Quote:
Okay so I'm a ronbot now. My positions haven't changed but my vision has cleared as to who may hold the same positions as myself. America is threatened and more of the same ain't gonna work anymore. Sorry if that doesn't set well with you but it is time to worry about what happens here at home and not in everyone else's backyard. We have weakened ourselves by overextension and it is time to work on the homeland and not elsewhere. Just look at Iraq and you will see why I feel this way. All that effort, loss of life and we have a civil war going on no sooner than we pulled our troops out. Who pays that bill? The American people yet we, get nothing from the deal and neither did you guys. Yep, I am seeing things a bit different these days.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Hello Jim,

Sorry you didn't see any "new incriminating" information. There might not be much new incriminating information but what it does do is confirm what Paul's detractors have been saying all along about this kook. For many who might not know all that much about him it should be an eye opener. Yet there is new information as well and the bold print brings some of them to the attention of the reader. You yourself said that in your opinion "new incriminating" information wasn't raised I think you're mistaken but you infer that there is already incriminating information about him and yet he is closest to your core beliefs. Interesting.

The bold print is added opinion and not what he actually said.

Wrong Jim,

Quote:
Here are some excerpts from the statement Eric Dondero sent me (all of the emphasis/bold-lettering was added by me):

The bold print is only to emphasize certain points that Dondero made.

I was surprised no let me correct that not surprised to see that you agree with his pandering speech before the Arab American Institute a Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood/Hezbollah front after reading all your posts in support of Ron Paul. One thing for certain I agree with almost nothing he says and he's famous for pandering to the audience he's speaking before. After reading that you think he's closest to your own core beliefs as you said in one of your threads

Quote:

The more I see and hear the more I realize that none of them are perfect but Dr. Ron Paul represents more of my core beliefs than any of the other establishment puppets up for nomination. Unless someone steps up I see my vote going to Dr. Ron Paul for the 2012 Republican Primary. I am still waiting for Superman/woman to stand up as a Third Party Candidate.

. This statement alone in a way confirms that you have no problem with B Hussein remaining in office for another 4 years. Whether Paul wins the GOP primary (it'll never happen) or a third party "superman/woman" or he runs on a third party ticket B Hussein will win.

Your summation is totally wrong. I do not want another term for zerObama, but I also will not settle for another Progressive either. Thank you very much it is time for Paul or a Third Party either or I am game for.

Really? We've had this discussion in the past and the numbers haven't changed. The fact remains that a tird party candidate whether it'll be Paul or someone else won't split the Republican/conservative vote something that will only benefit B Hussein and "award" him another 4 years in the WH. If God forbid Paul wins the GOP primaries that's another sure victory for B Hussein. Dream on Jim.


What puzzles me though is how you reconcile your posting for years on the dangers of Jihad and can still support this guy who thinks America is to blame for Jihadi terrorist attacks. The possibility exists that we ignored the history of the great British Empire and their time i sands of Arabia. Who won? So we decided to stick our noses there too. For what? Resources that were readily available at home?

What are you trying to say with that confusing statement (wanted to say gibberish but I'm to polite for that). You agree with Paul that America is to blame for Jihadi attacks?


You do know the history since you've posted on this and are aware of the dangers of Islam and the many different forms of Jihad. How does this fit in with your "core" beliefs and America first since fighting Jihad is in the self interest of America cos the dangers are to the world at large and specifically to the big Satan America and as you know it is happening.

My view on the threat hasn't changed. But if you watch a video from about 53minutes to the end he does answer that question well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYIP8lGBtFQ&feature=player_embedded

I listened to the the video from the 3rd minute and it's nothing but a repeat of all the other pro RP videos. This is a Paul film that doesn't include the hard questions where he comes out looking like a fool and the kook he is. Not a convincing source unless you're a Paul fan. This film is almost as bad as using an Alex Jones video as a reliable source.

