O/U: how many times

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Yes. I like Ron Paul's ideas on paper, especially when it comes to economics. He has some of the biggest names in economics backing him. My main concern is this country's financial state, and he seems to be the only one up there who knows what they're talking about. Plus, he'll bring the troops home from an unjust war.

The rest of the Republicans might as well be Democrats. At least the Dems are talking about bringing the troops home, but socialism just doesn't set well with me.

Mainly, I would be happy at this point if McCain and Clinton were kept out of office because I know that Ron Paul won't get elected.

And I know what the MSM calls most Ron Paul supporters. It's sad that people actually believe them. Of course, with any candidate you have your nut jobs...

Luckily, I don't really care what everyone else has to say about Ron Paul supporters...

Who do you support? <smirks>

Ron Paul.
The guy who on National Television about
a month ago said that Abe Lincoln screwed up
the country with the Civil War. Stated that slavery
would have ended eventually on its own.

If Ron Paul had his way, the US would be split into
North and South, independent of each other. And
private companies would supply all law enforcement.
Dig a little deeper and you find the guy is a nut.
I have been following this guy's antics since the early
80's since my Gov. professor pointed him out as an example
of how anyone could gain political office if
enough people were dropped on their heads
right after they were born. A ref. to his profession.

But then again, Adolph Hitler moved an entire
group of people under the proper conditions.
Ron Paul scares the crud out of me.

I hope you only like the ideas on paper.
No offense meant.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Ron Paul.
The guy who on National Television about
a month ago said that Abe Lincoln screwed up
the country with the Civil War. Stated that slavery
would have ended eventually on its own.

If Ron Paul had his way, the US would be split into
North and South, independent of each other. And
private companies would supply all law enforcement.
Dig a little deeper and you find the guy is a nut.
I have been following this guy's antics since the early
80's since my Gov. professor pointed him out as an example
of how anyone could gain political office if
enough people were dropped on their heads
right after they were born. A ref. to his profession.

But then again, Adolph Hitler moved an entire
group of people under the proper conditions.
Ron Paul scares the crud out of me.

I hope you only like the ideas on paper.
No offense meant.

Ron Paul is a joke. I am a Republican but if Ron Paul got the nomination I would have to vote for Hillary. Ron Paul was on the Tonight Show a few weeks ago. He said that the US is partially to blame for 9/11 because of our foreign policy. I nearly fell out of my chair.
But when you consider some of the things he has said in the past, it's really not that surprising. He is amazingly dishonest. As you are aware, he said a ton of outlandish things in his newsletter and now he has the nerve to say that he didn't know what was in his own newsletter and didn't write it. How could he think that people would be dumb enough to believe that he didn't know or approve what was in his own newsletter? In his newsletter, he speculated that the Mossad may have been behind the first attack on the World Trade Center. He would actaully be better off if he claimed that his views have changed, rather than deny that he knew what was in his newsletter. It would be more believable for him to simply say that he has changed his mind about some of the things that he said in the past.

Anyway, I don't need to tell you about Ron Paul. I know that you live in Texas and know all about him. And I have always respected your opinion because you are not a partisan. I actually do agree with Ron Paul on some issues, but he is so far out there on some things that I couldn't vote for him if he was the last guy on earth.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Ron Paul.
The guy who on National Television about
a month ago said that Abe Lincoln screwed up
the country with the Civil War. Stated that slavery
would have ended eventually on its own.

If Ron Paul had his way, the US would be split into
North and South, independent of each other. And
private companies would supply all law enforcement.
Dig a little deeper and you find the guy is a nut.
I have been following this guy's antics since the early
80's since my Gov. professor pointed him out as an example
of how anyone could gain political office if
enough people were dropped on their heads
right after they were born. A ref. to his profession.

But then again, Adolph Hitler moved an entire
group of people under the proper conditions.
Ron Paul scares the crud out of me.

I hope you only like the ideas on paper.
No offense meant.

You argue in a respectable manner, so no offense is taken. Aren't you one of the ones that is a college professor or very educated in math/physics or something like that?

