Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on September 13, 2011, 11:20:11 PM
-
I Voted for Obama, Now I'm Voting for Ron Paul
by Anthony Anderson.
I truly believe that I speak for so many young progressives that would be proponents for peace, clean food and water, and a government that actually helps and cares for its citizens.
After 8 years of GWB and the lies about WMDs, 9-11, Monsanto, Iraq...etc...anyone coming from the other party looked like a better choice. I was somehow still under the illusion that the Democratic Party would work for the people and not corporate/banking/defense industry interests.
I cried when Obama won. I really thought it was a new dawn for the US and the world as a whole. I was so ashamed of the Bush administration... all the violence and greed just made me ashamed to be from the US. Somehow though I still thought that there was a difference between the two parties.
I have to thank Mr. Obama for waking me up to this truth. When he showed support for Monsanto and big agribusiness, the continued (and escalated) warmongering, and even the continued selling-out of the American taxpayer to the Federal Reserve, the lightbulb went off in my head -- they are all simply employees.
On the other hand, Dr. Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate that is talking about the big pink elephant in the room. The money wasted on war, the fact that our nation has been sold to international banks, and that the federal government is becoming a monster overtaking state autonomy.
I never would have thought that the day would come where I would actually consider voting for someone else than a democrat. I want the world to be clean and healthy paradise planet for the next generations and for those that are living here now. I want the freedom to be able to buy clean food and drink unfluoridated water. I feel that its not asking too much, but the current administration continues to take away these rights.
cont... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-anderson/i-voted-for-obama-now-im-_b_944097.html
-
Another loon who has bought into one too many Conspiracy theories.
-
TA, shut your stank hole, nobody cares about your strange psycho talk.
Another good comment from another pro Ron Paul article:
It seems that many of the Left are fatally attracted to tribalist attacks against the likes of Ron Paul. Why are we Lefties and Progressives so afraid to grow up and leave our parents’ (Dems) basement? Once we stand on our own two feet, it is impossible to miss the fact that Ron Paul’s rise represents a movement that stands for some of the most important things that we stand for. Does it creep me out when people like Ron Paul and Alex Jones start foaming at the mouth against “illegal immigrants” (how can human beings be “illegal”?), etc.? Ah, yes. Oh yes it does. It creeps me out a lot more when Barack Obama hands more and more of our economy (that means OUR LIVES AND THOSE OF OUR CHILDREN, PEOPLE) to the Banksters. It creeps me out a lot more when Obama sends our military to bomb foreign countries in order to support ethnic cleansers, or supports vicious crackdowns on peaceful popular uprisings in places like Bahrain and Honduras. It creeps me out a lot more when Obama continues to expand the Imperial Presidency and the police state, while sending SWAT teams after peace activists, while affirming and expanding Bush’s vicious policies. And what really creeps me out a lot more is when many progressives seem to choose to define all this as representing the “mainstream”.
In my vieww, anyone who doesn’t see that we are in desperate times, just chooses not to see. And I guess that old political tribalism helps with that.
-
TA, shut your stank hole, nobody cares about your strange psycho talk.
Another good comment from another pro Ron Paul article:
Alex Jones.
-
Alex Jones.
NO, Jones didn't write that ::)
-
LOL, even Mathew Rothschild picking Ron Paul as the winner of the debate with only positive things to say about what Paul said.
Click play podcast, it's about a minute long:
http://www.progressive.org/audio_ron_paul_republican_debate.html
-
Why Dems Should Register Republican & Vote Ron Paul
There are many Democrats who agree with congressman & Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul when it comes to his positions on military interventions, the drug war, and the rights of the individual over corporations. The fact that progressive icon and consumer advocate Ralph Nader has discussed teaming up with Paul demonstrates how Ron Paul’s views often are compatible with those of liberal progressives. However, most Democrats argue that Paul’s libertarian stance regarding entitlement programs, taxes, and the role of the Federal Government prevent them from ever throwing their full support behind Paul, even if they agree with him on other issues.
By making this argument, Democrats seem to think that Ron Paul could simply do away with Federal programs and departments with the swipe of pen. While Executive power has increased in recent years, American presidents are not dictators. A President Paul would have two (likely hostile) halls of Congress to deal with in setting an agenda. Secondly, Ron Paul is a pragmatic libertarian, not a radical one hell bent on throwing the United States into a state of anarchy and kicking people off Medicare and Social Security. When dealing with domestic issues and entitlement programs, Paul has always talked about slow transitions from Federal control to the State and local level, and actually saving entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare from impending bankruptcy over the short term by drastically cutting military spending.
Democrats though will argue that we are in crisis mode with the economy and need an FDR style president to inject money and create programs to fuel job growth, not someone like Ron Paul who wants to reduce the size of the Federal Government. Even if one were to agree with this argument, it should be obvious to all Democrats that Barack Obama is no FDR, but a panderer of Wall Street who has repeatedly refused to use the office of the Presidency as a bully pulpit to push a progressive agenda through Congress and make the banking industry pay for its high crimes. Beyond Obama’s very obvious shortcomings, one must ask Democrats if beefing up Federal programs should be the deciding factor in their choice for the next President of the United States. Is that really the ethical and moral priority of our times?
It might be good if all Democrats (and Republicans for that matter) were to pause for a moment and imagine that the Federal government was regularly dropping cluster bombs on their communities to combat suspected terrorists. And that due to these bombings, scores of innocent people, including family members, friends, and neighbors, were being maimed and killed.
