Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Author! Author!
See other Author! Author! Articles

Title: Review of January 5th, 2008 ABC GOP Debate
Source: 4
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jan 5, 2008
Author: buckeye
Post Date: 2008-01-05 21:57:08 by buckeye
Keywords: Ron Paul
Views: 1762
Comments: 103

Facebook URL

Quick synopsis

  • Ron Paul, my focus during this event, was tired, slow to articulate his points, and easily overwhelmed by aggressive partisans.
  • McCain appeared to withdraw his insistence on amnesty, and then spent excess time interrupting other candidates who were differentiating themselves from his former positions — in defense of what he had apologized for.
  • Romney was effective at articulating his technical perspectives on issues (medical care, immigration) but clearly will not deviate from the Bush doctrines of war.
  • Thompson was reserved and came across as a fat cat at times. He smirked at Ron Paul several times.
  • Giuliani was about the same as he has always been. He smirked and laughed mirthlessly at Ron Paul several times.
  • John McCain was especially demeaning to Ron Paul during discussion of war.
  • Smirking and chuckling was prevalent when Ron Paul was talking about the Federal Reserve and inflation.

Illegal Immigration

This is my main reason for posting this thread.

  • It became abundantly clear that no one on the stage would deal with illegal immigration adequately. PC rules the day. we are not being heard yet.
  • Ron Paul lost an incredible chance to demonstrate his resolve on this issue, but he came close by emphasizing welfare.
  • The other GOP members are weak-kneed and left themselves with massive openings for abandoning their commitments to deal with immigration.
  • Huckabee talked about building a fence, and sounded like he's been listening to Gilchrist; his credibility is very low in my opinion.
  • The American people have NOT communicated their anger effectively with these people.

Ron Paul's demeanor

This was a fair debate with an open format.

  • Rushed, combative, on the defensive in many cases.
  • Unable to keep up with cross-talk and interruptions.
  • Should have worn a red tie, I'm hearing.

Ron Paul's victory

  • He kept his temper when badly mistreated not by ABC, but by the other participants.
  • He kept his humor, and joked several times.
  • He did articulate the threat of inflation/monetary-abuse.
  • He did talk about civil liberties and preemptive war.
  • He did talk about free enterprise and the Constitution.
  • He is the only candidate truly planning on implementing change.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: FOH, christine, iconoclast, Cynicom, who knows what evil, lodwick (#0)

ping

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-05   22:01:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: buckeye (#0)

Thanks buck...

In his behalf, Paul is near my age and we do tire easily.

On the other hand Paul has also lived more history than the rest and he is a gentleman.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-01-05   22:02:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: buckeye (#1)

Paul was the only one who didn't make a complete ass of himself.

Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org

who knows what evil  posted on  2008-01-05   22:04:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Cynicom (#2)

On the other hand Paul has also lived more history than the rest and he is a gentleman.

He knows what America needs. The others know what their owners need.

Peppa  posted on  2008-01-05   22:04:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Peppa (#4)

Thompson is a fair actor, a poor lawyer and was a worthless Senator that has always had words put in his mouth by OTHERS.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-01-05   22:07:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Cynicom, who knows what evil (#2) (Edited)

On the other hand Paul has also lived more history than the rest and he is a gentleman.

Absolutely. As WKWE says, RP did not compromise himself as the others did. And I mean the others did in one way or another. I was especially grateful to have the chance to hear them squirm on illegal immigration and government-manipulated "free" markets.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-05   22:12:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: who knows what evil (#3)

Paul was the only one who didn't make a complete ass of himself.

yeah, the rest of them just didn't seem like very nice people. I'm not saying you should support someone because you'd like to have a beer with him, but by the same token, you probably shouldn't support someone who you'd rather see get beaten up in a bar fight.

kiki  posted on  2008-01-05   23:13:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: kiki (#7)

the rest of them just didn't seem like very nice people.

Too true.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-05   23:17:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: buckeye (#1)

_______  posted on  2008-01-05   23:23:29 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: _______ (#9)

What are the odds?

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-05   23:25:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: buckeye (#10)

What are the odds?

_______  posted on  2008-01-05   23:26:59 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: _______ (#11)

I see.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-05   23:28:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Cynicom, buckeye, *Ron Paul for President 2008* (#2) (Edited)

I disagree with this analysis, I thought Dr. Paul behaved like a gentleman, and did very well. He was more careful this time in his explanation of his domestic policies; that was a relief.

The best part, IMO, was the question he posed that received no answer: "Then why do we prop up their dictators?"

Also, there was clearly a "Gentlemen's Agreement" to LAUGH together AT Dr. Paul.

Dr. Paul did not engage in attacking others, which was very smart.

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-06   7:59:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: kiki, buckeye, All (#7)

the rest of them just didn't seem like very nice people

The Republican establishment is not made up of "very nice people".

I have been musing over what shape Dr. Paul's game plan may take as the 2008 race goes forward.

I do not see evidence of RP's throwing much of the treasure chest around, and I have come to feel strongly that he will declare third party (unless someone on a white horse charges in, and I don't know who the hell that would be).

Perhaps it is just wishful thinking on my part, but I believe the good Doctor may/has come to the conclusion that the most realistic step toward return to a Constitution based government may be first putting a stake through the heart of the faux "conservative" party in the form of a huge and painful and undeniable rejection of the treasonists in November.

Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?

iconoclast  posted on  2008-01-06   9:16:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: iconoclast, christine, kiki, scrapper2, Cynicom (#14)

...I believe the good Doctor may/has come to the conclusion that the most realistic step toward return to a Constitution based government may be first putting a stake through the heart of the faux "conservative" party in the form of a huge and painful and undeniable rejection of the treasonists in November.

I'm watching this again (see [ABC Debate 1-5-08 Complete]).

I'm reminded of the following among the others:

  1. Refusal to recognize the war's failures (Ron Paul got his alternative ideas out fairly well).
  2. Refusal to admit that immigration policy has been terrible.
  3. Glib attitudes toward the loss of America's manufacturing base.
  4. Wanton reaffirmation of the intents of telecommunications spying, the Patriot Act and the MCA (Ron Paul talked about civil liberties).
  5. An intentional lack of interest in inflation and monetary policy (Ron Paul nailed it on the price of oil).
Leaving the Democrats aside, we're seeing a headlong rush to take up the treasons Bush baton here.

I have to say again that Huckabee's preemptive health care was the most disturbing demonstration of his collectivism that I've heard to date.

Iconoclast, I hope you are RIGHT. For America's sake, I hope so.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   10:15:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: buckeye, ALL (#0)

(from Buckeye's article)

Ron Paul's victory

He kept his temper when badly mistreated not by ABC, but by the other participants.

He kept his humor, and joked several times.

He did articulate the threat of inflation/monetary-abuse.

He did talk about civil liberties and preemptive war.

He did talk about free enterprise and the Constitution.

He is the only candidate truly planning on implementing change.

thank you from the bottom of my heart Buckeye for writing and posting this article
you gave me all the information I wanted, you are a great help
and you did an excellent job!

I read every word you wrote, and where you summed up Ron Paul's victory, I am immensely pleased
It is a superb victory, Ron Paul did excellent!!
Great

as for where you felt he was lacking, I am not concerned
I don't think those lacks amounted to anything
altho I like the suggeston he wear a red tie

It sounds to me like anyone not acquainted with Ron Paul,
who watched this debate, had a chance to get to know him
The man and what he stands for
Which is all we want from these debates
Love, Palo

palo verde  posted on  2008-01-06   10:25:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: robin, ALL (#13)

I thought Dr. Paul behaved like a gentleman, and did very well.
He was more careful this time in his explanation of his domestic policies;
that was a relief.

