Scathing ad released by Ron Paul about Gingrich:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY[/youtube]
But am I alone here in asking why no one is going after Romney? Bachmann gets hot, the media and her competitors hack away. Perry gets hot, and they hack away. Cain gets hot….bam! Now we’re on to Gingrich but who the hell is hacking away at Romney? Mighty curious.
As for the ad itself, it’s definitely information people should mull over before pulling the lever for Newt but I’m with Ace’s rant here (always long winded but well worth the read)
….our choices suck:
…We don’t have a Pure Conservative in the race. (Possibly the unelectable Bachmann, but only because she’s only been in office since shortly before the outbreak of the Tea Party, and really has never been asked to do anything except play to the Tea Party. And, meanwhile, she and her husband’s clinics scooped up all the federal and state money they could.)
I guess I don’t have a point except to say I really don’t think it is useful or true to debate these guys in terms of “The True Conservative I Can Get Behind.”
None of them are that. None. So the Quest for the Pure True Conservative can and should end, and we should stop talking about such nonsense and start talking, seriously, about the imperfect candidates we have.
Gingrich would be an okay imperfect candidate. So, I guess, would Romney.
But this idea that someone here must be a True Conservative, because, gosh, someonemust be, is just plain wrong.
Ok, I’m not completely with Ace here since I don’t think Romney is an okay imperfect candidate. If it’s Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I’m probably sitting home since it isn’t a choice. Romney is OLite, plain and simple. And don’t even bring up Ron Paul because I would rather get punched in the testicles than vote for that nutcase.
So where does that leave us?
Screwed.
See author page
@MataHarley:
The country has gone so far left not even Reagan could get elected. “Too extreme” they’d say.
@Hard Right:
Woah! Pot, meet the kettle.
The filter ate my post. Mata just pointed out your partisan dishonesty again. That is something I find is all too common in Ron Paul cultists. Ron doesn’t fit the fantasy they have created and they get upset with those of us who point it out.
@MataHarley:
Look Mata, the facts are the facts, now you and I may disagree on the relevance of those facts and that is fine. To me the fact that RP has received 10x the military donations of any other Republican candidate is a valid talking point. But I don’t just base my opinion that one fact, I also correspond with some of those I served with, I also participate on some forums dedicated to my old unit and to military veterans, and on those forums RP has the most support of any candidate.
Now you can argue that the amount of donations going to RP from the military is to small to be indicative of wide spread support, but I can argue the exact opposite based on the same information and I believe that my argument is more intellectually honest than yours is.
@MataHarley: ‘200-500 people is not an indication of support by 2.4 million military employed personnel for any individual candidate.. And only the most desperate would attempt to claim otherwise. Personally, I find it a despicable campaign talking point.‘
I don’t think anyone has said that this means all of the military somehow supports Ron Paul. I’m also not sure why you regard it as despicable to mention the military donations; obviously, when one of the lines of attack against Paul is that he’s some sort of antimilitary peacenik, this (along with his own service) offer some defense. If it also leads people to make associations and assumptions, that would make it, uh – pretty much like any other ad. ‘Factually correct’ is about as much as I would hope for from any ad, let alone a political one.
You still haven’t explained what evidence you have for these donors being a skewed sample of military political sentiment. Yes, of course it’s possible that there are only ten thousand RP supporters in the entire military, and it just happens that a disproportionate number of them donated. But what support is there for this proposal besides your own ideas about what people in the military think?
Poppa T most certainly did and if you think that 200-500 people is an accurate sample to say what the majority believes, then you are just another RP fanboy.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Hi there Bees, you know I ran across a couple of stories that show just how long we have been engaged in these undeclared, unconstitutional wars. These two Army Ranger’s were recently KIA, Sgt. First Class Kristoffer B. Domeij, 29, was killed on his 14th tour. Take a long hard look at that soldiers eyes and imagine what he had seen in his young life.
Staff Sgt. Jared Hagemann took his own life after 8 combat deployments. Can you imagine making 3 or 4 combat tours in those hell holes? Our young men are being asked to perpetually be at war! No servicemen in WWII, Vietnam, Korea not any previous war were asked to sacrifice so much of themselves. We are now losing more Soldiers and Marines to suicide than to combat. THIS INSANITY MUST STOP! There is only one candidate who has a chance to stop it.
Poppa T, you said:
Actually… no. It doesn’t tell us squat about how “the military” perceives Ron Paul. What it does tell us is that he has support from 200-500 individuals – unknown who and where they are, or what they do. Nothing more. You cannot tell me it is “intellectually honest” to apply that paintbrush to “the military” in general based on that.
I look at 200-500 individual donations and see it for what it is… 200-500 donations from supporters. I expand it no further than that with assumptions. So who is being “intellectually honest” here really?
I’m not sure why you think it’s me that is putting forth proposals about “what people in the military think”, bbart. Sorry to say but that accusation and act belongs to the Ron Paul supporters alone. And this is donations, not a “poll” or a “sample”.
I don’t know how many times I have to repeat the simple premise that 200-500 individuals donating to Ron Paul means nothing more, or less, that 200-500 military employed that support Ron Paul. Unlike you, Poppa T or other Ron Paul supporters, as I said I don’t expand that with assumptions.
Therefore there is no need for me to argue that 2.4 million military personnel, minus 200-500 or so, do or do not support Ron Paul. This is what I mean about wasting time, debating with libertarian types. They tenaciously wrap their minds around tangents, and argue abstracts endlessly.
In this case, I just find it dishonest to present these individual supporters as some sort of blanket endorsement from “the military” in general for your chosen candidate. That’s it… if you can’t decipher it as being anything more than that simple observation, I can’t help you.
This is an interesting statement, and one that… as a side bar.. came up in an older thread about the New Face of Libya. In the course of some debates there, I ran across a CRS study from Feb 2010 titled “American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics”. On pg 11 of that 30 pg study is a breakdown of active duty military causes of death between 1980 and 2008… including a category called “self-inflicted”. Probably a kinder word than suicide, but still translates tragically to the same.
The Dems have put forth that the military suicide statistics have been increasing. Yet if you look at the study, the suicide rate has not statistically varied much in absolute numbers (as opposed to a percentage of total active duty personnel) since 1980.
And if you want to argue that there are more dying of suicide than from hostile action, then it can also be said that for the years that had no military conflicts and hostile action deaths, that holds true for the same.
I agree that even a single loss of one of our military to suicide is heartbreaking. Yet annually, for those 28 years, the majority of the years see at least 200-285 soldiers take their own lives. The only years that were under 200 (ranging from 139 to 195, to be exact) were the years of 1995 thru 2002, and one more year in 2005. Considering that the years of 1995 thru 2002 had 22 deaths due to hostile action, it can also be argued that we also lost more soldiers to suicide than combat in those years too.
