What's the dealio with GOP candidate Ron Paul?

**Cyclic13** · 07-31-2007 06:37 AM

Nice posts there, Oneironaut and Alric. It's nice to see that some people actually take the bull by the horns and go out and learn something before they develop an opinion enough to think they can speak either way. Unfortunately, don't expect Universal Mind to step out from within his ignorant bubble to actually make the time to get informed, though. He seems to have the mental sickness of thinking that he can somehow refute points without actually reading up on the facts, or watching them, nor is he even able to provide us with any real counter facts to support his empty ideas... Crazy I know, but at least we now know who these people are that actively watch and believe the bile coming from FOX news.

Rudy Giuliani's answer to everything

**Half/Dreaming** · 07-31-2007 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Nice posts there, Oneironaut and Alric. It's nice to see that some people actually take the bull by the horns and go out and learn something before they develop an opinion enough to think they can speak either way. Don't expect Universal Mind to step out from within his ignorant bubble to actually make the time to get informed, though. He seems to have the mental sickness of thinking that he can somehow refute points without actually reading up, or watching them, nor being able to provide us with any real counter facts to support his empty ideas... Crazy I know, but at least we now know who the people are that actively watch and believe the bile coming from FOX news.

Rudy Giuliani's answer to everything

You have no idea how hypocritical you are, do you?

Judging by your posts, you have obviously not spent a lot of time researching every angle of these subjects. You never concede points. You never admitt that you may be wrong. Your "research" is extremely one sided and laughingly ill informed. It is all based on speculation.

And before you come up with some snappy remark about my views, I don't watch FOX news. Most of the stuff I know is from the History Channel or indiscriminate searches on the Internet. Maybe you should try the same.

O yea, Bush didn't plan 9/11. Let's see you play around with that like a cat with a ball of yarn for a while.

**Alric** · 07-31-2007 07:20 AM

If you ever watch a full interview with Ron paul, you will notice he knows his stuff, and is always very honest and gives a straight answer. ALL and I do mean all of the other people give half answers and dance around the questions. Hes the only real person to give straight answers on all questions.

Anyone who calls him names is a moron and its that simple. Even if you don't agree with him, you have to admit hes very honest and straight forward. You know exactly what your getting from him which is more than nearly all the other people.

**Cyclic13** · 07-31-2007 07:33 AM

Half/Dreaming...just do yourself a favor already, and enlist like you've been talking about so you can finally do what you've always wanted; going to other countries and killing people in the name of "freedom"... You think I'm a hypocrite? Talk about hypocrisy. BE FREE, OR I'LL KILL YOU!! LOLZ.

And, if you somehow manage to pass your DNA along, then when your kids or grandkids ask you why you killed innocent people in the name of a meaningless, inert, and subjective word, you can skirt responsibility and blame just like the Nazi's did by saying..."Uhh...I was just following orders..."

If you pieced together any kind of real source of information you would know america now holds a preventative war policy, in other words, a war of aggression policy. In international law, preventive war has no recognized status as distinct from a war of aggression. Many wars have been characterised as "preventive" in nature, often by both sides of the conflict. Basically, we can now feel justified in attacking people first without any real evidence, provacation, or checks and balances to stop us. PLEASE tell me how that is protecting anyone's freedoms and I'll gladly eat my words...The thing is, none of you nay-sayers have ever provided me with any evidence supporting your view. Just talk about how you FEEL this threat is real, and THINK this about that. I'll put it bluntly, I don't care what you THINK... just show me how it IS. Because that's all I've been doing (with added tidbits of humor to spice things up).

**Half/Dreaming** · 07-31-2007 08:03 AM

This is what I posted in the other thread. Come on, I know you can understand this.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

If we continue the fight, we will either exhaust their resourses and put them into hiding, make them change their ways, or kill them all. Once Fanatical, murderous, jihad Islam is gone, we WILL leave!!! And the Mid East will be great!!! The reason it is not great, and never has been, is because of their stupid violence.