Now, also imagine that this same Federal government has banned alcohol. Get caught drinking a beer and get tossed into jail for years. One guesses that if this were happening in the United States, the priority of nearly all voters would be to vote for a new President who would stop killing innocent Americans and tossing folks into jail for drinking a Budweiser.
cont... http://livinghour.org/blog/ronpaulviews/why-democrats-should-register-republican-vote-ron-paul/
-
Another loon who has bought into one too many Conspiracy theories.
No, Ron Paul supporters are people capable of independent critical thinking, unlike the brainwashed masses that still follow the left/right paradigm.
-
He was talking about the so called "progressive" whatever the fuck thst I'd.
Also - who do these people think ron paul is going to appoint to the judiciary?
-
No, Ron Paul supporters are people capable of independent critical thinking, unlike the brainwashed masses that still follow the left/right paradigm.
They are easily misled, blind to evidence and are immune to discerning Facts. Bunch of delusional conspiracy theorists for the most part.
-
I like Paul. I would love to see him being treated like the serious contender he is.
-
He was talking about the so called "progressive" whatever the fuck thst I'd.
Also - who do these people think ron paul is going to appoint to the judiciary?
who the fuck do they think will be appointed to the judiciary when Obama fucking loses. They see the writing on the wall, they know full well to what extent Obama has pissed off his own base and how many of those people will not be donating to Obama and probably not voting. At least it'll be someone who has some respect for the constitution appointed.
1. The other candidates = none of what progressives want.
2. Paul = a good portion of what progressives want from a candidate that's not bullshitting when he says it.
-
who the fuck do they think will be appointed to the judiciary when Obama fucking loses. They see the writing on the wall, they know full well to what extent Obama has pissed off his own base and how many of those people will not be donating to Obama and probably not voting. At least it'll be someone who has some respect for the constitution appointed.
1. The other candidates = none of what progressives want.
2. Paul = a good portion of what progressives want from a candidate that's not bullshitting when he says it.
Buddy Roemer and John Huntsmann are way better than Ron Paul for the Progressive voter.
-
All i am saying is that many people who jump on the RP bandwagon are doing so for the wrong reasons and will be in for massive dissapointment and delusion when they seem him taking an ax to 95% of everything they claim to believe in.
These "progressives' would do far better to reform the demo party if possible and mount a credible primary challenge to Obama than to jump ship to RP.
These "progressives" are acting like little children running away from the mess they made instead of cleaning up their own mess.
Instead of seeking greener pastures on the RP bandwagon which is going nowhere, they should do the hard work like the Tea party did in the GOP and get better candidates to run in the Demo party.
RP has become more cult figure as of late than anything else and once he passes on, then what for these "progressives"?
-
All i am saying is that many people who jump on the RP bandwagon are doing so for the wrong reasons and will be in for massive dissapointment and delusion when they seem him taking an ax to 95% of everything they claim to believe in.
These "progressives' would do far better to reform the demo party if possible and mount a credible primary challenge to Obama than to jump ship to RP.
These "progressives" are acting like little children running away from the mess they made instead of cleaning up their own mess.
Instead of seeking greener pastures on the RP bandwagon which is going nowhere, they should do the hard work like the Tea party did in the GOP and get better candidates to run in the Demo party.
RP has become more cult figure as of late than anything else and once he passes on, then what for these "progressives"?
EXACTLY!!!!! Post of the year.
-
Mike Gravel just said he would Challenge Obama and force a Primary if he can raise the needed One Million Dollars.
-
Buddy Roemer and John Huntsmann are way better than Ron Paul for the Progressive voter.
Stop pulling shit out of your ass. Take your Junk Food and Pecticides are good for you style logic to another board.
Take your nazi home pics with you delusionboy.
-
EXACTLY!!!!! Post of the year.
I like Ron Paul and agree with probably 90% of what he believes, but geez - some of the fawning over him is the same thing that disturbed me over the cult like status Obama got heaped on him in 2008, only for the predictable downfall. He is one man, and when you put all your faith in one guy, its destined to fail. His "campaign for liberty" was and is really good and its based on ideas, not him personally.
Ron Paul would be no different for these people who then would claim they were misled, dissapointed, etc. The "progressives" need to reform the demo party based on ideas and principles, not bouncing around from individual candidates after suffering dissapointments.
Why can't credible left wingers take back their party for Gods' sake? Seriously - why are they so afraid of primarying Obama after what we have seen the last 3 years?
-
EXACTLY!!!!! Post of the year.
oh how sweet, maybe you and 3333 can go make gold together with a nazi fantasy.
-
All i am saying is that many people who jump on the RP bandwagon are doing so for the wrong reasons and will be in for massive dissapointment and delusion when they seem him taking an ax to 95% of everything they claim to believe in.
These "progressives' would do far better to reform the demo party if possible and mount a credible primary challenge to Obama than to jump ship to RP.
These "progressives" are acting like little children running away from the mess they made instead of cleaning up their own mess.
Instead of seeking greener pastures on the RP bandwagon which is going nowhere, they should do the hard work like the Tea party did in the GOP and get better candidates to run in the Demo party.
RP has become more cult figure as of late than anything else and once he passes on, then what for these "progressives"?
You sound like you are channeling 240 here, especially after all the talk about supporting RP. Especially after you said you would pick anyone over Obama, now you dont sound so happy. You should be estactic that there is a candidate that Dems would choose over Obama but here you are criticizing them, I think you are all talk when it really comes to RP now that he is even gaining traction with Dems, no different then what you accuse 240 of. The TEa PArty has been taken over by trash candiadtes that have NO business being there and you talk about cleaning up their own mess with better candidates? please.... one of the few times I totally disagree with you.
