A vote for Guiliani is a vote for Bush III.

10/18/2007 12:18:00 PM

^wtf ever

10/18/2007 12:19:15 PM

Quote :

"A vote for Guiliani is a vote for Bush III."

You are EXACTLY right!

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/65435/

Quote :

"Yesterday, speaking to the Republican Jewish Coalition, Rudy Giuliani's bluster towards Iran was unrestrained. He almost seemed to be looking forward to a military confrontation, insisting without proof that Iran is currently building nuclear weapons and emphasizing that the "military option is not off the table." Giuliani said every new American president prayed to avoid war, but accused Tehran of backing attacks on US troops in Iraq, and ruled out the notion of America learning to live with a nuclear Iran. "We have seen what Iran will do with ordinary weapons," Giuliani told a forum of presidential candidates organized by the coalition. If I am president of the United States, I guarantee you, we will never find out what they will do if they get nuclear weapons, because they are not going to get a nuclear weapon." The remarks were well received by the partisan audience, but they're a small reminder of why the public should be genuinely concerned about the prospect of a Giuliani presidency. Now, I appreciate the context of this. Most Dems will say the prospect of a Republican president in 2009 is inherently dangerous. Likewise, most Republicans will say the same about a Democratic president. Undoubtedly, both sides mean it. But clearly there's something different, and altogether more menacing, about the notion of Giuliani in the Oval Office. Josh Marshall on Tuesday described the "truly catastrophic foreign policy Giuliani would likely pursue." Matt Yglesias said yesterday that he struggled to find a way to explain how "terrified" he is of a Giuliani presidency, explaining that it would be "a quantum leap of lunacy and just the time when the country desperately needs a clean break and a lurch in the other direction." Ezra Klein added, "He's not just another Republican. He's not even another Bush. He's constructed a foreign policy team that is almost unimaginably dangerous and aggressive." Maybe some specifics will help flesh this out. The policy advisors a candidate chooses to surround himself or herself with can tell us quite a bit about what kind of policies he or she would pursue in office. That's especially true when it comes to candidates with no foreign policy or national security experience, such as Giuliani, who has tapped some high-profile foreign policy aides to help shape his worldview on international affairs. In a must-see, six-minute clip, Josh Marshall explains that Giuliani's foreign policy team is made up of "all the guys who were too nuts or too extreme to make the cut with George W. Bush." For those who can't watch the video online, Josh identifies Giuliani's top four advisors: * Norman Podhoretz: The "Godfather of modernb neoconservatism," who believes America has to go to war with Iran as quickly as possible. * Daniel Pipes: A man who has "a long and distinguished career of advocating war against every Arab and Muslim country in the world." He's also called for racial profiling of Muslim government employees in the United States, who, in true McCarthyite fashion, he believes may be a secret threat to the country. * Thomas Joscelyn: Giuliani's terrorism advisor, Joscelyn has argued repeatedly that Saddam Hussein was connected to al Qaeda, and now believes Iran is connected to al Qaeda. * Michael Rubin: Giuliani's Iran advisor, Rubin has been closely connected to Ahmad Chalibi, and signed on with Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans in 2002. Rubin, too, has been aggressively for an Iranian invasion. A very scary bunch, indeed. "

10/18/2007 1:08:59 PM

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/about/

Members 57,224
Interested 6,423
Groups 1,048
Cities 831
Countries 22
Events so far! 9,558


Check out some of the others:
http://rudygiuliani.meetup.com/about/
http://johnmccain.meetup.com/about/
http://hrclinton.meetup.com/about/
http://barackobama.meetup.com/about/

10/19/2007 5:48:41 PM

Rep. Paul crushing all other contenders in Fox News poll of who won tonight's GOP debate.

he has 35%, Huckabee is at ~25%, the rest follow.

10/22/2007 1:48:49 AM

Some of Ron Paul's point on the Fox debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46hDZvME7Oc

10/22/2007 11:10:48 AM

Pauls web polls are skewed .... Its like when tww goes and votes online somewhere to make ncsu the #1 school for all sports combined or some bs like that.

btw, Paul made an ass out of himself tonight, and is embarrassing to the rest of the republican party. You heard the boos ... and very very few applauses in the whole crowd.

10/22/2007 11:33:33 AM

^ The day an individual standing for small government and the empowerment of the individual is the embarassment to the Republican Party and not the fact a liberal, pro-abortion, pro-illegal immigration, pro-gay rights, pro-spending out of his ass (and hence either pro-tax or pro-national bankruptcy) former mayor of New York City that is actually dumb enough to think that the U.S. can go out into the world and destroy everything with no consequence to our national security is most likely to get the Republican nomination is the day that the Republican Party as I have known it is well and truly dead.

