ron paul=awesome/kickass?

[Dr. Love]

I don't see a complication with a desire to follow the constitution and change it at the same time. There's a reason it has provisions for amendments. I want people to stick to the constitution and be able to update it. I don't like our government legislating themselves additional powers the constitution doesn't give them.

If the government needs more power, amend it and give the states the opportunity to say yes or no. Don't just give it to yourself.

On the issue of it being too early to see where the nomination is going ... this is the republican nomination. They wrap this shit up in the first 3 - 4 contests. For it to still be a question after Romney won twice shows two things:

1. Romney is going to have a problem getting it done (especially if the field narrows)
2. Ron Paul is running a damn good campaign. He's placing consistently well. When the other candidates drop out, those voters have to decide ... do they want Romney or Paul? That should be fun to watch.

I'm voting in my state's primary. I just hope Perry is out by then.

[Dr. Love]

Ron Paul growing in the polls!

Ron Paul surges five points in latest national poll
The State Column | Staff | Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, can celebrate two victories Wednesday. Mr. Paul is tied with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for 2nd place at the national level among Republicans and Independents, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Tuesday. Mr. Paul and Mr. Gingrich pulled in 17 percent of the votes each, while former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney garnered 29 percent of the votes.

The results of the Reuters/Ipsos poll were released prior to Mr. Paul’s 2nd place finish in the New Hampshire Primary. Whether Mr. Paul’s strong finish on Tuesday night will impact his standing in South Carolina or at the national level will be revealed in the coming days.

The results of the Reuters/Ipsos poll are a major victory for Mr. Paul, as the Texas congressman has jumped 5 percentage points since Ipsos Public Affairs last conducted a GOP poll between December 8th and December 12th. On the other hand, the results of the Reuters/Ipsos poll are somewhat troubling for Mr. Gingrich. The Georgia Republican’s support has dipped 8 percentage points among Republicans and Independents.

Mr. Romney has benefited from Mr. Gingrich’s fall from the top. The former Massachusetts governor has surged 11 percentage points in one month. After securing a strong second place finish in the Iowa Caucuses, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has risen 8 percentage points.

Mr. Romney won the New Hampshire Primary Tuesday night. With nearly 100 percent of the voting precincts reporting, the Bain Capital co-founder has pulled in 39.3 percent of the votes, according to data from The Associated Press. Mr. Paul grabbed 2nd place in the New Hampshire Primary and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman earned a 3rd place finish. Mr. Paul has garnered 22.8 percent of the votes and Mr. Huntsman has received 16.9 percent of the votes.

The Paul campaign offered its take on the results of the New Hampshire Primary: “When added to Paul’s top-tier showing in Iowa, it’s clear he is the sole Republican candidate who can take on and defeat both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama,” Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton said in a press release.

Ipsos Public Affairs surveyed 414 Republicans and 119 Independents from January 5th through January 9th. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.7 percent for Republicans and plus or minus 9.0 percent for Independents.

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/poll-ron-paul-surges-5-points-at-national-level/#ixzz1jAnsy2Oc

[Dr. Love]

[Dr. Love]

Ron Paul shrugs off electability concerns

CBS News) After a second-place finish in New Hampshire's Republican primary Tuesday, Texas Rep. Ron Paul dismissed concerns that he's not a candidate that conservatives can coalesce around to take on frontrunner Mitt Romney.
Romney handily won the Granite State by a margin of tens of thousands of votes over Paul, but the Texas congressman, who finished third in last week's Iowa caucuses, showed no sign of backing down as the nomination race heads to South Carolina.

"I've been electable," said Paul. "I've won 12 elections already, and we're doing quite well now. It's amazing that I do so much better than those other candidates that are all electable. They're all in fourth, fifth and sixth place, but they're all electable, but I come in second or third, and all of the sudden people say, 'Oh, he's not electable.' I don't know how that adds up."

Paul described the dilemma anti-Romney Republicans face in uniting behind one candidate as "a big problem," adding that the GOP has drifted from his brand of conservatism.

"There's a lot of confusion on how you define conservative," said Paul. "I define conservative as for less government, less spending and balanced budgets, but ... in recent history the Republican Party has drifted over to saying conservative means you cut spending and maybe interference in the market, but ... the more money you spend overseas, the more conservative you are. That doesn't even add up, doesn't make sense."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57356769/ron-paul-shrugs-off-electability-concerns/

[Dr. Love]

The establishment just can't stand Ron Paul.

Sen. DeMint urges Republicans to listen to Ron Paul
By Alicia M. Cohn

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said Wednesday the Republican presidential candidates need to listen to Ron Paul and would benefit from integrating some of his libertarian ideas into their platform.

"One of the things that's hurt the so-called conservative alternative is saying negative things about Ron Paul," DeMint told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. "I'd like to see a Republican Party that embraces a lot of the libertarian ideas."



