Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Tired of the Ron Paul Bandwagon???

page: 30
40
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 



Yes it is true. You are talking about laws he has voted for, I am talking about the things he is saying, right now. Today. Every day. While running for President.


Not to beat a dead horse, and I won't discuss it further, but in your video he was asked about abortion in the case of rape or incest. In his personal case it was about the life of the mother. The life of the mother should legally take priority over the unborn child if the mother so chooses. So this didn't further your argument. 

This conversation about Ron Paul and Rick Santorum really is pointless anyway because, as we saw again at last nights debate, this race is between Newt and Romney. Santorum and Paul got about 20 minutes of air time combined (if that) in a 2 hour debate and neither has a snowball's chance of winning. 

I appreciate the debate though. You Paulites are a diehard bunch and I respect that (even though I disagree). 

Edit to add - By the way, my wife and I discussed this last night and she agrees with Santorum. I disagree with both of them on this issues. I believe that it should be allowed in the case of rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother. Just my $.02. 
edit on 24-1-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
Not to beat a dead horse, and I won't discuss it further, but in your video he was asked about abortion in the case of rape or incest. In his personal case it was about the life of the mother. The life of the mother should legally take priority over the unborn child if the mother so chooses. So this didn't further your argument. 


Well it should further my argument since it was YOU who claimed that Rick Santorum is FOR abortion in cases of rape and Incest and in that video he clearly says he is NOT in favor of abortion in cases of rape and incest.

Yes in his personal case it was about the life of the mother.. and yet he openly states that doctors who perform abortions, for ANY reason, should be criminally charged.


This conversation about Ron Paul and Rick Santorum really is pointless anyway because, as we saw again at last nights debate, this race is between Newt and Romney. Santorum and Paul got about 20 minutes of air time combined (if that) in a 2 hour debate and neither has a snowball's chance of winning. 


I am happy your crystal ball works. Mine broke many many years ago. That being said, I dont think you can call it a 2 man race when we are only 3 primaries in, which all saw a different winner, and we are still a year away from voting.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by eLPresidente
 



Oh stop, you've been debunked on Iran before, and it was by me too.


I've been debunked by you on Iran??
Not hardly. At a certain point it just got ridiculous to keep repeating myself. Nothing I've said about Iran was wrong. My thread is still there. Go read it again. 


After I was done with you, you had absolutely NOTHING to say about Iran and their 'supposed' danger to Israel and America.


That's your recollection?



I would tell you to stop drinking the kool-aid but I understand that GMO high fructose corn syrup can be damn addicting.


I'm not the kool-aid drinker in this conversation. I know I'm right about RP's dangerous foreign policy and I've proven it. 
RP Debunked



Ohh...you don't remember this? then you quoted to respond to me but CONVENIENTLY left out Iran.



Originally posted by seabag

No, what's scary is his willingness to allow the terrorist nation of Iran to become a nuclear power and his desire to disengage from the world. Also his desire to give terrorists constitutional rights and civilian trials.



Then I said this?



Originally posted by eLPresidente

First of all, Article 3 of the Constitution states no person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of 2 witnesses to the same overt act or the confession in open court, the supposed 'panel' that determined Al Awlaki could be killed were lawyers, only two of them. Should lawyers be able to determine who is and isn't a terrorist? Was the second isolated drone bombing that killed his 16 year old son, justified? was it again determined by a panel of two lawyers that weren't witnesses?

It isn't the fact that Ron Paul wants to let terrorists live, he doesn't want to set a precedence for Americans to be randomly determined as terrorists, assassinated or jailed for the rest of their lives with no due process. Hell, just in these last couple of days, the US Senate is determining if people that have 7 days worth of food storage and weather proof guns can be deemed terrorists. Suddenly, anybody that is a survivalist could be targeted as a terrorist and assassinated, you REALLY want that precedence to be set? And you're a member of the Oath Keepers? wow...



