ru...err,ron paul finishes second in republican debate poll on fox...

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
stevie...

if paul said those remarks, what difference does it make where gw got them ?

I was just being tongue in cheek. Those are the answers us Liberals always get from the neocons on the board.

Sometimes we are called wrong because someone who is fat agrees with us.

I don't know anything about this guy. He is against this quagmire in Iraq and iis not afraid to say so is about all I know. :shrug:
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
:mj07:

I'm looking forward to your query of Wayne along those lines when he posts a copy of a google search of blogs that are talking about something somebody actually said or did.

I won't hold my breath.

kosar....

i read your post 3 times & don't understand what you mean.....

are you saying that dtb does the samething that stevie did ? questioning the authenticity of a quote or an article ?

please type slow for me....
 

ImFeklhr

Raconteur
Forum Member
Oct 3, 2005
4,585
129
0
San Francisco
The problem with any independent/fringe candidate that has a unique opinion is that he has probably not spent his entire life molding himself for a run at higher office. Guys like Ron Paul will never have the sophisticated PR machine + money to win big races.

You have to be a robot/corrupt/rich/well oiled machine to be taken seriously in today's politics.

Before one vote is cast the choices are already down to 4 people (clinton,obama,rudy,mccain).

Too bad voters can't think for themselves, but oh well. That ship has sailed.
 

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
II don't know anything about this guy. He is against this quagmire in Iraq and iis not afraid to say so is about all I know. :shrug:
Paul has not been afraid to speak out against the war in Iraq since Bush and his henchmen first proposed the invasion. Here are his questions put to Congress in September of 2002 that make just as much sense today:


Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002

QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ
Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won?t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

4. Is it not true that the UN?s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq?s links to terrorism?

7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?

11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US, and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

19. Iraq?s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein?s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won?t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
kosar....

i read your post 3 times & don't understand what you mean.....

are you saying that dtb does the samething that stevie did ? questioning the authenticity of a quote or an article ?

please type slow for me....

I'll agree that my post wasn't that clear.

Here's my point:

Wayne, ALL THE TIME, ignores the facts and simply points to the source cited.

Same as Stevie did, although his was tongue in cheek, I believe.

Regardless, it's the same thing and I was just asking that you mete out your discipline fairly.

Like you said(paraphrasing), 'if it's true, who cares who is reporting it.'
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
I'll agree that my post wasn't that clear.

Here's my point:

Wayne, ALL THE TIME, ignores the facts and simply points to the source cited.

Same as Stevie did, although his was tongue in cheek, I believe.

Regardless, it's the same thing and I was just asking that you mete out your discipline fairly.

Like you said(paraphrasing), 'if it's true, who cares who is reporting it.'

first of all i didn't know that i was meting (sp ?) out any discipline...it was just a off the cuff comment on my part....

one of the reasons that i don't say anything to dtb or gw is because they are out numbered on the forum by a wide margin...& i don't like piling (sp ?) on....

but as you wish i will be more fair in my meting out....lol
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,913
138
63
17
L.A.
one of the reasons that i don't say anything to dtb or gw is because they are out numbered on the forum by a wide margin...& i don't like piling (sp ?) on....
Yeah, I'm sure that's it, Pops.:rolleyes:
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
one of the reasons that i don't say anything to dtb or gw is because they are out numbered on the forum by a wide margin...& i don't like piling (sp ?) on....


It wasn't always like that. In 2003/04/05, it was very balanced in here, if not tilted to the '9/11 HAPPENED AND NOW I WILL GO ALONG WITH ANYTHING' crowd.

One by one, the people that strongly supported this Iraq adventure have slinked off because there is no possible defense at this point.

To their 'credit', The Weasel and Wayne forge on endorsing this abortion. Wease more than Wayne, but it's by degree.

Don't let paranoid goofs like Sponge and SpyTheWeb cause you to reject out of hand sober arguments about this 'war.'
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,580
228
63
"the bunker"
It wasn't always like that. In 2003/04/05, it was very balanced in here, if not tilted to the '9/11 HAPPENED AND NOW I WILL GO ALONG WITH ANYTHING' crowd.

One by one, the people that strongly supported this Iraq adventure have slinked off because there is no possible defense at this point.

To their 'credit', The Weasel and Wayne forge on endorsing this abortion. Wease more than Wayne, but it's by degree.

Don't let paranoid goofs like Sponge and SpyTheWeb cause you to reject out of hand sober arguments about this 'war.'

look...you want to abruptly end the war in iraq?.......lobby your boys to grow a pair and pull the funding...

