PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Paul likely to win more delegates than either Newt or Santorum this weekend


Taco John
01-30-2012, 10:43 PM
Will Ron Paul win more delegates this week than Gingrich, Santorum?

Ron Paul is likely to win more delegates to the 2012 GOP convention than either Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum this week. Wait. What? That's why he campaigned in Maine this weekend.

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / January 30, 2012

This week, Ron Paul is likely to win more delegates to the 2012 GOP convention than either Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum. In fact, he’s likely to win more delegates than Gingrich and Santorum combined.

“Hold it”, you’re saying, “How can that be? Rep. Paul’s polling in single digits in Florida. He’s going to finish behind Gingrich and Santorum, as well as Mitt Romney, in Tuesday’s Florida primary. How can that translate into beating any of his rivals at all?”

We’ll tell you how – because he’s not winning those delegates in Florida. He’s winning, or will probably win, at least a few delegates in Maine.

more.... (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0130/Will-Ron-Paul-win-more-delegates-this-week-than-Gingrich-Santorum)

La literatura
01-31-2012, 07:26 AM
Ron Paul is going to ride Maine all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave!

alnorth
01-31-2012, 10:04 AM
I think a brokered convention is quickly falling out of sight. RP's endgame right now is probably to force a prime-time speech before riding off into the sunset.

Gingrich is quickly falling apart, but he's stubbornly staying in and will do just enough to keep Santorum from doing anything. The only real shot at a brokered convention now is for Gingrich to do something remarkably stupid, very soon, that completely destroys his support regardless of if he drops out or not, then maybe, possibly Santorum consolidates the not-Romney voters.

If that happens, RP keeps trucking along with his 15% or so, and Santorum does at least well enough to prevent Romney from winning a majority for the "proportional unless someone gets a majority then its winner take all" states and takes a few late winner take all states, then there's a shot.

It probably still wouldn't happen, but that is probably the only way it could at this point.

FD
01-31-2012, 10:07 AM
What Ron Paul needs is a decisive month for Romney followed by Gingrich and Santorum dropping out. After that, the nomination is assured for Mitt and average voters will stop paying attention to the primaries and caucuses, turnout will plummet and RP supporters might be able to swoop in and take a couple. Thats the only way I see Paul getting more than a very small number of delegates.

Saul Good
01-31-2012, 10:10 AM
What Ron Paul needs is a decisive month for Romney followed by Gingrich and Santorum dropping out. After that, the nomination is assured for Mitt and average voters will stop paying attention to the primaries and caucuses, turnout will plummet and RP supporters might be able to swoop in and take a couple. Thats the only way I see Paul getting more than a very small number of delegates.

Even that wouldn't get him a spot at the convention.

alnorth
01-31-2012, 10:15 AM
What Ron Paul needs is a decisive month for Romney followed by Gingrich and Santorum dropping out. After that, the nomination is assured for Mitt and average voters will stop paying attention to the primaries and caucuses, turnout will plummet and RP supporters might be able to swoop in and take a couple. Thats the only way I see Paul getting more than a very small number of delegates.

Ron Paul is going to get a really good chunk of delegates regardless of what the other candidates do. He's going to probably take at least half, if not most of the caucus state delegates, and is really the primary reason why a brokered convention is even possible. (If its 2 strong candidates, someone will win. You need a 3rd stubborn candidate who can take a big chunk off the table, leaving the others needing to win a super-majority of whats left.)

alnorth
01-31-2012, 10:19 AM
Even that wouldn't get him a spot at the convention.

Actually, it probably will. The powers that be in the Republican party are ready to let him speak if it means he doesn't launch a 3rd-party bid.

Also, that 3rd party threat aside, you can dismiss a guy who only gets a small handful of delegates stuck in the back of the convention hall like RP did in 2008, but it is not healthy to snub the guy who maybe 1/4 to 1/5 of delegates support. You can't bar them from the convention floor during speeches, and the crowd would be more than big and loud enough to make things ugly on national TV if you don't give their guy his due.

Chocolate Hog
01-31-2012, 12:22 PM
Lol how can anyone say this thing isn't up in the air? I'm not saying Paul will win but it's obvious a good part of the Republican party doesn't like Mitt Romney. For example: Gingrich isn't on the ballot in Missouri and PPP just released a poll Santorum is getting 45% of the vote. Gingrich leads in Ohio & Minnesota.

Taco John
01-31-2012, 12:46 PM
Lol how can anyone say this thing isn't up in the air? I'm not saying Paul will win but it's obvious a good part of the Republican party doesn't like Mitt Romney. For example: Gingrich isn't on the ballot in Missouri and PPP just released a poll Santorum is getting 45% of the vote. Gingrich leads in Ohio & Minnesota.

The establishment narrative is going to be that Romney has it sealed after Florida. We'll probably see that narrative happen five or six times this year. By the time Romney actually seals up the nomination (if it ever happens) his brand will be so damaged that he'll have no hope of beating Obama.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-31-2012, 02:26 PM
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/MENU_RPposter4.jpg

KILLER_CLOWN
01-31-2012, 02:42 PM
<script language="javascript">var VideoID = "17573"; var Width = 425; var Height = 344;</script><script src="http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/hdplayer/rt.php" language="javascript"></script>

BucEyedPea
01-31-2012, 03:05 PM
Country-club GOP establishment lays down the law to Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and the conservative movement


FALL INTO LINE and GET BEHIND ROMNEY

"...Mission accomplished.

Don't believe it....


After Florida some will say it is over, but it will not be over. Very few delegates will have been selected. A majority of national Republican voters does not play golf in the country club of the white-shoe Republican establishment that will soon be telling the majority of Republicans to shut up and be good little boys and girls." [ The last line here was written by Saul.]

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/207609-country-club-gop-establishment-lays-down-the-law-to-ron-paul-sarah-palin-the-tea-party-and-the-conservative-movement

Calcountry
01-31-2012, 03:06 PM
If Gingrich or Santorum doesn't become a viable alternative to Romney by the time the California primary rolls around, I WILL vote for Ron Paul.

I am through with the Republican party after this charade was forced on us like McSame was last time. Jessie Jackson had it right, "Stay out da Bushes".

