[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jeffdirect wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
I didn’t accuse you of those specific things, you have me confused with Mik. And you did that because you’re a stupid fucking little retarded anti-American asshole.
And those are your good qualities.
Learn how to post, jerko.
Judging by your 40 posts on this thread, which are your only posts on T Nation, you might want to heed your own advice…Oh, and that’s regardless of the screen name that your using.
[/quote]
Stop hating freedom
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jeffdirect wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
jeffdirect wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
I didn’t accuse you of those specific things, you have me confused with Mik. And you did that because you’re a stupid fucking little retarded anti-American asshole.
And those are your good qualities.
Learn how to post, jerko.
Judging by your 40 posts on this thread, which are your only posts on T Nation, you might want to heed your own advice…Oh, and that’s regardless of the screen name that your using.
Stop hating freedom
Stop acting like an 18 year old asshole.
[/quote]
Stop acting like a 12 year old asshole.
Hey micky, what is anti-American?
Ron Paul in his own words
( the new Rolling Stone )
-What do you make of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and current U.S. posturing toward Iran?
He’s a loudmouth, and he hurts their cause. But we help his cause when we gang up against him. When we pass sanctions against him, the dissidents in Iran who would like to get rid of him rally around him for nationalistic reasons.
We get hysterical over a guy who doesn’t have a single weapon, and nobody’s proven that he’s ever violated the arms-nonproliferation treaty. Matter of fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency is going to have an agreement with him by the end of the year. That’s why you have all of this warmongering going on: It is to try to find an excuse to start bombing him before they prove that he doesn’t have a chance of having a weapon. That’s exactly what we did with Iraq. I’m scared to death they’re getting ready to do that with Iran.
-The Bush administration says Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgency. How much can we trust that assessment?
About as much as what we heard about Iraq before the war. What was true about that? Very, very little, if anything. They’re capable of telling us anything if they want to go to war. And that’s what they want.
Whether the Iranians have helped the insurgency or not is almost irrelevant from my viewpoint. Why wouldn’t they have an interest? It’s like saying that if the Russians were in Mexico, we wouldn’t have an interest in who wins that war. We’d have every right. They’re the next-door neighbor.
-But the administration alleges that the Iranians aren’t just backing the Shia against the Sunni �?? they are complicit in the slaughter of our soldiers.
I haven’t seen any proof of that. They’re assuming that it’s true, but that’s part of the war hysteria that’s going on.
-Giuliani seems to be the warmonger in chief �?? leading the drumbeat for war with Iran. What would a Giuliani presidency mean for our national security?
If someone is unhappy with the Bush policy, they would find Giuliani’s would be even more extreme. But since Giuliani is so anxious to go to war, somebody ought to ask him why he didn’t go when he was called up instead of ducking it like some of those other chicken hawks �?? he took, what, four deferrals?
The kids today are expected to go because Giuliani likes this stuff. But whether it’s Cheney or Giuliani, these guys think it’s quite proper to go to war when they feel like it. But they never had to expose themselves.
-In a recent debate, you blasted Mike Huckabee for supporting the war, saying we’re only staying in Iraq “to save face.” But wouldn’t leaving Iraq be a propaganda victory for bin Laden?
Everything is much worse if we stay. Right now they’re very content to bleed us in Iraq. Bleed us financially and by killing Americans. We lose lives, we spend money we don’t have, it furthers our financial crisis. The longer we’re there, the stronger Al Qaeda gets. Our being there is the greatest incentive *conceivable to help Osama bin Laden. The evidence is very clear. There’s more Al Qaeda now than before. Which means we’re in greater danger of being hit by terrorists than before.
Besides, who are the people telling us there’ll be problems if we leave? The same ones who said it would be a *cakewalk. What kind of credibility do they have?
-You talk about limiting the size of government. How much of the Pentagon’s budget would you ax?
We are now spending close to a trillion dollars a year, when you add up every single thing we do overseas. You could start off easily cutting $100 billion. Bring the troops home, you could save $200 billion the next year. And maybe $250 billion the year after that.
Quit paying to blow up bridges in Iraq and then paying to rebuild them. Bring that money home. Our bridges are falling down. Our levees are falling down. The only way we can get enough money is by stopping this insane foreign policy of running this empire that we can’t afford. Policing the world? It’s impossible.
