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: 1531
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
#1. To: can of corn (#0)
I actually had to read this twice before I realized I have no idea what it means. Please explain.
You quote a guy who has "Rumsfeld for President '08" in his descriptor box? A guy who has no clue what he's talking about to start with? Whew. Good luck with that.
And the publican, standing far off, would not so much as lift his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather thant he other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. -Luke 18: 14.
Not.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
It's the baby economists who are against the gold standard. You're at the wrong site.
Freeper motto: I read, but do not understand, I write, but make no sense, I think, but nothing happens.
Pure gobbledygook.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Whether Ron Paul is selling it or not, I'm BUYING, this because it is the complete and unvarnished TRUTH.
It's like this: Iranians hate us because we supplied arms to their arch enemy who then used those weapons, including WMDs, to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iranians. But that was our "response" to Iran's taking US hostages and overthrowing the brutal dictator we installed there. If they hadn't insisted on self-government, but kept in place the puppet regime we installed, we'd never have had to arm their enemy and encourage him to attack them. So it's their fault. And sure, they hate us for overthrowing their democratically elected president with our CIA, but that democratically elected president tried to put an end to the oil deal that had American and British companies sucking out their oil at pennies per barrel. If the Iranians hadn't tried to control their own oil, we wouldn't have had to overthrow their government. So that was their fault, too. As for Iraq, sure we supplied Saddam for years and supported him, and we greenlighted his invasion of Kuwait. But he should have known better than to believe us or that our words meant anything. So the first Gulf War was his fault. As for the sanctions regime that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, if he'd abdicated and committed suicide, that wouldn't have had to happen. His fault again. As for the second Iraq war, well, Saddam could have denationalized his oil at any time and re-opened his oil fields to American companies. But he didn't, so we had to depose him and destroy his country, and besides, he never made nice with and/or surrendered his sovereignty to Israel. Again, his fault. See, the regimes in the Middle East don't support our ambition to rule the world and take all of their resources, so it's their fault we have to invade, sanction, destroy and tommorrow (if Joe Lieberman is successful) bomb them. Plus they were born in the wrong place and are of the wrong religion. What do they expect?
And the publican, standing far off, would not so much as lift his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather thant he other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. -Luke 18: 14.
COC, I need to see this....ante up...PDQ
unnnnhhhhh.. No. Because Iran was heading to aa struggling democracy and we toppled their government for BP and pout in Shah Rezi Pahlevi who might look cute to you but who brutalized his people. All Arab nations, polled in detail before we stole their land and gave it to a bunch of Eastern European grubb-suckers who had never been there, preferred that the US administer any mandate for them than any TOTAL of all other countries. That is how well-loved and respected we were until the Big Lie that stole Palestine from the Palestinians.
That pathetic attempt at a sentence reminds me of George W's garbled syntax.
Since the idiot who wrote this is probably a hardcore Bushbot, the hypocrisy of this claim is simply amazing. 8) He's against free trade If this is true, then good for Dr. Paul (free trade is one of the reasons I'm skeptical of libertarianism). In fact, I think that Paul is (unfortunately) a free trader, he simply opposed NAFTA and GATT on the grounds that they were a bureaucratized form of free trade. The distinction went completely over the head of the dimwit who wrote this.
Post Date: 2007-06-11 14:53:34 by can of corn 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!" Title: Ron Paul on 9/11 (Is Ron Paul a Sell Out?) Post Date: 2007-06-11 10:08:29 by can of corn Reason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that? Paul: I'd say there's no evidence of that. Wow. Talk about posting out of both sides of your ass.
And the publican, standing far off, would not so much as lift his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather thant he other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. -Luke 18: 14.
It's not hypocricy, it's plain old lying. Ron Paul isn't pro-illegal immigration, and anyone who thinks or says he is either suffers from a delusion or is a simple bullshit artist. I wonder which Republicon Cornhole my Can is shilling for, Giuliani or McStain? This clumsy ham-fisted bullshit approach reminds me more of Giuliani.
And the publican, standing far off, would not so much as lift his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather thant he other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. -Luke 18: 14.
