Thanks for the map, UG. From that it's quite clear why the Arabs weren't having any (and I wouldn't have thought the Jews would have liked it much). It looks like two countries drawn by a committee, which I suppose is what it was.

Back to Newt. Paul and Santorum have no chance at all, but might have some nuisance value as spoilers. Both Gingrich and Romney are still in the race... but neither of them is likely to beat Obama. And we have another four years of a weak president.

Weak because of outrageous obstructionism by radical right wing republicans who care more about their rigid ideology that doing things for the American people, the 99 percent.

Thanks for the map, UG. From that it's quite clear why the Arabs weren't having any (and I wouldn't have thought the Jews would have liked it much). It looks like two countries drawn by a committee, which I suppose is what it was.

Back to Newt. Paul and Santorum have no chance at all, but might have some nuisance value as spoilers. Both Gingrich and Romney are still in the race... but neither of them is likely to beat Obama. And we have another four years of a weak president.

Weak because of outrageous obstructionism by radical right wing republicans who care more about their rigid ideology that doing things for the American people, the 99 percent.

Obama had the first two years with a Liberal left wing radical Democratic Congress. Only the last year has been obstructed by the Constitutional Republicans.

His weakness began in the first two years.

I wonder how many of the 99%'rs went along with Michelle on her shopping spree.

____________________________________________________________________

Agent Provocateur sales boosted by US First Lady Michelle Obama

Agent Provocateur saw sales jump by more than 12pc, helped by US First Lady Michelle Obama spending $50,000 (£31,794) in one shopping spree.

http://www.telegraph...elle-Obama.html

Weak because of outrageous obstructionism by radical right wing republicans who care more about their rigid ideology that doing things for the American people, the 99 percent.

Apart from ChuckD's comments above, I would suggest that the republican representation in both houses have garnered more than 50% of the votes cast, not just 1%. So you're in the minority. This is the fallacy of PR men and unquestioning left-wing media groupies.

But it's your problem - I couldn't care less.

Thanks for the map, UG. From that it's quite clear why the Arabs weren't having any (and I wouldn't have thought the Jews would have liked it much). It looks like two countries drawn by a committee, which I suppose is what it was.

Back to Newt. Paul and Santorum have no chance at all, but might have some nuisance value as spoilers. Both Gingrich and Romney are still in the race... but neither of them is likely to beat Obama. And we have another four years of a weak president.

Weak because of outrageous obstructionism by radical right wing republicans who care more about their rigid ideology that doing things for the American people, the 99 percent.

I'm one of those 99%, and I'll let you in on a little secret. Not everyone in our group is terribly bright. Many don't even pay their bills. Some couldn't name either the senators from their state or their local representative. Most of them are neither Right Wing, nor are they Left Wing but are incredibly ignorant. Align yourself with or against them if you like but let's be honest. We Americans should be extremely embarrassed by the candidates and incumbents that are heading into this election.

I know you don't like Ron Paul much, but he's the sincerest of the bunch. Sadly, sincerity doesn't get much traction with you lot.

Thanks for the map, UG. From that it's quite clear why the Arabs weren't having any (and I wouldn't have thought the Jews would have liked it much). It looks like two countries drawn by a committee, which I suppose is what it was.

Back to Newt. Paul and Santorum have no chance at all, but might have some nuisance value as spoilers. Both Gingrich and Romney are still in the race... but neither of them is likely to beat Obama. And we have another four years of a weak president.

Weak because of outrageous obstructionism by radical right wing republicans who care more about their rigid ideology that doing things for the American people, the 99 percent.

I'm one of those 99%, and I'll let you in on a little secret. Not everyone in our group is terribly bright. Many don't even pay their bills. Some couldn't name either the senators from their state or their local representative. Most of them are neither Right Wing, nor are they Left Wing but are incredibly ignorant. Align yourself with or against them if you like but let's be honest. We Americans should be extremely embarrassed by the candidates and incumbents that are heading into this election.

I know you don't like Ron Paul much, but he's the sincerest of the bunch. Sadly, sincerity doesn't get much traction with you lot.

