BoogeyMan

Attacking the messenger is useless. Attack the message. RP declares Manning a Patriot. Work on that.

See 2:19 of the youtube vid. RP says that there is "no UN report that says that." In the context that RP spoke I an convinced that he was denying the existence of the report. There are reams of UN reports and IAEA reports that cite tangible, real evidence that Iran is attempting to develop a nuclear weapon. The entire UN Security Council unanimously disagrees with RP. I think that MB, as well as RP and all the other debaters during their debates are allowed to paraphrase. To hold them to a strict rule of exactness would be not only counter productive, but impossible to manage. I allow for RP to paraphrase, but he is wrong on too many points. RP is wrong again, later as to Iranian heavy water, and enriched fuel. In the November 2011 report, IAEA cites Iranian official communications that admit to Iran having heavy water. Iran also admits to enriching fuel and says that Iran will continue to do so in official Iranian dispatches. Refer to the IAEA report. I posted it earlier. I do not boost any candidate. How was Korea?

Thx for posting that vid. Ron Paul is basing his foreign policy on 60 year old events from a world vastly different than today. Listen to the man. His world view is scary. From the Canada Free Press: "As homosexual Army soldier Bradley Manning’s treason trial continues at Fort Meade, Maryland, the support he has received from Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has been curiously ignored by the major media, now touting Paul as someone who could win the January 3 Iowa Republican Caucuses. Paul has called Manning, a crossdresser with acknowledged mental problems, a “hero” and “patriot” for stealing government secrets and providing them to WikiLeaks. Manning, who served as an intelligence analyst in Iraq, is charged with one of the most spectacular and damaging leaks of classified information in this country’s history. The death penalty has been strangely ruled out in his case, but he could still face life in prison."

Click the "URL" button underneath the posting window, paste your link, then click the "URL" button again. Alternately (substitute [ ] for < >), weblink Thx..... Sometimes this inner-nut stuff....

RP is on record as saying that his solution to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would be to "make friends with them." Again, I don't care to convince anyone. I know what I hear RP say, and it has convinced me that he's not electable, or after the recent debate, even in touch. That RP voted in favor of the Afghan attack after 9/11 says very little. If memory serves, only Dennis Kucinich out of the entire Senate and House voted against the attack. So what? America needs a leader. RP was not in the vanguard of the Kongress on Afghanistan. Nor was he very vocal either way. The Iraq war was made longer and more costly by the Bush administrations mishandling, and by the Iranians. For the last few years the Allies in Iraq have been fighting surrogates funded, armed and guided by the Iranians. The recent unexplained explosions at Iranian ammo dumps, nuclear facilities, rocket fuel plants tell us that the war is already in progress. So far, the only two I see as being anything near being a statesman are Romney, and Gingrich. Either would drop Obama.

Please tell me what policy indicates that he does not treasure the safety of our troops? I have trouble seeing how they would be safer invading Iran preemptively rather than at home protecting the country on our soil. It has become clear to me that if anyone other than Ron Paul is elected, including Obama, we will find ourselves at war with Iran within their term of office. It sounds to me like you believe that is what we should be doing. Any policy, such as RP's Iranian appeasement notion, risks safety of the US and endangers US troops and citizens. That policy tells me that RP is too cavalier with the welfare of those who are the first responders to events. BTW......... Who said anything about invading Iran? As far as Iran, the US can stand off and by submarine reduce Iran to a burned out volcano crater without endangering so much as a fingernail. The danger to the US and don't forget that our troops are also citizens, is the world wide terror network funded by Iran. Brush fire terror incidents are the preferred manner of warfare for the foreseeable future. That type of war necessitates boots on the ground. Therefore a strong deterant is better than any reaction to an event.

