Ron Paul On The Record

[JeffR]

[quote]mstott25 wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
mstott25 wrote:
Mick28 wrote:

6. History, when is the last time a Congressman was elected to the Presidency—look it up.

It was your president’s dad. When was the last time a US Senator was voted in as President? Look it up.

My President, as in Bush?

LOL, I’m not a Bush fan, never was.

Furthermore, The senior Bush was a two term Vice President just prior to becoming President.

The last time a Sen was voted in as President was JFK, didn’t have to look it up, that was an easy one.

But…guess what? A sitting Congressman is NOT going to be elected to the Presidency, at least not one named Ron Paul.

I’m just wondering what your point was since as you just now stated yourself the last senator to get elected was JFK and the two leading democratic candidates are senators. I think your arguments against Ron Paul are fundamentally weak and misdirected.

You are allowing the mainstream media and radio talk show hosts to decide who your president will be rather than pick the candidate who represents the strongest message. I do not understand why anybody would willingly base their vote on the criteria you have submitted. Money? Appeal? Charisma?

Are you looking for a televangelist or a President? Your posts would have much more credit if you were to take a few moments of your time and become familiar with Ron Paul’s arguments.

The polls you keep dismissing as “meaningless” are in fact enough to get the attention of the major media organizations. Have you taken any time to visit the MSNBC or Fox News national polls following the debates?

I have read many of your posts and I have yet to hear one cogent argument against Ron Paul’s stance. If you were to take all the time you spent spouting off about what it takes to become an American President and use that to read one of Ron Paul’s speeches or publications then it might be enough to wake you up to the government that uninformed citizens have allowed to take over our country.

“Let it be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.” - Ron Paul July 10, 2003[/quote]

mstott,

Wanted to drop in say that you haven’t read this entire thread.

There are plenty of examples of naive and reprehensible stances on ron paul’s part.

Item number one: Iraq.

His solution: Fortress America. Leave. Pull out. No matter what happens in the resulting vacuum.

That is immature, dangerous, and naive to the nth degree.

If you don’t think that’s a good enough example, too bad.

Now, I honestly feel sorry for the Rage against the Machiners (like mstott) who get excited when 900 people put paul in THIRD.

That’s pretty sad.

In summary, don’t try and contend that people who support other Republican candidates do so only because of what the media and polls say.

I say that ANY Republican is generally flying in the face of the media.

Second, the fact that many of us feel ron paul is full of shit and a joke doesn’t have anything to do with whether msnbc thinks he has a chance.

JeffR

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]mstott25 wrote:
I do not understand why anybody would willingly base their vote on the criteria you have submitted. Money? Appeal? Charisma?
[/quote]

Welcome to Hollywood Town. Can you blame us? When the nightly news and other MSM regularly report on celebrities is it no wonder that the “average” American values those attributes over honor, courage, and commitment?

Charisma doesn’t matter if one is honorable and principled–those are real character traits which are not based on phony notions of righteousness. If it’s real we’ll know.

[orion]

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Ron Paul Wins NH Straw Poll

Ron takes the Strafford County, NH, GOP straw poll today by another landslide:

Out of 286 votes cast:

Ron - 208 (73%)
Romney - 26
Huckabee - 20
Tancredo - 8
McCain - 7
Cox - 5
Hunter - 5
Fred Thompson - 3
Giuliani - 3
Brownback - 1

Oh good more meaningless polls.

Not many people know that in Austria these types of polls determine the President…But in the US they are, as I stated, meaningless.

LOL
[/quote]

Really?

Why do candidates spend millions on them then?

[lixy]

“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” – Plato

[orion]

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Ron Paul Wins NH Straw Poll

Ron takes the Strafford County, NH, GOP straw poll today by another landslide:

Out of 286 votes cast:

Ron - 208 (73%)
Romney - 26
Huckabee - 20
Tancredo - 8
McCain - 7
Cox - 5
Hunter - 5
Fred Thompson - 3
Giuliani - 3
Brownback - 1

Oh good more meaningless polls.

Not many people know that in Austria these types of polls determine the President…But in the US they are, as I stated, meaningless.

LOL

Really?

Why do candidates spend millions on them then?

