Americans, like your new currency?

[thegodfather]

He claims, that 9/11 happened "because we are there"
Please enlighten us as to why 9/11 happened? Let me guess, because we are "free and prosperous and they hate us." The CIA has talked about blowback for years and years. Our foreign policy and meddling in the affairs of other nations, putting our noses where they do not belong, is what caused the hatred and motivation for the attacks. The next example we can look to, is listening to the reasons given BY the people who attacked us. Osama Bin-Laden never said that he was waging a fatwa against us because we are "free and prosperous." It was because we had bases&troops on Holy Land in Saudi Arabia and because we supported Israel(who is responsible for thousands upon thousands of Palestinian deaths). If China had troops stationed in Washington D.C.(land that is sacred to US citizens) and was funding Mexico with money&weapons, and Mexico was in turn killing thousands of US citizens along the Mexico/US border, would many US citizens not have deep seated hatred for China? Would some of them not even be so outraged as to carry out attacks against China? If you are going to talk negatively about this candidates viewpoints thats fine, but PLEASE illustrate how those viewpoints are wrong with facts, evidence, or even your opinion.


Voted against the war in Iraq
I almost dont even want to go here. However, as we have found, this war was propagated on one lie after the other. It has plunged our country so deep into debt many wonder how we will ever repay it. It has made many private contractors (some who fund certain candidates campaigns) VERY wealthy. It has killed almost 500,000 Iraqi civilians (please refer to BLOWBACK). It has increased the base from which terrorist/hate groups have to pool from. I could go on and on.


Voted against the Patriot Act and is against NSA wire-tapping
You actually agree with your own Constitutional rights being stripped away from you with the Patriot Act. You believe that 350 million people need to sacrafice their rights and their privacy so that they can be "Safe" from an almost imaginary enemy? There were maybe 1,000 people total in the middle east who had the determination, funds, knowledge, and capability to carry out an attack on the United States. I fail to see the logic behind 350 million people sacraficing their rights to be safe from such a marginal number of people. We sacrafice our rights from a "group" who does not even have a standing army, navy, or air force. "He who sacrafices liberty for safety, deserves neither." I am BEGGING you to please provide me with a rational, logical and factually based argument for why the NSA should be able to conduct WARRANTLESS wire tapping at their discretion, and why the American citizens should surrender their rights, WHEN THEY WERE NOT EVEN ASKED IF THEY WANTED TO SURRENDER THEM! When you have a group of people in Washington making decisions on our behalf that we do not agree with, that is not Democracy, that is a dictatorship. They dictate to us what is best for us. That is un-American, and it is wrong. And anyone who supports such policies is a TYRANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He is against the "Preemptive Strike" ideology.
That is because the "preemptive strike" ideology does not work. The Constitution of the United States says that our country does not goto war unless the national security of the country is at risk, which is decided by Congress. Maybe you have never heard of the Constituion, or have never read it, or maybe you're inclined to wipe your ass with it? I'm not really sure, but if you read it, then you will understand that there is no provision for "preemptive strikes" in the Constitution, unless such a strike is necessary to ensure the national security of the country. We have no way of knowing whether the threat from Iraq was threatening our national security, because Congress was never asked. Our out of control President who was using power that he clearly did not have under law, who ignored checks&balances, decided this for us. The evidence shows that Iraq was at no time a threat to our national security. They may have been a threat to their neighbors, but again that is not our problem. That region is a million times more unstable than it was prior to our engagement.

He believes in non-intervention.
Yes he does. The United States was traditionally non-interventionist. You only use the military when the countries national security is being threatened. Again, please refer back to the Constitution, the document which is the framework that our country was built on. You cannot start making opinions and forming policy while ignoring this document. You MUST abide by it, and you MUST follow it. Can you please illustrate how a policy of non-interventionism is bad for the United States? We have no business meddling in the affairs of soveriegn nations in other parts of the world. We would certainly not like them meddling in our affairs. This arrogance that exists within Americans is disturbing to me, that we somehow feel that we can run a foreign country better than its leaders can. Perhaps we can, but it is certainly not our business. It would be completely out of line for me to come into your home right now, and tell you how you should be doing things, and how you should be raising your children, what time you should goto bed, and so on. And then if you did not do those things, for me to use force against you in order that you comply. Well use this simple principle and apply it to the way that we treat the international community. We are completely out of line.

My responses are in RED....

[J*U*icEd]

My responses are in RED....

which ones are your responses again?... lol

[Renesis]

He claims, that 9/11 happened "because we are there"
Voted against the war in Iraq
Voted against the Patriot Act and is against NSA wire-tapping
He is against the "Preemptive Strike" ideology.
He believes in non-intervention.

are you kidding me?