I don’t know what the stats are from 2008 to now. AfPAK has had a particularly high year of casualties for our forces and iCasualties puts US deaths this year at 402. They also have the US casualties published with date, name, rank and unit.
Unless the suicide rate has almost doubled from the historic norm, I doubt the statement that suicides pass hostile action deaths at this moment. But considering the history, the ratio of suicides to hostile combat deaths is a somewhat irrelevant argument to use, merely to protest the existence of an active US combat theater.
For in fact, if we are not at war at all, as we’ve been at times in the past, the same remains true… we are losing more to suicide than to combat.
Mata check these out, if you so desire…
http://www.congress.org/news/2011/01/24/more_troops_lost_to_suicide
http://iava.org/blog/understanding-why-end-military-suicide
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/army-suicides-set-record-in-july/2011/08/12/gIQAfbGlBJ_story.html
The Congress.org has an overall statistic of 381 suicides by active-duty personnel reported in 2009. That gives us one more year to add to the CRS study I linked. They didn’t give a figure for 2010, but said it was below 462. Both are an increase in suicides over 2008 and prior. Prior to these last two years, the highest on the CRS record was 285 in 1988.
But we here at FA, after the loss of Chris G, are very conscious of PTSD as one reason for suicides… altho I suspect not the only reason. As I said, it’s just a heartbreaking thing to see a warrior take his own life, for any reason.
But again, the argument you present doesn’t make sense as to relevance. If those lost to combat is zero in any given year (like 1992-95 and 1996 to 2000), and even a low rate of 150 are lost to suicide, the “losing more to suicide than combat” statement still remains true. So ending all combat is irrelevant to that ratio. The only improvement is we aren’t losing them both to suicide *and* combat.
So I’m baffled as to what point you want to make, and most especially how this is supposed to relate to wars of which you don’t approve? Obviously we’d all love zero combat deaths, and zero suicides. But I don’t see that happening either.
Oddly enough, what stunned me more than the history of suicides were the amount of active duty soldiers who were the victims of homicide. From 1980 to 1983, the numbers were 115 to 174. Thank heavens that murder of soldiers has gone down since that time. The lowest numbers are between 2003 and 2008, ranging from 43 to 52 annually. What nutcase runs around murdering soldiers?
What can Ron Paul do to get the Iowa lead in four weeks?
With Cain’s decision to suspend his campaign — which he announced on Saturday — a reallocation of his supporters’ second-choice picks puts Gingrich ahead of the Iowa horse race with 28 percent; Paul and Romney are tied at 19 percent; and Perry lands at 10 percent. (The NBC-Marist polls were conducted before Cain suspended his campaign.)
Among all Republican respondents in Iowa, the breakdown is Gingrich with 25 percent, Romney at 18 percent and Paul at 16 percent.
Among Iowa Republicans identifying with the Tea Party — who make up about half of all likely caucus-goers — Gingrich leads Romney, 32 percent to 11 percent.
The Iowa NBC-Marist survey was conducted Nov. 27-29 of 2,896 registered voters (margin of error of plus-minus 1.8 percentage points) 916 Republicans (plus-minus 3.2 percentage points) and 425 likely GOP caucus-goers (plus-minus 4.8 percentage points.
Read the NBC News-Marist poll Iowa Annotated Questionnaire
See, as far as I can tell, Ron Paul has already played every card in his hand.
He has nothing new.
If a voter was not for him by now, why would one choose him in the coming weeks?
How this tangent was arrived at I don’t even want to know.
But at the outset of the wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq, I took the opportunity to become pen pals with a soldier.
He was a local man, a Marine Sgt.
Later he was involved in the rescue of a female soldier, Jessica Lynch.
But later still, he came home on leave.
There was a big party.
An outdoor BBQ with many guests.
A gang banger came by and lifted his weapon over the fence, shooting it until it was empty.
Sgt Ung was among those shot.
He died.
More here:
http://khmer.cc/community/t.c?b=12&t=11425
That’s the kind of nutcase Mata.
It was a rhetorical question, Nan G. Obviously anyone who murders is a “nutcase”…. soldiers or civilians. In the specific you provided, it wasn’t necessarily targeting a soldier specifically, but certainly would fit into the “homicide” statistics.
As to how the subject was raised, it was the tangents INRE suicides vs combat deaths – a specter raised by Poppa T as, I guess, a reason to withdraw from all foreign bases and combat activity. Still don’t have a clue how that’s relevant. After all, if we’re discussing PTSD, ending the war immediately as of tomorrow does not instantly erase the stress and trauma already experienced by our warriors.
But since I’d already been down this road before in the New Face of Libya thread a while ago, I was again amazed how how high the homicide figures were for our military… especially during the Reagan years. As of 2008, they were pretty low.
But there is another overview that perhaps bears throwing out for fodder here. The suicide rates under the Bush years… again, long deployments, high stress and trauma, and vicious battlefields… were pretty much par for the historical course. From 2003 to 2008 they ranged from a low of 234 to a high of 289. Yet in 2009, according to Poppa T’s links, they jumped to 381.
Now that’s interesting… Iraq’s combat activity for US soldiers was winding down as they transferred the bulk of combat endeavors to the Iraqi soldiers. With the SOFA in place, and the Iraqis stepping up to the plate, those serving in Iraq could see the end in sight.
So that leaves Afghanistan. And the new POTUS was busy wanting to cut the military, and shifting soldiers from the Iraq theater to the Af/PAK theater.
So was the election, and subsequent half hearted “surge” by Obama (shorting troops for the mission) for Afghanistan, this disappointing for US soldiers, and the reason for the jump in suicides since Obama was elected? Or just a bizarre coincidence it happened with the change of CiC command?
All we can do is speculate. But dang… so suspicious being as they were very long grueling wars under Bush, yet the suicide rate did not jump significantly as compared to historic norms.
