Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by Elm at 2:44 pm on July 2, 2009 Awesome or awesomist? -- Posted by DaisyMontana at 2:45 pm on July 2, 2009 I hate him, I LIKE SUPERMODEL THO! -- Posted by MushroomSatsujin at 2:45 pm on July 2, 2009 Better than what we've had -- Posted by GlassHearts at 2:45 pm on July 2, 2009 whom? -- Posted by Monroe at 2:47 pm on July 2, 2009 Not a chance. -- Posted by marshmellowman at 2:47 pm on July 2, 2009 I very much doubt that anyone will really be able to challenge the incumbent well. -- Posted by Elm at 2:47 pm on July 2, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul -- Posted by dm13 at 3:10 pm on July 2, 2009 He's ight, his opinion on Iraq is a huge turnoff though. -- Posted by 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. -- Posted by 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. -- Posted by 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. -- Posted by dm13 at 3:40 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. -- Posted by Elm at 3:43 pm on July 2, 2009 Almost every nation on earth harbors people that other nations consider terrorists.  This is not reason for the US to go to war. He was always seeking weapons of mass destruction just like every nation on earth.  This is not a reason for the US to go to war. Septembet 11, 2001 in no way fudamentally changed the laws of our land.  We were attacked by a specific group with a specific geographic home location.  We were engaged in a ground war with our enemy.  Opening a new front for what amounted to "shits and giggles" and horrible intel and doing so in a way contrary to our Constitution was in no way a rational decision no matter what decision making process you find rational. -- Posted by dm13 at 3:50 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 3:43 pm on July 2, 2009 Almost every nation on earth harbors people that other nations consider terrorists. This is not reason for the US to go to war. He was always seeking weapons of mass destruction just like every nation on earth. This is not a reason for the US to go to war. Septembet 11, 2001 in no way fudamentally changed the laws of our land. We were attacked by a specific group with a specific geographic home location. We were engaged in a ground war with our enemy. Opening a new front for what amounted to "shits and giggles" and horrible intel and doing so in a way contrary to our Constitution was in no way a rational decision no matter what decision making process you find rational. Saddam broke war resolutions of Disarmament.  I don't agree with everything about the Iraq war, but I find it appalling he wasn't invaded before he was. -- Posted by Elm at 3:52 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from dm13 at 3:50 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 3:43 pm on July 2, 2009 Almost every nation on earth harbors people that other nations consider terrorists.  This is not reason for the US to go to war.    He was always seeking weapons of mass destruction just like every nation on earth.  This is not a reason for the US to go to war.    Septembet 11, 2001 in no way fudamentally changed the laws of our land.  We were attacked by a specific group with a specific geographic home location.  We were engaged in a ground war with our enemy.  Opening a new front for what amounted to "shits and giggles" and horrible intel and doing so in a way contrary to our Constitution was in no way a rational decision no matter what decision making process you find rational. Saddam broke war resolutions of Disarmament. I don't agree with everything about the Iraq war, but I find it appalling he wasn't invaded before he was. The only thing he broke were flight restrictions that were put in place by America after the treaty of the first Gulf War was signed - meaning they had no legitimate authrotiy. Saddam was a very important check on the powers of the region, keeping Iran from getting uppity in the region.  He wasn't a nice man, it wasn't a nice regime - but the US is not the "white knight" of the world whose job it is to make sure the rest of the world is a nice place.  The purpose of our government is to ensure that the rights of its citizens are protected. -- Posted by Elm at 3:55 pm on July 2, 2009 All of this aside.  The Iraq issue will be very small come 2012 and if its only one area of disagreement it seems likely that other candidates will have many more. -- Posted by dm13 at 4:22 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 3:55 pm on July 2, 2009 All of this aside. The Iraq issue will be very small come 2012 and if its only one area of disagreement it seems likely that other candidates will have many more. I definitely agree. In times like this, we need a president like Ron Paul. -- Posted by rivedi at 6:02 pm on July 2, 2009 is ron paul for taxation? -- Posted by Elm 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. -- Posted by rivedi at 6:30 pm on July 2, 2009 bah, excise taxes are still kinda theft -- Posted by kidd rune at 6:32 pm on July 2, 2009 Awesome? Yes. Likely? In my opinion, no. -- Posted by 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. -- Posted by dm13 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. -- Posted by ok 2b myself 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. -- Posted by Savior at 11:12 pm on July 4, 2009 Dream on, Elm. -- Posted by Elm 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. -- Posted by rivedi at 9:21 am on July 5, 2009 a mean? nce freudian, damn pinko. -- Posted by be eazy at 10:11 pm on July 10, 2009 ron -- Posted by Aimforthehead 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. -- Posted by 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. Pages: 1 2  Next