# Republican Debate 11/28/07



## schultz345 (Jan 8, 2007)

Anyone watch the debate.. what were your thoughts? I thought Rudy came under a lot of fire but handled it really well. I think he is doing a great job but I like many of the other candidates as well at this point. Paul and Romney also seem like they would be a good choice.

I also enjoyed the Clinton bashing. :lol:


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

If that is the best the Repub's have to offer this maybe the first year since 1968 I won't vote :******:


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

zogman said:


> If that is the best the Repub's have to offer this maybe the first year since 1968 I won't vote :ticked:


*PLEASE VOTE! * Remember that if you don't you are giving a vote to the opposition. I don't care who that is but we have to vote. That is what makes this country great. Last year we had a mayoral election here in MPLS and I didn't vote because both candidates were (are socialists) I still feel bad that I didn't at least do a write in vote.

*Remember the Iraqis holding up their purple fingers at the risk of death?*


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I missed it darn. I got busy, forgot the debate, forgot Wednesday night Bible study, forgot a few other things too. Now what was I doing this morning?
Anyway zogman I'm not to excited either, but the way I look at it my lack of voting may be a vote for Hillary. I don't see anyone that I like at the moment, but I will vote to keep someone I really dislike from becoming president. 
I seen a few clips. I thought Rudy took a cheap shot at Romney. When the report came out that Nancy Pelosi had a company in California that was employing illegal aliens the news didn't touch it. Today they keep showing the clip with Rudy chastising Romney for having a company employing illegal aliens. I suppose if you own a large company you depend on the top executives to hire supervisors who monitor who they hire. So as much as I dislike Nancy and am not excited about Romney I was still disappointed in Rudy. I hope Nancy and Romney take steps to insure their company has some type of monitoring system put in place.
I haven't heard much about Thompson lately. Huckeby looks like the slightly better choice to me at the moment. I am not happy that he wants to help the children of illegal aliens. His response to that was that America is better than punishing the children for something their parents did wrong. Did, did????, More like still doing. It isn't us punishing the children, it's their parasitic parents that are counting on guys like Huckelby suckering. Don't do anything for them and they will go home. Keep pampering them and rewarding them for continuing to break the law and they will cling to us like leeches.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Ive already made up my mind so I dont need to watch them anymore. Ron Paul, even if I have to write him in. I would rather waste my vote than give it to any of those other pieces of paid for garbage. (democrats included)


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

jdpete75 said:


> Ive already made up my mind so I dont need to watch them anymore. Ron Paul, even if I have to write him in. I would rather waste my vote than give it to any of those other pieces of paid for garbage. (democrats included)


I have nearly the same attitude about these people as you do, but remember old big ears Ross P.? He put Bill Clinton in office as the only president to be elected without a majority vote. If you think about it a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Hillary or Obama, and lets face it the democrat running will be one of those. 
Vote for Ron Paul and say hello Hillary, good-by AR15's and such, along with more and more models each year. Those who think talking about gun bans is just a republican scare tactic are ignoring historical votes by the left.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

My thoughts are that I really like Ron Paul, but if he doesnt get the republican nomination, I hope its Thompson. Hes the only other candidate I feel isnt pandering to voters too much. I mean they all do it, but Guiliani is by far the worst. And I just cant trust a republican kept in office by the same folks that vote for Kennedy....


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

I like the Thompson Tax plan. Almost sounds like more of a democrat thing to do


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

Hi all
Well the last thing I want to see is Hillary in the white house. Not because she is a women, but because of here last name, and the things her and her husband have been evolved with over the years.

Bush, Clinton, bush, Clinton&#8230; this has to stop right here there is no way I can allow a dynasty like this to continue in this country. There is a very good reason why presidents are only allowed 2 terms in office. It helps stop corruption. Now what we have are family dynasties doing just that. Jr. pushing Sr.'s policies for the last 8 years and now Hillary will be seeing Bills policies succeeding. To top all of this off, we have close, friendly ties between the Clinton and bush families. with the corporately controlled main stream media trying to tell us that they are sworn enemies, when in fact all I see are both groups pushing for the same agenda and simply using opposite sides of the same ladder to get to there goals.

Great just great&#8230; good old 911 the terrorist are coming to kill us Rudy, how I love the this main stream media telling me that this guy is winning on the Rep side when all of there own polls show it not to be true. Rudy the same guy that screwed all of the NY firemen, and has shown no indication of morals both in government and his own person life. Yeah right this is the guy I want as commander and chief. I bet Hillary is smiling to herself right now. She knows how much dirt there is on Rudy. All she has to do is sit back and wait for him to win the Republican nomination, then when its just the two of them, the media will open the food gates and wash Rudy down into the gutter he belongs in. leaving Hillary with a walk away election. And there's the American people left scratching there heads about the whole thing. Masterful!!!

So here you go folks, hop on the internet and check out good old Rudy. I bet inside an hour you can find enough dirt on this guy to make yourself sick. Then ask why if any of it is true is our main stream media not telling us about it? Why are they pushing him on us. Well its because we are to busy after our own pursuit or happiness to bother with problems and obscure facts involving a candidates background, after all that's the medias job  and what a coincidences it will be when the latest breaking news after the nomination will be the dirt on Rudy, I wonder if the American people will wonder why they never heard of any of it before then? Strange?