Calcountry
01-31-2012, 03:07 PM
Hopefully, we can deny as many delegates as we can to down on the MATT Romney.

Taco John
01-31-2012, 03:19 PM
If Gingrich or Santorum doesn't become a viable alternative to Romney by the time the California primary rolls around, I WILL vote for Ron Paul.

I am through with the Republican party after this charade was forced on us like McSame was last time. Jessie Jackson had it right, "Stay out da Bushes".


Gingrich isn't viable, and wont be viable. His only role right now is to damage Romney and ensure that Obama wins.

There are two viable men in the Republican race right now:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/cnn-poll-obama-tied-with-romney-paul-in-november-showdowns/

Calcountry
01-31-2012, 04:56 PM
Gingrich isn't viable, and wont be viable. His only role right now is to damage Romney and ensure that Obama wins.

There are two viable men in the Republican race right now:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/cnn-poll-obama-tied-with-romney-paul-in-november-showdowns/ My vote in the primary matters more than it will in November due to the electoral college. There are way to many mind numbed non-white voting blocks, and elite Liberals in this state for Limited government, "Reagan Conservatives", to make a difference in anymore. I have a protest the establishment vote now, and I have discussed this at length with a real world Ron Paul supporter and have assured them of my support months ago if a scenario such as the one we have just witnessed were to unfold.

I'm in.

Dave Lane
01-31-2012, 06:36 PM
Put a fork in him boys. He's done.

Taco John
01-31-2012, 06:42 PM
My vote in the primary matters more than it will in November due to the electoral college. There are way to many mind numbed non-white voting blocks, and elite Liberals in this state for Limited government, "Reagan Conservatives", to make a difference in anymore. I have a protest the establishment vote now, and I have discussed this at length with a real world Ron Paul supporter and have assured them of my support months ago if a scenario such as the one we have just witnessed were to unfold.

I'm in.

Welcome to the r3VOLution. This isn't going to turn around in one year. We have 100 years of so-called "progressivism" to reverse, and for the last 30 years, there's been one lonely guy trying to reverse it. But he's getting more friends along the way and momentum is building day by day to make a difference now and into the future. We're about 5 years ahead of where I thought we'd be when I projected this 15 years ago in college.

Chocolate Hog
01-31-2012, 07:40 PM
Put a fork in him boys. He's done.

Are you talking about the country? I agree when your choices are Obama or Romney neither are serious about addressing the issues facing the nation.

Taco John
01-31-2012, 09:52 PM
Are you talking about the country? I agree when your choices are Obama or Romney neither are serious about addressing the issues facing the nation.

Not true. Obama is very serious about addressing the issues facing the nation. His solutions are the problem.

Romney I'm not so sure about. So far as I can tell, he's serious about gaining and maintaining power and little else. He'll do whatever he needs to in order to stay afloat.

BucEyedPea
01-31-2012, 10:12 PM
Not true. Obama is very serious about addressing the issues facing the nation. His solutions are the problem.

Good way of looking at it.

mikey23545
01-31-2012, 10:46 PM
We have 100 years of so-called "progressivism" to reverse, and for the last 30 years, there's been one lonely guy trying to reverse it.

What a tragic, yet heroic figure...LMAO

Taco John
01-31-2012, 10:56 PM
What a tragic, yet heroic figure...LMAO

Neither of us will be laughing when Obama is re-elected.


http://i.imgur.com/B5UTp.jpg

Donger
02-01-2012, 11:07 AM
Gingrich isn't viable, and wont be viable. His only role right now is to damage Romney and ensure that Obama wins.

There are two viable men in the Republican race right now:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/cnn-poll-obama-tied-with-romney-paul-in-november-showdowns/

Viable? As in "can beat Obama"?

If you really think that Paul would stand a chance in Hell against Obama in the general, you're delusional.

Taco John
02-01-2012, 11:26 AM
Viable? As in "can beat Obama"?

If you really think that Paul would stand a chance in Hell against Obama in the general, you're delusional.


I can only go by the data, and the data shows that Paul and Romney are the only two that even compete. I'm sure your gut feelings are important to you, but they provide the rest of us with no real data. There are several polls (not just one) that provide data that shows that Paul and Romney are the only candidates available who attract enough voters to compete with Obama.

In reality, I don't know that Paul has any more chance to beat Obama than Romney does. I think they both probably lose.

Donger
02-01-2012, 11:40 AM
I can only go by the data, and the data shows that Paul and Romney are the only two that even compete. I'm sure your gut feelings are important to you, but they provide the rest of us with no real data. There are several polls (not just one) that provide data that shows that Paul and Romney are the only candidates available who attract enough voters to compete with Obama.

In reality, I don't know that Paul has any more chance to beat Obama than Romney does. I think they both probably lose.

Data, like Paul not even being close to winning a single state yet (nor will he)?

But, you think that he would actually compete favorably in the general against Obama (even though he has no chance of getting the nomination = rather important part)?

Taco John
02-01-2012, 11:49 AM
Data, like Paul not even being close to winning a single state yet (nor will he)?

But, you think that he would actually compete favorably in the general against Obama (even though he has no chance of getting the nomination = rather important part)?


The data suggests that Paul and Romney are the only two who compete favorably in the general against Obama. But you're absolutely right that Paul is having a hard time matching up against the establishment in the primaries. I don't think Paul has enough money to turn the establishment tide to make the polls meaningful. I do think he's got enough money, however, to remain a fly in the ointment all the way into August and influence the platform.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 11:53 AM
Viable? As in "can beat Obama"?

If you really think that Paul would stand a chance in Hell against Obama in the general, you're delusional.

I think you're the one who is delusional since polls bear this out.

Donger
02-01-2012, 12:10 PM
The data suggests that Paul and Romney are the only two who compete favorably in the general against Obama. But you're absolutely right that Paul is having a hard time matching up against the establishment in the primaries. I don't think Paul has enough money to turn the establishment tide to make the polls meaningful. I do think he's got enough money, however, to remain a fly in the ointment all the way into August and influence the platform.

It isn't a lack of money, TJ. It's the fact that his foreign policy is completely out of whack with mainstream Republicans that precludes Paul having any chance at the nomination.

Donger
02-01-2012, 12:11 PM
I think you're the one who is delusional since polls bear this out.

