Why The Republicans Will Lose This Election: Iraq!
By Nicole Belle Thursday Jan 24, 2008 1:58pm
No offense intended to Ron Paul, who was the only one to get the answer right. Even the Republican audience agreed with him.
Download | play 
Download | play
Never forget...these are not our leaders. These are elected representatives. Ask yourself who are they representing.
Login or Register to post comments.
“Why The Republicans Will Lose This Election: Iraq!”
Never underestimate the pure stupidity of the electorate. Bush. 8 years. First 4? I can see a mistake, but the second 4?
Faith based hate.
President Huckabee...well...gawwwwwwleeeeee.
Yes, and in March the top general will try to convince us that Iraq (the surge) is still working but we need more time. Most Americans, including Republicans, do not share that view and I suspect they will not support a candidate who does.
Yeah, but...if Hillary's the nominee we will be facing a choice between a Republican who supported for the war and a Democrat who supported the war.
The Republicans are finish. Ron Paul is the only one I respect. I almost went to sleep during the debates.
My advice to Senator Obama and I hope all of his supporters convey this message, is he should ignore the very nasty disgusting antics of the Clinton team and move on with his positive message that has inspired the people from all walks of this country to his presidency, because nothing could hurt these people more then his positive image and message and I know how hurt Michell Obama is about the way the Clinton machine is running their campaign, but again they should stay above the Frey.
We have to start blasting and fighting these people in media at every level, including FCC, that is also the working right wing spin machine behind this crap
I agree with you about Obama. He needs to pay no attention to Bill Clinton and the experts. I am so sick of the media, expecially the cable networks. I lost all respect for Bill Clinton. I used to like him but no more. On PBS they had a special about Sargent Schriver the other day. It was about Kennedy and his vision of hope, the future, youth and the Peace Corps and a new day for the US and its relation with the world, the begining of civil rights and women’s rights. I could not help but think about Obama and his message he is giving today. I was really inspired by Obama and then along came the Clinton attach machine and the “fight hype on cable news” between them. His message got clouded. If anyone has not seen the Schriver special on PBS, I sugguest you look it up. It will inspire you.
PBS Preview | Newsletter
… (CC, Stereo). http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/. American Idealist: The Story
of Sargent Shriver. Tuesday, January 21, 2008 10 - 11:30 pm …
More details:
http://www.mpt.org/schedule/se.....531#177017
American Idealist” is a biographical documentary about Robert Sargent Shriver, the founder of the Peace Corps, VISTA, Community Action, Head Start, Legal Services for the Poor, Youth Corps, Job Corps and more. An all but forgotten American Today, Shriver’s social initiatives during the 1960’s helped shape an era and dared millions of young Americans to live out their ideals.
I agree republicans are gonna crash and burn this time over Iraq and the accumulation of a multitude of sins now publicly known and in some cases even acknowledged in an attempt at damage control... They are done for this cycle unless the dems really shoot themselves in the foot which they haven't quite managed to do yet... though there are indications they are trying. However ConcernedCanuck, without neccessarily disagreeing with your comment regarding the stupidity quotient in this country, I would differ with the details somewhat.. Bush,the first four years...
Result of a stolen election... the second four years, a combination of stupidity, ignorance and denial in 59 million people... Barely a majority and certainly not enough to qualify the lame Bush comment of a mandate... But just enough to screw us all...JD
Why the Republicans will win this election: Hillary Clinton. Why Republicans will win back Congress and many state and local contests: Hillary Clinton down-ticket backlash.
This can't be a real video. It's a Republican debate and they are talking about relevant issues.
jack damage @ 7:
Right, except that the election had to be pretty close in order to steal it. That's what worries me. In a sane country Bush would have gotten maybe 10% of the vote and there's no way he could have stolen the election.
Ron Paul refers extensively to the constitution. He should be reminded that there is companion document in the American litany, one that railed against tyrants that placed themselves above the law and abused the power that rightly belongs to the people. Or has the Declaration of Independence been placed on a terrorist reading list?
CafeenMan @ 10:
Exactly. That's what worries me as well. I always felt that my relatives in the US were not stupid, but uneducated (my true relatives..cousins,etc).....but 2004 and the last Congressional elections proved that wrong. Dems get almost the same per cent support as Reps. THAT is scary.
Why the Rebugnicunts will win: False Flags.
ConcernedCanuck @ 1:
You must not remember that the second four was the result of a rigged election.
No one declared war on the USA. We are not in a war.We are in an occupation of a free world country. Al-Queda is world wide. There is no cenral Al-Queda headquarters in Iraq. We are there pure and simply for defense and Big oil companies to extort every last dime out of the American public.
I'll second others in that the Republicans will win if Hillary is the Democratic nominee. I'm sure all her cult members have rationalized or forgotten her enabling of Bush for the Iraqi war, but many of us haven't and will vote third party rather than voting for this corrupt politician.
...Is it just me?....or is Ron Paul a dead ringer for Dr. Timothy Leary?
ConcernedCanuck @ 1:
The democrats are getting wrecked in message control. Of course, the sub prime crisis thrust the economy to the forefront, but the democrats have done an awful job of keeping Iraq a top issue in the media and in the public discourse with respect to the election. I'm looking at a CBS/NTY poll of top issues in the election - in December voters were asked what the most important issue facing the country was and 25% said the war in Iraq, while 12% said the economy or jobs. Now in January 23% say the economy and 22% say the iraq war. We've also seen a rise of McCain favorability numbers in the same period, which is probably attributable to this shift in public focus (remember how awfully he was doing only a few months ago when all we cared about was the war?)
I'll be interested to see if the republicans are able to keep the economy as the top issue for the rest of the election, effectively pushing Iraq off the table.
But all that aside, what terrified me most about this video was Gov. Huckabee's suggestion that we should be thankful that President Bush had the courage to implement and execute a policy of military preemption. Thank god that man is out of money.
the repugs will lose this election because:
iraq
the economy
destruction of the US Constitution
torture-waterboarding
blackwater
healthcare
neglect of our brave troops
abuse of our troops-inhumaine tour duty
election fraud
trying to sell everyone on sucking jesus
935 lies to get us into an illegal war
and finally for all those issues we will soon find out the repugs are hiding.