The worst thing that could happen to the blue bloods of this country is to have us "we the people" pick a president they don't want. There goes about 30 years of perfectly good corporate/government corruption down the tubes. Ah darn, sorry if I don't lose any sleep over that one.

I am voting for
RON PAUL!!!!
Even if he does not make the republican nomination!
For those of you that think you can tell me that I'm throwing away my vote, I'm going to respond right now "I believe it is far better to be accused of throwing my vote away on someone I whole hearted believe in, then to cast my vote for any other and in the process throw my country and constitution away"

For those of you that like Ron Paul, but believe that he doesn't stand a chance because of what the media is telling you, and because of that you have decided to vote for your second choice
Well&#8230; I hope you enjoy a second choice United States of America, a second choice Government, a second choice Constitution and your second choice life.
LOL all because someone told you he would lose LOL 
Man I love the media 

Well I hope this gets you all so ****** that you decide to do your very own research.
Happy hunting to all

Sincerely
Matt


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

AWESOME post Wiskodie!!

Ron Paul is about the only hope for the republican party. There is no dought in my mind that he will not get the nomination on the republican side, but as a third party candidate he would get ALOT of votes from the center. Just look at his fundraising, its not coming from the radical right and its not coming from the looney left, its coming from the majority of people in the middle (like me). Looking at those numbers I say that in a 3 way race he wins. If not, oh well more of the same, and I mean that in the most negative way possible for both parties.

RON PAUL '08


----------



## gentleman4561 (Jul 16, 2007)

Didn't know if all of you were aware that Ron Paul supports pulling the troops out of Iraq. I have chosen for many reasons to support Huckabee for one his stand pro life pro family stance wants to close the border and also in the debate he was the only person who gave a strong answer about beliving evry word of the bible unlike Romney and guliani i would still vote for any of the canidates over :sniper: Hillary or obama uke:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

wiskodie1

I like the way you think. You have evidently not swallowed the spoon fed excretion the media shovels at you. I agree with 90 percent of your post except for your choice. New things come up and there is still time to change my mind, but currently as things stand I like Huckabee. That doesn't detract from you well thought out conclusions about why the media does what it does. I think your spot on.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

Well I have to agree with plainsman on this. If you vote for Ron Paul as a third party candidate you are not throwing your vote away you are electing Hil Clinton. I dont know who I dislike the least yet but its between Fred and Huckabee.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Yesterday while driving down the road I was listening to a interview by Bill O'Reilly on the radio. I thought he was talking to Ron Paul because of the questions, answers and sound of the voice. When they broke for a commercial I was shocked to discover that he was talking to Pat Buchanan. I knew Paul was a Isolationalist whom I consider even more dangerous than a liberal Hillary but I didn't realize Paul had been mimicking Buchanan all this time. Does anyone really want someone that is of the mindset of pre WWII thinking to lead this country. I sure don't.

I don't trust Romney or Giuliani any farther than I can throw them. I had been seriously looking at Thompson as I liked what he stood for but he seems to be so lost without a script and now I'm not sure. That leaves Huckabee as the most viable choice for me at the moment. The sad thing about the Republican candidates is John McCain is the most savvy, intelligent, and experienced of the lot but his close ties with Kennedy and his stance on immigration rules him out for me.


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

Hi all
Wow I would like to say thank you to everyone that has posted. I cant believe no one has started with the name calling. Also thanks to plainsman for the complements, and yes, just because someone what's to feed me&#8230;excretion  doesn't mean I have to open my mouth.

Ok well here is my Guess, anyone that would like to disprove it with Evidence is more then welcome to do so.

In my earlier post I spoke about the media pushing good old Rudy on us as the top choice for Republican candidate. I also said that after he got the Rep nomination, the media was going to be full of late breaking news involving all of the dirt on Rudy, their by giving Hillary a clear and easy walk away election in 08. Well if you have been watching the news over this last week you should notice that the media has now started burning Rudy. SO!!! I was wrong? Here is what I believed happened.

Ron Paul happened, or should I say his supporters happened. No the Ron Paul supporters did not release all of the bad press on Rudy, the media did that. What the Ron Paul supporters did was to institute a huge "Poll Watch" during the last republican debate. They did it in order to prevent the media from manipulating there own polls. It WORKED!!!! And in the process it screwed Rudy, he only got 5% of the vote? Strange? All these months of him leading in the polls and then all of a sudden he only has 5%? Well I'm guessing it made it very hard for the media to push Rudy on the public after that. So they scraped there plan of giving him the Rep nomination and started burning him down early and started making room for the next guy in line that will lose to Hillary. It's a bit early to be sure who that is but at the moment it looks like Huckabee.