Poppa_T
29 YEARS OLD AND 19 DEPLOYMENTS,
SOMETHING VERY WRONG IN THERE,
those SOLDIERS are CERTAINLY being used in a plan to exterminate them,
the MUSLIM WAY OF THEIR SUICIDE BOMBING BELT CARRIERS,
OBAMA LEAVE THE BORDERS OPEN, AND ILLEGALS ARE REPLACING THE MILITARY in this COUNTRY,
THOSE TRUE AMERICANS, THE BRAVEST, ARE CONDEMN TO SPEND THEIR LIFE AWAY FROM THEIR FAMILY, IN MULTIPLE RECALLS, WHICH OBVIOUSLY KILL THEM,
MOSTLY WITH EIDS, THAT IS HORRIBLE TO TREAT THE BRAVEST AMERICANS THIS WAY,
THOSE LANDS SHOULD BE BLASTS BEFORE THEY SET FOOT ON IT,
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE FROM THE FIRST TIME ONE EXPLODED,
and after all those years nothing has been done at this time
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THE GOVERNMENT, while SOLDIERS RETURN TO MEET THEIR ODDS, JUST THE FACT OF SO MANY SOLDIERS KILL THEMSELVES TELL OF WHAT THEY PREFER TO DIE FROM THEIR OWN WEAPON AFTER SEEING A BUDDY DIE FROM EID, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
PTSD, NOWAY, THEY ARE SANE AND BRIGHT AND AWARE OF WHAT IS WAITING UNDER THEIR FEET AND REFUSE THAT KIND OF DEATH,
THEIR TRAUMA MUST BE SO TERRIBLE SILENTLY DIGGING IN THEIR GUTS,
WHILE OBAMA WELCOME REPLACEMENT COMING IN THIS COUNTRY ILLEGALY FROM THE BORDERS.HE WANT TO GIVE THEM AMNESTY,
SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE TO SAVE THE BRAVES, IF THEY HAVE TO FIGHT THEY MUST BOMB THE GROUND ALL OVER BEFORE THEY ARE ALOUD TO MOVE, THE WHOLE LAND MUST BE DONE TO PROTECT THE TROOPS, THEY ARE THE TREASURES OF AMERICA,
OR THEY SHOULD COME BACK AT ONCE, THIS AFGHANISTAN IS NOT FOUGHT AS A WAR ANYMORE IT IS A MAJOR SLAUGHTER HOUSE, WHO IS PROTECTING THE PROTECTORS OF THIS NATION?
BLAST THE WHOLE LAND BY AIR OR ANYTHING TO OPEN THE GROUND BARE, TO SEE, AND SAVE THE BRAVES OF AMERICA,
here I have a great idea, I must have stole it from another PRESIDENT past,
how about a warning to the enemies if one AMERICAN SOLDIER find an EID BURIED before stepping on it,
we will bomb 20milles around the eid, no matter who live there,
and if one soldier get hit, it will be 50 milles around the EID REGARDLESS OF WHO LIVES IN THAT CIRCLE,
HOW COME OBAMA DID NOT MADE THAT KIND OF DEAL WITH THE ENNEMIE HE WANT TO HAVE TALK WITH.
YOU CAN ADD MORE MILLES, AS YOU GO.
and calculate the soldiers who where previously hit and blast 5 milles around for each one to begin with
that would bring instant results, and remake the confidence of the soldiers telling them someone is there for them.
and get the AIR FORCE ON THE AIR TO BOMB IT
@Poppa_T: Ron Paul may do well in Iowa, lord knows a million plus dollars of ads ought to buy you something.
As for the names assigned to RP supporters, I would have to say that in the majority of the cases, at least in my experience, the RP supporters bring it on themselves.
You said:
Smaller government? Like when he stuffs pork into bills he knows will pass, but he can safely vote against so that he can brag about how he never votes for said pork?
You said:
So it would be the fault of the Jewish people? Does this mean that you don’t think his anti-semitism is wrong?
How about his support by racists?
Neo-Nazi Don Black contributed to RP’s campaign, and when the Lone Star Times confronted his campaign, asking if they intended to return the donations, they refused to return the donations.
RP also has employed racists in his campaigns:
Ron Paul is on record as being anti-semetic and pro-Hamas. From Ron Paul’s own website:
So, you see I have plenty of reasons why I do not care for Ron Paul. Nothing I wrote in this comment is untrue or even an exaggeration. If you want to attack me, go ahead but it won’t change the facts I have presented.
anticsrocks
hi,
I thought this might be interesting to know, a NEWS FLASH; BOND MARKET PRESSURES FOR.
GERMANY AND FRANCE ARE FACING A DOWNGRADE watch TO HAPPEN BETWEEN THE NEXT 90 DAYS,
ALSO FOR AUSTRIA LUXEMBOURG NEDERLAND AND FINLAND,
if some are buying in those market
it’s just came.
bye
Good Morning Mata, I think you missed the point of my post to bees, the point being that our service men and women are being stressed in ways not asked of previous generations. Now I may have been wrong concerning total suicides v. combat deaths but one of the salient points of the congress.org article was that the services don’t uniformly record suicides as it said “the Air Force and Marine Corps do not include any non-mobilized reservists in their posted numbers. What’s more, none of the services count suicides that occur among a class of reservists known as the Individual Ready Reserve” so some of those who commit suicide are not counted.
But more important is this and this the suicide rates have been climbing steadily and as my previous link to WaPo showed this past June set a new record, 32 deaths in one month!
The Congress.org article claims suicides have exceeded combat deaths for two years in a row that was my source but as they say “The reasons are complicated and the accounting uncertain — for instance, should returning soldiers who take their own lives after being mustered out be included?”once again if I was wrong I apologize, but the point of my comment was that a decade of war is more than enough. The suicide rate for the military has for the first time since Vietnam (and we know how that turned out) exceeded that of the civilian population and I think that the longer we remain at war the worse it will get. I don’t want to lose my nephew or any more friends to an unwinable war on terrorism, and I’m sure you don’t either.
@anticsrocks:
Hi antics, I’m sorry but I don’t agree as to the name calling. Saying that RP supporters “bring it on themselves” is kinda like saying “she was asking to get raped” or “he made me so mad I had to hit him” I don’t buy it, if you don’t have the self-discipline to control your remarks or actions at least man up and admit it, don’t blame it on someone else.
I thought I had already addressed the “pork” thing, but how do you assume that I blame the Jewish people for the actions of the Republican Jewish Coalition? I don’t blame Muslims for the acts of Al Quada, I don’t blame President Obama because the Black Panthers supported him and I don’t blame Ron Paul because some other hate group supports him. Where does this line of reasoning come from? As far as I can tell RP’s never asked us to take the money we send Israel and give it to Hamas instead, did he? No I think he said “let’s stay out of this mess” to paraphrase him. How you can take his position of neutrality and accuse him of being an anti-Semite flabbergasts me.
I really expected better of those on this site.
Maybe because RP refuses to condemn or even take a stand stand against the anti-semites and neo-nazis that support him. Plus, he seems to be something of a Truther himself. Then there were his news letters. Full of conspiracy theories, racism, and anti-semitism. He weakly tried to say he didn’t know what was being printed in it. What a crock. RP plays the gullible for fools and they seem to love him for it.
I don’t think I missed the point you were trying to make, Poppa T. But it’s possible. I see you linking the rise in the suicide rates (ironically since Obama took office) with wars that you either believe are unwinnable, or did not support… then using that as a reason to withdraw. As you now see, military suicides – whether at war or not – have a history.
