excellent point we should all now be very concerned for the sake of the site and its members.
heres the voter info for every state
http://www.bluerepublican.org/welcome-to-blue-republican/
Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?
- Thread starter SacredBreh
- Start date
- Status
excellent point we should all now be very concerned for the sake of the site and its members.
heres the voter info for every state
http://www.bluerepublican.org/welcome-to-blue-republican/
Are you leading by example? McVeigh considered innocents as acceptable collateral. The target was gub employees.
I get it, you're smoking sativa.
Ron's a guest on the show for christ sakes.
There's something flying alright but I wouldn't call it spin.
Sounds like the Sarah Palin version. I haven't forgotten that taxation without representation was our pretext to revolt. I haven't forgotten that "freedom of expression" goes to some folks heads. Check out Ben Franklin's warnings about folks ideas of "freedom" and the idea it would be our downfall.
So much for staying on point, there MBA. Global war and oil have nothing to do with soliciting donations to a newsletter where the participants acknowledged the wilder it got, the more money flowed in. $900 thousand in '93 alone ain't chump change for a 20-year newsletter.
I think your reasoning is flippant.
From fear and loathing?
Yes I do and in their proper context. I don't typically resort to rolling up everything I see into one giant enchilada in order to retort, "Vote for Ron Paul!".
More like you making it up as you go along.
Then vote for whoever.
Because it's relevant.
How about Bush, Clinton, Bush, Nixon, Johnson.....?
Yeah, I think the declaration that we'll no longer preempt sovereign nations or torture others deserves mention.
If you're feeling froggy then take you a big ol' jump there, pal.
That's about the first sense you've made and it's highly probable. But just remember, that's your argument not mine.
I tend to ignore Joe the plumber perspectives on loans.
Ronnie says take it to da church, mama.
Ronnie would let em feed you monkey balls.
But doesn't he want to basically reduce the size of Government drastically. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, for me anyway, but others wouldn't stand for it, I'd imagine?
He wants to cut 6 major programs out, along with removing bases in Korea, Mid East etc...
That would go against a lot of agendas, set by powerful people, & groups.
Myself, don't have an opinion on his person, or political views. Other than I think most are just doublespeaking liars.
He wants to cut 6 major programs out, along with removing bases in Korea, Mid East etc...
That would go against a lot of agendas, set by powerful people, & groups.
Myself, don't have an opinion on his person, or political views. Other than I think most are just doublespeaking liars.
Good points, Phate. I wouldn't mind seeing smaller government but I'm not sure any corporate executive would slash first and ask few/ answer fewer questions later. I'd much rather see a managed approach, including economic assessments of what to expect. Kind of like decelerating a giant locomotive before pulling the emergency brake.
I'm all for pairing international military installations. We still have a hot war in Korea and I'm not sure I'd leave our S. Korean and Japanese allies in the cross hairs of Kim Jong Un. We defend Japan because WWII armistice says they can't militarize. We defend S. Korea because we never signed an armistice with N. Korea.
We might pull troops from Germany and Poland as we're not likely to have to defend them against Russian invasion. However, Nato has legal obligations to free countries and European forces are strategically located. Nato has helped mitigate US involvement in areas we're not playing big cheese.
And then you get to how will Dr. Paul manage such degrees of change. He's spent many years advocating his ideas from the house chamber with few followers. Dr. Paul will have to lead Congress as much or more than he'll be able to unilaterally affect the broad changes advocated.
IMO, would be interesting to at least see what one man might accomplish from the office of the president.
I'm all for pairing international military installations. We still have a hot war in Korea and I'm not sure I'd leave our S. Korean and Japanese allies in the cross hairs of Kim Jong Un. We defend Japan because WWII armistice says they can't militarize. We defend S. Korea because we never signed an armistice with N. Korea.
We might pull troops from Germany and Poland as we're not likely to have to defend them against Russian invasion. However, Nato has legal obligations to free countries and European forces are strategically located. Nato has helped mitigate US involvement in areas we're not playing big cheese.
And then you get to how will Dr. Paul manage such degrees of change. He's spent many years advocating his ideas from the house chamber with few followers. Dr. Paul will have to lead Congress as much or more than he'll be able to unilaterally affect the broad changes advocated.