So first I have the corporately controlled media trying to shove Rudy down my throat for a year. Then we the sheep&#8230; um I mean people, of the united states decided not to play along with there little game, we got lucky, happened to do the right thing at the right time and screwed up there plans. Darn the bad luck; sure do hope the blue bloods don't lose to much sleep over it. Now the media pulls out all the dirt on Rudy(not a hard thing to find or do) and switched gears to a new guys that they have the same plans for as Rudy? There is one thing I whole heartedly believe about all of this. The blue bloods of this country want Hillary in the white house. Why??? Well ill leave that up to you to figure out 

In the end
I am casting my Vote for Ron Paul!!!
I do not want to have to vote for Ron Paul as a third independent candidate. I want him to be the Rep candidate. If I was to decide to simple vote on who ever the republican candidate is, then I am in essence telling the government and media that they can get away with anything they want. I can't allow that. My choice is Ron Paul. I believe all of the other candidates are either to weak to beat Hillary or to corruptible to do any good as president. I will not vote for a second choice! I need all of my fellow Ron Paul supporters to know now and always that regardless of what the corporately controlled media pulls I am not going to waver in my convictions. I need to know that I did my part to inform people that believe as I do that regardless of the outcome of the Reb nomination my vote will be cast for Ron Paul. I hope the rest of his supporters do the same.
Ron Paul has 10 terms of office in Washington under his belt!
He has proven time and again that he will not be corrupted by special interests groups!
Yes there are things that I don't agree with him on! And policies he intends on pushing do not all meet with my best interests. i.e. I am supporting both me and my Fiancé while she finishes collage. She is in her junior year for a CPA , Certified public accountant, after that she heads off to Law school. She plans on being a corporate tax lawyer? And here we are voting for a guy that wants to do away with the IRS? We are both pro-choice, and here we are voting for a man that is pro-life? Well I'm sure none of that makes any since? Why would we vote for Ron Paul? Well it's easy for us. We believe that the corruption in government and corporations has to stop! We believe that if we fail to act then our constitution, our rights, our freedom and our country are in serious danger. I find these issues to be of far greater importance then my own personnel wants.

And last but not least

Cworarson
You stated that Ron Paul is an Isolationist? First I would like to point out that that statement is what they call a "talking point" in the media. It is nothing more then an easily remembered, easily understood, and often repeated slandering propaganda slogan used by the media to drive you away form an issue before you can take the time to investigate the truth for yourself. The media believes that they can make you believe anything they want by simple repeating it over and over. Surprising enough it works far too often. Now if I stood here and told you the sky was purple one million and one times would you believe me? no! So why for the love of god do you believe them? If you would, please do a few hours of research for yourself, I'm sure you are a smart guy and will find there is no need for out-sourcing your thinking to the media. If you find anything of interest we would all appreciate seeing it posted here.
Ps. I loved the dig on Thompson and am in agreement with you on that point.

Thanks to all for reading this crazy post 
Happy hunting

OH YEAH!!! DO ANY OF YOU KNOW WHAT THIS IS!!!!!!!! 
North American Union Would Trump U.S. Supreme Court

Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

wiskodie1, I don't know what you're talking about. The media didn't call Paul a Isolationist. I called him that and I got that from just listening to him talk. It was Paul that said "that the attack on September 11 was due to interventionist policies of The United States". In other words, it was our fault. It is Paul that wants to pull all the troops out of Iraq. That is *all* the troops. It is Paul that says Iran is not a threat if we would just leave them alone and he constantly repeats Iran has never attacked another country in it's history. Actually Paul has said he wants to bring all US troops home from foreign soil because he thinks no one would dare attack us here at home if we would just practice nonintervention. It is Paul that keeps saying that radical Islam is not a threat to the world. It is Paul that wants to cut off aid to Israel and let them fend for themselves. No, it wasn't the media that made me decide that Ron Paul was a Isolationist but Ron Paul himself.

I will take it one step even farther, I also think he is a racist. In a 1992 newsletter Paul made the following comment. "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." He also said "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." If those weren't enough he is also on record of saying "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

My suggestion to you or anyone that they take the time to do a real in depth search on the real Ron Paul because he is not what is being portrayed. Thank God this man will not get the nomination.

:2cents:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It's clear I have to get up to speed on some of these guys that I didn't take serious. If what you say is correct cwoparson then I don't like Ron Paul either. I don't understand what he is doing running as a conservative.


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

hey Cwoparson
wow that was a fast response and a very good one as well. I will have to apologize to you I guess. Here I guessed that it was the media that you got your ideas from, just my dumb luck that you came to the same conclusion as all of the GOP talking point puppets, like that crazy guy O'Reilly  wow what a coincidence? Now I'm not trying to beat you up on this one, but I have done quite a lot of research on Ron Paul, and others. I am not saying I know everything about everything. But I do know that anyone that has looked into Ron Paul runs right into the isolationist crap right at the start. And since you were aware of some of the more obscure info regarding the racist conspiracies, I can only guess that you were also well aware of the medias Isolationist stuff, so to try and say that you had no prior knowledge of it is a little insulting to your own common sense. If you do come across more good/bad Ron Paul info or info on other candidates could you please post where you found the info at. This is a presidential election we are looking at. Not a horse race. I'm not interested in who everyone thinks is going to win the race, I'm interested in cold hard facts.
thanks