While it’s true that when you expose young men and women to the horrors of war, a percentage of them will indeed become dangerously depressed. This doesn’t mean that some will become that way even if never exposed to combat.
But first, I really need to address your first statement about stress not demanded of other generations. Naturally one conjures up WWII as one example of that being false. Not to mention the high loss of lives of those generations that occurred. Now if that is more palatable because the duration was shorter, then you can consider Vietnam… which spanned 13 years from when Kennedy first sent in US troops in ’61, and the last did not leave until ’75.
Then there is Korea… only three years of combat, and yet falls 4th with the highest amount of combat deaths (leaving out our Civil War, of course) after WWII, WWI and Vietnam.
Unlike the World Wars, or Korea, our troops in Vietman did not face enemies with uniforms in all cases, and Charley was not easily identified. Add to that, our troops were not trained in jungle guerrilla warfare. This created a new kind of stress on the US military combat units, and those that serviced them. Yet the suicide rates of active duty military did not fluctuate measurably.
Now we have a new style of warfare that, like Vietnam, shares the difficulty of identifying the enemy, and takes place in “urban” (if you can call Afghan villages urban) settings. And of course, now we have the int’l community breathing down the necks of our military – not the enemy – for ROEs. I’d say that while stress is prolific in all wars, it is even more so since we no longer seem to fight a State and their military, and and all engagements are now a delicate tiptoe of political correct ways to wage war.
Sometimes you have to wonder if some consider wars (like Afghanistan) unwinnable merely because our hands constantly remain tied behind our backs, and we are subject to standards the enemy is not. I’m sure that it must frustrate the fighting troops, seeing situations where they are not allowed to act in a military responsive manner because of these rules.
So I disagree that this generation of warriors is subject to stress and combat not asked of previous generations. Different conditions and different rules, yes. But certainly the nation has put our military into equally stressful conditions prior to this.
As far as the suicide rate of military surpassing that of civilian. Not sure how one can get to this without truly manipulating numbers. And even tho we are dealing with inconsistent ways to document military deaths, it would seem that isn’t possible.
According to the source links in this compilation (most dated anywhere from 2004-2007), civilian suicides are the 11th leading cause of death, with about 30,000 deaths annually (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 2007). According to the National Mental Health Association (2006), there are 500,000 unsuccessful suicide attempts in the U.S. every year.
Needless to say, these numbers dwarf even the 381 documented suicides for the military in 2009, up almost 100 more than the highest recorded number in 1988. (And we weren’t engage in active combat theaters in 1988.)
However, if you want to view the statistics as raw and loosely defined percentages, then it can be said that military suicides have surpassed civilian as an “x” number per 100,000. This Examiner participant attempts that argument, by noting that a statistic of 10 out of 100,000 warriors committing suicide between 2001 and 2008 had jumped to 20 out 100,000 in 2009.
However she does not state the civilian statistics that is supposed to surpass. I argue that it would be difficult to call it an apples to apples comparison. For military, there are defined age groups of adults, and exposure to more stressful working conditions. For civilian, she is likely comparing to the entire population of the US. Not exactly a scientific measure and claim between like kind groups. So without that baseline, I’m not seeing that as a statement anyone can make definitively.
According to the same source I linked above, US military deaths by suicide ranks second as the leading cause of death, behind accidents. (i.e. car crashes, etc) According to the DOD in 2005, the reported average suicide rate was 11.4 per 100,000 (ranging from 8.9 for the Air Force to 13.7 for the Army).
While these are still heartbreakingly high for some of America’s finest, again I will have to say again that, up until 2009, suicide in our military isn’t unusual, nor were the statistics exceedingly out of the norm… whether we are in combat or not. So to use the suicide rates as a reason to protest wars you disagree with seems to be a less credible argument than simply saying… as is your right.. that you don’t like particular wars.
I would be most curious about is just why there was a notable increase beginning in 2009. First of all, Iraq was winding down after the success of the 2007 surge, and more combat duties were being transferred to the Iraqis.
Afghanistan, always problematic, and more so after NATO/ISAF took charge of the nation’s security in the summer of 2006, has had many long deployments since US troops entry in 2002. But the suicide rate during the Bush CiC years still remained within historical norms.
So why the jump?
Was it that they viewed this CiC as an ineffective leader? After all, he didn’t allow them to go forward significantly, since he was short changing them on troop/equipment requests. And simultaneously, he was advertising an end date. Certainly appears to be a waste of time and lives under these contradicting leadership policies.
Was it because he transferred them from Iraq, and then sent them to Afghanistan, while not providing the tools to win that Bush did in Iraq?
Or is it that the fiscal woes back home also gave them little hope of a fruitful life, post service terms?
There must be some reason for that jump. And it’s not necessarily related to long deployments that had already been going on.. nor the longest war on record… or stress and demands not asked of prior generations.
MATA, there also is the fact, of EIDS KILLINGS THE TROOPS IN A MOST ATROCIOUS MANNER KNOWN,
AND OBSERVED OFTEN BY TROOPS BEING RIGHT CLOSE TO THE ONE BEING EXPLODED ENDING IN MULTIPLE PARTS OF BODY SCATTERED AROUND RIGHT UNDER THEIR HORRIFIED EYES WHILE MOVING ON, IS ALSO BEING AWARE OF THE MINIMUM ATTENTION CENTERED TO FIND A WAY TO SOLVE THE INCREASING HAPPENING OF IT WITH MUSCLE ACTIONS TARGETING THE ENEMIES,
AND THE SAME SOLDIER HAVING NOT FORGOTTEN THE VISION OF THE HORROR, TAKE NOTE OF THE UNBALANCES FAVORING THE ENEMIES, AND THE SAME SOLDIER IS IN A MIND BOGLING THOUGHTS THAT HE IS AS THE BOTTOM OF THE PROTECTION LADDER ON 2 FRONTS, THE GOVERNMENT CIVILLIENS,
AS WELL AS THE INCAPACITATED MILITARIES LEADERSSHIP, BECAUSE OF THEIR OATH TO OBEY, TO NOT FIGHT FOR HIM TO COME BACK ALIVE AND ALL IN ONE PART TO HIS LOVING FAMILY AT THE END OF HIS WAR, WHICH
KEEP RECALLING HIM BACK AGAIN AND AGAIN WITH FINANCIAL GAINES PROMISES,
WHICH END IF HE DIE OVER A EID EXPLOSION;
ARE ALL THOSE RESPONSIBLE TO CONTINUE THIS WAR IN THE SAME ROE,
FORGETTING THE HUMAN FACTOR OF THE TROOPS THEY MUST LOOK AT AS A FIRST PROTECTIVE PRIORITY, ARE THEY FORGETTING THAT THOSE ARE NOT ROBOTS IN A VIDEO GAME MACHINE,,
BUT INTELLIGENT AND THINKING INDIVIDUALS AT THE SITE CLOSEST THAN ANYONE ELSE TO THE WAR THEY ARE FIGHTING WITH ALL THEIR MIGHT, AND YET DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO
BE HURT IN THEIR SOUL, AND ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EXPRESS PUBLICLY THEIR FEELING AND THEIR IDEAS ON HOW TO STOP THE CARNAGE EITHER WAY,
BY EXTERMINATING IT OR GET OUT OF THE WAY BEFORE THEY DIE
BYE
@Poppa_T: Okay, you don’t blame all Jews for a decision that Republican Jewish Coalition makes. Your comment was vague enough to give you wiggle room on this one.
