Ron Paul

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

Quote

Let's not dissect RP's words as if he was under oath, and being deposed.

Yes, and while we are at it, let's not for one second question our original assumptions about what was being said and what was meant. Let us form our opinions in stone and resolutely ignore any evidence that may be contrary to our beliefs. Furthermore, let us present those opinions to the masses as irrefutable fact.


I have watched the video of the debate, and I have watched that exchange several times. Why? Because I thought, maybe you were right and I wanted to review my impressions to see if maybe my pro-paul bias had colored my interpretation of his words.

At this point, I am fine to agree that you and I have different interpretations of that exchange. I am not fine however with you presenting your version as fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9GnvcGP7LU

Sorry, I can't make the above a clicky, for some reason... Check it out. I have boosted no other candidate, other than to say Gingrich would batter Obama in a debate.
I also have listened several times to RP. He is wrong about the UN report. I have provided the web site to the IAEA and the specific report MB speaks about in previous posts. RP says that MB is wrong, that there is no report. WRONG. RP then reverses his own words, twice.
I do not have selective hearing. I hear exactly what the man says.

[diverborg 0]

While I understand the fears. I have a slightly different interpretation of his foreign policy than you do.

Not that its going to change your opinion of him, but you do realize that he voted in favor of going into Afghanistan after 9/11. I don't see him as a pushover, I just see him as one who wants to avoid a rerun of the Iraq war, which IMO is eerily similar to the Iran situation.

I guess I just disagree with your conclusions. I don't see avoiding meddling in other country's affairs as risking anybody's lives. When retaliation or defense is on the line, I haven't come to the conclusion that RP would hesitate to take action based on anything he's said so far.

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

Quote

As a former service member, that RP, by virtue of his policy statements, does not, to my mind, treasure the safety of our troops is very disturbing.

Please tell me what policy indicates that he does not treasure the safety of our troops? I have trouble seeing how they would be safer invading Iran preemptively rather than at home protecting the country on our soil.

It has become clear to me that if anyone other than Ron Paul is elected, including Obama, we will find ourselves at war with Iran within their term of office. It sounds to me like you believe that is what we should be doing.

Any policy, such as RP's Iranian appeasement notion, risks safety of the US and endangers US troops and citizens. That policy tells me that RP is too cavalier with the welfare of those who are the first responders to events.
BTW......... Who said anything about invading Iran? As far as Iran, the US can stand off and by submarine reduce Iran to a burned out volcano crater without endangering so much as a fingernail.
The danger to the US and don't forget that our troops are also citizens, is the world wide terror network funded by Iran. Brush fire terror incidents are the preferred manner of warfare for the foreseeable future. That type of war necessitates boots on the ground. Therefore a strong deterant is better than any reaction to an event.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9GnvcGP7LU

Sorry, I can't make the above a clicky, for some reason...

Click the "URL" button underneath the posting window, paste your link, then click the "URL" button again.

Alternately (substitute [ ] for < >), weblink

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

While I understand the fears. I have a slightly different interpretation of his foreign policy than you do.

Not that its going to change your opinion of him, but you do realize that he voted in favor of going into Afghanistan after 9/11. I don't see him as a pushover, I just see him as one who wants to avoid a rerun of the Iraq war, which IMO is eerily similar to the Iran situation.

I guess I just disagree with your conclusions. I don't see avoiding meddling in other country's affairs as risking anybody's lives. When retaliation or defense is on the line, I haven't come to the conclusion that RP would hesitate to take action based on anything he's said so far.

RP is on record as saying that his solution to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would be to "make friends with them." Again, I don't care to convince anyone. I know what I hear RP say, and it has convinced me that he's not electable, or after the recent debate, even in touch.
That RP voted in favor of the Afghan attack after 9/11 says very little. If memory serves, only Dennis Kucinich out of the entire Senate and House voted against the attack. So what?
America needs a leader. RP was not in the vanguard of the Kongress on Afghanistan. Nor was he very vocal either way.
The Iraq war was made longer and more costly by the Bush administrations mishandling, and by the Iranians. For the last few years the Allies in Iraq have been fighting surrogates funded, armed and guided by the Iranians. The recent unexplained explosions at Iranian ammo dumps, nuclear facilities, rocket fuel plants tell us that the war is already in progress.
So far, the only two I see as being anything near being a statesman are Romney, and Gingrich. Either would drop Obama.