Yes, and while we are at it, let's not for one second question our original assumptions about what was being said and what was meant. Let us form our opinions in stone and resolutely ignore any evidence that may be contrary to our beliefs. Furthermore, let us present those opinions to the masses as irrefutable fact. I have watched the video of the debate, and I have watched that exchange several times. Why? Because I thought, maybe you were right and I wanted to review my impressions to see if maybe my pro-paul bias had colored my interpretation of his words. At this point, I am fine to agree that you and I have different interpretations of that exchange. I am not fine however with you presenting your version as fact. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9GnvcGP7LU Sorry, I can't make the above a clicky, for some reason... Check it out. I have boosted no other candidate, other than to say Gingrich would batter Obama in a debate. I also have listened several times to RP. He is wrong about the UN report. I have provided the web site to the IAEA and the specific report MB speaks about in previous posts. RP says that MB is wrong, that there is no report. WRONG. RP then reverses his own words, twice. I do not have selective hearing. I hear exactly what the man says.

"C"..... When RP talks foreign policy, I am reminded of the old films of Neville Chamberlain circa 1938-9 waving the "peace in our time" pact signed by Hitler. As one who has been in the service, in a war, and wrapped up bodies of comrades in their ponchos for their last ride home, I fear RP's lack of real world awareness in his views of the world. Wars suck to a level few can imagine. RP's views can do little more than to encourage every free nations enemies. That RP is as some have called him, naive, is open to debate. As a former service member, that RP, by virtue of his policy statements, does not, to my mind, treasure the safety of our troops is very disturbing. As far as "B"..... You've been watching too many movies. High ranking officers, while not "humping the boonies", are at risk as a high value targets. In my experience, I saw officer grades from Colonel on down, in actual combat situations. I have no experience with Generals. Except to say that most were company grade officers at one time in their careers. My former XO retired as a four star General. I know 100% for certain that he was "in the schidt" with us. I saw it myself. You don't forget things like that.

You continue to beat this horse as a smoking gun that makes him unelectable. I think we should present what was actually said: You can read that a number of ways, and certainly I think listening to it is important and I urge people to listen to the entire debate. While you could certainly translate his first comment to mean the report does not exist, I think the final comment clearly shows an admission of the reports existence, but calls into question both the report and Bachman's understanding of the report's finding. Let's not dissect RP's words as if he was under oath, and being deposed. The thrust of his comments were that MB was making up the story. I stand by that interpretation. Please refer to the vid of the debate.

Why would you demean whores by mentioning them in the same sentence with Kongress-persons? ( I use a K because that's as close as I can get to a swastiKa.)

Omigod, he sounds like Dubya with a teleprompter. I can see why there is so much anticipation in the Gingrich camp for a Gingrich/Obama "one on one" debate. Newt will hand Obama is own ass.

"Your opinion and observations while just as valid, don't reflect the entire military. It would be like me sayins that all the non-military people I hang out with think Ron Paul is a nut, therefore every one else in the country thats not serving think he's a nut too." Then we are in agreement. For any candidate to broadly submit that he is the "military's" or any particular factions candidate at this point is pure political posturing. RP is not a leader. His wisdom is suspect. I again refer again to RP's incorrect outburst with Bachman. As far as the numbers...... I have a friend, a PhD, who teaches at a major University. He sez that "Figures don't lie, but liars know how to figure." We are in a national campaign that has global implications. The US is still reaping the consequences of the Carter administration's malfeasance. Please see the worthless Dept. of Energy. RP has yet to show statesmanship. RP does show an elitist detachment from everyday America. RP actually believes , ala Neville Chamberlain, that he can negotiate with the Iranians. Where are the Winston Churchill's of America?

Exactly....... Excellent. A President is not a king.

Wut be a "trout herder"?

____________________________________________________ Ron Paul is not running to be president.. Ron Paul is running to change the course of history... This country is on the wrong path.the founding fathers would be ashamed Ron Paul is a modern day Thomas Jefferson...

