Ron Paul sucks.

Hillary FTW.

@loadedstatement

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but the way his campaign handled that donation was great.

"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom.

"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.

Couldn't have said anything better. This will not be a campaign issue.

 

Rath said: Cheeseburger said: What a sad day that we live in, that following the Constitution has become "insane." That being said, judging by what some of you say, I think a lot of you who claim Ron Paul is insane, would actually like him, if you looked into what he actually stands for and his reasoning behind it. It is hard to argue that positions supported by history and facts are insane, unless you ignore history and facts. All I can say is, if you don't vote for Ron Paul, I hope you don't ever again argue that government or politicians are corrupt liars again, because it is only because you keep voting them in. Finally a man who is not just saying what you want to hear, but saying the truth and he is labeled insane. I guess George Orwell was right, "during times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." http://youtube.com/watch?v=XaxdUPNYj2s    Following the constitution isn't insane but trying to abolish the federal reserve and taxes is. He may be an honest man - which is a rare thing indeed - but his policies are simply too farfetched for my liking.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nq7Li1MOF2Y    Sorry but getting rid of the fed is not insane... a lot of people that  actually know who they  are and how it works think the Fed has ruined this economy...  Getting rid of taxes works too as long as you stop  spending  too.   Getting rid of the income tax would mean our government would have the revenue of the mid 1990's.  Thats plenty for a still way too big government.  Reader's digest just did a audit and found that the equivalent of our income taxes is wasted by the government  in useless things that were never used.  Sorry but anyone who  thinks Ron Paul's policies  are crazy, either havn't looked into them, or just not well enough  to actually understand what they are reading.

damkira said: N-Syte said:  No, the US wasn't right to threaten Iran. I don't understand why these things are ok for the US, yet unacceptable for other countries, We are not the police of the world and Iran did not threaten us. By "a good portion of the middle east" did you mean Israel? Has the US not done enough for Israel? It has been a country for sixty years now and should be able to handle its own affairs. Yes, Ahmenijad's various remarks about Israel and Jewish people have been despicable.. however, we have too many domestic problems in this country to send them yet more weapons and foreign aid -- and it would be very wrong to ask our military to fight a war around the world against ANOTHER country which did not threaten the US. As far as my grasping on intelligence failures that support my opinions, Yes -- I would give more credence to the intelligence suggesting Iran has dismantled is program because of the simple fact that Bush, a man who has been unwilling -- to the point of absurdity -- to admit mistakes in the past said his -- very public -- positions on Iran were wrong.. making himself look more like a bloodthirsty despot than he already does it in the eyes of the world. Yes, I would like to see people who invade another country and killed hundreds of thousands of its citizens arrested. If I heard you had guns in your house and I came over there to assault you, I think you would want me arrested, too. My point earlier was that these countries: North Korea, Iran and Libya.. do not have the resources for large scale long-range nuclear missiles and, as for your comment on "hot spots," the concept of mutually assured destruction has worked well in the past and there's no reason to believe it won't work in the future. Yes, there are theological zealots who might not mind this, such as al-qaida.., but even somewhat irrational governments like Iran, N Korea and Libya would not attempt this toward any nation -- even Israel (which DOES have nuclear weapons, thanks to the US.) North Korea did not actually sell Iran or Syria nuclear material, but missiles which may be capable of holding it, but we can also find information everywhere that shows the US, UK and Russia sell weapons to countries all the time, and I'm sure you are aware of how faulty North Korean missiles are.. I don't think either the military dictatorship or the islamic fundamentalists are good for Pakistan. Saying that Musharraf (or the current government) has been good for his country or ours would be to completely ignore a lot of things he's done... In closing, al-Zarqawi's organization was NOT called al-Qaida In Iraq until after the invasion. Listen closely to anything bin Laden or Al-Zawahiri says -- the message is ALWAYS the same. The US seeks to take over Muslim lands, steal the oil and re-create The Crusades. The invasion has made his rhetoric plausible to a HUGE number of people in the Muslim world who would not otherwise take up arms against us. You might say that we are fighting terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here and you might also bring up that there hasn't been an al-Qaida attack since 9/11 -- but the only one before that was the 1993 attack on WTC. The invasion of Iraq has been a dismal failure. It has cost so many lives, so many billions of dollars and caused nearly irreparable damage to US reputation and standing in the world.. and for what? some obtuse ideological goals? I don't see how any reasonable person could say it was worth it. This will be a black eye for the US for generations to come and for Iraq -- even longer.

We need not be police of the world in order to justify threatening someone acting against our interests.  By a good portion of the Middle East I meant Saudi Arabia and Egypt.  I meant it so much I identified them by name in the very next sentence!  Your quickness to bring up Israel betrays your own bias.  As I did not bring them up, I will interpret your reference to them as – how would you say it? – tangential and not relevant.  

