Can Ron Paul win?

[mlund]

Are there structures in Israel that are extremely important to them?

Every. Single. Mosque. In particular the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, built on the mount of the Second Temple is a big deal to Sunni Muslims. Sunni Islam is the brand of choice for the Wahabbists, Al-Qaede, and the Muslim Brotherhood - so destroying Israel and claiming all the land is a big deal for global Islamists who’ve never even set foot in Israel or the Palestinian Territories.

Admittedly, Jerusalem was not a named focal point in early Islam. It became more popular in romanticized writings in later periods, and then for political purposes during the Crusades (religious king-of-the-hill) and again in the modern era. These resurgences track to a common trend among Islamists (as opposed to all Muslims): Given A.) that land was part of the Caliphate and B.) non-Muslims now control it then we must conclude C.) it must be reconquered.

• Marty Lund

 

[bbarrick8383]

Every. Single. Mosque. In particular the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, built on the ruins of the Second Temple is a big deal to Sunni Muslims, and Sunni Islam is the brand of choice for the Wahabbists, Al-Qaede, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

• Marty Lund

So is destroying these structures with a nuke acceptable as long as it involves killing the Jews there?

 

[mlund]

So is destroying these structures with a nuke acceptable as long as it involves killing the Jews there?

For the Islamist? Certainly. They never had compunctions against using rockets, cannons, or fire to reclaim cities. You just rebuild the mosque after you’ve murdered and subjugated the infidels. Some probably have caveats over their holy-of-holies like Medina or Mecca, but the idea of even letting infidels sully the ground of Mecca with footsteps touches off a murderous riot, so it’s really unpredictable.

Al-Aqsa might fall under than category for Sunni Muslims but the Iranians (the folks working on nukes) are Shi’ites and their fanatic high-clerics don’t hold al-Aqsa in special esteem.

Then again, reducing Tel Aviv, Haifa, and a few other population centers to smoldering rubble serves just as well for the reconquest agenda. The idea is to crush Israel and then just overrun the place.

There’s a big difference between: “Holy enough to kill infidels over,” and “Holy enough that you can’t risk destroying / damaging it even to drive off the infidels.”

• Marty Lund

 

[Darryl1958]

f you want to support Israel, write them a check. Why are you encouraging the government to take MY money by force and send it to them? I have nothing against Israel, I just have bigger priorities with my money.

Well the thing is, I am not Scott. Focusing on foreign aid is a legitimate question. Liberatarianism is a legitimate political stance, and foreign aid and foreign policy is a very important discussion.

On the other hand, what is disturbing is not Ron Paul’s foreign policy, which I am certainly willing to discuss rationally and counter with another point of view, as is a good thing to do on political threads.

What is disturbing is people knowing what kind of associations Ron Paul has made over the years, and what kind of money he has made off of racist tracts penned under his name, and not themselves being disturbed by this too.

It is MY money that is earned. Some people around here act like I should be grateful that the government lets me keep some of the money that I work by brains out for.

Hard work is no defense for brushing off having Ron Paul, and with him his libertarian Tea Party beliefs, now being associated with racist and conspiratorial pamphlets.

This is very bad news for the conservative movement; the more that this kind of information goes mainstream, the worse it will be.
No wonder many respectable conservative commentators who disparaged Ron Paul tended not to list the reasons why!
And those reasons had nothing to do with the federal reserve, or foreign aid either!

Leftist would like nothing better than to associate the tea party with racists—that has been their aim all along!
And these tracts provide ample fuel for them to do just that.

Also we now have to hold traitors to the list of who Ron Paul gives the thumbs up to?!!!
I mean, wow, just wow!!

 

[gilliam]

Thoughts on this one? GOP operative: Paul’s younger supporters won’t turn out

You have to hang out all morning at a caucus and vote a number of times as the field is wittled down. Normally those who attend are about 4% of those elegible to attend. (in 2008 only 119,188 attended the Republican Iowa caucuses) And normally not the young.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Probably is, but I still wish you a merry Christmas!

And you as well.