The US tried sincerity with Jimmy Carter. Look where that got us.

I'm one of those 99%, and I'll let you in on a little secret. Not everyone in our group is terribly bright. Many don't even pay their bills. Some couldn't name either the senators from their state or their local representative. Most of them are neither Right Wing, nor are they Left Wing but are incredibly ignorant. Align yourself with or against them if you like but let's be honest. We Americans should be extremely embarrassed by the candidates and incumbents that are heading into this election.

I know you don't like Ron Paul much, but he's the sincerest of the bunch. Sadly, sincerity doesn't get much traction with you lot.

The US tried sincerity with Jimmy Carter. Look where that got us.

This is the problem........

You once asked me...

We are supposed to read what "he" has written as opposed to what "he" has supported? Bet you wouldn't want us to apply this to all the other candidates.

I replied yes you should read & yes I would apply it to all candidates.

Because when you say something like what you just did it really shows you have no idea.

Carter may have been a peace loving person but he had not the knowledge or skills to implement

Monetary & Foreign Policies that Paul does.

Folks really need to go investigate for themselves not filter everything thru a media controlled prism.

Here we have the folks who learn all they know from loons like Mr. O-Rile-Me & those who get it from Ms. Madcow

Then they repeat it the in belief it is the truth.

Geez is it any wonder we have such poor choices? Yet someone like Paul gets labeled a kook

Hilarious & so very sad at the same time.

I guess we get what we deserve but like LB said we should be very embarrassed.

I'm one of those 99%, and I'll let you in on a little secret. Not everyone in our group is terribly bright. Many don't even pay their bills. Some couldn't name either the senators from their state or their local representative. Most of them are neither Right Wing, nor are they Left Wing but are incredibly ignorant. Align yourself with or against them if you like but let's be honest. We Americans should be extremely embarrassed by the candidates and incumbents that are heading into this election.

I know you don't like Ron Paul much, but he's the sincerest of the bunch. Sadly, sincerity doesn't get much traction with you lot.

The US tried sincerity with Jimmy Carter. Look where that got us.

This is the problem........

You once asked me...

We are supposed to read what "he" has written as opposed to what "he" has supported? Bet you wouldn't want us to apply this to all the other candidates.

I replied yes you should read & yes I would apply it to all candidates.

Because when you say something like what you just did it really shows you have no idea.

Carter may have been a peace loving person but he had not the knowledge or skills to implement

Monetary & Foreign Policies that Paul does.

Folks really need to go investigate for themselves not filter everything thru a media controlled prism.

Here we have the folks who learn all they know from loons like Mr. O-Rile-Me & those who get it from Ms. Madcow

Then they repeat it the in belief it is the truth.

Geez is it any wonder we have such poor choices? Yet someone like Paul gets labeled a kook

Hilarious & so very sad at the same time.

I guess we get what we deserve but like LB said we should be very embarrassed.

Well. since you have now labeled me as a know-nothing Fox News/MSNBC educated lout, I suppose I should defend myself to a degree.

I, personally, have nothing against your man. He is from Texas as am I and we do tend to stick together but I completely disagree with his foreign policy. His foreign policy is as close to isolationism as one can get and in today's world that is not the way to go. We tried isolationism in the 1930's and you might remember how that experiment ended up. We must stay engaged and he has neither the will or desire to do so.

His fiscal policies make sense. I ain't a Fed fan at all so that government controlled enterprise can go the way of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Education Department, Energy, and many others by simply being broken up.

I really do not feel he is supportive of a strong military and would rather turn it into a national defense force only. Sorry, not my preferred way of doing things. As Ronald Reagan said..."We have never been attacked because we were too strong."

Lastly I do not think he can beat Obama. I'm not certain Gingrich can either but then what do the Republicans have, other than Romney.

Now, just for the record, I have watched Fox News perhaps 30 days in the past three years and have never seen a full show with Rachel Madcow so it is unlikely my opinions are impregnated with either of their opinions. I'm just an old dumb country boy who worked for many years in that dreadful military/industrial complex.