Your assholish comments have been noted by many on this forum. That you think you’re an expert on American politics is actually funny.

Why don’t you focus all this bluster toward Austria maybe they will elect you king…or whatever they do in that insignificant country you call home.

[/quote]

Well your lack of intellect does not keep you from posting so why should my flaws stop me?

What is more important, the people who I behave “assholish” to (is that a real word?) literally beg for it.

Plus, you still have not explained why it is that people spend millions on this polls if they are insignificant?

What do they know that you don`t?

To answer one of your questions though, what Ron Paul lacks in money (and that is surprisingly little) he makes up for in volunteers.

It does not matter if you pay for a campaign or the people volunteer, what matters is that the work gets done.

[cloakmanor]

[quote]orion wrote:
Plus, you still have not explained why it is that people spend millions on this polls if they are insignificant?
[/quote]

If memory serves correctly Mitt Romney did indeed spend several million dollars in preperation for the Ames Straw Poll.

To answer one of your questions though, what Ron Paul lacks in money (and that is surprisingly little) he makes up for in volunteers.

It does not matter if you pay for a campaign or the people volunteer, what matters is that the work gets done.

Dr. Paul’s campagin appears to be significantly more decentralized than other candidates, perhaps moreso than any other in Americna history? An enormous amount of work is being accomplished by volunteers, this coupled with innumerable spontaneous actions on the part of devoted Ron Paul supporters appears to be accomplishing what would otherwise cost millions of dollars to organize and execute.

True, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to properly calculate, yet it is apparent the grassroots support Dr. Paul enjoys is accomplishing more than most probably expected. Whether or not this translates into support significant enough to compete with mainstream candidates in the long term however has yet to be seen. However it’s probably obvious that Dr. Paul’s support does appear to continue to increase.

Frankly, given the current political climate in Washington D.C. a Ron Paul vs. Democratic candidate on the campaign trail isn’t particularly likely. But then, who knows?

[Limbic]

[quote]vroom wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…

Y’know, at least when he speaks you don’t have to figure your way through intense doublespeak.

[/quote]

Makes me wonder if he’s the type that said whatever he wanted beforehand, then when he gets his eye-opening briefing and finds out who’s really in control he’s no longer recognizable as that candidate with opinions.

Some people may find him the perfect tool.

To watch …

[mstott25]

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Wanted to drop in say that you haven’t read this entire thread.

There are plenty of examples of naive and reprehensible stances on ron paul’s part.

Item number one: Iraq.

His solution: Fortress America. Leave. Pull out. No matter what happens in the resulting vacuum.

That is immature, dangerous, and naive to the nth degree.

If you don’t think that’s a good enough example, too bad.
[/quote]

JeffR, I’d like to say that you are correct. I have not read all 30 pages of this thread. I have read enough to see a lack of cogent arguments against Ron Paul’s stances and now I can add yours to the mix.

Please tell me what is so unwise about pulling out of Iraq. You say that it’s immature, dangerous, and naive but I’d like to know why. Listen I’ve been on your side of the fence. I tried to believe that this war is worthwhile and in fact I can just about guarantee you that it impacts my life more than yours so it takes a little more than a straw man to convince me that this war is worthy of any more of our time, resources, or soldiers.

I was pretty much against this war until two PhD’s sat me down in March. When that happened I was very relieved to find some merit in this war and I have been spending a fair amount of time paying attention to it. I’m over it, I can’t see one good reason why we should stay in Iraq anymore. Every good argument I thought I had for this war has been shot down.

Going to Iraq without declaring war or receiving approval from Congress was irresponsible, reckless, and clearly ineffective. Borrowing money from China to continue financing this war is irresponsible, reckless, and scary.
Why stay there any longer? Al Maliki said we can go anytime we’re ready. There were no weapons of mass destruction, we took Saddam out, and there is a new system of government in place with a new constitution. Why are we still there and when will we be finished?

We have overstayed our welcome in South Korea, Germany, and the Middle East. We have enough concerns with education and our economy at home that we should quit trying to police the world.

Now, I honestly feel sorry for the Rage against the Machiners (like mstott) who get excited when 900 people put paul in THIRD.

That’s pretty sad.

