to get any left leaning voters to vote for him. Hes just going to polarize the election. Ron Paul on the other hand will get a lot of votes from democrates, thus stealing votes from hillary while also getting many of the third party votes and most of the republican votes.



Ron Paul has no chance of winning the Republican nomination and no chance of beating Hillary Clinton as a Republican or an Independent.  It is not going to happen.  He will soon lose the Republican nomination.  You can book my words on that.  He has no chance of even making the top three.  I don't even want to say that any more.  Just watch what happens.  After that, he should run as an Independent if he and his supporters think he can actually get somewhere.  I don't think he will, but I would like to see him try.  Do you think he will?

----------


## Cyclic13



----------


## Moonbeam

> As for abortion, his stance is very fair. He says let the states decide. Far to often the federal government tries to bully all the states around and its really not how this country was built. If some states want allow one thing, while the other states want to ban it, it is their right to do so. If you disagree you can move out of the state. Why is this country always trying to make it all or nothing? Some times people just disagree.



Well, since right now it is a federal issue, it does matter.  I am for state's rights in general.

----------


## Cyclic13

Look at the graph...it speaks for itself... he has sooooo many more supporters than any of the other candidates... I'm already amazed and its still 10AM by that graph

----------


## R.D.735

I must say I have been quite skeptical of Ron Paul's chances, but his demonstration of fund-raising ability has been nothing short of impressive. This definitely puts him on the map and gives him a fighting chance in the primaries. Since he seems to use his money so efficiently, his millions may give him the ability to form a solid support base.

I think this reveals a fundamental advantage of him running as a candidate for the entire country and not just one party. He pulls support and money from both sides, doubling his potential pool of donors.

I'm reminded of a marketing principle: Never appeal to the conformists or the 'average' person. Appeal to the passionate, and they will promote you expertly without asking for money.

----------


## Alric

Two and a half million dollars so far just today? Thats some large numbers, and we still have a long time untill the day is over.

----------


## Moonbeam

Well, whether he gets nominated or not, I'm glad a libertarian is making an impact, even if he has to do it as a Republican.  

Some people are predicting the demise of the Republican part, being torn apart by the religious fundamentalists and the more libertarian wing.  That wouldn't be a bad thing (as long as the libertarians win and the fundamentalists go back into their caves or wherever they come from.)

I hope more people will become aware of libertarian philosophy now.

----------


## Cyclic13

woohoo...look at that graph go...3.5million and counting...

----------


## Universal Mind

So, who thinks Ron Paul is going to run as an Independent if/when he does not get the Republican nomination?  If he runs as an Independent, what is your prediction on how he will end up doing on election night?

----------


## R.D.735

It's still an entire year until the elections. I, for one, don't have a clue how well anyone will do.

----------


## Alric

Look at that. He raised 4 million dollars in a single day! Thats some serious cash to be raising. I still think he has a very real chance to winning this.

As for being an Independent. He already said he won't run as one, and I know he isn't going to.

----------


## Universal Mind

> As for being an Independent. He already said he won't run as one, and I know he isn't going to.



I don't get that.  I know he doesn't have a snow ball's chance in Hell of winning the Republican nomination, but he could do a lot better as an Independent.  The people who support him are not Republicans, so I don't understand why he wouldn't run as an Independent.

----------


## Alric

Isn't it obvious? Our political system is dominated by a two party system. If you are not in one of the two parties, you dont get elected. Sure some local positions are some times won by third parties, but its rare on a federal level. And its pretty much impossible for the presidental election.

As for the people who support him not being republican, thats not true. Sure he has democrates and independents voting for him but also a lot of republicans. I know a lot of republicans who are going to vote for him. Infact I am one of them.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Isn't it obvious? Our political system is dominated by a two party system. If you are not in one of the two parties, you dont get elected. Sure some local positions are some times won by third parties, but its rare on a federal level. And its pretty much impossible for the presidental election.



Ross Perot came pretty damn close in 1992.  I really believed that if he had not gone cuckoo and dropped out of the race for a while before getting back in and accusing Bush, Sr. of threatening his daughter he would have won.  





> As for the people who support him not being republican, thats not true. Sure he has democrates and independents voting for him but also a lot of republicans. I know a lot of republicans who are going to vote for him. Infact I am one of them.



The scientific polls say otherwise.  I know he has a lot of support on the internet, but I don't think too many of those people are Republicans.  I think he is going to get slammed in the Republican primaries, but I think he would at least show up siginificantly on the radar if he ran as an Independent.  

Don't get me wrong.  I don't want him to win.  But the perseverence mentality in me strangely has me wanting to get the message out that he does not have to give up so fast.  I don't think think he could win, but I do think he could do a lot to help his political status by going a long way.  I would love to see Ron Paul work a high office that does not deal with foreign policy.  I think he is great on everything outside of that area.  He is also a really good communicator with a strong spark of charisma.  I hope he is never the president, but I also think we could really use him in other areas.  He would be excellent in a cabinet position.

----------


## Alric

He is going for the win though. If he takes the republican nomination most of the republicans will vote for him. Either because they like him, because a lot of people vote their party no matter what, or because they just want someone to beat the democrates. Either way he has a large base, so he will take a decent share of the democrates vote and will probably win the election. Instead of being split down the middle where each sides gets about 50%, Ron Paul would likely get 60-70% and I believe easily beat the other person.

Of course the major problem is getting the republican nomination. He needs to get that or hes going home with nothing. I wouldn't rule him out yet though. Hes really moving up, and by the time the voting gets here, I expect him to have even more support.

----------


## Cyclic13

Muahaha, 4 million in one day...nearly broke the record...would you look at that? :Cool:

----------


## R.D.735

It's amazing that the money came from an independently-organized group on the internet. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney is shoveling money out of his own pocket to finance his campaign.

----------


## jaasum

> So, who thinks Ron Paul is going to run as an Independent if/when he does not get the Republican nomination?  If he runs as an Independent, what is your prediction on how he will end up doing on election night?



He wont, he has said it a bunch.

----------


## Universal Mind

> He wont, he has said it a bunch.



Bad move.  He could really make himself known if he did.

----------


## Alric

Hes going to be spending all this money is he raising on getting the nomination. Thats how he is going to become known. Look at all the debates he is in. If he wasn't running as a republican he wouldn't be in any of them. As people start dropping out, he is just going to get more time and become more popular. Hes already in the top three for money. So hes not going to be dropping like many of the other people who are having a hard time competiting with him.

----------


## jaasum

Everyone else is on the down, Ron Paul is rising. Just look what he did yesterday!

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> Bad move.  He could really make himself known if he did.



Yeah, but I believe that might be a double-edged sword.

On one hand, he would be in his "own arena," so to speak, making himself better-known. But, on the other, there are too many polarized voters in this nation that vote "democrat or republican" just for the sake of voting their most coveted side of the spectrum. People that are hardcore Dems are (IMO) most likely to vote Dem, even if it's someone that is just "the best their party has to offer." Same goes for Reps.

By running as a true conservative, if he can raise the money to up his campaign (as he is clearly beginning to do), he has the chance of appealing to the massive republican base, which would give him more of a chance of winning than running as an independent. I think it's a great move. But then again, I don't know for sure. Just a guess.

----------


## memeticverb

I consider myself a harcore democrat, but Paul would have my vote, as would any green party candidate that had a chance of winning.  Giving Paul the nomination is the only way  Republicans could steal votes from the democrats.  Is it just a coincidence that the polar opposite of Bush is running as a Republican...hmmm

----------


## Moonbeam

One thing I don't like about him is that he is against sactions.  He's all for trading at will with countries with any kind of agenda, human rights abuses, etc.   I think not doing business with people is one of our countries greatest weapons as an alternative to war.

----------


## Howie

$$$ With regards to his money that was raised. $$$
It was raised in *a* day not in just _one_ day.

If yaa know what I am saying? $$$

Do we still have an entire year left?  ::shock::

----------


## jaasum

> One thing I don't like about him is that he is against sactions.  He's all for trading at will with countries with any kind of agenda, human rights abuses, etc.   I think not doing business with people is one of our countries greatest weapons as an alternative to war.



Well, maybe some countries would change their pace if we gave them something to emulate.

You seem to think that since he is against certain things that means he is for the opposite. Such as since he vetoed animal rights bills, he is therefore going to go home and beat his dog.

He is against sanctions because he feels that trading and talking and being diplomatic will achieve more than holding back goods that the innocent people of those countries need, which was one of the reasons Osama Bin Laden gave for 9/11, the sanctions we placed on Iraq. 

If our country actually was the richest and the free-est in the world then a lot of people would be more attracted to democracy.

----------


## Moonbeam

> You seem to think that since he is against certain things that means he is for the opposite. Such as since he vetoed animal rights bills, he is therefore going to go home and beat his dog.



Um, no I don't, I don't know how you determined that.   I never said anything of the kind.  Should I not judge him on his record, and whether I agree with the way he voted?  That doesn't have anything to do with his personal life, which I know absolutely nothing about and wasn't even speculating on.

----------


## Grod

The man wants to change our currency to gold. That's never going to happen. Also, I agree with Moonbeam on him being against sanctions. I'd vote for Rudy Guiliani?, if the election was tomorrow,  but theres still a whole year left so I'd say its too early to make any decisions yet.

Just out of curiosity, Universal Mind, what political party to you consider yourself affiliated with?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Just out of curiosity, Universal Mind, what political party to you consider yourself affiliated with?



I side the most with Libertarians, but I don't vote for them in national elections any more because I disagree with them so much on foreign policy.  They also have no hope of winning the presidency right now, but they would really get somewhere if they would start advertising more.  I think their foreign policy ideas would probably make sense in a future when totalitarianism is not so prevalent in the world.  Until then, I am going to disagree with their anti-intervention stances concerning other countries.  Eventually, the Libertarian party might be a major party and might have the right kind of world for their foreign policy ideas.  When that happens, I will be one of their biggest supporters.

----------


## Cyclic13

Everyone always likes saying it's never going happen with Ron Paul. With attitudes and intentions out there like that, of course his chances for success will seem to dwindle. The worst thing someone can do is throw up their hands, consider all hope is lost, and concede defeat before the battle has even begun. Any candidate is only as powerful or as weak as the people believe them to be. Doesn't matter how many underhanded deals, bribes, and contributions they've received. If their monetary backed facade of power starts wearing thin in the public eye, they immediately lose their illusionary power. 

Period.

I choose to believe...he actually has a chance. Otherwise, we might as well be bending over and taking the RFID chips in the ass, branding ourselves as cattle as we cast our ballots for the other candidates.

----------


## Tornado Joe

wanna know what hte fuck the dealio is with this mothewr gvucker!!!!?????k He'sa tog at least ONE vote --- uyout fu kin asshole shit cum licking commie capitalist q2hores!!!!36

that is all.

If he loses, I'm blaming YOU!!!!

----------


## Cyclic13

I want whatever he's having... ::chuckle::

----------


## Tornado Joe

God damn' streaitght--- Thisa is exacltly how I'll be qhen I vote --- ASS WHOLEW MURTHER FUCKERS WHO THINK YOU KNOEWW HTST THE FUCK IS BEST FOR THIS PIESE OF POISONED NASTIVE AMERICS LAND!!!!!

(9can't wIAIT to c what this lloks liker later....)

btw -0-- tha'ts all this whole election boils down to....who voetes SOBER!!!

----------


## Universal Mind

> God damn' streaitght--- Thisa is exacltly how I'll be qhen I vote --- ASS WHOLEW MURTHER FUCKERS WHO THINK YOU KNOEWW HTST THE FUCK IS BEST FOR THIS PIESE OF POISONED NASTIVE AMERICS LAND!!!!!
> 
> (9can't wIAIT to c what this lloks liker later....)
> 
> btw -0-- tha'ts all this whole election boils down to....who voetes SOBER!!!



Dude, I think you were aiming for this thread...  http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=12857  It looks like you found it earlier and left a message that makes even less sense than that one.

----------


## Tornado Joe

Nope, I hit this one right on the head. Ron Paul for Prez! Who cares if it's a wasted vote -- we ended up with a wasted president already, twice!





  ^
  |
  |
(why we are in the middle east)

----------


## Universal Mind

> Nope, I hit this one right on the head. Ron Paul for Prez! Who cares if it's a wasted vote -- we ended up with a wasted president already, twice!



 ::shock::   What happened to the wasted Tornado Joe?

----------


## jaasum

lol aI am cedrunk too lol ahhahahahahahaha shit.

----------


## jaasum

Holy shit universal mind, you gotta quit sucking from the tit of george bush and you might be someone I agree with politically.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Holy shit universal mind, you gotta quit sucking from the tit of george bush and you might be someone I agree with politically.



