[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Paul wants to give AQ exactly what it wants. He wants to withdraw from the world. It is a complete joke. I cannot believe anyone supports this clown.
Do you not understand that it is United States foreign policy of interventionism that is causing the rest of the WORLD to ISOLATE itself from us? Do you also not understand that the United States of America is capable arming and defending itself without the need for a foreign policy of “perceived aggression”?
Exchanging goods and ideas with people is more “globally” sound than trying to always be the “good-guy”.[/quote]
Paul wants to give AQ exactly what it wants. He wants to withdraw from the world. It is a complete joke. I cannot believe anyone supports this clown.[/quote]
Just like we supported those damn communists when we withdrew from Vietnam. God I love these “arguments”
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
But, I’m giving your candidate all the respect that any candidate deserves who has not cracked 3% in any legitimate national poll.
You need to revisit the definition of the word “legitimate”. You pepper your commentary with this word in the most odd places.
Who decides legitimacy, micky?
I’ll take any polling company who has been at it for many years and who has been quoted by the national media both print and electronic. And that has a record of being correct based on the ensuing election.
-Gallup
-Harris
USA Today/CNN
And there are others.
Crazy internet polls where Nommy can vote 64 times…no I’m not accepting those.[/quote]
Those are all part of the corporate machine therefore the Paulies don’t consider them.
And how many did they murder in SE Asia after we left?
Giving them what they wanted was the wrong thing. At least we were smart enough to continue to oppose them elsewhere.[/quote]
So now we should have stayed in Vietnam also? I suppose things were going to start turning around any moment, huh? We should have stayed the course for a solid 20 years. We didn’t give Vietnam enough time, let’s not make that same mistake again. We also should have labeled Russia, China, and Vietnam an axis of evil and attacked Russia while things were still a mess in Vietnam. At least we’re not making the same mistakes we made in the past.
And how many did they murder in SE Asia after we left?
Giving them what they wanted was the wrong thing. At least we were smart enough to continue to oppose them elsewhere.
So now we should have stayed in Vietnam also? I suppose things were going to start turning around any moment, huh? We should have stayed the course for a solid 20 years. We didn’t give Vietnam enough time, let’s not make that same mistake again. We also should have labeled Russia, China, and Vietnam an axis of evil and attacked Russia while things were still a mess in Vietnam. At least we’re not making the same mistakes we made in the past. [/quote]
Maybe we should have bombed the shit out of NV when the tanks were rolling South. I have no problem with us pulling out of SV or Iraq when the timing is right. I have a major problem with completely abandoning them as Ron Paul says we should do.
As we get closer to the 08 election, and reality ultimately prevails, I wonder what the next political fleeting fad of choice will be for our resident relativist-elitist anarchist-fascists?
I suspect anything shiny that any garden variety demagogue waves in their face.
That said, a pertinent question: assuming Paul doesn’t go for a 3rd party candidacy, where will the glassy-eyed Ron Paul bobbleheads take their vote - to the GOP, the Democratic candidate, or stay at home?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As we get closer to the 08 election, and reality ultimately prevails, I wonder what the next political fleeting fad of choice will be for our resident relativist-elitist anarchist-fascists?
I suspect anything shiny that any garden variety demagogue waves in their face.
That said, a pertinent question: assuming Paul doesn’t go for a 3rd party candidacy, where will the glassy-eyed Ron Paul bobbleheads take their vote - to the GOP, the Democratic candidate, or stay at home?[/quote]
No, they will wait for the good looking, charismatic politcian that realizes that he could tap into enormous resources playing to the Paul audience…
Maybe we should have bombed the shit out of NV when the tanks were rolling South. I have no problem with us pulling out of SV or Iraq when the timing is right. I have a major problem with completely abandoning them as Ron Paul says we should do.[/quote]
I don’t want to sound like I don’t see your point because I do. You’re saying we could potentially leave things even messier then they are now and maybe even leave some sort of haven for terrorists to gather and then eventually attack the U.S. in the future.
