Ron Paul on Larry King tonight..
mojamom
Posts: 8
According to Ron Paul's campaign website, he will be on Larry King tonight at 9 PM. Just thought I'd pass it on.
05/03/03 State College, 07/12/03 Hershey, 09/28-29/04 Boston 1 & 2, 10/01/04 Reading, 10/08/04 Kissimee, 10/03/05 Philly, 5/12/06 Albany, 5/13/06 Hartford, 5/27/06 Camden , 5/28/06 Camden, 5/30/06 DC, 6/19-20/08 Camden 1 & 2, 6/22/08 DC
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
anyway, I find myself hooked on Ron Paul. He's refreshingly honest, intelligent and consistent. I may not agree with all he says, but I know where he stands and I trust him.
I even switched parties so that I could vote for him. Someone said on another post that those that learn about him, like what they see. That's why I started the thread. Maybe a few people will tune in and learn a little.
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
- Thomas Jefferson
Reminds me of Ron Paul.
this is all well and nice until a group like the taliban take over a country. they want peaceful honest relationships with no one. and if you dont follow their breed of religion, the penalty is dead.
Funny how that is eh? Do you know what the people that say that are called?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION OF HOW RON PAUL IS GONNA KICK THE SHIT OUT OF EVERYONE TOMORROW! - CNN!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
but he WAS ON WOLF BLITZER
WOO HOO.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KtNY4jaNW6w
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
SITTING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE POLLS IN IOWA ?
Yeah right.
:(
RIGHT IN LINE WITH THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPLES!
FUCK YEAH.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
RON PAUL PUTS A HIT OUT ON SNUFFALUFAGUS!
Yeah.
He PWNED that stupid little shill!
I used to like that shark smiling smug little fuck too!
Just a weasel ass punk though.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Whats this?!? a CNN reporter that actually asked RP informative questions and let him speak freely to the issues. Nice change from Wolf "cut you off mid sentence, have an enema, and take a stress pill" Blitzer.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
reporters should be tough when asking questions. its annoying when you complain about your bf being hassled by big bad meany reporters.
Does being tough include asking "will you run as an independent if you don't win the nomination?" EVERY time you interview someone?
I'm not knocking Blitzer, because he actualy has given RP more spots than any other single news show period.
But if you did a clip of that question alone, youd have about a 4 minute clip of Blitzer asking that about 12 different times. Fucking ridiculous.
I hear you Jlew.
As the media realizes it can no longer ignore him, and apparently conceding that it is having trouble even marginalizing him, the coverage is becoming more "fair".
Hate to say it, but its true.
However it would be foolish of you to try and pretend like he wasn't being ignored and marginalized for a LONG time.
In fact, when he broke ALL existing 1 day fundraising records just last month there was media blackout.
I think he got about ONE MINUTE COMBINED news coverage for it.
:( :( :(
What if hillary had pulled that feat?
Yeah.
exactly.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
As much as seeing an opressive regime based on a fanatical perversion of religion pisses me off, unfortunetly it is none of our business. It should only become our business if that regime either attacks us, another country or is breaking international law (ie genocide). The only mistake the Taliban made was hosting Al Qaida and allowing them to operate within their borders. The Taliban never attacked another country. While they may have been the biggest bastards on this planet for the way the treated women, had they not aided Al Qaida we would have had no business going into that country.
I don't even think we should step in if they attack another country.
Now, on genocide, i may have to break with the good Dr.
International law or not, we SHOULD stand for something, and genocide is certainly something that should be stopped.
However, before getting involved militarily there are lots of other options to engage first!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I am all for less involvement in the worlds affairs but ron paul essentially wants none
and I'm not talking about your run of the mill oppressive regime. I am talking about the Taliban (or similar Islamic extremist group). these groups will happily support and host a group like el queda.
ron paul's repsonse is to be friends with them, talk to them, its none of our business what they do yada yada. thats insane.
But it IS none of our business what they do, Jlew.
What are you worried about?
If we have infomation about immenent attacks, fuck yeah ... lets take some of em out.
