So let me wrap up then with one of the most unholy statements I've ever made...
Thank heavens for Ron Paul. Of all the candidates running for US president in the spring of 2007, Ron Paul has clearly done more than the rest of them put together to inject serious talk about real issues. Whether you agree with his outlook on any given issue, he's got a serious and well considered viewpoint that bears consideration.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments226 - Clavos
Don't sell the forge and anvil, troll :>)
227 - Richard Brodie
Al says: This is some hysterical nonsense, just the kind of thing to make a sympathetic person such as myself turn against your guy.
Talk about inconsistent nonsense. First you try to portray this patriotic woman as being so full of non-sequiturs and untruths as to be unworthy of your high and mighty grammatically correct self, condescending to try understand what she is saying. Then you say that her "screeds" have so much power over you that you would allow some of her "hysterical nonsense" (as you perceive it) to sway you into changing your mind about being "sympathetic" towards "her guy". What a spineless POS you are!
And it should be obvious to you, as it is to me (and I'm sure is to her to), that Bush is not right now literally wiretapping every individual in the country. That is merely a hyperbolic way of stating that he has put into effect the justification for wiretapping anyone his government wants to. Furthermore, the National I.D. is just the first small step towards chipping us all with Real I.D. And as technology advances those implanted chips may well be able to pick up and transmit whatever comes out of our mouths, and not just when were on the phone - the ultimate wireless tap.
228 - Pamela/American
Al: Pamela/American writes these long screeds for comments. They mix bromides with invective, and sound very rousing and patriotic - but they're largely strings of non-sequiturs. They don't make any coherent statement internally, and completely don't respond to anything in the real world, eg other people's questions and objections in this thread.
Pamela: Interesting I was thinking a similar thing about your hit piece on Ron Paul. Your thoughts are so far from the pulse of the American people that it astounds me.
Believing in protecting my rights does not respond to anything in the real world? What world are you living in Al? What rights were you ok with losing? How many rights will be enough for you to think...ok that's enough, they have gone too far? Do I have to be a clone thinker to participate in your thread? Or do you still recognize people can think for themselves and they just might find themselves disagreeing with you?
Al: Nearly every single sentence of this either says something that doesn't follow from what she said before, or something that is certainly not true.
Pamela: Indeed I have many views on many various issues. It's called independent thinking. I do not allow the mainstream media to place my focus only on what they want me to see. Indeed I do watch a lot of issues, even the ones you yourself appearently want to ingore. Just because you refuse to see it as true does not make it so. Just continues to show how writers like you are a part of the problem.
Pamela:I am FAR more concerned with the RIGHTS I have lost due to The Patriot Acts and The Homeland Security Acts then I am about seeing more American soldiers die in yet another unprovoked war.
Al:There's simply no logical connection here. What exactly does one have to do with the other?
Pamela: In case you hadn't noticed Al-they have gone together irregardless if you liked it or not. As they increase these wars on "terror" meaning anybody they want to target next-forget proof, they are stripping more of OUR rights saying of course these illegal attacks against our constitutional rights are intended for getting the terrorists.
How many have they caught so far Al? Several of the first alledge highjackers have been found very much alive. Bin Laden is still out there and that list is growing isn't it?
Did you get your rights back yet? Me niether. Do you see an end to these wars or for that matter an end to the legislation they continue to pass that strips more of our rights based upon these wars against these "terrorists"?
Al: Why can't we have BOTH? I spent 2004 running AGAINST the Patriot Act and FOR a hawkish foreign policy.
Pamela: Because you are asking for the unthinkable when you confuse security with giving up our freedom. You want to go after these countries that did not strike us-based upon lies. While ignoring Saudi Arabia that has a majority of the highjackers they alledged that came from there, while we Americans DO continue to lose our rights as they enslave the people of Iraq in the process. All for what? Again, do you feel safer yet? Have they caught the bad guys?
Al: Those points seem to me to fit together. That is, I hope that beating crap out of fools in their own backyards will minimize them getting here and creating pressures that result in the need for curtailment of our domestic liberties. We won't need to see what they're looking at in our libraries if we kill them in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Pamela: Indeed there's nothing like picking a fight with the wrong guy, and beating him up at his own house, to then justify actions like destroying his whole house, and killing his family, that should have never taken place in the first place. What part of WRONG guy do you not get?
Al: "Need for the curtailment of our domestic liberties".
Pamela: Make up your mind here Al. Why not just say you agree with the hogwash of letting them strip our rights based upon these lies of protection while going after the WRONG country. You want the fighting and you could care less if it's the wrong country. These Actions will indeed create MORE enemies for us to possibly fight right here at home-the borders are open so they can walk right in now can't they?
These People were accused of doing something they did NOT do, for something they had nothing to do with, and then to see thousands of their innocents die because of that lie, it does tend to make enemies doesn't it?
Fighting along "their borders" while our borders remain wide open has done absolutely NOTHING for our security either and it never will.
We wouldn't need to see what anyone was looking at in our libraries if we stopped funding, training and arming these people that we later turn into our enemies for power, natural resources, and political gain.
Bush is wiretapping the ENTIRE nation.
Al: That's just not true. This is some hysterical nonsense, just the kind of thing to make a sympathetic person such as myself turn against your guy.
Pamela: Ok sue me I used poetic license to get a serious point across about wire tapping. You ok with illegal wiretapping Al? You ok with losing your rights to privacy too?
Sympathetic person? You've got to be kidding. You are a lot like this government you want to so desperately give a free pass too for betraying YOU as a citizen too. You build Ron Paul up just so you can make him the mortal enemy. Just like we did with Sadam and Bin Laden. Ever thought of running for office Al? I think you'd fit right in with that back stabbing mentality.
I do not need to do a thing to try and change the mind of someone who took great care in crafting a major hit piece on Ron Paul disguised as some charity olive branch.
8 years of Clinton was appearently not enough for you and it appears from your own words YOU have already made up your mind that you would vote for more corruption in the White House because you think that is how the "popular" vote will go...conform, conform at all expense. While quickly forgetting what you said you fought for... against the Patriot Acts.
Think Hillary will change any of our foriegn policies and give you back your rights? Clinton did nothing to change the foreign policies of Bush SR. Did nothing to get Bin Laden when he was handed to him on a silver platter, and definitly wanted to install The Patriot Acts right after the OKlahoma bombing. So we know where that family stands on those issue too.
Do you know what you would stand for anymore Al...or is having only the accepted public opinion revealed in your printed words more important then your own rights and having an independent thought still in your head?
229 - Dave Nalle
Looking at Dave Nalle, one can see where the next generaion of Rumsfelds, Cheneys, Chertoffs, etc. is going to come from.
So in the next generation we're replacing Neocons with Libertarians? I worked on the McBride, Clark, Hospers and Paul presidential campaigns, was state chairman of the SLS and Students for Clark, and was an actual paid employee of the LP back when it had money. I also ran for office as a Libertarian in 2002.
That ought to give you a hint that there IS a problem with Ron Paul. Al Barger also ran for office as a Libertarian. Eric Dondero is a well known Libertarian who used to WORK for Paul. What does it suggest when long-time Libertarians who are or have been closely involved with the party lack confidence in Paul? What does it suggest when those concerns are shared for someewhat different reasons by Libertarian-leaning Republicans? The people who know him best are the most reluctant to push him heavily.
Thanks, I have been looking and it is of great concern. When we have an audience at a GOP debate willing to cheer for torture that also greatly concerns me.
Could you cite for me which debate and which comment resulted in people cheering for torture, because I sure didn't see it.
What is of most concern is how it is unbelievable that any American citizens would not see the importance of fighting for their own rights?
How about the right to an abortion, or the right not to have prayer in schools? Paul would do away with both of those.
I don't care if they vote for Ron Paul or not. Let's hope they at least know their own Constitution and realize just why those rights are so important.
I'd like to see Paul as a VP candidate. Putting him in a position where he can get his message out without being able to do any harm would be a good thing.
