Hi again all. I've been away, and I've been "outed" as a collection of networked, spamming, crabgrass-like robots by Fox News. ;) Actually, I was hangin' at the Daily Paul, whose traffic now exceeds Redstate's. (More on them later, on to the links!) I've also been a bit busy, due to $41 billion more magically-appearing fiat dollars chasing the same quantity of gold, silver, etc. Plus I have a few plans for November 5th...
First, and especially for "Unsane," who has only been one-character-off, we have www.wwrpd.org -- I swear I am not making that URL up, and I'm NOT responsible for it! It just appeared, just like ronpaulgraphs.com did. :)
On the recent arson fires, read this, and then this. They're saying the same thing, with some very different words, but it might be enlightening. And here's an angle on fires you will not see in the news...
Next, we have Military & Veterans for Ron Paul. Note especially the Reagan pages regarding the sheer length of the good doctor's relationship with Ronald Reagan. That lady in the bottom pic is, if I'm not mistaken, wife#1, Jane Wyman, and the photo was probably taken at an early Goldwater event where Reagan spoke if my guess is right. The US Army sniper's testimony in that old congress commercial might partially explain why he's so popular with military folks, wallet-wise. Ron Paul supports 'em when it counts, and even when everyone else would like to forget about them, and constitution-reading veterans aren't stupid.
Baywatch babe & Playboy playmate Donna D'Errico supports Ron Paul! Along with more & more hot chicks of all ages on YouTube & elsewhere on the 'net. Donna's a Catholic, but people of all religions might find what Dr. Paul wrote in 2005 upon the passing of Pope John Paul interesting. He's much more polite than I am, but we're both saying "many people seem to be worshipping big government, not God," unless I'm mistaken. And for protestants, another Chuck Baldwin article on why Christians should support Constitutional government. And for rap-fans, this. We do diversity in this campaign, we don't just talk about it.
Interview in the Rocky Mountain Chronicle, featuring possibly the world's worst pic of the candidate. Oh well, they can't get that kind of bias out of themselves.
I've been enjoying the FECal/First Amendment aspects of Colbert's run, especially when he mentions O'Reilly "protecting America from Dumbledore's flaming wand."
The Leno appearance happened after my bedtime, and Leno's staff refused our flowers and the can of Hormel brand Spam I sent as a joke, but they went to a good cause (the firefighters). And check out what this lovely girl said about the crowd. The media loves talking about racist nutcases, but they don't seem to want to address why, of all Republicans out-there, Ron Paul does so-damn-well with black voters. Ask yourself "why?" The only answer I can come-up-with is "antilibertarian bias," which remains my thesis whether I'm around or not when it comes to this place.
What I love most about "Little Green Footballs"? Intellectual consistency. By contrast, some liberals are honest. James Babb gets my "best mocking of RedState" award, and I think we all know their actual policy by now. Doesn't matter a bit, though. See red line for why. :)
Our rockin' NYC team. Signs like theirs or this one aren't financed (or known) by the official campaign. They just happen, as Chris Matthews discovered at the Democrat debate aftermath. Funny how dishonest polls can't hurt us much...
And speaking of polls...
You can tell we're doing well in the straw-polls when Tom DeLay says nice things about Ron Paul. :) This is, after all, the same wease...er...guy who recruited a tax & spend Democrat to change parties & run against Dr. Paul. And Glen Beck's letting Penn Jillette say nice things. What next? Townhall saying nice things, too? What's the world coming-to?? ;)
Finally, and just for Tax Hike Mike Huckabee fans, I present a can of whoop-ass by a journalist who's obviously been around for a few Arkansas governors and seen slick talkers before. Devastatingly good writing, especially the end. And Binxley, if you're reading, please watch the entire Judge Napolitano youtube video, especially the end, if you like Rudy at all. You won't after that!
Thanks.
JMR
[ Update: How to "win" straw polls which "don't matter" -- as I say in the thread, the party apparently didn't learn from Florida's rule-changin' experience how to milk Mitt's moolah!]




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
sarc---
November 3, 2007 - 11:40 ET by misterbillA long read--but good. I followed almost every link in each of your links, I came across Ron Paul's vting record on free trade. He is trying to protect Americans and their jobs and still support free trade which is a little confusing to me.
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade.
Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act:
Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement.
Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile.
Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO.
Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements.
And next, which true free traders should like:
Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:
As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.- WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
- WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
- WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
- WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:- The US government should inhibit neither the exportation of US goods and services worldwide, nor the importation of goods and services.
- The United States should not be answerable to any governing body outside the United States for its trade policy.
No restrictions on import/export; but maintain sovereignty
End economic protectionism: let dairy compacts expire .
Even with theses votes, Rated 76% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record.
Puzzling!!!???
As Colbert said...
November 3, 2007 - 12:08 ET by sarcasmoHe's "an enigma, wrapped in a riddle in a sesame seed bun of mystery," and I certainly don't speak for the man. Having said that, people like me think any true free trade agreement that's not control-freakery in disguise should have a few characteristics. One important characteristic is that when written, the agreement should find a way to be shorter than The Bible. None of the big-government agreements with "free trade" in the title qualifies these days. This is because their writers want to make them highly complex, unreadably-long welfare programs for lobbyists and lawyers instead of real free trade.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
PS misterbill
November 3, 2007 - 12:15 ET by sarcasmoAs a wordsmith, I think you'll especially like the CA fire links which say almost exactly the same thing in such different ways. Makes one think....
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Defeatist
November 4, 2007 - 04:24 ET by UnsaneSo. because you believe the United States of America is this fragile, delicate nation that can't even have embassies in Washington (I am sure I am exaggerating only very slightly) lest its sovereignty is destroyed (yet you can't seem to explain NATO, the OAS, the Alaska Highway, and other things that have existed for the past six decades), we MUST turn it into the most whiny, pathetic shell of a nation possible...so whiny and powerless, that even the EU is more powerful than it is?
Sad...but then, defeatists like stuff like that...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Did Paul get those dried apricots I sent?
November 3, 2007 - 11:54 ET by third eyeFrom the Time article on Ron Paul, 1 Nov 07
Representative Tom Tancredo, another long-shot G.O.P. candidate, tells
me that after a debate in New Hampshire, one of his staffers walked up
to a guy in a shark costume and asked him if he was a Ron Paul
supporter. "No. They're all nuts," replied the shark. "I'm just a guy
in a shark suit."
http://www.time.com/...
For extra points...
November 3, 2007 - 12:02 ET by sarcasmoSpot the made-up "fact" in the Time article.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I think I found it
November 3, 2007 - 12:15 ET by third eye"Paul's fans — and there were more than 100 of them in Leno's audience,
many of whom had flown in from out of town — are entranced by a man who
responds to surprising information with "Wowee" and a jaw-dropped smile
not often seen apart from 5-year-old boys and Muppets."
Ron Paul smiling? This is clearly fictitious, your absolutely right Sarc
Yep.
November 3, 2007 - 14:59 ET by sarcasmoToo much media bias for you to ever see pics like this, but he's smiling all-over, anyway, whether or not you ever-see it. I was standing about 8 feet away from this, and the 72 year old Presidential candidate, after what must have been a very long day, lifted the cute little kid like she weighed nothing. :) Cute kid.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
sarc--which "fact"?
November 3, 2007 - 12:55 ET by misterbillsarc--which "fact"?
Right here...
November 3, 2007 - 14:53 ET by sarcasmo"Paul doesn't expect that he will win the nomination, and..." only his proctologist knows where this "journalist" got this whopper (see Leno interview for actual facts). Prediction: Despite my words here and on the Daily Paul saying only his proctologist knows, we shall see no retraction/correction. Mark my words.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
found it Sarc
November 3, 2007 - 13:02 ET byI (Ron P) say, 'We're diverse. We even have some Republicans,'"
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
Nope
November 3, 2007 - 14:53 ET by sarcasmoBut nice try. See above.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
but i must disagree
November 3, 2007 - 15:12 ET bynow if it said "we even have some newly-minted Republicans"
GoHunter08
The proof will come...
November 3, 2007 - 15:35 ET by sarcasmoIn the primaries. I'm willing to wait 'till then, especially considering straw poll results.
And we're talkin' TIME MAGAZINE here. We go back...They have a history of antilibertarian bias stretching back to their never-retracted lie about Lyndon LaRouche being a Libertarian in either the early '80s or late '70s, I forget which.
I'm more concerned with forcing a source outta their creative writer for the rectally-derived "fact" I outlined above, which is contrary to everything Dr. Paul has ever said. Let's focus on that bias, at least for a bit, so I can skewer Time's "journalist" a bit more here like I already skewered him in the Daily Paul. :) From experience, I don't expect a factual retraction from the likes of Time, so proctologist/creative-writing jokes are all I get...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
indeed it will carry on
November 3, 2007 - 15:55 ET byindeed it will
carry on sarc (i'm no fan of Time meself)
GoHunter08
Another interesting
November 3, 2007 - 17:16 ET by Clear thinkerAnother interesting link...
Ron Paul and his campaign may have nothing to do with this, but it sure puts a cloud over him...
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/10/paul_bot
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Hey Ct... Thanks for that
November 3, 2007 - 17:26 ET by bigtimerHey Ct...
Thanks for that info. I wonder if that was what Scarborough was referring to on his show yesterday morning...I missed the segment where he talked about later after the tease.