The same question applies to his being against the war on terrorism. Here Paul and B Hussein are in agreement since he (BHO) changed the lexicon and we no longer know who the war on terrorism is against. Paul would stop the war on terrorism completely. Is this compatible to your core beliefs.

Bringing the troops home, securing our borders and spending that extra Trillion dollars a year on infrastructure and R&D would better serve America I think and stymie the War on Terror because we aren't per-emptive striking targets in somebodies back yard. Even targeting US citizens for annihilation without trial or cause. Stop supporting globalist ideas by being the policeman of the world sounds pretty sound to me.

Again you're saying America is to blame for Jihadi attacks. Have you forgotten that Jihad didn't start with the war in Iraq or Afghanistan? They started over a thousand year ago and over 250,000,000 have been butchered and murdered in the name of Jihad. You're using RP sound bites to refute his kooky beliefs. So the war on terrorism is something that lost almost all value with the B Hussein regime and will be officially ended if the kook ever hits the WH.

His stance on Iran becoming a nuclear power defy logic and you too have written and posted on the dangers of a nuclear Iran. Is this also part of your core beliefs or have they changed again?
Seems it is someone else's back yard again. Not thrilled about it but not sure it is our job or our fight yet. I think it is time we get out of the middle of the Sunni, Shiite, Wahibbi Tribal disputes, myself. We have wasted enough time, money, human life for it all to just go back to what it was a civil conflict we have no business messing with until they come across the pond, then we should strike and strike hard, definite and not this nation building BS of the last ten years or so.

Plus Israel is very capable of handling things without approval from the US. I believe you have the support in theater already.

Ron Paul sound bites again and ignoring the dangers of a nuclear Iran. Paul's been defending Iran for years and unfortunately you're buying into his dangerous hogwash.

Have you forgotten that according to the Iranians the US is the big Satan and Israel is the little Satan? Both have been threatened by the lunatic Iranian theocracy on numerous occasions as have some European countries on a lesser scale. these are facts that can't be ignored yet the kook RP sees no problem with a nuclear Iran.

I can go on and on but people do change as do their beliefs for what ever reason. We're all human but one thing for sure there are many reasons why America has bases all over the world and you know what they are. Paul's simplistically naive foreign policy is very dangerous and will erode the status of the United States even more then B Hussein's succeeded in doing over the past 3 years. Four more years of B Hussein would be bad enough but four years of Ron Paul would truly be a catastrophe and a very dangerous one to the safety, security and well being of the American people and the world for that matter.

I disagree it is time for some true change and believe Ron Paul may be the choice. Or a Third Party Candidate. I believe there are a lot of folks like myself. Time for the Progressives to go.

How does what you said above answer what I wrote?

I've said many times that aside from his fiscal policies and war on the Fed he's a progressive liberal lefty and even further left in many ways then B Hussein is. How does that fit in with your core beliefs?

I simply disagree that he is a progressive.

Yes, we can agree to disagree on that but you used to have a fine tuned ear for liberal progressives and all you have to do is listen to what he says and it rings loud and clear.

I purposely left out his racism, Antisemitism, Anti Israel beliefs. I also left out his Stormfront, KKK, Nazi supporters. As well as his infamous racist newsletters he lyingly claims he knew nothing about and now conveniently repudiates. Cos I doubt if they too are part of your core beliefs, or are they now that you became wiser with age?

Well we have had a lot of those in congress and the White House in the past and will have them again. He cannot vouch for his various support groups no more than zerObama I guess that's a draw.

So what are you implying that because we had racists and bigots in the WH in the past it's OK to support a known racist and bigot? As for vouching for his supporters no he can't but he can reject and repudiate them which he refuses to do. And ask yourself this, why does he attract all these nefarious organizations and individuals? No draw Jim, not even close.

Shalom,

Peter

I am still undecided but see more positive with Ron Paul, the more he is targeted from all sides. Anyone that scares everyone may get my vote in the end.