You'd like to think Iraq is going to hurt the repukes but ... sadly, McCain, the guy who wants to throw 100,000 more troops into Iraq, polls pretty well against both Hillary and Obama.
Huckabee said we owe Bush our gratitude for starting the war in Iraq.
I... can't think of anything to add to that. It literally defies snark.
Its official. These freaks are stupid and totally unworthy to SWEEP any American street, let alone be President. And if crazy racist Ron Paul is the best player on that team, they fucking suck! If any of these old fools become the next Prez at this critical time we deserve the hell we've created.
Necadawg Says @ 13:
Rigged election or not, millions STILL voted for the buffoon. I understand the 25 percenters being to mental to grasp reality in any election, but to even have an election close enough to steal? EEKS. Why do Americans hate America?
Except the repubs will frame the debate this way: support a bad decision or support amerrika surrendering.
Guess who will win that debate?
I agree with Huckabee. Just because we havent found every easter egg doesnt mean they werent planted. In fact the UNEEI United Nations Easter Egg Inspectors found evidence of massive amounts of easter eggs being transported to Jordan
Filthy Harry @ 22:
Dem response: we have accomplished our objectives in Iraq. It is time to come home.
Ian McGarrett @ 11:
Are you referring to the document that justified SECESSION from the British Empire, but wasn't allowed to be quoted in 1860 without that same person being accused of being "unpatriotic", or a "slavery-enabler"?
Remember, it was LINCOLN who sponsored a bill in 1858, to pay slave-owners $400 for each slave, with the ultimate goal of sending the "Africans" as Lincoln referred to them, back to Africa?
The difference between the Declaration of Independence and The US Constitution is that one is a mission statement, the other is SUPPOSED to be the LAW.
Ron Paul only wants what other libertarians in this country want: adherence to the LAW.
Joementum @ 18:
Iraq does hurt Republicans. Remember, we all thought John McCain was down and out when he was the only war canidate. Everyone thought it was suicide when he said the surge was working and we should stay in Iraq.
But then the sub prime crisis hit and recession fears came out, and the Republicans seized the opprotunity to change the conversation. Now Iraq is hardly in the news except to point out the surge is working and violence is down, and voters care more about the economy than Iraq. As long as this (voters caring more about something other than Iraq) is the case, McCain, and by extension Republicans, will poll well.
If a candidate thinks the American people are looking for four more years of the Bush status quo.
They are as delusional as Bush.
Uncle Jack @ 15:
Timothy Leary's dead
No, no, no
He's outside looking in
You are spot on! I've been trying to figuree that out for a long time!
“Why The Republicans Will Lose This Election: Iraq!”
The democrats are for it too. I kind of hope they will elect a fiscally irresponsible person like Bush again. This would mean that the serious problems with the US economy like low education level, outsourced production, huge debt, health care will not be addressed in time. It would be bad short term, but good long term for the world when the US no longer can afford the military expenses.
James @ 25:
Yeah. The law of the jungle
Other than McCain, who on that stage didn't avoid combat duty when it was their time to serve? Which ones have kids in the Iraq war they are championing for someone else's kids to fight? Republican chickenhawks disgust me. Brave with someone else's kids, not their own. Hell, Romney's immediate family alone could furnish half a platoon.
I would also like to know how many of these Republican candidates have stock in any of the companies that have gained, or stand to gain, war contracts in this or future wars. A chickenhawk AND a war profiteer. Doesn't get much lower than that.
they will lose because they have destroyed the country. they have shredded the constitution, and most of them have pledged to keep on shredding.
They are representing Republicans, of course, and the Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic party which includes Hillary Clinton among others.
Considering a little over half of the people vote, and half of them are Republicans, any of these crazy bastards has a real chance. Crazy like FOXes because they know who butters their guns.
Left&Left @ 20:
your an idiot if you think ron paul is a racist. just shut up and go sit in the corner.
Rusty Shackleford @ 24:
Ok, dem response vs. the word 'surrender'.
All I'm saying is that the issue wont automatically sway the election the dems way. Despite being wrong on the issue, the repubs will say 'the dems want to surrender' and many people will vote repub.
the last time i seen editing like that was on fox noise!
The fact that Ron Paul gets a huge applause when he says "we should not have gone in"
and in a REPUBLICAN audience no less, should tell the other candidates that they cheerlead this war at their own peril.
And Mitt, think maybe ONE of your 5 sons could maybe ENLIST and maybe help out our poor, tired, thrice-deployed troops ??
oh yeah, I forgot. Rich people don't fight wars, only poor people get their hands dirty.
Michael B. @ 8:
Pleeeeeease, I want some of what you are either snorting or smoking !!
They completely ignore the crowd they were debating in front of, who cheered at the question, then the who group (sans Paul) continued to tell the same tired old lies that America is angry about.
None of these guys deserves anything from America. They clearly "Do not get it"!!!
ConcernedCanuck @ 21:
I don't agree with a lot you say, but your last sentence...I like it.
Why do Americans hate America?
It's a good question to ask.
To know why combat dodging chickenhawks are pro-war one need look now further than the king of all war-profiteering combat dodging chickenhawks: Dick Cheney http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011....
they will lose because they have destroyed the country. they have shredded the constitution, and most of them have pledged to keep on shredding.
Then, after four years with Dems holding the bag,
will it be Jeb in '12?
Maybe that's why the headlines these days are all about the economy. It sure takes the war out of the news. The repubs must be happy about that.
Doggiebobo @ 38:
No you don't Doggiebobo, I think he's snorting dried dog poo. (no offense)
The Republican party must be in a bad state when "the crazy guy" amongst them is the one talking the most sense...
The Truthiness Hurts @ 45:
True
Ive been sayimg ot for a long time now, only Ron Paul can beat a democrat due to his stance on the iraq war, he would make Clinton look like a neo-con warmonger when you compare there records.
Ryan from Portland @ 34:
Left&Left @ 20:
next time wipe the crap off your fingers before you speak, ron paul is a known racist.
