PDA

View Full Version : 9/11... Why do they hate us? Our Freedoms? Blowback?


jAZ
05-16-2007, 01:00 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-debate16may16,1,541850.story?coll=la-news-politics-national&track=crosspromo

From last night's GOP debate...

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani pounced at one of the least-known candidates, Ron Paul, when the Texas congressman suggested that terrorists struck the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, because "we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."

"That's an extraordinary statement," Giuliani snapped, then called on Paul "to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean it."

The crowd of invited guests at the University of South Carolina roared its approval, but Paul did not back down. "I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback," he said. "They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there."

Eleazar
05-16-2007, 01:02 PM
another inconspicuous forum miss :rolleyes:

Arrowhead Pride
05-16-2007, 01:03 PM
Ron Paul is the sanest thinker of the lot.

jAZ
05-16-2007, 01:07 PM
Please move, sorry!

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-16-2007, 01:07 PM
This is not a new idea. For those who are interested read "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson.

Direckshun
05-16-2007, 01:14 PM
I have to go with what Osama Bin Laden said himself.

Hammock Parties
05-16-2007, 01:17 PM
Blowjobs or Blowback?

kepp
05-16-2007, 01:17 PM
From what I've learned (Discovery Channel and the like), Al-Qaeda was formed by bin Laden because of the US presence in Saudi Arabia. I think as it globalizes, though, a smattering of the militants are just doing it because they hate our freedoms. But I have to think that its mostly blowback.

Iowanian
05-16-2007, 01:18 PM
Penis Envy.

Hammock Parties
05-16-2007, 01:19 PM
Everyone should read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Jihad-Life-Qaeda-Story/dp/0465023886

Iowanian
05-16-2007, 01:21 PM
These people have been hating someone for centuries. If it weren't for Jews, or the United States...it would be women for not covering their face, stoning their sisters for getting raped, or waging war on other Muslim sects-tribes-neighbors-nations.

kepp
05-16-2007, 01:23 PM
These people have been hating someone for centuries. If it weren't for Jews, or the United States...it would be women for not covering their face, stoning their sisters for getting raped, or waging war on other Muslim sects-tribes-neighbors-nations.
Actually, don't they do all that other stuff already?

kepp
05-16-2007, 01:24 PM
Everyone should read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Jihad-Life-Qaeda-Story/dp/0465023886
That looks good...gonna check it out. Thanks.

Iowanian
05-16-2007, 01:25 PM
Yeah....but the United States is sort of like The McRib. Its the hot item to hate until a better, more double quarter-hater with Cheese(no bacon) comes along.

I honestly don't think there is anything we as a country could do to placate these people into peace except....all die.

Hammock Parties
05-16-2007, 01:27 PM
I honestly don't think there is anything we as a country could do to placate these people into peace except....all die.

We could make 250 million people assimilate into Islamic culture. But, aside from that, not much.

JohnnyV13
05-16-2007, 01:29 PM
Well, there is some historical revisionism, because terrorist organizations have been attacking the united states well before any involvement in Iraq. Back in the 80's, when reagan was FINANCING Iraq's war vs. Iran, terrorist groups attacked our base in lebanon, and butchered passengers on the achilie laurel passenger liner.

Bowser
05-16-2007, 01:31 PM
I honestly don't think there is anything we as a country could do to placate these people into peace except....all die.

They've got to want peace for themselves first. We can't give what they don't want.

patteeu
05-16-2007, 01:37 PM
From what I've learned (Discovery Channel and the like), Al-Qaeda was formed by bin Laden because of the US presence in Saudi Arabia. I think as it globalizes, though, a smattering of the militants are just doing it because they hate our freedoms. But I have to think that its mostly blowback.

I liked this answer the best. I voted mostly blowback and some freedom-hate, but I agree with those who point out that the blowback is more longstanding than Iraq. It involves the presence of our oil companies in their oil fields, of our troops in Lebanon and elsewhere, our support for the Shah of Iran, our support for many of the "moderate" regimes in the area who are repressive toward their own populations, and perhaps as much as anything else, our support of Israel. They won't be satisfied unless we completely abandon the region which isn't going to happen as long as oil continues to be the lifeblood of the modern economy. And I don't want to hear about eliminating our dependence on ME oil because it can't be done (unless we eliminate our dependence on oil altogether).

Eleazar
05-16-2007, 01:37 PM
because Osama paid $89.95 for a subscription to Warpaint Illustrated.

jAZ
05-16-2007, 01:39 PM
I really didn't mean for this to be in this forum. Please move.

CoMoChief
05-16-2007, 01:40 PM
Just go over there and blow their shit up. Nuke the ****ers for all I care. After most of their country is completely destroyed maybe they will finally realize that we aren't ****ing around anymore and that eventually we will annaliate them. And I mean just really go over there and invade the living crap out of them and not even care about it. I mean just go over there and really ****ing give it to them.

noa
05-16-2007, 01:40 PM
I would like anyone who votes for the first option (the Bush position) to explain why terrorists would attack us because we have various freedoms.

JohnnyV13
05-16-2007, 01:41 PM
I'm not sure if the "blowback vs. freedoms" is even a reasonable question to ask.

The arabs "hating our freedoms" is a code phrase for american "good guy" PR. That's like saying they hate us becaues we're nicer than them.

Ultimately, I think the conflict with arab states occurs because we are a secular government and are rich and powerful. America's economic success destabilizes other governments, because their populace might wonder why they can't live like americans. OUr involvement in Arab affairs is due to oil, Israel, and our shameless promotion of the american system. Our secular government philosophy undercuts the power base of Islamic mullahs.

Not surprisingly, the mullahs preach that we are evil, because we espouse a system that would severely reduce their power. The mullahs attack american culture and their governments tacitly (or not so tacitly) agree because they can conveniently blame america for all their problems as a method to stabilize their government.

Mr. Kotter
05-16-2007, 01:43 PM
They hate us because they are jealous pricks.

Mr. Kotter
05-16-2007, 01:43 PM
I have to go with what Osama Bin Laden said himself.
So, you accept the rantings and rationalization of a homicidal terrorist to be....truthful?

Nice.

Please move, sorry!

I really didn't mean for this to be in this forum. Please move.


:rolleyes:

Easy 6
05-16-2007, 01:46 PM
I would like anyone who votes for the first option (the Bush position) to explain why terrorists would attack us because we have various freedoms.

I would have to say that there is certainly that element who simply hate everything about our permissive culture, it definitely plays its part.

IMO, the hardest of the hardcore terrorists are coming from a strictly religious point of view & our openness is anathema to all that they stand for.

Its not the whole story, but it covers a lot of it IMO.

noa
05-16-2007, 01:49 PM
I would have to say that there is certainly that element who simply hate everything about our permissive culture, it definitely plays its part.

IMO, the hardest of the hardcore terrorists are coming from a strictly religious point of view & our openness is anathema to all that they stand for.

Its not the whole story, but it covers a lot of it IMO.


