PDA

View Full Version : If Ron Paul wins the nomination...



djones520
12-20-2011, 01:22 AM
will you vote for him in the General Election?

I still believe his chances are not that high, but there is no doubt that he's starting to get the flavor of the month treatment from the media, and given how close we are to the beginning of the primaries, that can be dangerous.

So I find myself asking that if he ends up becoming the front runner, can I support him for President? Especially over Obama?

I think my answer is no. I think I believe that in this situation Obama would be the better choice. Chances are looking alright that Congress will maintain the status qou, or go further right. Given that Obama would continue to be a relatively impotent president, as he's mostly been since 2010. The more and more I've been paying attention to things, the more I've realized that Obama is nothing but an empty suit. The people who have really been running this country the last few years has been the heads of Congress, and the heads of the various departments.

Obama is just a figurehead that occasionally says what he'd like to see, but is then told to shut up and sign this bill.

With a stalemated Congress like we have now, or one controlled by the Republicans, I feel that the next four years would at worse see stagnation, and at best a slow recovery. Nothing great, but far preferable to a man who would effectively dismantle our military, and our ability to fight a very real enemy. Say what you want about Obama, but he's atleast done a decent job keeping that fight up, and I think I could count on him to continue doing so.

We know Ron Paul would give up, would throw in the towel the second he sat down at that desk. As a member of the US Military, that is not something I could stomach. That is not something I could ever vote for. And it is not something I will vote for.

So I don't know yet if I'd sit the election out, or actually give my vote to Obama, but I do know that if Ron Paul gets the nomination, I will not in any way help support his election.

What about you?

Ranger Rick
12-20-2011, 02:03 AM
I'm, sorry but I am of the "anybody but Obama school". It will not matter much other wise.

djones520
12-20-2011, 02:04 AM
I'm, sorry but I am of the "anybody but Obama school". It will not matter much other wise.

I can sympathize with the thought, but there are worse options then Obama, and IMO Ron Paul is one of them.

Wei Wu Wei
12-20-2011, 02:16 AM
I'm not voting for Obama and I'm sure as hell not voting for any of the current Republican candidates, but I do think that if Ron Paul were to win the nomination it would be very good for the Republican party.

In fact it would be so good I'm a little worried about it. If the free-market republicans got more power within the Republican party, and a large dose of Ron Paul-style integrity, that would be great for them. Personally, I think that would be horrible in the long run.

This is why I've been wishing and hoping for someone like Rick Perry or Herman Cain who will implode that entire movement.

Wei Wu Wei
12-20-2011, 02:24 AM
will you vote for him in the General Election?

I still believe his chances are not that high, but there is no doubt that he's starting to get the flavor of the month treatment from the media, and given how close we are to the beginning of the primaries, that can be dangerous.

So I find myself asking that if he ends up becoming the front runner, can I support him for President? Especially over Obama?

I think my answer is no. I think I believe that in this situation Obama would be the better choice. Chances are looking alright that Congress will maintain the status qou, or go further right. Given that Obama would continue to be a relatively impotent president, as he's mostly been since 2010. The more and more I've been paying attention to things, the more I've realized that Obama is nothing but an empty suit. The people who have really been running this country the last few years has been the heads of Congress, and the heads of the various departments.

Obama is just a figurehead that occasionally says what he'd like to see, but is then told to shut up and sign this bill.

I think your assessment of Obama is fairly accurate. He went into the whitehouse with extremely powerful rhetoric, but he's done very little.

The health care bill was probably his biggest "accomplishment", but even that was a fairly conservative bill, most of which was proposed by Republicans in the past. There was no single payer, there was no public option, it was nothing but a handout to insurance corporations.

Other than that, everything has just been going along the same path set by Bush. The wars, funding, foreign policy, tax cuts, bailouts, all of it.

The truth is Obama is ideologically centrist (who would be considered a right-winger in most other industrialized nations) on the issues that matter.

Also, he is weak willed. Either he doesn't care about pushing legislation or doesn't know how, but the result is the same. He is unable to push past congressional deadlocks.

All of this fear-mongering rhetoric about Obama being an extreme-left wing socialist revolutionary has been hilarious since the start. He's been doing 90% the same stuff that Bush did, but because he's a Democrat he gets a pass for it. Not nearly as many people are protesting the wars or calling for his impeachment over GITMO or torture.

It's a joke. History will show that Obama was the best thing that could have happened to right-wingers in decades: They get everything they want while labeling Obama as a left-wing socialist in order to push the public even further to the right.


With a stalemated Congress like we have now, or one controlled by the Republicans, I feel that the next four years would at worse see stagnation, and at best a slow recovery. Nothing great, but far preferable to a man who would effectively dismantle our military, and our ability to fight a very real enemy. Say what you want about Obama, but he's atleast done a decent job keeping that fight up, and I think I could count on him to continue doing so.

We know Ron Paul would give up, would throw in the towel the second he sat down at that desk. As a member of the US Military, that is not something I could stomach. That is not something I could ever vote for. And it is not something I will vote for.

So I don't know yet if I'd sit the election out, or actually give my vote to Obama, but I do know that if Ron Paul gets the nomination, I will not in any way help support his election.

What about you?

I think what's needed is a good honest discussion about when war is justified, when it's necessary, and what the consequences are to our foreign policy, whatever that policy may be.

Rockntractor
12-20-2011, 02:31 AM
:popcorn:

RobJohnson
12-20-2011, 02:56 AM
:popcorn:


:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:


Obama is just a figurehead that occasionally says what he'd like to see, but is then told to shut up and sign this bill.

President Obama has pulled plenty of crazy shit that almost makes Ron Paul look sane.

djones520
12-20-2011, 02:58 AM
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:



President Obama has pulled plenty of crazy shit that almost makes Ron Paul look sane.

While the Dem's where controlling Congress. Since the Republicans took the house things have mellowed out pretty well. As long as that status can be maintained, I think we could survive another 4 years.

txradioguy
12-20-2011, 05:26 AM
Nope. For the first time in my life I'll sit out an election.

He's as dangerous if not more so to this country than a second Obama term.

His lunacy has been on full display in the last two debates. Which would explain why the usual chorus of Dr. Nutz supporters has been so quiet lately around here.

My guess is he's positioning himself for a cabinet position in the (God forbid) next Obama term.

djones520
12-20-2011, 05:28 AM
Nope. For the first time in my life I'll sit out an election.

He's as dangerous if not more so to this country than a second Obama term.

His lunacy has been on full display in the last two debates. Which would explain why the usual chorus of Dr. Nutz supporters has been so quiet lately around here.

My guess is he's positioning himself for a cabinet position in the (God forbid) next Obama term.

Maybe he can be VP. Both he and Biden seem to believe that the Taliban aren't our enemies. :rolleyes:

txradioguy
12-20-2011, 05:31 AM
Maybe he can be VP. Both he and Biden seem to believe that the Taliban aren't our enemies. :rolleyes:

That wouldn't surprise me. Saw the Biden gaffe...not even face palm worthy anymore...he does it so often.

Look I've always said that if you go far enough to the right and/or far enough to the left...the fringe from both sides meet in the middle and tend to find common ground.

And standing there proudly is Ron Paul. Claims the mantle of "Uber Conservative" but is a frequent guest of Truther Lew Rockwell and is a frequent contributor to antiwar.com.

He proves my point to a T

Zeus
12-20-2011, 07:47 AM
Ron Paul knows he doesn't stand a bats chance in hell of getting elected. The Only reason he is running is to get all the ronbots donations to pad his retirement accounts.

