Ron Paul Has Raised 5 Million in 2 months

[Superlative]

I do not view Comedy Central as good for anything other than reruns of Scrubs. However, I have watched Ron Paul in all three televised Republican debates, and I have seen him interviewed on MSNBC cable news TV. I am ware of his antedullivan political philosophy. I find Paul's blame America analysis of terrorism, and his head-in-the-sand prescription for US foreign policy, to be both fallacious and dangerous.

Ill take that as a No.

Strange that you watch him in a debate where the speakers have to answer questions in a fixed time, and are even required to answer questions by simply raising their hand.

But you wont watch him on Comedy Central's Daily Show, where he simply speaks for 5 minutes, where you can actually see him form a sentance and understand fully his convictions, and ability to articulate his thoughts.

You dont get that in a debate.

 

[onedomino]

Ill take that as a No.

Strange that you watch him in a debate where the speakers have to answer questions in a fixed time, and are even required to answer questions by simply raising their hand.

But you wont watch him on Comedy Central's Daily Show, where he simply speaks for 5 minutes, where you can actually see him form a sentance and understand fully his convictions, and ability to articulate his thoughts.

You dont get that in a debate.

Obviously it was a no. Paul did not have a chance to articulate his thoughts in the debates or in the MSNBC interview? I disagree. The fact that people take their political content from the Daily show is an interesting comment on America in general. There is no doubt the the Daily show is influential and that is scary indeed.

 

[Superlative]

Obviously it was a no. Paul did not have a chance to articulate his thoughts in the debates or in the MSNBC interview? I disagree. The fact that people take their political content from the Daily show is an interesting comment on America in general. There is no doubt the the Daily show is influential and that is scary indeed.

If you didnt watch it, how can you judge it?

You dont have 7 minutes ?

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=87974

Why wouldnt someone want to see what a candidate has to say every time they talk? does MSNBC ask better questions than Stewart?

I guess you wouldnt know, because you didnt watch it.

 

[no1tovote4]

Paul/Tancredo '08!

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Really? Tell that to Georgia. Certainly the thousands of missiles pointed at Taiwan speak to the peaceful nature of the totalitarians in Beijing. Regardless, Iran does threaten to dominate the Gulf, and the enactment of Ron Paul's hide behind our borders foreign policy would guarantee that. There are more pathways to foreign intervention than mere physical invasion by troops. Even if we had no troops in any Middle East nation, Russian made aircraft carrier killing supersonic cruise missiles would still be pointed at the US Navy from the shores of Iran. Perhaps you suggest the Navy should withdraw from the Gulf? Ron Paul's head-in-the-sand foreign policy would be a complete disaster for the West. Thankfully, it has about as much can of happening as Ron Paul becomming President: zero.

Of course we should withdraw our carriers from the mideast. There is no benefit to having them there, and it gives the Persians even more incentive to acquire nuclear weapons, because we leave nuclear nations alone. Our response to 9/11 should have been to arm the pilots (with tazers if not guns), not invade Iraq.

I do not view Comedy Central as good for anything other than reruns of Scrubs. However, I have watched Ron Paul in all three televised Republican debates, and I have seen him interviewed on MSNBC cable news TV. I am aware of his antediluvian political philosophy. I find Paul's blame America analysis of terrorism, and his head-in-the-sand prescription for US foreign policy, to be both fallacious and dangerous.

Funny how the head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit agrees with him wholeheartedly.

Blaming bad government policy in the mideast is not much different than blaming the bad government policy at Versailles for creating conditions ripe for Nazism. Yet everyone all across the political spectrum agrees that was a bad policy, and no one accuses them of "blaming america".

 

[Superlative]

Funny how the head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit agrees with him wholeheartedly.

Blaming bad government policy in the mideast is not much different than blaming the bad government policy at Versailles for creating conditions ripe for Nazism. Yet everyone all across the political spectrum agrees that was a bad policy, and no one accuses them of "blaming america".

Fascinating.

 

[onedomino]

Funny how the head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit agrees with him wholeheartedly.

Blaming bad government policy in the mideast is not much different than blaming the bad government policy at Versailles for creating conditions ripe for Nazism. Yet everyone all across the political spectrum agrees that was a bad policy, and no one accuses them of "blaming america".

Agrees with what exactly? Let's see the link to where "the head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit" "wholeheartedly" says that America is to blame for terrorism, as claimed Ron Paul in the second Republican Presidential debate.