Goodbye to the Republican Party. Enjoy long-term minority status.

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 12:19 PM. Reason : /]

10/22/2007 12:15:17 PM

^

Quote :

"The day an individual standing for small government and the empowerment of the individual is the embarassment to the Republican Party and not the fact a liberal, pro-abortion, pro-illegal immigration, pro-gay rights, pro-spending out of his ass (and hence either pro-tax or pro-national bankruptcy) former mayor of New York City that is actually dumb enough to think that the U.S. can go out into the world and destroy everything with no consequence to our national security is most likely to get the Republican nomination is the day that the Republican Party as I have known it is well and truly dead."

I'm still trying to understand how this run-on sentence, with little punctuation at all, is still so clear and awesome. But it works.

Right on.

10/22/2007 1:21:07 PM

Quote :

"btw, Paul made an ass out of himself tonight, and is embarrassing to the rest of the republican party. You heard the boos ... and very very few applauses in the whole crowd."

the way things are right now, its a positive thing to be an embarrasment to the current 'republican' party

10/22/2007 1:37:11 PM

Quote :

"I'm still trying to understand how this run-on sentence, with little punctuation at all, is still so clear and awesome. But it works. Right on."

I used commas.

10/22/2007 2:00:05 PM

I hope Ron Paul wins. I don't want Gulliani or McCain running around legislating morality and waving a big stick at the "axis of evil" nor hillary blowing all my income on healthcare and social programs

10/22/2007 2:03:28 PM

10/21 Fox debate-

RP: "All we need to do is start talking with people and trading with people... We don't need to assume that the world is going to blow up"

Audience: "Boooooooooooo Boooooooooooooooo"

10/22/2007 3:04:52 PM

talk and diplomacy is for pussies.

That is why we pay our buddies in the defense industry to make us cool airplanes and weapons so we can blow people up when they disagree with us.

10/22/2007 3:06:26 PM

so does paul's continued rise in popularity mean he might have a chance or am i just getting my hopes up?

10/22/2007 4:19:31 PM

ive seen tons of Ron Paul bumper stickers, signs, buttons etc, around SC lately. what this means im not sure, but it gives some hope

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 4:21 PM. Reason : ]

10/22/2007 4:20:58 PM

you're getting your hopes up. I donated to his campaign not because I expected him to win, but because I like what he brings to the table, and the way he shapes the debate.

10/22/2007 4:21:39 PM

^I think you are getting your hopes up.

Dems are hoping that paul splits repubs, while hillary pulls some repub women to a landslide win.

However, I would be fine with Paul as president. I like huckabee the best, but he doesnt stand a chance bc of his name. However, Obama is perfectly ok somehow... still scratching my head on that one.

10/22/2007 4:24:13 PM

please not hillary

10/22/2007 4:50:50 PM

i'm not sure how you're talking about him being an embarrassment to anything other than neocons. the same bit where you heard boos he got applause at the end. he would be an outstanding president because he's the ONLY candidate who still adheres to the fucking constitution

10/22/2007 4:53:48 PM

Quote :

"I hope Ron Paul wins. I don't want Gulliani or McCain running around legislating morality and waving a big stick at the "axis of evil" nor hillary blowing all my income on healthcare and social programs"

10/22/2007 4:55:49 PM

Im hoping for a Paul/Huckabee ticket. I think huckabee is going to be the VP no matter who gets the republican nomination, because he is a) intelligent and b) he can bring in the fundamentalist christian vote.

10/22/2007 8:04:02 PM

Quote :

" I don't want Gulliani or McCain running around legislating morality and waving a big stick at the "axis of evil" nor hillary blowing all my income on healthcare and social programs "

Regardless of his disappointing buddying-up to the religious right lately, I don't think a McCain administration would run around legislating morality. I also don't think he would engage in foreign policy buffoonery and repeatedly fuck away every diplomatic and/or strategic opportunity presented to him.

but he is, indeed, quite hawkish, and pretty much an overall bad motherfucker. I don't think he's a loose cannon, but there's a beast lurking under that old gentleman skin.

Quote :

"However, I would be fine with Paul as president. I like huckabee the best, but he doesnt stand a chance bc of his name. However, Obama is perfectly ok somehow... still scratching my head on that one."

It's because Huckabee has more problems than his last name. Not hating on the guy...just saying that the only last name that might make him a top tier candidate would be Reagan.

10/22/2007 8:12:47 PM

^^Hell, I hope not. Huckabee was one of the most fiscally irresponsible governors in the country, republican or democrat. He raised taxes and spending at a ridiculous rate while governor of Arkansas.