[Panzerfaust]

Originally Posted by rana173
He claims, that 9/11 happened "because we are there"
Please enlighten us as to why 9/11 happened? Let me guess, because we are "free and prosperous and they hate us." The CIA has talked about blowback for years and years. Our foreign policy and meddling in the affairs of other nations, putting our noses where they do not belong, is what caused the hatred and motivation for the attacks. The next example we can look to, is listening to the reasons given BY the people who attacked us. Osama Bin-Laden never said that he was waging a fatwa against us because we are "free and prosperous." It was because we had bases&troops on Holy Land in Saudi Arabia and because we supported Israel(who is responsible for thousands upon thousands of Palestinian deaths). If China had troops stationed in Washington D.C.(land that is sacred to US citizens) and was funding Mexico with money&weapons, and Mexico was in turn killing thousands of US citizens along the Mexico/US border, would many US citizens not have deep seated hatred for China? Would some of them not even be so outraged as to carry out attacks against China? If you are going to talk negatively about this candidates viewpoints thats fine, but PLEASE illustrate how those viewpoints are wrong with facts, evidence, or even your opinion.

Voted against the war in Iraq
I almost dont even want to go here. However, as we have found, this war was propagated on one lie after the other. It has plunged our country so deep into debt many wonder how we will ever repay it. It has made many private contractors (some who fund certain candidates campaigns) VERY wealthy. It has killed almost 500,000 Iraqi civilians (please refer to BLOWBACK). It has increased the base from which terrorist/hate groups have to pool from. I could go on and on.

Voted against the Patriot Act and is against NSA wire-tapping
You actually agree with your own Constitutional rights being stripped away from you with the Patriot Act. You believe that 350 million people need to sacrafice their rights and their privacy so that they can be "Safe" from an almost imaginary enemy? There were maybe 1,000 people total in the middle east who had the determination, funds, knowledge, and capability to carry out an attack on the United States. I fail to see the logic behind 350 million people sacraficing their rights to be safe from such a marginal number of people. We sacrafice our rights from a "group" who does not even have a standing army, navy, or air force. "He who sacrafices liberty for safety, deserves neither." I am BEGGING you to please provide me with a rational, logical and factually based argument for why the NSA should be able to conduct WARRANTLESS wire tapping at their discretion, and why the American citizens should surrender their rights, WHEN THEY WERE NOT EVEN ASKED IF THEY WANTED TO SURRENDER THEM! When you have a group of people in Washington making decisions on our behalf that we do not agree with, that is not Democracy, that is a dictatorship. They dictate to us what is best for us. That is un-American, and it is wrong. And anyone who supports such policies is a TYRANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He is against the "Preemptive Strike" ideology.
That is because the "preemptive strike" ideology does not work. The Constitution of the United States says that our country does not goto war unless the national security of the country is at risk, which is decided by Congress. Maybe you have never heard of the Constituion, or have never read it, or maybe you're inclined to wipe your ass with it? I'm not really sure, but if you read it, then you will understand that there is no provision for "preemptive strikes" in the Constitution, unless such a strike is necessary to ensure the national security of the country. We have no way of knowing whether the threat from Iraq was threatening our national security, because Congress was never asked. Our out of control President who was using power that he clearly did not have under law, who ignored checks&balances, decided this for us. The evidence shows that Iraq was at no time a threat to our national security. They may have been a threat to their neighbors, but again that is not our problem. That region is a million times more unstable than it was prior to our engagement.

He believes in non-intervention.
Yes he does. The United States was traditionally non-interventionist. You only use the military when the countries national security is being threatened. Again, please refer back to the Constitution, the document which is the framework that our country was built on. You cannot start making opinions and forming policy while ignoring this document. You MUST abide by it, and you MUST follow it. Can you please illustrate how a policy of non-interventionism is bad for the United States? We have no business meddling in the affairs of soveriegn nations in other parts of the world. We would certainly not like them meddling in our affairs. This arrogance that exists within Americans is disturbing to me, that we somehow feel that we can run a foreign country better than its leaders can. Perhaps we can, but it is certainly not our business. It would be completely out of line for me to come into your home right now, and tell you how you should be doing things, and how you should be raising your children, what time you should goto bed, and so on. And then if you did not do those things, for me to use force against you in order that you comply. Well use this simple principle and apply it to the way that we treat the international community. We are completely out of line.

My responses are in RED....

Very Nice!

[RANA]

Are you kidding me? You are against him because of those points? I am so incredibly angry right now, that I am going to bite my tongue, compose myself, and then come back with a reply to this later on, as I think it will be rather long winded.

NO I am not kidding! Yes I am against him because of these points. I will respond later tonight, NOT because I am angry but because I am going snowboarding in a couple of minutes.
While I am gone please give me 5 reasons why you are voting for him, it does not have to be long just 5 reasons.

[RANA]

are you kidding me?

WOW, I see your point. I think I will vote for him now!!!