PS: Can you steer me to that post you say I made. I can't remember making it.

Well. since you have now labeled me as a know-nothing Fox News/MSNBC educated lout, I suppose I should defend myself to a degree.

I, personally, have nothing against your man. He is from Texas as am I and we do tend to stick together but I completely disagree with his foreign policy. His foreign policy is as close to isolationism as one can get and in today's world that is not the way to go. We tried isolationism in the 1930's and you might remember how that experiment ended up. We must stay engaged and he has neither the will or desire to do so.

I really do not feel he is supportive of a strong military and would rather turn it into a national defense force only. Sorry, not my preferred way of doing things. As Ronald Reagan said..."We have never been attacked because we were too strong."

Lastly I do not think he can beat Obama. I'm not certain Gingrich can either but then what do the Republicans have, other than Romney.

Now, just for the record, I have watched Fox News perhaps 30 days in the past three years and have never seen a full show with Rachel Madcow so it is unlikely my opinions are impregnated with either of their opinions. I'm just an old dumb country boy who worked for many years in that dreadful military/industrial complex.

PS: Can you steer me to that post you say I made. I can't remember making it.

Again due to your lack of actually reading what he stands for from his lips you have it wrong.

It is not uncommon though for folks to mistake a nonintervention policy for isolationism.

Yet how can a man who is against economic sanctions be called an isolationist?

It is quite the opposite as it is our government who uses economic sanctions that are the ones practicing isolationism.

Same as what folks like John Quincy Adams said in his description of America's Foreign Policy

http://www.fff.org/c...AdamsPolicy.asp

taken from RP's book Revolution....

Henry Clay who was repeating Washington's wise sentiments,rather than giving voice to isolationism,when he urged this piece of advice on upon his countrymen....

"By the policy to which we have adhered since the days of Washington...we have done more for the cause of Liberty than arms could effect;

we have shown to other nations the way to greatness and happiness....Far better is it for ourselves...and the cause of liberty, that, adhering to our pacific system and avoiding the distant wars of Europe, we should keep our lamp burning brightly on this western shore, as a light to all nations, than to hazard its utter extinction amid teh ruins of fallen and falling republics in Europe"

He is also 100% for a strong military but there is strong & there is silly spending to support a Military Industrial Complex.

The two are not one in the same...obviously by our decent into financial ruins & ever decreasing safety/ good relations in the world.

I don't want to go into a long explanation or interpretation of Ron Paul here for a number of reasons.

1) folks like yourself,UG,JT have their minds shut to it period. Albeit in your case your reasons are more than Israel or gays

both of which by the way RP does not discriminate against but, again this is how folks who only use a TV interpret things.

2) Ron Paul speaks very clearly & has done so for decades. It is their to read. I do not want to repeat it not only for the above reasons but because then I also would only be a fallible third party speaking it.

Lastly I did not mean to label you but it seems a few of you only get the filtered info thru channels I mentioned.

For folks who have read it is glaringly obvious.

Of course I did not mean you use both shows mentioned above as it is obvious which side you cheer.

Madcow/Oblergirl would be for the other guy I will let you guess which

The post I mentioned you made was in the not surprisingly enough Ron is a kook thread in this sub-forum

Lastly Paul would so smoke Obama & the debates alone would be worth any price of admission

Some massively delusional assertions there.

Paul would won ZERO states against Obama.

The republican party isn't anti-gay? No. That is completely false.

Some massively delusional assertions there.

Paul would won ZERO states against Obama.

The republican party isn't anti-gay? No. That is completely false.

Paul would kill Obama after a debate

I live here in the US & all I can say is even die hard Obama fans are

sick of him.

A debate between Paul & Obama would be the final nail in the coffin of Obama

Here are a couple things I recently saw

http://www.nationalj...-obama-20120109

http://ivn.us/news/2...l-is-electable/

Lastly I think I was quite clear when I said Ron Paul is not anti-gay

Nice attempt to divert....but zero points given

It's fun to watch people getting all fanatic about a totally certain total LOSER. Enjoy! I've been there myself on the left. Keep dreaming.

