Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Ron Paul in 2012 Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]Monroe[/m] at 2:47 pm on July 2, 2009[quote]Not a chance. [/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post Elm Posted at 2:44 pm on July 2, 2009 Awesome or awesomist?

Replies draakprinses Posted at 7:38 pm on July 12, 2009 I would like to see that happen. Elm Posted at 5:23 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 5:08 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 12:44 am on July 3, 2009 Awesome or awesomist? Another anti-scientific creationist? No thanks. The Libertarian minarchist position is also deeply self-contradictory. I honestly don't care what the personal beliefs of a person is if the govern according to the rule of law. Moridin Posted at 5:08 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 12:44 am on July 3, 2009 Awesome or awesomist? Another anti-scientific creationist? No thanks. The Libertarian minarchist position is also deeply self-contradictory. Aimforthehead Posted at 12:49 pm on July 11, 2009 I'd like it. He wouldn't do much to fix problems around the world but at least he'd help keep our government from screwing it up more. be eazy Posted at 10:11 pm on July 10, 2009 ron rivedi Posted at 9:21 am on July 5, 2009 a mean? nce freudian, damn pinko. Elm Posted at 11:25 pm on July 4, 2009 Quote: from Savior at 11:12 pm on July 4, 2009 Dream on, Elm. A man without dreams is not a mean at all. Savior Posted at 11:12 pm on July 4, 2009 Dream on, Elm. ok 2b myself Posted at 6:56 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from dm13 at 9:52 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from ok 2b myself at 6:51 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from dm13 at 6:40 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 3:34 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from dm13 at 3:30 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 3:27 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from dm13 at 3:10 pm on July 2, 2009 He's ight, his opinion on Iraq is a huge turnoff though.           By 2012 Iraq will be a non-issue.    If he didn't take Saddam Hussein seriously, I don't want him to be president, to be honest. Though socially, he'd be a great President.       Saddam was not our enemy, Al-Qeada was.  Al-Qeada and Saddam were opposed to each other.  Concentrate on the Taliban that were harboring Al-Qeada until Afghanistan was secure.       The attack on Iraq was a complete misdirection of the goal of the US in defending its national security.  It spread our forces thin and lowered morale, it allowed the escape of Osama Bin laden and gained recruits for our enemy while wearing down both our financial and military resources.       It was a tacticle, logistical, political, and practicle mistake.   Saddam harbored terrorists, he was seeking weapons of mass destruction, and he didn't follow through with U.N. resolutions set to cease-fire the gulf war. 9/11 was a catalyst for not taking bullshit from terrorist-harboring nations that terrorize its own people.    Saddam also had kept the Iranians in check for 25 years. People seem to forget that. Ahmadinejad wouldn't be nearly as big a threat if Saddam was still alive. Or if Jimmy Carter never lived. I'd prefer that one. What if it was Mondale who had beaten President Ford in 1976? I would bet the situation would've been worse. dm13 Posted at 6:52 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from ok 2b myself at 6:51 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from dm13 at 6:40 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 3:34 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from dm13 at 3:30 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 3:27 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from dm13 at 3:10 pm on July 2, 2009 He's ight, his opinion on Iraq is a huge turnoff though.    By 2012 Iraq will be a non-issue.       If he didn't take Saddam Hussein seriously, I don't want him to be president, to be honest.  Though socially, he'd be a great President.   Saddam was not our enemy, Al-Qeada was. Al-Qeada and Saddam were opposed to each other. Concentrate on the Taliban that were harboring Al-Qeada until Afghanistan was secure.   The attack on Iraq was a complete misdirection of the goal of the US in defending its national security. It spread our forces thin and lowered morale, it allowed the escape of Osama Bin laden and gained recruits for our enemy while wearing down both our financial and military resources.   It was a tacticle, logistical, political, and practicle mistake.    Saddam harbored terrorists, he was seeking weapons of mass destruction, and he didn't follow through with U.N. resolutions set to cease-fire the gulf war.  9/11 was a catalyst for not taking bullshit from terrorist-harboring nations that terrorize its own people. Saddam also had kept the Iranians in check for 25 years. People seem to forget that. Ahmadinejad wouldn't be nearly as big a threat if Saddam was still alive. Or if Jimmy Carter never lived.  I'd prefer that one. ok 2b myself Posted at 6:51 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from dm13 at 6:40 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 3:34 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from dm13 at 3:30 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 3:27 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from dm13 at 3:10 pm on July 2, 2009 He's ight, his opinion on Iraq is a huge turnoff though.       By 2012 Iraq will be a non-issue.   If he didn't take Saddam Hussein seriously, I don't want him to be president, to be honest. Though socially, he'd be a great President.    Saddam was not our enemy, Al-Qeada was.  Al-Qeada and Saddam were opposed to each other.  Concentrate on the Taliban that were harboring Al-Qeada until Afghanistan was secure.    The attack on Iraq was a complete misdirection of the goal of the US in defending its national security.  It spread our forces thin and lowered morale, it allowed the escape of Osama Bin laden and gained recruits for our enemy while wearing down both our financial and military resources.    It was a tacticle, logistical, political, and practicle mistake. Saddam harbored terrorists, he was seeking weapons of mass destruction, and he didn't follow through with U.N. resolutions set to cease-fire the gulf war. 9/11 was a catalyst for not taking bullshit from terrorist-harboring nations that terrorize its own people. Saddam also had kept the Iranians in check for 25 years. People seem to forget that. Ahmadinejad wouldn't be nearly as big a threat if Saddam was still alive. kidd rune Posted at 6:32 pm on July 2, 2009 Awesome? Yes. Likely? In my opinion, no. rivedi Posted at 6:30 pm on July 2, 2009 bah, excise taxes are still kinda theft Elm Posted at 6:23 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from rivedi at 6:02 pm on July 2, 2009 is ron paul for taxation? Ideally he would like ot reduce federal government spending to the point that excise taxes and other revenues would meet budgetary requirements. rivedi Posted at 6:02 pm on July 2, 2009 is ron paul for taxation? Most recent 15 of 31 previous replies displayed.