The posts afterwards were interesting too....lol.
lol....well, well
November 3, 2007 - 17:32 ET by RJI think this must have been what he was talking about, BT.
I'm sure sarky will deny this smoking gun just the way the Paul spokesman disingenuously claimed someone might be out to "embarrass" the campaign....lol!
"If it is true, it could be done by a well-intentioned yet misguided supporter or someone with bad intentions trying to embarrass the campaign," he wrote while ferrying his boss to tape an appearance on The Tonight Show. "Either way, this is independent work, and we have no connection."
It will be interesting to see if the righteous Ron Paul demands anyone who might be engaged in technical manupulation stop immediately.
It seems he has been silent
November 3, 2007 - 17:37 ET by bigtimerIt seems he has been silent about this all so far RJ...glad we found out what Joe was talking about though thanks to Ct.
I haven't heard a word from Paul about this as of yet anyway. If he is smart he had better make a statement.
Thanks for the kudos but
November 3, 2007 - 23:26 ET by Clear thinkerThanks for the kudos but the credit goes to vrwc13. He posted the link 2 days ago in the Open Thread.
Just for the record: Ron Paul has zero chance to win the nomination, especially if his supporters continue to act like Democrats.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
"Clear" thinker, your
November 4, 2007 - 00:52 ET by ThoughtPolice"Clear" thinker, your predictions are as funny as your posts. No chance? Just like he had "no chance" at bringing in over 5 million last quarter too, i'm sure.
He just won another straw poll (Arkansas I think) by a LANDSLIDE. Oh, but I know...straw polls mean nothing (especially when the candidate you like doesn't win!).
As for the botnet story, get a life. The fact that people are saying this is Ron pauls "negative" is laughable. Obviously they'll do ANYTHING to make him look bad. Let's think about this for a sec, shall we? How do botnets vote in all those online polls? How do botnets vote in the text message polls? Last but not least, how do botnets bring in almost as much money as John McCain? (I thought all they could do was send a few annoying spam messages!)
Looks like you need to try a bit harder to discredit the good Dr.!
Delegate count, please
November 4, 2007 - 04:28 ET by UnsaneHe just won another straw poll (Arkansas I think) by a LANDSLIDE. Oh, but I know...straw polls mean nothing (especially when the candidate you like doesn't win!). So, with this impressive victory, how many delegates did Paul pick up for the Convention?
And as for people out to make Paul look bad...he does a great job all by himself.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Delegate count for the others, please...
November 4, 2007 - 07:19 ET by sarcasmoFirst. You can't even operate under one standard, and you expect to be convincing here. Ha. No wonder so many of us respect you so much. And didn't you see your own URL??? Item 1, and you were only one character off...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Various
November 5, 2007 - 09:50 ET by UnsaneHow am I not operating under one standard?
No wonder so many of us respect you so much Wow, and you speak for ALL of NB posters too? Amazing. I missed that appointment...
Sarcasmo, no, I actually have a job and a life, so no, I did not notice that. But that's also because I was deeply touched by your kind words for me in your post.
Now, run along to your self-denunciation session. Something you can take with you: I early-voted the other day here in TX and when I went to the polling place, it was surrounded by HPD personnel in riot gear, pushing back an agitated, desperate crowd of thousands. What were those crowds demanding? They wanted to vote fo Ron Paul, and they wanted to RIGHT NOW.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
If you don't see the double-standard
November 6, 2007 - 06:05 ET by sarcasmoThat doesn't change it. :) It just makes it funnier.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Lazy...just unbelievably lazy
November 7, 2007 - 01:15 ET by UnsaneIf you can't point out the double-standard, you are lazy. And still a BFI. And THAT makes YOU funnier.
Before we award Ron Paul the full complement of delegates to the convention AND 538 electoral votes for winning a lousy straw poll, why don't we all just go ahead and hold the primaries anyways, just to be sure that he REALLY deserved them?
And, do we count how many votes he gets only, or do we calculate the "spent-per-voter" basis to award him the delegates?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
I haven't read ALL of
November 7, 2007 - 02:49 ET by WhichWingI haven't read ALL of sarcasmo's posts, but I don't recall him calling off the vote and declaring Ron Paul the winner. (But I guess that's just more of Unsane's extremist rhetoric seeping through, if only the poor guy could see that there is something between the two extremes of every situation...)
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Number of delegates?
November 7, 2007 - 03:53 ET by UnsaneIf only poor WhichWhine actually had a spine...
Yes, sarcasmo frequently refers to "ass-kickin'". Which implies victory. Which, unfortunately for you and him, not a single delegate has gone to Ron Paul as a result of any straw polls, text polls or anything else.
You actually are going to have to face the polls in an ELECTION.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Who has the delegates then?
November 8, 2007 - 07:57 ET by WhichWingWho has the delegates then? When some one says Ron Paul doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell do you jump in with your rant about holding elections anyway? Hell no you don't! Of course you don't!
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
It's a double-standard which matches
November 8, 2007 - 08:02 ET by sarcasmoMuch of the media bias we bust here, come to think of it...I mean, many reporters' worldviews are so-stilted that we see the same kind of both double-standards AND attitudes from them. Good spotting. For something more-intellectual than "unsane" will ever give us on Dr. Paul and God, check out the Huffypo-interview with the good doctor's brother, David.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
More whining and whimpering
November 8, 2007 - 08:04 ET by UnsaneYou might have noticed that though I have a range of candidates, I have not actively supported a particular one. By the way, I want them to face the polls as well...
...just because.
Continue with your tantrum. And just accept the fact that I am perpetually allergic to reactionaries.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
More irony...
November 8, 2007 - 08:06 ET by sarcasmoYou're no-better and giving him a straight answer than you are with me, eh? Funny...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Straight talk
November 8, 2007 - 08:26 ET by UnsaneOh, you are given straight answers - by me, and others - but, to quote Sarcasmo, "YOU CAN'T READ!!!" Or, more accurately, you don't want to read them, because you just cannot stand the thought that someone else not named Sarcasmo just might be right.
(For some reason, whenever I see your posts together with WhichWhine, I can't help but hear "Romeo and Juliet", and I don't even have it on my laptop.)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
More like 0-content.
November 8, 2007 - 08:52 ET by sarcasmoI'll resort to one of those evil "link" things again. I know, it's not conducive to evaluating sources, but it's what we've got here on the internet.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Shahinshah of zero
November 9, 2007 - 06:45 ET by UnsaneAnytime you link, and knowing how much contempt you have for source evaluation, I say that makes you the king...the Shahinshah...of "0 content".
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
You've proven 0
November 9, 2007 - 10:44 ET by sarcasmo"Contempt" on my part for source evaluation, either here or anywhere else. You just like personal insults because you're better at that than you are at discussing policy (which requires actual thought). It shows. You want this thread to degenerate into your usual insults. People reading us both might want to ask themselves "why?" IMO.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Glass house
November 11, 2007 - 03:39 ET by UnsaneWhat needs to be proven, beyond your links? Your abilities to evaluate sources are nonexistent. Your exchanges with BD, where he "shacked" you, comes to mind. He asked you a specific question, and for you to not post links related to Ron Paul or to one of Paul's Cultists in response. The silence you gave him was deafening, because it proves you cannot look at a source that doesn't immediately slavishly back up either your POV or that of your God.
Keep whining about my "personal insults." What's that they say about people who live in glass houses?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Unsane, I can respect your
November 8, 2007 - 08:59 ET by WhichWingUnsane, I can respect your skepticism and desire for source evaluation, to a degree. But your unwillingness to read anything posted by anybody is quite frustrating to everyone. While rejecting any and all sources provided you sing the praises of your own sources. Sources that may or may not be credible, but certainly are not available at everyone's fingertips in either case. Some links posted don't need you to evaluate their sources, because some are actually the source. For example, you go on about Ron Paul's policies being anti-semitic but refuse to look at a link from Jews For Ron Paul. How, honestly, do you expect anyone to proceed from such a point in a conversation?
(For clarification, sarcasmo has courted me in the past, and I promptly informed him that my love was only for Unsane.)
All humor aside, WW makes
November 8, 2007 - 15:50 ET by BinxlyAll humor aside, WW makes some good points. You call out Sarc for 'whining' when the demeanor and tone of your emails are much more complacent than his initial posts. Its true he reacts somewhat when people respond in a rude way, but its true that too often those who accuse him of his demeanor are often worse in their own.
I too have given Unsane many different examples of what true anti-semitism is, and for someone so terribly against a PC-mindset (which I am also against in this sense) its funny to see him equate Dr. Paul's belief that we over-endorse Israel to proof of anti-semitism. Its obvious, I'm afraid, that Unsane is another person who simply will not move on his beliefs and that is fine. The problem is, when I listen to his point, I take what I can, have actually *learned* a bit from him too, and then politely disagree (excusing the few times in which his name-calling got to me and I admittedly stooped to his level.)
I think in all honesty that perhaps arguing with Unsane on these issues is both counterproductive and a complete waste of time as well as an unnecessary stress. As he loves to say 'let's wait until the primaries.' Wait we will do indeed. I can only hope there are no sharp objects or high places easily accessible to Unsane should 'hell freeze over' and Ron win the nomination.
Binxly
November 9, 2007 - 06:59 ET by UnsaneAh, Binxly. How I should have known that you would come to the rescue...