-
I like Ron Paul and agree with probably 90% of what he believes, but geez - some of the fawning over him is the same thing that disturbed me over the cult like status Obama got heaped on him in 2008, only for the predictable downfall. He is one man, and when you put all your faith in one guy, its destined to fail. His "campaign for liberty" was and is really good and its based on ideas, not him personally.
Ron Paul would be no different for these people who then would claim they were misled, dissapointed, etc. The "progressives" need to reform the demo party based on ideas and principles, not bouncing around from individual candidates after suffering dissapointments.
Why can't credible left wingers take back their party for Gods' sake? Seriously - why are they so afraid of primarying Obama after what we have seen the last 3 years?
fucking bullshit... I've posted a shitload of material from progressives and the one thing they are fully aware of are the areas that they don't match Paul on. And here you are talking out your stupid fucking ass making shit up saying that they would be shocked when Paul turns out to be pro life and other shit ::) Oh, way to once again ignore points made above and instead just post your crap which dittos what you've already said like a fucking broken record as usual.
-
Why Dems Should Register Republican & Vote Ron Paul
There are many Democrats who agree with congressman & Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul when it comes to his positions on military interventions, the drug war, and the rights of the individual over corporations. The fact that progressive icon and consumer advocate Ralph Nader has discussed teaming up with Paul demonstrates how Ron Paul’s views often are compatible with those of liberal progressives. However, most Democrats argue that Paul’s libertarian stance regarding entitlement programs, taxes, and the role of the Federal Government prevent them from ever throwing their full support behind Paul, even if they agree with him on other issues.
By making this argument, Democrats seem to think that Ron Paul could simply do away with Federal programs and departments with the swipe of pen. While Executive power has increased in recent years, American presidents are not dictators. A President Paul would have two (likely hostile) halls of Congress to deal with in setting an agenda. Secondly, Ron Paul is a pragmatic libertarian, not a radical one hell bent on throwing the United States into a state of anarchy and kicking people off Medicare and Social Security. When dealing with domestic issues and entitlement programs, Paul has always talked about slow transitions from Federal control to the State and local level, and actually saving entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare from impending bankruptcy over the short term by drastically cutting military spending.
Democrats though will argue that we are in crisis mode with the economy and need an FDR style president to inject money and create programs to fuel job growth, not someone like Ron Paul who wants to reduce the size of the Federal Government. Even if one were to agree with this argument, it should be obvious to all Democrats that Barack Obama is no FDR, but a panderer of Wall Street who has repeatedly refused to use the office of the Presidency as a bully pulpit to push a progressive agenda through Congress and make the banking industry pay for its high crimes. Beyond Obama’s very obvious shortcomings, one must ask Democrats if beefing up Federal programs should be the deciding factor in their choice for the next President of the United States. Is that really the ethical and moral priority of our times?
It might be good if all Democrats (and Republicans for that matter) were to pause for a moment and imagine that the Federal government was regularly dropping cluster bombs on their communities to combat suspected terrorists. And that due to these bombings, scores of innocent people, including family members, friends, and neighbors, were being maimed and killed.
Now, also imagine that this same Federal government has banned alcohol. Get caught drinking a beer and get tossed into jail for years. One guesses that if this were happening in the United States, the priority of nearly all voters would be to vote for a new President who would stop killing innocent Americans and tossing folks into jail for drinking a Budweiser.
cont... http://livinghour.org/blog/ronpaulviews/why-democrats-should-register-republican-vote-ron-paul/
These are some great finds Hugo; Ron Paul is definitely appealing on multiple platforms.
-
fucking bullshit... I've posted a shitload of material from progressives and the one thing they are fully aware of are the areas that they don't match Paul on. And here you are talking out your stupid fucking ass making shit up saying that they would be shocked when Paul turns out to be pro life and other shit ::) Oh, way to once again ignore points made above and instead just post your crap which dittos what you've already said like a fucking broken record as usual.
First he said he would pick Dahmer over Obama but now that Paul is seen as a viable candidate by Dem supporters he is trying to sabatoge the whole thing by poo pooing it. Youd think he'd be doing jumoing jacks of joy but he's worried what they might think about a Paul presidency 4 years from now. What, does he think that they would be happy with any other Repub candidate? ::)
-
LOL at 3333, in the other thread, he finally says that it's good that they would vote for Ron Paul and the next day he's right back to sounding like he has absolute contempt for the notion. I didn't believe him when he said it was good, no way the guy cries about it that much and thinks it's good.
Now he's talking about Ron Paul like he has the same style cult followers? WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT 3333? What the hell is your motivation?
-
I do like that they support him, but I also realize the same way they turned on obama and attack him for "betraying them", they will do exactly the same to RP when they realize he is a death sentence to the main planks of their agenda. RP is pro-life that are pro-abortion, RP is pro-gun, most are anti 2nd amend, RP wants to slash spending radically - they want to spend more. RP wants to slash taxes on everyone, they want higher taxes, RP wants to end hate crimes laws, they want more of them, RP wants to end welfare, ss, medicare, they are for national health care, and on and on and on and on.
The wars? Do these people think RP will be able to close all our bases and bring everyone home in a matter of months? Not going to happen. He will be far better than Obama for sure! But not what they think.
Progressives are like the jilted lover running in to the hands of the polar opposite of their cheating boyfriend with little thought. As soon as they are burned by RP on 95% of the issues, they will rush back to the Demos.