Fine.
But you can deny Ron Paul’s racism if you choose. I don’t.
From Ron Paul’s official newsletter, circa 1992, emphasis mine:
As to his anti-semetic quote I attributed to him in my above post, you completely ignored the part where he opposed branding Hamas a terrorist organization. Let me educate you on Hamas.
From the Hamas charter, emphasis mine:
Ron Paul has refused to condemn Hamas, even going so far as to blame Israel for the existence of Hamas, much like he blames the United States for 9/11.
No, you can have Ron Paul, Poppa T.
You claim that RP is consistent. Well, the following are excerpts from an excellent piece on the inconsistencies of Ron Paul:
Hi there Mata and Hard Right, boy Ron Paul sure does scare you two to death doesn’t he. HR, I love your sources a hard line liberal and and devout Neo-Con Republican. Looking back on previous articles written by both your sources one can easily discern which way the wind blows with those two and frankly neither one of them is anyone you would take seriously if they didn’t happen to agree with you on Ron Paul. By the way I’m sure you know that “Semites” are not just Jews? While the term “Anti-Semite” is overwhelmingly used to refer to an Anti-Jewish attitude it can and has been used to accurately describe those that are anti-Arab. As for me I don’t hate anyone, I got no time to waste on that.
Mata, it is generally acknowledged that the Vietnam war lasted 10 years not 13, yes we had “advisers” there for much longer but the actual shooting war was just 10 years. Also you’re comparing apples and oranges because we also had the draft then as well. Most Soldiers and Marines in Vietnam were draftees and served just one year long Tour of Duty and became “short timers” once they hit that 180 day mark, though several did serve three or four at most. With the all volunteer force we currently have multiple Tour’s of Duty are the norm rather than the exception. I stand by my statement.
Ah there we go Poppa-T. When confronted with facts you are unable to refute, you just pretend they aren’t facts and attack the sources. Typical ronulan cultist. What scares me is how loony and easily led people like you are. As I said, you are very much like a liberal-unable to face reality. Good thing RP will be going nowhere.
I also like how you deliberately avoided the FACTS AnticsRocks presented to you. This is SOP for paultards. He is a phony and you are an unbalanced fool for following him.
@Poppa_T, you must be blinded by your devotion if you think you read any “fear” of Ron Paul in my comments above. I have merely stated that I think a guy who believes the nation only needs a few good submarines for protection, and wants to prosecute the global war against the Islamic jihad movements with mercenaries… er, “privateers”… is unfit to be CiC.
That’s my personal opinion, and doesn’t bring “fear” into the equation. Ron Paul is the GOPs equivalent to the Dem’s Dennis Kucinich… except not *quite* as far out there as Denny boy is.
This isn’t Ron Paul’s first dive at the Oval Office. It’s been a regular endeavor with him for quite some time. And he’ll get no farther than he is now. It’s always the same response …. good on fiscal, a loon on the rest. He’s not one to fear. He just simply is irrelevant. Just as is Trump, Huntsman and Santorum.
What I do fear is the fast track to Euro-socialism which, if anyone would pay attention, has been ahead of us in the fiscal toilet bowl. Everyone is all a’twitter that the US is still viewed as the place to invest. Not because we’re doing so good, but because compared to Europe, we look good. But there, in the future, go we. The tables will flip because the Euro nations will have balanced their budgets and implemented austerity, while the US goes merrily along, thinking we’re economically infallible.
And BTW, today’s deployments are much the same… differ from branch to branch, of course. But most regular deployments are four tours or less, and only more if the soldier re’ups or volunteers. Army is still the branch with the longest deployment, as it was in Vietnam.
Strange how Poppa T is silent on my #76 post…
@anticsrocks:
I read the comments from the comments section on that article and it was 100% loony RP supporters. NOT ONE gave any facts to refute the claims, they just attacked the author and claimed he must be for more wars, more spending, and against/afraid of freedom. That is, as you have no doubt seen another norm for ronulans. If you disagree with them about RP, then you are part of the “conspiracy” , “sheeple”, or “afraid”.
I’m sorry that was antics and not you HR that made that post. To the best of my knowledge all this racism stuff was debunked back in 07-08 but since you insist I’ll chase your red herring. First off RP denied ever having made that comment about MLK, I believe him. Not that it matters MLK was a skirt chasing communist, he was also a great man when it came to illustrating the racial inequities that existed here at the time. Everyone has their faults and everyone has their virtues as well. Next and more importantly, is he racist? I have read a couple of his books and a bunch of his press releases and those quotes you link to sound nothing like what I have read. I have also read one of Newt’s books and many of the writings of most of the other candidates, so I don’t fixate on RP. There was a comment on that article by Gregory Hilton you linked to Antics by a lady named Lynn she actually agreed with a lot of the story except the parts concerning abortion and racism, she claimed to have worked w/RP during 2006 and left him because she decided he was not the person he portrayed himself to be, but she did have this to say…
“…. On the racist issue, when he was a gynecologist in Lake Jackson he was the only gynecologist who would deliver babies born to interracial and black couples. There was a black man at one of Ron’s rallies who told the story of his white wife giving birth at home and having trouble with the birth. He took her to the hospital where they refused to see her and let her sit in the ER for hours because the gynecologists they called would not come in to help her. Finally the nurse suggested that the man call Ron, who came in and could not save the baby, but did save the wife. A racist man would not do that…”
Now do I believe that RP is the “be all and end all” when it comes to politicians? Of course not! He has been in politics for to long not to have stains on his soul but compared to Gingrich, Perry and Romney RP is a breath of fresh air and the only one I can support and I do think that he is the most honest and admirable men of the current field of candidates. This Nations number one problem is not terrorism or immigration or what Iran might do, it is our fiscal insolvency and a financial meltdown that is looming on the horizon. Most of the people here have admitted that fiscally Ron Paul makes the most sense. And in my opinion he is still the ONLY reasonable choice.