It's fun to watch people getting all fanatic about a totally certain total LOSER. Enjoy! I've been there myself on the left. Keep dreaming.

Thanks glad to see you approve of freedom of choice

Also happy to say I am neither Left nor Right as they are two wings of the same corrupt/broken bird/system

It's fun to watch people getting all fanatic about a totally certain total LOSER. Enjoy! I've been there myself on the left. Keep dreaming.

Thanks glad to see you approve of freedom of choice

Also happy to say I am neither Left nor Right as they are two wings of the same corrupt/broken bird/system

Whatever. Sorry but Paul is an extreme far right candidate of the isolationist variety, whether you accept that or not. He has wide appeal to racists, homophobes, and antisemities and his type (the fed conspiracy theory obsession, the opposition to the US entering WW2) has quite a long tradition in the US. Paul aware of his wide appeal to right wing crackpots cashed in on that with his outrageous newsletters. Presidential material? Not a chance!

Lastly I think I was quite clear when I said Ron Paul is not anti-gay

He sure has a funny way of showing it.

http://www.towleroad.com/2011/12/ron-pauls-homophobia-in-context.html

Lastly I think I was quite clear when I said Ron Paul is not anti-gay

He sure has a funny way of showing it.

http://www.towleroad...in-context.html

That he would even consent to appear in the same TV show with that idiot surely shows his tolerance for even the most bizarre individuals.

He thought he was there to discuss Austrian economics. Remember Bruno was playing a character from Austria. That's how he was involved in that wonderful, revealing scene.

He thought he was there to discuss Austrian economics. Remember Bruno was playing a character from Austria. That's how he was involved in that wonderful, revealing scene.

That of course is the scenario published for the masses, hoping they would watch this insane idiot.

Of course, he had to be approached by the producer, have the object of the show and his role therein explained to him, then agree to appear. If this was not done, then in his place I would sue for millions, approach the sponsoring network and have the show (which is what it was) off the air in no time at all.

It was all an act.

That he would even consent to appear in the same TV show with that idiot surely shows his tolerance for even the most bizarre individuals.

Well that would be because he was lied to & tricked into it by that nutcase....Funny UG is a fan or just happened onto the video??

But what Sasha did was call in the request by posing as an economic reporter.

But again this is why Americans deserve the government they have today.

Folks rather post crap like this than actually use their brains.

It is what it is

That of course is the scenario published for the masses, hoping they would watch this insane idiot.

Of course, he had to be approached by the producer, have the object of the show and his role therein explained to him, then agree to appear. If this was not done, then in his place I would sue for millions, approach the sponsoring network and have the show (which is what it was) off the air in no time at all.

It was all an act.

Actually this is how it was done.... The Paul did not sue suggests he has more important things to occupy his time

Speaking on America's ABC radio this week, angry Paul condemned Cohen for lying and accused him of 'fraud'.

During an interview with presenter Curtis Sliwa, Paul was asked how he ended up in a hotel room in such a compromising situation.

He said: 'We were in a studio situation, I wasn't invited into a hotel room. There were lots of lights and blaze and commotion and they said we better get in this back room which had been fixed up as a bedroom.

'So there was some dishonesty getting me into the interview, I was expecting an interview on Austrian economics. That didn't turn out that way.

'By the time he (Cohen) started pulling his pants down, I was like what on earth is going on here and I ran out of the room. This interview had ended.'

The video is pretty funny, but what he wrote about gays, Jews and blacks is the real point.

...the largest blood bank in San Francisco ... holds blood drives in the gay Castro district, where people give at three times the usual level. Either they are public spirited, or they're trying to poison the blood supply.

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2011/12/ron-pauls-homophobia-in-context.html#ixzz1kzJr9lrs

http://www.towleroad...in-context.html

...the largest blood bank in San Francisco ... holds blood drives in the gay Castro district, where people give at three times the usual level. Either they are public spirited, or they're trying to poison the blood supply.

Man....I googled towel road....the site you linked...Top Gay Blog for Gay men......I see where you get your unfounded fears now

Anyway carry on

Gay men have good reason to fear this man, but they link to the New Republic for much more.

