PDA

View Full Version : Can Someone Please Educate This (Uniformed) Person?




inflamesdjk02
10-18-2007, 02:42 PM
This is quite possibly the worst article I've ever read.

CLICK (http://millerkevd.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/why-i-support-mike-huckabee-over-ron-paul/)

I would really like to leave a detailed and well-thought out comment in response to this hideous piece of slanderous garbage, but I have a very important exam coming up and I don't have much free time at the moment.

It's fair to assume that the author is still in high school, but there's still a chance that he is of voting age, so he needs to be informed of the facts. Even worse, he's probably forcing this opinion upon his peers. Eek.

ctb619
10-18-2007, 02:43 PM
ignore it....don't click the link

inflamesdjk02
10-18-2007, 02:47 PM
Excuse, me?

I found this article browsing on the Internet while I was trying to find an analysis of the comparison b/n Paul and Huckabee.

My first post in the RP forum and this is how I get treated?

Grandson of Liberty
10-18-2007, 02:49 PM
welcome to the forum! I think it was just to say that don't do the writer a favor by clicking the link and getting him the webhits

Cindy
10-18-2007, 02:51 PM
Excuse, me?

I found this article browsing on the Internet while I was trying to find an analysis of the comparison b/n Paul and Huckabee.

My first post in the RP forum and this is how I get treated?


Welocome to the forum and thanks for supporting liberty, freedom, the consitution and sanity in government.

Smaller articles ( not major mainstream news) that are negative about RP, come across as troll articles to many people and they feel it's best to ignore them, as so few will read them anyway.

It's not you, just the request that "some" may have issue with. Someone else may love to educate that writer.

Your intent is good.:)

quickmike
10-18-2007, 02:52 PM
Excuse, me?

I found this article browsing on the Internet while I was trying to find an analysis of the comparison b/n Paul and Huckabee.

My first post in the RP forum and this is how I get treated?

I think hes saying dont click the link because this high school kid obviously is misrepresenting Ron Paul on purpose. He says the exact opposite of whats true about everything.


No point wasting time on someone like that.

Dave Wood
10-18-2007, 02:54 PM
welcome to the forum! I think it was just to say that don't do the writer a favor by clicking the link and getting him the webhits


WELCOME TO THE REVOLUTION! The first commentor didnt see that you were new, I am sure of it. My apologizes for them:)

What we have run into a lot is attention grabbers out there that try to bait Ron Paul people with awful stuff just to pump up their website standings. It happens a lot.

I for one am always curious as to what these people are up to so thanks for posting this and I promise, if this person needs a lambasting, they will get one. :D

inflamesdjk02
10-18-2007, 02:56 PM
Fair enough, I understand.

Good to be part of the forum, but slightly depressing that the human mind is able to think like that.

Anyways, I guess I'll try to recognize those things so I can avoid them in the future.

Thanks,

Donnie

Dave Wood
10-18-2007, 02:56 PM
ignore it....don't click the link


Dude!!!!!!!!!!!! DIdnt you see that they were brand new to the forums?????
Wasupwityou?

At least welcome someone in and give an explanation for your post :o :rolleyes:

ctb619
10-18-2007, 02:58 PM
Dude!!!!!!!!!!!! DIdnt you see that they were brand new to the forums?????
Wasupwityou?

At least welcome someone in and give an explanation for your post :o :rolleyes:

relax I didn't see that he/she was a new member

inflamesdjk02
10-18-2007, 02:58 PM
Everything's cool.

I wouldn't be surprised that people are on the lookout for spammers, I'm sure that there's plenty around.

Dave Wood
10-18-2007, 03:00 PM
relax I didn't see that he/she was a new member


Im relaxed. I was pretty sure that someone who has posted as many times as you would NOT treat a newbie that way on purpose. :)

inflamesdjk02
10-18-2007, 03:01 PM
I'm a staunch supporter of Ron Paul. I'm currently a second year student at a graduate school in South Florida, and attempting daily to recruit new supports in an honest and kosher fashion :)

inflamesdjk02
10-18-2007, 03:01 PM
*supporters

ctb619
10-18-2007, 03:03 PM
of course not....I was just blinded by an obsession to not provide incentives for marginal bloggers to write hit pieces about RP

Dave Wood
10-18-2007, 03:03 PM
I'm a staunch supporter of Ron Paul. I'm currently a second year student at a graduate school in South Florida, and attempting daily to recruit new supports in an honest and kosher fashion :)


Watch out with your signs down there!! Do a search on the forums and you will find that Florida for some reason is sending the code enforcement people after Ron Paul signs. Its illegal but they are still trying to fine people $$$$. Just a heads up

steph3n
10-18-2007, 03:03 PM
hello,

If you don't mind, which school?

Can I be of any assistance to you maybe in the Miami area?
If you aren't comfortable with giving in public feel free to PM me.

ctb619
10-18-2007, 03:04 PM
I'm a staunch supporter of Ron Paul. I'm currently a second year student at a graduate school in South Florida, and attempting daily to recruit new supports in an honest and kosher fashion :)

welcome to the forums....I hope you become a regular contributor

Cindy
10-18-2007, 03:05 PM
Everything's cool.

I wouldn't be surprised that people are on the lookout for spammers, I'm sure that there's plenty around.

The request wasn't spam. Had the article been written by Barabara Walters, then, hell yeah, post it and let us know.

There are dozens and dozens of news articles and blogs wriiten on Paul a day now. Some are just getting more selective about which ones to spend time on.

inflamesdjk02
10-18-2007, 03:08 PM
Watch out with your signs down there!! Do a search on the forums and you will find that Florida for some reason is sending the code enforcement people after Ron Paul signs. Its illegal but they are still trying to fine people $$$$. Just a heads up

Yeah, I saw that. Since I'm so busy with school I haven't done any campaigning and haven't been active with the Meetup Group. I try to spend some of my free time talking to friends and family and spreading the message though.

Shogun108
10-19-2007, 08:11 AM
(sarcasm) I just wanted to say that that was by far the most uninformed garbage I have ever seen! :rolleyes:

How can people be so dumb? You know it is people like this who just plain annoy me. (/sarcasm)

Lol all jokes aside I appreciate the comments and I look forward to continued scrutiny. Come to think of it I enjoy it! Welcome to my world people. I challenge you to convince me to vote for Ron Paul.

This Libertarian refuses to vote for him and for the record I am not "uniformed" I respect your misconception that I be pert of the forces, but I cannot take the honor upon myself. Wait? did you mean "UnINformed?" That I can assure you I am not...

Watch your spelling :D

micahnelson
10-19-2007, 08:21 AM
Lol all jokes aside I appreciate the comments and I look forward to continued scrutiny. Come to think of it I enjoy it! Welcome to my world people. I challenge you to convince me to vote for Ron Paul.



I take it you were the author of the article? If not, my apologies.

I can't convince you to vote for Ron Paul because he represents a new* ideology. You would have to come to terms with the idea of free markets, personal freedom, and the true meaning of unalienable rights before you could consider supporting him.

If I was simply trying to sell you Hillarudy McRomobamson, I could discuss the minor differences in the way they plan to use government to solve all your problems. As we have seen in a recent news reports, 75% of all bombs got through TSA screeners in LA, New Orleans is still a mess, our Federally managed currency is sinking, and we are in the middle of a religious civil war in a foreign country.

I would much rather convince you how to approach government than how to vote. Maximizing personal liberty is the best way to be free, prosperous, and at peace. Greater government control cannot provide this for you.

If you understand this, and then consider the Presidential candidates- there will be only one acceptable choice.


*Perhaps I should say, recycled from the American Revolution.

Shogun108
10-19-2007, 08:34 AM
I can't convince you to vote for Ron Paul because he represents a new* ideology. You would have to come to terms with the idea of free markets, personal freedom, and the true meaning of unalienable rights before you could consider supporting him.

Here's the deal I'm going to write a new blog, but I'll have you know his ideas are far from new! American revolution recycled no not so these ideals are of the people. Any self respecting person supports them...

I was supporting many before I even heard of him!


I would much rather convince you how to approach government than how to vote. Maximizing personal liberty is the best way to be free, prosperous, and at peace. Greater government control cannot provide this for you.

I'm WAY ahead of you pal! As I said I am all for personal freedoms, but there is a depth to how everything works... Things do not always happen as they seem.

I bet at this point you wander why I do not support Ron Paul? Well I have my reasons. One glaring one is his tax policy (I'll explain in my blog) and foreign policy. I have others, but I'll stay there for now...;)

JaylieWoW
10-19-2007, 08:35 AM
Everything's cool.

I wouldn't be surprised that people are on the lookout for spammers, I'm sure that there's plenty around.

I used to search constantly for any and every Ron Paul article I could find. But, I've come to understand (as we've seen with certain writers), they will often write up a smear piece on Ron Paul just so they can beef up their numbers since they KNOW the "Paulbots" will come out in force to correct their erroneous assertions.