The best part, IMO, was the question he posed that received no answer:
"Then why do we prop up their dictators?"

Also, there was clearly a "Gentlemen's Agreement" to LAUGH together AT Dr. Paul.

Dr. Paul did not engage in attacking others, which was very smart.

Robin this is superb post you wrote
and from what I witnessed, true
you did great
Love, Palo

Dr Paul did excellent in the debate!

palo verde  posted on  2008-01-06   10:30:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: palo verde (#16)

... thank you from the bottom of my heart Buckeye for writing and posting this article you gave me all the information I wanted, you are a great help

Well thank you Palo Verde. I wish I could have done better, but I did not take notes (I regret that) and my coverage was vague.

On the idea that he did well in the eyes of critical audiences, I don't know about that, and I suspect not. But they are blinded by the party pundits and free media support the government has received. Millions and millions of Americans know their government has gone mad, and they will be interested in the fact that Ron Paul is different. That's a start.

On the other hand, I refuse to support any politician blindly, and I will continue to criticize Ron Paul and other candidates as the election process continues.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   10:31:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Cynicom (#2)

Thanks buck...

... Paul has also lived more history than the rest and he is a gentleman.

very nice post, Cynicom
and true!
Love, Palo

palo verde  posted on  2008-01-06   10:34:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: who knows what evil, ALL (#3)

Paul was the only one who didn't make a complete ass of himself.

they all got a chance to present themselves and say their piece
that is what we want from these debates
Viva democracy!

and Shame on FOX for excluding Ron Paul this evening

ABC did good to have this debate
I thank them from the bottom of my heart
Love, Palo

I am no Duncan Hunter fan, but I love democracy, and he should have been in the debate too!

palo verde  posted on  2008-01-06   10:40:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: palo verde (#20) (Edited)

I am no Duncan Hunter fan, but I love democracy, and he should have been in the debate too!

Full agreement here. It would have helped Ron Paul to demonstrate his resolute positions on immigration, some of [edit] which are probably as effective or better than Hunter's.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   10:44:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: buckeye, ALL (#6)

Ron Paul did not compromise himself as the others did

Ron Paul has it easy, all he has to do is speak his truth

Rudy is sincere, but misguided

I think Fred would prefer being an actor in Hollywood

the other 3 just didn't seem real to me
and in no way deserve to be President of the United States of America at this time
they are mindless (and corrupt)

palo verde  posted on  2008-01-06   10:49:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: palo verde (#19)

he is a gentleman.

Palo...

Paul is not the best looking candidate, nor the most articulate, but he has more personal accomplishments than all the others put together, plus, Paul is a gentleman.

A gentleman, first, last and always. I cannot say that about the others.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-01-06   10:51:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: palo verde (#22)

Rudy is sincere, but misguided

Rudy is too intelligent to be sincere in this case. He's a traitorous heel, involved with the North American Superhighway and with Norman Podhoretz on his foreign policy team.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   10:56:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: buckeye (#18)

Millions and millions of Americans know their government has gone mad,
and they will be interested in the fact that Ron Paul is different.
That's a start.

very perceptive post, Buckeye, I congratulate you
our government has gone mad, and my hunch is half our citizens are aware of it consciously, half feel it vaguely
which is why Ron Paul's sanity and solutions will be experienced by them as wonderful rain to thirsty earth
GO Ron GO
Love, Palo

palo verde  posted on  2008-01-06   10:57:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: buckeye (#8)

I have a hard time understanding why any decent person would not vote for Ron Paul. If he merely articulated his views, then he had to have gained supporters, despite looking tired.

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Red Jones  posted on  2008-01-06   10:58:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Cynicom (#23)

Palo...

Paul is not the best looking candidate, nor the most articulate,
but he has more personal accomplishments than all the others put together,
plus, Paul is a gentleman.

A gentleman, first, last and always. I cannot say that about the others.

what an exquisite and true post you wrote, Cynicom
I thank you for it
All my love, Palo

palo verde  posted on  2008-01-06   10:59:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Red Jones (#26)

I have a hard time understanding why any decent person would not vote for Ron Paul.
If he merely articulated his views, then he had to have gained supporters...

Bravo Red, for perfectly sensible post
You got to the crux of the matter
I agree with you
Love, Palo

palo verde  posted on  2008-01-06   11:02:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Peppa, ALL (#4)

(Cynicom) On the other hand Paul has also lived more history than the rest and he is a gentleman.

(Peppa) Ron Paul knows what America needs. The others know what their owners need.

that's it in a nutshell

Love, Palo

palo verde  posted on  2008-01-06   11:06:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Cynicom (#5)

After last night's debate, I would stick needles in my eyes rather than vote for Thompson. He can go suck an ostrich egg.

Tag Line For Rent

Critter  posted on  2008-01-06   11:08:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Red Jones (#26)

I have a hard time understanding why any decent person would not vote for Ron Paul.

Because he comes across as weak on illegal immigration. I'm just reporting what I know, not what I prefer.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   11:17:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Cynicom (#23)

A gentleman, first, last and always.

I agree. His gentlemanliness was obvious during the wolfpack mentality of the other debaters. I don't think it's a good forum for him, as the jackals don't play by the rules. It gives MSM an opportunity to discredit Paul rather than showcase him. The hee-hawing of Guiliani was almost to much to bear.

Live free or die.

angle  posted on  2008-01-06   11:19:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: noone222, buckeye, ALL (#0)

(Palo) I found this post by noone222 at the bottom of last night's thread, I am copying it here,
because we are talking about these things here
posters will want to read his 2 cents
I have my own comment on it, I'll post it below

by noone222

I don't think RP looked very confident last night. His demeanor is low key and his being a gentleman amongst arrogance may cost him unless he's able to get in the fray.

I hate to be critical of the ONLY worthy candidate ... but if he doesn't step it up a couple of notches he's doomed.

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money ." --- Josiah Stamp

noone222

I want to give thought to how I respond to this
because it matters
so I'm just posting this now
and will comment when I've thought about it

I am glad NoOne raised this issue, because everyone has thought it
but my hunch is it is not true
I mean Dr Paul is doing everything perfectly, he does not have to be different
but again, let me try to think it thru
Love, Palo

I would very much like to hear what everyone else thinks about this too?

palo verde  posted on  2008-01-06   11:35:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: noone222, buckeye, critter, Cynicom Peppa, Robin, ALL (#33)

by noone222

I don't think RP looked very confident last night.
His demeanor is low key and his being a gentleman amongst arrogance may cost him
unless he's able to get in the fray.

I hate to be critical of the ONLY worthy candidate ...
but if he doesn't step it up a couple of notches he's doomed.