As so many are steered to only see the war mantras to keep that blind hate alive, while refusing to see how our governments aggressive actions in the Middle East are only "increasing" our enemies, many Like Dave allow themselves to be filled with hate enough to attack the very people who are trying to show him that "his" rights too are being stripped from him.
This is pure fabulism and wishful thinking. Because you're so enraged and feel so powerless you want to think that anyone who favors rational government is some sort of oppressive warmonger, but there's just not evidence to support it. Some of us realize that defending our nations interests and protecting the safety of citizens is one of the basic steps to protecting the Constitution and our rights.
THAT is the reason why Ron Paul continues to gain more and more support. Not because he's some incredible dynamic speaker, but because he speaks the stark truth.
Would that be the 'truth' he repeatedly speaks about the conspiracy of 'international bankers' (code word for Jews)? I imagine that 'truth' is very appealing to you - I know it's why Richard Brodie loves Paul.
He really KNOWS the issues the "people" care about, because they are issues that directly affect our rights and our future. He is actually working FOR the people and doing what all politicians are SUPPOSED to do-he is being a voice for the people. He is speaking for those voices that are being buried by the mainstream media to help these sell outs stay on this course of what amounts to betraying our own people while staying on this path of invading more coutries-pre-emptively and unprovoked.
Most of the people have no idea what Paul is talking about most of the time and could care less. You're making the mistake of thinking that because YOU agree with him everyone else must also. In fact, most people probably think he's a bit nuts and kind of scary.
We have fleets of ships and planes who are conducting "military exersizes" right off the coast of Iran. No, we haven't hit them....yet, but it's the same as swinging at someone and barely missing their face. They conducted these "military exersizes" just before we were to sit down for talks with Iran.
We have forces in Iraq and naval forces off the coast supporting them. Off the coast of Iraq IS off the coast of Iran. The exercises you're talking about were training programs for the Iraqi military, which needs to be prepared to defend itself from invasion from Iran.
How do you feel about theocratic dictatorships which want to conquer the world and force everyone to convert to their religion? This is the stated objective of Iran's current regime. The Iraqis aren't too excited about living next to them and want to be able to defend themselves. Why is it unreasonable for us to help them?
We are "provoking" this war against a country we already helped to dismantale in the past (their people haven't forgotten it either)
I know. The anger from the Iranian educated and business classes - now mostly in exile - over our abandonment of the Shah is intense.
With or borders wide open, and our military spread even thinner, just who does Dave think will be HERE to protect US after these enemies unite against us?
I think our national guard should be recalled from overseas service, we should shut down our military bases in most foreign countries to provide replacements in Iraq. Ultimately we should reduce our involvement in the middle east to a rapid reaction force based primarily on board the ships of our sizeable fleet in the area.
Surely Dave knew that Iran was building a coalition against us with our enemies in the Middle East right?
Of course. Who didn't know that? It's why we invaded Iraq in the first place, to cut off Iran's connections with their allies in Syria and Lebanon and to pressure them with armies on both of their major borders.
Surely Dave knew that because of our governments aggressive invasions in the Middle East, Iran is having no problems finding takers to join them so they will not be sitting there alone like Iraq was right?
Iran wasn't having problems finding allies before we invaded Iraq. They just used Israel to motivate them.
Dave do share with us all how much you yourself know about our current foriegn policies and just who you think as our next President will help OUR country?
I'm pretty damned familiar with our foreign policy, ill-conceived mishmash that it is. The key thing is not to have a president who overreacts in the direction of isolationism or excessive internationalism. We need to remain engaged internationally, even if we abandon the policy of interventionism.
Dave
230 - Dave Nalle
Pamela/American writes these long screeds for comments. They mix bromides with invective, and sound very rousing and patriotic - but they're largely strings of non-sequiturs.
Don't forget the healthy dollops of fearmongering, conspiracy mania and what appears to be clumsily concealed racism.
Dave
231 - MBD
Why do the neocons fear Ron Paul?
232 - MBD
Nallecon says: “It's why we invaded Iraq in the first place, to cut off Iran's connections with their allies in Syria and Lebanon and to pressure them with armies on both of their major borders.”
I must be immune to the danger these countries present to the security of the United States.
For decades, I lost no sleep worrying about Iran, Iraq, Syria or Lebanon.
It’s clear that during the same period, Nallecon was worrying and had nightmares every night.
The scary dream was that Iraq was about to fire its artillery at Nallecon‘s home, Syria and Lebanon would then run their tanks down his street and Iran was thinking about finishing him off with a mushroom cloud.
Now after we have pissed away much treasure and blood, have Nallecon’s nightmares have gone away, or have they gotten worse?
233 - Pamela/American
Dave: So in the next generation we're replacing Neocons with Libertarians?
Pamela: Hopefully we will be replacing all these people who have labeled themselves otherwise with the only true label they should have as a citizen of this country....American.
Dave: I worked on the McBride, Clark, Hospers and Paul presidential campaigns, was state chairman of the SLS and Students for Clark, and was an actual paid employee of the LP back when it had money. I also ran for office as a Libertarian in 2002.
That ought to give you a hint that there IS a problem with Ron Paul. Al Barger also ran for office as a Libertarian. Eric Dondero is a well known Libertarian who used to WORK for Paul. What does it suggest when long-time Libertarians who are or have been closely involved with the party lack confidence in Paul? What does it suggest when those concerns are shared for someewhat different reasons by Libertarian-leaning Republicans? The people who know him best are the most reluctant to push him heavily.
Pamela: It tells me that three libertarians are back stabbers and they are not supporting Ron Paul anymore. With one of those "Libertarians" writing a lengthy prose that gives a lead in of much support for Ron Paul only to slam him in the end. Doesn't mean that these 3 Libertarians speak for ALL Libertarians, anymore then how two of these Libertarians so desperately want to believe that a small handful of people speak for ALL of Ron Paul's supporters.
Pamela: Thanks, I have been looking and it is of great concern. When we have an audience at a GOP debate willing to cheer for torture that also greatly concerns me.
Dave:Could you cite for me which debate and which comment resulted in people cheering for torture, because I sure didn't see it.
Pamela: It was during the second debate. Here's a clip from it. See for yourself. REPUBLICANS APPLAUD FOR TORTURE!
Pamela: What is of most concern is how it is unbelievable that any American citizens would not see the importance of fighting for their own rights?
Dave: How about the right to an abortion, or the right not to have prayer in schools? Paul would do away with both of those.
Pamela: Ron Paul Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother's life. When did the total abortion ban ever come to a vote? Do you believe it is humane to kill a 7 or 8 month old fetus? Give me a break. On the issue of prayer in schools give me a break there too. Not one person in this government, or in a school, can stop one child from silently praying to himself or herself. This is a non-issue. If we want to talk about religion in schools then it had better be across the board. Not just one sided like it was after 9/11 when they started shipping kid to mosques to learn about the Muslim faith, the dedicated a whole week to only the Muslim faith in teaching, while not giving one day to numerous faiths of this country. Besides that I never said I AGREED with all of Ron Paul's issues. But I do agree with most of them. Thus the reason why we have many candidates to choose from. We find one that comes closet to matching what issues we find most important for our country and we vote for them. I realize this has increasingly become alike an laien concpet to people who are so used to seeing all candidates have the same issues and agendas, but yet again it is another reason why ron paul continues to stand out.
I don't care if they vote for Ron Paul or not. Let's hope they at least know their own Constitution and realize just why those rights are so important.
Dave: I'd like to see Paul as a VP candidate. Putting him in a position where he can get his message out without being able to do any harm would be a good thing.
Pamela: Coming from someone who once believed in him you have not pointed out one reason why you now find he would be able to do harm. Care to elaborate on that with some facts and not "opinion."
As so many are steered to only see the war mantras to keep that blind hate alive, while refusing to see how our governments aggressive actions in the Middle East are only "increasing" our enemies, many Like Dave allow themselves to be filled with hate enough to attack the very people who are trying to show him that "his" rights too are being stripped from him.