Iran’s saber rattling did not single out only Israel.  It was directed to its other neighbors as well as the West.  In a way though, I agree with the thrust of your argument.  It should not be left to the US alone to deal with these matters (with a few notable exceptions).  Other nations should be carrying their weight as well. 

When you speak of Bush you fall into an irrational state of hysteria.  Any measured tone to your words goes out the window.  Why not claim that he feeds on the blood of orphans while you are at it?  Believe it or not, if multiple intelligence agencies (even non-US ones!) can be wrong about Iraq’s WMD, there is the possibility, however unbelievable it may be, that the single intelligence report claiming Iran has ended its weapons program is wrong.  I hope its right.  I would just as soon not have another conflict over there.  But I would feel better if my government maintained a level of skepticism regarding Iran’s intentions. 

(On a side note, I wonder how much it would bother you if Bush’s war somehow worked out in the end.  Oh I know, and wouldn’t it be nice if there were fairies and pots of gold at the end of rainbows.  But still, hypothetically speaking, I think it would bother you if the US could claim genuine victory some day.  My guess is you would rather see Iraq fail than see Bush be vindicated by history.  If that is the case, I think it’s unhealthy.) 

OK.  So neither option in Pakistan is good.  Yep, that’s actionable.  (You prefer things black and white, don’t you?) 

I don’t really care what terror cells call themselves.  I only carry that they are found and destroyed.  If Iraqi’s of all stripes are helping in that effort, all the better.

Actually, bin Laden’s grievances go back to 1918 (let’s let bygone’s be bygone’s with the Crusades, eh) with the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire (whew, atleast one thing the US can’t be blamed for).  As far as Muslim lands are concerned, he was chiefly concerned about the holy land – Saudi Arabia.  The US base built up for the Persian Gulf War and subsequent missions over the Iraqi no-fly zone was an embarrassment to him.  In a way, the Iraq War alleviated one grievance by moving US presence out of Saudi Arabia into Iraq.  (But take heart, something tells me bin Laden’s reasons for killing will evolve as needed.) 

US interests were attacked outside the US between 93 and 01 on numerous occasions. 

I will wait until it is over before calling all lost.  Thankfully, Iraqis will ultimately decide, not you.

damkira said: @loadedstatement I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but the way his campaign handled that donation was great.   "Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom. "And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.   Couldn't have said anything better. This will not be a campaign issue.

 I completely agree.  Anyone who thinks otherwise has a screw loose. 

 

loadedstatement said: damkira said: @loadedstatement I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but the way his campaign handled that donation was great.   "Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom. "And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.   Couldn't have said anything better. This will not be a campaign issue.    I completely agree.  Anyone who thinks otherwise has a screw loose.

I kind of prefer the Giuliani approach.  If a Saudi Prince is going to give you a donation for $10 million dollars while claiming the US had 911 coming, let him keep his money.  Better to take the moral high ground than validating his thinking by accepting his gift.

Besides, that line of reasoning could be used to justify the acceptance of any donation no matter how dirty.  Or maybe that's your point?  To drop the saccharine romanticism and get down to brass tax. 

And yes, my screws could use a little tightening.