On Iran:

I have a former military friend that explains Iran very simply:



Having been a PATRIOT missile defense systems operator and someone whose trained exclusively against Iran for 2 years, I want to reiterate the most important facts in regards to Iran's ACTUAL capabilities:

1) They have absolutely no missile that can reach America. None. It is a complete non-issue.
2) Their missile arsenal predominately consists of Shahab-1 through Shahab-5 missiles, Scud-B and Scud-C. Most of these are IRBMs (Intermediate Range) and none are ICBMs (Inter-Continental).
3) We have sold PATRIOT missile defense systems to Taiwan, Egypt, Germany, South Korea, Greece, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates.
4) In order for Iran to launch any nuclear payload at Israel, they would have to first defeat the missile defense systems in Iraq, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait, and Israel. Just look at line of sight from Iran to Israel and you'll see it's a foolish argument. Since there is no way for Iran to defeat these systems, their only option would be to overwhelm them. In order to do that, they'd likely have to launch their entire arsenal of missiles, which is essentially impossible due to the amount of logistics that would involve, without clearly setting of early warning WORLDWIDE.
5) We have great early warning systems that would allow us to send in our Air Force to take out most launch locations, prior to launch. Further, any missiles that do launch would then immediately identify launch locations we miss, so it is unlikely they could fire more than one volly from each location. This means that logistically, they not only have to beat our early warning systems, but they'd also have to launch from multiple thousands of locations.
6) Every nuclear payload launched from Iran has a 9/10 probability of being shot down over their own country and would cause widespread nuclear fallout for IRAN itself.

Ultimately, the conclusion is that it's a complete non-issue, unless Iran wants to destroy itself with no guarantee of a mutual-assured destruction of Israel. It would be complete suicide with no achievement.




And what do you deem disengaging from the world? you mean pulling troops and cutting military spending so we can wrap up this $15 trillion debt crisis? Is free market trade and open cultural exchange disengaging from the rest of the world? Where do you get your information from, soldier?



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 



Well it should further my argument since it was YOU who claimed that Rick Santorum is FOR abortion in cases of rape and Incest and in that video he clearly says he is NOT in favor of abortion in cases of rape and incest.


If I said that then I miss-spoke…I stand corrected!


Yes in his personal case it was about the life of the mother.. and yet he openly states that doctors who perform abortions, for ANY reason, should be criminally charged.


It makes no sense to criminally charge a doctor who performs a LEGAL abortion. You cannot be charged for anything unless you've broken a law. I don’t know what to tell you. You would hate Santorum regardless his view on abortion!



I am happy your crystal ball works. Mine broke many many years ago. That being said, I dont think you can call it a 2 man race when we are only 3 primaries in, which all saw a different winner, and we are still a year away from voting.


Yes, everyone has won a primary except who? That’s right…your boy! And he will be dead last AGAIN on Jan 31 in Florida.

I have no crystal ball nor would I know how to operate one.


I say it’s a two-man race because it’s becoming obvious. It takes money to continue with a campaign. When you fail to win Primaries your money dries up. I predict RP and Santorum will officially drop @ March (if not sooner).

I could be wrong…wouldn’t be the first time.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Seabag, just because you have your head buried in the sand and cannot provide any proof that Iran has nukes or is any real threat to Israel and America, doesn't mean you can use your 'military experience' to sell the war propaganda JUST as it was sold to you.


But the good news is, Iran is already selling oil for gold to India and in talks with China and Russia for the same, so they are FREE trading against our almighty (HA) petrol-dollar. Don't fret though, I'm sure somebody in Iran will be assassinated or there will be some invasion of some sort through selling fear to the American public with threats of Iranian WMDS.....LOL



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


Man…I must have really gotten under your skin!


I guess I need to bust out this picture again:



Explain to me again how cutting a small fraction of $689 Billion is going to solve the nation’s $15 Trillion economic problem??

As far as Iran not being able to touch the US of A....BS:


Here’s CNN quoting Iran’s state-run Islamic Republic News Agency:
“Commander of the Navy of the Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran broke the news about the plans for the presence of this force in the Atlantic Ocean and said that the same way that the world arrogant power is present near our marine borders, we, with the help of our sailors who follow the concept of the supreme jurisprudence, shall also establish a powerful presence near the marine borders of the United States,” the story said. The reference to the “world arrogant power” was presumably intended to refer to the United States.

2011

Iran has not only been working on it's submarine technology, they've also been working hard to build relations in south America so they can conduct terrorist operations on US soil (dirty bomb?)....right in our backyard.


The recent alleged conspiracy by Iran's Qods Force to commit a terrorist attack in the heart of Washington, D.C., appears to shatter the conventional wisdom that Tehran and its dangerous proxies would never risk such a provocation on U.S. soil. It has also called attention to recruiting, training, fund-raising and planning efforts by Hezbollah and other Iranian operatives in Latin America, abetted by anti-U.S. regimes in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Cuba. Some U.S. officials have sought to minimize these claims. Are they simply being cautious; are they downplaying Iran’s culpability to preserve the engagement option; or are they uninformed?

