ccrunner609;1047396 wrote:Romney wins NH....god we need Newt to win SC or Obama will walk right back into the WH

So you like big government and wars eh?

ccrunner609;1047396 wrote:Romney wins NH....god we need Newt to win SC or Obama will walk right back into the WH

Well, as long as Obama looks a lot like Romney, I can hold my nose and live with it.

ccrunner609;1047396 wrote:Romney wins NH....god we need Newt to win SC or Obama will walk right back into the WH

Newt is awful.

jhay78;1047180 wrote:Religious bigotry in full swing in New Hampshire, led by these brochures passed out by the Rick Santorum, ERRRR, Ron Paul campaign (I'm waiting for I Wear Pants to denounce this moral-superiority, religious bigotry)

http://theothermccain.com/2012/01/09/ron-paul-campaign-flyer-emphasizes-opposition-to-gay-marriage-abortion/:

Paul has never stated that he would make laws that mandate people behave in a way that coincides with his religious beliefs. Santorum has. Big fucking difference.

jhay78;1047172 wrote:You are obviously exaggerating my positions and are frequently prone, along with other Ron Paul supporters on this site, to hyperbole and misstating your opponents positions. I was merely stating that Congress, not GWBush (whom Dr. Paul compared to a monarch) authorized the endless wars that killed trillions of civilians and caused us to invade thousands of countries.



Again, I have to question your priorities here. Just about every candidate has expressed concern over waste and corruption with the DOD budget, and the need to trim things back. The fact is defense spending consumes about 20% of the federal budget, when under JFK (when Ron Paul served) it was about 50%, and somehow we've survived and prospered for half a century since then. Why aren't entitlements (SS, Medicare) and the welfare state at the top of the list for you guys, when they consume close to half the budget and grow larger every day?

If you and Ron Paul didn't act like DOD spending took up 80% of the budget you might be taken more seriously. The reality is we can't afford anything right now- one year of no federal government spending and no military maybe would come close to erasing our debt. I agree with majorspark's assessment: "We do have to compete in this world governed by the aggressive use of force. Economic and militarily. There are ways of doing this reasonable and constitutionally". If Ron Paul focused more on the "reasonable and constitutional" part, and less on calling GWBush a monarch and everyone who disagrees with him a war-mongering neo-con chickenhawk I would respect him a bit more.

Another thing I've noticed about Ron Paul and his attacks on other candidates. He and his campaign have smeared, slimed, attacked, and name-called every Republican candidate in the field: Santorum, Bachmann, Gingrich (especially), Perry, etc, except one. Why no concerted attacks against Mitt Romney? Some have theorized that he's assuming Romney will be the nominee, and thus Paul can save the good stuff for his third-party candidacy. In any case it makes no sense why he spares Romney when he slings the mud.

Paul has talked about his plans for SS and Medicare. What other candidate has actually talked about REAL spending cuts. Not 1 trillion over 10 years or just making cuts on future spending. The thing that surprises me some conservatives think that Dr Pauls whole campaign is lets just end the wars and everything will be ok. When that is not the case. You claim that Ron Paul supporters overexaggarate when his detractors do the same. Listening to some of you, if Paul were president, we would be invaded and taken over by Radical Islam within a year. He is not a peace loving hippy. He just believes that our foreign policy is heading down a path that will ultimately lead to our downfall.

I think a good point was brought up tonight in regards to Paul running as a Third Party. Would he run and possibly risk hurting his sons standing in the republican party or use this election as the beginning of a movement to hand off to his son.

I want Paul to win, To me there really is no alternative. People in this country have to stop accepting mediocrity out of the people they pick to represent them. The american people eventually have to stand up and take back this country. In my opinion when one of your top reasons for picking a candidate is electability, looks, charisma, whatever else, you are a being a coward. Stand up for your beliefs.

jhay78;1047180 wrote:Religious bigotry in full swing in New Hampshire, led by these brochures passed out by the Rick Santorum, ERRRR, Ron Paul campaign (I'm waiting for I Wear Pants to denounce this moral-superiority, religious bigotry)

http://theothermccain.com/2012/01/09/ron-paul-campaign-flyer-emphasizes-opposition-to-gay-marriage-abortion/:

I am confused as to what this article is trying to explain.I think to anyone who has spent five minutes researching Ron Paul would know that while he may not necessarily agree with something someone does( Gay Marriage, Abortion, Drugs..etc) that he does not think their should be Federal Laws telling people how to live their lives.

