West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: jeromechickenbone on May 14, 2007, 05:29:01 PM
-
GOP Debate on Fox News, Tuesday, May 15, 2007 9:00 PM to 10:30 PM EST
The South Carolina Republican Party will host a Presidential Debate with Fox News on May 15, 2007 at the Koger Center in Columbia.
Make sure and watch, I know I will. We can expect Paul to get the least amount of questions asked, the least amount of airtime, and STILL SHUT IT DOWN!!!
-
I'm working. :P I'll catch a rerun or something, though.
-
Will footage of this end up on the internet?
-
Yeah, no doubt this will be on the net by tomorrow. I'm gonna tune in and I'll drop some thoughts on here if anything jumps out.
-
Why is Ron Paul the realest candidate in 2008?
-
Go here to vote for the winner of the debate...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18659382 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18659382)
Why is Ron Paul the realest candidate in 2008?
Very worthy question, and I'll answer briefly as I'm bout to bounce. Ron Paul is the most consistent voter in congress, he never panders to ANY crowd. If he says something, he absolutely sticks by it. He isn't backed by multi-million dollar lobbyists as many of the assholes that you see on tv are which causes them to have ENORMOUS conflicts of interest.
He was one of only 6 men to vote AGAINST war with Iraq from the get go. So now, EVERYBODY is saying it was a mistake and Paul was one of the only ones saying it was a mistake from the beginning.
He is 100% AGAINST BIG GOVERNMENT! He is 100% NON - INTERVENTIONIST which means he doesn't believe the US should police the world, and / or stick our nose in affairs that don't concern us. He doesn't believe that a few terrorists from third world contries with no army/navy/air force are a legitimate reason to start a massive QUAGMIRE of a war. He's illustrated that our reason for being in the middle east has changed AT LEAST half a dozen times, exposing it for the farce that it is.
He wants to eliminate the IRS and the Federal Reserve, which, in brief will benefit all of our pocketbooks by several HUNDRED dollers per month.
His plan is to scale back US involvement in foreign affairs and in bs bureaucratic programs like "No Child Left Behind" and "Homeland Security". With his plan, the government will DRASTICALLY cut down on the TRILLIONS of dollars spent in these bullshit programs and bullshit wars. It will strenghten the dollar as the US won't be relegated to borrowing BILLIONS DAILY to stay afloat.
Ok, I could go on but I really got to bounce. Please check the YouTube vids and official website in my sig. He also has a myspace page. I honestly believe that anyone who takes the time to read about him will quickly become a supporter, even if you have had no prior interest in politics. Even if you aren't a US citizen, this man gives you hope that shit can be changed. Peace 8)
-
Foxnews is scared as hell. They're not running an online poll, the only way you can vote for a winner is via text message. Latest results I've read from their text poll was the Paul had 30% and Romney had 27% as the top two. I'm sure Paul is winning by much more than that, but they're scared shitless of him and want to do an unsubstantiated poll. I'm glad Paul is winning of course, but they're frontin.
FYI, that poll that I posted just above on MSNBC shows Dr. Paul COMPLETELY DOMINATING:
Paul has a 64% POSITIVE RATING. The next closest is Romney at 21%
They can't stop the truth.
-
Rerun on Fox News. :raisetheroof: Cool debate. Paul is catching a lot of fire, espically from Guliani. Lol.
-
All the GOP hopefuls in one place...should be an ideal target for a bombing.
-
Somebody has got to police the world. Better just let the UN do it.
-
to use a internet termed pwned
http://www.youtube.com/v/AD7dnFDdwu0
-
^ I really respect him for speaking the truth even though what he says may be unpopular with the rest of the ignorant, flag-waving, scoundrel Republicans.
-
Fucking Rudy couldn't wait for somebody to bring up 9/11, that's all this fucker got. That pathetic piece of shit.
-
He didn't get pwned. LOL Paul was telling the truth and it was just unpopular with the neo cons.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4Eugc0Xls&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edailypaul%2Ecom%2Fnode%2F147
-
He didn't get pwned. LOL Paul was telling the truth and it was just unpopular with the neo cons.