Ron Paul did look perfectly confident and relaxed last night
he was not aggressive and he is not charismatic
(does not have charisma)

I looked up charisma in dictionary on google

1) a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure (as a political leader)

2) a special magnetic charm or appeal (the charisma of a popular actor)

Ron Paul is a modest person
He is a quiet person
He is a calm person

Ron Paul offers his mind and his character
His mind is filled with sane and sensible ideas of how to stop the madness which has taken hold of our government now
and steer our ship of state back to liberty, peace, and abundance

Ron Paul is perfectly honest, trustworthy, and cannot be bought off

It is a tremendous blessing of God, a man like that is running for President of the United States now
and it is our job to put him in our Oval Office this time next year
And we will

On our side, our citizens all have minds
the power elites are banking on their idea that we don't have minds
but they are wrong

and anyone who hears Ron Paul's message and gets to meet him on TV will be interested
and a majority will want him to be our President
Love, Palo

palo verde  posted on  2008-01-06   11:54:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: who knows what evil, lodwick, ALL (#34)

I forgot to ping you to my above post
Love, Palo

palo verde  posted on  2008-01-06   11:56:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: palo verde (#34)

and a majority will want him to be our President

I'm hopeful at idea that he might form a third party, since the GOP machinery is clearly so corrupt.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   11:57:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: buckeye (#36)

Ron Paul doesn't have to form a 3rd party, he just has to be President this time next year
we still do have free elections, we have to put him in Office now
Love, Palo

we'll have to deal with corruption in GOP after Ron Paul is President

palo verde  posted on  2008-01-06   12:03:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: palo verde (#37)

You may want to go figure out what happened in Wyoming yesterday and get back to us on that, Palo. Note that I don't understand myself.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   12:08:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: buckeye, palo verde, iconoclast, christine, kiki, scrapper2, Cynicom, robin, all (#15)

I believe the good Doctor may/has come to the conclusion that the most realistic step toward return to a Constitution

I have needed to think about this... for some time, before anything could/should be said. To be frank, I had trouble watching the debate. If there are people, and obviously there are, in America that were attracted to what the 'others' in this so-called debate had to say, then America is truly deserving of what is planned for her.

On the other side, for those who were not/are not familiar with Dr. Paul's message, I doubt he converted many. Robin is correct; there was a concerted effort by all others to belittle the message of Dr. Paul. That was pretty well done, although it is the only thing that was pretty well done 'by them.' And the message that Dr. Paul was putting out was intended for his base; this is a BIG mistake.

There is a common theme that runs through today's politics in America and that Dr. Paul needs to put out, or he is done.

1. We were told before the invasion of Iraq that the oil would pay for all expenses. We have now spent or committed more than 1 tillion dollars (repeat repeat repeat) and we can not afford to repair New Orleans - pay for health care - repair our infastructure - cut taxes for the middle class - repeat endlessly. Everytime something is said about paying for something, base it on i trillion dollars spent in a needless neverending war. Ask how much is enough? Ask if we need to spend 2 trillion. 3 trillion. 4 trillion.

There really is no other way to get this into the view of most Americans.

2. China now has more than 1.3 trillion dollars in reserve. Money that we Americans have spent on Chinese products because we no longer have any manufacturing in America. And, by the way, how many years did it take for China to accumualte all of that money? Yet, in Iraq, we have spent/commited more than 1 trillion dollars in just 4 years!

3. A prestiges British company/research institute (?) recently did an analysis of deaths in the civilian population in Iraq. They used internationally accepted methods in doing this, methods which have been used in many different locations around the world and which methods are accepted by the UN -- this research revealed that as many as 1 million EXTRA Iraq civilians have died in Iraq since the United States invaded the nation. 1 million needless deaths. 1 million. Repeat. Plus more than 4 thousand Americans have died there, and we have more than 20,000 (?) severly wounded, increased suicides, and etc.

No one needs to attack the others; all they need to do is put before the American public the facts that the major media denies, and, then back everything up on the web site. That is all that it takes, and I could not see that this is being done. Basically, he is playing, as far as I can see, by 'their' rules.

Keep playing by their rules, and this is simply, as I suspected from the beginning, an excercise in futility.

You are all correct in that Dr. Paul's message is the only message that is different. BUT...... therein lies the problem, because that means that it is outside of what Americans have come to consider normal. Which means that it is outside of their confort zone. Not many people are willing to change; it requires something akin to shock to force change on them, and, there was no shock in his message during the debate. And in particular in NH, that is something that would have been valued.

Dr. Paul was a gentleman. Gentlemen do not win these kinds of fights.

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

richard9151  posted on  2008-01-06   12:11:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: palo verde (#34)

Don't think that I'm not 1000% supportive of Dr. Paul. I just think he possesses the attributes of a Statesman and Constitutional awareness this country needs to put into practice, but seems hesitant to forcefully project himself into the debate.

While the others (unworthy to lace his shoes) seemed able to inject themselves whenever they wished, Dr. Paul waited until he was addressed by the moderator. This was likely the more polite approach, but formulas presented by the scumbags hogging the air time have already been heard for 100 years, haven't succeeded in the least, and is simply so much blah, blah, blah.

One last thing just in case anyone has some insider ability to mention something to Dr. Paul. He mentions the young people sometimes as if they are his primary supporters almost to the exclusion of everyone else. I KNOW his supporters are all ages, races, and religions, include members of every level of the social stratum and are looking to remain free from governmental intrusion and the nanny state. Dr. Pauls enthusiastic supporters are sick of the status quo and want real change and not the tired old repeated ad nauseum promises of change we hear every election cycle.

Dr. Paul needs to show up and make himself noticed in the mainstream in order to win. I'm not saying he hasn't already made a huge difference, because he most definitely has. The internet isn't enough, he must secure the hearts and minds of Americans far and wide.

I think he's the only thing standing between a free America and a civil war. I've been watching politics for 45 years and never witnessed such a grass roots ground swell of wide ranging support. We must do all we can to win, even if that is so we know we did everything we could to salvage the country. It's very serious, and I don't think I have the capability to express just how serious it is.

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money ." --- Josiah Stamp

noone222  posted on  2008-01-06   12:35:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: buckeye (#0)

Thanks for this post - well done, excepting the bow-tie, which, to me, is a total loser.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution
Freedom*Peace*Prosperity

Lod  posted on  2008-01-06   12:43:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: who knows what evil (#3)

Paul was the only one who didn't make a complete ass of himself.

Exactly.

TwentyTwelve  posted on  2008-01-06   12:45:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: buckeye (#0)

ALL of RON PAUL’s replies @ ABC/N.H. debate on 1-05-08

You Tube

Sunday January 6, 2007

TwentyTwelve  posted on  2008-01-06   12:46:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: palo verde (#34)

Ron Paul is a modest person

He is a quiet person

He is a calm person

Ron Paul offers his mind and his character

His mind is filled with sane and sensible ideas of how to stop the madness which has taken hold of our government now

and steer our ship of state back to liberty, peace, and abundance

Ron Paul is perfectly honest, trustworthy, and cannot be bought off

Well said.

As most all here know, he's the only candidate that truly represents the hope for a change for the better.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution
Freedom*Peace*Prosperity

Lod  posted on  2008-01-06   12:51:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: richard9151 (#39)

If there are people, and obviously there are, in America that were attracted to what the 'others' in this so-called debate had to say, then America is truly deserving of what is planned for her.

Right on.

There is a common theme that runs through today's politics in America and that Dr. Paul needs to put out, or he is done.

That's exactly what I'm saying here. I think one way he can do that is seize the illegal immigration issue by the horns and point out that he's the only one who won't pander to Hispanics, but will execute our domestic policy on behalf of all Americans equally. (I just heard on the McGloughlin group that the Democratic party is securing much of the Hispanic vote due to their friendliness toward illegals and their plights.)

Ron Paul started out so powerfully in this debate by implying early on that he was probably tougher on winning the war on terror by being focused on specific enemies rather than using symmetric methods to fight the war. But he lost the chance to deliver that message because he was a gentleman.

Ask how much is enough? Ask if we need to spend 2 trillion. 3 trillion. 4 trillion.