Oh yeah?  Well you need to stop humping Usama Bin Laden's leg while blaring porno music.  I know you love doing it, but you are making him too happy.  Have you considered using a paper mache Usama?

----------


## Tornado Joe

> What happened to the wasted Tornado Joe?



LOL - half an hour, 29 words - it's amazing what you can accomplish if you put your time into it!

I apologize for my sensless injection in the thread - Don't drink and post, kids!

Now, I think at this point I'd consider myself a Ron Paul supporter - however - I'm only going on first few impressions. With the elections right around the corner, I should be taking more time to research the forerunners. I will say this, it's difficult to vote your conscious and not let frustration take over.

----------


## Howie

> LOL - half an hour, 29 words - it's amazing what you can accomplish if you put your time into it!
> 
> I apologize for my sensless injection in the thread - Don't drink and post, kids!
> 
> Now, I think at this point I'd consider myself a Ron Paul supporter - however - I'm only going on first few impressions. With the elections right around the corner, I should be taking more time to research the forerunners. I will say this, it's difficult to vote your conscious and not let frustration take over.




Well, we certainly know how to get under your skin.  :wink2: 
Around the corner!!!  ::shock::

----------


## Half/Dreaming

I still say Obama should win....

So, what has the argument evolved into? Is America still considered the biggest shithole on earth?

----------


## Alric

Whats really getting Ron Paul a lot of ground is all his supporters really think he has a chance. Their all backing him 100% and believe he can do it. That and people want him to win. Hes not the best of the worst, hes just the best. No one is saying, "Oh he can beat hillary so I am voting for him." What kind of voting is that? The goal isn't to spite the other guy, but to put someone in place that you actually agree with.

As for Universal Mind, why do you place so much importance on one issue? Problems in our own country are far more important than stuff going on in the rest of the world. How can we help anyone if the dollar collapses and we go bankrupt as a nation? Ron Paul is the only person even speaking about the real issues that are killing this country. You know he is only elected for 4 years, and if he gets elected again then 8 years, thats it. Let him fix our monetary policies, and improved the standard of living here in the US. Once the budget is balance, and we pay off our insane debt, THEN we can try and help other countries.

Its like on air planes, they always warn you. Incase there is a suddenly loss of air pressure, always place your own oxygen mask on first, then help the person next to you. Here you are, running up and down the plane trying to help other people and you forget yourself. What happens? You pass out then die. You can only really help people after you help yourself.

----------


## Grod

> I choose to believe...he actually has a chance. Otherwise, we might as well be bending over and taking the RFID chips in the ass, branding ourselves as cattle as we cast our ballots for the other candidates.



Wait... are you saying that if we don't vote for Ron Paul, we're branded cattle?
That sounds so incredibly ignorant I almost didn't want to type this.

Ron Paul will never win. It's really that simple. Voting for him is like voting for Nader. (I wonder if he is still around...) anyway, vote for Guliani. He is a somewhat moderate Republican whose ideas are not crazy and radical. 

As much as I hate the Iraq war, I think pulling out of it before we're done would be a terrible choice.

----------


## R.D.735

Despite Giuliani's popularity within the Republican party, I think his chances of winning a national election are slim at best. He would be able to easily win the Republican base, but it would be very difficult for him to reach 51% of the public with his platform. He may be liberal on social issues, but voters still think the most important issue is the Iraq war. With 2/3 against the war, Giuliani would be in the difficult situation of explaining why most of the public has got it all wrong.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I still say Obama should win....
> 
> So, what has the argument evolved into? Is America still considered the biggest shithole on earth?



Half/Dreaming!  I wasn't expecting you back here so soon.  I hope you've been doing okay.  Have you been fighting Al Qaeda?  Are they going to be ready to smoke a peace pipe with us if we will just get out of the Middle East?





> Despite Giuliani's popularity within the Republican party, I think his chances of winning a national election are slim at best. He would be able to easily win the Republican base, but it would be very difficult for him to reach 51&#37; of the public with his platform. He may be liberal on social issues, but voters still think the most important issue is the Iraq war. With 2/3 against the war, Giuliani would be in the difficult situation of explaining why most of the public has got it all wrong.



Clinton voted for the war and has been all over the place on where she stands on withdrawal.

----------


## R.D.735

That's true, but the electorate, according to the polls, seems more than willing to gloss over such a position, since it is held by a Democratic candidate. I hope that changes, but I'm not optimistic.

----------


## Universal Mind

> That's true, but the electorate, according to the polls, seems more than willing to gloss over such a position, since it is held by a Democratic candidate. I hope that changes, but I'm not optimistic.



That is true.  Democrats are not nearly as anti-war when a Democrat is in charge of it.  I don't recall too many of them complaining about Bill Clinton's Operation Desert Fox in Iraq or how he blew up an aspirin factory in Sudan.  Imagine what their reaction would have been if Bush had bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan.

----------


## Alric

On a side note, anyone who wants Ron Paul to win can just register republican and then go out and vote in the primaries. So even if you don't think he has a chance of winning with just republicans, democrates can even vote for him. Of course they cant vote in both primaries, but if you feel as strongly as a lot of ron paul supporters do, theres nothing stopping you.

----------


## Grod

> Despite Giuliani's popularity within the Republican party, I think his chances of winning a national election are slim at best. He would be able to easily win the Republican base, but it would be very difficult for him to reach 51&#37; of the public with his platform. He may be liberal on social issues, but voters still think the most important issue is the Iraq war. With 2/3 against the war, Giuliani would be in the difficult situation of explaining why most of the public has got it all wrong.



Where did you get that 2/3 are against the war? I don't doubt it, but I would like to know where that source is.

----------


## Original Poster

That was on CNN this morning.  It's slightly more than 2/3s, at 65&#37;.

----------


## Moonbeam

The economy has passed the war as the most important issue.  (source;  flipping thru the channels.)

----------


## Grod

> That was on CNN this morning.  It's slightly more than 2/3s, at 65&#37;.



....I just saw that video. I live in a intense liberal bubble so I'ts hard for me to figure out what the rest of the country thinks. I'm not really surprised. I'll still stick by my vote though...

----------


## R.D.735

I have to agree with Moonbeam that the economy is a hot topic right now. If there's a recession, though, both parties can use worsening conditions to their advantage. The Republicans can argue that the economy only began to tumble after the Democrats won the House and Senate, and the Democrats can blame it on the war and the tax cuts. The Republicans can argue that economic turmoil is a great reason to elect a stronger executive, while the Democrats can use it to rally support for their reform agenda.

----------


## Cyclic13

The great thing about these money bombs is that Ron Paul has said that November 5th got him about 10 million worth of advertising for free, on top of receiving his 4.3 million to advertise! LETS GO DECEMBER 16TH!

On December 16th, 1773, American colonists dumped tea into the Boston Harbor 
to protest an oppressive tax. This December 16th American citizens will dump
millions of dollars into the Ron Paul presidential campaign to 
protest the oppressive inflation tax.

Please join us this December 16th for the largest one-day political donation event in 
history. Our goal is to bring together 100,000 people to donate $100 each, 
creating a one day donation total of $10,000,000.

http://teaparty07.com/

----------


## Cyclic13

> Wait... are you saying that if we don't vote for Ron Paul, we're branded cattle?
> That sounds so incredibly ignorant I almost didn't want to type this.



Please elaborate why that statement sounds ignorant. He's been the only candidate to actually have the balls to stand up against the patriot acts, the national id card, and the illegally implemented federal reserve system and their self-imposed inflation tax, and income tax. All the other candidates on both sides are simply puppets in the federal reserve's back pockets.  Pretending to have differing views on unimportant issues ever-so-slightly, when their ultimate goals are the same. Establishment of a New World Order, and a one world government. People are beginning to see through that veil, because of their lack of taking a firm stance on anything important. They seem more worried about their numbers and obfuscating the truth rather than actually taking a stance enough to make real changes to the real blunders that exist because of Bush. 

The federal reserve has been using a simple rule of power which a large portion are just now starting to wake up to, with the availability and access to information on the internet. And, that rule is, Control the options: Get others to play the cards you deal. Such is the power of giving people a choice, or rather the illusion of one, for they are playing with cards you have dealt them. Give people options, allowing them to think they have a choice. When in actuality they fall right into a trap of your making. Most, if not all primary candidates of both the Democrats and the Republicans, are simply two sides of the same coin. Kerry and Bush both ADMIT they are in the same skull and bones secret society, and that doesn't even seem odd to most people. For people who are choosing between alternatives find it hard to believe they are being manipulated or deceived; they cannot see that you are allowing them a small amount of free will in exchange for a much more powerful imposition of your will. Simple rules of power...

How is what Ron Paul stands for a bad thing? He stands for upholding the constitution and freedom, and has taken a firm stance against the war and our now facist-like aggressive 'preemptive' foreign policies. The war was a mistake, and it's time we take responsibility for our mistakes instead of blindly choosing to ignore them any further.

You do actually realize we've been getting closer and closer to a communist and facist state than anything else, right?

Still don't think so?

----------


## Moonbeam

> I have to agree with Moonbeam that the economy is a hot topic right now. If there's a recession, though, both parties can use worsening conditions to their advantage. The Republicans can argue that the economy only began to tumble after the Democrats won the House and Senate, and the Democrats can blame it on the war and the tax cuts. The Republicans can argue that economic turmoil is a great reason to elect a stronger executive, while the Democrats can use it to rally support for their reform agenda.



Maybe it would actually help Ron Paul.

----------


## Grod

> Please elaborate why that statement sounds ignorant. He's been the only candidate to actually have the balls to stand up against the patriot acts, the national id card, and the illegally implemented federal reserve system and their self-imposed inflation tax, and income tax. All the other candidates on both sides are simply puppets in the federal reserve's back pockets.  Pretending to have differing views on unimportant issues ever-so-slightly, when their ultimate goals are the same. Establishment of a New World Order, and a one world government.



Wait, what? 

Are you trying to say that the only important issues are about some new world order conspiracy? 

How are the issues differing in the political parties unimportant? Guliani wants pro choice abortion, most other rebulican canidates do not. Please tell me how a very important issue like this is unimportant.

The democrats are generally for pulling out of Iraq, while the hardcore republicans are generally for staying in. i. e. McCain. I'm also confused here how this is a slightly differing opionion and unimportant.

Dems generally gun control, while generally. republicans no control (with the exception of Guliani) I don't see how this is a slightly differing opinion. It's one way, or the other. 

Ron Paul
- He wants to change our money to gold.... What the fuck. That's not going to work, even if he gets re-elected,  and he has 8 years.
- I heard his foriegn policy is trading with any country... no matter what human rights violation has been commited
- He wants to pull out of Iraq. I hate the war, but pulling out now would make everything done pointless, and their government doesn't really work yet.

please excuse all of my typos I'm doing this in a rush.

----------


## Alric

You do know the US dollar was based on gold for a 100 years right? Also historically, gold as always been seen as money. Sorry but your showing your total lack of education, when you try to down play the seriousness of the issues.

The federal reserve, and how our money works is directly related to this issue. If we have a recession or a depression, its because of the governments mandate that everyone has to accept paper dollars which are not based on anything of real value. All of our inflation, is also based on what should probably be illegal money manipulation.

As for the new world order conspiracy, its not a conspiracy but actual fact. Everyone has heard of the european union, it a large governmental body that has much say over the countries of europe. Most people don't seem to notice what our government is currently doing, to create a north american union. This is all well known facts. There are many treaties and laws on the books, trying to merge our country with canada and mexico to form the north american union. Most have to do with trading, which is the same way the european union started out as. There are also plans to create a large highway from mexico to canada, which they are going to allow people to freely cross over from country to country.

Ever wonder why the government refuses to do anything about illegal immigrants? Its because with the new open boarder policies the government is trying to put into place, people will be able to freely travel throughout all of north america, without worry of country boarders. When this happens mexicans will be allowed to come and go as they please, so theres no reason to worry about kicking them out.

Ever look at what the UN does? They are always trying to impose their will on other countries. They have their own army. And they strongly want all countries to submit to an international court. They also want international laws to override countries own laws.

This is all very real, and well known facts. No offence but abortion rights are hardly a real issue compared to national sovereignty, and UN law overring our constitution. Its a very serious issue as other countries are not as free as we are, and we do not want them dictacting what we do on our own soil.

----------


## Moonbeam

Luckily, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will ever actually do anything about abortion or guns, because they need those votes--if they get rid of those issues, they lose half of their supporters.

----------


## R.D.735

That's a very important problem in politics. The current political strategies guarantee a thin margin of victory. The fragility of political victories makes politicians extremely risk-averse, and they abandon solutions out of the fear that they will fail or be blamed for new problems if they succeed. Each party relies upon the president to take the blame for situations that they refuse to solve, and are more than willing to give the president enough authority to cover their own reluctance to act, and presidents are more than willing to oblige.