If we were having this discussion over a beer I would not be nearly as rude or abrasive. I have gone back and forth over this war and there are several reasons why I think we should just get out of there.
First reason: I’m convinced that these terrorists are nowhere near as organized as we give them credit for. Is my opinion any more valid than anybody elses? Not necessarily, but it’s definitely more than a hunch.
Second reason: There is going to be bloodshed in Iraq no matter what happens now. Saddam kept that place in check by being a cruel motherfucker. I don’t know what is going to replace his system but I honestly don’t think U.S. forces are going to be able to eliminate all of the problems in that region. I think we might contain it for a while but sooner or later it’s going to bust wide open and somebody or something is going to have to fill that void.
Third reason: I would not want to die for this cause. I could not in good conscience send more troops to die in Iraq. If I really felt like securing Iraq would make my family safer or secure peace in this country I would have no qualms about us being there. I’m just a little hesitant to believe a government that told me we were going there because they were involved with Sep 11 and they were going to use WMD’s against us only to find out that we’re staying to make sure they can get along.
That’s all for now because I gotta go watch Dan Henderson
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As we get closer to the 08 election, and reality ultimately prevails, I wonder what the next political fleeting fad of choice will be for our resident relativist-elitist anarchist-fascists?
I suspect anything shiny that any garden variety demagogue waves in their face.
That said, a pertinent question: assuming Paul doesn’t go for a 3rd party candidacy, where will the glassy-eyed Ron Paul bobbleheads take their vote - to the GOP, the Democratic candidate, or stay at home?[/quote]
I liked Tom Tancredo but he doesn’t have much of a chance either. I think that my options would look like this for the Republicans: 1. Ron Paul 2. Tom Tancredo 3. Mitt Romney 4. John McCain 5. Fred Thompson. I don’t care for Brownback, Huckabee, Hunter or Giuliani very much at all.
As for the democrats I don’t know yet, I’m a registered republican so I’ll pay attention once they get past their primaries.
sigh I like Ron Paul. He’s my guy, but dammit, I hate people who like him. All these hosers love him for his anti-war stance; his WORST stance is what people love him for. This is so damned lame. It’s kind of like how I hate Bush, but I hate people who hate Bush even worse.
mstott25- Why would you have Paul as your #1 but Thompson as your #5? Thompson is the only other guy in the entire race, (both dems and reps) who isn’t either a socialist, bigot, or authoritarian. Thompson is the only other guy who has even spoken the word “freedom” in the entire group…I’ve been watching.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote: sigh I like Ron Paul. He’s my guy, but dammit, I hate people who like him. All these hosers love him for his anti-war stance; his WORST stance is what people love him for. This is so damned lame. It’s kind of like how I hate Bush, but I hate people who hate Bush even worse.
mstott25- Why would you have Paul as your #1 but Thompson as your #5? Thompson is the only other guy in the entire race, (both dems and reps) who isn’t either a socialist, bigot, or authoritarian. Thompson is the only other guy who has even spoken the word “freedom” in the entire group…I’ve been watching.
mike[/quote]
My thoughts exactly.
Now, if I can only figure out what in the holy hell your avatar is a schematic of.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Mikeyali wrote: sigh I like Ron Paul. He’s my guy, but dammit, I hate people who like him. All these hosers love him for his anti-war stance; his WORST stance is what people love him for. This is so damned lame. It’s kind of like how I hate Bush, but I hate people who hate Bush even worse.
mstott25- Why would you have Paul as your #1 but Thompson as your #5? Thompson is the only other guy in the entire race, (both dems and reps) who isn’t either a socialist, bigot, or authoritarian. Thompson is the only other guy who has even spoken the word “freedom” in the entire group…I’ve been watching.
mike
My thoughts exactly.