SarasotaRepub
12-20-2011, 08:32 AM
Ron Paul knows he doesn't stand a bats chance in hell of getting elected. The Only reason he is running is to get all the ronbots donations to pad his retirement accounts.


HA!!!That could very well be!

IF Paul somehow was the Republican Party's choice I'd vote for Darlene our Greyhound.

noworries
12-20-2011, 08:40 AM
Nope. For the first time in my life I'll sit out an election.

He's as dangerous if not more so to this country than a second Obama term.

His lunacy has been on full display in the last two debates. Which would explain why the usual chorus of Dr. Nutz supporters has been so quiet lately around here.

My guess is he's positioning himself for a cabinet position in the (God forbid) next Obama term.

I agree with you I will as well

Molon Labe
12-20-2011, 08:58 AM
I'm not voting for Obama and I'm sure as hell not voting for any of the current Republican candidates, but I do think that if Ron Paul were to win the nomination it would be very good for the Republican party.

In fact it would be so good I'm a little worried about it. If the free-market republicans got more power within the Republican party, and a large dose of Ron Paul-style integrity, that would be great for them. Personally, I think that would be horrible in the long run.

This is why I've been wishing and hoping for someone like Rick Perry or Herman Cain who will implode that entire movement.

Then fight it in congress like your supposed to.

SaintLouieWoman
12-20-2011, 09:08 AM
HA!!!That could very well be!

IF Paul somehow was the Republican Party's choice I'd vote for Darlene our Greyhound.

Darlene the dawg would do no harm. She's cute, would wag her tail and be nice, and let the pols duke it out. Maybe we should get a campaign started for "Darlene the Dawg". She's a cute little black greyhound who's politically correct.

Many have said they'd vote for a ham sandwich over Obama. That feeling also extends to Dr Nutz.

Apocalypse
12-20-2011, 09:20 AM
will you vote for him in the General Election?

So I find myself asking that if he ends up becoming the front runner, can I support him for President? Especially over Obama?

I think my answer is no.


And what does that translate into???


http://rlv.zcache.com/obama_4_more_years_sticker-p217346155322989351z7g06_152.jpg (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0PDoX47i_BOwnUAmQujzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBpcGszamw 0BHNlYwNmcC1pbWcEc2xrA2ltZw--/SIG=11qmci9qv/EXP=1324415931/**http%3a//www.zazzle.com/obama%2bstickers)

Kay
12-20-2011, 12:08 PM
I'd take my chances with Ron Paul over another 4 years of Barry.
At least Ron Paul is and wants to stay an American.

txradioguy
12-20-2011, 12:24 PM
I'd take my chances with Ron Paul over another 4 years of Barry.
At least Ron Paul is and wants to stay an American.


Except when he's blaming us for everything evil happening in the world.

9/11 is our fault...radical Islam...Iranian Nukes...the Taliban...you name it...Dr. Nutz will blame us for it.

If we want that we may as well stick with Barry.

linda22003
12-20-2011, 12:27 PM
I never miss an election, but I sometimes leave the top slot blank. I can do it again.

Apocalypse
12-20-2011, 12:36 PM
Except when he's blaming us for everything evil happening in the world.

9/11 is our fault...radical Islam...Iranian Nukes...the Taliban...you name it...Dr. Nutz will blame us for it.

If we want that we may as well stick with Barry.He may blame us for every thing, but in the same respect its what Obama has done for the last 3 years. And on top of that, blamed ever short coming he has on ether Bush, the GOP or Rush.

I can live 4 years with a finger pointer, if he at least wont purposefully try and destroy this country while he's doing it.

txradioguy
12-20-2011, 12:53 PM
He may blame us for every thing, but in the same respect its what Obama has done for the last 3 years. And on top of that, blamed ever short coming he has on ether Bush, the GOP or Rush.

I can live 4 years with a finger pointer, if he at least wont purposefully try and destroy this country while he's doing it.

Then don't waste a vote on Paul...cause destroy the country is exactly what he'll do.

AmPat
12-20-2011, 12:58 PM
While the Dem's where controlling Congress. Since the Republicans took the house things have mellowed out pretty well. As long as that status can be maintained, I think we could survive another 4 years.

The next 4 years of an O Blah Blah presidency would still be insufferable. He has the power of the pen. If we don't have super majorities, we won't be able to reverse the liberal poison. It isn't a matter of treading water, it is imperative that we correct several decades of liberal disease. Ron Paul would still be better than the Marxist.

Apocalypse
12-20-2011, 01:01 PM
Then don't waste a vote on Paul...cause destroy the country is exactly what he'll do.
You know.. while we speculate on Paul winning Iowa and then that's it, he's the GOP guy. We forget, Iowa is not the determining factor. Iowa only serves as a bell weather. It weeds out the lower tier candidates and exposes the weaknesses of the remaining so they can correct their run before its too late.

Remember, McCain didn't win Iowa. Huckabee did. H.W. Bush didn't win Iowa ether, Dole did.

Obama lost Iowa to Hillary.

Reagan lost to Bush Sr.

And B. Clinton lost to Tom Harkin.

Iowa only serves to weed out the lower tier, and that all.

txradioguy
12-20-2011, 01:06 PM
You know.. while we speculate on Paul winning Iowa and then that's it, he's the GOP guy. We forget, Iowa is not the determining factor. Iowa only serves as a bell weather. It weeds out the lower tier candidates and exposes the weaknesses of the remaining so they can correct their run before its too late.

Remember, McCain didn't win Iowa. Huckabee did. H.W. Bush didn't win Iowa ether, Dole did.

Obama lost Iowa to Hillary.

Reagan lost to Bush Sr.

And B. Clinton lost to Tom Harkin.

Iowa only serves to weed out the lower tier, and that all.

QFT

Rockntractor
12-20-2011, 01:07 PM
You know.. while we speculate on Paul winning Iowa and then that's it, he's the GOP guy. We forget, Iowa is not the determining factor. Iowa only serves as a bell weather. It weeds out the lower tier candidates and exposes the weaknesses of the remaining so they can correct their run before its too late.

Remember, McCain didn't win Iowa. Huckabee did. H.W. Bush didn't win Iowa ether, Dole did.

Obama lost Iowa to Hillary.

Reagan lost to Bush Sr.

And B. Clinton lost to Tom Harkin.

Iowa only serves to weed out the lower tier, and that all.

You are 100% right, this is the most ridiculous thread I have seen in a long time!

Arroyo_Doble
12-20-2011, 01:10 PM
You know.. while we speculate on Paul winning Iowa and then that's it, he's the GOP guy. We forget, Iowa is not the determining factor. Iowa only serves as a bell weather. It weeds out the lower tier candidates and exposes the weaknesses of the remaining so they can correct their run before its too late.

Remember, McCain didn't win Iowa. Huckabee did. H.W. Bush didn't win Iowa ether, Dole did.

Obama lost Iowa to Hillary.

Reagan lost to Bush Sr.

And B. Clinton lost to Tom Harkin.

Iowa only serves to weed out the lower tier, and that all.

Obama won Iowa. It pretty much launched his campaign into high gear. Clinton came in third behind him and Edwards.

You may be thinking of New Hampshire.

Tipsycatlover
12-20-2011, 01:42 PM
If Paul wins in Iowa it means the end of Iowa's importance as a caucus. Iowa knows this.

Molon Labe
12-20-2011, 02:02 PM
Remember, McCain didn't win Iowa. Huckabee did.

