Which Presidential candidate do you support?

[squarooticus]

The Dept of Homeland Security would have you believe we ARE fighting them here, what with all the travel restrictions and papers they want us to carry.

If you ask me, put the army on the border, stop illegals from coming in, and that's it. Keeping the terrorsts out would certainly mean not fighting them here, don't you think.

I think a combination of policing the borders and having competent domestic intelligence that cooperates with local law enforcement would be fantastic. Instead, we mount wars abroad that are going to devalue our currency to the point of worthlessness combined with inadequate domestic intelligence, massive central bureaucracy, and federal law enforcement, none of whom talk to each other nor to the locals. I'd say we have the polar opposite of what we actually need.

Kyle

 

[Jay G]

Bring them home, and then let's see if the terrorist bastards can do anything. With our military stationed on our homeland, and our 2nd Amendment rights restored, I 'd like to see what those cowards could do to us!

Look no further than Israel as to what those cowards could do.

 

[Gabe]

Look no further than Israel as to what those cowards could do.

If America had forcefully displaced a whole bunch of Muslims rather than Indians, and Canada and Mexico were also full of Muslims, then you'd still need a few more striking similarities to show that Israel is analogous to America. I don't buy it.

 

[Jay G]

Brother, the radical muslims hate us just as much as they hate the Israelis. They hate the Israelis because they're evil joooos. They hate us because we're free, corrupt, and degenerate.

Alternately, ask the Chechens how they feel, particularly those in the town of Beslan.

I'd much rather our armed forces face off against the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan than our children in elementary schools...

If America had forcefully displaced a whole bunch of Muslims rather than Indians, and Canada and Mexico were also full of Muslims, then you'd still need a few more striking similarities to show that Israel is analogous to America. I don't buy it.

 

[squarooticus]

They hate us because we're free, corrupt, and degenerate.

Who cares? They can hate us all they want. But unlike you, I refuse to drink the kool aid: the available evidence (various attacks in the US, England, and Spain) suggests they are going after countries for substantive political reasons: getting us off their holy soil, for instance.

Put differently: lots of people hate us, but they don't attack us because they've got better things to do and we aren't directly threatening them. Unfortunately, we are demonstrably a threat to the Islamists through our support of Western-leaning regimes and our general interventionism in the region, both militarily and politically.

Regardless of what you think of radical Islam, it is not our job to change the way people on the other side of the world think. Let them bomb each other back into the stone age for all I care: once we're out of their sights, I guarantee they'll fall back into their historical pattern of sectarian squabbles. Yaay.

Kyle

 

[Jay G]

And back when they were doing just that (bombing folks on the other side of the world), we didn't care or do a damn thing about it. Hell, even when they were bombing our troop barracks, embassies, or naval vessels we didn't seem to care all that much.

It was when they took the fight to us six years ago that we started to care.

And the genie's out of the bottle, Kyle. They're not going to magically stop hating us even if we pull up stakes and take every last American home.

In fact, I posit that would embolden them even more to come after us - we'd be the true paper tiger they thought us to be pre-9/11.

You can call it drinking Kool-Aid or whatever cutesy term you'd like. I prefer to think of it as being realistic.

We ignore these people at our own peril. They will not be satiated by driving us out of the holy land; they will not be satisfied by making us retreat to within our borders.

One need look no further than Europe - how does your isolationist view square with the "Islamification" of western Europe? A. It doesn't. The Europeans participated in the Crusades. The muslims are angry at them for the crusades. We are the descendants of the Europeans.

Besides that, what happens when we withdraw from the Middle east and they seize the oil fields?

Who cares? They can hate us all they want. But unlike you, I refuse to drink the kool aid: the available evidence (various attacks in the US, England, and Spain) suggests they are going after countries for substantive political reasons: getting us off their holy soil, for instance.

Put differently: lots of people hate us, but they don't attack us because they've got better things to do and we aren't directly threatening them. Unfortunately, we are demonstrably a threat to the Islamists through our support of Western-leaning regimes and our general interventionism in the region, both militarily and politically.

Regardless of what you think of radical Islam, it is not our job to change the way people on the other side of the world think. Let them bomb each other back into the stone age for all I care: once we're out of their sights, I guarantee they'll fall back into their historical pattern of sectarian squabbles. Yaay.

