See other Editorial Articles
Title: Top Ten Reasons why I will not vote for Ron Paul
Source:
stmachiavelli
URL Source: http://stmachiavelli.livejournal.com/1015290.html
Published: Jun 11, 2007
Author: stmachiavelli
Post Date: 2007-06-11 14:53:34 by can of corn
Keywords: al qaeda, standing for the twoof, shiny foil hat
Views: 1527
Comments: 141
1) He's a "truther" by association - He panders and plays to that group of people who believe the events of Sep 11, were an "inside job" without going so far as to say "Fire won't melt steel!" 2) He's called for a Mcarthiesque reopening of the 9/11 Commission, basing it this time on popular opinion, conspiracy theory, and politics rather than fact. - This one goes hand in hand with item 1. 3) He's selling the "We aren't hated because of our freedoms, we are hated because of our Middle Eastern Policies" without ever acknowledging that our polices there are in direct response to the past and current policies of nation states in the Middle East. 4) He's for gay marriage, but against gay adoption. - Here we are total polar opposites. I'm against gay marriage because it brings nothing to the state, but for gay adoption because any stable home for a child is better than a foster home or orphanage. 5) He's stated he'd like to go back to the "gold standard". - This makes baby economists weep. 6) He's against stem cell research 7) He's "touchy feely" when it comes to crime and punishment 8) He's against free trade (or at least his voting record is). 9) He's never seen a defense appropriation bill he liked. - Yes we can fight our enemies armed with sticks and stones! 10) He's pro "illegal immigration". And lastly... The ACLU likes him. Or more seriously, his voting record is a mess. Its almost like he's voted for and then against the same ideas in different bills just so he could appear to be a moderate or something. As I believe actions (in this case votes) speak louder than campaign promises this makes it very difficult for me to believe what Ron really thinks.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-73) not displayed.
.
.
.
#74. To: Critter, can of corn (#73)
I'm totally against free trade if free trade means that no tariffs are paid on goods imported into the USA. Excellent point and it's about time! The founding daddies intended our country to run on "duties, imposts and excises", but now the corporate excise is passed onto politically powerless employees instead of the corporation which exercises the taxable privilege. coc's definition is exactly as Ross Perot defined it. No taxes for him and he'll cheerfully rape his employees' checks instead. Quid Pro Quo....
If I was any gayer, I'd be all fer Giuliani. Do you guys mind if I lay low here for a while? I'm about this From Michael Brendan Dougherty's article "Lone Stat" in the June 18 issue of The American Conservative, which I just received in the mail. I remember, when NAFTA was coming before Congress, I hear Jerry Brown denounce it on the radio as a complex piece of special-interest legislation. I tried to get a copy of the agreement so that I could check for myself whether he was right, and it turned out even members of Congress didn't have texts of it at the time.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Are Cold Warriors who want to continue the Cold War with a new enemy in touch with the 21st century? Aren't they the ones who are out of date?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Why does the latest news bar of this site look like it was cut and pasted from Stormfront?
We aren't engaged on a "cold" war, if you haven't noticed.
We're less at war now than we were in Korea and Vietnam. Both of which wars occurred as phases of the Cold War.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I won't necessarily say no tariffs, but they should definitely be minimized. Why do we want to penalize consumers by subsidizing unprofitable American businesses?
And neither Korea nor Vietnam directly attcked American soil as our current enemy has on more than occasion.
Must be the same reason your posts look like like the latest memo from AIPAC.
Neither did Iraq.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
After 9/11, Iraq was no longer a country we could take chances on.
The record of Ron Paul, against the others, stands against this tidal wave of evil. Aptly stated. :)
Remember the Liberty http://www.ussliberty.org Larry, Curly, Moe and a potential great leader in every sense of the word In Ron Paul We Trust Sounds like Cold War thinking.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Sure. If Shrub hadn't come to our rescue, Iraqi troops would be occupying Detroit and Peoria today.
Not necessarily. From looking at the 9/11 Truth movement, it all got its start because of one question - the same question that was asked during Watergate. "What did the President know and when did he know it?" To date, that question has NOT been answered. Answering that one question would put a LOT of this to bed rather quickly.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
Why do we want to penalize American citizens by making them pay an income tax to run a government that is supposed to be funded by tariffs?
Especially when the income tax is imposed on domestic manufacturers, but not foreign ones, when a tariff does just the opposite. In fact, the income tax operates as a negative tariff that discourages domestic enterprise. We ought at the least to have tariffs high enough to counterbalance this effect.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Exactly.
