$4.2 million in one day!!
- Thread starter Danzig
- Start date
- Status
RedneckFur
New member
I get the feeling that if Ron Paul isnt elected president this year.... he will be in 4 more, provided we're still here to vote.
grymster2007
New member
Forever is…. well, quite a while.
Meanwhile, developing nuclear weapons is quite beyond the near-term capabilities of say Al Qaeda…. pretty tough to do much more than eat, sleep and jack your jaw from a cave. As for nations that we’d want to keep out of the club, a systematic bombing campaign, utilizing any number of precision-guided weapons at our disposal and directed at appropriate command, control, research and manufacturing assets, would certainly do the trick.
That help clear it up for ya?
Meanwhile, developing nuclear weapons is quite beyond the near-term capabilities of say Al Qaeda…. pretty tough to do much more than eat, sleep and jack your jaw from a cave. As for nations that we’d want to keep out of the club, a systematic bombing campaign, utilizing any number of precision-guided weapons at our disposal and directed at appropriate command, control, research and manufacturing assets, would certainly do the trick.
That help clear it up for ya?
DonR101395
New member
Are both of these Ron Paul? They look alike but I'm not sure.
Edit: I'm serious. Look at the facial features.
Edit: I'm serious. Look at the facial features.
Last edited:
grymster2007
New member
I’m an honest guy and I'm honest with myself. I like Ron Paul’s position on most issues. It’s great that he is a supporter of our constitution and I’m fundamentally a constitutionalist. I’m not trying to make enemies out of you supporters (gotta admit I’m kinda havin fun though
) but I just can’t bring myself to support him. He is on the right side of almost every issue..... but...He’s whiney! I can forgive that.
He comes off being…. well, kooky. I can forgive that.
He implied that we’re responsible for 911, but while I heard him say it, I don’t believe he really meant it and could probably forgive him knowing that.
However, while he is an ardent defender of the constitution, I don’t think that will do me a lot of good when the IRANIANS are BOMBING me with NUKES! The Russians are stabbing me in the back and the Chinese have me bent over a barrel and their only evidence of hospitality is to ask if I’d prefer sand over Vaseline!
So there!
Last edited:
No, I was asking for specific targets, not a bland generalization. The reason I ask is because, well, we bombed an aspirin factory. I'm a pilot and a big supporter of air power, but I don't think what you are suggesting is possible.
It's far from politically feasible. You say Ron Paul won't do it. Well, answer GoSlash's question: who will? If you have no answer, you have no objection to Ron Paul that makes him different from the rest.
If it's impossible to develop nukes if you're backward and working in a cave, explain North Korea. Where are all of their weapons research and development facilities, anyway? Where do the Iranians keep theirs? Even if Americans wanted to start bombing all the suspect sites in the world, and even if you could identify a candidate who will do that, finding out what is under a mountain by flying over it is darn difficult.
grymster2007
New member
I don’t actually like any candidate’s foreign policy, but I think Ron Paul is the only candidate that would stick his head in the sand while the Iranians build nukes. So even Hillary beats him in this regard. Now that’s sad!
I wasn’t dodging your question so much as trying to spare you the grief of having read that!
Hey, don't spare me any grief. I'd rather have unpalateable honesty than palateable dishonesty.
So what you're saying is that none of the candidates fulfill your foreign policy requirement, but you'd rather err on the side of adventeurism over non-interventionism.
Fair enough, but I obviously disagree on the grounds that it's the adventurism that drives behavior such as Iran's desire for nukes in the first place.
So what you're saying is that none of the candidates fulfill your foreign policy requirement, but you'd rather err on the side of adventeurism over non-interventionism.
Fair enough, but I obviously disagree on the grounds that it's the adventurism that drives behavior such as Iran's desire for nukes in the first place.
The Tourist
Moderator
I'm not sure that concerns like "dislike" or "uncertainty" are clear signs of bashing. In fact, considering I voted for Bush and not Clinton doesn't mean I bashed Clinton, it simply means that I preferred Bush.
And let's be clear here. Elections and the politics that follows is not regulated simply by a candidate's stand on various campaign planks.
For example, look at how many stances Clinton professed despite the fact that few of them passed into law. He used rhetoric to garner support just by saying he would support a bill. Lots of folks fell for the tactic.
When I support a candidate, obviously I look at his stance, the party's planks and his voting record, if one exists. Clearly, I'm not going to get 100% of the things I believe in.
For example, my guy might vote down a bill because the opposition "Christmas treed" it with conditions I find objectionable.
Another aspect is how well a candidate works and plays with others.
Reagan was complimented on how he communicated his stances to the public, the opposition and the American people. That's a very important talent.
For me, right now as we speak, RP does not have all of the aspects I need to pull the lever. Guliani was never my guy. My love for Thompson is waning because he seems too slow to make a commitment to run at all. If his status allowed him to run, I must say even Schwarzenegger baffles me. With some of his leftist stances, California is awash with financial and grassroots problems.
But then, the vote is one year away.
And let's be clear here. Elections and the politics that follows is not regulated simply by a candidate's stand on various campaign planks.