Even so, there are plenty of countries that are even more permissive than us. I agree with you that it contributes, but it can't be the sole explanation. Otherwise, 9/11 would have happened in Amsterdam, not New York. America is a target for various reasons, and its more complicated than "they hate us for our freedom."

Iowanian
05-16-2007, 01:51 PM
That's like saying they hate us becaues we're nicer than them.
.

We are nicer than them.

Scenerio 1. Muslim terrorists pull wounded soldiers from IED'd vehicle, torture and mutilate them, cut off their genitals and stuff them in their mouths, place an explosive between their legs for their friends to find.

American Soldier catches offenders of scenerio 1, and has the discourtious audacity to SHOUT at them, or bumps their head on the door jam while loading them into a vehicle for transport.

Which one is called the abuser and barbarian in most cases?

Western Nations will never be able to come to long term peace by negotiationg with people that kill their sisters-mothers-wives-daughters with rocks because someone else of their same ideology rapes them, and cut the heads off of civilians to prove a political point.

The only thing they're respect is unimaginable military power being unleashed upon them.

Easy 6
05-16-2007, 01:55 PM
Even so, there are plenty of countries that are even more permissive than us. I agree with you that it contributes, but it can't be the sole explanation. Otherwise, 9/11 would have happened in Amsterdam, not New York. America is a target for various reasons, and its more complicated than "they hate us for our freedom."


Your right, "they hate us for our freedom" is lame bumper sticker sloganeering that completely oversimplifies it all.

But there is no shortage of things that Islamoterrorists hate.

Mr. Kotter
05-16-2007, 02:01 PM
Even so, there are plenty of countries that are even more permissive than us. I agree with you that it contributes, but it can't be the sole explanation. Otherwise, 9/11 would have happened in Amsterdam, not New York. America is a target for various reasons, and its more complicated than "they hate us for our freedom."

How about because we are the most powerful and prosperous nation on the face of the planet? We got a big ass target painted on our back, for that alone. If they bombed Amsterdam, would as many people notice....or even give a damn?

Yes, it's more complicated than they "hate us for our freedom," but that is also a big part of it...too.

recxjake
05-16-2007, 02:03 PM
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hc1ohELwjWo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hc1ohELwjWo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Micjones
05-16-2007, 02:04 PM
People still think that terrorists halfway across the globe are responsible for 9/11?

Wow...

recxjake
05-16-2007, 02:07 PM
People still think that terrorists halfway across the globe are responsible for 9/11?

Wow...

Please clarify...

BucEyedPea
05-16-2007, 02:08 PM
Well, there is some historical revisionism, because terrorist organizations have been attacking the united states well before any involvement in Iraq. Back in the 80's, when reagan was FINANCING Iraq's war vs. Iran, terrorist groups attacked our base in lebanon, and butchered passengers on the achilie laurel passenger liner.
Over there they did it. It never followed us home though until post PGWI...troops on their lands. Just look at the increase in the 90's. Once we pulled our troops out of Lebanon, under Reagan, who said it was a mistake the attacks died down. Attacks soared again during PGWI. It's an attack when they attack our military, but it is not terrorism. There is a definite date/coincident correlation to our military presence there. Afterall, Arab nationalism arose post WWI and the west still had to go in and divide up the land as the spoils of war and put puppet states on it that don't reflect the people.

Simply Red
05-16-2007, 02:08 PM
People still think that terrorists halfway across the globe are responsible for 9/11?

Wow...

Dumbass viewpoint.

Sorry dude... :shake:

chagrin
05-16-2007, 02:10 PM
What's the matter jaz, tired of the same 8 people talking to you in DC? Get this garbage out of here

Mr. Kotter
05-16-2007, 02:12 PM
People still think that terrorists halfway across the globe are responsible for 9/11?

Wow...

So, do you subscribe to the conspiracy theorist/"Loose Change" version of events? :spock:

patteeu
05-16-2007, 02:14 PM
I would like anyone who votes for the first option (the Bush position) to explain why terrorists would attack us because we have various freedoms.

You don't really believe that's the Bush position do you? I mean, he doesn't call it blowback, but I think there is acknowledgment on his part that they resent our support for Israel and our fact-of-life interests in the region in addition to his statements about them hating our freedoms.

The answer to your question, I think, is that they dislike our moral permissiveness for the same reasons that some of our own traditionalist elements dislike them and that they don't agree with our willingness to let women act like they are the equals of men. Come to think of it, it's hard to argue with that last point. ;)

Micjones
05-16-2007, 02:15 PM
Dude you gotta get out more.

"Loose Change" is just a drop in the bucket.

Iowanian
05-16-2007, 02:16 PM
Note to self...Micjones is "one-uh those" guys.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-16-2007, 02:18 PM
How about because we are the most powerful and prosperous nation on the face of the planet? We got a big ass target painted on our back, for that alone. If they bombed Amsterdam, would as many people notice....or even give a damn?

Yes, it's more complicated than they "hate us for our freedom," but that is also a big part of it...too.

They really hated us when we were funding the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. But of course we weren't the most powerful and prosperous nation then....errr.....yeah. :shake:

Simply Red
05-16-2007, 02:19 PM
Dude you gotta get out more.

"Loose Change" is just a drop in the bucket.

Another example of someone who believes everything they see on CNN and MSNBC. Sorry I stepped in this pathetic thread.

Micjones
05-16-2007, 02:21 PM
I've never seen anything on either CNN or MSNBC.
But so much for accuracy...

noa
05-16-2007, 02:22 PM
You don't really believe that's the Bush position do you? I mean, he doesn't call it blowback, but I think there is acknowledgment on his part that they resent our support for Israel and our fact-of-life interests in the region in addition to his statements about them hating our freedoms

I was just referring to the poll options. I know that Bush's view isn't that narrow minded, but that's what the first option on this poll states, so I was trying to identify those who voted for that option.

I have to add that while the Bush Administration has expressed a more complex view (Colin Powell on Meet the Press comes to mind), the president did use the 'they hate us for our freedom' in speeches.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020409-8.html
You should not be confused about the nature of the people we're dealing with. They hate us, because we're free. They hate the thought that Americans welcome all religions. They can't stand that thought. They hate the thought that we educate everybody. They hate our freedoms. They hate the fact that we hold each individual -- we dignify each individual. We believe in the dignity of every person. They can't stand that.

Baby Lee
05-16-2007, 02:23 PM
D@mn, another Republican insisting on connections between 9/11 and Iraq.

Mr. Kotter
05-16-2007, 02:24 PM
Dude you gotta get out more.

"Loose Change" is just a drop in the bucket.

Are you going to elaborate on precisely what you mean, or are you going to leave us to guess which conspiracy theories you are referring to?

BucEyedPea
05-16-2007, 02:24 PM
You don't really believe that's the Bush position do you?
Nah! It's just demagoguery.


The answer to your question, I think, is that they dislike our moral permissiveness for the same reasons that some of our own traditionalist elements dislike them.
Bingo! If there is any relation to freedom it's our promiscuous culture which they find immoral. Something the religious conservatives can agree with them on.