In summary, don’t try and contend that people who support other Republican candidates do so only because of what the media and polls say.

I say that ANY Republican is generally flying in the face of the media.

Second, the fact that many of us feel ron paul is full of shit and a joke doesn’t have anything to do with whether msnbc thinks he has a chance.

JeffR

In summary, I contended that Ron Paul is making much more headway than he’s been given credit for. If you really think that all Republican Candidates fly in the face of the media then maybe you are unaware of media publications like the Washington Times, Fox News, and radio talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Rush Limbaugh alone gets upwards of 14 million listeners weekly, by far the most popular radio talk show host in the United States. Republicans have just as much air time as their liberal opponents if not moreso.

Us “Rage against the Machiners” just happen to include more members of the Armed Forces in support of congressman Ron Paul since studies revealed that more money from the US Military servicemembers has been donated to support Ron Paul’s campaign than any other politician.

[JeffR]

mstott25 wrote:

mstott,

Thanks for your response.

I’ve probably typed, refined, expanded upon, and discussed in detail the reasons for the war and it’s importance upward of 1000 times.

Therefore, if you are interested in my thoughts in detail, please look up my name and read some of my posts.

I will tell you that a precipitous withdrawal of ALL forces from Iraq will lead to a power vacuum that iran and al qaeda seem very willing to fill.

In case you haven’t noticed, there have been more brazen cross border incursions by iran lately. Two days ago, they fired on the Kurds.

ron paul (and you by extension) have a hard time understanding the concept of deterrence. See South Korea, Germany, and now Iraq.

The U.S.'s presence, be it major or limited, will make an aggressive dictator think twice about crossing the border.

Now, imagine we withdrew to Fortress America. This isn’t 1776. Our enemies wouldn’t “leave us alone.” They have the ability to infiltrate and disseminate dangerous weaponery with much more ease than is commonly appreciated.

Again, imagine an iran/al qaeda dominated Iraq. Imagine what happens to the price of oil. Imagine the instability in the region.

While you may blow this off in favor of the ron paul utopian conception of Fortress America, our economy is very dependant upon foreign oil. It’s also quite dependant upon foreign trade. Foreign trade can and has often been interrupted by warfare and instability.

All of these things must be factored into any decision.

The “just leave because it was a mistake” crap that ron paul spouts, is therefore, irresponsible and reckless.

Now, don’t respond with, “well, it will force us to develop new sources of oil.” That’s all fine and dandy, but, if your economy is shaken to it’s very core, it’s much harder to mobilize and utilize the resources needed to implement said strategy.

Finally, unless you have family members or are in Iraq/Afghanistan yourself, you probably aren’t more involved with the repercussions of the War on Terror than I am.

JeffR

P.S. When it comes down to Rudy and hillary, who are you going to vote for?

P.P.S. If you say, “I won’t vote” don’t bother responding to me again because your value will approach navel lint in my eyes.

[Nominal_Prospect]

My posting privileges on FreeRepublic have been revoked.

[quote]
Reason:
Peddle it someplace else.[/quote]

Here’s the last post I made:

Bin Laden has repeatedly stated his justification for attacking the U.S. Various other Muslim fundamentalists have come out with similar proclamations. You’ve no doubt seen those proclamations and have reached an independent decision to dismiss them wholesale. That’s your prerogative, but do not expect everyone else within your party to be so callous. The one question I would pose to you on this issue is why you would disregard their stated motives while taking to heart their ideological rhetoric. After all, they couldn’t possibly be bluffing about “taking back Spain”, could they?

On the off-chance that you’re unfamiliar with this subject, the following thread can serve as your education: BIN LADEN'S FATWA (Why Ron Paul was Factually Correct) (UBL cited Iraq in 1996 Declaration of War)

Michael Scheuer writes:
The United States is hated across the Islamic world because of specific U.S. government policies and actions. That hatred is concrete not abstract, martial not intellectual, and it will grow for the foreseeable future. While important voices in the United States claim the intent of US policy is misunderstood by Muslims, that Arabic satellite television deliberately distorts the policy, and that better public diplomacy is the remedy, they are wrong. America is hated and attacked because Muslims believe they know precisely what the United States is doing in the Islamic world. They know partly because of bin Laden�??s words, partly because of satellite television, but mostly because of the tangible reality of US policy. We are at war with an Al-Qaeda-led worldwide Islamist insurgency because of and to defend those policies, and not, as President Bush mistakenly has said, "to defend freedom and all that is good and just in the world.