Kyle

 

[squarooticus]

One need look no further than Europe - how does your isolationist view square with the "Islamification" of western Europe? A. It doesn't.

No, actually it says to me that they were stupid to allow the formation of a fifth column within their borders.

Besides that, what happens when we withdraw from the Middle east and they seize the oil fields?

That sounds like our problem (something that wouldn't be an issue at all if market forces had been in play for the last 40 years instead of the oil price being held artificially low through decade of US threats of aggression), and isn't justification for wars of aggression. We should obtain oil at whatever price we can peacefully buy it for, not at a price that is as we hold a gun to their heads.

Kyle

 

[Rockrivr1]

That sounds like our problem (something that wouldn't be an issue at all if market forces had been in play for the last 40 years instead of the oil price being held artificially low through decade of US threats of aggression
Kyle

Artificially low? I think you must be sipping your own Kool Aid to think that the countries in the middle east are being held back by "US threats of aggression" when it comes to the cost of oil. Those same countries generate more wealth then 2/3rds of the world combined. I'm sure it's every day that those poor middle east countries wonder where their next meal is coming from. They can only make trillions of dollars selling their oil at it's current price level. Gee, what a shame. They can't go and buy their next gold plated AK now because they are so destitute. Give me a break.

 

[squarooticus]

I'm sure it's every day that those poor middle east countries wonder where their next meal is coming from. They can only make trillions of dollars selling their oil at it's current price level. Gee, what a shame. They can't go and buy their next gold plated AK now because they are so destitute. Give me a break.

(a) Nice class warfare there, buddy. If you don't want to pay what they want to charge, go find some other form of energy to use. The fact that we've built our entire infrastructure around a form of energy whose price is virtually dictated by people who hate us is OUR PROBLEM. That does not give us the right to use force or the threat of force against them to obtain it more cheaply.

(b) Only a small fraction of the people in those countries are getting rich off oil. The rest are destitute. Guess whose military helps keep the fat cats in power? Somehow, in light of this, the hatred for the US on the "Arab street" doesn't seem so strange, does it?

Kyle

 

[calsdad]

I love it when people throw in non-relevant tidbits like " look at what they are capable of in Israel". Well guess what - the U.S. is not Israel. This country does not have a rabid population of Islamists living among us - nor do we have a population surrounding us on our borders.

Sealing the borders would be a huge step towards preventing terrorist attacks in this country. My next step would be to stop any and all immigration from countries where radical Islamic terrorists are known to originate from. The list could include: Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Yemen, Syria, Palestine, etc. etc. (I am sure I missed a few).

Bringing back our military from most of the huge number of bases they are stationed at around the globe would be a huge first step towards actually protecting this country. I am sorry - but I fail to see the logic in waging an alleged war against terrorism while our borders are left almost completely open and we still allow free movement between the US and countries where terrorists are known to originate from. Come up with whatever excuse you want to rationalize it but to me it seems like going out on patrol and leaving your firebase completely open to the enemy while you are out - first thing I would do is wait till the base is empty - sneak in and booby trap everything and just wait for the fireworks when you came back, just plain stupid and a sure way to lose this alleged war we are in.

"Isolationism" - is a smear tactic word that is typically used by those who don't understand the history of this country or the wisdom handed down by the founding fathers - or worse, it is used by the one world government types who want everybody to live under socialism.

The proper way to describe this is non-interventionism - sort of like telling your nosy neighbor to mind his own goddamn business when he sticks his nose in where it does not belong.

The other BS argument that gets brought up constantly is the whole nuclear weapon thing. For those who use this argument I have to ask: what exactly is it that makes you think that us invading Iran is going to stop this? Pakistan has nukes. From everything I have read it appears that the Soviets have lost numerous nukes. South Africa and North Korea are known to have produced or have had the ability to produce nukes. Israel also has nukes. There are many many ways that Islamic terrorists have or will have to acquire nuclear weapons. And this threat will not go away in the near future.

And here is the thing - from everything I have read - including Michael Scherer - the guy Bin Laden mentioned in one of this latest videos - our war in Iraq is helping Al Quaeda. The destruction and war in Iraq turns people in the Muslim world in favor of Al Quaeda - and like Afghanistan under the Soviets - it gives them a boot camp to train their soldiers in war. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan - and their subsequent defeat - is in a large part responsible for the expansion of Islamic terrorism we are seeing now.