Wow! He's more perfect than I realized.
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
No. I think you may have taken my post other than in its intended spirit.
And the publican, standing far off, would not so much as lift his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather thant he other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. -Luke 18: 14.
Not really BDT... just point out the sword bedecked Shah was not the "Gentleman" most seem to think he was. Actually I have no love whatsoever for any of the Middle Eastern Tribes and even less for the Eastern European Faux Tribe with its hand always out and its mouth stretched wide open in an incessant Victim Wail !
I'm waiting for the "Illegal Alien" support documentation.
AIPAC Silly ! Rumney, McStain and Juliani are just blow up dolls.
just point out the sword bedecked Shah was not the "Gentleman" most seem to think he was. He was a brutal dictator who ran his country through SAVAK inspired terror, and we installed him in place of their democratically elected guy.
And the publican, standing far off, would not so much as lift his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather thant he other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. -Luke 18: 14.
I take it you believe that the WTC towers fell because the fires melted the steel struture, right?
Not. *Ding* Mirage wins~~~ The Immigration Question by Ron Paul The recent immigration protests in Los Angeles have brought the issue to the forefront, provoking strong reactions from millions of Americans. The protesters’ cause of open borders is not well served when they drape themselves in Mexican flags and chant slogans in Spanish. If anything, their protests underscore the Balkanization of America caused by widespread illegal immigration. How much longer can we maintain huge unassimilated subgroups within America, filled with millions of people who don’t speak English or participate fully in American life? Americans finally have decided the status quo is unacceptable, and immigration may be the issue that decides the 2008 presidential election. We’re often reminded that America is a nation of immigrants, implying that we’re coldhearted to restrict immigration in any way. But the new Americans reaching our shores in the late 1800s and early 1900s were legal immigrants. In many cases they had no chance of returning home again. They maintained their various ethnic and cultural identities, but they also learned English and embraced their new nationality. Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded. The economic, cultural, and political situation was very different 100 years ago. We’re often told that immigrants do the jobs Americans won’t do, and sometimes this is true. But in many instances illegal immigrants simply increase the supply of labor in a community, which lowers wages. And while cheap labor certainly benefits the economy as a whole, when calculating the true cost of illegal immigration we must include the cost of social services that many new immigrants consume – especially medical care. We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty. Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship. Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America. We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase. April 4, 2006 Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. Find this article at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/p aul/paul314.html
"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
Can it!
God is always good! LIAR.
I think the author means that it's not our fault that we're in the Middle east. It's someone else's.
We chose to be hornswaggled.
Yeah, that's BS. Paul is clearly not pro illegal immigration. But one of the duties of every BushBot is to make totally false and easily proven to be false claims.
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
Corn Remover "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
Actually, not at all. He panders to the insane twoofers, but won't come out and publicly say, as the twoofers do, that he believes Bush was behind 911. He's either a shameless panderer or gutless on the matter. I will have to give him credit for not being as clueless as the twoofers he panders too, though.
I have bozo'd the bunnioned one. Two bit trolls are boring.
"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
Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship. Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Thanks calamity... spot on... once and for all... Now I await that can to open up again
You're most welcome. I figure cone-pone will move to the ME topic again, and attempt a run at 'isolationism' without discussing interventionism and lessons from such as Smedley Butler. -- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC. War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super- Nationalistic-Capitalism. It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major- General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. "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
Again you prove that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. He doesn't pander to them, they seek him out. And they seek him out because he seems to be an honest person, unlike all of the other stuffed shirts running for holy orifice. Which candidate do you support for president?
And the publican, standing far off, would not so much as lift his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather thant he other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. -Luke 18: 14.
Which candidate do you support for president? BluedogTexan Answer: Any paid off and guaranteed bloc votes, Electoral College Control and Media Bias by AIPAC... i.e. any of the put-up, bended-knee, homage-paying candidates you see EXCEPT RON PAUL !
That tells me all I need to know.
i'm getting flashbacks
right on
Yes. And it goes without saying, our government has no intention of allowing assimilation, when divide and rule will move them ever more quickly through their real agenda. 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. The record of Ron Paul, against the others, stands against this tidal wave of evil.