Instead of taking obama to task and seeking a credible primary challenge, no, they are bouncing around like a ping pong ball now. sorry - its very transparent what these people are all about.
"Progressives" who attacked GWB on the war for 8 years, have not said a word on Obama. Where are the protests? Where are the marches? Where are the groups like Moveon, ANSWER, etc?
Answer - nowhere! They are too pussy to take on Obama and now supposedly supporting RP? Fucking please. They could say whatever they want, they are full of shit and its obvious what they are all about.
-
First he said he would pick Dahmer over Obama but now that Paul is seen as a viable candidate by Dem supporters he is trying to sabatoge the whole thing by poo pooing it. Youd think he'd be doing jumoing jacks of joy but he's worried what they might think about a Paul presidency 4 years from now. What, does he think that they would be happy with any other Repub candidate? ::)
3333 will absolutely not answer that question, but he is happy to repeat what he's already said a zillion times for you :)
-
First he said he would pick Dahmer over Obama but now that Paul is seen as a viable candidate by Dem supporters he is trying to sabatoge the whole thing by poo pooing it. Youd think he'd be doing jumoing jacks of joy but he's worried what they might think about a Paul presidency 4 years from now. What, does he think that they would be happy with any other Repub candidate? ::)
Progressives are at best 5% of the voting public - they are all bark and no bite.
-
Progressives are at best 5% of the voting public - they are all bark and no bite.
Here, suck a big fat fact rod you homo
America Is Evenly Divided Between Progressives/Liberals And Conservatives/Libertarians
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/03/11/36713/halpin-teixeria-progressive-study/
-
Here, suck a big fat fact rod you homo
America Is Evenly Divided Between Progressives/Liberals And Conservatives/Libertarians
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/03/11/36713/halpin-teixeria-progressive-study/
LMFAO! ! ! ! !
Are you kidding? Gallup has the definitive work on this.
-
LMFAO! ! ! ! !
Are you kidding? Gallup has the definitive work on this.
What do you think is going to happen to these Paultards when he announces that his Campaign is over?
-
What do you think is going to happen to these Paultards when he announces that his Campaign is over?
It's funny that you oppose what would be best for the country now, just to be a dick. Good on you. ::)
-
It's funny that you oppose what would be best for the country now, just to be a dick. Good on you. ::)
I think he would be the WORST of the candidates as he has no broad based support in Congress for any of his nonsense which means NOTHING would ever get done. Then there is the specter of being "Dr. No", vetoing everything he does not agree with which further puts us into a quagmire.
Finally, what he proposes is virtually impossible or just plain idiotic such as getting rid of the FDA, EPA and FEMA, CIA etc...
I`d rather have Bachmann any day over Paul. At least she knows the value of compromise better than Paul. I will take Compromise over Gridlock any day of the week.
-
What do you think is going to happen to these Paultards when he announces that his Campaign is over?
Either stay home or mount a write in campaign of some sort.
The progressives need to mount a primary challenge from the left and start running better candidates if they want to build a movement, not latch on to a GOP candidate in the sunset of his career who so far has no path to victory in the GOP primary.
And I blame Paul too for this. His campaigning is beyond incomprehensible. How does he think he can get over the finish line in a GOP primary by attacking other repubs endlessly and never attacking obama's policies straight on?
I just don't know what he thinks he is accomplishing by doing this? It didnt work last time, and wont work now.
If he wants to move ahead he needs to attack obama head on and simply point out the massive failures of the last three years, not ramble on endlessly about topics more suited for a coffee meeting where one has hours on end to discuss these things. I know its not his style, but what he is doing is not working one bit to move into the top tier of this and have a chance at winning.
What many of his most ardent supporters forget is that you have to win an election first to implement policies. What is is doing is not going to work with the overall voting public. Its nothing against him personally, juist the reality of the typical voter .
-
I think he would be the WORST of the candidates as he has no broad based support in Congress for any of his nonsense which means NOTHING would ever get done. Then there is the specter of being "Dr. No", vetoing everything he does not agree with which further puts us into a quagmire.
Finally, what he proposes is virtually impossible or just plain idiotic such as getting rid of the FDA, EPA and FEMA, CIA etc...
I`d rather have Bachmann any day over Paul. At least she knows the value of compromise better than Paul. I will take Compromise over Gridlock any day of the week.
Wow, you just outed yourself... :o
-
Either stay home or mount a write in campaign of some sort.
The progressives need to mount a primary challenge from the left and start running better candidates if they want to build a movement, not latch on to a GOP candidate in the sunset of his career who so far has no path to victory in the GOP primary.
And I blame Paul too for this. His campaigning is beyond incomprehensible. How does he think he can get over the finish line in a GOP primary by attacking other repubs endlessly and never attacking obama's policies straight on?
I just don't know what he thinks he is accomplishing by doing this? It didnt work last time, and wont work now.
If he wants to move ahead he needs to attack obama head on and simply point out the massive failures of the last three years, not ramble on endlessly about topics more suited for a coffee meeting where one has hours on end to discuss these things. I know its not his style, but what he is doing is not working one bit to move into the top tier of this and have a chance at winning.
What many of his most ardent supporters forget is that you have to win an election first to implement policies. What is is doing is not going to work with the overall voting public. Its nothing against him personally, juist the reality of the typical voter .
His supporters don`t know how congress functions either. Ron Paul would be the weakest President in the History of the United States. An incapable "do-nothing" of disastrous proportions.
