Printable View
I tried to pick the 10 most popular candidates. I didn't add an other option because I couldn't pick who to get rid of so if your candidate isn't on here just post who you'd vote for.
This is for the US for anyone from other countries all adamant that I didn't mention that.
Ron Paul, only person actually running for the people.
Yeah, the people of Al Qaeda.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
I picked Giuliani, the only person who has shown that he is capable of reducing the Hell out of large scale evil behavior.
I go for Giuliani or Obama.
I like Ron Paul better on the Republican side. He's very well-spoken and rational about major policies, and, most importantly, is open to debate.
And, to one-up Universal Mind's hyperbole, I accuse all of the other candidates of being in league with Al Qaeda.
I would encourage you to prove to me that he is in league with Al Qaeda. None of the candidates are running for the people of Al Qaeda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Ron Paul happens to be the only person with the interest of the middle class and lower class in mind as well as breaking down party borders. When confronted during the first fox debates they asked him why he was seeking the nomination of the Republican party if so many Republicans seem to be against him. His response was that he is not running for the republican party but for the American people.
Also, in all factual evidence Rudy doesn't know the first thing about running a country. He was mayor of New York, that doesn't include any experience in foreign relations, military rule or national rule. In fact wasn't it said that he bailed on the Iraq study group? He has no interest in running this country properly. The ONLY reason his is a candidate is because he was there on 9/11 that is the ONLY ONLY ONLY reason he has any funding or support to run for president. And last time I checked that isn't proper experience for running a country. Lots of people were there on that day, they didn't run around campaigning off of it to make money.
In fact when I went to wikipedia so I could give you some support to prove my claim I found this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controv..._Rudy_Giuliani
I don't think he is in league with Al Qaeda. I just think he agrees with them about what American foreign policy should be and says things that inadvertently work as an advertisement for their cause. He says exactly what they want said to the public, and I have yet to hear him say a single thing bad about them. Can you find such a video? If Al Qaeda could vote in the United States, they would unanimously vote for Ron Paul.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
I agree with Ron Paul on domestic issues, as far as I know, but he is so far out of this solar system with his foreign policy views that there is no way I would vote for him. Harry Browne was the Libertarian candidate for president in 1996 and 2000. He was almost superhuman when it came to understanding and offering solutions to problems. I thought he was the greatest candidate of all time, until I came across his foreign policy views. He was on a talk show saying we should not go into Iraq. The host said that the Hussein regime was trying to find a way to make nuclear weapons, and Browne's response was, "The United States has nuclear weapons." That mentality made him so dangerous that there was no way I could support him. Foreign policy is way too important of an area for a candidate to be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
That is not true. Giuliani lowered the Hell out of the crime rate in the biggest city in the United States. He reduced the murder rate in New York by 66%. Not 6%. 66%!!! That is a fact. He has shown that he can actually bring about extreme results in dealing with villains. He is also liberal on a lot of the issues where it makes sense to be liberal. He is pro-choice and supports gay marriage rights. He is an excellent candidate for president.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
^^ Gun control, n more popo
Sadly for my first time being able to vote, I dont believe anyone on the list deserves to be president. But out of all, I'm going to vote for Rudy. I'm moving out of the country if Clinton or Paul are elected. I dont really wanna debate about this either so don't hate on me.
I don't think it was gun control. Murderers could still get their guns. More cops probably helped. Rudy stopped the book 'em and free 'em method of dealing with criminals. He started making the city's criminals have to deal with their crimes. He did other things too. It's one of the most impressive statistics concerning an official I know of. Most people don't make any difference while in office. What a sad fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael
Yea I missed that major factor. But he did start good gun control because it was crazy there before him. He cut down dramatically on illegal weapons, and made it hard to legally get one. You had to prove a lot about yourself to get one. That's one of the reasons shootings and murders went down over 50%Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
It's hard to say how much of a role that did or didn't play, but you and I know how easy it is to get weed, and the government didn't just make it hard to get approved to buy weed. They flat out made it illegal. Yet we can both easily have big ass bags full of it in a very short time. I think guns work the same way, but control probably has a better effect on automatic weapons, which are illegal all over the country, than it does on guns that people can go to the next city or state to buy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael
Rudy Giuliani has done a great job helping our police and fire-men out that risked their lives during 9/11
If anyone is in league with Al Queda, its him. His foreign policy would cause massive blow back and motivate more people than ever before to become terrorists.
