Who supports Ron Paul ?

Serbia · Post by **Serbia** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:05 pm

ignotus wrote:
Norse wrote:
Serbia wrote:
trevor33 wrote:
Serbia wrote:So what do media polls have to do with a poll on conquer club?

why have you get an israeli flag in the signature?

get a life.

Why do you care? It's my choice. What's your problem?

I'm, actually quite interested. Why do I care? morbid curiosity.

Please tell me.

He's 1/2 Jew and 1/4 Serbian. What a delightful combination.

Actually no.

I'm not Jewish at all. 1/4 Serbian, 1/4 Hungarian, the rest being a mix of English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh.

And I have an Israeli flag there out of choice. There was a time months ago when there were threads bashing Israel, attacking them over the Palestinian deal, and this was my way of showing support.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 7:20 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:Come, come jay....let's not get too involved in conspirrationism, it discredits the Cause.

You have met Jay before, right? Conspiracy theories are all he's got... They replaced Jesus back in August.

Mjinga · Post by **Mjinga** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 7:39 pm

If Ron Paul's elected, I'ma get me a Letter of Marque and Reprisal when he puts that bill through again. Just so I can have one.

DaGip · Post by **DaGip** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:08 pm

Mjinga wrote:If Ron Paul's elected, I'ma get me a Letter of Marque and Reprisal when he puts that bill through again. Just so I can have one.

Ron Paul will be assassinated when he gets in and then America will regress into utter rebellion!

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 3:31 am

Dancing Mustard wrote:Personally I'm glad that they've set up concentration camps specifically to cater for the chastisement of these NAMBLA chaps.

Why is Ron Paul so against it?

They aren't going to be used for NAMBLA. The government says they will be used to house immigrants (illegal?) In the case of a "mass exodus" because of a catastrophic event (terrorist attack), like a suitcase nuke. But I know it goes further than that, they will be used to house Americans who dare oppose the government.

DaGip · Post by **DaGip** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 4:36 am

jay_a2j wrote:
Dancing Mustard wrote:Personally I'm glad that they've set up concentration camps specifically to cater for the chastisement of these NAMBLA chaps.

Why is Ron Paul so against it?

They aren't going to be used for NAMBLA. The government says they will be used to house immigrants (illegal?) In the case of a "mass exodus" because of a catastrophic event (terrorist attack), like a suitcase nuke. But I know it goes further than that, they will be used to house Americans who dare oppose the government.

Like me and my closet full of suitcase NUKES! VOTE RON PAUL OR DIE! (a little blackmail might work...hehe.)

Jasmine_me · Post by **Jasmine_me** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:43 am

who's Ron Paul anyway? :roll:

DaGip · Post by **DaGip** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 12:53 pm

Jasmine_me wrote:who's Ron Paul anyway?

G00gle Ron Paul! :shock:

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 1:41 pm

Norse wrote:I see...he is only 3/4's the man i am.

And according to Virginian law, you're 3/5's the man I am.

luns101 · Post by **luns101** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 5:13 pm

Jasmine_me wrote:who's Ron Paul anyway?

apparently he's the only guy willing to stand up to THEM and the only person running for president who is for the Constitution. I'm not sure the other candidates even stand a chance since they have all gone on the record as being against it.

Tyr · Post by **Tyr** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 5:27 pm

unriggable wrote:
Norse wrote:I see...he is only 3/4's the man i am.

And according to Virginian law, you're 3/5's the man I am.

thats deep and slightly racist

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 6:22 pm

luns101 wrote:
Jasmine_me wrote:who's Ron Paul anyway?

apparently he's the only guy willing to stand up to THEM and the only person running for president who is for the Constitution. I'm not sure the other candidates even stand a chance since they have all gone on the record as being against it.

One of the funniest things I've read all day.

Tyr wrote:
unriggable wrote:
Norse wrote:I see...he is only 3/4's the man i am.

And according to Virginian law, you're 3/5's the man I am.

thats deep and slightly racist

If you don't have a sense of humor don't bother visiting this forum.

DaGip · Post by **DaGip** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 1:17 pm

Yes, I support Ron Paul.

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:15 pm

DaGip wrote:Yes, I support Ron Paul.

DaGip · Post by **DaGip** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:45 am

jay_a2j wrote:
DaGip wrote:Yes, I support Ron Paul.