Fanatical Islam is the source of all problems in the Middle East. If we attack the source, we stop the problem. You're just going to have to put up with it for years to come. If we leave now, not only will the source of problems remain, but they will become empowered by defeating the West.

At this point, it's finishing off the bad seeds, so there won't be any future problems. This is about the future of a land that has always been empovrished. And YES!!! That wil give this country rewards!!! But the Muslims will also see the benefits.

Its not about liberation!!!! Get that out of your head. The mid East is a shit hole, and it always has been. It is that way because of fanatical Islam. The violence they create drains on their world. And it all stems back to their faction of religion that believes all non-Muslims must die. That is the source.

I WILL admitt that we have interests in the region. A better middle east means a better United States, hell, a better WORLD. Its not all about Muslims. Its a win-win situation, and all we have to do is get rid of those fucking scumbags like Al Qaeda and Hamas.

I say we either exhaust their resourses by making them fight a war they can't continue, or KILL them all. I seriously doubt they will change their ways. And they will continue to drain on the Muslim world until they are neutralized.

Thats all. Thats what this is about. George Bush said is was about "liberation" to get people on his side (and it is partially about that). Dude, you are way too easily fooled, and obviously don't understand politics. There are 2 sides to every story.

**Cyclic13** · 07-31-2007 08:22 AM

You, and a lot of mindless self-righteous americans need to learn the meaning of the word...Tolerance. Your way of thinking isn't perfect and it obviously steps on the toes of other groups of people, hence the problems we have with the world today.

If america wasn't so full of itself to entertain the thought of different perspectives, I wholly believe, we wouldn't have had the global problems we do with "terrorism".

All of these desperate fundamentalist's way of thinking started when we invaded their land and supported biased dictator's facist regimes in order to feed our oil needs. We didn't care about freedom then just lining our greasy pocketbooks.

Step outside your comfy american lifestyle and think outside yourself for a second here. Would you enjoy sitting idly by while your chances at having a decent living are continually crushed by facist dictators that were put in place by good ol' Uncle Sam himself. ALL of what Ron Paul has been stating is the truth. The terrorist's mentality is a direct link to our previous interactions with the middle east. They are just biting the hand that feeds them this negative lifestyle. Is it so hard to understand? You'd be doing exactly the same thing in their shoes with the same experiences, so don't be so quick to label the 'crazy' ones. It's easy to pin the tail on the donkey, as long as you think subjectively.

Do some damn research for god-sake.

**Alric** · 07-31-2007 09:05 AM

That is a war we can not possibly win. There is no way we can ever kill them all and they will never run out of money, unlike us who are already trillions in debt.

I can't help but be reminded by the countless tv shows, and books and movies and old stories which talk about tolerance and understanding. This is just out of a book, one side believes the other is horrible evil people while the other thinks the same about the others. And so they fight and kill each and it never solves anything. Its a story that is always repeating over and over, not only in books and in movies but in real life, its a part of history.

People are not insane. The idea that a group of people want nothing but to destory another group of people is insane. Real life is not like that! People do not live their day to day life going, "How can I kill people?"

You are the fanatical Islamic! Listen to yourself! You will not give up untill you kill every single one of them? What is that? Your preaching violence against other. You support invading their country and killing them! How the hell is killing people with tanks any less wrong than blowing them up with a car bomb? Your the same as them! YOU are the problem. Your a fanatical american bent on the destruction of another group. The only diffrence is that you don't want to physically kill someone yourself... Oh wait. Didn't you say you wanted to join the army so you can go to the middle east and murder them? Wow you really are exactly like them.

**Universal Mind** · 07-31-2007 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Really? I'd like to see that, if you have a link.