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9GnvcGP7LU

Sorry, I can't make the above a clicky, for some reason...

Click the "URL" button underneath the posting window, paste your link, then click the "URL" button again.

Alternately (substitute [ ] for ), weblink

Thx..... Sometimes this inner-nut stuff....

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

A refusal to educate yourself on the facts of the discussion

That's your spin of what I said; it's not what I said. I have no patience for that game.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I urge people to listen to the entire debate.

I would sooner plunge a white-hot branding iron into my eyes.

What if the Trump hosted debate had happened? That might have been good for some laughs.

Is there anyone out there that has watched more than 5 of the 100(?) plus debates since last March? Thankfully, Jon Stewart compresses them down nicely.

[billvon 2,380]

>RP says that MB is wrong, that there is no report.

No, he says that there is no report THAT SAYS WHAT SHE SAYS.

Let's put it in perspective:

Injured whuffo: Joe DZO should pay me ten million dollars in damages. He ignored the USPA information manual that says that all students have to make a tandem first, and I got hurt as a result.

Skydiver: There is no USPA manual that says that.

Was the skydiver saying that there is no SIM? Or were they saying that USPA has nothing that says that says that all students have to make a tandem first?

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

>RP says that MB is wrong, that there is no report.

No, he says that there is no report THAT SAYS WHAT SHE SAYS.

Let's put it in perspective:

Injured whuffo: Joe DZO should pay me ten million dollars in damages. He ignored the USPA information manual that says that all students have to make a tandem first, and I got hurt as a result.

Skydiver: There is no USPA manual that says that.

Was the skydiver saying that there is no SIM? Or were they saying that USPA has nothing that says that says that all students have to make a tandem first?

See 2:19 of the youtube vid.
RP says that there is "no UN report that says that." In the context that RP spoke I an convinced that he was denying the existence of the report.
There are reams of UN reports and IAEA reports that cite tangible, real evidence that Iran is attempting to develop a nuclear weapon. The entire UN Security Council unanimously disagrees with RP.
I think that MB, as well as RP and all the other debaters during their debates are allowed to paraphrase. To hold them to a strict rule of exactness would be not only counter productive, but impossible to manage. I allow for RP to paraphrase, but he is wrong on too many points.
RP is wrong again, later as to Iranian heavy water, and enriched fuel. In the November 2011 report, IAEA cites Iranian official communications that admit to Iran having heavy water. Iran also admits to enriching fuel and says that Iran will continue to do so in official Iranian dispatches. Refer to the IAEA report. I posted it earlier.
I do not boost any candidate. How was Korea?

[billvon 2,380]

>RP says that there is "no UN report that says that."

And he is correct. There is no UN report that says "literally, Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that weapon." The report said that Iran is developing the FACILITIES that would allow them to begin work on a bomb. She misread it - and intentional misreadings that just happen to help the candidate's political stance are quite common. He just caught her at it.

>How was Korea?

Cold! And all the robots waving flags in construction areas were pretty funny.

[jdfreefly 1]

Maybe that was harsh...You said you would rather take a hot poker in the eye than listen to the debate. The thread is largely about the content of that debate so I think if people want to be part of the discussion it stands to reason that they should try to educate themselves about the facts.

I would argue strongly that even if you've already decided to vote for Obama in the coming election you should watch the republican debates now, what they say now (when they are pandering for votes from registered Republicans) will be very different from what they say later (when they are pandering to the undecided, and on the fence Democrats).