Now here I disagree. After reading all you've posted about him in your threads, elsewhere and your replies here you've already decided. That's definitely your right but I think it's the wrong decision. Using so many of his sound bites makes you sound like a ronbot or as others call them paulbots and not a mainstream conservative who might be attracted by his fiscal policies and fight against the FED. They'll drop him when the true question arises is he electable or not. In my opinion were he to run against B Hussein on the GOP ticket it'll be a landslide victory for the fraud and great pretender.

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:
Hi Peter,

I suspect that much of this video is not in line with your political insights. However, it does raise an eyebrow above the problematic of who is the next WH resident as of next November; will it all be a calm and happy transfer of responsibility? Whatever may happen in 2012 will surely be interesting to watch because as I see it the truthers are gaining ground fast and will not be considered as a sect for very much longer, whether in the USA or in Europe for that matter. So do enjoy your happy New Year which I wish you it be most prosperous and enjoyable. ;-)

Quote:

This article needs no introduction. It is self explanatory.

Is there anything more repugnant than liberal hypocrisy at Christmas?

Aloha! from Your Humble Liberal “Servants” in Paradise!

- John Lillpop Thursday, December 29, 2011

As Father Time prepares to usher in another New Year, tens of millions of “average” Americans face a daily struggle just to secure shelter, food, and other commodities essentials to survival. Nearly 50 million receive food stamps; millions more face foreclosure of their homes and personal bankruptcy.
While millions of common people grovel in economic despair, those Democrat politicians who scream the loudest for ‘redistribution of wealth’ (other people’s, not their own!) have abandoned the rigors of winter in Washington and San Francisco for a fortnight, or more, of luxurious fun and frolic in the Paradise of the Pacific, also known as the Hawaiian Islands.
President Obama and his entourage of kin and friends is a perfect example of the rich and reckless gone amuck. Unfortunately, the tab for Obama’s excesses are being picked up by taxpayers, reportedly to the tune of $4 million dollars
How does one who promotes himself a “Warrior” for the middle-class (and lower) reconcile his anti-wealth,
Bleeding hearts looking to tend to the needs of the poor and the less fortunate will find very few photo opportunities for such benevolence on the beaches of Waikiki or on Oahu’s most splendid golf courses!
Then we have the liberal queen of the U.S. House, the incomparable Nancy Pelosi who is visiting the big Island of Hawaii.
Ms. Pelosi, always looking for an opportunity to give your money away to the poor or other liberal cause, has quite a stash of her own. Which is how the Former Speaker is able to pay $10,000 a night for lodging!anti-luxury rhetoric with his own wallowing in Hawaiian splendor and excess?
For the rest of us left behind on the mainland, many are trying to decide between heating their homes and making a mortgage payment on a property that will surely be in foreclosure during the year.
To such people, remember that your liberal heroine needs $10,000 a night just for lodging!
Is there anything more repugnant than liberal hypocrisy at Christmas?

John Lillpop

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43566?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=e5c4a870f6-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email

However, sometimes one crosses a video on YouTube or from elsewhere that does make a point, and even if it does not satisfy totally as is the case with the one I posted two days back, it does bring up an insight that is rather disturbing to say the least. It does need to be taken into account that today in Europe 65% of people no longer believe the official 9/11 theory. In the USA the numbers are I believe 40~45% and climbing.

Some weeks back I posted a video concerning the aircraft’s incompatibility of such a feat. Remember large civilian planes are for transporting passengers and freight from A to B, nothing more, they are build to extreme performance only for that job, anything away from this specific envelope is calling for trouble big time.

Here is on the same lines (No Alex Jones here ;-)) the fatal day exposed by serious people from various professions with regards to what happened on the ground during that day. Food for thought.

It’s a short video of 1 and a half hours truly interesting due to the professional approach and attitude these people have vis-à-vis the subject.

It all brings to my understanding that; in line with the forum’s object, by definition a democratic politician is incapable of taking the severe decisions necessary to restore fiscal and financial sanity back to the Western World, because if he wants to be re-elected he cannot touch the subject.

Kind Regards.