He’s former CIA and he’s right. It is a fact of natural law, completely verified by historical precedent, that extremists obtain power by appealing to legitimate grievances harbored by the masses. Without popular support, criminal organizations such as Al Qaeda cannot exist for long. What was true of American gangsters is true of Bin Laden: they need to bring the masses on board with a message that the average person can relate to. No person reaches a decision to blow him/herself up at the mere sight of American media/pop-culture. It takes much more than that. And that’s the part which gets ignored.

Expect people to continue blowing themselves up so long as life in that part of the world remains short and brutish. The way to end terrorism is through capitalism, not “democracy” imposed at gunpoint. Ron Paul is the only man in the race who understands that, and that’s what makes him the strongest candidate on foreign policy.

…

I figured I could pull it off because every statement I made echoed something that had been said by Ron Paul. Guess not.

Now, I wonder how many others have been similarly purged.

Let’s never resort to those kinds of tactics here, agreed?

[mstott25]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
mstott25 wrote:

I will tell you that a precipitous withdrawal of ALL forces from Iraq will lead to a power vacuum that iran and al qaeda seem very willing to fill.

[/quote]

This was the same logic that led to my approval of a remaining US presence in Iraq as well but I no longer accept it. Do you know how many suicide bombings there were in Iraq before OIF? Zero. Our presence has created a terror problem, not resolved one. Al Qaeda was never in contention for occupying Iraq but now we all seem so afraid that they or Iran will take over the entire nation. Why don’t we let the United Arab Emirates or the Arab League of Nations move in and make reparations?

Our presence is no longer welcomed, these people have been warring for ages and we are not going to stop them. What lessons can we learn from Vietnam or Lebanon under Reagan’s Administration? What did we learn from Mogadishu?

In case you haven’t noticed, there have been more brazen cross border incursions by iran lately. Two days ago, they fired on the Kurds.

ron paul (and you by extension) have a hard time understanding the concept of deterrence. See South Korea, Germany, and now Iraq.

The U.S.'s presence, be it major or limited, will make an aggressive dictator think twice about crossing the border.

Now, imagine we withdrew to Fortress America. This isn’t 1776. Our enemies wouldn’t “leave us alone.” They have the ability to infiltrate and disseminate dangerous weaponery with much more ease than is commonly appreciated.

Again, imagine an iran/al qaeda dominated Iraq. Imagine what happens to the price of oil. Imagine the instability in the region.

I have noticed these things about Iran but there has been much more activity coming from the Saudi border then the Iranian border and I am amazed at how easily people are falling into this incriminating picture of Iran when Arabs from Saudi Arabia, who we have been propping up since the 50’s, have been responsible for more deaths of US soldiers than Iran. Why are we constantly villanizing Iran? What about Pakistan where Osama Bin Laden has been hiding out, where British Intelligence Reports have conclusively reported that the government has been supporting terrorism in Iraq and who already has Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Why in the world are we so afraid of Iran when we are constantly bullying them and we just dominated a nation in a matter of days that they had been at war with for years? Iran is not acting as a rogue state on the offensive, they have their backs against the wall and they are afraid of the US. If this administration can convince this nation that a war with Iran is justified then I will forever preach the words of the Canadian scholar Marshall Mcluhan who long ago warned us that the “medium is the message”.

While you may blow this off in favor of the ron paul utopian conception of Fortress America, our economy is very dependant upon foreign oil. It’s also quite dependant upon foreign trade. Foreign trade can and has often been interrupted by warfare and instability.

Which is why none of these wars seem feasible in the first place. Every nation has been chomping at the bit to compete in the world marketplace, in fact that was practically the thesis for Friedman’s work on Globalization. The prospects of war and terrorism throw nations like Iran 50 years into the past. Iran has much more to lose than the United States were an attack or war to be instigated on their behalf.