In no means would I ever suggest that Ron Paul is my ideal candidate. On the contrary, and I will explain. And you have nothing to worry about because he won't be elected. I do think you misunderstand him a little bit, and I probably misunderstand him on some issues as well.

READ THIS ENTIRE PARAGRAPH. You missed the point that Ron Paul was trying to make about the Civil War. He didn't state that slavery would have ended on its own to my knowledge, and if he did will you please post a link to a direct quote? From my knowledge and research on this topic, Ron Paul simply stated that Lincoln could have found a lot better way to free the slaves than to start a Civil War. In theory, he is right. None of the other countries went to wars over slaves. The government just simply bought all of the slaves. Why couldn't the United States have done the same thing? I can answer this...it is cited in several documents that Lincoln actually did try to free the slaves by buying them, but it did not work. Now, whether these documents are actually true or not, I do not know. So I believe that Ron Paul could possibly be misinformed about that. However, as for the North and South being split, I have no idea where that idea stems from. I don't think those are Paul's intentions at all. I have never heard the argument like that before, and I would like you to explain that stance in more detail so that I can understand.

I would say that our current administration is more along the lines of Adolf Hitler than I would ever compare those who want to give us back our civil liberties like Paul, Howard, Kuninch...etc. Have you read the recent bill that Ron Paul proposed? Here is a link to it....you might find it interesting. It is far from Hitler. What I find most interesting among many things is Section 8. Does this mean that the government really is censoring the media? Remember, Ron Paul is more informed on these issues than we are. Alot of things go on behind closed doors in the government than we are aware of...

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...3835ih.txt.pdf

We are about to go into a recession! I truly believe that he is the only one besides possibly Clinton that can get us out. We have got to pull out of the war, and not go to anymore wars. We don't even have a democracy here in the U.S. anymore. The system of checks and balances is breaking/has broken down in our government. Yet, we are trying to establish democracy in other countries (of course, this is a lie...i.e. oil). The top economists in the country are backing Ron Paul. If McCain is the Republican nominee, I will be voting for the Dems because McCain is a crazy war-hungry idiot. He is worse than Bush! Yet, Americans are failing to realize this, and they must want Bush x 2 all over again. If he is president, we will go to war with Iran. We will stay in Iraq. And I can't understand the fact that some people will only vote for their party no matter what. Close-minded poor souls. Now I see why people from other countries call us stupid.

Even Clinton is better than McCain, and I can't stand the thought of socialized medicine. I would normally vote Republican, but their ideas are too far off. They're neocons, which is the combined worst ideals of the Repub and Dem parties IMO.

This isn't about Ron Paul in the end. It is about Americans being very unhappy with the government. It is about the fact that Bush should be impeached. Clinton gets his dick sucked and lies to the public about it, and gets impeached. Bush lies hundreds of times, kills American soldiers under false pretenses, and kills thousands of Iraqis. WE WERE LIED TO over and over and over again. The extent and end results of these lies are yet to fully be understood, and he hasn't been impeached. I see a HUGE problem with this. Our ethics and morals are messed up. More and more people are starting to become aware of this, and a movement is beginning. Paul, Howard, and Kuninch just lit the fire.

Just for the record, I do not believe in some of Ron Paul's ideas on being a strict Constitutionalist. For instance, he wants to leave it up to the states to make up abortion laws and drug laws. I think that hard drugs like cocaine should absolutely not be allowed. The federal government does need to regulate that. However, I think the states should be given the power to decide on whether or not the state's citizens are allowed to use marijuana. People who are terminally ill are going to jail for using medicinal marijuana. I don't think that is right. If you are dying, you should be able to legally use it. In fact, I think alcohol is just as bad as marijuana if not worse. Changing times call for changes in the Constitution. Like I said, it isn't about Ron Paul. It is about freedom, and of us having a say again. Our government needs to drastically change. Luckily, many Americans are starting to come out of the trance and wake up, including, just recently, myself.

Also, Ron Paul falls closest to my ideals than any other candidate. Note that I said closest, and they are still far from my ideals. I just think that we have some horrible candidates running for president, and he is by far the worst of the evils for me.

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

You argue in a respectable manner, so no offense is taken. Aren't you one of the ones that is a college professor or very educated in math/physics or something like that?