The man is a traitor.
Ron Paul's stance on foreign police stood before the 9/11 attacks and before any official release for Al Qeada. He has the most consistent voting record in congress and it always is voting to benefit the American people. Even when congress voted to award his friend (Ronal Reagan) he voted no, because in order to mint the award he would have been presented it would have cost 40,000 tax dollars, though he was a huge supporter of Ronal Reagan he voted no simple because it would spend tax dollars. And Ron Paul was all for funding the military and mercenaries to go after Osama Bin Laden and Al Qeauda. It was our government that saw Saddam Hussien guilty and now we are turning to Iran and seeing them as just as much as threat as the people who attacked us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Exuse typos, I am drunks as hell right now.
He would make sure that terrorist governments would not give those terrorists the enormous funding they could give them and WMD's. He would also do a great job of killing off and capturing those who do become terrorists who have not already, alsong with the ones who already have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
We did go after Al Qaeda, we are going after Al Qaeda right now, we will continue to go after Al Qaeda, and we have captured or killed tons of their members, including many of their big leaders. That does not mean we should make the moronic mistake of invading Pakistan. I hope Ron Paul recognizes that. And remember that I never said Ron Paul likes Al Qaeda or is working for them. I am just saying that, aside from the terror threats and Islamic fundamentalism, Paul preaches Al Qaeda's message inadvertantly. The Al Qaeda members who are U.S. citizens would vote for Ron Paul.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
I really wish everything was as black and white as you make it seem. Al Qaeda isn't wrong about everything. Our occupation of the middle east is wrong, flat our wrong and they are right about that. What they do about isn't right and they are steel extremist lunactics that should be brought to justice. But nobody is every 100% right and nobody is every 100% wrong. Just because Ron Paul wishes to not get involved militarily with other nations and that happens to be what Al Qeada wants, even though that has been his stance pre Al Qeada doesn't mean he is siding with them. He was for a more direct approach for eradicating Al Qeada instead of getting into nation building and calling a "war on terror" which is justification for all these stupid wars we are in or looking to get into that have nothing to do with 9/11Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
We want to prevent future 9/11's, not just get justice for the last one. Nation building is part of that plan. Giving the terrorists what they are demanding, which is exactly what Ron Paul wants to do, will encourage more 9/11's than nation building ever could. Nation building will decrease terrorist numbers over the course of time. Surrender will not. Don't forget that Al Qaeda is demanding more than getting our troops out of the Middle East. That alone would not make them chill out. It would make them think they can defeat us, and that would increase recruitment many fold, and they will still have many demands and still want to attack us for not meeting them.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
And where do you get intelligence like this? Common sense would say that if you remove the aggravation then you remove to motive for future 9/11's. If the terrorists simply hated free white christian nations then there are more free, more white and more rich nations than us. There is a reason they want to attack us and it is to get the American peoples attention so we can stop doing the unjust things that cause this. The Iraq war is one of those things that incite hatred in us. Doing more of it is only going to cause more attacks.
Who told you all that stuff you just said?
Here is a little bit of history for you in video format.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ldgbOxDX6DE
And before you turn this around and say something like "You are just regurgitating what Ron Paul says" that isn't true. I have known about this stuff well before I supported Ron Paul, I support him because he is right and I agree with what he says.
Common sense. Giving into demands encourages the demanders, especially when they have further demands. Did you read my post? Al Qaeda demands more than our leaving the Middle East. They hate the entire West, but they hate us the most because we ally with Israel and we are seen as the leaders in the influence on Western culture. Bullies have to be stood up to. You don't deal with them by kissing their shoes when they demand that you do. That reaction just influences them to demand that you kiss the other shoe and that you give them your lunch money. When you cave into that, they start doing it every day.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
What don't you understand about what I am saying? Stop putting words in my mouth of kissing Al Qeada's shoes and meeting demands? You seem to thing I am promoting some idea of "OKAY Terrorists! We will do what you say just leave us alone!" If you actually read what I am posting and understood my position you wouldn't say things like that. This is why it is impossible to discuss with you. So please, just try to understand my logic and the points I make, I don't agree with you but I understand you. You obviously don't understand me.