For example, look at how many stances Clinton professed despite the fact that few of them passed into law. He used rhetoric to garner support just by saying he would support a bill. Lots of folks fell for the tactic.
When I support a candidate, obviously I look at his stance, the party's planks and his voting record, if one exists. Clearly, I'm not going to get 100% of the things I believe in.
For example, my guy might vote down a bill because the opposition "Christmas treed" it with conditions I find objectionable.
Another aspect is how well a candidate works and plays with others.
Reagan was complimented on how he communicated his stances to the public, the opposition and the American people. That's a very important talent.
For me, right now as we speak, RP does not have all of the aspects I need to pull the lever. Guliani was never my guy. My love for Thompson is waning because he seems too slow to make a commitment to run at all. If his status allowed him to run, I must say even Schwarzenegger baffles me. With some of his leftist stances, California is awash with financial and grassroots problems.
But then, the vote is one year away.
Or possibly it is the Republicans being infected with Fox News saying that Iraq and Iran are outside our door waiting for the perfect minute to kill us all? It's non-sense. They don't hate our "freedom" or our religion, they hate the fact that we've been messing around in their territory since the 1960's. Think about it. Before the 1960's there was no threat to the US from Muslim nations. Once we got there, guess what...
I'd rather go into a fight with 5 guys on my side, and 3 on their side. Right now we're in a fight with 1 on our side, and 10 on their side. The outcome doesn't seem too good, and I know if there's a draft I'm skipping it and most people I know will be skipping it.
grymster2007
New member
Even if I did know that, I wouldn’t be able to tell you.
… and that is relevant how?
Meanwhile the confusion still reigns.
Remember this?
I said developing nuclear weapons is quite beyond the capabilities of terrorists. It is a hugely expensive undertaking for which they have not the money, infrastructure, talent or technology to accomplish. No need to prevent them from doing something they are not capable of.
As for this…
The North Koreans would not have had the capability to produce nukes without above-ground assets. The Iranians have the same problem and we could successfully destroy those assets with air power. Don’t forget, Japan capitulated without US soldiers having to invade their mainland and at least near the end, our success was attributable in large part to air power.
I would say that's absolutely wrong. The production of a single stage fission bomb is easily accomplished. It's the materials that are hard to come by (which, through spectral analysis can be traced back to the country of origin and who we would have legal grounds for retaliation should the worst ever occur).
To that end, the Iranians aren't a threat to arm terrorists with nukes any more than North Korea. They're not that stupid.
The real threat is Pakistan, which has a nuclear arsenal, a Constitutional crisis, and a populace that considers Osama Bin Laden the most popular political figure in the country.
Things like that don't happen in a vacuum.
We as Americans need to come off this fantasy-land delusion that we're white knights in gleaming armor astride a majestic white stallion, championing the cause of liberty and justice throughout the world.
We may be that sometimes, in some places, but we most assuredly have not been, over the decades, in the Middle East.
We used those nations as tools, as pawns, in the Cold War as bulwarks against Soviet expansionism. We tolerated, installed, and supported thugs, tyrants, brutally repressive monarchs, and criminals as long as they pledged fealty to us and against the Soviets. And straight to hell with the ordinary citizens of those nations, for all we cared.
The CIA orchestrated the overthrow of the democratic government of Iran, in favor of the Shah, who promptly demolished constitutional limits on his power and converted himself into an absolute monarch while jetting over to visit the White House every so often. When he was finally overthrown, we protected him and spirited him out of the country, instead of allowing the Iranians to hang him as he so richly deserved, and this was followed shortly thereafter by the storming of the US Embassy in Tehran.
Then, we backed Saddam in the bloodbath eight-year proxy war against Iran - an example of "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" thinking - at a cost of anywhere from 900,000 to one and a quarter million Iranian and Iraqi lives, a hundred thousand or more ending in excruciating agony as a result of chemical weaponry, with the help of covert CIA intelligence channels supplying satellite reconnaissance to the Iraqi army.
The term "blowback" is a well-understood piece of jargon in the lexicon of military action and international relations.
It's too bad that some people are so blinded by the gleam of shining armor in their mind's eye that they can't see the reality that Ron Paul has come to understand as a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee.
grymster2007
New member
Stop looking at the diagram on Wiki! It’s not that simple. There are serious technological hurdles to overcome before making a successful nuke.
The idiots in the cave over there can’t run a lathe, a calculator, a computer, have no clue what physics means and can’t spell their own name; most of which are prerequisites to making a bomb. They pose zero threat for making a fission bomb in the next 100 years.
Dirty bomb…. maybe. But flinging a ¼ lb of uranium over a half block, while unpleasant, would not be the end of the world.
Yup.... and some of us should start looking someplace other than the Daily KOS for our information.
Manedwolf,
Could you please wade in with your Kool-Aid graphic? In fact, please do so every three posts or so.
Thanks.
Last edited:
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
Rather than delete the last few posts, I'm just going to lock this thread for veering from the topic. There's some good information and opinion here, but it doesn't belong in a thread about fund-raising.
Closed.
Closed.
- Status