-
to use a internet termed pwned
http://www.youtube.com/v/AD7dnFDdwu0
What the fuck are you talking about? PLEASE tell me you're talking about Giuliani...
-
Fucking Rudy couldn't wait for somebody to bring up 9/11, that's all this fucker got. That pathetic piece of shit.
LOL, word. That was some of the phoniest bullshit when he tried to pretend he'd never heard about "blowback". Hasn't Rudy fucking seen bin Laden state in his vids his reasons for the attacks?
-
to use a internet termed pwned
http://www.youtube.com/v/AD7dnFDdwu0
What the fuck are you talking about? PLEASE tell me you're talking about Giuliani...
In a red state, when you are looking for red votes, you don't say that. But then again, my guy said some stuff that might cost him Michigan, a loyal blue state, but at least he didn't look as bad. Rest of the debate, I have Paul being the only Rep I would vote for. I like him, I have that respect for him that I had for McCain in 2000. McCain has lost my respect, but Paul has mine.
-
In a red state, when you are looking for red votes, you don't say that.
Yeah because God forbid a politician actually says what he really believes instead of telling people what they want to hear.
-
Paul won the polls against Guiliani. LOL The exact thing that Paul said about American foriegn policy was in the 9-11 commission reports. H brought that up on CNN yesterday. Tell me that Mr. 9-11 Guiliani didn't read the reports.
-
To think terrorists would attack us because of our freedom like Rudy said is ridiculous. Bin Laden has clearly stated that his reasons for attacking America is becuse of America's involment in the Mid East.
-
To think terrorists would attack us because of our freedom like Rudy said is ridiculous. Bin Laden has clearly stated that his reasons for attacking America is becuse of America's involment in the Mid East.
What I want to know is that how is this all of a sudden the general consensus among the American people? Why did it take 6 years to finally reach that point. Every psychologist, political scientist, real journalist, etc were shouting that from the get go, but nobody paid attention. All you heard was "they're evil!" and "because they hate our freedoms!", at least finally people are realizing that world isn't just black and white.
-
these guys are funny. 6 years ago, it was Bush can do no wrong, now it's Ron Paul, his our savior. I like the guys message, and respect him, but you guys need to come off it. The Republicans have no chance these year.
-
Its not about party lines its about the message.
-
To think terrorists would attack us because of our freedom like Rudy said is ridiculous. Bin Laden has clearly stated that his reasons for attacking America is becuse of America's involment in the Mid East.
What I want to know is that how is this all of a sudden the general consensus among the American people? Why did it take 6 years to finally reach that point. Every psychologist, political scientist, real journalist, etc were shouting that from the get go, but nobody paid attention. All you heard was "they're evil!" and "because they hate our freedoms!", at least finally people are realizing that world isn't just black and white.
People are stupid. It's a fact.
-
Its not about party lines its about the message.
and what's the message. I support Obama because his message is hope, and trying to help the middle class. Paul's message was done in the 20s, and that lead to the Depression. Or is it the war message, because what's the difference between Paul and Hillary. What message, no more income tax, when many Americans are thinking about Universal Health Care, improving schools and protection from terrorist. What does Ron Paul offer that can be relevate to today.
-
This is a message, in the heart of your base that will disagree with what you say. He might have cost himself 18 electoral votes for this.
http://www.youtube.com/v/j1nno1El3-g
-
If the message he conveys is one of hope
then why did he support the iraq war?
why has he not played down the threat to Iran?
what has he put forward that offers any change?
If his message is one of hope then why did he support the military commissions act?
Why is he lovingly cuddling up to AIPAC?
It sounds like he wants continue with the status quo to me
The depression was after the Federal Reserve was created, the fed reserve was created in 1913 and as you mentioned, the depression happened in the 20's, Ron Paul is proposing getting rid of the federal reserve. The income tax pays off the debt which is accrued by borrowing off the federal reserve. Furthermore the income tax is what pays for these heinous wars.