The GOP puppets and fair haired boys on that stage besides Ron Paul have no problem with deflating the value of the dollar ad infinitum. Ron Paul could have seized on that and driven it home. Our national defense is more tied to the value of the dollar than any foreign threat they can summon, and did with the city-nuking theme in the next DNC segment.

...this research revealed that as many as 1 million EXTRA Iraq civilians have died in Iraq since the United States invaded the nation.

I don't know whom to believe on this issue, and there's no doubt in my mind that the infighting we've seen is a major factor here, in any case. One thing is clear: our casualties have been wasted on this war. Our suffering has been for naught. Our young people are in wheel chairs and buried in cemeteries because of an invalid foreign policy that none of the other CFR puppets are going to change one iota.

Keep playing by their rules, and this is simply, as I suspected from the beginning, an excercise in futility.

Very true, and yet we have to be intelligent enough to rewrite the rules for ourselves without being seen as anarchists. A third party is the right way to go in my view, especially given what happened in Iowa and Wyoming.

Not many people are willing to change; it requires something akin to shock to force change on them, and, there was no shock in his message during the debate. And in particular in NH, that is something that would have been valued.

You nailed it. The common attack on my criticism of the Patriot Acts is "what freedoms have you lost?" The Establishment is careful to leave crumbs for the people such that they can be persuaded that their lives are acceptable.

Dr. Paul was a gentleman. Gentlemen do not win these kinds of fights.

Perhaps. The American people will have to think for themselves, and if they do not, we cannot force them to do so. Some people prefer self-posessed gentlemen over marionettes regardless of the issues involved.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   12:54:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: richard9151 (#39)

You are all correct in that Dr. Paul's message is the only message that is different. BUT...... therein lies the problem, because that means that it is outside of what Americans have come to consider normal. Which means that it is outside of their comfort zone. Not many people are willing to change; it requires something akin to shock to force change on them, and, there was no shock in his message during the debate. And in particular in NH, that is something that would have been valued.

Excellent thoughts - thanks.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution
Freedom*Peace*Prosperity

Lod  posted on  2008-01-06   12:55:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: richard9151, buckeye, Peppa, kiki, scrapper2, Cynicom, Peppa, TwentyTwelve, who knows what evil, tom007, Dakmar, lodwick, critter, Robin, ALL (#39)

Thank you Richard for your long thoughtful post, I appreciate it
Dr Paul is offering USA citizens great government
If we do not get him in right now, we will have 4 years of hell ahead of us
If we do succeed in getting Ron Paul in Office, we will have saved our Constitution
the liberty of the people of the United States of America will be ensured
and we will not continue to rain hell with out bombs all over the world

God gave us free will
and by the grace of God, by a miracle, we still have free elections

If Dr Paul were not running, there would be no choice
we would have hell for next 4 years
Ron Paul gives us the choice for something completely different
we can save ourselves from hell by voting him President

Dr Paul does not need to do more than what he is doing
which is offering this choice

We will find out if our citizens choose it
whatever choice they make we will live

There won't be a second chance
without Dr Paul in Office, there will be police state
I doubt there will be free elections again
they will be fixed

I see no reason at this point why I should not trust my fellow citizens to make the right choice
I honestly believe Ron Paul is the candidate God supports, and having God's support is no small potatoes

It is early in the game, Ron Paul did beat Rudy in Iowa, he was only 3 points behind McCain and Fred Thompson
Ron Paul will do better in New Hampshire, and even better in South Carolina
Why not keep our chins up
All my love,
Palo

palo verde  posted on  2008-01-06   12:58:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: buckeye (#45)

One thing is clear: our casualties have been wasted on this war. Our suffering has been for naught. Our young people are in wheel chairs and buried in cemeteries because of an invalid foreign policy that none of the other CFR puppets are going to change one iota.

Exactly the reason that our military people overwhelmingly support Dr.Paul.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution
Freedom*Peace*Prosperity

Lod  posted on  2008-01-06   12:58:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: palo verde (#17)

Thank you and I'm glad you agree that Dr. Paul did well in the debate. Let the other candidates attack each other over what is amnesty or what they said or didn't say. It makes them look like idiots.

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-06   13:01:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: buckeye (#45)

(Richard) Dr. Paul was a gentleman. Gentlemen do not win these kinds of fights.

(Buckeye) The American people will have to think for themselves,
and if they do not, we cannot force them to do so.

Some people prefer self-posessed gentlemen over marionettes regardless of the issues involved.

perfect post Buckeye
thank you
Love, Palo

palo verde  posted on  2008-01-06   13:02:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: noone222 (#40) (Edited)

I just think he possesses the attributes of a Statesman and Constitutional awareness this country needs to put into practice, but seems hesitant to forcefully project himself into the debate.

Ron Paul has admitted this on several occasions. Now is his time to change, to listen to his most supportive critics, and to step up and lead.

This was likely the more polite approach, but formulas presented by the scumbags hogging the air time have already been heard for 100 years, haven't succeeded in the least, and is simply so much blah, blah, blah.

Unfortunately, with the Establishment entrenched with traitors and charlatans, many who are leaning on the unstated violence behind the power elite, someone who can verbally scrap with the best of them is needed — so long as the scrapping happens at the right time.

The internet isn't enough, he must secure the hearts and minds of Americans far and wide.

Right, and we are at a historic juncture now where another eight years of CFR dominated politics will seal our fate as the ultimate force behind one world government will be sealed

We must stand against this. Illegal immigration is a tool these people are using to shred our cultural unity, and Americans who love this country know that. Ron Paul has failed to recruit all of these people to his side, however. Many believe we could bring in sound money and eliminate federal power, but if our country continues to be overrun by socialist-leaning Mexican invaders, we'll lose any remaining value for the Constitution. This is a legitimate fear.

I think he's the only thing standing between a free America and a civil war.

The media owns this story, just like any other. You know what I mean.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   13:02:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: buckeye (#51)

Right, and we are at a historic juncture now where another eight years of CFR dominated politics will seal our fate as the force behind one world government —. We must stand against this. Illegal immigration is a tool these people are using to shred our cultural unity, and Americans who love this country know that. Ron Paul has failed to recruit all of these people to his side, however. Many believe we could bring in sound money and eliminate federal power, but if our country continues to be overrun by socialist-leaning Mexican invaders, we'll lose any remaining value for the Constitution. This is a legitimate fear.

There is not a city, town, or village in our country that does not have illegal aliens in it.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution
Freedom*Peace*Prosperity

Lod  posted on  2008-01-06   13:06:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: robin (#49)

I'm glad you agree that Dr. Paul did well in the debate.
Let the other candidates attack each other over what is amnesty or what they said or didn't say.
It makes them look like idiots.

Good post Robin
let's not forget Ron Paul has it easy, because all he has to do is speak the truth as he knows it
all the others are up there to spin and deceive
but that's their shtick and they're good at it

GO Ron GO

Love, Palo

palo verde  posted on  2008-01-06   13:06:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: noone222 (#40)

He mentions the young people sometimes as if they are his primary supporters almost to the exclusion of everyone else.

The man's in his 70's. He probably sees anyone under 50 as being "young people."

"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price." Vir Cotto, Babylon 5

orangedog  posted on  2008-01-06   13:09:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: palo verde (#53)

Palo, why isn't the Seibel Edmonds case impacting this election yet?