Paul's views on foreign policy have taken plenty of heat from his rivals for the GOP nomination, who have slammed his views on the topic as outside of the mainstream of Republican thought. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) called his views "dangerous" before dropping out of the race.
DeMint said he does not agree with the Texas congressman on everything but that the rest of the GOP presidential field should capture some of what Paul's been talking about for years because the Republican Party "needs" the libertarian movement.

"You don't have to agree with everything he's saying, but if the other candidates miss some of the wisdom about what he's saying about monetary policy ... that will be to our detriment," DeMint said.

DeMint, who is an influential conservative lawmaker with a key role in the Tea Party movement, said the debate within the Republican Party he's most comfortable with is between conservatives and libertarians.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/203557-sen-demint-urges-republicans-to-listen-to-ron-paul-

[K-tuna]

I don't see a complication with a desire to follow the constitution and change it at the same time. There's a reason it has provisions for amendments. I want people to stick to the constitution and be able to update it. I don't like our government legislating themselves additional powers the constitution doesn't give them.

If the government needs more power, amend it and give the states the opportunity to say yes or no. Don't just give it to yourself.

On the issue of it being too early to see where the nomination is going ... this is the republican nomination. They wrap this shit up in the first 3 - 4 contests. For it to still be a question after Romney won twice shows two things:

1. Romney is going to have a problem getting it done (especially if the field narrows)
2. Ron Paul is running a damn good campaign. He's placing consistently well. When the other candidates drop out, those voters have to decide ... do they want Romney or Paul? That should be fun to watch.

I'm voting in my state's primary. I just hope Perry is out by then.

AGREED!!

and goddamn I love that gif...

[Dr. Love]

[kwame k]

No , We very much are not..at least not yet. Like a bunch of people did, whether its Libya or Egypt...everyone has jumped the gun on how "democratic" these uprisings actually are, or how smart they were. In these cases everyone has over looked how the progenitor of Al Queada, The muslim brotherhood have positioned themselves to take over . It may VERY well be they have traded douchebags for far more evil replacements.

Or they might not.......We helped Libya try and gain it's independence what they do with it from there is their own business. We didn't invade or occupy....we helped people who would of been slaughtered had we not bombed their military. You really buy into the boogieman, boo be very afraid thing, don't you. Al-Qaeda isn't as big and powerful as you are lead to believe. By it's nature it doesn't have to be. It only takes a few people to plot and carry out a terrorist attack.

Obama used a loophole by claiming he was working with UN so he could do what he wanted.....Funny , Lets see a Repub do that and see how happy the libs are with that.


No Obama wasn't the good guy in that, he went over congress's head. BTW, years ago Khaddaffi had ALREADY given up to Bush. he was no immmediate threat because he had constant cooperation with us.

Now I get it......if it doesn't fit your agenda fuck the rest of the world. Like how we turned a blind eye in Rwanda or the massacres on the Ivory coast? Yet a made up a pretext to invade Iraq is cool? Yeah, let 'em slaughter innocent women and children....unless of course that country has something we want.

What did Obama make up? What? Name it! How did he go over Congress' head?

I repeat He was NO immediate threat. He had surrendered to Bush shortly after 9/11.

I repeat.....unless a country has something we want or they threaten to kill Dubya's daddy fuck 'em?

Ok The First Iraq war was because Saddam was gassing the Kurds AND Saddam for years was ignoring UN sanctions. Are we supposed to always ignore Genocide ?

I'm sorry , any excuse that tries to justify Bin Laden doesn't wash. and Bin laden and Al Qaeda weren't bombing us , he hit his own people, the saudis, and anyone he could to make a point.

I thought it was because he invaded Kuwait........get your facts straight.

He gassed the Kurds 1988 and used gas in 1983 and 1985 against the Iranians when they were at war and Saddam was our ally then and we supplied him with weapons. It's called Google, it can be your friend

I can disagree with you , but telling me to "open my eyes" assumes somehow you're right , ..I don't agree, at all.

I am right......open your eyes and maybe you too can be right

And I stand by My Quote from 24...it express my feeling perfectly. If I have a choice , theres a hidden nuke and I know some jihadist has some info. Sorry , I'm gonna do what it takes.

Wow......I couldn't imagine what your geopolitical views would be if your favorite show was Two and a Half Men

Zero terroists in Iraq? Really, do you have those statistics and facts from the CIA? Were you there. that absolutist statement is hurting your argument.

Why yes, I do as a matter of fact.....

How about we start with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Curveball and the WND lies........

"Colin Powell, the US secretary of state at the time of the Iraq invasion, has called on the CIA and Pentagon to explain why they failed to alert him to the unreliability of a key source behind claims of Saddam Hussein's bio-weapons capability.........

In particular he singled out the CIA and the Defence Intelligence Agency – the Pentagon's military intelligence arm. Janabi, an Iraqi defector, was used as the primary source by the Bush administration to justify invading Iraq in March 2003. Doubts about his credibility circulated before the war and have been confirmed by his admission this week that he lied." Link

On to Terrorists......

"According to former State Department intelligence chief Gregory Thielman, the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies well in advance of the war was that "there was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist operation."