[Renesis]

Your points are the exact reason I Would vote for him.

[convalescence69]

Awesome, I didn't realize the Ron Paul stuff was on this thread too.
All them Amero pics and the chip thing, that stuff is REAL, I saw on one of the debates where the fox news guys mocked ron paul for saying this stuff was real, trying to make him out to be a frikken loon.
I am starting to wonder if this huge recession that coming down on us is a way for them to manipulate us into accepting the Amero because of promises of an economic revival and better living.
Wake up people, tell your friends whats going on. I am wicked mad, if Ron Paul doesn't win in NH, it doesn't look good. No Ron Paul for Pres means I am getting the hell out of this country before the ship sinks and the gov owns my ass.

[convalescence69]

I SERIOUSLY urge you guys that are concerned to watch this: http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/...rt_3_of_3.html
It covers a lot of what is being discussed here. The debt, federal reserve, Amero, the chip, passport technology. VERY GOOD! May be one of the most important video's you ever watch. You'll learn a lot about how our economy works, it will answer many of your questions.

...........
Another article today puts our unemployment at 5%, thats the worst it's been in a long time.
I am feeling the direct effects of this right now, having just graduated with my 4yr and no one is hiring.

[Panzerfaust]

Awesome, I didn't realize the Ron Paul stuff was on this thread too.
All them Amero pics and the chip thing, that stuff is REAL, I saw on one of the debates where the fox news guys mocked ron paul for saying this stuff was real, trying to make him out to be a frikken loon.
I am starting to wonder if this huge recession that coming down on us is a way for them to manipulate us into accepting the Amero because of promises of an economic revival and better living.
Wake up people, tell your friends whats going on. I am wicked mad, if Ron Paul doesn't win in NH, it doesn't look good. No Ron Paul for Pres means I am getting the hell out of this country before the ship sinks and the gov owns my ass.

Yes, the diminishing strength of the dollar will be one of the main excuses to switch to the Amero. Just as that excuse was used for the Euro.

Just as Vincente Fox (Former President of Mexico) stated how wonderful it was for all these countries to join the Union as it now made their currency strong by accepting the Euro etc...

You make your currency strong by printing enough money that you can back with Gold, not printing a shit load of paper that has no backing.

Simply type in "Amero" in Google or Youtube and prepared to be shocked.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=H65f3q_Lm9U

They say everything is on track to implement the Amero by 2010.

[convalescence69]

I feel like panic'ing. I see this whole network of corruption leading to an unavoidable end.
This is a carefully contrived system of control, used to slowly usurp our rights, leaving us conquered. http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/...rt_3_of_3.html
It seems so amazing to me, that Ron Paul appears to be the only guy running that is aware of all of this stuff and wants to stop it. Watch the link. I'd give one of my kidney's to get that vid on primetime Tv.

[Panzerfaust]

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the NY Times, Times Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supra national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

~David Rockefeller
Private Banker
Council on Foreign Relations
June 1991


Man you gotta love the blatant corruption of the media by these Elite and wonder why no one cares. Honest to god how can we all ignore this??????

Why does no one care?

[RuhlFreak55]

Nah, they won't necesarily kill you, but you will not be able to board an airplane, feed your family etc...

that point (well actually well before) is where i go civil war on their asses....it's only a matter of time if ron paul isn't elected

[Panzerfaust]

that point (well actually well before) is where i go civil war on their asses....it's only a matter of time if ron paul isn't elected

Why wait, I urge you to continue to spread the word. More and more people are being educated every day.

You have to understand that these "Elite" do in fact need us to a small extent, they need us to cooperate.

If we can educate everyone and shine the bright lights on them for a change, we can get rid of them.

[Atomini]

I say pick up your r***es and start organizing. We're beyond the point of no return already and only a critical maneuver can change things (Ron Paul). But guess what? If Ron isn't elected (and there is a very large possibility), the only option left is an actual war.

I support Ron Paul, but this whole thing is futile. You can't beat the enemy within their own rigged system. Trying to fix the problem via elections is like trying to win a poker game that's rigged! The elite are lau***ng as this all goes on because they KNOW they have the upper hand. Now, if we start pulling out r***es they won't be lau***ng so much because they know they actually face a literal threat.

But, they know Americans are lazy asses distracted by everything around them and they will remain willfully ignorant, so the situation is fvcked. The next 50 years for North America are going to be an absolutely interesting 50 years.

[convalescence69]

Sad state of affairs.
Talking about picking up arms is very scary talk. Unfortunately I see that as an inevitability. We either fight them or they make us fight others via draft. What sucks too is if we fight them we have to fight our countrymen first as they use them as a shield.
Bush calls himself a "war president".... that used to mean people like George Washington, people that actually led the troops into battle. So sad.