-
Wow, you just outed yourself... :o
Sorry, my opinion of Bachmann is rather low, but my opinion of Paul is even lower. I could for-see Poop Paul the only President to be impeached due to inability to do anything.
-
::)
I have to take a break before I go nuts at the pure bullshit being spewed.
-
::)
I have to take a break before I go nuts at the pure bullshit being spewed.
Good, go take a break and come back and explain to me exactly how Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination by the numbers and states and primary calender.
I dont want pie in the sky crap, I want realistic scenario, especially in closed primaries not open to anyone but repubs.
-
I`m also not willing to put the Worlds Greatest Military in the hands of someone who would let the whole Middle East run wild without any consequence.
One thing Obama has done and has done VERY well is foreign Policy, especially when it comes to the Middle East. Obama is a very intelligent man and knows the classified briefings that crosses his desk are nothing to balk at or ignore and must be acted upon.
-
Ron Paul's tha man! I'd vote for him. :)
-
I`m also not willing to put the Worlds Greatest Military in the hands of someone who would let the whole Middle East run wild without any consequence.
One thing Obama has done and has done VERY well is foreign Policy, especially when it comes to the Middle East. Obama is a very intelligent man and knows the classified briefings that crosses his desk are nothing to balk at or ignore and must be acted upon.
who knew, a neocon liberal... it's just gets funnier all the time with you....
-
Good, go take a break and come back and explain to me exactly how Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination by the numbers and states and primary calender.
I dont want pie in the sky crap, I want realistic scenario, especially in closed primaries not open to anyone but repubs.
I'll take demands from you to answer a question the day you start actually reading and responding to points I make in replies. I won't hold my breath that will happen anytime soon. essentially you blitz threads like this saying the same thing over and over, hey, you don't need a reply from me to do that ::)
-
Good, go take a break and come back and explain to me exactly how Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination by the numbers and states and primary calender.
I dont want pie in the sky crap, I want realistic scenario, especially in closed primaries not open to anyone but repubs.
At the core most know what he stands for, either you believe in it or not. If you do just shut up and vote for the guy.
-
At the core most know what he stands for, either you believe in it or not. If you do just shut up and vote for the guy.
What his plan to keep Iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon?
-
What his plan to keep Iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon?
LOL what's Obama's plan? The plan handed to bush was to go in, bomb them back to the stone age and get back out and he turned that down. What do you want the plan to be? At least Ron Paul wants to have serious talks with them. Nobody else seems to be willing to go that far with the exception of what Obama said he would do running for office but hasn't done. Of course there is hillary the hawk who probably wants to go with the plan handed to Bush.
-
LOL what's Obama's plan? The plan handed to bush was to go in, bomb them back to the stone age and get back out and he turned that down. What do you want the plan to be? At least Ron Paul wants to have serious talks with them. Nobody else seems to be willing to go that far with the exception of what Obama said he would do running for office but hasn't done. Of course there is hillary the hawk who probably wants to go with the plan handed to Bush.
Where can I get a copy of that plan? Thanks.
-
Where can I get a copy of that plan? Thanks.
Why don't you first start by answering the questions in my post. man you and 3333 are two of a kind.
-
I like Ron Paul and agree with probably 90% of what he believes, but geez - some of the fawning over him is the same thing that disturbed me over the cult like status Obama got heaped on him in 2008, only for the predictable downfall. He is one man, and when you put all your faith in one guy, its destined to fail. His "campaign for liberty" was and is really good and its based on ideas, not him personally.
Ron Paul would be no different for these people who then would claim they were misled, dissapointed, etc. The "progressives" need to reform the demo party based on ideas and principles, not bouncing around from individual candidates after suffering dissapointments.
Why can't credible left wingers take back their party for Gods' sake? Seriously - why are they so afraid of primarying Obama after what we have seen the last 3 years?
Paul fans froth at the mouth anytime he's mentioned just like Obama drones. Really not much different between the two groups. Hell, just last week Hugo was basically lusting after the dude in the bike thread. It really reeked of Obama drones circa 2008 when I read that.
They're incapable of criticizing the guy when he's far from the perfect candidate. Don't get me wrong, he's by far the best choice available. Is he perfect, though? No. Is he better than Obama? Yes.
-
LOL, I'm not capable of being critical of Paul? Why on earth is 3333 so happy to bump that thread where I disagree on Paul over regulations then? LOL, I lust for him ::) Maybe I'm just trying to make a case for who I think is the best guy to be president, you know, the normal thing people are expected to do during a presidential primary...
I don't worship the guy.
Look at those videos of people crying over the savior Obama... That's cult like.
can you find anything remotely close to this with Paul supporters:
-
Haha, never seen those videos. Creepy stuff. Reminds me of those Eurotrash countries that have "political camps" like the one that Norwegian shot up.
-
there's more videos like that too. I just grabbed a few. There are Paul supporters who probably get a little to passionate over it but that's about the same for much of the tea party too. Anyway, comparing Paul supporters to the cult of Obama is way overkill as these vids show. Paul supporters don't come anywhere close to the style of worship that goes on with Obama.
-
LOL what's Obama's plan? The plan handed to bush was to go in, bomb them back to the stone age and get back out and he turned that down. What do you want the plan to be? At least Ron Paul wants to have serious talks with them. Nobody else seems to be willing to go that far with the exception of what Obama said he would do running for office but hasn't done. Of course there is hillary the hawk who probably wants to go with the plan handed to Bush.