During the debate, Ron Paul asserted that American interventionism in the Middle East, from CIA installation of Iranian leaders to the bombing of Iraq in the 1990s, culminating in the ongoing Iraq war, led to anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and to terrorists plotting attacks against America. Rudy Giuliani interpreted Paul as implying that America had justified the 9/11 attacks through its actions and interrupted the proceedings to demand a retraction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Presidential_Debates,_2008

Are you, along with Ron Paul, going to claim that a 1953 coup in Iran, and enforcement of the UN no-fly zone in Iraq, were responsible for terrorist attacks against America? As Ron Paul suggests, maybe if we hide behind our borders, then the Islamic murderers in the world will go away and no one will hurt us. Right? Better yet: let's get the UN to pass a resolution that no one should bomb us. That should make us safe.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I do not view Comedy Central as good for anything other than reruns of Scrubs. However, I have watched Ron Paul in all three televised Republican debates, and I have seen him interviewed on MSNBC cable news TV. I am aware of his antediluvian political philosophy. I find Paul's blame America analysis of terrorism, and his head-in-the-sand prescription for US foreign policy, to be both fallacious and dangerous.

Ron Paul may be a neanderthal on issues of abortion, same-gender marriages and other social issues, but he was dead on in his assessment of America's, and Europe's, role in the spread of terrorism.

Islamic fundamentalists didn't spring from thin-air...They arose as a direct result of oppression resulting from decades of European colonial rule up until after WWII. American governments from that time until present supported oppressive, tyrannical regimes in the Middle East just so the oil would continue to flow...Including Saddam Hussein. These terrorists could give a shit about our freedoms or whether or not our women can drive cars and walk un-escorted on the streets. Their hatred is the result of our policies in the region that were based only on whether or not the governments in power could maintain the flow of cheap oil. None of our elected leaders, from both side of the aisle, could have given a shit about the populations ground under the heels of those governments, they supported them regardless. That's why they hate us. Wake up to that bit of <i>realpolitik</i> and you'll understnad why George W. Bush and his merry band have been so wrong about so many things since 9/11.

 

[onedomino]

Of course we should withdraw our carriers from the mideast. There is no benefit to having them there, and it gives the Persians even more incentive to acquire nuclear weapons, because we leave nuclear nations alone. Our response to 9/11 should have been to arm the pilots (with tazers if not guns), not invade Iraq.

Brilliant idea. Let’s withdraw our carriers and turn the Persian Gulf into an Iranian lake. Now we better understand your point of view. We should withdraw from the Middle East and let radical Islamic religious fanatics threaten the flow of oil whenever it suits their maniacal purposes, such as when they want to erase Israel from the map, or when the want to force the US to withdraw from Iraq so the totalitarian murder squads can take over. Your idea would lead to the immediate collapse of Western Economies; perhaps that is your aim. "Of course we should withdraw our carriers" would be economic suicide.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Angry, hate-filled spewed name-calling accomplishes nothing. Lets not catagorize all democrats or all republicans as anything. Ive met democrats who reasonable and nice people, same goes for republicans. Ive met insane people, from both parties. We must start with where we agree, and comprimise on both sides, to where we disagree. Then and only then, we can get something done, other then patting yourself on the back for having an enemy and being un-civil towards him. I have friends who are democrats, and im not gonna say, we dont agree on anything, or some things, so we cant be friends, thats immature and childish. Why cant we disagree peacefully?

Second the democrats cant impose gun control without violating the constitution, and if they cant change the constitution for that, i can change the constitution to prevent gay marriage.

 

[onedomino]

Ron Paul may be a neanderthal on issues of abortion, same-gender marriages and other social issues, but he was dead on in his assessment of America's, and Europe's, role in the spread of terrorism.

Islamic fundamentalists didn't spring from thin-air...They arose as a direct result of oppression resulting from decades of European colonial rule up until after WWII. American governments from that time until present supported oppressive, tyrannical regimes in the Middle East just so the oil would continue to flow...Including Saddam Hussein. These terrorists could give a shit about our freedoms or whether or not our women can drive cars and walk un-escorted on the streets. Their hatred is the result of our policies in the region that were based only on whether or not the governments in power could maintain the flow of cheap oil. None of our elected leaders, from both side of the aisle, could have given a shit about the populations ground under the heels of those governments, they supported them regardless. That's why they hate us. Wake up to that bit of <i>realpolitik</i> and you'll understnad why George W. Bush and his merry band have been so wrong about so many things since 9/11.