[Amorphic]

I say pick up your r***es and start organizing. We're beyond the point of no return already and only a critical maneuver can change things (Ron Paul). But guess what? If Ron isn't elected (and there is a very large possibility), the only option left is an actual war.

I support Ron Paul, but this whole thing is futile. You can't beat the enemy within their own rigged system. Trying to fix the problem via elections is like trying to win a poker game that's rigged! The elite are lau***ng as this all goes on because they KNOW they have the upper hand. Now, if we start pulling out r***es they won't be lau***ng so much because they know they actually face a literal threat.

But, they know Americans are lazy asses distracted by everything around them and they will remain willfully ignorant, so the situation is fvcked. The next 50 years for North America are going to be an absolutely interesting 50 years.

sad but so true

[Panzerfaust]

You do know that the "Pick up your r***es and start organizing" is deemed "Terrorist" activity right?

The average American has been programmed to do everything in his/her power not to be called such names (IE: Terrorist, Racist, Conspiracy Theorist). I mean you never want to be labeled any of those things.

Like Aaron Russo said, "You cannot be afraid of name calling, it's all they have".

People need to understand that they can learn from history and once they do some reading, they will see how much of a farce this gov't and it's policies have become.

WW1:

America enters the war after the ocean liner "Lusitania" is sunk by German U-Boats even though an article in the American papers advised the liner not to go into German territory. Anyway, it is sunk and 1200 people die and boom..America enters the war! Big Money!

WW2:

The Japanese "surprise" attack Pearl Harbor even though Australian intellegience notifies Roosevelt of a fleet growing in numbers to attack the US. Roosevelt ignored this, we were attacked, American lives were lost. This rallied public support and we entered WWII.

Vietnam:

Golf of Tonkin, the complete fabrication that Vietnam attacked an American vessel when in fact the Vietnamese did not even have a Navy. So there we go again, America goes to War with Vietnam.

Afghanistan/Iraq:

9/11 occurs where we were once again "Attacked" and this rallies public support. We start in Afghanastan, do little to nothing then the President without the authorization from Congress sets his sights on Iraq, and we are still there today. Anybody with any goddamn common sense knows no airplane hit the Pentagon or crashed in a open field. Nor did a 757 knock WTC 1, 4 and 7 down. It is IMPOSSIBLE for those buildings to have collapsed due to being hit with commercial airliners. Building 7 went down much later that day and fell like clockwork just as if it were demolitioned. I'm not even going any further on that stuff, common sense should easily guide one to question the BS 9/11 commision findings.


So, can you not see the pattern here?

[convalescence69]

I try not to say anything about the WTC business, thats some hotly contended and emotional material. What I will say about that though, WTC 7 did "collapse" very suspiciously. Anyone that watches footage of that would know right away that something fishy was going on.

[Atomini]

They can call me whatever the fvck they want, i'll still have bullets with their names on them.

[SMCengineer]

While I am gone please give me 5 reasons why you are voting for him, it does not have to be long just 5 reasons.

I know you were asking thegodfather for his reasons, but I'll throw some of mine in while I'm sure he comes up with a response that's 10X's beter than mine.

-He'll help end the extreme bipartisanship that we currently face.
-He'll rid of us of the federal bank.
-He wants to focus his attention on our country.
-He wants to get rid of unnecessary government programs.
-Lastly, but most important, he wants to follow the Constitution.

These are just a few reasons that I would personally vote for him. Do I agree with everything he stands for? No, but I'm willing to put my differences aside to see if he can bring Americans together and actually make a change. In no way am I trying to change your vote or your mind, but at least realize that Ron Paul is probably the only hope we have right now.

[RANA]

He claims, that 9/11 happened "because we are there"
Please enlighten us as to why 9/11 happened? Let me guess, because we are "free and prosperous and they hate us." The " href="http://www.ar-r .com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=46"CIA has talked about blowback for years and years. Our foreign policy and meddling in the affairs of other nations, putting our noses where they do not belong, is what caused the hatred and motivation for the attacks. The next example we can look to, is listening to the reasons given BY the people who attacked us. Osama Bin-Laden never said that he was waging a fatwa against us because we are "free and prosperous." It was because we had bases&troops on Holy Land in Saudi Arabia and because we supported Israel(who is responsible for thousands upon thousands of Palestinian deaths). (Those are a couple of reason, but part of his fatwa is to make the world an Islamic state. Palestinians are as much to blame for deaths, when there is a peace accord the palestinians find a way to make it fail. Hell before the Jews settled to Israel all of the middle east despised the palestinians.) If China had troops stationed in Washington D.C.(land that is sacred to US citizens) and was funding Mexico with money&weapons, and Mexico was in turn killing thousands of US citizens along the Mexico/US border, would many US citizens not have deep seated hatred for China? (First off the Saudi Gov’t allowed us in there country, Bin Laden was pissed because he wanted to fight in the 1st Gulf War against Saddam but the Saudi Gov’t told him to pound sand and allowed America to place our bases there. Do I agree with the 1st Gulf War, No, I don’t think we should have gone in but since we did we should have finished the job. America would never allow a foreign gov’t to place troops on our land) Would some of them not even be so outraged as to carry out attacks against China? If you are going to talk negatively about this candidates viewpoints thats fine, but PLEASE illustrate how those viewpoints are wrong with facts, evidence, or even your opinion.