Dave: This is pure fabulism and wishful thinking. Because you're so enraged and feel so powerless you want to think that anyone who favors rational government is some sort of oppressive warmonger, but there's just not evidence to support it. Some of us realize that defending our nations interests and protecting the safety of citizens is one of the basic steps to protecting the Constitution and our rights.
Pamela: Rational government? Invading countries that are no threat is rational? Stripping habeous corpus rights is constitutional? Yea, hey I second that on your last comments. But do tell WHERE have they defended our nations' interest on our borders? Hello, while we are off running all over the country, they have left the people at HOME without protection. No one is home. Can you get that? Who is protecting the citizens from a government of tyranny. That too is a part of the Constitution.
THAT is the reason why Ron Paul continues to gain more and more support. Not because he's some incredible dynamic speaker, but because he speaks the stark truth.
Dave: Would that be the 'truth' he repeatedly speaks about the conspiracy of 'international bankers' (code word for Jews)? I imagine that 'truth' is very appealing to you - I know it's why Richard Brodie loves Paul.
Pamela: Good grief. Now you are baiting. Is this all you have left? Please give me a site where Ron Paul states this. And while you're at it let me know if you are ok with first the creation of the Federal Reserve by a Congress that did not have the power to enact it, then let me know if you are ok with these "international bankers" having the people's money without any accountability TO the people?
Please feel free to send me the links of the audits conducted on how the Federal reserve is spending our Money any day.... We have been waiting for...oh I don't .... FOREVER. Why is that? Because the Federal Reserve doesn't have to submit to an audit. They don't have to answer to anyone! Not Congress who unconstitutionally enacted them, not the President, and definitly NOT the people. Are you really ok with that? If so, just hand over your money to me. I'll spend it how I see fit, when you get in debt over your eyeballs from my fake checks, I don't want to hear about it because you gave me carte blanche to do what I wanted with your money.
Ron Paul really KNOWS the issues the "people" care about, because they are issues that directly affect our rights and our future. He is actually working FOR the people and doing what all politicians are SUPPOSED to do-he is being a voice for the people. He is speaking for those voices that are being buried by the mainstream media to help these sell outs stay on this course of what amounts to betraying our own people while staying on this path of invading more coutries-pre-emptively and unprovoked.
Dave: Most of the people have no idea what Paul is talking about most of the time and could care less. You're making the mistake of thinking that because YOU agree with him everyone else must also. In fact, most people probably think he's a bit nuts and kind of scary.
Pamela: Here's is where you are wrong again. As I stated above I do not agree with everything he stands for or all of his issues. But he is the closest I have ever come to agreeing with a politician's platform in my life. Secondly, you're dead wrong about the people not getting where he is coming from. His online support is blowing all the other candidates away and fortunately for them they are not wasting their time in sites like this with sell outs who USED to be on his side. The people are self-educating and not allowing the media or this government to control their perceptions of the candidates or the issues. They ARE looking at voting records and one by one marking off the other sell outs who continue to pass these damaging pieces of legislation that are stripping our rights and funding more of these illegal wars and they are making their lists to see who is still standing after throwing the lead across so many names. Ron Paul still happens to be standing after the dust settles for many.
We have fleets of ships and planes who are conducting "military exersizes" right off the coast of Iran. No, we haven't hit them....yet, but it's the same as swinging at someone and barely missing their face. They conducted these "military exersizes" just before we were to sit down for talks with Iran.
Dave: We have forces in Iraq and naval forces off the coast supporting them. Off the coast of Iraq IS off the coast of Iran. The exercises you're talking about were training programs for the Iraqi military, which needs to be prepared to defend itself from invasion from Iran.
Pamela: Says you. Many reports talk about those same exercises as a show of FORCE by our military as an act to intimidate Iran. If you are feuding with the guy next to your neighbor-it doesn't matter who is nearby-if that guy you are feuding with starts shooting his gun off in your back yard you will pay attention to it and you will see it as a threat.
Dave: How do you feel about theocratic dictatorships which want to conquer the world and force everyone to convert to their religion? This is the stated objective of Iran's current regime. The Iraqis aren't too excited about living next to them and want to be able to defend themselves. Why is it unreasonable for us to help them?
Pamela: How do you feel about letting people live their lives they way they want, have the religion they believe in, and be a part of the culture that is native to their country? Again the US Government keeps screaming about other countries giving arms to our enemies, while we give arms to their enemies. The US government screams about nuclear threats while we continue to amass our nuclear threats. The US believes in democracy and to heck with whatever other countries choose for THEIR country. The US government screams they are saving people from other oppressive governments who torture their people and yet they are torturing people in Gitmo. Have you seen one parallel here of the pot calling the kettle black YET?
We are "provoking" this war against a country we already helped to dismantale in the past (their people haven't forgotten it either)
Dave: I know. The anger from the Iranian educated and business classes - now mostly in exile - over our abandonment of the Shah is intense.
Pamela: Indeed it is and now with facing what appears to be another covert attack from us on the inside out I am sure they have far more fear of Lord only knows what they will get next since our "last" inserting of a radical leader was such a treat for them all. Good grief. History repeating itself all over again.
With or borders wide open, and our military spread even thinner, just who does Dave think will be HERE to protect US after these enemies unite against us?
Dave: I think our national guard should be recalled from overseas service, we should shut down our military bases in most foreign countries to provide replacements in Iraq. Ultimately we should reduce our involvement in the middle east to a rapid reaction force based primarily on board the ships of our sizeable fleet in the area.
Pamela: Well now you are making some sense that I could actually relate too as far as bring HOME our troops to protect America for a change. But sending more troops to Iraq isn't an answer. As it is our military is over extended and they are basically in a back door draft. I have family over there and so does my husband. They are denied to come home when their tours are over. They all need to come HOME now. WE do not need to send more to die.
The longer they "occupy" that country the more they increase the anger toward us. The longer they stay there the more exposure they have to the depleted uranium we used in our bombs. The families of these troops are sick and tired of jumping every time the phone rings for fear that their loved one just became the next statistic for this illegal war of shame.
I've already lost family to the Vietnam war of shame and my father fought in the Korean war. These wars are getting worse and they are turning our men and women into the next generation of the disabled that our government will turn on again. They come back to less benefits from this administration that applauded them when they went to fight their needless war. That is if they LIVE to get back. Otherwise, thanks to meathead Bush they are brought back in the shame of night with no public support to be offered the families because the public doesn't even know the body of their loved one is being shipped back like a used carton. They will also abandon them again like they did the last Gulf War vets who came back with Gulf War illness.
Guess what? Gulf War illness 2 has started and they are adamantly acting like it doesn't exist. THAT is the kind of government we do NOT need anymore. We are sick of sacrificing OUR loved ones because we do NOT have real leadership in this country that can mind their own damned business and just take care of the people of their OWN country. We are not interested in policing the world while our country is falling apart. We are not interested in nation building while we cannot even build our own nation. I cannot make it any clearer then that.
Surely Dave knew that Iran was building a coalition against us with our enemies in the Middle East right?
Dave: Of course. Who didn't know that? It's why we invaded Iraq in the first place, to cut off Iran's connections with their allies in Syria and Lebanon and to pressure them with armies on both of their major borders.
Pamela: Staging the invasion of Afghanistan right at the time of building Cheney's oil pipeline through Afghanistan was just a coincidence?
Surely Dave knew that because of our governments aggressive invasions in the Middle East, Iran is having no problems finding takers to join them so they will not be sitting there alone like Iraq was right?
Dave: Iran wasn't having problems finding allies before we invaded Iraq. They just used Israel to motivate them.
Pamela: And this is good new for our country in what way at all?
Dave do share with us all how much you yourself know about our current foriegn policies and just who you think as our next President will help OUR country?