Since Paul stand no chance of gaining the nomination, no, I'm not delusional at all. It's moot.

Taco John
02-01-2012, 12:13 PM
It isn't a lack of money, TJ. It's the fact that his foreign policy is completely out of whack with mainstream Republicans that precludes Paul having any chance at the nomination.

Ok.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 12:14 PM
It isn't a lack of money, TJ. It's the fact that his foreign policy is completely out of whack with mainstream Republicans that precludes Paul having any chance at the nomination.

With Republicans—but not the rest of the people. 73% are sick of the wars and using them to police the world. Why does Laura Ingraham on Fox bemoan the "isolationist tendencies" of Americans rearing its head? What is that telling the tone deaf mainstream Republicans? That you are the guys that are completely out of whack with most mainstream Americans. This is A reason the mainstream Republicans were tossed out. Get back to your Republican roots and stop being progressives on war.

Furthermore, Paul's cuts in military spending cut back to 2006 levels which is hardly draconian and very responsible.

Donger
02-01-2012, 12:15 PM
Ok.

Would you agree that Paul's foreign policy views are very different than those of mainstream Republicans?

Donger
02-01-2012, 12:19 PM
With Republicans—but not the rest of the people. 73% are sick of the wars and using them to police the world. Why does Laura Ingraham on Fox bemoan the "isolationist tendencies" of Americans rearing its head? What is that telling the tone deaf mainstream Republicans? That you are the guys that are completely out of whack with most mainstream Americans. This is A reason the mainstream Republicans were tossed out. Get back to your Republican roots and stop being progressives on war.

Furthermore, Paul's cuts in military spending cut back to 2006 levels which is hardly draconian and very responsible.

73% don't want war? Gee, who'd thunk that!?

I'm one of them. That doesn't mean that I'd ever vote for Ron Paul.

Taco John
02-01-2012, 12:37 PM
Would you agree that Paul's foreign policy views are very different than those of mainstream Republicans?

I don't think the mainstream of Republicans are actually too far removed from this:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/F9SOVzMV2bc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Humble foreign policy. No nation building. Declare the wars and win them.

I think that the propaganda that Paul is an isolationist confuses a lot of people (such as yourself), but no, I don't believe Paul is actually very far removed from what Republicans have traditionally believed about how our military should be used.

Donger
02-01-2012, 01:47 PM
I don't think the mainstream of Republicans are actually too far removed from this:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/F9SOVzMV2bc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Humble foreign policy. No nation building. Declare the wars and win them.

I think that the propaganda that Paul is an isolationist confuses a lot of people (such as yourself), but no, I don't believe Paul is actually very far removed from what Republicans have traditionally believed about how our military should be used.

Doesn't Paul propose to bring ALL of our forces home that are presently overseas?

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 01:51 PM
Doesn't Paul propose to bring ALL of our forces home that are presently overseas?

He will do things transitionally. Starting with the ME of course.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 01:51 PM
73% don't want war? Gee, who'd thunk that!?

I'm one of them. That doesn't mean that I'd ever vote for Ron Paul.

You promote activity that leads to war though. You don't fool me.

And you altered what I said too. I said people are fed up with the wars as in the current wars in the ME.

Donger
02-01-2012, 01:52 PM
He will do things transitionally. Starting with the ME of course.

So, that's a "yes." Now, is that an example of mainstream Republican FP thinking?

Donger
02-01-2012, 01:52 PM
You promote activity that leads to war though. You don't fool me.

And you altered what I said too. I said people are fed up with the wars as in the current wars in the ME.

What activity do I promote, honey?

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 01:53 PM
So, that's a "yes." Now, is that an example of mainstream Republican FP thinking?

Ah yes, let's deflect with pointless questions.

Donger
02-01-2012, 01:54 PM
Ah yes, let's deflect with pointless questions.

I'm not deflecting at all. Pauls' FP thinking is not mainstream Republican FP thinking. At all. I realize that Paul followers want to believe that it is, but that doesn't make it so. The desperation is setting in, I see.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 01:55 PM
What activity do I promote, honey?

Another pointless question. You know exactly what that meant.

Donger
02-01-2012, 01:55 PM
Another pointless question. You know exactly what that meant.

Detailing Iran's nuclear activity? Sure, I think that's a rather pertinent current event.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 01:56 PM
I'm not deflecting at all. Pauls' FP thinking is not mainstream Republican FP thinking. At all. I realize that Paul followers want to believe that it is, but that doesn't make it so. The desperation is setting in, I see.

Current MA GOP thinking is to be belligerent toward Iran aiming at regime change through acts of war. People are sick of war.

Donger
02-01-2012, 02:00 PM
Current MA GOP thinking is to be belligerent toward Iran aiming at regime change through acts of war. People are sick of war.

Some people find the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran to be unacceptable. So, diplomacy is being tried. If that fails, force may have to be used. I hope that diplomacy succeeds. I don't want a shooting war with Iran.

La literatura
02-01-2012, 02:01 PM
Humble foreign policy. No nation building. Declare the wars and win them.

I think that the propaganda that Paul is an isolationist confuses a lot of people (such as yourself), but no, I don't believe Paul is actually very far removed from what Republicans have traditionally believed about how our military should be used.

What role do you suppose 9/11 played in fundamentally re-shaping American foreign policy, to the point of making any 'traditionally believed' conceptions almost irrelevant?

Calcountry
02-01-2012, 02:50 PM
Neither of us will be laughing when Obama is re-elected.


http://i.imgur.com/B5UTp.jpgWhat I am afraid of, is that the whole debt thing is on purpose. The 1% occupying the 99% is the beginning of the end game in how Obama stays in power indefinitely. What happens if the country defaults its currency, turns off the debit/credit cards, and issues an ultimatum for all "citizens" to appear at the social security office to receive the new currency EFT device in order to conduct commerce. Far fetched? I hope so.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 02:53 PM
Some people find the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran to be unacceptable. So, diplomacy is being tried. If that fails, force may have to be used. I hope that diplomacy succeeds. I don't want a shooting war with Iran.

Diplomacy is not being tried. Belligerence, sabre-rattling are being used as well as half-truths.
The nuke is a red herring to stir up public fear to justify an attack. It's about regime change period.