I say, just quit it. Let’s come home. Bring the troops home. Quit spending the money. Get rid of selective service. Don’t have the draft. And no more wars like this. It’s a real tragedy and a real black mark on our record.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jeffdirect wrote:
I say, just quit it. Let’s come home. Bring the troops home. Quit spending the money. And no more wars like this.
Well there you have it, Ron Pauls complete foreign policy.
The man’s naivete knows no bounds.[/quote]
“It’s a real tragedy and a real black mark on our record.”
Not for everybody, apparently…
To see a libertarian, paleo-conservative, Austrian economist getting air time from every major media outlet in the United States is completely unprecedented and amazing.
He has already “won”, because he’s gone farther than anyone before him, and, in so doing, paved the way for others to follow.
Who would have thought we’d ever seen Austrian economics in Rolling Stone? The liberal NY Times? It’s a great day to be a libertarian!
Ron Paul’s got a chance.
PS - Can’t wait for the CNN Youtube Debate this Wednesday!
Spouts conspiracy theories about Paul supporters falsifying the $$ donations received from military.
Always falsly refers himself as a patriot.
Hates the arabs and the US constitution.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
How to identify a Ron Paul supporter:
The individual posted at the link below for example?
Ph.D. economists, physicists, professional investors (Peter Schiff, President of Euro-Pacific Capital is a good example), and many other varied blue-collar and white-collar occupations support Dr. Paul’s campaign. Additionally, it’s quite unrealistic to believe the, as of this writing, $9.16 million contributed this quarter to Paul’s primary campaign was raised strictly or largely by “kids who live in their mother’s basement.”
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Hey…guess what Cloakster?
We all get to see when January rolls around-Paul either has the people behind him or he doesn’t. It’s not like this is going to be a great mystery of the ages.
Then again…probably not huh?
[/quote]
Could be. As you’ll recall I’ve never stated that Ron Paul’s Republican bid is a “sure thing”, or a “shoe in.” Rather, a successful nomination is unlikely. However, there is a great deal to be said about voting one’s conscience.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
It could be that the major pollsters like Harris, Zogby and Gallup are just in cahoots together. Could be their all just afraid of a Ron Paul Presidency.
[/quote]
Dr. Paul’s poll numbers in the NH primary bid has, over the course of the campaign season, risen from 1%, 2%, 4%, to presently 8%. These increases are obviously doubling with rapidity. However, I can’t confidently see a further doubling to 16% by January 8th.
[i]Tuesday, November 13, 2007
RON PAUL
Zogby Predicts Ron Paul Could Get 15 to 18 Percent in New Hampshire
On the Sean Hannity radio program, pollster John Zogby said that Texas Congressman Ron Paul could end up surprising the field - and “embarass a lot of the frontrunners” by wildly exceeding expectations taking 15 to 18 percent in the New Hampshire primary.
An incredulous Hannity asked, “You don’t see any chance he wins this thing, do you?” Zogby said no.
A Zogby poll in September found Paul with 3 percent of the vote. Three recent polls - St. Anselm, Marist, and the Globe/University of New Hampshire have put Paul at 7 percent.
11/13 05:28 PM
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmVkNGYwYzA1ZmJhMDBjOTAxN2IyZjc2YzEwOGUxZjk=
[/i]
Of course, whether or not Dr. Paul attains even these numbers remains to be seen, though I do attempt to maintain an optimistic outlook. Again however, regardless of Dr. Paul’s eventual position at the NH primary this January, whether 1st place, last place, or somewhere between these points, it’s important to vote one’s conscience. Mine happens to lie within Dr. Paul’s court.
For curiosity purposes, who has your vote?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
And tell me “18” & “19” doesn’t remind you of Lifty and Nommy…WOW.
Becomes emotionally distressed when someone says something remotely bad about “Dr. Paul”.
Spouts conspiracy theories about the mainstream media fixing polls because they’re “afraid of a Ron Paul presidency”.
[/quote]
This is a blatant fabrication. I never said or did anything of the sort.
For the record, the MSM hasn’t fixed anything against Ron Paul. I stated the reason why he was polling low months ago (no longer), and it had nothing to do with a conspiracy, just low name recognition.
Now, back to ignoring you (because you slander).
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
How to identify a Ron Paul supporter:
The individual posted at the link below for example?
…"[/quote]
Is that Val Venis?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
cloakmanor wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
How to identify a Ron Paul supporter:
The individual posted at the link below for example?
…"
Is that Val Venis?
[/quote]
Not knowing who that was, I checked, and the answer is yes.