EDIT
By the way, are YOU going to address the points I made? You didn't answer to me where you are getting these ideas that leaving the middle east will do nothing to remove the threat of another 9/11. You also didn't respond the video I posted showing you the reasons we are hated in the middle east.
You need to take a few deep breaths. I explained my position very clearly. Al Qaeda demands that we leave the Middle East, among other things. If we do that, they will see that as a humongous reward for their terrorism, use that as a big time recruiting incentive because a huge chunk of the Middle East will be having orgasms, and continue to bully us toward meeting their other demands. Al Qaeda has other demands. Al Qaeda has other demands.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
You apparently did not read my post. I illustrated the logic behind my conclusion. Our presence in the Middle East and our dealings with Iran are on a long list of why we are hated in the Middle East. I said that the demands of Al Qaeda are multiple. Read more carefully. You might want to have sex and do some yoga first so you can calm down enough to read.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
No I understand that. But you make it sound like I am sitting here saying we should meet all the demands of Al Qeada. As if what we are doing in the middle east has anything to do with them primarily.
I am saying it is in our OWN interests to leave the middle east. Both financially and for our national security. "Al Qeada's Demands" have nothing to do with it. Al Qeada just proves a long standing foreign policy error on our part.
Look at this way. You vote Rudy in for the primaries, there is absolutely no way he will win the majority of the vote, but then again most the democrat frontrunners are just as trigger happy as bush and I don't think much will change. Not to mention they are all on the council of foreign relations, which is run by big bankers and people who have their oil in interests. This is why both sides say it is vital to stay in the middle east for our "foreign interests". I am no conspiracy theory crack pot, trust me. You can read common information on the council to find that out.
I definitely did not say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
I definitely did not say that either. Ron Paul's number one message is Al Qaeda's number one message, and that issue is what got our debate going. I never said ANYTHING about our presence in the Middle East being primarily about Al Qaeda.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
I am saying it is not in our interest because it would be too much of an encouragement for Al Qaeda and would give those who hate our guts a great deal of confidence and therefore encouragement to join Al Qaeda, as well as other such organizations. It would show that terrorism works. That is the last thing we should let happen. We need to show that terrorism backfires, and that has been our policy since 9/11.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
I would rather vote for nobody than vote for Ron Paul. And that is a shame because, as I told you, I probably agree with him on every single other issue. It is just that foreign policy is our most serious issue right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
In order to agree with Ron Pauls other points you have to firstly agree with his foreign policy. Because if you want the funding and the lower taxes to truly create the society we all want we can't have such an expensive stake in the world. It's a trillion....a TRILLION that is a huge number that is spent on keeping our military presence around the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Here is my main problem with your logic on this. You think that in order to stop terrorism we must fight it on all levels by overthrowing corrupted governments and getting into nation building. For one, we can't afford it financially or morally. Two, you can't really fight terrorism with the very thing that incites it. The terrorists are saying "we hate you for doing X to us FIRST." and then we say "Well since you did X to us, we will do X to you until you stop." Then they turn around and say "Since you are doing X we will continue to do X" You can't fight terrorism with the very policy that created it, that is only what fuels it.
Actually Um he would keep us in a perpetual state of war with governments that aren't even funding terrorists to the point where they will start to seriously think about it. He will drain our economy so that international bankers can makie billions of dollars from money borrowed from the federal reserve. He will ignore intel about actual terrorist locations and real terrorists threats.
What you are basicly saying is we should keep attacking countries out of spite and not because its in our best interest. Doing something just because it will piss off terrorists is a poor way of doing things. Your basicly basing your policy on what the terrorist want. If they want something you do the opposite no matter how stupid it is, and if its something they like you refuse to do it no matter how much it helps us as a coutnry.
The right thing to do is to ignore their opinion totally and do what is best for ourself regardless of the effect it will cause them, because in the end, its whats best for us.