Ron Paul on the Islamic Center near Ground Zero

Jason P

cincybearcat wrote:

Commy wrote:

that's my main point. that religion wasn't the primary reason for the attacks. that's like a soldier in uniform fighting to get medals....its not the reason he's their but it might motivate him.

if they were trying to kill infidels why not fly those planes into the a sports stadium full of people? if religion was why they attacked, why not kill as many infidels as possible? why did they instead choose the twin towers, a symbol of american imperialism? yes they are motivated by god, and their extreme form of religion allowed them to do what they did, but at its core it was a strike against american imperialism. read any list of bin laden's grievances, he admitted as much.


as to soccer. if the US brought home a world cup every now people would get behind it more. as it is, aww we're not best in the world at something so i hate it. cry babies.

It was a joke.

AS for soccer, never liked it. It's not because the US isn't good...it's because it's boring. 0-0???? Seriously, what is that, not even a sport if so many can end without a winner.

It's official. Soccer is gay.

http://www.theonion.com/video/soccer-officially-announces-it-is-gay,17603/

buze81123

I've talked to a lot of people who watch soccer. They admire too much about the physical aspect of watching these people play. I don't really think they're into seeing a particular team win. Unless they specifically say so. Also, i hear that it's a lot of intimidation factor involved which is very subtle on the winning side because again the sport is just so damn physical that the winning team can only score so many points unless their opponents really are that bad.

Plus without standards I think it's one of those sports that's as old as wrestling. Just from watching TV, somebody referred to it as like kicking the dead opponents head around as an analogy. That's some pretty old stuff.

maj4e

Paul has tons of love on the internet where information can be shotgunned out in a million directions with no real discourse with the person himself. I personally don't have a problem with him but he is so fringe that even if he were to be elected President it would be a catastrophe. Look back at Jimmy Carter's Presidency (not to compare them philosophically) and see how both sides revolted against him and his last 2-3 years were spent just sitting there. I think Paul's would be an order of magnitude worse in political gridlock.

unsung

Of course it would, he wants to do crazy things like institute term limits on members of Congress.

Jason P

maj4e wrote:

Paul has tons of love on the internet where information can be shotgunned out in a million directions with no real discourse with the person himself. I personally don't have a problem with him but he is so fringe that even if he were to be elected President it would be a catastrophe. Look back at Jimmy Carter's Presidency (not to compare them philosophically) and see how both sides revolted against him and his last 2-3 years were spent just sitting there. I think Paul's would be an order of magnitude worse in political gridlock.

Maybe it would take some gridlock to show the American people how our two party system is stuck in neutral and isn't working in our interest. We already have gridlock the way it is, but it's a he said / she said type of gridlock. Let's put someone reasonable in the middle of the two giant arguing infants and see what happens.

It's not like it could get much worse . . .

markin ball

Jason P wrote:

maj4e wrote:

Paul has tons of love on the internet where information can be shotgunned out in a million directions with no real discourse with the person himself. I personally don't have a problem with him but he is so fringe that even if he were to be elected President it would be a catastrophe. Look back at Jimmy Carter's Presidency (not to compare them philosophically) and see how both sides revolted against him and his last 2-3 years were spent just sitting there. I think Paul's would be an order of magnitude worse in political gridlock.

Maybe it would take some gridlock to show the American people how our two party system is stuck in neutral and isn't working in our interest. We already have gridlock the way it is, but it's a he said / she said type of gridlock. Let's put someone reasonable in the middle of the two giant arguing infants and see what happens.

It's not like it could get much worse . . .

I will not ever again vote for a candidate because he/she is the least worst option. I don't care how practical it is or isn't anymore. I pretty much won't vote for any presidential candidate who doesn't have corporation reform as one of their top priorities.