Voted against the war in Iraq
I almost dont even want to go here. However, as we have found, this war was propagated on one lie after the other. It has plunged our country so deep into debt many wonder how we will ever repay it. It has made many private contractors (some who fund certain candidates campaigns) VERY wealthy. It has killed almost 500,000 Iraqi civilians (please refer to BLOWBACK). It has increased the base from which terrorist/hate groups have to pool from. I could go on and on.
I feel that it was a just cause with the intel that we had pre-Bush and during Bushs term (pre-911). Why should we sit back and wait until someone attacks us. Those Iraqi civilian deaths are over inflated, most of the deaths came from the insurgents. The hate groups have always been our there and will always be out. They hate us because we don’t believe in allah (as a nation) and follow the koran.

Voted against the Patriot Act and is against NSA wire-tapping
You actually agree with your own Constitutional rights being stripped away from you with the Patriot Act. You believe that 350 million people need to sacrafice their rights and their privacy so that they can be "Safe" from an almost imaginary enemy? There were maybe 1,000 people total in the middle east who had the determination, funds, knowledge, and capability to carry out an attack on the United States. I fail to see the logic behind 350 million people sacraficing their rights to be safe from such a marginal number of people. We sacrafice our rights from a "group" who does not even have a standing army, navy, or air force. "He who sacrafices liberty for safety, deserves neither." I am BEGGING you to please provide me with a rational, logical and factually based argument for why the NSA should be able to conduct WARRANTLESS wire tapping at their discretion, and why the American citizens should surrender their rights, WHEN THEY WERE NOT EVEN ASKED IF THEY WANTED TO SURRENDER THEM! When you have a group of people in Washington making decisions on our behalf that we do not agree with, that is not Democracy, that is a dictatorship. (That is not true, you, we all of us voted in our politicians to make those laws for use, we elected them in office) They dictate to us what is best for us. That is un-American, and it is wrong. And anyone who supports such policies is a TYRANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You seriously think they are going to wiretap people because of NO reason? If you are not breaking the law you should have nothing to fear. The government is limited in man power do you actually think they are going to spend the time wiretapping your phones for the hell of it?
He is against the "Preemptive Strike" ideology.
That is because the "preemptive strike" ideology does not work. The Constitution of the United States says that our country does not goto war unless the national security of the country is at risk, which is decided by Congress. Maybe you have never heard of the Constituion, or have never read it, or maybe you're inclined to wipe your ass with it? (WOW, considering I have support and fought for my country for the last 18 years I know what I am fighting for. What have you done for your Country? Besides cry and let other people support our Country) I'm not really sure, but if you read it, then you will understand that there is no provision for "preemptive strikes" in the Constitution, unless such a strike is necessary to ensure the national security of the country. We have no way of knowing whether the threat from Iraq was threatening our national security, because Congress was never asked. (Congress voted for us to go to WAR, the ones WE elected) Our out of control President who was using power that he clearly did not have under law, who ignored checks&balances, decided this for us. The evidence shows that Iraq was at no time a threat to our national security. (Same thing was said about Hitler, pre WWII) They may have been a threat to their neighbors, but again that is not our problem. That region is a million times more unstable than it was prior to our engagement.

He believes in non-intervention.
Yes he does. The United States was traditionally non-interventionist. You only use the military when the countries national security is being threatened. Again, please refer back to the Constitution, the document which is the framework that our country was built on. You cannot start making opinions and forming policy while ignoring this document. You MUST abide by it, and you MUST follow it. Can you please illustrate how a policy of non-interventionism is bad for the United States? (We as a country have became a Super Power one the wealthiest countries and the strongest military in the world, how can we just sit by and let other countries conduct genocide? Yes we are currently letting that happen all over the world. How can we let other oppressive countries seek nuclear weapons that could be used on our allies or us? At which point do we make the decision to intervene? When it is too late?) We have no business meddling in the affairs of soveriegn nations in other parts of the world. We would certainly not like them meddling in our affairs. This arrogance that exists within Americans is disturbing to me, that we somehow feel that we can run a foreign country better than its leaders can. Perhaps we can, but it is certainly not our business. It would be completely out of line for me to come into your home right now, and tell you how you should be doing things, and how you should be raising your children, what time you should goto bed, and so on. And then if you did not do those things, for me to use force against you in order that you comply. Well use this simple principle and apply it to the way that we treat the international community. We are completely out of line.

