white devil said: I feel too far removed to get into this conversation again, but I would like to respond to accusations that Clinton should have gotten bin Laden. Yes, he should have. But if we are going to talk "what if"s, it needs to said that we armed and supported Osama bin Laden in Soviet-Afghan War. There is alot Clinton should have done, though he didn't realize what a threat he could be, but if we're gonna go there Reagen and Bush Sr. are even more guilty, for supplying the man with arms and resources. Ironic really, since it was also Reagen and Bush Sr. that supported Saddam Hussein.

 He didn't know how much of a treat he is??? Yea, he had no idea a man who had once tried to blow up the WTC, blew up an embassy, and the uss cole could be a threat to the usa... gimme a break.

Total agree on regan and bush sr. though. 

reverie said: Do you agree that America should leave both NATO and the UN? I'm not an American, so I don't have to choose my presidential candidate, but I would like to hear more from the Ron Paul supporters.

I believe what Ron Paul means about that is no entangaling in alliances, to make it not our top priority, our first priority should be a responsiblilty to the American people not other people. More isolationist but trades with everyone. Basically like being the UK of the EU a part of it but not giving up any of our sovereignty. But without the heavy central government in the UK basically the UK in extreme devolution where Whales, Scottland, and England are all separate countries only united for defense and common interests etc. Thats the best analogy i can give.

 

I believe that the government and religion could co-exist. That religion does play a role in government to get what are acceptable morals, as a good check on government power. Not where the religion dominates but is shown through voting. That religion should be allowed by everyone and not considered for people who arn't smart or unitellegent. What would society do without morals or a greater idea of a tomorrow to encurage people to do good and not just live for themselves.

There is honestly no way that the founding fathers ment for religion to be presecuted. Freedom of religion not from it. They were all Christians the founding fathers, why would they ever want there to not be religion in the public square? In general they wanted there not to be an established church but separate, but not denied. To counter the hand of government the citizen needs a concious and how else could one get that without the government influencing them?

3 pages of Ron Paul... Like I said, only on the internet...


So who do you think would win in a fight? Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich?

stof said: 3 pages of Ron Paul... Like I said, only on the internet... So who do you think would win in a fight? Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich?

 

Which one has more lax gun control laws?

fkusumot said: N-Syte said: N-Syte said: But that is what intelligence gathering is. Sifting through data, some of which might conflict, to try to paint an overall picture. Now really, the fact that my words were not intended to describe such a process is really irrelevant. Indeed, my main point was to suggest that the process is an inherently imperfect one. But why sweat the small stuff, eh? So what were your words intending to describe or convey? Just meaningless nonsense?

Umm.  What was I trying to convey?  Did my reply really not clarify?  That the process is imprefect.  That's it.  You agree?  Disagree?  A detailed description of the multiple setps involved in the process was not my desire nor even necessary to my point.  If you think inserting such a thing would have helped my point or refuted it entirely, then please, enlighten all!

Curious, though.  You still haven't really corrected anything.  Do you have nothing to add, then to say I failed to properly break down the steps into their necessary four parts?  As if I dared to suggest coke was just corn syrup and carbonated water (oh, but it it so much more than that you nonesensical dolt!)

I did not want to go step by step.  I am far from qualified (I will leave that to you).

I did want to state it is imperfect (which is what I did, btw).  I think I can safely make this statement despite my lacking an entry key to Langley.

But if by failing to go through the steps I came to an errant conclusion, correct it already!  Otherwise, be a little more selective before you start pointing out other people's deficiencies to prove your own perceptiveness.  But if you must, it would help if there is a point to it all!

Nintendownsmii said: white devil said: I feel too far removed to get into this conversation again, but I would like to respond to accusations that Clinton should have gotten bin Laden. Yes, he should have. But if we are going to talk "what if"s, it needs to said that we armed and supported Osama bin Laden in Soviet-Afghan War. There is alot Clinton should have done, though he didn't realize what a threat he could be, but if we're gonna go there Reagen and Bush Sr. are even more guilty, for supplying the man with arms and resources. Ironic really, since it was also Reagen and Bush Sr. that supported Saddam Hussein.  He didn't know how much of a treat he is??? Yea, he had no idea a man who had once tried to blow up the WTC, blew up an embassy, and the uss cole could be a threat to the usa... gimme a break. Total agree on regan and bush sr. though.