And as we speak there's a round of inspections which Iran has opened it's doors too.

You may not want a shooting war, but you do favor strikes and the use of terrorism with assassinations, kidnappings and car bombs. Those are acts of war. I have not seen you cry foul over such actions. Furthermore, the type of sanctions being advocated are acts of war since it's an attempt to blockade trade. None of this is any different than the lead up to Iraq.

We're already at war with Iran. This is what people are tired of. Yet every GOP candidate has been trying to outdo the other on hitting Iran militarily.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 03:02 PM
Some people find the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran to be unacceptable. So, diplomacy is being tried. If that fails, force may have to be used. I hope that diplomacy succeeds. I don't want a shooting war with Iran.

The problem with the ronpauls and their like-minded cousins in the Kucinich wing of the democrat party is that they don't realize that without a plausible threat of force, diplomacy is far less effective. They also seem to have trouble distinguishing between a person who can be pushed into a use of minimally necessary force by an unacceptable situation and a person who thirsts for blood.

Taco John
02-01-2012, 03:09 PM
Doesn't Paul propose to bring ALL of our forces home that are presently overseas?

As I said, I don't think most people really understand Dr. Paul's foreign policy because of the propaganda against it, combined with the fact that Dr. Paul could stand to do a better job explaining it.

I think it's very conservative and very Republican to believe in a strong national defense, which Dr. Paul does. I also believe that it's a very conservative and very Republican idea to believe that every nation should be responsible for its own national defense.

The problem with that is that during the last 100 years, Washington has run a foreign policy that involves a massive wealth redistribution program that is being run out of the Department of Defense - sucking out money from the taxpayers wallets and funneling them by way of troops and military equipment to every corner of the globe. America is the only country in the world that subsidizes the national defense of nearly every nation in the world.

We spend billions of dollars running miltary bases all over Europe so that European socialists don't have to spend that money on their own defense, and instead use those resources to fund lavish social entitlement programs at the expense of the American taxpayer. Check the work week in France vs. the work week in the US, and check their benefits. They sit comfortably under our umbrella of protection and mock us for our lack of compassion for our own people while we go without these programs. Meanwhile, these subsidies to these European nations cause envy at home and cause our own populace to drift further leftwards as they see the relative "success" of these lavish social entitlement programs, while our own government overreach destroys our healthcare system back home.

Additionally, our overreach globally has caused the Republican party to turn Wilsonian as we push Democracy on Middle-Eastern nations and watch them democratically elect Muslim Brotherhoods, and turn them into surrogates of nations we don't view favorably (ie. Iraq/Iran). We're spending billions of dollars on these failed geopolitical social engineering experiments, and conservatives and Republicans can clearly see themselves that it's not working and we either need to double down or abandon these projects altogether.

And that's not mentioning the foreign aid, where we fund Israel as well as their enemies in hopes of being able to gain counter-leverage on either side.

We're running a geopolitical wealth re-distribution program disguised as national defense. I think that you're absolutely right that most Republicans are too busy waving the flag to recognize this situation for what it is, but that's neither here nor there. Our financial predicament is going to put it all to an end, and leave everyone who is extended in limbo. I think when this happens, we'll end up sacrificing a lot of our sovereignty to international bodies such as a world bank, and some form of globalized union of nations. They'll have us by the throat for our own over-reach, and we'll have no better solution but to merge currencies and hand over our sovereignty.

I think this is what the Democrats want. I don't think this is what Republicans want. But, history has shown that government will fight for the preservation of a union. Let's hope we don't get to find out if it will do so again.

alnorth
02-01-2012, 03:14 PM
The problem with the ronpauls and their like-minded cousins in the Kucinich wing of the democrat party is that they don't realize that without a plausible threat of force, diplomacy is far less effective. They also seem to have trouble distinguishing between a person who can be pushed into a use of minimally necessary force by an unacceptable situation and a person who thirsts for blood.

When should we expect our invasion of North Korea to begin? We obviously have no choice there, unstable government run by crazy people, and they have the bomb.

For some odd reason I'm hearing very little news about them anymore, or really not even a mention that anyone cares they have the bomb. Perhaps everyone is too frightened to say aloud what must be done.

It couldn't possibly be that we now have to leave them alone, and Iran would like that courtesy as well.

Donger
02-01-2012, 03:17 PM
Diplomacy is not being tried. Belligerence, sabre-rattling are being used as well as half-truths.
The nuke is a red herring to stir up public fear to justify an attack. It's about regime change period.

And as we speak there's a round of inspections which Iran has opened it's doors too.

You may not want a shooting war, but you do favor strikes and the use of terrorism with assassinations, kidnappings and car bombs. Those are acts of war. I have not seen you cry foul over such actions. Furthermore, the type of sanctions being advocated are acts of war since it's an attempt to blockade trade. None of this is any different than the lead up to Iraq.

We're already at war with Iran. This is what people are tired of. Yet every GOP candidate has been trying to outdo the other on hitting Iran militarily.

I disagree. Diplomacy has been tried, and tried for over 10 years. The different levels of sanctions have only been put into place because Iran will not live up to the safeguards of the NPT. A treaty that they signed of their own accord.

I realize for the folks who don't mind if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, that doesn't matter. But for those of us who do, it does.

And, no, I don't mind it when an Iranian physicist has an accident. If Iran would just live up to its obligations, those accidents wouldn't happen.

Donger
02-01-2012, 03:19 PM
As I said, I don't think most people really understand Dr. Paul's foreign policy because of the propaganda against it, combined with the fact that Dr. Paul could stand to do a better job explaining it.

I think it's very conservative and very Republican to believe in a strong national defense, which Dr. Paul does. I also believe that it's a very conservative and very Republican idea to believe that every nation should be responsible for its own national defense.

The problem with that is that during the last 100 years, Washington has run a foreign policy that involves a massive wealth redistribution program that is being run out of the Department of Defense - sucking out money from the taxpayers wallets and funneling them by way of troops and military equipment to every corner of the globe. America is the only country in the world that subsidizes the national defense of nearly every nation in the world.