I used to get mad when I saw the negative stuff until I realized what was going on, now I just laugh and refuse to be used in such a way. Yes, good to ignore!

HUGS to you and welcome to one of the best Ron Paul forums around!

:) :D :cool:

micahnelson
10-19-2007, 08:36 AM
I bet at this point you wander why I do not support Ron Paul? Well I have my reasons. One glaring one is his tax policy (I'll explain in my blog) and foreign policy. I have others, but I'll stay there for now...;)

Well since we are shamelessly self promoting, my blog is at micahnelson.com and id be glad to answer you there =)

Adamsa
10-19-2007, 08:37 AM
You can basically ask any Ron paul supporter anything and they'd probably know Ron's stance on the issue, don't be afraid to ask if you're curious. :)

inflamesdjk02
10-19-2007, 09:05 AM
Wait? did you mean "UnINformed?"

I'm guilty of judging people by their grammar, now look at me.

I can't believe that I fudged the title of the thread ...

Doh!

Shogun108
10-19-2007, 09:12 AM
I'm guilty of judging people by their grammar, now look at me.

I can't believe that I fudged the title of the thread ...

Doh!

:D haha! Yeah I know how it feels... Oh yeah for the record I'm not trying to extort any of you for ratings. I am genuinely concerned with some misconceptions Paul supporters have. We have to get our message out somehow! I'll check your blog out, but I didn't start the thread so you can't call me out on self promotion ;)

constituent
10-19-2007, 09:14 AM
Yeah, I saw that. Since I'm so busy with school I haven't done any campaigning and haven't been active with the Meetup Group. I try to spend some of my free time talking to friends and family and spreading the message though.

that is the best method. you can assure yourself that when you've got your friends and family on the line that you will have (for certain) ten to fifteen people going to the primaries and generals for whom you have taken personal responsibility.

they are within your easy reach (telephone, work, school), and you can lobby them/encourage them to vote w/out coming off as pushy. they know that it is important to you and they will make it a point to vote accordingly.

what helps is w/ parents and grandparents, make your own t-shirts, mugs, whatever using MSPaint (or any image software you have available) and one
of the web services out there like cafepress.com

send it to them, and let them know you made it. turn your family into an advertisement.

the best part, when they're speaking w/ the people they know and the people
ask about the item they're sporting they'll say, "yea so and so made it for me
they're real excited about this ron paul fella, you otta check him out."

really it does work.

Shogun108
10-19-2007, 03:59 PM
I think hes saying dont click the link because this high school kid obviously is misrepresenting Ron Paul on purpose. He says the exact opposite of whats true about everything.


No point wasting time on someone like that.

Ouch I just saw that... naughty naughty ;) And yes I have to say do not click on my blog and do not do me the favor.

Truthfully I really want you guys to prove me wrong. I'm serious here! Tell me why you support Ron Paul... Win me over. I want to be convinced I need to know everything! I'm saying this because I need to make an objective decision on who would be the best candidate. Oh and for the record I may be in high school But I am not dumb...

I'm going to browse these forums now maybe we'll have a discussion or two... :D

TVMH
10-22-2007, 10:03 PM
I'm WAY ahead of you pal! As I said I am all for personal freedoms, but there is a depth to how everything works... Things do not always happen as they seem.

What exactly do you mean when you say depth?



I bet at this point you wander why I do not support Ron Paul? Well I have my reasons. One glaring one is his tax policy (I'll explain in my blog) and foreign policy. I have others, but I'll stay there for now...;)
I await your newest post with bated breath. :rolleyes:

And, by the way, Dr. Paul is not a senator...he is a member of the US House of Representatives.

TVMH
10-22-2007, 10:30 PM
Shogun,

It occurs to me that you are not, indeed, "...all for personal freedoms."

This is evident in the fact that the comment I posted to your blog is being moderated before it gets posted.

I realize that it's your blog, but is it necessary to censor my comments (and by comments, I do not necessarily mean exclusion or removal, rather, I mean someone reviewing it before it gets posted).

Are you opposed to the free and open exchange of ideas?

Shogun108
10-22-2007, 10:50 PM
When I say depth I mean there is not one sure fire way to get everything done. I say this only to say that a complete downsizing of the government may not be the answer.

DO NOT get me wrong on this. I hate big government with a passion. I'm simply saying that certain things need to be taken slowly. Downsizing needs to be a slow process, but before anything we must enact the Fair Tax an income tax is a direct tax and is unconstitutional under our Forefather's ideals.

Depth is I guess my way of saying modern society has its flaws. People are ignorant to the role of government. FDR created the single greatest blunder ever in the history of the US. Social Security. And guess what? That is source for corruption! For socialistic ideals! And anti conservatism. However you CANNOT simply fix the mistake by eliminating the problem. (by the way I know Paul does not want that) You might be able to save money in government, but Paul's ideas have problems elsewhere as well.

Economics for instance. There are heated debates as to the role of the FED, but after studying economics and market security I when from a complete free market supporter to a Keynesian Market supporter. the classic market ideals claimed the market was elastic, but time has proven this as false. Yes, many hate the interference with interest and other factors, but the truth is a stable economy is reliant on a Keynesian System.

In any case if you wish to learn more about laissez-faire I suggest you read what John Maynard Keynes had to say about it. Keynes states that the natural state of the economy is not full employment as first believed and that a live and let live policy can only lead to frequent recessions. Think of it as a car rolling down hill. Normally the car will speed up as it goes down, but Keynesian economics applies the brakes to the car so that it does not hit the tree at the bottom of the hill. Read about economic policy. Classic economic policy has been disproven time and time again. Read up on it from both sides, but see that only one side has precedence on its side.

Paul has pushed for a gold standard, but this would prove disastrous.

The “Bretton Woods System” or in layman’s terms “Gold Backed Curency” was discontinued because of the instability it spawned. under this system the US reserves dwindled to nothing and from there trade deficits grew. People knew that given time the dollar would simply collapse. So we no longer have a goldbacked currency. The old gold backed standard worked for a while, but as evidenced with the Bretton Woods System such an action will not help us.

Now look at the Fair Tax:

If you have more money in your pockets would you be a little inclined to buy that extra gadget that you always wanted? Of course! Same goes that if businesses cost of production falls then they can sell goods with greater profit. Tell me why that does not fix a whole mess of things? The Fair Tax world would be amazing. America would become the Tax Haven of the world. Think of that! Businesses will flock to the tax free environment! It’s the natural order… Read the “Fair Tax Book.” I simply cannot explain everything to you.

So in general on the economy.

Keynesian systems work and lazzie-faire has been discounted with historical precedence. The failure of the Bretton Woods System shows what a gold standard can do in a floating curency world. In order to create a freer economic possition for all of us nothing would be better than the Fair Tax it puts power back into the US economy!

Now that that's out of the way...

I could go into the war, but I fear for my health if I say anything, but you know what I could care less!:

If it was necessary Jesus would have fought for His people, but there's the problem. He came to teach us of love. He did not however tell us that all killing is wrong or that self defense is wrong. No in fact the Bible clearly shows time and time again that God aids those who ask even in the conquest of enemies.

Think of the battles of David or of Judges. What of Samson? where those evil men? Sure they had their faults, but God gave them strength.

Exodus 17:8-13

Read with care. Tell me after reading this that moses' prayers where not answered. The Bible cannot be more blunt.

It is true Jesus speaks of love and forgiveness, but to blindly lay down our life without a fight is as good as killing yourself. It is better that you defend yourself from attacks than let them effect you or even bring you down. However in all light to that we must learn to forgive while we do this.

Bear in mind we did not attack them. They attacked us! we have our duty to defend God and country.

This is a militant action I give you that, but God would have it no other way. If there is any other better way to spread God's message than by freeing innocent lives from faciast tyranny.

Live love and let live!

I love everyone! I forgive them for their wrongs... We have turned our cheeks over the centuries, but they remain defiant. I'm sorry, but it is for love that we go to war not hate.

Ask a volunteer why they enlisted. Their answer will be "to serve the country" There will be very little who will say, "to kill the enemy." No one in their right mind would ever want to think that way. And if you assume that those who support the war do so with hatred and murderous intent than you are mistaken.

Those who support this war are not "WAR MONGERERS" no we are those who wish for the security of you and your children. Give it though. How many attacks where there on US soil before 9/11? I'm guessing quite a few right. Now how many where there after the war began? What's that? None? Interesting isn't it. Of course many of the attacks where diverted through national defense, BUT why should we wait for them? they declare and we respond...

Continued presence is repugnant, yes, but necessary. Before you dismiss me as a NEOCON consider this: If Regan had remained inside the US shell imagine how different the war would be today... This debate should not be over a war and citing failed policy. It should be about standing for principles!

OK THAT's OUT of the Way...

