Felt this needed a new thread.

1) Mass murderers should just be left alone because they're "irrational" (Reagan-Lebanon Analogy). I.e., we should only go to war with rational people. Damn, if only he was around during Hitler's time all those evil Joooooooooos would have finally met their demise.

2) We should attack Saudi Arabia, when they're NOT overtly supporting terrorists, and actually killing them, but leave Iran, who's overtly supporting terrorism, sending shells across the Iraqi border, sending in troops, aiding our enemy, and sending in Iranian troops to fight our own, AFUCKINGMERICAN TROOPS!

No ******* way in hell this kook wins the Republican nomination. You should stop while you're ahead. What happened to your support for Rudy? Are your convictions that weak? Paul's a ******* moron.

Personally, I think Ron Paul is an Anti-Semite. I can connect the dots. Greg? Not likely.

This is what I got from the debate:

Final Results.

33% Ron Paul
18% Huckabee


And...

2) We should attack Saudi Arabia

Wow this shows you really have no idea what youre talking about since Ron Paul believes in a non-intervintional policy.

RebelKev Wrote:1) Mass murderers should just be left alone because they're "irrational" (Reagan-Lebanon Analogy). I.e., we should only go to war with rational people. Damn, if only he was around during Hitler's time all those evil Joooooooooos would have finally met their demise.

It is not our job to be policemen of the world. If were really the moral "do gooders" of the world:
- We wouldn't be so quick to curtail civil liberties here
- We would have been in Darfur long ago
- We should have invaded China long ago

Hitler attacked our allies unprovoked. We then followed the Constitution and Just War Theory and Congress declared war. An oil barren and dictator in the Middle East with no Navy, virtually no Air Force, and a highly antiquated Army ... is a FAR CRY from Hitler's war machine.

RebelKev Wrote:2) We should attack Saudi Arabia, when they're NOT overtly supporting terrorists, and actually killing them, but leave Iran, who's overtly supporting terrorism, sending shells across the Iraqi border, sending in troops, aiding our enemy, and sending in Iranian troops to fight our own, AFUCKINGMERICAN TROOPS!

No ******* way in hell this kook wins the Republican nomination. You should stop while you're ahead. What happened to your support for Rudy? Are your convictions that weak? Paul's a ******* moron.

I agree more with Rudy socially. His position on the 2nd ammendment, as well as his foreign policy, was still an issue. There is not yet a Libertarian candidate, so at that early time he was the best I had to go from. If Paul is a moron -- so is our CIA and the 9/11 Commission on foreign policy .. and nearly every economist, the US Comptroller General, and the GAO fiscally.

Our troops shouldn't be in Iraq. Pull them out -- Iranian attacks solved. Israel will handle Iran's nuclear programs long before we ever have to.

ETSUfan1 Wrote:This is what I got from the debate:

Final Results.

33% Ron Paul
18% Huckabee

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson ... we do not elect by majority in this country, we elect by majority of those who participate. Ron will shock some people in the primaries. New Hampshire and other open primary states can be won.

ETSUfan1 Wrote:This is what I got from the debate:

Final Results.

33% Ron Paul
18% Huckabee


And...

2) We should attack Saudi Arabia

Wow this shows you really have no idea what youre talking about since Ron Paul believes in a non-intervintional policy.

Really? Did he not say, in the aftermath after his interview with Hannity and Colmes, that Saudi was the problem? Sorry, I watch it all. Not snippets. He should switch his affiliation to LP. I agree with almost everything he says, EXCEPT when it comes to national defense....to which he's a pu55y on. He wants to dismantle the damn CIA.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson ... we do not elect by majority in this country, we elect by majority of those who participate. Ron will shock some people in the primaries. New Hampshire and other open primary states can be won.

Yeah, and you underestimate the power of moonbats, who WON'T vote for Paul, adding their votes to these BS phone polls to shake up the Republicans. Keep it up. Undermining worked well for Michigan.

RebelKev Wrote:Really? Did he not say, in the aftermath after his interview with Hannity and Colmes, that Saudi was the problem? Sorry, I watch it all. Not snippets. He should switch his affiliation to LP. I agree with almost everything he says, EXCEPT when it comes to national defense....to which he's a pu55y on. He wants to dismantle the damn CIA.

He did. If, hypothetically, you must attack somebody who's involved in terrorism... you'd attack the Saudis. You'd probably make the problem worse to begin with in doing so, as the primary reason they're resulting to terrorism is we have a base there. Why we have a base in that country when we can just steam in some aircraft carriers is beyond me.

And while I don't know if I would eliminate the CIA altogether ... they do some really shady ****. They're right up there in the hit list of people/organizations responsible for this loss of civil liberties in this country after 9/11. The CIA could at least be slashed big time. Go spy on foreign countries ... leave me, my phone calls, my emails, my library records, my bank records, and all the rest of my personal life the f*** alone you neocon Orwellian pricks.

GTS:

If Paul drops out of the Republican Presidential Campaign prior to the Convention, and bolts to the Libertarian Party, would you still vote for him?

Reb,

curios, what do you think about his policy of getting the govt. completely out of airline security and allowing passengers to carry guns as a solution?