----------


## Moonbeam

It does seem like presidents get blamed for all kinds of things that they have limited control over (like the economy).  Of course, they promise all kinds of things they can't deliver, so maybe that's why.

I guess the president can take the blame because they're only going to be in office for a limited time no matter what, while the others have their whole career to think about.

Maybe term limits are a good idea after all.

----------


## Alric

Of course its a good idea. We don't need someone to be president for 10+ years like in some countries. I am fairly sure we would have a dictatorship by now, if it wasn't for that law.

----------


## jaasum

I current monetary system allows the government to just create money when they need it. This causes inflation which is a tax. It's the governments way of saying "We don't have the current money from taxes to fund this, so we will just make more money." And what it does is drive the value of our dollar down, hence where we are at today. Our dollar is loosing on all fronts. The money you save is loosing value. And people laugh at the gold standard, because they like having money with no fixed value?

Front page news on the BBC today..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7092053.stm

Everything we do drives the value of the dollar down. If money had a fixed rate, and our government would stop going in debt, then they wouldn't be able to finance our huge military industrial complex and our wars. We pay to demolish the buildings in Iraq and then pay to rebuilt them. Not to mention all the wellfare we spend taxes on. Which is taking the money out of your pocket and giving it to someone else.

----------


## Grod

> You do know the US dollar was based on gold for a 100 years right? Also historically, gold as always been seen as money. Sorry but your showing your total lack of education, when you try to down play the seriousness of the issues.
> 
> The federal reserve, and how our money works is directly related to this issue. If we have a recession or a depression, its because of the governments mandate that everyone has to accept paper dollars which are not based on anything of real value. All of our inflation, is also based on what should probably be illegal money manipulation.
> 
> As for the new world order conspiracy, its not a conspiracy but actual fact. Everyone has heard of the european union, it a large governmental body that has much say over the countries of europe. Most people don't seem to notice what our government is currently doing, to create a north american union. This is all well known facts. There are many treaties and laws on the books, trying to merge our country with canada and mexico to form the north american union. Most have to do with trading, which is the same way the european union started out as. There are also plans to create a large highway from mexico to canada, which they are going to allow people to freely cross over from country to country.
> 
> Ever wonder why the government refuses to do anything about illegal immigrants? Its because with the new open boarder policies the government is trying to put into place, people will be able to freely travel throughout all of north america, without worry of country boarders. When this happens mexicans will be allowed to come and go as they please, so theres no reason to worry about kicking them out.
> 
> Ever look at what the UN does? They are always trying to impose their will on other countries. They have their own army. And they strongly want all countries to submit to an international court. They also want international laws to override countries own laws.
> ...



Ok, cool. If you pm me, I'll give you my Paypal account username, and I can take all of that worthless green paper off your hands.

----------


## Moonbeam

> Of course its a good idea. We don't need someone to be president for 10+ years like in some countries. I am fairly sure we would have a dictatorship by now, if it wasn't for that law.



Yes, I know we already have term limits for presidents, duh.  I was talking about congressman, some of whom make a life time career out of it.  

One term would be enough for president tho; that way they wouldn't waste so much time in the first on trying to get re-elected in the second.  They could split the difference and make it 6 years.

----------


## Alric

> Ok, cool. If you pm me, I'll give you my Paypal account username, and I can take all of that worthless green paper off your hands.



Why do that? I can just take my worthless green paper and buy something of real value. Infact I actually own silver and gold. Just because everyone else is losing money on their dollars doesn't mean I have to. I just trade out of them. Anyone smart enough to transfer their dollars into foreign currencies or real hard assets, will be spared much when the dollar collapses.

Though I am sure you never even thought of either possiblities, which is why you made such a lame reply. Its unfortunate for you, since not only will you lose everything you own if the markets collapses, you will probably be one of the people begging the government to bail them out. Of course any educated person knows that when the government acts it always makes things worse.

They just print more and more money causing hyper inflation, then they try to fix prices. Both fail and you end up far worse than you even thought possible. I am sure you won't believe me though, its only history, and has only happened hundreds of times to other countries. Infact it even happened to this country, when we first started. Infact the founders of this country put it into the constitution that only gold and silver would be currency because they faced this exact problem. It totally blew up in their face then, and it will now as well. Or maybe you think the US will be the first country out of the thousands before us to overcome the limits of printing fake money?

----------


## Grod

> Why do that? I can just take my worthless green paper and buy something of real value. Infact I actually own silver and gold. Just because everyone else is losing money on their dollars doesn't mean I have to. I just trade out of them. Anyone smart enough to transfer their dollars into foreign currencies or real hard assets, will be spared much when the dollar collapses.
> 
> Though I am sure you never even thought of either possiblities, which is why you made such a lame reply. Its unfortunate for you, since not only will you lose everything you own if the markets collapses, you will probably be one of the people begging the government to bail them out. Of course any educated person knows that when the government acts it always makes things worse.
> 
> They just print more and more money causing hyper inflation, then they try to fix prices. Both fail and you end up far worse than you even thought possible. I am sure you won't believe me though, its only history, and has only happened hundreds of times to other countries. Infact it even happened to this country, when we first started. Infact the founders of this country put it into the constitution that only gold and silver would be currency because they faced this exact problem. It totally blew up in their face then, and it will now as well. Or maybe you think the US will be the first country out of the thousands before us to overcome the limits of printing fake money?



Chill out.... Huge overreaction. People like you keep saying how the money is worthless now... then why buy things? You keep saying it's worthless. I'll take it.

It really shows how little you know about me when you tell me what I have and have not done. About half of my money is in Euros. I found out this would be a really good idea to do when I went to Europe a few months back, and I realized how much their currency is going up compared to ours... Even the Euro is gaining a little bit, but our dollar is drastically sinking.

Yes, of course I think the US will be able to get out of printing fake money. I never went to school, so I'm not smart enough, as you keep telling me. I'm uneducated. You really know about me, much better than I do. 
     </sarcasm>





> Of course any educated person knows that when the government acts it always makes things worse.



Ok, so you're saying the government shouldn't act. Thus, no gov't. Anarchy.
Brilliant! Let's have no government! Thanks for informing me here too. Everyone knows anarchy is the best solution to any problem. You're right too, I'm sure our founding fathers were morons when they set up our branches of government. If only Alric had been around!

----------


## Alric

Money is worthless, which is why people buy thing which have value. Theres really no reason to save dollars when its value is dropping like a rock.

Talk about an overreaction. I never said we should have anarchy. What I want is free markets, that are not controlled by the government. Governments have proven themself to only make the markets worse when they mess around with the value of money. If you actually look how our country is set up, our government is doing stuff it isn't allowed to do. The federal reserve system is illegal by the consitution.

I am not saying our founding fathers are morons, I said they were smart and we should listen to them. You the one saying we should ignore their advice and warnings on paper money that has no value. They were all totally against it. Which is why for the first 100 years of our country our money was based on gold and silver.

----------


## Grod

> Money is worthless, which is why people buy thing which have value. Theres really no reason to save dollars when its value is dropping like a rock.



Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell.... But true for the second part anyways. I'm glad a good percentage of my money is in Euros....




> Talk about an overreaction. I never said we should have anarchy. What I want is free markets, that are not controlled by the government. Governments have proven themself to only make the markets worse when they mess around with the value of money. If you actually look how our country is set up, our government is doing stuff it isn't allowed to do. The federal reserve system is illegal by the consitution.



I just don't see how the president [Ron Paul] can do this in four years.... I mean, we have a _war_ to worry about. I do agree with you though.




> I am not saying our founding fathers are morons, I said they were smart and we should listen to them. You the one saying we should ignore their advice and warnings on paper money that has no value. They were all totally against it. Which is why for the first 100 years of our country our money was based on gold and silver.



I never said that.... This is a bit of a misunderstanding... I didn't really mean to say that basing money on gold is a bad idea, sorry about the confusion. I meant to say that I don't think he'll be able to do that, in four years. The war  I imagine will take first presidence. Well, actually, Ron Paul is not really like any candidate I have seen before so I have no idea what he'll do.

The main reason I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul is he's for pulling out of Iraq.... unfortunately Bush fucked up Iraq so much we can't just pull out. We have to set up a working government for them.

The reasons I'd vote for Giulani is because he's a somewhat liberal Republican.... as in he has good views (for me at least) and he doesn't want to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. If not for his views on the war Ron Paul would be the next choice... I don't blame him, 2/3 of the country are against the war.

----------


## R.D.735

I'm not sure about the gold standard. It sounds good, but without eliminating fractional reserve banking, bank runs are inevitable. Fractional reserve banking, though, is the core of the banking system. I've probably got something wrong here, but this is what I've been thinking:

Without fractional reserve banking, the availability of loans would drastically decrease, since the banks could no longer use the money deposited in bank accounts. The availability of loans would decrease, and the economy would be severely bogged down and it would take years to recover.

Does that make sense at all, or is it a half-baked nightmare scenario?

----------


## Alric

Ron Paul is against all the wars, and having troops all around the world, and the amount of aid we send to countries all over the world. The fact is, we cant afford it. Like it or not, we just don't have the money. Our insane debt is proof of that.

That is right RD but theres a few things to take into account. That being most people can't pay back their debts as it is. Thats why so many americans are in debt, and why so many go bankrupt. Yes it would be harder to get a loan and the economy would slow down. In the long term it will become more stable however.

----------


## Moonbeam

> I'm not sure about the gold standard. It sounds good, but without eliminating fractional reserve banking, bank runs are inevitable. Fractional reserve banking, though, is the core of the banking system.



I don't know enough about economics to know.  I always assumed the gold standard was a good thing (even I realize that printing money at will can't be good).  

Anyway, are there any other countries who still use some kind of standard, and how does it work for them?

And Alric--I think most people can't pay back their debts is because they are not smart about what they borrow.

----------


## Cyclic13

American WARNING
Who owns you Americans?


"Help us Obi Ron Paulnobi... you're our only hope..."




The Rise of Ron Paul
Ron Paul: The Forgotten Wounded

13,000 pledges (more than nov.5) and climbing...

http://teaparty07.com

----------


## Cyclic13

Ron Paul Money Surge

Mainstream media throwing another temper tantrum about Ron Paul's recent support  ::chuckle:: 



Breakdown of funds raised for all candidates.
Considering Ron Paul is probably one of the only candidates who raised money through legitimate means, it's pretty impressive.
Don't Stop Ron Paul

----------


## Moonbeam

Glen Beck is an idiot.  It sounds like he wants to use the military for "enemies within", which are people who disagree with him.  I hate how people like him call themselves libertarians.

----------


## grasshoppa

hes a windbag.

----------


## Cyclic13

FOR THE TRUTH about the IRS/FEDERAL RESERVE:

Watch Aaron Russo's "America: Freedom to Fascism" for full exposure of what our country is up against - - 

Keep in mind this video has had over 3,000,000 views on Google video and is brought back down to 40,000 every few weeks like clockwork.

This is a war of information.

RON PAUL

Radio Talk Show Host Discusses National ID & Ron Paul

----------


## Man of Shred

boy Am I glad i found this thread! My candidate is Dennis Kucinich. Ron paul would be great for president as well. Both men i feel, want to stop this false war. Kucinich also wants to impeach Cheney!

 Anyway don't get upset by Universal Mind. In the Illuminati thread, he claims to be a part of it.

 The Illuminati, for those who don't know Are the secret rganization keeping corrupt monetary systems in place. Their primary goal: World Domination where you have a One world government, A world police force which brutalise the population if they step out of line,  a microchip society where everyone is monitored by computers, and last but not least Concentration Camps where people like me who aren't susceptible for mind control are sent to be slaughtered and/or tested on.

 Don't believe me? 911 was set up so George w Bush, could pass a law wherin International law VETOs US law. This law states That if you are suspected of being a terrorist. the police can search your home and take you without warrant, or being told why you are being held. Thy can hold you indefinately with no trial or lawyer, even excecute you!. This sounds a bit familiar.... kind of like Nazi Germany! which BTW Prescott Bush (granpa of our beloved george Dubya) Helped Fund hitler. If you don't believe me i seriously suggest you do your own research, the FACTS out there!

 Candidates like Clinton and Guliani all have ties to these Illuminati in one form or another.

 It is candidates like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich who want to End this corruption and this truth embargo. But, alas it makes your heart sink. UM is right when he says they will never be president. The presidents are no longer selected by democracy but are rather selected by the people who Own the 5 major media outlets, The Bilderburg corp. Every recent president who was in power within the last couple decades Attended their meeting just before an election. This includes goerge bush and Bill Clinton. Our whole vision of democracy is being chipped away bit by bit. People are so concrened with their 9-5 jobs, getting children to school, Beer and the superbowl, or drug addiction, or gang violence, that people are not aware of the FACTS that their freedoms being taken away one by one.