We spend billions of dollars running miltary bases all over Europe so that European socialists don't have to spend that money on their own defense, and instead use those resources to fund lavish social entitlement programs at the expense of the American taxpayer. Check the work week in France vs. the work week in the US, and check their benefits. They sit comfortably under our umbrella of protection and mock us for our lack of compassion for our own people while we go without these programs. Meanwhile, these subsidies to these European nations cause envy at home and cause our own populace to drift further leftwards as they see the relative "success" of these lavish social entitlement programs, while our own government overreach destroys our healthcare system back home.

Additionally, our overreach globally has caused the Republican party to turn Wilsonian as we push Democracy on Middle-Eastern nations and watch them democratically elect Muslim Brotherhoods, and turn them into surrogates of nations we don't view favorably (ie. Iraq/Iran). We're spending billions of dollars on these failed geopolitical social engineering experiments, and conservatives and Republicans can clearly see themselves that it's not working and we either need to double down or abandon these projects altogether.

And that's not mentioning the foreign aid, where we fund Israel as well as their enemies in hopes of being able to gain counter-leverage on either side.

We're running a geopolitical wealth re-distribution program disguised as national defense. I think that you're absolutely right that most Republicans are too busy waving the flag to recognize this situation for what it is, but that's neither here nor there. Our financial predicament is going to put it all to an end, and leave everyone who is extended in limbo. I think when this happens, we'll end up sacrificing a lot of our sovereignty to international bodies such as a world bank, and some form of globalized union of nations. They'll have us by the throat for our own over-reach, and we'll have no better solution but to merge currencies and hand over our sovereignty.

I think this is what the Democrats want. I don't think this is what Republicans want. But, history has shown that government will fight for the preservation of a union. Let's hope we don't get to find out if it will do so again.

You didn't answer the question, TJ.

Taco John
02-01-2012, 03:21 PM
And, no, I don't mind it when an Iranian physicist has an accident. If Iran would just live up to its obligations, those accidents wouldn't happen.



You kill one and a thousand more pop up. (http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1511199)

Just like it would happen if it were happening to us...

Donger
02-01-2012, 03:23 PM
You kill one and a thousand more pop up. (http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1511199)

Just like it would happen if it were happening to us...

Speaking of propaganda...

patteeu
02-01-2012, 03:24 PM
When should we expect our invasion of North Korea to begin? We obviously have no choice there, unstable government run by crazy people, and they have the bomb.

For some odd reason I'm hearing very little news about them anymore, or really not even a mention that anyone cares they have the bomb. Perhaps everyone is too frightened to say aloud what must be done.

It couldn't possibly be that we now have to leave them alone, and Iran would like that courtesy as well.

We shouldn't expect it at all given that they have nuclear weapons, enough artillery aimed at Seoul to level it before we could stop them, and the Chinese to protect them. We've already failed in NK, but that's not a good reason to fail elsewhere.

Of course Iran wants nukes because they want to be able to do as they please without regard to how offensive it is to their neighbors, the civilized world, and most importantly from my pov, the US. That's why we shouldn't let them succeed.

Taco John
02-01-2012, 03:25 PM
You didn't answer the question, TJ.

Yes, Dr Paul advocates ending the geopolitical wealth re-distribution program disguised as national defense.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 03:28 PM
I disagree. Diplomacy has been tried, and tried for over 10 years. The different levels of sanctions have only been put into place because Iran will not live up to the safeguards of the NPT. A treaty that they signed of their own accord.

I realize for the folks who don't mind if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, that doesn't matter. But for those of us who do, it does.

And, no, I don't mind it when an Iranian physicist has an accident. If Iran would just live up to its obligations, those accidents wouldn't happen.

People are sick of the war viewpoint you promote here. This is the tone deafness of the GOP mainstream.

BTW it's the US that has violated the NPT. You have insufficient evidence that it's Iran. You buy propaganda.

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2009/0926-IranPlant.html

Donger
02-01-2012, 03:28 PM
We shouldn't expect it at all given that they have nuclear weapons, enough artillery aimed at Seoul to level it before we could stop them, and the Chinese to protect them. We've already failed in NK, but that's not a good reason to fail elsewhere.

Of course Iran wants nukes because they want to be able to do as they please without regard to how offensive it is to their neighbors, the civilized world, and most importantly from my pov, the US. That's why we shouldn't let them succeed.

Not to mention that the Saudis will probably green-light their own design if Iran does. Call me crazy, but I really don't want a nuclear arms race in the ME.

Donger
02-01-2012, 03:29 PM
Yes, Dr Paul advocates ending the geopolitical wealth re-distribution program disguised as national defense.

Thanks. Now, is it mainstream Republican FP to bring home all of our forces from overseas?

Mr. Flopnuts
02-01-2012, 03:30 PM
The establishment narrative is going to be that Romney has it sealed after Florida. We'll probably see that narrative happen five or six times this year. By the time Romney actually seals up the nomination (if it ever happens) his brand will be so damaged that he'll have no hope of beating Obama.

Absolutely.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/MENU_RPposter4.jpg

Not sure if serious.

If Gingrich or Santorum doesn't become a viable alternative to Romney by the time the California primary rolls around, I WILL vote for Ron Paul.

I am through with the Republican party after this charade was forced on us like McSame was last time. Jessie Jackson had it right, "Stay out da Bushes".

My vote in the primary matters more than it will in November due to the electoral college. There are way to many mind numbed non-white voting blocks, and elite Liberals in this state for Limited government, "Reagan Conservatives", to make a difference in anymore. I have a protest the establishment vote now, and I have discussed this at length with a real world Ron Paul supporter and have assured them of my support months ago if a scenario such as the one we have just witnessed were to unfold.

I'm in.

Welcome to the club.

It isn't a lack of money, TJ. It's the fact that his foreign policy is completely out of whack with mainstream Republicans that precludes Paul having any chance at the nomination.

Would you agree that Paul's foreign policy views are very different than those of mainstream Republicans?

This is the problem. Arrogant republicans actually believing their votes matter. They don't. So who's does? Independents. The same "anti establishment" crowd that was fooled by Obama. Only RP can match that sentiment. Which is why only Ron Paul can beat Obama. Like it or not.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 03:31 PM
Not to mention that the Saudis will probably green-light their own design if Iran does. Call me crazy, but I really don't want a nuclear arms race in the ME.