So somebody who is all for this war please explain to me how this is making me safer? How this war is making my children safer down the road? If you are going to argue that to win we need to intensify the war I would actually agree with you - I would argue however that the intensification must involve complete and utter elimination of any Islamic populations that may support terrorists - otherwise you will never know if you have gotten them all. But this is completely immoral - and I know that. But the war the way we are fighting it is a joke - and it is doing nothing to make us safer in the long run - it is in fact making us less safe - and is bringing more converts over to the sides of the Islamists - and because of all the potential sources of nukes available to them - invading Iran will do nothing to stop that the potentiality that terrorists will get nuclear weapons.

To win this war we are going to have to be smart about it. And being smart does not include invading countries that did not invade us. Being smart does not include taking out dictators that were the worst enemies of the country we now claim is the leading supporter of Islamic terrorism (I am suggesting that supporting Saddam might have contained Iran). Being smart does not include leaving our borders open to anybody who can pay enough to sneak over. Being smart does not include spreading our military all over the world when they are needed here at home on our borders. Being smart does not include spending ourselves into bankruptcy. Being smart does not include dissuading American citizens who want to defend the borders from doing so (Remember the Minuteman project?) . Being smart does not include banning pilots from carrying handguns to defend their passengers and plane. Being smart does not include banning assault rifles from being owned by American citizens when they may need those firearms to defend themselves. Being smart does not include continuing to send billions of dollars of oil revenue to countries who are doing their best to defeat us (Saudi Arabia and Venezuala). etc. etc.



The next president should be smart enough to realize all these things. And I am sorry - but I have not seen these types of smarts from any of the leading Republican candidates. The only one who I have seen this type of smarts from is Ron Paul.

Rudy Guliani hasn't even read the 9/11 Commision report for crying out loud - Ron Paul had to remind him of that after Jailiani went ballistic on Dr. Paul in one of the earlier debates when Paul said one of the reasons we were attacked was because we been interfering in the Muslim countries. Sorry but an uneducated ignorant president is not going to do it this time around. This rules out all three of the leading Republican candidates for me.

 

[Gabe]

Jay, you should run for the Republican nomination; you make way more sense than any of the candidates supporting the war. You bring up substantial points, needing substantial answers.

And back when they were doing just that (bombing folks on the other side of the world), we didn't care or do a damn thing about it. Hell, even when they were bombing our troop barracks, embassies, or naval vessels we didn't seem to care all that much.

It was when they took the fight to us six years ago that we started to care.

And the genie's out of the bottle....

You're right that we didn't care until six years ago, as a rule. I know I didn't; I was still happily cruising along believing that everything our government did was basically good; that I lived under a moral government that used its exemplary military might for good, even if sometimes it was well intentioned but poorly executed.

But as it turns out, Middle Easterners didn't appreciate our government's military presence in their back yards - and who could blame them - and that very presence fomented a strong and growing homicidal hatred for our nation. This is your "genie," and yes it's out. But it's out because our government rubbed the lamp.

We have killed over 70,000 Iraqi civilians in 5 years. Let's just deal with this figure. We don't need to lower ourselves by saying, "Better us than them." 70,000 people dead because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, in 5 years. 70,000 innocent people killed because of our efforts. We didn't mean it, of course, but war is an extraordinarily sloppy activity, and must only be entered into upon the most serious of circumstances, and I do not believe that the bad Iraqis we've killed justifies all the good Iraqis who've perished by our hand.

They're not going to magically stop hating us even if we pull up stakes and take every last American home.

I don't think they will stop hating us if we pull up stakes, but I do think it will be a sign of goodwill to many of them. At that point, we would collectively feel like we are retreating from a fight - something we collectively despise - and probably many Middle Easterners would see it that way. Probably they would see it as victory, that they repelled the infidel invaders. But we know better than that. We know that it wasn't a good fight to begin with. We know that we provoked them. We also know that in the history of mankind no army has been able to stamp out every vestige of rebellion against its occupation, so why were we even trying? The nature of it is that in order to fight them, you need to kill them, and the more your kill, the more you create, until finally you need to either give up, or kill them all. Neither option is acceptable to us, but let's be truly honorable and choose the true lesser of two evils here. And let's collectively know that we are doing the right thing for the right reasons. Who said what and who fleeced whom are a different discussion. What we have is a military entangled in another nation's - in another region's - problems.