I have NO problem with the preemptive approach as long as we have the info and approval from congress.

I do when from the President right on down lied about WMD's, terrorist and the pretext to war. Look up what Hans Blix had to say about WND's....remember Google's your friend

How about the Saddam tried to buy uranium in Niger, lie?

Joesph Wilson was our former acting ambassador to Iraq who wrote that little Op-Ed piece in the Times exposing the lie saying he found zero evidence that Saddam bought or was trying to by uranium in Niger........you know how old Joe was rewarded? They outed his wife who was a CIA operative......

"United States v. Libby in which Lewis Libby, the former Chief of Staff to Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney, was tried on five federal felony counts. He was convicted on four of the counts, involving false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice, none of which related directly to the Plame revelation but rather to his failure to cooperate with the subsequent investigation into the revelation. Libby was sentenced to 30 months in prison and a fine of $250,000.

Libby's prison sentence was commuted by President Bush, who let the conviction and fine stand" Wiki link!

It pisses me off when American men and women die for a lie, how about you?

BTW, when I wrote " sorry...continue" it was an acknowledgement that I butted in. Didn't't mean to sound snarky.

Neither did I!

[kwame k]

What utter bullshit.

But keep it up, with Brie gone we need someone to post revisionist history FAUX bullshit.



May as well be you.

I tried to tell him to search the Front Line forums.....

You know, where we've debated this Ad nauseam with links, facts and stuff

[LoungeMachine]

I love newbies.....



Come in here all fresh and tell us what's what.

[K-tuna]

No dude, respectfully you aren't right.

and again WE HAVE NEVER TAKEN OVER A COUNTRY IN ANY WAR IN OUR HISTORY.

Saddam gassed the Kurds and invaded Kuwait later... he was killing kuwaities...I left out part of my point, you pounced...good for you . But just because you got me because i forgot part of my point doesn't make you right.


Dude LIBBY had NOTHING to do with it. It was Robert Novak who said as much , that He outed Plame in one of his columns and told prosecutors that. they got Libby on a loop hole......c'mon now you're just showing your bias here bring that stuff up.

Bush commuted it because EVERYONE knew Libby was falsely accused. ( btw hoswabout those drug dealering buddies Clinton Pardoned?...fun stuff huh? )

Again, you falsely said there were ZERO terrorists in Iraq....did you get a head count while you were there?

CONGRESS was given the same info for Iraq....Hilary agreed as well. Whos lying here?

But the bigger issue is you tried to mock my points to dismiss them, but i didn't think we're having that kinda disagreement.


They died for a lie?....I don't call stoping a nutbag dictator who ACTIVELY killed his citizens, maimed them, raped them for his and his sons enjoyment and got that same country their first FREE elections, dying for a lie.

[Dr. Love]

Don't let these turkeys discourage you from posting. Having new people to debate is good for this forum rather than having it turn into an even bigger circle jerk.

[K-tuna]

I love newbies.....



Come in here all fresh and tell us what's what.

Ah so you you memorized your talking points and you thought somehow you schooled me.

Go back to drinking.

[K-tuna]

Don't let these turkeys discourage you from posting. Having new people to debate is good for this forum rather than having it turn into an even bigger circle jerk.

LOL..thanks man..


mmmmmmBOOBIES!!

[kwame k]

No dude, respectfully you aren't right.

and again WE HAVE NEVER TAKEN OVER A COUNTRY IN ANY WAR IN OUR HISTORY.

You really don't understand invade and occupy, do you?

Saddam gassed the Kurds and invaded Kuwait later... he was killing kuwaities...I left out part of my point, you pounced...good for you . But just because you got me because i forgot part of my point doesn't make you right.

Nice back peddle....

Dude LIBBY had NOTHING to do with it. It was Robert Novak who said as much , that He outed Plame.....c'mon now you're just showing your bias here bring that stuff up.

I guess when a court of law convicts him of false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice....I tend to go with the our laws of the land.

Bush commuted it because EVERYONE knew Libby was falsely accused.

Bush commuted it because his Vice President's office was involved and rewarding him for taking one for the team......

Again, you falsely said there were ZERO terrorists in Iraq....did you get a head count while you were there?

OK, I've given you a former State Department intelligence chief's statement and you've given me nothing......Quid pro quo, Clarice

CONGRESS was given the same info for Iraq....Hilary agreed as well. Whos lying here?

Let's see, uh maybe the fucking people who gave them the intel.....you know, the Bush Administration.

Remember, Google is your friend....look up comprehension and get back to me

But the bigger issue is you tried to mock my points to dismiss them, but i didn't think we're having that kinda disagreement.

No, the bigger issue is that your talking out of your ass and have provided zero links to back up you argument.......having trouble linking to Fox News?

They die for a lie....I don't call stoping a nutbag dictator who ACTIVELY killed his citizens, maimed them, raped them for his and his sons enjoyment and got that same country their first FREE elections, dying for a lie.

Neither do I....that's why I supported the people trying to over-throw Libya's dictator.....