Polls and surveys show that overwhelming numbers admire many our freedoms...but that to them means they get to run their countries their way...often under Sharia law.

These numbers plummet when it comes to our policy in the ME over there though.

...and that they don't agree with our willingness to let women act like they are the equals of men. Come to think of it, it's hard to argue with that last point. ;)


http://nfcsouth.net/bbs/html/emoticons/raspberries.gif

Baby Lee
05-16-2007, 02:28 PM
Are you going to elaborate on precisely what you mean, or are you going to leave us to guess which conspiracy theories you are referring to?
Shhh, he's all tuckered out, little buster's napping.

He's pointed you to the fact that the real truth is something different than you know. He has neither the time nor the inclination to educate you further, since it's probably wasted effort anyway.

Simply Red
05-16-2007, 02:29 PM
Shhh, he's all tuckered out, little buster's napping.

He's pointed you to the fact that the real truth is something different than you know. He has neither the time nor the inclination to educate you further, since it's probably wasted effort anyway.
Sarcastic meter now working fine.

Micjones
05-16-2007, 02:31 PM
Are you going to elaborate on precisely what you mean, or are you going to leave us to guess which conspiracy theories you are referring to?

Your mind is made-up already.
They're conspiracy theories so why would I go any further to elaborate?

A conspiracy theory, by definition, connotes something that cannot be readily verified by credible evidence or information.

Unless you've been in hiding you'd know that there are mountains of evidence/information to substantiate such a claim.

Now... Either you agree or you disagree, but to label it a conspiracy theory is to assign your own definition to the term.

Simply Red
05-16-2007, 02:32 PM
Shhh, he's all tuckered out, little buster's napping.

He's pointed you to the fact that the real truth is something different than you know. He has neither the time nor the inclination to educate you further, since it's probably wasted effort anyway.


Well yah!

Havent you seen Farenheit 911( ROFL )?

Baby Lee
05-16-2007, 02:32 PM
You'd be getting neg rep for that, if I didn't like you. :)
You find no delicious irony in many of the same people who insist Bush lied to convince the world that Iraq coordinated 9/11, cheer a guy who speculates that 9/11 happened because we bombed that exact same country.

Micjones
05-16-2007, 02:32 PM
Shhh, he's all tuckered out, little buster's napping.

He's pointed you to the fact that the real truth is something different than you know. He has neither the time nor the inclination to educate you further, since it's probably wasted effort anyway.

I'm wondering when you'll finally hop down from my scrotum and find time to research something on your own...

Ah well...
Wishful thinking.

Baby Lee
05-16-2007, 02:34 PM
People still think that terrorists halfway across the globe are responsible for 9/11?

Wow...
Your mind is made-up already.
They're conspiracy theories so why would I go any further to elaborate?

A conspiracy theory, by definition, connotes something that cannot be readily verified by credible evidence or information.

Unless you've been in hiding you'd know that there are mountains of evidence/information to substantiate such a claim.

Now... Either you agree or you disagree, but to label it a conspiracy theory is to assign your own definition to the term.
So, to summarize;

People still believe substantiated fact over speculation unverified by credible evidence or information?

Wow. . .

Baby Lee
05-16-2007, 02:35 PM
I'm wondering when you'll finally hop down from my scrotum and find time to research something on your own...

Ah well...
Wishful thinking.
I'm not a literature major. Reading fiction isn't research.

BucEyedPea
05-16-2007, 02:35 PM
You find no delicious irony in many of the same people who insist Bush lied to convince the world that Iraq coordinated 9/11, cheer a guy who speculates that 9/11 happened because we bombed that exact same country.
No speculation. Time to read OBL's fatwa.
Anyhow Paul didn't say that exactly either. I have the transcript.

Simply Red
05-16-2007, 02:39 PM
You find no delicious irony in many of the same people who insist Bush lied to convince the world that Iraq coordinated 9/11, cheer a guy who speculates that 9/11 happened because we bombed that exact same country.
see post 50

Mr. Kotter
05-16-2007, 02:39 PM
Your mind is made-up already.
They're conspiracy theories so why would I go any further to elaborate?

A conspiracy theory, by definition, connotes something that cannot be readily verified by credible evidence or information.

Unless you've been in hiding you'd know that there are mountains of evidence/information to substantiate such a claim.

Now... Either you agree or you disagree, but to label it a conspiracy theory is to assign your own definition to the term.

Well, I'll tell you what....if there was the "mountains of evidence/information to substantiate such a claim" that you are claiming, they would NOT be conspiracy theories---they would be credible.

So you're telling me the media, the political opponents of the current administration, and others who would clearly benefit.....if such evidence were indeed truly available and truly credible, are not willing to share clear and convincing evidence with the rest of us who are, understandably, skeptical of such claims?

:shrug:

Micjones
05-16-2007, 02:40 PM
I'm not a literature major. Reading fiction isn't research.

Have you researched the information?
If you haven't you're in no position to call its credibility into question.

But if you'd rather just cozy up to ignorance...
Carry on.

Mr. Kotter
05-16-2007, 02:41 PM
They really hated us when we were funding the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. But of course we weren't the most powerful and prosperous nation then....errr.....yeah. :shake:
They weren't capable of it then; they are....now. Pretty simple really.

Simply Red
05-16-2007, 02:45 PM
Have you researched the information?
If you haven't you're in no position to call its credibility into question.

But if you'd rather just cozy up to ignorance...
Carry on.

What you call ignorant; I am fine cozying up to/with.

Donger
05-16-2007, 02:47 PM
Anyone else think MicJones and Hamas were separated at birth?

Baby Lee
05-16-2007, 02:51 PM
Anyone else think MicJones and Hamas were separated at birth?
No way. Hamas has his philosophical strain, but at least he defends it, . . . until he gets frustrated/confused and pulls the 'ya'll dumb marthafockers' pin.

Mic's entire schtick is to call everyone underinformed, allude to an alternate truth that all good people know about, and leave it to you to figure WTF he's actually espousing, if anything beyond playing superior.

Donger
05-16-2007, 02:56 PM
No way. Hamas has his philosophical strain, but at least he defends it, . . . until he gets frustrated/confused and pulls the 'ya'll dumb marthafockers' pin.

Mic's entire schtick is to call everyone underinformed, allude to an alternate truth that all good people know about, and leave it to you to figure WTF he's actually espousing, if anything beyond playing superior.

Dizygotic twins, mind you.

Easy 6
05-16-2007, 03:00 PM
Dizygotic

The English language is perhaps my strongest suit & i still had to look that one up.

Baby Lee
05-16-2007, 03:03 PM
Dizygotic twins, mind you.
They're the Ying Yang Twins?*






*in deference to the mispronunciation thread, yes I know it's technically Yin/Yang.

Iowanian
05-16-2007, 03:04 PM
No need to pass the Salt or A1, as this indeed is seasoned properly.