Let me explain myself to everyone who reads this. Bureaucracy is bad, but stability, security and personal liberty is good. So far the only candidates who will decrease our personal identity are Democrats. Those who will keep the same level are the front running GOP candidates. Those who will do at least one major thing to increase them are Huck and Paul. The candidates who will create chaos in the economy would be Democrats. Those who would create security would be a few GOPers. But those who would fix the economy for the better only number one. And those who would create instability would also number one. Huckabee creates a stable market and maintains security while not increasing bureaucracy. Ron Paul creates an old fashion and instable economy, but decreases bureaucracy and he may even threaten our security.

I will rest there for now. Why not take a gander at my new blog?

Also for the record I know he is in the house... If I said senator it is just a common mistake.

Shogun108
10-22-2007, 11:04 PM
Shogun,

It occurs to me that you are not, indeed, "...all for personal freedoms."

This is evident in the fact that the comment I posted to your blog is being moderated before it gets posted.

I realize that it's your blog, but is it necessary to censor my comments (and by comments, I do not necessarily mean exclusion or removal, rather, I mean someone reviewing it before it gets posted).

Are you opposed to the free and open exchange of ideas?

If your talking about that youtube link I marked it as spam because you had no text other than that link. I did watch the video that's certain, but if you want to have your message allowed then next time actually say something....

That is the only comment I blocked mainly because it was SPAM I want logical debate not links. Unless they support a proposed point. I want to make sure posters actually have something to say when I moderate.

By the way once I approve you, you are free to post whatever you want.

I would also appreciate it if you would not try to discredit me by attacking my integrity. Yet again I see a logical fallacy at work here.

This attack on the arguer instead of the argument is known as "ad-hominum." Do not attack me in this manner. Not only do you demean your own credibility, but it does nothing to prove me wrong. Oh and on top of this fallacy I see another. You call me Hippocrate. This is Tu Quoque or dismissing someone's view because he is inconsistent on the issue. Of course your premise is false as well so your conclusion which came about from two illogical premises is incorrect.

Instead of trying to discredit me why not try and argue!

At this point I am convinced I am right. The posts in my blog have not swayed me. None of you are persuasive. Granted some like to talk, but none had backing.

Try again! :D

http://millerkevd.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/another-paulhuckabee-comparison/


By the way a fallacy is an illogicality in arguments and a premise is a part of an argument which leads up to a conclusion... Just in case you were wandering.

ClayTrainor
10-23-2007, 01:03 AM
So shogun, you told me to remember 9/11, as if it gave us justification for Pre-emptive war.

It absolutely did not. 9/11 had nothing to do with a country, and especially not iraq.

Could you please explain to me, how 9/11 lead to pre-emptive war in iraq?

i would also like to quote njandrewg from the other thread

"Iraq did not attack us on 9/11...netiehr did Iran.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, have done thousands of things worse to us than those countries. Do you know that Saudi Arabia refused to arrest the guys who the CIA knows FINANCED the 9/11 attacks? With friends like these who needs enemies."

Shogun108
10-23-2007, 01:10 AM
You are playing the victim to lend credibility to your cause. You came here preaching wrong numbers and pushing an agenda. I am not sure what you would expect.

Think on this for a quick second. We allow you to post here and be part of the team and we are not disparaging you until you lay claim to inaccurate fundraising numbers and become obvious.. but know this. The WHOLE MSM machine and all its affiliate neo-conned websites are banning Ron Paul, not because of any MSM generated keywords - like "crazy or insane etc..", but because freedom is popular and if you are truly informed you would know the grave danger this country faces. You would read up on it and find out why Ron Paul is spreading like wildfire and why the powers that be IGNORE AND BELITTLE HIM.

Does a lion acknowledge an ant that crosses its path? No, it doesn't. But if that lion sees a threat, what does it do?

You see, the more they ignore and condemn Ron Paul, the more telling it is.
Also, why would you support Huckster when he is obviously coveting Ron Paul's positions verbatim. He sees how powerful it is. Also, Huckster is pro-amnesty and voted down a bill to forbid illegals from voting.. so, his honour is in question. He is shill for the establishment.

Watch this youtube video. I watched it today. Its rather poignent, and only Ron Paul has a bearing of the troubles that are approaching..

Naomi Wolf's lecture called the 'End of America'

P.S. There is nothing very fair about the fair tax, its still a huge amount. I'd rather pay NO federal taxes, than a pretty worded one called "fair tax".

Let me begin with saying I am not trying to look like a victim here. No not at all quite the opposite. I'm telling you that I will take these attacks from you guys. These attacks are in attempt to discredit me. It may be true I have said much which you disagree with. I expect nothing more from everyone here than to scrutinize me. I'd be surprised if anyone of them has the guts to lay facts with facts in a logical debate on my blog.

I also feel your pain when the media insults Ron Paul. I stopped listening to Hannity after he insulted Paul. Ron Paul is a great man don't you EVER say I said otherwise!

Shogun108
10-23-2007, 01:18 AM
So shogun, you told me to remember 9/11, as if it gave us justification for Pre-emptive war.

It absolutely did not. 9/11 had nothing to do with a country, and especially not iraq.

Could you please explain to me, how 9/11 lead to pre-emptive war in iraq?

You seem to be unaware of the enemy we face. Somehow you think that we face a county. We do not. We where at war with The Taliban and radical Muslim gihadists. Iraq was providing harbor for these groups and would not let us continue our efforts to fight them.

Afghanistan did let us go in and fight the taliban. The reason we went to war with Iraq was so that we could engage the enemy. The Iraq war ended long ago, but if you still support Afghanistan occupation then how can you justify a withdrawal from Iraq when most of the radical forces reside in Iraq.

Iran is doing the same thing, but more than that. They, or rather the "president," threatens to destroy Israel. Such an action has been stated to be the beginning of major conflict...

Preemtivity is justified to stop future terrorist attacks and to prevent genocide...

Shogun108
10-23-2007, 01:39 AM
I don't understand these people. I think a sick part of me thinks they are actually Ron Paul supporters undercover to make us more jacked for Ron Paul. When these types come here they just motivate me more. Its midnight right now and I am a second away from going and posting on polls.. you know.... so funny.

Good we're on the same page here... You think I care that you are "more jacked" naw not at all. I'm here to develop my own understanding of you guys...


"IF" we cared about getting those terrorists, then we would have took Ron Paul's advice and huned them down. We didnt. Instead we waged a unconstitutional war to further our nation building agenda.

Shogun, YOU REMEMBER 9/11. Our Policians used that terrible attack to further their agenda, not justice. Thousands have died, yet we are no closer to our goal....

Who is the real villian. The politician who sends its followers to a wicked war with no end in site under false pretenses. To divest from the negativity of NO EVIDENCE of WMD and no reason to 'really' invade, we then move the focus to a "just war" - implying good vs. evil.... also known as ... Christianity vs. muslim.... now, we see new keywords propping up "islofascism" to lend a name to this evil.

*Sigh* you think we are at war with Muslims now? No many of these people do not represent the faith. Everything in the society always boils down to race. That is sick beyond measure. We are not a war with Muslims we are a war with the radicals who create violent opposition to the US. The terrorists in other words just happen to be of Muslim denomination and so the war is now about religion.

Well to the terrorists it is, but to us it should be about our security.

BTW do not tell me to "remember 9/11" you have know idea how much that pains me... I do not believe politicians where following an agenda when they went to war. We have become safer since the attack have we not?

This is not foreign intervention it is national security. We just had to get rid of an obstacle to our security and as a result we created a political problem in Iraq. That is what people hate. They hate that we must stay now that Iraq had to be rebuilt, because we simply cannot destroy a regime and then leave it in ruins as we fight across the country against the terrorists. No it was strategic that we rebuild Iraq.

dmspilot00
10-23-2007, 01:44 AM
Yes I do, but these two are the only two true Republicans on the ballots the front runners are liberals. Paul is a Libertarian with some values against my own, but otherwise he is similar to my own beliefs.

Top Three issues: War, Economy, Freedom

No Paul: Leaves Iraq, Supports Lazzie-Faire, However he is amazing with bureaucracy!

Yes Huckabee: Will stay till victory, Fair Tax, Could be better with government waste programs...

Well obviously if you want the war to continue you have a wide array of candidates to choose from. Keep in mind what Ron Paul said (who served in the military for 5 years): "We can achieve much more in peace than in these needless, unconstitutional, undeclared wars." He also has received the largest amount of campaign contributions from members of the military. Also, while the other candidates praise Ronald Reagan at every turn, did Reagan ever say anything positive about them? No, but Reagan once said, "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country!"

As far as the Economy and Freedom, I do not understand how you cannot support Ron Paul on these issues.