Oh well, Nice try.

HitsRus;1046621 wrote:^^^that is somewhat exaggerated and filled with a lot of speculation. As for your proposed law....note that Prince William did serve in Afghanistan.

I just don't get this criticism of people resisting intrusion by government by the Paul camp. Seems to me to be every bit as duplicious as what they criticize about 'chickenhawks' . Apparently resistance to the draft...or using legal means to elude it, is not glorious if it doesn't suit one's political aspirations. So we can jawbone about individual freedoms and limited government, but pick and choose who we will criticize for resisting government intrusions. Let's cut the bull**** and realize that "chickenhawks" is just a Ron Paul talking point.

Splitting hairs, but if I recall correctly William was trained in the military but never was deployed, Harry on the other hand did serve in Afghanistan. At any rate, I agree with your general point. Given that the American military is the largest employer of young people the idea of a draft or forced service is weak sauce. The economy is the first and only issue, and we need to have leaders that can address the weaknesses in our crumbling society - mainly the toxic environment to start new businesses with a myriad of laws, regulations and red tape.

Manhattan Buckeye;1047796 wrote:Splitting hairs, but if I recall correctly William was trained in the military but never was deployed, Harry on the other hand did serve in Afghanistan. At any rate, I agree with your general point. Given that the American military is the largest employer of young people the idea of a draft or forced service is weak sauce. The economy is the first and only issue, and we need to have leaders that can address the weaknesses in our crumbling society - mainly the toxic environment to start new businesses with a myriad of laws, regulations and red tape.

This. This obsession the Paulists have with the "eeeeevil American War Machine" and the "eeeeevil American Empire" is a little over-the-top. If there's a major turn off with the Paul campaign it's Chickenhawk Paranoia Syndrome.

The major turn off with the Paul campaign is that it logically doesn't want us involved with wars that are bad for the country? That's strange.

The major turn off with the Paul campaign is that it logically doesn't want us involved with wars that are bad for the country?

That's not what he said, and you just proved believer's point by trying to frame this and almost everthing/everyone else in terms of being war/warmongering. It's almost as if it is necessary to keep the focus off having to explain how Paul's naive neo-isolationist, "noninterventionist"(call it what you will) would actually work in real world global politics.

HitsRus;1048573 wrote:That's not what he said, and you just proved believer's point by trying to frame this and almost everthing/everyone else in terms of being war/warmongering. It's almost as if it is necessary to keep the focus off having to explain how Paul's naive neo-isolationist, "noninterventionist"(call it what you will) would actually work in real world global politics.

We've detailed many times why it works.

What none of you have detailed is how killing lots of people in the middle east improves middle east relations or makes us safer from the middle eastern people who don't like us (it's almost like there's a connection there).

Tobias Fünke;1047101 wrote:It would be equally stupid for a President to shy away from a necessary war (not talking about the current ones) because he was afraid that his daughter may get her "tits blown off."

By your own admission and your own very words "shy away from unecessary wars" Nuff said. If you don't jump into unecessary wars, then you don't have to count 40,000 casualties that have occurred in places like Iraq (4500 dead, the rest maimed for life). I doubt Bush the 43rd would have allowed his daughters to roam the front lines of this "necessary war".

Every

member of our military is there voluntarily, so I don't really side with the "they're sending our sons off to war!" crap; your son sent himself off to war, respectfully.

"Voluntarily" is a nebulous word to say the least. Joining the military is nothing more than a business contract for employment. In today's economy, for many, it is the only "means to an end"...i.e....a free education and other perks. The recruiters who work off of quotas invade our high schools and in many cases hoodwink the recent high school grads to suit up and "fight for our freedoms". What a con job. We haven't had a war whereby our military "fought for our freedoms" since WWII. Not gonna go into other details...on what the lies were....one only has to review the Iraqi pretexts for war.

But yeah, the people who avoided the war back in the day are absolute pussies.

