RON PAUL WON on O'reilly ,heres why,JUST DO IT

[speciallyblend]

If you watched the O'Reilly show today,then make sure you go out tonight or tomorrow(everyday) and tell more friends, about Ron Paul and his message.

I ask you this,do you think O'reilly fans have 42,000 meet up groups?? nope


The facts are this,Ron Paul Supporters are dedicated and passionate.We must make everyone understand the wasted vote is voting for the Big Liberal Democrats and Republicans.We must show people that Ron Paul has support,we must explain why voting for the 2 old parties is wasting your vote.We have a chance to really change history here,we can save the GOP,or will can kill the GOP,in no uncertain terms.

If the GOP does not nominate Ron Paul,then they will lose this election and many more across the nation.The word republican is like calling someone the worst name in the book in every state. RON PAULS MESSAGE SELLS ITSELF,unfortunately the word republican is the last thing you want to tell an American voter(can they change there name like yesterday??:)

The Point is we will be talking about Ron Paul tonight,tomorrow and in the future.

We only put oreilly,with the likes of britney//lindsey/paris,remember oreilly isn't a news show,hes entertainment.Mission was accomplished,Americans saw a calm Dr Paul(Ron Paul 2008),and everyone knows oreilly is putz. oreilly has tmz on his show,the view has more news then oreilly.

Get out there and passout flyers and tell your friends.


Does oreilly have 42,000 meet-up groups? Does he have activists passing out thousands of flyers and Ron Paul info across America?? I think not:) enuff said ,now go get'em Ron Paul supporters,make a stranger a friend RON PAUL 2008:p

[hopeforamerica]

Love it!!! Get out there and do it.

[Bison]

Freedom is the message and the message is good!

[FrankRep]

http://RonPaul.MeetUp.com

Find a local group.

WE NEED YOU!

[Slugg]

Yup, Ron came out unscathed! Orielly talked over him, but Ron kept his cool and answered intelligently. That's perfect!

[Give me liberty]

I think i saw some fear in Oreaily eyes when ron paul spoke the truth;)

[jmunjr]

In my opinion O'Reilley was as nice as I've seen him in 3 years.

Also, I think BOTH O'Reilly and Paul are correct. We incited the hatred that caused 9/11 and our presence there makes things worse. However, O'Reilley is correct in saying that by leaving we give Iran carte blanche in the Middle East, including their ability to develop nuclear weapons and handing them off to terrorists.

Now the big question is, are the American people going to believe with Paul in power that he can reconcile with the Middle East, specifically Iran and the terrorist organizations around the world, and prevent the desire for future terrorism against the USA as a result of his new policies?

I love Ron Paul and support most of his positions, but I recognized early in his campaign that his strict non-intervention idea would be a problem.

I think a lot of Americans are going to balk at supporting Paul because of this.

We caused the problem by getting involved, but can we fix the problem by getting out?

Is it even conceivable for Paul if elected to meet with all the major leaders of enemy states/organizations linked to terrorism and make nice with all of them? Is telling them we'll leave you alone going to be enough, and is this even smart?

While most Americans believe the war in Iraq is a problem most Americans I think support having a presence and influence militarily around the world.

The best way to keep your enemies or even rivals from challenging you is to keep them out of the game..

[wsc321]

I think one definite gain, easily overlooked, is this: FNC has now given their "all" (via the recent debate and now O'Reilly) to try to not just dismiss Paul but, more specifically, to denigrate his views and make his positions feel untenable to potential supporters. They've failed. There is a debate now, via Paul, and they cannot stop it.

[Reiyuki]

O'Reilly vs Paul
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/2122/lalalaicanthearyouupx8.png

[speciallyblend]

Oreilly isn't a factor(note play on words:),the point we really need to push, the GOP doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the next election,unless RON PAUL is the nominee,end of story.