Dave: I'm pretty damned familiar with our foreign policy, ill-conceived mishmash that it is. The key thing is not to have a president who overreacts in the direction of isolationism or excessive internationalism. We need to remain engaged internationally, even if we abandon the policy of interventionism.
Pamela: I would say you are pretty damned familiar with the foreign policies that a majority of the American people are sick of, but Washington is thrilled with. Seeing how you ran for office I would expect no less. I would hardly see Ron Paul's issues on foreign policies as an over reaction. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are the perfect personification of jumping the gun, having a set agenda, then lying, stealing, cheating, and doing whatever they can to force the American people to go along. Nor would I call Paul's issues Isolationism. Wanting to maintain us as a sovereign nation is hardly isolationism. But trumping our laws further by throwing us into the WTO who can indeed negate our laws by their international laws regardless of our Constitutional rights would indeed be yet another clear fact of our own government continuing to make our country weaker. Ron Paul is all for free trade, just not at the cost of our sovereign nation. If you truly believed in fighting FOR your country you would get that too. Bush will continue to be the one who isolates us further from the world, as he sells us out from within to the highest bidder, if his totalitarian power isn't reigned in soon by someone with some sense in Washington.
234 - Richard Brodie
What does it suggest when long-time Libertarians who are or have been closely involved with the party lack confidence in Paul
It suggests that they are jealous of his success, a success based on recognizing the reality that a hundred years from now the Libertarians would still be getting 1% of the vote and making zero difference. And well they should retain such insignificance, with their globalist entanglement, American baby killing, foreign horde welcoming ideas.
Since Paul was liked well enough to have been reelected several times to the 14th District, the voters aren't going to take real kindly to a pathetic little backstabbing worm like Dondero trying to ride into office by basking in the glare of media attention reflected off a true giant of a patriot. I look forward to seeing him ground into the dirt.
'international bankers' (code word for Jews)?
While it's true that many of them are Jews, you have no evidence that Paul is intending any "code word" usage when he talks about the Federal Reserve, and I think you know that it is dishonest to suggest the same.
Could you cite for me which debate and which comment resulted in people cheering for torture,
I believe it was in response to something Romney said in SC.
Most of the people have no idea what Paul is talking about most of the time and could care less
That's probably true. But I would wager that most of THOSE people aren't going to be bothering to vote.
How about the right to an abortion, or the right not to have prayer in schools?
He's not running for some governorship, and he's made it clear that as President he would uphold the 10th Amendment with regard to matters such as these, refraining from trying to interject the Federal government into areas where it has no Constitutional authorization to be.
I'd like to see Paul as a VP candidate. Putting him in a position where he can get his message out without being able to do any harm would be a good thing.
How could he possibly get his message out in that position unless the President was either Kucinich or Gravel?
The exercises you're talking about were training programs for the Iraqi military, which needs to be prepared to defend itself from invasion from Iran.
We really don't need to be whipping up Iran and Iraq to be fighting each other. Just leave the area and they will soon enough be fighting each other. That's what Arabs do best, and that's what has kept them occupied for the last millenium thus confining their irrational violence to themselves.
How do you feel about theocratic dictatorships which want to conquer the world and force everyone to convert to their religion?
I don't know how Pam feels, but I feel like It is suicidal to allow ANYONE from a religion with such a malignant political component, inside the borders of any nation that regards itself as a part of Western Civilization. What do you wanna do, kill all billion of 'em?
The Iraqis aren't too excited about living next to them and want to be able to defend themselves. Why is it unreasonable for us to help them?
Because we've either got to be over there forever in between them, losing thousands of young American lives every year, or at some point we leave, in which case they will immediately be back at other's throats.
Finally, the lady asks a simple question: "just who you think as our next President will help OUR country"?
To which your non-reply is:
The key thing is not to have a president who overreacts in the direction of isolationism or excessive internationalism. We need to remain engaged internationally, even if we abandon the policy of interventionism.
So allow me to re-phrase the question for her:
WHO, among the choices being offered to us for 2008, do you think would help OUR country (not OTHER countries) the best?
235 - Clavos
"Why do the neocons fear Ron Paul?"
Neocons or anyone else, since he hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of even placing...
Which is too bad; there's a lot about him that would be good for the country.
236 - Pamela/American
Richard you are right. The people of Texas do not take kindly to back stabbing traiters. Why do you think we can't stand Bush. We Did all we could to get rid of that loser who did nothing for us as a Governor and there he went and became president. good grief.
Bush did something Dondero is appearently incapable of doing... he admitted he was a loser. He admitted being a drunk. He admitted getting busted. Of course he left out a LOT-like his war service, bank deals, and many other things. But he was admitting just enough to get people to THINK he was a man enough to admit his mistakes and the fools forgave him.
I am almost leery to even share that because that is the politically correct "get out of jail free pass" today right? They commit inexcusible acts....then say oop's sorry, and get elected. augh
Anyway, Dondero is finished here because of his own actions. And you were also right in how Ron Paul is taking the Libertarian party to newer heights that these sell outs who used to support him could be enjoying too and helping along the way. But indeed their own jealousy of not being able to reach those heights on their own is making them an enemy to their own cause. Is it any wonder why this country continues to be so divided. Do they not get that divided we ALL fall?
Dondero, was just too ignorant to see he could have ridden that wave up on those same coattails that took him in from Ron Paul's increasing popularity too.
But what did Dondero do? At the first sneer of public scorn from a public who didn't "yet" get all the facts about the debate comments, he ran yellow belly and turn coated on his so-called Mentor.
The public gets it now and Rudy is toast for showing his own ignorance of our foriegn policies so I guess that little plan didn't work out to well for Dondero to jump in Rudy's wagon and out of Paul's now did it?
Many Texas residents like myself do not want such a spineless man who obviously does not understand our own foriegn policies in office, nor one who would so easily cave, and turn on his mentor, and supposed friend, at the first sign of media propaganda. He obviously can't take the heat and anyone in an election knows there's a lot more where that came from and he caved during the first hit.
We need a real man who will stand up against ignorance, who can ride the storm, and wait it out until the truth shines through. He showed his true colors and that scarlet letter will remain on that fool.
I HOPE he is reading this too. Maybe he will get some sense in his head and be a man and admit he was wrong for betraying Ron Paul. If a loser like Bush can do at least that much then at least Dondero can right? Or can he?
237 - Pamela/American
Dave: How do you feel about theocratic dictatorships which want to conquer the world and force everyone to convert to their religion?
Richard: I don't know how Pam feels, but I feel like It is suicidal to allow ANYONE from a religion with such a malignant political component, inside the borders of any nation that regards itself as a part of Western Civilization. What do you wanna do, kill all billion of 'em?
Pamela: Well to speak for myself again on this issue and further expand. I believe more people have died in this world over thier different religious beliefs then for almost any other reason. I also do not believe in this striking first and asking questions later mentality. Until Iran actually tries to convert all our people to their religion and until they try to take over the world, I hardly see why we would whistle up a dixie's tush and borrow trouble where there was none.
This sounds more like OUR leader anyway. Maybe we had better worry about cleaning our own doorstep before we continue to make the same charges against these other leaders.
Religion in politics is like an oxymoron. It usually ends up being used against the people for the benefit of that politician and not of the God they say they are worshipping anyway.
Bush is the perfect example of how he uses God to reel in the unwitting Christians while he sacrafices people all over this world for his agendas. I don't know what God he is worshipping but it isn't the one I know.
I do not believe the government should form any one religion for all the people ever. But we cannot allow our government the right to keep trying to do these same things and then turn and point a finger at someone else.
I do not believe in sacraficing innocent American's in an effort to try and tell another country what they should do, how they should do it, and act like we are the police of the world ourselves.
Richard is right, we can continue to stand between them, and lose our military, or get out, and stay out of their business, like we should have done in the first place.
Nor, as I stated before do I believe the schools should be able to talk exclusively about one religion at the exemption of all others.