Huck shot his complete wad in Iowa. He had no campaign in any other state....that's why he lost NH.

McCain was also polling around 8% nationally before the Iowa Caucus. It wasn't until Huck won that McCain was propped up as a new frontrunner.

Funny how people are saying Iowa doesn't matter yet all the candidates are working on winning it. I'll bet that if Romney wins people will say it does matter.

Arroyo_Doble
12-20-2011, 02:34 PM
Huck shot his complete wad in Iowa. He had no campaign in any other state....that's why he lost NH.

McCain was also polling around 8% nationally before the Iowa Caucus. It wasn't until Huck won that McCain was propped up as a new frontrunner.

Funny how people are saying Iowa doesn't matter yet all the candidates are working on winning it. I'll bet that if Romney wins people will say it does matter.

The funny thing is, who comes in second will matter but who comes in first, won't.

Seriously, I think that is funny.

Molon Labe
12-20-2011, 04:11 PM
If Paul wins in Iowa it means the end of Iowa's importance as a caucus. Iowa knows this.

heh...nice spin.


:rolleyes:

http://snsimages.tribune.com/media/graphic/2011-12/66792834.jpg

FeebMaster
12-20-2011, 10:18 PM
Ron Paul winning the nomination?

hahahahhahahahahhaahahahah


This thread warms the cockles of my heart. I was worried about some of you, getting all small governmenty what with a Democrat in the White House. It's good to see you get back to your natural state.

Molon Labe
12-21-2011, 08:54 AM
Ron Paul winning the nomination?

hahahahhahahahahhaahahahah


This thread warms the cockles of my heart. I was worried about some of you, getting all small governmenty what with a Democrat in the White House. It's good to see you get back to your natural state.

until a Estab. Repub is back in...... :rolleyes:

Tipsycatlover
12-21-2011, 09:56 AM
If the Iowa caucus is honest, it will matter. If Ron Paul wins it's evidence that the caucus was manipulated and the results won't matter. Maybe ever again. One hacker said he'd like to hack into the system and have Sponge Bob Squarepants win. If that happened, the system is broken and the Iowa caucus may as well not have happened. Same thing if Ron Paul wins.

AmPat
12-21-2011, 10:11 AM
Ron Paul winning the nomination?

hahahahhahahahahhaahahahah


This thread warms the cockles of my heart. I was worried about some of you, getting all small governmenty what with a Democrat in the White House. It's good to see you get back to your natural state.

Go back to your happy place and let the adults here attempt to fix what we can. You may feel free to gloat over your superior intellect by yourself. Try not to throw your shoulder out while patting yourself on the back.:rolleyes:

Molon Labe
12-21-2011, 11:08 AM
If the Iowa caucus is honest, it will matter. If Ron Paul wins it's evidence that the caucus was manipulated and the results won't matter. Maybe ever again. One hacker said he'd like to hack into the system and have Sponge Bob Squarepants win. If that happened, the system is broken and the Iowa caucus may as well not have happened. Same thing if Ron Paul wins.

Let me see if I get this straight?

Newt, Romney, Santorum, Perry win = legitimate honest
Paul win = hacked system broken and manipulated

Is there someone else I'm missing in the GOP field that would represent a manipulated caucus? Let me assure you that if there is manipulation in an election it is most likely from the establishment.

Some of you really need better BS detectors. The entire MSM and Republican establishment is goiong ape crap and attacking one of the few guys who represents small government.

That is what the Tea party was about.....busting the ESTABLISHMENT.

Feebs absolutely right.

Like I said before the first litmus test for a conservative is limited constitutional government. If you can't pass that one then there is no reason to go to the 2nd.

Arroyo_Doble
12-21-2011, 11:22 AM
Let me see if I get this straight?

Newt, Romney, Santorum, Perry win = legitimate honest
Paul win = hacked system broken and manipulated

Is there someone else I'm missing in the GOP field that would represent a manipulated caucus? Let me assure you that if there is manipulation in an election it is most likely from the establishment.

Some of you really need better BS detectors. The entire MSM and Republican establishment is goiong ape crap and attacking one of the few guys who represents small government.

That is what the Tea party was about.....busting the ESTABLISHMENT.

Feebs absolutely right.

Like I said before the first litmus test for a conservative is limited constitutional government. If you can't pass that one then there is no reason to go to the 2nd.


I love Neil Postman.

AmPat
12-21-2011, 11:29 AM
Let me see if I get this straight?

Newt, Romney, Santorum, Perry win = legitimate honest
Paul win = hacked system broken and manipulated

Is there someone else I'm missing in the GOP field that would represent a manipulated caucus? Let me assure you that if there is manipulation in an election it is most likely from the establishment.

Some of you really need better BS detectors. The entire MSM and Republican establishment is goiong ape crap and attacking one of the few guys who represents small government.

That is what the Tea party was about.....busting the ESTABLISHMENT.

Feebs absolutely right.

Like I said before the first litmus test for a conservative is limited constitutional government. If you can't pass that one then there is no reason to go to the 2nd.Dude, You are preaching to the choir again.

There are many reasons that we have to accept what is served. I might want roast beef but the kitchen cooked cabbage. Either I eat cabbage or I go hungry. You can beat your head against the wall and rant about small government all you want. We get it and agree! I too want small limited government. I won't get that by voting for a third party small government guy who has no chance to beat the blatant Marxist.

If the process offered up a REAL Conservative, he or she would clean O Blah Blah's clock. I am not happy with the field but I will vote for the ultimate "better than the Blatant Marxist" before I will assist the other side by throwing away my vote.

Feebs can kiss my Conservative butt. He sits on the side lines like the rest of the sissies and pokes fun at the players. You stand in the huddle and bitch about each play called. Either way, neither of you is helping to win the game.

Tipsycatlover
12-21-2011, 11:46 AM
Let me see if I get this straight?

Newt, Romney, Santorum, Perry win = legitimate honest
Paul win = hacked system broken and manipulated

Is there someone else I'm missing in the GOP field that would represent a manipulated caucus? Let me assure you that if there is manipulation in an election it is most likely from the establishment.

Some of you really need better BS detectors. The entire MSM and Republican establishment is goiong ape crap and attacking one of the few guys who represents small government.

That is what the Tea party was about.....busting the ESTABLISHMENT.

Feebs absolutely right.

Like I said before the first litmus test for a conservative is limited constitutional government. If you can't pass that one then there is no reason to go to the 2nd.

What you are missing is that Pau's support is a traveling political carnival. How many straw polls has Paul won? How big a margin did he win by? With this kind of support how come nationally he polls in the single digits occasionally getting to 10%?

Ron Paul is like a Star Trek convention. When you're there, the whole world is full of Trekkies. There just wasn't enough people watching the show to keep it on the air.

Arroyo_Doble
12-21-2011, 12:05 PM
Ron Paul is like a Star Trek convention. When you're there, the whole world is full of Trekkies. There just wasn't enough people watching the show to keep it on the air.

Star Trek the Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Enterprise, how many movies now?

Star Trek is probably not the best analogy to use when trying to discredit something in our culture due to unpopularity.

THE RESISTANCE
12-21-2011, 12:22 PM
Vote for conservative principles which are Founding Principles first. Do not let your positions get in the way.

Some if not most mix the two up resulting in why America is where it is now.

A position may be against them, Founding Principles.

Conservatives leading with positions first are often the LibSocs best friend and will help them advance socialism.

txradioguy
12-21-2011, 01:29 PM
Vote for conservative principles which are Founding Principles first. Do not let your positions get in the way.