One last thing, it does not take any courage to speak disparagingly about someone hidden behind the anonymity of the net. I have been called a “fool” a “moron” and have been given other various labels. I work in South Louisiana at Port Fourchon (foo-shawn) and live in the woods outside of Natchitoches (Nak-a-tish) if you’re ever in my neck of the woods let me know, I’ll be happy to “educate” you on proper social etiquette then I’ll buy you beer and maybe take you hunting or fishing. So long.
Embellish much? What I, personally, said was that I agreed with many of his fiscal policies. I don’t agree with his trade or immigration policies. Then again, most of the GOP candidates have a somewhat acceptable or viable approach to fiscal issues.
You might want to point out here is just *who* said that Ron Paul “makes the most sense”, other than, perhaps, the three of you who support Ron Paul on this thread.
Poppa_T
HI
YOUR COMMENTS ARE VERY WELL RECEIVED, ALWAYS, and the proof is from the answers directed to your comment, as oppose to some of us not getting answers
you bring with you another dimension and it is interesting ,
as much as any other, and you touched many other good issues also very interesting to read by the thousands of FA readers also,
we are looking for more of it,
thank you
bye
@Poppa_T:
As to who wrote Ron Paul’s newsletters:
Ron Paul said
More here with links:
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter
The statements were penned under Paul’s name.
He admitted that.
He profited from them, mightily.
He can pretend otherwise, but he knew exactly what was being disseminated in his own name.
His followers might want to read the rest of the link to see Paul’s view of “stoned whites who need to be deloused.”
Small wonder the Republican Jewish banned him from a debate on Jewish issues this week, calling him “misguided” and “extreme”. LOL Oh yes, here’s the CBS version.
Then, of course, in July 2006, he was one of eight House members (the other seven being Dems) voting NO on HR 921 which condemned the attacks on Israel, and asserted their right to defend themselves. This despite the fact he continually parrots we should cut all Israel foreign aid, leave them alone since they can defend themselves. I guess he doesn’t believe they have the right to defend themselves.
Never much thought about Paul and his personal bias. Probably still won’t, but it ain’t looking good with the past behavior….
You think RP is the most honest and admirable of the candidates? Wow, delusional doesn’t begin to describe it. Despite presented facts to the contrary you stil pen something like that. Just wow. Like I said, Ronulans and liberals, very similar.
See, I reluctantly support Newt and I acknowledge his faults. You on the other hand, pretend they don’t exist so you can stroke your ego.
See, I’ve been round and round with Ronulans and there are two traits that are extremely common. One is narcissism. The other is inablitiy to face reality.
When they say someone is “afraid of freedom” what they really mean is that they think they are better/superior to that person. The same goes for those RP drones that call themselves the “true Conservatives”. While there is nothing wrong with liking yourself or being confident, I’ve found many of them have a very high opinion of themselves…without justification.
Also like liberals, they cannot face reality. It’s not a coincidence that many of them believe 9/11 “was an inside job”. Considering their belief we can pull the covers over our heads and hide from all the bad guys in the world, you see how this is so.
@MataHarley:
Ron Paul probably didn’t agree with this part of the the bill
Security Council 1559 is a UN resolution and we all know how Ron Paul feels about being dragged into UN led wars. He has NO PROBLEM with Israel defending herself and has stated so many times.
Lets deal with facts here and not spin.
I’m not sure what to laugh at more, just me 95. The fact that he doesn’t want to see a terrorist group dismantled that even the despicable UN sanctioned, or that he thinks any UN brokered sanctions lead to “war”. Let’s see… how many did Saddam defy, and they still didn’t get on board with OIF? 17, wasn’t it? If he wants to allow Israel to defend itself, was not a condemnation and a support of that a simple thing to do? Or did he think that Israel “deserved” the attack? Had nothing to do with the usual toothless UN sanctions. And only the blind supporter could come up with that one.
Let’s deal with facts here, just me 95. Ron Paul … the man who wants to be Commander in Chief… thinks we only need “a few good submarines” as a military.
We’re not talking ancient history here… that’s 2007.
So what about the global Islamic jihad movements? Ron Paul wants to outsource that task… to mercenaries. … oh wait, let’s use his PC language as “privateers”.
Thus the reason for yet another of his thousands of idiotic bills would never see the light of day in the chambers. We don’t outsource national security to mercenaries.
Speaking of ineffective, this guy couldn’t coax a thirsty burro to a water filled trough. Been in the House since the mid-90s, and what does he have to show after thousands of presented bills that no one wanted to support? One single piece of passed enacted legislation that mandates the GSA give a piece of land to the Galveston Historical Foundation.
Yeah.. this is a guy who could guide us thru these times. /sarc
You may be able to fool lovely Canadian ladies who don’t know better (and can’t vote), just me 95. But the rest of us have been around the block a few times with Dr. Paul. Good guy to have in the Congress. Beyond that, he needs to find something else to occupy his time besides trying to make a run for the WH. He is simply a one trick monkey on issues. Leave the fiscal realm, and he’s toast. And he deserves to be toast.
He’s an idiot on foreign policy. Which is why you Ron Paul supporters can’t pull anyone of substance in support of his perpetual campaigns for the WH. Maybe, after this year, he’ll finally give up.
@MataHarley:
There is no ‘if’ and there is no ‘allow’. I hope you would agree with me that Israel is a sovereign nation and decides for herself the ‘whens and ifs’ she will go to war. Israel doesn’t need Ron Paul’s or any American’s permission to do anything and she shouldn’t.
As to the resolution you refer to, I hate to have to link to this site, but here are Ron Paul’s reason’s for voting against it should you care to read them.
In the end, what good did that resolution do? Did it stop the aggression towards Israel? Are Hamas and Hezbollah weaker now because of that resolution? How have those sanctions worked out? Five years since that resolution passed and nothing has changed.
I don’t hear anyone ever mention that in 1981 Ron Paul voted against the rest of Congress who voted WITH the UN to condemn Israel for attacking the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor. He stood up for Israel’s right for sovereignty.
So in all those years Paul’s position hasn’t changed one bit: Israel is a sovereign nation who has the right to defend herself as she sees fit and has the right of self-determination.
As for war, Paul wants Congress to declare it. He said he will fight with all America’s might, win, then leave – no nation building. You seem to have a problem with that and, from what I’ve gathered from what you’ve written, prefer a president strike whoever whenever. How did Libya turn out with that policy?
As for bills he wrote and proposed that went nowhere, from where I sit he’s so far ahead of the curve most times the rest of Congress doesn’t understand their value. He even wrote H.J.Res.46 – Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States. But it seems everyone is depending on the ‘anchor baby’ vote, especially Newt when you consider his immigration policy.
Your ‘lovely Canadian ladies’ remark would fit better in the thread it was meant for. Are you really that angry with me that I pointed out CFR member Newt’s globalist tendencies? Would you prefer no one knew about them?