McCain got even crazier when that guy in the audience (I forget who he was) asked about the condition of our military and McCain said he had not heard of any commanders saying the army was just about broken.
Ruthless People @ 41:
....oh, and one more thing. After being outed by Lautenberg Cheney claims he's going to give that 8 million to charity. If you believe that then you also believe there are WMDs still in Iraq. Halliburton is moving it's headquarters to Dubai while Cheney's stock options are going through the roof. Arrest Cheney for crimes against humanity, murder and war-pofiteering before 2009 and before he flees the country.
Lalo @ 37:
Actually the military is made up disproportionatly of folks from middle-class homes. The very poor and the very rich represent the lowest proportional contributors to the military, with the rich being more represented than the poor.
The median soldier is better educated and from an equally rich household than the median american.
McCain only looks good to independents (and he's still not getting the majority) because of the other Repug candidates. Once independent fully digest the fact that McCain has no "vision" for this country other than exhausting our treasury on NeoCon military ventures, they'll cool real fast. Which hasn't gone unnoticed among the RNC, so expect McCain to be derailed by the Republicans themselves. Which leaves Romney, I guess.
We appear to be picking a candidate who voted for the war. Her vote will be exploited and undermine whatever she has to say about the war now. Good luck with that. I won't vote for her because she voted for the war. I made that decision the day the war started and I am sticking to it. Consider me another Dem who won't vote for Hillary in the GE.
Regardless of who wins, the Insurgency will go on.
[Deleted]
none of this matters unless the media actually does its job and asks tough questions and doesn't follow up with tougher ones when the talking points start rolling off the republicans tongue...
Rusty Shackleford @ 30:
Yeah. The problem with the "Law of the Jungle" is that it's not written down anywhere, so it's completely up to interpretation. The only reason why I used the example above is because, if anyone thinks the Declaration has ANY legal sway at all, then one MUST conclude that it's LEGAL to secede from a tyrannical government.
The point being, we've been taught history from the viewpoint of the victors, not the defeated. It's not entirely unreasonable to think that the winners didn't gloss over their inhumanities.
Ron Paul has everything that the supposedly "conservatives" want, except a belligerent foreign policy. In fact, Ron Paul has more in common with a Jeffersonian DEMOCRAT than he does with a Lincolnian REPUBLICAN!
Peace.
John Rawls @ 51:
I think people are referring to the grunts. They are the ones who are getting their hands dirty.
dadams @ 48:
I think Racist would revel in a war with middle eastern people. I think a racist wouldn't have MLK as one of their heros. I think a racist would have a totalitarian platform to suppress other racists...... Ron Paul is none of these... Actions speak louder than words.
I was with Ron Paul until this point:
"we should never be a country that starts war(s) needlessly"
Take out the bold type and I would agree completely... but the bold is there, and the underlying attitude that somehow, someway, it is at times okay for the US to start wars, we just need the right rationalization... something like WMD or another contrived cock and bull story that the unwitting, unwashed and bloodthirsty public can really sink their teeth into.
Too bad for us all that the Clintons are so egocentric. As if there is no one else who could be president other than a Clinton. Why don't they go away for a decade or so and prepare Chelsea for the role. We don't need them, in fact they are negative factors. But Chelsea is not tainted by their roles in government. Let's wish the Clintons could think of other than themselves.
♥♂ @ 44:
Don't underestimate the power of Hillary Hatred. I don't like her (I don't hate in the way Repubs do though). My supervisor at work is a Republican who doesn't vote a straight party ticket (he voted for Kerry in 2004 because he can't stand Bush). He told me his first choice is Ron Paul. He would vote for Obama or Edwards against any OTHER Republican, because they are not fiscal conservatives and they want more wars. However, he would take ANY Repub over HRC. So if you think Hillary can beat the Repubs, you're living in a world of make-believe.
A HRC nomination will increase Repub turn-out. Even if they don't really like the Repub nominee that much, they wouldn't want HRC in the WH. That will make all the difference.
Can't support Ron Paul, but man anything he says about Foreign Policy is right on the money. If there was a democrat who could speak about Iraq the way RP does, the nomination would have already been wrapped up.
First of all, leaders lead, while politicians do the politically expedient thing, typically as dictated by "public opinion." It's been a long, long time since leaders held a clear majority inside the Beltway.
Secondly, the '06 election was already "about Iraq," and the Democrats have failed to deliver an immediate withdrawal or timeline, as expected by the majority of people who voted this as their #1 issue and perceived a commitment being made to make it happen. Although Democrats cannot be blamed entirely not keeping this "promise," some will still be punished for it in '08 at the polls.
Necadawg Says @ 57:
The data I looked at to make that post was a study of enlisted men, who I assume make up the majority of grunts. This isn't looking at the entire army including ROTC folks and Westpointe grads, who I suspect would skew the figures even more against the poor man's burden hypothesis.
There's no evidence to suggest that the poor people are discriminated against and funneled into the grunts in any way. In fact, the statistical clustering around income and education among recruits makes such a practice basically impossible.
Pete @ 60:
What, you mean like if we got attacked by another country, that's not a good reason to start a war? It's interesting when you listen to him and read some of the things he's written that he thinks the vast majority of wars our country has been engaged in were needless -- Iraq, Viet Nam to name just a couple. I guess it depends on what you define as starting a war. I think what Ron Paul really meant there was "we should never be a country goes to war needlessly.
These guys, Ron Paul excepted, are like those dolls of which you pull the string and they always say the same thing. They share similar IQs, too.
flamethrower @ 34:
In any other election I'd damn sure agree...but America's fired up, and the registered Dems and Unafiliateds are fired up to get the neo-cons the hell out of DC...I remain guardedly optimistic!
The reason the audience agreed with him is that it wasn't filtered by Faux Noise and Frank Luntz to have only neocons in it.
Fuck you Frank!
Chris @ 62:
Then there's people like me that won't bother to vote with HRC as the nominee and awful repub choices. As an expat, voting is a real chore (have to go to the embassy which is always a zoo here). I'm not goign to make that kind of effort to vote for Hillary.