A January 1994 edition of the Survival Report states that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive

Gay men have good reason to fear this man, but they link to the New Republic for much more.

Yes well.......I tend to think this is all side fluff & having read his books don't buy it.

Also to try & make this the sticking point is weak at best,,,,,,Unless of course it is the most important

qualification for you.

As I said before everyone has freedom of choice so vote for who you feel is the best all around candidate

for President.

I have also said before that I do feel this is the most important election in my lifetime.

While I knew Obama could not deliver his campaign slogans I did expect he would at least try....He has NOT

He was strictly extend & pretend as he extended the Patriot Act & The National State of Emergency not to mention

done absolutely zip about the banking/financial fraud all around him.

I also was not so worried during that campaign as the real decent of America was just really getting started

Now that these years have past & we see how bad the situation is & what is the likely outcome. Well I just

have the impression this is the last chance to get someone who knows a thing or two in there & actually start

addressing the cause not the symptoms.

These are the choices we are given. There is only one there that stands for what is right. Always has.

The rest all have their ties/puppeteers

Also to try & make this the sticking point is weak at best,,,,,,Unless of course it is the most important

qualification for you.

There are not many Americans who would choose a president that is OK with racism and bigotry against gays. Those those newsletters and his alliances prove that he is - even if he denies being a bigot himself.

Those those newsletters and his alliances prove that he is - even if he denies being a bigot himself.

Not really & it has been pointed out before what he said about them from the very article you linked

” Paul “abhors it, rejects it and has taken responsibility for it as he should have better policed the work being done under his masthead,”

But as always these are the things you will ignore....

Anyway as I said vote for who you like eh... I will do the same

Of course he denies them - he is a politician - but they had his name on them for 20 years. He certainly knew what was in them, if he did not write them himself.

Of course he denies them - he is a politician - but they had his name on them for 20 years. He certainly knew what was in them, if he did not write them himself.

Ummm It Reads.........." has taken responsibility for it" Kow Jai?

Well. since you have now labeled me as a know-nothing Fox News/MSNBC educated lout, I suppose I should defend myself to a degree.

I, personally, have nothing against your man. He is from Texas as am I and we do tend to stick together but I completely disagree with his foreign policy. His foreign policy is as close to isolationism as one can get and in today's world that is not the way to go. We tried isolationism in the 1930's and you might remember how that experiment ended up. We must stay engaged and he has neither the will or desire to do so.

I really do not feel he is supportive of a strong military and would rather turn it into a national defense force only. Sorry, not my preferred way of doing things. As Ronald Reagan said..."We have never been attacked because we were too strong."

Lastly I do not think he can beat Obama. I'm not certain Gingrich can either but then what do the Republicans have, other than Romney.

Now, just for the record, I have watched Fox News perhaps 30 days in the past three years and have never seen a full show with Rachel Madcow so it is unlikely my opinions are impregnated with either of their opinions. I'm just an old dumb country boy who worked for many years in that dreadful military/industrial complex.

PS: Can you steer me to that post you say I made. I can't remember making it.

Again due to your lack of actually reading what he stands for from his lips you have it wrong.

It is not uncommon though for folks to mistake a nonintervention policy for isolationism.

Yet how can a man who is against economic sanctions be called an isolationist?

It is quite the opposite as it is our government who uses economic sanctions that are the ones practicing isolationism.

Same as what folks like John Quincy Adams said in his description of America's Foreign Policy

http://www.fff.org/c...AdamsPolicy.asp

taken from RP's book Revolution....

Henry Clay who was repeating Washington's wise sentiments,rather than giving voice to isolationism,when he urged this piece of advice on upon his countrymen....

"By the policy to which we have adhered since the days of Washington...we have done more for the cause of Liberty than arms could effect;

we have shown to other nations the way to greatness and happiness....Far better is it for ourselves...and the cause of liberty, that, adhering to our pacific system and avoiding the distant wars of Europe, we should keep our lamp burning brightly on this western shore, as a light to all nations, than to hazard its utter extinction amid teh ruins of fallen and falling republics in Europe"

He is also 100% for a strong military but there is strong & there is silly spending to support a Military Industrial Complex.