A Vote for Romney/Rudolf/Thompson/McCain is just a wasted vote for Hillary on STEROIDS,unless we nominate Ron Paul then both parties are just wasted votes for the same intrusive big goverment from both parties,so a vote for either party is a vote to get screwed,bend over(look at your paycheck) and get ready to be screwed by both parties.We only have one choice RON PAUL. without Ron Paul the GOP is dead in the water,no matter how many millions they spend against the democrats.Who's fault will it be?? not yours or mine,it will be the GOP's fault.

[SewrRatt]

Also, I think BOTH O'Reilly and Paul are correct. We incited the hatred that caused 9/11 and our presence there makes things worse. However, O'Reilley is correct in saying that by leaving we give Iran carte blanche in the Middle East, including their ability to develop nuclear weapons and handing them off to terrorists.
Kind of like we've given carte blanche to russia, china, north korea? The mindset that America not being all up in people's business is somehow "giving" them "free rein" is absurd. To give that you have to assume America has the right to that control in the first place, and if you think it has that right you should be a-okay with American global imperial dictatorship. Also, Iran developing nuclear weapons and then giving them to terrorists is about as likely as China drilling a hole through the earth to attack us with magma. Do you honestly believe anyone thinks an American city could be nuked and we'd just be like, "Aw shit, insufficient evidence, we'll find the paper trail next time Iran!" *shakes fist* Excuse me while I go shoot up and set fire to my neighbor's house, then tie up the inhabitants and hold them at gunpoint forever to prevent possible retaliation.


We caused the problem by getting involved, but can we fix the problem by getting out?

Is it even conceivable for Paul if elected to meet with all the major leaders of enemy states/organizations linked to terrorism and make nice with all of them? Is telling them we'll leave you alone going to be enough, and is this even smart?

While most Americans believe the war in Iraq is a problem most Americans I think support having a presence and influence militarily around the world.

The best way to keep your enemies or even rivals from challenging you is to keep them out of the game..

Okay, I'll boil our choice down for you. There are three choices.

1. Genocide. Literally kill everyone in the middle east. I recommend against this one.

2. Bomb, invade, occupy, FOREVER, the entire middle east, including our "allies" because they don't do a good enough job stopping terrorism in/from their own countries, and repress them FOREVER to keep them from ever retaliating. Because only an idiot would think if we can't leave now we could ever leave. And oh, we'd literally need to clone armies to counteract the massive wave of suicide attacks on our troops.

3. GTFO and secure the damn borders. If the Bush Administration can keep us from being attacked on our own soil for this long since 9/11, how fucking hard can it be with the military at home, the national guard actually national guarding, and fences where appropriate?

[Duckman]

Okay, I'll boil our choice down for you. There are three choices.

1. Genocide. Literally kill everyone in the middle east. I recommend against this one.

2. Bomb, invade, occupy, FOREVER, the entire middle east, including our "allies" because they don't do a good enough job stopping terrorism in/from their own countries, and repress them FOREVER to keep them from ever retaliating. Because only an idiot would think if we can't leave now we could ever leave. And oh, we'd literally need to clone armies to counteract the massive wave of suicide attacks on our troops.

3. GTFO and secure the damn borders. If the Bush Administration can keep us from being attacked on our own soil for this long since 9/11, how fucking hard can it be with the military at home, the national guard actually national guarding, and fences where appropriate?

Yep, this the real choice. The war on terror cannot be "won." We won't EVER reach a point where no terrorists want to attack us here. NO MATTER WHAT. Nobody wants to face that fact. But no matter what we do, we must secure our borders and be prepared for possible attack. We don't have a choice, no matter what we do. And while Tancredo and Savage may favor option #1, and the majority of mainstream politicians may favor option #2, option #3 is the only realistic option.

[KewlRonduderules]

In my opinion O'Reilley was as nice as I've seen him in 3 years.

Also, I think BOTH O'Reilly and Paul are correct. We incited the hatred that caused 9/11 and our presence there makes things worse. However, O'Reilley is correct in saying that by leaving we give Iran carte blanche in the Middle East, including their ability to develop nuclear weapons and handing them off to terrorists.

