View Full Version : Paul: Republicans Face Certain Defeat With Pro-War Candidate
Paul: Republicans Face Certain Defeat With Pro-War Candidate
Congressman says base must change views on Iraq or forget about the White House in 2008
Ron Paul has a message for the Republican base who continue to offer blinkered support for the endless occupation of Iraq - pick a candidate who has vowed to bring the troops home immediately or surrender the White House in 2008.
"Since 70 per cent of the American people want out of the war and they're tired of it - the Republicans better pick somebody who is opposed to the war or have a new foreign policy or they can't win," the Congressman told CNN's Wolf Blitzer yesterday.
"The sentiment is shifting, the people are sick and tired of the war, we can't even afford it, we can't even fight the war without borrowing the money from the Chinese - so it doesn't add up - it really doesn't matter whether I'm right or wrong, the war is going to end because we're going to have such a political and financial havoc here....this is usually how empires end - by spending too much money maintaining their empires," he added.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wh178-bYxnA&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wh178-bYxnA&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
The Congressman's warning is backed up by the polls. A recent Zogby survey found that a sizeable majority of Americans will not vote for a pro-war candidate. Zogby polling analyst Fritz Wenzel agrees that Ron Paul is the strongest contender out of the entire Republican field to go up against Hillary Clinton because of his lone anti-war stance.
In an earlier part of the interview, the Congressman elaborated on his response to Senator John McCain's feeble attempt to smear Paul as a Nazi appeaser during Wednesday night's debate.
"First off, Iraq is not Nazi Germany," a humored Paul commented.
"I thought it was Hitler that caused world war two, not the American people....it didn't make any sense - then he was awfully confused about isolationism versus non-intervention - there's a big difference," said the Congressman.
Paul said that non-interventionism meant not getting involved in other country's affairs and "not pretending that Iraq is Nazi Germany."
"Iraq had no army, no navy, and no weapons of mass destruction - it had nothing to do with 9/11 - so the comparison makes no sense," he concluded.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3BVzrjSkfww&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3BVzrjSkfww&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
McCain's claim that U.S. troops want to stay in Iraq has no basis in reality.
Out of all the Republican candidates, Ron Paul has by far received the highest military donations, that is donations from members of the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard. The Congressman has received double McCain's total and over eight times the amount garnered by Romney or Giuliani.
The troops support Ron Paul because Ron Paul advocates bringing the troops home.
Moreover, a recent Zogby poll found that the Congressman also has the highest support amongst military families, far ahead of Giuliani, McCain or any of the other Republican stooges who want to keep the troops in the meat grinder.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/120307_defeat_certain.htm
jen.n
12-04-2007, 02:12 AM
"prisonplanet"?? lol :confused:
Well, anyway, his reasoning doesn't make sense.
Sure, there is a possibility the Republican candidate will lose for supporting the war, but that is better than certain defeat if the candidate opposes the war, as that would result in losing the base http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/35.gif.
If someone's gonna vote just to be against the war, they're going to vote for the Democrat candidate anyway.
"prisonplanet"?? lol :confused:
Well, anyway, his reasoning doesn't make sense.
Sure, there is a possibility the Republican candidate will lose for supporting the war, but that is better than certain defeat if the candidate opposes the war, as that would result in losing the base http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/35.gif.
If someone's gonna vote just to be against the war, they're going to vote for the Democrat candidtate anyway.
there is strong possibilty Paul won't get the nomination
as long as he keeps allowing his works and words to be used on those type of websites
Paul's followers will be his downfall
Paul's backup plan
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m122/Joey24007/FARK/pausaban.jpg
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m122/Joey24007/FARK/paularrest.jpg
there is strong possibilty Paul won't get the nomination
there's a risk he might win.
there's a risk he might win.
It doesn't matter to me if he wins or not
like I have said many times I like Ron Paul
I don't like the whackos who worship him
and they will be his downfall
as long as he keeps allowing his works and words to be used on those type of websites
Paul's followers will be his downfall
See, this is what is wrong with our country. People are responsible for THEIR OWN ACTIONS, and THEIR OWN STATEMENTS. What you're trying to do is hold Ron Paul responsible for what others are saying and doing.
Of course you're probably gonna give me some bullshit reason why we should be more concerned about what his followers believe.
I think what mainstream-thinking people don't like is the fact he doesn't have a typical supporter. His typical supporter is nondescript because he draws such a big fanbase. Yeah, there's conspiracy theorists and neo-Nazis supporting him.
To you I say, SO WHAT??????? What matters is what Ron Paul says, what he believes in and what his own voting history shows of him.