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   13:09:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: palo verde (#53)

let's not forget Ron Paul has it easy, because all he has to do is speak the truth as he knows it all the others are up there to spin and deceive but that's their shtick and they're good at it

How true, like when the moderator went one by one, discussing how they had each changed positions; and listed a few. All he could say about Dr. Paul was that he had changed parties once, but not his beliefs.

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-06   13:10:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: lodwick (#48)

Exactly the reason that our military people overwhelmingly support Dr.Paul.

No doubt. I know that they want to win any battles they fight, but they must be starting to realize that the men behind this war have no intention on focusing the power of our military. Our military has always done well when it had specific objectives. Now we find ourselves unable to articulate what the aims are. The military know that we can't win when we don't have a specific goal. Ron Paul's plan to aim our power at defending our own country exclusively is just what we need now from a strategic perspective.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   13:14:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: iconoclast, BrentFromCanada, rowdee, buckeye, robin, Cynicom, christine, All (#14)

but I believe the good Doctor may/has come to the conclusion that the most realistic step toward return to a Constitution based government may be first putting a stake through the heart of the faux "conservative" party

It used to be that there were lots of paleocons in the GOP - the real conservatives. I think Dr. Paul speaks to them as well as the libertarians as well as to some Dems. I'm thinking that not only does there need to be a new GOP party but America truly needs a viable 3rd Party alternative. Most other countries in the Western World have at least 3 parties or more. Canada's NDP party has become a powerhouse in some provinces and recently has become the Prime Minister maker or breaker with the Liberals. The 2 party system is un-natural and dangerous ( too easy to bribe and control and to make under the table deals with one another) for a nation to keep for so many years as we have. That's why we're in the bind where we are.

If Dr. Paul went the 3rd party route - makes no difference to me ( the media hairdo's will try to spin it as RP going back on his word...screw 'em).

BUT if Dr. Paul does do 3rd party, I hope he doesn't have some weird new age inclusive name like reform or liberty lovers or whatever. He has always described himself as an old fashioned conservative, a GOP'er like what the party used to be and the new party should refer to those values in its name without chasing off the libertarians and centrist Dems who like traditional values. Constitutional Party has already been taken. Any suggestions?

scrapper2  posted on  2008-01-06   13:17:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: noone222 (#40)

(noone222) One last thing just in case anyone has some insider ability to mention something to Dr. Paul.
He mentions the young people sometimes as if they are his primary supporters almost to the exclusion of everyone else.
I KNOW his supporters are all ages, races, and religions,
include members of every level of the social stratum and are looking to remain free from governmental intrusion and the nanny state.
Dr. Pauls enthusiastic supporters are sick of the status quo and want real change and not the tired old repeated ad nauseum promises of change we hear every election cycle.

Dr. Paul needs to show up and make himself noticed in the mainstream in order to win. I'm not saying he hasn't already made a huge difference, because he most definitely has.
The internet isn't enough, he must secure the hearts and minds of Americans far and wide.

I think he's the only thing standing between a free America and a civil war.
I've been watching politics for 45 years and never witnessed such a grass roots ground swell of wide ranging support.
We must do all we can to win, even if that is so we know we did everything we could to salvage the country.
It's very serious, and I don't think I have the capability to express just how serious it is.

thank you for your great post, No One
I do not know how many realize how serious it is, I am one who does
If Ron Paul is not in our Oval Office this time next year, we will have police state
and all police states go fascist
this is our one chance to save outselves, we must do it now

I also agree his supporters come from every age, sex, class, race, religion, and stratum of society
And you are right, someone should tip Ron Paul off about this
He is so surprised and thrilled to find the youth support him, that he forgets to mention the rest of us do

I love you
Palo

palo verde  posted on  2008-01-06   13:18:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: scrapper2 (#58)

If Dr. Paul went the 3rd party route - makes no difference to me ( the media hairdo's will try to spin it as RP going back on his word...screw 'em).

He did not give his word, in fact he said he has the right to leave himself some wiggle room (that was to Russert).

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-06   13:19:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: scrapper2 (#58)

I hope he doesn't have some weird new age inclusive name like reform or liberty lovers or whatever.

Agreed.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-01-06   13:21:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: scrapper2 (#58)

Any suggestions?

Jacksonians?

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   13:22:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: buckeye. peacemakers here (#57)

Things have sucked for our military ever since the gutless congress abdicated its responsibility of declaring 'war.'

Join the Ron Paul Revolution
Freedom*Peace*Prosperity

Lod  posted on  2008-01-06   13:26:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: robin (#60)

He did not give his word, in fact he said he has the right to leave himself some wiggle room (that was to Russert).

That's what RP said - you are correct - but we know how the hairdos will spin it but it matters not - the only ones who believe what mainstream media claims are the 2 fraud party Stepford Wives voters.

scrapper2  posted on  2008-01-06   13:31:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: scrapper2 (#58)

FPP

Freedom Peace & Prosperity - is that too long a handle?

Join the Ron Paul Revolution
Freedom*Peace*Prosperity

Lod  posted on  2008-01-06   13:32:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: lodwick (#63)

It's the worst of Vietnam and Korea combined, because we appear to be ethnically motivated (from the other side, even if it's not necessarily true), it's on the Asian land mass, and we find ourselves unable to achieve our stated objectives without widening the conflict.

Douglas MacArthur warned us never to embroil American conventional forces on the Asian land mass.

The John Birch Society has repeatedly pointed out that the internationalists gain control over our foreign policy when we permit them to run our wars.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   13:34:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: buckeye, Fred Mertz, Robin, Peppa, ALL (#55)

Palo, why isn't the Sibel Edmonds case impacting this election yet?

Sibel told me in email last month her only hope now is Ron Paul will be elected President
I have not been able to fight for Sibel Edmonds since Ron Paul announced his candidacy
I am putting everything into electing Ron Paul president
and Sibel is right, the only chance government will do anything about the corruption she has uncovered
is if Ron Paul is President

as for her supporters, many are ideologically left-wing
I don't know if they will put their ideology aside and support Ron Paul

as for the corruption Sibel has uncovered, and you know how serious it is
members of our State Dept and DOD are selling nuclear material on the black market
to highest bidder
including terrorists

we now have traitors in our FBI, State Dept, DOD, and other places
who sell US Defense intelligence on black market, etc

how can Dr Paul touch this in the election, if he even knows about it
both Parties, and every branch of government is covering it up

Love, Palo

the interesting thing is if mass media ever stopped covering this up,
if it ever did become exposed
before the election
Ron Paul would win by a landslide instantly
you agree?

but right now I don't see it happening
but who knows what will happen

palo verde  posted on  2008-01-06   13:36:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: buckeye (#0)

the snickering ignorance of the candidates other than ron paul is highly evident. questions on my mind are: is america a nation of half wits buying this crap? has america been hypnotized into buying this crap? is america ready for the truth?

the outcome of all this doesn't look very bright if a candidate other than ron paul is selected. as a result, i started to vote with my wallet. i began to pare back my u.s. equity investments.

BrentFromCanada  posted on  2008-01-06   13:38:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: buckeye (#62)

Jacksonians?

Definitely not. Too much negativity associated with that group today: "nativism, isolationism" blah blah - a Jacksonian Party label would scare libertarians and centrist Dems away imo.