 And by the time the general population wakes up to this harsh reality it will be too late.

----------


## Cyclic13

While all those statements of the facts are true, your opinion on those facts is too bleak an outlook. If you concede defeat before it's even over, they've already succeeded in beating you. They have no more power over the people than that which you give them by submitting. 

It ain't over until the fat lady sings.

----------


## Moonbeam

Unfortunately, I agree with you, Ranma.  All people care about is their own immediate gratification, buying a bunch of crap, having an SUV plus cheap gas to put into it, and sports. 

Ron Paul is going to have a big mass donation day on December 16, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.

----------


## R.D.735

The 16th is a bit late, unfortunately. Advertising money must be spent well in advance of the primaries to bolster support before they occur. Advertising after the primaries is effective only if he is nominated.

Ron Paul needs to win some early primaries in order to get his foot in the door. Doing so would give him legitimacy and help secure further victories. Not doing so would likely doom his campaign.

----------


## Moonbeam

Oh.  Hopefully he will.

A little off-topic--isn't it stupid how the candidates just slam the other members of their party?  It seems like that just makes them all look bad, all that fighting and name-calling before they are elected.

Why doesn't each party pick their own person privately?  That would be a better way to do it.  Spend their own money instead of the tax-payers for the primaries.

Also, let more parties participate, of course.

----------


## Tornado Joe

Well this past weekend I saw the first sign of a following in my town - I was approached by this gentleman while in my car at the grocery store and he asked if I was was familiar with Ron Paul. I said "Oh, absolutely! Is he coming to town?", as he handed me a Ron Paul fact card. I gotta say, the expression on his face was probably more of surprise than content - lol.

It wasn't until after I pulled away that I thought I probably should have asked where the local supporters are and if they needed any volunteers. Ah well, let's see if he gets that $12 million before end of year.





> boy Am I glad i found this thread! My candidate is Dennis Kucinich.



Heh, yah well I'm from Ohio so unfortunately around here he seems to come across as a bit of the local idiot. But whatever, anyone who can hold their own up against some of those big guns is worth some consideration.

----------


## Cyclic13

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein

Ron Paul - Everywhere in New Hampshire
Ron Paul signs everywhere in Wisconsin city -- Aired on CNN
CNBC - Traders Cheering on Ron Paul
Ron Paul - far exceeding expectations - ABC News - 11/18
Fox Business Channel - Ron Paul's Internet Success - Part 1
Fox Business Channel - Ron Paul's Internet Success - Part 2
Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show 11/21/07 Pt. 1/3;2/3; 3/3

Hillary, Romney et al could spend all they want on the internet and it wouldn't make one bit of difference.

It's like trying to draw Excalibur from the stone. If you have integrity, trust and the right message, it will slide right out.

----------


## Man of Shred

> Heh, yah well I'm from Ohio so unfortunately around here he (kucinich) seems to come across as a bit of the local idiot.  consideration.



http://youtube.com/watch?v=1fOt6UGROi8

 he seems pretty smart to me!

----------


## Tornado Joe

So did anyone watch the YouTube Republican debate? I didn't catch it, but from what I've heard and the clips I've seen, Ronnie did alright. In fact, CNN had a poll you could take on their site and apparently Ron Paul kicked ass! Which is weird, because I heard he didn't have much airtime.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

Heh did very well. The crowd was rather mixed on his views about the war in Iraq (which could only be expected), but he did great on every issue, overall.

----------


## Alric

Seriously, he wins on every poll. He didn't get a fair amount of time but the time he did get he did really good in. I didn't catch the entire thing though.

----------


## Grod

Is it true Ron Paul is against gay marraige?

----------


## Cyclic13

I saw the debate, and must say it start off pretty biased with most of the questions going to mainstream candidates throughout much of the entire debate. Not to mention, that weird question about the NY yankees going to Guiliani at the end. It just goes to show who spent the most money to bend the network in their favor.  ::rolleyes:: 

Later on in the debate Ron Paul started getting more attention and you can tell by the mixed reaction of the crowd they had stacked the audience with other candidate's supporters booing just for the sake of booing even though Ron Paul stated facts and pretty much made all the other candidates look like flip-flopping fools. Oh, I enjoyed how they actually chose a question that mentioned the North American Union, and he was able to bring things to light and put to rest the doubts of it being only a conspiracy theory. PEOPLE ARE WAKING UP!!!  :wink2: 

I also found it pretty funny how they like asking Ron Paul if he will think about switching to independent, just when his campaign is starting to take off. Everyone knows that independent spells doom for the campaign in our biased two-party system. It's like they think if they say it enough times it'll happen. Can we say, scared much?  ::lol::  

(CNN YouTube Debate related)
Ron Paul CNN Poll before the debate
CNN YouTube Debate Videos Should Have Been Voted On
Impeachment ? Censored CNN/Youtube Debate: Askers Response
Most Startling Admission in the CNN YouTube Debate
CNN polls show people want RON PAUL to lead rEVOLution
Ron Paul talks to CNNs John Roberts after debate

(Other)
Ron Paul : House of Cards
Glenn Beck on Ron Paul - Disinfo again.
Fox and Friends Interview Ron Paul 11-28-2007


Ron Paul has jumped up to 10.5million raised... just wait until Dec. 16th.  ::chuckle::

----------


## Moonbeam

> Is it true Ron Paul is against gay marraige?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul

There are a lot of things that I disagree with Ron Paul about.  

However, he doesn't seem to be pure evil (our current administration), the ultimate slimy politician (the Clintons), a frigging scary fundamentalist (Romney), a power-hungry liar (Guliani), a dim-wit actor (Thompson), a huge hypocrite (Edwards), what's Obama...oh yea he has a Muslim name that rhymes with Osama, so he's unelectable, etc. etc.

----------


## Tornado Joe

> I also found it pretty funny how they like asking Ron Paul if he will think about switching to independent, just when his campaign is starting to take off. Everyone knows that independent spells doom for the campaign in our biased two-party system. It's like they think if they say it enough times it'll happen. Can we say, scared much?



I think this is a strategic move in not commiting to an answer at this point. It's pretty logical; would you rather run a race against two oponents or one? If he would (by miracle, but you never know) win the Republican nomination, his only oponent is the Democratic candidate. If he runs as independent, he must run against both the Republican AND Democrat candidate. I like it, he comes off as a 'nice guy' but he's no idiot - he's as tactical as the others.

That idiot that asked him the question then said he was "dissapointed" with the answer is a fucking fool.

----------


## Cyclic13

How to create an Angry American


I found this one pretty funny...

Ron Paul: OH NO YOU DIDN'T !

in other news...

Paul Wins Virginia Straw Poll 

Ron Paul vanquished the competition in the annual Virginia GOP retreat straw poll by collecting 182 votes (38&#37 :wink2: . Despite having former senator George Allen and current Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonald speaking on his behalf, Fred Thompson managed only 112 votes (23%).  While Mike Huckabee, who was represented by his wife, finished a distant third with 51 votes (11%). 

Several long-time Republican leaders including conservative icon Morton Blackwell complemented the Paul campaign on their strong organization and mobilization efforts, according to Ron Paul National Field Director Dennis Fusaro, who spoke on Dr. Paul's behalf at the event. Fusaro went on to say that, while this reflects the organizational strength of the Paul campaign around the country, it is essential that Virginia Ron Paul Republicans replicate this turn-out on a county-by-county basis at next year's mass meetings.  Fusaro went on to congratulation the grassroots for, once again, coming out to support Dr. Paul in an unprecedented manner. 

Virginia GOP Retreat Straw Poll Results:

Ron Paul 182 (38%)

Fred Thompson 112 (23%)

Mike Huckabee 51 (11%)

Rudy Guiliani 45 (9%)

Mitt Romney 43 (9%)

John McCain 23 (5%)

Duncan Hunter 19 (4%)

Tom Tancredo 4 (<1%)

----------


## Cyclic13

The tube gives you the gospel

Your Daily Dose of Ron Paul--
Ron Paul talks about his post-debate chat with Rudy
Ron Paul - Late Edition 12-02-07
Ron Paul - The Situation Room (12-04-07)
Ron Paul on The View 12-4-07
The Reason Why Huckabee Is Winning this Election!!! RON PAUL

----------


## Cyclic13

One last post in before the www.teaparty07.com launches tomorrow. So far, there are already 31,278 pledges at 4:43 pm, with him already within 500K of his goal of $12 million. 

$11.5 million raised so far. Hell yeah. Keep it coming.


Recent Straw Poll Corruption Links
Ron Paul Straw Poll Corruption
Mitt Romney Buys Election in Florida Straw Poll
Romney buys FL straw poll - Ron Paul clearly wins!

Iowa Debate 12/12/07 Related Links 
Ron Paul at the Iowa debate 12/12/07
Ron Paul after 12-12-07 Debate
Hannity & Colmes report Ron Paul 3rd in IA poll 12/07/2007


Notice how they put "it's not a scientific poll" in big bold letters when Ron Paul does well but rub other unscientific polls in his face if he doesn't win. Just check out how lame those live graphs are during the debate. Blitzer makes sure to bring up the graphs to Ron Paul even though most likely the 21 people voting consisted of a bunch of planted neo-cons. Notice how many times he inquires into his chances of running as third party candidate? Why do they continue to say that when his campaign is just starting up? It's ridiculous how hard mass-media is trying to sway votes and spread propagandized lies. CNN and pretty much all major TV news outlets are trash. That is why their ratings consistently fall and why they lose viewers everywhere. This is just another example. Also, why is the candidate with the LEAST amount of money raised pushed ahead as leader?

It's high time we took our country back. Get the popcorn and fireworks ready for tomorrow folks.  :wink2: 

Just in case you disagree or forgot about the dire times we live in...
U.S. Congressman: "Federal Reserve Notes are Counterfeit"

----------


## iLight

im not really  suprised how non intelligent some people are.... promoting guiliani and all those peeps that want more war.

IF you watch this video, please get some popcorn... Guiliani is exposed as a rat in here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaCYE...eature=related

----------


## Grod

> Also, let more parties participate, of course.



I thought all parties can participate. It's just other parties don't get nearly as much support as dems and republicans.

----------


## Moonbeam

> I thought all parties can participate. It's just other parties don't get nearly as much support as dems and republicans.



No, they system is rigged against third parties.  For example, they have to collect huge numbers of signatures to even get on the ballot, in every state, they are not allowed to participate in the debates, they don't have tax-payer supported primaries to pick their candidate, etc.

----------


## Grod

> No, they system is rigged against third parties.  For example, they have to collect huge numbers of signatures to even get on the ballot, in every state, they are not allowed to participate in the debates, they don't have tax-payer supported primaries to pick their candidate, etc.



Thanks. I'm going to find more about this...

----------


## Cyclic13

LIVE GRAPH OF TODAY'S DONATIONS!!!


Donate Today! Dec.16th Ron Paul on Mad Money w/ Cramer 12-14-07

----------


## Moonbeam

Thanks for reminding me.

If you donate $5,000 you can ride in his blimp:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6I5zYu541Q

----------


## Cyclic13

Closing in on 6 million and climbing!!!
Dec 16th Ron Paul donation day coverage on CNN
RON PAUL CNN TEA PARTY MONEY BOMB REPORT
Why Ron Paul Needs Our Donations NOW
Ron Paul VS Tyranny
Ron Paul : Hero of the Day


International support!!
International Ron Paul Support at Strasbourg Teaparty #1
Ron Paul US Embassy Tea Party New Zealand!
RON PAUL Dubai to Boston Tea Party Celebration GO RON GO RON


It's funny when you look back on the first few pages of this thread back in July, and how many people so arrogantly said Ron Paul had little to no chance of winning, and how Giuliani was guaranteed the nomination. Where's Giuliani in the polls now? Oh my... how the tide has turned. ::chuckle:: 
Giuliani: "The Ron Paul people are all over the country"

----------


## Moonbeam

It looked like he made Bernanke start crying.

----------


## Cyclic13

Would you look at that... OVER 6 MILLION DOLLARS IN ONE DAY!?!? BREAKING ALL PREVIOUS RECORDS (Kerry with 5.7 mill)!!!

Remember this little POS from back in July?
Clip of George Stephanopoulos Rudely Dismissing Ron Paul to His Face. (Full version)

I bet Stephanopoulos isn't feeling so confident right about now. What a stupid arrogant little prick... hopefully today wiped that arrogant and ugly smirk off his sad face. ::chuckle::

----------


## R.D.735

Huge fund-raisers provide equally huge amounts of free publicity. Ron Paul has definitely set the record for the most efficiently-run campaign.

The primaries are so close now. Exciting, but scary, like putting all your money on the fastest horse in the race. You know he _can_ win. He's the _best_ choice. Yet, the finish line is only a few laps away. _Will he make it_?