If they still have energy left to come get us after their V-Day celebrations, I would be very surprised. If we turn the tables on them, and make them come get us, I'd be surprised if they would choose what we chose. They don't have the might, they don't have the wealth, they don't have the technology. And they still need our oil money. I have never heard of a terrorist who didn't still like our money.

In fact, I posit that would embolden them even more to come after us - we'd be the true paper tiger they thought us to be pre-9/11.

And if they are that stupid, then they will get what's coming to them. They aren't the only ones who can defend their own turf with dogged persistence. And I'm sure many on Northeastshooters would gladly oblige them.

You can call it drinking Kool-Aid or whatever cutesy term you'd like. I prefer to think of it as being realistic.

We ignore these people at our own peril....

I don't think withdrawing our forces from the region is ignoring them. We still have scary surveillance capabilities.

...They will not be satiated by driving us out of the holy land; they will not be satisfied by making us retreat to within our borders.

One need look no further than Europe - how does your isolationist view square with the "Islamification" of western Europe? A. It doesn't. The Europeans participated in the Crusades. The muslims are angry at them for the crusades. We are the descendants of the Europeans.

It's not isolationism, it's nonintervention. There's a big difference.

How many terrorists are actually out to get all of us, as you suggest? There's only so much that the severe minority of people with these kinds of psychopathic delusions can do. The 9-11 terrorists exploited a government imposed weakness in our security, with its government induced security coma. There will never be another civilian jetliner smashing into skyscrapers, because even though the government continues to deny us our right to self defense in the air, terrorists would have to kill every man, woman and child before they could get to the cockpit, and then they'd have to kill the combative pilots as well, before assuming control of the plane. No way. And as for car bombs and backpack bombs, we've never had a problem with them, even before 9-11. I don't know why, but there must be some reason preventing them, because it's a hell of a lot easier than hijacking airplanes, you would think. Neurological or nuclear weapons? Please. At the risk of sounding cavalier, I'll worry about that after I see the mushroom cloud. I.e., never.

Your reasoning towards the end here borders on paranoia and fear mongering. It simply will not be that bad.

Besides that, what happens when we withdraw from the Middle east and they seize the oil fields?

As far as oil fields, what is the worst that can happen? It will only affect us economically. This won't hurt anybody. It may drive our markets and lives into temporary instability, but our markets and lives always eventually stabilize. The oil in the Middle East is valuable because it costs less to extract it from the ground than most other places, but Canada, America and Russia have a lot more oil than any Middle Eastern nation. So we'll have more expensive petroleum products - we've lived through price inflation before. American inventiveness will solve that problem like it solves every problem. And again, no blood spilled.

***
So, good discussion. Your serve.

 

[Rockrivr1]

(b) Only a small fraction of the people in those countries are getting rich off oil. The rest are destitute. Guess whose military helps keep the fat cats in power? Somehow, in light of this, the hatred for the US on the "Arab street" doesn't seem so strange, does it?

Kyle

As you've pointed out in an earlier post, that is THEIR problem. Not ours. We pay what the world wide market dictates for price. China, who is quickly becoming the largest consumer of Middle East oil, is paying the same price per barrel for oil that we pay. Is there a "China Threat of Aggression" towards the middle east as well? I doubt it.

 

[squarooticus]

As you've pointed out in an earlier post, that is THEIR problem. Not ours.

No, it is our problem because we are the force keeping their oppressors in power. It is our problem because their hatred for our actions turns into terrorist action against us.

We pay what the world wide market dictates for price.

Which is lower than it should be because we strong-arm OPEC with threats of pulling out our troops and leaving their regimes defenseless against coups. Of course we should do that, and damn the oil... but that would be political suicide for whoever was in office at the time oil went to $200/barrel. Never mind that we'd be better off for it in the long term from every perspective, it would be Hell Toupee(TM) for our federal government.

Those on the left in this country are right when they say we should not shed blood (either ours or theirs) for oil, but they don't really want to face the effects of that. Until more people in this dysfunctional democracy of ours understand the full causality chain from "cheap oil" to "terrorism", we'll continue to prop up OPEC dictators.

Kyle

 

[drgrant]

Ron Paul has a fine chance of being both nominated and elected President.