TA, are you going to answer these questions or not? I'm guessing not lol....
-
there's more videos like that too. I just grabbed a few. There are Paul supporters who probably get a little to passionate over it but that's about the same for much of the tea party too. Anyway, comparing Paul supporters to the cult of Obama is way overkill as these vids show. Paul supporters don't come anywhere close to the style of worship that goes on with Obama.
I take it back. They're definitely not bad. Regardless, some Paul fans do get pretty fanatical anytime the guy is criticized.
-
I take it back. They're definitely not bad. Regardless, some Paul fans do get pretty fanatical anytime the guy is criticized.
I can agree with that much. No doubt they do get passionate about it.
-
TA, are you going to answer these questions or not? I'm guessing not lol....
I asked you where can I get a copy of the Bush War Plans for Iran?
-
I asked you where can I get a copy of the Bush War Plans for Iran?
and you ignored the questions I asked in that post. Don't you think you can at least answer the questions in the post before making requests? Considering how you came at this, I'm sure you had an opinion already and surely you can tell us what Obama's plan is...
I'm not your bitch man. A little quid pro quo isn't a lot to ask. I'm not here to just answer your questions while you ignore mine...
-
and you ignored the questions I asked in that post. Don't you think you can at least answer the questions in the post before making requests? Considering how you came at this, I'm sure you had an opinion already and surely you can tell us what Obama's plan is...
I'm not your bitch man. A little quid pro quo isn't a lot to ask. I'm not here to just answer your questions while you ignore mine...
I asked first what was Poop`s plan for keeping Iran from obtaining Nuclear Weapons.
-
Nothing can stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
That's going to happen. So it's kind of a stupid thing to argue about.
-
I asked first what was Poop`s plan for keeping Iran from obtaining Nuclear Weapons.
Can you read, I answered that. In the post we're talking about I clearly said what Ron Paul would do.
From the post: "Ron Paul wants to have serious talks with them. Nobody else seems to be willing to go that far with the exception of what Obama said he would do running for office but hasn't done."
Now, are you going to answer my questions? How fucking hard is it?
1. What is Obama's plan on Iran nukes?
2. What do you want the plan to be on Iran nukes?
"The Almight says, 'Don't change the subject, just answer the fuckin' question."
-
Kinda funny, Obama said the same thing when he was RUNNING for president, not so much now...
-
TA unbelievable that you can't answer two simple questions:
1. What is Obama's plan on Iran nukes?
2. What do you want the plan to be on Iran nukes?
-
Can you read, I answered that. In the post we're talking about I clearly said what Ron Paul would do.
From the post: "Ron Paul wants to have serious talks with them. Nobody else seems to be willing to go that far with the exception of what Obama said he would do running for office but hasn't done."
Now, are you going to answer my questions? How fucking hard is it?
1. What is Obama's plan on Iran nukes?
2. What do you want the plan to be Iran nukes?
"The Almight says, 'Don't change the subject, just answer the fuckin' question."
Here is the answer in Reverse.
2. I agree with the Approach Obama has taken towards keeping Iran from acquiring Nuclear Weapons.
1. Here is the Approach:
America and Iran
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/08/america_and_iran
Barack Obama's plan for Iran
Aug 4th 2010, 22:26 by Lexington
I WAS invited with a small group of journalists to a briefing today by Barack Obama on his Iran policy. The president unveiled no new policy but explained how his strategy towards the Islamic Republic had proceeded since he took office. In his telling, the administration has advanced in methodical steps towards its goal of ensuring that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. It has, he asserts, been a piece of "well-executed diplomacy" using "all elements of national power".
Mr Obama says the various components of his policy should not be seen in isolation. First he tried to engage Iran early and directly, not because he was naive about the regime but in order to make clear to the world that America was not the aggressor and was willing to work with Iran if it behaved reasonably. A second part of the strategy was to emphasise nuclear non-proliferation as a global good, by living up to America's own responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and organising a successful NPT review conference. Element three was resetting American relations with Russia. This was a good thing in itself but was also designed with Iran policy in mind. Only by talking Russia round first was America able to persuade China to sign up for tougher new sanctions on Iran. In the end, such was Russia's commitment that the Kremlin agreed to hold back certain arms sales to Iran at a considerable cost to itself. All this culminated in the new UN Security Council sanctions on Iran, which have in turn served as a platform for other initiatives, such as sanctions imposed separately by the EU, Canada and the United States itself.
As to whether the additional pressure piled on Iran would in fact change its mind about pursuing nuclear weapons, Mr Obama said he did not want to overstate his expectations. Changing Iran's calculations would be difficult. The Iranians were surprised by how tough America had been and this had given rise to internal "rumblings". But there was a nationalist and ideological component to their quest for nuclear weapons that might ultimately override any cost-benefit analysis. That meant the United States had to keep looking at "all available options" (force?) that might be able to prevent Iran from acquiring a bomb. He was not ready to lay down any public red lines "at this point". Interestingly, he did say that it was important to set out for the Iranians a clear set of steps that America would accept as proof that the regime was not pursuing a bomb: they needed "a pathway". With hard work, America and Iran could thaw a 30-year period of antagonism—provided Iran began to act responsibly.
Mr Obama said that the United States had received no direct contacts from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, though high-level officials in Iran had investigated the possibility of re-engaging with the P5-plus-one (the permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany). America would be willing to talk bilaterally to Iran "in the context" of a P5 process that was moving forward. There should meanwhile be a "separate track" on which America could co-operate with Iran on other issues, such as Afghanistan and drugs, for example.