----------


## Cyclic13

Newlyweds: The CNN+Fox News Story - December 16th -Ron Paul
Government is Big Business
RON PAUL MOTIVATION

This success for Ron Paul couldn't have come at a better time, right on the heels of Mitt Romney having a flip-flopping fiasco of an interview on the very same day with Meet the Press. I must admit, I didn't know what Mitt was about before today but could smell the stench of lies a country away. Not to mention, his pro-war and pro-NID card stances suck ass to begin with. It's actually quite entertaining to watch him pathologically lie his way out of one web of lies he tangled himself up in, and right into another one. A spider stuck in it's own web... how pathetic. I hope he chokes on those dirty millions he wasted on that pathetic excuse for a campaign of his. 
Check out Mitt Romney on Meet the Press 12/16/07 - Part (1 of 5); (2 of 5); (3 of 5); (4 of 5); (5 of 5) LOLZ...watch the tool squirm  ::chuckle:: 

Mass media Tea Party Coverage so far...
Ron Paul breaks fundraising record and gets 15 second blip!
Look how they twist the story:
"ron paul says he raised..."
"record for the congressman"
"supporters are generous"
Also, they forgot to mention the total is over 18 million. Only 1 million shy of Obama's Q3 record, and likely to outdo many Republican "front-runners"

Ron Paul: $6Mil pull reported on Fox And Friends (12/17/07)
Wow!!!! A whole 10 seconds!!!!!

Austin Tea Party for Ron Paul (FOX coverage)
Wait. What about the money being raised? That's odd...

Morning Joe on MSNBC mentions Tea Party Ron Paul Success briefly, as expected.
News you can't use? OMG RLY? HUH 5.2MIL?? I thought it was over 6?? That's odd... the media mis-reporting facts!? I'm shocked and appalled. Ron Pauled that is.  :wink2: 


With the corrupt corporate interests and biased mass-media's misrepresentations and attempts to silence him being continually thwarted at every turn, it's getting more likely they might try and implement other methods of 'silencing' him. I don't know but it might be something to think about

Oh, and in other news, when you vote in the primaries insist on paper ballots in your voting area

----------


## R.D.735

I found it galling that he referred to the idea of inalienable rights as something guaranteed by a creator, but not the government or the constitution. The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to enumerate some of those inalienable rights and enshrine them the inviolable core of the government. As the constitution states, _The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people._ The people cannot retain rights that the government does not give them, unless those rights are inherently vested in the people, whether they ultimately come from a creator or not. The government cannot take away rights that the people have reserved to themselves, just as it cannot claim authority which the people do not give.

While simultaneously claiming a position based upon the founding fathers', he dismisses the foundation of their thinking. His position would most likely be echoed by the rest of the GOP crowd, except for Ron Paul. As usual.

----------


## Tornado Joe

Heh, you having fun Sol?  ::chuckle::  I can tell you're loving this - me too! Just getting dizzy with all these links you're layin' down!  :Boggle: 

I noticed a Ron Paul group in my city on meetup.com - I wanted to join them this Sunday at the football game, but I was tailgating with my friends and we got slammed with a bit of a blizzard. I'm not even sure if the group showed up like they said they would, but I hope they did.

I was excited to see this morning that he passed the $12 million goal (which I predicted by end of this month anyway). 

One thing to be careful of though, Sky - he definitely brought forth the attention to everyone as to the power of the internet. So, now we must keep an eye on how those big corporations/government/media empires will try and control it so that this type of thing (an honest, non-corrupt, un-manipulatable candidate) won't have a chance again.

----------


## Alric

Where did universal go? You still saying Ron Paul is a joke and has no chance at all? 6 million dollars in one day. Breaking all the records. I know on tv his polls show him at 5% and on the internet his polls are always beating everyone. Which one is closer to the truth? I don't know but with him raising more money than everyone else, the joke is saying he doesn't stand a chance.

----------


## Cyclic13

Finally, some real coverage...

CNN Cafferty Ron Paul polling question/answers - 12/17/2007
Why isn't Ron Paul higher in the polls? Could it be because you guys conduct the polls. NAAWWW the media can't possibly have special interests or be biased, right?  :wink2: 

Ron Paul on CNN Situation Room December 17, 2007

Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show. 12-17-07 

Ron Paul's FOXNEWS coverage from 5am - 1pm PT on Dec 17, '07

"Money Bomb" Monday Morning News

Quick question. Why in the hell is Huckabee, with the least amount of money raised, starting to rise in the polls? Is it because he has a lame ad with Chuck Norris, because I just don't get it? His naive black and white religious views have him living in the la-la land of absolutes with pro-war stances that make him seem too similar to good ol' war mongering g.w. to make me even the slightest bit interested in him. Anyone that continually mentions god in their speeches and pleas to be president should automatically raise eyebrows. ESPECIALLY, after the George Bush fiasco.

----------


## Mystic7

> Where did universal go?



 ::lol::

----------


## R.D.735

He's probably having a merry Christmas. ::D:

----------


## Cyclic13

It's not hard to be a nay-sayer for an underdog. It takes balls to wage a bet and take a chance on something good when you see it.

I remember UM and Half/Dreaming were so sure of Guilani being the nominee. Now look at Guiliani...What a joke of a campaign it's become. Just like Mitt Romney having to pump his own funds into his laughable flip-flopping campaign . Right now, it looks like it'll now be between, Paul and Huckabee. Although, I have no clue how Huckabee gained people's interests with so little financial support and the shitty views he holds. I can only think that mindless christian drones with no real opinion backed him after hearing his first ramblings about god.  ::rolleyes::

----------


## Tornado Joe

> Although, I have no clue how Huckabee gained people's interests with so little financial support and the shitty views he holds. I can only think that mindless christian drones with no real opinion backed him after hearing his first ramblings about god.



answer:




> Why isn't Ron Paul higher in the polls? Could it be because you guys conduct the polls. NAAWWW the media can't possibly have special interests or be biased, right?



I forgot what it's called, but there's a term for it - it's along the lines of 'conformaty', but not quite. People will usually act according to other large groups (or masses) behavior. Studies where done where a person would show signs of distress, everyone would think about helping, but because "no one else tried to help", they just observed.

Same principle here, if enough people think that Huckabee is getting support from masses, then those (weak-minded) people will simply conform and follow suit.

----------


## Cyclic13

I know it's being manipulated by the media I just don't know why people don't sit there and question it. I would expect nothing less than people to question, "Hey.... he only raised a little over a million this quarter how could he be at the top?"

Glenn Beck actually behaves himself for a change. I'm surprised.  ::o: 
Ron Paul Interviewed By Glenn Beck on CNN 12-18-07 (1/7); (2/7); (3/7); (4/7); (5/7); (6/7); (7/7)

Check out what's the ticker at around 2:15 on part 1/7 -- "PAUL IS DEAD, PAUL IS DEAD, PAUL IS DEAD". And just before that Huckabee is referring to that being part of a subliminal message. This displays while Ron Paul is speaking.

This is not funny at all, given that Daniel Estulin reported that via his Bilderberg contacts he found out that there has been talk among the powerful elite of "removing" Ron Paul.

----------


## Tornado Joe

Well, you know what I think it is, Sol, it's that we're not actually a nation of idiots - instead we are essentially lazy. We are (in general) a people who enjoy our $1 menu at McDonald's, Starbucks Frappaccino's, and lame-ass reality programming - so we'd rather just sit and chill and believe everything's allright as long as we're comfortable. Meanwhile, the large corporations and government knows this and tries to keep us 'content'. When they do something that pisses us off, we simply figure "eh, nothing I can do, I'm just one citizen - can't fight an entire corporation". Like the old song goes, "I fought the law, and the law won...".

I think this "revolution" is starting to unite these people who felt helpless by themselves. Now this candidate gives them something to get behind. It's just a matter of enough people joining up by next November.

----------


## Mystic7

> Sol, it's that we're not actually a nation of idiots - instead we are essentially lazy.



What is the difference?

----------


## Cyclic13

Common Sense

Something interesting I stumbled on today...

Individualism vs Collectivism
# INTRO
# P1. The Nature and Origin of Human Rights
# P2. Group Supremacy
# P3. Coercion vs Freedom
# P4. Equality and Inequality under the Law
# P5. Proper Role of Government

----------


## Tornado Joe

> What is the difference?



Heh, good point. I guess an idiot would just stumble around endlessly without any clear direction. An lazy person has the intelligence to accomplish something, he/she merely needs the motivation to get their arse off the couch.

This is priceless: full article here


*Paul keeps white supremacist donation*

_WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist, and the Texas congressman doesn't plan to return it, an aide said Wednesday....

...."Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money,"_
Can't wait to see how they'll spin this. I think he'll be on Meet the Press this Sunday.

----------


## Cyclic13

BUHBYE HORSE FACE!!!
Time Magazine: Is Giuliani Facing Free Fall? P.....W.....N.....E.....D!!!! ::chuckle:: 
Rudy Guiliani owned in St. Louis by Ron Paul Supporters The thumbs up at the end was classic...LOLZ!!!


FAUX SSSSSSSPPPPPPPPIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNN ZONE!!!
Ron Paul Interviewed By Neil Cavuto's Smear Campaign12-19-07 They call him on to address Huckabee's ad, and address the beliefs of one of his donations? Say, wha!? 
Ron Paul on Fox & Friends (PT.1of2) 12-18-07"Congrats on the fundraising! We'll talk about your money in a second but first let's talk about HUCKABEE!!!" OMG RLY!?! LOLZ!
Ron Paul on Fox & Friends (PT.2of2) 12-18-07One word response ROTFL!!!? GOOD... BAD! HOT...COLD! YES... NO! GHEY!....SUPER GHEY! DUHHHHHHHH!

Does anyone actually watch FOX news and take it seriously anymore, or is it more like pro-wrestling where you watch for the blatantly fake over-rehearsed over-exaggeration for the entertainment factor? If it's the latter at least I can _kind of_ understand.

----------


## Cyclic13

CSPAN Dec 19th Ron Paul supporters not on payroll to call in

----------


## Original Poster

Universal Mind, Scientific Polls are illegit. http://ronpaul.meetup.com/boards/vie...thread=3672437

----------


## Cyclic13

It's obvious he's beat. No point in kicking him after he's already down. Then we'd be no better than he was a few months back. (although, we do provide links  ::chuckle:: )

Onward and upward... Hopefully after we reach our goal he'll honor his promise to become a priest.

----------


## Alric

Ron Paul has always had support but it seems like the media is suddenly changing their mind about him after he got that 6 million in one day. I guess you can only ignore so much.

----------


## Cyclic13

Ron Paul on Meet The Press 12-23-07 part 1 of 4; part 2 of 4; part 3 of 4; part 4 of 4

I thought he did pretty well, owning them at every turn. Judge for yourself.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Ron Paul would never get my vote because he doesnt look healthy. Its almost like, I don't listen to what he says because of the way he looks.

----------


## Cyclic13

Now, you move on to baseless personal attacks on someone's personal appearance? Just how old are you, and how deep a pit do you want to dig for yourself?

By the way, how's your man Giuliani doing? I don't hear much about him these days.  ::chuckle::

----------


## Half/Dreaming

To tell the truth I prefer Obama at this point. I mean, he just looks so healthy. When I look at him, I dont feel like I'm about to witness televized cardiac arrest. He's still got colored hair and dark, healthy skin. 

Yes, Obama would make a fine president.

----------


## Moonbeam

At least Ron Paul answers their questions in a normal way, not that bullshit politician way most of them do.  Even the really stupid questions, which so many of them are.  

McCain is like that too, but I disagree with him so much.  It's like he's not pure evil slime like the rest of them, but he's so wrong.

I guess I will violate my own principles and vote for a Republican if Paul wins the nomination.  I did it once for a Democrat, trying to keep Bush out, so I guess I can go Repbulican once too.

----------


## Cyclic13

Obi Ron Kenobi (A New Hope)  ::lol::

----------


## Original Poster

He has just as legitimate a chance as Giuliani or Romney.  The only thing his opponent and the meida has against him is that Scientific Poll are only accounting for the 6.6&#37; of the Republican base that decided it was important enough to symbolically cast their ballots at the last republican primaries.

----------


## Cyclic13

Ron Paul- PBS Now- Online Phenomenon Part 1; Part 2 a very nice mini-documentary on the Ron Paul campaign.

The Ron Paul Factor-CNN 12/26/07

Huckabee To Ron Paul LOL... ahead? Where are his supporters again? Selling yourself out as a corporate shill to the CFR and Bilderberg group isn't something to be proud of...

Olbermann Giuliani Made Millions Lobbying For Data Mining PWNED!!!  ::chuckle::

----------


## Tornado Joe

Freakin FOX News.... now I KNOW Ron Paul is doing something right.