Ambassador Noriega presented documents and photographs that described the economic relations between Iran and Venezuela, the appearance of uranium mining in Venezuela and Ecuador and ties between Hezbollah and Latin American leaders.
2011

So YES, Iran may have the ability to reach out and touch us very soon if not already.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 

Your chart is crap. You should throw it away.
Seabag, your source is elementary nonsense, it has nothing to do with real life expenditures. Factor in a few trillion in missing dollars into your worthless graph, and then we will talk.
Jeez, we have to raise the bar here.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 


Oh, yes SIR. I will remove it immediately!!


What have you provided besides you opinion, sir?



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


No America was not dragged in kicking and screaming, our allies wanted us in the war. The government wanted in the war. Heck the people of America wanted in the war too. It is a historically accepted fact that America poked the bear and got attacked. Your right America would not have entered the war without the bombing, there would have been no true justification. However America blockaded Japan and didn't allow oil shipments and rubber shipments. Japan had no other choice than to attack Americans. American oil embargo causes Japan to attack;. It really isn't hard to understand that, the Japanese asked first to sit down and talk about the situation. The Japanese feared us the entire time, why would they attack us without prior provocation. The only reason why they didn't surrender earlier in the war was due to "bushido." That however is a debate for a different day. History will tell you even when America is in its isolation stage, it really isn't. The Tampico incident in Mexico, the U.S.S. Dolphin incident in Mexico also.

America likes to poke the bear and then practice massive retaliation when they get attacked. I'll admit that the Japanese weren't the best belligerents and did terrible things to the Chinese. However they were scared to attack us but had to because we wouldn't end the blockade.

On the side of Iran, The Ayatollah hasn't acted upon his speeches has he? A speech from 2006 and yet no invasion of Israel, or any other country for that matter. If he wanted to he could get biological or gaseous weapons to use in war. They don't possess those to my knowledge, or have made any real gains to attain those even after his speech.

Our Allies don't need our money, I'm sorry but they don't require our foreign aid at the moment. Why does Germany require the foreign aid? Why does Japan require the foreign aid? Military foreign aid is pointless thing because the countries we give the money to don't require it. What has our foreign military aid got us, well the major rise of Al Quadea in Afghanistan. The rise of Iraq into a dictatorship that invaded Kuwait and Iran. By giving money to Iraq it drew into wars against Iraq later on. Foreign military doesn't work.
In conclusion, preemptive attacks don't work



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Originally posted by seabag
If I said that then I miss-spoke…I stand corrected!

Wait a minute. As I said in one of your threads, I do respect you even though we are on completely opposite sides of some issues. It takes strength and integrity to come to a place like ATS, knowing full well it is a very Pro Paul type of site and not only say you disagree, but to clearly articulate and show why it is that you believe as you do. You planted your feet, you took a stand and you have remained steadfast in defending your position. Much like you have in this thread as well. These are admirable qualities and kudos to you for displaying this for us.

However, now it seems that you are being dishonest a bit with those 10 words I quoted above. There was no "misspeaking" in your position. I would never beat up on a guy for admitting he was wrong, and yet instead of admitting you were wrong you are taking the high road, pulling a George Bush 2 and claiming that you misspoke? You have spent pages and pages and have even went so far as to link to laws that Santorum sponsored, supported and signed in order to prove my statement wrong. Now that I have shown Santorum in his own words proving your claim to be wrong, it just seems like a huge cop out to claim "I misspoke, but now stand corrected." I would ask respectfully Sir, that you show the same strength and integrity that you have already show us in defending your position, and just simply admit you were wrong and not hide behind the "I misspoke" tag line.


It makes no sense to criminally charge a doctor who performs a LEGAL abortion. You cannot be charged for anything unless you've broken a law. I don’t know what to tell you. You would hate Santorum regardless his view on abortion!

I actually agree with you here. It does make no sense to charge a doctor with a criminal act for performing a legal medical procedure. I have no way to explain it, these are Santorum's words (who you have expressed support for), this is his idea. I would imagine the only way to enforce it would be to over turn Roe vs Wade first. I also admit I would hate Santorum regardless of his policy on Abortion, but let me be very clear on this point. Abortion in my opinion is a Non Issue.