He's also an ardent creationist, and that's just stupid.

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 8:16 PM. Reason : 2]

10/22/2007 8:15:52 PM

I've heard him defend his Creationist views on Bill Maher, and he's actually fine. He acknowledges evolution as a viable theory--just maintains that if that's what happened, God simply used it as his mechanism. I can live with that just fine.

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 8:23 PM. Reason : but no, i'm not much of a fan of some of his fiscal views]

10/22/2007 8:22:54 PM

I am strongly encouraged by Ron Paul. The things he says really gives me hope that if the government does spiral out of control, the people do have the power to elect someone who will stop it.

Sadly though, there are too many things I think would keep him for ever winning, and some things that keep me from going straight outside and campaigning for him.

1. (most everything comes from this point) He argues completely from libertarian principals versus what he would do if he gets in office. He complains about things without having a viable solution, or the solution that he gives is so drastic that it wouldn't ever get passed, or raises concerns about fucking things up even more.

2. His foreign policy is good that is goes in the other direction from other candidates, but it goes too far in that direction. No one can validly support isolationism to such a degree after WWII. Iraq is fine, leave, but when asked what he would do if China invaded Taiwan, he said we should do nothing. Not waging first-strike wars is one thing, but announcing that we would not take military action when a long standing ally is invaded in a way of aggression would seriously jeopardize the stability of certain parts of the world. Keep in mind people, there are countries out there who have it written in their constitution that they will not keep a military in lieu of protection by us.

10/22/2007 9:37:02 PM

^but that's his point, the founders pledged "trade with all, entangling alliances with none" so in effect, he's supporting the founders and the constitution by saying that if taiwan was attacked, we would not come to their aid because we shouldn't have an entangling alliance with them. i don't necessarily agree with it, but at least he's basing his stance on constitutional foundation

10/22/2007 10:02:37 PM

Hence why huckabee would be a good VP to Paul.

Quote :

"He complains about things without having a viable solution"

Not true. He has given VERY well thought out solutions to all the drastic changes he proposes, unlike his opponents. He has viable solutions to end SS, end the fed, and change our foreign policy. People don't LIKE it, but they are very valid solutions.

And RON PAUL IS NOT ISOLATIONIST. To say that is both ignorant and misinformative. The best way to ensure stability in the world is by open trade. China is not going to invade taiwan. The world has come to a point of mutually assured destruction. No major power is going to attack another. The ideal of the US as world police has long passed its usefulness.

10/22/2007 10:44:25 PM

I'm with Huckabee, he is the winner. Sorry guys.

I mean once he gets more time to speak how can he not beat down the competition which all has clear and inexorable problems that have been discussed at length,

Gulliani - prochoice, gun control?
Romney - Mormon, flip flop on choice.
Thompson - lethargic, lacks passion and flip flop on some social issues I think.
Ron Paul - great guy but flat tax is not poltically viable, sorry.
McCain - never had a chance, only socially conservative when convenient

Huckabee to my knowledge has none of these problems and he will actually answer questions plainly and in terms that ordinary God-fearing folks can understand. It makes him perfect for ridicule here on TWW, but it makes him the likely winner when the dust settles at the primaries. I know you guys are primarily fiscal conservatives, but there are many more social conservatives with much more passion about their beliefs on the average, you cannot discount their influence simply because you disagree.

Of course I could be wrong, I thought we'd be debating whether Newt was worth the trouble at this point, but I guess Newt actually thought someone in the field could beat HRC, he said earlier he would enter the race if that were not the case.

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 10:57 PM. Reason : .]

10/22/2007 10:48:18 PM

Quote :

"Of course I could be wrong, "

I'd say there is an overwhelmingly likelyhood

Quote :

"I thought we'd be debating whether Newt was worth the trouble at this point"

there's a reason you're almost the only one who thought that

10/23/2007 12:21:52 AM

Its not Pauls stances on policy that I think make him look rediculous, but rather the things he says which are totally inaccurate.

He continuously makes statements to the point of "there is no reason to get involved oversees" and "bush promised to be less involved and meddling oversees, but instead got us in this war" and other things to that effect, but he fails to recognize a that a big reason we are now involved is due to 9/11.

Its like he refuses to admit that it was a true attack on our nation/principles/freedoms ... I was interested to hear what paul had to say at first, but his lack of balls is obvious on these issues, and I could not support someone who I think will not defend our country... Sorry.