I was an economics major in college and, after reading about Ron Paul's economic policies, he gained my instant support (of course, after learning about all of Ron Paul's positions, he gained my support on nearly every single one). I firmly believe that he understands more about economics than any other politician alive today. Milton Friedman, the famous Nobel prize winning economist that was one of the strongest advocate of free markets (and one of the strongest advocates of freedom, too), probably the most influential economist of the last half century, said this about Ron Paul: "We very badly need to have more Representatives in the House who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom for the preservation and extension of human freedom in general."

If you look at Ron Paul's positions, his voting record, his speeches, his writings, you'll see that Ron Paul is more for freedom than any other candidate. I don't believe that the other candidates, of either party, have given a second thought to the freedom issue. That's pretty sad considering what this country was founded upon. Remember that Ron Paul is not running for President to further his own career, further his own agenda, or cater to lobbysts...in fact, it wasn't even his own idea! He is running for President because he wants to save our country, give us our freedoms back, and return goverment to its proper constitutional size.

rs3515
10-23-2007, 01:51 AM
We where at war with The Taliban and radical Muslim gihadists. Iraq was providing harbor for these groups and would not let us continue our efforts to fight them.

Can I ask my friend, how much traveling have you done around the globe? I'm curious to know.

Gimme Some Truth
10-23-2007, 01:51 AM
You seem to be unaware of the enemy we face. Somehow you think that we face a county. We do not. We where at war with The Taliban and radical Muslim gihadists. Iraq was providing harbor for these groups and would not let us continue our efforts to fight them.

Afghanistan did let us go in and fight the taliban. The reason we went to war with Iraq was so that we could engage the enemy. The Iraq war ended long ago, but if you still support Afghanistan occupation then how can you justify a withdrawal from Iraq when most of the radical forces reside in Iraq.

Iran is doing the same thing, but more than that. They, or rather the "president," threatens to destroy Israel. Such an action has been stated to be the beginning of major conflict...

Preemtivity is justified to stop future terrorist attacks and to prevent genocide...



Iraq had NOTHING to do with al qaeda or 911. You need to keep up.

Yes, we need to withdraw from Afghanistan aswell as Iraq. We went after OBL and AQ in afganistand half heartedly and they escaped. Ron Paul voted FOR the authority to do so . Bush and the rest failed miserably.

AQ are only in Iraq because we are there. Because we are there we are acting as a recruiting service for OBL. What we have in Iraq is a thousand year old conflict that we cannot stop. Only the Government of Iraq can do that and with us being there they can just sit in their easy chair. They are not doing their job. They cant. We cause them more hassle than good.

We all know we went into iraq under false , illegal, pretenses ( that is 1 of the major dangers with the hitler styled pre-emptive war) . We went in to overthrow Saddam and have the Iraqis elect a government. That was achieved. We are now turning into the enemy to the very people "we set out to free" (if you buy that BS) because we are occupying their country and building massive PERMANENT bases. How can their government do anything with us building bases bigger than the Vatican? how can they truly govern their own country with us there?

And now we want to do it all over again with Iran!?

All this talk of "honor" is ridiculous and just more propaganda to lengthen the occupation. Its saving face and we all know it. We are condemning our military to more bloodshed so people who wanted this war like hillary , huckerbee etc can save face. What is victory? its not possible because its undefinable ... just like the "war on terror" . We need a new approach. An approach with reason backed by sound policies and a better understanding of world history.

We need RON PAUL!

Lord Xar
10-23-2007, 01:52 AM
I just read your blog... You sure you did your homework?

You wrote..
"I also disagree with Paul about his foreign policy I vehemently oppose the UN and all it stands for.... Ron Paul thinks International takes precedence over US law and that the war is against many of these laws (as well as the constitution). "

This is blatantly false. Ron Paul has said on numerous occasions that he would take out of the UN and he is forcibly opposed to international laws taking precedence over US Laws. This is a Hucklebee lift. He is stealing Ron's message on this and I find it laughable that you would post something so obviously wrong. Have you read ANYTHING OF RON PAUL'S writings on RonPaulLibrary.com????? HE WAS THE ONLY CANDIDATE TALKING ABOUT SOVERIEGNTY - but of course, huckster is trying to covet it... no luck.

You are here to try and find out why Ron Paul has so much fire and use for your thief. You can't. Just like you can't explain a great love affair, or how an artist creates a great work of art. Hucklebee DOES NOT Inspire.. Don't you see... Nobody else inspires.. that is the key.... you can't steal that, you can't mimick it...

Also, get your story straight. Hucklesauce likes to raise taxes, he likes amnesty, and he likes to lift Ron Pauls' ideas....

davidhperry
10-23-2007, 01:58 AM
You seem to be unaware of the enemy we face. Somehow you think that we face a county. We do not. We where at war with The Taliban and radical Muslim gihadists. Iraq was providing harbor for these groups and would not let us continue our efforts to fight them.

Afghanistan did let us go in and fight the taliban. The reason we went to war with Iraq was so that we could engage the enemy. The Iraq war ended long ago, but if you still support Afghanistan occupation then how can you justify a withdrawal from Iraq when most of the radical forces reside in Iraq.

Iran is doing the same thing, but more than that. They, or rather the "president," threatens to destroy Israel. Such an action has been stated to be the beginning of major conflict...

Preemtivity is justified to stop future terrorist attacks and to prevent genocide...

I used to believe exactly like you until I realized something very important. The reason that these people hate us is not because they want to turn the whole world into a Islamic state. Sure, some do, but every religion and group has its wack-jobs (just look at this board. :) ). These people hate us because they feel threatened by us - we are in their country and region exerting our will by expanding our empire. We may even have good intentions but thats certainly not how they view it. It also doesn't mean that we bring terrorism on ourselves (they are at fault) - it just means that we don't help the situation.

The reason I don't buy into the "they hate us for our freedoms" argument is this: why have they started now? I mean, western culture has been around for many hundreds of years. Now, all of a sudden, they up and decide to start hating us? Tell that doesn't make any sense to you. Traditionally, the Arab world lashes out when it's encroached upon. Otherwise, it generally keeps to itself.

And another thing, I really don't appreciate Huckabee and others manipulating people and using fear to try to gain support. Yes, terrorism is bad. Fine. They should not use that as a political tool to scare people under their protective wing.

Now, are you ready to join the Ron Paul Revolution?

blamx8
10-23-2007, 02:02 AM
I hope this kid is honestly trying to study and learn although he sure seems to think pretty highly of himself. The so called "conservative" viewpoint is quite amazing.

Who was it that used to have the great signature line? It was something like "When I saw Sadam fly that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian a##!

Classic.

Shogun108
10-23-2007, 02:04 AM
Well obviously if you want the war to continue you have a wide array of candidates to choose from...

Nope I absolutely will not vote for any other GOP candidates, but Huck or Paul.


I was an economics major in college and, after reading about Ron Paul's economic policies, he gained my instant support (of course, after learning about all of Ron Paul's positions, he gained my support on nearly every single one). I firmly believe that he understands more about economics than any other politician alive today. Milton Friedman, the famous Nobel prize winning economist that was one of the strongest advocate of free markets (and one of the strongest advocates of freedom, too), probably the most influential economist of the last half century, said this about Ron Paul: "We very badly need to have more Representatives in the House who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom for the preservation and extension of human freedom in general."

An argument with credence good job! I will look into this, but the economics debate is like theological debate. It is hard to go from one side to another... I enjoyed your post. I hope I will see more of the same...


Can I ask my friend, how much traveling have you done around the globe? I'm curious to know.

This is absolutely irrelevant. I'd appreciate it if you would not change the subject to be about me. Ad- Hominim Fallacies seem to be the Paulites' Favorite.


Yes, we need to withdraw from Afghanistan aswell as Iraq. We went after OBL and AQ in afganistand half heartedly and they escaped. Ron Paul voted FOR the authority to do so . Bush and the rest failed miserably.

So we should ursup the authority of our commanding general in replacement with Ron Paul? In any case this iraq war issue is not something you can truly debate. The facts show Taliban is there. If we leave then they are free to do as they please. Weather or not we should have done it is not the argument. The point is it is happening and we are succeeding in drawing attention away from our homeland. I have no idea where your arguments lead, but I suggest that this issue not be discussed unless I see with my own eyes creadible documented proof that I am wrong.

I have to go now. So have fun bashing me while I'm absent!

Gimme Some Truth
10-23-2007, 02:25 AM
So we should ursup the authority of our commanding general in replacement with Ron Paul? In any case this iraq war issue is not something you can truly debate. The facts show Taliban is there. If we leave then they are free to do as they please. Weather or not we should have done it is not the argument. The point is it is happening and we are succeeding in drawing attention away from our homeland. I have no idea where your arguments lead, but I suggest that this issue not be discussed unless I see with my own eyes creadible documented proof that I am wrong.

!


Im not arguing about whether we should have done it. I was just stating that you were wrong in your reasoning for the war.