N-Syte said: damkira said: N-Syte said: No, the US wasn't right to threaten Iran. I don't understand why these things are ok for the US, yet unacceptable for other countries, We are not the police of the world and Iran did not threaten us. By "a good portion of the middle east" did you mean Israel? Has the US not done enough for Israel? It has been a country for sixty years now and should be able to handle its own affairs. Yes, Ahmenijad's various remarks about Israel and Jewish people have been despicable.. however, we have too many domestic problems in this country to send them yet more weapons and foreign aid -- and it would be very wrong to ask our military to fight a war around the world against ANOTHER country which did not threaten the US. As far as my grasping on intelligence failures that support my opinions, Yes -- I would give more credence to the intelligence suggesting Iran has dismantled is program because of the simple fact that Bush, a man who has been unwilling -- to the point of absurdity -- to admit mistakes in the past said his -- very public -- positions on Iran were wrong.. making himself look more like a bloodthirsty despot than he already does it in the eyes of the world. Yes, I would like to see people who invade another country and killed hundreds of thousands of its citizens arrested. If I heard you had guns in your house and I came over there to assault you, I think you would want me arrested, too. My point earlier was that these countries: North Korea, Iran and Libya.. do not have the resources for large scale long-range nuclear missiles and, as for your comment on "hot spots," the concept of mutually assured destruction has worked well in the past and there's no reason to believe it won't work in the future. Yes, there are theological zealots who might not mind this, such as al-qaida.., but even somewhat irrational governments like Iran, N Korea and Libya would not attempt this toward any nation -- even Israel (which DOES have nuclear weapons, thanks to the US.) North Korea did not actually sell Iran or Syria nuclear material, but missiles which may be capable of holding it, but we can also find information everywhere that shows the US, UK and Russia sell weapons to countries all the time, and I'm sure you are aware of how faulty North Korean missiles are.. I don't think either the military dictatorship or the islamic fundamentalists are good for Pakistan. Saying that Musharraf (or the current government) has been good for his country or ours would be to completely ignore a lot of things he's done... In closing, al-Zarqawi's organization was NOT called al-Qaida In Iraq until after the invasion. Listen closely to anything bin Laden or Al-Zawahiri says -- the message is ALWAYS the same. The US seeks to take over Muslim lands, steal the oil and re-create The Crusades. The invasion has made his rhetoric plausible to a HUGE number of people in the Muslim world who would not otherwise take up arms against us. You might say that we are fighting terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here and you might also bring up that there hasn't been an al-Qaida attack since 9/11 -- but the only one before that was the 1993 attack on WTC. The invasion of Iraq has been a dismal failure. It has cost so many lives, so many billions of dollars and caused nearly irreparable damage to US reputation and standing in the world.. and for what? some obtuse ideological goals? I don't see how any reasonable person could say it was worth it. This will be a black eye for the US for generations to come and for Iraq -- even longer.     We need not be police of the world in order to justify threatening someone acting against our interests. By a good portion of the Middle East I meant countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. I meant it so much I identified them by name in the very next sentence! Your quickness to bring up Israel betrays your own bias. As I did not bring them up, I will interpret your reference to them as – how would you say it? – tangential and not relevant. Iran’s saber rattling did not single out only Israel. It was directed to its other neighbors as well as the West. In a way though, I agree with the thrust of your argument. It should not be left to the US alone to deal with these matters (with a few notable exceptions). Other nations should be carrying their weight as well. When you speak of Bush you fall into an irrational state of hysteria. Any measured tone to your words goes out the window. Why not claim that he feeds on the blood of orphans while you are at it? Believe it or not, if multiple intelligence agencies (even non-US ones!) can be wrong about Iraq’s WMD, there is the possibility, however unbelievable it may be, that the single intelligence report claiming Iran has ended its weapons program is wrong. I hope it's right. I would just as soon not have another conflict over there. But I would feel better if my government maintained a level of skepticism regarding Iran’s intentions. (On a side note, I wonder how much it would bother you if Bush’s war somehow worked out in the end. Oh I know, and wouldn’t it be nice if there were fairies and pots of gold at the end of rainbows. But still, hypothetically speaking, I think it would bother you if the US could claim genuine victory some day. My guess is you would rather see Iraq fail than see Bush vindicated by history. If that is the case, it’s unhealthy.) OK. So neither option in Pakistan is good. Yep, that’s actionable. (You prefer things black and white, don’t you?) I don’t really care what terror cells call themselves. I only carry that they are found and destroyed. If Iraqi’s of all stripes are helping in that effort, all the better. Actually, bin Laden’s grievances go back to 1918 (let’s let bygone’s be bygone’s with the Crusades, eh) with the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire (whew, atleast one thing the US can’t be blamed for). As far as Muslim lands are concerned, he was chiefly concerned about the holy land – Saudi Arabia. The US base built up for the Persian Gulf War and subsequent missions over the Iraqi no-fly zone was an embarrassment to him. In a way, the Iraq War alleviated one grievance by moving US presence out of Saudi Arabia into Iraq. (But take heart, something tells me bin Laden’s reasons for killing will evolve as needed.) US interests were attacked outside the US between 93 and 01 on numerous occasions. I will wait until it is over before calling all lost. Thankfully, Iraqis will ultimately decide, not you.

 Egypt and Saudi Arabia were discussing nuclear armament only in the terms if they were caught between a nuclear exchange from Israel to Iran. It was only discussed and I don't think that anyone (even your faulty US intelligence sources) would claim either of those countries actually started to enrich uranium or anything like that. I'm not biased against Israel, I just don't think any nation deserves the kind of aid we give them.

 I don't think I'm being irrational about bush at all. He has committed war crimes and deserves to go to trial for it. Since we're talking about Pakistan, if Hamid Karzai invaded Pakistan, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, detained and tortured Pakistani citizens (without charging them with anything) and then threatened to invade Uzbekistan after that, I would want to charge him as a war criminal, too.  

On the subject of Pakistan, no it isn't actionable. I never said it was.. only that it was a greater threat than Iran.