So you too think that terrorism is America's fault? It was America's horrible behavior in the world that is responsible for the 3000 dead. We should have stayed at home behind our borders where we would have been safe. We should have not repelled Saddam from Kuwait. We should not have enforced the UN mandated Iraq no-fly zone. We should not have stationed troops in Saudi Arabia to protect it from Saddam. We should have abandoned Israel to the totalitarian Arab regimes encircling it. We have so much for which to atone because of that 1953 coup in Iran. It was, after all, only 55 years ago. How can we have the temerity to oppose terrorist run Iran&#8217;s nuke weapons program? It is their right to threaten or even start Armageddon. When Iran has nuclear weapons then they will behave in a civilized manner and no longer perpetrate Hezbollah murder in Lebanon and Israel. How could I have been so blind? You are right, terrorism is the responsibility of America. Bully you have made me see the light. America is responsible for the fall of the World Trade Center, just like that Saudi sheik told Giuliani when he tried to make that donation. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Superlative]

So you too think that terrorism is America's fault? It was America's horrible behavior in the world that is responsible for the 3000 dead. We should have stayed at home behind our borders where we would have been safe. We should have not repelled Saddam from Kuwait. We should not have enforced the UN mandated Iraq no-fly zone. We should not have stationed troops in Saudi Arabia to protect it from Saddam. We should have abandoned Israel to the totalitarian Arab regimes encircling it. We have so much for which to atone because of that 1953 coup in Iran. It was, after all, only 55 years ago. How can we have the temerity to oppose terrorist run Iran&#8217;s nuke weapons program? It is their right to threaten or even start Armageddon. When Iran has nuclear weapons then they will behave in a civilized manner and no longer perpetrate Hezbollah murder in Lebanon and Israel. How could I have been so blind? You are right, terrorism is the responsibility of America. Bully you have made me see the light. America is responsible for the fall of the World Trade Center, just like that Saudi sheik told Giuliani when he tried to make that donation. Thanks for clearing that up.

We should be paying reparations, rebuilding Iraq and saying sorry for being Saddams BFF in the 80's, and making up for training the Mujahadeen who later turned into Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Instead we invade, and occupy, thats the best remedy, instead of conceding our errors, we escalate our aggression in the region, which always makes supressed people happy.

 

[Toro]

I think he would be a very interesting candidate for President.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont think terrorism is america's fault. We went to war to help muslims in 1991, and in serbia, 1995. So, while america must admit to her mistakes and not repeat them, i dont think we asked for it.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont think islamic terrorists hate america for being in the middle east. I think thats a bold faced lie that the media wants you to believe, if you look back. After the death of mohammed, in 24 years, 632-656, islam nearly took over the world under charles de martel of france, cast them back.

Islamic radicals have been trying to kill or convert all non muslims since then, and while the crusades didnt work, we ignore all the land the muslims have stolen, including their persecution of all non muslims in their 57 countries, and how they killed and forced out christians in the west bank.

 

[Toro]

Muslims wouldn't have attacked America had America not been there.

That doesn't mean America should not have been in the Middle East, nor does it mean al-Qaeda was right in what it did. But Muslim extremists are trying to drive the US out of the region, in part to topple US supported governments so they can take over.

 

[red states rule]

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=43192




5 Million bucks in 2 months with no corporate backing. The people of this country want Ron Paul's integrity in the Oval Office.

Ron will easily be able to compete, state by state, with the so called "front-runners".

Wake up and smell the PATRIOTISM.

Paul is a nut - Fred at 19&#37; in Texas, tied for second in most recent poll from a Ron Paul supporters web site. Even the people in Texas know Paul is a lost cause

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/texas.html

 

[Paulie]

So you too think that terrorism is America's fault? It was America's horrible behavior in the world that is responsible for the 3000 dead. We should have stayed at home behind our borders where we would have been safe. We should have not repelled Saddam from Kuwait. We should not have enforced the UN mandated Iraq no-fly zone. We should not have stationed troops in Saudi Arabia to protect it from Saddam. We should have abandoned Israel to the totalitarian Arab regimes encircling it. We have so much for which to atone because of that 1953 coup in Iran. It was, after all, only 55 years ago. How can we have the temerity to oppose terrorist run Iran&#8217;s nuke weapons program? It is their right to threaten or even start Armageddon. When Iran has nuclear weapons then they will behave in a civilized manner and no longer perpetrate Hezbollah murder in Lebanon and Israel. How could I have been so blind? You are right, terrorism is the responsibility of America. Bully you have made me see the light. America is responsible for the fall of the World Trade Center, just like that Saudi sheik told Giuliani when he tried to make that donation. Thanks for clearing that up.