And this line has me scratch my head. Were they really pussies? Really? Is it normal to be be conscripted into obeying the state...at their whim.....to fight strangers 5000 miles away? Are those that attended college, law school, medical school, or dental schools pussies? Did they not have an inalienable right to pursue happiness? Or were they endentured servants to the state? In 67 or 68, LBJ needed more kids to "fight em over there" so we wouldn't have to "fight em over here". Welcome..the draft. 50/60,000 Americans fled to Canada. More shockingly, if one had the money, all one had to do was enlist as a full time student. Those that didn't have the cash, and your number was called on the radio (the first 100 out of 365), then tough shit...you go. In 71, a few brain cells were rubbed together, and the Congress' realized that Vietnam evaders would not be the economically priveleged...and S deferments were then denied. (This was my time...not that that matters).

Romney actually went on a Mormon mission, and those are no joke (yes, not even 1% of what war is...and he went to southern France hah) but at least he did it for a legitimate religious purpose.

A legitimate purpose? Come on Funke...get real. Cassius Clay (Muhammed Ali) avoided the war on religious principles too....a peace lovin Muslim...and they sent him away to the pokey....for years....Was Ali's reason any worse than Candypants's was?

By comparison, my father volunteered to go to Vietnam twice as an FO, but I wouldn't want a replica of my father to be President. I want the shrewdest businessman we have in the Oval Office who will fix the economy and let America prosper again. I could personally give a **** if he pussed out of going to 'nam, honestly.

Most people who served in Nam did so "voluntarily". My guess would be that he was hoodwinked and bamboozled into "fighting for our freedoms" in a land far, far away.... and from a group of people that were absolutely no threat to us. Sorry if I offended you....but that's the way I see it.

It is not normal in having an innate desire to kill other members of their own species...unless out of need due to true self defense. Because the statists claim it to be self defense...does not make it so.

BGFalcons82;1043605 wrote:I've heard Dr. Paul a lot lately, contrary to O-Trap's previous suggestions that the media ignores him (he's been the lead interviewee on Fox News Sunday the past 2 weeks).

I said it when it was happening. It is no longer happening. Thus, I no longer say it is.

Footwedge;1048618 wrote:"Voluntarily" is a nebulous word to say the least. Joining the military is nothing more than a business contract for employment. In today's economy, for many, it is the only "means to an end"...i.e....a free education and other perks. The recruiters who work off of quotas invade our high schools and in many cases hoodwink the recent high school grads to suit up and "fight for our freedoms". What a con job. We haven't had a war whereby our military "fought for our freedoms" since WWII. Not gonna go into other details...on what the lies were....one only has to review the Iraqi pretexts for war.

Footwedge;1048618 wrote:Most people who served in Nam did so "voluntarily". My guess would be that he was hoodwinked and bamboozled into "fighting for our freedoms" in a land far, far away.... and from a group of people that were absolutely no threat to us. Sorry if I offended you....but that's the way I see it.

"Invade our high schools" What the fuck is wrong with you, seriously? Can't accept that people would want to join the military for the opportunity and their own personal goals, so you have to insult their cognitive ability? I know my fair share of military members, and all of them are fine with the decision they made.

How about, you don't know shit about my father so you should probably shut the fuck up. Hoodwinked and bamboozled? How about ROTC at Xavier, was he hoodwinked into that too?

What you have said is equally ignorant and pathetic.

For the record, I want to see the military pulled back from all over.

Tobias Fünke;1048771 wrote:"Invade our high schools" What the fuck is wrong with you, seriously? Can't accept that people would want to join the military for the opportunity and their own personal goals, so you have to insult their cognitive ability? I know my fair share of military members, and all of them are fine with the decision they made.

How about, you don't know shit about my father so you should probably shut the fuck up. Hoodwinked and bamboozled? How about ROTC at Xavier, was he hoodwinked into that too?

What you have said is equally ignorant and pathetic.

For the record, I want to see the military pulled back from all over.

He might not and probably doesn't regret his military experience. But he probably was hoodwinked into thinking he was making America more safe by fighting in Vietnam. Which he wasn't.

Many people do join the military for a job or a career. Many don't. What they all do is sign up to defend this country and swear an oath to defend the Constitution. How do they feel about taking those oaths and being shipped off to fight undeclared, illegal, unconstitutional wars and drop bombs on third world countries that never attacked us and pose zero threat to us? Well, they donate twice as much money to Ron Paul as they do every other Republican candidate combined.

Tobias Fünke;1048771 wrote:"Invade our high schools" What the **** is wrong with you, seriously? Can't accept that people would want to join the military for the opportunity and their own personal goals, so you have to insult their cognitive ability? I know my fair share of military members, and all of them are fine with the decision they made.