Or are you talking about the recent debate where Giuliani got one applause over Ron Paul's feelings on U.S. foreign policy? (and a subsequent round after asking him to take back what he said) This One?
Can you honestly tell me, UM, that that applause was not based on the rhetoric of sympathy for the sheer atrocity of 9/11, rather than facts that discredit the sentiment of why we were actually attacked, that Ron Paul was expressing?

Yes, the video you posted shows part of what I am talking about. Guiliani did a great job of standing up to Paul's misinformation and challenged his point that our presence in the Middle East regarding our 1991 conflict with the Hussein regime was THE reason we were attacked on 9/11. Giuliani went back to the subject again later because he was shut off at the end of that video segment you posted. Ron Paul made a false statement, and it is a dangerous one. Giuliani expressed the absurdity of the point and illustrated the absurd details of it with several statements, and I was impressed with the way he called Paul out on his one dimensional view which puts 100% of the blame on the United States. Paul just basically repeated himself and continued to ignore the other factors. I could not find a video showing the rest of the exchange.

I wish Giuliani had had more time to go into detail and not be so indirect, but with the several statements he made, he said a great deal. I think he is an excellent communicator and a stand up guy with conviction and courage. He illustrated how Ron Paul completely overlooked the fact that Al Qaeda made a DECISION to pull the attacks, that Al Qaeda's demands go way beyond U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East, that the attacks were not a rational means of getting us to leave the Middle East, and that the attacks were not justified. If you ever read Bin Laden's letter to the United States, you saw that Al Qaeda's hate goes way beyond the simplistic explanation Ron Paul gave. Ron Paul's statements were simplistic and false, and Giuliani stood up to them and made light of their absurdity. But I do admit that he could have done much better if he had had more time to debate.

I watched the videos you posted. It looked to me like some people who really hate Giuliani were grasping at straws to say absolutely horrific things about him. I would even classify their behavior as evil. Giuliani said he believed the towers would collapse, but that he did not know they would collapse when they did. The people in the videos tried to make it sound like he said he knew they would collapse when they did, but no proof of that claim was shown. The firefigher video showed a very small minority of firefighters who are probably Democrats and hate Giuliani because they know he is the the best contendor for defeating the Democratic candidate in the next election. I believe their point was very weak. They said Giuliani didn't give them good enough equipment for 9/11. What???? Giuliani was not the person responsible for picking out the equipment. The mayor is not the multitask fairy of the bigggest city in North America. People in lower offices make those decisions. And they did have the equipment. But the equipment could have been better? Okay. The guy who was chased off by security guards or cops or whatever was engaging in flat out hostile harassment. He was really getting on my nerves too, and I wasn't even in the room. He was just a repetitive barking chihuahua full of hostility and accusations and lacking substance, like Solskye. Showing up for a debate or a press hearing and asking hard questions is one thing. Blindsiding somebody and acting hostile and being totally relentless with it is not something people have a moral obligation to put up with for long periods of time. The guy Giuliani stood up to at the town hall meeting was being a total ass and making rotten accusations, and I don't blame Giuliani at all for standing up to him.

Originally Posted by Alric

The idea that a group of people want nothing but to destory another group of people is insane. Real life is not like that! People do not live their day to day life going, "How can I kill people?"

You have a lot of reading to do.

Originally Posted by Alric

How the hell is killing people with tanks any less wrong than blowing them up with a car bomb?

There is a difference between the good side and the evil side. If you don't believe in that difference, then no wonder you say the things you say. Killing people who are out to target the innocent in mass numbers to make some fairy in the sky happy is completely justified. If you don't believe in killing the evil masses to protect the innocent masses, then I am glad you are not in charge.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Unfortunately, don't expect Universal Mind to step out from within his ignorant bubble to actually make the time to get informed, though. He seems to have the mental sickness of thinking that he can somehow refute points without actually reading up on the facts, or watching them, nor is he even able to provide us with any real counter facts to support his empty ideas...