I too have given Unsane many different examples of what true anti-semitism is, and for someone so terribly against a PC-mindset (which I am also against in this sense) its funny to see him equate Dr. Paul's belief that we over-endorse Israel to proof of anti-semitism. I have also explained to you multiple times that, IF he is NOT anti-Semitic, his comments about Israel only highlights that he is a complete idiot.
Wait we will do indeed. I can only hope there are no sharp objects or high places easily accessible to Unsane should 'hell freeze over' and Ron win the nomination. Nah. If Ron Paul DOES win the nomination, I will be in a very bad quandary: both presidential candidates will have a deep, passionate hatred for the United States, and both will want to render the United States as whiny, weak, and pathetic as possible. So, who, at that point, do I vote for? The Reactionary that wants to severely weaken the United States, or the Socialist that wants to severely weaken the United States?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Prove that "deep, passionate hatred."
November 9, 2007 - 10:48 ET by sarcasmoYou can't, because you're full of crap. I know that from experience. But you'll flail and try to make it about me instead of the issues, anyway, if my guess is right.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Sarcasmo, paragon of civility
November 11, 2007 - 03:45 ET by UnsaneYou can't, because you're full of crap. And of course, knowing you, because you cannot help yourself, you will WHINE and SCREAM elsewhere about my "personal insults." I know that from experience. When did we ever meet? I really am surprised you haven't been to Houston thus far, so that you can see what Paul's district is like. But you'll flail and try to make it about me instead of the issues, anyway, if my guess is right. And your guess is wrong.
" Ron Paul has taken a good, hard look around America and hates everything he sees. He hates the Iraq war. He hates the rest of our foreign policy. He pretty much thinks we shouldn't have a foreign policy. He hates our bloated and meddlesome federal government. (What's that they say about stuck clocks?) He hates abortion. He hates the Treasury and floating currency. Basically, he wishes it were 1796 and he could wear a powdered wig without being ridiculed in public." - Dean Barnett, The Weekly Standard
Why not refute any of this in your very own words, sans links to other Ron Paul sites and Ron Paul worshippers? Bet you can't.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Frustrating?
November 9, 2007 - 06:51 ET by UnsaneYeah, I know, its frustrating that I use sources like...BOOKS. That source of information that is easily evaluated and has been around thousands of years longer than the Internet.
I do provide titles of the publications I cite. What, is it going to kill you to check them out yourself?
Oh, that website you cite does nothing to change the fact that your God has called the Israeli government the biggest lobby in Washington. As I explained to your buddy Binxly once: if that doesn't make him anti-Semitic, it does make him a complete idiot.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Your God is clearly big-government
November 9, 2007 - 10:50 ET by sarcasmoBut here's another of those evil links to not-evaluate, and then quickly claim I don't evaluate things. Keep flailin', and keep up the worship of ever-bigger big government!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Illiteracy
November 11, 2007 - 03:48 ET by UnsaneMy God is big-government?
Don't worry, sarc. The first step to recovering from illiteracy is admitting you can't read...
(I don't click on links. Link away, I won't read them. Standard policy.)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
It is much easier to pick
November 8, 2007 - 08:46 ET by WhichWingIt is much easier to pick three or more candidates and say you don't necessarily support any of them, isnt it? And then you can join the masses and vote for which ever one was chosen for you.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Translations
November 9, 2007 - 07:02 ET by UnsaneOne, I translate that post as "I, WhichWhine, have extremely severe problems with reading." Two, unlike you, I do not hinge everything in my life on a politician, as no candidate on earth from anywhere for anything is going to provide me life-saving meals or a roof over my head. I do not worship a candidate like Eyedema, Turkmenbashy, or Kim Jong-Il.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
BS
November 9, 2007 - 10:52 ET by sarcasmoYou stupidly accuse others of worshipping that which we plainly don't worship, while yourself worshipping bigger & bigger government. I then treat you with the respect you deserve for trying that tactic. Lather, rinse, repeat.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
More contradictions
November 11, 2007 - 03:54 ET by UnsaneYou stupidly accuse others of worshipping that which we plainly don't worship just as you stupidly scream at me "You worship theholydrugwar!!!"? Me, the atheist, who worships absolutely NOTHING?
while yourself worshipping bigger & bigger government. And you whine this with 0 proof, to quote Sarcasmo. All this tells me is that YOU CAN'T READ, to quote Sarcasmo. Repeatedly on NB, I have talked of taking money away from education, from Nanny State programs, and of ways to make the government more efficient, and yet, you whine that I "worship" bigger government? This is sad, even for you.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
You vote for and worship
November 22, 2007 - 07:40 ET by sarcasmoBig government Republicans. They don't want to admit to being that, but they worship big government, and so do you. Atheists often DO worship big government, don't feel bad about it. But don't be intellectually dishonest about what I worship when you want to tax me to fund a variety of wars that will not work. War is the health of the state, as Bourne said (go look it up, no link this time).
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
TRY, just TRY, to enjoy Thanksgiving
November 22, 2007 - 17:57 ET by UnsaneYou vote for and worship big government Republicans. Yet, when I tell you that you are a Paul worshipper, you will WHINE and SCREAM that I have no idea who you worship. I guess you are the only one on NB with the license to tell people who and what they worship. Never mind that I am an atheist (perhaps you need to look that up in the dictionary, along with "reactionary"). Nor do I vote for "big-government Republicans" willingly...as this is not a parliamentary democracy, I cannot vote for the party that 100% mirrors my own views...until I officially start up the Unsane party.
Atheists often DO worship big government, don't feel bad about it. So, don't bitch ever again when I tell you that you worship Ron Paul. Okay, Paul Worshipper?
And the more you accuse me of liking big government, the more you indicate to me your severe selective literacy problems.
But don't be intellectually dishonest about what I worship when you want to tax me to fund a variety of wars that will not work. Yep, I want to tax poor Sarcasmo to fund war all by himself.
What wars will not work? Thedrugwarisworkinginthatitiscuttingdownusage. The Iraq war is working just fine, as violence works to solve lots and lots of problems.
TRY to have a Happy Thanksgiving. Instead of being the miserable soul that you are, I am going to bake massive quantities of cookies once again, while downing Spaetlese.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
You're hallucinating again...
December 4, 2007 - 11:40 ET by sarcasmoI had a great Thanksgiving, and I never was miserable. If you somehow don't worship big government, maybe I don't worship what you say, huh? You always want one standard when I apply your double standards to you, though. I'm having FUN, why is that so-hard to get through your head??? It's big government Republicans like that RINO Rudy who are getting teary-eyed.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Not silent at all, my friend...
November 4, 2007 - 07:17 ET by sarcasmoSee various YouTube videos already posted, you just haven't taken sufficient time on my many links. If you're like RJ & dimwitted enough to believe "journalism" regarding Ron Paul supporters (a bunch of spam-hating computer-guys) spamming instead of opponents, it's too-pathetically-dumb for me to WANT to change your mind. Stay with the stupid-theory, it'll make for more amusing comments!! ;) From me, anyway.
And if Paul "had better make a statement" about someone else's spam despite his total non-involvement and the TOTAL likelihood that idiots won't believe it, shouldn't Dubya make a statement about Daniel Carver's support in spite of his equal non-involvement & smartness? He's about 3-4 years late by now, if so...The idea that supporters equal the candidate is silly.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
The publicity that Ron Paul
November 6, 2007 - 08:00 ET by TexasOptimistThe publicity that Ron Paul has "earned" is largely because of these shenanigans. So even if Paul is himself uninvolved with them, it would still be wise for him to do something to negate it.
George W. Bush is not a full-fledged conservative, but I still support his presidency. (Although I am rethinking this position daily!) Still, I'd rather have him as president than ANY of the Democrats. Merry Christmas 2007.
You mean like yesterday's "shenanigans"?
November 6, 2007 - 08:05 ET by sarcasmoWhen we broke a record & made history? That's funny!! Hell, as I showed already, we even made a biased media notice! :) Why not be happy at the success of a Republican candidate who happens to be the only true conservative??
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Reactionary
November 7, 2007 - 01:18 ET by UnsaneWhy not be happy at the success of a Republican candidate who happens to be the only true conservative?? Because, like you, Ron Paul is a reactionary, NOT a conservative.
It is hilarious to see various flakes defend their candidates by saying "He's a true conservative!!!", be it Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul or whoever. Whenever I see "true conservative" attached to any candidate, that is my cue to run as fast as possible from him/her.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Somenthing's rotten in Denmark...
November 7, 2007 - 01:36 ET by RESTLESS 1... and it's not the cheese.
I can't figure what Ron Paul is doing in this race. I, however, am fearing a Ross Perot moment coming. I mean think about it, RP= Ron Paul ; RP= Ross Perot. Coincidence? Hmmm.
Is It Just Me?
November 4, 2007 - 09:14 ET by Sua Sponte 75Not that I have loads of time for research, but this gentleman seems to have quite the following of Truthers, Holocaust deniers, UFOers, Neo-Nazis. I can't seem to find anywhere where he's distancing himself from them either. Is it just me?