[RANA]

I know you were asking thegodfather for his reasons, but I'll throw some of mine in while I'm sure he comes up with a response that's 10X's beter than mine.

-He'll help end the extreme bipartisanship that we currently face. HOW? Just because he said so, every politician says the same thing
-He'll rid of us of the federal bank.
-He wants to focus his attention on our country. Same thing all politicians say
-He wants to get rid of unnecessary government programs. I agree we need this
-Lastly, but most important, he wants to follow the Constitution.

These are just a few reasons that I would personally vote for him. Do I agree with everything he stands for? No, but I'm willing to put my differences aside to see if he can bring Americans together and actually make a change. In no way am I trying to change your vote or your mind, but at least realize that Ron Paul is probably the only hope we have right now. Hope of What?

My reponses are in red
Listen, there are a few things I really like about him. If it came down to it I would vote for him before Hillary, Obama, Edwards...but I do not feel he will get that point

[Kennedy]

Afghanistan/Iraq:

9/11 occurs where we were once again "Attacked" and this rallies public support. We start in Afghanastan, do little to nothing then the President without the authorization from Congress sets his sights on Iraq, and we are still there today. Anybody with any goddamn common sense knows no airplane hit the Pentagon or crashed in a open field. Nor did a 757 knock WTC 1, 4 and 7 down. It is IMPOSSIBLE for those buildings to have collapsed due to being hit with commercial airliners. Building 7 went down much later that day and fell like clockwork just as if it were demolitioned. I'm not even going any further on that stuff, common sense should easily guide one to question the BS 9/11 commision findings.


So, can you not see the pattern here?

I'm glad to know that some people aren't totally ignorant of their government.


WTC 7: http://youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

Pentagon: http://youtube.com/watch?v=QG3CvhLBvtI (watch right hand corner) http://youtube.com/watch?v=fFTHXWxWE3A&feature=related

[Kennedy]

This is great too

Witness quickly changes his mind about what he saw....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KYtC5sthg4s&feature=related


Did you know that 9/11 was the only tragedy in US history where the family members of the deceased recieved money?

[goodcents]

WOW, I see your point. I think I will vote for him now!!!

I normally disagree with you rana but that was funny

[RANA]

I normally disagree with you rana but that was funny

What? I thought we were BFF. Hey there is a thread out there for you. He is asking about tanning lotion. I told him to PM you, I am not sure if he did. Best Tanning Lotion?

I know we may disagree on 99.9% of things but I usually never get personal of pissed off until someone questions my loyalty to my country (not saying you did). People think since you don’t totally agree with them you then you don’t care about our country or other matters.

I still love you, not in a DSM way but in the AAS way. LOL

[SMCengineer]

My reponses are in red
Listen, there are a few things I really like about him. If it came down to it I would vote for him before Hillary, Obama, Edwards...but I do not feel he will get that point

-He'll help end the extreme bipartisanship that we currently face. HOW? Just because he said so, every politician says the same thing
Sorry, I should clarify, I don't know if he ever stated or implied that he would end the bipartanship, it's just what I conclude from the nature of his candidacy, namely a conservative Republican with liberal ideals. He appeals to a broad range of voters from republicans to democrats to independents. So if all these "different" political parties can agree on a leader than that's a huge step towards ending the "us vs them" mentality. When it really should be an "us for us" mentality.

-He wants to focus his attention on our country. Same thing all politicians say
Agreed

In no way am I trying to change your vote or your mind, but at least realize that Ron Paul is probably the only hope we have right now. Hope of What?
Change

[goodcents]

What? I thought we were BFF. Hey there is a thread out there for you. He is asking about tanning lotion. I told him to PM you, I am not sure if he did. Best Tanning Lotion?

I know we may disagree on 99.9% of things but I usually never get personal of pissed off until someone questions my loyalty to my country (not saying you did). People think since you don’t totally agree with them you then you don’t care about our country or other matters.

I still love you, not in a DSM way but in the AAS way. LOL

Too, it's just more fun to have someone to pick on



ps, if you got banned it would suck since I would have no one to argue with

[Logan13]

-He'll help end the extreme bipartisanship that we currently face. HOW? Just because he said so, every politician says the same thing
Sorry, I should clarify, I don't know if he ever stated or implied that he would end the bipartanship, it's just what I conclude from the nature of his candidacy, namely a conservative Republican with liberal ideals. He appeals to a broad range of voters from republicans to democrats to independents. So if all these "different" political parties can agree on a leader than that's a huge step towards ending the "us vs them" mentality. When it really should be an "us for us" mentality.