Fukayama ( a neocon theorist who broke with his compadres over the Iraq War) claims this about the unholy alliance between neocons and Jacksonians:

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5239049

...Neoconservatism is one of four different approaches to American foreign policy today. There are, in addition to neoconservatism, "realists" in the tradition of Henry Kissinger, who respect power and tend to downplay the internal nature of other regimes and human rights concerns; there are liberal internationalists who hope to transcend power politics altogether and move to an international order based on law and institutions; and there are what Walter Russell Mead labels "Jacksonian" American nationalists, who tend to take a narrow, security-related view of American national interests, distrust multilateralism, and in their more extreme manifestations tend toward nativism and isolationism. The Iraq war was promoted by an alliance of neoconservatives and Jacksonian nationalists, who for different reasons accepted the logic of regime change in Baghdad. They sidelined the realists in the Republican Party like Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, who had served in George Herbert Walker Bush's administration and were skeptical about the rationale for the war...

scrapper2  posted on  2008-01-06   13:41:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: lodwick (#65)

FPP

Freedom Peace & Prosperity - is that too long a handle?

Good idea but I'm not sure if the full version title would be believeable to most people (apart from us, of course). Sounds too much like promises rather than political persuasion. But I think the acronymn idea is an interesting possibility...like NDP = New Democratic Party in Canada or the SNP = Scottish Nationalist Party in the UK.

scrapper2  posted on  2008-01-06   13:52:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: palo verde, FOH, Cynicom (#67)

...we now have traitors in our FBI, State Dept, DOD, and other places who sell US Defense intelligence on black market, etc...

Palo dear, you and I both know that it is not left-wing to oppose corruption. Paleo-conservatives all across this country are deeply concerned with the internationalist/communist infiltration of our government, to include the CIA, State Department, and FBI — and other departments.

Sovereign Solutions: Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt

Move forward to 1:08 to see Seibel Edmonds speak on our duty as citizens to oppose treason.

There is a solemn UN flag-burning ceremony which follows that segment.

Mrs. Iserbyt's talk is anything but left-wing, and the people behind the publication of this video appear from casual examination to be solid patriots.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   13:53:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: scrapper2 (#69)

Fukayama ( a neocon theorist who broke with his compadres over the Iraq War) claims this about the unholy alliance between neocons and Jacksonians:

There is nothing wrong with the Jacksonians except they believed that the official story of 9/11 was reasonable. Ron Paul needs the Jacksonians to win. In fact, he is simply just an exceptionally intelligent Jacksonian himself.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   13:57:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: scrapper2 (#70)

But I think the acronym idea is an interesting possibility...like NDP = New Democratic Party in Canada or the SNP = Scottish Nationalist Party in the UK.

That was my thought - there are scores of parties, in other countries, that have three words in their name, and are just known by the initials.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution
Freedom*Peace*Prosperity

Lod  posted on  2008-01-06   14:03:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: buckeye, noone222 (#51)

noone222: I just think he possesses the attributes of a Statesman and Constitutional awareness this country needs to put into practice, but seems hesitant to forcefully project himself into the debate.

buckeye: Ron Paul has admitted this on several occasions. Now is his time to change, to listen to his most supportive critics, and to step up and lead...

The internet isn't enough, he must secure the hearts and minds of Americans far and wide.

I tend to agree with you both as long as when Dr. Paul does this he retains his composure and doesn't try to squeeze everything and the kitchen sink into his rebuttals.

I recall the first debates when he tried to be more assertive and he talked a mile a minute and a good deal of he wanted to say was lost on the average teevee viewer. In the NH debate he slowed down and simplified his message but was not as assertive. So I think he is listening to his advisors but he's trying to find a happy medium - simple message and speak firmly but clearly. The upcoming S. Carolina debates may offer RP that perfect balance opportunity. If RP does well in NH, he'll be invited to participate in S. C. debates.

Postscript: last night I caught some snippets of the Dem debate, and the experienced ones in political debates looked weak for yammering over one another - Hillary especially came across as a hormonal nag. Edwards had a good balance between not going off at the mouth but interjecting when he needed to say his brief rebuttal - I have to hand it to the Weasel Edwards - he does the best of all of them in debates. I'd like to see RP get the Edwards balance - maybe he should watch the debates to see what not to do ( Hillary) and what to do ( Edwards). Obama said hardly anything at all - much like what happened to RP last night - and interestingly enough - the hairdo commentators afterwards said that Obama at least did not hurt himself. So maybe that's how we need to view RP's NH performance - though he was not overly assertive, he did not hurt himself and in NH I would think RP has a decent chance of doing pretty well anyways because of the number of independents and libertarians. The debates were not that essential. It's SC where RP needs to reach out and win over new supporters. SC is an unknown to me. I don't know how that state shapes up for undecided vs decided. Does anyone know?

scrapper2  posted on  2008-01-06   14:20:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: buckeye (#72)

There is nothing wrong with the Jacksonians except they believed that the official story of 9/11 was reasonable. Ron Paul needs the Jacksonians to win. In fact, he is simply just an exceptionally intelligent Jacksonian himself.

I'm thinking more that the Jacksonian label - today - could be easily spun the negative way. It's too open to criticism and mis-stating of policies.

Like instead of non-intervention critics would call it the party of isolationists. Instead of border control sovereignists, critics would call the Jacksonion party nativists, xenophobes. In "today speak," Jacksonian policies could be twisted/flipped very easily to infer negatives.

scrapper2  posted on  2008-01-06   14:26:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: scrapper2 (#75)

I'm thinking more that the Jacksonian label - today - could be easily spun the negative way. It's too open to criticism and mis-stating of policies.

Judging from LP's Hasbara-oriented criticism of RP, this is clearly an ethnic panic button issue. Flyover country could care less. Ron Paul has so far failed to capture their vote, although he is the best man to represent their values. (Based on Iowa and Wyoming.) I can't blame anyone else but Ron Paul for failing to reach them, and I think it's on the issue of immigration.

But in urban America, Ron Paul can reach the peace-minded Americans who always knew that war in Iraq was a mistake. This is a possibility we have yet to verify.

Yes, those peace-minded people could be driven away from RP by any semblance of political-incorrectness.

I'm frustrated because I see collectivism as ultimately the most inhumane of all policies, and leads to greater divides between the races and ethnic groups.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   14:33:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: scrapper2 (#74)

I can't answer your questions but I agree with what I'm reading in your commentary on the Democratic debate. Obama is a CFR fair haired boy, and he and Edwards can compete to see which one will accept the scepter, should Hillary continue to disqualify herself with antagonism.

Governor Richardson did exceptionally well in the debate. These people are marvelous at deception.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   14:37:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: buckeye, Peppa, kiki, scrapper2, Cynicom, Peppa, TwentyTwelve, who knows what evil, tom007, Dakmar, lodwick, critter, robin, ALL (#45)

this research revealed that as many as 1 million EXTRA Iraq civilians have died in Iraq since the United States invaded the nation.

I don't know whom to believe on this issue,

This is the problem when you do not do the reading and research needed to prove that which you are exposed too.

The information about the civilian deaths in Iraq was done by a Britsh organization using internationally accepted methodologies. The same methods that were used in Africa to justify interventions in Africa, and, the methods are accepted internationally AND BY THE UN, except as used in Iraq.

In addition to this, there is now evidence to show that there may be as many as 5 million orphans in Iraq. Since the majority of the deaths SO FAR in Iraq were not children, it is not hard to correlate this two numbers; more than 1 million cilivian deaths -- more than 5 million orphans.

Now, take that a step further; 5 million orphans who can not feed themselves will translate to another 1-3 million additional civialian deaths if the war continues.

Now, tell me that something could not be built around this in the campaign. And, should be.

And every time this is talked about, 1 trillion dollars is mentioned again and again and again and again. Endlessly. So, if any of you have a contact inside of the Dr. Paul effort, I suggest that you begin talking.