-
to use a internet termed pwned
http://www.youtube.com/v/AD7dnFDdwu0
What the fuck are you talking about? PLEASE tell me you're talking about Giuliani...
In a red state, when you are looking for red votes, you don't say that. But then again, my guy said some stuff that might cost him Michigan, a loyal blue state, but at least he didn't look as bad. Rest of the debate, I have Paul being the only Rep I would vote for. I like him, I have that respect for him that I had for McCain in 2000. McCain has lost my respect, but Paul has mine.
You're pathetic homie. You obviously no nothing about Ron Paul. He'll NEVER pander to a crowd or audience in some wack attempt to gain votes. He is UNQUESTIONABLY the most consistent voter in ALL of congress, republican or democrat. His first thought when speaking to a crowd on an issue or voting in congress isn't "hmm, will this be popular", it's "hmm, is this CONSTITUTIONAL". That is what has earned him the level of respect that he has. That is his litmus test, and that is supposed to be the litmus test of EVERY candidate in the race. And you have guys like Romney, Guiliani, and McCain supporting torture at Guantanamo Bay. That right there COMPLETELY shits on the constitution that they would be sworn to protect if elected. And if you don't think the Democrats that you perceive as superior do the exact same thing? Good luck in life man.
I think you're viewing this election in a completely different light than some of us. You're openly advocating pandering, switching, deception, misleading, whatever you want to call it. And you expect people to take you serious in these discussions? You speak about politics like it's some game. I feel sorry for you for having blind loyalty to anything, ESPECIALLY a group of politicians.
-
Its not about party lines its about the message.
and what's the message. I support Obama because his message is hope, and trying to help the middle class. Paul's message was done in the 20s, and that lead to the Depression. Or is it the war message, because what's the difference between Paul and Hillary. What message, no more income tax, when many Americans are thinking about Universal Health Care, improving schools and protection from terrorist. What does Ron Paul offer that can be relevate to today.
His message is Hope and trying to help the middle class? What kind of vague formless message is that?
Here's what Dr. Ron offers that can be relevate today...
War and Foreign Policy
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.
Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.
We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.
Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.
Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.
At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Privacy and Personal Liberty
The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters.
We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver’s licenses embedded with “standard identifier” data – a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we’re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005.
To date, the privacy focus has been on identity theft. It was Congress
that created this danger by mandating use of the standard identifier (currently your SSN) in the private sector. For example, banks use SSNs as customer account identifiers because the government requires it.
We must also protect medical privacy. Right now, you’re vulnerable. Under so-called "medical privacy protection" rules, insurance companies and other entities have access to your personal medical information.
Financial privacy? Right now depositing $10,000 in your local bank will generate a “suspicious activity report” to the federal government.
And then there’s the so-called Patriot Act. As originally proposed,
Expanded the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight;
Allowed nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight;
Made it far easier for the government to monitor private internet usage;
Authorized “sneak and peek” warrants enabling federal authorities to search a person’s home, office, or personal property without that person’s knowledge; and
Required libraries and bookstores to turn over records of books read by their patrons.
I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives.
Debt and Taxes
Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.
Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy – that means all of us.
Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.
But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future – and yours.
In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply – making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”
Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.
We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.
American Independence and Sovereignty
So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our
independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government
to unelected foreign elites.
The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.
The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.
NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.
And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.
Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.
We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.
Border Security and Immigration Reform
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
Property Rights and Eminent Domain
We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.
Our country’s founders would roll over in their graves if they saw the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment used to justify booting people out of their homes for the profit of private developers and tax-hungry local governments. The Supreme Court’s Kelo decision said government power could be used to condemn private homes and churches to benefit a huge pharmaceutical corporation and a large property developer.
Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.
We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties – all without paying “just compensation.”
Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.