I disagree that O'Reilly was nice. He did not allow Dr. Paul to make valid points. He was quite rude.

As for Iran, I think this shows a rather naive view of the middle east given that more terrorism is from other states such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Moreover, Pakistan does have the nuclear bomb. What makes you think that the ISI did not give the technology to some other rogue state or terrorist organization? Dr. Paul's points are right on- it is best we talk with our enemies to prevent an undesired outcome and not act like cowboys. As for Iran having the nuclear bomb, they are years off- about 10 years off. O'Reilly is incorrect in his assumption that they are close to making the nuclear bomb.


Now the big question is, are the American people going to believe with Paul in power that he can reconcile with the Middle East, specifically Iran and the terrorist organizations around the world, and prevent the desire for future terrorism against the USA as a result of his new policies?

Yeah, as long as we stay out of their business. Why do we need to be there? To prevent terrorism from spreading? I don't think so. It is about our foreign policy agenda and spreading and opening up markets for the American economy,i.e., oil.

These points sound like stuff you hear in the mainstream media focusing on Iran. You need to look at the whole picture.


I love Ron Paul and support most of his positions, but I recognized early in his campaign that his strict non-intervention idea would be a problem.

How is it a problem? Because of terrorism? I can promise as long as we are in the middle east meddling in their affairs, there will be terrorism. Reagan had it right- we don't understand them and they are unpredictable. Get out.


I think a lot of Americans are going to balk at supporting Paul because of this.

And unfortunately, not too many Americans read in depth books about the hazards of American foreign policy. let alone educate themselves on the workings of media and the government.


We caused the problem by getting involved, but can we fix the problem by getting out?


Is it even conceivable for Paul if elected to meet with all the major leaders of enemy states/organizations linked to terrorism and make nice with all of them? Is telling them we'll leave you alone going to be enough, and is this even smart?

You've got to be kidding?!!! I got news for you chief since the dawn of the state there has always been terrorism. You will always have it. The best way to minimize the impact of it is to indeed talk to your enemies. We've done it with China, the Soviet Union- both which have nuclear weapons. It worked with them- why not Iran? We also did it with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Why NOT Iran?!


While most Americans believe the war in Iraq is a problem most Americans I think support having a presence and influence militarily around the world.

We keep the pace of our military around the world the way it is, I can guarantee you that the military will collapse. Moreover, it will lead to bankrupcy due to increased spending by the government which is already happening!

I recommend this book, it is a national best seller- The Sorrows of Empire

http://www.amazon.com/Sorrows-Empire-Militarism-Republic-American/dp/0805077979/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-5616125-5118803?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189515839&sr=8-1


The best way to keep your enemies or even rivals from challenging you is to keep them out of the game..

Wrong!!! This is disturbing thought and quite malinformed. Are you a troll? Curious...

You attempt to keep enemies out of any game by force, I can guarantee it will come back to haunt you. Haven't you noticed? Around the world, we are hated not just because of Iraq but because we feel we can do whatever we want when we feel like it. How would you feel if some stranger decided to enter your house whenever he felt like it and do whatever he wants? This is exactly what our foreign policy is like and it coming back to haunt us.

[JMann]

I hardly think calling someone a republican or Republican is the worst thing in the world. BTW Paul is running for the Republican nomination so let us try and convince Republicans to vote for him as opposed to saying they are like the bird flu.

I for one and a proud Republican and would never consider voting for someone of that other party (on the national level) that makes Huey Long of the past seems like a open-minded capitalist.

[speciallyblend]

I hardly think calling someone a republican or Republican is the worst thing in the world. BTW Paul is running for the Republican nomination so let us try and convince Republicans to vote for him as opposed to saying they are like the bird flu.

I for one and a proud Republican and would never consider voting for someone of that other party (on the national level) that makes Huey Long of the past seems like a open-minded capitalist.