As much as I like Ron Paul (and might even vote for him) This
is wishful thinking at best. The best we can hope for in the end
game is that maybe Ron Paul's presence will cultivate a lot of
thought and discussion, maybe to the extent that next time around
career hacks like romney and hitlery will be a lot less tolerated at
the polls. I think RP himself is too far out of the mainstream,
however, to stand a chance of getting nominated.

-Mike

 

[kevin9]

Is this Thread Drift #3?

 

[Gabe]

As much as I like Ron Paul (and might even vote for him) This
is wishful thinking at best. The best we can hope for in the end
game is that maybe Ron Paul's presence will cultivate a lot of
thought and discussion, maybe to the extent that next time around
career hacks like romney and hitlery will be a lot less tolerated at
the polls. I think RP himself is too far out of the mainstream,
however, to stand a chance of getting nominated.

-Mike

My argument for Ron Paul's electability was founded upon the fact that Americans are still basically peaceful conservative people.

But instead, let's consider the data. Polls shows one of two things, either he's a huge favorite, or he's lost in the standard error. I'll split the difference. Each polling method has its drawbacks, and these drawbacks are valid. So, instead of rejecting one and embracing another, I'll take their combination: Ron Paul is a solid candidate. He's not leading, but he's not in last place either. The leaders are getting 25-35% while the last place dudes get nothing, so I put him at 12-17%. Once the winnowing begins, Ron Paul's message will become less and less marginalized, and Americans will begin to see his good policymaking theories. He should gain 5-10% of the Republican vote by the time the primaries are in full swing, and if the field is still fairly wide, this may be close to enough to give him the nomination. Once his campaign against the Democrats begins, it will be 1980 all over again. Americans are not ready for the extreme socialism being proffered by the Dems.

 

[ArmedMainer]

If you ask me, put the army on the border, stop illegals from coming in, and that's it. Keeping the terrorsts out would certainly mean not fighting them here, don't you think.

Good Point !!! If we were truly fighting a WOT we wouldn't be doing it with with our borders wide open. Border Security= National Security.

 

[Gabe]

One more point about bringing all our troops home. Has anyone been reading the news coming out of the Kremlin recently? Vladimir Putin is spitting mad that our government is building defense systems near his borders. He is absolutely pissed. He takes every opportunity to warn the world that what our government is doing is forcing Russia to respond. This has nothing to do with Iraq. Putin sees a mounting threat to Russia's own sovereignty. And he has pointed out that America is the only nation on earth that acts with utter impunity in doling out its military force, and that this must stop.

Soviet communism may be dead, but Russia is not. We are heading straight for Cold War II.

Vote for Ron Paul.

 

[calsdad]

My argument for Ron Paul's electability was founded upon the fact that Americans are still basically peaceful conservative people.

But instead, let's consider the data. Polls shows one of two things, either he's a huge favorite, or he's lost in the standard error. I'll split the difference. Each polling method has its drawbacks, and these drawbacks are valid. So, instead of rejecting one and embracing another, I'll take their combination: Ron Paul is a solid candidate. He's not leading, but he's not in last place either. The leaders are getting 25-35% while the last place dudes get nothing, so I put him at 12-17%. Once the winnowing begins, Ron Paul's message will become less and less marginalized, and Americans will begin to see his good policymaking theories. He should gain 5-10% of the Republican vote by the time the primaries are in full swing, and if the field is still fairly wide, this may be close to enough to give him the nomination. Once his campaign against the Democrats begins, it will be 1980 all over again. Americans are not ready for the extreme socialism being proffered by the Dems.

I have read a number of articles that point out that Ron Paul may actually be the only Republican candidate who can win against Hillary. Like Ronald Reagan he brings together many disparate groups of people - including some liberals and Democrats - who like his message of no war and smaller government. If nothing else Ron Paul is bringing up a true conservative worldview that has been absent from our national debates for a long time. His candidacy - win or lose - will have repercussions for some time to come.

 

[calsdad]

As much as I like Ron Paul (and might even vote for him) This
is wishful thinking at best. The best we can hope for in the end
game is that maybe Ron Paul's presence will cultivate a lot of
thought and discussion, maybe to the extent that next time around
career hacks like romney and hitlery will be a lot less tolerated at
the polls. I think RP himself is too far out of the mainstream,
however, to stand a chance of getting nominated.