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
No, that's just Unsane. He
November 4, 2007 - 09:51 ET by WhichWingNo, that's just Unsane. He refuses to distance himself from anything other than reality.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
WhichWhine "strikes" again
November 7, 2007 - 01:23 ET by UnsaneYou are such a deeply confused little boy. My staunch support of Israel alone is enough to chase away the neo-Nazis. Though, I must admit, I have always wanted to walk up to a bunch of skinheads and say "Shalom". :-)
Considering that I have read such outstanding books like City In The Sky, that detail 9/11/01 in ways that will make truthers like you very uncomfortable, I can't be a "truther".
I am firmly grounded in reality, so much so that I like to read how we got to present day reality, which is more than I can say for this pathetic whiner I know who throws a tantrum anytime someone cites history for him...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
If only you supported the
November 7, 2007 - 02:52 ET by WhichWingIf only you supported the USA as much as you supported Israel. Have you looked into citizenship in Israel? I'd be willing to chip in some cash if needed.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Silly, confused little boy!
November 7, 2007 - 03:12 ET by UnsaneSuch a silly, confused little boy!!! Supporting Israel IS supporting the USA.
Why did we support West Berlin in its hour of need?
Why did, and why do we, support South Korea in its hour of need?
And that's just TWO examples.
And of course, you constantly whine and bawl about how much our civil liberties are threatened, that we hate democracy, and how much I support Israel over the United States...yet, I am the servicemember here. Ironic?
And what is the matter with supporting Israel? Hmmmmmmm? If you love democracy as much as you whine you do, why don't you do anything to defend it? Why aren't you supporting Israel, and by extension, the USA?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Lay it out for me, simply.
November 7, 2007 - 03:17 ET by WhichWingLay it out for me, simply. Why should I care about Israel? Why do care about Israel?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
The case for Israel
November 7, 2007 - 03:55 ET by UnsaneI have repeatedly on NB. Hell, I am an atheist and have made the case for Israel over and over again, as have many other posters.
Why don't you care about Israel? Why don't you support Israel? I thought you were the biggest fan of democracy on NB...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
I am a fan of preserving
November 8, 2007 - 07:54 ET by WhichWingI am a fan of preserving OUR republic over granting one to someone else.
I care about America. If Israel is doing well, good for them. I'm not calling for any action against Israel, I'm calling for no more action on behalf of Israel. My duty is to my country, not theirs.
So again I ask, why do you care about Israel, and why should I?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Come on
November 8, 2007 - 07:59 ET by JimboAre you saying that you don’t care whether democracy flourishes elsewhere on the globe, as long as it does so here?
Isolationism may have worked 150 years ago before things like nuclear tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles were invented, but it IS in this country’s best interest to support democracy elsewhere on the globe.
Come on, are you serious with this stuff?
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
One cost of freedom
November 8, 2007 - 08:12 ET by UnsaneYour continued whining about that only convinces me that if you were in power in the late 1940s, your response to Stalin's blockade of Berlin would be to run up to him like a whipped, scared puppy, say "I am so sorry!!!" and leave all of Europe to him.
JFK once said something to the effect of (I'll get the exact quote sometime) "When we defend freedom in Berlin, we defend freedom in London and New York as well." When we protect representative democracy in Israel, we are protecting it here. It is really quite simple.
Democratic institutions didn't just magically happen in Eastern Europe in 1989. They were fought for, and earned. And one reason it came about was the fact that the United States did not abandon Western Europe.
The fact you cannot get these simple facts of history only confirms to me that you are nothing more than a selfish, petulant little boy with NO concept of what it means to have freedom and democracy, or what goes into it to protect and defend it. Yet, you so greedily suck the tits of democracy and freedom...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
America does not support Israel
November 8, 2007 - 09:22 ET by fosstenAmerica has lately done more to harm Israel than we've done to support her. We've pressured Israel to negotiate with terrorists, to engage in cease-fires with Hezbollah despite the fact that Israel did not start the conflict. We've pushed Israel to give up land in the Gaza strip, land which Israel EARNED by virtue of winning wars in 1967 which she DID NOT EVEN START.
We continually preach non-retaliation to Israel no matter when she is attacked or provoked by her hate-filled Islamic neighbors. I would argue that Israel would be better off if we simply stayed out of it and stopped telling Israel not to defend herself. As far as I'm concerned, Israel could wipe out her neighbors in a New York minute, and the neighbors know it. They also know that the United States fears losing Middle Eastern oil, so we will always interfere and take the side of telling Israel not to retaliate. This is bad policy and is not in Israel's best interests - it is in our own cowardly interests and actually harms Israel.
Not to mention the fact that our American media always paints Israel as the bad guys. If I were Israel I would tell the US to go pound sand.
Forget 911, I dial 9MM.
The blame game
November 21, 2007 - 16:52 ET by Unsanefossten - Since when did Israel become a colony of America?
I am a staunch supporter of Israel, but even so, quit blaming this country because Ehud Olmert is a wuss. If Ariel Sharon or Netanyahu were in power last summer, they would have violently defended Israel and walked around facing the entire globe with a fully extended middle finger.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
And I can't find one instance
November 4, 2007 - 10:47 ET by sarcasmoOf George Bush distancing himself from Daniel Carver. One standard. :) It's not like LGF's position on internet polls I lampooned above; with me the word one means "one."
JMR
[Edit: As if it weren't obvious, I think this is a totally-stupid argument, but if you're gonna try to use it on my current candidate you're likely -- as here -- to see it used on your former candidate, since he's had about 4 years to "distance himself" from that loon.]
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
When you hate Israel, you get all sorts of flaky friends
November 7, 2007 - 01:24 ET by UnsaneWell, considering Ron Paul's hatred for Israel, he's a natural candidate for neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers (aren't those interchangeable terms?)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
}}---> Flakey friends
November 7, 2007 - 01:42 ET by Cool ArrowSomebody fill me in. Who is this Daniel Carver person?
This is Daniel Carver.
November 7, 2007 - 01:51 ET by RESTLESS 1This is Daniel Carver.
}}---> Thanks, R1 but
November 7, 2007 - 01:55 ET by Cool ArrowBut why is sarc attaching his name to President Bush?
Apparently he donated to his
November 7, 2007 - 01:56 ET by RESTLESS 1Apparently he donated to his campaign or supported his run in 2000 or 2004 or something. Don't really know.
}}---> Thanks again R1
November 7, 2007 - 02:09 ET by Cool ArrowSeems something that big would be all over the NET.
I guess my GOOGLE must be more broke, because it only works perfectly when I don't search "Daniel Carver" "contribution" "Bush campaign"
Should I notify GOOGLE about this glitch?
It's not broke...
November 7, 2007 - 04:13 ET by Sua Sponte 75The "claim" is that this nutjob Carver stated that he would vote for Bush and of course the other nuts ran with it. Most of this spawns from the episode of "The View," Joy Behar comparing President Bush's alleged lack of disaster relief in the Gulf to the Klan. "Even the Klan agrees. Even the Klan likes that Bush is not helping. The head of the Klan said on the radio, this morning, that Bush wasn't helping Black people." Apparently Joy Behar is a Howard Stern listener but won't admit it. In fact, Behar conveniently omitted that the Klansman to whom she was referring, was Daniel Carver, Imperial Wizard and Grand Dragon of the Klan (just like Senator Robert Byrd of Behar's beloved Democratic Party), and that the radio show, to which she was referring, was the nationally-syndicated Howard Stern Show. He made an appearance on the Stern show to play a game. This is what Joy Behar used as "hard evidence" that Bush is a racist and "Klan-esque"--an appearance by a Klansman on the Howard Stern Show to play a game. Her source is a man whose trademark slogan is "Wake up, White people." Incredible.
So this is what is used and then claimed as two standards, a nutjob says he'll vote for Bush is the exactly the same as taking contributions from white supremacists and cuddling up with Holocaust Deniers, Twoofers and 9/11 was an inside job types.....
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
}}---> Thanks Sua
November 7, 2007 - 08:31 ET by Cool ArrowJust when Ron Paul is celebrating a very big victory in the money category, his supporters are busy linking him to the politics of smear by loose association.
Let's follow this Rally-online logic:
So it appears all one need do is sling dung until something sticks.
Nice work sarc.
No Problem CA....
November 7, 2007 - 09:11 ET by Sua Sponte 75Honestly I could care less about him running or raising money or whatever. What concerns me is the smoke and mirrors explainations. As of yet I haven't had anyone come forward showing he doesn't think or didn't say I'm an occupier or that 9/11 was an inside job...yada, yada, yada...
I thought this was interesting, over at Ace....
Ron Paul has raised himself a nice little bundle of cash today, making a point to 'remember the 5th of November.' I wonder why? (http://en.wikipedia....)
David Freddoso of National Review says this should make us take Paul more seriously (http://corner.nation...) , a statement which makes me inclined to take Freddoso less seriously.
If Freddoso actually wants us to judge the seriousness of presidential candidates based on their ability to raise money, let's take a look at the numbers. According to Open Secrets, Ron Paul has managed to raise (http://www.opensecre...) about $8 million. That is considerable, and today's fundraising is impressive. Until, that is, you compare it to what other candidates have managed to raise.
Hillary Clinton - $90 million
Barack Obama - $80 million
John Edwards - $30 million
Mitt Romney - $62 million
Rudy Giuliani - $47 million
John McCain - $32 million
Fred Thompson - $12 million
With the exception of Thompson, who entered the race late, the other candidates have raised considerably more money, and poll more than the margin of error (http://www.realclear...) . If anything, these fundraising numbers should make the Thompson campaign nervous. They certainly should not be a cause for celebration among the Paulbots.