That’s why the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has repeatedly asked the US to investigate the claims against Iran and he has asked to publicly debate our president to clear his name in the American Press.

What I find more frightening is that this recent crusade by the US may be ushering in a new arms race. When Iran, Russia, and China are all warning us that we are forcing them to take defensive measures maybe we should admit to ourselves that we no longer appear to the world as patriots of democracy.

The “just leave because it was a mistake” crap that ron paul spouts, is therefore, irresponsible and reckless.

Now, don’t respond with, “well, it will force us to develop new sources of oil.” That’s all fine and dandy, but, if your economy is shaken to it’s very core, it’s much harder to mobilize and utilize the resources needed to implement said strategy.

I just don’t think this is a legitimate concern. Our economy is not dependent on oil to and from Iraq. We never entered this war under the auspices that it was necessary to keep our economy stable and we certainly shouldn’t remain there under similar pretenses.

Finally, unless you have family members or are in Iraq/Afghanistan yourself, you probably aren’t more involved with the repercussions of the War on Terror than I am.

JeffR

P.S. When it comes down to Rudy and hillary, who are you going to vote for?

P.P.S. If you say, “I won’t vote” don’t bother responding to me again because your value will approach navel lint in my eyes.

First, I apologize as my last message was written in haste. I have no personal knowledge about you or your family and I did not mean to insinuate that I had any more vested interest in this war then you or your loved ones. Who I work for and what I do should be of no consequence in regards to this discussion and so I retract that statement.

Second, there are candidates that I prefer over Rudy and Hillary and up until you asked this question I had not anticipated choosing between the two of them. I’m not trying to cop out by any means but I would have to really look more closely at both of them before I could give you an honest answer.

[pookie]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I’ve probably typed, refined, expanded upon, and discussed in detail the reasons for the war and it’s importance upward of 1000 times.[/quote]

And all of them wrong.

Therefore, if you are interested in my thoughts in detail, please look up my name and read some of my posts.

One or two postings pretty much cover all your thoughts in detail for the past decade.

I will tell you that a precipitous withdrawal of ALL forces from Iraq will lead to a power vacuum that iran and al qaeda seem very willing to fill.

Yeah, the people of Iraq are coming home too. There will be NO ONE LEFT THERE AT ALL.

In case you haven’t noticed, there have been more brazen cross border incursions by iran lately. Two days ago, they fired on the Kurds.

Indeed.

ron paul (and you by extension) have a hard time understanding the concept of deterrence. See South Korea, Germany, and now Iraq.

It’s quite important to deter tinpot dictators from using their non-existing WMDs. Much safer too than going after the tinpots that actually HAVE WMDs. See North Korea, Pakistan, China, Russia.

The U.S.'s presence, be it major or limited, will make an aggressive dictator think twice about crossing the border.

Didn’t they just go in two days ago and shoot on the Kurds? Oops.

Now, imagine we withdrew to Fortress America. This isn’t 1776. Our enemies wouldn’t “leave us alone.” They have the ability to infiltrate and disseminate dangerous weaponery with much more ease than is commonly appreciated.

Yeah, they even have magical powers that allows them to make a variety of nuclear weaponry from 50kg on uranium. Tremble, mortals!

Again, imagine an iran/al qaeda dominated Iraq. Imagine what happens to the price of oil. Imagine the instability in the region.

Imagine if Iran had large reserves of oil right now! Imagine the chaos and ever climbing prices!

While you may blow this off in favor of the ron paul utopian conception of Fortress America, our economy is very dependant upon foreign oil. It’s also quite dependant upon foreign trade. Foreign trade can and has often been interrupted by warfare and instability.

And by Chinese lead paint.

All of these things must be factored into any decision.

In fact, even more things must be factored, but they don’t quite fit with Jeffry’s premasticated pet conclusion, so those factors must be ignored. Call them “O’Reilly factors.”

The “just leave because it was a mistake” crap that ron paul spouts, is therefore, irresponsible and reckless.

As everyone knows, when you do a colossal blunder, the best thing to do is to call it a wonderful success and keep on blundering right along.

Kinda like Jeffry’s posting history.

Eventually, you die or are voted out of office and cleaning up the mess is someone else’s job.

Make sure to blame them for the mess, though. Revisionism rules.