I want you to inform me of the counterarguments to the arguments you backed down to. Your hot air mantra is not working as a substitute. Besides, you said you don't even read my posts. Remember?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I must admit, I skip through your posts because I feel that if I actually took the time to try and absorb your hollow and empty posts they might somehow seep in, and infect me with that vacuous and intolerant babble.

That's awesome. Let me know if you ever have anything to argue with. I must admit that I have given up on that expectation.

**Cyclic13** · 07-31-2007 11:20 AM

Y'know it's funny. I've provided you with countless links of sources of information and you've provided me with nothing other than your lame opinions of those links...(ie. HOT AIR)

And yet, it is I who must debunk you? Yeah OK, man...keep on dreaming...

Republican Convention

**Universal Mind** · 07-31-2007 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I must admit, I skip through your posts because I feel that if I actually took the time...

.

**Cyclic13** · 07-31-2007 11:31 AM

keyword: THROUGH, not OVER.

Just look at the facts...

and if you still deny it...

Just look at the facts again...

and if your brain hasn't exploded yet from trying so hard not to face the facts...

Nothing but the facts...

...again, prove me wrong. k, thx. buh-bye.

**Universal Mind** · 07-31-2007 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by SolSkye

keyword: THROUGH, not OVER.

Just look at the facts...

Key word: SKIP

**Cyclic13** · 07-31-2007 01:29 PM

Hey...one trick pony. Look up!

Face the facts...here's some more...
Olbermann - Sep 5 2006 - Bush Nazi issue

wraps your lips around this...
Pallets of money fund covert ops

and to keep things on topic...
Ron Paul Interview 1988
STEADY views across the board...you gotta respect that. Also, you might notice how much less biased the media coverage was back then. Funny stuff.

**Half/Dreaming** · 07-31-2007 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by SolSkye

You, and a lot of mindless self-righteous americans need to learn the meaning of the word...Tolerance. Your way of thinking isn't perfect and it obviously steps on the toes of other groups of people, hence the problems we have with the world today.

If america wasn't so full of itself to entertain the thought of different perspectives, I wholly believe, we wouldn't have had the global problems we do with "terrorism".

All of these desperate fundamentalist's way of thinking started when we invaded their land and supported biased dictator's facist regimes in order to feed our oil needs. We didn't care about freedom then just lining our greasy pocketbooks.

Step outside your comfy american lifestyle and think outside yourself for a second here. Would you enjoy sitting idly by while your chances at having a decent living are continually crushed by facist dictators that were put in place by good ol' Uncle Sam himself. ALL of what Ron Paul has been stating is the truth. The terrorist's mentality is a direct link to our previous interactions with the middle east. They are just biting the hand that feeds them this negative lifestyle. Is it so hard to understand? You'd be doing exactly the same thing in their shoes with the same experiences, so don't be so quick to label the 'crazy' ones. It's easy to pin the tail on the donkey, as long as you think subjectively.

Do some damn research for god-sake.

You really are an idiot. If you think fanatical Islam was created because of America, then I can't possibly help you.

You only understand what happened in your lifetime. Learn history. I GUARANTEE you I know more about mid East history than you.

Dont comment on my "comfy lifestyle". You have no fucking idea. I've been coming to terms with the fact that I could be dead in 6 months.

Only a bafoon like you would "Tolerate" terrorism.

**Cyclic13** · 07-31-2007 04:57 PM

How's the view from that nice Hot air ballon?

Prove it...

**Half/Dreaming** · 07-31-2007 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by SolSkye

How's the view from that nice Hot air ballon?

Prove it...

I can see more from my balloon than the ant's eye view you have.

Bush didn't plan 9/11. Prove it othewise....

**Tornado Joe** · 07-31-2007 05:19 PM

Man, you all actually think you're going to solve anything here? You're both clear on where you stand with the issues, and show no signs of budging - so let it go. Agree to disagree and move on.