Senior administration officials speaking after the president's briefing were bullish about their ability to tighten the squeeze on Iran economically and diplomatically. Sanctions were making it ever harder for Iran to find foreign investors in its vital oil and gas sector. The EU had adopted tougher sanctions than anyone was expecting. It was already hard for Iran to do business in dollars, and now its ability to do business in euros was being impaired as well. For the first time Tehran's bazaaris, the commercial middle-class, had expressed their unhappiness, adding their protests to those of students and intellectuals. America had firmed up defence relations with the Arab Gulf states and taken unprecedented steps to reassure Israel about its security. Meanwhile Iranian efforts to enrich more uranium seemed to be encountering difficulties. The 3,800 first-generation centrifuges in Natanz were operating at about 60% of their capacity and were experiencing a high rate of breakages (though there are 4,000 in reserve). A planned second generation of centrifuges had not yet been installed. If Iran were to expel international inspectors and dash for a bomb, said a senior administration official, it would take it a year or more to collect enough fissile material for a single device.
What to make of all this? In the end a briefing is just a briefing, and the president of the United States is hardly going to tell a bunch of journalists that his policy to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons has been anything less than dynamic and methodical. What does seem beyond dispute is that the Obama administration has succeeded in driving an unexpected wedge between Iran and Russia, a country the Iranians had long assumed would continue to offer them a degree of diplomatic protection. That is a serious achievement, as are the new international sanctions to which the Russians and therefore the Chinese have recently agreed. Whether all these elements of pressure will persuade Iran to abandon its alleged ambition to become a military nuclear power (an allegation it strenuously denies) remains to be seen. It may be telling that Mr Obama himself is playing down expectations and beginning to talk more about the other unspecified "options on the table". Then again, that could just be a bit of bluff intended to pile on even more pressure.
-
Obama>Poop Paul when it comes to Foreign Policy.
Poop wants us to lick the boots of Iran and let them acquire whatever they want.
-
TA, sounds like a real long winded plan to continue the same OLD plan of sanctions which is a far cry from what Obama said he would do running for office. I'm not quite sure but have sanctions ever really worked on persuading any regime? I see a long history of sanctions reducing a population and hurting the people but little to no evidence sanctions have ever worked in a positive way toward policy change in the targeted countries. If anything sanctions seem to reduce the population to a state of rage against those imposing the sanctions and reinforce support for the targeted regime. Iraq, Cuba others, we've gone down this path and never seen the outcome sanctions were intended for.
Come to think of it, this is yet another point progressives agree with Ron Paul on:
Sanctions Against Iran
by Ron Paul
As the drumbeat for military action against Iran grows louder, some members of Congress are calling to expand the longstanding U.S. trade ban that bars American companies from investing in that nation. In fact, many war hawks in Washington are pushing for a comprehensive international embargo against Iran. The international response has been lukewarm, however, because the world needs Iranian oil. But we cannot underestimate the irrational, almost manic desire of some neoconservatives to attack Iran one way or another, even if it means crippling a major source of oil and destabilizing the worldwide economy.
Make no mistake about it: Economic sanctions are acts of aggression. Sanctions increase poverty and misery among the very poorest inhabitants of targeted nations, and they breed tremendous resentment against those imposing them. But they rarely hurt the political and economic elites responsible for angering American leaders in the first place.
In fact, few government policies are as destructive to our economy as the embargo.
While embargoes sound like strong, punitive action, in reality they represent a failed policy that four decades of experience prove doesn't work. Conversely, economic engagement is perhaps the single most effective tool in tearing down dictatorships and spreading the message of liberty.
It is important to note that economic engagement is not the same thing as foreign aid. Foreign aid, which should be abolished immediately, involves the US government spending American tax dollars to prop up other nations.
Embargoes only hurt the innocent of a targeted country. While it may be difficult for the leader of an embargoed nation to get a box of American-grown rice, he will get it one way or another. For the poor peasant in the remote section of his country, however, the food will be unavailable.
It is difficult to understand how denying access to food, medicine, and other products benefits anyone. Embargo advocates claim that denying people access to our products somehow creates opposition to the despised leader. The reality, though, is that hostilities are more firmly directed at America.
Father Robert Sirico, a Paulist priest, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that trade relations "strengthen people's loyalties to each other and weaken government power." To imagine that we somehow can spread the message of liberty to an oppressed nation by denying them access to our people and the bounty of our prosperity is contorted at best.
For more than thirty years we have embargoed Cuba in an attempt to drive Fidel Castro from power. Yet he remains in power. By contrast look at the Soviet Union, a nation we allowed our producers to engage economically. Of course the Soviet Union has collapsed.
Embargoes greatly harm our citizens. As the American agricultural industry continues to develop new technology to reduce costs and increase yields, it becomes more important for farmers and ranchers to find markets outside the United States to sell their goods so they can make ends meet. By preventing our farmers and ranchers from competing in the world market, we deny them very profitable opportunities.
Government meddling is always destructive to the free market; people inevitably will make wiser decisions about how to spend their money, with whom, and when, than politicians in Washington. Embargoes simply do not accomplish the ends advocates claim to desire, and are extremely harmful to the well-being of Americans.
-
I would also like to see the evidence for Obama trying to engage Iran early and directly as the article claims... Most likely they did what bush did and made demands before talks. That's fucking stupid as Ron Paul points out, we were fully willing to at least talk to Russia, a much bigger threat without making a list of demands before at least talking.