FOX Excluding Ron Paul in debate

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

Yeah, you beat me to it, TJ. 
Fucked up, ain't it?  ::wtf::

----------


## Moonbeam

It's just the same old thing they always do with the libertarian candidates.  This time he just happens to be a Republican.

----------


## Sekhmet

Ron Paul is racist, misogynist, anti-gay, and he rejects reality. He wants to turn the United States of America into a theocracy.

Ron Paul in photo with Stormfront leader, son.
Don't Believe the Hype (Ron Paul is Not Your Savior).
The Real Truth About Ron Paul.

He is also a member of the fringe organization Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which believes:

- "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah with evolution.
- HIV does not cause AIDS.
- the "gay lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.


I cannot fathom how anyone could actually believe this right-wing fundie will be a _good thing_ for America if elected president.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Ron Paul is racist, misogynist, anti-gay, and he rejects reality. He wants to turn the United States of America into a theocracy.
> 
> Ron Paul in photo with Stormfront leader, son.
> Don't Believe the Hype (Ron Paul is Not Your Savior).
> The Real Truth About Ron Paul.
> 
> He is also a member of the fringe organization Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which believes:
> 
> - "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah with evolution.
> ...



I don't think he is sexist or anti-gay, at leat not based on what you linked.  He is just a big time states' rights supporter.  It looks like there is some question as to whether or not he really made the comment about 95% of D.C. black men being criminals.  It would be surprising if a man in Congress actually said something like that publicly.  If he thinks HIV does not cause AIDS or that the gay lifestyle shortens life expectancy by twenty years, then that is just what he believes as a medical doctor.  He would not be a bad person for thinking that stuff is true.  You can believe things like that and still think they are unfortunate.  However, that is a very fringe view for a medical doctor to have, but it is not like I am any position to argue with him on it, and I'm not sure you are either.  All we can say is that the vast majority of medical doctors disagree with him on those points.

----------


## Jeff777

> Ron Paul is racist, misogynist, anti-gay, and he rejects reality. He wants to turn the United States of America into a theocracy.
> 
> Ron Paul in photo with Stormfront leader, son.
> Don't Believe the Hype (Ron Paul is Not Your Savior).
> The Real Truth About Ron Paul.
> 
> He is also a member of the fringe organization Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which believes:
> 
> - "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah with evolution.
> ...



Wow...I'm amazed and yet, appalled.

----------


## Sekhmet

> I don't think he is sexist or anti-gay, at leat not based on what you linked. He is just a big time states' rights supporter.



It _is_ misogynistic to strip women of their rights to make decisions regarding their own bodies - in favour of a clump of cells no less. Funny how Ron Paul's claims of an individual's rights to personal privacy ends at a women's right to choose (which is a private, personal decision). He's a woman hating hypocrite.

It _is_ anti-gay to deny homosexuals the same rights to legal union. Ron Paul is very crafty and purposely avoids saying things like "I think gays are dirty and evil" but his actions in office and the fridge organizations in which he participates support that very idea.





> It looks like there is some question as to whether or not he really made the comment about 95&#37; of D.C. black men being criminals. It would be surprising if a man in Congress actually said something like that publicly.



Red the links again. Not only did he make these racist comments on his own political newsletter, but he openly accepts support from Stormfront, a white supremicist website.

Please explain in detail how the following comments, made by Ron Paul himself, are not racist.


Ron Paul said:

"Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that *our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin*. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that *only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions*, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I* think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely crimina*l.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? *We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.* *Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.*"


Here's another link, just for good measure.





> If he thinks HIV does not cause AIDS or that the gay lifestyle shortens life expectancy by twenty years, then that is just what he believes as a medical doctor.



It is a scientific fact that HIV causes AIDS. Conversely, there is no scientific validity to the idea that who you choose to have sex with shortens your life. 

By going against the proven scientific facts of medical science, while supporting unvalidated theories, his credibility as a doctor is seriously threatened and it is my personal belief that he should not be practicing medical science because his mere "opinion" becomes dangerous and misleading when dealing with patient's lives.





> He would not be a bad person for thinking that stuff is true. You can believe things like that and still think they are unfortunate.



If Ron Paul does think certain things are bad, that is fine as long as it stays his personal opinion. When he tries to bring about legislation that supports his fringe opinion and oppress the freedoms of the majority, then it is a problem.





> However, that is a very fringe view for a medical doctor to have, but it is not like I am any position to argue with him on it, and I'm not sure you are either.



I will always argue when someone tries to push their unsupported, fringe belief on the majority, and if you value your freedom, you will too. I am not saying that he should be censored, but I will gladly use my right to free speech to counter hateful, bigotted drivel.





> All we can say is that the vast majority of medical doctors disagree with him on those points.



Amen to that! Ah, sorry for the *tl;dr* but I think it is important that people consider the values that Ron Paul operates under, other than the fact that he is against the war in Iraq.

----------


## Universal Mind

> It _is_ misogynistic to strip women of their rights to make decisions regarding their own bodies - in favour of a clump of cells no less. Funny how Ron Paul's claims of an individual's rights to personal privacy ends at a women's right to choose (which is a private, personal decision). He's a woman hating hypocrite.
> 
> It _is_ anti-gay to deny homosexuals the same rights to legal union. Ron Paul is very crafty and purposely avoids saying things like "I think gays are dirty and evil" but his actions in office and the fridge organizations in which he participates support that very idea.



I am pro-choice for the first two trimesters because it is not possible to murder something that has never had consciousness.  However, I do not think a person is automatically a hater of women for being pro-life.  People are pro-life generally because they think abortion is murder, not automatically because they hate women.  

Ron Paul did not say he is against same sex marriages.  He said it should be up to the states to decide on the matter.  That is because he believes in states' rights and a small federal government, not merely because he dislikes homosexuals.  Personally, I think there should be a federal law that allows same sex marriages.  Ron Paul disagrees, but it is because of his beliefs on where government power should be concentrated.  He might be a homophobe too, but I know he is big on states' rights.  





> Red the links again. Not only did he make these racist comments on his own political newsletter, but he openly accepts support from Stormfront, a white supremicist website.
> 
> Please explain in detail how the following comments, made by Ron Paul himself, are not racist.
> 
> Ron Paul said:
> 
> "Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that *our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin*. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
> 
> Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that *only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions*, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I* think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely crimina*l.
> ...



Of course those statements are racist.  I was just saying that according to your link's commenters, there is a certain degree of question over whether Paul actually said those things or if one of his workers got things screwed up somehow.  It would be strange if that happened, but it would also be strange if a man with the political ability to become a Congressman and the intelligence to become a medical doctor would be stupid enough to publish comments like that.  My bet is that he actually did say those things, so he probably is a racist.  I was just pointing out something to consider.   





> It is a scientific fact that HIV causes AIDS. Conversely, there is no scientific validity to the idea that who you choose to have sex with shortens your life. 
> 
> By going against the proven scientific facts of medical science, while supporting unvalidated theories, his credibility as a doctor is seriously threatened and it is my personal belief that he should not be practicing medical science because his mere "opinion" becomes dangerous and misleading when dealing with patient's lives.
> 
> If Ron Paul does think certain things are bad, that is fine as long as it stays his personal opinion. When he tries to bring about legislation that supports his fringe opinion and oppress the freedoms of the majority, then it is a problem.



It is definitely a fringe and bizarre conclusion that HIV does not cause AIDS.  I would bet a thousand dollars against one dollar that it does.  I was just saying I can't get into the biomolecular details of the argument I would have to have with Ron Paul over it.  All I can say is that he is way out of the bounds of medical opinion normality on that stuff.  I have heard a few right wing fanatics say gay people have much shorter life spans than heterosexuals.  It sounds crazy to me, and I have never seen proof of it.  However, if it is true, then it is true.  People are not hateful for noticing the fact if it is a fact, which I would strongly guess it is not.  





> Amen to that! Ah, sorry for the *tl;dr* but I think it is important that people consider the values that Ron Paul operates under, other than the fact that he is against the war in Iraq.



I'm glad you brought this stuff to our attention.  Nobody had mentioned it yet, and there are some very dedicated Ron Paul supporters who post here.  I might have come across as one, but I am not.  I don't agree with his views on terrorism, and I don't think he has a snowball's chance in Hell of ever  becoming the president.  And now I think he might be a total nut case.  I was just saying I am not completely convinced yet, but I am not as far from it as I might have seemed.  I just always challenge new ideas before I accept them.  But I would say Ron Paul apparently probably is a racist with cuckoo land medical views and is most likely a homophobe.

----------


## Alric

Yes Ron Paul is anti abortion, but he is also pro states rights. Hes a big enough person to say, some time its best to leave it to the state to decide. There are many for and against it. I personally think he has the best opinion of, let the states decide. If your against it move to a state where its against the law, if your for it move to one where its allowed.

Now the idea that Ron Paul is a horrible person for using sweatshops, thats a silly claim. He uses a company, which uses another company which at some point once used a sweatshop. Saddly, the majority of companies probably do that now, and I am sure he isn't even aware of it.

As for evolution, I couldn't care less what he believes. It has nothing to do with him being president. Hes never going to take any kind of stand for or against it, its really not an issue in anyway. Though to point out, thats a very vague answer he gave, even if he is leaning towards saying he doesn't believe it. It wasn't an extreme view he had.

As for saying that stuff about the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, thats not exactly fair. Who is to say he agrees with them on everything? People rarely do follow groups 100&#37;. Its far more likely he is apart of the group because hes is against Universal health care and wants the government out of the medical field. Its also against medicare, which I am very much against. So they promote some good issues, and hes likely with them because of that.

As for the link saying Ron Paul is horrible because he is pro gun, well I can't disagree there more. Thats a reason to vote for him! I want someone who is pro gun. No restrictions on any guns, is perfectly fine with me. He thinks there a war on religion, duh! There is. Hes against affirmative action? Well so am I. Its totally not right, its institutional racism. That site reads more like reasons to be pro Ron Paul, than it does for being against him.

----------


## Jeff777

> *Yes Ron Paul is anti abortion*, but he is also pro states rights. Hes a big enough person to say, some time its best to leave it to the state to decide. There are many for and against it. I personally think he has the best opinion of, let the states decide. If your against it move to a state where its against the law, if your for it move to one where its allowed.
> 
> *Now the idea that Ron Paul is a horrible person for using sweatshops*, thats a silly claim. He uses a company, which uses another company which at some point once used a sweatshop. Saddly, the majority of companies probably do that now, and I am sure he isn't even aware of it.
> 
> *As for evolution*, I couldn't care less what he believes. It has nothing to do with him being president. Hes never going to take any kind of stand for or against it, its really not an issue in anyway. Though to point out, thats a very vague answer he gave, even if he is leaning towards saying he doesn't believe it. It wasn't an extreme view he had.
> 
> *As for saying that stuff about the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons*, thats not exactly fair. Who is to say he agrees with them on everything? People rarely do follow groups 100%. Its far more likely he is apart of the group because hes is against Universal health care and wants the government out of the medical field. Its also against medicare, which I am very much against. So they promote some good issues, and hes likely with them because of that.
> 
> *As for the link saying Ron Paul is horrible because he is pro gun*, well I can't disagree there more. Thats a reason to vote for him! I want someone who is pro gun. No restrictions on any guns, is perfectly fine with me. He thinks there a war on religion, duh! There is. Hes against affirmative action? Well so am I. Its totally not right, its institutional racism. That site reads more like reasons to be pro Ron Paul, than it does for being against him.



Pretty nice and compelling argument, you addressed pretty much everything except the blatant racist remarks he "allegedly" made.

----------


## Alric

> Pretty nice and compelling argument, you addressed pretty much everything except the blatant racist remarks he "allegedly" made.



Exactly, the one "allegedly" made quote. Now if you can point to other quotes, or show where there is some kind of history of him saying that kind of stuff, then thats something. One quote, which you can't even prove he actually wrote doesn't mean a thing. I mean, theres thousands of youtube videos of him talking. I seen videos of him in a debate back from before I was born! Yet I never seen him say anything like that. Not once. So if he is so racist, why not give us some real proof?

----------


## Jeff777

> Exactly, the one "allegedly" made quote. Now if you can point to other quotes, or show where there is some kind of history of him saying that kind of stuff, then thats something. One quote, which you can't even prove he actually wrote doesn't mean a thing. I mean, theres thousands of youtube videos of him talking. I seen videos of him in a debate back from before I was born! Yet I never seen him say anything like that. Not once. So if he is so racist, why not give us some real proof?



I never said he was racist.  And I'm not going by anything except what the poster above stated and the links I clicked.  It sounds pretty harsh and if Ron did indeed say those things, it would seem he is asking for trouble (or less votes)...which is why I'm on the fence about the issue.  Has Ron shed some light on those racial remarks btw?