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[rushmc 18]

This newsletter thing will explode on him even more since he has now walked out on the CNN interview. He did that because the interviewer would not let the topic drop. (and I don’t blame Paul but, he just exacerbated the issue by walking out)

http://www.google.com/search?q=Ron+Paul+published+newsletter&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=2&prmd=ivnsuo&source=lnms&tbm=nws&ei=FHbzTseLGsnXgQfwlLGVAg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=4&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAw&safe=images&oq=Ron+Paul+published+newsletter&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=28185l30357l0l32560l10l10l0l0l0l3l234l1954l0.3.7l10l0

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[hwt 0]

Quote

Quote

While I understand the fears. I have a slightly different interpretation of his foreign policy than you do.

Not that its going to change your opinion of him, but you do realize that he voted in favor of going into Afghanistan after 9/11. I don't see him as a pushover, I just see him as one who wants to avoid a rerun of the Iraq war, which IMO is eerily similar to the Iran situation.


I guess I just disagree with your conclusions. I don't see avoiding meddling in other country's affairs as risking anybody's lives. When retaliation or defense is on the line, I haven't come to the conclusion that RP would hesitate to take action based on anything he's said so far.

RP is on record as saying that his solution to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would be to "make friends with them." Again, I don't care to convince anyone. I know what I hear RP say, and it has convinced me that he's not electable, or after the recent debate, even in touch.
That RP voted in favor of the Afghan attack after 9/11 says very little. If memory serves, only Dennis Kucinich out of the entire Senate and House voted against the attack. So what?
America needs a leader. RP was not in the vanguard of the Kongress on Afghanistan. Nor was he very vocal either way.
The Iraq war was made longer and more costly by the Bush administrations mishandling, and by the Iranians. For the last few years the Allies in Iraq have been fighting surrogates funded, armed and guided by the Iranians. The recent unexplained explosions at Iranian ammo dumps, nuclear facilities, rocket fuel plants tell us that the war is already in progress.
So far, the only two I see as being anything near being a statesman are Romney, and Gingrich. Either would drop Obama.

______________________________________________
You are dead wrong ... Newt or Romney cannot win without the Ron Paul supporters and they will not switch from him...Newt and Romney are corrupt and owned by the bankers...statesman my ass.

Ron Paul is bringing in new GOP blood from Democrats and independents who want a chance for peace...How can Obama beat Ron Paul ? He can't, the numbers don't lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhxJ1XUGLR0

[billvon 2,380]

>How can Obama beat Ron Paul ? He can't, the numbers don't lie.

That may be true but the GOP will never nominate him.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>How can Obama beat Ron Paul ? He can't, the numbers don't lie.

That may be true but the GOP will never nominate him.

Obama v Ron Paul = an election over a week after the GOP convention.

And if they don't nominate him, are his supporters really going to vote for Obama over Newt or Romney?

[hwt 0]

Quote

>How can Obama beat Ron Paul ? He can't, the numbers don't lie.

That may be true but the GOP will never nominate him.

News Flash...Ron Paul is winning Iowa big...
Ron Paul looks to win N.H. and Ron Paul has Nevada in the bag...He is the next president...

[hwt 0]

Quote

On the lighter side, they've made one of these videos for most the GOP candidates out there, but Ron Paul's is the best IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w2-n3U5Mm4

________________________________________
“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals . . .
By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racists . . .
we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.”
Ron Paul

[quade 3]

Quote

News Flash...Ron Paul is winning Iowa big...
Ron Paul looks to win N.H. and Ron Paul has Nevada in the bag...He is the next president...

You're obviously offering good odds. What are they 20:1? I'll take a piece of that action. Can you put me down for $5?



<----- (Has never lost a bet on DZ.com)

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

>How can Obama beat Ron Paul ? He can't, the numbers don't lie.

That may be true but the GOP will never nominate him.

News Flash...Ron Paul is winning Iowa big...
Ron Paul looks to win N.H. and Ron Paul has Nevada in the bag...He is the next president...

News flash
A poll today show the Romney leads with 25% of the vote of

of


likely caucus goers

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

While I understand the fears. I have a slightly different interpretation of his foreign policy than you do.