You find no delicious irony in many of the same people who insist Bush lied to convince the world that Iraq coordinated 9/11, cheer a guy who speculates that 9/11 happened because we bombed that exact same country.

Mr. Kotter
05-16-2007, 03:04 PM
Anyone else think MicJones and Hamas were separated at birth?

Heh. Nah....

I could be wrong....but both strike me as Nation of Islam types, NTTAWWT. Seriously, if not members....then sympathizers. Which lends some insight into the paradigm they bring to the table. :hmmm:

Simply Red
05-16-2007, 03:06 PM
No need to pass the Salt or A1, as this indeed is seasoned properly.

That is why I recalled my post. I misunderstood his sarcasm.

Micjones
05-16-2007, 03:07 PM
"You cannot wake up a man who is pretending to sleep."

Iowanian
05-16-2007, 03:07 PM
micjones "studied up" on 911 by listening to hours and hours of "Coast to Coast" on AM radio.

He's obviously informed sufficiently.

Micjones
05-16-2007, 03:10 PM
I've in fact never caught that broadcast.

But I have taken time out to research information that is readily available to anyone interested.

Iowanian
05-16-2007, 03:11 PM
Anyone else think MicJones and Hamas were separated at birth?

Is "at birth" a Greek translation of "genitals and rectum"?

Mr. Kotter
05-16-2007, 03:12 PM
“Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.”

Simply Red
05-16-2007, 03:16 PM
Sorry this is very interesting. Great thread. Really.

But I've gotta go poop.

Baby Lee
05-16-2007, 03:29 PM
Politics are more fun when everyone chips in.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-16-2007, 03:48 PM
No way. Hamas has his philosophical strain, but at least he defends it, . . . until he gets frustrated/confused and pulls the 'ya'll dumb marthafockers' pin.

Mic's entire schtick is to call everyone underinformed, allude to an alternate truth that all good people know about, and leave it to you to figure WTF he's actually espousing, if anything beyond playing superior.

I"ll agree to the frustrating portion. The confused...not so much.

Baby Lee
05-16-2007, 03:49 PM
I"ll agree to the frustrating portion. The confused...not so much.
frustrated

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-16-2007, 03:51 PM
frustrated


:bang:
:bang:
:bang:


:)

Micjones
05-16-2007, 04:03 PM
Wanna hash it out BL?

Let's do it...

Micjones
05-16-2007, 04:05 PM
Sure anyone who distrusts the official 9/11 report is an idiot...

Just like Colonel Robert Bowman, former head of the U.S. “Star Wars” program; Andreas von Bülow, former State Secretary in the German Federal Ministry of Defense; former CIA analysts Bill Christison and Robert David Steele; former Scientific American columnist A. K. Dewdney; General Leonid Ivashov, former chief of staff of the Russian armed forces; Colonel Ronald D. Ray, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense...

Micjones
05-16-2007, 04:25 PM
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill

Fishpicker
05-16-2007, 04:32 PM
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hc1ohELwjWo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hc1ohELwjWo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

cool clip. it clearly shows Giuliani jumping Dr. Paul's #### for something the moderator insinuated. the moderator acted inappropriately and Giuliani came across like piss & vinegar. Its about that I expected from FOX.

BucEyedPea
05-16-2007, 04:42 PM
cool clip. it clearly shows Giuliani jumping Dr. Paul's #### for something the moderator insinuated. the moderator acted inappropriately and Giuliani came across like piss & vinegar. Its about that I expected from FOX.
Rudy responded like an authoritarian.
Go in DC (Thread: Second Republican Debate)and look at the numbers supporting Ron Paul on the debate. He beat Guiliani. Then Fox had to discredit it's own poll.

Fishpicker
05-16-2007, 04:51 PM
Rudy responded like an authoritarian.
Go in DC (Thread: Second Republican Debate)and look at the numbers supporting Ron Paul on the debate. He beat Guiliani. Then Fox had to discredit it's own poll.

ya I know, I posted the polls :p it didnt take long for all the DC regulars to claim that the polls are useless, inaccurate, manipulated (Fox News said the vote was limited to once per phone) Then Recxjake posted a poll that has 300+ participants. ROFL

I'm just taking this all in. it's too funny

greg63
05-16-2007, 04:58 PM
It's a substantial amount of both.

Ok, where's the Gaz option?

GoHuge
05-16-2007, 05:06 PM
These people hate the US, each other, and everything. It has been going on for centuries. They are just plain old batshit crazy...always have been.

They want to keep women in the bee keeper suits and have no education. They want the Jews destroyed and the Palestians to have "their" land back. For F**K sake these people blow themselves up and kill innocemt people in there own religion because they're from a different sec so they can go to "paradise" and hook up with 72 virgins. Does anybody want to have to deal with another virgin? Espesially 72? Good lord at some point you want a woman that really knows how to suck a dick, not stare at it while you try and talk her into it....we've all been there :banghead: What kind of religion promises you pussy to kill innocent people in the name of your God?

Bin Laden has a list things that he hates about us. In no paticular order-US being in the "God Foresaken" Arabian Peninsula, our backing of Isreal, someting about oil, and most of all the really really low cut jeans that our women wear.

Logical
05-16-2007, 05:08 PM
ya I know, I posted the polls :p it didnt take long for all the DC regulars to claim that the polls are useless, inaccurate, manipulated (Fox News said the vote was limited to once per phone) Then Recxjake posted a poll that has 300+ participants. ROFL

I'm just taking this all in. it's too funny

Polls that rely on people calling in, voting on internet etc are always unreliable. A real poll has to rely on random sampling to provide its accuracy margin vs the real population.

BucEyedPea
05-16-2007, 05:21 PM
Polls that rely on people calling in, voting on internet etc are always unreliable. A real poll has to rely on random sampling to provide its accuracy margin vs the real population.
How can a random sampling be done on a debate? It has to be on those who watched the debate. It can't be random. That's for other type polls.

As far as I understand internet polls are unreliable because people can vote more than once. I read all about the polls for the msnbc and abc debate regarding whether the tally for Paul was real or not. They claimed technical features were put in to weed those types of activities out. The conclusion was that it was an accurate tally of those who watched the debate.

Local talk radio here was discussing the whole phenomena.

Fishpicker
05-16-2007, 05:42 PM
How can a random sampling be done on a debate? It has to be on those who watched the debate. It can't be random. That's for other type polls.

As far as I understand internet polls are unreliable because people can vote more than once. I read all about the polls for the msnbc and abc debate regarding whether the tally for Paul was real or not. They claimed technical features were put in to weed those types of activities out. The conclusion was that it was an accurate tally of those who watched the debate.

Local talk radio here was discussing the whole phenomena.


it is possible to vote more than once (In ABC's poll) but its not likely. The IP address can be spoofed but that can be detected pretty easily by an input filter on a router. because of network address translation, a spoofed IP will appear as though it originated from a local segment of the network. If there actually was a large block of ip addresses (originating from the local segment) responsible for the RP vote, ABC would have known as soon as they checked. If ABC did find something like that, they would say for certain that they had. they are the media after all.