Some if not most mix the two up resulting in why America is where it is now.

A position may be against them, Founding Principles.

Conservatives leading with positions first are often the LibSocs best friend and will help them advance socialism.

Let me guess...Ron Paul for President right?

Molon Labe
12-21-2011, 01:36 PM
What you are missing is that Pau's support is a traveling political carnival. How many straw polls has Paul won? How big a margin did he win by? With this kind of support how come nationally he polls in the single digits occasionally getting to 10%?

Take a wild guess where McAmnesty was polling Nationally on Decemer 21, 2007? Hmmm?

Molon Labe
12-21-2011, 02:07 PM
Let me guess...Ron Paul for President right?

nah...he's a racist. :rolleyes:

Tipsycatlover
12-21-2011, 02:49 PM
Star Trek the Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Enterprise, how many movies now?

Star Trek is probably not the best analogy to use when trying to discredit something in our culture due to unpopularity.

All shows whose time has come and gone, but the Conventions linger on. When you are at one, the whole world loves Captain Kirk. They don't really, but it sure seems that way.

Odysseus
12-21-2011, 04:46 PM
Paul is probably my last choice among the Republican field, due to his incredibly myopic view of foreign policy and national defense, but he is a strict Constitutionalist who would rip great, gaping chunks of useless government off of our body politic. Under Paul, defense would suffer, but the rest of the country would rebound as government spending ground down. Obama's goal seems to be bankrupting the nation until the only option is to cut defense to the point where we cannot mount any resistance to our nation's enemies. So, given a choice between a president who will tear down the country and its armed forces, and a president who will build up the country but tear down the armed forces, I'd have to vote for the latter. Paul would be disastrous for national security, but at least after four years of him, we'd be able to afford a national defense capability.

So, yeah, if it were Obama vs. Paul, I'd have to vote for the least destructive candidate, and that's Paul.

Novaheart
12-21-2011, 04:57 PM
will you vote for him in the General Election?

I'd have to spend more time seriously looking at his positions, but I am inclined to say that if the choice were between Obama and Paul, I would vote for Paul.

THE RESISTANCE
12-22-2011, 12:48 PM
Let me guess...Ron Paul for President right?


No.

I am a Founding Principle Conservative.
I am so tired of the candidates of the Republican Party. Not only for president but in most elections from local, to state, to Federal that are hard to tell from the Democratic Party libSocs. Who are so much about the Republican Party, the party , the party , the party only.

It is like that cheap toy you buy that looks so American (conservative) but when you look on the bottom it says " Made by the Democratic LibSoc Party " ( like those Things " Made in China" ).

Who are not really fighting to stop socialism. They are basically fighting only to slow it down.


But on Paul sometimes a great shock might not hurt the least little bit.

txradioguy
12-22-2011, 01:05 PM
No.

I am a Founding Principle Conservative.
I am so tired of the candidates of the Republican Party. Not only for president but in most elections from local, to state, to Federal that are hard to tell from the Democratic Party libSocs. Who are so much about the Republican Party, the party , the party , the party only.

It is like that cheap toy you buy that looks so American (conservative) but when you look on the bottom it says " Made by the Democratic LibSoc Party " ( like those Things " Made in China" ).

Who are not really fighting to stop socialism. They are basically fighting only to slow it down.


But on Paul sometimes a great shock might not hurt the least little bit.

Anyone got a gibberish to English translator handy so we can know what this n00b said?

Novaheart
12-22-2011, 01:16 PM
No.

I am a Founding Principle Conservative.
I am so tired of the candidates of the Republican Party. Not only for president but in most elections from local, to state, to Federal that are hard to tell from the Democratic Party libSocs. Who are so much about the Republican Party, the party , the party , the party only.

It is like that cheap toy you buy that looks so American (conservative) but when you look on the bottom it says " Made by the Democratic LibSoc Party " ( like those Things " Made in China" ).

Who are not really fighting to stop socialism. They are basically fighting only to slow it down.


But on Paul sometimes a great shock might not hurt the least little bit.

I'm an angry white queer colonial privilege constitutionalist asshole (AWQCPCA). It almost looks Cyrillic doesn't it?

Neither the Republican nor the Democratic party is particularly interested in the Constitution, like Bible/Quran adherents, they simply cut and paste partial passages that they like and which don't interfere with their amassing of power.

For their part, the strict constitutional political groups are no better. You simply can't team up strict constitutional principles and the the errant belief that the US government should be controlled by Christian dominionists.

Where are you going? Why don't you walk the wheel with us? What is the matter my American friend? What has upset you? Oh! I know. The bad machine doesn't know that he's a bad machine. You still don't believe it. You still don't believe you're a bad machine? To know yourself is to know God, my friend. The factory knows, that's why they put you here. You'll see... You'll find out... In time, you'll know.

txradioguy
12-22-2011, 01:20 PM
I'm an angry white queer colonial privilege constitutionalist asshole (AWQCPCA). It almost looks Cyrillic doesn't it?

Neither the Republican nor the Democratic party is particularly interested in the Constitution, like Bible/Quran adherents, they simply cut and paste partial passages that they like and which don't interfere with their amassing of power.

For their part, the strict constitutional political groups are no better. You simply can't team up strict constitutional principles and the the errant belief that the US government should be controlled by Christian dominionists.

Where are you going? Why don't you walk the wheel with us? What is the matter my American friend? What has upset you? Oh! I know. The bad machine doesn't know that he's a bad machine. You still don't believe it. You still don't believe you're a bad machine? To know yourself is to know God, my friend. The factory knows, that's why they put you here. You'll see... You'll find out... In time, you'll know.

You and this n00b are gonna get along great. You speak the same language. :rolleyes:

Arroyo_Doble
12-22-2011, 01:27 PM
I'm an angry white queer colonial privilege constitutionalist asshole (AWQCPCA). It almost looks Cyrillic doesn't it?

Neither the Republican nor the Democratic party is particularly interested in the Constitution, like Bible/Quran adherents, they simply cut and paste partial passages that they like and which don't interfere with their amassing of power.

For their part, the strict constitutional political groups are no better. You simply can't team up strict constitutional principles and the the errant belief that the US government should be controlled by Christian dominionists.

Where are you going? Why don't you walk the wheel with us? What is the matter my American friend? What has upset you? Oh! I know. The bad machine doesn't know that he's a bad machine. You still don't believe it. You still don't believe you're a bad machine? To know yourself is to know God, my friend. The factory knows, that's why they put you here. You'll see... You'll find out... In time, you'll know.

I already know. I know that you're a bad machine. That's why the factory keeps you here. You know how I know? I know because I'm from the factory. I make the machines.. I'm here to spy on you.

Novaheart
12-22-2011, 01:35 PM
You and this n00b are gonna get along great. You speak the same language. :rolleyes:

I am fluent in over six million forms of communication.

Odysseus
12-22-2011, 01:48 PM
I already know. I know that you're a bad machine. That's why the factory keeps you here. You know how I know? I know because I'm from the factory. I make the machines.. I'm here to spy on you.

I am a weapons system. I was built with this ship! And there was a cost overrun!

THE RESISTANCE
12-22-2011, 04:59 PM
I'm an angry white queer colonial privilege constitutionalist asshole (AWQCPCA).


YOU WEAR IT WELL!!

