gdstark

Is this supposed to be nonpartisan? If so, where is John Cox? Or Keith Sprankle? And where are the independents?

gary
ExpertVoter.org

ExNavyAmerican

I'm going with Tom Tancredo.

Don't know enough 'bout Thompson, McCain's gone over on immigration, and no one else comes close.

Ron Paul wouldn't be bad either, though.

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson

temujin77

I guess after seeing your two consecutive comments to me that are totally unrelating to the main thread topic, I should thank you for participating in our "fake discussion" to you, too! Wow, WAB is benefiting SO MUCH from your presence! Thanks!!! When I grow up, I want to be just like you!

....

Well, back on the real topic

Although not discounting Huckabee's potentials, part of his progression is probably attributed to the economic boom of the late-90s/early-2000s, though. Nevertheless, I do totally agree with his stance on gays. I'm no gay, but I do see the fact that who the hell am I to interfere with the happiness of another? Personally, I believe the government should feel the same, too. The government should butt out of people's personal businesses.

This is the Republican Poll, after all

__________________
Pete
World War II Database

Ironduke

Stan, an FYI, temujin isn't a Ron Paul spammer.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

temujin77

Thank you. Although extremely embarrassing to admit this, I must say I haven't even heard of Paul before this thread =P

Ishapore41

That Iraq is a failure? That it has cost us more money and lives that expected? Way more infact. Its a properly placed label as that is what they are, neo-conservatives. I guess Bill Kristol has no idea what he is talking about when he refers to himself and others like him as neo-conservatives.

I believe that when you are wrong, you need to admit it. Stop trying to make me look like a coward. Thats a fools game and what you are doing is engaging in a harsh, below the belt discussion.
Ronald Reagan put troops in Lebanon and said he'd never turn tail and run. Later on, the barracks were attacked and Reagan pulled troops out. He wrote in his memoirs that even though he said he'd never turn tail and run, he didn't understand just how irrational the people in that part of the world are. He changed his policy to suit reality.

Stan187

My bad then, you must understand, this isn't the first time that the board has been spammed by Paulestinians and their guerilla marketing campaign. And that time they did the whole fake discussion thing, "I don't know anything about Ron Paul, can someone tell me" and then the next one jumps on blurts out the Ron Paul propaganda. It wasn't amuzing the first time, and when I saw what looked like the exact same thing, I got pretty annoyed at attempted WAB invasion #2. Misunderstanding on part, man.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

JAD_333

If you're gonna talk about neo-cons you'd better know what you're talking about. Forget the label. Iraq isn't about labels. It's about US vital interests and involves geopolitical issues which you apparently aren't interested in. The cost in money and lives is unfortunate and weighs heavy on everyone who supports the war. But failure in Iraq, if it ever comes, will be because of people like you who have no understanding of what we're fighting for. To you it all money and bodycounts.

Of course, when you're wrong, you admit it. But who is defining wrong here?
You are. I wasn't trying to make you look like a coward, but you do wear your belt awfully high.

Although the context was entirely different when Reagan pulled out of Lebanon, I'll give you that one, if you'll expound on all the wars we fought to the end and all the times we didn't pull out. I agreed with RR on that pullout because we weren't there to fight, but to act as intermediaries and there was no clear target to retaliate against. But keep in mind that we remained off shore and intervened with aircraft and ship fire.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

temujin77

Stan, no problem! I did get puzzled and annoyed at your hostility, but now I completely see where you're coming from. Also my bad, for using misleading language that looked like a spammer -- a lesson learned here, too!

Ishapore41

Yes, we have created a regional nightmare by creating a large power vaccum. We have painted the biggest recruiting poster in Iraq for AQ with the blood of our soldiers.

No it doesn't. The only people who are touched by the war are the ones who have to see sons and daughters, husbands and wives brought back in 6ft wooden boxes. Unless you have a relative in combat, you haven't sacrificed anything for this war.

Failure in Iraq is inveitable if we chart down this course. If we entrench ourselves in a broken foreign policy based on the ideology of a few, we will lose. The terrorists don't hate us because of our freedoms. Sorry, thats an explanation you tell six year olds. Here are the real reasons why they attack us straight from Bin Laden himself.
BIN LADEN'S FATWA (Why Ron Paul was Factually Correct) (UBL cited Iraq in 1996 Declaration of War)
We are losing our freedoms from the government faster than we are from terrorists.
I would also suggest reading this book:
Amazon.com: Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror: Books: Michael Scheuer

Yes I do care about bodycounts and money lost. We have lost almost 4,000 Americans to a war we should not have started in Iraq. Bin Laden was our enemy, Saddam was not a threat to the United States.
We have spent nearly $1,000,000,000,000 in Iraq, on top of the $9,000,000,000,000 we have in debt already. So yes, I'd say dead US soldiers and money does matter to me.



I'd say 70% of the American people are defining wrong and they are agreeing with me.


The context was the same. Islamic terrorists, seeing American soldiers on their land, attacked us because they saw us as occupiers.

1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Besides a few shellings, there was no serious retaliation for the Beirut bombing from the Americans. In December 1983, U.S. aircraft attacked Syrian targets in Lebanon, but this was in response to Syrian missile attacks on planes, not the barracks bombing.

Army5339

Ishapore41

Its a common tactic, to attack the person rather than debate the issues. Until you can do this, I suggest not posting such drivel.

I take comfort in knowing this quote is all to relevant to the Ron Paul campaign:
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."- Mahatma Gandhi

dalem

So Ishy-

First you type

Then later you typed

I admit that, although those statements are not mutually exclusive, they don't really track well together.

-dale

Ishapore41

But have I as an individual been forced to sacrifice something for the war? Nope not a thing. If I didn't read the news or watch TV or talk to anyone I'd never know the war was going on.

It concerns me as an American to see our fortunes being wasted away along with our finest citizens.

Dale I used to support the war. I used to tell those that opposed it "we've got to keep fighting, we can't give in", I used many of the same arguments you probably used and others have too. But it was easy for me to say that because I had lost nothing in the war. Me personally as an individual had lost nothing and it was easy for me to say "keep fighting" when it wasn't me that was doing the fighting.

As a country we have lost 4,000 Americans. As a country we have spent $1 trillion on the war. As citizens of this country it is our right to be concerned and voice concern when we feel our efforts are being used improperly.

If the best you can do to counter my argument is to point out frivolous flaws in the way it is being presented rather than the substance of what I am saying ,thats pretty sad and shows you have neither the will or the ammo to counter it.(sorry for the run-on).

JAD_333

I am through discussing this subject with you. The only reason I am replying to your post is to tell you that your comment that Dale has "neither the will or the ammo to counter" your "substance" is very mistaken. In fact, your "frivolous flaw", as you call it, appeared to be a contradiction and he called you on it. If it was sloppy composition, you could follow your own advice and admit you were wrong.