MSNBC's poll is not likely to be manipulated because it is interactive. A person would have to vote manually (using the sliders) every time they obtained access to the poll. that kind of defeats the purpose of hacking in order to manipulate the results.

Fox New's poll was limited to 1 vote per phone. If you voted more than once you either have multple cell phones or bought diposable cells for the debate poll.

That's why there is no hard proof (let alone any evidence) that the pools were influenced by illegitimate means.

Mr. Kotter
05-16-2007, 08:26 PM
Sure anyone who distrusts the official 9/11 report is an idiot...

Just like Colonel Robert Bowman, former head of the U.S. “Star Wars” program; Andreas von Bülow, former State Secretary in the German Federal Ministry of Defense; former CIA analysts Bill Christison and Robert David Steele; former Scientific American columnist A. K. Dewdney; General Leonid Ivashov, former chief of staff of the Russian armed forces; Colonel Ronald D. Ray, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense...
You realize....the list of people who would, with some authority and expertise (that you and I both lack,) would unequivocally characterize this rather small list (comparatively speaking) of disillusioned, disenchanted and disgruntled former "officials" as completely, and utterly, full of shit....would literally run into the thousands of people....don't you?

Logical
05-16-2007, 08:32 PM
This thread lasted in the main forum far longer than I expected.

recxjake
05-16-2007, 08:39 PM
it is possible to vote more than once (In ABC's poll) but its not likely. The IP address can be spoofed but that can be detected pretty easily by an input filter on a router. because of network address translation, a spoofed IP will appear as though it originated from a local segment of the network. If there actually was a large block of ip addresses (originating from the local segment) responsible for the RP vote, ABC would have known as soon as they checked. If ABC did find something like that, they would say for certain that they had. they are the media after all.

MSNBC's poll is not likely to be manipulated because it is interactive. A person would have to vote manually (using the sliders) every time they obtained access to the poll. that kind of defeats the purpose of hacking in order to manipulate the results.

Fox New's poll was limited to 1 vote per phone. If you voted more than once you either have multple cell phones or bought diposable cells for the debate poll.

That's why there is no hard proof (let alone any evidence) that the pools were influenced by illegitimate means.

The Fox News Poll was far from accurate... you think my grandparents or parents are going to text in a stupid number? No.... everyone that texted in for Paul were Democrats watching the debate.... the consensus among the media and political pundits all have Hucakabee and Giuliani winning, with Romney a close third.

recxjake
05-16-2007, 08:41 PM
Polls that rely on people calling in, voting on internet etc are always unreliable. A real poll has to rely on random sampling to provide its accuracy margin vs the real population.


Exactly right... the truth about the debate will come in on Tuesday of next week when the new poll numbers come in.

BucEyedPea
05-16-2007, 10:05 PM
The Fox News Poll was far from accurate... you think my grandparents or parents are going to text in a stupid number? No.... everyone that texted in for Paul were Democrats watching the debate.... the consensus among the media and political pundits all have Hucakabee and Giuliani winning, with Romney a close third.
6 million vote in the GOP primary and 2 million watched the debates.
That's also hardly the American people over 70% who feel this country is movingin the wrong direction when we're under a GOP prez.
It's pure speculation that these are Democrats. Paul supporters are more sophisticated than your average viewer.

Pundits are still NOT the people. Their purpose is to shape public opinion.
Communications 101 says the purpose of media is to help shape public opinion.
I mean come on....Morris was on "The Ministry of Truth" tonight saying Guiliani won the debate and that Romney just was bad. The opposite. The internet just irks these guys.

Direckshun
05-16-2007, 10:13 PM
So, you accept the rantings and rationalization of a homicidal terrorist to be....truthful?

Nice.
I didn't catch this gem until just now. Lord, Kotter. Neg rep.

I don't believe Osama is right about America being an evil empire, if that's what you're suggesting I believe.

But he's running the show for Al Qaeda. 9/11 was his thing. And he said he masterminded it because of (a.) our troops in Saudi Arabia, (b.) our support of Israel, and (c.) our actions in Iraq.

So that's what I'm going on.

Direckshun
05-16-2007, 10:15 PM
I just don't understand "freedoms."

Bin Laden openly mocked us in one of his little home videos for that very rationale, one that Bush and the Repugs were pushing in the 2004 election.

"If we hated you for your freedoms, why have we not attacked Sweden?"

Logical
05-16-2007, 10:17 PM
6 million vote in the GOP primary and 2 million watched the debates.
That's also hardly the American people over 70% who feel this country is movingin the wrong direction when we're under a GOP prez.
It's pure speculation that these are Democrats. Paul supporters are more sophisticated than your average viewer.

Pundits are still NOT the people. Their purpose is to shape public opinion.
Communications 101 says the purpose of media is to help shape public opinion.
I mean come on....Morris was on "The Ministry of Truth" tonight saying Guiliani won the debate and that Romney just was bad. The opposite. The internet just irks these guys.

I cannot believe you really believe Ron Paul won, I can respect he best represents your view, but not the views of the average voting American.

irishjayhawk
05-16-2007, 10:21 PM
I think it ultimately boils down to us helping Israel and our presence in Saudi. (And now in Iraq) If we backed out, I would put a pretty heavy bet on the fact we cut loose, we could soar higher in their view.

Mr. Kotter
05-16-2007, 10:23 PM
I think it ultimately boils down to us helping Israel and our presence in Saudi. (And now in Iraq) If we backed out, I would put a pretty heavy bet on the fact we cut loose, we could soar higher in their view.

Talk about mutha fuggin' naive.... :rolleyes:


:shake:

irishjayhawk
05-16-2007, 10:24 PM
Talk about mutha fuggin' naive.... :rolleyes:


:shake:

And I almost added that exact word to my post. Is it though? Is it that naive?

Mr. Kotter
05-16-2007, 10:26 PM
And I almost added that exact word to my post. Is it though? Is it that naive?

Yes. Completely, and utterly. IMHO.:shake:

irishjayhawk
05-16-2007, 10:29 PM
Yes. Completely, and utterly. IMHO.:shake:

Why? I'm not disagreeing with you. I just want to know why?

I mean, to me, it seems like the simplest solution. Not everything has to be a "complex" problem with a "complex" solution. Just saying.

Logical
05-16-2007, 10:31 PM
I think it ultimately boils down to us helping Israel and our presence in Saudi. (And now in Iraq) If we backed out, I would put a pretty heavy bet on the fact we cut loose, we could soar higher in their view.

Not sure what you mean by soar higher, possibly fly lower under their radar.

irishjayhawk
05-16-2007, 10:33 PM
Not sure what you mean by soar higher, possibly fly lower under their radar.

Semantics. :p

Fair enough. :)

BucEyedPea
05-16-2007, 10:36 PM
I cannot believe you really believe Ron Paul won, I can respect he best represents your view, but not the views of the average voting American.
That could be said of you as well as others too. Just that he doesn't reflect your views. Who said these are the views of the average voting American anyway?
These are polls from people who watch the debates. How many do?