Mata, if you want a president who can commit pre-emptive strikes without any oversight, that’s your right; China has plenty of money to loan us for all these new wars. Also seems the majority of Republicans want the same thing. But I don’t like a president with that much power and feel we’ve lost the ‘checks and balances’ the Constitution placed on the 3 branches of government. I prefer to err on the cautioning tone set by the Constitution and not legislation written by a scared Congress.
And although your sarcasm and hostile attitude were unwarranted, they were expected. It’s just a pity you have to reduce yourself to name calling.
@just me 95: You said:
You talk about RP as if he is a near deity. I mean, come on. Re-read that sentence, Congress doesn’t understand the value of RP’s bills??
So he is so much smarter than the rest of the Congress that most of his bills are beyond their comprehension?
Look, root for RP all you want, but jeez guy, don’t light any candle at the alter of Paul…
@anticsrocks:
If that’s how you interpret that sentence it’s you who has the problem, not me. I aint Barry. I bow before no man.
Wow… talk about sentence interpretation problems….. My comment was a mimic of his own words, that always say Israel has a right to defender herself. Altho he is always quick to add that she should also take the consequences of doing so. He does so love that disclaimer. Ergo, IF he believes in the her sovereign right of defense, it should have been a no brainer to simply condemn the attack, and reiterate backing up his own repeated words.
But he didn’t.
That’s when you came up with the BS about “UN led wars” (that’s a good joke in itself…) and the reluctance to see a terrorist organization dismantled. Neither of those make a lick of sense.
Nor are they reasons that he opposed because, you see, I already read Dr. Paul’s horse puckey excuses on that bill as “we shouldn’t send strong messages”.
Ironically, you show the schizoid, and combative, nature of Ron Paul yourself when you, mention in 1981 Ron Paul decided to (again) buck the rest of the Congress and instead decided he did want to “send a strong message”.
What was the difference between the two that he was okay with “strong messages” for one, while using it as a cop out for the other? One required him to back up his own BS and lend support to Israel’s right to self defense, and the other was in opposition to Israel, backing the UN which he (and I) hates.
Seems that Dr. Paul, despite all his lip service, doesn’t like Israel… ergo why the Republican Jewish Coalition doesn’t want to see his face in their debates.
And I might add here that any POTUS that is afraid to “send strong messages” is, IMHO, unfit to be Commander in Chief.
As for what good the resolutions do? Red herring and a straw man. Frankly I think about 80% of what Congress does is a waste of taxpayers money… and most especially resolutions. However this does give the membership a chance to stand up and state on which side of the line in the sand they choose.
And Dr. Paul generally chooses to stand opposed to Israel in most, if not all, cases. This makes your statement that “So in all those years Paul’s position hasn’t changed one bit” correct, but not for the reasons you state. His consistent position is he simply doesn’t like Israel, thus reflected by his historic votes.
You know, if you plan on accusing people, it might be nice to know if they are guilty, just me 95. I’m all over this forum, loudly opposed to Libya. I’ve also been opposed to the meddling in the so called “Arab Spring” uprisings and having our POTUS publicly tell int’l leaders they should be stepping down.
I was even opposed to the invasion of Pakistan’s sovereignty, sans permission, to kill UBL… tho I didn’t mind him being dead. I was also appalled that this CiC chose to share mission details quickly after the fact that was not only unwise but alerted enemy associates and destroyed potential intel coups.
How embarrassing for you…. When you go rabbit hunting, you’d better make sure know what a rabbit looks like.
???
INRE Bees… it’s nothing to do with what you say or do not say about Newt. He’s pretty much an open book and most news is old news. My point was you may be able to pull the wool over Ms. Bees’ eyes about Ron Paul, because of her unfamiliarity with his past, but not those of us who’ve gone the mile with him.
I have to agree with anticsrocks that your comment about Dr. Paul’s legislation-to-nowhere being too advanced is a pretty pathetic defense. My guess is that Kucinich’s supporters feel the same about his stuff.
I’ve read thru much of the legislation he’s proposed over the years. It’s not like it isn’t easily available on various search sites. Your choice of the Constitutional amendment is one that makes the case for me. When Congress cannot come together on even enforcing current immigration laws, the chances of such an amendment getting thru a Constitutional convention is about the same as me ascending to the throne of England. It is, however, a great moment for Paul to showboat, pandering to his base. You might want to start comparing some of those bill introductions to election cycles, eh?
My point about Paul’s legislation-to-nowhere is that neither Kucinich or Paul have the capacity to lead and work with Congress because they are both simply too far out of the respective left/right spectrum on specific issues.
OMG.. you’re taking classes from Ivan on “how to be a victim” now? LOL First of all, you began the sarcasm by accusing me of “spin” when I simply pointed out Ron Paul’s 2006 vote on Israel, and linked to the vote page. That’s not spin.. that’s fact.
Spin is what you chose to do with all the Hezbollah and UN led war run around, when that wasn’t even the reason Paul, himself, said he objected. Apparently I knew why. You didn’t.
As to the hostile name calling…. perhaps you’ll go back and cut/paste exactly where I did that. I think you’ll find it in the comment marked “your imagination”. LOL
@MataHarley:
Your wish is my command.
I cannot and will not suppot any candidate who is pro:
Patriot Act
DHS and therefore the TSA
Military Commissions Act (in spite of its revisions)
National Defense Authorization Act
America is turning into a police state and I will vote for the only candidate who has always fought for Liberty.
When I look at Newt’s record, he seems to change with the wind.
In 2003 he wrote a very good article pointing out the problems of the Patriot Act.
In 2006 he said, “Either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people.”
Although Newt doesn’t say how he’ll do it and thinks we need a national discussion on the 1st Amendment, if we break up the terrorists capacity to use free speech, we will undoubtedly have some of our free speech broken up, too.
Now, during the CNN debate in November, Newt says he supports strengthening the Patriot Act.
I’m still waiting for Newt to denounce his association with the CFR and Alvin Toffler.
But I aint holdin’ my breath.
just me, “schizoid” is not a “hostile name calling”. It’s a description of a medical condition, of which Ron Paul is apparently suffering. You know, that he doesn’t want to send a “strong message”, unless he wants to send a “strong message” blasting Israel, but so “supports” Israel”?…. except when he’s not, of course.
And “combative” is an adjective that suits Ron Paul’s political style quite well. Nor were either directed at you. And you can scroll back and find I never used the terms “Ronulan” or “PaulBot” in this thread.
I cannot and will not support any one who has the foreign policy of Ron Paul. Period. So if I’m stuck between only having Romney, Newt or Ron Paul, Newt will get the vote. Romney, Huntsman and Ron Paul are all a “never” possibility for me.