-He wants to focus his attention on our country. Same thing all politicians say
Agreed

In no way am I trying to change your vote or your mind, but at least realize that Ron Paul is probably the only hope we have right now. Hope of What?
Change

Every politician makes campaign promises. What the population seems to forget is that they do not know enough about what is going on to make these promises. I'll bet anyone in here that neither Obama, Edwards, or Paul
would get into the Whitehouse and immediately order troops to be removed from anywhere. After they are de-briefed on the current state of affairs with their new found security clearance they would have to open their eyes and start living in reality.

[RANA]

Too, it's just more fun to have someone to pick on



ps, if you got banned it would suck since I would have no one to argue with

Now why would I get banned? I read the rules a long time ago. You remind me of High School, I was in the cool group and you were looking in trying to be in the cool group. LOL

[goodcents]

Now why would I get banned? I read the rules a long time ago. You remind me of High School, I was in the cool group and you were looking in trying to be in the cool group. LOL

So which one is the cool group?

[Logan13]

You remind me of High School, I was in the cool group and you were looking in trying to be in the cool group. LOL

YES! Goodcents is Potsy from Happy Days.....................

[RANA]

So which one is the cool group?

My group, the JOCK group. You had to been in the Stoner or Skater Group, am I right?

[RANA]

YES! Goodcents is Potsy from Happy Days.....................

Potsy, I love it...are we dating ourselves?

[Logan13]

My group, the JOCK group. You had to been in the Stoner or Skater Group, am I right?

I like your insight.............

[RANA]

I like your insight.............

You seem like a wise man reading numerous threads you have posted

[thegodfather]

Every politician makes campaign promises. What the population seems to forget is that they do not know enough about what is going on to make these promises. I'll bet anyone in here that neither Obama, Edwards, or Paul
would get into the Whitehouse and immediately order troops to be removed from anywhere. After they are de-briefed on the current state of affairs with their new found security clearance they would have to open their eyes and start living in reality.

Logan, while I agree that we most likely do not have all the pieces to the puzzle, and cannot know the totality of the situation; the fact remains that presently 70% of the population is opposed to the war. Your comment is bordering on sounding somewhat elitist, and I feel that it at the least, implies that the general public is not educated enough to make decisions for itself. If someone believes this to be the case, and they are in favor of an "informed" group of elites in Washington making those decisions for them, then that is considered a Dictatorship, and not a Democracy.

I'll also ignore the fact that our present model of Democracy is appauling; where 51% of the population is able to opress the opposing 49%. That was never how Democracy was intended, it was designed so that 99% of the population could not oppress 1% of the population. Anyway, according to our current model, we elect officials to vote in our interests or on our behalf of how WE ourselves would vote. So, when 70% of the population is opposed to the war, and 400+ Congress members vote to increase War spending, that is at least indicative to me that these elected officials are running on a "I Know Whats Best for YOU" mentality. This I certainly do not agree with. The people empower the government, and not the other way around.

Stating that the American population does not have enough information to make this decision does not appear accurate to me. Can you state what critical pieces of information we are hypothetically not privvy to? That is a very easy out for the current government powers to say "We have information that is Top Secret, that if we could show you, then we're sure you would agree with this war, but since we cant, you're just going to have to trust us." So in reality, I believe that to be a cop out.

Doesn't this sound very familiar? Wasn't it Bush who told us to trust him with his warrantless wire tapping, that this was to catch terrorists? When in fact there have been several FBI agents coming forward who have stated that many of these warrantless taps were used to catch drug dealers and other criminals. Come on please, use some logic here. They are going to screen millions of electronic transmissions a day, in order to catch a few HUNDRED POSSIBLE terrorists? They are going to sort through countless drug transactions, extortions, murder plots, and many other crimes, and then just overlook them and only go after the terrorists? No, of course not. Then someone would argue that they are criminals so it does not matter that we conducted warrantless wire tapping. Well, yes it does, because we have violated their Constitutional Rights, and that is a crime perhaps greater than any they have committed. They are in place for a reason, the founders realized the slipperly slope that such warrantless behaviors could lead to. It would start with criminals, and when they had caught them, it would soon move on to dissenters, in which case we are all in trouble because I dont think any single one of us here agrees with every single policy that the government comes out with.


I would vote for Ron Paul:

Because he listens to the people. He understands that the people are what give him his power, and that such power comes with a deep respect and even fear. He understands what Democracy is more so than any other candidate on the stage, with their socialistic, imperialistic, and tyrannical tirates.

Because he makes promises and he keeps them. His 10 term 30 year record in Congress is impeccable, he has ALWAYS voted in accordance to the Constitution of the United States, and I expect him to do so as President. How many of his competitors on stage can show their records and not present any contraindictions? 0

Because he respects the Constitution. The other candidates can talk about the Constitution. The bottomline is that their passed voting records and policies show otherwise.

Because he is the only candidate who is professing PERSONAL LIBERTY! I have not heard any other candidates bring up the warrantless wire tapping and the torture of prisoners of war. What other candidate has expressed his outrage to the blatant disregard for Habeas Corpus and our Constitutional rights in general? None, and my opinion is that they do not care about our rights, only their power and self serving interests.