-Mike

I once thought like this - but as I watched more and more of the intrustions by our govt. on our liberties I started to adopt an attitude that believing in and hoping for a victory by Ron Paul - or a candidate like him - is not "wishful" thinking. One of the things that turned the corner on my thinking on this was reading some of the histories of the American Revolution that have come out lately. The revolution itself was never a sure thing - and it was not supported by a majority of the population. I think the figure I remember reading was that it was only probably 25% of the population who were ever really supportive of the aims of the founding fathers - probably 50% were just going along - and there were a good many people in the colonies who fully supported England and the crown. Some people in my family tree in fled to Canada after the revolution (there was "ethnic cleansing" - a lot of Loyalists were driven out of the colonies).

By reading this history I have come to the conclusion that you get the country you wish for. If I keep voting for 'best of the worst' candidates all I can ever hope to get is mediocrity. It is true that voting for somebody like Ron Paul may well hand a victory over to the Democrats. But I also believe that historical forces may right this in the end. By accepting mediocrity we just go along - by forcing the hands of those who opress us we may well bring about historical circumstances that break that cycle of slow descent into tyranny. Have you noticed how there are many so called liberals who are starting to pay attention to the message of Ron Paul? I believe this is partially due to the impingements on our freedom that have come from the Bush administration - but also from the fact that the Democrats are just as bad. Clinton was no saint in the freedom dept. - Waco and Ruby Ridge proved that. If you truly believe in the message of our Constitution - and the Republic as it was when this country was founded - you should think long and hard before accepting another "best of the worst" candidate. Vote for what you believe in and send a message.

The original revolution took decades to finally come to a head - this one might take just as long. If you want to throw off socialism the first step is to stop accepting it by voting for those who incrementally impose it on you - from either political party.

 

[DamnVarmint]

Not Ron Paul

"Vote for Ron Paul."

Transcript of Ron Paul with a student from Student Scholars for Truth:

Student: So I just wanted to say, you know, we’ve talked to Dennis Kucinich and he says that he’s willing to, you know, investigate it. He would advocate for a new investigation.

Paul: Into 9/11?

Student: Yeah, into 9/11. I mean, if it was Dennis Kucinich and you, there’d be congressional support. You know what I mean? So you wouldn’t be the only one.

Paul: It’d be bipartisan, too. And I’ve worked with Dennis a lot on a lot of these issues.

Student: So I mean, would you advocate for a new investigation into 9/11?

Paul: Yes, I think we have to look at the details of it.

9/11 doesn't make me sad. It pisses me off. It pisses me off because what happened six years ago was plainly visible, yet utter morons like Ron Paul and Kucinich pander like the slick politicians they are to every available bottom-feeding vote with total disregard for how much damage this corrosive mindset does to our country.

Ron Paul can go fark himself for not having the guts to stand up to defeatist idiots who believe America is to blame for everything sour in this world. I'd spit on him for that transcript alone. To be running for President of the greatest nation on this earth yet to entertain the notion of an investigation into government sponsorship of the worst terror attack on our soil? He should be on trial for treason.

Regarding the whole, "Our occupation of Iraq is what made Islamists mad at us!" horse-hooey ...

Their holy book has been around for a lot longer than our military, and gee-whiz-willikers it states pretty clearly that beheadings and the subjugation of women is totally a-okay. The establishment of a caliphate is a primary goal of Islam. Sharia law established in all western countries is a primary goal of Islam. Religion of peace my backside, these people want us dead and they celebrated this "anniversary" with block parties.

"We brought this upon ourselves!" is crap. They've been slaughtering infidels long before the United States existed, and even now in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, there are public stonings and hangings to go with the mutilation of women and utter annihilation of basic human rights. Children are abused - raised marching parades with mock explosives draped over their shoulders.

Oh, oh I get it ... it's because we're "over there"? That's why Iran and Syria fund terrorism and pay the families of suicide bombing splodey-dopes who run into day care centers and coffee shops to blow up innocent women, men, and children? It's all our fault? Blood is on our hands?

No. We are a land of freedom and respect much to the dismay of communists in socialist clothing like Hillary, or blame-America troglodytes like Ron Paul and his ilk. We are not responsible for the behavior of un-evolved barbarian murderers in the middle east.

Funny how people like this never condemn the actual maniacal animals who are slicing off heads, mutilating women, and crushing free speech and thought through intimidation, torture, and murder. They just blame us for islamist's bad behavior. The stupidity of that argument is so astounding that it would make me projectile vomit a rainbow if I didn't expect it.