John Rawls @ 65:
I wish the poor man's burden was more of a reality. It is bad enough losing one of my soldiers in an attack...its harder when I know that they didn't join out out of necessity, but because they truly believed in the cause. Give me a few more "just in it for the money" folk and it would make those combat zones a little less intimidating.
ConcernedCanuck @ 1:
I've been saying this since 11/04. A large bloc of Americans are just plain stupid. If the shoe fits, you can wear it, but that's where I stand. Kerry is the biggest loser in American history for not being able to win against Bush in '04, but it's the 60,000,000-plus people who voted for this jackass knowing full well he was bad news who shoulder the lion's share of the blame.
Chris @ 66:
I think RP would agree with this - borders frequentd by trade seldom need soldiers
Huckabee says we owe the president? WE OWE HIM NOTHING!!!! what about the people who are fighting and dying in this worthless war!!!!! WE OWE THEM
Filthy Harry @ 36:
You're right, but I think the 29-percenters who will fall for that tactic will vote Repub no matter what. I don't think framing it as "the Democrats want to surrender" will sway the election in the R's favor.
Check out Obama's top ten on Letterman.
http://tv.yahoo.com/the-late-show-with-david-letterman/show/31647/videos...
Huckabee: "the WMD are there, we just can't find them..." demonstrating the faith only a southern baptist minister can have.
unfrozencaveman @ 63:
If only he could be right about more than one thing...
3,931 Deaths
29,000 wounded
Yep...John McCain is right....this illegal war is going 'well'....
peaceful easy feeling @ 64:
You are aware that Congress does not command the armed forces, aren't you?
RyanfromPortland@34 & Tim@59 There is no white man living that will tell my black butt what is or is not racist. Ron Paul has been connected to vile racist comments for years and has never apologized or explained. Believe whatever you wish, I absolutely don't give a shit.
Rusty Shackleford @ 75:
You're right, it won't win it for the repubs but remember 50% voted for bush the 2nd time. I think sticking to the 'dems want to surrender' meme will keep it closer than it should be. grrr!
disenfranchised democrats should really consider voting for ron paul, it looks like Hillary will be the dems nomination, i ask you seriously, since she is being backed by military contractors, will the wars end under hillary ? ask yourself this, would she stand a chance if she ran pro war ? (like she used to be) the reason she is now "anti war" is because other wise she wouldn't stand a cat in hells chance of being nominated. Ron Paul stands for anti war, pro civil liberties , he wants to scale back this empire thats grown massively under Bush, something the dems won't do, if anything it will get bigger.
IRAQ: Military Fatalities: By Time Period
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
6 845 44 9 898 2.51 358
5 933 32 20 985 2.39 412
4 715 13 18 746 2.35 318
3 580 25 27 632 2.93 216
2 718 27 59 804 1.9 424
1 140 33 173 4.02 43
Total 3931 174 133 4238 2.39 1771
Ask yourself who are they representing.
Simple math tells me about 4 in 10. Gotta agree with 1st post. Never underestimate the stupidity of the electorate. Nor the hatred and fear of Hillary or "the scary black muslim guy" the right can inspire.
All the DNC needs to do to have literally ALL their candidates win in November is to put out a simple commercial.
Visual - Still photos of exploded IEDs, burned Humvees, injured Iraqis.
Overlay the images with captions stating quite simply...the Year...and the cost of the war for that year...Six images, six captions = VICTORY.
andy @ 82:
Problem with Ron Paul is that despite having the ONLY sane responses to foreign policy in the campaign so far, his domestic policy is so far beyond messed up, it makes him a dangerous candidate.
Trillions of dollars.. and to ensure there won't be an attack from someone.. who didn't want to attack us.... No, I don't see it.
McCain and that scary, weird, disingenuous grin...
People, have any of you ever watched the Deleted Scenes from Terminator 2? There is this screamingly funny scene where Edward Furlong is trying to teach Arnie how to smile. A kid is trying to teach a robot how to smile believably, see? This SO reminds me of McCain's manic grin every time he says something vicious and stupid about Iraq.
Ron Paul:
There is no way in heck I am voting for him because of his libertarian and/or conservative views things like deregulation of the media, but on Iraq he is just excellent. So heartening to hear at least one fella on the GOP side talking the truth. I could dissect his motives until doomsday, because I don't trust a republican further than I can toss one, but I will take his stance on the Iraq occupation at face value and give him polite applause.
Old Billy @ 76:
Nice one. Actually his line was "...we didn't find the weapons, it doesn't mean they weren't there."
Yes, blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe.
US Wounded by Service - Total 28770
US Wounded by State
Yeah! It's going SO WELL!!!
.
.
.
.
NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
These bass-ackward, mind numbingly stupid dinosaurs! Aside from Ron Paul, of course. I'm disappointed, but not surprised
Kucinich is out, Gravel is the best man still in the race.
See video: Kucinich Drops Out and Doesn't Endorse Anyone
http://representativepress.googlepages.com/DropOut.html
"A HRC nomination will increase Repub turn-out. Even if they don't really like the Repub nominee that much, they wouldn't want HRC in the WH. That will make all the difference.
Allright, let's get out and work hard for Obama, or for Edwards, and hope one of the two pulls it off. And then, no matter who gets the nomination, we need to remember the one overriding priority: getting the Republicans out of power. I don't care how many Republicans will be motivated to vote. What will do us in will be those of us that for one reason or another will put their dislike of Hilary ahead of getting a Democrat in the White House and either stay home or vote for some ephemereal third-party person. Which means opening the door to more politicization of government, to more privatization, to more defecits down the road because of wreckless tax cutting, more militarization, and I've yet to hear any of the Repugs have a bad word to say for John Robert or Samuel Alito. There's plenty more like them ready to go in the Federalist Society wings too. And, finally, if you think 2006 derailed the Rovian "Republican permanent majority" plans, you're in for a terrible surprise if we let them back in the door in the next decade. Is all that worth some Hilary spite on our part, if indeed she's the candidate? If you say "yes", then you've got some very skewed priorities. Sorry to say.
Chris @ 66:
Sorry Chris, but I just have to laugh at you and your knee-jerk thought process.