Obama's plan, SAME AS BUSH... JOY....
-
holy crap, I'll come back later... It took you a while to dig up that article, it'll probably take you a while to google up a response...
-
holy crap, I'll come back later... It took you a while to dig up that article, it'll probably take you a while to google up a response...
I take it you don`t like Primary Sources which is obvious as you have the polluted mind of the Conspiracy Theorist. CT`ers have a problem with evidence and fact and like to make up their own version based on their own batshit conclusions.
-
I take it you don`t like Primary Sources which is obvious as you have the polluted mind of the Conspiracy Theorist. CT`ers have a problem with evidence and fact and like to make up their own version based on their own batshit conclusions.
If that's the way you view me, have a load of fun trying to explain why I posted this tonight, well before you just posted this crap:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=395043.0
But I must ask, what does any of this have to do with conspiracy theory? There is no CT here. Nobody has brought up CT but you? It seems to me like you're more interested in using a CT accusation so that you don't have to answer real concrete questions.
In what way can anything I've said in this thread be CT related?
The real question here is: Why is "CT shit" your response to this post:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=394906.msg5578126#msg5578126
TA, you're about as chicken shit as they come and you've just exposed that quality for the 1000th time.
You want to REALLY talk about this, fine... I'm ready... You want to play this bullshit, fuck off, I'll just ban your troll ass and not think twice about it.[/b] This isn't the gossip forum buddy..
-
If that's the way you view me, have a load of fun trying to explain why I posted this tonight, well before you just posted this crap:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=395043.0
But I must ask, what does any of this have to do with conspiracy theory? There is no CT here. Nobody has brought up CT but you? It seems to me like you're more interested in using a CT accusation so that you don't have to answer real concrete questions.
In what way can anything I've said in this thread be CT related?
The real question here is: Why is CT shit your response to this post:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=394906.msg5578126#msg5578126
TA, you're about as chicken shit as they come and you've just exposed that quality for the 1000th time.
You want to really talk about this, fine... I'm ready... You want to play this bullshit, fuck off, I'll just ban your troll ass and not think twice about it.
I like how you can call me a million names in the book and I put forth that you succumb to conspiracy theories (Monsanto, Organic Food, Banning of Home Gardens, HPV Vaccine as being dangerous) which is true via your post history, yet you are now threatening to ban me. I don`t want to talk anything with you to be honest as its clear that if I give you an answer you don`t like or disagree with, you meltdown and threaten to ban.
You have your nose so far up Ron Poops Anus, you probably can taste what he had for breakfast yesterday.
-
I like how you can call me a million names in the book and I put forth that you succumb to conspiracy theories (Monsanto, Organic Food, Banning of Home Gardens, HPV Vaccine as being dangerous) which is true via your post history, yet you are now threatening to ban me. I don`t want to talk anything with you to be honest as its clear that if I give you an answer you don`t like or disagree with, you meltdown and threaten to ban.
You have your nose so far up Ron Poops Anus, you probably can taste what he had for breakfast yesterday.
None of that has anything to do with what is being discussed. There is nothing CT related in this thread whatsoever aside from what you are bringing up to avoid the topic. You're doing this to avoid actually talking about issues raised and yes, if you're trolling on this level, I will ban you just as I've threatened others who have done the same in the past.
And for your information, I have never ever suggested there was a conspiracy with Monsanto, Organic food, certainly not with banning of home gardens, I actually am one of the people that said that was bullshit from the accusation made on the net... goes to show you never really read my posts.... and HPV is fucking potentially dangerous you fucking moron. In the next few years there WILL be kids who get this vaccine and die from it jackass, just as there has been over the last several years. easy to ignore if it's not your kid I guess....
-
TA, this is real simple.
This is my response to your post:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=394906.msg5578126#msg5578126
You either have a responce to this or you do not. going on a rampage about conspiracy theories is not a response, you're trolling like you are use to doing on other forums. Not going to happen here buddy.
You want to talk about this, like I said, I'm ready... You want to play games, I got a fix for that too...
Oh and yes, you can call me any name in the book, I don't care, that's cool on this forum, just fucking answer the goddamned question.
What's probably setting you off is that you actually realised that Paul's policy on this is in line with liberal and progressive policies on this and you're just stuck trying to change the topic to conspiracy shit that was never mentioned here.
Sounds like Self Ownage to me...
-
I like Ron Paul and agree with probably 90% of what he believes, but geez - some of the fawning over him is the same thing that disturbed me over the cult like status Obama got heaped on him in 2008, only for the predictable downfall. He is one man, and when you put all your faith in one guy, its destined to fail. His "campaign for liberty" was and is really good and its based on ideas, not him personally.
Ron Paul would be no different for these people who then would claim they were misled, dissapointed, etc. The "progressives" need to reform the demo party based on ideas and principles, not bouncing around from individual candidates after suffering dissapointments.
Why can't credible left wingers take back their party for Gods' sake? Seriously - why are they so afraid of primarying Obama after what we have seen the last 3 years?
Good points.
-
Good, go take a break and come back and explain to me exactly how Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination by the numbers and states and primary calender.
I dont want pie in the sky crap, I want realistic scenario, especially in closed primaries not open to anyone but repubs.
Good points again. I've asked this question too. (I'll bump the 2008 primary thread I created about this.) If you take a realistic look at the numbers that matter, I don't see a realistic chance for him to win.
-
(http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/DSC_0056.jpg)
-
(http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/DSC_0056.jpg)
I like Ron and this Actor better
why would you even post that shit?