Hey, jay. You got two hours to watch this video? Another good reason to vote for ROn Paul!

America: Freedom to Fascism

OnlyAmbrose · Post by **OnlyAmbrose** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:47 pm

luns101 wrote:
Jasmine_me wrote:who's Ron Paul anyway?

apparently he's the only guy willing to stand up to THEM and the only person running for president who is for the Constitution. I'm not sure the other candidates even stand a chance since they have all gone on the record as being against it.

See luns, I know you meant that comment to be witty, but the basic fact of the matter is that the other candidates do have a record of at least ignoring the constitution. Just one of many examples of this is Mitt Romney's answer to the question of whether he would invade Iran without a declaration of war:

"You sit down with your attorneys and they tell you what you have to do."

Whereas Ron Paul's answer:

"This idea of going to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don't you just open up the constitution and read it?! You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war!"

There are many such examples of this from many other candidates, but the idea behind Ron Paul being a "constitutionalist" is that he actually pays attention to the Constitution as opposed to ignoring it and assuming that EVERY possible action is covered in the elastic clause, as the Bush administration has been doing.

Napoleon Ier · Post by **Napoleon Ier** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:53 pm

I must admit the whole anti-war aspect of Paul's campaign greatly irritates me. I supposeit is a vote-winner, but I can'thelp but feel he should be supporing the Victory effort, now at long last bearing fruit. America does not need another Saigon-style humiliation.

OnlyAmbrose · Post by **OnlyAmbrose** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:00 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:I must admit the whole anti-war aspect of Paul's campaign greatly irritates me. I supposeit is a vote-winner, but I can'thelp but feel he should be supporing the Victory effort, now at long last bearing fruit. America does not need another Saigon-style humiliation.

It's not a vote-winner, it's a perfectly defensible and rational stance. If pride is the only thing holding us in Iraq, then that's a crummy reason to stay over there. The easy solution is to stay over there, no matter the cost; it's psychologically pleasing. It's far harder to do what Ronald Reagan did during his term - admit that you don't understand the culture or ways of the middle east and pull your troops out.

You can't impose a western culture or government upon a region so dominated by radical Islam. Democracy is a secular form of government, and it can't exist in such a region, and you can't expect centuries of religious culture to just disappear in a matter of years just because our troops are over there.

It's a war we never should have gotten into in the first place, and the longer we stay over there the more resources and lives are lost on a cause that cannot be won with bullets and Marines.

Napoleon Ier · Post by **Napoleon Ier** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:03 pm

The War is being won though. A few mnths ago I'd have agreed but the troop surge is working, and I feel lile a doubting Thomas.

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:14 pm

Why did we go to Iraq?

To dispose of the wmd's? (never found, didn't exist)

To take out Saddam and liberate the Iraqi people? (We did and if we stay until its "safe to leave", we will never leave...I believe the US plans to stay there indefinitely) And since when is liberating the Iraqi people part of the war on terror?

This war REEKS of ulterior motives! Bring the troops home.

Napoleon Ier · Post by **Napoleon Ier** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:30 pm

Look at what Clinton did after the embassy bombings, he just lobbed a few missiles at Afghanistan. Then, 9/11. I believe the right thing has been done, they took it onto those bastards' own turf. Now, whether or notyo originally approve of Iraq war, you must still recognise that the best thing is for the US to stay until Iraq is stable.

Norse · Post by **Norse** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:57 pm

unriggable wrote:
Norse wrote:I see...he is only 3/4's the man i am.

And according to Virginian law, you're 3/5's the man I am.

I'm intruiged.

jnd94 · Post by **jnd94** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:04 pm

I just saw Ron Paul on the Colbert Report. He sounds good. Voted against both the Irag War and Patriot Act. Too bad I can't vote yet.

Tyr · Post by **Tyr** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:51 pm

Norse wrote:
unriggable wrote:
Norse wrote:I see...he is only 3/4's the man i am.

And according to Virginian law, you're 3/5's the man I am.

I'm intruiged.

2/5s of him is where it counts though

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:55 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:I must admit the whole anti-war aspect of Paul's campaign greatly irritates me. I supposeit is a vote-winner, but I can'thelp but feel he should be supporing the Victory effort, now at long last bearing fruit. America does not need another Saigon-style humiliation.

Well because there's no reason in risking lives when diplomacy is an option, like Iran.

Who supports Ron Paul ?

Do you support Ron Paul ?