----------


## Tornado Joe

Well, here's what he has to say about the issue itself: 

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/

Whether he said what Sek claims or not - if it were to come out that he did (and proceed to behave in a racist manner), it would surely come back to bite him in the ass later.

----------


## Cyclic13

The ABC debate went by nicely for Ron... You probably want to skip all the meaningless noise of the other CFR puppets, here's some nice excerpts of Ron Paul... 
Ron Paul on ABC Debate part 1 of 2
Ron Paul on ABC Debate part 2 of 2
Ron Paul Teaches Fred Thompson How To Be President



In regards to the FAUX debate he was excluded from, I'll just post what I said in another thread...

1. Fox denies Paul a chair at the forum
2. N.H. GOP withdraws it's co-sponsorship
3. On Monday the story is covered by every major media outlet in N.H, and the nation
4. People start asking themselves...WTF?
5. Ron Paul receives an additional 5&#37; in the N.H. primary

Thank you FAUX!

Fox News stock (NWS) is down 7% since news of this censorship got out.

Dump what you have of NWS!  ::chuckle:: 
FOX News Corp Stock Taking a Beating for Slighting Ron Paul

FOX NEWS FRAUD - TWICE IN ONE NIGHT (Ron Paul)
Sean Hannity Chased Down By Angry Republicans
Ron Paul Supporters Fight The Power In Manchester NH

----------


## Man of Shred

> To tell the truth I prefer Obama at this point. I mean, he just looks so healthy. When I look at him, I dont feel like I'm about to witness televized cardiac arrest. He's still got colored hair and dark, healthy skin. 
> 
> Yes, Obama would make a fine president.




two words: CFR puppet.

----------


## Cyclic13

Watching FAUX news stock plummet in real time might be as fun as watching Ron Paul earn his millions in real time was...

Grab some popcorn and enjoy the show over the next few days as the above image continually drops... ::banana::  :Drama:   ::banana::

----------


## Cyclic13

Ron Paul Supporters Claim Hand in News Corp 'Rout'



PWNED!  :Cool: 

Ron Paul on Jay Leno (Jan. 7 2008) - Part 1 of 2
Ron Paul on Jay Leno (Jan. 7 2008) - Part 2 of 2
Ron Paul On CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer 1-6-08

----------


## tkdyo

well, I cant say I really understand the trend of the news.  but I can say that Ron Paul is the breath of fresh air that this country needs.  Less government, more thought in to the economy, we need to take care of home.

----------


## Cyclic13

Needless to say, I'm disappointed to see the results of New Hampshire but I kind of expected as much. Underhanded evil elements pulling out all the stops, as usual. And, just look at how FAUX's news stock magically went back up. I wonder why it went back up despite such open boycotting and ridicule... Evil likes to pretend to have all the cards, but hope is something they can never take away. Only pretend to steal. Always Remember: Don't ever GIVE it to them.... and they never win.  :wink2: 


RON PAUL WAR ROOM

RON PAUL VOTE FRAUD NEW HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT SUTTON PT1; PT2; PT3; PT4; PT5

The problem is 'The need to believe' or 'Hope'
Architect: "Hope. It is the quintessential human delusion... the source of your greatest strength". 

HOPE...A BOOST OF CONFIDENCE

----------


## Jeff777

> When I look at him (Obama), I dont feel like I'm about to witness televized cardiac arrest. He's still got colored hair and *dark, healthy skin..*



wtf?  ::huh2::

----------


## Man of Shred

you rock Solskye for keeping us updated.

----------


## Moonbeam

> wtf?



Yea, that is a very strange comment.

I'm not sure what to think about Ron Paul.  it seems like he's just being slandered by some people, but then again there was a lot of weird rascist stuff said by the newsletter supposedly put out by him.  He denies that he knew about it or agreed with it.  That sseems irresponsible at best.

----------


## Tornado Joe

> a lot of weird rascist stuff said by the newsletter supposedly put out by him. He denies that he knew about it or agreed with it. That sseems irresponsible at best.



From what I understand the document was put together by a group of writers in his name - he has accepted responsibilty for not reviewing the content before releasing it:





> “This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade.  It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
> 
> “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit.  Several writers contributed to the product.   For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”



(quote taken from here)

Now what REALLY pisses me off:




> "After a careful investigation, I have decided against seeking a recount in New Hampshire.  I am confident that not asking for a recount is the right decision."



Pussy. He sits there and talks about "revolution" and challenging the current ways of government, and he wont challenge the obvious butt-f**king he's getting. I dunno, I'm startin' to think he may end up being converted back into a typical politician. Will be interesting to see if they get him to "play ball" with everyone else.

----------


## Alric

Well they all have some problems in their past. He trusted people not to put crap under his name and it was a mistake. Personally I think its better than the ones going around who did crack and stuff. Everyone knows Ron Paul isn't a racist though. Its easy enough to look back on youtube for videos 20 years ago where hes saying the same stuff he is today, and no one has ever seen him make any sort of racist comment.

----------


## Cyclic13

I'm pretty busy these days and as such can't make the time to post updates of clips and what not, anymore. If someone could take up the reigns in my absence so when I do have the time I can check without having to research myself, that would be nice. Thanks.

----------


## R.D.735

I was hoping for him to win one of the early primaries. It looks as if we'll have to wait until Feb 6 to find out just how much support he has. The answer could either be uplifting or profoundly upsetting.

We should not forget that this is a two-party campaign, though, and the constitution-advocate on the Democratic side, Kucinich, has had, so far, even less turnout than Ron Paul. Ideally, both candidates would run against each other, in a debate over the role of government in people's lives, using the constitution as an agreed-upon foundation for argument. I'm not so optimistic (even though I try my best).

My question is this: if the race came down to the two candidates most disagreeable to us (as unlikely as that may seem), what would be the best thing to do? Vote and hope, or abandon voting altogether because, after all, no choice is the same as no vote. Either way, the influence we have over the role of government (for the next 4 years, at least) would be negligible.

----------


## Moonbeam

> My question is this: if the race came down to the two candidates most disagreeable to us (as unlikely as that may seem), what would be the best thing to do? Vote and hope, or abandon voting altogether because, after all, no choice is the same as no vote. Either way, the influence we have over the role of government (for the next 4 years, at least) would be negligible.



I usually vote libertarian, not because I think they are going to win, but just to get their percentage up a little bit to make them more legitimate.  I did vote against Bush the second time, and I'm still kind of mad I even bothered and messed up my perfect record of not voting Republicrat. But I'd do the same against Romney or Huckabee no matter what democrat was running.  I think.  Maybe not; I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for Clinton.  I still have to figure out if I really like Ron Paul or not, if he did actually run.

You're right; it doesn't matter.

----------


## skysaw

It's unfortunate Paul seems not to have gotten the attention he deserves. Shame on the media for effectively making him all but invisible.

I've voted in six presidential elections so far, and so far have only voted Democrat. I never thought I would vote Republican, but I might actually have voted for Paul, depending on who ran against him. Most of all, I wanted him to win the Republican side because then I could have probably accepted whomever won the presidency.

----------


## Alric

Its actually kind of disgusting what the media is doing. I was watching fox during the nevada caucus(I live in nevada). They went and they listed how everyone was doing, and put all their pictures up and they said Romney was in first, Mccain was in second and huckblee was in third. Then at the bottom of the screen it showed how everyone was doing, Ron Paul was in second place. They flat out ignored him and then lied about second and third place.

----------


## seenoevil

It's rather disgusting to see how much the mainstream media still treats these things as "debates" when really it's a mass-marketed side-show created in order to not have to cover Iraq and the depressing truths of a collapsing economy. What's especially surprising to me is how many of you here have no qualms about the electoral system and the way it's portrayed and still manage to have faith in the legitamacy of America's democratic process...I'm not saying you shouldn't, I just would've thought that there would be more skeptical people.  People who think that what America really needs is a way to begin accepting the inevitable collapse of its various socio-political structures and how the country should begin living with this - for me, the primaries are the same tired game of promises and personality contests.

----------


## Alric

Whats scary is all the reports of election fruad, and pollsters being kicked out of election places, voting machines that refuse to accept ballots, companies printing large number of extra ballots and not telling anyone what they are doing with them. Machines which are known to be very hackable, and are being run by people who spent time in jail for drug smuggling. Known cases of people 'accidently' reporting the wrong numbers in elections.

I mean compared to that, the fact that the media lies and and puts out clearly biases reports, isn't as bad.

----------


## Moonbeam

Why the hell have we had perfectly reliable ATM's for decades that people trust with their money, and we can't make a friggin voting machine that counts accurately?  It makes no sense.  They could have a printout that was counted seperately by a whole different group people as a double-check even; and if they didn't match, they would know something was wrong.  Just the fact that they don't make these machines is suspicous to me.

----------


## Alric

Well everyone says they are made to be manipulated, no one actually trusts them. They are even banned in some states.

----------


## R.D.735

If, however, the voting system cannot respond to the true wishes of the people, whether it is rigged or the people are being successfully manipulated(which seems much more likely), the question still remains: what to do?

Protests and civil disobedience seem like the obvious answer, but I can't tell if the public would even be receptive to such action, or whether they would consider it 'rocking the boat.' Would protests and civil disobedience in response to a telecom amnesty bill be greeted with support by the public, or would they be greeted with support for measures to limit the extent to which protests and civil disobedience can be carried out?

----------


## Alric

People protest this kind of stuff all the time. Its just not covered much by the news and so people ignore it.

----------


## Moonbeam

> Protests and civil disobedience seem like the obvious answer, but I can't tell if the public would even be receptive to such action, or whether they would consider it 'rocking the boat.' Would protests and civil disobedience in response to a telecom amnesty bill be greeted with support by the public, or would they be greeted with support for measures to limit the extent to which protests and civil disobedience can be carried out?



 
Unfortunately, probably the latter.

----------


## -Tyler-

I am behind Dr. Paul 200%.

The other candidates just don't seem to focus on the real issues and instead promote a fantasy life of national health care and quick fixes. They just don't see all the liberties that are being ripped away by our government every time some law or bill gets passed. 

This isn't about Ron Paul; this is about the American people, and all the rights they (used to) have. We need Dr. Paul in the White House!

----------


## Cyclic13

And another one down...
And another one down...
And another one bites the dust  :Cool:

----------


## Grod

Didn't Ron Paul say he wasn't going to drop out..?

----------


## Alric

Hes not, and theres no reason for him to. He has enough money to keep going while the others are suffering.

----------


## Cyclic13

lol. When did Ron Paul say that? Especially considering his campaign keeps getting better each day.

----------


## Grod

> lol. When did Ron Paul say that? Especially considering his campaign keeps getting better each day.







> Didn't Ron Paul say he *wasn't* going to drop out..?



Argh. lol

Do you guys think he's still a strong candidate considering the outcome of the primaries so far?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Do you guys think he's still a strong candidate considering the outcome of the primaries so far?



I think he's got it made.

----------


## Alric

Hes still the only real choice in the election. Which is why I am going to keep supporting him till the end. He has the money to keep going, and he is going to. His best chance at the moment is going into the convention with as many delegates as possible, and then using that influence.

Hes likely going to have enough delegates to make a impact though I am not sure if its going to be enough to win. I am not sure what else he wants though, he could make a deal to help get his message out, or he could make a deal to be vice president or something. I am not sure if he would go for that though.

Of course it doesn't help that the media is still making up crap. A good example is what happened in west virgina. They made a big story about how Mccain supporters threw their support behind Huckablee so he could defeat Romney. They totally ignore the fact that Ron Paul supports did the same thing, and in exhange Hucklablee supporters pleaded 3 of the 18 delegates to Ron Paul. Which means Ron Paul won more deletages than either mccain or romney did in that state.

Its true Ron Paul isn't winning any big states, but hes slowly chipping away at them and theres still many states left.

----------


## R.D.735

I'd give him a snowball's chance in hell right now, but that's just me.

Super-Tuesday is over, and the Republican race has all but been decided. A simple majority wins all of the delegates, and Ron Paul hasn't won very many. The chances of him winning most of the remaining states is practically nil, from what I've seen of McCain's success (it's the war issue). I'm glad he ran, and will keep running, but he can't win by running for the Republican nomination. I'll still give him a conciliation vote, for what it's worth.

A McCain nomination, of course, practically settles the November election, at least once the Democrats have made their choice.

The most important thing in my mind is holding those who have broken the law accountable for their crimes. I don't think any of the front-runners want to touch that concept for fear of sounding vengeful, and I suspect the current mire of scandals will go the way of Iran-Contra and the Gulf of Tonkin incident: crimes happened, but no one is held responsible. Oh well.