as for pulling all of the troops from over sea's, yes Ron Paul plans on doing that, and I and a great many of his supporters agree with that! I don't see any reason in wrecking our military(please check our recruiting numbers and national deficit) or killing a bunch of people that never did anything to us(Iraq has never attacked us nor did they ever have the capability too, as we justly proved during dessert storm) But hey that's just me. As for Iran, they are not a threat! They do not have nuclear weapons! That's a fact! What they do have is a project to develop nuclear energy. Which they desperately need! The reason they need this so badly is because they are reaching peak oil production in there country, which I'm sure you know is mostly desert, I am sure you also know that deserts always have a shortage of water. The reason this is a desperate problem for Iran, is because they use a lot of energy to make enough water to support the population, which long ago outgrew there water supply, they supplemented this water shortage with there oil and the money from it. In other words when Iran run out of oil somewhere around 70% of there population will more then likely die of thirst! So if you take that info and put into context (what would you do in there position) you might be able to see why they are so desperate to keep there nuclear program. On top of all of this we, the American tax payers are currently barrowing around 3 BILLION dollars a day from China and Japan to support this war and will have to pay it back just like any other sort of loan, we are then taking that money and giving it to Halliburton and other huge corporate companies that are getting rich as hell off of this illegal unconstitutional war. 
We have allowed almost 4000 of our troops to be killed, and we have killed almost 1 Million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, men, women and child? Do you believe this is right? Is this just? Are you so afraid of those people that you think we can institute preemptive war? What happened to brave America?

Here is what Ron Paul has on his website.
www.ronpaul2008.com

War and Foreign Policy
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again. 
Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women. 
We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution. 
Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations. 
Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we're paying the price. 
At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations. 
American Independence and Sovereignty
So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. 
The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor's prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned. 
The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs. 
NAFTA's superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme. 
And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever. 
Let's not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House. 
We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America. 
Border Security and Immigration Reform
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan: 
•	Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals. 
•	Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas. 
•	No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That's a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws. 
•	No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services. 
•	End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong. 
•	Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

Well I guess its time to try and defend Ron Paul on the racist issue now.

Ron Paul has been writing news columns for a number of years, my fiancé's father owns a small home town newspaper in south east Texas and has been printing Ron Paul's articles for a number of years now, my Fiancé loves Ron's articles and has always made it a point to read them, and like any good Fiancé she often read them out loud to me, just in case I ever forgot to read them myself . All I can say about the Excerpts is what little I know.
First off they are all Excerpts. And just like any excerpts they can easily be taken out of context when removed from the whole article
I have never read (or heard  anything similar to them in any of his other writings.
I have so far been unable to find the FULL articles that the excerpts were taken from, if anyone else can find them I would love to read it.

Sorry I don't have more info on this topic. I'm not all knowing and all seeing.

This is part of a wikipedia page that you can all review in full at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
1996 campaign controversy
Further information: Texas's 14th Congressional district 
In 1996, Paul was re-elected to Congress after a tougher battle than he had faced in the 1970s. Since the Republicans had taken over both houses of Congress in the 1994 election, Paul entered the race hopeful that his Constitutionalist goals of tax cuts, closing agencies, and curbing the UN would have more influence,[51] but he quickly concluded "there was no sincere effort" toward his goals.[15] The Republican National Committee focused instead on encouraging Democrats to switch parties, as Paul's primary opponent, incumbent Greg Laughlin, had done in 1995. The party threw its full weight behind Laughlin, including support from House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Governor George W. Bush, and the National Rifle Association. Paul responded by running newspaper ads quoting Gingrich's harsh criticisms of Laughlin's Democratic voting record 14 months earlier.[39] Paul won the primary with support from baseball pitcher, constituent, and friend Nolan Ryan (who served as honorary campaign chair and made ad appearances) and tax activist Steve Forbes.[10][34]
Paul's Democratic opponent in the fall election, trial lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, lost in a close margin, despite assistance from the AFL-CIO. Paul's large contributor base outraised Morris two-to-one, giving the third-highest amount of individual contributions received by any House member (behind Gingrich and Bob Dornan).[52] It became the third time Paul had been elected to Congress as a non-incumbent.[10]
Morris ran numerous attacks, including publicizing issues of the Ron Paul Survival Report (published by Paul since 1985) that included derogatory comments concerning race and other politicians.[53][54] Alluding to a 1992 study finding that "of black men in Washington ... about 85 percent are arrested at some point in their lives",[55][56] the newsletter proposed assuming that "95% of the black males in Washington DC are semi-criminal or entirely criminal", and stated that "the criminals who terrorize our cities ... largely are" young black males, who commit crimes "all out of proportion to their numbers".[57][58]
In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[59] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[34] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own."[10]

This is Ron Paul's statement from his web page
www.ronpaul2008.com
Racism
A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities. 
The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism. 
Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations. 
It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us. 
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. 
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. 
In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

well that's all I got for tonight. If anyone has any questions, comments or concerns, just let me know and ill try and help 

sincerely Matt
sorry the post got so long


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

You really don't think Iran is a threat to world peace? Actually Iran has more drinking water than it will ever use in the next million years. It's called a ocean though. Like most all other Arab countries Iran depends on desalination for their drinking water and they have some of the most sophisticated plants in the world. Now it is true that a nuclear plant would make it possible to run their desalination plants without dependence on fossil fuel and it is true that western countries including the United States has offered to build or help build these low level nuclear plants just for the purpose of electrical power and desalination plants.