I'm actually flabbergasted that he's come out as far ahead consistently around the same numbers in 3 debate polls so far. It's just beyond what I've expected at all.

Really though, when you think about it how could the notoriously divided and disorganizedlibertartian movement ever organize a poll stuffing conspiracy, when the well financed campaigns of Guiliani, Romney and MCCain could not?

Paul supporters may just care more and are more likely to participate.

If anything the votes for McCain show apathy or they just don't care about him.

BucEyedPea
05-16-2007, 10:39 PM
Just look at the poll here. My analysis says the fact that so many believe they hate us for our freedoms as some part in their hatred of us, shows how many are swayed by govt propaganda and demagoguery.

pikesome
05-16-2007, 10:41 PM
Why? I'm not disagreeing with you. I just want to know why?

I mean, to me, it seems like the simplest solution. Not everything has to be a "complex" problem with a "complex" solution. Just saying.

I'd say too much bad blood has passed for the simple solution to work. A not too far fetched future would have the Sauds replaced by Ayatollah Bin Laden and I'm guessing the new management wouldn't want to be easy on the cost of oil.

Fishpicker
05-16-2007, 10:43 PM
The Fox News Poll was far from accurate... you think my grandparents or parents are going to text in a stupid number? No.... everyone that texted in for Paul were Democrats watching the debate.... the consensus among the media and political pundits all have Hucakabee and Giuliani winning, with Romney a close third.

Even though your family didnt vote, there are plenty of young republicans that know how to text and have access to a cell phone. they expressed themselves too. they prefer Romney over Giuliani.
Giuliani has really low numbers for a guy that supposedly stole the show.

I'm sure a good number of democrats voted for Paul too but, suggesting that Paul's supporters are 100% democrat is absurd. Even if that were the case, Dems can change registration to vote for Paul in the primaries.

I'm quite sure that Paul has a good mixture of Libertarian, Democratic, and Conservative support. He has Barry Goldwater Jr's endorsement.

Not everyone in the Republican Party has been Neo-Conned (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm)

Mr. Kotter
05-16-2007, 10:44 PM
Why? I'm not disagreeing with you. I just want to know why?

I mean, to me, it seems like the simplest solution. Not everything has to be a "complex" problem with a "complex" solution. Just saying.
This problem is complex. Ask anyone who's followed it for any length of time. It's geographic, cultural, economic, social...and, in large part, religiously based. The political considerations you cite are a part; but they are far from the only, or even most significant, part of what motivates them to "hate" us.

BucEyedPea
05-16-2007, 10:45 PM
Even though your family didnt vote, there are plenty of young republicans that know how to text and have access to a cell phone. they expressed themselves too. they prefer Romney over Giuliani.
Giuliani has really low numbers for a guy that supposedly stole the show.

I'm sure a good number of democrats voted for Paul too but, suggesting that Paul's supporters are 100% democrat is absurd. Even if that were the case, Dems can change registration to vote for Paul in the primaries.

I'm quite sure that Paul has a good mixture of Libertarian, Democratic, and Conservative support. He has Barry Goldwater Jr's endorsement.

Not everyone in the Republican Party has been Neo-Conned (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm)
:clap: :clap: :clap:

BucEyedPea
05-16-2007, 11:09 PM
In the meantime, the following trends have occurred after the GOP debates:

Thank God the media monopoly days are over!

Ron Paul won a C-SPAN online GOP candidate poll with 69%
(not sure if this one is after or before)

Produced a YouTube.com video that was ranked the 8th most popular overall video, and the most-viewed political video

Was featured, by popular demand, on the front of Digg.com

Generated so many bulletin posts on MySpace.com that the site owner News Corp. blocked all additional posts about Dr. Paul

Became a "most searched" term on Google and Yahoo!

Saw a quadrupling of daily visitors to RonPaul2008.com



http://www.freemarketnews.com/Feedback.asp?nid=16672

patteeu
05-17-2007, 12:03 AM
LMAO @ the people who think Ron Paul really generated as much support as the call-in polls seem to indicate.

Fishpicker
05-17-2007, 12:24 AM
all polls indicate something. maybe its just 10,000 rabid supporters. it is still more more than Giuliani has been able to muster.

Logical
05-17-2007, 12:35 AM
LMAO @ the people who think Ron Paul really generated as much support as the call-in polls seem to indicate.There is no explaining it to the supporters, they simply want to believe so badly.

Taco John
05-17-2007, 01:28 AM
LMAO @ the people who think Ron Paul really generated as much support as the call-in polls seem to indicate.



Support or interest?

Ron Paul knows the score better than any of us out here do with regards to where he's at in this race. The fact that he's gotten this far is nothing short of a huge win for him, and those of us who share similar views. Ron Paul's candidacy is a landmark event for libertarian politics. There's never been a libertarian candidate who has gotten this much press.

The upside is that he's wakening people to points of views that aren't expressed in the polarized media, and people are getting brief looks outside of the echo chamber. It isn't likely that Ron Paul is going to win the national election (though I won't rule it out entirely, just for the fact that I'm an optimist who believes in miracles), but he's exposing a lot of Plato's cave dwellers to the light and wakening them up to a new paradigm in politics: actual, real conservative viewpoints based on the foriegn policy direction of our founding fathers.

patteeu
05-17-2007, 08:01 AM
Support or interest?

Ron Paul knows the score better than any of us out here do with regards to where he's at in this race. The fact that he's gotten this far is nothing short of a huge win for him, and those of us who share similar views. Ron Paul's candidacy is a landmark event for libertarian politics. There's never been a libertarian candidate who has gotten this much press.

The upside is that he's wakening people to points of views that aren't expressed in the polarized media, and people are getting brief looks outside of the echo chamber. It isn't likely that Ron Paul is going to win the national election (though I won't rule it out entirely, just for the fact that I'm an optimist who believes in miracles), but he's exposing a lot of Plato's cave dwellers to the light and wakening them up to a new paradigm in politics: actual, real conservative viewpoints based on the foriegn policy direction of our founding fathers.

I don't have too much argument with you on this. I think it remains to be seen how much wakening is really going on, but in general I think you are taking a reasonable view of Paul's impact. My LMAO was more about people who are taking his huge poll numbers in the debate victory polls seriously. It's obvious, to me at least, that those votes aren't coming from people who plan to vote in the Republican primaries.

I suspect a similar result would occur if someone like Zell Miller shared the stage at a democrat debate and poked his finger in the eyes of the other democrats, although since I've only seen highlights of the Republican debate I admit that I don't necessarily have a clear view of how Paul came across (other than the reactions in this thread and in post-debate analysis).

jAZ
05-17-2007, 08:56 AM
Ron Paul is catching some momentum, and will make a fantastic Libertarian Party presidential candidate for 2008.