When the state gets involved in the education of any subject it is already suspect of being skewed to the views of only what the state wants the citizen to have and that doesn't always mean its the right view FOR the people and there is a difference.
How many times can they re-write our history before we say enough already? Besides that, history is the view of the person sharing that history isn't it?
238 - MBD
Q. "Why do the neocons fear Ron Paul?"
Clavos:
A. Neocons or anyone else, since he hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of even placing... Which is too bad; there's a lot about him that would be good for the country.
That's a reason to fear him?
That sounds like bullshit.
239 - Dave Nalle
I must be immune to the danger these countries present to the security of the United States.
For decades, I lost no sleep worrying about Iran, Iraq, Syria or Lebanon.
While I was living in those countries, no doubt.
It's clear that during the same period, Nallecon was worrying and had nightmares every night.
No. I didn't worry about them before 9/11 and I'm not terribly worried about them now. I don't even care if the Iranians get nukes.
IMO these nations are not a serious threat to the US and never had been, except in small and isolated incidents where US citizens are put at risk.
They are, however, a serious threat to the nations immediately around them. With my background in the middle east I care about that to at least some degree.
Dave
240 - MBD
They are, however, a serious threat to the nations immediately around them. With my background in the middle east I care about that to at least some degree."
Most Americans don't have any such background and don't give a shit about yours. Sacrificing thousands of American lives and a trillion dollars pissed away to satisfy whatever degree of interest you have is your personal problem not this nation's problem.
If you want to baby sit the Middle East you go do it.
241 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
"If you want to baby sit the Middle East you go do it."
Dave is a nice guy - he even publishes my articles here; though I suspect he keeps a barf bag close by while working on them. But I, for one, am too old for baby-sitters like Dave.
The one nice thing about this Ron Paul fellow is that he might get you Yanks the hell out of here. If he does, that would be the best thing Israel could get. We've had far too much of America and its interfering ways, AND its interfering money bags - especially the Jewish ones, like Kissinger, Wolfowitz, Wolfensohn, and Stan Fischer...
YANKEE GO HOME!!!
242 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
And while I'm at it, take George Soros and stick him up some soybean farmer's ass - and keep him there!
243 - sr
Ruvy#242. I second that friend.
244 - Richard Brodie
The one nice thing about this Ron Paul fellow is that he might get you Yanks the hell out of here.
Somehow I don't think AIPAC would see it this way. Why this disconnect between American Jews and Israeli Jews? I wish those of you in Israel could convince your co-religionists over here that the U.S. doesn't need to keep fighting the children of Esau on your behalf. Nobody in this country can make that case without being instantly shouted down as an evil anti-Semitic racist.
245 - Pamela/American
Ruvy in Jerusalem
"If you want to baby sit the Middle East you go do it."
Dave is a nice guy - he even publishes my articles here; though I suspect he keeps a barf bag close by while working on them. But I, for one, am too old for baby-sitters like Dave.
The one nice thing about this Ron Paul fellow is that he might get you Yanks the hell out of here. If he does, that would be the best thing Israel could get. We've had far too much of America and its interfering ways, AND its interfering money bags - especially the Jewish ones, like Kissinger, Wolfowitz, Wolfensohn, and Stan Fischer...
YANKEE GO HOME!!!
Pamela: You have GOT to be kidding me? Good grief. This is VERY Interesting, well if we were to paint you with the same broad brush Dave and Al appear to want to use on All off Ron Paul's supporters we would think Dave thought the same, and so did Al, as you.
You may be too old for a babysitter but you're not to old to realize someone who obviously needs a drama fixing crisis. Do you set fires like this all over? And Dave accused me of rediculous Hidden racial issues? How about this for a BILLBOARD Dave...do comment please.
You want the "Yanks" out of Israel? Hey, works for me. Just remember the millions we give your precious Israel and the arms we provide your Israel, and the protections we gave your sorry ungrateful butt, will also GO with these "Yanks" you so clearly want out.
Many Americans have been screaming for the US to get out of Israel too. But not on the premise we are such biggots.
Oh, that's right...Richard pointed out correctly that anyone who says a word against Israel is anti-semitic. If you are any barometer of the pulse of Israel then it looks like Israel can dish it out but can't take it as they want to enact so-called "hate" LAWS to protect them after they start their own fires all over. I call that chicken shit, " hit and run" cowards. Regardless of the other "artist" in here I will not equate all people of Israel with the same level of ignorance you proudly revealed.
But there may be hope for your blind hatred toward people who have helped you through on the blood of their own innocents, Lucky for you many American's are sick and tired of being dragged into wars for Israel. OK?
Now get your radical leaders there to agree they too are SICK of so-called "Yanks" who continue to bail their butts out, and DIE for them in their provoked wars, and we will have billions more for OUR people here in the US when we stop supporting an ungrateful pathetic person like you.
246 - NH
"That ought to give you a hint that there IS a problem with Ron Paul. Al Barger also ran for office as a Libertarian. Eric Dondero is a well known Libertarian who used to WORK for Paul. What does it suggest when long-time Libertarians who are or have been closely involved with the party lack confidence in Paul? What does it suggest when those concerns are shared for someewhat different reasons by Libertarian-leaning Republicans? The people who know him best are the most reluctant to push him heavily."
Eric was fired and he is only one person. The support is overwhelming, even Michael Badnarik, former libertarian candidate for president, endorsed Ron at the Liberty Forum here in NH and attended my party for Ron afterward.
By the way, we raised $17K for Ron and just now another $10K from NH!
Yayyyyyy!
247 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
"I wish those of you in Israel could convince your co-religionists over here that the U.S. doesn't need to keep fighting the children of Esau on your behalf."
Richard Brodie,
Just a picayune correction for you. YOU are the Children of Esau. The Arabs are the Sons of Yishmael. The Tana"kh warns of your fate as well, but the immediate enemy at hand are the Children of Yishmael. Nevertheless, I refer you to the Book of Isaiah, Chapter 60 to see the fate of Yishmael.
The problem you refer to is two-fold. One is the deep-seated feeling among many Israelis that nothing can be done - the other is the overblown egos of the Jewish fat-cats in America who think that checkbook Judaism is their route to Redemption.
248 - Pamela/American
That's great news NH! He also is gaining in Montana for support!
Pamela
Ron Paul gains with Internet, gets Montana donations
Associated Press - May 17, 2007 2:24 PM ET
In most Republican presidential polls, Ron Paul appears well behind the front-runners.
But the little-known Southeast Texas congressman is a big favorite on the World Wide Web -- and apparently, also in Montana.
The Galveston-area libertarian finished second among GOP candidates in money raised in New Hampshire and Montana, in the first quarter of 2007.
The 71-year-old obstetrician also raised the most money of the second-tier candidates in 14 other states -- including Florida and Texas -- taking in 640-thosuand dollars nationwide.
Paul is hoping to use his high-profile debate appearances, voter frustration over the Iraq war and ballooning government programs, to vault him into serious contention in the GOP presidential race.
On the Net
249 - Al Barger
NH- Good on ya for the fundraising success!
Miss Pamela, I'll go you a bit better: That AP story is describing first quarter fundraising, before the Fox debate which really catapulted him into prominence. I'll be surprised if his second quarter doesn't turn up 10x more than his first.
He's not going to get the big money for his quixotic campaign like Mitt McGiuliani, but I could well imagine him conjuring up tens of millions of dollars from netroots types. And $30 million spent on Ron Paul's radical message will likely be more impactful on actual public debate of issues than $30 million worth of ads about what a great upstanding family man Mitt Romney is.
250 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Pamela,
Aw, another American's delicate ego has been wounded. Pardon me while I sniffle into my hankie. Try going to my writers' page here at Blogcritics where 71 articles will give you a different picture of my country - and yours.
Just to show you what great "friends" Americans have been to Israel, I briefly relate the story of your help to us in 1973 - one of many many betrayals your country forced down our throats.