But tell me why Iran needs all those centrifuges that have no use except to make weapons grade fuel? And you still don't think they are a threat.

As to everything you posted on Ron Paul I'll just say you're possible using some terms very loosely to suit your own needs. Everything you posted came from the media. Remember the "I did not have sex with that woman". Of course he is going to deny things. He's a politician isn't he. but a ghost writer that publishes with out his consent. You really believe that.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

whiskodie1, you just convinced me to stand against Ron Paul with every fiber of my being. Tell me, what is the difference between him and the most ardent liberal that just wants to take their bat and ball and leave the sandbox. It sounds to me like another investment in defeat. I said this long before talk radio, so I'm not copying them. I think I said it a year before MT was banned a year or two ago. 
We have interests around the world that we must protect. Pulling out from around the world would be a security and economic disaster. We have allies that we would abandon, economic interests that American industries have invested billions of dollars of our money into ( including perhaps your 401K), and individuals who have trusted the United States that would be betrayed.
Over the past 50 years I have watched America give up common sense, integrity, courtesy, turn it's back on it's very foundation, and more, all for the sake of momentary feel good false security, individual false self esteem, and political correctness. Life is evidently more complex than Ron Paul can comprehend. Ron Paul ------ no thank you. I don't like more of the same, but I am not willing to accept worse in place of it.


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

Once again nice post, Lots of juicy stuff in there to get everyone thinking.
Yes, I do not believe for a second that Iran is a threat to world Peace. As I stated before, they do not have any nuclear weapons! Nor have I read anywhere, proof that they are making them. They also don't have a Navy or much of an air force, and there army is vastly inferior to our own. Centrifuges make enriched uranium. It is used for one of two reasons, nuclear weapons, or nuclear power plants. Now I would like everyone reading this to understand that a centrifuge that makes enriched uranium is not anything like a FORD vehicle factor producing hundreds of cars each day. I would like you all to envision a colony of ants then envision the time and effort it would take them to haul a whole elephant down into there nest! One small piece at a time!
For you to state that Iran has a whole Ocean of drinking water that only needs to be desalinated. Is like saying we can all live on the moon, but everyone has to build there own rocket ship! The energy and equipment needed to distill enough water for the whole of the country to drink in a year is staggering. so I will state again, when Iran runs out of oil! about 70% of there population will die of thirst! What would you do if you were in their shoes? There greatest resource is oil, and ever superpower country in the world want to get there hands on it. Yes we did offer to build nuclear power plants in there country. But here is the catch. We were going to supply them with all of the uranium to run the plants in exchange for there oil. so what would we do when they ran out of oil? Just keep handing out free Uranium to them for the rest of eternity? Do you know how expensive it is to mine and produce that stuff? It makes GOLD seam as cheap at dirt!!! Would you trust ANY country in the world with a deal like that? Then look at our history of involvement in the Middle East and Iran over the last 70 year. I'm sure you can all see why Iran decided to refuse our offer and instead decided to deal with other superpower nations in this matter.

That we as a nation got suckered into a war based off nothing but lies was bad enough, to have to see Americans sitting around eating the same load of crap again only 6 years later, is a bit more then I'm willing to take. The only thing I can do is stand up and speak my mind and hope that enough others do the same.

And now back to Ron Paul
First I'm not sure about your reference to" using terms very loosely to suit your own needs", if you would be kind enough to point out and specifics I would be more then happy to expand on them
All of the info I posted on Ron Paul was from two sources, His web page www.ronpaul2008.com, I did this because I did not want to put words in his mouth, or poorly state any of his ideas. I felt it was better that you simple read exactly what he himself wrote. And as you know the media has not come anywhere close to fairly representing him and or his ideas, for you to state that I got them from the media is a bit absurd and far fetched. 
The second source I posted was from Wickpedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul and they referenced the New York Times (which is the media) in summing up the whole strange racial controversy. Which stated; The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this." In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own."