Now, if I can only figure out what in the holy hell your avatar is a schematic of. [/quote]
It’s instructions on how to heat up an MRE (meal ready to eat). They use a zinc heater or something. You stick the MRE in the bag with the heater, add water, put the whole thing into the cardboard box, and rest it up against a rock or something. in a few minutes your MRE is nice and hot. You can then use the heater as a hand warmer. The spaghetti and meatballs MRE was the best. You get peanut butter and some M&Ms with it.
And how many did they murder in SE Asia after we left?
Giving them what they wanted was the wrong thing. At least we were smart enough to continue to oppose them elsewhere.
So now we should have stayed in Vietnam also? I suppose things were going to start turning around any moment, huh? We should have stayed the course for a solid 20 years. We didn’t give Vietnam enough time, let’s not make that same mistake again. We also should have labeled Russia, China, and Vietnam an axis of evil and attacked Russia while things were still a mess in Vietnam. At least we’re not making the same mistakes we made in the past.
Maybe we should have bombed the shit out of NV when the tanks were rolling South. I have no problem with us pulling out of SV or Iraq when the timing is right. I have a major problem with completely abandoning them as Ron Paul says we should do.[/quote]
Nothing like a good Stab-in-the-back legend.
You DID TOTALLY bomb the shit out of NV.
Why can’t you cope with a future without US hegemony?
Ans yes, except for Canada, Australia and the UK (and perhaps Poland), the majorities in other countries don’t like you anymore. Bush did a great PR!
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Why can’t you cope with a future without US hegemony?
Ans yes, except for Canada, Australia and the UK (and perhaps Poland), the majorities in other countries don’t like you anymore. Bush did a great PR![/quote]
No one likes Germany. They haven’t for over one hundred years.
Who the fuck cares if you like us or not? You need us. Western Europe can get bent for all I give a shit. It is a union of jealous, petty little fucks who seem to think, and desperately want to believe, they have a relevant role in the world. They don’t.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote: sigh I like Ron Paul. He’s my guy, but dammit, I hate people who like him. All these hosers love him for his anti-war stance; his WORST stance is what people love him for. This is so damned lame. It’s kind of like how I hate Bush, but I hate people who hate Bush even worse.
mstott25- Why would you have Paul as your #1 but Thompson as your #5? Thompson is the only other guy in the entire race, (both dems and reps) who isn’t either a socialist, bigot, or authoritarian. Thompson is the only other guy who has even spoken the word “freedom” in the entire group…I’ve been watching.
mike[/quote]
As for everyone liking Ron Paul for his anti-war stance I’d have to disagree. The first time I ever heard of Paul or liked him was in the documentary Freedom to Fascism about the Federal Reserve. Look at how this thread was started and what Paul says about Martial Law, the Economy, smaller government etc.
I’m more or less excited that somebody came along with a different perspective who’s not so polished or “politicized” that he’s afraid to speak what he believes. I think in a one on one debate Paul would have more of a grasp on any position than the other candidates be it social security, the economy, the war, immigration, abortion or other issues.
As far as your view on Iraq I really wonder why people are so gung ho about this war. It seems like the main argument is for stability in that region but I just don’t think that’s a price our soldiers need to pay. This whole war was a mistake to begin with and Ron Paul seems like he actually cares about the troops and wants to get them out of an unnecessary war. I understand why people disagree but I don’t understand why they are so vehemently opposed to this viewpoint.
As far as Thompson I’ve seen and heard very little. I don’t even know if I like the guy but it’s not hard for me to like him above the candidates I didn’t list. So far Thompson is already talking about war with Iran which I hope doesn’t happen and he’s already discussing Al Qaeda in the U.S. and keeping this whole fear factor machine rolling.
He also said something about Osama bin Laden being symbolism or something that kind of confused me. Maybe he’s cleared that up after what I read. So Thompson is still tentative for me but I’m giving him a fair shot and would love to see him in the debates.