And blaming the US Military's presence in the middle east while at the same time saying, "but I support the troops"? Ron Paul and his ilk make me downright sick. I'll agree that you support the troops - support their withdrawal and defeat. Bleating about "civilian deaths" while totally ignoring the torture, genocide, and threats that these islamist barbarian animals unleash on us - and their own people - day after day.

Sorry to ruin the Ron Paul fantasy but he's nothing more than a blame-America leftist in RINO clothes living life like it's September 10th, 2001. Sorry pal, it's 2007 and if you're far too stupid to notice that there are millions of people out there that want my freedom, family, and way of life dead, you're doing us considerably more harm than good.

I'd sooner vote for Olbermann than a proven America-hating idiot.

 

[Gmountain]

"Vote for Ron Paul."

Transcript of Ron Paul with a student from Student Scholars for Truth:

Student: So I just wanted to say, you know, we’ve talked to Dennis Kucinich and he says that he’s willing to, you know, investigate it. He would advocate for a new investigation.

Paul: Into 9/11?

Student: Yeah, into 9/11. I mean, if it was Dennis Kucinich and you, there’d be congressional support. You know what I mean? So you wouldn’t be the only one.

Paul: It’d be bipartisan, too. And I’ve worked with Dennis a lot on a lot of these issues.

Student: So I mean, would you advocate for a new investigation into 9/11?

Paul: Yes, I think we have to look at the details of it.

9/11 doesn't make me sad. It pisses me off. It pisses me off because what happened six years ago was plainly visible, yet utter morons like Ron Paul and Kucinich pander like the slick politicians they are to every available bottom-feeding vote with total disregard for how much damage this corrosive mindset does to our country.

Ron Paul can go fark himself for not having the guts to stand up to defeatist idiots who believe America is to blame for everything sour in this world. I'd spit on him for that transcript alone. To be running for President of the greatest nation on this earth yet to entertain the notion of an investigation into government sponsorship of the worst terror attack on our soil? He should be on trial for treason.

How do you determine that Ron Paul believes the government sponsored the 9/11 attack from that snippet of a transcript?

 

[Gmountain]

Funny how people like this never condemn the actual maniacal animals who are slicing off heads, mutilating women, and crushing free speech and thought through intimidation, torture, and murder. They just blame us for islamist's bad behavior. The stupidity of that argument is so astounding that it would make me projectile vomit a rainbow if I didn't expect it.

Have you looked at what goes on in Saudi Arabia? How come you aren't on your soapbox condemning them right now? Why isn't the US government attacking the Saudi's?

 

[JAMMIN]

Ron Paul isn't even in any of the polls, he's got to be the furthest down the list. If you all are actually going to vote for him your throwing your vote away. Yes, he has "some" good ideas but he is so extreme he scares the living shit out of Ann Coultour. You don't pull out all off your troops in the middle east to run home and deffend against attack on your on soil, you take the fight to the enemy on there own soil.

VOTE FRED

 

[Gabe]

Ron Paul isn't even in any of the polls, he's got to be the furthest down the list. If you all are actually going to vote for him your throwing your vote away. Yes, he has "some" good ideas but he is so extreme he scares the living shit out of Ann Coultour. You don't pull out all off your troops in the middle east to run home and deffend against attack on your on soil, you take the fight to the enemy on there own soil.

VOTE FRED

So you have nothing to add to the discussion except that Ann Coulter is scared of Ron Paul. I don't see this as a bad thing.

 

[Gmountain]

Ron Paul isn't even in any of the polls, he's got to be the furthest down the list. If you all are actually going to vote for him your throwing your vote away.

In this country, you vote for who you want to win. Anything else IS throwing a vote away.

 

[Gmountain]

So you have nothing to add to the discussion except that Ann Coulter is scared of Ron Paul. I don't see this as a bad thing.

You speaketh the truth, sir!

 

[JAMMIN]

Well then I'm going to vote for Gary Coleman because he has some good ideas that should help us out, right?

 

[squarooticus]

Well then I'm going to vote for Gary Coleman because he has some good ideas that should help us out, right?

I hear there's a straw man with some good ideas, too.

Kyle

 

[Gmountain]

Well then I'm going to vote for Gary Coleman because he has some good ideas that should help us out, right?

If he is a candidate and you want him elected, then you should vote for him.