Well, your stand certainly promotes a new nuclear arms race. You can thank the Bush Doctrine for that.
Iran is currently surrounded by the US and saw two nations invaded by us. That scares countries so they try to get nukes to defend themselves.

Donger
02-01-2012, 03:32 PM
People are sick of the war viewpoint you promote here. This is the tone deafness of the GOP mainstream.

BTW it's the US that has violated the NPT. You have insufficient evidence that it's Iran. You buy propaganda.

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2009/0926-IranPlant.html

I'm not promoting a war viewpoint. I'm promoting continued diplomacy.

How have we violated NPT? And, no, Iran is not in compliance with NPT (as you know). They are required to prove that their program is peaceful. They have not done that.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 03:32 PM
I'm not sure I've ever seen such great self delusion as the "only Ron Paul can beat Obama" concept.

Taco John
02-01-2012, 03:32 PM
Thanks. Now, is it mainstream Republican FP to bring home all of our forces from overseas?

Not in a soundbite, it isn't. In principles, however, absolutely.

Donger
02-01-2012, 03:33 PM
Which is why only Ron Paul can beat Obama.

LMAO

Donger
02-01-2012, 03:34 PM
Not in a soundbite, it isn't. In principles, however, absolutely.

Please show me one other Republican leader who supports what Paul supports.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 03:34 PM
"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." ~ National Review's NeoCon, Jonah Goldberg

Washington loves Jonah Goldberg wars—even Obama.

Donger
02-01-2012, 03:35 PM
Well, your stand certainly promotes a new nuclear arms race. You can thank the Bush Doctrine for that.
Iran is currently surrounded by the US and saw two nations invaded by us. That scares countries so they try to get nukes to defend themselves.

What stand?

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 03:35 PM
What stand?

Another pointless question. The one you stated.

Taco John
02-01-2012, 03:36 PM
Please show me one other Republican leader who supports what Paul supports.


Does Jim DeMint count?
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zSFwDLPCfh0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 03:36 PM
Please show me one other Republican leader who supports what Paul supports.

They don't because they're tone deaf. Paul is preferred by Indies and the non NeoCon segment of the GOP.

Donger
02-01-2012, 03:36 PM
I'm not sure I've ever seen such great self delusion as the "only Ron Paul can beat Obama" concept.

Oh, I think their propensity for claiming their fringe views are actually mainstream takes the cake. The other, however, is pretty darn amusing.

Donger
02-01-2012, 03:37 PM
Another pointless question. The one you stated.

How does my not wanting Iran to acquire nuclear weapons lead to a nuclear arms race in the ME, exactly?

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 03:38 PM
Oh, I think their propensity for claiming their fringe views are actually mainstream takes the cake. The other, however, is pretty darn amusing.

Polls consistently show that a great majority are sick of these current wars. They want our troops home and they don't want another war. You're outside the mainstream because you stand with the elites in the Establishment that support what you support. Why do you think I tease you when I call you a Tory? This is why.

Mr. Flopnuts
02-01-2012, 03:39 PM
I'm not sure I've ever seen such great self delusion as the "only Ron Paul can beat Obama" concept.

I guess we'll see. Unlike you, I can admit when I'm wrong.

LMAO

laugh. Yuck it up. I don't even care if you're right. We're fucked either way if our choice is Obama or Romney. They're the same. Even if you're too dumb to know it.

Donger
02-01-2012, 03:39 PM
Does Jim DeMint count?
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zSFwDLPCfh0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Does DeMint support returning ALL our troops back home?

Donger
02-01-2012, 03:41 PM
I guess we'll see. Unlike you, I can admit when I'm wrong.



laugh. Yuck it up. I don't even care if you're right. We're ****ed either way if our choice is Obama or Romney. They're the same. Even if you're too dumb to know it.

I realize that the "they're the same" line has become the mantra of Paul followers, but as with other things that Paul followers believe, it isn't remotely accurate.

Taco John
02-01-2012, 03:42 PM
Does DeMint support returning ALL our troops back home?

I don't think he would go out on that limb. Few politicians would be brave enough to do that until it was safe.

Donger
02-01-2012, 03:44 PM
Polls consistently show that a great majority are sick of these current wars. They want our troops home and they don't want another war. You're outside the mainstream because you stand with the elites in the Establishment that support what you support. Why do you think I tease you when I call you a Tory? This is why.

Sweetie, people were sick of war in 1945, too. Do you really think that there huge groups of Americans who actually thirst for war?

I support continued international diplomacy to hopefully prevent Iran from gaining nuclear arms. If that fails, I would support military action to prevent that from happening.

I hope that diplomacy works.

And, I don't care why you call me a Tory.

Donger
02-01-2012, 03:45 PM
I don't think he would go out on that limb. Few politicians would be brave enough to do that until it was safe.

Well, please keep trying to find one who has the courage that Paul has, okay?

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 03:47 PM
Pew Research

"Moreover, only about a quarter say the wars in Iraq (26%) and Afghanistan (25%) have lessened the chances of terrorist attacks in the United States. In both cases majorities say the wars either have increased the risk of terrorism in this country or made no difference."

http://www.people-press.org/2011/09/01/united-in-remembrance-divided-over-policies/




Americans Fed Up with Neocon Wars?

Much of this opposition to U.S. dominance in the world is undoubtedly based on distaste for the overseas U.S. military intervention of the past decade. In recent years, polls have found substantial public opposition to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2010, a poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that 79 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that “the U.S. is playing the role of world policeman more than it should.”

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/01/17/are-americans-fed-up-with-neocon-wars/

Donger
02-01-2012, 03:51 PM
Pew Research

"Moreover, only about a quarter say the wars in Iraq (26%) and Afghanistan (25%) have lessened the chances of terrorist attacks in the United States. In both cases majorities say the wars either have increased the risk of terrorism in this country or made no difference."

http://www.people-press.org/2011/09/01/united-in-remembrance-divided-over-policies/




http://consortiumnews.com/2012/01/17/are-americans-fed-up-with-neocon-wars/

So, 25% of the American people are unaware that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11?

Also, since Paul voted for war in Afghanistan, isn't he part of the war monger crowd?