There are two major reasons the Ron Paul candidacy should not be taken seriously. One is Ron Paul, the other is his supporters (http://hotair.com/ar...) . The evidence against Ron Paul is very(http://hotair.com/ar...) , very (http://hotair.com/ar...) , very (http://hotair.com/ar...) , very (http://hotair.com/ar...) , very (http://hotair.com/ar...) disturbing. Paul finds common cause with conspiracy theorists, white supremacists and lounge singers (http://www.reason.co...) and he is using the Republican presidential primary to advance his message, not his candidacy.
In my opinion, that makes Ron Paul a disgraceful politician. Paul was elected as a Republican, campaigns as a Republican, takes money from the Republican party and is given a platform for his message during Republican debates. And yet he’s repeatedly stated that once the primary is over, he will not campaign on behalf of the Republican nominee, endorse the Republican nominee or vote for the Republican nominee.
What kind of man takes money and attention from a party when it helps him, then spits in their face after getting what he wants? This entitlement attitude, when looked at within the context of who supports Paul and what Paul believes, does not reflect well on the character of the man who claims to be the "hope for America."
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
Look at McCain's money ON HAND
November 10, 2007 - 07:18 ET by sarcasmoNot as much as Paul's, because he instinctively wasted it. And I note you left out Huckabee, who has literally miserable financial results (probably because supporters expect to pay eventually, anyway!) Only one true fiscal conservative in the race, folks, like it or not. Fred comes closest to second place, IMO. And the Daniel Carver thing remains a double-standard until Bush distances himself from that loon, which he hasn't, like it or not.
Is Daniel's support for Bush a stupid argument being used to illustrate the stupidity of your favorite argument of guilt by association? Yes. But it's exactly as strong as your (weak) arguments, so I'll keep springing it as long as idiots keep calling Dr. Paul a 911 "Truther" just because they support him. He's not, go search the DailyPaul if you doubt me. Or better yet, join us (I'm sarcasmo there, too -- what a shocker!) and make stupid accusations where they'll be refuted extra-hard. It'll be fun.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Ron Paul: So What?
November 4, 2007 - 10:17 ET by reelman46He polls under 10% when it counts... he would be a great Budget Director... he is only "up front--a media darling" because he slams our foreign policy (re: Bush)... if he didn't the libmedia would ignore him as a rightwing kook... just ignore evil and it will ignore you... yeah, that worked all this century so well... limit the self-guilt to congress and I am on board... but, alas... its always one fatal flaw that does in a person... sorry Ron... no sale... americans like security. Your national candle will be out in 2008... back to budget suggestions and rants... I like you there... make that your legacy instead of flights of foreign policy fantasy.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
What do you mean by
November 4, 2007 - 10:44 ET by sarcasmo"When it counts"??? I'm with Unsane on this one, 0 polls have counted yet. None. And search for "Penn & Teller" & "Frank Luntz" on YouTube for what I think about his polls. The doctor's been consistent on foreign policy, voting FOR going after Osama, a fact people here never seem to want to bring-up, for some reason... You might want to see what he said about the Pope's positions, even though Dr. Paul's a protestant.
And if he's so bad on "security," how come we keep kicking-ass among veterans and among military voters (see links). It may infuriate pro-Iraq-War voters, but I know at least one who's already gotten over it. He doesn't believe any of the other candidates on cutting spending or protecting the borders, and I don't blame him for putting our borders over Iraq's as an issue of national security. Another Ron Paul Republican.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
The pro-China, pro-EU candidate
November 7, 2007 - 01:33 ET by UnsaneAnd if he's so bad on "security," how come we keep kicking-ass among veterans and among military voters (see links).
Get your head up from the chessboard and answer the following:
1) How do you know that they are actually military? The only way someone can tell if I am military is if I tell them. I drop all sorts of funds at Houston area businesses all the time, and virtually none of them know I am military. They only way they can find out is if I pull out my ID and show them, which I do only on occasions or when I feel there is a need. When I was active duty, I rarely ventured out in public in uniform: this isn't Prussia, after all.
2) If they are military, they betetr not be contributing financially to Ron Paul's campaign, or anyone elses, for they are violating regulations at that point.
Face it, sarc, Ron Paul wants, and craves, an America that is so whiny and pathetic and helpless on the world stage, that it can't do anything for itself. Perhaps I can consider Ron Paul the most pro-EU or pro-China of any candidate, considering how he ACHES to cough up "superpower status" to them?) That is most disagreeable to me.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Easy
November 10, 2007 - 07:24 ET by sarcasmo1. Go ask the media why they're reporting that as fact, then. Or just go ask these guys. Someone else put "tax slave to the federal government" as a job. I myself put "supporting a lawyer-welfare program" since that's a lot of what I sadly have to do these days, due to big-government's attack on the honest money you claim (without any proof) they don't fear. If you think either I or the tax-slave lied, file a complaint with the FEC. Now THAT would be an amusing case...
2. Huh? Members of the military aren't allowed to contribute financially to political candidates?? Where'd you get this one??? And YOU, oh girly-whiner, are the whine-master. When will you stop all the little-girl whining about Ron Paul's success????
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
WHAT success?
November 11, 2007 - 04:05 ET by UnsaneWhen will you stop all the little-girl whining about Ron Paul's success???? Sarcasmo's favorite tactic, AGAIN: accuse everyone around him of what he constantly does, like the Leftists he so hates. Anyways, I shut up and give you props when he takes a respectable number of delegates to the Convention, enough to at least threaten to take the nomination.
Until then, all your crowing about "success" is...stupid, and extremely premature. Sure, run around all you want cheering on his fundraising...Kerry spent - what -$200 million or so on the Presidency? - and got nowhere. Scream and cry all you want about the straw polls - that's like my Broncos going 5-0 in the 1982 preseason and then only winning 2 games during the regular season.
Finally, I grabbed that little tidbit on military campaign contributions from my days as one who helped with absentee balloting and was versed in regulations concerning the military and political activities. For instance - military members can place campaign stickers on POVs, but not on government vehicles. I have the hard-copy of the regulation on file. Say the word, and I pull it out, and quote it, chapter and verse.
Besides, you missed a point there (shocking). Unsane can contribute to a campaign as a private citizen but NOT as a servicemember. I am not required to tell anyone I am in the military unless I am accessing military facilities.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Pull it out and quote it then
November 22, 2007 - 07:45 ET by sarcasmoInstead of continually whining like a little girl. I call 'em as I see 'em. You whine, and I'll say you're whining. Don't like it? Argue with facts and respect, instead. You get 100% of the respect you DESERVE from me here when you whine hysterically and can't even see that you're treating one Republican candidate with a double-standard when it's waved in your face, repeatedly.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Those who would sacrifice
November 5, 2007 - 07:39 ET by WhichWingThose who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
What's been sacrificed?
November 5, 2007 - 08:19 ET by Sua Sponte 75However those whining that liberties are being sacrificed for security have yet to show that. With securities come inconvieniences, it's inevitiable. However being inconvienienced is not a sacrifice of liberty.
"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
"Sure I am this day we are masters of our fate, that the task which has been set before us is not above our strength; that its pangs and toils are not beyond our endurance. As long as we have faith in our own cause and an unconquerable will to win, victory will not be denied us."
"It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause;who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails,at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value."
"The universe is so vast and ageless that the life of one man can only be measured by the size of his sacrifice."
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
Those who sacrifice liberty
November 5, 2007 - 08:41 ET by WhichWingThose who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
And the sacrificed liberty
November 5, 2007 - 08:58 ET by Sua Sponte 75And the sacrificed liberty cases are....?
First of all I'm timid about pulling something from a group who willingly provides themselves as mediators for peace, get kidnapped, whine about it, then slap those that pull them out in the face.
Secondly, if you're mixed up with those that are promoting, planning or part of a network bent on attacking U.S. persons, that's the life you choose, what do you expect.
Finally, I have yet to see an example of civil liberties being denied by something that's been in place since the '70s. My point being is that I don't have a problem since I'm not involved in those type of activities. Having to take my shoes off at the airport is not a denial of liberties. If a known terrorist/group is contacting someone in the U.S. it would be nice to know. Last time I checked everyone was in an uproar following 9/11 because we weren't using all the assets and capabilites at our disposal and cross-talking out of fear someone might get upset, and well we all know the end result.
As stated before....
"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/
November 5, 2007 - 09:19 ET by WhichWinghttp://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/21/justice.civil.liberties/index.html
I applaud you for not involving yourself in those activities that might get the attention of the FBI. Hopefully no one will accuse you of such, as that is all that will be necessary.
I suppose you could wait until YOUR civil liberties are denied before you speak up in opposition.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Civil liberties
November 5, 2007 - 09:53 ET by UnsaneI, WhichWhine, have fewer civil liberties than you. For starters, I can't travel wherever I want. There are some communities quite close to home I cannot visit. So your pathetic whimpering is falling on deaf ears.
And it is so entertaining to see you whine and scream about civil liberties when you have made it abundantly clear that you refuse to fight for them. They aren't here because you whine for them. They have to be fought for. They have to be EARNED.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Football Bat
November 5, 2007 - 10:16 ET by Sua Sponte 75That's a chickenwire canoe if I ever saw one.