Your government bullied Golda Meir into waiting for an Arab attack on our country, promising aid in the form of arms shipments if we waited. The foolish woman did so, relying on a Jew, Henry Kissinger, to come forward with the aid.
But Kissinger cared more for his real employer, Nelson Rockefeller, and held back the aid, while this country nearly fell to the Syrian and Egyptian attack. Only the intervention of Richard Nixon (learning of the situation from his Defense Secretary James Schlesinger), forcing Kissinger to fork over the aid he had promised, saved this country from defeat and destruction at the hands of crazed Arab soldiers massacring every Jew in sight.
We do not need such "friends." You can't be relied on. Any Shi'a will tell you that.
We need our nuclear deterrent force to destroy our enemies, and our factories to make Galil rifles and Uzi submachine guns to keep them at bay. Take your badly made m16's and shove them up your buttholes, if you want. But first, get the hell out of the Middle East and out of our hair.
251 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Oh, Pamela, just one more thing.
I was born in the United States, lived many years there, was a member of the Republican and Democrat parties both during that time, and know a hell of a lot more about the US of A than you want to realize.
I'm just very grateful I was never forced to wear an American military uniform.
252 - MBD
It's interesting how facts can be created by Ruvy.
"Just to show you what great "friends" Americans have been to Israel, I briefly relate the story of your help to us in 1973 - one of many many betrayals your country forced down our throats."
Betrayal?
In 1973, the Saudis threatened to curtail our oil supply if Nixon sent the two billion dollars worth of tanks, fighter planes and other military aid that Israel requested because it was being paid back for its pre-emptive 1967 war with its surprise air attack on Egyptian airfields. Now the tables were turned and Israel was being hammered by the Arabs.
That weak bastard Nixon capitulated because he didn’t want to fight AIPAC.
The result of Nixon’s capitulation was a 10-year economic malaise with major job layoffs (the first since WWII) and interest rates of 21% .
After seeing the weakness of US politicians and the subservient US media, AIPAC knew it could get anything it wanted, including getting the US Treasury to write it blank checks each year. It became so absurd that AIPAC demanded and got interest paid on the billions each year until Israel actually received the money. So much money was sent to Israel that Israel Bonds which previously helped fund Israel were not needed. To date, over $200 billion of US Taxpayer money has been sent to Israel and the spigot is still wide open.
What is unknown is how much of these billions found their way back here into the coffers of the politicians who vote for whatever AIPAC wants.
And now the dog bites the hand that feeds it.
All I want is the hundreds of billions paid back to us with interest.
It also would be nice to be compensated for the 10-year economic malaise.
Ruvy, when will the check be in the mail?
253 - Pamela/American
Ruvy,
You appear to have missed the entire point. Certain people in this thread, and in this world for that matter, seem to want to catagorize absolutely everyone and paint them all with a broad brush for the actions of a few.
I am FED up with paying for things I did not do. GET it- oh wise one of the WORLD.
I never said our government was not corrupt.I said we need to get the heck out of the Middle East too! The sooner the better. But yes, it does piss me off to hear a report that says we are sending MILLIONS to your country each DAY and then I get crap like this.
Yes, let American's keep their money for ONCE. It would be a start and I am all for pulling our troops out to protect AMERICA for a change. Preferably we get out before all these wars completely bankrupt us- if they haven't already.
As we speak my rights as an American to stop our own dictator are ebbing by the minute. You did see his newest directive didn't you? How does, "WE the people" fit into that at all?
You want to talk about suffering and betrayal? WE ALL have those skeletons of suffering in our bloodlines.
My Great Grandmother was full blooded Cherokee indian. Let's talk about suffering here ...
Am I jumping on that bandwagon to collect for Cherokee suffering? NO. Because the suffering didn't happen to ME, it happened to people who are DEAD in my family. Money is NOT going to bring them back and it will not help me rise up on my OWN merits. I like to earn what I get unlike many of these people with a handout for the suffering of thier long DEAD ancestors. Nor do I blame all of America "today" for what the few nuts did to my ancestors. Get it?
Do I want those "few" who are still out there doing the killing and causing these wars, and staring all these fires, all over again (who are repeating history) to be brought to justice? You bet. If it will make you happy you can start with OUR administration with my blessings and work your way out to the leaders of your "favored" country.
In case you missed the memo I was sympathetic to the needless killings going on over there, THUS another reason why I do want us out. I also have family dragged into those shameful wars and yes, I DO want them out. So you are striking at the wrong people just like we took it out on Iraq erroneously, and regardless if you like it or not we are FOOTING the bill, whoile we get more and more in debt. Not like I think you care about my kids, or theirs, but I do- especially when thier future was given to a total ingrate.
Did I betray your surrogate country personally? NO. Am I having to pay for it anyway? YES. We all are. All these Yankees are paying. Now do what you can to contain your glee.
These nuts in power that you talk about hurt a LOT of other's too and not just YOUR country. Get over yourself and you I'm the only victim mentality.
Kissinger, Rockefeller....etc., Good grief.
Do you think we want these criminals here either? How about you let them lock them up in these prisons they ALL have over there for your own rogue justice systems? Even that would be too good for them for all the destructions they have collectively done to our world.
For a country who's own leaders slaughter at will, sympathizers of Israel have a lot of room to talk about who- is doing what anyway. Does it make it right for any Government to kill innocents for power, natural resources, or just because they feel threatened? NO. IT all needs to stop.
Thanks for the "reading assignment" but it will be "His-story." Which is YOUR only view. I prefer to get many views to form my opinions. You're ending was already revealed and it appears as if you blame all people regardless of the actions of the few.
Good for you for being BORN here. You sadly have about the same amount of pride for your "native" country as many other citizens today. Some of us DO take pride in this country still and we do not take lightly to idiots like you who want to blame us all for the actions of a few nuts while letting your own nuts (who are IN office now) off scott free.
254 - Pamela/American
Al: Miss Pamela, I'll go you a bit better: That AP story is describing first quarter fundraising, before the Fox debate which really catapulted him into prominence. I'll be surprised if his second quarter doesn't turn up 10x more than his first.
He's not going to get the big money for his quixotic campaign like Mitt McGiuliani, but I could well imagine him conjuring up tens of millions of dollars from netroots types. And $30 million spent on Ron Paul's radical message will likely be more impactful on actual public debate of issues than $30 million worth of ads about what a great upstanding family man Mitt Romney is.
Pamela: Goodness Al, You just can't help yourself. I start reading and I go yea, yea, yea.....funding looking good for RP. A possibility of millions ,....then what the "netroot"? Online lingo for Online donations from the grassroots. This is good right? Then who hooo 30 millions dollars possible.....................
then after that it sounds like a rocket whistling to the ground from there..................
Ron's "Radical" message will likely be more impactful then the family guy...
Ok, ya know at this point I will take what I can get. But don't get mad if I tell ya something like Hey I like your hair but your crooked teeth will never get you a date. Same kind of backhanded compliment, but again we take what we can get these days.
Of course I hope Ron Paul wins and blows them all away. Haven't made that a secret anyway.
255 - Al Barger
Miss Pamela- Those comments were not intended to be backhanded or derogatory in any way.
Again, Ron Paul makes a very valuable contribution to public debate, and he might garner more support than some of us might expect. But there's no way on Rand's green Earth that he will actually be elected president of the United States.
He's WAY too radical. He's not really much of a "politician." Rather, he's an idealogue. He's there to say what he thinks needs said, rather than what he thinks will garner him the most votes. That's good - but it means he doesn't actually get elected.
But he can seriously inject some ideas and perspective that might move the goalposts a little bit in the right direction. Moving by cautious inches rather than wholesale on absolute commitment to principle, even the non-interventionist part of his outlook that I have trouble with can be a very good thing.
If your concern is the ideas rather than your own ego or resume - which certainly seems to be the case with Paul - then this approach makes sense. If a candidate calling for abolition of the income tax gets 15% of the votes in the Republican primary, then President Romney is going to take that as a message about who his party base is.