Because he is not afraid to talk about ALL of the tough issues, Americas dirty little secrets. The Wellfare state, the illegal Federal Reserve, the illegal federal income tax, and the tradition in America of non-interventionism.

[Logan13]

Logan, while I agree that we most likely do not have all the pieces to the puzzle, and cannot know the totality of the situation; the fact remains that presently 70% of the population is opposed to the war. Your comment is bordering on sounding somewhat elitist, and I feel that it at the least, implies that the general public is not educated enough to make decisions for itself. If someone believes this to be the case, and they are in favor of an "informed" group of elites in Washington making those decisions for them, then that is considered a Dictatorship, and not a Democracy.
The average person who makes generalized comments on the nature of the world is ignorant of the facts because they simply do not have the facts. It is amazing how often people are allowed to make claims that they are only regurgitating from some blog, etc...

I'll also ignore the fact that our present model of Democracy is appauling; where 51% of the population is able to opress the opposing 49%. That was never how Democracy was intended, it was designed so that 99% of the population could not oppress 1% of the population. Anyway, according to our current model, we elect officials to vote in our interests or on our behalf of how WE ourselves would vote. So, when 70% of the population is opposed to the war, and 400+ Congress members vote to increase War spending, that is at least indicative to me that these elected officials are running on a "I Know Whats Best for YOU" mentality. This I certainly do not agree with. The people empower the government, and not the other way around.

I disagree. Over the last 10 years, many 10% minorites have been able to oppress the majority through the court systems. The court system is the gov't, so your claim obviously goes both ways.

Stating that the American population does not have enough information to make this decision does not appear accurate to me. Can you state what critical pieces of information we are hypothetically not privvy to? That is a very easy out for the current government powers to say "We have information that is Top Secret, that if we could show you, then we're sure you would agree with this war, but since we cant, you're just going to have to trust us." So in reality, I believe that to be a cop out.

Doesn't this sound very familiar? Wasn't it Bush who told us to trust him with his warrantless wire tapping, that this was to catch terrorists? When in fact there have been several FBI agents coming forward who have stated that many of these warrantless taps were used to catch drug dealers and other criminals. Come on please, use some logic here. They are going to screen millions of electronic transmissions a day, in order to catch a few HUNDRED POSSIBLE terrorists? They are going to sort through countless drug transactions, extortions, murder plots, and many other crimes, and then just overlook them and only go after the terrorists? No, of course not. Then someone would argue that they are criminals so it does not matter that we conducted warrantless wire tapping. Well, yes it does, because we have violated their Constitutional Rights, and that is a crime perhaps greater than any they have committed. They are in place for a reason, the founders realized the slipperly slope that such warrantless behaviors could lead to. It would start with criminals, and when they had caught them, it would soon move on to dissenters, in which case we are all in trouble because I dont think any single one of us here agrees with every single policy that the government comes out with.


I would vote for Ron Paul:

Because he listens to the people. He understands that the people are what give him his power, and that such power comes with a deep respect and even fear. He understands what Democracy is more so than any other candidate on the stage, with their socialistic, imperialistic, and tyrannical tirates.

Because he makes promises and he keeps them. His 10 term 30 year record in Congress is impeccable, he has ALWAYS voted in accordance to the Constitution of the United States, and I expect him to do so as President. How many of his competitors on stage can show their records and not present any contraindictions? 0

Because he respects the Constitution. The other candidates can talk about the Constitution. The bottomline is that their passed voting records and policies show otherwise.

Because he is the only candidate who is professing PERSONAL LIBERTY! I have not heard any other candidates bring up the warrantless wire tapping and the torture of prisoners of war. What other candidate has expressed his outrage to the blatant disregard for Habeas Corpus and our Constitutional rights in general? None, and my opinion is that they do not care about our rights, only their power and self serving interests.

Because he is not afraid to talk about ALL of the tough issues, Americas dirty little secrets. The Wellfare state, the illegal Federal Reserve, the illegal federal income tax, and the tradition in America of non-interventionism.

Hopefully you do vote. I have a sneaking suspicion that many in here who are crying out for "change" will not even make it to the ballot box. They would prefer to sit home and bitch about the current state of affairs...........
Ron Paul, were he to get in the Whitehouse, would not share Top Secret information with you anymore than Bush or any other President has... If people have a problem with that, tough. That is the way it has to be. If we are going to collectively vote on EVERYTHING, nothing would get done. That is why we have elected officials, that is our form of gov't. What I find amusing is that people, even you, seem to think that you know better than the man in the Oval office, even though you are not privy to all of the details. Not everyone wants the press or certain bloggers to form their opinions for them, I know that I do not.....

[Panzerfaust]

I damn well guarantee you I am going to vote!