To respond to the topic of the thread, Sol - I heard of Ron Paul about a couple months ago (?), something like that. Was mentioned in another thread. I looked him up and got a quick overview of who he is etc. What I think? I do like what I'm hearing from him. Now with all the links provided in this thread (specially by big O

) I'll be able to get a bit more in depth info.

However, as much as I'd like someone like him to step up and get a shot at this mess of an administration we got - the reality is that he (at this point in time) doesn't have much of a chance to make it. So, voting for him would really be taking away votes to the candidate of which I'm currently a (reluctant) supporter of.

Every four years we here in the US seem to have the same problem: we don't vote FOR a candidate, we simply vote AGAINST the that which we feel is the worst of the choices.

**Half/Dreaming** · 07-31-2007 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Tornado Joe

Every four years we here in the US seem to have the same problem: we don't vote FOR a candidate, we simply vote AGAINST the that which we feel is the worst of the choices.

That is a huge problem with US politics. The job of the politician is not to point out what is good about himself, but what is bad about the opponent. Have you ever seen the commercials on TV that just point out the bad stuff about some guy? And at the end it says it was paid for by the opponent. So freggin stupid.

**Alric** · 07-31-2007 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by Tornado Joe

However, as much as I'd like someone like him to step up and get a shot at this mess of an administration we got - the reality is that he (at this point in time) doesn't have much of a chance to make it. So, voting for him would really be taking away votes to the candidate of which I'm currently a (reluctant) supporter of.

Every four years we here in the US seem to have the same problem: we don't vote FOR a candidate, we simply vote AGAINST the that which we feel is the worst of the choices.

You can't think like that. If you like someone you have to take a risk and back them 100%. The biggest killer of candidates are people who want to vote for them but don't because they think its some how wasting votes. How is voicing your opinion a waste? You don't always have to win, you just need to speak up loud enough for people to hear your opinion.

Personally I think he would easily win in the election. His biggest problem is in the primaries however. That will be a challenge but if he can get though that he will have it wrapped up.

**Tornado Joe** · 07-31-2007 07:53 PM

Half/Dreaming - mud slinging is as old as elections themselves. Unfortunately among all the strategies in campaigning, it seems to be the easiest to do and therefore most widely used.

Alric - I understand what you're saying about the attitude of a 'wasted' vote. However, if a candidate is trully as good as he/she comes across as, he should be alble to rally up enough people to form a substancial following. Even then there is the biggest hurdle - finacing. Bet there's a good handfull of great potential leaders out there, just no money to finance a good campaign. Sad, but apparently money is what "makes" a candidate these days (just look at Obama). Anyone remember Ross Perot? And where does that money come from? Special interest groups and corporations (oil, energy, etc). The same people that run the government today.

So, you want to rule this great nation? You gotta sleep with the devil first.

I don't really think any vote is 'wasted' (except those which were tossed out with the whole "hanging chad" fiasco

). Yes, voting for neither of the major parties would send a message. But who'd hear it? Who would care? All I'd be left with is four years of a leader of which I could have prevented from coming into office- all for the sake of a message or voice.

In my opinion this country has taken a severe beating for 8 years (or more) economically and globally - the healing is still a long way off. But we need to at least stop the bleeding.

Question: Would Ron Paul run as a Republican or what? Wouldn't he be better off as an independent?

**Alric** · 07-31-2007 08:26 PM

You answered your own question. Unless you are in one of the two main parties people don't take you seriously, which is why he is running as a Republican. While a lot of his views don't line up with the majority of neocons that run the republican party, he is in fact a conservative republican. As so it is appropriate for him to run as such. He could have very well ran as a libertarian and had the support of the entire group but thats not how you get elected.

We have a ways to go before we can know however. He doesn't have a lot of money but he does have a great grassroots campaign and its growing everyday. He has a great message as well, its all of a matter of getting it out for everyone to hear. There is no question he is doing very well, the thing is, will be it be enough?