If you look back i said that now that we have achieved our goals (of gettin rid of Saddam and having Iraqis vote for their own government - even if they were under false pretenses)) we should now be leaving. The Iraqi Government needs to step up and they cant if we are building massive permanent bases. What use is the government if they arnt needed to well... govern? Anyway im just repeating what i already posted. You seem to cherry pick your arguments and not look at the whole message.

We should learn from this mess we got ourselves into when listening to war propaganda directed towards Iran...

Shogun108
10-23-2007, 02:34 AM
You see that's where we differ. I said that before. The mission was to get to the taliban and we had to get through Iraq first. So we do and now the war is over? Are we forgetting our objectives?

We fight not to stabilize Iraq, but to protect citizens like you and me from terror... remember that. You cannot deny that to get the taliban was our original intent.

Sorry, but I really must get some sleep... :(

briatx
10-23-2007, 02:44 AM
Guys this is quite the waste of time. You won't sway him, and your efforts are destined to fail.

How do I know this? Well, he claims to be in high school, so he must be a teenager. And we all know that teenagers know everything!

I know he'll cry ad-hominem, but its not. That's a simple fact. Us old fogeys, who know less than everything, corrupted by hard years of world experience just simply can not keep up with such youthful intellectual zeal. I should know, I used to be one.

I'm going to give you some real honest advice, Shogun. Stop worrying about all the facts, talking points and big words you know, and start asking yourself how you know what you know. Then ask yourself about all the things in the world that you do not know, and can't know. That's the path to wisdom.

steph3n
10-23-2007, 02:48 AM
You see that's where we differ. I said that before. The mission was to get to the taliban and we had to get through Iraq first. So we do and now the war is over? Are we forgetting our objectives?

We fight not to stabilize Iraq, but to protect citizens like you and me from terror... remember that. You cannot deny that to get the taliban was our original intent.

Sorry, but I really must get some sleep... :(

Afghanistan s being lost by our own actions going to Iraq, it is the forgotten "war", we had this one nearly done and then decided to go nation build and take out saddam who had NOTHING to do with 9/11!
We are NOT safer today, we are generating more people that hate us than ever before.

Before we went to Iraq we had a nation in Iran that was near to revolution against their government, to be free and happy people.
countries do not accept "freedom" that is pushed by the gunpoint, people must stand up for their OWN freedom.
when a freedom movement starts, people are much more dedicated when their own blood is being shed for THEIR cause, it is because it is not influenced by outside sources but by their own devotion to freedom and liberty.
Since being in Iraq these same people that actually respected the people of the US, only not liking the government, now look down on us greatly as well for electing Bush again to continue in ways of peril.

Let me put it this way, when the US Revolution happened, there was a direction from the PEOPLE yes some other countries came to our aid at some point later as well, but let me tell you, they did not come in and demand to setup base here when they were done helping. That would have been seen as the same occupation and oppression as the British government of before. Had we not stuck our gunbarrel into Iraq on the false pretenses given, we'd be within 4 years of a citizen overthrow of the Iranian government, now the Iranian government is stronger than ever, and even has some people that would have formerly been "revolutionary" figures for the citizens among the ranks of supporting the government and possibly even fighting against us. instead of being an ally to the people we could and should have been, we are now an enemy.
People do not realize just how close Iran was to this point, it was nearly tot he tipping point, going into Iraq was like an anvil falling to the scales of further oppression and possibly aggression in/from Iran. If we as a people show that we can indeed change and not fall into this trap of forever fighting against the so called "islamofacist" I believe we can start the process of weighting the scale the other way, and while it was a step back the people will come back their desrie of freedom again.

grfgerger
10-23-2007, 02:50 AM
Why are you guys giving him any attention? He's a high school kid on an intellectual high horse and he's here to agitate, not debate.

blamx8
10-23-2007, 03:07 AM
Shogun,
all this rhetoric is just so much smoke and mirrors. The real question and the crux of Ron Pauls stance on the issue of war does not have anything to do with all the infinite details we are fed about the middle east governments. It has everything to do with our own government and the responsibilities that different levels and branches are allowed.

The biggest issue that all of Ron Pauls positions are based on is this: The constitution protects the freedoms of the American people by limiting the power that any branch of government is authorized to use. If any branch of government steps outside the lines that are clearly drawn for them in the constitution the freedom of the people is in danger of being taken from them. The only way our freedoms are protected is when the laws are followed by those that govern us.

Article 1, section 8 says that it is the responsibility of congress to declare war. That is not a responsibility that can be given to another branch of the government by a simple majority vote. The only way that it can be transferred is through an ammendment to the constitution. The vote by congress to give the president the authority to call the shots and determine whether we should go to war against a country, by himself, was an illegal abrogation of the responsibility given to them by us.

Think of the reasoning behind why the founders did this. They knew the danger of having an all powerful sovereign with the power to direct armies at his own whim. Think of the stupid things every one of us do when we are upset or enflamed with passion. Even in those situations we hold ourselves in restrain because we know where the boundaries of the law are. But an all powerful sovereign is the law, and as easily as he can turn his armies on the enemy of his country he can turn them on his own people.

Look at every stance that Dr. Paul takes. Every one is about keeping each branch and level of government in its lawful place so that you and I can feel secure in the rights that we have.

That is why he is different than any other candidate. They only give lip service to the constitution, he lives it.

Hope you consider this sincerely.

Go Ron Paul!

Gimme Some Truth
10-23-2007, 03:08 AM
You see that's where we differ. I said that before. The mission was to get to the taliban and we had to get through Iraq first. So we do and now the war is over? Are we forgetting our objectives?

We fight not to stabilize Iraq, but to protect citizens like you and me from terror... remember that. You cannot deny that to get the taliban was our original intent.

Sorry, but I really must get some sleep... :(

Erm, the Taliban were in Afghanistan not iraq. The Iraq war has been about many things "WMD" , "iraqi freedom" United Nations Resolutions etc but not about the taliban

"We fight not to stabilize Iraq, but to protect citizens like you and me from terror... remember that"

Ok, what the ...?
The whole reason given by the likes of Rudy , fox and huckerbee , that we are still in Iraq ,is to stabilize .

Even if we were able to stabalize a thousand year conflict , as soon as we leave itl begin again. It cant be sorted with troops / force.

I would rather try to persuade a man to go along, because once I have persuaded him, he will stick. If I scare him, he will stay just as long as he is scared, and then he is gone.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

literatim
10-23-2007, 03:27 AM
Continued presence is repugnant, yes, but necessary. Before you dismiss me as a NEOCON consider this: If Regan had remained inside the US shell imagine how different the war would be today... This debate should not be over a war and citing failed policy. It should be about standing for principles!


Ronald Reagan in 1983 sent Marines into Lebanon, and he said he would never turn tail and run. A few months later, the Marines were killed, 241 were killed, and the Marines were taken out. And Reagan addressed this subject in his memoirs. And he says, "I said I would never turn tail and run." He says, "But I never realized the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics," and he changed his policy there. -Ron Paul


Let me explain myself to everyone who reads this. Bureaucracy is bad, but stability, security and personal liberty is good. So far the only candidates who will decrease our personal identity are Democrats.

Mike Huckabee supports a national smoking ban.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/why_mike_huckabee_cant_be_the_conservative_choice_ for_president/

Dan Klaus
10-23-2007, 04:08 AM
Donnie - welcome to the boards..hope to see more posts from you...

rs3515
10-23-2007, 04:25 AM
This is absolutely irrelevant. I'd appreciate it if you would not change the subject to be about me. Ad- Hominim Fallacies seem to be the Paulites' Favorite.

Far from irrelevant my friend. If you've not traveled the globe, I can guarantee you have a reduced world view that no amount of books, wikipedia articles, or blogs about what goes on "over there" is going to change.

Walk through the streets of Dubai and get a sense of the people and the culture. Visit Vietnam or Cambodia and see first hand the impact of war had on them. Realize what's happening in African villages overrun by warlords and diamond profiteers. Those running the war in Iraq have had zero clue about the history of Middle Eastern culture. Astonishing.

Many Americans often can't see the forest for the trees ... they're right in the center, but have no perspective and ignore history. It's funny, today's Republicans talk about how we can't be "isolationists", yet I know thousands of Americans who consider a trip to Miami as exotic. Please.

The point is this: all of the Republicans other than Dr. Paul lack a true world view to lead us forward. All the others are leading us down a path where we're going to repeat the same mistakes ... blowback from the Iranians due to 1953, having us meddling in the affairs of Korea for 50 years when they were ready to sign a peace treaty, sticking around in Vietnam much too long, etc.

I don't buy the notion that they want to kill us because we're free or they are jealous of us ... it's just a ruse. Watch the BBC awhile and you'll see stories of normal Iraqi citizens who used to support the American troops now trying to find ways to drive them out because they're just tired of it. Let's see how Americans would be doing if Chinese troops were here for 5 years trying to "root out the terrorists". All in the name of democracy, of course.