Now, don’t respond with, “well, it will force us to develop new sources of oil.” That’s all fine and dandy, but, if your economy is shaken to it’s very core, it’s much harder to mobilize and utilize the resources needed to implement said strategy.

Yawn. That’d make a great high school paper, Jeffry.

Finally, unless you have family members or are in Iraq/Afghanistan yourself, you probably aren’t more involved with the repercussions of the War on Terror than I am.

Yeah, no one is brave by proxy quite like our little Jeffry.

[quote]JeffR

P.S. When it comes down to Rudy and hillary, who are you going to vote for?[/quote]

You know what’s cool about that choice? It’s that no matter which one wins, your next president will wear nice dresses.

P.P.S. If you say, “I won’t vote” don’t bother responding to me again because your value will approach navel lint in my eyes.

Ah, a peer then.

[JeffR]

[quote]mstott25 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
mstott25 wrote:

I will tell you that a precipitous withdrawal of ALL forces from Iraq will lead to a power vacuum that iran and al qaeda seem very willing to fill.

This was the same logic that led to my approval of a remaining US presence in Iraq as well but I no longer accept it. Do you know how many suicide bombings there were in Iraq before OIF? Zero. Our presence has created a terror problem, not resolved one. Al Qaeda was never in contention for occupying Iraq but now we all seem so afraid that they or Iran will take over the entire nation. Why don’t we let the United Arab Emirates or the Arab League of Nations move in and make reparations?

Our presence is no longer welcomed, these people have been warring for ages and we are not going to stop them. What lessons can we learn from Vietnam or Lebanon under Reagan’s Administration? What did we learn from Mogadishu?

In case you haven’t noticed, there have been more brazen cross border incursions by iran lately. Two days ago, they fired on the Kurds.

ron paul (and you by extension) have a hard time understanding the concept of deterrence. See South Korea, Germany, and now Iraq.

The U.S.'s presence, be it major or limited, will make an aggressive dictator think twice about crossing the border.

Now, imagine we withdrew to Fortress America. This isn’t 1776. Our enemies wouldn’t “leave us alone.” They have the ability to infiltrate and disseminate dangerous weaponery with much more ease than is commonly appreciated.

Again, imagine an iran/al qaeda dominated Iraq. Imagine what happens to the price of oil. Imagine the instability in the region.

I have noticed these things about Iran but there has been much more activity coming from the Saudi border then the Iranian border and I am amazed at how easily people are falling into this incriminating picture of Iran when Arabs from Saudi Arabia, who we have been propping up since the 50’s, have been responsible for more deaths of US soldiers than Iran. Why are we constantly villanizing Iran? What about Pakistan where Osama Bin Laden has been hiding out, where British Intelligence Reports have conclusively reported that the government has been supporting terrorism in Iraq and who already has Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Why in the world are we so afraid of Iran when we are constantly bullying them and we just dominated a nation in a matter of days that they had been at war with for years? Iran is not acting as a rogue state on the offensive, they have their backs against the wall and they are afraid of the US. If this administration can convince this nation that a war with Iran is justified then I will forever preach the words of the Canadian scholar Marshall Mcluhan who long ago warned us that the “medium is the message”.

While you may blow this off in favor of the ron paul utopian conception of Fortress America, our economy is very dependant upon foreign oil. It’s also quite dependant upon foreign trade. Foreign trade can and has often been interrupted by warfare and instability.

Which is why none of these wars seem feasible in the first place. Every nation has been chomping at the bit to compete in the world marketplace, in fact that was practically the thesis for Friedman’s work on Globalization. The prospects of war and terrorism throw nations like Iran 50 years into the past. Iran has much more to lose than the United States were an attack or war to be instigated on their behalf.

That’s why the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has repeatedly asked the US to investigate the claims against Iran and he has asked to publicly debate our president to clear his name in the American Press.

What I find more frightening is that this recent crusade by the US may be ushering in a new arms race. When Iran, Russia, and China are all warning us that we are forcing them to take defensive measures maybe we should admit to ourselves that we no longer appear to the world as patriots of democracy.

The “just leave because it was a mistake” crap that ron paul spouts, is therefore, irresponsible and reckless.