I am a decendent of Gosnold who named Cape Cod before the pilgrams, a descendent of Pinchney who signed the Constitution, and a descendent of the Cherokee that the White Man treated so well.

txradioguy
12-22-2011, 05:07 PM
YOU WEAR IT WELL!!

I am a decendent of Gosnold who named Cape Cod before the pilgrams, a descendent of Pinchney who signed the Constitution, and a descendent of the Cherokee that the White Man treated so well.

So you are a proud member of the racist slave owning south then huh?

Part of the long line of Cherokee Plantation owners that owned black slaves to work their fields in the deep south prior to the Civil War?

The same Cherokee Nation that recently kicked off all of the black descendants of slaves from the Indian Rolls to deny them property rights within the Cherokee Nation?

Let's talk about who has treated whom "well".

JB
12-22-2011, 05:18 PM
If Paul wins Iowa it win finally prove just how irrelevant that caucus is.

Tecate
12-23-2011, 11:25 AM
Perhaps the people in Iowa are growing and eating too much of that Monsanto GMO corn which has clouded their judgement abilities. :D

Wei Wu Wei
12-23-2011, 05:24 PM
If Paul wins Iowa it win finally prove just how irrelevant that caucus is.

I love how everyone was hyped up over Iowa all year until now that Paul is in the lead.

Now the GOP is trying to backpedal and claim "oh well we didn't realyl want to win that one because it doesn't matter". It's so weak.

I think this says something about the Republican Establishment, they are afraid of Ron Paul because Ron Paul actually believes in what the rest of the GOP only talks about.

Most of the GOP is all talk, they are pure corporatist/imperialists but they use the rhetoric of small government. It's a joke. So when someone comes along and actually takes those words to heart, they all panic.

Rockntractor
12-23-2011, 05:39 PM
I love how everyone was hyped up over Iowa all year until now that Paul is in the lead.

Now the GOP is trying to backpedal and claim "oh well we didn't realyl want to win that one because it doesn't matter". It's so weak.

I think this says something about the Republican Establishment, they are afraid of Ron Paul because Ron Paul actually believes in what the rest of the GOP only talks about.

Most of the GOP is all talk, they are pure corporatist/imperialists but they use the rhetoric of small government. It's a joke. So when someone comes along and actually takes those words to heart, they all panic.

Are you going to vote for him?

JB
12-23-2011, 06:29 PM
I love how everyone was hyped up over Iowa all year until now that Paul is in the lead.Well, I was speaking historically and I have not made a single post in this forum regarding the person I am going to support.

However, feel free to provide links to "everyone being hyped".

Hawkgirl
12-23-2011, 08:39 PM
No, I don't think I could vote for Paul. I couldn't vote for BamBam either so I would probably sit the election out. When Paul said America is at fault for 9/11, he lost all credibility as a candidate for me. His foreign policy can be disastrous for us as a nation. The economy will eventually recover but dismantiling our military is dangerous and naive. Anyone remember Carter and the Iran Hostage situation? That's what happens when you are percieved as weak by your enemy. That is nothing compared to what could happen.

Molon Labe
12-23-2011, 09:07 PM
If Paul wins Iowa it win finally prove just how irrelevant that caucus is.


Tell that to Dole, Bush, Ford, Carter, Mondale, Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama.

Wei Wu Wei
12-23-2011, 09:34 PM
Are you going to vote for him?

No absolutely not. I am totally opposed to many of his views.

I think he has solid integrity though, intelligent arguments, and sound rational positions grounded in true small government principles. I can respect that, even if I disagree with him.

Also he steps outside of the mainstream, he tackles issues that no one talks about. Every single GOP candidate sounds like a cookie cutter hack who takes the lead of Fox News and talk radio. Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate who says things that aren't copy-pasted right from prime-time Fox Pundits. He's original, he's his own man with his own ideas grounded in his own principles. He's not a sell-out.

Wei Wu Wei
12-23-2011, 09:37 PM
Well, I was speaking historically and I have not made a single post in this forum regarding the person I am going to support.

However, feel free to provide links to "everyone being hyped".

I should clarify that I was talking about you. I meant conservative pundits on television and radio, Republican candidates for the nomination, and a good number of other posters on this site. You're right though, not you specifically.

Wei Wu Wei
12-23-2011, 09:41 PM
No, I don't think I could vote for Paul. I couldn't vote for BamBam either so I would probably sit the election out. When Paul said America is at fault for 9/11, he lost all credibility as a candidate for me.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty certain he never said that.

I saw him say that terrorists hate us because of things we do, not because of things we believe in. That doesn't mean 9/11 is our fault.

He's got a point. Everyone is itching for war with Iran, saying "we just have to listen to what their leaders say, they've said they want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, all we have to do is listen to them and you will see what they want!!!"

Well that's the same thing Ron Paul is saying, listen to what they are saying, they are saying they want toa ttack us and specifying why. It's absolutely crucial to know thy enemy, and part of it is understanding their motivations. That requires a real attempt to understand them, not just a hysterical effort to portray them in whatever way glorifies us the most.

JB
12-23-2011, 09:42 PM
Tell that to Dole, Bush, Ford, Carter, Mondale, Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama.Sure, as long as you tell it to Harking, Gephardt, Uncomitted, Huckabee, Dole, Bush1 and Unopposed.

And technically, Clinton doesn't count because he lost Iowa his first time and was unopposed the second. Same as Reagan.

Molon Labe
12-23-2011, 09:55 PM
Sure, as long as you tell it to Harking, Gephardt, Uncomitted, Huckabee, Dole, Bush1 and Unopposed.

And technically, Clinton doesn't count because he lost Iowa his first time and was unopposed the second. Same as Reagan.

What's funny is all this MSM downplaying of Iowa...for the first time in history........:rolleyes:

It's pissing off Iowans and going to probably backfire.

Odysseus
12-24-2011, 12:18 PM
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty certain he never said that.

I saw him say that terrorists hate us because of things we do, not because of things we believe in. That doesn't mean 9/11 is our fault.
In other words, he is claiming that our actions caused their reaction. To anyone not trying a Clintonian parsing, that means that he believes that the terrorists have a justification for their acts of terror that is grounded in what we have done to them. It ignores the fact that Islamic jihad against non-Muslims has been the single most consistent aspect of Islam since its inception. It ignores the Barbary Pirate War, which was entirely instigated by Muslim rulers and justified by their religious and political doctrines. It is the same ignorance that places the blame for the animosity between Christians and Muslims on the Crusades, while ignoring the fact that the Crusades were a reaction to the Islamic conquest of the formerly Christian states in the Levant. It is ignorance, but a pervasively anti-American ignorance, and one that we have had enough of for the last four years.


He's got a point. Everyone is itching for war with Iran, saying "we just have to listen to what their leaders say, they've said they want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, all we have to do is listen to them and you will see what they want!!!"
Nobody is "itching" for war with Iran, except the Iranians. They declared war on us in 1979, and have never stopped attacking us.

Well that's the same thing Ron Paul is saying, listen to what they are saying, they are saying they want toa ttack us and specifying why. It's absolutely crucial to know thy enemy, and part of it is understanding their motivations. That requires a real attempt to understand them, not just a hysterical effort to portray them in whatever way glorifies us the most.