Now, follow along as I spell it out s-l-o-w-l-y for you.
IF we got attacked by another country, guess what?
Then THEY started the war!
(please don't get mad, I'm kidding around in this part of my response, and I don't think you are an idiot)
Now, although I can agree with you that what you THINK Ron Paul meant is rational, this is not what Ron Paul actually said.
Perhaps I shouldn't expect someone speaking to not make mistakes, however, in the clip presented Paul had ample time to formulate his reply before opening his mouth.
I would have hoped that he had been more careful in his response (especially being informed and in agreement with his stand on other wars the US has waged), and perhaps he is even kicking himself in the pants for not wording it better...
something that really needs to be done if we ever hope to get the dialogue on these issues to ever reach a level of true sanity.
Filthy Harry @ 86:
i don't agree that it's dangerous, i agree that it is radically different, but i keep hearing people say they want "change", i suppose they don;t really want change, the just want to revert back to democrat control, whoo back to clinton style government, a government who is much better at covering up there atrocities than the present one.
With the exception of Paul, they were talking to their base. They must really love their base: all 25%-30% of it.
I personally think it's quite likely that the Republicans will either win or steal this election. And even if they don't, whichever Democrat wins will be a warmonger, too.
Rusty Shackleford @ 79:
Absolutely aware. As you are cognizant the CIC's power to wage war without Congressional approval is severely curtailed? ;)
Now that we have this witty little exchange behind us, perhaps you would like to actually address the content of my post?
You have to admit it, Ron Paul was the only one up there that told the truth. He surely won the debate. I hope he gets it on the Republican side because he is what the true Republican was of yrs. ago. You go Ron Paul, fight for the "Constitution and the truth." We love you.
Mc Cain look and acts like he's been chipped. Scarey.
You have to credit Ron Paul though , getting a round of applause at a republican debate talking about ending the war and how much a bad idea it was, also to be talking about things like blowback, he's got balls thats for sure, he's standing up there talking truth to people who have been brain washed in to thinking terrorists attack purely because they hate freedom, it's pretty remarkable.
Even the "anti war" democrats don't talk about blowback.
And Saddam hid them in Jordan for what reason?
Maybe he wanted his country destroyed. Maybe he wanted to be killed and all of his family member killed.
If the US were attacked, would Huckabee hide our WMDs in Canada?
Here's what's really scary, and true....and worse ahead if there's any Repub (and that might also include Ron Paul) appointing judges. Something to keep in mind, friends.......
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON - In nearly seven years in the White House, President Bush has named 294 judges to the federal courts, giving Republican appointees a solid majority of the seats, including a 3-2 edge over Democrats on the influential U.S. appeals courts.
The rightward shift on the federal bench is likely to prove a lasting legacy of the Bush presidency, since many of these judges, including his two Supreme Court appointees, might serve for decades.
And despite the Republicans' loss of control of the Senate, 40 of Bush's judges won confirmation this year, more than in the previous three years, when Republicans held the majority.
Bonkers @ 88:
ANother sheep being spoon fed poison. Tisk,tisk....THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!!! When Hillary gets nominated watch and see ugly its really gonna get.
Ron Paul, We love you!!!!
Well, as far as your premise go, sure, if we were going to run
Edwards or Obama....
Hillary vs McCain?
McCain can claim, and rightfully so, that BOTH of them
voted for the war...
And, he was very early screaming about poor execution, Rummsy
ouster....
And, sure, the DEMOCRATS want someone punished for this
cluster*uck, but Independents are a bit more pragmatic?
Look, Hillary beats Romney like a dog?
He's so far into Iraq, and for god sakes, his 5 sons
are riding around on bikes, rather then being in this god-awful
war he is so hot on...
McCain's son is IN IRAQ right now...and we all know
he's crazy about this war, but how will that sell in this election?
Bush's war, Bush gone...
Now, whatever you think McCain is saying NOW to get
the Nomination, he is going to realize, he has to move to
a "start a draw-down" position as soon as he get's the nomination.
He's vunerable on it, but not as much as Romney or Rudy....
IF McCain loses to Hillary, it's on Economic issues, NOT the war...
OK, flame me you Hillbots..ready for the burn.....
If Saddam had wmd's wouldn't he have used them when the US invaded ? erm isn't that what they're for, i think once US soldiers made it to Baghdad without any wmd's being used it's pretty well confirmed he had none, i mean if you don't use them when you have an invading army encroaching your capitol you more than likly don't have any.
South Carolina and North Carolina, states that have the dumbest people on planet earth with an IQ 2 points below plant life!!!
it just shows how bad the republican party is when everyone refers to Ron Paul as a yahoo when he's the only one there speaking any sense at all.
peaceful easy feeling @ 97:
The Democrats in Congress can't end the war. Dick. ;)
Consider the "content" of your post addressed.
The rightward shift on the federal bench is likely to prove a lasting legacy of the Bush presidency, since many of these judges, including his two Supreme Court appointees, might serve for decades.
I know, people have been throwing "THE USSC" bug-a-boo at the Democrats for years, but the problem it has always been couched in terms of Abortion?
Hell, the MONEY behind the Federalist Society doesn't give a rats ass about
abortion, this is about MONEY and the people who have it and want MORE!
They didn't put Alito and Roberts on the court to overturn Roe v Wade, it
was to vote on crap like the Enron Shareholder case last week...
I have been going to the court for a decade, and, it's really shocking
how FAR to the right it's gone in pro-business/anti consumer.
People don't realize, Renhquist was right wing, but, Roberts and Alito
are much more pro business Idealogues...
But, right now, there is a tenative balance.
Ginsberg and Stevens, one or both won't make it to the 2012 election.
If McCain, or heaven help us Romney gets to appoint TWO new
judges, and Hillary draws downticket support for Republics...
So, we DON'T have bluer Senate then we do now?
Realizes, you have PLENTY of Blue dogs in Congress, guys like
Harry Reid and Ben Nelson, who would rubber stamp some Republic
hack like Orrin Hatch onto the court.
So, no matter how Kennedy swings, the Scalia wing will rule.