He's not going to eliminate the income tax, but that might be the impetus for him to grasp tax reform, reduction and simplification as a base issue. The idealogical candidates can set up the issues, but the gladhanding politicians are the ones bobbing and weaving enough to actually get elected and do something.
256 - Richard Brodie
Ruvy, I stand corrected, The Arabs are indeed primarily the children of Ishmael. However I think you are wrong when you say:
"YOU are the Children of Esau"
I believe it is likely that the Edomites, Esau's descendants who fought against the Children of Israel when they were first returning out of Egyptian captivity, are now intermixed with Ishmael, and thus represent a portion of the modern Arabic stock.
As for MY lineage, and yours for that matter, isn't it more likely that we trace back to Japheth who may have disappeared into the north when Ham went south, with Shem in between - and/or one or more of the "lost" ten tribes who, after being carried away into captivity, may well have also migrated into Russia and Europe?
257 - Richard Brodie
President Romney...'s not going to eliminate the income tax, but that might be the impetus for him to grasp tax reform, reduction and simplification as a base issue. The idealogical candidates can set up the issues, but the gladhanding politicians are the ones bobbing and weaving enough to actually get elected and do something.
You are the visible soul of the modern American elecorate. They will all say how they despise a vote pandering, unprinciple, lesser-of-two-evils flip-flopper, but secretly (or in your case openly) believe that there is now no place in the corridors of power for the kind of "ideologues" who founded this country. You will all very well deserve to endure more of the deterioration in your standard of living and erosion of your rights which the bobbers and weavers will continue to deliver to you.
I will not have to tell my children that I was relieved to see that a "gladhander" won the 2008 presidential election over the modern day Jefferson I voted to entrust their futures to.
258 - STM
While you two are on begettings ... Believe it or not, I am a descendent of the Viking conqueror Heesgot Lots (better known as Harald the Blue Bollock) and the Saxon earl, Lord Ivor Longsword (you need to watch the punctuation there). Both were very handy with their swords and the combined family crest, which also features the family jewels dating back to Saxon England, is very interesting. We always have to explain: "No, they're NOT chestnuts, and NO, that's NOT a fu.king helmet".
259 - Clavos
"But it LOOKS like a helmet," she said.
And then, "Will you still respect me in the morning?"
260 - Dave Nalle
Pamela/Richard - the crazier you get and the more you rant on and on about the evil jews, the neocons and the various other boogeymen, the more you validate the earlier point that Paul attracts nuts. You're really not doing anything the help the cause.
Dave
261 - Pamela/American
Pamela/Richard - the crazier you get and the more you rant on and on about the evil jews, the neocons and the various other boogeymen, the more you validate the earlier point that Paul attracts nuts. You're really not doing anything the help the cause.
Dave
Pamela: Dave I don't remember pulling on your chain.
Evil Jews? There you go trying to put words in my mouth again. Are you thinking about Jews all the time Dave or what? You seem to be obsessed with Jews enough to think everyones thinking about them all the time too. Do you think Jews are evil Dave? All Jews? Because I don't remember saying any such thing. Could there be evil Jews out there? Sure. There could also be evil little men named Dave. But it doesn't mean I think all men named Dave are evil.
As for me....well I could be married to a Jew or I could be married to a man named Dave. You don't know me at all. So instead of trying to say my words have said these things that the little voices in your head keep telling you I said, read my words again to make sure before you accuse me again. Fair enough?
FYI I am not the official spokesperson for Ron Paul so you can stop worrying about how I am affecting his "base" kay? Didn't know you cared so much about him still.
Hey it's a free country right? As such I am free to say what I want and no political party controls how I think, feel, what I vote for, or who I vote for. You may allow it on your end, but some of us still think for ourselves.
Can't you just talk to one woman without needing to think I'm some entire group?
On the racist bit...more like race baiting-You have a very "selective memory" Dave with ignoring blatant rasicm right before your eyes and yet you decide to pick, and choose, not the actual racist amongst us , but the target you decided to give that label to instead.
Why don't you hang that label baiting hat on another coat rack because all your little "labels" have this one absolutely full.
I cannot speak for Richard, nor am I his other half, as you just decided to clump me with a man I do not even know. Yes, I have agreed with some things he has said but it doesn't mean I agree with everything. No more then I have agreed with everything on Ron Paul's platform.
Seeing the company you keep in Dondero I think you may need to be more concerned with the company in which you admit that you are keeping instead of being so concerned with whom I am in the company of.
Now, If you can stop the labeling long enough to back up your own accusations of Ron Paul that would be a nice diversion. I am interested in "your" side. Really I am.
But instead of all these "leading" damaging statements about Ron Paul just blurt it ALL out. DO tell. Here's your chance to reveal the real Ron Paul. What happened, and why are you "so" concerned about him now, seeng how you did say you campagned for him in the past, and tell me how he can harm this Presidency so much so that you find the need to slam him at every chance? I need Details here. No more leading, dead end, figure it out, allegations. Details.
While you're at it, since you have decided Ron Paul isn't it for "you" I ask again who will you vote for and why?
Don't give me your dream candidate description like you did last time with naming no real candidate in this race.
262 - Pamela/American
Al: He's WAY too radical. He's not really much of a "politician." Rather, he's an idealogue. He's there to say what he thinks needs said, rather than what he thinks will garner him the most votes. That's good - but it means he doesn't actually get elected.
Pamela: Ok Al, It's late and I have to get up early. So I want to cut to the chase here. I think you may be so used to giving a compliment while taking it away in the very next sentence that maybe you don't even see it? Who Knows?
Anyway, that doesn't matter at this point. This statement of yours that I cut into this answer from you above sums it up for just why I think Ron Paul has a very good chance of going up, up, and up even more.
You are exactly right. He's not the stereotypical cardboard politician. Yet a major bonus point for him. But here is where the mainstream media, and all these other puppet candidates, and every other person out there who may be scratching their heads in confusion to his rising popularity, are losing this whole thing about him...
You said:"He's there to say what he thinks needs said, rather than what he thinks will garner him the most votes."
I say- Ron Paul says what we ALL believe needs to be said.
I will go further to add that voters are sick of hearing the controlled answers that really are not an answer at all. These idiot candidates think we cannot see how they are not answering anything and how they are avoiding the real issues at all cost.
We hear the popular catch words they spew like taxes, war,etc...then we see no answers. So those words do not have the power they used to after so many candidates have used them to death.
So yes, when Ron Paul hits that stage, or goes to that interview, and we can see he knows his stuff, and he is not shying away from ANY questions, and even more he has some real answers. Then it is shocking at first to many, then a freeing feeling comes afterwards for all these people who have felt they have had no voice at all.
I am meeting disenfranchised voters for all over the map every day. One consistent thing I keep seeing and hearing is statements like this.
"I'm a Democrat and I can't believe I'm saying this, but this man (Ron Paul) is who I am going to vote for"
"I'm a Republican but I am sick of the Republican party and after Bush I vowed to never vote Republican again, But I am voting for Ron Paul."
"This man is the hope for our country..I am voting for Ron Paul."
Etc, etc, etc,....
Why are so many from so many parties swinging their votes his way? Because he DOES finally just blurt out the real issues we have been screaming for someone, ANYONE, in office to hear.
Ron Paul has his finger on the pulse of America right now. Will he keep it? I don't know.But I am not quitting on him no more then I am going to quit on this country.
Now, I will pose the same question to you. Talk is cheap wouldn't you agree? Define "radical" when you reference Ron Paul?
Is this about the issue of him wanting to not occupy so many other countries? is that what you are calling radical?
Tell me, what are the real defining issues, with real examples of why you feel Ron Paul is such a bad candidate for President and then explain how you still see he is "ok" for the debates? I do really want to know details.
263 - Richard Brodie
actually get elected and do something.
So Al doesn't think Ron Paul will be able to "do" anything.