And yet, when I and everyone else here explains their mindset, you ignore it. Here it is, again:

The reason that they want to go to war with us is that they are compelled to do so by Islam. Iran seeks to impose Islam on the entire world, as commanded by Allah through Mohammed. If they succeed, then they will reign in Allah's favor. If they fail, they will be martyred and enjoy paradise. Either way, they are commanded to conquer. Think about the desire to destroy Israel for a moment, and you see this in action. Israel and Iran share no borders, and have never had a conflict prior to the mullahs' assumption of control. In fact, both Israel and Iran share several strategic interests, since both are opposed by Sunni Arab states which see them as ethnically inferior infidels or apostates. Prior to Khomeini, Israel and Iran were not adversaries, were on good diplomatic terms, and Iran had a large, thriving Jewish community, one of the few in the Muslim world. How do you explain the mass expulsions and persecutions of Jews after the Islamic Revolution, if it is not a religious conflict? How do you explain the irrational hatred that the mullahs have for Israel outside of the religious context? The Palestinian conflict is of no interest to the mullahs, excepting that it provides them with cannon fodder in the form of Hamas. But has Iran ever done anything to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians? Did the mullahs give zakat to the supposedly impoverished families of Gaza and the West Bank? Did they permit them to settle in Iran? No. The Palestinians are Sunnis, apostates in the eyes of the Shia, and fit only for proxy war.

In addition, their eschatology supports actions that we would consider reckless. The Twelver Shia truly believe that the Twelfth Imam will only return when the faithful have initiated the final conflagration with the Dar al Harb, which is everyone not of their faith.

Look at Europe, which has done everything in its power to thwart America in the Middle East, and yet has been subject to Iranian threats. France harbored Khomeini during his exile, and yet Iran has repeatedly targeted them for terror attacks. This is a religious conflict, one that will not be resolved through isolation, as Paul wants, or appeasement. We tried appeasement with the Barbary states, at one time their tribute payments were the single largest expenditure in the Federal Government's budget, but ultimately had to fight to protect ourselves.

Nobody here is spoiling for war, but we are for fighting the war that we are already in.

Hawkgirl
12-25-2011, 09:49 AM
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty certain he never said that.

I saw him say that terrorists hate us because of things we do, not because of things we believe in. That doesn't mean 9/11 is our fault.

He's got a point. Everyone is itching for war with Iran, saying "we just have to listen to what their leaders say, they've said they want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, all we have to do is listen to them and you will see what they want!!!"

Well that's the same thing Ron Paul is saying, listen to what they are saying, they are saying they want toa ttack us and specifying why. It's absolutely crucial to know thy enemy, and part of it is understanding their motivations. That requires a real attempt to understand them, not just a hysterical effort to portray them in whatever way glorifies us the most.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuX73Ixqtbg

Watch the whole thing.

Molon Labe
12-25-2011, 12:18 PM
Watch the whole thing.

I did.

I don't need to watch the last two minutes where the Ghoul tries to paint his picture.

You either agree with what the premise of Blowback is or you don't. The CIA agrees with it. That's good enough for me.

Odysseus
12-25-2011, 03:52 PM
I did.

I don't need to watch the last two minutes where the Ghoul tries to paint his picture.

You either agree with what the premise of Blowback is or you don't. The CIA agrees with it. That's good enough for me.

The CIA has become a bloated and incompetent bureaucracy that cannot protect us from foreign threats, but is very good at leaking information that undermines our own government. They're just another part of the State Department, which is one of the most arrogant and inept cabinet departments.

RobJohnson
12-26-2011, 05:36 AM
I met up with a friend that was in town one night.
A man sitting near us started to include himself in our political discussion. The man was a small business owner.
He expressed he was a fan of Ron Paul.
The guy was one of my customers, so I really did not want to say much.

So my friend told him "The problem is that Ron has a few good ideas, and a lot of bad ideas"

Oh yeah...my friends name...BadCat.

Apocalypse
12-26-2011, 08:48 PM
This is like the worst endorsement one can get.



White Supremacist Founder of Stormfront Says His Followers Are Volunteering For Ron Paul’s Campaign…

WASHINGTON (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us/politics/ron-paul-disowns-extremists-views-but-doesnt-disavow-the-support.html?_r=3&ref=politics) — The American Free Press, which markets books like “The Invention of the Jewish People” and “March of the Titans: A History of the White Race,” is urging its subscribers to help it send hundreds of copies of Ron Paul’s collected speeches to voters in New Hampshire. The book, it promises, will “Help Dr. Ron Paul Win the G.O.P. Nomination in 2012!”


Don Black, director of the white nationalist Web site Stormfront (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/), said in an interview that several dozen of his members were volunteering for Mr. Paul’s presidential campaign, and a site forum titled “Why is Ron Paul such a favorite here?” has no fewer than 24 pages of comments. “I understand he wins many fans because his monetary policy would hurt Jews,” read one. [...]


The white supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists who have rallied behind his candidacy have not exactly been warmly welcomed. “I wouldn’t be happy with that,” Mr. Paul said in an interview Friday when asked about getting help from volunteers with anti-Jewish or antiblack views.


But he did not disavow their support. “If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say,” said Mr. Paul, who is now running strong in Iowa for the Republican nomination.
Paul denies having any thing to do with those papers, but not disavowing the support of these raciest will only make it look like he is more connected to those beliefs. And this is only more likely to kill any chance at winning "A" state.

Rockntractor
12-26-2011, 08:50 PM
No sheeet!:eek:

Apocalypse
12-26-2011, 09:14 PM
I think its safe to stop worrying about Paul winning. After that endorsement, and some of the recent stuff. Even going Indy won't help him.

Wei Wu Wei
12-26-2011, 11:17 PM
I typed a response to this but then my computer died so I'm retyping it with much less attention to detail.


In other words, he is claiming that our actions caused their reaction. To anyone not trying a Clintonian parsing, that means that he believes that the terrorists have a justification for their acts of terror that is grounded in what we have done to them.

WHat kind of backwards thinking is this?

If someone humiliates me in public, and to retaliate, I go burn down his house and kill his family in the fire, are my actions justified because his actions provided me with a reason? Absolutely not.

Just because someone reacts to someone else's actions, and uses it as a reason for violence, does not mean that their violence is justified.

It's terrifying that this isn't obvious.


It ignores the fact that Islamic jihad against non-Muslims has been the single most consistent aspect of Islam since its inception. It ignores the Barbary Pirate War, which was entirely instigated by Muslim rulers and justified by their religious and political doctrines. It is the same ignorance that places the blame for the animosity between Christians and Muslims on the Crusades, while ignoring the fact that the Crusades were a reaction to the Islamic conquest of the formerly Christian states in the Levant. It is ignorance, but a pervasively anti-American ignorance, and one that we have had enough of for the last four years.

Islam isn't one entity. Muslims are not a homogenous group. It would be stupid to claim that the Spanish Inquisitors are the same as Evangelists today because they are both part of the Christian Tradition. It would be stupid to claim that the messages taught in churches are responsible for doctor assassinations or clinic bombings by radicals. It would be stupid to claim that pedophile catholic priests are simply a symptom of the evil teachings of Christianity.

Your claims about Islam are about as sensible as those about Christianity.

Some aspects of Islamic culture accentuate western culture, some aspects move along side it, some aspects collide and clash with it. Even this is too simplistic because there is no one thing called "Islamic Culture" or "western culture".

Your eagerness to dumb it down to such simplicity suggests a need for a boogyman to stand-in for all of the problems we are facing today. Extremely simple pictures are more comforting, but they are rarely more accurate.





Nobody is "itching" for war with Iran, except the Iranians. They declared war on us in 1979, and have never stopped attacking us.