I find this line of reasoning lacking.  So if a country is once an ally of the US, can it never be an enemy?  If a former ally does become an enemy, does it mean we were wrong to ever ally with them in the past?  Were the Allies wrong to align with Stalin's murderoous regime against Axis forces, only to enter into a mutliple decade long conflict with them soon after the war?  

During the Soviet-Afghan war the US had a much greater interest in stopping the spread of communism than it did in dealing with what may or may not become a future terrorist threat.  The difference is, during the Clinton years, bin Laden had delcared himself a sworn enemy of the US.  His interests were known.  At the time he was no longer the "enemy of our enemy".  While it would be nice if the "good guys" always rode in on white horses and the "bad guys" dressed  in black capes, it is rarely so nicely wrapped.  Reagan atleast had a good reason to support the Mujahideen.  He figured the Marxists were more dangerous than the insurgents.

I don't know that we should look at Reagan's decision to side with bin Laden to block Soviet victory over Afghan forces and equate it with Clinton's missed opportunities to take out bin Laden, no strings attached.

cdude1034 said: stof said: 3 pages of Ron Paul... Like I said, only on the internet... So who do you think would win in a fight? Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich?   Which one has more lax gun control laws?

Victory Ron Paul!

 

I wonder if he can claim Mrs. Kucinich amongst the spoils. Rawr I say. 

@ damikira

The US was right to be “bellicose toward Iran”. You may not have noticed, but Iran has been quite bellicose itself in recent years. A good portion of the Middle East was concerned about the Iranian threat, not just the West. Egypt and Saudi Arabia seriously discussed starting their own nuclear program as a counter to Iran. Why did the Europeans invest so much time and energy in talks with Iran if it was obvious they were not a threat?

As suspicious as you are about intelligence gathering, it’s ironic to see how quickly you grasp on to intelligence suggesting they have dismantled the whole thing. Believe all positive news, but disregard anything negative?

If you want to throw people behind bars for making decisions based on bad information, it’s your prerogative. To me it comes across as hysterics with very little grounded in reality.

When I talked about regional arms races, the sole concern was not whether it would lead to a proliferation of long-ranged missiles, but rather to an increased number of “hot spots” across the planet. Do we really need more India-Pakistan nuclear stand-offs. Arms races invariably lead to such confrontations. If this still seems irrelevant to you, keep in mind global wars have been started over small conflicts in otherwise insignificant parts of the world.

Besides, in this day and age, as easily as technology can be exported from one part of the globe to another, the only real resources limiting a country’s ability to build a dangerous arsenal is cash and connections.

You scoff at the North Koreans, but they did aid Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions and stretched there arm to Syria and Iran.

It would be nice if the only options in Pakistan were not a dictatorship versus a fanatical theocracy, but that’s the hand that has been dealt. Who do you align yourself with? The side cooperating in routing terrorist cells or the side sympathetic to their ambitions?

My questioning the motivation of those who supposedly gave up their weapons programs is not tangential. I presume you welcome the outcome. What if it were a result of that bellicose rhetoric you abhor (bring on the cowboy analogies)? Seems funny that during the reign of this diabolical administration and its republican henchmen, we witnessed Lybia fall back in line, the Syrians leave Lebanon (notwithstanding the meddling of their Hezbollah proxies), Iran and North Korea supposedly giving up their nuclear ambitions, and Iraqis (Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds) helping US forces route local Al Queda. Sure it’s still a mess and the whole thing could backfire, but for you to just dismiss those achievements is disingenuous. It’s hardly a well thought position if your assumption is: everything bad is due to Bush incompetence/deceit while everything good is luck of the draw or would have happen anyway.

Glad we have some politics going on here.

Let me just say guys: if you don't want to vote for Ron Paul, you have been successfully manipulated into having that opinion by the media.

If you actually realised what this guy plans to do, you would understand it means back to the GLORY DAYS for America. It means no more stupid corrupt presidents, no more illegal wars.

For God's sake you people need to join Ron Paul before it's too late.