Now, don’t respond with, “well, it will force us to develop new sources of oil.” That’s all fine and dandy, but, if your economy is shaken to it’s very core, it’s much harder to mobilize and utilize the resources needed to implement said strategy.

I just don’t think this is a legitimate concern. Our economy is not dependent on oil to and from Iraq. We never entered this war under the auspices that it was necessary to keep our economy stable and we certainly shouldn’t remain there under similar pretenses.

Finally, unless you have family members or are in Iraq/Afghanistan yourself, you probably aren’t more involved with the repercussions of the War on Terror than I am.

JeffR

P.S. When it comes down to Rudy and hillary, who are you going to vote for?

P.P.S. If you say, “I won’t vote” don’t bother responding to me again because your value will approach navel lint in my eyes.

First, I apologize as my last message was written in haste. I have no personal knowledge about you or your family and I did not mean to insinuate that I had any more vested interest in this war then you or your loved ones. Who I work for and what I do should be of no consequence in regards to this discussion and so I retract that statement.

Second, there are candidates that I prefer over Rudy and Hillary and up until you asked this question I had not anticipated choosing between the two of them. I’m not trying to cop out by any means but I would have to really look more closely at both of them before I could give you an honest answer. [/quote]

mstott,

Thanks again for the responses.

However, I think you are underestimating the chaos on the world markets if Iraq was taken over.

You and I both know that oil prices are raised everytime someone has a sour fart.

Imagine an aggressive, unchecked enemy in the heart of the oil fields.

JeffR

[JeffR]

[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I’ve probably typed, refined, expanded upon, and discussed in detail the reasons for the war and it’s importance upward of 1000 times.

And all of them wrong.[/quote]

Well, this is what happens when you beat the grass.

The snakes appear.

Everything I’ve said is wrong?

If you ever get married, you are going to be the worst kind of spouse.

I can see you screeching, “You spilled that, everything you do is wrong.”

[quote]Therefore, if you are interested in my thoughts in detail, please look up my name and read some of my posts.

One or two postings pretty much cover all your thoughts in detail for the past decade.[/quote]

That wasn’t nice.

Luckily, it wasn’t accurate.

Nothing new in that.

[quote]I will tell you that a precipitous withdrawal of ALL forces from Iraq will lead to a power vacuum that iran and al qaeda seem very willing to fill.

Yeah, the people of Iraq are coming home too. There will be NO ONE LEFT THERE AT ALL.[/quote]

Really?

[quote]In case you haven’t noticed, there have been more brazen cross border incursions by iran lately. Two days ago, they fired on the Kurds.

Indeed.

ron paul (and you by extension) have a hard time understanding the concept of deterrence. See South Korea, Germany, and now Iraq.

It’s quite important to deter tinpot dictators from using their non-existing WMDs. Much safer too than going after the tinpots that actually HAVE WMDs. See North Korea, Pakistan, China, Russia.[/quote]

Yes, we’ve had a long history of not standing up to brutal and dangerous regimes.

Oh, wait.

[quote]The U.S.'s presence, be it major or limited, will make an aggressive dictator think twice about crossing the border.

Didn’t they just go in two days ago and shoot on the Kurds? Oops.[/quote]

Let’s cut the garbage, pookie. You know that no matter what the provocation, you’ll be against the U.S. dealing with iran.

It’s the same old story.

You are the kid who got cut by the school play. You try to get noticed by moaning, gnashing your teeth, and pulling out your hair.

[quote]Now, imagine we withdrew to Fortress America. This isn’t 1776. Our enemies wouldn’t “leave us alone.” They have the ability to infiltrate and disseminate dangerous weaponery with much more ease than is commonly appreciated.

Yeah, they even have magical powers that allows them to make a variety of nuclear weaponry from 50kg on uranium. Tremble, mortals![/quote]

Not going to bite. You still haven’t taken care of your business.

Rules are rules.

[quote]Again, imagine an iran/al qaeda dominated Iraq. Imagine what happens to the price of oil. Imagine the instability in the region.

Imagine if Iran had large reserves of oil right now! Imagine the chaos and ever climbing prices![/quote]

Stupid.