He'll be the GOP's Ralph Nader, the question is will he be the 2000 Nader or the 2004 Nader.

The better he does in the GOP debates, and the more buzz he generates, the closer he moves to the 2000 version.

jAZ
05-17-2007, 09:01 AM
Which makes me wonder why Nader doesn't run for the Dem nomination until the primaries, in order to get into the debates. Then then switch and become the Green Party candidate once he's had a few chances to bash the Dems from the left.

BucEyedPea
05-17-2007, 09:03 AM
LMAO @ the people who think Ron Paul really generated as much support as the call-in polls seem to indicate.
ROFL @ the people who take for granted the status quo.

BucEyedPea
05-17-2007, 09:06 AM
It's obvious, to me at least, that those votes aren't coming from people who plan to vote in the Republican primaries.
Links? Proof?

I plan on voting in the GOP primary.
I know someone who switched parties to vote in the GOP primary after this.
Check out Brovards blog and site....they plan on voting in the GOP primary.

jAZ
05-17-2007, 09:11 AM
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sy4Eugc0Xls"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sy4Eugc0Xls" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

jAZ
05-17-2007, 09:14 AM
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/05/behind_the_scen_4.html

Behind The Scenes Scuttlebut
COLUMBIA -- Based on discussions with more than two dozen GOP state chairs, here are some nuggets that don't fit anywhere else.

^^ Chairs were impressed with ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee's debate performance Tuesday night. But they wondered whether his campaign will find a way to capture the momentum. Chairs and RNC members were not keen on Mitt Romney's debate mien.

^^ Privately, several chairs hope to band together to weed out lower-tier candidates like Ron Paul. One big-state chair called his debate antics "embarrassing." It's unclear whether they'll formalize any plans.

^^ Supporters of ex-Sen. Fred Thompson held a private meeting with RNC members and state chairs.

He might move to the Libertarian Party sooner rather than later. I think they recognize that the more his profile grows, sooner they will cut him out. The Nader-Factor is at play here.

recxjake
05-17-2007, 09:16 AM
Ron Paul said he will not run as an independent.

jAZ
05-17-2007, 09:20 AM
Ron Paul said he will not run as an independent.
Are you choosing your words poorly? I never said anything about "independent".

recxjake
05-17-2007, 09:21 AM
Are you choosing your words poorly? I never said anything about "independent".

He said he will not run as third party candidate.

irishjayhawk
05-17-2007, 09:22 AM
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sy4Eugc0Xls"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sy4Eugc0Xls" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Maybe it's me, but I like what he has to say. :clap:

BucEyedPea
05-17-2007, 09:24 AM
Privately, several chairs hope to band together to weed out lower-tier candidates like Ron Paul. One big-state chair called his debate antics "embarrassing." It's unclear whether they'll formalize any plans.


Of course this is embarrassing to them, because they don't agree with him.
He interfere's with their desire to conquer the entire ME or bring about WWIII or IV like Gingrich wants...who wants free speech controls on the internet too. So like good Nazi's, (Didn't the GOP threaten Perot?) they have to get rid of him. I said this would happen. First they'll try to ignore him, then they'll smear him and then try to get rid of him. ( Good Lord, if he ever did win someone would try to kill him.) They can't afford to let the people hear his message and decide. LOL! They can't afford his message to be even heard by more people. It might make us all uppity.

Look at the illogic here: If Paul is SO embarrassing won't their people decide that at the ballot box? See this plan of action shows the real story...Paul is a threat to them.

And the 2 political parties decide who is acceptable to run and only then the people get a choice.

Iowanian
05-17-2007, 09:24 AM
Or 250 miles north of Utopia Harbor, "the reality" is that backing out would be viewed as a sign of weekness by these irrational knuckleheads and would expose Americans to more attacks, more demands and more danger.

The only thing respected by these people is raw agression and power.

I think it ultimately boils down to us helping Israel and our presence in Saudi. (And now in Iraq) If we backed out, I would put a pretty heavy bet on the fact we cut loose, we could soar higher in their view.

jAZ
05-17-2007, 09:27 AM
He said he will not run as third party candidate.
Ok, do you have a link to that?

recxjake
05-17-2007, 09:28 AM
Ok, do you have a link to that?

He said it right after the debate when he was on Hannity and Colmes.

BucEyedPea
05-17-2007, 09:34 AM
Ok, do you have a link to that?
I've seen Paul say the same earlier before the debates. I don't have a link. He ran as a 3P candidate once. Think it was the 80's.

BTW, powerful vested interests have tried to unseat him from Texas with huge money and attack campaigns. They've never succeeded though.

He takes no corporate money. That's why he hasn't raised as much.
Maybe the internet will change this need.

Eleazar
05-17-2007, 09:36 AM
You know, I like a lot of libertarian ideas, I've voted for them a lot of times before. But I'd take a kick in the nuts before I voted for Ron Paul. The idea that his comments created, that when terrorists attack civilians within our borders and stage offensive campaigns against our military and interests abroad, we should take their concerns to heart and bend to their will to prevent further attacks... it's preposterous. It's not even like we are negotiating with terrorists, it's letting them bully you into doing whatever they want you to.

I'd give a libertarian strong consideration in a national election, even a presidential election - particularly this cycle - but I would never even begin to consider someone who was so weak on defense and national security that they don't appear to think we should respond at all to direct attacks on our interests. By now we're all used to the "It was our fault, we caused it, we forced Al Queda's hand, Osama was right" drumbeat from plenty of people in American politics, but I've never even heard anyone from the fringe left say we shouldn't formulate any kind of response other than to bring Al Queda into some kind of a big tent where we let them dictate our foreign policy as long as they pretty please don't do that again. Even John Kerry said he was going to fight a war on terror and pursue terrorists around the globe, or at least make some kind of a token strategy towards that.

Just... it's unthinkable that someone wouldn't even take basic steps to defend ourselves. I'd vote for a Democratic candidate before I'd vote for that moron. I can't imagine anyone less fit for service in the office.

recxjake
05-17-2007, 09:38 AM
I've seen Paul say the same earlier before the debates. I don't have a link. He ran as a 3P candidate once. Think it was the 80's.

BTW, powerful vested interests have tried to unseat him from Texas with huge money and attack campaigns. They've never succeeded though.

He takes no corporate money. That's why he hasn't raised as much.
Maybe the internet will change this need.

1988 he ran as the lib candidate

He has been the talk of the town since the debate, I wouldn't be surprised if he did run, even though he said he wouldn't.

jAZ
05-17-2007, 09:40 AM
... but I would never even begin to consider someone who was so weak on defense and national security that they don't appear to think we should respond at all to direct attacks on our interests....
You are deeply misinformed. Watch the video interview on CNN I posted above, and you will see what you are missing.