I believe in personal responsibility. I believe that Government can not regulate behavior. As free people we have free will to make a choice about the things we do in this life. As with any choice, there are consequences, and people should take responsibility for those choices and accept the consequences. History has shown us that Government can not regulate behavior. Breaking into someone's home and stealing is illegal, the law says we can not do it, but the law has not stopped criminals from doing it anyway. Abortion is no different. Even when Abortion was illegal in this country, it did not stop people from having one if the choose to do so. It didnt work in the past, and it will not work now, because Government can not legislate behavior. It is for this reason that I feel abortion is a non issue. Regardless of what the law says, people will still do what they want to do anyway. Our debates in selecting the next President should actually be about Policy, not legislating behavior. Policy is what will get us out of the mess we have created for ourselves by not being involved in the Political process.

Ron Paul is my guy, I have made no secret of it, and I do not agree with Ron Paul on abortion. I am pro choice, he is pro life. However I know that Ron Paul would not try to create new Federal laws on Abortion. He would turn it over to the States and remove the Federal Government all together. That is not a solution I have any fear of. If anything, what such an action would do is get more people involved in Politics on a local level,as it was meant to be.


Yes, everyone has won a primary except who? That’s right…your boy! And he will be dead last AGAIN on Jan 31 in Florida.

Ron Paul has gotten two 3rd place finishes and one forth. He has approximately 10 delegates at this point, which happens to be 10 more than he had in the 2008 Primary at this point. The fact that delegates are split up with the 3 different winners in previous contest, actually means that we will not have a true stand out for the number of delegates needed to win the Nomination until Super Tuesday when a large majority of States hold their Primaries. Florida is a winner take all State. Ron Paul is actually using Obama's campaign strategy in targeting delegates. Since you can not win delegates in Florida for 2nd or 3rd place, considering how large the State is and how much money it cost to run a campaign, it makes sense to skip Florida and focus on delegates in States that are not a winner take all State.
**continued in next post but I am almost finished**



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Cutting "defense" spending would go a long way to reducing the debt.. if we cut $300b a year in spending in 10 years that's $3 trillion dollars removed from the deficit that would otherwise be added.

The math:

$300b dollars with an annual growth rate 5% (the average increased in military spending since 1990)
for 10 years
At an average of 2% (mid term Treasury Notes)
compounded
gives $3.772 TRILLION dollars.

$422.16 billion just in interest on the military debt.

But that doesn't count our average 5% per year inflation.

Compound that by 2022 the value of the debt in todays Dollars would be over $6 TRILLION dollars.

Just on $300b + growth for military spending (less than half of what we currently spend) .. we spent over $1.5 trillion just on the war in Iraq, not including military maintenance and current programs.

Is it really needed?

I understand keeping a standing Army .. but we could cut the Airforce budget by 75% and maintain a Reserve-Only fleet based in the United States, whilst still maintaining the ability to attack anywhere in the world at a moments notice.

The navy? What navy are we protecting ourselves from? NONE!?! are the terrrrrist going to build battleships and aircraft carriers? No. Do we need 11 aircraft carriers and their entire battle fleets?!?!? NO.

Hell we spend $25+ billion a year just researching new aircraft to replace our already superior air fleet.
Or $30+ billion building new naval ships and research to replace a fleet that no one in the World, COMBINED, could match.

Necessary? Hell no. A reserve navy at port is more than efficient and necessary.

Or $25 billion building new military buildings.
$148 billion buying new weaponry
$79 billion on the newest ways to slaughter people (even though we are already more than efficient)

or the $170 billion spent in 2011 alone in Iraq and Afghanistan.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


I say it’s a two-man race because it’s becoming obvious. It takes money to continue with a campaign. When you fail to win Primaries your money dries up. I predict RP and Santorum will officially drop @ March (if not sooner).


It is becoming obvious how? 3 States, 3 different winners, and there are 50 States in the Union. We have not even gotten to 1/4 of the States yet and you claim it is obvious? Nonsense! It is only obvious to the media who is trying real hard to tell you what to think.

I can tell you what I think is obvious.... it is obvious that Newt and Santorum are not even on the ballots for all 50 States in the Union and for that reason, they may not be able to win. That is not a matter of opinion or preference. That is a matter of simple math. Virgina alone holds 50 delegates. If we are to learn anything from the 1 Caucus and 2 Primaries that we have had, it would be that delegates are going to be split in many States. That makes the 50 Virgina delegates much more important for anyone hoping to get the 1,144 delegates needed to win the Nomination.