In no means would I ever suggest that Ron Paul is my ideal candidate. On the contrary, and I will explain. And you have nothing to worry about because he won't be elected. I do think you misunderstand him a little bit, and I probably misunderstand him on some issues as well.

READ THIS ENTIRE PARAGRAPH. You missed the point that Ron Paul was trying to make about the Civil War. He didn't state that slavery would have ended on its own to my knowledge, and if he did will you please post a link to a direct quote? From my knowledge and research on this topic, Ron Paul simply stated that Lincoln could have found a lot better way to free the slaves than to start a Civil War. In theory, he is right. None of the other countries went to wars over slaves. The government just simply bought all of the slaves. Why couldn't the United States have done the same thing? I can answer this...it is cited in several documents that Lincoln actually did try to free the slaves by buying them, but it did not work. Now, whether these documents are actually true or not, I do not know. So I believe that Ron Paul could possibly be misinformed about that. However, as for the North and South being split, I have no idea where that idea stems from. I don't think those are Paul's intentions at all. I have never heard the argument like that before, and I would like you to explain that stance in more detail so that I can understand.

I would say that our current administration is more along the lines of Adolf Hitler than I would ever compare those who want to give us back our civil liberties like Paul, Howard, Kuninch...etc. Have you read the recent bill that Ron Paul proposed? Here is a link to it....you might find it interesting. It is far from Hitler. What I find most interesting among many things is Section 8. Does this mean that the government really is censoring the media? Remember, Ron Paul is more informed on these issues than we are. Alot of things go on behind closed doors in the government than we are aware of...

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...3835ih.txt.pdf

We are about to go into a recession! I truly believe that he is the only one besides possibly Clinton that can get us out. We have got to pull out of the war, and not go to anymore wars. We don't even have a democracy here in the U.S. anymore. The system of checks and balances is breaking/has broken down in our government. Yet, we are trying to establish democracy in other countries (of course, this is a lie...i.e. oil). The top economists in the country are backing Ron Paul. If McCain is the Republican nominee, I will be voting for the Dems because McCain is a crazy war-hungry idiot. He is worse than Bush! Yet, Americans are failing to realize this, and they must want Bush x 2 all over again. If he is president, we will go to war with Iran. We will stay in Iraq. And I can't understand the fact that some people will only vote for their party no matter what. Close-minded poor souls. Now I see why people from other countries call us stupid.

Even Clinton is better than McCain, and I can't stand the thought of socialized medicine. I would normally vote Republican, but their ideas are too far off. They're neocons, which is the combined worst ideals of the Repub and Dem parties IMO.

This isn't about Ron Paul in the end. It is about Americans being very unhappy with the government. It is about the fact that Bush should be impeached. Clinton gets his dick sucked and lies to the public about it, and gets impeached. Bush lies hundreds of times, kills American soldiers under false pretenses, and kills thousands of Iraqis. WE WERE LIED TO over and over and over again. The extent and end results of these lies are yet to fully be understood, and he hasn't been impeached. I see a HUGE problem with this. Our ethics and morals are messed up. More and more people are starting to become aware of this, and a movement is beginning. Paul, Howard, and Kuninch just lit the fire.

Just for the record, I do not believe in some of Ron Paul's ideas on being a strict Constitutionalist. For instance, he wants to leave it up to the states to make up abortion laws and drug laws. I think that hard drugs like cocaine should absolutely not be allowed. The federal government does need to regulate that. However, I think the states should be given the power to decide on whether or not the state's citizens are allowed to use marijuana. People who are terminally ill are going to jail for using medicinal marijuana. I don't think that is right. If you are dying, you should be able to legally use it. In fact, I think alcohol is just as bad as marijuana if not worse. Changing times call for changes in the Constitution. Like I said, it isn't about Ron Paul. It is about freedom, and of us having a say again. Our government needs to drastically change. Luckily, many Americans are starting to come out of the trance and wake up, including, just recently, myself.

Also, Ron Paul falls closest to my ideals than any other candidate. Note that I said closest, and they are still far from my ideals. I just think that we have some horrible candidates running for president, and he is by far the worst of the evils for me.