Tom, as I pointed out, you brought it upon yourself by descending into such demeaning language first by describing conservatives, which includes a hefty number of people in this nation besides me, as “heartless, miserly and selfish”. I have never described lib/progs in any such generic fashion. However it seems that you want to consider “progressive” an insult. It then follows you’d likely be insulted with “socialist” or “Marxist” as well. Pick whichever one you want. They are descriptions of political leanings.
Anyone got a water cooler we can tiptoe around for Tom and just me?
Screwed! You said it so direct, and so well. I am so sick and damn tired of these pundits, and talking heads like hannity, coulter, laura, oriely all saying that same thing that the democrats are saying, “he/she is not electable!”
And the GOP puppets say the same thing whenever anyone gets else gets on a roll. Its so damn obivious that even liberals see it! I know because my liberal friends all like to rib me with it. The people I named plus more are just another extension of the GOP. Their job is to feed the sheep a steady diet of nothing but pure GOP BS. Anything to keep them from straying away and going over to a Non-Approved and or Non-Certified GOP Boy/Girl. Its enough to make me even think about voting for Ron paul if he runs! And trust me, that would be one of the hardest things I can ever imagine doing in my lifetime! After his remarks about the victims of the USS Cole, the embassy attacks, and 9/11. But then again that vote would be nothing more than showing the GOP my middle finger.
Gary G. Swenchonis
hi,
you know, you talk like you don’t
have any party to lean on, because you criticize all of them,
you are very smart and should not pay attention to those discrediting the CONSERVATIVES, and it’s true that no one can predict the future actions of the PRESIDENT,
BUT you sure should have an idea of any CANDIDATES at this times, even a fainted idea,
and to put them all in one box mark the same WHAT IF THEY DO THAT what they say now OR not , IS UNFAIR,
at least they have the guts to run and face the music, and for some which are most of them know the money is not there to match a ROMNEYS,
but if money is the first factor to beat OBAMA, look at his billions,
no THE PEOPLE will disregard those very expensive campaigns
and adds, and AMERICA WILL WIN this time.
AMERICA is now competing against the GLOBE,
AND BY GOD AND JESUS SHE WILL BE VICTORIOUS
and don’t anyone dare to suppress my last words
bye
@MataHarley:
Schitzoid: 1. Of, relating to, or having a personality disorder marked by extreme shyness, flat affect, reclusiveness, discomfort with others, and an inability to form close relationships.
2. (Psychology) Psychol denoting a personality disorder characterized by extreme shyness and oversensitivity to others
Or maybe you mean: 3. Informal Relating to or characterized by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements
I wouldn’t consider anyone willing to debate on stage in front of millions (TV) ‘shy’.
He has woken up millions of people to the errors of the Federal Reserve Bank and fiat currency, sounded the warnings of our loss of liberty through draconian legislation such as the unPatriot Act so I can’t say he’s had ‘flat affect’.
As for the ‘inability to form close relationships’ – he’s been married to the same woman for 54 years and they still hold hands.
He’s a Congressman and was a OB/GYN so he’s far from reclusive and can’t be uncomfortable around others.
And his position on Israel is consistant – Israel is a sovereign nation who does not need our money or our interference.
just me, have no clue where you derive your more narrow and inappropriate definitions. Perhaps it’s your misspelling… since “schizoid” is of or relating to schizophrenia.
Definition of SCHIZOID
: characterized by, resulting from, tending toward, or suggestive of schizophrenia
Examples of SCHIZOID
With his schizoid nature, you never know whether he will disagree or agree with you.
Definition of SCHIZOPHRENIA
1
: a psychotic disorder characterized by loss of contact with the environment, by noticeable deterioration in the level of functioning in everyday life, and by disintegration of personality expressed as disorder of feeling, thought (as delusions), perception (as hallucinations), and behavior —called also dementia praecox — compare paranoid schizophrenia
2
: contradictory or antagonistic qualities or attitudes <both parties … have exhibited schizophrenia over the desired outcome>
If you think schizophrenia is only confined to “shy”, then you truly need to expand your boundaries of language. Schizoid is quite appropriate for Ron Paul as an adjective. It’s adeptly proven so with his “we don’t want to send a strong message” vote in 2006, with his contradictory intent to “send a strong message vote” *against* Israel in the 80s.
Or, if you were prefer to take the other option, he hates Israel. And he will not vote to support them, but he will vote to condemn them.
I don’t need a history of Ron Paul from you.. Known about him – and his politics (both good and bad) – for years, and there is nothing you can impart that is enlightening.
Well, all I can say is…….
I GOT #100!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
anticsrocks
congratulation, you had to jump over MATA, to get it, you must have held your breath hoping for her to finish desperately ,
bye
@ Gary G. Swenchonis:
Hi Gary, I tend to get ticked off during the GOP primaries too. I have to tell you though, republicans have it bad compared to libs. We have no choice but to brutalize all of our primary candidates, because if they get the nomination without a good vetting, the LSM will destroy them. The libs need no brutal primary or vetting, the LSM will protect their candidate no matter what. Just look at Obama.
Ron Paul is holding his own, he’s just being vetted. My guy, Perry continues to disintegrate, although he did smack Romney around pretty good the other night. Newt has a lot of baggage, but he doesn’t seem to mind throwing it out there for everyone to go through. I thought he took care of Perry’s jab about cheating rather well.
I don’t know if Paul will make it to the finals, but if he does, I’ll vote for him over Obama in a New York minute. And if he doesn’t make it to the finals, I hope he supports the nominee and when that nominee wins, I hope he makes Paul Sec Treas. Could you imagine the collective cries of agony from the fed and the IRS when that announcement was made?
Aqua
hi,
I saw PERRY holding strong, even after that, what’s his name flake journalist surprised him with a flash on
him trying to remember the name of SOTOMYER JUDGE,,
PERRY took it like he can control his answers very well, saying that you cannot know all
the names of those people working there, he’s right, there is so many but it has no weight in leading skills, if AMERICANS could just get off the part of forgetting unimportant words, and names, they could focus on the best part of who he is as a leader, and his achivement there to see,
he is also very sincere, in what he want to do, and that is a lot for jobs creation, and the rest
there is a lot more positives to focus on. than stick on negatives, and look at the hair in the eyes,
and miss the good straw in front of it.
that flake journalist is out to hurt them, he did it to
MICHEL BACKMANN TOO,
FOX IS NOT GAINING ANYTHING GOOD WITH HIS STYLE
SNEAKY LIKE A SNAKE WITH MANY FLAKES SKIN
one could say PERRY FORGOT MY NAME BUT HE SURE GOT ME A JOB, AND EALY IN HIS PRESIDENCY,