The fact that there are neo-Nazis supporting Paul doesn't bother me.
Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, but that doesn't keep you from liking him.
Sure, there is a possibility the Republican candidate will lose for supporting the war, but that is better than certain defeat if the candidate opposes the war, as that would result in losing the base http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/35.gif.
If someone's gonna vote just to be against the war, they're going to vote for the Democrat candidate anyway.
Paul's base is so diverse he even has Democrats willing to vote for him.
See, this is what is wrong with our country. People are responsible for THEIR OWN ACTIONS, and THEIR OWN STATEMENTS. What you're trying to do is hold Ron Paul responsible for what others are saying and doing.
Of course you're probably gonna give me some bullshit reason why we should be more concerned about what his followers believe.
I think what mainstream-thinking people don't like is the fact he doesn't have a typical supporter. His typical supporter is nondescript because he draws such a big fanbase. Yeah, there's conspiracy theorists and neo-Nazis supporting him.
To you I say, SO WHAT??????? What matters is what Ron Paul says, what he believes in and what his own voting history shows of him.
The fact that there are neo-Nazis supporting Paul doesn't bother me.
Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, but that doesn't keep you from liking him.
No other candidate has neo nazis supporting him or her lmao
No other candidate is supported by whacko website
Jefferson was personally against slavery ... he knew that if he released his slaves they would only get picked up by another slave owner ... Jefferson was born in a time and a place in which slavery was completely normal ... not his fault ... read a book
so that has nothing to do with neo nazis supporting Ron Paul
If I had a bunch of whackos and neo nazis supporting me I would say to myself that I must be doing something wrong and would try to correct that
reality is that neo nazis supporting you as a candidate = bad
Paul's base is so diverse he even has Democrats willing to vote for him.
gee I wonder why
he is against the war der
did you just compare democrats to neo nazis?
neo nazis and democrats come together to support Paul lol
jen.n
12-04-2007, 03:14 AM
Paul's base is so diverse he even has Democrats willing to vote for him.
"diverse" lol, errrr, that's a nice word for it :p "fringe" is more accurate though.
Paul's foreign policy
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m122/Joey24007/FARK/paulosama.jpg
If I had a bunch of whackos and neo nazis supporting me I would say to myself that I must be doing something wrong and would try to correct that
reality is that neo nazis supporting you as a candidate = bad
"Freedom is popular" - Ron Paul.
"Freedom is popular" - Ron Paul.
so neo nazis are a good group to have supporting you ?:confused:
freedom is good too ... freedom for me to do everything I can to prevent Ron Paul from getting the nomination
Paul's foreign policy
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m122/Joey24007/FARK/paulosama.jpg
:lies:
This picture implies that Ron Paul doesn't believe that we should be in Afghanistan and that we shouldn't be hunting Osama bin Laden either.
:lies:
This picture implies that Ron Paul doesn't believe that we should be in Afghanistan and that we shouldn't be hunting Osama bin Laden either.
hold on now
whether we should be in Iraq or not
Al-Qaeda is there
Paul says we should leave tomorrow
what?@
so neo nazis are a good group to have supporting you ?:confused:
Can you please explain to me the dangers of having neo Nazis supporting Ron Paul? do you think that if Ron Paul gets elected that will cause a major revolution in our country that will change our form of government from Constitutional Republic to Nazi Government?
freedom is good too ... freedom for me to do everything I can to prevent Ron Paul from getting the nomination
A minute ago you said you didn't care whether or not he won. Now you're telling me that you're going to try to prevent Ron Paul from getting the nomination.
hold on now
whether we should be in Iraq or not
Al-Qaeda is there
Paul says we should leave tomorrow
what?@
If I'm correct..... and I should be making sure of this before I say it because I don't want to misrepresent Ron here..... I think that Ron Paul offered a plan to have private contractors hunt down and kill bin Laden instead of using the military.
Here's a good reason to be against the war, and possibly the best reason.
WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!!!!!!!!
Can you please explain to me the dangers of having neo Nazis supporting Ron Paul? do you think that if Ron Paul gets elected that will cause a major revolution in our country that will change our form of government from Constitutional Republic to Nazi Government?
A minute ago you said you didn't care whether or not he won. Now you're telling me that you're going to try to prevent Ron Paul from getting the nomination.