Yeah...their personal goals. Like getting lucky in coming home in one piece...so that they can garnish a free college education. I know several vets as well....most of them say the whole charade over there is/was a farce. Foolsgold...all bullshit.

The army recruiters are the biggest snake oil salesmen alive. trust me...I know...been in direct, professional sales for 3 decades. They infest our schools like filthy rodents....and then spin the swine for the young teenagers. You think they harp on the 40,000 casualties? The 150,000 dead Iraqi people? The 2 million more that live actoss the borders in places like Jordan? Do they talk about those that come back as basket cases? Or that they, as a group, become more dysfunctional in re-aquainting themselves into our society? Well do they?

How about, you don't know **** about my father so you should probably shut the **** up. Hoodwinked and bamboozled? How about ROTC at Xavier, was he hoodwinked into that too?

I gave my opinion on your dad...so deal with it. My dad served as well. so what? My draft number was 59...10-16-53...in January of 72...called out on the radio between teeny bop songs. You and your generation never had to deal with draft numbers. We did. I was at John Carroll and was told to report...no fuggin deferment for me....unlike the chickenhawks like Rush, Wolfowicz, Cheney, Scooter Libby, Bush the 43rd, Newt, Romney, and the entire editorial staffs at the WS Journal, National Review, and the Weekly Standard. I have no idea when or why your father joined and don't care. My point is more reflective on what's transpired over the past 10 years. If you don't like it, too bad. I don't bow down to the militarists that run our country. They control the Congress, the banks, the media, and they bastardize and propogandize our young and innocent.

Tell me again why we invaded Iraq.

What you have said is equally ignorant and pathetic.

How so Funke? I call it the way it is. If what I opine bothers you, then go ahead and mute me. It's long overdue for people to speak up for peace in the world.....because Lord knows, the top brass and our media sure as hell don't.

Footwedge;1048618 wrote:I doubt Bush the 43rd would have allowed his daughters to roam the front lines of this "necessary war".

Most fathers would not allow their daughters to roam the front lines of any war. Necessary or not.

Footwedge;1048618 wrote:"Voluntarily" is a nebulous word to say the least. Joining the military is nothing more than a business contract for employment. In today's economy, for many, it is the only "means to an end"...i.e....a free education and other perks. .

You can receive a free education and other perks in this country if you are in need without serving in the military. You do not even need to be an American citizen to receive them. Lets not shit on those that choose to serve and we as a nation choose to reward them with these things.

Footwedge;1048618 wrote:"Most people who served in Nam did so "voluntarily". My guess would be that he was hoodwinked and bamboozled into "fighting for our freedoms" in a land far, far away.... and from a group of people that were absolutely no threat to us. Sorry if I offended you....but that's the way I see it.

Most who served in Vietnam believed in the cause at least in the initial stage. When they saw their government choosing to fight a limited war tying one of their hands behind their backs many realized it a lost cause. A risk with an unofficially declared war. The lack of full political backing has proved to bring failure. When you use the terms "hoodwinked" and "bamboozled" you make the troops to be the fools. There was a just cause the politicians just failed. They were hoodwinked and bamboozled into engaging and believing fighting a limited war can be won. The fools are the politicians. Likely not Tobias's Dad. Don't know the guy.

That said you people crying warmonger need take note. They are not just at the top. There are many in the ranks. Don't shit yourself. Especially with a volunteer force. We have a constitution to reign this shit in. Everyone wants to just blame the executive branch. Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Bush, Obama, etc... Lets not forget congress. They could put a stop to any of it. Or authorized the full force of the political will of the American people.

Cleveland Buck;1048836 wrote:Many people do join the military for a job or a career. Many don't. What they all do is sign up to defend this country and swear an oath to defend the Constitution. How do they feel about taking those oaths and being shipped off to fight undeclared, illegal, unconstitutional wars and drop bombs on third world countries that never attacked us and pose zero threat to us? Well, they donate twice as much money to Ron Paul as they do every other Republican candidate combined.

The families of our military sent more money to Paul than all the candidates combined...Dems and Repubs...back in 2008.

The neoconservative jingoists don't get it, didn't get it...and never will.

majorspark;1048977 wrote:Most fathers would not allow their daughters to roam the front lines of any war. Necessary or not.

Why? Why should they get a pass? They shouldn't.