[quote]While you may blow this off in favor of the ron paul utopian conception of Fortress America, our economy is very dependant upon foreign oil. It’s also quite dependant upon foreign trade. Foreign trade can and has often been interrupted by warfare and instability.

And by Chinese lead paint.[/quote]

More.

[quote]All of these things must be factored into any decision.

In fact, even more things must be factored, but they don’t quite fit with Jeffry’s premasticated pet conclusion, so those factors must be ignored. Call them “O’Reilly factors.”[/quote]

ALL RIGHT!!! FOX news!!! That’s a new one pookie.

You got me, I’ve linked and argued using Fox news time and again.

Wait. I haven’t, ever. Not once.

However, I’m going to start. If it makes you this mad, I’m going to start to link ONLY TO FOX NEWS!!!

[quote]The “just leave because it was a mistake” crap that ron paul spouts, is therefore, irresponsible and reckless.

As everyone knows, when you do a colossal blunder, the best thing to do is to call it a wonderful success and keep on blundering right along.[/quote]

Or you can ignore the fatuous shit-stains in non-involved countries who don’t know what they are talking about.

Oh, by the way, progress is being made.

[quote]Kinda like Jeffry’s posting history.

Eventually, you die or are voted out of office and cleaning up the mess is someone else’s job.[/quote]

GREAT!!! You are accusing Bush of passing the buck!!!

Make sure to blame them for the mess, though. Revisionism rules.

Wonderful!!! I didn’t think anyone still tried this line.

I remember bradley crying about Bush running out the clock.

Then he instituted the surge.

Now we hear the blessed sound of silence from that quarter.

However, here you are!!!

Grand!!!

[quote]Now, don’t respond with, “well, it will force us to develop new sources of oil.” That’s all fine and dandy, but, if your economy is shaken to it’s very core, it’s much harder to mobilize and utilize the resources needed to implement said strategy.

Yawn. That’d make a great high school paper, Jeffry.[/quote]

You might want to look into K-12, pookie. I don’t think you got your money’s worth.

[quote]Finally, unless you have family members or are in Iraq/Afghanistan yourself, you probably aren’t more involved with the repercussions of the War on Terror than I am.

Yeah, no one is brave by proxy quite like our little Jeffry.[/quote]

Only compared to you, watered down froggie.

[quote]JeffR

P.S. When it comes down to Rudy and hillary, who are you going to vote for?

You know what’s cool about that choice? It’s that no matter which one wins, your next president will wear nice dresses.[/quote]

One has a Johnson. That makes it Rudy one, quebec zero.

[quote]P.P.S. If you say, “I won’t vote” don’t bother responding to me again because your value will approach navel lint in my eyes.

Ah, a peer then.
[/quote]

No, you are worse.

JeffR

[Molotov_Coktease]

So, the other day I was driving down my Northern California freeway, when I look up and see a massive sign on the overpass that reads ‘JOIN THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION’.

It made my fucking day, since afterall, my freeway means more to me than fox news ever will. Or any other bullshit bought off slice of piss poor Americana. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not happy that it’s taken eons to expand the damn thing…

I’m pretty sure I could’ve gotten the job done drunk and equipped with nothing but a jackhammer and rake by now, but I digress. I was thrilled. So thrilled in fact, that I went and bought myself a huge slice of posterboard…

I felt compelled to add a few words to this mysterious message that would escape most, and by most I mean clueless, brainwashed, idiot old voters …the kind that drive like cunts on the same freeway and annoy me on my quest for punctuality on my way to work, to earn my check for social security and health care I will never see.

I got out my sharpie and I went to work. I decided on…

HEY BABYBOOMERS, GOOGLE RON PAUL AND JOIN THE REVOLUTION.

Had to be short and sweet you know. Can’t exactly write the constitution on a freeway sign, although for as much as its read or honored nowadays, I might as well have.

Yeah I’m a real cog in the movement now. I can hear your sarcastic wheels turning, creaking and moaning with your dried up old heartless blood acting as dead lube. Go and comment from the balcony like the old muppets you are. History has no place for you.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
P.S. When it comes down to Rudy and hillary, who are you going to vote for?
[/quote]
Ron Paul. Liberty rules!