The dangers of neo nazis supporting Ron Paul is that nobody will vote for him once the majority of people know this
Nazis = Bad ... where have you been living the last 70 years or so
I said I didn't care if he won
I said that because unlike you if he wins I won't whine and bitch about some conspiracy or some other BS that caused his lose
when I lose ... I lose, its nobody's fault but mine
I don't complain
I will do everything I can to get my candidate the nomination ... if Paul wins then so be it ... I am a Republican and I will support him against the democrat
but my advice to Paul would be ... get rid of the neo nazis and the other loonies bringing you down
If I'm correct..... and I should be making sure of this before I say it because I don't want to misrepresent Ron here..... I think that Ron Paul offered a plan to have private contractors hunt down and kill bin Laden instead of using the military.
I hope, for Paul's sake, that this isn't true
Marquee and Reprisal Act of 2001.
If I had a bunch of whackos and neo nazis supporting me I would say to myself that I must be doing something wrong and would try to correct that
right, so you should compromise your own principles just because someone you don't like supports you.
That's brilliant shit, man!
ihtgb
12-04-2007, 08:25 PM
It's how the Paulists are so crazed about Ron Paul. From prisonplanet.com:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/january2007/170107paul.jpg
Jeez, you people act as if this man is comparable to God or something.
Oh yes, that's right. If he's not elected our streets will flow red with blood! MUAHAHAHAHA!
djacques75
12-04-2007, 08:34 PM
I'd vote for Ron Paul over most of the Democrats. As for neo-Nazis, the real neo-Nazis are the ones in DC now, carrying out Hitlerian policies. They are about 1000000 times more dangerous than some goofy fringe group with swastikas.
I'd vote for Ron Paul over most of the Democrats. As for neo-Nazis, the real neo-Nazis are the ones in DC now, carrying out Hitlerian policies. They are about 1000000 times more dangerous than some goofy fringe group with swastikas.
Yes, thank you for recognizing that!!!
Jeez, you people act as if this man is comparable to God or something.
Here's a hint: It's his message of freedom.
I'd vote for Ron Paul over most of the Democrats. As for neo-Nazis, the real neo-Nazis are the ones in DC now, carrying out Hitlerian policies. They are about 1000000 times more dangerous than some goofy fringe group with swastikas.
you and BJR are very similar in that you do alot of whining about the U.S. government being nazis because they enforce laws that make it harder for you to get some crack
but you make these comments as if you have actually lived under REAL dicators and REAL nazis
I'm sure if people who actually lived under a Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot read you childish whining they would have something strong to say about it
ihtgb
12-05-2007, 07:47 PM
I'd vote for Ron Paul over most of the Democrats. As for neo-Nazis, the real neo-Nazis are the ones in DC now, carrying out Hitlerian policies. They are about 1000000 times more dangerous than some goofy fringe group with swastikas.
Ahem, question.
Do you realize that in a real totalitarian state, if you wouldn't be allowed to say what you're saying now?
ihtgb
12-05-2007, 07:48 PM
you and BJR are very similar in that you do alot of whining about the U.S. government being nazis because they enforce laws that make it harder for you to get some crack
but you make these comments as if you have actually lived under REAL dicators and REAL nazis
I'm sure if people who actually lived under a Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot read you childish whining they would have something strong to say about it
They're just melodramatic tools is all.
Do you realize that in a real totalitarian state, if you wouldn't be allowed to say what you're saying now?
Ever heard of the PATRIOT act?
Remember when that one girl was harassed by federal agents because she said in an online forum that she wanted someone to shoot George Bush in the head?
They're just melodramatic tools is all.
If I'm a tool.... you're a cog.
ihtgb
12-05-2007, 08:35 PM
Ever heard of the PATRIOT act?
Remember when that one girl was harassed by federal agents because she said in an online forum that she wanted someone to shoot George Bush in the head?
Do you want to shoot George Bush in the head, Bastard?
Do you want to shoot George Bush in the head, Bastard?
I was only pointing out what was happening to the girl because all she did was commit a thought crime.... you know, the only people who are prosecuted for such crimes are in Orwell's 1984
I was only pointing out what was happening to the girl because all she did was commit a thought crime.... you know, the only people who are prosecuted for such crimes are in Orwell's 1984
it wasn't a thought crime if it was said online
and who knows who is who online
just because someone says they are a little girl online doesn't mean that they really are
the Patriot Act ... how many cases have been heard in courty about the Patriot Act violating a person's rights?