BucEyedPea
05-17-2007, 09:47 AM
You know, I like a lot of libertarian ideas, I've voted for them a lot of times before. But I'd take a kick in the nuts before I voted for Ron Paul. The idea that his comments created, that when terrorists attack civilians within our borders and stage offensive campaigns against our military and interests abroad, we should take their concerns to heart and bend to their will to prevent further attacks... it's preposterous. It's not even like we are negotiating with terrorists, it's letting them bully you into doing whatever they want you to.
So we were wrong in our War for Independence attacking the British?

I know there wasn't terrorism then, civilians being targetted is a more more 20th century fact of warfare but there are those that claim Washington committed atrocities on the NY Indians so they would not ally with the British or had allied with them.

It's all a matter of viewpoint and perspective as to who is attacking who.
We do not have a God given or inalienable right to be putting in puppet govts etc etc over there that don't reflect the will of the people who live there. That's imperialism and every nation that went this way was eventually doomed. So went Greece, Rome and the British.

BucEyedPea
05-17-2007, 09:51 AM
You are deeply misinformed. Watch the video interview on CNN I posted above, and you will see what you are missing.
You can't point out such things to today's right. It's selective perception.
Paul's plan of action was a measured response that went after the correct target. Instead we got a plan for regime change across the entire middle-east and promises of a "war that will never end." The right calls that defense. It's overreaction and paranoia. You can't reason with those emotions. They will never vote for Paul. It's a foregone conclusion.

Eleazar
05-17-2007, 10:00 AM
You are deeply misinformed. Watch the video interview on CNN I posted above, and you will see what you are missing.

Can't do it right now, but still. Even if he says something else... if he thinks it's our fault, that we brought it on ourselves, then logically he thinks if we stop doing whatever-it-is then we will stop getting attacked. If that's the key to his strategy, why should we believe he will make any effort to pursue and destroy their cells and networks within our borders and around the world?

I respect him for having a sincerely held opinion and not being afraid to state it at risk of everyone in America thinking he's a douche, but he's nuts.

jAZ
05-17-2007, 10:12 AM
...then logically he thinks if we stop doing whatever-it-is then we will stop getting attacked. If that's the key to his strategy, why should we believe he will make any effort to pursue and destroy their cells and networks within our borders and around the world?

You have a bias, that is blocking your reasoning. The reasoning you are using in place of facts (we all do it, that's not the problem).

The problem is that you conclude that someone who believes (I say understands, but whatever) that there are systemic causes that lead to terrorist "retribution" (in their eyes)... that person must then believe that the solution is to stop the causes and *poof*, things fix themselves...

Well, that's an illogical conclusion on your part. That's not the only alternative if you believe that there is "blowback".

My view (and based on his statements, the view of Ron Paul) is that "genie is out of the bottle". And that an isolated attempt to roll back the clock and "stop doing whatever-it-is" won't work. But neither will the military action (the effective policy of the NeoCons, the Bush administration and their few remaining supporters).

Paul, myself and just about every rational thinking person on this issue recognizes that you can't bomb away terrorism. You can't wish it away either. It's a thoughtful balance of both with judicious use of force so as to minimize the recruiting lines for new terrorists.

Eleazar
05-17-2007, 10:14 AM
myself and just about every rational thinking person on this issue

You're so humble.

BucEyedPea
05-17-2007, 10:17 AM
Can't do it right now, but still. Even if he says something else... if he thinks it's our fault, that we brought it on ourselves, then logically he thinks if we stop doing whatever-it-is then we will stop getting attacked. If that's the key to his strategy, why should we believe he will make any effort to pursue and destroy their cells and networks within our borders and around the world?

I respect him for having a sincerely held opinion and not being afraid to state it at risk of everyone in America thinking he's a douche, but he's nuts.

Okay, see this is one of the problems I have with today's Right —my political party. As Paul says that's "putting words" in his mouth. It's interpretive. Someone made that claim in the debate thread and I got the transcript and nowhere does he say that.

I know this is gonna seem like semantics but I do feel there is a shade of difference in these concepts: "Fault" to me implies wrong doing as in being intentional and being a bad guy. Paul never used the word. Then there is the word responsibility which is a higher concept. Don't get me wrong, the dictionary does not go into this. It's really an ethical thing if you ask me. I've had it in ethics classes. There is nothing wrong with evaluating policy regarding it's success or workability. That's being rational and using one's reason. I mean come one, we're the party of personal responsibility.

Even when I lose an account or get slow, I have to look at what I've been doing to bring about these conditions. It may just mean that I haven't promoted to enough new prospects, the market has shifted and I didn't notice, that I didn't really satisfy a few clients enough, or that someone did a better job or they just wanted a fresh approach so switched designers. The right thinks responsibility means blame. But no one is ever 100% right all the time. America does miscalculate sometimes and does make mistakes. We do have people in our country who are attracted to power for less than noble intentions. I say we'd continue to be a leading power if we adopted more of this attitude instead of the arrogance and hubris that many on the right have adopted. (NeoCons)

BTW I do not see you as a NC, Cochise. I see you as a conservative.

irishjayhawk
05-17-2007, 04:06 PM
Or 250 miles north of Utopia Harbor, "the reality" is that backing out would be viewed as a sign of weekness by these irrational knuckleheads and would expose Americans to more attacks, more demands and more danger.

The only thing respected by these people is raw agression and power.

:hmmm:

I respectfully disagree. :harumph:

jAZ
05-17-2007, 04:59 PM
Or 250 miles north of Utopia Harbor, "the reality" is that backing out would be viewed as a sign of weekness by these irrational knuckleheads and would expose Americans to more attacks, more demands and more danger.

The only thing respected by these people is raw agression and power.
Your absolutist logic is our problem. It creates a catch 22 to which there is no escaping.

If you are right (and I don't think you are, but if you are...) then we are in and endless quagmire. I mean, truely endless.

We can't ever leave, or they will declare victory.

We can't ever defeat them, because we are talking about defeating "terrorism" which is a military tactic used by as few a 1 person to attack easy targets.

You can't kill everyone who might be willing to do us harm. Trying to do so would piss off 0-2 more for each one we try to kill.

The bigger the hammer we swing, the more the population of enemies grows.

The longer we occupy, the more the population of enemies grows.

If we can't leave there, we can't take away the very thing that's causing the "blowback" that even on CP 85% of the people admit is at least partly the cause of terrorism.

If we were to "nuke" the whole region, we'd just shift the hate toward Muslims in other parts of the world (Asia, Europe, etc).

The logic that we can't leave or we lose... well... IMO, that's the only losing move on the board. It's the one policy that guarantees endless war. And an endless war, is no different than defeat.

jAZ
05-17-2007, 05:03 PM
I'll say that last part again.

I think it needs repeating.



An Endless War Is No Different Than Defeat.

Jenson71
05-17-2007, 05:13 PM
I'll say that last part again.

I think it needs repeating.



An Endless War Is No Different Than Defeat.

Will this be on the test?

Logical
05-17-2007, 06:47 PM
...
The logic that we can't leave or we lose... well... IMO, that's the only losing move on the board. It's the one policy that guarantees endless war. And an endless war, is no different than defeat.

The smartest thing I think you have ever posted.