You are correct in that money tends to dry up when you do not win Primaries. However, that only seems to hold true in Candidates who are support in contributions by Corporations and special interest which Ron Paul is not one of them. Ron Paul got lower numbers in the 2008 election and was able to stay in the race until Super Tuesday. There is no reason to think with his higher poll numbers, he can not do it again. Especially since a lot of his funding comes from a grassroots level.

I think you are right that Santorum will drop out by March, because that is when Virgina holds their primary and he is not on the ballot, but Ron Paul is.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


One ship and a clip of a man that says Venezuela and Iran are dangerous.


Well that does it! we gotta invade Iran for our own security! (and to secure the trading of oil in USD)

Hey! be fair!



You gotta invade Venezuela too! (another nation with an oil-based economy).


Wow OPEN YOUR EYES Seabag.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


There you go putting words in my mouth.


When did I say invade Iran, much less a country in south America? No, I'd just like Iran not to have nukes. That's all...no killing required (hopefully).



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by eLPresidente
 

I'd just like Iran not to have nukes. That's all...no killing required (hopefully).


Please show us this 100% proof that they are building nukes...
And again, its been said many times. SO WHAT IF THEY HAVE..
Anything i have found shows they are enriching to 20% for medical isotopes not the 90% needed for a bomb....

"what about a dirty bomb"..... whats stoping any other country with a nuclear program doing this?

The USA have been using depleted uranium in there weapons in this last wars... causing defects in children etc.. but once it becomes a possibility that something like this could be used against Israel we must kill kill kil, flex our muscles, police the world or spread "democracy".

Voting for anyone but paul will end up with more killing, without doubt. You ask for no killing. Its a no-brainer...



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by storkyla
 



Please show us this 100% proof that they are building nukes... 
And again, its been said many times. SO WHAT IF THEY HAVE..


Translation - Show me 100% proof Iran is building nukes and then I will tell you it doesn't matter.



Anything i have found shows they are enriching to 20% for medical isotopes not the 90% needed for a bomb....


Medical isotopes underground?



"what about a dirty bomb"..... whats stoping any other country with a nuclear program doing this?


MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). That works on people who don't consider martyrdom the highest honor. 


The USA have been using depleted uranium in there weapons in this last wars... causing defects in children etc.. but once it becomes a possibility that something like this could be used against Israel we must kill kill kil, flex our muscles, police the world or spread "democracy".


There you go with the typical defense - The US does it so why can't Iran. Blah..Blah..Blah


Voting for anyone but paul will end up with more killing, without doubt. You ask for no killing. Its a no-brainer...


I'm beginning to think that RP has replaced Obama as the Messiah! Yeah, RP is the only one to fix all the problems in the world and save us from ourselves.
 

RP would reduce our ability to respond by closing our overseas bases and waiting until the war is on our shore before reacting. If RP is our only hope then prepare for devastation because he has NO chance of becoming POTUS. 



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 

You SHOULD remove it immediately, it is crap as I said. It means NOTHING.
Try this graph.


You will see that Defense related spending is roughly twice (and rising) what is depicted on your worthless chart.

Again in 2011, the GAO could not "render an opinion on the 2011 consolidated financial statements of the federal government", with a major obstacle again being "serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense (DOD) that made its financial statements unauditable".[18]


DOD Budget and Expenditures

The Pentagon lost track of trillions. 8k for every man woman and child in the U.S. But, they didn't lose track of 75% of the money budgeted to them, just 25% of their budget AND a few trillion more. Where did the trillions come from? Do you know? It is not on your graph.

Where did the missing trillions come from?

Exact figures very by source, but are close to each other, so I'll deal in round numbers. To come up with 2.3 trillion dollars of military spending, you have to add up all the defense budgets from about 1991 to 2001. For all those years, the Pentagon spent hundreds of billions and didn't get a single receipt, didn't account for a single dime? Not possible, and no one's claiming that it happened. The missing money was part of some budget, but it's a number bigger than the defense budgets we're to believe it's a "part" of, so it was a part of some OTHER budget, one we don't know about.