But if you are talking about "oppressive regimes", then WTF?
Look around the world.
Are we invading North Korea yet?
I think King Dong Kill is MUCH more of a threat than the fucking taliban ... he has freaking nuclear weapons, for christ sake.
Who cares about a bunch of cry baby sand loving dirt poor fucks with some AK47s in the desert.
If they want a war, they will surely get it.
Until they do so, lets let them be, and not go poking sticks at a beehive.
?
BTW.
it may help to clarify your gripe.
You say "all for LESS involvement" but not "none" ...
what do you think is appropriate here?
Because all Ron Paul is saying is that we have no reason to leave troops in someone elses country based on simple fear that they may "do something".
On that grounds, is it okay for Cuba to have an army stationed outside of New York, because the oppressive trade policy we have against Cuba is a threat to their national security, and they are worried we may actualy "do something"? How about Africa putting a whole batallion in the south, because they keep getting reports about some large state sponsored group called "The KKK" that has roots going back 100 years, that has been amassing arms and preaching hate for black people? Should Africa get to leave an army here because of some threat of "The KKK" attacking them?
Seriously.
WHAT do you think the taliban is going to pull over on us that sitting in the desert with guns and tanks and pissing off an entire country is going to cure?
:()
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The other candidates do seem to get a rather different approach and treatment altogether, that is well documented and quite apparent.
Strike one...thanks for coming out...please try again.
hehe
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
That is where you are wrong. Ron Paul's stance is not to be friends with them. His stance is if they do not carry out any aggressive acts against us or another country by either themselves or a proxy then it is none of our business what they do within their borders. Ron Paul voted yes to authorize the invasion of Afghanistan because the Taliban aided and abetted Al Qaida.
He still would not support agression against the taliban if they attacked ANOTHER country.
Our roll in NOT as "World Police"
If I opened it now would you not understand?
So you don't think that if say Iran was to all of a sudden attack Saudi Arabia and they asked for aid that Ron Paul wouldn't send military aid to help another country? I'm not saying that he would declare war on Iran but I do believe that he would definitely aid a nation that was being attacked by an aggressive state. Ron Paul believes in less foreign intervention not in complete isolation.
he has EXPLICITLY stated he would not.
"Trade with all nations, entagling alliances with NONE."
advice of the founders.
HE WOULDN'T EVEN AID ISRAEL.
!!!
if you want a REALLY good precedent in american history, here is one, WORLD WAR TWO.
Millions of dead jews.
No US response.
Several countries invaded.
No US response.
Japan ATTACKS AMERICA.
US RESPONSE.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I am more on ron paul's side then this then not. but he comes across as someone that will ignore whats going on in the world because "its none of our business". I would rather have a president who pays attention to world affairs.
Even during WWII, prior to our involvment, we provided aid to the UK. We sold them oil, steel, supplies, ammunition. We even "lent them" destroyers and planes. You can provide aid to another country without getting intangled in their affairs.
Also many people did not know about the death camps prior to our involvment in the war. We knew that Jews, and other ethnic groups, where being percecuted but did not know the extent of the horrors being commited until Allied forces finally fought their way into occuped countries that contained concentration camps.
Like i said, i understand your concern.
I'm still asking you to state what you claim as "appropriate involvement", because i read that as "permanent OCCUPATION" in order to prevent UNKNOWN future attacks.
You can't just sit in someone elses country and fight an amorphous enemy for years on end. :(
Ron Paul isn't going to rule with his head up his ass. He just is not going to leave a bunch of troop out in the middle of someone elses country for years and years, on the hope that killing a few taliban memebers will stop a DECENTRALIZED, GLOBALY NETWORKED IDEOLOGY from operating.
How long do you think we will have to stay in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and maybe Iran (and where next?) until this "war" is won?
If you can't answer that question, we should not be there.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Exactly.
"TRADE WITH ALL NATIONS!"
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Yes FDR called it trading with the UK, but in reality it was aid. The UK never paided a cent for any of the supplies.