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 03:53 PM
Sweetie, people were sick of war in 1945, too. Do you really think that there huge groups of Americans who actually thirst for war?
Apples and oranges. 1.) Iraq did not attack us. 2.) This war is now 11 years. WWII was what 4 years , had a Constitutional declare which lead to a clear and decisive victory over a clearly stated enemy instead of a tactic.

I support continued international diplomacy to hopefully prevent Iran from gaining nuclear arms.
Not if you are biased toward them from the start—which you are. You believe the same people who false reported about Iraq. You are following the same recipe and this one will not be like Iraq as they can do some harm. Plus China and Russia are siding with Iran. Be careful of the actions you are supporting. Ideas have consequences.

If that fails, I would support military action to prevent that from happening.
Thank you for proving my point. You support military action—which most people are sick of.
Ya' know, it didn't have to take this many posts to admit it while dodging with pointless questions.

I hope that diplomacy works.
It's not being used. Tough guy talk and lying is in order to whip up support for an attack.

And, I don't care why you call me a Tory.

I wasn't asking you to care.

Donger
02-01-2012, 03:58 PM
Apples and oranges. 1.) Iraq did not attack us. 2.) This war is now 11 years. WWII was what 4 years , had a Constitutional declare which lead to a clear and decisive victory over a clearly stated enemy instead of a tactic.

Errr, the war in Iraq is over. Are you talking about Afghanistan, which Paul voted for?

Not if you are biased toward them from the start—which you are. You believe the same people who false reported about Iraq. You are following the same recipe and this one will not be like Iraq as they can do some harm. Plus China and Russia are siding with Iran. Be careful of the actions you are supporting. Ideas have consequences.

The IAEA? Sure, I would tend to believe them more than some random Paul follower.

Thank you for proving my point. You support military action—which most people are sick of.
Ya' know, it didn't have to take this many posts to admit it while dodging with pointless questions.

I've never hid that if diplomacy fails, military force might be required to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear-armed. I certainly hope diplomacy does work, though.

I wasn't asking you to care.

Good.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 03:58 PM
So, 25% of the American people are unaware that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11?
LOL! That's kinda like that story about the cab driver throwing petals out of his window to scare of lions. When asked by a passenger if he thinks that's working he answers: Do you see any lions?

Also, since Paul voted for war in Afghanistan, isn't he part of the war monger crowd?

You have consistently straw manned Paul's position on Afghanistan.
I've been over this with you before. Paul supported the initial invasion of Afghanistan to break up the terror camps and to capture bin Laden—NOT for what it became. A nation building project with permanent occupation. Paul has said this himself consistently even in one of the debates. Pay attention or just stop spinning it. The devil is in the details.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 03:59 PM
I guess we'll see. Unlike you, I can admit when I'm wrong.

We'll see about that too, when it happens for the first time. :)

Donger
02-01-2012, 04:01 PM
You have consistently straw manned Paul's position on Afghanistan.
I've been over this with you before. Paul supported the initial invasion of Afghanistan to break up the terror camps and to capture bin Laden—NOT for what it became. A nation building project with permanent occupation. Paul has said this himself consistently even in one of the debates. Pay attention or just stop spinning it. The devil is in the details.

Hey, it's not my fault that you support a hypocrite. Why didn't Paul try to bring a vote to the floor to use Letter of Marque, instead of voting to authorize use of force without a declaration of war? Why did he vote with the blood-thirsty war monger NEOCONS?

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 04:04 PM
Errr, the war in Iraq is over. Are you talking about Afghanistan, which Paul voted for?
LOL. Not quite.Not with an embassy the size of the Vatican and troops just moved into Kuwait. Besides look how long it all took just to get to a half solution of semi-occupation. Civil war would erupt if we left entirely which we haven't.

The IAEA? Sure, I would tend to believe them more than some random Paul follower.
Gareth Porter is not some random Paul supporter. Look at his credentials.

The IAEA doesn't say what you claim though. There is no evidence of Iran trying to divert nuclear material for a weapon. It has some leads in there that lead you to think that though...but it also has some falsehoods. There's an American plant that's now in charge to give it a pro-Western bias. That's why.


I've never hid that if diplomacy fails, military force might be required to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear-armed. I certainly hope diplomacy does work, though.

My only point is that Americans are tired of this. You're the one adding all the "ifs" "ands" or "buts". These can be argued with forever over and over. None of this changes the fact that most Americans are tired of this crap and is a major reason they feel the country is on the wrong track which they also felt under Bush during his second term. The GOP is TONE DEAF. You've just provided great examples of this.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 04:08 PM
Hey, it's not my fault that you support a hypocrite. Why didn't Paul try to bring a vote to the floor to use Letter of Marque, instead of voting to authorize use of force without a declaration of war? Why did he vote with the blood-thirsty war monger NEOCONS?
Because again, you have to resort to a mischaracterization of his positions and actions, straw manning, to say such a thing. You either don't really understand Paul's stands completely or know the full Constitutional argument—which have been debated at length here.

Afghanistan was a military authorization that was short of a full war. That's getting congressional authorization. It took some time to prepare for and so was not an imminent situation. We were fighting AQ not that country. And to my knowledge he did try to bring the Lof M in additionally.

You're pretty good at this spin stuff too.

patteeu
02-01-2012, 04:08 PM
LOL! That's kinda like that story about the cab driver throwing petals out of his window to scare of lions. When asked by a passenger if he thinks that's working he answers: Do you see any lions?



You have consistently straw manned Paul's position on Afghanistan.
I've been over this with you before. Paul supported the initial invasion of Afghanistan to break up the terror camps and to capture bin Laden—NOT for what it became. A nation building project with permanent occupation. Paul has said this himself consistently even in one of the debates. Pay attention or just stop spinning it. The devil is in the details.

When I read the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists)" (which authorized our invasion of Afghanistan), I don't see any of those limitations. Was Ron Paul just extraordinarily careless with his vote? And why was he willing to vote for a mere authorization instead of a magically worded declaration that you claim is constitutionally required? Was Ron Paul ignoring the constitution?

patteeu
02-01-2012, 04:12 PM
Because again, you have to resort to a mischaracterization of his positions and actions, straw manning, to say such a thing. You either don't really understand Paul's stands completely or know the full Constitutional argument—which have been debated at length here.