Well i sure didnt make the name,I'm a republican,but i do know in Colorado, Republican=Bird Flu,as i know it does in other states. The point is this if the republican party ignores Ron Paul ,then thats not my fault.What we need to let Republicans know is if they dont nominate Ron Paul then they dont need to worry about the election,they will lose,not a threat a promise.
Of course i do debate and encourage reasons on why to vote (for RON PAUL),but some are thickheaded,then i just let them know enjoy losing this election.I promise you the republican party is dead in the water and if it takes ignoring Ron Paul for the republicans to figure it out,then i sure will not shed a tear over it. RON PAUL 2008 PS THE GOP has to deal with the bed they made.If a republican is that thick headed,then i give them the worse case scenario.It's truly up to the republican party to choose, your right,but they better choose wisely and that choice is only RON PAUL or i truly leave the republican party and they also loose my independent wife(who registered to vote for Ron Paul as a republican and our 19 yr old daughter. If it truly hurts a republicans feelings,then they need to WAKE UP/REALITY BITES RONPAUL2008.com I'll Vote outside both old parties if they dont nominate Ron Paul,if they want to blame me for losing the election,then listen to me.

[speciallyblend]

bump

[Captain Shays]

Look. If we leave the area terrorism will not stop. Thats a given. Its also a given for those of us who read, that the US foreign policy and Israel's "occupation" is not the only cause of Islamic terror.

That said, it becomes a wash whether we leave the area or stay relative to terrorism except for one minor yet significant fact. The recruiting will slow down.

Some other things could be expected. Eventually some pan-Arab maniac might take over all the oil fields in the Gulf. He will either drive prices way up or attempt to cut off the supply to the USA. This will cause an increase in our interest rates, odd-even rationing and possibly old ladies freezing to death for lack of oil heat. Unemployment might reach 1979 levels of around 14%.

Then all the inventors and innovators and backyard tinkerers will come out fo the woodwork with new fuels, new forms of transportation. In a free market we will dramatically reduce our consumption which will set us free once and for all from Arab oil.

Meanwhile under president Paul's administration the troops will be brought home to secure our borders and airports which are technically international borders. Airline pilots will get armed. We'll see airlines incorporating revolutionary new methodologies like flight suits which would be required for all passengers to wear, making it impossible for anyone to smuggle anything on a plane. Every bag will get checked.

Citizens all across the country will get armed themselves with citizen militias patrolling malls, schools, stadiums and concerts.

Shipping containers, every one of them will get inspected before it enters this country.
We'll impliment a missile defense sheild and a nationwide civil defense system that would enable most Americans to survive a nuclear, biological or chemical attack thereby further reducing the incentive for attacking us in the first place.
With one of the main reasons for wanting to kill Americans gone with the threat of completely wiping out anyone who messes with us after that, we'll be much safer.

[jmunjr]

One thing to note is on two occasions when O'Reilly interrupted Paul, Paul was not directly answering the question, which was about Iran. Paul replied with answers about Saudi Arabia, and then again with Pakistan, upon which O'Reilly addressed those in the sense that neither of those governments' directly support terrorism. Iran does. O'Reilly was right, unfortunately..

I am a huge Paul supporter but I am also rational. If you don't know Paul well enough the appearance on the show was not good for him, possibly just so-so.

[jmunjr]

Wrong!!! This is disturbing thought and quite malinformed. Are you a troll? Curious...


Wow, I make an argument about Paul's position on one thing and I am suspected of being a troll.

I have supported Paul since the 90s. My brother voted for him in '88 (and he introduced me to the Libertarian party). I have converted possibly a dozen or so friends and acquaintances to support Paul(though one who was on the fence no longer does as of the last debate).

In any case, I am not a troll. I question all candidates' positions on the issues.

Geez, it seems with some of you the Ron Paul campaign is a cult or religion. Question his position ever so slightly and it is blasphemy. Makes me wonder how you troll accusers would really behave if Paul wins and delivered on his promises..

[speciallyblend]

Group HUG

[jmunjr]

Group HUG

Don't hug a terrorist!