Now if you think that little snippet is good enough for me, you're wrong, so I know full well that it's not good enough for any of you. but since I cant find the full article it's a bit hard to fairly judge the excerpts. If anyone can find them please post them up.
Since there is a huge lack of evidence on this I base my option on the following.
-I have been reading Ron Paul's articles for close to 5 years now, and have never read anything like it before.
-my Fiancé has been reading his articles far longer then that and has also never read anything like it before
-These articles were published while he was in office. Since he is not a stupid man, which is easily proven by the fact he is a doctor, and we all know it would be political suicide to write any thing of the nature it does not only not serve any of his interest, but also does not match his character. 
- These excerpts were never highlighted in the media until his opponent released them during there 1996 elections, Which was 4 years after they were written, and after the smoke had settled Ron Paul still beat him. I find it very strange that the media would not bother to highlight to the American people a self published racist politician. That in itself is far to juice a story for the media to pass up. So my guess is his opponent decided to play real dirty. In those days the internet wasn't what it is today, fact checking anything back then was far more difficult. And to top it off it was only a state election. Which would not raise nearly the amount of nation interest and resources to verify there clams that a presidential election would have.
-A ghostwriter is a professional writer who is paid to write books, articles, stories, or reports which are officially credited to another person. Celebrities, executives, and political leaders often hire ghostwriters to draft or edit autobiographies, magazine articles, or other written material. In music, ghostwriters are used in classical music, film composition, and popular music such as hip-hop. The ghostwriter is sometimes acknowledged by the author or publisher for their assistance.

And lastly
"I did not have sex with that woman"
This was a blatant denial from President Clinton.
Did his actions fit his character?
LOL hell yes they do, every one in America took one look at Bill and knew that he was the type of person to have an affair in the white house 
Now look at Ron Paul. Did his actions fit his character?
I don't think so, but you can believe what you like.

Happy hunting to all
Matt


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

hey plainsman
no problem if Ron isn't your cup of tea that's fine by me. I would hope you didn't judge your hole decision on my posts? I would assume someone that posts as often as you do in the political section would spend some time checking into all of this.

Here are a couple of things I would love to hear your option on
And that's no joke!

-North American Union Would Trump U.S. Supreme Court

-Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America

I eagerly await your thoughts on these to subjects


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

> Here are a couple of things I would love to hear your option on
> And that's no joke!
> 
> -North American Union Would Trump U.S. Supreme Court
> ...


No kidding, so what are your thoughts regarding the NAU and SB1959.

http://www.startribune.com/484/story/1497236.html

CWO you should call Georgia and tell them that they have an ocean so they have all the water they need, and to stop bothering us with thier fake problems.

Republican hardcores just slay me with thier stubbornness! Intel reports, http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071203/ts_nm/iran_usa_dc ,say that Iran suspended Nuclear program. But dammit those fearmongers know better, they just dont like to bother with facts or proof. Notice how CWO is just _makin sh#@ up _and not substantiating *ANY* of it with proof. Not even one single source to add validity to his isolationist claim.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I would hope you didn't judge your hole decision on my posts?


No not my whole decision, but you did have a major impact.



> Here are a couple of things I would love to hear your option on
> And that's no joke!


Even before I get started I can tell we are going to agree on many things ----- other than Ron Paul that is.



> North American Union Would Trump U.S. Supreme Court


I agree with Bush on many thins, but if he truely supports this he is a complete idiot, just like he is when it comes to border security. Sorry there jr. (Bush that is).
Lets see which do I trust the least hmmmmmm? The Supreme Court has always been where the liberals run when they can't win at the voting booth or in congress. The Supreme Court has been their puppet for years, yet when the presidential election in Florida became contentious the public was watching to closely for the Supreme Court to throw the democrats that bone. One of my pet peeves (one of many) is activist judges. They job is to interpret the law without prejudice not to fulfill a liberal agenda. Many of the judges have had that mixed up for years. With all that said they are light years ahead of a Union. I think it would be unconstitutional to form a union with power over the Supreme Court. Supporting an idea like this is subversion of our democracy.



> -Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America


Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

quoted from newstarget:


> it is worded in a clever way that could allow the U.S. government to arrest and incarcerate any individual who speaks out against the Bush Administration, the war on Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security or any government agency (including the FDA). The law has already passed the House on a traitorous vote of 405 to 6, and it is now being considered in the Senate where a vote is imminent.


quoted from opednews:


> The vote in the Democratic controlled House to pass the bill was 405 to 6. To say we have been betrayed is an understatement.


Sure thing. Terrorists like you and I that don't agree with who? Hillary you say??? It may be Bush now, but who will follow??? I don't want my freedom hinging on any politician of any persuasion. 
I'll have to read more from other sources to see if it is as bad as what I have seen so far. As of now nearly all resort to quoting newstarget's columnist Mike Adams who evidently derived much of his information from Ron Paul. So far most of the information I can find is slanted one way.

My gut response is:

Oh, my God, word and thought police. Ya, I have worked with empty heads like that. Or who think this way anyway. Everyone of them was a liberal. The sky is falling the sky is falling type liberals. They speak of tolerance and political correctness, but hate with every fiber of their being. Ya, I know people who fit that description. What a joy to be around.

This idea is even dumber than hate crimes. Someone murders someone and we need to decide if they liked each other or hated each other before the judge passes sentence. Someone was murdered you empty heads. Now what they are trying to get at is controlling speech so they can control power. The liberals would really like to get Rush Limbaugh off the radio. And of course anyone else that doesn't agree with liberals. And they talk about our spying on terrorists takes away from their freedom. What hypocrites.
What was that thing the libs wanted to use to get Rush off the radio. The fairness doctrine or some such thing. They say that they want equal time. Free of course, because no one will pay to listen to them. :fiddle:


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> CWO you should call Georgia and tell them that they have an ocean so they have all the water they need,


That sure makes a lot of sense considering the fact they don't have the desalination plants now doesn't it. Do you have something to contribute here or is there something else you have in mind, as if everyone didn't know. :eyeroll:



> Notice how CWO is just makin sh#@ up and not substantiating ANY of it with proof


If you think I made something up then bring it out and show every one. But lets just play your little game. You substantiate with proof that I made something up. In other words, put up or shut up. :eyeroll: I suspect though it will just be more running of the mouth and personal attacks which seems to be your mode of operation in all threads. Why don't you try to just join a conversation in a civil manner for a change. You might even enjoy it


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> If its not Ron Paul in '08 you deserve Hillary for 4


Interpretation: If I can't have my way I want everyone to suffer. Am I wrong? This is one of those times that I really want to be wrong.


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

Plansmen???? You still with me buddy??? Please expand on that last post you lost me a bit? Hope you are not in shock!!! God only knows I was, look me an hour just to get off the floor after I read about it. I have looked all over the place it all looks to be about the same thing to me. my fiance just read the whole bill i guess, she said the same thing.

IF THAT BILL LOOKS AS BAD AS IT IS!!! And so far I have found nothing but bad. THEN WHEN THE SENATE VOTES ON IT WE ALL JUST LOST OUR FIRST AMENDMENT??????????? AM I READING THIS DAMN THING RIGHT???????

Please review more info on the NAU as well. It's the death of the second amendment as far as I can tell?
you turn three contries into one! and we all get the same gun laws as mexico? hell thats even worse then Canada's gun laws by a long shot?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I'll look other places. The confusing thing is would these Washington low lives dare pull this in an election year? It sounds terrible, but something isn't right. At this point it is very confusing, but we will have to find out what is going on.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Republican hardcores just slay me with thier stubbornness! Intel reports, http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071203/ts_nm/iran_usa_dc ,say that Iran suspended Nuclear program. But dammit those fearmongers know better, they just dont like to bother with facts or proof. Notice how CWO is just makin sh#@ up and not substantiating ANY of it with proof. Not even one single source to add validity to his isolationist claim.


Jd your not making sense. Isolationist???? If that were true Bush would be pulling every soldier around the world back home. I think your simply so angry you don't stop to be logical in your thinking.

I'm not a hardcore republican, as a matter of fact I am independent. I think we need to be guardedly optimistically. Our intelligence screwed up before, lets not forget what got us into Iraq. I hope your not of the old partisan Bush lied mentality. Also, how long would it take Iran to get up to speed again? How about Korea, is that all imagination also? Is everything we thought a few years back wrong?


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

hello to the other ron paul fans, hear me out. nov 5 37000 donors contributed 4.4 million to ron pauls campaign thats less than 120$ per person, and a single day campaign fundraising record!! it's not too far fetched to think he'll get the nomination. it's gonna take one thing GUTS!! if you like ron paul do you have the GUTS to write an editorial, distribute literature, go to a rally, put a sign in your yard, slap on a bumper sticker. spread the word to your family friends co workers and volunteer some time. the democratic process is alive more than ever today in ron pauls campaign be a part of it. like the other guys caption if you don't vote ron paul in 08 you deserve hillary for 4. its an exciting time don't be a bystander ron paul is mobilizing people. make a donation on dec. 16th its the anniversary of the boston tea party this will be the ron paul revolution tea party. MAKE IT HAPPEN. IF ALL YOU DO IS WHAT YOU'VE DONE THAN ALL YOU WILL GET IS WHAT YOU'VE GOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Please expand on that last post you lost me a bit?

Ooops, missed that.
OK, I think this is the post your talking about.



> If its not Ron Paul in '08 you deserve Hillary for 4


I wrote:


> Interpretation: If I can't have my way I want everyone to suffer. Am I wrong? This is one of those times that I really want to be wrong.


Now, I don't have a strong choice yet. I lean very slightly towards Huckabee. Lets say I really wanted Huckabee, but I couldn't have him. Then I would hope we would get Thompson, not Hillary. The comment we deserve Hillary sounds like if someone can't get what they want then they want us all to have the worst. Isn't this vindictiveness? If you fellows who like Ron Paul don't get him I certainly wouldn't wish Hillary on you. I would wish you the next best. 
I have not wrote off Ron Paul yet. This is to serious to make up my mind quickly. I should know more by now, but I have been doing to many other things. I'll catch up though, and I appreciate your input.


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

Quote: 
If its not Ron Paul in '08 you deserve Hillary for 4

i think it's more of a statement to get some activism out of people who support paul than a literal statement. it's good your going about your choice by thinking it through. I've had people tell me they'll vote for paul because i'm so passionate about the subject. I've told them i don't want to make their minds up, i'd rather they do the reasearch themselves and come up with their own reasons to support him


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Also, how long would it take Iran to get up to speed again?


If you carefully read that article you will see a lot of things that are in between the lines and many swing words that are injected to go either way. What is important is to pay attention to the fact the article says Iran suspended their nuclear *weapons* program. Doesn't say they suspended their nuclear ambition program. Lets me put this in a different scenario. Lets say you know someone is up to no good because they were learning how to load their own rifle bullets and this person was a know radical that had no qualms about selling or giving those loaded bullets to a extremist group. You would want to watch that person close wouldn't you. You probable would want to even stop them from what they were doing. Then someone comes along and declares that person was no longer loading bullets. All they were doing now was peacefully learning how to cast their own bullets, collecting powder, brass, and primers so that person was no longer a threat to anyone. Would you buy that? Would you then think that person was no longer a threat? Would you not know those bullets could be assembled in short order?

I've never heard anyone ever say that Iran has the Air Force, Army, or Navy to attack this country even if they had nuclear weapons but everyone is of the opinion if they had nuclear weapons they could and probable would pass them to extremist radical groups. That's the real danger in my mind. Keep in mind we are talking about a group of people that believe to die for their God is the way to heaven and they have no qualms in taking you and their own people out with them.

On the subject of Ron Paul, there is no question the media is full bias opinions and some of it has a certain agenda of the source itself. But a lot of it is not bias and riddled with agendas. It is up to you, the reader to sort through this and form you own conclusion with careful thought. I've read some things on Ron Paul that became apparent to me as pure garbage and lies. But, I've found things about him when checked and double checked by sources that seemed legitimate to be factual. You can't declare all media reports as false just because they don't portray what you want them to. The latest report on Iran is a prime example. The President had the report a week before it was released. He didn't stop it from becoming public and he hasn't said it was wrong but just pointed out in his opinion as I did above, what to pay attention to and where to pay particular attention to in the report.

Do the same with Ron Paul and if you like him then vote for him in the primaries. When the primaries are over though, you have a choice between a Democrat and a Republican and then your choice is what directs this countries future. To me if you vote a write in or don't vote at all then it is telling me you don't give a damn what happens to this country. That's how I look at a no vote or a protest vote. Just a wasted vote and sometimes actually a vote for the worst of two choices.


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

Hi all
Well I got an update for everyone that might have looked into the HR 1959 bill, what I found was very strange and very very scary. First off it's not HR 1959, that seams to be a MASSIVE miss print!!! And I have to say that I find it very strange that so many people would overlook it. I can only imagine all of the people that have already writing to there senator asking them to vote NO on HR 1959, To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit interest on federally guaranteed water, wastewater, and essential community facilities loans to be tax exempt.
Wow talk about an amazing dup!!! All of those people saying no to the wrong bill, and what do you know, since none of our senators hear from us they are free and clear to pass the most treasons bill in American history. 
THE BILL IS CALLED H.R. 1955!!!!!!!!!!
H.R.1955 - Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
I have read the bill in full, it looks every bit as bad as they are making it out to be. The one piece of info that the bill false to explain, is once the government names you a terrorist you lose all constitution rights as a American citizen!!! In the bill they reference US citizens and their rights will not be harmed, but guess what! That only applies to those people that the government does not call terrorists. 
For simple writing this post my government could call me a terrorist!!
And here I thought I was just practicing my first amendment 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_House_Resolution_1955
The bill has been criticized for its use of broad language to describe "homegrown terrorism."[4]
One prominent critic of the bill has been the academic and author Ward Churchill.[4] In an interview aired on Democracy Now, he said:
"HR 1955, as I understand it, provides a basis for subjective interpretation of dissident speech that allows those in power to criminally penalize anything they considered to be particularly effective in terms of galvanizing an opposition that might conceivably in some sense disrupt or destabilize the status quo, so it's to keep everything in that nice sanitized arena that I was just talking about where you're actually a collateral functionary of the state by participating."[4]
Representative Harman chaired a November 6, 2007 hearing of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment on "Using the Web as a Weapon: the Internet as a Tool for Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism." During a later Democracy Now! program, Kamau Franklin of the Center for Constitutional Rights said that the bill "concentrates on the internet as a place where terrorist rhetoric or ideas have been coming across into the United States and to American citizens." And he warned that local officials can seek federal funding by targeting local dissident groups. "Once again, no basis for terrorism, but 'they've been dissenters, they have their internet sites reviewed and we don't like those'."[6]
LewRockwell.com columnist Jeff Knaebel criticizes it as an Orwellian thought crime bill specifically targeting the civilian population in the USA. He mentions that it defines "Violent Radicalization" as promoting any belief system which the government deems to be "extremist." He further criticizes it for defining "Homegrown Terrorism" and "Violent Radicalization" as thought crimes. He also claims that since the bill does not specifically define what an "extremist" belief system is, that it will be up to the government at any specific time to determine what is and is not an "extremist" belief system. [7]


----------



## swampbuck (Sep 19, 2007)

!scary! I can't wait to hear the logic of those who support this bill absolutly totalitarian, if it is passed America is no better than the countries we claim to stand against for freedom. A democracy cannot be sustained without a well informed public opinion, a socialist country with a dictator, on the other hand can. I read that last part somewhere i think it was maybe a post on this sight.


----------