He knew it when they whispered it in his ear in the FL classroom.
And you think the average American consumer is going to gladly want tariffs after he learns how much he will have to pay? You could not place tariffs high enough to replace our income tax system with them. In fact if you tried, you'd have to place tariffs so high that foreign products would be priced out of the market place with heir import being dried up. You'd have to have other means of revenue anyway PLUS the consumer would be screwed.
Okay. So Bush never had an intelligence briefing. Ever. He's more dumb than we thought then and should be removed from office on that alone. Is that the case you're trying to make?
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
Yes, and I suppose he was told that on 9/11/2001 of the exact time, locations, and means we would be attacked and just forgot to do anything about it or just decided not to because he could use it as an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
Well, then, now you agree with the truthers. Which way do you want to take this? Its your argument. All I'm saying is that the answer to "What did Bush know and when did he know it" would resolve a lot of open issues with the public and likely defuse the 9/11 Truth Movement. You seem to want to claim he was unaware of Al-Qaeda's existance. Interesting.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
I guess I should have added this: /sarcasm Bush did not know of the exact time, places, and means of attack until he was briefed after the attacks. All he had before that were vague warnings of hijackings -- nothing actionable. It's crazy to think otherwise.
Thank You ITTA ! :)
"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government." -- Rear Admiral Chester Ward Rear Admiral US Navy (retired), CFR member for 16 years, Judge Advocate General of the Navy 1956-60
It would take a combination of things to fix all the shit the criminals in DC have created. Cutting back on extra-constitutional spending combined with a system of tariffs would go a long way toward getting us back on the right track.
The unfortunate thing is that we don't know if it was actionable or not because we don't have the information. We don't know the level of briefing - we don't know the credibility level of what was floating around. We know next to nothing. I'll keep saying this. If we knew what Bush had been briefed on and what his responses were, it would go a long way toward defusing the distrust. Its just like Watergate in that regard.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
When a party doesn't bring forward evidence that is in his possession, it's grounds for suspecting the evidence goes against him.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
It's crazy to think otherwise. Remember that Condi was briefed about the possiblity of an attack by Tenet in an emergency meeting about a month before. She then lied about the meeting ot the 911 commission. The truth then came out late last year when the meeting logs were released. How should we handle this for the pack of goobers on this site? Just tell them it didn't happen?
Exactly. In my opinion, this is the crux and lynchpin. If it came out that Bush was fully briefed but that the Feds said "Naw, not likely to happen" or "We think it will happen in October but not September" then it would go a long way toward defusing a lot of the problems and questions surrounding 9/11. If it came out that Bush was fully briefed AND the intelligence people said "We find this credible" and Bush did nothing, then it would prove he was culpable. It would go a long way toward answering the question of whether he let things happen. And finally - if it came out that nobody knew anything (or if intelligence said something other than Al-Qaeda) then it would raise other questions that would still need to be answered - and the conspiracy theory would need to go in a different direction. Maybe its just me, but the question of "What did Bush know and when did he know it" seems to be the big missing piece of the puzzle and is where it all starts.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
They were given briefings about the possibility of hijackings with no times, dates, or places. There was nothing actionable.
OK. I will spin it to them that way.
No spin There is nothing here to act on.
Why don't we just tell them there was no meeting? That's cleaner than trying to explain the lack of increased security.
Why do you change your screen name every couple of days?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
A corn like him could never abide in a Free zone.
At least Ron Paul can hang onto his watch when venturing out into the world. That's more than can be said for Lord Bunnypants.
Well, that leaves surgery. :D
"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government." -- Rear Admiral Chester Ward Rear Admiral US Navy (retired), CFR member for 16 years, Judge Advocate General of the Navy 1956-60
Well, apart from the stem cell research, the gay adoption thing, and the gold standard, I'm WAY more on Ron Paul's side than this turkey's. And I'd like to see the proof he's against gay adoption, for instance. Sometimes people vote against bills because of something hidden in them, not because of the main bill.
Comments (114 - 141) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestI'd like free trade to be defined here for the purpose of discussing this further.
#75. To: can of corn (#52)
He is out of touch with the 21st Century.
far from gettin' banned from LP.