Here's what Paul will do. As the leader of the Executive Branch he will shrink and or dismantle whole Departments. He will get our troops, who are casualties of Arab sectarian conflict, out of harm's way. He will encourage legislation to roll back the assaults on our Constitutional rights. He will veto almost every bill that comes to his desk, and make vetoing speeches to the American people explaining exactly how the proposed legislation would violate the Constitution. He will work towards an orderly elimination of personal income taxation, and a transition away from fiat currency and towards sound currency. By vastly reducing an ultimately unsustainable worldwide American military presence, and by eliminating foreign aid giveaways, he will use the trillions thus saved to secure the American homeland with border, coastline, and port security, missle defense, energy independence, etc.
Future generations will revere his memory as the President who saved this Republic.
264 - Clavos
"So Al doesn't think Ron Paul will be able to "do" anything."
Well, he certainly won't be able to do anything if he doesn't get elected, and his getting elected is a real long shot.
265 - Pamela/American
Well said Richard. Just restoring our rights covers so many issues for huge sects of people in our country that it would fill tomes to address just that part of why having Ron Paul for a President is so needed.
Right now he is (yet again) introducing more legislation in efforts to put the rights back into our hands via his legislation called The Parental Consent Act of 2007.
He knows that money is the key to stripping the power of the drug companies that have been given full protections from many SELL OUTS in our government that have given full carte blanche to these drug companies to experiement on us without consent, to disable us, or even kill us, all without any liability.
This piece of legislation directly cripples Bush's madhouse dream of forcing mental health evaluations on all the children of America without parental consent.
Bush's mental health screening dream is not an initiative that will help ANY of our children. It is a set up by our own governemnt designed to hand-feed the brains and and central nervous systems of millions more of our children over to the drugs companies who have over 122 newly concocted psudeo mental labels waiting to slap on these children so they can drugs millions more of our future generations and create mental disorders from the drugs that were NOT there before. No thanks.
For those of us who have had direct impacts on our lives from the nightmare drug companies we do indeed see the extreme importance of fighting to maintain our rights to protect our own children and decide for our children any healthcare decision that will affect them when they cannot speak for themselves.
Ron Paul agains sees a serious issue that hundreds of thousands want addressed. Unlike McCain who can't even manage to continue his duties to the people who elected him, Ron Paul is still serving Texans and in the case of this piece of legislation he is serving the entire country, while still pursuing the position of the President.
Indeed, he does have answers and they are solid answers we can all sink our teeth into. He most definitly isn't saying what he thinks will get him the "most" votes he is saying what needs to be said and in return that honesty and straight forward approach based upon "actions" and not meaningless words, continues to give him the votes.
266 - Pamela/American
Clavos:Well, he certainly won't be able to do anything if he doesn't get elected, and his getting elected is a real long shot.
Pamela: This would only be true if you have been blind to the power of the three legislative branches and the state level power to overturn the draconian legislation shoved in by the current President.
Right now MANY cities across the US have individually reversed and gutted the rights stripping segments of The Patriot Acts for their repective communities.
Bush may dream that he is the sole "decider" in his warped reality but we do still have those systems in there. Until an Emergency is declared we will continue to fight as individuals to reverse his nutcase mandates.
Yet again this is why we need a real leader in the White House FOR the people.
Each time you say the people will not vote for him his supporter base grows to prove you wrong. Are you getting it yet?
267 - Clavos
"Each time you say the people will not vote for him his supporter base grows to prove you wrong. Are you getting it yet?"
Nope.
268 - Alex Hammer
See also:
Ron Paul Wiki - The definitive source for all news and sites related to Ron Paul!
269 - Pamela/American
Well I wasn't holding my breath waiting for you to get it Clavos. I am sure you will be one of millions who sat on their butts complaining about their rights thinking they will just be handed back to you on a silver platter because you merely "spoke" in opposition. Who will then no doubt be there with their hand out to collect the fruits of the labor of so many others who didn't sit there and naively think these things would just fix themselves.
Personal responsibility needs restored in this country above all other things if "we the people" are to gain our freedom again and strip the unfathomable power this administration has stolen for itself at our expense.
The people are fighting for Ron Paul because he is fighting for us. When was the last time you saw the people go to bat for a "politician"?
If Ron Paul isn't for you....who do you think will do better, then please explain why, and what issues do you find most important for the next President to addresss?
270 - Dave Nalle
I notice that no one has attempted to answer my earlier question about Paul's legislative effectiveness. Let me give you a hint. The number of pieces of meaningful legislation he's successfully authored which have made it through to become laws would be in the single digits and somewhat less than 1.
And Pamela, you lose credibility when you start ranting about the 'unfathomable' rights the administration has taken away from us. Maybe you should start enumerating what those rights are, because the facts in evidence don't support some massive rights grab.
This is key to Paul's image problem. The fact that people like you support him so vehemently undermines his credibility and viability as a national candidate in the same way that some of his own past writings which border on the conspiratorial lunatic fringe do the same.
There are people like me and Clavos and Al Barger who agree with Paul on more major issues than we do with any other candidate - yet his positions are so unacceptable in a couple of key areas that we can't bring ourselves to support him.
All the good he might do in some areas really doesn't matter if he does so much harm in other areas that it virtually destroys the nation.
As for other candidates, I'm down to picking between Bill Richardson and Rudy Giuliani, the only other candidates who combine an acceptable position on taxation with acceptable positions on civil rights.
Dave
271 - Brandon
Ask yourselves this question......Did Osama and Al qaeda Follow the Soviets back after they withdrew?
The answer is no.
272 - Dave Nalle
Amusing, Brandon. You ask the question, yet you get the answer wrong. Read up on the role of al Qaeda in Chechnya sometime.
Dave
273 - Pamela/American
Dave: I notice that no one has attempted to answer my earlier question about Paul's legislative effectiveness. Let me give you a hint. The number of pieces of meaningful legislation he's successfully authored which have made it through to become laws would be in the single digits and somewhat less than 1.
Pamela: You know what Dave, no one responded because Ron Paul voted for MANY pieces of legislation that did pass. Looking at all of his "personally" sponsored bills that did not get passed as a measurement of someone who can not get things done is inane as saying an inventor should stop trying to invent if many of his inventions didn't make it tothe market. Should that inventor quit?
Hasn’t that been the real key of these individual entrepreneur’s who have achieved real success?
Each story is the same...they kept trying, they never quit, and finally they were a success.
After that success many were receptive to a lot of other ideas they had for their next inventions. I see this same possibility for Ron Paul and the shift of support for his proposals is indeed changing in the voters already.
Seeing how you want to throw in the towel so easily I can see how you did not manage to win in the election you entered. Have you tried again, or did this one defeat make you quit?
Do you think anyone would achieve any success if they quit after the first failure?
Further do you think Bush would have attained this much if he were a Congressman or do you see how his gaining the Presidency has allowed him the power to do the unthinkable over and over again?
One things for sure here...Ron Paul does not need the backhanded betrayal you continue to dish out. If you continue to sell out your principles and vote for whomever you think will be accepted by this majority of other lemmings like yourself, you will be selling your own country out and no one wins in that. Things will indeed stay on this course.
If you want real change you have to participate to make it happen. Turning you back on what you say you believe in is a sure way to fail.
274 - MBD
"Read up on the role of al Qaeda in Chechnya sometime...
and "did Osama and Al qaeda Follow the Soviets back after they withdraw?"
Nallecon... do some more reading before you come to your juvenile conclusions.
Or do you believe they "hate" us because we are a democracy?
275 - Dave Nalle
As usual, you make no sense, MBD. You can't even get the catch-phrase right.
It's not "they hate us because we are a democracy." Hell, we're not a democracy and some of them ARE (Iran).
It's "they hate us because of our freedoms." Which is simplistic but at least somewhat closer to accurate.
In fact, they hate us because of the values which we represent, which would be secularism, internationalism and capitalism. They hate us because we're sitting in the middle of things and they're on the outside, and they think those positions should be reversed.
Dave