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

richard9151  posted on  2008-01-06   15:17:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: richard9151 (#78)

What if this is true? Some people refuse to allow us to leave Iraq because they see that the suffering is now ours to alleviate. One way Ron Paul could lose even more supporters is if he promised to pay reparations, as one Iraqi war veteran's group has been requesting.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   15:23:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: buckeye (#79)

What if this is true? Some people refuse to allow us to leave Iraq because they see that the suffering is now ours to alleviate.

You alleviate suffering first, by stopping the killing and the hoarding of food -- by the US and her allies.

Second, you alleviate suffering by permitting the people of Iraq to go back to work. Stop with all of the foreign workers, who have stolen the work which belongs to the people of Iraq.

Third, you permit the people of Iraq to begin to rebuild their own nation in their own vision using the proceeds from the oil which is theirs.

As to reparations, have you ever heard of Viet Nam? Or, Korea? In both instances, we correctly paid. How much could/would the US pay, compared to what the war costs?

In addition, the attack on Iraq by the United States and Britian was, according to international law, a war crime. Dr. Paul can use this to better explain his positions, and, end any questions about reparations/continuing the war.

Do not tell me that he could lose support over an issue that is so easily resolved with a very little bit of thought.

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

richard9151  posted on  2008-01-06   15:33:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: richard9151 (#80)

I don't believe that we paid reparations to either North Korea or Vietnam. If you have documented evidence, feel free to submit it.

Your other points suggest continued American involvement in Iraq, which is exactly what we do not want. Let them take care of themselves.

Ron Paul has made his positions clear on this matter. I would not support him if he had not.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   15:39:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: buckeye (#81)

I don't believe that we paid reparations to either North Korea or Vietnam. If you have documented evidence, feel free to submit it.

Please, buckeye, don't try and excuse actions of the US government.

http://www.pownetwork.org/docs/part2.htm

POWs and Politics - Part 2

For instance, much of the money paid to Hanoi for JTF-FA activities is being sent by the U.S. Navy Regional Contracting Office in Singapore through the Bank of America to the account of the External Affairs section of the Communist party.

Much of the money paid to Viet Nam was paid with the excuse that it went to pay for the recovery of the bodies of US servicemen. That would indicate that somehow a sense of regret (?) started in Washington, DC, that is not supported by the evidence about what was and what was not done about MIAs, not only in Viet Nam but in Korea and WWII as well.

In addition, I said nothing about North Korea. I said Korea, but that only makes sense when you know, as I have posted before, that the Korean War originated and was planned in New York. The payments can be counted however you wish, but stop for just one moment and think about this;

US troops have been in Korea for nearly 60 years. The US has a national debt of, what, 9 trillion dollars? How much of that is directly attributable to the Korean War and occupation? With interest, probably in excess of 1 trillion.

There is one more thing which is a fact; after the money was paid in each case (in whatever form you wish to state it), US and British corporations and banks moved in and it was 'business-as-usual.' And if you really want to understand, simply study who owns and controls all of those fancy South Korean corporations (as well as all of the Japanese); New York and London bankers (i.e., the owners and controllers of the Federal Reserve). When everything is said and done, it will be the same in Viet Nam, even if you and I can not see the reality of the situation.

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

richard9151  posted on  2008-01-06   16:31:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: buckeye, richard9151 (#81)

I don't believe that we paid reparations to either North Korea or Vietnam. If you have documented evidence, feel free to submit it.

www.greenleft.org.au/agent_orange.php

In the 1973 Peace Accords that paved the way to end the Vietnam War, the US promised Vietnam reparations of US$3.5 billion. So far, not a cent has been paid.

Hanoi has also demanded that Washington honour its moral responsibility towards the victims devastated by its Agent Orange attacks, and help out in decontamination. Under .sovereign immunity., the US government cannot be sued. Hanoi, therefore, seeks redress from the major chemical corporations that supplied Agent Orange and other deadly chemicals to the US military during the war. Vietnam Association for the Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxins (VAVA) was formed in January 2004, partly to carry out this task.

TwentyTwelve  posted on  2008-01-06   16:33:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: buckeye (#81)

Your other points suggest continued American involvement in Iraq, which is exactly what we do not want. Let them take care of themselves.

Absolutely not. Long distance, hands-off talks. Pull out in a manner to permit as few causalities as possible. End of story.

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

richard9151  posted on  2008-01-06   16:33:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: buckeye, richard9151, FormerLurker, FOH, Original_Intent (#81)

I don't believe that we paid reparations to either North Korea or Vietnam. If you have documented evidence, feel free to submit it.

http://www.namebase.org/books90.html

In Paris on February 1, 1973, the U.S. gave North Vietnam a letter from Nixon promising $3.25 billion in aid in exchange for a list of POWs. North Vietnam wanted "reparations" but Nixon called it "reconstruction." This book makes a strong case that the list of POWs was incomplete; Vietnam was too smart to release all prisoners on the mere promise of aid. When Nixon failed to deliver, many POWs were left behind. Vietnam did the same thing with French POWs in 1954, and their distrust of American motives must have been keen after Kissinger's 1972 Christmas bombing of Hanoi. Much evidence shows that Vietnam always used two or more parallel prison systems, with no cross- fertilization of prisoners between them. The men who came home in 1973 were from one system, and weren't aware of those who may have been left behind.

Since 1973, the Pentagon's cover-ups on this issue have been shameful. The brass want to hold out until the entire mess becomes a footnote instead of a career-stopper. Vietnam seems ready to wait also, and time is on their side. Now that relations are normalized, the transnationals moving into their economy are something of an insurance policy. In five or ten years, Vietnam might be in a position to demand reparations without fear of reprisals -- even another Kissinger wouldn't dare bomb Shell or Exxon.

TwentyTwelve  posted on  2008-01-06   16:36:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: richard9151 (#82)

Please, buckeye, don't try and excuse actions of the US government.

When did I make excuses? I made none. Ron Paul makes none. He simply says we should come home.

Much of the money paid to Viet Nam was paid with the excuse that it went to pay for the recovery of the bodies of US servicemen.

I don't see any of that as reparations. I have no intention to support any form of reparations in Iraq, and I would not support Ron Paul if he wanted to add that to my tax bill in 2009.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   16:36:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: buckeye, noone222, Peppa, TwentyTwelve, who knows what evil, tom007, Dakmar, lodwick, critter, Robin, Itisa1mosttoolate, ALL (#76)

(Palo) I just found this post while lurking on another forum
so the Wyoming Caucus is meaningless ...

Wyoming voters do not vote in the caucus.
The delegates are chosen by the good- old-boys GOP club.
It is one of the oldest, most out-dated methods of caucus voting in the country,
and is not democratic at all.

So the results in Wyoming do not reflect what Wyoming citizens want

On to New Hampshire!!
Go Ron GO!!!

palo verde  posted on  2008-01-06   16:43:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: buckeye, richard9151 (#86)

don't see any of that as reparations. I have no intention to support any form of reparations in Iraq, and I would not support Ron Paul if he wanted to add that to my tax bill in 2009.

Maybe if our government promised to send to the Iraqis all the neocons who caused the Iraq invasion and give the Iraqis the go-ahead to do what they want, no holds barred with the anti-America/anti-Iraq neocon likes of Wolfowitz, Feith, Kagan, Kristol, Krauthammer, Pohoretz etc - that might be viewed as sufficient re-payment???

scrapper2  posted on  2008-01-06   16:44:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: palo verde (#87)

So the results in Wyoming do not reflect what Wyoming citizens want

Yes Palo dear. But "they hate us because we're free" --Rudy Giuliani

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   16:46:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: scrapper2 (#88)

...hat might be viewed as sufficient re-payment?