 

[rlg94086]

Thoughts on this one? GOP operative: Paul’s younger supporters won’t turn out

You have to hang out all morning at a caucus and vote a number of times as the field is wittled down. Normally those who attend are about 4% of those elegible to attend. (in 2008 only 119,188 attended the Republican Iowa caucuses) And normally not the young.

Could be. It’s one thing to flood Internet polls from the comfort of your WOW chair, but it’s another thing entirely to participate in a caucus.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Could be. It’s one thing to flood Internet polls from the comfort of your WOW chair, but it’s another thing entirely to participate in a caucus.

Wow. Marginalizing young people who are interested in politics. And you wonder why I left the GOP.

 

[rlg94086]

Wow. Marginalizing young people who are interested in politics. And you wonder why I left the GOP.

I know too many young people.

Oh, and I don’t wonder why you left the GOP…

 

[mlund]

Could be. It’s one thing to flood Internet polls from the comfort of your WOW chair, but it’s another thing entirely to participate in a caucus.

Indeed. Sound and fury on the Internet is no reflection on the franchise at all. While everyone who is under-age, non-citizen, felon, or too lazy to vote can “make their voice heard” on the Internet we do not base our government on spammers and Internet trolls.

Everybody knows our national elections are really based on campaign contributions from the PRC; Saudi Arabia; and the trolls in cable, broadcast, and print media.

• Marty Lund

 

[rlg94086]

Everybody knows our national elections are really based on campaign contributions from the PRC; Saudi Arabia; and the trolls in cable, broadcast, and print media.

 

[bbarrick8383]

For the Islamist? Certainly. They never had compunctions against using rockets, cannons, or fire to reclaim cities. You just rebuild the mosque after you’ve murdered and subjugated the infidels. Some probably have caveats over their holy-of-holies like Medina or Mecca, but the idea of even letting infidels sully the ground of Mecca with footsteps touches off a murderous riot, so it’s really unpredictable.

Al-Aqsa might fall under than category for Sunni Muslims but the Iranians (the folks working on nukes) are Shi’ites and their fanatic high-clerics don’t hold al-Aqsa in special esteem.

Then again, reducing Tel Aviv, Haifa, and a few other population centers to smoldering rubble serves just as well for the reconquest agenda. The idea is to crush Israel and then just overrun the place.

There’s a big difference between: “Holy enough to kill infidels over,” and “Holy enough that you can’t risk destroying / damaging it even to drive off the infidels.”

• Marty Lund

I was asking because I read something the other day that said Iran would never nuke Israel. It said that the Dome of the Rock was the spot where Muslims believe Muhammad ascended to heaven and that they would never destroy a monument so important to them with such a powerful weapon.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Thoughts on this one? GOP operative: Paul’s younger supporters won’t turn out

You have to hang out all morning at a caucus and vote a number of times as the field is wittled down. Normally those who attend are about 4% of those elegible to attend. (in 2008 only 119,188 attended the Republican Iowa caucuses) And normally not the young.

What I don’t understand is if Paul will never take more than 10 percent nationally, then why all the fuss and bother of trying to pin him as a racist/antisemitic crazy old man.

There is no reason to do so. Just ignore him, right?

The only one I have a problem is is the nod to Manning, I don’t understand that one and would like to hear Dr. Paul explain it.

The endorsements, I wasn’t able to get a full picture there. I’ve been on the road all day, but I never saw a quote saying he endorsed anyone. It sounded like they had to sign a pledge to push for smaller government and they would receive his endorsement. If that is the case then it kind of backfired, which I doubt he saw coming.

 

[gilliam]

Could be. It’s one thing to flood Internet polls from the comfort of your WOW chair, but it’s another thing entirely to participate in a caucus.

I don’t know. I do know that it takes a morning or more out of your schedule to participate in a caucus. On a week day. And there is a lot of socializing involved with older people. So consequently it attracts older voters.

The fact that it would be Christmas break for colleges doesn’t help Paul since many students will be away with their families.

 

[gilliam]

What I don’t understand is if Paul will never take more than 10 percent nationally, then why all the fuss and bother of trying to pin him as a racist/antisemitic crazy old man.