I am aware of the partioning of the Ottoman Empire following its defeat in WWI. bin Laden makes numerous references to the crusades and to christian/jewish encroachment on muslim lands throughout history. Listen to any of his rhetoric it almost always alludes to ancient times and the crusades. I have not defended bin Laden or -- in any of my posts -- justified the kinds of things he does. I merely stated that numerous people in the islamic world see the us doing exactly what bin laden is accusing it of doing and are rising up against us.

As far as terrorist attacks inside the US, islamic terrorists were not responsible for either the oklahoma city or the olympic bombing. Yes, US interests were attacked, but that happens around the world and to lots of countries.

I don't see by what measure you could possibly call the Iraq war a success. Saddam hussein's government has fallen and he's dead? Iraq as a stable Democracy? Invading another country only to have that country break out into a civil war -- with no discernable progress toward stabilization is not a success and it will only lead to further failure and tragedy for Iraq and the US.

 

N-Syte said: loadedstatement said: damkira said: @loadedstatement I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but the way his campaign handled that donation was great.   "Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom. "And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.   Couldn't have said anything better. This will not be a campaign issue.    I completely agree.  Anyone who thinks otherwise has a screw loose.    I kind of prefer the Giuliani approach.  If a Saudi Prince is going to give you a donation for $10 million dollars while claiming the US had 911 coming, let him keep his money.  Better to take the moral high ground than validating his thinking by accepting his gift. Besides, that line of reasoning could be used to justify the acceptance of any donation no matter how dirty.  Or maybe that's your point?  To drop the saccharine romanticism and get down to brass tax.  And yes, my screws could use a little tightening.

 10 million is so much different than $500.  It was ONLY $500.  Not by a Saudi prince.  By a man who lives an average life in an average town who just happens to be a racist.  And you are not validating his thinking by accepting his gift.  Do you expect these campaigns to do background checks on all of their donors?  No.  And they won't.  Tons of money gets donated by people who may not have the best morals.  It really depends on your definition of morals though.  His donation accounts for 0.000027% of all the money Ron Paul has raised this quarter so far.  I cannot even believe this got air on the news.  It really shows how ridiculous the news is. 

He seems like a good hearted man, that would run a country with good intentions. Even though I'm from outside the US, I feel that the Choices the US makes affects the world. So it is interesting knowing more about who is the President. In Australia, we have a new Prime Minster - Kevin Rudd... and he seems similar to Ron Paul. It was an interesting doco. :D

loadedstatement said: N-Syte said: loadedstatement said: damkira said: @loadedstatement I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but the way his campaign handled that donation was great.   "Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom. "And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.   Couldn't have said anything better. This will not be a campaign issue.    I completely agree.  Anyone who thinks otherwise has a screw loose.    I kind of prefer the Giuliani approach.  If a Saudi Prince is going to give you a donation for $10 million dollars while claiming the US had 911 coming, let him keep his money.  Better to take the moral high ground than validating his thinking by accepting his gift. Besides, that line of reasoning could be used to justify the acceptance of any donation no matter how dirty.  Or maybe that's your point?  To drop the saccharine romanticism and get down to brass tax.  And yes, my screws could use a little tightening.  10 million is so much different than $500.  It was ONLY $500.  Not by a Saudi prince.  By a man who lives an average life in an average town who just happens to be a racist.  And you are not validating his thinking by accepting his gift.  Do you expect these campaigns to do background checks on all of their donors?  No.  And they won't.  Tons of money gets donated by people who may not have the best morals.  It really depends on your definition of morals though.  His donation accounts for 0.000027% of all the money Ron Paul has raised this quarter so far.  I cannot even believe this got air on the news.  It really shows how ridiculous the news is.

I don't begrudge him for not knowing the source of every penny that enters his coffers.  And I don't even know what kind of background check would raise whether a donor is a racist or not.  But if the issue does come up, why keep it?  If for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of inpropriety.

I realize there is quite a difference between $500 versus the $10M, but does it matter?  Maybe the principle is still the same?  Is there really some kind of numeric cutoff seperating when it is appropriate to take funds from unscrupulous fellows and when it is not?

One might argue that if its "only $500" all the more reason to give it back.  Is $500 alone going to do much for the cause of freedom?  Will losing $500 really restrict the donor from doing whatever it does he normally does?  In fact, the logic of the Ron Paul campagn only seems to get stronger the larger the donation is.

Perhaps the better response would have been for the campaign to give it to some charity and be done with it.

Otherwise it's much ado about nothing.  I think one of the reasons this sort of non-story gets so much air time is because of the eclectic bunch that Ron Paul attracks.  There are quite a few birds of a different color out there backing him.  (and no, that was not meant to be a pun on the racist donor)