And yet, when I and everyone else here explains their mindset, you ignore it. Here it is, again:

The reason that they want to go to war with us is that they are compelled to do so by Islam. Iran seeks to impose Islam on the entire world, as commanded by Allah through Mohammed. If they succeed, then they will reign in Allah's favor. If they fail, they will be martyred and enjoy paradise. Either way, they are commanded to conquer. Think about the desire to destroy Israel for a moment, and you see this in action. Israel and Iran share no borders, and have never had a conflict prior to the mullahs' assumption of control. In fact, both Israel and Iran share several strategic interests, since both are opposed by Sunni Arab states which see them as ethnically inferior infidels or apostates. Prior to Khomeini, Israel and Iran were not adversaries, were on good diplomatic terms, and Iran had a large, thriving Jewish community, one of the few in the Muslim world.

In addition, their eschatology supports actions that we would consider reckless. The Twelver Shia truly believe that the Twelfth Imam will only return when the faithful have initiated the final conflagration with the Dar al Harb, which is everyone not of their faith.

Look at Europe, which has done everything in its power to thwart America in the Middle East, and yet has been subject to Iranian threats. France harbored Khomeini during his exile, and yet Iran has repeatedly targeted them for terror attacks. This is a religious conflict, one that will not be resolved through isolation, as Paul wants, or appeasement. We tried appeasement with the Barbary states, at one time their tribute payments were the single largest expenditure in the Federal Government's budget, but ultimately had to fight to protect ourselves.

Nobody here is spoiling for war, but we are for fighting the war that we are already in.

Is it fair to say Christians are itching for war, because they believe increased unrest in the middle east will usher in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ? Many people believe this, you know.



How do you explain the mass expulsions and persecutions of Jews after the Islamic Revolution, if it is not a religious conflict? How do you explain the irrational hatred that the mullahs have for Israel outside of the religious context? The Palestinian conflict is of no interest to the mullahs, excepting that it provides them with cannon fodder in the form of Hamas. But has Iran ever done anything to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians? Did the mullahs give zakat to the supposedly impoverished families of Gaza and the West Bank? Did they permit them to settle in Iran? No. The Palestinians are Sunnis, apostates in the eyes of the Shia, and fit only for proxy war.

A big part of it is simple (or not so simple) anti-semitism. Anti-semitism is not a theological difference. Look at Nazi Germany, their anti-semitism wasn't fueled by theological issues. Anti-semitism has a long history and it's almost never about scriptures. Rather, scriptures are used to fuel already-existing anti-semitism.

Israel plays a big role in middle eastern politics, and part of it is because of their military actions. A big part is because of America's role as Israel's unquestioned supporter, who lends financial and military aid that is used against Muslims.

There is a high level of anti-Arab racism within Israel, and while that in no way justifies anti-semitism, it does fuel it.

The issues here are social (anti-semitism), financial, military, and political. Religion plays a role too, I won't deny that, but to narrow it all down to theology is nothing more than an attempt to not think about the other factors.

THE RESISTANCE
12-27-2011, 11:24 AM
So you are a proud member of the racist slave owning south then huh?

Part of the long line of Cherokee Plantation owners that owned black slaves to work their fields in the deep south prior to the Civil War?

The same Cherokee Nation that recently kicked off all of the black descendants of slaves from the Indian Rolls to deny them property rights within the Cherokee Nation?

Let's talk about who has treated whom "well".

I AM EXTREMELY PROUD!!

Extremely proud of everything that the Founders did well !! What the Cherokee did well or do well!!

One hundred ten percent !!

I am in no way proud of what they did/do wrong!!

Seems like you like the LibSocs are trying to play some misguided race card.

Molon Labe
12-27-2011, 04:21 PM
The CIA has become a bloated and incompetent bureaucracy that cannot protect us from foreign threats, but is very good at leaking information that undermines our own government. They're just another part of the State Department, which is one of the most arrogant and inept cabinet departments.

I agree..

And they not only undermine our foreign policy by doing incompetent things in secret, but they also undermine our militaries ability to do their job effectively, because the average American citizen doesn't see this quasi war going on behind the scenes, that we have to go and clean up later.

Odysseus
12-27-2011, 05:01 PM
I typed a response to this but then my computer died so I'm retyping it with much less attention to detail.
Like we'd have noticed the difference. :rolleyes:


WHat kind of backwards thinking is this?

If someone humiliates me in public, and to retaliate, I go burn down his house and kill his family in the fire, are my actions justified because his actions provided me with a reason? Absolutely not.

Just because someone reacts to someone else's actions, and uses it as a reason for violence, does not mean that their violence is justified.

It's terrifying that this isn't obvious.
And yet, this line of thinking is on display throughout the left, and among Ron Paul's supporters. They genuinely believe that 9/11 was the result of "blowback" or some other preposterous BS that makes our policies the cause for their grievances.


Islam isn't one entity. Muslims are not a homogenous group. It would be stupid to claim that the Spanish Inquisitors are the same as Evangelists today because they are both part of the Christian Tradition. It would be stupid to claim that the messages taught in churches are responsible for doctor assassinations or clinic bombings by radicals. It would be stupid to claim that pedophile catholic priests are simply a symptom of the evil teachings of Christianity.
Especially since the Catholic Church doesn't teach pedophilia and Christianity doesn't condone killing abortionists, and since the Spanish Inquisition, Christianity has gone through massive changes (reformation, counter-reformation, various Vatican conclaves, etc.). However, since you've suddenly developed a vast knowledge of Islam since the last time we discussed it (and you admitted your ignorance), perhaps you can explain how the Salafists, Wahhabis, Khomeinists and others who openly advocate the murder of infidels differ from their seventh century counterparts in interpretation of the Qur'an, Sunnah and Hadiths? Or perhaps you can explain how the sheer volume of Islamic attacks on Christians throughout the world today, including the murders, expulsions and violent suppression of hundreds of thousands of Christians in Muslims states, equals the extremely isolated incidents of Priestly pedophilia and anti-abortion violence that you cited in your futile effort at moral equivalence?


Your claims about Islam are about as sensible as those about Christianity.
My statements of fact about Islam are based on the specific and pervasive calls to violence against non-believers in the Islamic holy texts and the similarly pervasive and well-documented violence currently demonstrated by Muslims against non-Muslims throughout the world. What are you claims based on?


Some aspects of Islamic culture accentuate western culture, some aspects move along side it, some aspects collide and clash with it. Even this is too simplistic because there is no one thing called "Islamic Culture" or "western culture".
Okay, name one aspect of Islamic culture or doctrine that accentuates western culture.


Your eagerness to dumb it down to such simplicity suggests a need for a boogyman to stand-in for all of the problems we are facing today. Extremely simple pictures are more comforting, but they are rarely more accurate.
Funny, but of the two of us, I'm the one who has spent several tours in Muslim countries, read the Qur'an, studied Sharia and you are, by your own admission, utterly ignorant of these and many other aspects of Islamic doctrine and culture, and yet you claim that I'm the one who is presenting dumbed down simplicities. However, my picture of Islam isn't comforting. It's deeply disturbing, because it demonstrates that there aren't easy answer in this war, and it is a war. OTOH, your typical ignorant multicultural blatherings are comforting, in that they allow you to pretend that there is no need to understand the nature of our enemies, or even see them as enemies. Let me know when you are ready to go past comforting leftist myths and see the world as it really is.


Is it fair to say Christians are itching for war, because they believe increased unrest in the middle east will usher in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ? Many people believe this, you know.
No. It's fair to say that a minute portion of Christians feel this way, and that they control no governments or political parties of any size in any nation.