I know it sounds good in Second Amendment theory, however like many Libertarian policies(just like their utopian counterparts, communist) its not going to fly in the real world. No airline is going to allow guns on their planes, just like many/most businesses don't. So then you get to, where to make that plan feasible in the real world the Govt. has to step in and mandate passengers fly planes armed, which goes against liberatrian ideals obviously.

WMD Owl Wrote:GTS:

If Paul drops out of the Republican Presidential Campaign prior to the Convention, and bolts to the Libertarian Party, would you still vote for him?

By God I will WRITE HIM IN if necessary.

GGniner Wrote:Reb,

curios, what do you think about his policy of getting the govt. completely out of airline security and allowing passengers to carry guns as a solution?


I know it sounds good in Second Amendment theory, however like many Libertarian policies(just like their utopian counterparts, communist) its not going to fly in the real world. No airline is going to allow guns on their planes, just like many/most businesses don't. So then you get to, where to make that plan feasible in the real world the Govt. has to step in and mandate passengers fly planes armed, which goes against liberatrian ideals obviously.

ah ah ah -- he didn't say he wanted the passengers to be armed. Not so fast. He wants the AIRLINES to be responsible for security. Over 99% of all security is provided by the private sector. Why not let the airlines have a security officer in the cockpit of each plane? Hijackers will think twice when they've been de-armed at airport security, and they're staring down a Glock 9 in the cockpit.

if their is one industry in this country that the govt. can outperform and is more incompetent, its the Airline industry.

either way, planes falling out of the sky and hitting infrastructure and being used as bombs are a national security threat, which falls within the govts. powers.

in theory if the passengers were armed, hijackings would be less likely but bombings are a whole other ball of wax which was ignored in that quesiton.

National Security is a Civil Right, one which civil liberatians(many of them) completely ignore. Mitt tried to say this tonight, and fumbled it by saying "Stay alive" instead at the end. of course I'd argue the only true, operational, civil liberatians are the one's addressing that right.

I'm amazed at all this talk about a loon who has no prayer of getting the nomination or being president. Paul is a sideshow freak.

Just speaks to how dumb it is to start the primary season as early as it has this time around. That and just how weak the current field is.

Now that Fred is in, things should pick up.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Now that Fred is in, things should pick up.

NAU, Watergate, and more ahoy!

Ninerfan1 Wrote:I'm amazed at all this talk about a loon who has no prayer of getting the nomination or being president. Paul is a sideshow freak.

he's got Perot wrote all over him, but even nuttier obviously. I could see a Soros like money man come along and fund a 3rd party run for him to elect Hillary. he could get around 5%, more than enough to elect hillary. assuming he's not already a socialist plant, he's a big enough useful idiot to do this.

the other problem is dumbing down the political debates, confusing the issues and facts on the most important issue of not only today but the foreseable future. as amazing enough as it is, there are still paleo-cons leaning voters around, and not all Repub. voters are well versed in the issues to say the least or the other side of the 'news' they never read.

on the other hand, when on a national stage like last night he comes out and shows his nutty side and Chris Wallace pwnz him which brings out an even nuttier facial expression....it turns most off to him, witnessed by Frank Luntz focus group thing from Huck. exchange.......still, if he got the money to be on the ballot it would be more than enough to elect Hillary.

If you dont agree with all of the crazy republican views you are nutty....I see.

GGniner Wrote:he's got Perot wrote all over him, but even nuttier obviously.

You do realize pretty much everything Perot said fiscally has come true?

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Hitler attacked our allies unprovoked. We then followed the Constitution and Just War Theory and Congress declared war.

Your grasp of history is lacking. I'll sum it up for you.

Hitler/Germany invaded Poland. (We stayed out)
UK, et al declared war on Germany (we stayed out)
Germany invaded France, Belgium and the Netherlands (we stayed out)
Germany lays siege (The Blitz) against the UK in preparation for invasion (we stayed out)
Meanwhile Japan is raping China and most of Southeast Asia (We stayed out)
Japan attacks Pearl Harbor (We declare war on Japan, not Germany, but we don't actually start fighting them until 4-5 months later)
Germany declares war on the USA.
USA declares war on Axis.

This is basic US history, GTS. Thousands, if not millions, of books, movies, documentaries and other educational materials are available. Hell, just watch the History Channel for a couple hours. If you can't grasp it then how can I trust you to tell me who I'm supposed to be voting for? I suspect I can't.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Our troops shouldn't be in Iraq. Pull them out -- Iranian attacks solved. Israel will handle Iran's nuclear programs long before we ever have to.

As I said before, if you think simply pulling our troops out of Iraq will solve all of our problems over there then you are dangerously naive. You also grossly overestimate Israel's military capability. Especially after what was made obvious from their very recent handling of Lebanon/Hamas/Hezbollah. Israel isn't some super magic ninja that can use one or two special moves and make Iran's nuclear program go away. Hell, we don't even have that capability.

GTS, you really don't understand much of the world situation and I'm not trying to insult or belittle you. You really should do more research. Use your head, not your heart. I know it is easier said than done at your age. I wasn't much different when I was in my late teens/early 20's.