I heard the quote myself Sunday morning with Chris Matthews. I heard Paul say almost exactly what I wrote. Now maybe he needed more time to fully explain what he meant, but this is what I heard. I was stunned as I thought he would be wiser on National TV.

And I do understand the frustration of too much government intervention. Its just that Paul goes so far opposite as to be bizarre.

No I only teach at a Junior College off and on and teach Physics
on the High school level.
I am thought to be an imbecile by more than a few.
So there ya go.

[pdrift1]

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL – Jan 22, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) — A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Isolationism and a non-intervention philosophy are different things. The US has not really ever been an isolationist country. ID is dead on in his/her assessment of Al-Qaeda. Someone has done their research well... There were devastating consequences because of our interventional foreign policy. There would be some without, but we would have a lot more money in the bank as a society, and wouldn't have to borrow from China. Does anyone realize how the rest of the world feels about us right now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...nterventionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

On Al-Qaeda
http://www.meforum.org/article/999

[Mortimer]

Do you fucl< very much?

The fact that Americans still vote for this man in a time of an economic crisis simply baffles me. Americans really can't be that stupid, can they?


And it is baffling that Ron Paul got sent a penny by anyone.
He got millions over the internet by people in their 20's and 30's.

Pray hard.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pdrift1

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL – Jan 22, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) — A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said

They had bad information. This Administration is not the only one who had bad information. Let me quote Speaker of the House Pelosi back in 1998. This was when Clinton was President. In 1998 Pelosi said, "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Let me quote Bill Clinton in 1998. In 1998 President Clinton said, "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Here is a letter from John Kerry to President Clinton back in 1998. "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

There are a ton of other quotes like this from both Democrats and Republicans dating back to the 1990s. I don't think they were intentionally lying. I think they really believed that Iraq had WMDs. I think they had bad information.

Anyway, that's my final two cents in this thread.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

They had bad information. This Administration is not the only one who had bad information. Let me quote Speaker of the House Pelosi back in 1998. This was when Clinton was President. In 1998 Pelosi said, "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Let me quote Bill Clinton in 1998. In 1998 President Clinton said, "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Here is a letter from John Kerry to President Clinton back in 1998. "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

There are a ton of other quotes like this from both Democrats and Republicans dating back to the 1990s. I don't think they were intentionally lying. I think they really believed that Iraq had WMDs. I think they had bad information.

Anyway, that's my final two cents in this thread.

i think you're right. altho i don't care for bush, and am anxious for him to be gone, i think it's a shame that so many point fingers at bush while completely forgetting those on the other side of the aisle who said the same things-that saddam had wmds, that he was a danger, that we should and ought to go back to iraq and finish the job.
but the dems (aided by the republican controlled press?!?! what a hoot!) continue to make the attempt to make the reps the bad guy, while whitewashing their reputations. i wonder why tho? the war has made a turn in our favor for sure.
hell, saddam himself made the claims repeatedly to any and everyone that he had them. he'd had them in the past, he'd used them...it would be like ignoring a convicted bank robber, who shows up at a bank, and claims he's going to rob it...but then the cops show up, and he says no, i really wasn't. what, the cops are at fault for thinking he was going to repeat himself??

and scavs is correct, our govt is the one who ultimately decides to vote for war. not just the president (remember, the congress voted as well) can send us there. we elected those people to lead. they must do so. and they should have every thing they need at their disposal to make an informed decision, and once made, we should back them...altho all the finger pointing and second guessing from some in govt won't help to get full support.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There are a ton of other quotes like this from both Democrats and Republicans dating back to the 1990s. I don't think they were intentionally lying. I think they really believed that Iraq had WMDs. I think they had bad information.

Common sense ought to always trump everything else.

I don't care what the "facts" said one way or another - or if the information was bad or not.

Common sense suggests that even if Suddam didn't have these weapons - he needed to posture as though he did for the security of his own Government.

There is no way in hell Suddam, or anyone in his Govt really could have believed we would invade him.

Put yourself in his head - Suddam and his Baath party stand for mostly everything bin Laden hates - bin Laden attacks America - how would that enemy on enemy attack logically trigger America to invade Iraq? It doesn't make sense to him.