The article you referenced has zero, zip and nada to do with what you are suggesting. Bureau of Prisons??? The whole article is laughable at best and a reach at the least. So I could wait to get mugged or I could just shoot anyone that looks like they may mug me? All I still see is whining with no substance or responsible course of actions to that already in place. Once again, still looking for the lost liberties, and please don't include incarcerated individuals, it waters down whatever point you're trying to make. I can be accused day in and day out, but since I haven't, nor plan on doing anything to the attention of the Bureau, I should be fighting courses of action to stop terrorism why again? Shoulda, woulda, coulda.....
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
"...illegal searches of
November 5, 2007 - 11:12 ET by WhichWing"...illegal searches of personal residences and property..."
Seems to me the Constitution mentions something about this subject...
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Keep Paddling
November 6, 2007 - 01:45 ET by Sua Sponte 75you're chickenwire canoe. So to support this you post an article about incarcerated persons and non-U.S. persons? Once again, please site the instances of U.S. persons liberties being denied resulting in detention/imprionment in the course of an investigation concering terrorism. You've had quite a bit of time to provide this in support of the theory that individuals are being denied their liberties. You've also had multiple opportunities to provide a course of action for securities to be provided to U.S. persons in lieu of what your are stating is current denials of liberties.
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
Ok, you've converted me to
November 7, 2007 - 02:58 ET by WhichWingOk, you've converted me to your brilliant line of thinking. I'll give my government the power to violate my civil rights, convince myself they won't abuse this new power, and do nothing until they violate said rights. Our fight will be much easier to pursue from a prison cell.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Life or death
November 7, 2007 - 03:14 ET by UnsaneCivil liberties and rights, that you wish to do absolutely nothing to defend, are much easier enjoyed living rather than dead.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Those who would sacrifice
November 7, 2007 - 03:21 ET by WhichWingThose who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
The whine of the coward
November 7, 2007 - 04:01 ET by UnsaneKeep whining. You keep chirping that, yet do NOTHING to defend your civil liberties just like the spoiled brat you are.
Why don't you specifically cite for me the civil liberties I have lost since 2001? I can cite many for you, but that is the price I pay for wearing the uniform; something you cannot understand. I can't necessarily say what I want; I sure as all hell cannot travel where I want.
Civil liberties are best enjoyed while living.
What are you going to do, WhichWhine, if you encounted some terrorists shooting up your local mall? Fall to your knees, start crying, and scream "WAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! YOU CAN'T DO THIS TO ME!!!!! I HAVE RIGHTS!!! I HAVE RIGHTS!!!" ??? You might be able to, but not before you get riddled with a series of holes 7.62 mm in diameter.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
}}---> Enlighten me Unsane
November 7, 2007 - 04:47 ET by Cool ArrowWhy does Which keep posting that Ben Franklin quote rather than something new?
Is he "challenged" somehow?
Deficiencies
November 7, 2007 - 06:20 ET by Unsane...because among other deficiencies, WhichWhine is incapable of thinking for himself.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Maybe because
November 7, 2007 - 07:14 ET by sarcasmoNone of you has coherently (this means actual intellectual debate, not name-calling & Ron-Paul-success whines) responded to Franklin's wise words??
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Loving those Leftist tactics, huh?
November 7, 2007 - 07:34 ET by UnsaneSpeak for yourself. I cannot wait to hear your whining and crying about Ron Paul once he loses a few primaries (entirely possible).
You despise Leftists, but you clearly LOVE their debate tactics. Especially when it comes to accusing everyone of what you yourself ALWAYS does: namely, whine and name-call.
Anyways, we have made some very intellectual retorts. Both you and WhichWhine constantly want to cry about the rights you are owed, yet both of you do NOTHING for their defense. You even want to elect someone in the worst possible way whose foreign policy philosophy is best described as "Ignore The Big Bad World And It Will Just Go Away". Nothing intellectual there, especially when that kind of thinking is a proven failure.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
The proven failure
November 7, 2007 - 07:49 ET by sarcasmoIs present policy, oh great historian. And it's a failure worldwide, because welfare and big government always fail.
And since in our previous conversations about Korea, you referenced the fact that I've never been there (so I'm presumably less-qualified to comment and must always defer to your self-declared greatness) but how do you explain this??
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Not reading links. This has always been my policy, deal with it
November 7, 2007 - 08:34 ET by UnsaneWhy don't you tell me what it says for a change?
must always defer to your self-declared greatness No, sarc, I am not you. You are the egomaniac who keeps proclaiming himself 100% right ALL THE TIME.
Of course, you can always show me where I have proclaimed my greatness because I lived in Korea. Good luck.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
This is the major flaw in
November 8, 2007 - 07:49 ET by WhichWingUnsane, this is the major flaw in your logic. You equate what is going on in Iraq with a terrorist shooting up your local mall. A foreign nation that posed no threat to our national security versus self defense. Once you recognize the difference between aggressive war and defensive war, you will be MUCH closer to reality.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
November 8, 2007 - 08:23 ET by UnsaneThe major flaw in YOUR logic is that in foreign policy and military matters, you don't know what you are talking about.
ALL WARS NEED TO BE FOUGHT AGGRESSIVELY. I would hope the United States fights ALL its wars aggressively. If we weren't aggressive in WWII, we might be hundreds of miles from the Siegfried Line to this day.
The best defense is a good offense. Hence, we fight far from home, rather than sitting around and waiting for the terrorists to shoot up the local mall (a scene I am sure you would enjoy given your hatred for the United States). We simply are not sheep waiting to be slaughtered. The last time we waited for an armed adversary to attack us before dragging us into war, it killed about 3000 people and if not for the fatal five minutes at Midway, we would ahve been in very serious trouble. (But doubtless, if you were President, your immediate response to 7 December 1941 would have been to turn over all of the Hawaiian Islands to the Japanese.)
But responses such as yours are what I expect of cowards.
Iraq wasn't a threat? Sell that to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia...and Israel. Oh, and its own people.
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
Pull up your pants. Your
November 5, 2007 - 09:00 ET by NL207Pull up your pants. Your hypocrisy is showing.
Isn't this exactly what you liberal/progressive twits are doing every time you ask people to surrender a portion of their liberty to the state in return for socialized food, income and health programs? Yet you proclaim the virtues and benefits of these to all.
But let some gang of religious fundamentalists from foreign countries enter the country illegally; start blowing up our people, our property and even themselves both here and abroad; and let the executive branch begin an espionage program to gather intelligence about these foreign powers, you muttonheads proclaim that civil rights here in the US are being trampled.
The naked truth of these spying programs has been and continues to be: all the actual, reported eavesdropping that took place without a warrant was conducted on foreign soil. to. wit. The bank records spying was carried out in Belgium. Your team has yet to produce a single victinm of warrantless eavesdropping here in the US. Your score in this debate so far is 0, and the only reason the debate continues at all are the leftist shills that populate the MSM ranks nearly to the exclusion of all other viewpoints.
Way to make broad
November 5, 2007 - 09:25 ET by WhichWing"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Huh?
November 5, 2007 - 10:26 ET by Sua Sponte 75Aren't you making quite the broad generalizations? Powers are abused when not checked. Been watching the news or read a paper lately, sure isn't a whole lot the government can do without out it being front page. And to try the "they're" doing it in secret won't fly because then you have to admit they're much smarter than the lame brains you constantly say they are, either one or the other. Why aren't you kicking and screaming about the abuses no one seems to ever bring up, over taxation, black hole social programs and the taxing for them and the pork programs? Someone listening to a phonecall about grandmas special cookie mix is the least of worries.
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
I am pointing out your
November 5, 2007 - 10:27 ET by NL207I am pointing out your inconsistent philosophical view. You assert we should, as a nation, risk life, limb and property to Islamic Jihadists in order to avoid the need to gather intelligence on the activities of these Jihadists. You claim we should forego this foreign intelligence gathering because some of the communicants on the other end are located here in the United States. More specifically, you claim that we should prohibit such intelligence gathering altogether if one of the parties is within the United States. This is the inescapable conclusion that arises from your arguments against FISA eavesdropping, since you conveniently ignore the process used for obtaining warrants against parties here in the US who might be in communication with the enemy. Tell me, does your aversion to eaversdropping also apply to spies like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hansen, or are you merely concerned about the 'rights' of Islamofascists?
The power YOU are complaining about is extended specifically to the President by the Constitution and is limited to the conduct of foreign espionage. It may not be and IS not applied within the US without a search warrant. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise. Produce an example of such alleged abuse or shut your pie hol;e on this subject.
And you think the power that liberal policies have amassed in the government are not abused? Only a fool believes that. Go read Kelo vs. New London for an example.
Has it not occurred to you that all these liberal social programs are injuring millions and erecting a government tyranny in the place of free choice. You pretend the oppressive taxes and regulations that are levied in all phases of the economy to support this largesse are not harmful. They harm every single individual who pays them or whose liberty is constrained by them.
I did not demand that government be responsible for my well being. That is my responsibility. I demanded that the government be responsible for protecting the country as a whole from a foreign enemy. This is one of the few, legitimate, powers extended to the National Government by the Constitution. Providing subsistence and subsidy payments to various individuals and corporations out of tax revenue is no where mentioned in the Constitution as a legitimate power of the National Government. It is an illegitimate usurpation of the rights and powers the 10th Amendment reserved to the States and the People.