As I said, factor in an ADDITIONAL FEW TRILLION of LOST funds, as well as all defense related expenditures, and you will see a much different picture.
Your graph is worthless. I get tired of having to do your homework btw.


edit on 25-1-2012 by SurrealisticPillow because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-1-2012 by SurrealisticPillow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Iran nuclear program? These are the FACTS

The US and Western European Countries helped Iran in the 1950s begin their Nuclear Program under a policy from Dwight D. Eisenhower that came to be known as Atoms for Peace.

The Iranians shut down their own Atomic Program shortly after the Iranian revolution in 1979. When they restarted the Program, they did so without so much outside help.

The IAEA has said that Iran is enriching Uranium to 20%.

20% is used on Research Reactors, 20% is considered Low Enrichment.

You need 80% Enrichment to make a weapon which is how much enrichment was involved in the "Little Boy" that the US dropped on Hiroshima.

Iran has not kicked out weapons inspectors and continues to allow the IAEA access to their facilities.

Iran has had an Atomic Program for 60 years now... and they are just now reaching 20% enrichment.

Those are the facts. Judge for yourself how "dangerous" Iran is.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Ron Paul is misinformed. In the last debate he said that any attempt to blockade Iran should be considered an act of war. How wrong he is!!

First and foremost, we are not currently blockading Iran. Sanctions? Yes. But sanctions are not a violation of international law and are not deemed an act of war as Ron Paul would like to think. Paul likes to think that any action taken by Iran is all our fault.

We began sanctions on Iran in 1979 after they assaulted the U.S. Embassy and took American hostages. ( a true act of war). The goal of sanctions is to weaken the targeted regime and in the case of Iran, a weak regime should empower the people enough to take control again and oust the radical mullah's out of office. Remember when the people of Iran tried recently and Obama ignored their efforts? Yet, rapidly pushed for the ousters of Gadahfi and Mubarek with Assad next on the chopping block.

Paul is not the man to deal with foreign affairs on behalf of our great nation. His policies pose a threat to our nation and our foreign interests.

Paul went off the cliff back in 2010 with this tirade. Everything Iran does is a direct result of what the U.S. does. WRONG!!




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Translation - Show me 100% proof Iran is building nukes and then I will tell you it doesn't matter.


So you haven't got proof.... If you can show me evidence and not some news article from the msm then i would believe it and i would accept the facts. just because someone says it doesn't make it true!



Medical isotopes underground?


Iran stokes nuclear fears with bunker facility


The UN atomic agency said Monday that Iran is now enriching uranium at a new site in a hard-to-bomb mountain bunker


This is called protection... They have been threatened many times with strikes on their nuclear facilities without aggravation.


MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). That works on people who don't consider martyrdom the highest honor.


So yeah, why would Iran do this when the retaliation would be 10x worse? i don't get your argument.


There you go with the typical defence - The US does it so why can't Iran. Blah..Blah..Blah


I'm not saying that.... Why are you so worried about another country potentially making nuclear weapons when YOUR country is already using them and not receiving any punishment?
Its like you are blind to the problems your country causes but when its another country that the media is also against its FIGHT THEM!! TELL THEM THEY CANT DO THAT, WE ARE THE BOSS, AMERICA... # YEAH!!



I'm beginning to think that RP has replaced Obama as the Messiah! Yeah, RP is the only one to fix all the problems in the world and save us from ourselves.


RP would reduce our ability to respond by closing our overseas bases and waiting until the war is on our shore before reacting. If RP is our only hope then prepare for devastation because he has NO chance of becoming POTUS.


Yeah save yourself from slimy bastards trying to run your country that only care about the banks and the corporations.

all you anti-Paul people do you not listen to what he says???
He wants to make your country a better place. he wants to be diplomatic with other country's not force them to fall in line.

You have the biggest air fleet, the biggest navy. you have every opportunity to respond to anything from the "threat" you talk about. The so called "war" that is coming to your shores. Who would attack? Why would they attack?


But no fine. Vote for the others. it will be fine. I'm sure FEMA will treat you nicely. Maybe the Police will get fury handcuffs so they don't damage your wrists when they arrest you for being part of forums like this...

Enjoy your concrete rooms, GM food bought to you by Monsanto, rat poison water, Big Pharmacy "heal all" pill (may cause headache, infidelity, nausea, liver damage and eventually death) More debt, more deaths, more foreclosers, more bailouts, more lobbying and more big bonusus.

But as long as Iran cant make their cancer curing bombs because someone says they are you will all be fine and nothing else matters yeah?





new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join