I asked HC that awhile back and he couldn't answer
see in this country if you feel the government has violated your rights in ANY way ... you can go to court
so, show me the supreme court case in which a citizen of the U.S. has filed a complaint with the federal government
I was only pointing out what was happening to the girl because all she did was commit a thought crime.... you know, the only people who are prosecuted for such crimes are in Orwell's 1984
and that is equal to nazi germany where millions of people were gased on the command of a true military dictator
okay dude whatever you say
if the U.S. Congress wanted to end the war they can ... its called checks and balances
something not common in Nazi Germany
it wasn't a thought crime if it was said online
Uh, yeah it was dumbass.
and who knows who is who online
just because someone says they are a little girl online doesn't mean that they really are
Um, the story was in the mainstream media at least as far as I know. And as I understand it the mother felt compelled to apologized for her daughter's actions. err..., well, thoughts anyway.
So.....
the Patriot Act ... how many cases have been heard in courty about the Patriot Act violating a person's rights?
I asked HC that awhile back and he couldn't answer
Originally the title of the Act had been USA Patriot Act. Do you USA PATRIOT in USA Patriot Act stands for before it became just the Patriot Act? Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.
Not that this really matters, because PATRIOT still has the same meaning. If you're going to know anything about the Patriot Act, the first thing you need to know is that it was passed at the height of the anthrax scare.
From Jim Marrs' book, The Terror Conspiracy:
The Act was 342 pages long and made changes, both great and small, to more than 15 different US statutes, most of them enacted after previous misuse of surveillance powers by the FBI and CIA.
It was hurriedly and enthusiastically signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2001. The speed with which this legislation was prepared to Congress left little doubt in many midns that it had long been prepared and simply needed some provocation as an impetus for action.
According to some congressmen, many lawmakers had not even read the entire document when it was passed. The ACLU also reported that some members of Congress had less than one hour to read the extensive chagnes of law contained within the act.
Many civil libertarians felt those two facts alone should be cause for wholesale dismissals at the Capitol.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat from Ohio, described the atmosphere in which the PATRIOT Act was passed: "[T]here was great fear in our great Capitol... The great fear began when we had to evacuate the Capitol on September 11. It continued when we had to leave the Capitol again when a bomb scare occurred as members were presssing the CIA during a secret briefing. It continued when we abandoned Washingotn when anthrax, possibly from a government lab, arrived in the mail... It is present in the camouflaged armed national guardsmen who greet members of Congress each day we enter the Capitol campus. It is present in the labyrinth of concrete barriers through whcih we must pass each time we go to vote.
Rep. Ron Paul, one of only three Republicans to vote agains the House bill, siad he objected to how opponents were stigmatized by the name alone. "The insult is to call this a 'patriot bill' and suggest I'm not patriotic because I insisted upon finding out what was in it and voting no. I thoguht it was undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it--therefore I'm somehow not a patriot. That's insulting."
Paul confirmed rumors that the bill was not read by most members of the House prior to their vote: "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote--at least I couldn't get it," he told Insight Magazine. "They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote."
Paul's view of the Patriot Bill was echoed by the only independent in the House, Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who said: "I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I'm concerned that voting for this legislation fundamentally violates that oath. And the contents of the legislation have not been subjected to serious hearing or searching examinations."
enough for now. I'll post a further response later.
Uh, yeah it was dumbass.
Um, the story was in the mainstream media at least as far as I know. And as I understand it the mother felt compelled to apologized for her daughter's actions. err..., well, thoughts anyway.
So.....
Originally the title of the Act had been USA Patriot Act. Do you USA PATRIOT in USA Patriot Act stands for before it became just the Patriot Act? Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.
Not that this really matters, because PATRIOT still has the same meaning. If you're going to know anything about the Patriot Act, the first thing you need to know is that it was passed at the height of the anthrax scare.
From Jim Marrs' book, The Terror Conspiracy:
enough for now. I'll post a further response later.
um yeah
make sure that response includes court cases in which a United States citizen has sued the federal government for a violation of their rights
and BTW the secret service will investigate a person if that person posts ONLINE about killing the president
once again people are not who they always say are online
that is the secret service's job ... get over it
but post that court case
thanks
djacques75
12-05-2007, 10:44 PM
you and BJR are very similar in that you do alot of whining about the U.S. government being nazis because they enforce laws that make it harder for you to get some crack
I was primarily thinking of American foreign policy, if it can be dignified with that title. We certainly still do have some freedoms left in this country (although without habeas corpus it might be a trick exercising them) but I don't particularly give the Bush gangsters credit for that. We have a legacy of freedom, Germany didn't.
I was primarily thinking of American foreign policy, if it can be dignified with that title.
The foreign policy that we have is the same foreign policy that Woodrow Wilson had. Be the policemen of the world and bring democracy and freedom to other countries by force!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.