I do however like huckabee more and more right now. He is very solid. I still think Romney is a more qualified leader and would be better and running the whole show than anybody, but I would support huckabee openly as well. I dont think Gulianni has what it takes to run the show either, but I would at least feel safe with him as president, moreso than with Paul.

Sorry guys... The reasons you like him are the reasons he will never be President. National Security is too important right now for us to be electing a pussy.

10/23/2007 8:31:07 AM

so what does the iraq war have to do with 9/11?

10/23/2007 8:33:00 AM

everything.

albeit indirectly.

10/23/2007 8:55:24 AM

indulge me

10/23/2007 8:56:44 AM

Quote :

"Sorry guys... The reasons you like him are the reasons he will never be President. National Security is too important right now for us to be electing a pussy."

so national security is so important that its better to have bullies in the office so that we can make more enemies that we have to defend ourselves against? I guess it keeps their buddies' homeland security jobs in tact.

10/23/2007 9:02:37 AM

We can't be naive. being "perfectly reasonable" and pulling our collars when the room gets hot, shrugging our shoulders at our enemies and keeping a dopey woody allen demeanor for our foreign policy... isn't a great idea. Isolationism is impossible at this point. I love Ron Paul, but this is where I put the kool-aid down. Talking and Trade can and is used most frequently... but, as the great kenny rogers once said, "sometimes you have to fight when you're a man."

as far as ^^ goes, i'm not getting into that. they're absolutely related, but not in the way you think i think.

10/23/2007 9:14:58 AM

see i agree to some extent. but you cant be the bully either and want to interfere with anything and everything happening in the world

10/23/2007 9:16:58 AM

^^well until you decide to even explain what your position is, i'll assume it's completely unfounded

[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 9:17 AM. Reason : .]

10/23/2007 9:17:24 AM

Quote :

"He continuously makes statements to the point of "there is no reason to get involved oversees" and "bush promised to be less involved and meddling oversees, but instead got us in this war" and other things to that effect, but he fails to recognize a that a big reason we are now involved is due to 9/11."

Way to be swayed by the spin machines. Ron Paul has always said, and continues to say we should be going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. He has ALWAYS supported anti-terrorism, he supported the use of troops to dismantle Al Quaeda.

Quote :

"Its like he refuses to admit that it was a true attack on our nation/principles/freedoms ... I was interested to hear what paul had to say at first, but his lack of balls is obvious on these issues, and I could not support someone who I think will not defend our country... Sorry. "

Then you OBVIOUSLY havent been listening to the man. He wants to get us the fuck out of the middle east precisely to be able to better defend our country. He points out, rightfully so, that we are LESS secure today than we were during 9/11. We have more enemies, our domestic security is majorly compromised, and we can't afford to keep our own people safe.

I don't know who you are getting your spin from, but it is GROSSLY inaccurate.

Quote :

"Isolationism is impossible at this point. I love Ron Paul, but this is where I put the kool-aid down. Talking and Trade can and is used most frequently... but, as the great kenny rogers once said, "sometimes you have to fight when you're a man." as far as ^^ goes, i'm not getting into that. they're absolutely related, but not in the way you think i think."

Same thing to you. He's NOT isolationist. Go look up the fucking word. He draws the line between 9/11 and Iraq. The only relation that 9/11 and Iraq had was it gave us the excuse to depose a dictator who wouldn't sell us oil.

His policies and statements go to the core of WHY we were attacked in the first place, by SAUDIS, NOT IRAQIS. That we have been arming the middle east for decades and have only been polarizing the whole region against us. Which we have on both counts.

The REALITY is, you can't change cultures through might makes right. It DOES NOT WORK. The world war II world police ideal is no longer true.

10/23/2007 10:05:56 AM

I dont read ron pauls website, or watch the many you tube video snippets that people upload of him.

I have listened to him at the debates, and thats it. And the things he has said, just dont back up what you are saying he believes.

... One other thing ... Anyone that thinks we can just go pull troops out of Iraq is an idiot as well, and he said in the debate the other evening that that is what he would do. Even the Dems have realized that taking the troops out of iraq is not a good possibility, and that it would do us all more harm than good. Ron Paul has not made that admission, at least not in his debate ranting, and I think its part of his extremist attitude.



[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 10:32 AM. Reason : .]

10/23/2007 10:27:00 AM

How is keeping them in Iraq good? The others haven't backed that up.

10/23/2007 10:44:45 AM

It's the responsibility of the people to investigate the candidates. If you base your vote on debates, without knowing the context or content of their ACTUAL policy, or history, then you are being intentionally ignorant and you shouldn't be posting your unfounded propaganda.