Weaseldog @ 102:
Thank You. I've said the same,since before the war started. Knowing his country was about to overun and him and his family wanted fugitives,if He had Them,Why Didn't He Use Them?
Pete @ 93:
This is not a knee-jerk reaction. I've just read a number of the anti-war pieces he's written and it's highly likely that he just misspoke. If you've read the stuff he's written about war and seen the speech he gave against the Iraq war in the House back in 2002, you'd see this is highly unlikely to be what he meant. It's obvious to me that he misspoke. He's not the best speaker of the Republicans, but he is the most consistent and honest by far. He's not someone who speaks in soundbites and rehearses lines over and over again. When you're not rehearsed like that I'd say that you're going to mess up every once in a while.
Chris @ 112:
He wants to leave war up to the states.
.
McCampaign: "The war was justified because of Saddam."
~ WHAT WMD'S?
~ WHAT YELLOW CAKE URANIUM?
~ WHAT TIES TI AL-CIA-DUH?
~ WHAT MOBILE BIO-CHEM WEAPONS PLANTS?
~ WHAT SUIT CASES?
~ WHAT MUSHROOM CLOUDS?
~ WHAT TRUTH?
McCampaign: "...and now we are succeeding..."
2007 = Highest US casualties = SUCCESS?
2007 = Highest Iraqi civilian deaths = SUCCESS?
2007 = No political solution in place = SUCCESS?
McCampaign: "We will have peace and success in the Middle East..." "Fight al-CIA-duh there!"
~ S O U N D B I T E S~
~ BUMPERSTICKER SLOGANS ~
.
James @ 26 "Are you referring to the document that justified SECESSION from the British Empire, but wasn't allowed to be quoted in 1860 without that same person being accused of being "unpatriotic", or a "slavery-enabler"?"
The word is TRAITOR. Unlike the relationship to Britain, the colonies chose to ratify the Constitution. At that point it became non-optional.
"Remember, it was LINCOLN who sponsored a bill in 1858, to pay slave-owners $400 for each slave, with the ultimate goal of sending the "Africans" as Lincoln referred to them, back to Africa?"
At the start of the Civil War, Lincoln was a racist. By the end, he was not.
"Ron Paul only wants what other libertarians in this country want: adherence to the LAW."
Hilarious. He wants to strip out the LAW, and you know it. He wants to go back before those mean old Nigras got their equal rights, back before those dirty women got their medical rights, back before those goddamned FDRers set up some social programs.
He says he wants to leave everything not explicit in the Constitution to the States. And then TWICE last year he tries to pass a federal law mandating that personhood begins at conception. He's a LIAR.
Rusty Shackleford @ 109:
I hope you're not serious. They can most assuredly end the war. Mike Gravel, the man who ended the Viet Nam war, made this abundantly clear, which is why he's not in the "debates" anymore. They're just afraid of the neocon propaganda machine and the fascist news channel. The Democrats also "can't" stop telecom amnesty!!! They also "can't" start impeachment hearings against The Dick.
Mc Cain: It's clear Saddam was HELLBENT on acquiring WMD. Huh? Uh, when did that become clear? Perhaps he could explain that.......
WashStateBlue @ 110:
It depends on the depth of post-Bush scandal. Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy violated their oaths when they voted on Bush v. Gore in 2000. That was the vote of co-conspirators, and they can be held to account (impeached) if Bush's crimes create enough of a backlash in the next couple of years.
Chris @ 116:
Sorry, I forgot. Only St. Ron Paul can end the war. My bad
Rusty Shackleford @ 113:
Right LOL!!!1 Hillary/Obama '08! No war or weapon is "off the table".
Rusty Shackleford @ 113:
...and eat him some fried squirrel he cooked up in a popcorn popper. Huckabee's one of dem dar uppity hillbillies. Easting road kill possum like the rest of the folk back home is too good for him.
James @ 26:
I don't get your point. Am I being pilloried for being a supporter of Lincoln? Let me set the record straight. When Huckabee, as a candidate to head the "party of Lincoln" pandered shamelessly to a crowd of confederate flag wavers, my reaction was not one of horror or disbelief but amusement. When Jesus said "A house divided against itself shall not stand," he was right but when Lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand," he was wrong, because he used it as merely a rhetorical trick, a clever turn of phrase, devoid of meaning. The plain fact was that America was a house divided against itself and the best it could hope for was an amicable divorce. The worst was what America got, a civil war and a trading off of one form of slavery for another, an enslavement to the monumental hypocrisy of the imperial president and the notions of some great, grand civilizing mission to the world, an enslavement to vanity.
Chris @ 116:
That's hilarious. His effort to stop the draft failed.
.
Up-Chuck-abee: "I supported the president as did the Democrats..."
~ All good leaders follow blindly... NO?
Up-Chuck-abee: "... the president had the courage to recognize the potential..."
~ And Up-Chuck-abee has "potential" to become an evil man, hell, we all have the "potential" to do real evil shit, so this justifies killing and assassinations; Because of POTENTIALITIES?
Up-Chuck-abee: "Presidents will be second guessed and I hope we have the courage and resolve that once we commit to something to make sure we don't back away because the polls..."
~ Resolved: Up-Chuck-abee thinks being committed to mass murder and genocide, invasions and wars of aggression, occupations of sovereign nations and the proliferation of nuclear material and terrorism IS A COMMITMENT TO STAND BY!
.
Left&Left @ 80:
Is that it? Is that all you got?
He has talked about it, every time he gets asked about it. In fact, he's quite clear about it. He HAS apologized for lending his name to a newsletter and not controlling the editorial content. In fact, it's the only thing that mudslingers have to use on him, so of COURSE it keeps surfacing.
More to the point: what LEGISLATION has he supported that you consider "racist"? Bet you can't find any.
If Ron Paul is a racist, then why does the head of the Texas chapter of the NAACP support him and repudiate the claim?
Paul in LA @ 123:
There you go with your pedantic rants again. Gravel's reading of the Pentagon papers flipping the bird at Nixon was a big deal and even if he wasn't successful in his attempt to end the draft in the Senate, that had a huge impact too. What a pendant can never realize is that these efforts can turn the tide, even if you don't win a particular battle.