"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
christine you're not old enough for those
Most wont bother to read this, and many think that this government has gone bad only in the last twenty years. Don't tell anyone but I am so old I had an older friend that was in the Marines with Gen. Butler.
Well, I'll keep posting it regardless. It's an important read, and one I agree with whole-heartedly. War IS a Racket. And it never frees, anyone. Rather, it further endentures a new region of slaves. Don't tell anyone but I am so old I had an older friend that was in the Marines with Gen. Butler. Nooooooooo. You're pulling Calamity's leg here aren't you? Next thing I know, you'll be telling me you were gathering animals for the Ark. ;) Seriously, is that true?
"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
Comments (41 - 141) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest3) 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.
#2. To: can of corn (#0)
#3. To: can of corn (#0)
10) He's pro "illegal immigration".
#4. To: can of corn (#0)
gold standard
#5. To: can of corn, Jethro Tull (#0)
#6. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
3) He's selling the "We aren't hated because of our freedoms, we are hated because of our Middle Eastern Policies"
#7. To: Jethro Tull, cornhole my can, all (#1)
I actually had to read this twice before I realized I have no idea what it means. Please explain.
#8. To: can of corn, christine (#0)
10) He's pro "illegal immigration".
#9. To: bluedogtxn (#7)
It's like this: Iranians hate us
#10. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
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.
#11. To: mirage (#3)
(Edited)
He's pro "illegal immigration".
#12. To: can of corn (#0)
Title: Top Ten Reasons why I will not vote for Ron Paul
#13. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#11)
He's pro "illegal immigration". Since the idiot who wrote this is probably a hardcore Bushbot, the hypocrisy of this claim is simply amazing.
#14. To: can of corn (#0)
#15. To: JCHarris (#9)
It's like this: Iranians hate us unnnnhhhhh..
#16. To: bluedogtxn (#15)
#17. To: robin, can of corn (#14)
#18. To: bluedogtxn (#13)
I wonder which Republicon Cornhole my Can is shilling for, Giuliani or McStain? This clumsy ham-fisted bullshit approach reminds me more of Giuliani.
#19. To: JCHarris (#16)
Not really BDT...
#20. To: can of corn (#0)
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!"
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#21. To: mirage, creamed corn, all, Ron Paul Supporters, Amnesty rejectors, (#3)
10) He's pro "illegal immigration".
#22. To: can of corn (#0)
can of corn
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#23. To: can of corn (#0)
10) He's pro "illegal immigration".
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#24. To: Jethro Tull (#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.
I actually had to read this twice before I realized I have no idea what it means. Please explain.
#25. To: Neil McIver (#24)
I think the author means that it's not our fault that we're in the Middle east. It's someone else's.
#26. To: JCHarris (#17)
#27. To: RickyJ (#22)
#28. To: bluedogtxn (#12)
Wow. Talk about posting out of both sides of your ass.
#29. To: FormerLurker (#23)
#30. To: Calamity, Diana, PercyDoveTonsils, FormerLurker, ALL, can of corn (#21)
We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.
#31. To: JCHarris, christine, zipporah, former lurker, wudiditz, cynicom, phant2000, lodwick, all, bunnion (#30)
Thanks calamity...
Smedley Butler on Interventionism
#32. To: can of corn (#28)
Actually, not at all. He panders to the insane twoofers, but won't come out and publicly say, as the twoofers do, that he believes Bush was behind 911.
#33. To: bluedogtxn (#32)
Can of corn,
#34. To: bluedogtxn (#2)
You quote a guy who has "Rumsfeld for President '08" in his descriptor box?
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men" Plato
#35. To: robin (#26)
But one of the duties of every BushBot is to make totally false and easily proven to be false claims.
#36. To: Calamity, Jethro Tull (#21)
True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.
#37. To: christine (#36)
right on
#38. To: christine (#35)
i'm getting flashbacks
#39. To: Calamity (#31)
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
#40. To: Cynicom (#39)
Most wont bother to read this, and many think that this government has gone bad only in the last twenty years.
.
.
.