IMO, would be interesting to at least see what one man might accomplish from the office of the president.
No longer preempting strikes on sovereign nations? What about Yemen? Pakistan? Libya? Expanding the drone war?
Rationalize all you want, but those are acts of war. Preemptive acts of war.
If he couldn't close Gitmo I doubt he closed our "black sites" where we outsource the torture.
Ron Paul > Status Quo.
I think the idea of preemptive invasion suggests the overthrow of government, occupation and insurgency - typical aspects of imperialism. Maybe it's just me but I don't consider drone attacks on so-called enemy combatants (aka self-defense or defending native operations) as preemptive war. I wonder how a world of militaristic spies would see a CIA-less America? We could run around and shoot people but covert intelligence might be lacking.
If our apparatus continues to demand tribunals, we may never return to civilian trials for non-sanctioned criminals/terrorists, including US civilians.
I'd like to see us return to civilian trails for terrorists, both international and domestic. But I never expect to see us risk our own forces when battling non-sanctioned criminals, unless public opinion demands it. It's just unfortunate that putting the toothpaste back in the tube ain't very easy.
The fits paragraph of your response sheds great light on the source of your delusional thinking. You are completely spoon fed by corporate whore media its not Even funny
You know what's funny? Choosing to personally gum bump as opposed to taking the opportunity to promote the OP or rebuke [opposing] opinion. Make sure you don't express what you're talking about so nobody else can clarify.
At least you won't get negative repped for expressing your thoughts.
You might get a higher sense of gratification from influencing different opinions than you will preaching to the choir.
At least you won't get negative repped for expressing your thoughts.
You might get a higher sense of gratification from influencing different opinions than you will preaching to the choir.
I got a similar impression reading about 95% of black DC males and their apparent aspirations.
It goes waaaaaay beyond that, the media needs to stop trying to dictate our opinions. If the narative gets too aggressive, their affiliations and bias become more obvious. I don't want to be spoon fed my opinions anymore!
A vote for anyone but Ron Paul is a vote for the war machine to continue forward into Iran. And possibly WWIII.
master shake
Active member
Ron Paul I have noticed is different than back in 08. You can see there is a spark, more attitude, he is "fed" up! Along with a decent run and enough exposure, this rejuvenated RP should legitimately take this election. But then the pessimistic side of me comes out. I would be shocked to see Ron Paul win. I know he can/will be able to get majority of votes. But voting fraud will most likely take place. The machines being used are rigged to allow editing of the numbers. Look up Diebold voting machines. Any other manufacturer I assume is just as corrupt.
I was just getting ready to say I don't personally feel "spoon fed" until I read something like, "vote for Ron or it's yer ass."
What we're actually seeing nationally is numbers from ~25% of the 20% of folks who identify themselves as Republicans and are active in early primaries/caucuses.
Dr Paul stands to gain more support as more Republican voters enter the primary fray. However Iowa is open participation, meaning Independents may vote in both republican and democratic primaries. Other states are closed and Independents are restricted to the general election.
Win or close-second Iowa, Dr Paul will be a bigger fish. He'll also be in a bigger pond.
What we're actually seeing nationally is numbers from ~25% of the 20% of folks who identify themselves as Republicans and are active in early primaries/caucuses.
Dr Paul stands to gain more support as more Republican voters enter the primary fray. However Iowa is open participation, meaning Independents may vote in both republican and democratic primaries. Other states are closed and Independents are restricted to the general election.
Win or close-second Iowa, Dr Paul will be a bigger fish. He'll also be in a bigger pond.
Crossing into a sovereign nation's air space and dropping bombs is an act of war. If that sovereign nation hasn't attacked you then it is an per-empitive act of war. Lots of people in the US don't know or consider embargos acts of war. To be perfectly honest I find Americans are especially good at rationalizing our war state as not being at war when we are perpetually at war.
A common trait found in imperial war states I assume.
stonedstoner
Member
yea, well since ron paul thinks everything should be privatized...then he probably agrees with a private company counting the votes. i think it's fucking retarded that a private company is in charge of counting the votes. fucking ridiculous. fuck privatization!
- Status