Nope. As in: Fuck no. The US went there because G. W. Bush was bamboozled into proving himself to his chicken-hawk staffers, showing-up his dad and assuaging his Oedipus complex. The result was endless blood, as well as the squandering of so much treasure that, yes, the US is still the only modern, industrialized country in the world without universal national health care coverage. In the meantime, the Halliburtons of the country get richer and fatter, while the ranks of the under-employed and uninsured.... well, that speaks for itself. It's a shame and a disgrace; but just like Saudis who see nothing wrong with beheading women for sorcery, many average Americans are simply oblivious to the shame and disgrace. And many of them post on blogs, repeat FoxNews sound bytes and loyally go to the polls on Election Day and vote for More Of The Same®. And so it goes. And some have their heads so far up their ass with hatred for Bush that they can't see beyond their left-wing ideology. They continue to repeat the liberal lie that somehow (although they can't explain it or offer any proof) that GWB "knew" there were no WMD's. Even though the previous administration and the one before that and the CIA thought they did. Some even to this day continue to vomit their hatred on blogs on the internet, parrot left-wing talking points and somehow hope and pray that pulling all troops out of Iraq will suddenly be O.K. Some are even dumb enough to not see the strategic advantage of having a presence to develop intel on Iran. They choose to believe the myth that they either aren't developing nuclear weapons or that once they have them, they won't use them. Lalalalala... bring all the troops home and pretend the threats in the world aren't real anymore. +1.... Lets not forget that Diane Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi were, according to their respective web sites, members of Kongressional Intelligence Committees during the lead up to the war, and were in agreement with the majority. I agree that Bush mismanaged the war. Not until Gen. Jack Keane and Gen. Petraeus set the strategy right, did the conduct of the war turn around.

Congratulations. Welcome to the 3% club.

+1..... I'm still trying to decide which Repub to go with. Obama is not a statesman nor a leader. Strictly a politician.

Naive...? Perhaps. I don't think that anyone is saying that RP is not smart. It's his wisdom, or lack thereof, and ability to translate and relate to common sense issues, that is worrisome. As for foreign policy, RP is very poorly informed or unable to grasp the complexity of issues. That RP seeks advice is a good thing. As POTUS, RP would have the final say, though. I don't think RP is up to the task.

Those who have witnessed my attempts to dance often comment that I may have an inner ear problem.

Congratulations, you've just described the character Sheldon Cooper from the TV series "The Big Bang Theory." The problem is, he's weird and his "CLEAR views" are not practical for the real world, much like Ron Paul. Of course, the advantage Sheldon would have over Ron Paul is Sheldon believes in a scientific view of the world rather than a mythological one. Sheldon Cooper..!!! Jeeze..!!!

I've been to RP's site. As well as the other candidates. All I read were generalizations and uber broad statements that were little more than restating the obvious. No specific plan for anything. A president is not a king. A chief executive needs a plan with an agenda of how to go forward. To say, I'll do so and so when elected is meaningless. An MD in OB GYN and a former Air Force MD, RP is indeed to be commended. I do not wish to flame RP, but he was badly mistaken on a very serious point about America's arch enemy, Iran, and the IAEA issue. RP also misspoke saying that America is at war with 1.2 billion Muslims. RP again compounded his errors, in a high pitched voice, with 1960's era war is bad mantras. I agree that the man had a bad night. RP is not electable. Does America want four more years of Obama?

No biggy...... The US has lots more drones, and hellfire missiles left. Plenty enuff.

He did not say the report didn't exist. He said the report didn't make the statement that they were months away from acquiring a nuclear weapon. He then expounded on the point by stating that the report implied it and that the implication was baseless. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dKp6Ej7I2E Ron Paul did indeed say the report did not exist. He said MB's statement was "totally untrue". RP also said that there was no proof that Iran was enriching fuel. Watch the link. I have provided a link to the IAEA report mentioned by MB in an earlier post, which clearly cites that Iran has admitted in communications with the IAEA to enriching fuel, and has stated that they will continue to do so. The more I watch the film of the debate, the more hysterical RP sounds. Statesmanship is not one of RP's strong points.

Yep. He actually wants to try something different from the present reality we have. Which sucks ass. I'll vote for him BECAUSE he wants to try a different reality. But what does RP want to try? I was all over his site, and listened to the debates. I hear nuttin' from him but generic, standard "elect me" jargon. No plan. Nothing creative or even profound. Nothing other than the "war is bad" cliche'. I'm wondering if this election will be about folks voting for the candidate that they believe will do the least damage to our country. BTW........ Where's Amazon? By this time Amazon is on us like white on rice.