It's the same reason Obama and Clinton should go back and help Dodd stop retroactive telecom immunity. "Two votes won't make a difference." Bullshit. The press that could get and the speeches they COULD give could make a HUGE difference. It could get a LOT more pressure put on others by the public to also oppose it and could turn the tide. But a pedant like you could never understand that.
Ron Paul pointed out something that bears repeating. The decision to remove Saddam Hussein WAS MADE IN 1998.
Ron Paul is the only decent republican.
I'd vote for him over Hillary.
"When targeted by a roadside bomb or suicide bomber, U.S. soldiers shoot at people randomly. Innocent civilians have been killed or injured," Yaser Abdul-Rahman, a 45-year-old schoolmaster told IPS. "Thousands of people have been killed like this."
The anti-U.S. sentiment in Baquba is now so high that people no longer hide their distrust of the U.S.
"At the beginning of the occupation, the people of Iraq did not realise the U.S. strategy in the area," Abu Taiseer, a member of the communist party in the city told IPS. "Their strategy is based on destruction and massacre. They do anything to have their agenda fulfilled.
"Now, Iraqis know that behind the U.S. smile is hatred and violence," Taiseer added.http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40924
.
Mittens: "It was the right decision to go into Iraq..."
~ WHAT WMD’S?
~ WHAT YELLOW CAKE URANIUM?
~ WHAT TIES TI AL-CIA-DUH?
~ WHAT MOBILE BIO-CHEM WEAPONS PLANTS?
~ WHAT SUIT CASES?
~ WHAT MUSHROOM CLOUDS?
~ WHAT TRUTH?
Mittens: "The plan by the President and Petrayus is changing lives..."
~ About a million lives... changed and silenced... FOREVER!
Mittens: "It's making sure that al-CIA-duh and no other group like that is becoming a super power in the communities..."
~ How many car bombs went off under Saddam's rule?
~ How many suicide bombers attacked civilians and US occupiers under Saddam's rule in Iraq?
~ Prior to ANY war in the M.E. by the USA this Century, al-CIA-duh existed primarily in Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban. Under the rule of George W. Bush, al-CIA-duh has strong holds still in Afghanistan, and have spread into Iraq and Pakistan. And this equals SUCCESS?
Mittens: Let's not worry why the breaks failed. Let's just worry how to clean up the mess.
~ Problem with narrow thinkers like this: They encourage the breaks to fail again, and again, and again, and again... a-la-Bush! - by not questioning why it happened.
.
Ian McGarrett @ 122:
Sorry. Wasn't trying to dog you about anything in particular.
I'm just saying that the Declaration isn't used by the courts as LAW. The Constitution IS supposed to be the law, and yes, everyone can argue about what reasons we ultimately started this nation, but once we put down in writing, those laws that we are supposed to abide by, then we are supposed to actually ABIDE by them. Not trick our way around them, like the people in the government do all the time.
If we did this, we wouldn't have private bankers setting the value of our currency, we would have the government setting the value thereof. If we adhered to the Constitution, we wouldn't have an enormous standing army.
If we adhered to the Constitution, yes, the South would have been allowed to secede. And I was only pointing out Lincoln's racism to preemptively cut off anyone who automatically assumes that a person who agrees with the secession, as a matter of academics, is a person who wants a return to enslavement. It's not necessarily true.
President PNACcio @ 127:
Thank you!
Least we also not forget,
the decision to WARRANTLESSLY WIRE TAP AMERICANS happened PRIOR to 9/11.
.
ConcernedCanuck @ 129:
If I was there and bombs were going off or I was getting shot at, I'd be returning fire too. If you don't you'll be dead. It's not exactly easy to tell where it's coming from. That's why I don't blame the soldiers over there for the mess. Responsibility belongs squarely at the feet of the DUHcider AND his enablers (many of whom are Democrats, sorry guys).
Giuliani: "Clinton was for the war when the polls said so, but against the war when they didn't. Me? I'm wrong all the time!"
Clinton does seem to be the type whose opinions seem to be swayed by public sentiment, but when 40% of the country changes their mind from 'yay' to 'nay'.... she'd do well to admit that her initial decision was wrong, because her behaviour clearly indicates that's what she believes.
Rusty Shackleford @ 119:
No, Ron Paul is the only one left in the race who will end the war. Dennis Kucinich would absolutely have ended the war, but he's not in the race anymore, because Democrats don't seem to like candidates who have an actual anti-war record. It seems like they like people who talk about ending wars, but at the same time vote for new ones. HRC could end the war, but she won't and she'll start a new one with Iran. I don't know whether to believe Edwards; plus he and Obama haven't said they won't start another war with Iran.
"I'm not planning to nuke anyone right now" -- Barack Obama
Chris @ 133:
German and Japanese soldiers were not allowed to use that as a reason for killing people. Just following orders is Bullsh*&.
Chris @ 135:
I know that RP claims that, if elected, he will end the war. What exactly has he done as a Congressman to, as somebody above put it, "seriously curtail" Bush's ability to continue the war?
Paul in LA @ 115:
At WHAT point did it become non-optional? Because prior to the Civil War, MANY states had threatened to secede, and it was considered a RIGHT of the states to do so.
Are you going to be the one to tell the Puerto Ricans that, if they join the union, like they petition every year, that they are never going to be allowed to LEAVE?!?!
As a matter of historical FACT, Jefferson Davis WANTED to be tried for TREASON. And the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court told Andrew Johnson that if the government tried, they would LOSE, because there's NOTHING in the Constitution that says that secession is illegal. The Tenth Amendment applies.
As for Lincoln becoming a non-racist in the middle of the Civil War, then why are there numerous accounts of Lincoln telling racist jokes to his friends? Why is it that, as late as 1863, he is known for having advocated the "back to Africa" plan?
"Proof by Proclamation" is a tool of apologists. Simply SAYING that Lincoln magically stopped being a racist DOESN'T make it true.
And again, before you make claims about what you THINK Ron Paul wants to do about the law concerning blacks and women, LOOK AT THE CONSTITUTION! He hasn't called for a repeal of the thirteenth amendment, and he hasn't called for a repeal of the nineteenth amendment either! So your last statement is just race-bating.