Afghanistan was a military authorization that was short of a full war. That's getting congressional authorization. We were fighting AQ not that country. And to my knowledge he did try to bring the Lof M in additionally.

You're pretty good at this spin stuff too.

The authorization gives the president authority to take action against "nations, organizations, or persons that he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

So Ron Paul did vote to support whatever the Bush administration decided they wanted to do. He apparently used the constitution for toilet paper.

Taco John
02-01-2012, 04:14 PM
Well, please keep trying to find one who has the courage that Paul has, okay?

Impossible if you're talking about established guys. But non-established guys like Justin Amash and Rand Paul are showing that kind of courage.

Donger
02-01-2012, 04:27 PM
LOL. Not quite.Not with an embassy the size of the Vatican and troops just moved into Kuwait. Besides look how long it all took just to get to a half solution of semi-occupation. Civil war would erupt if we left entirely which we haven't.

You stated "war." You are suggesting that we are at war or have active combat operations in Iraq?

Gareth Porter is not some random Paul supporter. Look at his credentials.

The IAEA doesn't say what you claim though. There is no evidence of Iran trying to divert nuclear material for a weapon. It has some leads in there that lead you to think that though...but it also has some falsehoods. There's an American plant that's now in charge to give it a pro-Western bias. That's why.


Actually, yes, the IAEA says exactly what I say:

1) That Iran has not verified her peaceful intentions, as required by NPT.

2) Iran has performed tests that are only relevant to physics package.


My only point is that Americans are tired of this. You're the one adding all the "ifs" "ands" or "buts". These can be argued with forever over and over. None of this changes the fact that most Americans are tired of this crap and is a major reason they feel the country is on the wrong track which they also felt under Bush during his second term. The GOP is TONE DEAF. You've just provided great examples of this.

I understand that people are tired of war. I also understand that some people would chose to do nothing to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. I'm not one of them.

Donger
02-01-2012, 04:28 PM
Impossible if you're talking about established guys. But non-established guys like Justin Amash and Rand Paul are showing that kind of courage.

And why is that impossible for the established/mainstream guys? You really think that they want what Paul wants and are just too scaredy cat to say it?

Donger
02-01-2012, 04:30 PM
Because again, you have to resort to a mischaracterization of his positions and actions, straw manning, to say such a thing. You either don't really understand Paul's stands completely or know the full Constitutional argument—which have been debated at length here.

Afghanistan was a military authorization that was short of a full war. That's getting congressional authorization. It took some time to prepare for and so was not an imminent situation. We were fighting AQ not that country. And to my knowledge he did try to bring the Lof M in additionally.

You're pretty good at this spin stuff too.

Weird. It sure looked like a war to me. It really must bother you that your guy voted for it.

Taco John
02-01-2012, 04:40 PM
And why is that impossible for the established/mainstream guys? You really think that they want what Paul wants and are just too scaredy cat to say it?

I think the majority of them just want whatever gets them re-elected and will do and say whatever keeps them in the good graces of the men holding the money.

Donger
02-01-2012, 04:55 PM
I think the majority of them just want whatever gets them re-elected and will do and say whatever keeps them in the good graces of the men holding the money.

Alrighty then. But, no, Paul's position of removing all of our forces around the world is NOT mainstream Republican thinking. Quite the opposite; it's fringe.

Taco John
02-01-2012, 05:06 PM
Alrighty then. But, no, Paul's position of removing all of our forces around the world is NOT mainstream Republican thinking. Quite the opposite; it's fringe.

I don't think there's such a thing anymore as "mainstream republican thinking." Mostly because the mainstream of republicans don't seem to do a lot of thinking, but reacting instead. We're not where we are today because the Democrats compromised on their principles. We got here because drip-by-drip "mainstream republican thinking" has been dismantled to bring us to the point where one of our leading candidates is presenting a federal program to provide kids with janitorial jobs, while the other one is the architect of a federal healthcare program that forces mandates on everyone.

Subsidizing the European nations national defense needs so that they can implement socialist health and labor programs isn't mainstream republican thinking either, but if you dress it up enough I suppose you can sell it as such.

At the end of the day, the Republican party is in civil war and won't be able to win elections until some form of truce is made. I don't know what either side will have to give up, but I do know that whatever our side gives up will be temporary and only to get a foothold long enough to either take the whole thing, or spin out on our own - fringe or not.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 05:08 PM
Weird. It sure looked like a war to me.
Whooosh! You missed the point. No wonder you don't understand Paul's positions.

You can start here:
http://www.tomwoods.com/warpowers/

It really must bother you that your guy voted for it.
You don't understand mine either.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 05:12 PM
You stated "war." You are suggesting that we are at war or have active combat operations in Iraq?
The US-dominated multinational force in Iraq still exercise considerable power in the country. We conduct military operations against the Iraqi insurgency with the Iraqi armed forces. Remember, the new Shia govt still hates Sunnis and has engaged in torture of them. That's who we're helping right now. Meanwhile, a Bush crony has a sweet oil deal.

Actually, yes, the IAEA says exactly what I say:

1) That Iran has not verified her peaceful intentions, as required by NPT.

2) Iran has performed tests that are only relevant to physics package.

Nope. I said there's half-truths in it too. See my earlier Gareth Porter link.

I understand that people are tired of war. I also understand that some people would chose to do nothing to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. I'm not one of them.
Therefore, you do not want to do anything about less war because you are pro-war with Iran like most GOP'ers. Ergo, you are a tone deaf Republican.
We're now back at the start of the circle. I don't care to go around it again.

BWillie
02-01-2012, 05:48 PM
Lol how can anyone say this thing isn't up in the air? I'm not saying Paul will win but it's obvious a good part of the Republican party doesn't like Mitt Romney. For example: Gingrich isn't on the ballot in Missouri and PPP just released a poll Santorum is getting 45% of the vote. Gingrich leads in Ohio & Minnesota.

Should be a weird one. Mitt will probably do very bad in the south. Decent everywhere else. Santorum and Gingrich will do well in the south, not good everywhere else. Paul will get killed in the South, possibly win a state somewhere and be consistent in others. Mitt still looks like the easy winner still though. Just because evangelicals hate Mormons and those of other faiths Mitt may not win much in the South.

Taco John
02-01-2012, 06:10 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/J5tjguXSdqE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>