A big part of it is simple (or not so simple) anti-semitism. Anti-semitism is not a theological difference. Look at Nazi Germany, their anti-semitism wasn't fueled by theological issues. Anti-semitism has a long history and it's almost never about scriptures. Rather, scriptures are used to fuel already-existing anti-semitism.
German antisemitism had its origins in theological issues going back centuries. The Nazis, exploited that, but like other socialists, they equated Judaism with capitalism (as did Marx). Jews were a convenient scapegoat, but so were France, Britain and the United States, and yet the Nazis didn't embark on a wholesale effort to exterminate the peoples of those nations until they had the means to do so. And, your assumption that the class and racial warfare that animated the Nazis was the only rationale for antisemitism ignores the previous two millennia of antisemitism. The Spanish Inquisition's antisemitism was purely theological. The antisemitism of the Crusaders was theological. The antisemitism of the Russian Czars, French nationalists (remember Dreyfus?), Polish, German, Italian and every other European people was theological. Just because 21st century academics aren't motivated by religious dogma (or, at least, ideas that they will admit are dogma) doesn't mean that earlier people weren't, or that others today are not. Islamic antisemitism is derived from Islamic scripture, from the example of Mohammed in the Hadiths and from centuries of ingrained habits. Islamic violence against Jews predates the existence of Israel by centuries, and there is an unbroken string of atrocities that had nothing to do with Israel's existence.

Odysseus
12-27-2011, 05:01 PM
Israel plays a big role in middle eastern politics, and part of it is because of their military actions. A big part is because of America's role as Israel's unquestioned supporter, who lends financial and military aid that is used against Muslims.
And yet, this doesn't explain the Muslim hatred of Jews that predates Israel, or the repeated genocidal attacks against Jews in Muslim countries. OTOH, the relentless anti-Jewish rhetoric of the Qur'an does provide an explanation:


Ignominy shall be their portion [the Jews'] wheresoever they are found... They have incurred anger from their Lord, and wretchedness is laid upon them... because they disbelieve the revelations of Allah and slew the Prophets wrongfully... because they were rebellious and used to transgress. [Surah 111, v. 112]
And thou wilt find them [the Jews] the greediest of mankind....[Surah 11, v. 96]
Evil is that for which they sell their souls... For disbelievers is a terrible doom.[Surah II, v. 90]

Taste ye [Jews] the punishment of burning.[Surah III, v. 18 1]

Proclaim a woeful punishment to those that hoard up gold and silver.... Their treasures shall be heated in the dres of Hell, and their foreheads, sides and backs branded with them. . . . 'Taste then the punishment which is your due. [Surah IX, v. 35]

"They [the Jews] are the heirs of Hell.... They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is clear from what they say ... When evil befalls you they rejoice." Ibid. [Surah 111, v. 117-120]

Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment.[Surah IV, v. 56]

Because of the wrongdoing of the Jews.... And of their taking usury ... and of their devouring people's wealth by false pretenses. We have prepared for those of them who disbelieve a painful doom.[Surah IV, v. 160, 161]

Allah hath cursed them [the Jews] for their disbelief.[Surah IV, v. 46]

They [the Jews] will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is clear from what they say, but more violent is the hatred which their breasts conceal.[Surah III, v. 117-120]

In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.[Surah IV, v. 101]

And thou seest [Jews and Christians] vying one with another in sin and transgression and their devouring of illicit gain. Verily evil is what they do. Why do not the rabbis and the priests forbid their evilspeaking and their devouring of illicit gain? .... evil is their handiwork.[Surah V, v. 62, 63]

O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. [Surah V, v. 51]

The most vehement of mankind in hostility [are] the Jews and the idolators.[Surah V, v. 82]

Fight against such of those [Jews and Christians] ... until they pay for the tribute readily, being brought low.[Surah IX, v. 29]

Allah fighteth against them [the Jews]. How perverse they are![Surah IX, v. 30]

Believers, many are the rabbis and the monks who defraud men of their possessions... Proclaim a woeful punishment to those that hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in Allah's cause.... their treasures shall be heated in the fire of Hell.... [Surah IX, v. 26-34]

They [the Jews] spread evil in the land .... [Surah V, v. 62-66]

[The Jews] knowingly perverted [the word of Allah], know of nothing except lies ... commit evil and become engrossed in sin. [Surah II, v. 71-85]

No sane, reasonable person could read these and escape the fact that Islam is steeped in hatred of Jews from its primary sources and its traditions reflect this. OTOH, nobody has ever accused you of being sane or reasonable.


There is a high level of anti-Arab racism within Israel, and while that in no way justifies anti-semitism, it does fuel it.
Where do you get this BS? Muslim antisemitism goes back to the seventh century. Jewish anti-Arab attitudes are the result of generational warfare waged by Arabs against Jews since Mohammed entered Medina. Talk about blaming the victim. :rolleyes:


The issues here are social (anti-semitism), financial, military, and political. Religion plays a role too, I won't deny that, but to narrow it all down to theology is nothing more than an attempt to not think about the other factors.

Okay, then explain the other factors. I can't wait for this...

THE RESISTANCE
12-27-2011, 06:47 PM
I AM EXTREMELY PROUD!!

Extremely proud of everything that the Founders did well !! What the Cherokee did well or do well!!

One hundred ten percent !!

I am in no way proud of what they did/do wrong!!

Seems like you like the LibSocs are trying to play some misguided race card.

Oh I forgot.

Free Blacks also owned slaves .

Rockntractor
12-27-2011, 06:55 PM
Oh I forgot.

Free Blacks also owned slaves .

Someone feels the need to make that point every week, I guess it's your turn.

THE RESISTANCE
12-28-2011, 03:45 PM
Someone feels the need to make that point every week, I guess it's your turn.


Did not mean to be the one . It was a second thought.

cowboyjack
01-03-2012, 12:09 PM
I hate to post this, but for the most part the American voter is naive and has little or no understanding of the true issues. Too often they vote for the prettiest face.

JB
01-03-2012, 06:54 PM
Too often they vote for the prettiest face.I have other things going on right now but if that's the case, look for me to be president in 2016 and 2020.

Arroyo_Doble
01-03-2012, 06:59 PM
I have other things going on right now but if that's the case, look for me to be president in 2016 and 2020.

And here I sat out 2012 because I thought you were going to make a run this year.

cowboyjack
01-03-2012, 08:21 PM
I am off to the caucus now. I am still unsure of who I will support, but it will not be Paul. I do not believe that he is electable. The middle independents will reject him wholesale.

Kay
01-04-2012, 12:06 AM
Except when he's blaming us for everything evil happening in the world.

9/11 is our fault...radical Islam...Iranian Nukes...the Taliban...you name it...Dr. Nutz will blame us for it.

If we want that we may as well stick with Barry.

Tx, I still say if you look at these two side by side to pick the lesser of two evils, Paul gets my vote over Barry. He is at least a Texan and American, Barry's origins still have a cloud over it (at best he was born on our island, but raised as a Kenyan and in Indonesia while being schooled in a muslim madrasah).

Plus you have to look also at the team players each would bring with them. Barry's cabinet is stocked with criminals, pedophiles, bulldykes, Chicago mafia, and incompetent boobs like Turbo Tim. At least I think Paul would surround himself with a more upstanding bunch. Hopefully we will never have to make a choice between the two, but if it comes down to it I have to go with Paul over Barry.


Huck shot his complete wad in Iowa.

How lewd.