That said you people crying warmonger need take note. They are not just at the top. There are many in the ranks. Don't **** yourself. Especially with a volunteer force. We have a constitution to reign this **** in. Everyone wants to just blame the executive branch. Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Bush, Obama, etc... Lets not forget congress. They could put a stop to any of it. Or authorized the full force of the political will of the American people.

We don't have a voluntary force. Volunteers cook egg omelots at the church social...or move medical carts at the local hospital for free. Our soldiers get paid for what they do....and they get a nice stipend of a free college education...at an average cost to the taxpayer of 40K. Money we don't have. Volunteers? Hardly.

Mit Romney will not win the presidency

Footwedge you fret over the chickenhawks. Its nothing more than a political term. Review American history. Especially those wars not considered directly in our national defense. Polk, Mckinley, Truman, Kennedy, etc. Not to mention those that expanded our power during the Indian wars. You will have clipped your own balls when the next bravehawk arrives on the scene.

Lets not shit on Bush 43. He served and flew combat aircraft. Not in combat. Ron Paul served as well. Was Paul ever under enemy fire? Thats right he was a doctor. It be a shame to waste his skills on the battlefiield.

None of this political demagoguery really matters. Nor should it give any credence to anyone. What matters is do they hold the correct political position.

majorspark;1048977 wrote:Most fathers would not allow their daughters to roam the front lines of any war. Necessary or not.



You can receive a free education and other perks in this country if you are in need without serving in the military. You do not even need to be an American citizen to receive them. Lets not shit on those that choose to serve and we as a nation choose to reward them with these things.



Most who served in Vietnam believed in the cause at least in the initial stage. When they saw their government choosing to fight a limited war tying one of their hands behind their backs many realized it a lost cause. A risk with an unofficially declared war. The lack of full political backing has proved to bring failure. When you use the terms "hoodwinked" and "bamboozled" you make the troops to be the fools. There was a just cause the politicians just failed. They were hoodwinked and bamboozled into engaging and believing fighting a limited war can be won. The fools are the politicians. Likely not Tobias's Dad. Don't know the guy.

That said you people crying warmonger need take note. They are not just at the top. There are many in the ranks. Don't shit yourself. Especially with a volunteer force. We have a constitution to reign this shit in. Everyone wants to just blame the executive branch. Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Bush, Obama, etc... Lets not forget congress. They could put a stop to any of it. Or authorized the full force of the political will of the American people.

Lol, yeah, us fighting a limited war is what made Vietnam stupid. Oh wait, it was going to war there at all. 58,000 dead Americans and 150,000 wounded, for what?

majorspark;1048997 wrote:Footwedge you fret over the chickenhawks. Its nothing more than a political term. Review American history. Especially those wars not considered directly in our national defense. Polk, Mckinley, Truman, Kennedy, etc. Not to mention those that expanded our power during the Indian wars. You will have clipped your own balls when the next bravehawk arrives on the scene.

Lets not shit on Bush 43. He served and flew combat aircraft. Not in combat. Ron Paul served as well. Was Paul ever under enemy fire? Thats right he was a doctor. It be a shame to waste his skills on the battlefiield.

None of this political demagoguery really matters. Nor should it give any credence to anyone. What matters is do they hold the correct political position.

The correct political position is not supporting endless, vaguely defined wars against unnamed enemies abroad. All the candidates (including Obama) except for Paul support those things.

Footwedge;1048986 wrote:Why? Why should they get a pass? They shouldn't.

Maybe I am just old fashioned. I would never hit a women. A few course words and I could easily club a guy. I have always treated my sons differently than my daughter. Equally but different. If you want to take issue with Bush that his daughters will not be roaming the front lines go ahead. The vast majority of fathers are not won over by that tripe. There are far better arguments. Your are pissing into the wind with this one.

Footwedge;1048986 wrote:We don't have a voluntary force. Volunteers cook egg omelots at the church social...or move medical carts at the local hospital for free. Our soldiers get paid for what they do....and they get a nice stipend of a free college education...at an average cost to the taxpayer of 40K. Money we don't have. Volunteers? Hardly.

We have always compensated our soldiers in some manner. They have the choice to make money without risking their ass. Or we have plenty of social programs we do not have money for they can choose to take advantage of without risking their lives in the name of the empire and get the same benefits.

Thinthickbigred;1048996 wrote:Mit Romney will not win the presidency

If he wins the GOP nod, it doesn't matter whether he wins or loses.