Obviously, Hussein thought America was just using 9/11 as an excuse to further crack down on him....but that they obviously wouldn't invade.

If he thinks that - he has to state publicly that he doesn't have anything and know that no one trusts his words. However, it is important that he must posture with his actions to suggest he does have something.

You can't expect a guy in his position, who doesn't believe his country will be invaded by us, to want it proven that he has nothing in the way of force to defend himself against other threats in the region.

Once again - everyone gets all caught up in things like facts, expert knowledge, past occurrences etc. - when you simply need only read up on the person and his situation, put yourself in his shoes, and use common sense.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Common sense ought to always trump everything else.

I don't care what the "facts" said one way or another - or if the information was bad or not.

Common sense suggests that even if Suddam didn't have these weapons - he needed to posture as though he did for the security of his own Government.
There is no way in hell Suddam, or anyone in his Govt really could have believed we would invade him.
Put yourself in his head - Suddam and his Baath party stand for mostly everything bin Laden hates - bin Laden attacks America - how would that enemy on enemy attack logically trigger America to invade Iraq? It doesn't make sense to him.

Obviously, Hussein thought America was just using 9/11 as an excuse to further crack down on him....but that they obviously wouldn't invade.

If he thinks that - he has to state publicly that he doesn't have anything and know that no one trusts his words. However, it is important that he must posture with his actions to suggest he does have something.

You can't expect a guy in his position, who doesn't believe his country will be invaded by us, to want it proven that he has nothing in the way of force to defend himself against other threats in the region.

Once again - everyone gets all caught up in things like facts, expert knowledge, past occurrences etc. - when you simply need only read up on the person and his situation, put yourself in his shoes, and use common sense.

OK this post takes the prize.

COMMON SENSE. Saddam used common sense...

There is no way Saddam thought we would invade.
ARE YOU SERIOUS?

WTF happened in 1990?
He did not think we would invade...
ANd he uses common sense...

You can put yourself in the shoes
of this man honestly (besides the fact
he is dead as well as brain dead)?
You think he thought
like you?
Saddam throughout his reign was
extraordinarily bad at making rational
decisions. Do you remember him invading
Iran, possibly the biggest blunder of all time
for his country except that we bailed him out.
The only thing this man understood was to
annhilate all opposition from within. He was
very good at this. The rest....SWEET JESUS!

Putting yourself in someone else's head
using your reasoning is a very dangerous
practice and flat out stupid.

omg......

Does anyone remember the History of
this man? Please help me.

If you were just kidding I apologize profusely.
In fact I apologize anyway for coming on strong
but honestly...

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Ron Paul.
The guy who on National Television about
a month ago said that Abe Lincoln screwed up
the country with the Civil War. Stated that slavery
would have ended eventually on its own.

If Ron Paul had his way, the US would be split into
North and South, independent of each other. And
private companies would supply all law enforcement.
Dig a little deeper and you find the guy is a nut.
I have been following this guy's antics since the early
80's since my Gov. professor pointed him out as an example
of how anyone could gain political office if
enough people were dropped on their heads
right after they were born. A ref. to his profession.

But then again, Adolph Hitler moved an entire
group of people under the proper conditions.
Ron Paul scares the crud out of me.

I hope you only like the ideas on paper.
No offense meant.

I voted for him yesterday. Not like it was worth anything (he's got no shot at being elected), but if you prefer McCain over Ron Paul, I'd like to know what you're smoking.

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I voted for him yesterday. Not like it was worth anything (he's got no shot at being elected), but if you prefer McCain over Ron Paul, I'd like to know what you're smoking.

I would prefer Dennis K.
over Ron Paul.

Anyone that filed, anyone

Cajun I am going to have to
ask you to stop eating that salad
immediately and slowly step away from
the mushrooms.

We must cleanse your system.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by pgardn

I would prefer Dennis K.
over Ron Paul.

Anyone that filed, anyone

Cajun I am going to have to
ask you to stop eating that salad
immediately and slowly step away from
the mushrooms.

We must cleanse your system.

I'm a conservative... what do you expect?