Please.

Saddam was allowed, if not encouraged, to attempt to invade Kuwait. Can you even begin to understand how convenient that was for the power-players in the U.S.? That allowed us to go in there and set up more permanent military bases to police the region. With all the technology that is available to the US, and i'm talking about known technology and obviously unknown technology that is top secret to us, and the limitless abilities of our intelligence community (yes LIMITLESS...i served in the military in an intelligence unit, and i can say first hand that it is LIMITLESS) it should have been a more than simple task to either keep tabs on Saddam, or take him out when necessary.

You guys have GOT to do more than just watch corporate news to get information. The US created Saddam, just like we created Bin Laden. They both became very useful. It's been an agenda of neo-conservatives for years to invade Iraq and install a pro-US government. They've been foaming at the mouth for an opportunity ever since Gulf War 1.

Who in here doesn't think that it is a huge conflict of interest that our highest officials in government are profitting from a war that was started under questionable pretenses? Or even profitting from a war AT ALL?

If companies like GE, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrup-Gruman, Halliburton, etc, are profiting because they are selling the Dept of Defense weapons and materials, then that alone is not a conflict of interest. If that's the function they perform as a company, fine. When people high up in the government chain of command are connected to corporations like these, and are profitting from a war they helped plan, THAT is a conflict of interest. When those companies are lobbying for longer time in Iraq, and bigger defense spending bills, THAT is a conflict of interest.

That huge defense spending bill that just gave Bush another couple hundred billion...who do you think lobbyed that bill? DEFENSE CONTRACTORS. AIPAC. ETC. Most of that money of course will be going into their pockets to supply the DoD, and into the pockets of administration officials. Please excuse some of us for having a contemptual attitude towards that type of situation. Dem's want to know why the Dem congress allowed that. Why do you think? Because they're pussies? Well, yeah. But mostly because they are owned by big business and big special interests.

Couple all of this in with the media these days greatly exagerating islamic aggression towards the US, and you have millions of people who actually SUPPORT those conflicts of interest. That's pretty sad.

5 & 1/2 years after 9/11, and we're here arguing immigration. On 9/12/01, I don't remember anyone arguing the issue. I think it was almost unanimous to close our borders, reform our immigration policy, and get the enemies OUT.

Now, we are de-sensitized of it from the passing of time, and it's back to politics as usual on immigration. Once again, huge corporations will have NONE of the immigration reform. They want illiegals in the country so that they can maintain cheap labor. The real power in Washington doesn't care about border security, they care about profit and power.

The only reason anyone wouldn't be able to realize all of this, is because you are too deep in the left/right bullshit propaganda that the corporate news channels are spoon feeding you.

 

[Bullypulpit]

So you too think that terrorism is America's fault? It was America's horrible behavior in the world that is responsible for the 3000 dead. We should have stayed at home behind our borders where we would have been safe. We should have not repelled Saddam from Kuwait. We should not have enforced the UN mandated Iraq no-fly zone. We should not have stationed troops in Saudi Arabia to protect it from Saddam. We should have abandoned Israel to the totalitarian Arab regimes encircling it. We have so much for which to atone because of that 1953 coup in Iran. It was, after all, only 55 years ago. How can we have the temerity to oppose terrorist run Iran’s nuke weapons program? It is their right to threaten or even start Armageddon. When Iran has nuclear weapons then they will behave in a civilized manner and no longer perpetrate Hezbollah murder in Lebanon and Israel. How could I have been so blind? You are right, terrorism is the responsibility of America. Bully you have made me see the light. America is responsible for the fall of the World Trade Center, just like that Saudi sheik told Giuliani when he tried to make that donation. Thanks for clearing that up.

No, it's not AMERICA's fault. It's the fault of the short-sighted, protection of corporate profits and government tax revenues by governments in Europe and America since oil became the fuel for economic growth. Jesus, you're dense.

 

[Superlative]

But Muslim extremists are trying to drive the US out of the region, in part to topple US supported governments so they can take over.

This is funny, dont you mean they are trying to drive the US out of Iraq so they can have control over their own region?

Everyone seems to accept that we are there and its OK. Iraq does not belong to the US. the US is the invading force.