If you don't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it. And if you don't travel (as most conservative Americans don't), you're limited in your view.

lasenorita
10-23-2007, 07:39 AM
Shogun108,

We won the war against Iraq. We deposed of Saddam and his secular and totalitarian government. We helped set up a democratic (albeit religious) Iraqi government. Our men and women in the military have accomplished their mission courageously and with honor.

The war is over. I repeat, the war is over. However, our occupation of a sovereign nation has just begun.

Consider this: we've built a $500+ million embassy in Baghdad that's bigger than Vatican City and will cost us $1 billion a year to maintain. Here's what an Iraqi had to say about it:


"It's all for them, all of Iraq's resources, water, electricity, security," said Raid Kadhim Kareem, who has watched the buildings go up at a floodlighted site bristling with construction cranes from his post guarding an abandoned home on the other side of the Tigris River. "It's as if it's their country, and we are guests staying here."

Is that what you call honorable? Is that moral? Is it winning the war on terror when we're killing innocent civilians (http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m37424&hd=&size=1&l=e) and having our brave men and women die all so that the United States empire can save face?

I don't see how you can equate fighting over in Iraq to more security for us here in the United States. We are less safe. We leave our own borders unprotected while we patrol Iraq's instead. Our coasts and ports are wide open. We have a huge illegal immigration problem. Our infrastructure at home is crumbling but we still divert billions of dollars to fuel the war machine. Even response to Hurricane Katrina's aftermath was delayed because the states' National Guard troops were stuck half the world away!

If anything, I think that those who support undeclared wars and unconstitutional foreign excursions are the ones who are soft on terror. In fact, they actually promote terrorism because they give those vile perpetrators the ammunition (literally and figuratively) they need to fight and recruit new members. You cannot fight fire with fire. The world will end up in flames.

Then, again, (and since you quoted Keynes in your blog.): "In the long run, we are all dead."

mconder
10-23-2007, 08:42 AM
Iím not disagreeing with Ron Paul at all. I respect him as a senator as I do most senators.

This guy doesn't even know that Ron is a Congressman, and not a Senator.

Shogun108
10-23-2007, 09:16 AM
"The whole reason given by the likes of Rudy , fox and huckerbee , that we are still in Iraq ,is to stabilize."

Screw that, the primary reason we are there is to protect America. This IS LOST and FORGOTTEN by all of the candidates...


"The war is over. I repeat, the war is over. However, our occupation of a sovereign nation has just begun."

I have told you yes THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ is over. The war on terror has just begun...

[quote]"Far from irrelevant my friend. If you've not traveled the globe, I can guarantee you have a reduced world view that no amount of books, wikipedia articles, or blogs about what goes on "over there" is going to change."

So you will dismiss a view because I have not been there... this is called Circumstantial Ad Hominem and Needling. You want to discredit a view by attacking me and not my arguments. Shame on you!


"Is that what you call honorable? Is that moral? Is it winning the war on terror when we're killing innocent civilians and having our brave men and women die all so that the United States empire can save face?"

I call protecting the citizens of Iraq honorable. There will always be collateral THIS IS WAR! You overlook that war is NEVER free from collateral EVER! Take that into account... We are not saving face we are saving your life! The troops serve for us! Do not disrespect their mission when they selflessly give their life so you may continue life normally....


"Mike Huckabee supports a national smoking ban."

I'm against that, but you know what this is not high on my list of importance... I'm not a one issue voter...


"Ronald Reagan in 1983 sent Marines into Lebanon, and he said he would never turn tail and run. A few months later, the Marines were killed, 241 were killed, and the Marines were taken out. And Reagan addressed this subject in his memoirs. And he says, "I said I would never turn tail and run." He says, "But I never realized the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics," and he changed his policy there. -Ron Paul"

Nice relevant post, but running only emboldens the enemy...


"all this rhetoric is just so much smoke and mirrors. The real question and the crux of Ron Pauls stance on the issue of war does not have anything to do with all the infinite details we are fed about the middle east governments. It has everything to do with our own government and the responsibilities that different levels and branches are allowed."

I'm not distracting the argument. When you reply you must stay on subject... I disagree with Paul on his position I know where he originates from it. He wants to follow the constitutional method of dealing with war and he wants to go into a different direction with the war on terror. Pulling out of Iraq will not aid in the cause against the war on terror and if you think Ron Paul will end the War then you are wrong he clearly states that he will pull out of Iraq, but he supports efforts to find the terrorists... Why do we have to search for the terrorists when they present themselves before us in Iraq? I am against his assertion that we remain in Iraq to "save face."


"Guys this is quite the waste of time. You won't sway him, and your efforts are destined to fail.

How do I know this? Well, he claims to be in high school, so he must be a teenager. And we all know that teenagers know everything!

I know he'll cry ad-hominem, but its not. That's a simple fact. Us old fogeys, who know less than everything, corrupted by hard years of world experience just simply can not keep up with such youthful intellectual zeal. I should know, I used to be one.

I'm going to give you some real honest advice, Shogun. Stop worrying about all the facts, talking points and big words you know, and start asking yourself how you know what you know. Then ask yourself about all the things in the world that you do not know, and can't know. That's the path to wisdom."

"The first step in true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing..." I'm here because I am aware of this. I know I can know more about a subject. Why else would I be here with you guys talking about this? Certainly not to try and sway you. I know that is impossible. I'm here for my own reasons...


"How do I know this? Well, he claims to be in high school, so he must be a teenager. And we all know that teenagers know everything!"

"Age does not bring you wisdom, age brings you wrinkles."

A very common stereotype, but that does have some truth. However, I know I'm wrong on many issues I'm open to other ideas which again is why I am here... I suppose at this point you expect me to use debate rhetoric on you now... apparently you know what you are doing and that tells me how confident you are with yourself. You can never do anything when you dismiss an argument. I am well aware of this common assertion of older people. I am starting to witness it increasingly. This seems like you trump card. "I AM older so I AM correct." That is simply wrong... You can still be wrong... I can still be wrong. I have already been proven wrong many times, so watch your comments...


Keep in mind that true wisdom is more than just age... Keep Socratese in mind... Remember his words.

"True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us. "

Shogun108
10-23-2007, 09:17 AM
Iím not disagreeing with Ron Paul at all. I respect him as a senator as I do most senators.

This guy doesn't even know that Ron is a Congressman, and not a Senator.

Simple slip of the tongue. :D My bad!

blamx8
10-23-2007, 10:56 AM
When you reply you must stay on subject...

You're asking what the difference is between Paul and the rest. I am saying that in his approach to the war on terror he is the only candidate that takes into consideration the American people's right to have their government obey the law. That seems not only on topic, it seems the only topic.


...I disagree with Paul on his position I know where he originates from it. He wants to follow the constitutional method of dealing with war...

If you disagree that the government has any obligation to honor their oath and abide by the rules outlined in the constitution you do not understand the foundations of a republican form of government. I believe your "intelligence" is causing you to look beond the mark and is only being used to seek continuance of an arguement, not to find knowledge.


Why do we have to search for the terrorists when they present themselves before us in Iraq?

Because they present no front and our action, by reason, ends up being indiscriminate in reach and effect while giving us no specific target for our aggression.

What if I live in an area that has seen a rash of home burglaries by homeless individuals. Imagine me and my neighbors getting together one night, leaving all our homes with the doors unlocked and the windows open, and heading down to a homeless shelter to beat up the bums staying there as a course of retribution.

No matter what the reason is behind the burglaries have we moved any closer to solving the problem?

lasenorita
10-23-2007, 11:25 AM
@Shogun108

Please tell me exactly how staying "over there" protects the United States.

If we're fighting the war on terror, then why are we allies with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? If I'm not mistaken, a majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian citizens. Why are we not occupying their countries and fighting the terrorists in their homeland? Shouldn't we be protecting the citizens of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as well? After all, that's our job as the world's policeman, isn't it? </sarcasm> :rolleyes:

It's demoralizing when one can so easily dismiss the deaths of innocent civilians simply as "collateral damage". How many more American soldiers should be killed before enough is enough? How many more billions of dollars should we spend while American citizens suffer here at home because of inadequate funds to care for themselves?

Life is not a video game. (Which, btw, is a leading cause of America's immorality according to Huckabee. I take it you've stopped playing those, right?) You don't get second chances and there's no possibility of reaching an end goal when your actions affect the game itself.



P.S. - I find your implication that I am disrespecting the troops and their mission distasteful. You know, the military must be disrespecting themselves a thousand times over when they donate to Ron Paul. Here's some food for thought: he's received the most military donations of all the candidates so far. Yes, even Sen. McCain, and certainly more than the honorable Huckabee.

libertarian4321
10-23-2007, 12:23 PM
I didn't read the whole blog- I figured it was nonsense when it talked about the "hundreds of thousands" Ron Paul spent on the Iowa caucus- when in fact, Ron Paul spent less than a week there and spent very little (on the other hand, Mike Huckabee spent enough time in Iowa to become an Iowa Resident).