Lastly, I hope you're not the kind of person who assumes that criticizing the New Deal isn't the same as calling for a return of Nazi Germany, or the fascist Nipponese Empire.
Likewise, criticizing Lincoln for suspending Habeas Corpus, and chasing a Congressman out of the country(!?), and for authorizing the RAPE of Georgia (which would be considered an international war crime today) is NOT the same as calling for a return of the Confederacy.
Perhaps it's simply looking at history objectively?
Rusty Shackleford @ 137:
You can't do as much in the House as you can in the Senate. But to start off with, he's voted against all these wars EVERY TIME. He's offered up alternatives for capturing terrorists that don't involve taking over the middle east to show how dumb our government is. He's gone on TV many times and spoken out against it. He's spoken out against it in nationally televised Republican debates and set the record straight on many lies promoted by the neocons and their propaganda network (FAUX), and has not backed down from the likes of douchebags Hannity and Orally. Many Democrats won't even go on FAUX and take on these scumbags. He's given discouraged young people a candidate whose anti-war message is not hypocritical which has encouraged them to speak out. He's said on national television that the greatest moral issue facing us is the idea that we now promote preemptive war. His supporters take on Faux Noise.
Before changing the subject and avoiding the question like usual, point me to a Democrat left in the race who has done all that. (Dennis Kucinich probably has done roughly the same, but he's not in the race anymore).
News Flash: Neither Hillary or Obama will pull out of Iraq.
ANOTHER REASON NOT TO VOTE FOR RONNY PAUL -
He is from the dark side folks. Wake up already and deal with this particular issue.
On January 22nd, 2008 McCorvey endorsed Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul. McCorvey stated, “I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v. Wade. He has never wavered on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn.”
Women are: your wives, sisters, aunts, family, lovers and daughters, and FUTURE daughters. HALF THE RACE. And he wants to make abortion illegal.. DARK AGES.. Women/girls die from illegal abortions.
Chris @ 135:
This statement reflects Obama's sane, rational view that wars can be necessary and just, as he declared in his famous Oct/26/2002 anti-Iraq invasion speech in Chicago. In contrast, Dennis Kucinich and his peace-worshiping followers have their "Department of Peace" concept, well-intentioned, yes, but reflecting a serious dearth of understanding about the nature of the world we live in. For this reason and others, Obama is electable, Kucinich hopelessly unelectable. No surprises there.
Rusty Shackleford @ 109:
Not wasting my time on ad hominem arguments. My original point stands.
You're damm Right...it's about IRAQ!
It's hard to immagine that people went on cloud nine about it......knowing that it's occupation has bankrupt our nation to a chapter 11 for generations to come and for TRILLIONS of dollars taxpayer will have to endure (YOU , YOUR children and UNborn children to come)!
Anyone foolish to think that "illegal" occupation of IRAQ has nothing to do with the growing deficits (trade or otherwise) and the accelaration of the global warming and the foreseeable trend of collapsing freeworld enterprises......HAS been living in a LA LA nation in trance of the world of Disneland and falsehood of NEVADA's make-believe WORLD.
The facade is no more REAL than the streets of Universal Studios. The truth lies NOT what WE see "on the surfaces" but rather the flimsy 2 by 4 lumber that that supports the make-believe structure.
WE HAVE BEEN FRAMED AMERICA and will be left empty handed by the TIME government looters, corporate swindlerss, and main-stream media perfect it's wage to deceive DEMOCRACY into successfully trapping us ONCE and for all into a dreadful demise of life-as-usual of "modern living slavery". Freeworld will be a thing of the past, where everyone of YOU will be expendable at the call of the New World of Emperialisms. This time it will not be so simple to reverse for keeping us there has already been advanced through technological design.
OPEN YOUR EYES as the HIGH tech policy-making and negotiations....fights it's survival throught the low tech of WARMONGERING and Military arm twisting.
The WAR between two logic will be at the expense of PEOPLE. Expect more BLOOD, SWEAT and TEARS before you see light at the end of the tunnel. Expect more forest to be burn for the fire will be our only light. Endless drought will be sustained by more floodings. Extremes has already gave clue to the darkness ahead. Take notice around you for the lap of luxury will turn its course to a life of misery for those who never knew what it means to live through poverty. For those who have been inflicted by the sins of the greedy and the powerful; they will survive for they humbled themselves and had long adjusted to the reality of what is about to come.
America must learn to RESPECT what they have taken for granted and only through this will learn HUMILITY. Choose the leader that reflects who you are and you will see then what AMERICA has become.
They are not elected representatives, they are purchased representatives.
By November, the economy will be gone. Bribing us with Chinese money won't obscure that fact.
why the republicans will win this election
Hillary
ExxonMobil4prez @ 141:
What a complete load of crap!! First of all Dr. Paul is against abortion because the killing of an unborn child could be viewed as the ultimate loss of liberty for that child. Second, he wants the responsibility for how abortions are managed to be dealt with at the state level, where it belongs according to the consitution. Third, on The View he admitted that the likelyhood of his having his view adopted was low, but that these were his feelings on the matter and that as a doctor who has delivered 4,000 over babies, he felt it was his personal and professional duty to help save lives rather than kill them off, especially a defenseless fetus. Fourth, the very fact that you need to reach as deeply into your bag of mindless slime to smear him with something like this shows the weakness of your arguements: here is a person who is defending personal liberty for all of us -- blacks, whites, men, women, children -- yet you make him out to be, what, a Muslim fundamentalist!!! Hahaha. That's rich.
You are as narrow minded and as intellectually soft as any neo con you claim to hate so much. And you reflect what is so very disturbing about America today: while the powers that be steer our country into bankruptsy with illegal wars, corporate fascism and a technological police state, while they literally rob this country blind -- Democrats and Republicans both!! -- your need to be on the "winning" side trumps everything. So you can't hear the truth when it is presented to you. The strategy of divide and conquer is alive, well and working like a charm.
God help us all, that's all I can say.
RON PAUL IS THE FUCKIN MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Login or Register to post comments.