I'll admit that I barely
November 5, 2007 - 11:23 ET by WhichWingI'll admit that I barely skimmed through your reply, and I'm confident I managed to get the jist of it. You are afraid of Muslims, liberals and social programs. All of which you managed to bring up on your own. You claim I pretend this or that based on your own wild fantasy. The original post here was mainly about Ron Paul related stuff. Are you familiar with Ron Paul? Read up on him to better understand where I'm coming from instead of throwing around your lefty liberal loon crap. If you disagree with someone on one subject you immediately catagorize them. You then assign all sorts of ideas and political beliefs to them based on the category you chose. Stay on task here and have your right vs left, Bush vs Clinton, liberal vs conservative battle somewhere else. If you don't think these powers have the potential to be abused, whether it be by Bush, Clinton or Paul, then you are turning a blind eye to a huge issue. You noticed anything strange happening in Pakistan and Venezuela lately? "That could never happen here," you say. Repeat enough and you may start to believe it.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Pauls Spam bots at it again!!
November 5, 2007 - 15:10 ET by ThoughtPoliceUh oh, looks like Pauls Spam bots are at it again!
Somehow they made a bunch of people sign up for this november 5th donation day and have already spammed nearly $2,000,000 in 12 hours!! They are trying to spam over $3,000,000 so it'll be the highest one day online donation ever!
Please, can't some tech savy company stop all this spamming!! AHHH!!
(haha ...that felt good)
Stupid spammers...
November 6, 2007 - 06:22 ET by sarcasmoThey just spammed that same dollar bill over & over about $3 million times yesterday. Oh, the horror -- the "mainstream" gambled & lost. A biased media yesterday was literally forced to notice!!! :) I'd say it's time to quote Nelson Muntz. HA-HA!!!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Answer...
November 6, 2007 - 01:48 ET by Sua Sponte 75I can't therefore I will ramble on about items not whatsoever associated with the question and issue at hand....now pardon me while I lace up my bowling cleats....
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
}}---> Ron Paul's friends
November 7, 2007 - 01:38 ET by Cool ArrowMaybe I'm reading too much into this, but has anybody noticed Ron Paul hasn't said anything to distance himself from Ted Kazinski or Jack Kervorkian? Maybe, like Dubya and this Carver guy, Ron Paul is just waiting for the question to reach critical mass in media circles.
You raise a good point here
November 7, 2007 - 03:00 ET by WhichWingYou raise a good point here Cool Arrow. I'd like to see him distance himself from the NY Yankees and their bloated payroll, and the New England Patriots and their cheating. He should probably denounce Rosie while he's at it.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Questions and comments
November 7, 2007 - 03:17 ET by UnsaneOther than the flap over the video camera, which the New England Patriots paid for, how does NE cheat?
And the Yankees bloated payroll? I think it's great...just evidence that yes, it is much harder to earn a WS ring than many think. Money does not necessarily translate into sports success...
...just as all the donations in the world haven't brought your God a single delegate to the convention.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Ok, he can support the
November 7, 2007 - 03:25 ET by WhichWingOk, he can support the Yankees and Patriots, but he should distance himself from Al Franken and Charlie Sheen, right? Maybe Al Gore while he's at it.
P.S. Unsane, I've come to realize how dense you really are and will therefore make my point easier for you to understand. Must a candidate distance themself from anyone? Everyone? I think not.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
November 7, 2007 - 06:26 ET by UnsaneUnsane, I've come to realize how dense you really are Really, why is it that the intellectual lightweights keep writing crap like this? Could it be that WhichWhine is insanely bitter that The Man He Wants To Be keeps kicking his ass?
The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. First, stop trying to be a smartass, for it isn't working out very well for you (what I did in that last post was called "ignoring your point and focusing elsewhere" because I felt like it). Two, start educating yourself so that you can hang out with the big boys. Studying history is not a bad place to start...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
}}---> Stay with the subject Unsane
November 7, 2007 - 03:31 ET by Cool ArrowI think what we want to know is why isn't Ron Paul distancing himself from his association with these entities.
Something strange afooot here.
Also, was Ron Paul related to Pope Paul? They have the same last name, don't they? Is Ron Paul secretly trying to put us under the cruel yoke of the Knights of Columbus?
Distancing
November 7, 2007 - 06:28 ET by UnsaneMaybe he should have to distance himself from everybody, but really, is it asking too much to see him distance himself from the anti-Semitic element?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Talk to
November 7, 2007 - 07:21 ET by sarcasmohttp://www.jews4ronpaul.org/ about it, what's he supposed to say that he hasn't already said in his weekly column?? And some US Jews are patriotic-enough to resent spies and traitors, even from Israel. Go figure...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Don't whine
November 7, 2007 - 07:38 ET by UnsaneDon't whine because of what your God says. Your God has called the Israeli government the biggest lobby in Washington (yet I bet Paul never heard of Jonathan Pollard, or why he isn't walking free if he was in fact correct), and has accused the "neocons" of being unduly influenced by the Likud party (if thats the case, then Paul can explain Nickel Grass).
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
You don't answer...And I didn't whine, I linked.
November 7, 2007 - 07:45 ET by sarcasmoNice attempt at a dodge, though. What about these traitors relates to whether Ron Paul has heard of Pollard?? And the Likud party DOES seem to have a bit of influence, doesn't it? The fact that US taxpayers subsidized Ariel Sharon's construction projects (he's not just a general, you know) is a problem for some taxpayers, and not for others. Nothing new here.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Explanation, please
November 7, 2007 - 08:39 ET by UnsaneJust say "I, Sarcasmo, hate Israel."
And the Likud party DOES seem to have a bit of influence, doesn't it? Explain Nickel Grass. For starters.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Nope.
November 7, 2007 - 08:50 ET by sarcasmoOnce again, what about these traitors relates to that? And will you even use the word "traitors" for these spies???
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Deal with it.
November 7, 2007 - 09:14 ET by UnsaneSarc, I am talking about your God. He seems to think that Likud is an corrupting influence; yet can't explain Nickel Grass for starters, and neither can you.
He calls the Israeli government the biggest lobby in Washington, yet Jonathan Pollard is still in the slam though the Israelis from time to time request his release.
You should be aware I never click links. I realize that you believe everything you see on the Internet (to hell with source evaluation), especially if it supports your flaky views, but as I engage in critical thinking AND source evaluation, I never click your links. Or anyone else's. This is also why I RARELY post links.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Are you saying Israel isn't
November 8, 2007 - 07:42 ET by WhichWingAre you saying Israel isn't the biggest lobby in Washington? It is, or it isn't?
About not believing everything you read on the internet, I have begun to take your advice and discount everything you say on the internet.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Your loss
November 8, 2007 - 08:32 ET by UnsaneI have begun to take your advice and discount everything you say on the internet. Your loss. You should take full advantage of free education.
Are you saying Israel isn't the biggest lobby in Washington? It is, or it isn't? Israel CANNOT BE the biggest lobby in Washington. If it were, then you can explain why Jonathan Pollard is still in The Slam. For starters.
I have a very good idea about what the biggest lobby in Washington is. Do you? It should be very obvious if you follow politics at all.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
He's not distancing himself
November 7, 2007 - 07:17 ET by sarcasmoFor the exact same reason Dubya didn't distance himself from Daniel Carver of the KKK. Loons don't matter in politics, and the "argument" (against Bush and against Paul) in this case is intellectually-empty because it's so-weak. Hey, you asked....
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
}}---> That's weak sarc
November 7, 2007 - 08:40 ET by Cool ArrowMy attack came as a direct result of your two references to Daniel Carver. I even had to do a search to see if it was the same Carver.
Read up. I had to ask.
So if you're throwing the same name back, you're reverting to circuitous tactics.
Yep, exactly.
November 7, 2007 - 08:48 ET by sarcasmoI'm using the same WEAK argument against you that you're using against me. WEAK is my point. Want better arguments instead of mocking? Then make stronger arguments. This "guilt by association" crap is, just as we've BOTH now-said on this thread, weak.
When someone resorts to weak arguments and name-calling, I will make them look stupid. That's life on the big internet.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I think an important point
November 8, 2007 - 07:39 ET by WhichWingI think an important point is the Ron Paul has not chosen to associate with any of these groups or people. He has not endorsed their beliefs. He has only shared his own beliefs. Every politician, that's EVERY, is going to attract SOME unsavory characters through no fault of his own. And should not be penalized for this, no matter which politician you are talking about.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
HOWEVER...
November 8, 2007 - 08:33 ET by UnsaneThis is indeed true. However, considering his stance on Israel, it isn't surprising he attracts an anti-Semitic element.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Is not standing for
November 8, 2007 - 08:43 ET by WhichWingIs not standing for something the same as standing against it?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Again...
November 9, 2007 - 07:07 ET by UnsaneDo you support Israel? Yes, or no?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
America's stance on Israel
November 8, 2007 - 09:35 ET by fosstenAmerica's stance on Israel is nothing to be proud of lately. See my post above. We would be doing Israel a favor if we just stayed out of their business and stopped interfering.
Forget 911, I dial 9MM.
Blame game
November 22, 2007 - 05:12 ET by UnsaneDon't blame the United States for the actions, or inactions, of Ehud Olmert.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Sent to BSNBC yesterday...