Essentially, Mike Huckabee is running ONLY in Iowa. His campaign has little money and is hoping for a big boost out of Iowa, which is VERY socially conservative. Despite his big "win" (2nd place) in Iowa, he hasn't managed to gain any financial support. He has jumped a bit in the polls, but the support is tepid, at best. Its one thing to vote for someone in a phone poll, its another to support him enough to write a check.

Ron Paul is running a national campaign, with dedicated supporters who volunteer and support him financially.

dmspilot00
10-23-2007, 12:24 PM
Screw that, the primary reason we are there is to protect America. This IS LOST and FORGOTTEN by all of the candidates...

I call protecting the citizens of Iraq honorable....

I'm not distracting the argument. When you reply you must stay on subject... I disagree with Paul on his position I know where he originates from it. He wants to follow the constitutional method of dealing with war and he wants to go into a different direction with the war on terror. Pulling out of Iraq will not aid in the cause against the war on terror and if you think Ron Paul will end the War then you are wrong he clearly states that he will pull out of Iraq, but he supports efforts to find the terrorists... Why do we have to search for the terrorists when they present themselves before us in Iraq? I am against his assertion that we remain in Iraq to "save face."


The war in Iraq was planned a long time before September 11. There were no terrorists and no Al Qaeda in Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Just ask President Bush:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM
Reporter: "What did Iraq have to do with the attacks on the WTC?"
Bush: "Nothing."

He then goes on to say that the war was the right thing to do because Saddam had "the capability of" obtaining weapons. What are we now, the thought police?

The idea that we went to war in Iraq, or continue to occupy Iraq, in order to save Iraqi citizens is just false. The US supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980s (google "donald rumsfeld saddam"). The US bombed Iraq almost every day in the decade after Desert Storm, without a single US aircraft being hit by hostile fire. And according to the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs, over one million Iraq citizens have died as a direct result of US imposed sanctions, mostly children under 5.

"The tired assertion that America 'supports democracy' in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and it’s false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan- just to name two examples." Ron Paul, February 26, 2007 (Please read the whole column here: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst022607.htm)

dmspilot00
10-23-2007, 01:17 PM
Why are you here when it says on your blog, "I will never vote for Ron Paul!"?

lasenorita
10-23-2007, 01:30 PM
Btw, here's a first hand account from a soldier who's been "over there" and fought to protect our freedoms and liberties here at home: Army of Dude (http://armyofdude.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html)


An excerpt from Alex's blog regarding war:


The public can do something about this. It doesn’t have to be a hopeless cause forever. Write your Congressmen, go to a rally, read as much as you can about Iraq to see it for what it is: a place men go to lose their minds and their lives. And most importantly, love your children. Teach them that war is not honorable, it’s no plaything cast with an indifferent hand. It’s the most terrible thing man ever brought to the world. My generation didn’t learn from Vietnam, but the next one can learn from us. The memories and spirit of Chevy and Jesse compel you, America. Do not forget your fallen sons.

Shogun108
10-23-2007, 03:42 PM
"War is not honorable"

No it is a bloody mess... It is personal and ugly, but cause and effect are the transcendent message of it. It may be ugly and horrid. War is never pretty, but it is never without purpose... Sacrificing life for love is honorable...

"Essentially Huckabee is running only in Iowa"

Explain his national poll levels...

Gimme Some Truth
10-23-2007, 05:04 PM
Ok, look at this from a different perspective.

The US has now adopted pre-emptive war
Every other country in the world (bar the allies - at least for now) have not.
The US has set a world wide mandate that pre-emptive war ,whereby you can just name a country and say "in the distant future they MAY get hold of a weapon so we need to invade them now" with little to no proof of such claims, is ok.
Why on earth can not countries like Iran , N. Korea , Russia or any country in the world turn around and say "we will attack the US in pre-emption cos in the distant future the US may attack us" ??
Theres no moral high ground anymore. Its akin to anarchy. When 1 country adopts the hitler styled pre-emptive war doctrine it opens the floodgates for every other country to attack anyone they want .... even the US.



TBH, i find "debating" with Shogun to be a fools errand. It seems that he isnt here to truly debate. Merely to waste our time.
He made a blog comparing Huckerbee and Paul , with a lack of research on the candidates i might add, but will not listen to the other side of the coin - even tho its embossed with more accuracy and facts . If he cannot see how someones record ,either as a congressman or governor, either lends credibility or breaks it, when comparing it to the platform that the candidate is riding on, he's naive or willfully ignorant.

Until he shows that he truly is here to debate and not waste our time i shall not reply to him and i urge others to do the same. We have more productive options ...like spreading the word of a true patriot.

Shogun108
10-23-2007, 07:56 PM
Ok, look at this from a different perspective.

The US has now adopted pre-emptive war
Every other country in the world (bar the allies - at least for now) have not.
The US has set a world wide mandate that pre-emptive war ,whereby you can just name a country and say "in the distant future they MAY get hold of a weapon so we need to invade them now" with little to no proof of such claims, is ok.
Why on earth can not countries like Iran , N. Korea , Russia or any country in the world turn around and say "we will attack the US in pre-emption cos in the distant future the US may attack us" ??
Theres no moral high ground anymore. Its akin to anarchy. When 1 country adopts the hitler styled pre-emptive war doctrine it opens the floodgates for every other country to attack anyone they want .... even the US.

Look at it this way. We have not mandated attack on Russia or North Korea or Cuba or Venezuela. However, we have on Iran and Iraq. Why is this? All of these countries and their leaders have records of being anti US. By your take on this I should believe we should have justification to attack them.

You are mistaken. These countries though they pose a threat to us are not in the position where a war would be justified.

So what justified the war then? Plain and simple it was the terrorist connections. We had to protect our homeland by searching Iraq for terrorist, but of course Iraq would not let us and in fact they have shown to be providing sanctuary to our enemy. The same goes with Iran. They have record showing how they support terrorist, but we cannot attack the terrorists in Iran because of diplomacy with that country. Now Iran threatens the world with Nuclear ambitions. A "dirty bomb" is every citizen's worst nightmare and it should be in our foremost interest to prevent our enemy from getting their hands on this...

So you have the war on a note which says we are at war with Iraq, but that war long since passed. We are now at war with Iraq at our side against the terrorists in the area who are trained and organized in Iran.


TBH, i find "debating" with Shogun to be a fools errand. It seems that he isnt here to truly debate. Merely to waste our time.
He made a blog comparing Huckerbee and Paul , with a lack of research on the candidates i might add, but will not listen to the other side of the coin - even tho its embossed with more accuracy and facts . If he cannot see how someones record ,either as a congressman or governor, either lends credibility or breaks it, when comparing it to the platform that the candidate is riding on, he's naive or willfully ignorant.

Until he shows that he truly is here to debate and not waste our time i shall not reply to him and i urge others to do the same. We have more productive options ...like spreading the word of a true patriot.

You say it like you think I am not open to logical reasoning. I am, but the war is something I am for. This is a hard stance to change you can attest to that...

Also just because you disagree with someone does not mean they are wrong. There are many good cases on either sides of the issue so it is not about who is "right." The debate is what is the best interest for America.

steph3n
10-23-2007, 08:18 PM
because they have no plan, and won't be able to get elected without being on the ballot. Time is running out.



"Essentially Huckabee is running only in Iowa"

Explain his national poll levels...

Gimme Some Truth
10-23-2007, 08:26 PM
So what justified the war then? Plain and simple it was the terrorist connections. We had to protect our homeland by searching Iraq for terrorist, but of course Iraq would not let us and in fact they have shown to be providing sanctuary to our enemy.

This guy is rewriting history :eek:

LibertyOfOne
10-23-2007, 10:27 PM
Don't waste your time with him. We need to focus on meeting our goals and gathering more people into the fold. Yes, you could probably convince him to support Ron Paul over time. As any good political salesman knows. It's better to focus on the undecided rather than the decided. It's all about allocation of resources. There are a few limiting factors in this race. The main limiting factor is time. We only have so much time to get new people to join. It makes no sense to spend X amount of hours on person Y when person Z can be brought into the fold in a faster period of time. He strikes me as being dishonest with his motives. It's rare that I hear a Christian bring up logical fallacies in an argument.

Shogun108
10-23-2007, 11:33 PM
He strikes me as being dishonest with his motives. It's rare that I hear a Christian bring up logical fallacies in an argument.

What is that supposed to mean? :o

Oh yeah and I am not rewriting history. I'm simply citing what happened and not what was reported to have happened by the media. Of course now that I say this I will be attacked because "I watch Fox News." You know what? You can have your propaganda handed to you on a silver platter over multiple reports over and over. All of them are negative. None of the reports are ever positive if you want to have a better understanding then take a wider look at the issues...

dmspilot00
10-23-2007, 11:39 PM
Uh, it's general knowledge that Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorists attacks and there were no terrorists in Iraq. That is not just "what was reported to have happened by the media." Bush himself said Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism!