Ron Paul is for the same staged troop withdrawal that everyone else is "for". The only difference is, he is the only one that will actually pull the troops out if elected. The rest of the candidates are going to expand the military, keep us there until we can invade Iran, and Iraq is going to be even more fucked up. If you think he is extremist, you must be ignoring the 3 war mongers on stage talking about invading ANOTHER country, increasing military spending even MORE, ignoring history, ignoring the rest of the world, ignoring their own people. I feel for Ron Paul on stage, surrounded by war propaganda, by people who are going to continue to spend money that isn't there in the name of the military, who support a MISSLE DEFENSE SYSTEM THAT DOESNT WORK yet we spend 350 billion dollars a year on it, etc, etc, etc.

Read about Ron Paul, listen to the man, give him the benefit of the doubt you are giving everyone else.

10/23/2007 10:48:38 AM

How is leaving good??

At least in staying there, sticking with the surge, which congress and recent reports have started to say is working, we can give the Iraqis what they deserve and that is for us to stick to our word.

At this point, its about proving our integrity and resolve to keep our promises. Leaving Iraq would not do that, and would lead to a pretty devastating civil war.

10/23/2007 10:48:58 AM

Hate to say it but i'd vote for hillary before one of those Nazi war mongers i.e. gulliani, mccain, or romney

10/23/2007 10:56:43 AM

violence is down 70% in Iraq over the last 6 months. The surge is working.

10/23/2007 10:58:10 AM

"so what does the iraq war have to do with 9/11?"

I'll explain this very carefully so you can understand. Nobody is trying to say that Iraq/Saddam was responsible for 9/11. The reality is that 9/11 changed how we need to deal with these radical nutjobs. We sat around in the 90's while Bill Clinton had numerous opportunities to kill Bin-Laden. 9/11 happened because we didn't act "pre-emtively". So now, post 9/11, when a radical dictator like Saddam or Ahmadinejad vows to "destroy Isreal the western devil" and all that bullshit, we can't just sit around in focus groups and try to "understand their feelings" and "use diplomacy". These people will never compromise, they don't want to hear our point of view. They want to kill Americans so they can be martyred. The biggest mistake we made in going into Iraq was the whole WMD thing. We should have said, we are going into Iraq to kill a ruthless dictator and as many "jihadists" as we can. I hope everyone realizes that most of the terrorists in Iraq are not Iraqis. They are coming from all over the middle east to take pop-shots at our troops, and our guys have killed more of them than you can imagine. So instead of them sitting around scheming new ways to attack America, they are going to Iraq. It's like a roach trap. Nobody wants war, not even "neocon, warmongering" President Bush. Some mistakes have definitely been made, but the reality is that our country is a safer place now, reguardless of what CNN says, and there hasn't been an attack since 9/11.

10/23/2007 11:00:33 AM

how many talking points can you fit in one post? jesus.

so the real point is to lure terrorists to iraq so that we can fight them?

don't you see that this war is a perfect rallying cry to recruit more and more terrorists? haven't we seen how this plays out again and again in our past?

10/23/2007 11:05:15 AM

^^^^^You would have the US keep their word to the point of permanent foreign occupation by US military forces?

Oh, and if you didn't already notice, our military is strained for people. Many of the troops there now have been there longer than they should have, and there aren't really many troops back home to replace them... unless you like the idea of keeping our soldiers away from home until the Iraqi security forces get their act together (read: forever).

Not to mention the constant siphon of government money that our government doesn't even have.

[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 11:06 AM. Reason : .]

10/23/2007 11:05:59 AM

Quote :

"o now, post 9/11, when a radical dictator like Saddam or Ahmadinejad vows to "destroy Isreal the western devil" and all that bullshit, we can't just sit around in focus groups and try to "understand their feelings" and "use diplomacy". These people will never compromise, they don't want to hear our point of view. They want to kill Americans so they can be martyred. The biggest mistake we made in going into Iraq was the whole WMD thing."

did your mommy tell you that or is that just what you heard on Faux News ^^^

Quote :

"on't you see that this war is a perfect rallying cry to recruit more and more terrorists? haven't we seen how this plays out again and again in our past?"

This concept takes an abstract level of thinking to far beyond that capable of the average George W groupie.

[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 11:19 AM. Reason : l]

10/23/2007 11:16:39 AM

^we have kept a base in almost everywhere our military has gone. FYI

I guess the couple tomahawks strike wasnt quite the deterant against AQ after the cole attack. We needed to show strength. However, it is time to start downsizing. Just like in the states, you cant expect one to do for themselves when you do everything for them. Id like to see more of these dems apply thier iraq logic to the states.

10/23/2007 11:18:15 AM