-
to use a internet termed pwned
^^^Couldn't have said it better myself
Educating Rudy
http://www.youtube.com/v/xcQQ05XtAQ4
-
to use a internet termed pwned
http://www.youtube.com/v/AD7dnFDdwu0
Sorry brah I'm rollin till the wheels fall off.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/18/martin/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/18/martin/index.html)
Roland S. Martin is a CNN contributor and a talk-show host for WVON-AM in Chicago.
(CNN) -- Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was declared the winner of Tuesday's Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, largely for his smack down of Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who suggested that America's foreign policy contributed to the destruction on September 11, 2001.
Paul, who is more of a libertarian than a Republican, was trying to offer some perspective on the pitfalls of an interventionist policy by the American government in the affairs of the Middle East and other countries.
"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," he said.
That set Giuliani off.
"That's really an extraordinary statement," said Giuliani. "As someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq; I don't think I've ever heard that before and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11."
As the crowd applauded wildly, Giuliani demanded that Paul retract his statements.
Paul tried to explain the process known as "blowback" -- which is the result of someone else's action coming back to afflict you -- but the audience drowned him out as the other candidates tried to pounce on him.
After watching all the network pundits laud Giuliani, it struck me that they must be the most clueless folks in the world.
First, Giuliani must be an idiot to not have heard Paul's rationale before. That issue has been raised countless times in the last six years by any number of experts.
Second, when we finish with our emotional response, it would behoove us to actually think about what Paul said and make the effort to understand his rationale.
Granted, Americans were severely damaged by the hijacking of U.S. planes, and it has resulted in a worldwide fight against terror. Was it proper for the United States to respond to the attack? Of course! But should we, as a matter of policy, and moral decency, learn to think and comprehend that our actions in one part of the world could very well come back to hurt us, or, as Paul would say, blow back in our face? Absolutely. His real problem wasn't his analysis, but how it came out of his mouth.
What has been overlooked is that Paul based his position on the effects of the 1953 ouster by the CIA of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.
An excellent account of this story is revealed in Stephen Kinzer's alarming and revealing book, "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq," where he writes that Iran was establishing a government close to a democracy. But Mossadegh wasn't happy that the profit from the country's primary resource -- oil -- was not staying in the country.
Instead, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now known British Petroleum, or BP) was getting 93 percent of the profits. Mossadegh didn't like that, and wanted a 50-50 split. Kinzer writes that that didn't sit too well with the British government, but it didn't want to use force to protect its interests. But their biggest friend, the United States, didn't mind, and sought to undermine Mossadegh's tenure as president. After all kinds of measures that disrupted the nation, a coup was financed and led by President Dwight Eisenhower's CIA, and the Shah of Iran was installed as the leader. We trained his goon squads, thus angering generations of Iranians for meddling in that nation's affairs.
As Paul noted, what happened in 1953 had a direct relationship to the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in 1979. We viewed that as terrorists who dared attack America. They saw it as ending years of oppression at the hands of the ruthless U.S.-backed Shah regime.
As Americans, we believe in forgiving and forgetting, and are terrible at understanding how history affects us today. We are arrogant in not recognizing that when we benefit, someone else may suffer. That will lead to resentment and anger, and if suppressed, will boil over one day.
Does that provide a moral justification for what the terrorists did on September 11?
Of course not. But we should at least attempt to understand why.
Think about it. Do we have the moral justification to explain the killings of more than 100,000 Iraqis as a result of this war? Can we defend the efforts to overthrow other governments whose actions we perceived would jeopardize American business interests?
The debate format didn't give Paul the time to explain all of this. But I'm confident this is what he was saying. And yes, we need to understand history and how it plays a vital role in determining matters today.
At some point we have to accept the reality that playing big brother to the world -- and yes, sometimes acting as a bully by wrongly asserting our military might -- means that Americans alive at the time may not feel the effects of our foreign policy, but their innocent children will.
Even the Bible says that the children will pay for the sins of their fathers.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the writer. This is part of an occasional series of commentaries on CNN.com that offers a broad range of perspectives, thoughts and points of view.
-
^ truth
-
http://www.youtube.com/v/sraDwkAwqH4