...i`d be down with it....really...then we can all deal with the real hell that results.....

but i`m on record as saying that the middle east is the garden of eden right now compared to what it will become if we leave on a set deadline....

at least maybe then,we could put all the bush insanity aside and try and forge ahead in dealing with the world-wide threat that islamofascism represents.....

hopefully...with hillary at the helm,the liberal media would be less inclined to divulge covert programs and be less likely to work toward our demise....


we`ll take some punishment.......i`m sure of that..but,hopefully when the dems realize that the resposibility for protecting america rests with them and they have to do more than just bitch, they`ll be less laissez faire about security(even though i see the dems are fighting the "whistle blower law" that sane people are trying to pass to protect good citizens like that kid from the video store and the people on that plane with the imams)....

but,we`re in even graver peril ,imo,divided as we are now....

pull the funds...bring `em home.....we`ll do a ron paul and put up the magic aclu deflector shield that protects us from every invader(except along the mexican border).........
 

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
judge...i guess that means no bet?.....
No bet and if that was a guess then I suppose that you are more astute than I have been giving you credit for.

Predictably, you do not seem to care to discuss the fact that despite Paul's claim that the US foreign "policy" in the Middle East has been the primary reason behind how that region views our country, he still made more sense than any of the other Repubican buffoons on the podium.
 

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
pull the funds...bring `em home.....we`ll do a ron paul and put up the magic aclu deflector shield that protects us from every invader(except along the mexican border).........
Here is what the tin foil hat wearer has to say about this subject. I apologize in advance if makes too much sense.


HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives
April 17, 2007

We Just Marched In (So We Can Just March Out)
All the reasons given to justify a preemptive strike against Iraq were wrong. Congress and the American people were misled.

Support for the war came from various special interests that had agitated for an invasion of Iraq since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, stated that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was official U.S. policy. This policy was carried out in 2003.

Congress failed miserably in meeting its crucial obligations as the branch of government charged with deciding whether to declare war. It wrongly and unconstitutionally transferred this power to the president, and the president did not hesitate to use it.

Although it is clear there was no cause for war, we just marched in. Our leaders deceived themselves and the public with assurances that the war was righteous and would be over quickly. Their justifications were false, and they failed to grasp even basic facts about the chaotic political and religious history of the region.

Congress bears the greater blame for this fiasco. It reneged on its responsibility to declare or not declare war. It transferred this decision-making power to the executive branch, and gave open sanction to anything the president did. In fact the founders diligently tried to prevent the executive from possessing this power, granting it to Congress alone in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

Today just about everyone acknowledges the war has gone badly, and 70% of the American people want it to end. Our national defense is weakened, the financial costs continue to drain us, our allies have deserted us, and our enemies are multiplying ? not to mention the tragic toll of death and injury suffered by American forces.

Iraq is a mess, and we urgently need a new direction- but our leaders offer only hand wringing and platitudes. They have no clear-cut ideas to end the suffering and war. Even the most ardent war hawks cannot begin to define victory in Iraq.

As an Air Force officer serving from 1963-1968, I heard the same agonizing pleas from the American people. These pleas were met with the same excuses about why we could not change a deeply flawed policy and rethink the war in Vietnam. That bloody conflict, also undeclared and unconstitutional, seems to have taught us little despite the horrific costs.

Once again, though everyone now accepts that the original justifications for invading Iraq were not legitimate, we are given excuses for not leaving. We flaunt our power by building permanent military bases and an enormous billion-dollar embassy, yet claim we have no plans to stay in Iraq permanently. Assurances that our presence in Iraq has nothing to do with oil are not believed in the Middle East.

The argument for staying- to prevent civil war and bring stability to the region- logically falls on deaf ears.
If the justifications for war were wrong;
If the war is going badly;
If we can?t afford the costs, both human and economic;
If civil war and chaos have resulted from our occupation;
If the reasons for staying are no more credible than the reasons for going;

THEN?..
Why the dilemma? The American people have spoken, and continue to speak out, against this war. So why not end it? How do we end it? Why not exactly the way we went in? We just marched in, and we can just march out.

More good things may come of it than anyone can imagine. Consider our relationship with Vietnam, now our friendly trading partner. Certainly we are doing better with her than when we tried to impose our will by force. It is time to march out of Iraq and march home.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,580
228
63
"the bunker"
No bet and if that was a guess then I suppose that you are more astute than I have been giving you credit for.