Not that its going to change your opinion of him, but you do realize that he voted in favor of going into Afghanistan after 9/11. I don't see him as a pushover, I just see him as one who wants to avoid a rerun of the Iraq war, which IMO is eerily similar to the Iran situation.


I guess I just disagree with your conclusions. I don't see avoiding meddling in other country's affairs as risking anybody's lives. When retaliation or defense is on the line, I haven't come to the conclusion that RP would hesitate to take action based on anything he's said so far.

RP is on record as saying that his solution to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would be to "make friends with them." Again, I don't care to convince anyone. I know what I hear RP say, and it has convinced me that he's not electable, or after the recent debate, even in touch.
That RP voted in favor of the Afghan attack after 9/11 says very little. If memory serves, only Dennis Kucinich out of the entire Senate and House voted against the attack. So what?
America needs a leader. RP was not in the vanguard of the Kongress on Afghanistan. Nor was he very vocal either way.
The Iraq war was made longer and more costly by the Bush administrations mishandling, and by the Iranians. For the last few years the Allies in Iraq have been fighting surrogates funded, armed and guided by the Iranians. The recent unexplained explosions at Iranian ammo dumps, nuclear facilities, rocket fuel plants tell us that the war is already in progress.
So far, the only two I see as being anything near being a statesman are Romney, and Gingrich. Either would drop Obama.

______________________________________________
You are dead wrong ... Newt or Romney cannot win without the Ron Paul supporters and they will not switch from him...Newt and Romney are corrupt and owned by the bankers...statesman my ass.

Ron Paul is bringing in new GOP blood from Democrats and independents who want a chance for peace...How can Obama beat Ron Paul ? He can't, the numbers don't lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhxJ1XUGLR0

I hope you are not calling Ron Paul's hysterical high pitched screeching at the last debate statesmanship?
That's a dandy crystal ball you have there. We shall see in the election who does what. For my part, I dropped out of politics many years ago. I'm actively working against Ron Paul now. I am convinced that he's a danger to our country.
Thanks for getting my spirit pumped up. Being retired and still young gives one the time to get back in the circuit with old friends in the power structure.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

News Flash...Ron Paul is winning Iowa big...
Ron Paul looks to win N.H. and Ron Paul has Nevada in the bag...He is the next president...

was this a vision in a sweat lodge?

[rushmc 18]

http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-CNN-EXPOSES-Ron-Paul-s-anti-Semitic-remarks-and-links-to-NEO-NAZIS

From CNN

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[diverborg 0]

Surely you realize how ridiculous this is. So 22 years ago someone else wrote some articles that RP says he didn't write and disavows. Move on. But, when debating him on the issues fails, its time to result to character attacks and this is the best they can come up with?

I wouldn't necessarily call that "storming out" either, like every headline read. He answered her same question the same way about 5 times and decided that was enough, and ended the interview and even said thank you at the end. For all we know he had other things to do.

Smear tactics at their best right here. Who cares though, this pales in comparison to the baggage and inconsistencies that Newt and Romney are carrying around, yet this is the one topping the headlines everywhere. "RP storms out of interview over questions about racist articles". Please.

If anybody isn't going to vote for RP based on this, they weren't going to vote for him anyway.

I also love how they try to spin it like hes lying because he said he never read these specific articles back then, and in another sentence said he reads some of the publishings. So reading some of the publishings equates to reading the specific racial articles?

Then the quotes that they're hanging over his head that he didn't deny writing. Have you seen the full context of those articles? Showing that little snippet is about as dirty and slanderous as it can get. He was criticizing the justice system for ratios of prisoners and said based on their ratios that would lead us to conclude that 90-95% of black people are criminals (which obviously isn't the case). Gupta needs to be called out on that BS.

If Ron Paul was such a dangerous racist he wouldn't suggest pardoning all prisoners that are only in prison because of non-violent drug crimes.

[Andy9o8 0]

Gingrich and Perry have apparently failed to qualify for the VA Primary - one of the Super Tuesday primaries; and VA's a very important state. If that ruling sticks (esp. re: Newt), it could benefit RP.