November 7, 2007 - 07:54 ET by sarcasmoDr. Paul and his campaign had NOTHING to do with picking the date of yesterday's money bomb. It was "just some guy."
You people are so conditioned to be used to control freakery from politicians that you can't imagine a group of individuals taking American initiative without blessing/permission from a great, worshipped leader. It's not that way, despite your bias and crappy journalism. Do your jobs.
JMR
"The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt." Cicero, circa 63 B.C.
Regards,
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
}}---> OK sarc
November 7, 2007 - 08:47 ET by Cool ArrowAnd this has exactly what to do with your linking President Bush to the Klan?
I submit you purposefully threw in the Carver nonsense to sidetrack your own discussion board.
Upon hearing of Ron Paul's success yesterday I was ready to offer congratulations on what must be a growing movement. Now I come into your thread and find you manufacturing a link between the President to the Klan.
You aren't above the same politics you condemn.
I'm not linking him to the Klan
November 7, 2007 - 08:52 ET by sarcasmoI'm linking your argument to stupidity, see above. And YOU were the ones who started the guilt by association BS, I threw in the Carver stuf because YOU brought it up. Don't like the tactic? Don't try it on me then. I did not start this.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
}}---> Be honest sarc
November 7, 2007 - 08:56 ET by Cool ArrowTonight was my first entry in your thread. You already had two mentions of Bush/Carver posted.
Again, you are dodging the facts.
I'm being honest, and you know it.
November 7, 2007 - 08:58 ET by sarcasmoThe mentions of Carver were as a result of people trying to use THAT SAME WEAK (you said so yourself, you admitted it) argument. Time stamps don't lie, look what guilt by association BS was posted first, everyone, and draw your own conclusions about who's honest.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Hmmm...
November 10, 2007 - 08:17 ET by Sua Sponte 75Thought this was interesting.....HT LGF....
Ron Paul supported the PLO terrorists (1985) http://www.freerepub...
Ron Paul: Israel bought Jesse Helms (1985) http://www.freerepub...
Ron Paul: Traitor had direct line to President Reagan (1992, refers to commie business collaborator Armand Hammer) http://www.freerepub...
RON PAUL ON DEFENSE SPENDING (1992, sounds like Ramsey Clark) http://www.freerepub...
Ron Paul: Clinton didn’t cut defense enough (1993) http://www.freerepub...
Ron Paul: US “military is mowing civilians down in the streets” (1993, refers to Somalia) http://www.freerepub...
RON PAUL ACCUSED U.S. TROOPS OF WAR CRIMES IN DESERT STORM (1991, this one repeats Ramsey Clark’s allegations almost verbatim) http://www.freerepub...
"72 Virgins Dating Service--Give Us A Call, We'll Hook You Up"
Let's take 'em one-by-one...
November 10, 2007 - 08:56 ET by sarcasmo1. The Senator from Archer Daniels Midland's anti-speech bill != support for terrorists, strike one.
2. Helms-link speaks for itself, money talks, and the money talked in this case, like it or not, but that's not what Helms-fans might want to hear.
3. Sounds like defense-pork to me, but I'm sure in an era when "Duke" Cunningham was out of jail that wasn't a problem, right???
4. Interesting interventionism-history there, does anyone recall "a humble foreign policy" being promised by a certain Republican President? It's not a shocker Dr. Paul wants to cut spending, but the idea of trying to depict that as only-defense is dishonest...
5. Didn't find it on your link, but Clinton's Somalia intervention DID lead to civilian deaths followed by bad results, didn't it?
6. Looks to me like he accused their leaders, not the US troops.
If you & the Freepers you link-to are so-ballsy, why not c'mon over to one of the fora where your asses'll be outnumbered, like I do here 'bout every day, and spout imaginative BS about Ron Paul? What's there to be scared-of if his record's so-bad??
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
1. Yes there were deaths in
November 10, 2007 - 09:53 ET by Sua Sponte 751. Yes there were deaths in Somalia, not a need to try and school me, I was there. However the implication that we “mowed” down civilians indiscriminately is beyond nuts. Last time I checked, there are no spectators at an ambush. Additionally the notion of troops being sent in to as he stated “murder” Adid is also beyond nuts. Due to lack of support for the mission, cutting and running implies we were not accomplishing our goals. Adid never was a primary mission until the incident with the Pak Army. The “intervention” you speak of was of humanitarian aid which evolved due to increased attacks against our personnel. Also I’m not a fan of being called a war criminal. Bending over and smiling was not going to ensue.
2. “During the Iraq war, American troops were instructed to use specially equipped tanks to bulldoze the trenches that held Iraqi soldiers- Not a single American was hurt, so meager was the resistance. Thousands of Iraqis, teenagers coerced into the army by the dictator Hussein, were buried alive, while the unprecedented military tactic was hidden from the public through media censorship. Captain Benny Williams, who Led the charge was awarded the Silver Star for his role. Also hidden: the apparent fact that many of the rag-tag teenage soldiers were trying to surrender as they were entombed.” Sorry, but that's directed at the troops also. The implication here is that troops were ordered to commit a war crime with no hesitation at following through, that these war crimes were covered up. If he knew of all of this, then were was the investigations?
3. Military Pork? Yes, let’s roll the clock back to when we had no money for training equipment and upkeep….just the way you want a military. I do know there are instances where congressmen appropriate funds for the military in which there are items provided that they didn’t request, not sure why we fault the military for this instead of the congressman.
4. Military Production….Am I mistaken in the fact that we should maintain an operational military with up to date equipment leading edge technology, and better training which ultimately results in not only fewer casualties on both sides, but a less likelihood that opposing forces would act, knowing we have these abilities? But what exactly has the military R&D given us anyhow, I mean only things such as sonar technology which led to advanced mammograms and early detection of cancer, medical advances which has saved numerous lives, communications technology…..so on and so on…..
5. “The Soviet archives have been a real source of amusement since they have been opened. Armand Hamner, the wealthy, pro-Communist businessman who earned a fortune off the Soviet government, was one of the few Americans permitted to do business with the Soviet Union at the height of its Leninist and Stalinist terror. He was even permitted to own an apartment in Moscow and a Russian art collection. Now the archives show he personally transported funds from the Soviet Union to fund the new U.S. Communist Party in the 1920s. A highly placed staffer in the Reagan White House once told me that Hammer was one of the handful of people able to call the President directly without any screening!” Oh, a highly placed staffer….sounds like something pulled out of thin air when media states “according to a high ranking official who wishes not to be named”. That usually means it’s BS.
6. “A LEAD BALLOON to Jack Kemp (R-NY) and Bob Dole (R-KS) who have introduced legislation to forcibly close the Palestinian Information Office in Washington. They would also ban delegates from the Palestinian Liberation Organization at the United Nations. The authors call this bill an "Anti-Terrorism Act." But what about terrorism that uses government force to suppress free expression in this country?” Really, and the examples of this are? Yes, how crazy of them to want to close something related to terrorism, silly rabbit……
7. Foreign Money: Yes, I suppose if you’re receiving foreign money, it’s best to also point that out of others…..
"72 Virgins Dating Service--Give Us A Call, We'll Hook You Up"
You're Alright...
November 10, 2007 - 10:02 ET by Sua Sponte 75I'll have to buy a couple of rounds for you when I get back to the world....
"72 Virgins Dating Service--Give Us A Call, We'll Hook You Up"
SS75... You have our
November 10, 2007 - 18:04 ET by bigtimerSS75...
You have our unending gratitude for your service in my family.
I just wanted to add real quick....
I LOVE your tag-line!!!!!!
Ron Paul not so conservative after all...
November 10, 2007 - 18:00 ET by Clear thinkerSarc has tried to convince people as to how Conservative RP is. And if I remember correctly, he stated that RP was the MOST Conservative. Well, I have some bad news for Sarc. Below are the GOP candidates that were rated by Forbes. They are graded on a scale of 1-50, with 50 being the highest score possible. No surprise to me Fred came out on top with a score of 40.6 and Ron Paul was rated at 31.2 which turns out to be 3rd from last.
Considering Forbes is not exactly a haven for liberal thinking, their rating system could be taken more seriously than some of the MSM has put out.
Below are the rankings and the link to Forbes. After looking at the chart on Forbes, scroll down to the picture of your favorite candidate and click on it to see how they stack up.
Ratings of how Conservative a candidate is...
Out of 50
Fred 40.6
John 40.5
Mitt 36.7
Rudy 36.2
Duncan 34.3
Ron 31.2
Tom 31.1
Mike 26
These were compiled by Forbes at...
http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/01/election-candidates-politics-oped-cz_gm_1002thompson.html
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Liberty Dollar Raid....
November 22, 2007 - 04:35 ET by Sua Sponte 75(HT FA) Awesome write up on more of the kookyness that is....also includes details of the warrant. It goes into the the similarity of the coins to United States coins which is a violation of US Code (http://www.law.corne...)
The warrant also goes into their fraudulent statement that the money is 100% backed by silver, and then into just one of their scams.
They were teaching people to sell the currency as legitimate: (a RCO is a Regional Currency Officer, a sort of Region Manager who is above the Liberty Dollar Associate member and finally there is the Member Merchant who agrees to accept ALD's and gets a discount on buying their own)
http://www.floppinga...
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"