There is no reason to do so. Just ignore him, right?

Slow news week while we wait for congress to make a decision to tax us or not.

The only one I have a problem is is the nod to Manning, I don’t understand that one and would like to hear Dr. Paul explain it.

It’s just the tip of the iceberg on Paul. And yea, this stuff comes out every 4 years because a bunch of new people get swayed by Paul in debates without knowing what he is all about.

The long knives are coming out. Rabinowitz slams Paul on tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204552304577112761003972028.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet

 

[Ghosty]

The long knives are coming out. Rabinowitz slams Paul on tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204552304577112761003972028.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet

Not a very well thought out piece, IMO.

His assessment of terrorists reasons for attacking the U.S. match the CIA’s own analysis on the matter. Nothing more really needs to be said about it.

Paul doesn’t believe we should invade Iran, and has said that Iran has logical reasons for wanting nuclear weapons. This is only reasonable; when the campaign season of the only remaining super-power includes constant talk of military action against your country, you have good reason for wanting weapons to defend yourself. He doesn’t agree with the regime in Iran, he’s simply said that their actions are understandable and predictable, and that he has a very reasonable analysis of it.

The U.S. government did use 9/11 as a pretext for putting into effect the Neoconservative project of “nation-building”, that much can’t be reasonably denied at this point. Perhaps “reacting with glee” is hyperbole, but it’s certainly true that 9/11 delivered the “mandate” for Neoconservative projects that could hardly have been justified previously.

The long-knives may be coming out, but it this piece is any indication they aren’t aiming in a careful manner.

Peace and God bless!

 

[gilliam]

The Secretary of Defense came out yesterday and said that it is unacceptable for Iran to have nukes.

“The United States does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us and that’s a red line, obviously, for the Israelis,” he told CBS.

I think the reasoning is that if they do, the other mid-East and Gulf states will want nukes, and we have all witnessed this year how unstable that region is.

The world’s oil supply blowing up is not exactly what we need right now. I would say that is in our US national interest.

 

[gilliam]

Ron Paul Storms Out of CNN Interview thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/12/21/ron-paul-storms-out-of-cnn-interview.html

 

[Darryl1958]

Ron Paul Storms Out of CNN Interview thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/12/21/ron-paul-storms-out-of-cnn-interview.html

This kind of past is a little bit more disturbing that getting a little frisky with the girls. Turning racist comments into a million dollar business is something that people are not going to let go of for any front-runner of the GOP.

 

[The_Rock]

Yes I am one of those “single issue voters” …

Ron Paul’s candidacy is the best chance we’ll have to see someone who is fervantly pro-life and would pull no punches in making abortion illegal. If he does that and that only in his four years I would be satisfied with having voted for him. As for ANY of the other candidates and the incumbent, I have zero hope that they will do anything positive but rather an expectation that they would do NOTHING other than further lead this country further down the path to its undoing.

Paul is certainly not stronger than Santorum on the pro-life issues. Paul in fact would most likely oppose making abortion illegal on a national level. His strict adherence to the most restrictive role of the federal government is seemingly more important to him (based on his voting record) than the rights of the unborn, as his **56% rating by the National Right to Life Committee **shows.
issues2000.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm.
Here **he advocates for the abortion pill **:
dailypaul.com/180123/can-no-longer-support-ron-paul-morning-after-pill

So if we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change again. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn’t be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her own moral choice.

Pro-lifers have to realize the playing field is changing on protecting life. In 2009 Planned Parenthood distributed 1,537,180 abortion pill prescriptions, up from 131,638 just 9 years earlier.
No politician should be considered Pro-Life who supports keeping the abortion pill legal.
**Paul also supported Cynthia McKinney **who has a 100% pro-choice rating from NARAL, Planned Parenthood and Pro-choice America
conservativesnetwork.com/2011/12/19/ron-paul-endorsed-a-pro-abortion-candidate-for-president-instead-of-a-pro-lifer/

He certainly is not the strongest pro-life candidate.