You suppose that we owe them anything at all. I don't think we do.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   16:47:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, ALL (#87)

Wyoming voters do not vote in the caucus.
The delegates are chosen by the good- old-boys GOP club.
It is one of the oldest, most out-dated methods of caucus voting in the country,
and is not democratic at all.

Not only that they don't even have to stick to it
they can change their mind at the convention

this is why media pays no attention to Wyoming caucus

palo verde  posted on  2008-01-06   16:49:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: scrapper2 (#88)

Maybe if our government promised to send to the Iraqis all the neocons who caused the Iraq invasion and give the Iraqis the go-ahead to do what they want, no holds barred with the anti-America/anti-Iraq neocon likes of Wolfowitz, Feith, Kagan, Kristol, Krauthammer, Pohoretz etc - that might be viewed as sufficient re-payment?

Toss in smirkI & II, cheney, and rummy and you'd prolly have a deal.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution
Freedom*Peace*Prosperity

Lod  posted on  2008-01-06   16:49:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: buckeye (#90)

You suppose that we owe them anything at all. I don't think we do.

Errrr...well we kind of turned their nation upside down for no good reason and we killed and/or displaced several million of Iraqi civilians. So yes I think we owe them reparations to re-build their infrastructure at the very least.

Perhaps if we had just gone in and removed Saddam and then motored right out within 6 weeks I'd say - well we gave Iraq a fresh start to take back their country from a dictator we originally helped install. But we didn't do that. We followed Clean Break policy and purposely de-stabilized and destroyed a functional nation.

scrapper2  posted on  2008-01-06   16:52:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: palo verde (#91)

WOW! Vote Fraud up the KAZOO

"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."

Itisa1mosttoolate  posted on  2008-01-06   16:53:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: scrapper2 (#93)

We're going to go different directions on this issue. That's all I have to say. I respect your concern, but I do not share it.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06   16:54:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: lodwick (#92)

Toss in smirkI & II, cheney, and rummy and you'd prolly have a deal.

He, he, he - and toss in Colin Powell as the final deal maker in case some of the Iraqis are still sitting on the fence. Powell did the big liar yapping before the UN with his handy dandy power point demonstration.

scrapper2  posted on  2008-01-06   16:56:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: buckeye (#95)

We're going to go different directions on this issue. That's all I have to say. I respect your concern, but I do not share it.

Okay.

scrapper2  posted on  2008-01-06   16:57:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, ALL (#94)

YUP!!!

great post, Iiatl
Love, Palo

So the only primary which has meaning which has happened is Iowa
and interpreted correctly, it is very positive for Dr Paul

Ron Paul is now polling at 14 percent in New Hampshire
but since youth is on cell-phone, I figure the real number is 18 per cent

GO RON GO

ps, Ron Paul is ahead of Huckabee in New Hampshire polls

palo verde  posted on  2008-01-06   17:01:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: scrapper2 (#93)

Errrr...well we kind of turned their nation upside down for no good reason and we killed and/or displaced several million of Iraqi civilians. So yes I think we owe them reparations to re-build their infrastructure at the very least.

I agree. I have no idea if there's an afterlife or heaven 'n hell or karma and reincarnation or whatever. I don't expect to know until it's too late to do anything about it. but I have a feeling that whatever follows, if anything, will hinge more on morality than economics. money's an issue, sure. but I'm sickened by what we have done to these people. just my opinion, but walking away would seem so morally wrong, just as continuing the damage is.

if your neighbor destroyed your home and killed or maimed every other member of your family, would it be enough if they just promised to stop? what if your dad was a big jerk and he was one of the ones they killed? would that make it ok? I see this as a complex issue and am offended by politicians who represent it as simple. I do personally feel guilt for what my country has done, whether I supported it or not. I didn't stop it.

kiki  posted on  2008-01-06   23:53:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: BrentFromCanada, iconoclast (#68)

the snickering ignorance of the candidates other than ron paul is highly evident.

It's not completely clear that Ron Paul's GOP opponents are ignorant. If they treat his comments about a restricted foreign policy and fiscal responsibility seriously, they will be forced to justify their own positions which ignore those things.

They may understand full well that inflation robs savers of their value. They may know that the American military cannot fight a world war against an ill-defined idea with politically correct hogties, and sustain itself financially — let alone politically. They may realize that the Federal Reserve system has enslaved the American people. But to admit any of this would be to discredit the fabric of assumptions on which their careers are based, and would even insult some of their backers.

questions on my mind are: is america a nation of half wits buying this crap?
The media gives them bread and circuses, and offers them pro/con positions that barely differ. Other solutions to problems are ignored or treated as "extreme," even when the positions taken pro/con are often extreme by objective analysis. In short, they don't have any other information, and they are kept busy by the harness of lifestyle complexity into which they have willingly stepped.
is america ready for the truth?
That isn't the issue, by and large. Polls show that we're ready to end the war. Polls show that the government is thought to be incompetent and corrupt. But watching the debates, it was clear that each candidate (D/R alike) wants to offer a so-called solution to these problems. Don't blame Americans for not polling well for Ron Paul. The media, which hands the scepter of power to a few chosen ones, has not handed it to him, and won't. They feel uneasy about this, but can't make a choice comfortably.
the outcome of all this doesn't look very bright if a candidate other than ron paul is selected. as a result, i started to vote with my wallet. i began to pare back my u.s. equity investments.
No arguments here. As Ron Paul says, our government, and specifically this particular government, is not the American people. Americans do believe they are supporting democracy around the world. If they realized that Ron Paul couldn't have ever won in Wyoming this weekend, they might be more concerned about elections in their own country more.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-07   19:38:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: palo verde, noone222, buckeye, scrapper2, All (#59)

One last thing just in case anyone has some insider ability to mention something to Dr. Paul.

He mentions the young people sometimes as if they are his primary supporters almost to the exclusion of everyone else.

He is so surprised and thrilled to find the youth support him, that he forgets to mention the rest of us do.

I think Dr. Paul is more delighted than surprised by the response of the most idealistic of our citizenry, as am I. My feathers aren't least bit ruffled by his reaction to their response.

Might it also be possible that RP realizes that "the Revolution" is going to be a Valley Forge thing, not a Parisian thing?

I think he's the only thing standing between a free America and a civil war.

If Ron Paul is not in our Oval Office this time next year, we will have police state and all police states go fascist this is our one chance to save outselves, we must do it now

One thing I'm pretty damn sure of, apocalyptic talk is not our friend.

I'm reminded of the old "young bull, old bull joke", only with the attitudes reversed.

Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?

iconoclast  posted on  2008-01-08   9:34:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#102. To: scrapper2 (#58)

Constitutional Party has already been taken. Any suggestions?

As you know, we are in close agreement on the third party need.

Do you think the Constitution Party would reject an infusion of spirited Paul backers? Hell, they've had problems finding anyone that can found on Google to head their campaigns.

Don't fight 'em, join 'em. If we don't do it this spring, we should seriously get started after the Nov election.

Go Ron Go

Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?

iconoclast  posted on  2008-01-08   9:56:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: scrapper2, buckeye, , *Ron Paul for President 2008* (#58)

I think you'll be delighted to see what the CP has to say on its website about the good Dr.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=613#Paul

Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?

iconoclast  posted on  2008-01-08   10:04:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest