Gravitymaster

Probably a good deal better. Fox tries to sabotage him, and everyone else tries to ignore him. Bullshit. Fox News has given Ron Paul a platform to express his views moreso than any other network. He's been on Hannity, OReilly and Chris Wallace several times and he was always given a great opportunity to reach Republican voters.

Interesting that you didn't have this same view when Bush was informed that America was under attack.

Good point. Unfortunately, I think he will because the military will actually be in control for at least a few years and their paranoia over appearing weak will surely spur some kind of incident. I presume that the two missiles that he fired into the ocean were to send this exact message. He wants the world to know that he's in charge, isn't afraid to use his military, and will continue with his father's policies. He's saying; "Don't mess with me!" I agree, hopefully the 2 missles are the extent of his sabre rattling..... at least for now.

Good point. Unfortunately, I think he will because the military will actually be in control for at least a few years and their paranoia over appearing weak will surely spur some kind of incident.

Ok, lets expand on this. Regardless of who you think the best candidate would be, Newt probably doesn't have much of a chance at beating Obama. Romney would have a decent chance, but definitely not a sure shot. Strategically Ron Paul would be the only definite win for the GOP, IMO. Its likely nearly every GOP candidate including yourself would vote for him over Obama, and you are going to have a landslide of Democrats jumping the fence to vote for Ron Paul over Obama as well. If the GOP had half a brain right now they'd be propping up Ron Paul as much as possible because he's a sure shot. Newt is far too disconnected from the center and left voters to ever get any from that camp. Romney, would get a few, but there are still way too many that would vote for Obama over those two anyday. If he GOP keeps ignoring Ron Paul and keeps propping up these horrible alternatives, then they're going to piss this election down there leg and we'll see 4 more of Obama. The GOP does not select which candidates to run. A candidate decides to run and then seeks voter support through fundraising, debates etc. In the end, the GOP does not decide who the eventual nominee is. That's determined by the voters. Well thank you for that civics lesson. The GOP does select their nominee, but they use votes to determine who they nominate. The language I used in my post has more to do with GOP pushing for specific candidates during the primaries. Conservative media outlets are doing all they can to prop up any candidate besides Ron Paul. Why? Because Ron Paul is not going to be there puppet. All the other candidates play ball just fine, so anybody but Paul will do for the GOP. That's what I'm getting at. I'm full aware that in the end, the people's votes are what determines that. And as much as many folks would like to dismiss him he neck and neck for that front slot. So lets face it folks, he's very much electable or he wouldn't even be in the top 3 right now. Media outlets are not the GOP. I can't find any specific support for one candidate over the other by the GOP at this point. That's all I'm saying.

With what? Y'all ain't got no guns! Well at least they aren't going to Pepper Spray them.

Why should they? The whole world knows the Liberal Guilt over the invasion will once again require the U.S. to expend our resources without recourse. Do you liberal-bashing republicans even think before you write shit? Drunk post? You know it's true. That your post is a gratuitous, empty liberal-bashing dig with no teeth -- sure. Unless you're talking about the song by Milli Vanilli, which is completely off topic. Please don't derail this otherwise oh so meaningful SC discussion, thanks. Pretty funny that my posts are on topic and your are not, yet you accuse me of trying to derail a converstaion.

Are you even sure that a President even has the power to accomplish many of the goals RP touts? Is he just another politician making seemingly great promises only to blame Congress for preventing him from enacting them once elected?

Ok, lets expand on this. Regardless of who you think the best candidate would be, Newt probably doesn't have much of a chance at beating Obama. Romney would have a decent chance, but definitely not a sure shot. Strategically Ron Paul would be the only definite win for the GOP, IMO. Its likely nearly every GOP candidate including yourself would vote for him over Obama, and you are going to have a landslide of Democrats jumping the fence to vote for Ron Paul over Obama as well. If the GOP had half a brain right now they'd be propping up Ron Paul as much as possible because he's a sure shot. Newt is far too disconnected from the center and left voters to ever get any from that camp. Romney, would get a few, but there are still way too many that would vote for Obama over those two anyday. If he GOP keeps ignoring Ron Paul and keeps propping up these horrible alternatives, then they're going to piss this election down there leg and we'll see 4 more of Obama. The GOP does not select which candidates to run. A candidate decides to run and then seeks voter support through fundraising, debates etc. In the end, the GOP does not decide who the eventual nominee is. That's determined by the voters.

Why should they? The whole world knows the Liberal Guilt over the invasion will once again require the U.S. to expend our resources without recourse. Do you liberal-bashing republicans even think before you write shit? Drunk post? You know it's true.

Why should they? The whole world knows the Liberal Guilt over the invasion will once again require the U.S. to expend our resources without recourse.

Why don't you tell us since you apparently possess this vast wealth of historical knowledge. While you're at it, explain what your comments have to do with the present day discussion that Canada, S.Korea, and many European countries shouldn't pay for the protection the U.S. provides them. Not just our defensive protections but our military presence that allows them to grow their economies without the huge defense budgets. Who is helping save who's ass???

With all due respect, that statement is just ignorant. You do not have significant armed forces based here. Canada is not under any imminent hostile military threat (nor has been, even during the Cold War era). The only foreign power that ever invaded Canada was the United States. How dare you sir to presume that we owe you a damned thing for the simple fluke of geography of being your neighbor? Bullshit. You Canucks benefit from the mere existence of the U.S Military because it saves you the expense of having a large military of your own. You know that big brother U.S. will save your ass if China or Russia decides to invade and take your oil. Don't sit there acting all high and mighty when you know we will always save your ass. Time to start paying up. No more free ride. Oh, with all due respect.

I'm not advocating selling our services or starting a war. Let's try it a different way. Should countries that we protect such as Canada, S. Korea etc. be required to pay for our presence there?

The you would agree that Iraq should pay us back some of the money we spent? Or should we allow them to become another deadbeat nation that owes the U.S for their freedom? You're not even trying to respond to people's points. Nobody's listening to you any more. Except, apparently you. What point did you think I should have been responding to? One of them that allows you a path to run down screaming "I hate Bush"?

Obama only saved us from a 4th and 5th recession. Bush saved us from the first 2.

The you would agree that Iraq should pay us back some of the money we spent? Or should we allow them to become another deadbeat nation that owes the U.S for their freedom?

There may very well have been WMDs at some point, Iraq and Iran fought a war for years. However to say that it was a valid reason for an invasion is bunk. Because there were NONE, nada, zip, ziltch, zero. which was only definitively determined after the invasion. Which is really beside the point. Even if the Bush Admin chickenhawks believed Iraq still had some stores of mustard gas, et al., that wasn't the reason they went into Iraq, that was the excuse. They went in because they suddenly had The Power, they knew The Power would be theirs only fleetingly, and this was their chance to go seriously kick some ass, and not just twiddle around Afghanistan where Bin Laden was making fools of them, and nobody could see them swinging their dicks. Eight years later, we're all still paying for Dick Cheney's, Karl Rove's and Paul Wolfowitz's draft deferments. More left-wing blather. Complete fantasy dreamed up from spending too much time on radical left-wing sites lapping up their Bush hating propoganda.

It's funny when you click on the "friend activity" link, it says "no friend activity found". He likely killed all of them.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-13/electric-bills/51840042/1?loc=interstitialskip Use less so they can charge you more. This is what happens when the demand continues to grow and the supply doesn't keep pace.

I realize your ODS is advanced, but are you really equating the war in Iraq to the war in Libya? Nope. but please feel free to twist it around till it fits your view.

He's an Elvis impersonator. Very popular in Las Vegas.

I think the second one looks more like this one.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_KOREA_KIM_JONG_IL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-18-22-08-46 Rot in hell mutha fucker. Question is will his son take over and be even worse than his father?

That's the silliest comment I have ever heard you make. I thought you wanted the US to be reimbursed with half of a nation's wealth to help them overthrow their brutal dictators? Perhaps you can list just the top ten brutal dictators we should start with? Sigh...I'm NOT advocating we go arounf overthrowing disctators. Especially when it's not directly in our national interest. I"m simply agreeing wit Trump that IF Congress approves a military action, that we should recieve some compensation. Do I need to repeat that I'm NOT advocating getting involved in any military actions? I have noticed that most who bashed Bush for going into Iraq were pretty silent when Obama went into Libya.