Shogun108
10-24-2007, 12:04 AM
Uh, it's general knowledge that Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorists attacks and there were no terrorists in Iraq. That is not just "what was reported to have happened by the media." Bush himself said Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism!

The quote with Bush said that "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" it did not say that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.

"A safe haven in Iraq belonging to Ansar al-Islam -- a terrorist group closely associated with Zarqawi and al Qaida -- was destroyed during Operation Iraqi Freedom. In March 2003, during a raid on the compound controlled by the terrorists in northeastern Iraq, a cache of documents was discovered, including computer discs and foreign passports belonging to fighters from various Middle East nationalities." - That's the white house for you.

There are more... but you don't want to hear them... you will be closed to all executive reports of our general because he "rides on Bush's Coat-tail" You know what Patraeus has more credibility than you or any of the media will ever have...

Don't take statements and equivocate them. Also note that there where legitimate reasons for war and Iraq was connected to terrorists. Here's an article not of the government.


Mounting Evidence of Iraqi Connections
Although direct Iraqi involvement in the September 11 attacks has not been established, there are disturbing reports of several Iraqi contacts with bin Laden and his henchmen. U.S. intelligence officials have reported that bin Laden was in contact with Iraqi government agents shortly before the airline hijackings. New scrutiny is also being given to a December 1998 meeting between a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Farouk Hijazi, and bin Laden in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Moreover, Mohamed Atta, the suspected ringleader of the 19 terrorists who hijacked four U.S. airliners on September 11, reportedly met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Europe earlier this year

That was the Heritage Foundation! Check it out if you want to read the whole thing: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/EM780.cfm

Any other misinformation in my arguments you wish to point out? I can cite more sources if you want... But I suggest we move on...

NewEnd
10-24-2007, 12:09 AM
That was the Heritage Foundation! Check it out if you want to read the whole thing: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/EM780.cfm

Old, outdated, and refuted by top level American officials working in various intelligence departments at the time. No evidence whatsoever of what the alleged meetings were for. Complete B.S. No concrete evidence the meetings ever took place.

Even if it were true, it only allegedly happened once in Prague, that means it would have had to go from negotiation with an enemey, to friendliness and support of a bold attack in less than a week.

Oh, note, no evidence.

heritage.org

right wing site

You have nothing new to bring to the debate but your own delusional fantasies that Iraq had something to do with terrorism against the US, it didn't

TVMH
10-24-2007, 12:13 AM
"War is not honorable"

No it is a bloody mess... It is personal and ugly, but cause and effect are the transcendent message of it. It may be ugly and horrid. War is never pretty, but it is never without purpose... Sacrificing life for love is honorable...



How does the concept of "cause and effect" transcend the message of war, whatever that is?

Furthermore, if you are really a high school student, I think you are as out of your element as I am when you speak about the "personal and ugly" nature of war.

Let's leave that discussion to the veterans.

Regarding the purpose of this unconstitutional military aggression, what exactly is it, now? Sacrificing life for love? Whose lives are we sacrificing, and for the love of whom? (I suggest you confirm the number of dead Iraqis vs. dead Americans before you answer that question.)

Do you not believe that it was a mistake for us to invade a sovereign nation?

If you do believe that it was a mistake, do you not believe that the ethical (and, supposedly, Christian) thing to do is to admit that mistake and take every peaceful and reasonable measure to rectify that mistake?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are simply regurgitating mindless slogans and soundbites, but in the absence of that, I must say I honestly don't understand the warmonger mentality.

Shogun108
10-24-2007, 12:51 AM
Those are my words not a recitation of a sound-bite.

Life for love of the people you fight for. You die for the lives of others. They fight for the Iraqis and for us...


I think you are as out of your element as I am when you speak about the "personal and ugly" nature of war.

I'm stating a generalization. It is common knowledge, but I cannot say I know exactly what if feels like nor do I claim to.


Old, outdated, and refuted by top level American officials working in various intelligence departments at the time. No evidence whatsoever of what the alleged meetings were for. Complete B.S. No concrete evidence the meetings ever took place.

Prove your statement... Belief that something is true because there "is no evidence against it" is illogical...


heritage.org right wing site

This is a genetic fallacy does it matter in this sense. Plus you gave no reason to discredit the article through evidence. Please remember that I cannot see you and as such you have the credibility of a piece of plastic :p (just so you don't start yelling at me that was meant to be funny)

NewEnd
10-24-2007, 01:04 AM
Prove your statement... Belief that something is true because there "is no evidence against it" is illogical...

meh, I know it, the vice president and the president know it, and have said as much. Richard Clarke and George Tenet know it.

They know much more than you. I know, they are horrible people full of sour grapes, trying to sell books.

You cant prove that space aliens didnt kill JFK. Just because there is no proof, doesn't mean it didn't happen!


This is a genetic fallacy does it matter in this sense.

No, it just shows you get your sources from one side.

I'll discuss geopolitics with anybody, anytime... as long as I know they read something more than right wing propaganda. You could not even find a respectable link.

So, read any good books lately?

steph3n
10-24-2007, 01:56 AM
Bye Kevin,

Your motives are not just suspect, but your arrogance in ignorance is really shining, you were refuted on so many levels on your table of comparisons that was blatantly false. You have no desire to learn, you have these wild ideas in your head that the islamoboogeyman will be out to get you. Terrorism is to instill fear into someone, I tell you for these GOP rank and file they are the most successful operations ever, they fear this boogeyman more than anything.

Listen the tone of this is ALL WRONG. If they want to come get me, COME ON, BRING IT ON! fight us over here (they won't if we change our policy to fix the root, but it is another issue altogether). We have the tactical advantage fighting at home, they have it when we fight abroad. however it is all a moot point they won't come back when we have a secure border and proper legal immigration policy. They CAN however walk right across now and attack. I hope that wherever they decide to attack people take up for their 2nd amendment right and stop them in their tracks. We are a nation of cowards, living in terror of "islam" or something, I for one won't stand for it, and will not live in fear of these misguided souls.

Shogun108
10-24-2007, 09:34 AM
"You cant prove that space aliens didnt kill JFK. Just because there is no proof, doesn't mean it didn't happen!"

Now you claim I do not have proof and you cite "Proof by lack of evidence" this is bad reasoning! If your claiming you can claim something and because there is no evidence to the contrary you can't prove it false then your wrong, but if your claiming I use this then your also wrong.

I cited a source and you ignored it as "propaganda." you did not bring up proof of this, but you claim "common knowledge." this shows that you may be victim of propaganda by repetition. Just because the majority reports the same thing over and over does not make them correct. After that you claim that "Bush said this," but you equivocated his comments and ignored his press release I provided you.

"Your motives are not just suspect, but your arrogance in ignorance is really shining, you were refuted on so many levels on your table of comparisons that was blatantly false. You have no desire to learn, you have these wild ideas in your head that the islamoboogeyman will be out to get you."

Suspected motives now? Ignorance? Arrogance? So you continue with Ad-Hominum now? I was never refuted with logical proof. I hear fallacies abound in a majority of the arguments. I may have overlooked some and if I did would you kindly point me to where they where located?

Overall I am rightly reserved to agree with you because of your methods. They lead to your incredibility...

LibertyOfOne
10-24-2007, 09:36 AM
I thought it was funny when he said Ron Paul wanted to pull all social programs the very second he entered office, yet the kid wanted to get rid of them over time in a slow process. Oh the irony. It takes an act of congress to do these things, and Ron said over and over that there will be a transition period.

LibertyOfOne
10-24-2007, 09:39 AM
Another goof

"Do not tax social security. Fix solvency. (Oh he wants to keep it? Shame on you!)"

He has said time after time he would get rid of SS, but there needs to be a transistion period for those that have become dependent. You just don't toss people out into the street with out forcing the market towards charity.

LibertyOfOne
10-24-2007, 09:41 AM
I loved that senator Paul bit on the other article. It shows you do no fact checking before you write something.

steph3n
10-24-2007, 09:42 AM
Another goof

"Do not tax social security. Fix solvency. (Oh he wants to keep it? Shame on you!)"

He has said time after time he would get rid of SS, but there needs to be a transistion period for those that have become dependent. You just don't toss people out into the street with out forcing the market towards charity.

yes it has been pointed out. He likes to cut and run on our seniors :eek:

these people were robbed of their rightful money, they should at least get what was committed

Shogun108
10-24-2007, 09:57 AM
Oh yes, I see that... Maybe you just don't like my comments in there huh? I think there needs to be a transition as well, but it must be done soon. I guess if you desire I can take out my comments on his position (which are by the way more sarcastic than not) I guess it does detract from its credibility. Point taken! Duly noted and fixed!

Have a nice day...