Predictably, you do not seem to care to discuss the fact that despite Paul's claim that the US foreign "policy" in the Middle East has been the primary reason behind how that region views our country, he still made more sense than any of the other Repubican buffoons on the podium.

thank you for the compliment.....:SIB

let me ask you this...if the u.s.` middle east foreign policy is responsible for our lack of popularity in the middle east,then should we base our foreign policy on a popularity poll of middle eastern citizens?...

we have good relations with relatively moderate arab countries such as jordan,,u.a.e.,egypt,qatar,bahrain,kuwait and several others......we do lots of business with the saudis.....we have to...

we`re so hated but these countries prefer us to al qaeda and iran....

should we abandon those relations because bin laden and/or al qaeda say so?....

should we abandon the only other democracy in the region(israel)?.....

should we pull the covers over our heads?...

and again, why,if it`s all our fault,is the islamofascist threat rife all over the globe?.....in countries that have little to do with us?thailand,asia,russia,africa?......

should we just forget that iran wants a nuclear weapon and that their leader threatens to wipe israel off the map?..to control by nuclear blackmail the straits of hormuz...the same iran that is supplying our enemies in iraq?....the same iran that has scared the shit out of our afforementioned allies....



wake up.....paul is nothing more than a john birch society sycophant.....the virulently anti-semitic john birch society......,in fact, ron paul's book is the "featured product of the month" at the john birch society website book store ....

paul`s not all bad,though.....he does have a "pro-hemp" voting record....

and i like his wife`s fish sticks..... :yup


;)
 
Last edited:

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,913
138
63
17
L.A.
we have good relations with relatively moderate arab countries such as jordan,,u.a.e.,egypt,qatar,bahrain,kuwait and several others......we do lots of business with the saudis.....we have to...

we`re so hated but these countries prefer us to al qaeda and iran....

;)
Our leaders have business deals with the leaders of those countries. Since 15 of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudis, obviously the nice relationship doesn't extend to the majority of the population of these countries. We TOLERATE this oppressive monarchies because of money. As long as we have lucrative business deals going, we put up with just about anything.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,503
183
63
Bowling Green Ky
Matt I believe the diff is on your blogs were caught promoting micheal moore half quotes--pics of people wailing and disguised like their locals but really libs hyping their protesting units--doctored photo's--forged docs--retractions every other day on page 23--oops did I say blogs appears you can add 60 minutes-time-newsweek ect.

Your good at doing searches go back and pull up a few--theres plenty :)

--by the way I'll donate a new one to the cause--
not out yet Have to wait till it gets to print but worth the wait :)
 
Last edited:

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,580
228
63
"the bunker"
Our leaders have business deals with the leaders of those countries. Since 15 of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudis, obviously the nice relationship doesn't extend to the majority of the population of these countries. We TOLERATE this oppressive monarchies because of money. As long as we have lucrative business deals going, we put up with just about anything.

like we tolerated stalin during ww2...like we tolerated saddam vs the mullahs.....sometimes it`s necessary...period....

yes..it`s called foreign policy...it`s done with governments...not private citizens like bin laden or terrorist groups like al qaeda......

bin laden and al qaeda....who,btw,hate us so much because our mere presence makes it more difficult for them to further their radical agenda......to establish their brutal caliphate throughout the middle east....

you think the saudi`s are radical?....who do you think is helping keep the saudi oil reserves safe from al qaeda,who have already tried to bomb the shit out of the saudi main oil facility...they`d like nothing better than to bring down the monarchy....

you aren`t ar182`s boy...you`re "little jimmy carter"....again taking the mullah`s side vs the shah....only this time it`s the bin laden`s over the monarchy....

it wasn`t in our best interests then...it`s not in our best interests now....

thank me very much....

and say hi to your old man....a fine man...excellent college football capper....
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
It wasn't always like that. In 2003/04/05, it was very balanced in here, if not tilted to the '9/11 HAPPENED AND NOW I WILL GO ALONG WITH ANYTHING' crowd.

One by one, the people that strongly supported this Iraq adventure have slinked off because there is no possible defense at this point.

To their 'credit', The Weasel and Wayne forge on endorsing this abortion. Wease more than Wayne, but it's by degree.

Don't let paranoid goofs like Sponge and SpyTheWeb cause you to reject out of hand sober arguments about this 'war.'

as far as i'm concerned discussing the iraq mess is redundant..we talked about it for years. i pretty much know everybody's position on this war. and my feelings about what's going on there is pretty much well documented here. there's nothing more for me to add.

kosar, where do i know.."nobody puts baby in the corner" ?....i've read it or heard it someplace but i can't remember where..
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Matt I believe the diff is on your blogs were caught promoting micheal moore half quotes--pics of people wailing and disguised like their locals but really libs hyping their protesting units--doctored photo's--forged docs--retractions every other day on page 23--oops did I say blogs appears you can add 60 minutes-time-newsweek ect.

Your good at doing searches go back and pull up a few--theres plenty :)

--by the way I'll donate a new one to the cause--
not out yet Have to wait till it gets to print but worth the wait :)

'My Blogs'? :shrug:

I can say with absolute certainty that i've never read any 'blog', liberal or neo-con. Not one time that hadn't been linked here or at other places. It does not interest me.

I have NO doubt that liberal blogs, conservative blogs, whatever, skew things towards their opinion.

However, if something ACTUALLY was said or done, as proven by other reputable sources, it really doesn't matter what source is cited here or otherwise. That's just me.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top