The two are not one in the same...obviously by our decent into financial ruins & ever decreasing safety/ good relations in the world.

I don't want to go into a long explanation or interpretation of Ron Paul here for a number of reasons.

1) folks like yourself,UG,JT have their minds shut to it period. Albeit in your case your reasons are more than Israel or gays

both of which by the way RP does not discriminate against but, again this is how folks who only use a TV interpret things.

2) Ron Paul speaks very clearly & has done so for decades. It is their to read. I do not want to repeat it not only for the above reasons but because then I also would only be a fallible third party speaking it.

Lastly I did not mean to label you but it seems a few of you only get the filtered info thru channels I mentioned.

For folks who have read it is glaringly obvious.

Of course I did not mean you use both shows mentioned above as it is obvious which side you cheer.

Madcow/Oblergirl would be for the other guy I will let you guess which

The post I mentioned you made was in the not surprisingly enough Ron is a kook thread in this sub-forum

Lastly Paul would so smoke Obama & the debates alone would be worth any price of admission

Following is my post made in the Kook thread in it's entirety. Not surprisingly I said some of the same things in it that I claimed in my earlier post on this thread. Those items somehow disappeared from your clip out of it. Thanks for caring, though.

_____________________________________________________

"We are supposed to read what "he" has written as opposed to what "he" has supported? Bet you wouldn't want us to apply this to all the other candidates.

By the way, I support some of the things he proposes but certainly not all of them. His foreign policy is ridiculous and unworkable and will make him un-electable.

Regardless of the outcome in Iowa, it is my hope he will gracefully retire at some point in time. If he stays in the race he will guarantee the reelection of Obama, and that is a much larger threat to the US than anything I can think of.

_____________________________________________________

The defense rests.

Following is my post made in the Kook thread in it's entirety. Not surprisingly I said some of the same things in it that I claimed in my earlier post on this thread. Those items somehow disappeared from your clip out of it. Thanks for caring, though.

_____________________________________________________

"We are supposed to read what "he" has written as opposed to what "he" has supported? Bet you wouldn't want us to apply this to all the other candidates.

By the way, I support some of the things he proposes but certainly not all of them. His foreign policy is ridiculous and unworkable and will make him un-electable.

Regardless of the outcome in Iowa, it is my hope he will gracefully retire at some point in time. If he stays in the race he will guarantee the reelection of Obama, and that is a much larger threat to the US than anything I can think of.

_____________________________________________________

The defense rests.

The defense of what rests?... Thanks for caring? About What?

Either your comprehension is bad or my explanation is lacking.

I quoted one line from your other post for one reason....

To point out that you should go to the source for a clear explanation

Not some media interpretation of what he supports

That aside….What is your point of this post now?

After all the questions you will now only address your PS: from a previous post?

PS: Can you steer me to that post you say I made. I can't remember making it.

Nothing more about your confusion between non-interventionism & Isolationism?

Nor your misinterpretation of weak military vs bloated military Industrial Complex

If so we are just wasting bandwidth & time…

Actually on 2nd & final thought we are wasting time & bandwidth

Because like I told UG… I will now say the same to you & hey we may as well include JT

Vote for who you like…. I will do the same

Really......What is the difference?

I watch Fox News and the genius Krauthammer had some nice things to say about Paul the day after one of the debates last week. I've noticed on other Fox programs people are starting to warm up to him.

As for how well Paul is doing...

This week, Ron Paul is likely to win more delegates to the 2012 GOP convention than either Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum. In fact, he’s likely to win more delegates than Gingrich and Santorum combined.

“Hold it”, you’re saying, “How can that be? Rep. Paul’s polling in single digits in Florida. He’s going to finish behind Gingrich and Santorum, as well as Mitt Romney, in Tuesday’s Florida primary. How can that translate into beating any of his rivals at all?”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0130/Will-Ron-Paul-win-more-delegates-this-week-than-Gingrich-Santorum