----------


## Alric

Oh Romney is quitting. Just three left now.

----------


## Tornado Joe

> Oh Romney is quitting. Just three left now.



 ::shock::  WOW!

I must admit, after seeing no substantial progress with Ron Paul I just figured he'd basically get his name out there, maybe raise some awareness on issues. But now... things are getting rather interesting.

Still, the chances of Romney supporters to swing over to Paul? I never met one so I have no idea what their view would be - but I assume they're closer to McCain's than Paul's. 

What happens to the delegates that the dropouts received?

----------


## Alric

Well actually he 'suspended' his campaign. Which basicly means he quits but he gets to keep all the delegates. Of course they can vote for whoever they want.

----------


## Bearsy

However, the fact that he's dropped out gives the feeling that he'll be a puss when anything big comes up and will hopefully sway some(or a lot, hopefully) away from him.

----------


## Man of Shred

form thirdpartywatch.com 





> Ill be writing an article on Ron Pauls speech as I get the time, but thought Id first provide a few quotes from the Ron Paul wing of CPAC about Mitt Romneys suspended race.  	People who care about fiscal issues should start looking at Ron, said Lauren Drew, Arlington VA Ron Paul MeetUp coordinator.
>   	Following his speech, I asked Ron Paul how he felt about Romney dropping out of the race.
>   	It narrows the field, said the presidential contender, who added that we are not disappointed on that.
>   	Former Paul National Field Director Dennis Fusaro said, Good riddance to bad rubbish.
>   	There will be lots of heartbroken virgins in Salt Lake City, quipped _Attention Deficit Democracy_ author Jim Bovard.
>   	[Romneys] wife got tired of him writing so many checks, responded former Congressman Bob Barr. He added, A lack of substance cannot buy credibility.
>   	I was told by some local Paul supporters that Romneys staff turned their table in the exhibit hall over for Ron Pauls use. According to one of of these supporters (his name tag read Kevin O), the guys at the Romney booth, who only had ten minutes advance notice that Mitt Romney was going to drop, are now planning to vote for Ron Paul.
> _Photo of Ron Paul as I asked for his response to Romney dropping out of the race._
>   				 				Posted by Stephen Gordon in News,  Ron Paul,  Presidential Race,

----------


## Bearsy

> form thirdpartywatch.com



Direct link please? I want to show this to my Social and Political Philosophy professor.

 ::banana:: 

This makes me smile if its true!
200+ possible delegates!
(Although probably not all of them)

 :boogie:

----------


## Man of Shred

Ron paul is winning!

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/36607






> Don't listen to the bullshit straw poll-It's Meaningless
>  We won the most delegates.
>  We know it
>  The WSRP knows it (some of them might need to change their pants I'm making up a rumour that many of them shat themselves upon seeing the delegate totals and further defecated profusely in them upon realizing that they had elected our shadow delegates and it's too late to do anything about it).
>  CNN knows it.
>  But they are scared that if you come to know it the grassroots will experience a resurgence and rise from the ashes like a phoenix to lead this nation through the trying times ahead.
>  Prove them Wrong
>  Don't be scared be a delegate! Or organize something to help get the delegates the money and transportation they need to get to the next caucus

----------


## Bearsy

> Ron paul is winning!
> 
> http://www.dailypaul.com/node/36607



No, he's really not.  :Sad:

----------


## Cyclic13

Ron Paul

After NH and all the fraud that took place there and the media blackout that ensued, I knew that was just the tip of the iceberg of the shit to push Ron Paul down, so I stepped aside and let the chips fall where they may. Which in this case, isn't surprising.

I could rant and rave until I'm blue in the face, but instead here are some examples of blatant problems with our election system.

Ron Paul Missing from Ballot in Rockland County, NY
California Election Fraud
Faux News: Ron Paul Gets Unfair Coverage Nevada Caucuses (Ron Paul was #2 yet his name wasn't even mentioned)

In any event, I don't see anyone surpassing the will of the powers that be. It was a fun run while it lasted.

----------


## Man of Shred

he's winning just nobody wants to prove it. He has the votes of romneys ex deligates.

----------


## Bearsy

That's not at all guaranteed, it's a possibility.

It's not going to be a brokered convention.  :Sad:

----------


## Alric

Whats a real joke is when they have large number of unaccounted for votes. Just the other night I was watching and every states had huge number of unreported votes. Theres only three people running, and 25% of the votes fall under someone else? Its ridiculous on places like CNN when they put their pie chart up and a quarter of the pie is blank.

Or fox reporting the results had something like 26% for one guy, 25% for someone else, then 23% for someone else. And thats the results. Some simple math shows that the numbers don't add up. Yet they never try to explain where the votes are going.

----------


## Man of Shred

The Race is far from over:  http://www.dailypaul.com/node/36910





> There was a lot of confusion this weekend over Ron Pauls Friday message. The old media and many supporters took his note to mean that hed thrown in the towel and quit the race, but nothing could be further from the truth! 
>  You wouldnt know it from the old media, but the GOP race is far from settled. Theyre trying to paint John McCain as the guaranteed nominee, but we know that the media doesnt have as much control as theyd like to pretend. Remember? Last summer they painted Rudy G as the frontrunner, but his campaign died with a barely a whimper. His main problem was that no one voted for him. Now McCain is in a similar position: Hes so popular that nobody votes for him. This weekend McCain got trounced in  of all places  Kansas, by  of all people  Mike Huckabee. He lost Louisiana, and at last count hes in a virtual three-way tie with Huck and Ron Paul in Washington States straw poll. 
>  Not only is McCain disliked by voters, hes positively hated by the conservative neocon spinmeisters. Ann Coulter ravaged him in a blistering attack last week on Hannity & Colmes (must see video here). Hannity didnt put up much of a fight defending him.  Meanwhile,  Rush Limbaugh is also having second thoughts about McCain. This neocon revolt has the Wall Street Journal mounting its own weak attempt at defending him in an editorial in this Saturdays edition. (The Right is Wrong on McCain.  But Saturday?  Does anyone read the Saturday edition of the Wall Street Journal?   
>  The real problem with McCain is that he has all the appeal Y2Ks leftovers, which is what he is. Who wants the guy who lost to Bush in 2000 to be the next president of the United States? Should he win the nomination, it is pretty widely suspected that hell be 2008s version of Bob Dole. 
>  Now turn your attention to Mitt Romney.  If youll recall, Romney *did not quit* the race, he merely _suspended_ his campaign. This seemingly subtle distinction is of great importance, as suspension means that he holds onto his delegates and could, should he so desire, reanimate his campaign. Importantly, for all his high and flowery language about standing aside for our party and our country in this time of war, he rather stingily (dont you think?) refused to hand over his delegates to McCain. Nor did he lavish on McCain a fawning endorsement the way Rudy G did when he quit the race. 
>  Meanwhile Huckabee, whos central campaign strategy seems to be to copy everything that Ron Paul does (now _he_ wants to abolish the IRS, too  sound familiar?), has no doubt read us Paulites talking about going all the way to the brokered convention. No doubt he thought to himself, Self, that is a great idea! Im going all the way to the brokered convention! So he copied us again. Big deal. You know what they say about imitation. And if he manages to help block McCain from winning enough delegates to clinch the nominationwell, so be it. Thats good for us because it ensures the outcome we want  the brokered convention! The increasing possibility of a brokered convention means that Mitt I hate to lose Romney might also be tempted to jump back into the race. Good! Welcome back, Mitt! They dont call you Flip Romney for nothing! Weve got a job for you, too. You can help dilute the pro-war vote, bicker with the other two over technicalities, and open up a nice big hole for Ron Paul to run through and grab the nomination!
>  We all have a job to do, too. What we need to do is help ensure that Ron Paul has as strong a showing as possible in the eighteen (as I count them) remaining state contests. Forget the idea of a third party run. If you thought the old media ignored him in the debates as a Republican, just remember this: 1) At least he was on the stage, 2) Good luck getting anywhere near this kind of exposure as a third party, and 3) Best of luck trying to avoid becoming the GOPs scapegoat when their ultimate nominee loses in a landslide. 
>  Ron Paul is a Republican. This is what hes said, and if you respect him youll respect his decision. Hes been at this game much longer than any of us, so lets trust that he knows what hes doing. If you dont like it, just remember this:
> It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.Dr. Paul is our man in the arena. This race is still far from over and new developments are changing it every day. What Dr. Paul needs now more than ever is our trust and our support. Forget the third party, lets take over the Republican party! The infrastructure is already there, but the rats are abandoning ship. We Paulites are the ones with the passion and the energy to reshape it. It has already begun happening in Alaska. As Ron Paul has said myriad times, the Republican base is shrinking. Now Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh and Co. are helping to lead the exodus of the remaining rats. 
> ...

----------


## ChrissyMaria

To all whom say mccain leads with delegates heres an interesting tidbit of information the MEDIA never tells you.

of 80&#37; of these delegates, they aren't commited to mccain, or huckabee

at the republican convention in september, those delegates, most of them, DO NOT have to vote for who they did back in the primaries and caucuses

which means, if ron paul could convince those delegates, he COULD snatch mccains, romneys, and huckabees and win the damn thing

the chances are LOW, but its better trying then giving up

the next person to be negative gets a slap upside their head from me  ::D:

----------


## Cyclic13

I don't know about all that but here's some light-hearted fun...

RON PAUL AND FOX NEW'S

----------


## skysaw

New from MSNBC:





> Ron Paul has scaled back his presidential run and is focusing on his congressional primary race, Paul spokesman Jesse Benton acknowledged.
> 
> Paul is being challenged by Republican Galveston City Councilman Chris Peden in the 14th congressional district for the March 4th Republican primary, the same day as the Texas presidential primary. Paul's name will appear on the ballot for both races in that district. 
> 
> Paul has raised $400,000 for the TX-14 race, Benton said. Paul cannot use his presidential funds for congressional primary, since he has not withdrawn. The campaign has about $5 million on hand for the presidential race, Benton said. 
> 
> Paul's goal, Benton added, is to get a substantial delegation to convention (they estimate they'll have about 42 delegates) get a good speaking spot, and "spread the conservative message." 
> 
> On the $5 million, Benton said, "We're not looking to take any with us. We're going to spend it on what donors contributed it for." Even though he said they're "looking to spend every dime on the presidential race," he acknowledged that there is certainly an "organization that has been built out of this campaign" that they will use after the presidential race, including their more than 300,000-person e-mail list.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

ron paul announced a monumentally large protest in washington for june 7th 2008, it SHOULD be the largest protest EVER STAGED IN AMERICAN HISTORY

lets see the media try to ignore that story.

----------


## Man of Shred

I got this in my email this morning:





> RTR Washington, DC - In a recent video posted by the Ron Paul Campaign, Presidential front runner Ron Paul calls on his supporters for a full scale march on Washington.  Reinforcing his presidential bid he instructed his base "...Stay engaged, stay active and do not be disillusioned... we can't drop the ball right now." 
> 
>    His proposal for a march on Washington began, "There is something we ought to do, I think we ought to have a grand display... we should have a true march...", Paul stated before cautioning his supporters about the risks of such an action. The leading contender for the White House alluded that a march on Washington could send as powerful a message as the money bombs forcing the media to take notice once again.  Paul cautioned, "...at the same time if nobody shows up... it might mean that there are not enough of us, that we don't have the energy... maybe we didn't want to go to Washington." 
> 
> *Full Story:* http://www.restoretherepublic.com/content/view/260/71/



 A message from Ron paul. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryMliyeIDp4

I've had 3 comments deleted from this video.

----------


## Tornado Joe

Ranma, regarding that march in Washington - read this other point of perspective. Why it may just be a waste.

Well, tomorrow's the big day here in Ohio. All the attention is going towards Obama and Hilary, but strange how there's been not much about McCain. Hmm.... could it be that it's because he's on the ballot illegally?. The SOB might not even be eligible to be president if one were to investigate  his citizenship  a bit more thoroughly.

Whatever, this whole race is gettin outta contro.

----------


## dragonoverlord

> Ranma, regarding that march in Washington - read this other point of perspective. Why it may just be a waste.
> 
> Well, tomorrow's the big day here in Ohio. All the attention is going towards Obama and Hilary, but strange how there's been not much about McCain. Hmm.... could it be that it's because he's on the ballot illegally?. The SOB might not even be eligible to be president if one were to investigate his citizenship a bit more thoroughly.
> 
> Whatever, this whole race is gettin outta contro.



 
What about it? According to the article he's is a natural born citizen making him eligible to be a canditate. 

Its an open and shut case.

----------


## Man of Shred

MCcain won the GOP nomination...... we're fucked.

----------


## Jeff777

> MCcain won the GOP nomination...... we're fucked.



No...we're only fucked if Hilary wins the nomination...alas, there's still hope young lad.

----------