#76. To: Critter (#73)
While Paul considers himself a staunch free trader, he opposed CAFTA and deplored its predecessor, NAFTA. Paul explains, "I was on the side of the protectionists, and I'm not a protectionist. It's not true free trade. It's special-interest trade. It's managed trade... I didn't like the trade deal because it was another level of government and a loss of sovereignty."
#77. To: can of corn (#52)
He is out of touch with the 21st Century.
#78. To: christine (#72)
and he's an Israelfirster!
#79. To: aristeides (#77)
who want to continue the Cold War
#80. To: can of corn (#79)
#81. To: Critter (#73)
I'm totally against free trade if free trade means that no tariffs are paid on goods imported into the USA.
#82. To: aristeides (#80)
#83. To: can of corn (#78)
Why does the latest news bar of this site look like it was cut and pasted from Stormfront?
#84. To: can of corn (#82)
And neither Korea nor Vietnam directly attcked American soil
#85. To: aristeides (#84)
#86. To: Calamity (#37)
De-population is the name of the game. Through a draft, no chippy no worky, starvation, poisoning via, food, air, water, forced immunizations, refusal of medical care, taxation, imprisonment. And worse, much worse.
#87. To: can of corn (#85)
#88. To: can of corn (#85)
(Edited)
After 9/11, Iraq was no longer a country we could take chances on.
#89. To: can of corn (#28)
He's either a shameless panderer or gutless on the matter.
#90. To: can of corn (#81)
Why do we want to penalize consumers by subsidizing unprofitable American businesses?
Enemies of the Republic
#91. To: Critter (#90)
#92. To: aristeides (#91)
Especially when the income tax is imposed on domestic manufacturers, but not foreign ones
Enemies of the Republic
#93. To: mirage (#89)
"What did the President know and when did he know it?"
#94. To: Critter (#90)
#95. To: can of corn (#93)
He knew it when they whispered it in his ear in the FL classroom.
#96. To: mirage (#95)
Okay. So Bush never had an intelligence briefing. Ever.
#97. To: can of corn (#96)
Yes, and I suppose he was told that on 9/11/2001 of the exact time, locations, and means we would be attacked and just forgot to do anything about it or just decided not to because he could use it as an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
#98. To: mirage (#97)
#99. To: intotheabyss (#86)
Aptly stated. :)
#100. To: can of corn (#94)
Enemies of the Republic
#101. To: can of corn (#98)
Bush did not know of the exact time, places, and means of attack until he was briefed after the attacks. All he had before that were vague warnings of hijackings -- nothing actionable.
#102. To: mirage (#101)
#103. To: can of corn (#98)
(Edited)
Bush did not know of the exact time, places, and means of attack until he was briefed after the attacks. All he had before that were vague warnings of hijackings -- nothing actionable.
Formerly Fun and Happy Balls.
Formerly balls alert.
Formerly tinfoil wonderballs.
Formerly trilateralballs
Formerly statist miniballs
Formerly balls beat
Formerly Yomin Postelballs
Formerly ballwitch muncher
Formerly tuna piano but not tune your balls
Formerly llort daerter balls
Formerly cone of balls
Presently can of balls
#104. To: aristeides (#102)
When a party doesn't bring forward evidence that is in his possession, it's grounds for suspecting the evidence goes against him.
#105. To: can of balls (#103)
#106. To: can of corn (#105)
They were given briefings about the possibility of hijackings with no times, dates, or places. There was nothing actionable.
Formerly Fun and Happy Balls.
Formerly balls alert.
Formerly tinfoil wonderballs.
Formerly trilateralballs
Formerly statist miniballs
Formerly balls beat
Formerly Yomin Postelballs
Formerly ballwitch muncher
Formerly tuna piano but not tune your balls
Formerly llort daerter balls
Formerly cone of balls
Presently can of balls
#107. To: can of balls (#106)
#108. To: can of corn (#107)
Formerly Fun and Happy Balls.
Formerly balls alert.
Formerly tinfoil wonderballs.
Formerly trilateralballs
Formerly statist miniballs
Formerly balls beat
Formerly Yomin Postelballs
Formerly ballwitch muncher
Formerly tuna piano but not tune your balls
Formerly llort daerter balls
Formerly cone of balls
Presently can of balls
#109. To: can of corn (#0)
#110. To: Calamity (#27)
Corn Remover
#111. To: can of corn (#0)
#112. To: PnbC (#110)
A corn like him could never abide in a Free zone.
#113. To: can of corn (#0)
.
.
.